What's Past is Prologue: Understanding the OGL Licensing Controversy in Light of the 3e/4e Transition

[Ruin Explorer]

I stopped reading the Shadowrun 5E core book after reading 4 pages dedicated to how an explosion travels from to room.

I actually ran SR5 for a while, but like, I can't remember exactly why we stopped, but certainly the last session was because we got bogged down in the middle of a combat trying to resolve something and we'd been staring at the book for 30+ minutes trying to puzzle something out (the internet had not helped).

We switched to a PtbA version of Star Wars the next week.

 

[Umbran]

Optional rules could with a toggle, but yeah, "natural language" and automation don't work. This could of course just be a low-function battle mat and not an automated system.

Given that D&D Beyond character sheets already have a significant amount of rules-automation to them, the sensible first release would be a battlemat with grid and tokens.

 

[DMZ2112]

One of the major reasons we stopped playing 3.XE was that the game tried to define every possible situation, and ended up with a "rule for everything", something PF1 doubled down on (looking at you stairs handedness penalties). But doing this didn't make the game better - not even as a "simulation". It just made us need to look things up way more and roll more dice (usually with tons of penalties).

Absolutely -- more rules have never resulted in more agreement. The "holes" people are complaining about in D&D5 might get smaller, but they'll also get deeper, and while the argument could be made that they will be fewer, I won't believe it until someone shows me data. More content means more errors, always.

All making a game encyclopedic does is make sure there's always a rule in a line in a book somewhere that someone at your table can point at and say "I told you so." It sets tables up for confrontation and conflict when the table's preferences and knowledge of the rules contradict the Word of God.

Look at PbtA and FitD -- those systems are tiny, but they thrive because they assume flexibility and communication on the part of the players. Common cause! That's where D&D falls down -- we don't have the same expectation. We assume antagonism as the default, and always have, except for D&D5 at launch.

I have an additional design concern that without redesigning the system from the ground up, these efforts to build heavy scaffolding over a more open and interpretive foundation will be like that castle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, burning down, falling over and then sinking into the swamp.

His Sage Advice is just as terrible as Sage Advice in 2E, but even easier to ignore, because we're not teenagers now lol.

Well said.

I'm still fuming a bit over being seen not negating Invisibility.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Given that D&D Beyond character sheets already have a significant amount of rules-automation to them, the sensible first release would be a battlemat with grid and tokens.

It does, but I personally suspect they'll wait until it's further alone than that, given the video demonstrating how they wanted it to work.

I mean, I know, right? Said video is not dissimilar to a senior partner drawing how he wants something to work on a piece of paper and saying "Now make this work!", just a lot more expensive. But equally, both cases do show the actual goal, and I'd be surprised, personally, if the people who authorized that video were willing to authorize a version of the 3D VTT which was, say, only as automated as Roll 20. This is totally "my instinct" not in any way evidence-based, but I don't think someone who put out that video would even let an un-NDA'd beta of something less automated than Roll 20 out there.

 

[Staffan]

Great example yeah lol.

And honestly regardless of how anything else about this works out, the fact is a bunch of people are going to take "how the 3D VTT works" as if it were God's Own Holy Writ re: RAW/RAI, when I guarantee at least of the implementations on the VTT will be just some developer going "Oh this obviously works X way!" and no actual designer would have approved that decision. I mean, there's literally no way they're going to have, say, Crawford and Perkins personally approve the functionality of every or even any significant percentage of mechanics in the 3D VTT.

I would imagine that if there's a rule that's ambiguously written, the developer would send a question up the chain to see what was up. But something like magic missile where the official interpretation (roll d4+1 for damage once, multiply by number of darts) is completely out of the left field, that doesn't seem likely.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would imagine that if there's a rule that's ambiguously written, the developer would send a question up the chain to see what was up. But something like magic missile where the official interpretation (roll d4+1 for damage once, multiply by number of darts) is completely out of the left field, that doesn't seem likely.

That's what I'm saying.

So instead of one Crawford giving wacky interpretations, we'll have an army of unnamed mini-Crawfords all giving their own takes on how rules work. Many of them will likely not be D&D players or DMs (or not this edition).

You can't count on them to make the most logical approach to a problem. We're rolling the dice. Yeah maybe 98 of 100 5E DMs would interpret Magic Missile the "normal" way (roll 3 times), I know Baldur's Gate 3 does for example, but it won't be DMs implementing the rules, it'll be devs, and some of them will do stuff that's utterly logical to them, but not to others. So it's probably more like 80/100 chance they "get it right".

I agree with more ambiguous stuff it goes up the chain, but if it reaches Crawford then OH NO frankly lol.

 

[MGibster]

That doesn't play nice with microtransactions

I expect as the years ago by WotC will center their game design philosophy around microtransactions and subscriptions fundamentally altering the way the game is played.

 

[Haplo781]

Given that D&D Beyond character sheets already have a significant amount of rules-automation to them, the sensible first release would be a battlemat with grid and tokens.

DDB had one ready to go when WotC bought them out.

 

[Umbran]

DDB had one ready to go when WotC bought them out.

Plausible. If I were in charge of D&DB, I'd have been working on one.

But I'd need more than the bald assertion of someone on the internet to take that as likely.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, funny story: While 3.5 was the first edition of D&D I played, 4e was where I really got into the game. And when Paizo came out with Pathfinder, selling itself as a way to keep playing 3.5, I thought, “how is that even legal?” So, I looked into it a bit. Found out about this whole OGL vs GSL controversy. And though I’m ashamed to admit it, I came away from that with an anti-OGL perspective at the time. Crazy, I know, but as a fan of 4e, Pathfinder just looked like this refuge for stuck-in-their-ways 3e fans who just hated 4e, and the OGL looked like a well-intentioned document that unintentionally enabled the “grognards” to split the D&D player base. It looked to naïve 17-year-old Charlaquin like the OGL was ultimately to blame for the Edition War.

Of course, now I recognize that the RPG industry is bigger than just D&D and Pathfinder, and that the OGL is an incredible resource for third party publishers that the whole industry benefits from, perhaps D&D most of all. It only hurt 4e because 4e didn’t use it. The GSL was actually the thing hurting 4e. But now, I fear all the folks who started playing with 5e may end up thinking the way I used to about the OGL. It may look to them like it did to me, this weird relic of the past with a loophole that enables competition from bitter old players who can’t get with the times, and that they might celebrate the idea of it being revoked.

My hope though is that these newer players who have enjoyed the benefits of the mass of 3rd party support for 5e will recognize that this wealth of support is owed to the OGL. That would be my angle for trying to convince 5e first-timers to care about this issue. “You like Kobold Press stuff? Deck of Many? All the 3rd party supplements and settings that are always getting Kickstarted? None of that would exist without the OGL 1.0).”

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Of course, now I recognize that the RPG industry is bigger than just D&D and Pathfinder, and that the OGL is an incredible resource for third party publishers that the whole industry benefits from, perhaps D&D most of all. It only hurt 4e because 4e didn’t use it. The GSL was actually the thing hurting 4e. But now, I fear all the folks who started playing with 5e may end up thinking the way I used to about the OGL. It may look to them like it did to me, this weird relic of the past with a loophole that enables competition from bitter old players who can’t get with the times, and that they might celebrate the idea of it being revoked.

That's an interesting and welcome perspective, thank you. Sometimes, it is hard to remember that other people don't think the same way we do.

I am constantly reminded of this because (for example) I am someone who greatly values my on-line privacy, and remember the long-ago fights such as the clipper chip all the way to today. And yet, when I talk to some people of a different generation (not all, but some in particular that I think about) they ... don't ... care ... at all. It's hard to tell whether it's fatalism (everything is already being tracked) or just rational self-interest ("free" is good), but it's not a major concern for them, or at least not the same level as it is for me.

I wonder if this is might be similar- after all, this community has a longer memory and divergent interests. For the average 12-24 yr. old D&D player, will they care? Or will they (like you, previously) just think this is a bunch of old timers screaming at clouds?

Dunno. Maybe someone can tell us if it's trending on TikTok?

 

[Clint_L]

The OP is a truly excellent read. Thoughtful, balanced, informative. Well done!

I concur that corporations normally act rationally, from within their context - this doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes or act immorally, just that they have a plan that, at least initially, made sense to them. And since this whole situation around the OGL 1.1 didn't make much sense to me, I had trouble believing it. I think my problem is partially that I was thinking gamers matter to D&D a lot more than Hasbro thinks they matter to D&D.

It's counterintuitive to think that gamers might not be that important to the success of a game, but consider Marvel (I guarantee you that Hasbro is considering Marvel). The publication of actual comic books is small potatoes - tiny potatoes - in the Marvel portfolio, so much so that the entertainment division was split off from the publishing division ages ago. They still make comics, and some of their plot lines on TV and films use aspects of those plot lines and themes, but in terms of income, actual physical comic books barely exist from Disney/Marvel's point of view. Marvel has moved way, way past needing comic book readers to be successful.

That's what Hasbro wants from the D&D brand - an entertainment behemoth, not a book seller. So from their perspective, it might be worth alienating the gaming community to lock down an IP that they are hoping to turn into something much bigger than a game. I think this will prove to be a mistake (or at least their clumsy handling of the situation), but time will tell.

 

[Lanefan]

I. Remembering the 3e/4e Transition
It also means you could mess around with anybody just as long as they aren't also a member. It's like a license to steal. It's a license to do anything.

The first thing to remember is that 4e did not arise in a vacuum; it was the product of a company. And that company ... was Hasbro. Let's remember the timeline of TSR/WoTC/Hasbro and the OGL.
1997- WoTC announces the acquisition of TSR.
1998- WoTC begins work on 3e, OGL
September 1999- Hasbro acquires WoTC
2000- WoTC released 3e and the OGL
January 2001- Peter Adkinson resigns from WoTC
August 2001- WoTC is consolidated into Hasbro (previously operating autonomously)

Keep in mind Hasbro didn't buy WotC because of D&D; that's unrelated. They bought WotC to get their mitts on the dual-track M:tG and Pokemon gravy trains. D&D was no more than "there too".

Then 3e was a moderate success, followed by another moderate success in 3.5e, and so they thought something like "Maybe we can get another gravy train on the tracks here". And maybe they could have; we'll never know, as no matter how good a system it was 4e was doomed from the start by incompetent marketing and some sheer bad luck.

They did get their gravy train a few years later with 5e...and now for some inexplicable reason they seem intent on running it off the end of the track where the bridge is out.

A not-very-brief history of 4e's issues and why it wasn't a market success:

A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.

B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).

And it didn't stop there. At GenCon 2009, I was in the room when the WotC crew came into a 4e seminar and started their presentation with (only slightly paraphrased) "All the previous editions suck - this is the one you want to play". Hardly a brilliant approach: the custodians of the game telling people the version(s) they've played for years (or decades!) sucks.

If memory serves, the rest of that seminar kinda went over like a lead balloon.

 

[dave2008]

See, for me, this is partly what an edition change should be for a successful version of the game. Incremental improvements here and there to collect the things you've learned to do better. A major shift is just a good way to risk losing customers on an unproven hope to gain more. It may be fodder for a separate game, optional module, whatever. Gambling on a major shift without something really forcing you to do so or being at such a low trough you've got little to risk strikes me as irresponsible.
This, to me, would be especially true for an edition timed for an arbitrary release date - a 50th anniversary - rather than hard data about sales in decline. I would have been perfectly willing to shell out money for a 50th anniversary D&D, very similar to 5e. For one thing, the art would be new, organization of the materials would (hopefully) be improved, and my current books are 10 years old and showing their wear.

...until they effed over their supporting ecology of 3rd party publishers, resources, and the thousands of people that will affect.

This is pretty much my take as well.

 

[Branduil]

One thing that's occurred to me, as a possible key difference from 4e: While it's true 4e was highly divisive, that division was double-edged sword. Many people legitimately liked 4e as a game, it was a game that was confident and consistent in its own philosophy. It's also quite difficult to design a clone of 4e, as it has a huge number of individual, interacting mechanics.

5e is different. It was designed to be the game for everyone. But now it can no longer be that. It does have its own virtues, but those things-- bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage-- are very high-level and much easier to adapt to different systems than 4e's powers and roles. 5e becomes a much less appealing game if it's not THE game, and it has to compete with games which are willing to push the envelope.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One of the ironies of the current situation to me is that, in my opinion, if Hasbro/WoTc shut their mouths, built the VTT and released One D&D with no OGL shenanigans, in about 5 years time they would have captured the market and then they could have rolled back the OGL and monetised.

 

[Argyle King]

I expect as the years ago by WotC will center their game design philosophy around microtransactions and subscriptions fundamentally altering the way the game is played.

Digital Miniatures would be easy to monetize in a Fortnite-like manner.

•A company could sell various cosmetic options. (This might cynical, but I could even see some of the options being marketed around "support" for marginalized communities.)

•A selection of animations for spellcasting and various actions could be sold in the vein of the dances in Fortnite.

 

[kunadam]

That's what Hasbro wants from the D&D brand - an entertainment behemoth, not a book seller. So from their perspective, it might be worth alienating the gaming community to lock down an IP that they are hoping to turn into something much bigger than a game. I think this will prove to be a mistake (or at least their clumsy handling of the situation), but time will tell.

The OGL was for the most part about selling books. One could not make a D&D movie, nor a Forgotten Realms musical or a new novel for Spelljammer. They still have their IPs, they could have still done all the computer games they wanted (Pathfinder already has 2 videogames, does 5e have any? Baldur's Gate 3 maybe)
So I do not see how they could not do all the monetization they want in these areas.

 

[Scribe]

One of the ironies of the current situation to me is that, in my opinion, if Hasbro/WoTc shut their mouths, built the VTT and released One D&D with no OGL shenanigans, in about 5 years time they would have captured the market and then they could have rolled back the OGL and monetised.

And thrown away 5 years of maximized profits?! Perish the thought!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Digital Miniatures would be easy to monetize in a Fortnite-like manner.

•A company could sell various cosmetic options. (This might cynical, but I could even see some of the options being marketed around "support" for marginalized communities.)

•A selection of animations for spellcasting and various actions could be sold in the vein of the dances in Fortnite.

Tip of the iceberg yeah, on monetizing the minis.

This is partly why it's so dumb for WotC to be pissing off the 3PPs and just about everyone because it's going to make it a lot less politically acceptable for people engage with WotC on the monetization. If WotC hadn't done this, I could easily see things like Critical Role voice packs which would allow your character to say some things from some radial menu or whatever, in the voice of your favourite CR character. But when they're embarrassing themselves this hard, it's like, increasingly literally every hour to associate with them. Maybe over the years that'll decline, if they handle backing out of this very gracefully, but they've really shot themselves in the foot totally unnecessarily.