Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8874190" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>There's another big thing I think we need to remember as we discuss all of this and whether OGL 1.1 is "necessary" is that from our limited vision thus far of the playtest packets... the "change" of the game from 5E to the 2024 edit will not be the same massive overhaul of mechanics and presentation that was 3.5 to 4E. Rather, from all indications it will be closer to the change of 3E to 3.5.</p><p></p><p>What does that mean? Well, first it means that we and WotC don't need to worry about a "new Pathfinder" cropping up... because the 2024 game won't be substantially different enough for there to be a gap for a "new Pathfinder" to find a place between the two 5E rulesets and blow up like Paizo's did. In fact we actually already have a potential "new Pathfinder" game already released... <em>Level Up</em>... that took 5E and really built and re-built upon the foundation of 2014 5E just like Pathfinder built and re-built upon the 3.5 foundation. But we have not seen that game achieve the same level of ubiquity and social cache that PF did, and I personally would doubt at this point it will grow even bigger by the time 2024 is released to really be seen as the "new Pathfinder"... nor do I think someone could release a "new 2014 5E" using the OGL 1.0a and make it distinguishable enough from both Level Up and the 2024 book to become a "new Pathfinder" either. I could be wrong about that of course... but I personally do not see the potential changes of 2024 being so great that another book that attempts to "fix and expand" the 2014 one being all that different than what 2024 will give us.</p><p></p><p>So with that being said... that from our limited vision of what the 2024 changes might look like it will probably be setting itself up to only as much as the 3.5 change or perhaps the "3.75" change that Pathfinder was... the game itself will still operate on the true mathematical foundation of 5E. Which means indeed that anything that was designed for 5E previously will probably still work pretty well with the 2024 changes. And that also means that anything that is made now <em>or</em> later could most likely still use the 1.0a OGL and 5E SRD and work absolutely okay with whatever 2024 looks like. Even something like a "monster book"... just how much of a change in monster design, mechanics, presentation, and terminology are we going to see that would make 2024 require someone to use the 1.1 OGL to make their book actually work with the game? Personally, I don't think we will see much at all-- not if WotC really sticks to the idea that their old 5E books will be compatible too. The mathematical underpinnings of the 2024 book remaining the same more or less to the 2014 book in order to assure compatibility means that people will still be able to make their stuff using the 5E SRD and have it fit the "new paradigm" of the 2024 book with little to no issue. After all... if WotC wants their older books to still work with the 2024 book... anyone who creates a new book that works like WotC's old ones do can be assured of compatibility too.</p><p></p><p>As a result... it again all comes down to what a publisher can gain from using the OGL 1.1 for anything new they create that they wouldn't be able to get by just using 1.0a? It is a question that I have no doubt the folks at WotC have already looked into and argued about substantially, and have had communication from the D&D team specifically. They all know what happened with the GSL. They know that they did not have anything in place that would make publishers <em>want</em> to follow it for 4E other than the "cache" of working with the newest edition of D&D. But as WotC discovered... cache doesn't pay the bills. So there was no real financial gain for publishers to use the GSL, especially when they had to give up so many of their rights to do so. I have to imagine at least one person over at WotC has made this argument, and thus everyone over there knows that for 1.1 to actually be used, WotC would need to make it <em>financially advantageous</em> to the 3PPs to do so. If those 3PPs are going to give up so many of their rights to use it... WotC 1.1 better make it really worth their while.</p><p></p><p>And how do they do that? I think there's only one real way-- turn D&D Beyond into their own "DMs Guild". A "DM's Guild" book sale repository that WotC owns and controls themselves. One that has the most important thing that publishers <em>and players</em> might want... full compatibility and use within the <strong>3D VTT</strong> that WotC is trying to put together. WotC I think is banking on their 3D VTT that runs off of Beyond is going to truly be the "next big thing"... and if it does and it gets used and incorporated by a substantial part of the D&D Community... then yes, they will be able to dictate terms to any companies that may want in on that action. "You want your book of alternate rules to be able to be used within our 3D VTT? Then you have to build those rules under the 1.1 license. And you'll be able to sell your book to consumers through D&D Beyond as well."</p><p></p><p>THAT I believe is the only "perk" that would warrant Third Party Publishers to actually create product under 1.1-- to have their materially fully integrated into D&D Beyond and their 3D VTT. Because those 3PPs will get more exposure of their products to consumers if Beyond and the VTT blow up like WotC thinks/hopes it will. And maybe that additional exposure and sales will be worth the potential "poison pills" WotC ends up putting into their 1.1 OGL.</p><p></p><p>But really... like everyone else I am just spitballing here. Just making the best guesstimations of what most likely could be reasons for things to be playing out as they have been. Hell, for all I know there really are schmucks at WotC corporate and Hasbro corporate that did not learn from the GSL fiasco and who really think they can just create a new GSL-like thing in 1.1 and that publishers will still use it. Hopefully the feet on the ground at WotC will be able to disabuse them of that notion fairly quickly, because if they don't-- then WotC really will deserve the tomatoes thrown at them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8874190, member: 7006"] There's another big thing I think we need to remember as we discuss all of this and whether OGL 1.1 is "necessary" is that from our limited vision thus far of the playtest packets... the "change" of the game from 5E to the 2024 edit will not be the same massive overhaul of mechanics and presentation that was 3.5 to 4E. Rather, from all indications it will be closer to the change of 3E to 3.5. What does that mean? Well, first it means that we and WotC don't need to worry about a "new Pathfinder" cropping up... because the 2024 game won't be substantially different enough for there to be a gap for a "new Pathfinder" to find a place between the two 5E rulesets and blow up like Paizo's did. In fact we actually already have a potential "new Pathfinder" game already released... [I]Level Up[/I]... that took 5E and really built and re-built upon the foundation of 2014 5E just like Pathfinder built and re-built upon the 3.5 foundation. But we have not seen that game achieve the same level of ubiquity and social cache that PF did, and I personally would doubt at this point it will grow even bigger by the time 2024 is released to really be seen as the "new Pathfinder"... nor do I think someone could release a "new 2014 5E" using the OGL 1.0a and make it distinguishable enough from both Level Up and the 2024 book to become a "new Pathfinder" either. I could be wrong about that of course... but I personally do not see the potential changes of 2024 being so great that another book that attempts to "fix and expand" the 2014 one being all that different than what 2024 will give us. So with that being said... that from our limited vision of what the 2024 changes might look like it will probably be setting itself up to only as much as the 3.5 change or perhaps the "3.75" change that Pathfinder was... the game itself will still operate on the true mathematical foundation of 5E. Which means indeed that anything that was designed for 5E previously will probably still work pretty well with the 2024 changes. And that also means that anything that is made now [I]or[/I] later could most likely still use the 1.0a OGL and 5E SRD and work absolutely okay with whatever 2024 looks like. Even something like a "monster book"... just how much of a change in monster design, mechanics, presentation, and terminology are we going to see that would make 2024 require someone to use the 1.1 OGL to make their book actually work with the game? Personally, I don't think we will see much at all-- not if WotC really sticks to the idea that their old 5E books will be compatible too. The mathematical underpinnings of the 2024 book remaining the same more or less to the 2014 book in order to assure compatibility means that people will still be able to make their stuff using the 5E SRD and have it fit the "new paradigm" of the 2024 book with little to no issue. After all... if WotC wants their older books to still work with the 2024 book... anyone who creates a new book that works like WotC's old ones do can be assured of compatibility too. As a result... it again all comes down to what a publisher can gain from using the OGL 1.1 for anything new they create that they wouldn't be able to get by just using 1.0a? It is a question that I have no doubt the folks at WotC have already looked into and argued about substantially, and have had communication from the D&D team specifically. They all know what happened with the GSL. They know that they did not have anything in place that would make publishers [I]want[/I] to follow it for 4E other than the "cache" of working with the newest edition of D&D. But as WotC discovered... cache doesn't pay the bills. So there was no real financial gain for publishers to use the GSL, especially when they had to give up so many of their rights to do so. I have to imagine at least one person over at WotC has made this argument, and thus everyone over there knows that for 1.1 to actually be used, WotC would need to make it [I]financially advantageous[/I] to the 3PPs to do so. If those 3PPs are going to give up so many of their rights to use it... WotC 1.1 better make it really worth their while. And how do they do that? I think there's only one real way-- turn D&D Beyond into their own "DMs Guild". A "DM's Guild" book sale repository that WotC owns and controls themselves. One that has the most important thing that publishers [I]and players[/I] might want... full compatibility and use within the [B]3D VTT[/B] that WotC is trying to put together. WotC I think is banking on their 3D VTT that runs off of Beyond is going to truly be the "next big thing"... and if it does and it gets used and incorporated by a substantial part of the D&D Community... then yes, they will be able to dictate terms to any companies that may want in on that action. "You want your book of alternate rules to be able to be used within our 3D VTT? Then you have to build those rules under the 1.1 license. And you'll be able to sell your book to consumers through D&D Beyond as well." THAT I believe is the only "perk" that would warrant Third Party Publishers to actually create product under 1.1-- to have their materially fully integrated into D&D Beyond and their 3D VTT. Because those 3PPs will get more exposure of their products to consumers if Beyond and the VTT blow up like WotC thinks/hopes it will. And maybe that additional exposure and sales will be worth the potential "poison pills" WotC ends up putting into their 1.1 OGL. But really... like everyone else I am just spitballing here. Just making the best guesstimations of what most likely could be reasons for things to be playing out as they have been. Hell, for all I know there really are schmucks at WotC corporate and Hasbro corporate that did not learn from the GSL fiasco and who really think they can just create a new GSL-like thing in 1.1 and that publishers will still use it. Hopefully the feet on the ground at WotC will be able to disabuse them of that notion fairly quickly, because if they don't-- then WotC really will deserve the tomatoes thrown at them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting
Top