D&D 5E Wow, 5e sure needs to have an OGL/attractive GSL

[Gundark]

After a week of watching and taking part in discussion about 5e on forums/twitter and people in the real world, something has become apparent to me ; 5e will really need an attractive GSL/OGL. People want Vancian magic, don't want Vancian magic, want exception based monster design, don't want exception based monster design, or whatever. This discussion is fun and interesting to have, and every now and then someone will chime in with "all this discussion makes me realize that WotC will not gain unity with 5e". I have to say that they are right, and I don't say this in a "5e will fail" tone because it is unrealistic to believe that any game company could do this.

One game company can't, but many games companies could. With an attractive 3rd party licence other companies could fill in the gaps. Core 5e doesn't have Vanican casting? No problem, (insert company name here) have made a supplement that allows this. Along with all the discussion about potential mechanics, we should be encouraging WotC to create an attractive GSL that will cause other companies to jump in.

Thoughts?

 

[Jawsh]

I agree. And I think they should commit to it now. Or as soon as possible. The sooner they commit to an Open Gaming License for 5E, the sooner other game companies will jump on it and really increase the hype for 5E.

People, including some speaking from within WotC, keep on saying "well, let's wait and see. WotC has to take their time making their decision on this."

NO THEY DON'T. WotC needs to ACT RIGHT NOW. They did it once and it worked really well. It was the right decision then, and it's the right decision now. An Open Gaming License is the ONLY WAY that WotC can unite the entire gaming community. Anything less is worse than lip service. Anything less is bad faith, pure and simple.

Anything less, and a significant portion of the gaming community will simply fall in line behind Paizo. WotC may be able to fool some gamers with its open playtest, but they will never succeed at their goal of market domination without another Open Gaming License.

 

[trancejeremy]

But isn't that basically what caused the problem that 5e is supposed to fix?

You have 3.x people playing Pathfinder. You have 1e/OD&D/BD&D playing various OSR variants.

What's the point of a 5E where people have to resort to third parties to play the way they want? Why not stay with their current third party games?

Hasbro/WOTC needs to give those that have jumped off the D&D train a reason to get back on rather than staying put.

 

[Jawsh]

What's the point of a 5E where people have to resort to third parties to play the way they want? Why not stay with their current third party games?

Because it is impossible for WotC to make a game for everyone. It's more than one company can do. It's more than one sane company should attempt. If I was a Hasbro shareholder, I'd be very upset with WotC if they tried to do it all themselves. They'd be taking stupid risks with tiny niche rulesets that nobody would buy or play. Modular or not, those pieces would not be worth it for WotC to create.

 

[TrippyHippy]

They certainly have their work cut out, but I do feel that deep down most gamers themselves want to see a bit more unity in the D&D community.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Whatever they decide in regards to OGL/GSL will make or break 5e - if they have something like the OGL then they have a chance. If they come out with something like the GSL... the game will die before it is born.

Right at this moment I am pessimistic - I suspect that if they were going OGL then they would already have announced it.

But it could just me being depressed, I very much hope that I am wrong.

The Auld Grump

 

[trancejeremy]

Because it is impossible for WotC to make a game for everyone. It's more than one company can do. It's more than one sane company should attempt. If I was a Hasbro shareholder, I'd be very upset with WotC if they tried to do it all themselves. They'd be taking stupid risks with tiny niche rulesets that nobody would buy or play. Modular or not, those pieces would not be worth it for WotC to create.

But if the problem is that people who like older versions of D&D are playing older versions of D&D produced by Paizo or other smaller companies, then how is the solution sending those same people back to those same companies?

And why is that appealing to players? Why should those people give WOTC money for the core rules, the proceed to buy volumes that fix those core rules (and presumably only or mostly buy further produces that fit that style from that third party).

If they are serious about bringing people back into the fold, they need to be serious about supporting all types of play equally themselves.

But your right - profits for a pen and paper RPG are likely never going to be profitable enough for a giant publically held corporation like Hasbro.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Not only is it #3 on my list here

Appendix N: 5th Edition D&D Already?

but I think that they are going to have to blow the DDI wide open as I note here

Appendix N: DDI versus OGL

Some companies did put out 4e Material. It didn't sell well enough to keep them in the game. Part of the reason some people claimed they didn't buy it was no integration into the DDI.

I am one of those people who doesn't think WoTC can unite everyone behind their banner. They should determine what they want D&D to do and go at that and make the best game that does that specific thing.

 

[mkill]

If WotC was serious about D&D's continued success, they don't just have to reunite the fanbase, they have to reunite their industry relations.

The absolute best thing would be to work with the Pathfinder team to create a compatible, joint new edition of both games. I'm pretty sure Paizo wants to sell their Adventure Path products to 5E players.

However, I'm not sure how far Paizo will trust WotC given some past decisions.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Can wotc write a license that allows freer 3rd party supplements but makes another company essentially reselling their basic material (pathfinder, etc) difficult or impossible? I have no legal experience, so I don't know.