Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Zuras]

Whether a AAA publisher uses 1.0a to make their video game, or foregoes a WotC license entirely to make their own IP, WotC gets nothing from them either way. They therefore might as well kill 1.0a and thereby have a chance at something.

If my players started using this logic to justify breaking deals with NPCs, I’m pretty sure they’d be going full murder-hobo within three sessions.

[Psyren]

This is a very "direct payments only" view. WoTC may not get paid, but they do get people playing their system rather than a competitors system. Fixating on "we aren't getting paid enough" and making a move that pushes the community away and causes cRPGs to introduce folks to a competitor is a mistake.

Time will tell. They pushed people to the competitor's system (Pathfinder) before, and it wasn't long before they took the top spot again with 5e. Maybe that's happening again, we'll have to see how much this latest kerfuffle is tempest vs teapot.

[Satinavian]

I think I agree. DDO is actually kind of an amazing game. It's not super accurate to 3.5, but what they have there is pretty great. They really took the "DnD but an MMO" and ran with it. Neverwinter doesn't really feel like that, if the little bit I played is any indication.

I stopped DDO years ago. But all this talk makes me considering a revisit. It still was pretty unique as far as MMOs go and i have not found another that held my interest nearly as long.

As for the rest, i don't see the OGL in any version particularly relevant for video games. Solasta was a special case with rule faithfulness as selling point, but generally tabletop rules are not that well suited for game adaptions. Using them is a burden for developers, not an asset.

[KorvinStarmast]

And when the boss' boss' boss comes asking questions, it doesn't matter whether or not you know the answer, as long as you say it with confidence (because chances are, they don't know the answer).

Yep. Fun times can be had when the Deputy Sec Def drops into your cell during a war game (multi million dollar CPX) and tries to play stump the chump with you. Standing next to him is the VCJCS.

a flagship, open source fantasy system that does everything D&D does. ... I expect core fantasy to be lighter on rules and more accessible

Finding the balance between playability and complexity is something that game designers wrestle with as a part of their craft.

If you're making a story in a new IP and face that choice, I don't think licensing with WoTC for the 5e ruleset (by itself) offers you much. Even the flagship D&D video game, Baldur's Gate III, is having to mess with the mechanics to get a working AAA title.

I have not touched it in a while, it was kinda clunky during my first few hours of the beta. I wonder if it will get released around the same time as D&Done gets released? If it does, and it works well, that might set a bar for people to try and clear, OGL based (ORC, Black Flag, 1.x) or own IP based.

So the consequence is that new companies making cRPGs see the 5e (OneD&D) ruleset and pass on it in favor of Core Fantasy or PF2e or some in-house system. And that ends up being bad for business for WoTC, because then people who play cRPGs get introduced to their competitors, and start looking there rather than 5e.

Or, BG III lands on its feat and brings the spotlight back to WotC and its brand with a fun and popular game. If I remember right, BG III is mostly based on 5e as it is, not D&Done, but maybe (since they so far share mostly the same internal game structure) the backwards compatibility piece might come into play. I would need to check on release dates, but I can see BG III being released a little after Honor Among thieves comes out. If it is ready to go 'gold disc' at that point.

But I think that story is plausible enough that the idea that pulling the OGL is 'simply good business' is unsubstantiated.

While they intend to pull OGL 1.0a, it seems, replacing it with something (whatever form that takes) is not the same as pulling it and not replacing it at all. They are still working on that something.

Goodwill value is real value. In this case, most of the real value of the IP.

But measuring it drives the bean counters a little crazy.

They pushed people to the competitor's system (Pathfinder) before, and it wasn't long before they took the top spot again with 5e. Maybe that's happening again, we'll have to see how much this latest kerfuffle is tempest vs teapot.

If that were to happen, then it might play out like you suggest: D&DOne becomes the 4e analogue, the PF analogue under ORC or Black Flag OGL or something gains traction, and in a few years 6e proper shows up. That's how the 3.5 to 4 to 5 with PF in a parallel track seemed to play out.

[Rynjin]

Or, BG III lands on its feat and brings the spotlight back to WotC and its brand with a fun and popular game. If I remember right, BG III is mostly based on 5e as it is, not D&Done, but maybe (since they so far share mostly the same internal game structure) the backwards compatibility piece might come into play.

I really hope it doesn't. Not out of malice for Wizards (this time) but because Baldur's Gate 3 kinda sucks ass and I'd like Larian to go back to making GOOD games instead of bad ones lol.

[EggKookoo]

Goodwill value is real value. In this case, most of the real value of the IP.

More than many other modern games (meaning mostly computer games), a TTRPG is a social experience. In that way it's similar to social media. People flock to the Main Social Media Outlet because people flock to the Main Social Media Outlet. That's where everyone is. Google+ was a lesson on this.

D&D is the Main TTRPG Outlet right now.

[KorvinStarmast]

I really hope it doesn't. Not out of malice for Wizards (this time) but because Baldur's Gate 3 kinda sucks ass and I'd like Larian to go back to making GOOD games instead of bad ones lol.

Not sure how many hours you have played, but after a few hours I got a little frustrated with the UI and set it aside. I have heard that they have done quite a bit of patching. Did you play it all the way through?

[Raven777]

So the consequence is that new companies making cRPGs see the 5e (OneD&D) ruleset and pass on it in favor of Core Fantasy or PF2e or some in-house system. And that ends up being bad for business for WoTC, because then people who play cRPGs get introduced to their competitors, and start looking there rather than 5e.

I can testify that Baldur's Gate I & II are what got me to even hear about "D&D" for the first time when I was 12 (on my mother's iMac, no less). This anchored D&D being synonymous with tabletop, "the" tabletop if you will, in my young mind. The same way Diablo II anchored in my young mind that a Necromancer must have a small army of skeletons in tow – that's non negotiable. I imagine if my first CRPGs had been Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, that anchoring would have been in favor of Pathfinder instead.

[Ashtagon]

More than many other modern games (meaning mostly computer games), a TTRPG is a social experience. In that way it's similar to social media. People flock to the Main Social Media Outlet because people flock to the Main Social Media Outlet. That's where everyone is. Google+ was a lesson on this.

Indeed. g+ was the fantasy heartbreaker of social media. It's difficult, but not that difficult, to make a good [RPG|social media]. The hard part is getting a critical mass of people actively using it.

[Rynjin]

Not sure how many hours you have played, but after a few hours I got a little frustrated with the UI and set it aside. I have heard that they have done quite a bit of patching. Did you play it all the way through?

I actually refunded it, I was really hoping for a Forgotten Realms-themed Divinity game, but it was not that, and I didn't like what it actually was enough to sit on it and hope it got better.

[Tanarii]

If that were to happen, then it might play out like you suggest: D&DOne becomes the 4e analogue, the PF analogue under ORC or Black Flag OGL or something gains traction, and in a few years 6e proper shows up. That's how the 3.5 to 4 to 5 with PF in a parallel track seemed to play out.

I think this is pretty much a certainty at this point. But (and this is a big but) remember our history: 5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a). And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust in using an open license they "control", ever. They're going to have to switch to using ORC (assuming it has become the standard) when they finally try to pick up the pieces and publish 6e.

[Satinavian]

Indeed. g+ was the fantasy heartbreaker of social media. It's difficult, but not that difficult, to make a good [RPG|social media]. The hard part is getting a critical mass of people actively using it.

But that also explains why many people with other favorite systems now see a chance in D&Ds weakness.

And why so many people are willing to leave D&D. A significant number were only there because it is big, not because they liked it over other offerings.

[animorte]

But that also explains why many people with other favorite systems now see a chance in D&Ds weakness.

And why so many people are willing to leave D&D. A significant number were only there because it is big, not because they liked it over other offerings.

A fair number have admitted to playing something because that's what their people play.

[EggKookoo]

Indeed. g+ was the fantasy heartbreaker of social media. It's difficult, but not that difficult, to make a good [RPG|social media]. The hard part is getting a critical mass of people actively using it.

Back around 2000 when Apple switched over to Intel processors, they did something clever. They partnered with a company to produce an app called Parallels that you could run on your shiny new Intel Mac and install a virtual Windows machine. You partitioned your hard drive. Initially you had to choose which OS to boot into but eventually they got to the point where you could access files across the two partitions.

This made it much less painful for Windows people to try out Mac OS. You could fall back on your Windows apps but you could also try out the Mac version of something if had it. Basically you could gradually transition yourself over.

Incidentally, those Intel Macs could also play most "Windows only" AAA games just as well as most pure Windows machines, which highlighted that the reason Macs weren't great for games wasn't the hardware. But that's a different topic...

I wonder if someone could make "Parallels for Pathfinder..."

[Rynjin]

"Just as well" is a bit of a stretch, but "good enough", certainly. I had to use a Macbook for school when I went for game design, and did the whole dual boot Windows thing. It had a lot of problems kind of inherent to it, mostly that it ran slower than it should have.

But it was good enough to play then-modern games on low-medium settings, which is fine I guess.

[Segev]

Which will occur thanks to 1.2, by which point 1.0a is dead. Great!

I haven't done a deep dive of the CC stuff yet and what could be done with it that couldn't be done without the OGL, though I suspect speculating on that wouldn't be something I could do here anyway.

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I feel the need to point out that as an argument for why 1.2 is necessary, "The CC that comes out with 1.2 will let the video game folks do the same thing the OGL 1.0(a) would have," is not a very strong argument for why 1.2 is going to help WotC make a discriminator of a product.

[Xihirli]

Time will tell. They pushed people to the competitor's system (Pathfinder) before, and it wasn't long before they took the top spot again with 5e. Maybe that's happening again, we'll have to see how much this latest kerfuffle is tempest vs teapot.

Eh, there's a difference between what happened with 4e "we're just not putting the new edition on the OGL but otherwise we're leaving it alone" and "we are attempting to break a deal and deauthorize a perpetual license that we promised we'd never use to screw people over."

Like I'm already done with WOTC. If someone makes it clear they want to cheat people, believe them the first time.

[Batcathat]

I am rather curious to see how many people have actually left the system (or at least stopped buying new products, if they otherwise would have) in a year or so. It wouldn't be the first time a big company does something wildly unpopular that "everyone" is upset about, only for their market share to be more or less the same after everything quiets down. There are exceptions, of course, so it'll be interesting to see whether this is one of them.

[Psyren]

I can testify that Baldur's Gate I & II are what got me to even hear about "D&D" for the first time when I was 12 (on my mother's iMac, no less). This anchored D&D being synonymous with tabletop, "the" tabletop if you will, in my young mind. The same way Diablo II anchored in my young mind that a Necromancer must have a small army of skeletons in tow – that's non negotiable. I imagine if my first CRPGs had been Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, that anchoring would have been in favor of Pathfinder instead.

That's definitely a point in favor of their hostility towards 1.0a.

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I feel the need to point out that as an argument for why 1.2 is necessary, "The CC that comes out with 1.2 will let the video game folks do the same thing the OGL 1.0(a) would have," is not a very strong argument for why 1.2 is going to help WotC make a discriminator of a product.

I'm not arguing anything regarding the CC, beyond saying I think it's a good idea. Again, I haven't had a chance to dive into that material specifically.

If that were to happen, then it might play out like you suggest: D&DOne becomes the 4e analogue, the PF analogue under ORC or Black Flag OGL or something gains traction, and in a few years 6e proper shows up. That's how the 3.5 to 4 to 5 with PF in a parallel track seemed to play out.

Eh, there's a difference between what happened with 4e "we're just not putting the new edition on the OGL but otherwise we're leaving it alone" and "we are attempting to break a deal and deauthorize a perpetual license that we promised we'd never use to screw people over."

Like I'm already done with WOTC. If someone makes it clear they want to cheat people, believe them the first time.

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

[Satinavian]

That's definitely a point in favor of their hostility towards 1.0a.

How so ?

What they doing is preventing games like Solasta (that might get people into D&D) but leave games based on other systems ( like Owlcats Pathfinder and Rogue Trader or the TDE based Blackguards or Drakensang or the next Bloodlines) intact.

I know people who got into D&D from Baldur's gate. But I also know people who got into TDE from the Realms of Arcania games.


While there are a lot of cRPGs that don't have any tabletop game attached, there always have been many out there attached to other systems than D&D.

[johnbragg]

I think this is pretty much a certainty at this point. But (and this is a big but) remember our history: 5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a).

IS that really even true though? If 5E had come out with the OGL 1.1, or 1.2, and the third-party creators all said "pass", unless they were working under a direct contract with WOTC (like Goodman Games converting 1E modules to 5E), I think 5E would have still done fine.

What's different? Critical Role couldn't have published TalDorei. Maybe they stay with, or go back to Pathfinder?

And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust in using an open license they "control", ever. They're going to have to switch to using ORC (assuming it has become the standard) when they finally try to pick up the pieces and publish 6e.

I think you had too many words and clauses there. I don't think taht you can un-spill the milk here.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust FULL STOP

But I don't think the execs at WOTC and Hasbro care. They're aiming for a bigger market than us.

[johnbragg]

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

This is very very important. WOTC isn't even calling the new thing "6E", partially because they got burned so badly with 4E. They're going to strive for maximum compatibility with 5E stuff.

PArtially because (relying on D&DShorts), Wizards and Hasbro no longer especially care about TTRPGs. So "how can we fundamentally redesign the game to make it better" isn't a thought that's going to be anywhere on their radar. The books are going to be Collector's Editions, not the main revenue source for the "brand."

To Hasbro, D&D is one of their "brands", like Transformers and My Little Pony and Monopoly and GI Joe. And they're aiming to "monetize that brand" with some sort of subscription-based, pay-to-play and probably pay-to-git-gud online system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But I don't think the execs at WOTC and Hasbro care. They're aiming for a bigger market than us.

I've yet to see a "corporate makeover" that intentionally alienates and attacks the core, committed fanbase succeed. Of course, very few "corporate makeovers" succeed generally...

You could probably do it by very slowly making changes in the image and allowing natural attrition (by death if nothing else, but mostly by changing interests with age) whittle away the old guard. But getting into an open fight with your core fan base and intentionally telling them they're not welcome? Before you have a replacement fan base in place? Yeah...that's brand suicide. Even the MCU waited until much later to start making major changes...and that hasn't exactly gone perfectly either.

And this goes double for something like a TTRPG that requires a fair amount of dedication, investment, and especially community buy in. Unless you can completely transition to an atomized, "pick up game MMO" style revolving around paid DMs (or at least compensated DMs) where anyone can drop in or out and it's all online and "virtualized" and "transactional" (as opposed to repeating, "long-form" adventures with a group of friends), you need word of mouth, committed DMs and community invitations. And that transition is non-trivial. Especially if you've jettisoned a large majority of your formerly most loyal base before you even start.

This is very very important. WOTC isn't even calling the new thing "6E", partially because they got burned so badly with 4E. They're going to strive for maximum compatibility with 5E stuff.

Except the UAs put the lie to this. It's not compatible at all, except in the sense of "you can convert monsters and adventures to the new system (but not backward)" and "you can take isolated rule elements from OneD&D and use them in 5e, if you're careful". But those statements are true even for 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e.

[Segev]

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

If the ORC folks are smart, they'll have some systems built on the core chassis of 5e, which is being released under the CC (according to WotC), which will make for a lot of third party products that use the ORC - and many that only use the CC - that are 5e compatible.

And I think that WotC will find that a lack of third party support for 5.1 is going to be more detriment than help, and the ill will they've engendered over their OGL 1.2 that might enable third parties will drive down third party participation even more than it might otherwise have. People in third parties are likely to feel less like they're over a barrel and need to keep up with the updated edition when there are so many fans vocally angry over how WotC has handled this, meaning sticking to 5.0 content they can legally use is more likely.

And that's not even getting into the legal battles some are already promising over the "deauthorization" clause, or loopholes in it some may attempt to exploit, which we can't discuss in any detail nor speculate on here.

[Rynjin]

That's sort of the main thing. Plenty of "corporate makeovers" have sadly worked, especially in the gaming sphere. But that's the video gaming sphere, where people are buying distinct products as distinct experiences.

TTRPGs are an inherently social hobby. You cannot play them without other people.

I think the suits misunderstand that distinction. "Well, it worked for Bethesda when they left behind their old userbase after Morrowind"; yeah, that's a series of single player games that were made to appeal to a broader audience.

You can't really engineer a TTRPG that way. In large part because despite being more mainstream than it was, this is STILL a niche hobby that is mostly spread by word of mouth. And if word of mouth says "yeah, this game/company sucks, play this instead", that's what gets played.

They'd basically need to astroturf FLGSes in every major city in the US (alongside other online communities) with paid GMs just to get traction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's sort of the main thing. Plenty of "corporate makeovers" have sadly worked, especially in the gaming sphere. But that's the video gaming sphere, where people are buying distinct products as distinct experiences.

TTRPGs are an inherently social hobby. You cannot play them without other people.

I think the suits misunderstand that distinction. "Well, it worked for Bethesda when they left behind their old userbase after Morrowind"; yeah, that's a series of single player games that were made to appeal to a broader audience.

You can't really engineer a TTRPG that way. In large part because despite being more mainstream than it was, this is STILL a niche hobby that is mostly spread by word of mouth. And if word of mouth says "yeah, this game/company sucks, play this instead", that's what gets played.

They'd basically need to astroturf FLGSes in every major city in the US (alongside other online communities) with paid GMs just to get traction.

But did those corporate makeovers go out of their way to alienate their base before they had anything out? Or did they just make something new and the fan base change as a result? The second is more doable--you've got momentum and there will always be turnover in fanbase. The first seems a lot more like intentionally shooting yourself in the kneecap[1] at the start line of the race.

[1] I used to be a big franchise like you, but then i took an arrow to the knee...

[Atranen]

Or, BG III lands on its feat and brings the spotlight back to WotC and its brand with a fun and popular game. If I remember right, BG III is mostly based on 5e as it is, not D&Done, but maybe (since they so far share mostly the same internal game structure) the backwards compatibility piece might come into play.

Yeah, that's certainly a possibility. It will be interesting to see if they patch it to include One rules.

But measuring it drives the bean counters a little crazy.

I'm not sure whether their gamble will be successful or not. But if it's not, the "issues were obvious in retrospect" article writes itself.

I think this is pretty much a certainty at this point. But (and this is a big but) remember our history: 5e was only such a huge hit because it went back to OGL 1.0(a). And they could only do that because the 4e GSL wasn't an attempt to replace the OGL.

I don't think it's possible for WotC to repair their reputations damage and gain the community trust in using an open license they "control", ever. They're going to have to switch to using ORC (assuming it has become the standard) when they finally try to pick up the pieces and publish 6e.

This is my ideal scenario, so let's hope you're right!

But that also explains why many people with other favorite systems now see a chance in D&Ds weakness.

And why so many people are willing to leave D&D. A significant number were only there because it is big, not because they liked it over other offerings.

Yes--the network effects from the OGL did a lot for WoTC, and it seems they have stopped appreciating them and stopped realizing they even existed. If there's a critical mass for another system, you could see a pretty rapid shift.

You're right, there's a big difference. The changes between 5e and "6e" are marginal at best, whereas 3.5->4e rendered everyone's books completely unusable. Just as 5e players' books would largely be unusable now if they tried to jump to PF2 (and presumably, whatever gets released under ORC.)

Deep Magic 2 has been billed as being "backward compatible with 5e and forward compatible with Project Black Flag'. That's led people, myself included, to speculate that PBF will attempt to be similar to 5e and likely compatible with it more broadly. I suspect Kobold knows the score and will want a product people can use their 5E stuff with, rather than forcing a switch while OneD&D remains (?) compatible. Pathfinder 1e did the same thing.

Their first playtest is due to release in February, so we'll know more soon.

[EggKookoo]

Except the UAs put the lie to this. It's not compatible at all, except in the sense of "you can convert monsters and adventures to the new system (but not backward)" and "you can take isolated rule elements from OneD&D and use them in 5e, if you're careful". But those statements are true even for 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e.

And really where the rubber meets the road, 5e -> 1D&D and 3.5e -> 4e share one very identical aspect. They both will require people to buy new books, and will render the older books obsolete (assuming those players want to play the new system -- of course people can stick with 5e just like they could with 3.5e).

People were up in arms over 4e not necessarily because the rules were different, but because everyone had just gone through the painful but arguably necessary process of buying a whole new set of 3.5e books and throwing out their old 3e books.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And really where the rubber meets the road, 5e -> 1D&D and 3.5e -> 4e share one very identical aspect. They both will require people to buy new books, and will render the older books obsolete (assuming those players want to play the new system -- of course people can stick with 5e just like they could with 3.5e).

People were up in arms over 4e not necessarily because the rules were different, but because everyone had just gone through the painful but arguably necessary process of buying a whole new set of 3.5e books and throwing out their old 3e books.

Yeah. They could release a set of updates to 5e that wouldn't necessitate new books (although they could certainly provide them for those that wished). Just publish a set of "patch files". As long as the core remains the same and the relative balance still works (so a x.0 class/monster/etc works fine with an x.1 class/monster/etc). But they don't want to do that, because they need to get people to transition.

I expect them to do everything they can (without being open and illegal about it) to convince people to shift. Bribery, making the old materials hard to access on D&D Beyond, leaning on FLGS to stock only 1D&D, shifting AL instantly, etc. No, they won't come break down your door and steal your books. But definitely more of an Apple approach (update or else, if it breaks it breaks) than a Microsoft approach (where they're still including compatibility shims for XP-era bugs)[1].

[1] note these are the approaches to developers, not to consumers. Apple is notorious for doing things like changing big chunks of the layout and process in point-releases of their developer software and "deprecating" entire platforms fairly fast. Microsoft has a reputation of bending over backward to keep ancient software running as is.

[Psyren]

Except the UAs put the lie to this. It's not compatible at all, except in the sense of "you can convert monsters and adventures to the new system (but not backward)" and "you can take isolated rule elements from OneD&D and use them in 5e, if you're careful". But those statements are true even for 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e.

If you think 1DnD<->5e will be anywhere near the magnitude of work that 3.5<->4e or 2e<->3e was for most people, I have no idea what to tell you beyond disagreeing. Those edition changes completely upended the skill system, the spellcasting rules, action economy and other fundamental things that are not changing nearly as drastically between 5e and 1DnD.

How so ?

The person I was responding to stated that, if Owlcat had been first to market with an isometric CRPG, many of the genre conventions they were anchored with might have seen Pathfinder's brand rather than D&D's as the genre originator or codifier. Such anchoring can still be lost by the right OGL game with the right technical advancements, so it's understandable for WotC to not want to leave a potential shortcut for the competition out in the ether.

What they doing is preventing games like Solasta (that might get people into D&D) but leave games based on other systems ( like Owlcats Pathfinder and Rogue Trader or the TDE based Blackguards or Drakensang or the next Bloodlines) intact.

Both Owlcat's Pathfinder games and Solasta will still be "left intact," as they already exist under 1.0a. It's the future stuff they have an eye towards. And it's extremely unlikely to expect that no other AAA publisher won't try to make something under 1.0a at some point in the future if it is left extant.

Critical Role couldn't have published TalDorei.

Hell, they still could have. Critical Role almost certainly has a custom license, which is how things like EGtW got made.