Yes. It doesn't add up, Scott.
Like I've said in other 5e GSL/OGL? threads, I hope they don't make an OGL similar to what we saw with 3e. Using the basic set should be enough for 3PP to create their own and go from there. We don't need the glut of terrible (IMO of course) products we saw with 3e.
The only type of license they could have that would allow significant 3PP involvement is an OGL type. This would insulate them from responsibility for other companies material. And, I can't imagine they would want to have to police a flood of 3PP material to ensure it's quality / compatibility / morals etc with a more restrictive license like the GSL. Or they contract out to limited outfits (like Kobold Press / Open Design) where they have some control and the amount of material is manageable and can be overseen.
The OGL produced some terrible junk and some inspired stuff. It's a two edged sword. The question is how WotC / Hasbro feels about it as a corporate entity. I don't see them going OGL, but I can see them allowing non-profit fan material and providing resources / support for that. With contracts handed out to select 3PP for specific projects.
My 2 cp., as in all things, ymmv.
*edit* For clarity. I hope...
Like I've said in other 5e GSL/OGL? threads, I hope they don't make an OGL similar to what we saw with 3e. Using the basic set should be enough for 3PP to create their own and go from there. We don't need the glut of terrible (IMO of course) products we saw with 3e.
The only type of license they could have that would allow significant 3PP involvement is an OGL type. This would insulate them from responsibility for other companies material. And, I can't imagine they would want to have to police a flood of 3PP material to ensure it's quality / compatibility / morals etc with a more restrictive license like the GSL. Or they contract out to limited outfits (like Kobold Press / Open Design) where they have some control and the amount of material is manageable and can be overseen.
The OGL produced some terrible junk and some inspired stuff. It's a two edged sword. The question is how WotC / Hasbro feels about it as a corporate entity. I don't see them going OGL, but I can see them allowing non-profit fan material and providing resources / support for that. With contracts handed out to select 3PP for specific projects.
My 2 cp., as in all things, ymmv.
*edit* For clarity. I hope...
I agree that being selective with who produces stuff while allowing fans to put their content out there would be good, at least initially. The OGL doesn't need to be as open or free as it was but it should promote people to use the basic rules to create their own content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you mean us you are still making up characters you started in the 80's... ;)Ha I ran a game of Rolemaster last night.I feel old now because i both remember and played all of Shinhakkaider's and Houstonderek's listed games above.
Thanks Guys!
/cry
:-)
Seriously - 1 hour with excel.
What you mean us you are still making up characters you started in the 80's... ;)Ha I ran a game of Rolemaster last night.I feel old now because i both remember and played all of Shinhakkaider's and Houstonderek's listed games above.
Thanks Guys!
/cry
:-)
Seriously - 1 hour with excel.
It is very good for urban and gritty. We have a long running game in such a setting
What you mean us you are still making up characters you started in the 80's... ;)Ha I ran a game of Rolemaster last night.I feel old now because i both remember and played all of Shinhakkaider's and Houstonderek's listed games above.
Thanks Guys!
/cry
:-)
Seriously - 1 hour with excel.
And two weeks of preparing the excel in the first place... More if you want options from more exotic books...
Scott, I'm looking forward to DDN (or 5E if you prefer). I liked the playtest. And I am an alien from Tau Ceti if Mearls was talking about 3PP. Unfortunately, as interesting as alien hood might be, I'm human. I suspect Mearls is talking about some method to support fan produced material. A resource of some type for fans in short. They have a 3PP involved already on a contract basis, Kobold Press. So far that's the only hint of 3PP involvement. I'm indifferent to the licensing agreement (if any) they might use. But, really 3PP = fans? That's stretching the language into new shapes...
And yet WotC's Greg Bilsland, tweeting a description of that very same article, said, "Today Mike Mearls discusses D&D and the OGL, and why we're taking a deliberate approach with D&D publishers."
Emphasis mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their use of the word "fans" could mean any number of things.
- They really do just mean fans, and only fans.
- They count anyone who isn't themselves as fans, and meant no offence.
- They don't want to acknowledge professional game developers outside of their own studio as such (unlikely, imho.)
- They don't want to make promises to 3PPs that they may not be able to keep, so by saying "fans" they can quite rightfully claim they haven't said anything about 3PPs when they eventually find out what they've been given permission to promise.
The whole article is really a long-winded "we can't really say anything yet, wait and see" so I'm treating it as exactly that - lets wait and see what they actually decide.
Scott, I'm looking forward to DDN (or 5E if you prefer). I liked the playtest. And I am an alien from Tau Ceti if Mearls was talking about 3PP. Unfortunately, as interesting as alien hood might be, I'm human. I suspect Mearls is talking about some method to support fan produced material. A resource of some type for fans in short. They have a 3PP involved already on a contract basis, Kobold Press. So far that's the only hint of 3PP involvement. I'm indifferent to the licensing agreement (if any) they might use. But, really 3PP = fans? That's stretching the language into new shapes...
And yet WotC's Greg Bilsland, tweeting a description of that very same article, said, "Today Mike Mearls discusses D&D and the OGL, and why we're taking a deliberate approach with D&D publishers."
Emphasis mine.
So, one of them misspoke. We'll see who. I don't have a horse in this race. 3PP do and fans who are strongly pro or anti OGL do. I have enjoyed the PF material I've bought (along with OGL games like True20) but for the most part I run my own game (no APs, modules, adventures, etc.) and my tolerance for splat books is limited. I'm looking forward to 5E and what comes out of it regardless.
So, one of them misspoke.
Again, I don't think so.
I think it's much more likely that their plans include provisions for both commercial and non-commercial products, and that "fans" is meant as an all-encompassing term for anyone who wants to produce D&D-compatible material, whether they're third-party publishers or not.
I'm far from alone in thinking this. There is a 15+ page thread on ENWorld discussing this same article and the general consensus seems to be that some form of licensing for commercial products is in the works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the military they run commercials on the Armed Forces Network warning about the dangers of speculation. I would have to say that same advice applies here. Why get upset before you even know a single constant? And even more so if you are not a 3PP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the military they run commercials on the Armed Forces Network warning about the dangers of speculation. I would have to say that same advice applies here. Why get upset before you even know a single constant? And even more so if you are not a 3PP?
Hercules should've used the special power of attorney.
So, one of them misspoke.
Again, I don't think so.
I think it's much more likely that their plans include provisions for both commercial and non-commercial products, and that "fans" is meant as an all-encompassing term for anyone who wants to produce D&D-compatible material, whether they're third-party publishers or not.
I'm far from alone in thinking this. There is a 15+ page thread on ENWorld discussing this same article and the general consensus seems to be that some form of licensing for commercial products is in the works.
Maybe Scott. We'll see. If your interpretation is correct I won't be disappointed.
*edit* And yes I read over on EN World. I generally don't post there although I use the same name there.
In the military they run commercials on the Armed Forces Network warning about the dangers of speculation. I would have to say that same advice applies here. Why get upset before you even know a single constant? And even more so if you are not a 3PP?Hercules should've used the special power of attorney.
Hahaha. Indeed! Will need to see legal at the lodge the next time I go on an adventure.
3.5e/PF/4e having such a formal reliance on miniatures in play turned me off seriously adopting any of these games. I learned my D&D under 1e at High School were we played at lunch time (about 40 mins game time). We managed to play many adventures from TSR during a year due to the game not having a formal miniatures structure making combats much longer.
OGL never was something that made me want to try d20, it was more that it was the 'latet' version of a game I really liked.
My point... DDN doesn't assume miniature play so I am interested in having a bash and even if there is zero 3pp publications it won't influence my opinon of the game.
Definitely +1 here.
On a side note...
While I do like some 3PP module support, I'm OK without it. Heck, I never bought any 3PP stuff until 3.0 mainly because I try to keep my games balanced without overpowered 3PP material. That mindset went out the window regardless as some WotC material was overpowered anyway. :) That's why I stuck with 3PP modules only.
So if Mearls meant "quality" to cover up for "game breaking", I'm OK with that.
I wouldn't mind WotC going with the approach that most of the adventures for the new edition, outside of Dungeon magazine assuming it returns, are ones they specifically contract outside publishers to create for them like they did with Kobold. Let WotC focus on settings and core material (like monster books).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I am sure they will follow their old style: Player's Guide, Campaign Guide and a starter adventure for each of a number of old settings, followed by no further modules or anything. Because that's classy!
I finally read the Mearls interview on The Escapist. I don't know about an "OGL", but some type of license seems implied. That could just be a matter of licensed adventures (like Kobold's) but apparently they want to wait until the whole game is out. Two advantages there (imo), it gives their adventures an open field initially and puts the question off until they see how the games debut goes. Still, we'll see.
@ Sissyl: I really hope they alter that design philosophy. It's my belief that had they actually produced quality material with smaller font AND kept up resources for settings, people might have given the Forgotten Realms a chance. As it was, it was Spellplague - Massive Changes - Little Info - moving on.....
I mean, I know a LOT of fans were mad and while I don't share their level of angst and frustration (I'm a Spellplague supporter) I felt the changes they DID make were very limited in reasoning. They could've brought Eladrin into the mix a far better way AND they could've used existing LORE from the Forgotten Realms for races like Dragonborn (uh HELLO! Saurials and Dragon-Kin are already cannon, USE THEM!) and places like Akanûl, Tymanther, and Returned Abeir received literally ZERO attention outside of a few Dragon/Dungeon articles and the.....well lets just say poor FRCG that no one really cared about them.
So lets hope that when they do setting books again, they're filled with things that actually attract people to read them, even for non-gaming purposes. While I DO think the Realms was a bit over-saturated with a CRAP-load of things that I'll probably never use, the total opposite of what occurred during 4E's reign was also too minimal. There needs to be a good balance.
I finally read the Mearls interview on The Escapist. I don't know about an "OGL", but some type of license seems implied. That could just be a matter of licensed adventures (like Kobold's) but apparently they want to wait until the whole game is out. Two advantages there (imo), it gives their adventures an open field initially and puts the question off until they see how the games debut goes. Still, we'll see.
I agree. While I'm not a publisher or a RPG expert or designer, I'd probably want to see the full rules and ways in which they interact before starting to write adventures with it.
I finally read the Mearls interview on The Escapist. I don't know about an "OGL", but some type of license seems implied. That could just be a matter of licensed adventures (like Kobold's) but apparently they want to wait until the whole game is out. Two advantages there (imo), it gives their adventures an open field initially and puts the question off until they see how the games debut goes. Still, we'll see.
I agree. While I'm not a publisher or a RPG expert or designer, I'd probably want to see the full rules and ways in which they interact before starting to write adventures with it.
He mentioned being one of those 3PP designers wanting to get your adventure out the door first. This does eliminate that issue. Hopefully with a better handle on the rules the work that is done will turn out better...
Considering that the main rage of the 3.X grognards who fled D+D for Paizo was directed at the system in general for its very style and essence, and it's obsolescence of their library of 3.X material, no amount of Open Gaming license would have brought them back.
Speaking personally - absolutely this^
I'll not be playing 5e at all unless it actively lends itself to playing in a way I enjoy (although I'll certainly be trying it out at some point via the PHB and the free Basic D&D), and I'll certainly not be switching my ongoing monthly RPG budget to it (or anything else) for as long as there continues to be usable 3.X/PF material available. Availability of the OGL or something similar for it doesn't factor into my thinking at all when I have my player hat on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best things about the OGL for me were the adventures and a few of the campaign settings published by 3PP. I wasn't thrilled with the WotC D&D adventures, to be honest, but I also wasn't all that thrilled with 3PP rules supplements, particularly the Mongoose games output.
I figure, with a closed licensing agreement, we'll still get adventures and campaign settings from third parties (especially since one thing WotC does seem to try to avoid is the setting bloat that took out TSR - letting a third party take that risk seems like a safer option to me), but the rule supplements will be controlled "in house" so they can keep an eye on consistency easier.
Also, it would keep people from taking their ball and creating different games from it. That was the one BIG downside to the 3x OGL, the "sameness" of games regardless of genre. I miss the innovations and imagination game designers used to create new ways to play in the Seventies and Eighties. The new millennium and the OGL brought us a bunch of different ways to play 3x in different genres, pretty much. *Yawn*
Meh. WotC is dead to me.
I'll admit that I'm a huge Dragonlance fan. I was introduced to the setting way back in the early 80's with a friend showing me all the DL modules. I bought the novels and fell in love with the setting. Although Sovereign Press produced excellent products and I'm thankful for all of them, it's the continued effort of WotC to push aside Dragonlance support. If there is no Dragonlance support, frankly, I choose not to support WotC. WotC torched my interest in their products and haven't purchased a single item from them since 2006.
I see this trend continuing. I will buy specific Dragonlance material such as D&D Classics pdf's of old content, for example, plus new 5E if produced, but otherwise, not interested. I'll pass even as good as the game may be. I've heard good things about the rules from a gamer friend but refused to look at the rules.
So, in closing, I will say . . . thank the heavens for Pathfinder! My game of choice far into the future.
Oh, I am sure they will follow their old style: Player's Guide, Campaign Guide and a starter adventure for each of a number of old settings, followed by no further modules or anything. Because that's classy!
That was pretty much a new approach they took with 4E, although even then they had some setting support in the Dragon/Dungeon issues online with DDI.
Personally, I'm kind of hoping they take a similar slow approach with Next. I like the idea of not being saturated with 100 setting books and adventures a year. I'd rather they focus on a few universal products each year (like Monster Manuals or Rogues Galleries) that have broad appeal, with a single new engine book (say a book that covers psionics or some other alternate system) and a single new campaign core product, either a boxed set or a small set of books like 4E. Keep working license deals with 3PP to do adventures.
Lastly for me, I want to see a fun, easy to use, DM friendly set of electronic tools to support a DM creating and tracking their campaign and developing their own settings and adventures. I hope, but doubt, they are in a good place for this. Definitely better than adding a 20th core class or giant book of feats to the game for me.
Meh. WotC is dead to me.
I'll admit that I'm a huge Dragonlance fan. I was introduced to the setting way back in the early 80's with a friend showing me all the DL modules. I bought the novels and fell in love with the setting. Although Sovereign Press produced excellent products and I'm thankful for all of them, it's the continued effort of WotC to push aside Dragonlance support. If there is no Dragonlance support, frankly, I choose not to support WotC. WotC torched my interest in their products and haven't purchased a single item from them since 2006.
I see this trend continuing. I will buy specific Dragonlance material such as D&D Classics pdf's of old content, for example, plus new 5E if produced, but otherwise, not interested. I'll pass even as good as the game may be. I've heard good things about the rules from a gamer friend but refused to look at the rules.
So, in closing, I will say . . . thank the heavens for Pathfinder! My game of choice far into the future.
Y'know, there's no substantiation beyond rumor of it indicating any larger plans, but the later playtest packets did have racial info for kender. Ideally you could just buy the (hypothetical) 5E Dragonlance supplement and run it using the free Basic pdf.
Question: If the new stuff is supposed to be playable with all forms of DnD
It's not. D&D 5e is its own system. It is designed to be relatively easy to convert content for a given system to 5e, but that doesn't mean 5e is backwards compatible with anything.
I finally read the Mearls interview on The Escapist. I don't know about an "OGL", but some type of license seems implied. That could just be a matter of licensed adventures (like Kobold's) but apparently they want to wait until the whole game is out. Two advantages there (imo), it gives their adventures an open field initially and puts the question off until they see how the games debut goes. Still, we'll see.
Might not get to far from that. Thing is they can only produce so much and as it stood they followed roughly this method in 4E and never even got to many of their more popular worlds. No Grayhawk, Dragonlance, Birthright or Mystara for example. They pretty much have to choose between supporting a few of their IPs a lot or many of them but each just a little.
|
Every once in a while, I like to make a Traveller character and keep rolling for better stuff until the character dies.
Our Traveller groups always ended up as a lopsided bunch; those who'd used the Mercenary and High Guard generation systems could potentially get 4 times the upgrades you could get from the Core professions, so they'd want to reenlist as many times as they could, in the hope of getting the golden handshake of a free ship in their pension.
So you'd begin the game, and be faced with four murderhobo pensioners, out to blow off some steam, with their laundry list of skills; and that one guy with an ensign who served one term before being dishonourably discharged, with one skill rank to his name, and who was trying to kamikaze his character by behaving like Scrappy Doo.
Meh. WotC is dead to me.
I'll admit that I'm a huge Dragonlance fan. I was introduced to the setting way back in the early 80's with a friend showing me all the DL modules. I bought the novels and fell in love with the setting. Although Sovereign Press produced excellent products and I'm thankful for all of them, it's the continued effort of WotC to push aside Dragonlance support. If there is no Dragonlance support, frankly, I choose not to support WotC. WotC torched my interest in their products and haven't purchased a single item from them since 2006.
I see this trend continuing. I will buy specific Dragonlance material such as D&D Classics pdf's of old content, for example, plus new 5E if produced, but otherwise, not interested. I'll pass even as good as the game may be. I've heard good things about the rules from a gamer friend but refused to look at the rules.
So, in closing, I will say . . . thank the heavens for Pathfinder! My game of choice far into the future.
Interestingly I'm going with a kind of variant of this. I have no desire to switch out of 4E and will just keep playing 4E which means I'd not bother with 5E...however Dragonlance, Darksun or Grayhawk material that gets reasonably good reviews would be the exception. That I'd seriously consider purchasing regardless of the system because I like the worlds.
Might not get to far from that. Thing is they can only produce so much and as it stood they followed roughly this method in 4E and never even got to many of their more popular worlds. No Grayhawk, Dragonlance, Birthright or Mystara for example. They pretty much have to choose between supporting a few of their IPs a lot or many of them but each just a little.
With that they have a pretty unique balance they're forced into trying to maintain.
Don't support enough settings, and they risk customers whose favorite setting doesn't get a mention just not bothering with the new system at all.
Support too many, and we're back in the TSR trap of their own products competing with one another.
Admittedly, the former becomes less and less of an issue over time. The number of actively-playing fans of many of those settings is, alas, dwindling.
Every once in a while, I like to make a Traveller character and keep rolling for better stuff until the character dies.
Our Traveller groups always ended up as a lopsided bunch; those who'd used the Mercenary and High Guard generation systems could potentially get 4 times the upgrades you could get from the Core professions, so they'd want to reenlist as many times as they could, in the hope of getting the golden handshake of a free ship in their pension.
So you'd begin the game, and be faced with four murderhobo pensioners, out to blow off some steam, with their laundry list of skills; and that one guy with an ensign who served one term before being dishonourably discharged, with one skill rank to his name, and who was trying to kamikaze his character by behaving like Scrappy Doo.
We did our own expanded generation systems for any profession that didn't have one. Everybody went year by year, not basic. Saved some trouble in terms of character balance that way. Still, the chance of death in character generation did make Traveller character generation uniquely fun. In a twisted kind of way :D