WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
No it isn't. There certain were the very valid criticisms of the 4e system that helped make it into a (relative) failure but the shitstorm around the GSL was VERY similar to what is going on now. I don't have hard numbers but I know anecdotally that 3PP support for 4e under GSL was a fraction what 3.5 was under OGL 1.0. What percentage of the drop in sales of 4e was marketing, game design, book quality control, and the changes in the GSL I don't know. Still the fact that with 5e they specifically brought back the OGL, bragged about it, saw 3PP support explode compared to 4e and saw a wild success makes it hard to discount the sizeable impact of eliminating the OGL for 4e.
They called 1.1 an OGL. If that is fine with you it will have one.
I was never fine with 1.1 as presented, but it was also never officially released. Neither official press release had anything I found too objectionable either. I'll evaluate 2.0 on its own merits.
It may call itself an OGL, but what they are proposing is not anything like one. I know you think all those tiny third party publishers are predating on poor WotC's back, but there won't likely be any third party support.
4e's failures were many, and part of it was definitely the GSL and lack of third party publisher support. Only a fraction of the companies that had supported 3.x released anything for 4e. With most opting to support Pathfinder. It was also very unpopular because one had to pay to play the game on a subscription basis because 4e was kind of useless without DDI and all signs show that 6e will be the same.
So far all the "playtest" (it's really more like the marketing before a release from what I have seen), has made many of 5e's problems worse. The power level of the player characters did not need to be increased in any way.
Even in the depths of 4e's unpopularity, it still had third party support. OneD&D will too, especially since anything anyone made or makes for 5e will be compatible with it, with minor adjustments. There's a lot of anger in the 3PP community right now, much of it justified - but eventually the prospect of making material for the (still) most popular system will win out.
Pathfinder took the top spot last time because it was merely a refinement of 3.5. PF2 doesn't have that luxury.
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
No it isn't. There certain were the very valid criticisms of the 4e system that helped make it into a (relative) failure but the shitstorm around the GSL was VERY similar to what is going on now. I don't have hard numbers but I know anecdotally that 3PP support for 4e under GSL was a fraction what 3.5 was under OGL 1.0. What percentage of the drop in sales of 4e was marketing, game design, book quality control, and the changes in the GSL I don't know. Still the fact that with 5e they specifically brought back the OGL, bragged about it, saw 3PP support explode compared to 4e and saw a wild success makes it hard to discount the sizeable impact of eliminating the OGL for 4e.
The GSL fiasco is similar to 1.1, yes, but 3.5e->4e is nothing like 5e->1D&D.
They called 1.1 an OGL. If that is fine with you it will have one.
I was never fine with 1.1 as presented, but it was also never officially released. Neither official press release had anything I found too objectionable either. I'll evaluate 2.0 on its own merits.
It may call itself an OGL, but what they are proposing is not anything like one. I know you think all those tiny third party publishers are predating on poor WotC's back, but there won't likely be any third party support.
4e's failures were many, and part of it was definitely the GSL and lack of third party publisher support. Only a fraction of the companies that had supported 3.x released anything for 4e. With most opting to support Pathfinder. It was also very unpopular because one had to pay to play the game on a subscription basis because 4e was kind of useless without DDI and all signs show that 6e will be the same.
So far all the "playtest" (it's really more like the marketing before a release from what I have seen), has made many of 5e's problems worse. The power level of the player characters did not need to be increased in any way.
Even in the depths of 4e's unpopularity, it still had third party support. OneD&D will too, especially since anything anyone made or makes for 5e will be compatible with it, with minor adjustments. There's a lot of anger in the 3PP community right now, much of it justified - but eventually the prospect of making material for the (still) most popular system will win out.
Pathfinder took the top spot last time because it was merely a refinement of 3.5. PF2 doesn't have that luxury.
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
No it isn't. There certain were the very valid criticisms of the 4e system that helped make it into a (relative) failure but the shitstorm around the GSL was VERY similar to what is going on now. I don't have hard numbers but I know anecdotally that 3PP support for 4e under GSL was a fraction what 3.5 was under OGL 1.0. What percentage of the drop in sales of 4e was marketing, game design, book quality control, and the changes in the GSL I don't know. Still the fact that with 5e they specifically brought back the OGL, bragged about it, saw 3PP support explode compared to 4e and saw a wild success makes it hard to discount the sizeable impact of eliminating the OGL for 4e.
The GSL fiasco is similar to 1.1, yes, but 3.5e->4e is nothing like 5e->1D&D.
There the same in the fact that they'll be completely unsupported by any significant third party content
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
1) OneD&D will have an OGL.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
That being true, in the current climate, if someone releases a 5e-compatible system that respects its spirit, but allows third-party content without leonine strings attached, One D&D could be the same as 4e.
And coincidental or not, what is a fact is that 4e, due to the GSL, had infinitely less third party content than 3/3.5
What could happen if practically no one takes advantage of the new OGL? It's a scenario that could happen, and that could lead to the failure of One D&D. It could, which doesn't mean it sure will happen. If WoTC does things right, maybe it can save the edition from disaster. But running out of third-party content is a blow to publishing. Especially if there is a compatible competitor that does have that content.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
So what?? No one is signing it. OGL 2.0 is DOA.
You don't know what third party support would have done for 4e
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
No it isn't. There certain were the very valid criticisms of the 4e system that helped make it into a (relative) failure but the shitstorm around the GSL was VERY similar to what is going on now. I don't have hard numbers but I know anecdotally that 3PP support for 4e under GSL was a fraction what 3.5 was under OGL 1.0. What percentage of the drop in sales of 4e was marketing, game design, book quality control, and the changes in the GSL I don't know. Still the fact that with 5e they specifically brought back the OGL, bragged about it, saw 3PP support explode compared to 4e and saw a wild success makes it hard to discount the sizeable impact of eliminating the OGL for 4e.
Local areas vary, but I remember the criticisms of 4e being about the mechanics of 4e, not about any licensing issues. It was a very unpopular edition, so no surprise there was less 3rd party content produced for it.
Keep in mind that before OGL 1, there was no shortage of 3rd party content.
What would have happened if the fan had liked 4e? We do not know. It's a scenario that didn't happen. But I think WoTC did see something wrong with the GSL, since with 5e it went back to the OGL. And if he returned to the OGL, when he had already tried to get a more restrictive license, it is because he thought it was good for his product that third parties filled it with content. I can't think of any other reason.
I wouldn't even guarantee that 6e will have the bulk of the 5e player base, let alone a fraction of the support from third party publishers. Troll Lord Games, has said they are done with D&D.
As for support for 4e, Kobold Press only list 34 products for 4e. I could only see 1 product for 4e on the Green Ronin web store. Legendary Games list 0. Mongoose Publishing completely abandoned D&D after 3.x as did AEG. EDGE studios (who brought a few different publishers) also have 0. In fact, on DriveThruRPG right now if you search by system for anything published using the 4e/GSL rule system you'll only find 491 products listed. (For the sake of fairness this is not including the official WotC 4e material)
It should also be noted that, although 4e basically made it essential you use DDI, nothing from 3rd party publishers could really be added to it.
Pathfinder 2nd edition may not be on top, but it has a respectable 646 products listed for it on DriveThruRPG, granted that's nothing compared to the 8504 products 5e has listed for it, but it's not like anyone is going to trust WotC anymore. Would also point out that listed for OSR is 9494 products.
What would have happened if the fan had liked 4e? We do not know. It's a scenario that didn't happen. But I think WoTC did see something wrong with the GSL, since with 5e it went back to the OGL. And if he returned to the OGL, when he had already tried to get a more restrictive license, it is because he thought it was good for his product that third parties filled it with content. I can't think of any other reason.
The reality is that Wizards probably wasn't sure exactly what caused 4e to be unsuccessful, so they just reverted a bunch of stuff for 5e.
Even in the depths of 4e's unpopularity, it still had third party support. OneD&D will too, especially since anything anyone made or makes for 5e will be compatible with it, with minor adjustments. There's a lot of anger in the 3PP community right now, much of it justified - but eventually the prospect of making material for the (still) most popular system will win out.
Well 5e is the most popular system. There is no guarantee that 6e will ever be as popular. Lots of people will probably continue to play (and also create for) the current edition. So far I don't see anything so compelling about 6e that will have me running out to buy a new set core rulebooks. The current fiasco certainly doesn't help in that respect. I'm less enthused than ever, and I'm surely not alone.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
So what?? No one is signing it. OGL 2.0 is DOA.
You don't know what third party support would have done for 4e
Like I said, we're about to find out...
We don't know yet what OGL 2.0 is let alone if it's DOA. And 3PP doesn't need to trust WotC, but they all know that any other game, including the most popular Pathfinder 2e, doesn't have even a fraction of a fraction of the 5e playerbase. All we can do right now is wait for the proposal of 2.0 and see what 3rd party creators say then. All 3rd party statements so far have been made with 1.1 in mind, not 2.0.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
WotC has put out 3 editions, 2 were massively successful and 1 failed. 2 featured an OGL and a ton of third party content, 1 didn't. Bizarre coincidence?? I guess we'll find out since One D&D will have no major 3rd party support...
1) OneD&D will have an OGL.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
That being true, in the current climate, if someone releases a 5e-compatible system that respects its spirit, but allows third-party content without leonine strings attached, One D&D could be the same as 4e.
And coincidental or not, what is a fact is that 4e, due to the GSL, had infinitely less third party content than 3/3.5
What could happen if practically no one takes advantage of the new OGL? It's a scenario that could happen, and that could lead to the failure of One D&D. It could, which doesn't mean it sure will happen. If WoTC does things right, maybe it can save the edition from disaster. But running out of third-party content is a blow to publishing. Especially if there is a compatible competitor that does have that content.
Even if they are unsuccessful at recalling 1.0a, and Kobold or someone else is thus free to use it to make a 5.0 clone, the fact remains that things like Adventurer's League, conventions, major retailers etc will move on to 1DnD, so there will be enough of a playerbase for it to justify 3PP coming back into the fold.
And if they ARE successful, the only way to continue making 5e or 1DnD content will be with OGL 2.0, so even more of them will return.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
So what?? No one is signing it. OGL 2.0 is DOA.
You don't know what third party support would have done for 4e
Like I said, we're about to find out...
We don't know yet what OGL 2.0 is let alone if it's DOA. And 3PP doesn't need to trust WotC, but they all know that any other game, including the most popular Pathfinder 2e, doesn't have even a fraction of a fraction of the 5e playerbase. All we can do right now is wait for the proposal of 2.0 and see what 3rd party creators say then. All 3rd party statements so far have been made with 1.1 in mind, not 2.0.
It doesn't need to, all they need is for the more dedicated people, you know, the people who actually buy more than the PHB to support another system and they can survive supporting that. Mongoose, Cubicle 7, EN World, Modiphius all have their own fairly well liked systems and can survive without supporting 6e.
From the leaked 2.0 FAQ, I wouldn't bet on a whole lot changing. Especially if they keep that "we can change this agreement anytime we want" nonsense. The trust is gone.
And if they ARE successful, the only way to continue making 5e or 1DnD content will be with OGL 2.0, so even more of them will return.
Not if conditions are bad. No matter how powerful the brand is, who would accept the conditions proposed by the OGL1.1 leaked document?
But we'll see when the time comes. My prediction is that if they do a restrictive license, almost no one is going to publish under it. It just doesn't make up for it. If someone publishes for D&D it will be through bilateral agreements like Goodman Games does. But not under a license as presented in the leaked OGL 1.1 document.
And if they ARE successful, the only way to continue making 5e or 1DnD content will be with OGL 2.0, so even more of them will return.
That's quite debatable considering they do not own the rules themselves. Creators could legally go right on making the same kind of content for 5e (or even 6e) without using any OGL at all, as long as they don't publish any of the specific wording of the SRD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
So what?? No one is signing it. OGL 2.0 is DOA.
You don't know what third party support would have done for 4e
Like I said, we're about to find out...
We don't know yet what OGL 2.0 is let alone if it's DOA. And 3PP doesn't need to trust WotC, but they all know that any other game, including the most popular Pathfinder 2e, doesn't have even a fraction of a fraction of the 5e playerbase. All we can do right now is wait for the proposal of 2.0 and see what 3rd party creators say then. All 3rd party statements so far have been made with 1.1 in mind, not 2.0.
We can wait. But most significant third parties have said they're not bothering to. They're not signing anything Wizards puts out. They're moving forward in another direction. Who hasn't made this statement other than Ghostfire and CR??
The statement was made when 1.1 was all we had. When 2.0 drops, things might go differently. As burned as they are, 3PP won't abandon D&D yet if 2.0 is good enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
The statement was made when 1.1 was all we had. When 2.0 drops, things might go differently. As burned as they are, 3PP won't abandon D&D yet if 2.0 is good enough.
We can wait. But most significant third parties have said they're not bothering to. They're not signing anything Wizards puts out. They're moving forward in another direction. Who hasn't made this statement other than Ghostfire and CR??
I know what they said. If 1DnD remains the most popular system - or even the second-most or third-most popular - in the industry, we'll see if they stick to those guns.
And if they ARE successful, the only way to continue making 5e or 1DnD content will be with OGL 2.0, so even more of them will return.
Not if conditions are bad. No matter how powerful the brand is, who would accept the conditions proposed by the OGL1.1 leaked document?
But we'll see when the time comes. My prediction is that if they do a restrictive license, almost no one is going to publish under it. It just doesn't make up for it. If someone publishes for D&D it will be through bilateral agreements like Goodman Games does. But not under a license as presented in the leaked OGL 1.1 document.
On that much we agree, if 2.0's provisions are as onerous as those of 1.1 then it will fail. But I think there's a middle ground there.
Regardless of what you think of the requirement for a new OGL, the statement from WOTC was patronising and, to many, sounded insincere. If Wizards and Hasbro want to start winning back their customers, the new OGL process needs to be utterly transparent from this point on and allow customers, 3rd party creators and Wizards' own staff to be able to provide constructive criticism without fear of repercussions. If not, there'll be very little trust from creators and a lot of richness and diversity will be lost to other systems.
On a point a lot of us have not been able to to accept, Wizards' claim that they wanted to be the moral filter for any and all content is ludicrous; ignoring the recent faux pas in an official WOTC product, whose morals are going to be judged correct? Will the laws of whichever state Wizards' morality police are based in be the measure of whether a European creator's module is acceptable? If someone wants to publish something with offensive content, they'll do it and not give a damn about what WOTC say.
If what you want is a license to print anything you want regardless of content or morality, then a major corporation's license with their very name in the text is not going to be for you.
2) 4e failed because it was a huge departure from the widely popular design of the previous edition (3.5), focusing more on rigid rules and class balance than on ease of play. OneD&D is not repeating that mistake, it's aimed at being a refinement of the edition most people love rather than a radical revision.
Your "bizarre coincidence" is comparing apples to oranges.
So what?? No one is signing it. OGL 2.0 is DOA.
You don't know what third party support would have done for 4e
Like I said, we're about to find out...
We don't know yet what OGL 2.0 is let alone if it's DOA. And 3PP doesn't need to trust WotC, but they all know that any other game, including the most popular Pathfinder 2e, doesn't have even a fraction of a fraction of the 5e playerbase. All we can do right now is wait for the proposal of 2.0 and see what 3rd party creators say then. All 3rd party statements so far have been made with 1.1 in mind, not 2.0.
It doesn't need to, all they need is for the more dedicated people, you know, the people who actually buy more than the PHB to support another system and they can survive supporting that. Mongoose, Cubicle 7, EN World, Modiphius all have their own fairly well liked systems and can survive without supporting 6e.
From the leaked 2.0 FAQ, I wouldn't bet on a whole lot changing. Especially if they keep that "we can change this agreement anytime we want" nonsense. The trust is gone.
I don't have a problem with them being able to change the license further in the future. My only issue with that provision was the 30 days notice; if they lengthened that (to at least 6 months, but I wouldn't be opposed to a year or more even) then I would be fine with that.
The statement was made when 1.1 was all we had. When 2.0 drops, things might go differently. As burned as they are, 3PP won't abandon D&D yet if 2.0 is good enough.
I don't think you're correct.
They could maybe but they'd have to entirely concede on 1.0 and 1.0a. And also strip all parts of the new version that allows them to change it on a whim. And them cement these in stone in such a way that we all are certain they can't try to reng later. I'd imagine that would bring folks back. But I have zero expectation that's what wotc will do.
They've already responded and made no indication they see that as even an option, in fact their goal remains the diminished or nullified use of original ogls. Their goal hasn't changed they're trying to accomplish the same thing. Just with an extra coat of paint on it in the form of blatant lies and misdirection.
All they've done so far is rephrase their original goal in a vaguely patronizing tone, while gaslighting their community in an effort to pacify the outrage. It's been effective on some, not at all effective on others, and regardless of effectiveness its revealed their motivation to be exactly what we feared it was.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No it isn't. There certain were the very valid criticisms of the 4e system that helped make it into a (relative) failure but the shitstorm around the GSL was VERY similar to what is going on now. I don't have hard numbers but I know anecdotally that 3PP support for 4e under GSL was a fraction what 3.5 was under OGL 1.0. What percentage of the drop in sales of 4e was marketing, game design, book quality control, and the changes in the GSL I don't know. Still the fact that with 5e they specifically brought back the OGL, bragged about it, saw 3PP support explode compared to 4e and saw a wild success makes it hard to discount the sizeable impact of eliminating the OGL for 4e.
I was never fine with 1.1 as presented, but it was also never officially released. Neither official press release had anything I found too objectionable either. I'll evaluate 2.0 on its own merits.
Even in the depths of 4e's unpopularity, it still had third party support. OneD&D will too, especially since anything anyone made or makes for 5e will be compatible with it, with minor adjustments. There's a lot of anger in the 3PP community right now, much of it justified - but eventually the prospect of making material for the (still) most popular system will win out.
Pathfinder took the top spot last time because it was merely a refinement of 3.5. PF2 doesn't have that luxury.
The GSL fiasco is similar to 1.1, yes, but 3.5e->4e is nothing like 5e->1D&D.
There the same in the fact that they'll be completely unsupported by any significant third party content
That being true, in the current climate, if someone releases a 5e-compatible system that respects its spirit, but allows third-party content without leonine strings attached, One D&D could be the same as 4e.
And coincidental or not, what is a fact is that 4e, due to the GSL, had infinitely less third party content than 3/3.5
What could happen if practically no one takes advantage of the new OGL? It's a scenario that could happen, and that could lead to the failure of One D&D. It could, which doesn't mean it sure will happen. If WoTC does things right, maybe it can save the edition from disaster. But running out of third-party content is a blow to publishing. Especially if there is a compatible competitor that does have that content.
So what?? No one is signing it. OGL 2.0 is DOA.
You don't know what third party support would have done for 4e
Like I said, we're about to find out...
What would have happened if the fan had liked 4e? We do not know. It's a scenario that didn't happen. But I think WoTC did see something wrong with the GSL, since with 5e it went back to the OGL. And if he returned to the OGL, when he had already tried to get a more restrictive license, it is because he thought it was good for his product that third parties filled it with content. I can't think of any other reason.
I wouldn't even guarantee that 6e will have the bulk of the 5e player base, let alone a fraction of the support from third party publishers. Troll Lord Games, has said they are done with D&D.
As for support for 4e, Kobold Press only list 34 products for 4e. I could only see 1 product for 4e on the Green Ronin web store. Legendary Games list 0. Mongoose Publishing completely abandoned D&D after 3.x as did AEG. EDGE studios (who brought a few different publishers) also have 0. In fact, on DriveThruRPG right now if you search by system for anything published using the 4e/GSL rule system you'll only find 491 products listed. (For the sake of fairness this is not including the official WotC 4e material)
It should also be noted that, although 4e basically made it essential you use DDI, nothing from 3rd party publishers could really be added to it.
Pathfinder 2nd edition may not be on top, but it has a respectable 646 products listed for it on DriveThruRPG, granted that's nothing compared to the 8504 products 5e has listed for it, but it's not like anyone is going to trust WotC anymore. Would also point out that listed for OSR is 9494 products.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
The reality is that Wizards probably wasn't sure exactly what caused 4e to be unsuccessful, so they just reverted a bunch of stuff for 5e.
Well 5e is the most popular system. There is no guarantee that 6e will ever be as popular. Lots of people will probably continue to play (and also create for) the current edition. So far I don't see anything so compelling about 6e that will have me running out to buy a new set core rulebooks. The current fiasco certainly doesn't help in that respect. I'm less enthused than ever, and I'm surely not alone.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieWe don't know yet what OGL 2.0 is let alone if it's DOA. And 3PP doesn't need to trust WotC, but they all know that any other game, including the most popular Pathfinder 2e, doesn't have even a fraction of a fraction of the 5e playerbase. All we can do right now is wait for the proposal of 2.0 and see what 3rd party creators say then. All 3rd party statements so far have been made with 1.1 in mind, not 2.0.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Even if they are unsuccessful at recalling 1.0a, and Kobold or someone else is thus free to use it to make a 5.0 clone, the fact remains that things like Adventurer's League, conventions, major retailers etc will move on to 1DnD, so there will be enough of a playerbase for it to justify 3PP coming back into the fold.
And if they ARE successful, the only way to continue making 5e or 1DnD content will be with OGL 2.0, so even more of them will return.
Maybe, we'll see. Regardless of the bruised feelings of some 3PP creators, they'll ultimately go where the players are.
It doesn't need to, all they need is for the more dedicated people, you know, the people who actually buy more than the PHB to support another system and they can survive supporting that. Mongoose, Cubicle 7, EN World, Modiphius all have their own fairly well liked systems and can survive without supporting 6e.
From the leaked 2.0 FAQ, I wouldn't bet on a whole lot changing. Especially if they keep that "we can change this agreement anytime we want" nonsense. The trust is gone.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Not if conditions are bad. No matter how powerful the brand is, who would accept the conditions proposed by the OGL1.1 leaked document?
But we'll see when the time comes. My prediction is that if they do a restrictive license, almost no one is going to publish under it. It just doesn't make up for it. If someone publishes for D&D it will be through bilateral agreements like Goodman Games does. But not under a license as presented in the leaked OGL 1.1 document.
That's quite debatable considering they do not own the rules themselves. Creators could legally go right on making the same kind of content for 5e (or even 6e) without using any OGL at all, as long as they don't publish any of the specific wording of the SRD.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieWe can wait. But most significant third parties have said they're not bothering to. They're not signing anything Wizards puts out. They're moving forward in another direction. Who hasn't made this statement other than Ghostfire and CR??
The statement was made when 1.1 was all we had. When 2.0 drops, things might go differently. As burned as they are, 3PP won't abandon D&D yet if 2.0 is good enough.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I don't think you're correct.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
I know what they said. If 1DnD remains the most popular system - or even the second-most or third-most popular - in the industry, we'll see if they stick to those guns.
On that much we agree, if 2.0's provisions are as onerous as those of 1.1 then it will fail. But I think there's a middle ground there.
If what you want is a license to print anything you want regardless of content or morality, then a major corporation's license with their very name in the text is not going to be for you.
I don't have a problem with them being able to change the license further in the future. My only issue with that provision was the 30 days notice; if they lengthened that (to at least 6 months, but I wouldn't be opposed to a year or more even) then I would be fine with that.
They could maybe but they'd have to entirely concede on 1.0 and 1.0a. And also strip all parts of the new version that allows them to change it on a whim. And them cement these in stone in such a way that we all are certain they can't try to reng later. I'd imagine that would bring folks back. But I have zero expectation that's what wotc will do.
They've already responded and made no indication they see that as even an option, in fact their goal remains the diminished or nullified use of original ogls. Their goal hasn't changed they're trying to accomplish the same thing. Just with an extra coat of paint on it in the form of blatant lies and misdirection.
All they've done so far is rephrase their original goal in a vaguely patronizing tone, while gaslighting their community in an effort to pacify the outrage. It's been effective on some, not at all effective on others, and regardless of effectiveness its revealed their motivation to be exactly what we feared it was.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.