Legends&Lore: Gazing into the Crystal Ball

[Stray]

New article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140529), gives little insight into what will be in Basic D&D and what won't be, who is it for and so on. It also announces that details about 5th edition's version of OGL/GSL/"the program" will be revealed this fall, details are still in flux and it will launch sometime in early 2015.

[Lokiare]

New article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140529), gives little insight into what will be in Basic D&D and what won't be, who is it for and so on. It also announces that details about 5th edition's version of OGL/GSL/"the program" will be revealed this fall, details are still in flux and it will launch sometime in early 2015.

Wow, I think Mearls can say almost nothing with quite a few words. The entire article basically boils down to "The 3rd party license details will come out some time in 2015".

As to the actual contents of the license I highly doubt it will be as open as the OGL. That gave rise to Pathfinder a stiff competitor. I think we'll see something similar to the final 4E GSL. Basically without all the poison pill stuff in it that prevents making products for other games or other editions of D&D and pulling the ability to destroy material if they have a whim.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Wow, I think Mearls can say almost nothing with quite a few words. The entire article basically boils down to "The 3rd party license details will come out some time in 2015".

As to the actual contents of the license I highly doubt it will be as open as the OGL. That gave rise to Pathfinder a stiff competitor. I think we'll see something similar to the final 4E GSL. Basically without all the poison pill stuff in it that prevents making products for other games or other editions of D&D and pulling the ability to destroy material if they have a whim.

Well it really wasn't the OGL that made Paizo a competitor but the falling out that the two companies had. For a long time Paizo worked directly for WotC, I still have my books that have Paizo advertisements (blue guy) in them.

The GSL is why Paizo focused on the 3.5 OGL to make their product. Paizo originally was going to follow WotC but yeah those poison pills... People have tons of quotes from around the time saying Paizo was going to follow 4e... and then when the GSL was so harsh, Paizo people started saying they just didn't like the 4e system when in fact they just couldn't, as a company, work under the 4e license and make money and played it off like they hated the system. Good business strategy really.

The OGL just gave Paizo a footing to compete with the new system by keeping the old system alive. WotC may want to work some bussiness savy magic and allow companies to use 5e rules to help push Pathfinder to the wayside.

There were a few ideas thrown around on what WotC could do to open up the license but still make their money. Replicate the apple store where you can make whatever you want but you have to sell it through their store (where they make some money off from the sale). Open up old stuff in this same store (coughandclassicscough) and you would control the market again even if you don't control the content.

[Lokiare]

Well it really wasn't the OGL that made Paizo a competitor but the falling out that the two companies had. For a long time Paizo worked directly for WotC, I still have my books that have Paizo advertisements (blue guy) in them.

The GSL is why Paizo focused on the 3.5 OGL to make their product. Paizo originally was going to follow WotC but yeah those poison pills... People have tons of quotes from around the time saying Paizo was going to follow 4e... and then when the GSL was so harsh, Paizo people started saying they just didn't like the 4e system when in fact they just couldn't, as a company, work under the 4e license and make money and played it off like they hated the system. Good business strategy really.

The OGL just gave Paizo a footing to compete with the new system by keeping the old system alive. WotC may want to work some bussiness savy magic and allow companies to use 5e rules to help push Pathfinder to the wayside.

There were a few ideas thrown around on what WotC could do to open up the license but still make their money. Replicate the apple store where you can make whatever you want but you have to sell it through their store (where they make some money off from the sale). Open up old stuff in this same store (coughandclassicscough) and you would control the market again even if you don't control the content.

I was one of the first people to suggest the app store idea on the WotC forums. Also I wouldn't use the words 'business savvy' in the same sentence with WotC. Maybe if they got a change of management or even just consulted a PR firm and a business firm, but right now they are still blundering around with no real idea of what's going on with game developers making the decisions that should be made by business professionals.

[Fralex]

Oooh, cool, I didn't realize there'd be stuff for helping you create your own monsters! That's awesome! I love creating monsters!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I was one of the first people to suggest the app store idea on the WotC forums. Also I wouldn't use the words 'business savvy' in the same sentence with WotC. Maybe if they got a change of management or even just consulted a PR firm and a business firm, but right now they are still blundering around with no real idea of what's going on with game developers making the decisions that should be made by business professionals.

I'm still in optimist mode for 5e until proven otherwise. But generally I agree that WotC =/= business savy, but I hope they would outsource these decisions.

I kinda figured HASBRO would lay the smack down on WotC and make them use real business strategy and such.

[archaeo]

This all sounds like the introduction of a D&D "App Store," to me, which is a business model that seems like a real win-win for WotC and the logical endpoint of the free-to-play model they're going in with Basic D&D.

So, for the remainder of 2014, they focus on selling books and adventures and introducing everyone to the core rules. Then they introduce the D&D store and open it up to everybody. If I was WotC, I would split up all of the classes, rules modules, and monster "packs" and pop them in the store at microtransaction levels, so that players can mix-and-match the rules. Homebrewers can upload their rules/adventure work to the store and make a little money off of it while WotC takes its cut. Ideally, they make this store free to participate in (no Apple-style developer fees) and include lots of free content deals. They will also hopefully hire excellent community managers who can steer people toward the best content.

This is obviously not the 3e Wild West. But for WotC, it would be the best of all worlds. It would get everybody who wants to be involved in making D&D inside their storefront, it would allow them to monetize the homebrew culture, and it would prevent the creation of a new Paizo. It also gives them much greater control over how much bloat happens, especially if they exercise some curatorial skills. And it takes the best part of the fan output and gives it much more primacy, removing it from the shadows of forums like this and putting it on a Wizards.com address.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. But that's what I'd do, if I was in charge. A microtransaction storefront.

[Stubbazubba]

Yes, I love the App Store idea. Roll20 had already got this going for it and I think it's working out pretty well for them.

WotC could monetize the larger presses by letting them pay for premium display space without raising a barrier to entry like the App Store's developer fees.

[Person_Man]

This announcement was prompted by a lot of Twitter feedback and threads on the WotC website (including one I started (http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4093976)) that the "free Basic" Next was basically an announcement that there wasn't going to be an OGL. With this opaque non-announcement, Mearls has basically confirmed that there won't be a meaningful OGL.

If a third party publisher is going to establish themselves and do well supporting a particular rule set, the best time to do so early in the edition when people want new content the most and competition for that new content is the smallest. Not having an OGL or anything like it until 2015 kneecaps any support from third party publishers.

And based on recent history, there is going to be a major revision/correction/update to 5th edition in about 2-4 years, followed by a 6th edition 2-4 years later. If Hasbro does put out an OGL towards the middle or end of the 5E run, they run the risk of creating another Pathfinder-like competitor for 6th edition, which is something they're not going to so.

Thus, this announcement is just a confirmation that they’ve given up on the idea of an evergreen core set of rules supported by third party publishers, are will never do an OGL.

[Psyren]

This announcement was prompted by a lot of Twitter feedback and threads on the WotC website (including one I started (http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4093976)) that the "free Basic" Next was basically an announcement that there wasn't going to be an OGL. With this opaque non-announcement, Mearls has basically confirmed that there won't be a meaningful OGL.

If a third party publisher is going to establish themselves and do well supporting a particular rule set, the best time to do so early in the edition when people want new content the most and competition for that new content is the smallest. Not having an OGL or anything like it until 2015 kneecaps any support from third party publishers.

And based on recent history, there is going to be a major revision/correction/update to 5th edition in about 2-4 years, followed by a 6th edition 2-4 years later. If Hasbro does put out an OGL towards the middle or end of the 5E run, they run the risk of creating another Pathfinder-like competitor for 6th edition, which is something they're not going to so.

Thus, this announcement is just a confirmation that they’ve given up on the idea of an evergreen core set of rules supported by third party publishers, are will never do an OGL.

This is my gut feeling as well.


Wow, I think Mearls can say almost nothing with quite a few words. The entire article basically boils down to "The 3rd party license details will come out some time in 2015".

Indeed, it's a fat lot of nothing. Though we can read between the lines and see legal specters hovering over every word, which doesn't exactly bode well (as Person_Man eloquently laid out.)



The GSL is why Paizo focused on the 3.5 OGL to make their product. Paizo originally was going to follow WotC but yeah those poison pills... People have tons of quotes from around the time saying Paizo was going to follow 4e... and then when the GSL was so harsh, Paizo people started saying they just didn't like the 4e system when in fact they just couldn't, as a company, work under the 4e license and make money and played it off like they hated the system. Good business strategy really.

I think it was in fact a mix of both. Yeah the GSL pushed them to full-scale abandonment of 4e but even if 4e had a genuine OGL I think they still would have been publishing 3.5 material because that system, for all its flaws, is just so easy to brew for. (Besides which, all their Golarion stuff to that point had been in 3.5 and I can imagine they wouldn't want to leave all those fans out in the cold.)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think it was in fact a mix of both. Yeah the GSL pushed them to full-scale abandonment of 4e but even if 4e had a genuine OGL I think they still would have been publishing 3.5 material because that system, for all its flaws, is just so easy to brew for. (Besides which, all their Golarion stuff to that point had been in 3.5 and I can imagine they wouldn't want to leave all those fans out in the cold.)

I can dig that.

I just feel like their 3.5 stuff would have taken a major back seat to their 4e stuff.

Though... If Paizo and WotC didn't have a falling out we may have gotten an actual 3.75 edition of D&D (pathfinder is more of 3.5.1) with all the splat books too. While making 4e stuff Paizo may have had a team allowed to rewrite MoI, ToB, or ToM (is tome of magic the one with the Binder/Shadow caster/Truenamer?).

I know there are third party ones coming out for PF, but it would have been nice to be able to play a tier 3 Non-Caster when I get pulled into PF games.

[Psyren]

I can dig that.

I just feel like their 3.5 stuff would have taken a major back seat to their 4e stuff.

Though... If Paizo and WotC didn't have a falling out we may have gotten an actual 3.75 edition of D&D (pathfinder is more of 3.5.1) with all the splat books too. While making 4e stuff Paizo may have had a team allowed to rewrite MoI, ToB, or ToM (is tome of magic the one with the Binder/Shadow caster/Truenamer?).

Well that's the beauty of PF - because it's all open, they DO have teams (namely, 3rd party publishers) rewriting ToB and MoI. (Path of War and Akashic Mysteries respectively, and Mysteries of Pact Magic for the Binder.) They don't have to wait for a cost-benefit analysis from Marketing or a budget from Accounting or approval from Legal etc. And if you're not happy with what they come up with, because it's all OGL you can publish your own material that builds on and improves both. And while it's a long-shot, Paizo themselves can pick up any pieces they like and incorporate them into APs. And because the 3PPs picked up those projects voluntarily, you get a lot more passion there than the main publisher would have otherwise had. I would even argue that the need to avoid infringing on the existing work focuses their creativity even more. It's all a very intricate symbiosis.

4e and, it seems 5e, are poised to move away from all that, and that is perhaps my biggest reason for sticking with PF overall. It has its flaws but you can easily patch the parts you don't like and even socialize your patches to the community, just like open source software.


I know there are third party ones coming out for PF, but it would have been nice to be able to play a tier 3 Non-Caster when I get pulled into PF games.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "caster." For instance, a ninja or occultist could be seen as one or they could not, depending on your definition - both use magic but neither uses spells.

But remember too that T4 isn't the end of the world and still has plenty of options. Aegis is T4, as are Warshade Fighter and Trapper Ranger.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Well that's the beauty of PF - because it's all open, they DO have teams (namely, 3rd party publishers) rewriting ToB and MoI. (Path of War and Akashic Mysteries respectively, and Mysteries of Pact Magic for the Binder.) They don't have to wait for a cost-benefit analysis from Marketing or a budget from Accounting or approval from Legal etc. And if you're not happy with what they come up with, because it's all OGL you can publish your own material that builds on and improves both. And while it's a long-shot, Paizo themselves can pick up any pieces they like and incorporate them into APs. And because the 3PPs picked up those projects voluntarily, you get a lot more passion there than the main publisher would have otherwise had. I would even argue that the need to avoid infringing on the existing work focuses their creativity even more. It's all a very intricate symbiosis.

4e and, it seems 5e, are poised to move away from all that, and that is perhaps my biggest reason for sticking with PF overall. It has its flaws but you can easily patch the parts you don't like and even socialize your patches to the community, just like open source software.



I suppose this depends on what you mean by "caster." For instance, a ninja or occultist could be seen as one or they could not, depending on your definition - both use magic but neither uses spells.

But remember too that T4 isn't the end of the world and still has plenty of options. Aegis is T4, as are Warshade Fighter and Trapper Ranger.

So far with PF new stuff I'm not that impressed. The MoI remake looks the most promising though and will definitely buy the book/PDF when it comes out if I think it is even half as good as the original. One of the biggest problems I have with PF is that the math doesn't work for CMB/CMD and this book will be another "magic can do it but screw you non-casters" kind of deal. Which is sad but the state of PF right now.

I don't mind playing tier 4 classes... To a point. But when you have to have very specific builds in order to get to tier 4 it gets pretty troublesome. If you don't stay on your path then you might as well forget it, cersitility is what I like and non-casters just don't get tha (because in a fantasy game why would non-casters ever be able to be versatile and useful?:smallmad: ).

Easy definition... And yes I know in 3.5 that actually casting spells is a Ex ability since it isn't Natural, Spell-Like, or Supernatural... I wonder why they never made spellcasting its own thing?

Caster: Relies primarily on Supernatural, Spell-like, or Spells. If you are using Ex then it is a last resort, a trick, or for the Lol.

Partial Caster: Relies on both Ex and Su, So, or Spells. The Ex takes a back seat to one of the other abilities.

Non-Caster: Relies on Ex abilities as a primary class function or feature. May have some Su, Sp, or Spells but they take a back seat to the Ex abilities.

[Psyren]

So far with PF new stuff I'm not that impressed. The MoI remake looks the most promising though and will definitely buy the book/PDF when it comes out if I think it is even half as good as the original. One of the biggest problems I have with PF is that the math doesn't work for CMB/CMD and this book will be another "magic can do it but screw you non-casters" kind of deal. Which is sad but the state of PF right now.

I don't mind playing tier 4 classes... To a point. But when you have to have very specific builds in order to get to tier 4 it gets pretty troublesome. If you don't stay on your path then you might as well forget it, cersitility is what I like and non-casters just don't get tha (because in a fantasy game why would non-casters ever be able to be versatile and useful?:smallmad: ).

I agree the CMB/CMD thing is rough math later on but it's easily fixed. I can just bump up the numbers in the "Improved/Greater X" feats, and recombine them. I don't know whether 5e will be that easy to tweak.


Easy definition... And yes I know in 3.5 that actually casting spells is a Ex ability since it isn't Natural, Spell-Like, or Supernatural... I wonder why they never made spellcasting its own thing?

You have that backward - natural is the default if not called out anywhere else.

"Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

One specific creature has an Ex ability that gives it spellcasting (the Lilitu from FC1) - for the others, including all classes, it is not Ex.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I agree the CMB/CMD thing is rough math later on but it's easily fixed. I can just bump up the numbers in the "Improved/Greater X" feats, and recombine them. I don't know whether 5e will be that easy to tweak.



You have that backward - natural is the default if not called out anywhere else.

"Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

One specific creature has an Ex ability that gives it spellcasting (the Lilitu from FC1) - for the others, including all classes, it is not Ex.

Yeah not getting into that debate. I remember the thread a while back that described how spellcasting is in fact Ex. Doesn't matter though.

When I run a 3.P game I turn the CMB/CMD system into a saving throw system. Sweet and simple and I would hope next does this... If they fix their saving throw system *sigh*