Things to take into consideration before publishing on DMsG

[Mike Myler]

Let me get this right.
You think the OGL is bad because they give you enough t play with for free but they dont give you their whole product for free?

I think the 5ESRD is unnecessarily contracted from the core rules and that puts people *not* publishing in THE OFFICIAL D&D MARKETPLACE (emphasis not mine) at a huge disadvantage, and that they didn't really have a choice about putting something out to address the OGL because of the way copyright functions in the United States (see original post).

Paizo has branched into other products but unlike Hasbro - their RPG line is their big line - it is what drives the company.
Nonetheless - Paizo doing things well is a good thing and not in argument here.
The Wizards have created a way for every man and his dog to published licensed material and you call that bad.
They have not stopped you creating content on your own store or blog or on OBS. Except of course they will continue to protect their PI and IP as they should.
Other publishers have started similar marketplaces. The fact that we dont hear about them is mostly because 5E is the game that most people play most of the time. Most of the RPG industry is 5e.
The RPG industry gets bigger every time D&D gets bigger.
So what if D&D gets the lions share of $$. People choose what they want to spend their money on and they overwhelmingly choose to spend it on 5e.
The Wizards opened up a market for indie publishers and first timers to not only be able to easily publish content for 5e but to also have access to a huge swathe of PI and IP.
This has not in any way prevented publishers from doing their own thing.
If the DMsG proves to be more popular than 3P publishers own products and distribution channels then it probably means they are doing something right.

Wizards created a way for every man and his dog to publish licensed material when the OGL was released with D&D 3rd edition. They tried to walk it back with the 4th Edition GSL and it blew up in their faces. What they decided to do for 5th Edition was make a marketplace as hostile as possible to any serious publishing entity, so while the marketplace itself grows larger, their fenced in area grows at equal proportion to the detriment of the industry (because their marketplace shafts layout artists, illustrators and others).
As noted earlier, this is not a good thing because it gives the impression to new people in the industry that the only way they can publish 5E material is to surrender their ideas to the DMsGuild.

Are you mad because people choose to buy 5E? Otherwise your first point has gone over my head. Yes D&D 5E is very popular and people both spend money on it and play it. people like it.
Paizo's share is split between 2 systems? Unlike all the other RPG publishers out there that have multiple products? What does this matter? More people still play AD&D than play most other RPGs on the market.

I'm upset over the fact that where there should be a flourishing garden of RPG publishers employing four times as many designers (and cartographers, and editors, and developers) there's not, and it's plain why that is. I'm mad that people that want to do this full-time have more barriers in front of them and less opportunities than I had now in this larger market than in the smaller market made by a company that cares about the industry surrounding it (a market this one has certainly taken up folks from).
FYI I still design full-time and largely for 5th Edition. I'm the editor for the EN5ider patreon and as far as I can find out, the only person anywhere in a position to just hire 5E designers off the proverbial street for hard cash. If you aren't already in the dugout for a legacy publisher (Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc.) you're out of luck and left to fight against the wave of constant amateur content on DMs Guild all sold at rock-bottom prices. When I started there were more than a dozen publishers of what was then the most popular RPG in the world hiring out design work.

So now that OBS have two channels for aspiring RPG publishers to get their stuff out there - one with higher costs but a tonne of material for you to use and a ready made licensing agreement and another more traditional channel - you think its harder for people to become successful RPG publishers.

That's my point. There aren't really two channels. There's one massive sea over here that they point to as much as possible, and a tiny lake that's pushed into the distant background. Also the OGL is itself a licensing agreement (OGL=Open Game License) so I disagree with the assertion that DMsGuild somehow makes licensing easier aside from the mechanics omitted from the 5ESRD to make it harder to use.

I totally get that this is your view point and that of some others.

I cannot see how this additional channel and additional licensing arrangement is an imposition.
We all now have more opportunity to become publishers and more options about the channels and licensing that we choose.
Thats my view.

I respect your view, but I am doing my best to try to curtail people who want to make games for a living from getting lost in the hostile place that Hasbro has engineered to prevent them from succeeding. I'm just trying to help people here, and I hope you (or anyone else) aren't hurt or offended in the attempt. We all love gaming, we all love D&D, and I lament that the latest industry leader isn't as benevolent and forward-thinking an entity as the previous one.

[damned]

I respect your view, but I am doing my best to try to curtail people who want to make games for a living from getting lost in the hostile place that Hasbro has engineered to prevent them from succeeding. I'm just trying to help people here, and I hope you (or anyone else) aren't hurt or offended in the attempt. We all love gaming, we all love D&D, and I lament that the latest industry leader isn't as benevolent and forward-thinking an entity as the previous one.

No offense taken here.

[Myrdin Potter]

The DMS Guild has opened up the market the same way the original OGL did. Smaller "publishers" can use the whole rulebook and the key IP and publish. It also saves WoTC from dealing with thousands of specific requests to use their IP, it is all there. They just added Eberron to the list of available IP as well. The "IP" that the average person gives up is tiny compared to what they can use.

The OGL is very permissive and pretty complete. There are a handful of spells and monsters not there, but the only major thing missing is the classes and backgrounds. Many publishers just assume that their customers own the main rulebooks and go from there. Some, like Kobold Press, did a whole new world (Midgard) with classes and backgrounds.

Since WoTC is offering two paths and you are free to choose which you want, I really don't see the point. The agreements are all open as well and you get to choose.

[JohnD]

Five posts and nothing to do directly with Fantasy Grounds. Seems like you're on the wrong forum, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

[Mike Myler]

The DMS Guild has opened up the market the same way the original OGL did. Smaller "publishers" can use the whole rulebook and the key IP and publish. It also saves WoTC from dealing with thousands of specific requests to use their IP, it is all there. They just added Eberron to the list of available IP as well. The "IP" that the average person gives up is tiny compared to what they can use.

The OGL is very permissive and pretty complete. There are a handful of spells and monsters not there, but the only major thing missing is the classes and backgrounds. Many publishers just assume that their customers own the main rulebooks and go from there. Some, like Kobold Press, did a whole new world (Midgard) with classes and backgrounds.

Since WoTC is offering two paths and you are free to choose which you want, I really don't see the point. The agreements are all open as well and you get to choose.

Sure there's lots of IP to work with from WotC. The issue is that there's no way to share your own IP on THE D&D MARKETPLACE (again emphasis not mine) on anywhere near equal footing, and if you do, you lose ownership of it. Which I find to be cruel. As mentioned elsewhere in my posts, there's not a damn thing stopping them from altering this and many people (seven that I know of means dozens if not scores or hundreds that never came into contact with me) got suckered into publishing their ideas in a place where they cannot go anywhere.
Also no requests are required to utilize anything that's OGL. What you folks keep conflating I think is compatibility licenses which have to do with branding. You can go post something for Pathfinder right now and have a good time with it (even make it naughty if you like). If you want to slap the "Pathfinder compatible" logo on there you need an agreement (which is slightly censored). There is definitely not any kind of 5E compatible logo from WotC, just their slaving brand, in that marketplace where you aren't allowed any branding of yourself.

The DMsGuild has not opened the market the same way the OGL did. The parts of the rules not included in the 3eSRD (very specific monsters) I think can be listed off with one hand. By not including most of the class archetypes, nearly all of the feats, and nearly all of the backgrounds (plus a bunch of other minor things, as you noted, like spells, magic items, all but one artifact, etc.) in the 5eSRD OGL publishers have to reword and therein de-legitimize their work (because while I might be able to refer to an eldritch knight as a legacy term protected under an earlier SRD, any class features need worded differently or it violates copyright). I'm constantly surprised (even after years of working with the material on a daily basis) by the things not included in the 5eSRD or cleverly hidden inside of other parts of the rules text that are OGL where the parent content isn't.

The point is that there are many people that believe the DMsGuild is the only place they can publish 5E material, and those people are being unfairly treated by this erroneous perception that Hasbro/OBS have no intention of correcting. These people are being injured by this practice, forced into a marketplace custom-made for them to fail inside of, and ultimately driven away from an industry that should embrace them. There shouldn't be dozens of people able to make a living off of 3PP for 5th Edition, there should be hundreds.

Five posts and nothing to do directly with Fantasy Grounds. Seems like you're on the wrong forum, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Here ya go John: Fantasy Grounds partnering with DMsGuild makes a bunch of sense for them. They are competing against a freaking kaiju so it's not a surprise that when the opportunity to gain some leverage opened up they took it. I'm figuring that they either didn't really consider all of the points I've been listing out here, or they just don't care beyond keeping the ship afloat.
Also I'm not the person that originally posted my (formerly) private thoughts on DMsGuild here in this public forum, and I have a responsibility to see that explained in full. Sorry it's not more FG-centric.

[LordEntrails]

I think the 5ESRD is unnecessarily contracted from the core rules and that puts people *not* publishing in THE OFFICIAL D&D MARKETPLACE (emphasis not mine) at a huge disadvantage...

You keep coming back to this. You want the 5E SRD to have everything the 3E one did. Yet, later on you practically admit that the 3E SRD was a huge business mistake from the perspective of Wizards. And if you didn't/don't, you would have a hard time arguing that it wasn't a mistake. Without it, all the shenanigans and lapse and other mistakes would not have caused the problems that WotC had after releasing the 3E SRD.

WotC has a legal and fiduciary responsibilities to not do the same thing again. For them to repeat the 3E SRD with the 5E SRD would be not only a bad business decision, but could be a legal problem.

Wizards created a way for every man and his dog to publish licensed material when the OGL was released with D&D 3rd edition.

And they have done so again with the Guild. Even easier to do so than with the 3E SRD.

.... What they decided to do for 5th Edition was make a marketplace as hostile as possible to any serious publishing entity...
As noted earlier, this is not a good thing because it gives the impression to new people in the industry that the only way they can publish 5E material is to surrender their ideas to the DMsGuild.

See, you see the Guild as hostile, because it doesn't give you want you want. It seems friendly to me. I tried to get into publishing in RPGs (as an aside, not a career) prior to the Guild. And my experience with all the publishers I contacted, including Wizards and ENSider were met with something less than friendliness. In fact, multiple emails to ENSider went unreturned after the initial response.

I'm upset over the fact that where there should be a flourishing garden of RPG publishers ... and it's plain why that is. I'm mad that people that want to do this full-time have more barriers in front of them and less opportunities than I had now in this larger market than in the smaller market made by a company that cares about the industry surrounding it (a market this one has certainly taken up folks from).
...

And in my opinion you have chosen the wrong target for your hostility.

First, why "should their be a flourishing garden"? I think we can agree we would all like one. But I don't think that the lack of one has anything to do with the Guild. Rather I think the most significant impact on the lack of growth of professional RPG careers are the customers themselves. A vast majority them want everything for free. They complain and rant when someone charges a couple dollars for an adventure, they frequent pirate sites to steal stuff. Even your own website (ENWorld) provides links to sites and programs that steal publishers content. As a publisher themselves, ENWorld is part of it's own problem in this regard.

That's my point. There aren't really two channels. There's one massive sea over here that they point to as much as possible, and a tiny lake that's pushed into the distant background. ...

Apparently you haven't published or looked into the details of publishing on the Guild. It is very easy to publish on the Guild. Really easy in fact.

I respect your view, but I am doing my best to try to curtail people who want to make games for a living from getting lost in the hostile place that Hasbro has engineered to prevent them from succeeding. I'm just trying to help people here, and I hope you (or anyone else) aren't hurt or offended in the attempt. We all love gaming, we all love D&D, and I lament that the latest industry leader isn't as benevolent and forward-thinking an entity as the previous one.

But how have you helped? You stated numerous opinions with virtually no factual support over and over again. You haven't given any useful advice on how someone can get published in the industry. You haven't clarified the differences between the Guilds CCA and the OGL. You haven't helped.

Sure there's lots of IP to work with from WotC. The issue is that there's no way to share your own IP on THE D&D MARKETPLACE (again emphasis not mine) on anywhere near equal footing, and if you do, you lose ownership of it. Which I find to be cruel. As mentioned elsewhere in my posts, there's not a damn thing stopping them from altering this and many people (seven that I know of means dozens if not scores or hundreds that never came into contact with me) got suckered into publishing their ideas in a place where they cannot go anywhere.

So somehow it's WotC's fault that 7 people did not read the license agreement they were agreeing to? And maybe that's why you think they have engineered a hostile place? If someone chooses to publish on the D&D Marketplace, then they get benefits, and they also have restrictions and costs. If they choose to publish some other way, perhaps using the OGL, then they also get benefits and they also have restrictions. Do we really have to argue over if someone should understand their legal responsibilities before entering into a legal contract?

Also no requests are required to utilize anything that's OGL. What you folks keep conflating I think is compatibility licenses which have to do with branding. You can go post something for Pathfinder right now and have a good time with it (even make it naughty if you like). If you want to slap the "Pathfinder compatible" logo on there you need an agreement (which is slightly censored). There is definitely not any kind of 5E compatible logo from WotC, just their slaving brand, in that marketplace where you aren't allowed any branding of yourself.

Which is exactly my point above. Except you assign derogatory terms to WotC ("slaving") while you highlight the choice of various licensing possibilities with Paizo. And apparently because of your preconceived notions and anger,you don't see as comparable. You are in effect complaining; "Bob is evil because he makes muffins, Kerry is great because she makes muffins."

The DMsGuild has not opened the market the same way the OGL did. The parts of the rules not included in the 3eSRD (very specific monsters) I think can be listed off with one hand. By not including most of the class archetypes, nearly all of the feats, and nearly all of the backgrounds (plus a bunch of other minor things, as you noted, like spells, magic items, all but one artifact, etc.) in the 5eSRD OGL publishers have to reword and therein de-legitimize their work (because while I might be able to refer to an eldritch knight as a legacy term protected under an earlier SRD, any class features need worded differently or it violates copyright). I'm constantly surprised (even after years of working with the material on a daily basis) by the things not included in the 5eSRD or cleverly hidden inside of other parts of the rules text that are OGL where the parent content isn't.

And as I said before, you are mad because the 5E SRD isn't what you want. But, had WotC made the 5E SRD the same way they made the 3E SRD, they would have been negligent and it could easily be argued that they had failed to uphold legal fiduciary responsibilities.

The point is that there are many people that believe the DMsGuild is the only place they can publish 5E material, and those people are being unfairly treated by this erroneous perception that Hasbro/OBS have no intention of correcting. These people are being injured by this practice, forced into a marketplace custom-made for them to fail inside of, and ultimately driven away from an industry that should embrace them. There shouldn't be dozens of people able to make a living off of 3PP for 5th Edition, there should be hundreds.

Again, you are sharpening your ax without any supporting evidence or support except for your own unsupported opinions and anger. Where is personal responsibility? If someone believe the Guild is the only place they can publish 5E material, that is their own fault for not actually finding out the facts before making their decisions. Now, why is it WotC's responsibility to educate the masses of potential RPG authors? What value does it bring to WotC to spend money on clarifying the issue for people who obviously haven't spent much time looking into?

At the end, you are once more stating an opinion as if it were fact. Sure, I would wish the job market was a thousand times larger than it is, but it's not because of the Guild, rather it's because of the customers themselves.

Here ya go John: ... and I have a responsibility to see that explained in full. Sorry it's not more FG-centric.

What? You have a responsibility to monitor the entire internet and try to clarify any post anywhere that you don't think presents your views and opinions correctly? Or is it just the ones that have to do with the RPG industry? Wow, I guess some deity gave you that responsibility? Because no one else certainly did.

[Mike Myler]

Heads up that some comments needed shortened to fit post character limit.

You keep coming back to this. You want the 5E SRD to have everything the 3E one did. Yet, later on you practically admit that the 3E SRD was a huge business mistake from the perspective of Wizards. And if you didn't/don't, you would have a hard time arguing that it wasn't a mistake. Without it, all the shenanigans and lapse and other mistakes would not have caused the problems that WotC had after releasing the 3E SRD.

WotC has a legal and fiduciary responsibilities to not do the same thing again. For them to repeat the 3E SRD with the 5E SRD would be not only a bad business decision, but could be a legal problem.

And they have done so again with the Guild. Even easier to do so than with the 3E SRD.

I do not admit or believe that the 3eSRD and OGL were a mistake. They are the single greatest gift to the RPG industry that has ever been given. Trying to walk it back is a mistake (see GSL comments). Hasbro made a bad call when they told their designers to appeal to the MMORPG market with 4th edition (which itself is a fine game, would've gone over great if it was called The Gauntlet RPG) and then fired the staff of their magazine (which became Paizo). They made it worse when they implemented a hard-handed licensing agreement. So this time they've made a cage that traps up the content via the truncated 5eSRD (pretty sure that's because the 5E rules were going to be treated as OGL by Frog God Games, the oldest 3PP publisher of D&D content and a bunch of actual attorneys that might be the only people with the expertise to do so).
The assertion that they had a legal and fiduciary responsibility to f#$% the industry is a false one unless they were planning on firing dozens of competent designers all at once a second time. This edition's release couldn't have resulted in another Paizo otherwise because those people are gainfully employed elsewhere. The conditions for another Pathfinder just aren't there, making the DMs Guild's intent all more egregious.

See, you see the Guild as hostile, because it doesn't give you want you want. It seems friendly to me. I tried to get into publishing in RPGs (as an aside, not a career) prior to the Guild. And my experience with all the publishers I contacted, including Wizards and ENSider were met with something less than friendliness. In fact, multiple emails to ENSider went unreturned after the initial response.

Here's an example of how the guild is hostile: Kobold Press, a company hired out to work on core WotC books, has a grand total of 2 items on the DMs Guild. That's like what, one every 3 years or so? If it was a friendly marketplace, why do they have so few things there? Why are more professional publishers working in that space?
I'm sorry that EN5ider didn't respond to you. I became editor only recently--hit me up and we'll get you on the list for the next open call. It's no surprise to me that Wizards did not send any reply (or an unfriendly one) and that should maybe be telling for you.

And in my opinion you have chosen the wrong target for your hostility.

You're welcome to your opinion, but know that mine is informed by living here in the RPG industry for five years. Not dabbling in it on weekends or grabbing the occasional book, but living here all the time every day.

First, why "should their be a flourishing garden"?.....

There should be a flourishing garden of publishers, designers, cartographers, editors, developers, layout artists, illustrators, and writers because a much smaller market supported it for Pathfinder. The single most telling thing about this situation is that despite having a far broader customer base, 5E has reduced the working industry's size dramatically. That's why. There's more sunlight, more water, more nutrients (customers) but fewer plants able to grow (industry workers). I can't reconcile how people are unable to see this disparity.
I'm unaware of ENWorld (not my website, Morrus' website) providing links to websites that pirate content. You should in all cases inform him of this and flag posts that do that. Morrus is an upstanding dude and will remove them immediately, but I'll be amazed if he or any EN World staff are at fault, and suspect what you're referring to is policing of forum posts (in which case, still, flag the posts).

Apparently you haven't published or looked into the details of publishing on the Guild. It is very easy to publish on the Guild. Really easy in fact.

But how have you helped? You stated numerous opinions with virtually no factual support over and over again. You haven't given any useful advice on how someone can get published in the industry. You haven't clarified the differences between the Guilds CCA and the OGL. You haven't helped.

I've definitely checked out the details of publishing on the Guild but would never put material there, but I do what I can to help. I've gotten the fellas mentioned in that email quote above several paid gigs, and I actively try to educate people about the situation (which is not my job, btw, but something I feel compelled to do out of a sense of responsibility for the industry that has allowed me to make RPGs for a living).
Also publishing using the OGL means including it and a chapter 15 in the product. The mechanisms for how the OGL functions are extremely simple and accessible. The 5eSRD's interactions with it are not.

Anyone interested in publishing for 5E should contact me directly (mike.myler.adventures|at|gmail.com) and I'll give you my standard list of advice, add you to the EN5ider open call list, and answer any questions you might have. I do this regularly for people, just not in a thread that stated a needed-to-be-updated summary of how the DMsGuild is injurious.

So somehow it's WotC's fault that 7 people did not read the license agreement they were agreeing to? ... Do we really have to argue over if someone should understand their legal responsibilities before entering into a legal contract?

When people are unaware that there is an option for them to publish their content and retain ownership, yes, I believe that there's an obligation by all parties to make the distinction more clear. It should be equally easy and accessible to publish under the OGL or the DMs Guild, and the idea that the latter should be easier flies in the face of the spirit of the OGL. Also again, that I (dude who just works in this part of the industry) can only identify a half dozen people means that there are many, many, many more that I don't see or are aware of. Anyone who's only published once on DMsGuild is probably somebody that was turned off from game design entirely (which makes me a sad panda).

Which is exactly my point above. Except you assign derogatory terms to WotC ("slaving") while you highlight the choice of various licensing possibilities with Paizo. And apparently because of your preconceived notions and anger,you don't see as comparable. You are in effect complaining; "Bob is evil because he makes muffins, Kerry is great because she makes muffins."

"Bob is evil because he makes muffins that can only be sold and eaten inside of his compound, a place where the economy of sale is fundamentally flawed to leave most people that go in there starving. Kerry is great because she makes muffins and just sells them wherever."

And as I said before, you are mad because the 5E SRD isn't what you want. But, had WotC made the 5E SRD the same way they made the 3E SRD, they would have been negligent and it could easily be argued that they had failed to uphold legal fiduciary responsibilities.

I'm mad because Hasbro engineered a marketplace with fewer opportunities for people to do what I did (become full-time freelance game designers). That's what I'm mad about. I've said that multiple times in this thread now.

Again, you are sharpening your ax without any supporting evidence or support except for your own unsupported opinions and anger. Where is personal responsibility? ....

The personal responsibility is to the industry. Do you think 5E would've been as successful if Paizo hadn't kept the lights on for half a decade? I'm absolutely certain it would not be. Successful of course, but not as successful. The leader of an industry--any industry--has a responsibility because what they do is going to be emulated by others. In this instance, the industry leader has created an IP-marketplace that marginalized designers and discourages professional publishing, which in turn has led to other IP-markets appearing that in many cases will do the same thing.

At the end, you are once more stating an opinion as if it were fact. Sure, I would wish the job market was a thousand times larger than it is, but it's not because of the Guild, rather it's because of the customers themselves.

What? You have a responsibility to monitor the entire internet and try to clarify any post anywhere that you don't think presents your views and opinions correctly? Or is it just the ones that have to do with the RPG industry? Wow, I guess some deity gave you that responsibility? Because no one else certainly did.

Anybody who watches others be injured while trying to create artwork has a responsibility to try and stop that person from being wounded. It's just being good to others.

[LordEntrails]

Obviously we see the world very differently.

Here's an example of how the guild is hostile: Kobold Press, a company hired out to work on core WotC books, has a grand total of 2 items on the DMs Guild. That's like what, one every 3 years or so? If it was a friendly marketplace, why do they have so few things there?

Because Kobold press doesn't need the Guild? Sure, they only have 2 products on the Guild, but they have 70 on their own website; https://koboldpress.com/kpstore/prod...s/5th-edition/

So, since they have obviously shown that you can publish and succeed without the Guild... How does that make the Guild hostile? It means, to me, that their are some products best sold on the Guild and some products best sold using other means.

I think your views are so colored by your emotions that everything you observe, you interpret to fit your narrative.*shrugs* that's human, and where the difference between experience and irrationality falls is too difficult to determine.

Again, I will say that I don't see how this discussion has helped others. It would seem a better method would be that you could layout all of the various ways to become employed in the industry (as an author, cartographer, etc) and the unbiased pros and cons of each method, and then use that as a platform for education.

[Valyar]

Knowing Hasbro, I believe they didn’t put enough effort to make this bad enough... shame on them.

This thread is very interesting. I stopped following WotC after they released 4e and 5e didn’t manage to ignite the spark I had during the 3.5 era....

@Mike - what do you mean by legacy publishers like Greem Ronin and etc? What do you think should happen for the things to take turn for the better? What do you think will happen with PF2?

[Bidmaron]

Valyar I haven’t finished reading the PF2 playtest rules yet, and I must confess I was dubious when I heard the drive to simplify. I feared a 4e nightmare, but I have to say I like what I have read so far. Need to read some more before I reach a preliminary conclusion. And I am looking forward to play testing on Trenloe ‘s ruleset.