# Would a OneDND closed/restricted license be good, actually?



## Malmuria (Dec 30, 2022)

(Do we have enough threads speculating about the OGL?  No, no we do not.)

Thesis/hot take: a restricted and less open license from wotc for the forthcoming "onednd" would inadvertently benefit the ttrpg hobby more broadly.  While wotc will remain dominant, a restricted license and "walled garden" infrastructure will push _some_ players, streamers, and independent creators toward non-wotc-dnd games.  Many third party projects will still be possible under the existing open game license, and thus onednd will be but one "branch" off the root of 5e-derived games--others, like levelup, mcdm products, or rules lite hacks like 5 torches deep, would exist alongside it.  Further, being cut off from the onednd market may encourage third parties to develop content for other systems.

• "The third party ecosystem is what made 5e thrive."   Has it?  There have been innumerable debates as to the various factors that led to dnd's popularity in the past decade or so (5e's ease of use and classic feel, stranger things, critical role, pandemic), but I wonder to what degree third party products find their way to casual fans.  Certainly for enthusiasts, there have been no shortage of options, but this is not proof that onednd _needs_ third parties.

• "The success of wotc is a success for the hobby as a whole.  A rising tide lifts all boats."  Does it?  While dnd is a likely entry point into ttrpgs, it's also a sticking point, in the sense that players stick within the 5e ecosystem.  It has allowed for those making 5e-compatible products to thrive, but its "trickle-down" effect is questionable.  One can argue that at a certain point it prevents growth of non-5e games because it makes it seem risky for streamers and creators to switch to other systems.  In this sense, I would draw a distinction between 5e creators and indie creators more generally.  Similarly, I see many people talking as if wotc-dnd="the hobby," hence why a restricted license would be bad for the hobby more generally.  But if the wotc-centric part of the hobby contracts (without collapsing), there is perhaps room for other parts of the hobby to grow.

• The 5e boom is also a 5e bubble.  I don't know what it's like to be a game developer that turns to 5e compatibility to find a larger audience.  A license that took all that away would be harmful to them, it seems.  That is, it would be bad for boom to turn to bust, as always.   On the other hand, developers like Free League and Magpie have used non-5e systems with their own or licensed IP and have been successful.

Further watching:


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 30, 2022)

The obvious risk here is one of (even further) fracturing the gaming community into a number of large - and probably competing - sub-communities.

Right now there's basically 5e as a battleship and a whole bunch of other systems (including prior D&D editions) that amount to not much more than rowboats in comparison.  Like it or not, that battleship is what holds it all together; it never needs to use its strength because it doesn't have to, and any battles between the rowboats are, in the grand scheme of things, largely irrelevant.

Turning that battleship into five or six destroyers might not be a good idea once they start firing their guns.


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The obvious risk here is one of (even further) fracturing the gaming community into a number of large - and probably competing - sub-communities.
> 
> Right now there's basically 5e as a battleship and a whole bunch of other systems (including prior D&D editions) that amount to not much more than rowboats in comparison.  Like it or not, that battleship is what holds it all together; it never needs to use its strength because it doesn't have to, and any battles between the rowboats are, in the grand scheme of things, largely irrelevant.
> 
> Turning that battleship into five or six destroyers might not be a good idea once they start firing their guns.




But when you go to buy a boardgame or even a videogame, there are lots of options available.  Certainly particular games have enthusiasts and communities and that's great, but generally people expect variety.  You pick out a game to play for a few evenings or even a few months, then move on to a different game.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 30, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> But when you go to buy a boardgame or even a videogame, there are lots of options available.  Certainly particular games have enthusiasts and communities and that's great, but generally people expect variety.  You pick out a game to play for a few evenings or even a few months, then move on to a different game.



Boardgames and videogames are, in my eyes anyway, much more temporary than an RPG.

You play a boardgame for an evening...well, maybe two or three consecutive evenings if it's Twilight Imperium.  You play an RPG for years, or longer, and are thus much more likely to form an attachment to it and-or form or join a community built around it.

Videogames aren't something I can speak to, as I don't really play any that involve other people.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> • "The success of wotc is a success for the hobby as a whole.  A rising tide lifts all boats."  Does it?




I'm pretty sure it does.  All those smaller games exist in significant part because WotC acts as an entry point into RPGs, from which people diversify.  Those small games don't have the pull on their own to bring in players without a large community already communicating about games.

Even just here - loads of people have learned about PbtA, FitD, and Fate, because folks talk about those games here.  But "here" wouldn't exist without D&D.


----------



## Yora (Dec 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The obvious risk here is one of (even further) fracturing the gaming community into a number of large - and probably competing - sub-communities.



Oh noes! Imagine that!

_gasps in Not-5e-Player_


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 30, 2022)

Yora said:


> Oh noes! Imagine that!
> 
> _gasps in Not-5e-Player_



I'm not a 5e player either but I recognize the value in there being one system that serves the majority.

Five or so competing systems, each with their own large and dedicated fanbase, would soon enough make the 3e-4e edition wars look like kids throwing mud pies.  I think we can all live without that.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 31, 2022)

Decentralization is always good. I think the WotC battleship sinking would be good for the industry and community. As it stands, 5E is _artificially_ holding at least four or five (probably more) distinct and separate communities together in one over-sized tent. All of them wanting distinct and separate things from the same game. We see this in just about every thread. Some want heavy RP. Some want a balanced game. Some want resource management. Some want story forward. Some want lots of crunch. Some want rules light. Some want optimization options. Some want those excised from the game. Some want a heavy lean on the referee as central authority. Some want a flat hierarchy. On and on and on. One game simply cannot be all things to all people.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 31, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> (Do we have enough threads speculating about the OGL?  No, no we do not.)
> 
> Thesis/hot take: a restricted and less open license from wotc for the forthcoming "onednd" would inadvertently benefit the ttrpg hobby more broadly.



Basically, your premise is "If D&D wasn't so popular, there would be more customers and creators for other games"...

So let's start here - What exactly stops people from playing other games or creating other games currently?


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 31, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Basically, your premise is "If D&D wasn't so popular, there would be more customers and creators for other games"...
> 
> So let's start here - What exactly stops people from playing other games or creating other games currently?



In may case:

My group still enjoys 5e
I'm heavily invested in 5e
Limited time. I can only participate in one campaign.
Having to find new groups of players if I switched systems

All that said, I HAVE played and purchased other systems. But these have all been one-shots. In my early enthusiasm after getting back into the hobby, I started backing kickstarters for other game systems, but most of those have just sat on a shelf. So, now I rarely buy material for other systems. 

If I stopped DMing, I could see playing in more games, but I most online games that I've joined I have never bought the rule books for. 

Even for 5e, I don't buy much new stuff, because I already own far more than I'll be able to run in the next few years. 

Most of my money goes to VTT hosting, my DDB subscription, and some patreon support for VTT mods and artwork. 

The fact that I play mostly by VTT is another hurdle. For example, I backed DCC Dying Earth, which should be delivered in March or April, and am seriously considering running a Dying Earth campaign. But if I want to run it online, I'll have to do all the work to prep it for the VTT. None of the stretch goals included any VTT assets. Assuming that I can copy or screen cap the maps from the PDFs, I don't mind prepping the maps too much and I'm okay using generic tokens, but creating the system and tweaking the character sheet is more than I want to deal with. Maybe I can run it more theater of the mind, but even having to think through this makes it seem like work. It is much easier just sticking with a system I'm familiar with and already have a lot of support for in my VTT. 

At this point, I'm hesitant to back any system on Kickstarter that doesn't offer VTT assets. If there was a third-party publisher that would Kickstart their game with a VTT-first mentality, THAT could attract me away from 5e. Make the default project PDFs and generic VTT-friendly maps and token art that can be used in any VTT. Make the first stretch goals, prepped adventures and systems for various VTT systems. Make all physical items later stretch goals. 

Whenever I read FUD posts about everything going digital and that physical books, etc. are no longer going be supported, I have to scratch my head. Because outside of 5e and Pathfinder, I see very little VTT support from TTRPG publishers.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 31, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> What exactly stops people from playing other games or creating other games currently?



In my experience, nothing.

Over the past six-odd years I've played (as best I recall) about 3 sessions of AD&D, one session of Moldvay Basic, and 5 or 6 of 4e D&D. (And no 5e D&D.)

In the same period I've played over twenty sessions of Classic Traveller, close to that of Prince Valiant, more than half-a-dozen of Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy (Vikings, MERP/LotR), a similar number of sessions each of Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e, several sessions of Agon 2e, and a variety of one-shots (Cthulhu Dark, Wuthering Heights, The Green Knight, In A Wicked Age).

The only obstacle to playing more non-D&D RPGs, in my case, is being able to coordinate available time with my friends I play with.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 31, 2022)

I have seen the video in the OP and it is just a incohesive rant...
While it is true that there are other great games, his premise that 5e is a bad game is baseless.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 31, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> In may case:
> 
> My group still enjoys 5e
> I'm heavily invested in 5e
> ...



If D&D was currently less popular would that stop you from being in a group that enjoys 5e?
If D&D was currently less popular would that stop you from being heavily invested in 5e?
If D&D was currently less popular would that stop you from only being able to participate in one campaign?
If D&D was currently less popular would that that make it easier to find new groups of players?


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 31, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> If D&D was currently less popular would that stop you from being in a group that enjoys 5e?
> If D&D was currently less popular would that stop you from being heavily invested in 5e?
> If D&D was currently less popular would that stop you from only being able to participate in one campaign?
> If D&D was currently less popular would that that make it easier to find new groups of players?



No to all of the above. Not sure I understand the point of the questions. 

You asked what stops people from playing other games. I answered with what stops me from playing other games.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 31, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The obvious risk here is one of (even further) fracturing the gaming community into a number of large - and probably competing - sub-communities.
> 
> Right now there's basically 5e as a battleship and a whole bunch of other systems (including prior D&D editions) that amount to not much more than rowboats in comparison.  Like it or not, that battleship is what holds it all together; it never needs to use its strength because it doesn't have to, and any battles between the rowboats are, in the grand scheme of things, largely irrelevant.
> 
> Turning that battleship into five or six destroyers might not be a good idea once they start firing their guns.



The battleship is getting ready to fire its guns now, though.  My concern is this will cause some boats I'm fond of to either sink or link themselves to WotC, to the detriment of their content.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2022)

D&D with a strong 3PP support environment is a big tent that keep people playing the same game -- a significant benefit to WotC. If some companies are producing great monster books for 5E and others are making good adventures and campaign settings and so on, those people are still playing 5E and embedded in the 5E ecosystem. If those talented creators were doing that for other game systems, then those players would no longer be in that 5E ecosystem and would not benefit WotC with book sales, Beyond subscriptions, etc...

Creators and talent benefits too, because when 5E is open there is a lot more potential work out there. New designers and writers can cut their teeth on 5E and build experience and hone skills. Some of them will go on to design their own successful games, or work for the bigger companies, or otherwise bring innovation to the industry.

No. Returning to the days of suing to eliminate Role Aids is not a benefit to D&D as a game, or roleplaying as a hobby or industry.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> (Do we have enough threads speculating about the OGL?  No, no we do not.)



I am not so sure about that...


Malmuria said:


> Thesis/hot take: a restricted and less open license from wotc for the forthcoming "onednd" would inadvertently benefit the ttrpg hobby more broadly.  While wotc will remain dominant, a restricted license and "walled garden" infrastructure will push _some_ players, streamers, and independent creators toward non-wotc-dnd games.  Many third party projects will still be possible under the existing open game license, and thus onednd will be but one "branch" off the root of 5e-derived games--others, like levelup, mcdm products, or rules lite hacks like 5 torches deep, would exist alongside it.  Further, being cut off from the onednd market may encourage third parties to develop content for other systems.



I do not think streamers are affected by this / do not think they needed to use the OGL in the first place. Also, there are plenty of OSR youtubers at least, no idea about streamers, I do not care for them whether 5e or OSR

As to the rest, I assume most people enter via D&D and either lose interest, stay with it or 'graduate' to other systems from there instead of e.g. starting right with LevelUp. So while this might result in a temporary rush of people fleeing D&D, I do not see much impact in the long run, not until WotC is far less dominant


Malmuria said:


> • "The third party ecosystem is what made 5e thrive."   Has it?  There have been innumerable debates as to the various factors that led to dnd's popularity in the past decade or so (5e's ease of use and classic feel, stranger things, critical role, pandemic), but I wonder to what degree third party products find their way to casual fans.  Certainly for enthusiasts, there have been no shortage of options, but this is not proof that onednd _needs_ third parties.



I do not think there is one single cause, I believe it has contributed however


Malmuria said:


> • "The success of wotc is a success for the hobby as a whole.  A rising tide lifts all boats."  Does it?



I believe so, see my comment further up in this post about people graduating from D&D to other TTRPGs. As WotC knew when they created the OGL, a rising tide lifts all boats, but not all boats equally, the biggest boat gets lifted farther. They have forgotten that


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 31, 2022)

mamba said:


> I am not so sure about that...
> 
> I do not think streamers are affected by this / do not think they needed to use the OGL in the first place. Also, there are plenty of OSR youtubers at least, no idea about streamers, I do not care for them whether 5e or OSR
> 
> ...



I assume you mean when WotC created the OGL.  In no way did they create the OSR.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I assume you mean when WotC created the OGL.  In no way did they create the OSR.



yep, fixed, thanks


----------



## Greg Benage (Dec 31, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> • "The success of wotc is a success for the hobby as a whole.  A rising tide lifts all boats."  Does it?  While dnd is a likely entry point into ttrpgs, it's also a sticking point, in the sense that players stick within the 5e ecosystem.



Yeah, this is a good question and I'm not completely sure where I land on it. On one hand, there was a kind of flowering of non-D&D RPGs in the 90s when D&D was weakest (or market fragmentation, depending on your perspective). On the other hand, you could argue there's been a second flowering of non-D&D RPGs during this period when it's been at it's strongest. I do think what happened in the 90s strained 1990s distribution channels (that's the market fragmentation argument), but I wouldn't mind seeing what a "weak D&D" period looks like in the Kickstarter era.

Despite that, in the real world we live in, I'd don't think we're about to enter a "weak D&D" period. All signs point the other direction, for the time being.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 31, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> No to all of the above. Not sure I understand the point of the questions.
> 
> You asked what stops people from playing other games. I answered with what stops me from playing other games.



Because by answering no to those questions you just contradicted yourself.  You wouldn't be playing other games if D&D was less popular, you would still be playing D&D.  The things you claimed would cause you to play something other than D&D don't actually do that.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Because by answering no to those questions you just contradicted yourself.  You wouldn't be playing other games if D&D was less popular, you would still be playing D&D.  The things you claimed would cause you to play something other than D&D don't actually do that.



he didn’t say it would cause him to play other games, he said this is what prevents him from doing so. Not the same thing

I agree that this basically means he will play 5e either way, but it is not a contradiction


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 31, 2022)

Greg Benage said:


> Yeah, this is a good question and I'm not completely sure where I land on it. On one hand, there was a kind of flowering of non-D&D RPGs in the 90s when D&D was weakest (or market fragmentation, depending on your perspective). On the other hand, you could argue there's been a second flowering of non-D&D RPGs during this period when it's been at it's strongest. I do think what happened in the 90s strained 1990s distribution channels (that's the market fragmentation argument), but I wouldn't mind seeing what a "weak D&D" period looks like in the Kickstarter era.
> 
> Despite that, in the real world we live in, I'd don't think we're about to enter a "weak D&D" period. All signs point the other direction, for the time being.



I think weaker period for the new version than currently exists for 5e but still strong overall.  IMO Fanbase seems ripe to fragment.  OGL misteps can quickly erase any customer goodwill.  MTG debacle already makes people a bit on edge.

I believe that a consistently weak D&D is bad for RPG community.  That said, a boom and bust cycle of D&D might actually be very good.  The bust period would be where D&D fans start trying out other games.  I believe that's what the OP is thinking of, but I believe such a phenomenon requires the D&D boom period.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 31, 2022)

mamba said:


> I agree that this basically means he will play 5e either way, but it is not a contradiction



I don't agree, but since you concede that it means he will play 5e either way then arguing over whether it was technically a contradiction doesn't seem useful.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 31, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I assume you mean when WotC created the OGL.  In no way did they create the OSR.



You could very easily argue they did. They bought TSR, released an edition some didn’t like, released the OGL, and refused to sell any content for older editions in any format. This directly lead to the creation of the OSR. Those last three were essential to the OSR. Without those, there’s no OSR.


----------



## Manbearcat (Dec 31, 2022)

Its a question where the answer is extremely difficult to know. Here are a pile of thoughts and anecdotes for the thought experiment:

* The promise of broad social fabric support, possible social cache to be earned, and relatively low buy-in is very seductive to the bulk of humanity.

This passes the “D&D test.”

* The best case of “impossible for monopoly to emerge” that I am aware of is plumbers. That is because the nexus of the need is endogenous to the system (everyone has plumbing), the need is overwhelming (plumbing fails at a rate x the scale of plumbing out there that the demand is overwhelming), and the expertise required to resolve the issue is intensive.

The TTRPG market kinda touches that first one but not to the degree required (playing “imagination” and playing games are fundamental to the human experience). The need will likely never be overwhelming unless we hit Wall-E levels of dystopia (and I personally see extinction long before then). Yes, expertise is required for at least one participant to successfully navigate a TTRPG (best case scenario is all participants have expertise).

* I’ve GMed 14 non-D&D games online in the last 2 years (Dungeon World x 2, Blades in the Dark x 5 including a hack, Stonetop x 2, Lasers & Feelings, Dogs in the Vineyard, Torchbearer, The Between, Aliens). The cohort of 13 players consists of diverse life backgrounds, diverse non-TTRPG interests, extensive D&D backgrounds but only 3 of the players in a current D&D 5e game.

* I’ve had success over the last 15 years in running indie games via tapping into the Eurogaming market, the general Boardgaming market, the CRPG market, and even the MtG market (with these players having very little to no D&D exposure). D&D has tried to tap into a lot of these massive markets but they  haven’t been quite seduced by D&D’s “cornered the market/culture from the jump” advantages in my first asterisk above. They’ve got all that stuff from their own niches and they’re quite happy so its individual initiative and elbow grease to get them to try TTRPG games. And a lot of them have played an enormous amount of games so (a) learning and onboarding a new rules paradigm is second nature to them and (b) any passive stance toward playing (rather than driving the play) is utterly foreign and outright anathema to them (so the aggressive player orientation required in most indie games comes natural to them).


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You could very easily argue they did. They bought TSR, released an edition some didn’t like, released the OGL, and refused to sell any content for older editions in any format. This directly lead to the creation of the OSR. Those last three were essential to the OSR. Without those, there’s no OSR.



That is a bit like saying you caused an accident by not being in the car when your dog flipped it from park to drive. Sure, without the OGL it would not have happened, but this is rather indirect


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 31, 2022)

Literally none of these issues matter much in the grand scheme of the sales for D&D (with one exception I mention at the bottom). The extreme overwhelming majority of people who buy D&D stuff don't even know about the OGL, and will never see other games. This is almost entirely a "10% of hardcore older gamers who discuss this stuff online."

As an example of what the mass market sees I was at Barnes and Noble yesterday. Their RPG section was almost entirely D&D. The remaining portion was random books intended to play with D&D without being explicitly for D&D, accessories for D&D like dice and stuffies and cards and such, and artbooks. 

You know how many Pathfinder books were there? One. And I don't mean multiple copies of one, I mean there was literally only one PF book. And it was from 1e, not 2e. There used to be a lot more PF books three years ago, but they're just not carrying them anymore. You know how many other RPG books were there? Zero. Zero books from games other than D&D and that 1 PF 1e book.

And it's not like it somehow sold out during Christmas - the entire section was well stocked and full, and it was all D&D. The most stocked thing was the D&D starter set boxes. Same as I've seen every week there for years now.

If you look at Target and Walmart and other big box stores, you are likely to similarly see no other RPGs there than D&D. 

If you look on streaming platforms,  it's the same. The extreme overwhelming majority of views are for people playing D&D or talking about D&D. 

There is really only one caveat to all of this - Critical Role. If WOTC cannot work out a side license with Critical Role to exempt them from the standard royalties (and I think that's what they will do) then I can see this issue having a meaningful impact on WOTC. 

But other than that I think this is an issue which is largely not impactful to the extreme overwhelming majority of the marketplace. They probably could entirely shut down 3p licensing other than Critical Role at this point and it probably wouldn't have much impact on their sales, though I think PR wise that wouldn't be a good decision. They're just too huge now - WAY exponentially bigger than 3e/3.5e was. In fact, hugely bigger than the launch years of 5e, which were themselves already bigger than any other D&D sales on record. Brand recognition for D&D is an entity unto itself now.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 31, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You could very easily argue they did. They bought TSR, released an edition some didn’t like, released the OGL, and refused to sell any content for older editions in any format. This directly lead to the creation of the OSR. Those last three were essential to the OSR. Without those, there’s no OSR.



True, but that's like saying Loki created the Avengers.  Technically true, but wholly unintended and likely regretted at this point, at least by the money people who are likely driving this new OGL.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 31, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> True, but that's like saying Loki created the Avengers.  Technically true, but wholly unintended and likely regretted at this point, at least by the money people who are likely driving this new OGL.



Yes, 100% unintended and once the OSR became a thing WotC put out older editions as PDFs and some as POD (where’s my B/X POD?). But the genie was already out of the bottle.

And yeah, Loki did create the Avengers. He didn’t mean to, but he still did.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 31, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Five or so competing systems, each with their own large and dedicated fanbase, would soon enough make the 3e-4e edition wars look like kids throwing mud pies.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Further watching:



Watching this now and typing as I go…

First reason: “5e is not the best version of D&D” … “So what is the best version? That’s completely subjective”…nothing to add, off to a great start 

Second: ‘5e is not even the best version of 5e”, then goes on to suggest such 5e games as 13th Age, SotDD, WH40K Sigmar, Torchbearer, DCC or OSE… No complaints about recommendations but saying they are a better 5e is misleading at best. Also, wasn’t there something in #1 about this being completely subjective

3: “WotC thinks you are livestock” because of the conference where they said it is undermonetized. WotC wanting players to buy stuff more frequently (whether subscriptions, or branching out with movies / action figures / …) is like milking a cow. I am not aware of any company that wants to sell me less, so I guess they all think I am livestock

4: WotC squeezes writers, no idea, no opinion, doubt they are worse than others. TSR certainly was but I am sure he likes TSR…rest is pure hyperbole about “contract writers screaming in anguish as their supervisors ask them for more and more pages until they collapse into writing filler”. 3PP on the other hand is where you can make a living and see “unbridled creativity”. Garbage does not adequately describe this point

5: RPGs are more than D&D, didn’t finish past the opening line because that feels like the second point again, just reflavored. This is where all the suggestions that were out of place in 2 should be

So he really has one point: there are also other RPGs, try them as some might cater more to what you like. Could have said that in 2 min or so, and show the ones from 2, but I guess that is not good for youtube’s algorithm


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 31, 2022)

My take is that rules matter in board games in a way that they don't in RPGs. That's probably just because my personal investment in RPGs lies in the role-playing and stories, not in the particular rules system, unless that rules system actually offers a substantially different way to role-play.

So I am fine with 5e because I prefer not to have to learn a bunch of different rules to accomplish the same end: role-playing. In fact, I think it is good that there is a dominant player, and I don't really care if it is D&D or Pathfinder or Call of Cthulhu or whatever indie version of the same comes along, because I think they are in effect all the same game. It's the different settings that make them interesting, not the ultimately inconsequential variations on dice rolls and action economy and movement and spell lists.

My RPGs of choice are:

1. D&D, because it is the most widely known and well supported rules-heavy RPG and thus easiest to find players for (I also occasionally run Call of Cthulhu, but for the setting and adventures, not because I think the rules make a particular difference).

2. Dread, because it reduces the rules to one pure, narrative-driven mechanism.

3. Fiasco, because it totally reimagines the narrative form by making everyone at the table a co-equal GM.

4. Various indie games with one-page rules systems that are fun for one-shot evenings.

If D&D suddenly vanished from the world and was replaced by Pathfinder, nothing much would change. But barring that, I prefer the OGL to be as open as possible so that more folks can use it.

Also, that video is just more of the same clickbait. Though to be fair it might have made a really great point at the end but I never made it that far because I was afraid my eyes were going to be permanently damaged from rolling them so hard.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 31, 2022)

mamba said:


> Watching this now and typing as I go…
> 
> First reason: “5e is not the best version of D&D” … “So what is the best version? That’s completely subjective”…nothing to add, off to a great start
> 
> Second: ‘5e is not even the best version of 5e”, then goes on to suggest such 5e games as 13th Age, SotDD, WH40K Sigmar, Torchbearer, DCC or OSE… No complaints about recommendations but saying they are a better 5e is misleading at best. Also, wasn’t there something in #1 about this being completely subjective



If I remember right, he was talking other games that do specific things that 5E tries to do only they do it better. Want tactical combat? Pathfinder does it better. Want superhero fantasy Age of Sigmar does it better. Etc. 


mamba said:


> 3: “WotC thinks you are livestock” because of the conference where they said it is undermonetized. WotC wanting players to buy stuff more frequently (whether subscriptions, or branching out with movies / action figures / …) is like milking a cow. I am not aware of any company that wants to sell me less, so I guess they all think I am livestock



Yes. That’s capitalism. You are a consumer. That’s it. That’s your whole purpose as far as any company is concerned. All companies think you’re livestock. 


mamba said:


> 4: WotC squeezes writers, no idea, no opinion, doubt they are worse than others. TSR certainly was but I am sure he likes TSR…rest is pure hyperbole about “contract writers screaming in anguish as their supervisors ask them for more and more pages until they collapse into writing filler”. 3PP on the other hand is where you can make a living and see “unbridled creativity”. Garbage does not adequately describe this point



Hyperbole aside, yours and the video makers, there absolutely is more unbridled creativity in non-WotC companies putting out RPGs. Everyone else is free to experiment. WotC can only try to not piss people off and stay on top. 


mamba said:


> 5: RPGs are more than D&D, didn’t finish past the opening line because that feels like the second point again, just reflavored. This is where all the suggestions that were out of place in 2 should be



They fit. You just ignored the context. 


mamba said:


> So he really has one point: there are also other RPGs, try them as some might cater more to what you like. Could have said that in 2 min or so, and show the ones from 2, but I guess that is not good for youtube’s algorithm



So you have one point. You didn’t fully watch the video and didn’t like most of what you did pay attention to. You likely missed all that context because you were typing your response instead of watching it.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> If I remember right, he was talking other games that do specific things that 5E tries to do only they do it better. Want tactical combat? Pathfinder does it better. Want superhero fantasy Age of Sigmar does it better. Etc.



yes, under the second point, imo the best part of it. Wouldn't have minded him expanding on each of them a bit more and their strengths and weaknesses and skip all the rest. I liked most of the recommendations, even when I was not interested in them for the very reason he recommended them (knew most of them already, but not a bad list of RPGs to choose from). As he said, this is all subjective - and actually acknowledging this instead of accidently admitting it would go a long way

My only point there was that saying that they do 5e better is misleading, say they do TTRPGs better (or more accurately certain aspects of it, provided how they do it matches your preferences) if you want to. Some / most of them are too far away from 5e to 'do 5e better'



overgeeked said:


> Yes. That’s capitalism. You are a consumer. That’s it. That’s your whole purpose as far as any company is concerned. All companies think you’re livestock.



if it is every company, then do not blame WotC for it



overgeeked said:


> Hyperbole aside, yours and the video makers, there absolutely is more unbridled creativity in non-WotC companies putting out RPGs. Everyone else is free to experiment. WotC can only try to not piss people off and stay on top.



they are not as innovative because they want to keep their playerbase, sure. Not sure that is a negative for WotC or a positive for others. It just is the nature of the game. Being different can be better or worse depending on what the player wants. What it frequently is is more niche, which means players do not seem to want it all that much

That being said, they imo were pretty innovative and willing to take risks to get where they are now. 3e, 4e and 5e are all very different. But with 5e's popularity they will not rock the boat too much for a while.



overgeeked said:


> So you have one point. You didn’t fully watch the video and didn’t like most of what you did pay attention to. You likely missed all that context because you were typing your response instead of watching it.



No, I was pausing and sometimes rewinding, did not miss anything (apart from the part I specifically said I did not bother with because it started out as a rehash) but never intended this to be a transcript so skipped / summarized a lot


----------



## pemerton (Dec 31, 2022)

Reynard said:


> D&D with a strong 3PP support environment is a big tent that keep people playing the same game -- a significant benefit to WotC





mamba said:


> As WotC knew when they created the OGL, a rising tide lifts all boats, but not all boats equally, the biggest boat gets lifted farther. They have forgotten that



I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable -  to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.

But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable -  to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.
> 
> But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.



Were they a reliable judge of that when they came up with and implemented the GSL?

Individuals in charge of corporations are not somehow infallible. That should be obvious.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable -  to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.
> 
> But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.



I am certain they spent a lot more time and money on figuring that out, I am not convinced that means that they are not miscalculating here. 4e seems like a good counterpoint to the claim that they always know what they are doing

Also, I used a direct quote from an interview (the rising tide bit). They believed it then. If they still believed that, they would not change the OGL


----------



## Greg Benage (Dec 31, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Were they a reliable judge of that when they came up with and implemented the GSL?




I think there was a Pathfinder-sized hole in their risk-mitigation strategy. And yet, they still would have been fine if they’d designed a game that more of their customers wanted to play.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

Greg Benage said:


> I think there was a Pathfinder-sized hole in their risk-mitigation strategy. And yet, they still would have been fine if they’d designed a game that more of their customers wanted to play.



So whose fault was that then? To me that shows that they do not always know best / make mistakes


----------



## Reynard (Dec 31, 2022)

Greg Benage said:


> I think there was a Pathfinder-sized hole in their risk-mitigation strategy. And yet, they still would have been fine if they’d designed a game that more of their customers wanted to play.



So, no, they were not reliable judges.


----------



## Greg Benage (Dec 31, 2022)

mamba said:


> So whose fault was that then? To me that shows that they do not always know best / make mistakes




Probably different people driving the GSL and the 4e decisions. So while I agree that they make mistakes, and I’m sure @pemerton agrees, they’re still in a much better position to make good decisions than any of us are.


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 31, 2022)

mamba said:


> Watching this now and typing as I go…
> 
> First reason: “5e is not the best version of D&D” … “So what is the best version? That’s completely subjective”…nothing to add, off to a great start
> 
> ...




In broad strokes, I saw the video as critiquing wotc 5e as a set of _products._  This is an opinionated critique, but not to my mind a particularly controversial or rare set of criticisms.  The first component is that 5e is too "kitchen sink" both in gameplay and theme across its product line, leading to a situation where players try to do "x, but in 5e" and end up frustrated.  The second component is that wotc's actual _products_ are of a lesser standard than those of many other game companies.  This is again an opinionated position but not an unreasonable one.  The usability of their books, including the core books (the phb's index, the dmg's whole organization) is routinely criticized by players.  Their adventure paths seem conceptually rich (many based in concepts from classic modules) but whose deficiencies have also spawned a thriving scene of dmsguild products that help dms fix and navigate the content of the $50 book they just bought.  

At least some of these products seem to be the result of their contract-heavy employment practices.  Descent into Avernus seems the worst, written by a host of contract writers with little organization and reportedly changing deliverables (the whole "Balder's Gate" part being a late addition).  The recent Spelljammer set has been criticized for its higher price and reduced content, including character options that don't fit well with the included adventure.  More troubling is that wotc has skimped on cultural consultants, relying instead on project leads (e.g. Chris Perkins) who have routinely failed to catch the inclusion of cultural sterotypes in their products.  In some cases, their shoddy editing process _introduced_ problematic content without the consent of writers, again on contract.

The deficiencies of wotc products, as products, start to become very clear when you look at the indie ttrpg landscape.  Wotc creating a walled garden may incite some people to look at that larger landscape, and onednd will come up pale in comparison.


----------



## mamba (Dec 31, 2022)

Greg Benage said:


> Probably different people driving the GSL and the 4e decisions.



maybe, doesn’t really matter because whoever is driving the decisions now is a different person still. The point remains, despite their best efforts they can miscalculate / make mistakes. I do not think they are any more immune from that now than they were then




Greg Benage said:


> So while I agree that they make mistakes, and I’m sure @pemerton agrees, they’re still in a much better position to make good decisions than any of us are.



in theory yes, they know the market better, did their research, we are talking from our guts - but they were back then too and it did not help them

Am I certain this will be a big failure for them, not at all. Do I still think the risk / reward for the fees is just not there, yes.

I understand them tightening the conditions about what it can be used for. I really do not understand the register/report/fee side of things. To me that is a mistake, whether they are right or not remains to be seen


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 31, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> The fact that I play mostly by VTT is another hurdle. For example, I backed DCC Dying Earth, which should be delivered in March or April, and am seriously considering running a Dying Earth campaign. But if I want to run it online, I'll have to do all the work to prep it for the VTT. None of the stretch goals included any VTT assets. Assuming that I can copy or screen cap the maps from the PDFs, I don't mind prepping the maps too much and I'm okay using generic tokens, but creating the system and tweaking the character sheet is more than I want to deal with. Maybe I can run it more theater of the mind, but even having to think through this makes it seem like work. It is much easier just sticking with a system I'm familiar with and already have a lot of support for in my VTT.




Thank you for this perspective.  Though, it suggests my thesis is wrong, in that if wotc provides a vtt experience that automates gameplay and makes prep easier, it will be more appealing than ttrpg products (e.g. books) that provide different gameplay experiences.


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 31, 2022)

Reynard said:


> If some companies are producing great monster books for 5E and others are making good adventures and campaign settings and so on, those people are still playing 5E and embedded in the 5E ecosystem. If those talented creators were doing that for other game systems, then those players would no longer be in that 5E ecosystem and would not benefit WotC with book sales, Beyond subscriptions, etc...



This is my point actually...a restricted license would by necessity push people out of the 5e ecosystem, to the benefit of other games.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2022)

So far the only thing with certainty is the number of people making youtube video for clickbait, as if Youtube means we should take their opinion as more credible than the random guy ranting in the game store.

It doesn't.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 31, 2022)

mamba said:


> I am certain they spent a lot more time and money on figuring that out, I am not convinced that means that they are not miscalculating here. 4e seems like a good counterpoint to the claim that they always know what they are doing





Reynard said:


> Were they a reliable judge of that when they came up with and implemented the GSL?
> 
> Individuals in charge of corporations are not somehow infallible. That should be obvious.



Well, by all accounts 4e was a commercial success. It was clearly a necessary precursor, in design terms, to 5e (which in mechanical terms has more in common with 4e than with AD&D or 3E).

I don't assert that anyone is infallible. Neither WotC, nor you, nor me. But I still think that WotC is a more reliable judge of what will serve its commercial interests than any poster in this thread.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 31, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> (Do we have enough threads speculating about the OGL?  No, no we do not.)
> 
> Thesis/hot take: a restricted and less open license from wotc for the forthcoming "onednd" would inadvertently benefit the ttrpg hobby more broadly.  While wotc will remain dominant, a restricted license and "walled garden" infrastructure will push _some_ players, streamers, and independent creators toward non-wotc-dnd games.  Many third party projects will still be possible under the existing open game license, and thus onednd will be but one "branch" off the root of 5e-derived games--others, like levelup, mcdm products, or rules lite hacks like 5 torches deep, would exist alongside it.  Further, being cut off from the onednd market may encourage third parties to develop content for other systems.



Wait.

Youre saying, the proposed non-open-license will injure the WotC corporation, and therefore be good for D&D?

LOL!


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 31, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> The need will likely never be overwhelming unless we hit Wall-E levels of dystopia (and I personally see extinction long before then)




Happy new year everyone!


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 31, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Wait.
> 
> Youre saying, the proposed non-open-license will injure the WotC corporation, and *therefore be good for D&D?*
> 
> LOL!



*good for the ttrpg hobby, which includes more than wotc-dnd


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 31, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> *good for the ttrpg hobby, which includes more than wotc-dnd



I got that part.

I think it is funny that

WotC is flirting with the non-open license thinking it will be good for "monetization", while others would egg them on to do it, precisely because they know it wont be.


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 31, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I got that part.
> 
> I think it is funny that
> 
> WotC is flirting with the non-open license thinking it will be good for "monetization", while others would egg them on to do it, precisely because they know it wont be.



Ahh I see   
Though it's possible both are true...subscriptions + walled garden leads to "recurrent spending" for wotc and higher revenue.  Some fraction of people and creators unhappy with that state of affairs branch off into other games


----------



## Catolias (Dec 31, 2022)

A closed license will likely benefit other ttrpg, but not at first. There will be a lot of edition and version warring before things settle if D&D move away from OGL. Disruption, baby!

Mistwell’s post that D&D dominates traditional physical retailers in US(?) is true here for Australia. The biggest game shop franchiser here stocks D&D exclusively. The next rung of game shop stocks pathfinder, but you’d be hard pressed to find others - 13th Age, 7th Sea, legend of the five rings, one ring and  Cthulhu are pretty much absent except from the very few specialised shops that exist.

I don’t agree that D&D is a gateway into other ttrpg. That’s akin to the satanic panic proposition or that alcohol use leads to other drug use or that marijuana means you’ll be doing heroin, fentanyl or Oct. It took me 20 years to jump to another ttrpg and the reason was one of cost and effort and finding gamers to play with.

For me, the success of 5e is its own worse enemy and WoTC faces a conundrum: OGL is not profitable for monetisation purposes and a closed system that generates profits from  monetisation will inevitably be less than an OGL approach.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable -  to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.
> 
> But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.



Of course, WotC's commercial benefit is hardly our concern.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course, WotC's commercial benefit is hardly our concern.



It should be if you care about D&D continuing to be produced and supported, not just the game itself, but all IP, including cartoons and movies.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> Well, by all accounts 4e was a commercial success.



not sure about that, it was kicked to the curb faster than any other edition. It had a great first few months, then a steep drop off and a quick death with things getting cancelled (like Dragonlance 4e).

Had that discussion recently, apparently it is too controversial for this forum somehow, so I leave it at that. To me the ‘by all accounts’ is a function of WotC not telling and this forum actively discouraging discussion.



pemerton said:


> It was clearly a necessary precursor, in design terms, to 5e (which in mechanical terms has more in common with 4e than with AD&D or 3E).



I don’t even think it was a bad version, but 5e is not the version it would have been if 4e actually had been successful. To me it is more a step back, probably due to the success of PF1



pemerton said:


> I don't assert that anyone is infallible. Neither WotC, nor you, nor me. But I still think that WotC is a more reliable judge of what will serve its commercial interests than any poster in this thread.



more reliable in general yes, hard to argue against that. They might be here too, cannot deny that. They certainly did more analysis than all of us combined.

I still think they misjudge the risk on that one, not to the point of it being their downfall, but a possible / probable dent in the juggernaut that would not otherwise be there.
I might get the size of that dent wrong and the fees might justify them, time will tell


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 1, 2023)

"If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)
"...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)
"... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)
"...and then start playing different games instead!"  (we already do.  There is no "instead," there is only "also.")


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 1, 2023)

mamba said:


> he didn’t say it would cause him to play other games, he said this is what prevents him from doing so. Not the same thing
> 
> I agree that this basically means he will play 5e either way, but it is not a contradiction



Yeah, basically this. I admit I may have lost the main point of the thread in my reply. The future popularity of 5e is unlikely to have much influence on what games I will play. Arguably, if it hadn't been so successful, I might not be playing it now.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 1, 2023)

Malmuria said:


> Thank you for this perspective.  Though, it suggests my thesis is wrong, in that if wotc provides a vtt experience that automates gameplay and makes prep easier, it will be more appealing than ttrpg products (e.g. books) that provide different gameplay experiences.



Not sure. I may be that TTRPGs find the effort to prep materials for even a single popular VTT, much less multiple VTTs, not worth their effort. WotC has the resources to do it, and if they do it well, then having all of WotC adventures fully prepped in a VTT optimized to the 5e system could very well be a major competitive advantage. I would certainly consider switching to the WotC VTT if it is delivers a great experience and has everything prepped for me. And it would make 5e even more sticky as I would be even more invested in it as moving to another system would require that much more effort.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

CleverNickName said:


> "If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)



they won't


CleverNickName said:


> "...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)



they are about to


CleverNickName said:


> "... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)



some will


CleverNickName said:


> "...and then start playing different games instead!"  (we already do.  There is no "instead," there is only "also.")



more will


----------



## Reynard (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> Well, by all accounts 4e was a commercial success. It was clearly a necessary precursor, in design terms, to 5e (which in mechanical terms has more in common with 4e than with AD&D or 3E).
> 
> I don't assert that anyone is infallible. Neither WotC, nor you, nor me. But I still think that WotC is a more reliable judge of what will serve its commercial interests than any poster in this thread.



Lol. Let's shut down the whole discussion then.


----------



## overgeeked (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course, WotC's commercial benefit is hardly our concern.



What's good for WotC's bottom line isn't always good for game design nor the industry as a whole.


----------



## overgeeked (Jan 1, 2023)

CleverNickName said:


> "If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)



They might release a version of the game a given player or referee might not want to engage with, but they probably won't "destroy" D&D. They might make it less profitable by making boneheaded business decisions, but they won't intentionally shoot their golden goose.


CleverNickName said:


> "...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)



They've already announced they're going to.


CleverNickName said:


> "... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)



Some already are. But yeah, most will just gobble up whatever WotC puts out.


CleverNickName said:


> "...and then start playing different games instead!"  (we already do.  There is no "instead," there is only "also.")



More will simply stop playing. For a lot of people it's WotC's latest D&D or nothing.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 1, 2023)

overgeeked said:


> They've already announced they're going to.



They've announced they are going to release a more restrictive OGL, yes...but this isn't going to hurt D&D at all.  Because:


overgeeked said:


> But yeah, most will just gobble up whatever WotC puts out.
> 
> More will simply stop playing. For a lot of people it's WotC's latest D&D or nothing.



Customer loyalty is a thing, yes.  Like you said: most of their customers will buy whatever they release.  This isn't because of delusion, ignorance, or hypnosis; it's because they are most familiar with the D&D brand, they like the D&D brand more than the other brands, and they want to support the D&D brand.  _This is a good thing._  Because as long as the D&D brand is thriving, other non-D&D brands can, and will, thrive in its shadow.

Nobody is going to "simply stop playing" D&D because of their OGL.


----------



## Malmuria (Jan 1, 2023)

CleverNickName said:


> "If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)
> "...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)
> "... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)
> "...and then start playing different games instead!"  (we already do.  There is no "instead," there is only "also.")




As stated in the OP, it's not conceivable to me that wotc wouldn't still be dominant in the ttrpg space, so I don't think the "destruction of dnd" is on the table.  The question pertains more specifically to the impact of an OGL 1.1.  I've seen people state that the effect will be negligible because OGL 1.1 will not affect most creators and will not be very onerous to those creators it does affect (this seems to be your position).   Others have stated the effect will be negative, as being able to claim compatibility with the latest edition is important for some creators.

My argument is that the OGL 1.1 is potentially a positive development for non-wotc companies and creators, not because its effect might be negligible, but rather in fracturing the 5e ecosystem it would create a more diverse ttrpg landscape overall.  This is true even if people stick with "5e" and OGL 1.0: one can imagine a slew of 5e derived content, all loosely compatible with each other but still expressing different intent with regards to gameplay and theme.  That's already somewhat the state of affairs (level up, flee mortals, etc) but it would be amplified.  Most optimistically, some of those creators would switch to developing content for other similar systems (pathfinder, 13th age, various OSR/NSR games) or maybe even branch out further, and find more of an audience for their products.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

Sacrosanct said:


> It should be if you care about D&D continuing to be produced and supported, not just the game itself, but all IP, including cartoons and movies.



The game itself is about 90% of what I care about, and I have everything I need from them, pretty much.  Besides, they really don't need my help.  I don't think WotC is in any danger.


----------



## overgeeked (Jan 1, 2023)

CleverNickName said:


> They've announced they are going to release a more restrictive OGL, yes...but _*this isn't going to hurt D&D at all*_.  Because:



It will hurt them, but it won't hurt them much.


CleverNickName said:


> Customer loyalty is a thing, yes.  Like you said: most of their customers will buy whatever they release.



Most. Not all.


CleverNickName said:


> This isn't because of delusion, ignorance, or hypnosis; it's because they are most familiar with the D&D brand, they like the D&D brand more than the other brands, and they want to support the D&D brand.



Eh. Most likely a big chunk are only aware of the D&D brand and completely ignorant of all other RPGs. D&D is the only RPG that's even close to trying to be a brand.


CleverNickName said:


> _This is a good thing._  Because as long as the D&D brand is thriving, other non-D&D brands can, and will, thrive in its shadow.



That's not how it works. There's a limited amount of money and audience, D&D is hoovering up the overwhelmingly vast majority of both. Leaving almost nothing to spread around to all the other games and companies. D&D goes bye bye (or even takes a solid hit to their sales), then a lot of that money and audience will then spill over to other games and companies. A rising tide does not raise all ships.


CleverNickName said:


> Nobody is going to "simply stop playing" D&D because of their OGL.



You must not be reading the same threads on this site that I am, because according to some posters here they already are.


----------



## Catolias (Jan 1, 2023)

CleverNickName said:


> Customer loyalty is a thing, yes. Like you said: most of their customers will buy whatever they release. This isn't because of delusion, ignorance, or hypnosis; it's because they are most familiar with the D&D brand, they like the D&D brand more than the other brands, and they want to support the D&D brand. _This is a good thing._ Because as long as the D&D brand is thriving, other non-D&D brands can, and will, thrive in its shadow.



This is a _non sequitur_. Customers liking the D&D brand will not lead to people investigating or being interested in other non-D&D ttrpg. They might stick with 5e, transfer to 1D&D or give up altogether.

D&D is the dominant player that crowds out smaller games and denies the light and exposure for other rule systems. Brands do not thrive in shadows. Especially when entering into a recession / economic downturn.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

Sacrosanct said:


> It should be if you care about D&D continuing to be produced and supported, not just the game itself, but all IP, including cartoons and movies.



I really do not care about their cartoons and movies. I was willing to throw them a bone and watch the movie, but no longer am.


----------



## overgeeked (Jan 1, 2023)

Catolias said:


> This is a _non sequitur_. Customers liking the D&D brand will not lead to people investigating or being interested in other non-D&D ttrpg. They might stick with 5e, transfer to 1D&D or give up altogether.
> 
> D&D is the dominant player that crowds out smaller games and denies the light and exposure for other rule systems. Brands do not thrive in shadows. Especially when entering into a recession / economic downturn.



Exactly. It's a weird stance to take when we're literally watching non-D&D game companies start producing 5E content because they need the cash. Paizo doing 5E adventure paths, Cubicle 7 doing Middle Earth and Doctor Who in 5E, and so many others.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 1, 2023)

overgeeked said:


> Exactly. It's a weird stance to take when we're literally watching non-D&D game companies start producing 5E content because they need the cash. Paizo doing 5E adventure paths, Cubicle 7 doing Middle Earth and Doctor Who in 5E, and so many others.



Hm.  I guess I'll have to check back in a year or two and see how badly I got it wrong.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

CleverNickName said:


> Hm.  I guess I'll have to check back in a year or two and see how badly I got it wrong.



I don't think you are off by a lot when it comes to WotC, I am more interested in what happens to the 3PP side though / whether the OGL 1.1 makes any headway or gets essentially rejected


----------



## Catolias (Jan 1, 2023)

Malmuria said:


> As stated in the OP, it's not conceivable to me that wotc wouldn't still be dominant in the ttrpg space, so I don't think the "destruction of dnd" is on the table.



I agree that it is unlikely, but I do think it is conceivable and possible in given circumstances. The impact of the economic downturn and a move to monetisation will be difficult and have some potential adverse consequences if it goes really bad.



Malmuria said:


> My argument is that the OGL 1.1 is potentially a positive development for non-wotc companies and creators, not because its effect might be negligible, but rather in fracturing the 5e ecosystem it would create a more diverse ttrpg landscape overall.



Totally agree. This has the potential to break weaken WoTC’s dominance, particularly if there are hidden costs on third parties for producing 5e stuff. Those companies might down size but theywon’t necessarily shut up shop—they’ll refocus on to the next best thing.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2023)

mamba said:


> I really do not care about their cartoons and movies. I was willing to throw them a bone and watch the movie, but no longer am.



Wait, what?  Watch the movie because it seems interesting.  Don't watch it if it doesn't.  Shouldn't have anything to do with 1dnd or OGL or whatever.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

Sacrosanct said:


> Wait, what?  Watch the movie because it seems interesting.  Don't watch it if it doesn't.  Shouldn't have anything to do with 1dnd or OGL or whatever.



It does not really interest me, at best I am mildly curious and expect little from it. That can be enough to make me see it (more tagging along than anything), it's not like it costs a lot. I spend $10-20 on a whim frequently enough, this would have been no different.

If you think WotC's stance on this has no impact on my purchasing decisions regarding WotC products, you are mistaken. As I said, I believe WotC is completely underestimating the amount of goodwill they are burning, but maybe I overestimate it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2023)

mamba said:


> I am certain they spent a lot more time and money on figuring that out, I am not convinced that means that they are not miscalculating here. 4e seems like a good counterpoint to the claim that they always know what they are doing
> 
> Also, I used a direct quote from an interview (the rising tide bit). They believed it then. If they still believed that, they would not change the OGL



Internally, 4e was known to be "not what it was intended to be" from the start. Joseph Batten murdered his wife and committed suicide. This locked the devs out of the software and tools being developed for 4e, which it was supposed to launch with. They had to retool the rules to be a standalone product without the intended accompanying electronic portion of the game, in a very short period of time.

The GSL was probably related to that topic at the time as well (apparently it was written before this all happened). The electronic tool was likely originally a key component to why a 3rd party developer would want to sign on to the stricter GSL, as it probably was supposed to include access to the digital end of the products.

None of this was " what they were doing" as planned. They certainly made an error in not delaying the product and taking a look at all the aspects that needed to be altered to make it all work, which likely meant either going back to the OGL or re-developing the electronic portion before launch. They also needed a playtest of this alternate version of the game. But reports are things were a bit chaotic and their backs were to a deadline set outside of WOTC. 

I am not so sure it's a good example of a counterpoint to them knowing or not knowing what they are doing. These 5e to 5.5e circumstances to not appear similar to the 3.5e to 4e circumstances in terms of "knowing what they are doing."


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

Mistwell said:


> Internally, 4e was known to be "not what it was intended to be" from the start. Joseph Batten murdered his wife and committed suicide. This locked the devs out of the software and tools being developed for 4e, which it was supposed to launch with. They had to retool the rules to be a standalone product without the intended accompanying electronic portion of the game, in a very short period of time.



thanks, wasn’t really paying attention around the time of 4e, so this is new to me. I am sure this contributed to the issue, but I doubt you can put all the blame there.

And the fact that one developer ‘disappearing’ could cause this much disruption goes back to not knowing what they are doing.



Mistwell said:


> The GSL was probably related to that topic at the time as well (apparently it was written before this all happened). The electronic tool was likely originally a key component to why a 3rd party developer would want to sign on to the stricter GSL, as it probably was supposed to include access to the digital end of the products.



I doubt the GSL would have been much more successful otherwise. The objections were about the terms being unacceptable, a better carrot does not change that.

Had the terms been reasonable, then the carrot could have helped.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 1, 2023)

overgeeked said:


> More will simply stop playing. For a lot of people it's WotC's latest D&D or nothing.



Not sure that this is true. If it is, its sad. There is so much good 5e-compatible adventures and rules put out by third parties. I would like to think that the success of MCCM and Critical Role products, at least, so that the newer generation has an appetite for expanding their game with third-party content.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 1, 2023)

overgeeked said:


> That's not how it works. There's a limited amount of money and audience, D&D is hoovering up the overwhelmingly vast majority of both. Leaving almost nothing to spread around to all the other games and companies. D&D goes bye bye (or even takes a solid hit to their sales), then a lot of that money and audience will then spill over to other games and companies. A rising tide does not raise all ships.



I'm not going to play the show-your-sources game, but anecdotally, I find this to be clearly untrue. 5e brought be back into gaming in 2014 and although I do not play non-5e games often, I have purchased at least eight different systems since 2014 and I have spend quite a bit of money on third-party 5e content. I have also spend a lot on software and physical game aids, very little of that put out by WotC. And that was during a period of incredible DnD growth. Would I buy even more TPP content if WotC went bye-bye? Most probably. But the fact that DnD has done so well certainly got me back into the hobby and led to me reading discussion boards, going to conventions and local gaming stores, and finding other games to try. What other TTRPG has a company like Hasbro and its marketing power behind it?  If DnD were to go away, existing players might buy a lot more, but I think that fewer new people would be attracted to the hobby and it would sink back into being an obscure niche hobby.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 1, 2023)

Catolias said:


> D&D is the dominant player that crowds out smaller games and denies the light and exposure for other rule systems. Brands do not thrive in shadows. Especially when entering into a recession / economic downturn.



No, it is a massive spotlight that if it went away would leave the hobby in darkness. 

I mean, I hadn't even heard of Pathfinder before I started playing 5e. What other game publisher has the marketing power to make people completely outside the TTRPG hobby aware of their existence?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2023)

Catolias said:


> This is a _non sequitur_. Customers liking the D&D brand will not lead to people investigating or being interested in other non-D&D ttrpg. They might stick with 5e, transfer to 1D&D or give up altogether.
> 
> D&D is the dominant player that crowds out smaller games and denies the light and exposure for other rule systems. Brands do not thrive in shadows. Especially when entering into a recession / economic downturn.



A rising tide lifts all boats. That's not just a saying. ICv2 reports on sales and they've said as D&D does better, the games below D&D also do better. 

The biggest barrier is just getting people to go from not playing RPGs to playing their first RPG. It's a whole lot easier to move someone from playing D&D to playing Pathfinder or something else, than it is to move them from playing no RPGs to directly playing Pathfinder or whatever other non-D&D game. Because the later requires a human to directly invite you to a game and encourage you to play. 

D&D comes with it's own built in brand recognition - you can just see the Starter Set at Target, recognize what it is immediately because you watched Stanger Things (or whatever other brand exposure you've had, like a movie), and buy and try it. That just doesn't happen with any other RPG like it can with D&D.


----------



## overgeeked (Jan 1, 2023)

MNblockhead said:


> But the fact that DnD has done so well certainly got me back into the hobby and led to me reading discussion boards, going to conventions and local gaming stores, and finding other games to try.



So you got back into gaming because 5E made a lot of money?


MNblockhead said:


> What other TTRPG has a company like Hasbro and its marketing power behind it?



None. That’s part of the problem.


MNblockhead said:


> If DnD were to go away, existing players might buy a lot more, but I think that fewer new people would be attracted to the hobby and it would sink back into being an obscure niche hobby.



Except you’re forgetting pop culture. The two main vectors for non-gamers finding out about D&D through pop culture over the last decade had been Stranger Things and Critical Role. Unless something drastic happens, CR and Stranger Things will continue to exist. They will keep going. CR is far more likely to continue putting out new content longer than Stranger Things. That’s not going away.

Word of mouth is still a thing. All the players that exist now, who like the hobby and want to keep engaging with it, will keep on doing so. Regardless of what D&D or WotC does. With D&D around, sucking up the majority of the money and audience, most fans will just stick with them. WotC sours enough fans or tanks the new edition, then interested fans will migrate to other games. We’ve literally been through this before with 4E and Paizo’s Pathfinder. 

At a guess, the “new Pathfinder” will be Critical Role. All they have to do is put out a book of rules and their millions of fans will jump on it. If the rules are close to 5E, great. If not, their fans will still snatch it up. And just like that, you have a giant new competitor to D&D. They instantly have millions of eyes on their products and game system. Week after week after week. Oh, and their animated series on Amazon Prime. You want advertising that rivals Hasbro? There you go. I’d be surprised if they didn’t join up with MCDM to do something, considering they’re friends. Mercer can homebrew some classes and worldbuild better than most, but Colville has the design chops. CR has the fan base. WotC tanks it with the OGL…blam. “New Pathfinder.”


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course, WotC's commercial benefit is hardly our concern.



I didn't say it wasn't. But there are posters in this thread, and the other OGL threads, arguing that WotC is making a _commercial mistake_ by proposing a different licensing regime for its revised SRD. I am saying that I think WotC is a more reliable judge of its commercial interests than are those posters.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2023)

Reynard said:


> Lol. Let's shut down the whole discussion then.



Does the discussion have more to offer than ungrounded speculation about WotC's licensing plans and their commercial prospects?

As someone who regularly posts on these boards, almost always in the past six years about non-D&D play, I would say that one obstacle to the take-up of non-D&D games is that most posters seem to have a very strong preference for the D&D approach in which the GM controls backstory, and framing, and consequences. Whereas, the non-D&D games that I think are the most interesting are precisely those which depart from one or more of these key D&D premises.

Look at the thread on dungeon crawls, and see how many posters are not interested in dungeon crawl play beyond the aesthetics of _being in a dungeon_. Look at the thread on story, and see how many posters seem either ignorant of, or uninterested in, how extant RPGs like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel support non-GM-authored story-oriented RPGing. Look at the threads on DM workloads, and see how few posts suggest that the solution to workloads is to adopt approaches that don't require the GM to do the work.

The success or failure of WotC's licensing plans is not going to change this basic orientation of the (apparent) bulk of RPGers.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable -  to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.
> 
> But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.



Bad business decisions happen all the time.

New Coke
The Edsel
The company that passed on buying Google for 750k
Blockbuster passing on Netflix at 50 million

Just to name a few.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2023)

Maxperson said:


> Bad business decisions happen all the time.
> 
> New Coke
> The Edsel
> ...



No one says they don't. That doesn't give me any reason to think that anyone in this thread has a better grasp than WotC does of its commercial interests.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> I didn't say it wasn't. But there are posters in this thread, and the other OGL threads, arguing that WotC is making a _commercial mistake_ by proposing a different licensing regime for its revised SRD. I am saying that I think WotC is a more reliable judge of its commercial interests than are those posters.



Yeah, I don't know about that.  I think they're making a consumer mistake, from my perspective.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, I don't know about that.  I think they're making a consumer mistake, from my perspective.



Does a "consumer mistake, from your perspective" mean that you wish they would publish something different?


----------



## pogre (Jan 1, 2023)

Malmuria I hope that was not your video, because I agree with much of your opening post, but the video was pure clickbait nonsense.



pemerton said:


> I would say that one obstacle to the take-up of non-D&D games is that most posters seem to have a very strong preference for the D&D approach in which the GM controls backstory, and framing, and consequences. Whereas, the non-D&D games that I think are the most interesting are precisely those which depart from one or more of these key D&D premises.




100%. Now, unlike you, I really enjoy running that kind of game. 

However, like you, I enjoy running a number of other games - I would say at least 50% of the folks at my 5e games automatically pass on any campaign that is not 5e. They pass for precisely the reasons you mention - even though, I am not sure all of them would articulate it in this way.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2023)

pogre said:


> Now, unlike you, I really enjoy running that kind of game.
> 
> However, like you, I enjoy running a number of other games - I would say at least 50% of the folks at my 5e games automatically pass on any campaign that is not 5e. They pass for precisely the reasons you mention - even though, I am not sure all of them would articulate it in this way.



The closest I've come in recent years to running that sort of game is Torchbearer 2e, which uses GM-authored dungeons as a key element of play.

But I still suspect that Torchbearer, especially as my table approaches it, is more player-driven than many D&D players (and most D&D-only players) would prefer. The players made the main decisions that established PC backstory, and that set the overall agenda for our sessions (admittedly the game makes this pretty easy, by centring "get loot" as a key motivation for all characters).

So far I've had two sessions of play out of a 6-room dungeon that I wrote up in an afternoon, and expect to get at least another session out of it. I got two sessions out of the four-room house of one of the PCs' enemies, which again took an afternoon or an evening to write up. The system means that I don't need to do any prep for the PCs' time in town (it has its own framework for town events and in-town action resolution that drives downtime action).

It's about as low-prep as I can imagine a system getting that relies on the GM to provide D&D-style content, and if I was wanting to lower the barrier to entry for new D&D GMs, I'd be taking a look at some of the methods Torchbearer uses. Which I know is a bit off-topic, but to me seems more significant in thinking about how D&D sits in relation to other RPGs than speculating about the OGL.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 1, 2023)

mamba said:


> not sure about that, it was kicked to the curb faster than any other edition. It had a great first few months, then a steep drop off and a quick death with things getting cancelled (like Dragonlance 4e).




4e might have dropped of hard because the game stores (at least here in germany) did not stand behind that edition.
Maybe because the paper books were worthless after a few month. They had soo many errors in their first printing which were never corrected. Instead you needed online resources to keep up to date.
Actually that was the only time, I was a bit ashamed to like the current edition of D&D...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, I don't know about that.  I think they're making a consumer mistake, from my perspective.




Which might be a good choice for wotc, because your preferences might be diametral to the popular demand.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Which might be a good choice for wotc, because your preferences might be diametral to the popular demand.



Maybe, but that does nothing for me and mine.  I'm not responsible for WotC's profits, and I don't care if they make even more money.  What I want is to have WotC's overbearing influence on gaming be less overbearing.  This whole thing seems hell-bent on doing the opposite.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Which might be a good choice for wotc, because your preferences might be diametral to the popular demand.



If we were talking about game design you might have a point. I do not see how this at all translates to the OGL terms / who possibly could perceive them as an improvement. Best case for WotC they won't care or even know about it, and there will be enough of those.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 4e might have dropped of hard because the game stores (at least here in germany) did not stand behind that edition.



Pretty sure they would have carried it if there had been demand, anything else is irrational


----------



## overgeeked (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe, but that does nothing for me and mine.  I'm not responsible for WotC's profits, and I don't care if they make even more money.  What I want is to have WotC's overbearing influence on gaming be less overbearing.  This whole thing seems hell-bent on doing the opposite.



I wonder how dominant they have to be before it's a monopoly. I guess they could argue anyone can just make a game at any time, but that's irrelevant. It's essentially already a monopoly.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe, but that does nothing for me and mine.  I'm not responsible for WotC's profits, and I don't care if they make even more money.  What I want is to have WotC's overbearing influence on gaming be less overbearing.  This whole thing seems hell-bent on doing the opposite.




Ok. Never implied that. 
Just said that regarding your estimation of what is a good or a bad decision by wotc.
I personall think it is a good idea for wotc to not do it as you like, because it would smaller their customer base. 

That does not mean that I don't want your preferences to be supported in some way. I see nothing in the OGL 1.1 that prevents that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 1, 2023)

mamba said:


> If we were talking about game design you might have a point. I do not see how this at all translates to the OGL terms / who possibly could perceive them as an improvement. Best case for WotC they won't care or even know about it, and there will be enough of those.




I did not specifically talked about that. But they hopefully have something planned that allows 3rd parties to do things that he likes.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 1, 2023)

MNblockhead said:


> Not sure that this is true. If it is, its sad. There is so much good 5e-compatible adventures and rules put out by third parties. I would like to think that the success of MCCM and Critical Role products, at least, so that the newer generation has an appetite for expanding their game with third-party content.



Of course it's true.  And we know exactly how true it is EN World-wise by all the posters here who get all up in arms and argue and complain about the work WotC produces.  Everything they make in books or in Unearthed Arcana playtest documents have people arrive here on the boards to go over all them with fine-toothed combs and complain about what they've made.  Even people _who admit they don't actually like or still play_ WotC-based 5E... still can't help but come here to rant and rave about what WotC does.

THAT tells us all we need to know about just how ubiquitous D&D 5E is.  The very definition of "I wish I knew how to quit you."  And why this hope of people that "the world of TTRPGs expands out beyond Wizards of the Coast" is I think a rather disingenuous complaint.  All these people who want 3PPs or other RPGs to rise up out of the shadow that 5E is casting can't help themselves _make the shadow even bigger by still keeping themselves handcuffed to 5E_.  They _still_ keep involved in its development.  They _still_ want WotC to make D&D 5E rules changes in the style of games they want to play. 

(General) you complain about WotC and their massive 5E game and how it crowds everybody else out... and yet rather than break ties with this game you feel is an anchor around the hobby... (general) you still care so much about how the game continues and what kinds of books and rules for it get released that you continually stayed involved and talk about it, thus perpetuating its influence.  (General) you are as much responsible for WotC's 5E shadow as anyone.

You want me to believe you TRULY care about the larger TTRPG eco-system and want to bring other games and companies out from underneath the shadow of WotC?  Break off from 5E once and for all.  Stop giving them the press.  Because every time you come here onto EN World to talk about it you are showing us all that you actually want to see WotC maintain its position.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 1, 2023)

mamba said:


> Pretty sure they would have carried it if there had been demand, anything else is irrational




German editions were cut. The books were just not good. Regarding monetization: most people i know just used the online character builder. So no. The demand probably dropped of hard.

With 5e, I (and probably store owners) can say to someone: buy those books, they are still useful 8 years into the edition. With 4e, I told everyone not to buy those books immediately. I did not buy them.
I guess, there were many people who felt the same, even if they liked 4e back then.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok. Never implied that.
> Just said that regarding your estimation of what is a good or a bad decision by wotc.
> I personall think it is a good idea for wotc to not do it as you like, because it would smaller their customer base.
> 
> That does not mean that I don't want your preferences to be supported in some way. I see nothing in the OGL 1.1 that prevents that.



The new OGL, provided that it provides _ some_ actual incentive for 3PP to adopt it, will restrict content released under it.  If 3PP whose content I currently enjoy sign onto it, they will restrict their content to what WotC will allow for the license, for whatever benefit WotC sees fit to provide and eventually tell us about.  For example, I don't like the direction WotC's new edition is going toward.  People writing under 1.1 will likely fall under that direction, thus producing content that I might (probably will) like less.

I don't want that to happen, and the possibility that it doing so might make WotC even more successful and influential in the industry is a point against it to me, not in favor of it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of course it's true.  And we know exactly how true it is EN World-wise by all the posters here who get all up in arms and argue and complain about the work WotC produces.  Everything they make in books or in Unearthed Arcana playtest documents have people arrive here on the boards to go over all them with fine-toothed combs and complain about what they've made.  Even people _who admit they don't actually like or still play_ WotC-based 5E... still can't help but come here to rant and rave about what WotC does.
> 
> THAT tells us all we need to know about just how ubiquitous D&D 5E is.  The very definition of "I wish I knew how to quit you."  And why this hope of people that "the world of TTRPGs expands out beyond Wizards of the Coast" is I think a rather disingenuous complaint.  All these people who want 3PPs or other RPGs to rise up out of the shadow that 5E is casting can't help themselves _make the shadow even bigger by still keeping themselves handcuffed to 5E_.  They _still_ keep involved in its development.  They _still_ want WotC to make D&D 5E rules changes in the style of games they want to play.
> 
> ...



90% (made-up number) of talk on this forum concerns WotC D&D, or assumes that it does.  Are you asking people to basically leave ENWorld?  I can't speak for others, but I don't play constantly, so a lot of my engagement with the hobby I love comes from here.  Not weighing in on WotC D&D is an ENORMOUS restriction on discourse.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I did not specifically talked about that. But they hopefully have something planned that allows 3rd parties to do things that he likes.



There is no reason to believe that, and every reason to believe that WotC's goal is to get as many people as possible on board with their game.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jan 1, 2023)

UngeheuerLich said:


> German editions were cut. The books were just not good. Regarding monetization: most people i know just used the online character builder. So no. The demand probably dropped of hard.
> 
> With 5e, I (and probably store owners) can say to someone: buy those books, they are still useful 8 years into the edition. With 4e, I told everyone not to buy those books immediately. I did not buy them.
> I guess, there were many people who felt the same, even if they liked 4e back then.



The invisible corebook known as "The Complete Errata Handbook" was definitely a problem for me when I played 4e.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> There is no reason to believe that, and every reason to believe that WotC's goal is to get as many people as possible on board with their game.




I don't think so. They probably know that there are better options to cater to some tastes (hint: DM's guild).


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> No one says they don't. That doesn't give me any reason to think that anyone in this thread has a better grasp than WotC does of its commercial interests.



WotC has fumbled the ball more than once with D&D, though.  I don't have a ton of confidence in their ability to make decisions.  Further, Hasbro has a lot of influence, which means executives without a lot of experience with RPGs will have hands in the pot.


----------



## Catolias (Jan 1, 2023)

Mistwell said:


> A rising tide lifts all boats. That's not just a saying. ICv2 reports on sales and they've said as D&D does better, the games below D&D also do better.



True, but the saying assumes that everything else is equal or remains the same. Changing the OGL rules, however, adds another dimension. If the D&D boat is the only one accessed by a marina and they control how and who gets access to it, then have an advantage over the disadvantaged boats on a swing mooring accessed by a row boat.


----------



## Catolias (Jan 1, 2023)

Maxperson said:


> Bad business decisions happen all the time.
> 
> New Coke
> The Edsel
> ...



You forgot Musk’s Twitter as a current real-time example of bad decision making! (And the cascading impact it is having on Tesla)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 1, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm not responsible for WotC's profits, and I don't care if they make even more money.  What I want is to have WotC's overbearing influence on gaming be less overbearing.  This whole thing seems hell-bent on doing the opposite.





mamba said:


> Pretty sure they would have carried it if there had been demand, anything else is irrational



I don't think the sentiments underlying these two posts can both be true: that is, I don't see how it can be true _both_ that there is demand for RPGs that is independent of what WotC decides to do (which can result, for instance, in WotC making poor business decisions by misjudging what RPG consumers want), _and_ that WotC exercises overbearing influence on RPGing.

For what it's worth, to me there seems to be a fairly consistent demand from the "mainstream" RPGing population. It falls into the genre/mode of RPGing often called _neo-trad_. (Here's a description.) The core features of neo-trad RPGing, as I understand it, are (i) players coming up with vibrant conceptions of their PCs, expressed through a mixture of backstory, performance and PC build; (ii) the GM presenting a vibrant fictional world that those PCs can inhabit; (iii) the actual process of play involves the GM heavily curating the fiction - which includes introduction of both their own and the players' backstory, plus framing, plus consequences - in such a way that the players' conceptions of their vibrant PCs can easily and clearly emerge.

I would expect WotC, in its ongoing development of 5e D&D, to try to further strengthen the support for neo-trad RPGing while also maintaining the technical aspects of the game - which manifest primarily in PC and monster build and in the combat rules (and include the resource management aspects of the game) - which are perhaps less important to neo-trad play but are core elements of the D&D tradition and clearly remain important to many D&D players.

I would expect this to be combined with "monetisation" options, both connected to play and selling D&D-branded stuff more generally.

WotC's approach to licensing will (presumably) be based around both concerns. Keeping Critical Role in the tent seems pretty crucial. Preventing some competitor from establishing a break-out digital platform disconnected from WotC seems pretty important to. (This is a point that I've seen @Hussar mention.)



DEFCON 1 said:


> Even people _who admit they don't actually like or still play_ WotC-based 5E... still can't help but come here to rant and rave about what WotC does.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You want me to believe you TRULY care about the larger TTRPG eco-system and want to bring other games and companies out from underneath the shadow of WotC?  Break off from 5E once and for all.  Stop giving them the press.  Because every time you come here onto EN World to talk about it you are showing us all that you actually want to see WotC maintain its position.



It seems to me that many of those posters really want WotC to turn the clock back, from its support for neo-trad to something closer to late 80s or early 90s AD&D (which were pretty similar in style despite the updated rulebooks part way through that period).

There's an apparent belief that if WotC changed its approach, the market would follow and hence there would be heaps of players available for those AD&D-style trad D&D games.

My own view is that that belief is false, and that WotC is following the market more than shaping its preferences. The shaping of the preferences is coming from other and more diffuse places - Critical Role, the way protagonist-based action films have developed over the past 40-ish years (Arnie's films being early examples, and MCU showing how it can be done in an ensemble fashion), the sort of RPGing that 3E and then PF encouraged, etc.

The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.


----------



## mamba (Jan 1, 2023)

pemerton said:


> I don't think the sentiments underlying these two posts can both be true: that is, I don't see how it can be true _both_ that there is demand for RPGs that is independent of what WotC decides to do (which can result, for instance, in WotC making poor business decisions by misjudging what RPG consumers want), _and_ that WotC exercises overbearing influence on RPGing.



why? You can be dominant _and_ make bad decisions. If you keep doing this, you will not stay dominant forever however 

Also, if you look at what these two comments refer to, one is referring to 4e, so maybe 2010, and the other to today. It is hard to argue that the influence / dominance of WotC has remained constant over those years.


----------



## Malmuria (Jan 2, 2023)

pemerton said:


> My own view is that that belief is false, and that WotC is following the market more than shaping its preferences. The shaping of the preferences is coming from other and more diffuse places - Critical Role, the way protagonist-based action films have developed over the past 40-ish years (Arnie's films being early examples, and MCU showing how it can be done in an ensemble fashion), the sort of RPGing that 3E and then PF encouraged, etc.




Many of the other seemingly successful gaming companies out there are indeed making neo-trad type games, but I still wouldn't call any of these companies competitors to wotc per say.  These include Paizo, Chaosium, Modiphius, Free League, and others.  Indeed, in my hypothetical scenario in the OP, I would imagine that if people move off 5e they would either move to 5e clones or to these other neo-trad games.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 2, 2023)

Catolias said:


> True, but the saying assumes that everything else is equal or remains the same. Changing the OGL rules, however, adds another dimension. If the D&D boat is the only one accessed by a marina and they control how and who gets access to it, then have an advantage over the disadvantaged boats on a swing mooring accessed by a row boat.



Only one of the games on the ICv2 list were OGL games that I recall, and that was Goodman who already operate under their own independent license they worked out with WOTC on the side. The rest are their own games I think? Pathfinder 2e, GI Joe, Power Rangers, Cyberpunk, Alien, Fate, etc..

I mean, what is it you think is relevant about the 1.1 license that cannot be done with the existing 1.0 license for other games on the list? The only thing I've speculated is it's probably about access to DNDBeyond and the new VTT, which isn't relevant for other RPGs really. So what Marina and what access to a boat are you talking about? All the other boats are rising, regardless of a 1.1 license.

D&D doing well is good for all RPGs.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2023)

Malmuria said:


> Many of the other seemingly successful gaming companies out there are indeed making neo-trad type games, but I still wouldn't call any of these companies competitors to wotc per say.  These include Paizo, Chaosium, Modiphius, Free League, and others.  Indeed, in my hypothetical scenario in the OP, I would imagine that if people move off 5e they would either move to 5e clones or to these other neo-trad games.





Malmuria said:


> a restricted and less open license from wotc for the forthcoming "onednd" would inadvertently benefit the ttrpg hobby more broadly.  While wotc will remain dominant, a restricted license and "walled garden" infrastructure will push _some_ players, streamers, and independent creators toward non-wotc-dnd games.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I've tried to pick out the key bits of your OP that relate to your reply to me.

If the non-WotC, non-D&D games that are going to grow - in your OP scenario - are other games that are very similar to 5e D&D in how they play, I'm not sure how that would benefit the hobby. I can see how it would benefit the publishers of those other games, but it would seem to leave the hobby more-or-less unchanged.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 2, 2023)

overgeeked said:


> So you got back into gaming because 5E made a lot of money?



I suppose not. I bought the PHB from my FLGS close to when it was first released. In a sense, I'm part of the demographic of ex-gamers that 5e brought back into the fold and help make it a commercial success. Brand recognition helped, but I played back in the 80s. I mean, I didn't even know anything about the history of TSR failing, the WotC buyout, or the raise of Paizo until I got back into the hobby. I didn't know about, much less watch Critical Role or any live play games, and Stranger Things wouldn't be released until almost two years after I got back into the game. 

But I don't think that I'm the demographic that matters. How do you get people that have no personal or family experience with TTRPGs to be aware of and interested in trying them? This is where Hasbro/WotC can have a much bigger impact than any other publisher in the TTRPG space.


overgeeked said:


> None. That’s part of the problem.



This was in response to my question: "What other TTRPG has a company like Hasbro and its marketing power behind it?  I would love to see a TTRPG "DC" to WotC's "Marvel".  Having two, or more, major publishers that could grow the hobby would be awesome. But I'm having trouble seeing it happening, at least in the near future. There are a variety of IPs that have related TTRPGs (Witcher, Dr. Who, Star Wars, Dragon Prince, etc.).  But I don't think that the average viewer of those shows associate them with games. It seems to be those already in the hobby who are interested in playing TTRPGs based on other IPs.  D&D is the one TTRPG brand that someone outside of the hobby will associate with a game.  I would rather pin my hopes on the D&D movie being a success and bringing even more people into the hobby, than hoping for the more unlikely scenario that another brand will arise that can make the same connection and have a similar impact.



overgeeked said:


> Except you’re forgetting pop culture. The two main vectors for non-gamers finding out about D&D through pop culture over the last decade had been Stranger Things and Critical Role. Unless something drastic happens, CR and Stranger Things will continue to exist. They will keep going. CR is far more likely to continue putting out new content longer than Stranger Things. That’s not going away.



But both of those are tied to DnD. If DnD were to "go away" what makes you think that someone will be led to a different TTRPG?  Also, while I think CR has had a large, positive impact on the hobby, I feel live-stream TTRPG games are fairly niche. CR and D&D are in a symbiotic relationship. The popularity of CR certainly helps D&D but the popularity of D&D also brings more potential fans to CR. I found CR because of D&D, not the other way around.


overgeeked said:


> Word of mouth is still a thing. All the players that exist now, who like the hobby and want to keep engaging with it, will keep on doing so. Regardless of what D&D or WotC does. With D&D around, sucking up the majority of the money and audience, most fans will just stick with them. WotC sours enough fans or tanks the new edition, then interested fans will migrate to other games. We’ve literally been through this before with 4E and Paizo’s Pathfinder.



Did the 4e / Pathfinder situation grow the hobby as a whole or just redistribute existing players?  I don't pretend to have a deep understanding of the history and Pathfinder or the overall sales numbers for the hobby from that period, but it seems to me that Paizo was successful mainly by taking away consumers from WotC, rather than bringing large numbers of new fans to the hobby. 

If we are at peak numbers of consumers for the hobby, I think your analysis makes sense. But I believe that the hobby as a whole has a lot of room to grow and Hasbro/WotC is best positioned to grow the hobby. I'm also not sure if I agree with your argument that "most fans will just stick with [D&D]."  I don't have the numbers and maybe you do, but anecdotally, I see a lot of people who start with D&D branching out to other systems. I certainly did. In my case most of my money is still D&D related, but most of that has been on companies other than WotC: third-party books, terrain, miniatures, VTT and other game-related software. If I had a different work and travel situation, I would play more non-D&D games. It will be interesting to see how my son's middle-school aged D&D group evolves. If my experiences from the 80s hold any relevance to today's youth, I expect that as they move into high school they will branch out to other systems.



overgeeked said:


> At a guess, the “new Pathfinder” will be Critical Role. All they have to do is put out a book of rules and their millions of fans will jump on it. If the rules are close to 5E, great. If not, their fans will still snatch it up. And just like that, you have a giant new competitor to D&D. They instantly have millions of eyes on their products and game system. Week after week after week. Oh, and their animated series on Amazon Prime. You want advertising that rivals Hasbro? There you go. I’d be surprised if they didn’t join up with MCDM to do something, considering they’re friends. Mercer can homebrew some classes and worldbuild better than most, but Colville has the design chops. CR has the fan base. WotC tanks it with the OGL…blam. “New Pathfinder.”



That would be cool, I'm just not as optimistic that CR would be able impact popular culture as deeply and as widely as Hasbro/WotC can. Vox Machina is a fun show. I backed it on Kickstarter and enjoyed the first season. But it is intimately tied with D&D. Also, it isn't something that many parents would let their kids watch. I don't know anyone outside of people I talk to on the Internet that watched it. I don't feel that it will rival the D&D movie, even if the D&D movie under performs. That is not meant as a dig on CR. I love what CR and MCDM have done and have spend a lot on both of their content. But I don't seem them as being in the same league as D&D, but rather good companies profiting from being in D&D's orbit.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 2, 2023)

While it's certainly gaining ground, RPGs still have a way to go before they hit the kind of critical mass that makes them just a normal thing that people do (not counting video games). My sibling-in-law apparently didn't even know about D&D until I mentioned it! It would be neat to be in a situation where D&D was just one of many big-name RPGs that everyone has at least heard of, but it's still a niche area, and having one major company that most people know pushing RPGs is better than having zero. Hopefully we can get to the days where we're all groaning about Disney buying up Kobold Press or something, but we're not quite there yet.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2023)

@MNblockhead We've got different relationships to 5e D&D, but everything you say in your post just upthread seems sensible to me. For those of us who are enthusiastic about non-D&D RPGs, I think the best thing is to explain (politely in relevant threads, and most of all by actual play accounts) what we think they have to offer. Then only-D&Ders can work out whether or not they're interested. I don't think the commercial fate of WotC is directly relevant to this one way or the other, except to the extent that D&D does bring new potential players into the fold.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 2, 2023)

Micah Sweet said:


> 90% (made-up number) of talk on this forum concerns WotC D&D, or assumes that it does.  Are you asking people to basically leave ENWorld?  I can't speak for others, but I don't play constantly, so a lot of my engagement with the hobby I love comes from here.  Not weighing in on WotC D&D is an ENORMOUS restriction on discourse.



I'm saying that if you _really_ want "WotC's overbearing influence" (as you put it) to stop being on top of the hobby... then you have to be a part of that stop.  And the only way that happens is if people stop giving their time and energy towards WotC and 5E and spend their time on the games they actually like.

For instance, I don't give a rat's ass about Pathfinder.  Good or bad.  So I have never once posted in the Pathfinder subforum and probably have only glanced at it a few times over the last dozen years.  And I'm even playing in a PF game right now!  But by me not spending any of my time or energy adding to that subforum by posting in it... the forum is just ever-so-slightly smaller.  Which means other people who might come here and take a look see a forum just ever-so-slightly less active, and thus perhaps they decide not to get involve either (or simply get involved less, because there's less "going on" there.)  And if you take my decision and you multiply it by _all the other_ people who also don't care about Pathfinder... eventually the board gets smaller and smaller with nothing of interest to talk about and less new people come looking for it because it's become smaller and smaller.   And eventually the Pathfinder board loses influence, cache, and maybe even dies out down the line.  And when you take that lack of interest in the subforum and you translate it over to _the game_, the game then becomes smaller and smaller as well, with less influence or cache.  Which is exactly what we have right now... a Pathfinder (and especially a Pathfinder 2) which does not in any way hold any sway in the gaming marketplace like they used to when they were poised up against 4E and were dominant.

And some of the folks here want 5E to follow suit?  Then you gotta follow the same playbook.

Isn't the old cliche "There is no bad press"?  And that's exactly what is happening here.  By constantly talking about D&D 5E (even negatively) you are keeping these boards alive and keeping interactions on the game alive and keeping engagement with the game alive.  And thus you are doing the exact opposite of what you need to be doing to lessen WotC's overbearing influence.  5E can't go away if you won't let it leave.  And this is true for everyone-- if you truly want the game to reduce its influence and die out... you have to take that first step by being one of the people to just walk away from it and not engage.  Only then will other people begin to follow suit... and then ever-so-slowly WotC's influence over the hobby might slowly degrade.


----------

