D&D 5E Who tried to end the OGL?

[Voadam]

I remember when the Lord of the Rings books came out, I was asked about Roleplaying games multiple times by parents

The books came out in the 1950s

Do you mean the movies?

 

[Velderan]

I think this is a really good point. We honestly don't know exactly why D&D became so popular. Back when it started the uptick, the people over at WotC were surprised. I'm sure there are a bunch of reasons.

To ignore Stranger Things and Critical Role, along with other pop culture icons talking about being gamers is just ridiculous. I was watching Stranger Things with my wife when it came out and it was a phenomenon. Both of us had people talking about D&D who had either dismissed it decades ago, or were strangely interested now.

That is absolutely not an elaborate study, but when you live through something, you can have some insight about it. I remember when the Lord of the Rings books movies came out, I was asked about Roleplaying games multiple times by parents because I didn't seem threatening to them (their actual words, I was sort of a gaming Daywalker). Popular culture does influence trends.

I think it's so strange that there's this big divide over what happened to spike interest. We don't know, but we do know that WotC wasn't marketing to anyone outside of gaming channels, so I'd suggest that if this was a spontaneous revival, it should be studied by marketing classes around the world.

Edited to add: Lord of the Rings movies, not books. I am old, but I am not that old.

Yep! There’s also examples of other games Critical Role played seeing an uptick in their sales. Stranger Things got a lot of eyeballs which was free advertising.

And at the end of the day, 5e had to be a pretty good game for as many people that have stuck with it after trying it as their first TTRPG. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to think these external sources of attention brought even more people into the hobby to help it reach a height it hadn’t in previous editions and then a solid, easy to learn game was what kept them there. Why can’t both be true?

 

[SteveC]

And at the end of the day, 5e had to be a pretty good game for as many people that have stuck with it after trying it as their first TTRPG. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to think these external sources of attention brought even more people into the hobby to help it reach a height it hadn’t in previous editions and then a solid, easy to learn game was what kept them there. Why can’t both be true?

100%. Once you get into the game, you have to like it to keep playing! I think so many people want either/or solutions, but it is likely both.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep! There’s also examples of other games Critical Role played seeing an uptick in their sales. Stranger Things got a lot of eyeballs which was free advertising.

And at the end of the day, 5e had to be a pretty good game for as many people that have stuck with it after trying it as their first TTRPG. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to think these external sources of attention brought even more people into the hobby to help it reach a height it hadn’t in previous editions and then a solid, easy to learn game was what kept them there. Why can’t both be true?

There is some truth to both, absolutely: but unlike, say, Call of Cthulu, there was not a noticeable bump for 5E from those sources.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep! There’s also examples of other games Critical Role played seeing an uptick in their sales. Stranger Things got a lot of eyeballs which was free advertising.

And at the end of the day, 5e had to be a pretty good game for as many people that have stuck with it after trying it as their first TTRPG. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to think these external sources of attention brought even more people into the hobby to help it reach a height it hadn’t in previous editions and then a solid, easy to learn game was what kept them there. Why can’t both be true?

Well, there is a concept that is quite relevant--and that I think CR and the others demonstrate with how they went after that initial push.

"Churn."

In the MMO world, "churn" refers to player turnover without growth. Every game necessarily loses subscribers/players over time. That's just the nature of the beast. Nobody is truly a forever player. But you can at least keep a rough consistent average by having churn. New players flow in to replace the old ones. That isn't a bad thing, but it also isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if there are issues with the player-onboarding or player-support process. A game that excessively favors long-term fans at the expense of, or failure to listen to, its newest players is one that has a tendency to die, but slowly, sometimes painfully so.

At this point, two of the flagship D&D podcasts have switched away from it, namely Critical Role and The Adventure Zone. And there's been a surge in interest in other things, e.g. several content creators I know of have started doing Vampire or Werewolf games. Point being, these people--who have a lot of pull and influence!--are bringing other, newer ideas and interests into the hobby. Even if people stick with 5e because of familiarity (a common pattern in gaming of all stripes), it's entirely possible that dissatisfaction will linger.

That's a recipe for problems if the game creators continue to listen to only a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the fanbase...and a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the fanbase is exactly who dominated the discussion during the D&D Next playtest, and who continue to pull extremely hard now with the 5.5e playtest. WotC has demonstrated that they're really goddamn bad at actually understanding the wants and interests of their fanbase (see: the OGL debacle), and their survey design is and always has been utterly goddamn abysmal. I have seen no evidence that they've improved their ability to do statistical analysis.

If the merits were only a smaller slice of the pie, and now have to carry the whole thing themselves with the free marketing gone and WotC stuck listening only to a fraction of a fraction of their new, massively-larger customer base...that could be why both might not be true.

Just because something sells, doesn't mean it's great. Sales are only a loose proxy of quality, not a guarantor of quality.

Just because something is commonly used, doesn't mean everyone is always excited about using it. People stick with things they're familiar with even if they aren't happy about it--and that often means the choice becomes "stick around or leave," and leaving is not any better than switching to a different game instead of leaving the hobby entirely.

Just because something has done well or even been praised before, doesn't mean opinions will remain static. For years and years, everyone told me the 5e DMG was a perfectly fine, even great book, worthy of comparison with the best of the best in the field. Nowadays, it's hard to find anyone even willing to complement it around here, and more than a few people are apprehensive that the 5.5e DMG will end up being just a slight tweak of it, rather than the major improvement they believe the game needs.

5.5e is going to actually have to think about competition now, in part because of the OGL debacle, in part because ten years is a long time and people change, in part because they aren't getting the free marketing anymore, etc. Perhaps what's past is prologue. Or perhaps they need to be thinking about how all the new fans think and feel about D&D, rather than exclusively maintaining the hegemony of the 3e fanboys.

 

[TiQuinn]

That's a recipe for problems if the game creators continue to listen to only a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the fanbase...and a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the fanbase is exactly who dominated the discussion during the D&D Next playtest, and who continue to pull extremely hard now with the 5.5e playtest. WotC has demonstrated that they're really goddamn bad at actually understanding the wants and interests of their fanbase (see: the OGL debacle), and their survey design is and always has been utterly goddamn abysmal. I have seen no evidence that they've improved their ability to do statistical analysis.

Whoever was dominating the discussion during the D&D Next playtest obviously did a good job because the game took off over the next 10 years by pretty much any metric (squishy or not) you want to apply - sales, enthusiasm, zeitgeist, whatever. I don't see how that supports your argument except in the "eventually everyone gets something wrong" vein.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Whoever was dominating the discussion during the D&D Next playtest obviously did a good job because the game took off over the next 10 years by pretty much any metric (squishy or not) you want to apply - sales, enthusiasm, zeitgeist, whatever. I don't see how that supports your argument except in the "eventually everyone gets something wrong" vein.

Yes, because core classes getting sub-50% satisfaction ratings is high success.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes, because core classes getting sub-50% satisfaction ratings is high success.

Cherry picking to justify your preference.

 

[Oofta]

Cherry picking to justify your preference.

Heaven forbid two classes are considered below average!

After 10 years, people are comparing those classes (I assume monk and ranger, although I'd need an actual source for the declaration) to all the other classes and think they can be improved. Hardly shocking.

 

[Oofta]

Everything that follows is quite ... an opinion.

Well, there is a concept that is quite relevant--and that I think CR and the others demonstrate with how they went after that initial push.

"Churn."

In the MMO world, "churn" refers to player turnover without growth. Every game necessarily loses subscribers/players over time. That's just the nature of the beast. Nobody is truly a forever player. But you can at least keep a rough consistent average by having churn. New players flow in to replace the old ones. That isn't a bad thing, but it also isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if there are issues with the player-onboarding or player-support process. A game that excessively favors long-term fans at the expense of, or failure to listen to, its newest players is one that has a tendency to die, but slowly, sometimes painfully so.

So they're ignoring their new fans, how exactly? Last time I checked they just did the biggest playtest/survey ever done for a TTRPG. The number of old D&D players is dwarfed by the number of people that started playing D&D with 5E (which had the biggest playtest/survey until the current one).

At this point, two of the flagship D&D podcasts have switched away from it, namely Critical Role and The Adventure Zone. And there's been a surge in interest in other things, e.g. several content creators I know of have started doing Vampire or Werewolf games. Point being, these people--who have a lot of pull and influence!--are bringing other, newer ideas and interests into the hobby. Even if people stick with 5e because of familiarity (a common pattern in gaming of all stripes), it's entirely possible that dissatisfaction will linger.

CR is still doing D&D for campaign 3 we don't know what they'll do for season 4. For CR it's just another commercial avenue for them and doesn't necessarily reflect on the game. After all they started as a home game 1 shot in D&D 4E, switched to PathFinder for a home game and then 5E for their stream.

As far as CR season 4, who knows. I haven't watched any of season 3, from what I've read their viewership is down quite a bit but that it has more to do with the characters and story than anything. After all, it's not like CR focuses that much on rule details. It's appeal is more that it shows people having fun playing a TTRPG, I'm not sure it matters all that much which ruleset it uses.

That's a recipe for problems if the game creators continue to listen to only a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the fanbase...and a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the fanbase is exactly who dominated the discussion during the D&D Next playtest, and who continue to pull extremely hard now with the 5.5e playtest. WotC has demonstrated that they're really goddamn bad at actually understanding the wants and interests of their fanbase (see: the OGL debacle), and their survey design is and always has been utterly goddamn abysmal. I have seen no evidence that they've improved their ability to do statistical analysis.

The vast, vast majority of people that play D&D don't care about the OGL kerfuffle any more. But good to know you're the premiere expert on their surveys and playtest and details of how they're doing their analysis beyond the dumbed down quick take we get from podcasts. I assume you have actual background and expertise in this are to make such bold claims? Presumably you also have insider info on exactly what they're looking at? No?

If the merits were only a smaller slice of the pie, and now have to carry the whole thing themselves with the free marketing gone and WotC stuck listening only to a fraction of a fraction of their new, massively-larger customer base...that could be why both might not be true.

Just because something sells, doesn't mean it's great. Sales are only a loose proxy of quality, not a guarantor of quality.

Just because something is commonly used, doesn't mean everyone is always excited about using it. People stick with things they're familiar with even if they aren't happy about it--and that often means the choice becomes "stick around or leave," and leaving is not any better than switching to a different game instead of leaving the hobby entirely.

Right. The best selling TTRPG ever is a pile of crap and all the people I've played with that have enjoyed the game over the past decade are just ignorant sheep. Or is it just that actually having fun playing the game is a meaningless measure of it's design success? Because that is indeed a unique take on the goals of a game.

Just because something has done well or even been praised before, doesn't mean opinions will remain static. For years and years, everyone told me the 5e DMG was a perfectly fine, even great book, worthy of comparison with the best of the best in the field. Nowadays, it's hard to find anyone even willing to complement it around here, and more than a few people are apprehensive that the 5.5e DMG will end up being just a slight tweak of it, rather than the major improvement they believe the game needs.

Yeah, there's a lot of naysayers online. People, like me, who will tell you that it's a good game get tired of being told their wrong by the vocal minority. Meanwhile the people I've played with (a few dozen in just the past year) are all still enthusiastic about the game.

In general people who are happy with what they have don't shout it from the rooftops, they just happily play. Meanwhile the people who feel left out or have different preferences like to complain. Loudly and repeatedly.

5.5e is going to actually have to think about competition now, in part because of the OGL debacle, in part because ten years is a long time and people change, in part because they aren't getting the free marketing anymore, etc. Perhaps what's past is prologue. Or perhaps they need to be thinking about how all the new fans think and feel about D&D, rather than exclusively maintaining the hegemony of the 3e fanboys.

What, we should listen to the 4E fanboys instead? Because that edition was so successful? People who played 3E are a tiny fraction of the total player base now. I happen to be one of the few people who played 3E, but I'm not stuck on that edition. I happen to prefer 5E and acknowledge that things can and should continue to evolve.

It's one thing to say that you don't personally care for 5E. No game can be for everyone. But this continued insistence that it's a poorly designed game and that the people writing the rules don't know what they're doing gets old. You don't get the kind of growth 5E has seen unless tons of new people join the hobby and enjoy playing the game.