D&D 5E What 5E really needs

[Mercurius]

There are so many different ways this thread could be addressed, and there's been a bunch of threads already addressing it, but there's something specific that I want to throw out there that seems clear now that I've actually started up a 5E campaign. We've played two sessions now and are loving the game. I've read some of the threads here that discuss what people most want or hope to see from WotC, etc, but I think I've stumbled upon what the game "really needs" - at least for my needs and, I think, many others.

This thought was partially inspired by the thread discussing DM laziness. I didn't read the thread, only title and briefly skimmed the first page, but my initial thought was, "No, we're not lazy - just busy." My guess is that most DMs are 30 or 40-somethings that have careers, kids, other interests - that aren't teens or 20-somethings with tons of free time. Yet at the same time, we are looking for an imaginative, creative experience with D&D - we are of an older generation that wasn't necessarily raised on video games, or if we were then we want something different in playing D&D. So consider those two factors together:

1. We are busy, have less time for preparing D&D games.

and

2. We want a creative and imaginative experience.

At first glance they seem mutually exclusive. If it were just the first, then we could buy what WotC is selling: run the basically self-contained latest story arc and then, by the time it is done, the next one is out. You don't even really need to make a world or do anything other than read the books that WotC publishes and wait for the next one. And so it goes. If it were just the first, the whole issue of "need" wouldn't be there - we'd be furiously writing and running our own games without the desire for published material because we've got all the time in the world and no, my two daughters aren't fighting in the room.

But the thing is, a large number of us fit BOTH factors. We want to be creative, to make our own worlds and tell our own stories, but we don't have a lot of time to do so, so we want external help. So what's the answer? Well, WotC has already given us part of it: A well-designed, simple and flexible core rule set. But its not enough, and unless we don't have the second factor, or what could be called creative need, the story arcs aren't the answer either. What do we need? I'll tell you:

We need building blocks.

What are building blocks? They are components that we put together and create a world and story around. They are encounters, short adventures, random tables, story ideas and hooks, NPCs, bits and pieces that can be combined into campaigns or plugged into already existing settings.

Let me give you an example. Imagine an online tool in which you could plug in certain parameters like level, terrain type, party size, difficulty, story elements, etc, click "submit" and be given a ready-made encounter or lair or even short adventure. Or imagine a series of books that offer a variety of plug-in mini adventures for different levels or tiers.

Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I'm guessing that others feel similarly. Of course there's a whole spectrum of folks, from those that want to follow the orthodox approach of playing the story arcs to the freestyle types that customize, create and house rule everything. But my guess is that there's a large chunk of folks between, a center of gravity if you will, of people who want to create their own worlds and tell their own stories, but want the raw materials and bits and pieces that take a ton of time to create on your own, but can be plugged into a living world. I know that for myself I take great pleasure in world creation, and I love dreaming up stories and campaign arcs, but I also like (even need) pieces to plug, from encounter ideas to NPCs to town layouts.

And what would be required for this to happen? One answer is this: an OGL. An OGL would open the flood-gates for people to happily produce anything their heart desires, which in turn could be used as building blocks for individual DMs. I would, of course, like to see WotC do some official products that would provide these building blocks, but it seems that they aren't straying from their earlier intention of having limited output.

I can guess what you're thinking: How is this different from any previous edition, but especially 3E with the OGL that created a veritable flood of product (for better or worse)? Well for one, the 5E game is perfectly designed for the type of approach that I'm advocating. It can be scaled in any direction, large or small, simple or complex, by-the-book(s) or ad hoc. It is ready made for the modularity that was core to its design, yet there's the problem that WotC has yet to take that next step and enable the modularity more fully, to provide for the building blocks to be created.

So my request for WotC is this: If you are not going to provide those building blocks yourself, please let others do so. It is high time for an OGL, which will in turn enable building blocks to be created and distributed. Ideally you will also create products that will set the tone, pave the way, and exemplify what is possible - a bar to be reached. But at the least, please don't stall the works for the creative out-pouring that is possible.

I've rambled too long. The building block part is the essence of what I'm trying to communicate. 5E needs modular parts and components that can be plugged into an existing campaign, to allow for free creativity but help with the nitty gritty of running a game.

Make it so, Mearls!

 

[Evenglare]

Good read. I agree. Love more modules and rules. I was expecting that was what 5e was going to be built around. It has done a lot of what it was promised but I feel that the clearly defined modularity of the game has kind of failed or faded into a lot of just... variant rules. They are functionally the same but variant rules give the fundamental game a different tone than one which would be build from modules. Variant rules feel like... a "Hey you might want to do it like this instead of how we built the game!" instead of "Build the game you want by using these rules". It's a subtle difference but changes how the game is approached in my view.

 

[Kramodlog]

What I get from the "What D&D needs" threads and their variants is that people want products. If they want it it is because they aren't getting it.

 

[Shiroiken]

The 3E OGL is mostly likely dead. It was bad for WotC, having created their biggest competitor (Pathfinder). I don't think it was really all that good for most customers either, having created a glut of products (most of which were sub-par) that caused arguments as to whether or not they would be used in any given game. I will admit I don't know if it was good for individual stores or not.

Rather than an OGL, they need to create more Limited Gaming Licenses for products they don't plan to support (such as old campaign settings or short term adventures). Those licenses could include limitations on when new products are released, ensuring that they do not directly compete with official WotC products. This would allow for the product "demand" (remember, the playtest surveys said we want LESS products) without hurting the bottom line for WotC.

 

[delericho]

The 3E OGL is mostly likely dead. It was bad for WotC, having created their biggest competitor (Pathfinder).

The OGL was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Pathfinder to come about - the non-renewal of the Dragon/Dungeon license was much more important.

I don't think it was really all that good for most customers either, having created a glut of products (most of which were sub-par) that caused arguments as to whether or not they would be used in any given game.

90% of everything is crap. But the OGL gave us Mutants & Masterminds. If for nothing else, that makes it a net win.

Rather than an OGL, they need to create more Limited Gaming Licenses for products they don't plan to support (such as old campaign settings or short term adventures). Those licenses could include limitations on when new products are released, ensuring that they do not directly compete with official WotC products. This would allow for the product "demand" (remember, the playtest surveys said we want LESS products) without hurting the bottom line for WotC.

That's what I suspect they'll do. I also expect any such licenses to be about as popular as the 4e GSL, with the "big guns" of third-party support mostly ignoring it in favour of just continuing to use the (3e) OGL, as Necromancer and Goodman are already doing.

 

[Mercurius]

Good read. I agree. Love more modules and rules. I was expecting that was what 5e was going to be built around. It has done a lot of what it was promised but I feel that the clearly defined modularity of the game has kind of failed or faded into a lot of just... variant rules. They are functionally the same but variant rules give the fundamental game a different tone than one which would be build from modules. Variant rules feel like... a "Hey you might want to do it like this instead of how we built the game!" instead of "Build the game you want by using these rules". It's a subtle difference but changes how the game is approached in my view.

That's the sort of thing that I associated with "modularity" early on, but now I see it a bit differently - that the modules can be the building blocks I speak of - not just, or even primarily, rules modules but more so adventure and campaign building pieces that can be easily slotted into a game. I certainly see a place for both, but after having played 5E a couple times and being faced with the time crunch of preparation, I see now that the latter would be far more useful, to me at least.

What I get from the "What D&D needs" threads and their variants is that people want products. If they want it it is because they aren't getting it.

That is certainly a major part of it. The problem I see is that WotC has created this great game but are providing limited resources for it - only the story arcs so far. That would be fine if they were offering a clear OGL of some kind to allow publishers to pick up the slack. But they aren't. There is some material being created anyway, presumably with the hope that WotC won't send cease and desist letters. But I think if there was a clear OGL there would be a lot more stuff coming out.

But here's the point: WotC isn't offering what a lot of folks want, but they also aren't allowing others to provide it. I'm not sure why this is - hopefully we'll know soon (whether WotC plans on offering more product and/or what sort of licensing they'll allow).

The 3E OGL is mostly likely dead. It was bad for WotC, having created their biggest competitor (Pathfinder).

This has been talked about extensively, but I think there's an important distinction to make: the OGL didn't create Pathfinder, it allowed for it. What created Pathfinder was two things: taking away the OGL and replacing it with the far more restrictive (and delayed) GSL, and the fact that 4E wasn't embraced by a large segment of the D&D community. The OGL only allowed for Pathfinder to be published.

I don't think it was really all that good for most customers either, having created a glut of products (most of which were sub-par) that caused arguments as to whether or not they would be used in any given game. I will admit I don't know if it was good for individual stores or not.

This seems like one of those problems that is an inevitable consequence of having a lot of freedom, which is a good "problem" to have. Eventually the market (and 3.5) cleaned up the field a bit, so I don't think it is automatic that an OGL = a ton of crappy product.

This is why I think a perhaps slightly more restrictive OGL might be a good thing. I haven't thought too much into how that might work.

Rather than an OGL, they need to create more Limited Gaming Licenses for products they don't plan to support (such as old campaign settings or short term adventures). Those licenses could include limitations on when new products are released, ensuring that they do not directly compete with official WotC products. This would allow for the product "demand" (remember, the playtest surveys said we want LESS products) without hurting the bottom line for WotC.

Good idea.

 

[Shiroiken]

I agree that technically the OGL didn't "create" Pathfinder. There were many factors, but the fact is that without the OGL, Pathfinder (as we know it) could never have come to be. Given that, WotC would have to be insane to make that same mistake again.