D&D (2024) Would a OneDND closed/restricted license be good, actually?

[Malmuria]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

• "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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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.