D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[pkt77242]

I don't think its as insider as you are suggesting (which I guess is the point of contention). Granted a newbie won't know, but anyone who has played for a while is going to pick up on some of these things. Its just the nature of people to learn things relative to that which they find interesting or enjoyable. Do I think its 50% of the DnD Audience? Maybe not. Do I think its greater than 1%? Most definitely.

Are we talking "know that 3pp exist" or "would buy 3pp material"?

 

[Mark CMG]

there is one of those circle graph things to show overlap in the making here.

There are people who are highly internet savy and use boards all the time and are only casual gamers... they probably are on here (or candle kepe or rpgnow or god help them wotc)

there are dedicated players who don't use the internet to talk about things... they are probably not here.

there are dedicated players spending time on this board to BS and argue about games...

And before you know it, you realize you're essentially agreeing that EN World or any other online community of gamers is basically representative of gamers on the whole but with the added condition that they happen to also visit online communities.

 

[Jester David]

I don't think its as insider as you are suggesting (which I guess is the point of contention). Granted a newbie won't know, but anyone who has played for a while is going to pick up on some of these things. Its just the nature of people to learn things relative to that which they find interesting or enjoyable. Do I think its 50% of the DnD Audience? Maybe not. Do I think its greater than 1%? Most definitely.

The 1%/0.1% number is people who really care about there being or not being an OGL. And who might care enough to actually think about writing under the licence.

It really might be that low.

Realizing a product not made by WotC is a big step. Not everyone who plays will even be able to tell you the publisher of D&D. They know the game, they enjoy the game, they might have even bought a PHB, but knowing who the publisher is, is a big step. Again, the majority of gamers who identify as "D&D players" might not even own a PHB, and rely on the DM (or dedicated player) for their books.
So mentioning a different publisher name will not mean much (even the term "3rd Party" might not mean much).

We also live in a video game era, so things will be compared with that. Most video game consoles have regular games not made by the same publisher as the console. That's just something that happens and even regular video game players might only have a passing interest in how a 3PP video game company gets approval to made a compatible release.
So even IF they're involved enough to know who publishes D&D and know that Company X isn't WotC, they might not know about the OGL or care about the details.

For those people who are interested in the nuts and bolts of D&D enough to learn about Open Gaming and know of the licence, most won't be interested in writing. They might be happy to buy 3PP books, but details of the licence not a huge concern. Or their attitude is that, since it's not official, they don't want it in their game. And, again, the OGL is not a huge concern.
And those few that are interested that are might just be fans willing to post stuff on their website. And a document full of legalese is overkill in that regard. Really digging into the nuances of the licence or having strong feelings are not needed to throw up a race or campaign setting on blogger.

Even people who are willing to use 3PP need not be concerned with the details of the licence. If they have the product, how it was made and the details don't matter. Whether it was the 3e OGL or a new OGL or something else doesn't *really* matter to them.
And, of course, of those people who do know about the OGL and the details, there are those who don't want it again. The detractors who say that open gaming was a mistake, that it hurt D&D, that WotC shouldn't make a new licence.

Gamers who know who the publishers are, know how the 3rd party licences work, know how the OGL works, and want 3rd party material are a really small subset of the gaming audience.
I think they're an important part, and healthy to the industry, and the OGL is something I personally want. But it's not a big part of the gaming populace.

Heck, even looking back at my own experiences, I know of open gaming and 3PP very quickly. But I didn't *really* know details of the OGL until the GSL came out and I started comparing the two. But I'm not neurotypical and obsess over things, so I doubt very much I'm representative of the general gaming public, so my focus on the OGL is likely abnormal.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

And before you know it, you realize you're essentially agreeing that EN World or any other online community of gamers is basically representative of gamers on the whole but with the added condition that they happen to also visit online communities.

I'd challenge the first assertion, though. "Casual gamers", at least not the gamers that I refer to as "casual gamers" when I use the term, by definition are not hanging out at places like ENWorld.

Casual gamers, at least as I've always understood the term, are gamers who show up to the session, roll dice and RP, then go home and don't think about the game until next week, with the possible exception of spending a couple of minutes leveling up between sessions (more likely they just do it at the table). That type of player doesn't buy official supplements let alone third-party ones, and vastly out number those players who are engaged enough to go online and talk about their favorite RPGs.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'd challenge the first assertion, though. "Casual gamers", at least not the gamers that I refer to as "casual gamers" when I use the term, by definition are not hanging out at places like ENWorld.

Casual gamers, at least as I've always understood the term, are gamers who show up to the session, roll dice and RP, then go home and don't think about the game until next week, with the possible exception of spending a couple of minutes leveling up between sessions (more likely they just do it at the table). That type of player doesn't buy official supplements let alone third-party ones, and vastly out number those players who are engaged enough to go online and talk about their favorite RPGs.

So, just players and not GMs can be casual players in your estimation?

 

[Remathilis]

So, just players and not GMs can be casual players in your estimation?

Nope. Thanks to the advent of adventure paths, a GM need only spend a few hours the day before game reading the next section of the ap he's going to run. There are PF gms that set there game on Golarion, run an AP they liked the theme of, and never spend more then 2-3 hours in prep. Same is now true with 5e dms using the Realms and storyline APs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, just players and not GMs can be casual players in your estimation?

I have meet entire groups at my FLGS that are casual players and dms, they show up to play and never spend more then an hour or two inbetween biweekly games working on game... DM included.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

So, just players and not GMs can be casual players in your estimation?

I thing GMs are intrinsically skewed more towards the "dedicated" rather than "casual" side of things, just because of the prep work that GMing typically requires; however I agree with Remathilis who's pointed out that adventure paths are designed to lift that burden as much as it can be and expand GMing to more casual players who want to run a campaign of their own but don't have the time / commitment to invent one from scratch.

More than anything else I think finding a GM is the biggest barrier to entry in the hobby, and I can see why Wizard's is moving to address that with canned APs. I personally might not have any interest in such products myself, but it's absolutely the right call for the growth of the player base as it means anyone can pick up an AP with their core books and hit the ground running. Anything that makes the game more accessible to the casual players enlarges the player base as a whole which in turn benefits us more hardcore fans.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, just players and not GMs can be casual players in your estimation?

While you'd usually expect the DM to be more deeply involved in the hobby, you can have casual DMing. In the context of Encounters, for instance, you've had this program for over 5 years now, that has these neat, pre-packaged adventures where each week everyone sits down at different tables and likely plays through the same scenario. A tad railroady for the 'serious' gamer, but perfect for casual play - and casual DMing. Early in the Encounters program, you could very easily walk in 15 or 20 minutes early, read that sessions' 'encounter,' and run it with no problem. Starting with Crystal Cave, and particularly in MiBG and HotDQ, there was occasionally uncertainty which challenge the party would face which week, and you'd have to either make sure it was set up the week before, or be familiar with two or even a half-dozen or so instead of just one. But you could still be /fairly/ causal about it.

 

[Mark CMG]

I thing GMs are intrinsically skewed more towards the "dedicated" rather than "casual" side of things, just because of the prep work that GMing typically requires; however I agree with Remathilis who's pointed out that adventure paths are designed to lift that burden as much as it can be and expand GMing to more casual players who want to run a campaign of their own but don't have the time / commitment to invent one from scratch.

I'm not sure everyone is working from your definition but I don't disagree with your assessment of GMing requiring a certain dedication.

More than anything else I think finding a GM is the biggest barrier to entry in the hobby, and I can see why Wizard's is moving to address that with canned APs. I personally might not have any interest in such products myself, but it's absolutely the right call for the growth of the player base as it means anyone can pick up an AP with their core books and hit the ground running. Anything that makes the game more accessible to the casual players enlarges the player base as a whole which in turn benefits us more hardcore fans.

And anyone can go online to gaming communities and never buy a product or regularly play a game. Even with your definition of a casual gamer, you've got to admit that they spend the largest portion of the time they devote to gaming, actually gaming. Wouldn't it make more sense to call someone who doesn't game much or at all, no matter if they spend time on online gaming community, more of a casual gamer? Someone who spends little to no time actually gaming doesn't strike me as very dedicated to gaming. Maybe dedicated to reading games or discussing them, but not dedicated to actual gaming, thus, a casual gamer.