What’s the draw of licensed games?

[overgeeked]

I kind of get it. A series you love gets an official RPG, with official art, with official…officialness. But then the thing comes out, people complain about the system, the choices, the canon, the art, etc.

There are pros here who can speak more to the hurdles, problems, delays, approvals, costs, etc. than I can. I’ve only freelanced on a few.

And yes, like most gamers I have shelves full of licensed games. But the older I get the less appeal the officialness has. You can do X franchise with Y game and a coat of paint.

I’ve also backed a few licensed Kickstarters for various reasons. If you’re curious one’s a reprint and the other was a company infamous for ridicoulously crunchy games doing a rules light story game.

But it legit seems like far and away the main draw is that it’s official. That’s it.

So, given the overwhelming amount of creativity in the hobby, and the mountains of wonderfully done “X with the serial numbers filed off” games, why is the official stamp of approval such a big deal to some?

 

[Brendan Byrd]

To me, it is a line between canon and homebrew.
A stamp of approval, which implies some quality control, as well.
Edit: I tend to prefer stuff that has the "serial numbers filed off". Canon can be cumbersome.

 

[darjr]

Every time I wished D&D had a good movie, some of the properties already do.

For me at least these properties have a multimedia lore building that I already have bought into.

 

[overgeeked]

To me, it is a line between canon and homebrew.

I mean, it’s all homebrew. Difference is there’s a license involved.

A stamp of approval, which implies some quality control, as well.

That I can see. If we’re talking about the IP owner wanting their IP well represented. But the writers on some of the official games are some of the same people doing the unofficial games. That is the line between amateur and pro is super thin.

 

[Count_Zero]

Some of it is access to license specific world building, including some heavy lifting when it comes to mechanical prep for certain setting specific elements. Some of it is getting a game where I have confidence that if I'm trying to run something like X, it can do X.

For example, I don't need specific world building for a James Bond RPG, but I do want a game that can do a particular flavor of cinematic action, including being able to handle chases well. It also needs to have some kind of gadget system, including vehicle modification.

On the other hand, while a Star Wars RPG needs some of that (cinematic action, chases, vehicle - or in this case spaceship - modification), I also need to have rules for various aliens and droids (and ideally how to create my own), and some rules for handling Force powers, along with space combat. Star Trek doesn't need the Force powers but does need the aliens, and some cinematic combat, but also needs resolution mechanics for more involved non-combat challenges (whether science, engineering, medical, or interpersonal/political).

 

[overgeeked]

Every time I wished D&D had a good movie, some of the properties already do.

For me at least these properties have a multimedia lore building that I already have bought into.

Absolutely. To me, any more, that’s a reason to use a close enough game rather than a licensed game.

Like Mothership vs Alien. Both great games that do the exact same thing. Only one costs more and is an officially licensed game.

Not knocking Alien, or fans of the game, but I can’t think of a single reason to use Alien over Mothership. Legit the only thing I keep coming back to is it’s official.

 

[Scribe]

So, given the overwhelming amount of creativity in the hobby, and the mountains of wonderfully done “X with the serial numbers filed off” games, why is the official stamp of approval such a big deal to some?

Because we have imprinted on a media and formed an unhealthy attachment to it.

Ref: Me, and 40K.

 

[overgeeked]

Some of it is access to license specific world building, including some heavy lifting when it comes to mechanical prep for certain setting specific elements. Some of it is getting a game where I have confidence that if I'm trying to run something like X, it can do X.

For example, I don't need specific world building for a James Bond RPG, but I do want a game that can do a particular flavor of cinematic action, including being able to handle chases well. It also needs to have some kind of gadget system, including vehicle modification.

On the other hand, while a Star Wars RPG needs some of that (cinematic action, chases, vehicle - or in this case spaceship - modification), I also need to have rules for various aliens and droids (and ideally how to create my own), and some rules for handling Force powers, along with space combat. Star Trek doesn't need the Force powers but does need the aliens, and some cinematic combat, but also needs resolution mechanics for more involved non-combat challenges (whether science, engineering, medical, or interpersonal/political).

Yeah. Mechanical support for that specific property absolutely makes sense. But that’s also where the close enough games live. Or even generic games. Things like Fate and Savage Worlds for that pulp feel. They may not be a given gamer’s cup of tea, or they may not get close enough for some. But they are out there.

You can strip out the pure-fluff worldbuilding, proper nouns, etc, and slap those on any system. Wikis exist where fans far more obsessed than we could ever be have already collated all the data. Where do you think the licensed game’s writers go first to check their facts?

 

[overgeeked]

Because we have imprinted on a media and formed an unhealthy attachment to it.

Ref: Me, and 40K.

Yeah. That. Not sure it needs to be unhealthy. But definitely attached.

 

[GrimCo]

For me, it's about lore and fluff. Official stuff does heavy lifting with world building and adds extra lore to IP.