What’s the draw of licensed games?

[delericho]

The gold standard is also the only example
I can think of. Actually FASA Star Trek did too, but they ignored all that stuff when they made new TV/movies.

It's the "adding stuff" that I like to see - I'm not bothered if it's then later ignored or contradicted by primary sources. If nothing else, shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who reality ignore, change, and discard bits of their own established continuity, so it's too much to ask that they honour a licensed work.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of licensed games that almost religiously avoid adding anything - they'll lovingly detail the stuff we've already seen to the nth degree, but won't go one step beyond that (probably for fear of being contradicted later). I don't think that's a deal-breaker, necessarily, but it's not my preference.

 

[Morrus]

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of licensed games that almost religiously avoid adding anything - they'll lovingly detail the stuff we've already seen to the nth degree, but won't go one step beyond that

It is very rare that a licensee is allowed to add to canon. I’ve been on the licensing end a couple of times and everything has to be approved by the licensor and the license will rarely permit addition. The WEG Star Wars license was the exception, not the norm (and very early in this environment). Most IP holders are not interested in letting licencees add content. The exceptions are usually licensed novels/audiobooks, which go through a lengthy approval process.

 

[kronovan]

I see licensed products as 2 types:
1) where the IP is closely tied to a custom (often new) set of rules.
2) where the IP is adapted to an existing set of rules - usually a universal one.

I rarely buy the 1st type, but on occasion do buy the 2nd.

When I reflect upon the past decade or so, Dragon Age, Call of Cthulhu, A Time of War and Pendragon are the only TTRPGs I've bought that might fall under the 1st. While for the 2nd type I've bought a good many. Even with Dragon Age; while I did run campaigns set in its world, I also used its AGE rules to run a campaign set in Midgard. For Cthulhu 7 I have Cthulhu Dark Ages and 1 of my 2 sets of homebrewed adventures is set in 6th century France - so not exactly the Lovecraft canon. Pendragon I'm new to and so far have only run adventures set in its Medieval England, but I've already done a fair amount of pondering as to how I might adapt AGOT to its rules.

I prefer the 2nd type, but that's mostly due to homebrewing being more my thing. I find I can sometimes borrow the better features from the adaptation of a license product for my homebrews. I own Mongoose Traveler 2, but my primary reason for getting it was that I didn't like AToW and wanted to use MGT2 for campaigns set in the Battletech verse - use it more as a universal rule system. I've since moved on to Cepheus Engine for that. One thing I appreciate about this 2nd type, is that reading how someone else adapted a a licensed IP can be very inspiring for homebrewing my own worlds. Or maybe even doing a custom adaptation of a favorite license, that no official publisher has taken up.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It is very rare that a licensee is allowed to add to canon. I’ve been on the licensing end a couple of times and everything has to be approved by the licensor and the license will rarely permit addition. The WEG Star Wars license was the exception, not the norm (and very early in this environment). Most IP holders are not interested in letting licencees add content. The exceptions are usually licensed novels/audiobooks, which go through a lengthy approval process.

This basically explains TSR's Indiana Jones game.

 

[dbm]

One thing I appreciate about this 2nd type, is that reading how someone else adapted a a licensed IP can be very inspiring for homebrewing my own worlds.

I find this, too. Reading how Pinnacle implemented Deadlands, Pathfinder, and Rifts using Savage Worlds taught me a lot about how to home brew and customise the game to better fit a desired campaign concept.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that whether or not the license is allowed to add canon is perhaps missing the point. People want to play in established IPs they love so they can add to their own canon.

 

[Staffan]

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.

With the old James Bond RPG, a big part of the draw was lavishly produced (for the time) adventures mimicking the movies but with vital details changed. So you'd recognize movie elements but couldn't rely entirely on them to solve the plot.

On a more general note, a big draw of licensed RPGs are things that work in highly specific ways in the source material, and getting them to work the same in the RPG. I mean, we often call Jedi "space wizards" but the Force works very differently from D&D magic, and trying to force D&D magic to work like the Force isn't going to do anyone any favors.

It is very rare that a licensee is allowed to add to canon. I’ve been on the licensing end a couple of times and everything has to be approved by the licensor and the license will rarely permit addition. The WEG Star Wars license was the exception, not the norm (and very early in this environment). Most IP holders are not interested in letting licencees add content. The exceptions are usually licensed novels/audiobooks, which go through a lengthy approval process.

I don't know precisely how uncommon it is. You certainly have more experience than I do with licensed games, but allowing licensees to expand upon canon is definitely not unheard of even in modern gaming.

A recent example that comes to mind is Star Trek Adventures, where they created the Shackleton Expanse as a sub-setting, rather distant from where most of the action in the TV shows take place, and allowed Modiphius to do their own thing over there and even use it as a playground for a "living campaign". However, it should be noted that ST:A was published in 2017 with the Shackleton Expanse given some space in the core book, with the specific sourcebook published in 2021. This was the same year Discovery was launched, so previous to this non-Kelvin Star Trek had been rather fallow since Enterprise was cancelled in 2005 – similar to the way Star Wars had been following Return of the Jedi.

Star Trek and Star Wars also have in common that they're Big Universes where particular stories happen to take place. They always give the impression that there's a lot of stuff out there beyond what we see on screen, which I believe helps in allowing licensors to give freer reins to licensees.

I also believe that The One Ring does a great deal of filling in the blanks in Middle-Earth. It certainly respects the actual canon, but expands on what is there with a focus on the region east of the Misty Mountains in the years shortly after the events of the Hobbit. I believe the old MERP was even more permissive in this fashion, but that was enabled by taking place far earlier in the third Age – there are a lot of blank spots to fill in between the fall of Arnor (TA 861) and its successor kingdoms (last of which fell in TA 1974) and the events of the Hobbit in TA 2941-42.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

For me it's very simple. In some cases, having a game designed from the ground up just leads to a product more coherent with the source material. There's plenty of adaptations that I find pretty underwhelming, but there's some absolute fantastic ones. My most recent example is The One Ring 2E. I heard good things from the first edition, but never played it. It just oozes Tolkien vibes, and the rhetoric of the systems reproduces well the dynamics of Tolkien's work. Not at all the same as just playing a 5E or homebrewing something.

 

[Bae'zel]

Higher chance of player buy-in to the setting themes and mood. More interest in the lore.

It’s easier to get players more invested in the campaign.