OneDnD What happens if One DnD fails?


log in or register to remove this ad

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
(And honestly if the right patents had been filed at the right time, or we had a modern-style IP regime in place in the late 1800s/early 1900s, we might well have seen a scenario where only one company was allowed to make actual cars lol.)
Umm there was a car patent that was controled by a club of car manufacturers. It took Henry Ford taking them to court twice for it to be declared void.
 


Since OneDnD is backwards compatible, I don't see how it's a problem.

Someone will buy the new PHB (as they stop selling the old one) and they can still play with the other people playing with the old PHB. So any new player will be using a revised class.

And the new version will just be better in a bunch of little ways. So eventually one of those old players will want buy a new book to play the new class.

Over time, everyone will eventually switch. It's just a question of how fast.
I mean, obviously there's a lot of value judgement here, but that's not really consistent with what I have seen of OneD&D. At the first playtest the "5e PHBs and 5.5 PHBs at the same table with minimal confusion" scenario seemed plausible as basically the DM could let 5e players swap their background feature for a feat and characters built with either book would be broadly equivalent. But since then, unless they are going to roll back the amount of changes, it seems like the design modus operandi is very much to change just enough to make it a headache to play together with different PHBs. At the very least it would be hard to run a multi-PHB game without the DM having both PHBs at the ready. My sense is that they are shooting for "compatible" in the sense of you could run an adventure written for 5e at a OneD&D table, more than seriously trying to support dueling PHB tables.

Personally my evaluation of what we've seen of OneD&D is much more "arbitrarily different in a bunch of little ways" than "better in a bunch of little ways", but I accept that people's mileage will vary.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So the worst (for WotC and Hasbro) happens. One DnD launches and instantly makes 4e look like a record success. Meanwhile all the players just continue quietly playing 5e instead.

This is a question which has been on my mind since before the OGL disaster, as pretty much every single person I've talked to plans to just keep on playing 5e rather than switching to One DnD.

Do WotC/Hasbro double down on it and keep pushing it hoping for it to eventually become popular? Do they do a 4e and try to push out a replacement edition as fast as possible? Do they try to force people to switch by removing all the 5e tools from DnD Beyond?

Or do the higher ups at Hasbro just decide the brand isn't possible anymore, and throw the entire thing into the bin of dead IPs?
Nah, if the OneDnD core books don’t sell, they’ll just quietly keep making 5e books.

like, the OGL debacle makes it more clear than ever they intend to make new core books for 5e D&D and lean harder than before into just calling it D&D.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I mean, obviously there's a lot of value judgement here, but that's not really consistent with what I have seen of OneD&D. At the first playtest the "5e PHBs and 5.5 PHBs at the same table with minimal confusion" scenario seemed plausible as basically the DM could let 5e players swap their background feature for a feat and characters built with either book would be broadly equivalent. But since then, unless they are going to roll back the amount of changes, it seems like the design modus operandi is very much to change just enough to make it a headache to play together with different PHBs. At the very least it would be hard to run a multi-PHB game without the DM having both PHBs at the ready. My sense is that they are shooting for "compatible" in the sense of you could run an adventure written for 5e at a OneD&D table, more than seriously trying to support dueling PHB tables.

Personally my evaluation of what we've seen of OneD&D is much more "arbitrarily different in a bunch of little ways" than "better in a bunch of little ways", but I accept that people's mileage will vary.
Well I think that it was always the intent to replace the PHB. It’s backward compatible because it doesn’t matter which core set you’re using, you can use all the supplements.
 

mamba

Hero
OneD&D can't "fail" in the sense that Hasbro has way too much invested to just give up on D&D. It can "fail" in the sense that Star Wars: Galaxy Edge failed, i.e. by being a major disappointment that requires substantial additional investment and rethinking of plans.
so like 4e then

It could also lead to Hasbro being bought out, or having to sell D&D. If Hasbro has another year like last, you have to think folks like Disney will be looking hard at acquiring all that tasty, tasty IP.
what tasty IP ? Hasbro seems to go the generic fantasy movie route, if even they do not believe in their IP, why would Disney?
 

mellored

Hero
My sense is that they are shooting for "compatible" in the sense of you could run an adventure written for 5e at a OneD&D table, more than seriously trying to support dueling PHB tables.
Mixing PHBs for the same character would take a bit of work. You can't readily use a new Cleric with old feats and subclasses.

So yes, that part is not compatible, though shouldn't be hard to home brew.

But it's not an issue to have both at the same table. A new Cleric and an old Cleric can play together just fine.

The game as a whole is compatible.
 

Well I think that it was always the intent to replace the PHB. It’s backward compatible because it doesn’t matter which core set you’re using, you can use all the supplements.
Certainly that makes sense. I just held out hope (perhaps a fool's hope) with the first playtest, that it was only as radical a change as it was because the role of "races" was the thing WotC was quite open about being most unhappy with in 5e, and that on the whole it was mostly just going to be a codification of the changes that had happened over the life of 5e (the thing I actually wanted). It wasn't until the next playtest that I fully realized that every little thing was going to get tweaked and remixed whether it was broken or not.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Certainly that makes sense. I just held out hope (perhaps a fool's hope) with the first playtest, that it was only as radical a change as it was because the role of "races" was the thing WotC was quite open about being most unhappy with in 5e, and that on the whole it was mostly just going to be a codification of the changes that had happened over the life of 5e (the thing I actually wanted). It wasn't until the next playtest that I fully realized that every little thing was going to get tweaked and remixed whether it was broken or not.
Well we still don’t even know that’s true. It’s possible we have seen the most radical ideas they plan to put out, and the end product will just be 5e with more clarity, more RAI turned into RAW, and a suite of quality of life improvements based on a broad base of feedback.

Hell, at this point I almost hope that isn’t the case, because if it is I think it’ll be a hit, and I don’t know that I’m rooting for them anymore.
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
I think this is the $1B question. Based on what we've see so far, this is very much a Revised 5E/5.5E than a 6E, so I think that regardless of the nonsense concerning the OGL, it will be at the very least a moderate success. If it were to completely fail, I think this would be because of the OGL battle and not because of 1D&D itself.
The problem with that is this: WotC wants/needs to break compatibility with existing VTTs, especially Foundry VTT. They can't do that if the game is as similar to 5e as you think it will be. Foundry is already out under the 1.0a. Foundry does not need to do JACK. If 6e is close enough? It will still work.

This is a case where the design will be determined by being incompatible enough to break with current 5e rules in a manner which isn't easy for an end-user to fix themselves with a few keyed in entries in a VTT by hand (or a simple unauthorized downloadable file). That's like designing a game with a lawyer over your shoulder.

My point: you are looking at this as a design decision and as a marketing decision, divorced from the real problems WotC faces in ensuring that current VTTs aren't compatible with the product because of their own forthcoming VTT. You want a 5,5e; they want a 5.5e. Notwithstanding that, I think it likely this is, in fact, a 6e in terms of actual compatibility.

The real 5.5e will be what Kobold Press (and perhaps others) publishes.
Because unlike WotC - they WANT compatiblity with existing VTTS and will publish in a manner so that they are certain to get it.

And then it's 2009 and PF1 all over again.
 

Aldarc

Legend
And then it's 2009 and PF1 all over again.
While possible, I'm not sure. The design jump from 3e to 4e was different enough for people who liked 3e to move to Pathfinder. And that was when there was a 1.0a in the ecosystem that was viewed as irrevocable and eternal. Is the jump from 5e to 6e big enough that most people will care about 5.5 Koboldfinder?
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
My point: you are looking at this as a design decision and as a marketing decision, divorced from the real problems WotC faces in ensuring that current VTTs aren't compatible with the product because of their own forthcoming VTT. You want a 5,5e; they want a 5.5e. Notwithstanding that, I think it likely this is, in fact, a 6e in terms of actual compatibility.
WotC doesn't need complete separation of their game from the current 5E game that Foundry uses. Because it isn't the game rules that will make Hasbro's VTT thrive... it's the 3D graphics, sounds, and all the bells and whistles of the program that will make people want to play it (assuming for the sake of argument they get the program in a workable state of course).

It would be like if someone made an 8-bit version of World of Warcraft that uses all the same game mechanics but the graphics are markedly worse, you couldn't move the camera, and it couldn't uses any of the names and IP from all the newest WoW expansions. Yeah... there will be some people who will play it because it was "free", and there would be some people who would play it because they just liked the idea of this little company trying to run with the big boys and they don't want to give their money to Activision-Blizzard... but there would be more than enough people other than them that would keep playing WoW because it was just overall a better experience.

All HasbrotC has to do is use it's much larger staff and much larger budget to create an online D&D experience that is more immersive and graphically superior than what you can play on Fantasy Grounds or Owlbear Rodeo to find an audience. Especially 2, 3, 5 years from now when the OGL brouhaha has completely died out as people have moved on. But an "original" ruleset? That's so far down the list.
 


Steel_Wind

Legend
WotC doesn't need complete separation of their game from the current 5E game that Foundry uses. Because it isn't the game rules that will make Hasbro's VTT thrive... it's the 3D graphics, sounds, and all the bells and whistles of the program that will make people want to play it (assuming for the sake of argument they get the program in a workable state of course).

It would be like if someone made an 8-bit version of World of Warcraft that uses all the same game mechanics but the graphics are markedly worse, you couldn't move the camera, and it couldn't uses any of the names and IP from all the newest WoW expansions. Yeah... there will be some people who will play it because it was "free", and there would be some people who would play it because they just liked the idea of this little company trying to run with the big boys and they don't want to give their money to Activision-Blizzard... but there would be more than enough people other than them that would keep playing WoW because it was just overall a better experience.

All HasbrotC has to do is use it's much larger staff and much larger budget to create an online D&D experience that is more immersive and graphically superior than what you can play on Fantasy Grounds or Owlbear Rodeo to find an audience. Especially 2, 3, 5 years from now when the OGL brouhaha has completely died out as people have moved on. But an "original" ruleset? That's so far down the list.
To be clear, I happen to agree with you.

It's WotC who doesn't.

If WotC believed what you just wrote, we wouldn't be having this discussion, the OGL would never have been discussed as needing to go, the past events of December would never have occurred -- none of OGL 1.1, or 1.2 it would have occurred -- for the simple reason that they didn't need to do any of it to succeed.

WotC has a different view about that.
 

delericho

Legend
While possible, I'm not sure. The design jump from 3e to 4e was different enough for people who liked 3e to move to Pathfinder. And that was when there was a 1.0a in the ecosystem that was viewed as irrevocable and eternal. Is the jump from 5e to 6e big enough that most people will care about 5.5 Koboldfinder?
Something that gets lost in discussions like this is that the 3e -> 4e transition by itself wasn't enough to give rise to Pathfinder.

Paizo had two other massive advantages on their side. Firstly, just as 4e was announced WotC elected not to renew the licenses for Dragon and Dungeon. That left Paizo with a need to do something, but also left them with a database of tens of thousands of subscribers who were used to getting regular, high-quality gaming materials for them. Paizo then made it really easy to try out their new Pathfinder Adventure Path product.

Paizo also had some really talented people in key positions. That very first PF Adventure Path product was outstanding, and they then followed up strong. That being the case, when they announced that they were going with their own system, they had a ready audience.

There isn't really anyone out there with the same sort of built in market.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
To be clear, I happen to agree with you.

It's WotC who doesn't.

If WotC believed what you just wrote, we wouldn't be having this discussion, the OGL would never have been discussed as needing to go, the past events of December would never have occurred -- none of OGL 1.1, or 1.2 it would have occurred -- for the simple reason that they didn't need to do any of it to succeed.

WotC has a different view about that.
I agree. Absolutely correct.
 

So, if what they've been saying about backwards compatibility is true, they don't have to push OneD&D. They'd sure like everyone to buy new rulebooks, but if we don't... there's going to generally be compatibility anyway. They can keep publishing D&D books, and not care so much if folks are using One or 5e.

Maybe they sort of treat OneD&D as a collector's game, and slowly elide back to 5e, as if none of this ever happened. OneD&D becomes the New Coke of RPGs, that in 10 years folks chuckle over, and study in marketing classes, but isn't a big deal.
I believe that the difference between 5E and 1D&D will be the complete digital transition. I think that the paper will soon be abandoned by WOTC in favour of a subscription type model of businness with microtransaction. I would not be surprised if, in the future, we don't see any more books in stores. This is one scenario. The other is a suvival of paper and book model, but without retrocompatibility. I believe that we cannot have both.
 

payn

Legend
I believe that the difference between 5E and 1D&D will be the complete digital transition. I think that the paper will soon be abandoned by WOTC in favour of a subscription type model of businness with microtransaction. I would not be surprised if, in the future, we don't see any more books in stores. This is one scenario. The other is a suvival of paper and book model, but without retrocompatibility. I believe that we cannot have both.
I doubt this. I could definitely see some minor digital only updates that over time build up to the need to release a supplemental paper book. Books will always be available as a nod towards the games history. A complete digital transition is at least a generation away.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top