D&D (2024) What happens if One DnD fails?

[Steel_Wind]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If WotC were so confident in their VTT, they would not need to shut down all competition in the VTT policy

Yup they are doing this backwards.
Build a capable VTT, attract an audience.
Fork D&D away from the OGL
Improve the VTT
monetize the now captive audience for all they are worth.

 

[Steel_Wind]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

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]

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.

 

[Umbran]

The other is a suvival of paper and book model, but without retrocompatibility. I believe that we cannot have both.

Nothing we've seen so far in the playtest indicates that the core mechanics of the game are changing much.