Would a OneDND closed/restricted license be good, actually?

[FrogReaver]

No to all of the above. Not sure I understand the point of the questions.

You asked what stops people from playing other games. I answered with what stops me from playing other games.

Because by answering no to those questions you just contradicted yourself. You wouldn't be playing other games if D&D was less popular, you would still be playing D&D. The things you claimed would cause you to play something other than D&D don't actually do that.

 

[mamba]

Because by answering no to those questions you just contradicted yourself. You wouldn't be playing other games if D&D was less popular, you would still be playing D&D. The things you claimed would cause you to play something other than D&D don't actually do that.

he didn’t say it would cause him to play other games, he said this is what prevents him from doing so. Not the same thing

I agree that this basically means he will play 5e either way, but it is not a contradiction

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, this is a good question and I'm not completely sure where I land on it. On one hand, there was a kind of flowering of non-D&D RPGs in the 90s when D&D was weakest (or market fragmentation, depending on your perspective). On the other hand, you could argue there's been a second flowering of non-D&D RPGs during this period when it's been at it's strongest. I do think what happened in the 90s strained 1990s distribution channels (that's the market fragmentation argument), but I wouldn't mind seeing what a "weak D&D" period looks like in the Kickstarter era.

Despite that, in the real world we live in, I'd don't think we're about to enter a "weak D&D" period. All signs point the other direction, for the time being.

I think weaker period for the new version than currently exists for 5e but still strong overall. IMO Fanbase seems ripe to fragment. OGL misteps can quickly erase any customer goodwill. MTG debacle already makes people a bit on edge.

I believe that a consistently weak D&D is bad for RPG community. That said, a boom and bust cycle of D&D might actually be very good. The bust period would be where D&D fans start trying out other games. I believe that's what the OP is thinking of, but I believe such a phenomenon requires the D&D boom period.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree that this basically means he will play 5e either way, but it is not a contradiction

I don't agree, but since you concede that it means he will play 5e either way then arguing over whether it was technically a contradiction doesn't seem useful.

 

[overgeeked]

I assume you mean when WotC created the OGL. In no way did they create the OSR.

You could very easily argue they did. They bought TSR, released an edition some didn’t like, released the OGL, and refused to sell any content for older editions in any format. This directly lead to the creation of the OSR. Those last three were essential to the OSR. Without those, there’s no OSR.

 

[Manbearcat]

Its a question where the answer is extremely difficult to know. Here are a pile of thoughts and anecdotes for the thought experiment:

* The promise of broad social fabric support, possible social cache to be earned, and relatively low buy-in is very seductive to the bulk of humanity.

This passes the “D&D test.”

* The best case of “impossible for monopoly to emerge” that I am aware of is plumbers. That is because the nexus of the need is endogenous to the system (everyone has plumbing), the need is overwhelming (plumbing fails at a rate x the scale of plumbing out there that the demand is overwhelming), and the expertise required to resolve the issue is intensive.

The TTRPG market kinda touches that first one but not to the degree required (playing “imagination” and playing games are fundamental to the human experience). The need will likely never be overwhelming unless we hit Wall-E levels of dystopia (and I personally see extinction long before then). Yes, expertise is required for at least one participant to successfully navigate a TTRPG (best case scenario is all participants have expertise).

* I’ve GMed 14 non-D&D games online in the last 2 years (Dungeon World x 2, Blades in the Dark x 5 including a hack, Stonetop x 2, Lasers & Feelings, Dogs in the Vineyard, Torchbearer, The Between, Aliens). The cohort of 13 players consists of diverse life backgrounds, diverse non-TTRPG interests, extensive D&D backgrounds but only 3 of the players in a current D&D 5e game.

* I’ve had success over the last 15 years in running indie games via tapping into the Eurogaming market, the general Boardgaming market, the CRPG market, and even the MtG market (with these players having very little to no D&D exposure). D&D has tried to tap into a lot of these massive markets but they haven’t been quite seduced by D&D’s “cornered the market/culture from the jump” advantages in my first asterisk above. They’ve got all that stuff from their own niches and they’re quite happy so its individual initiative and elbow grease to get them to try TTRPG games. And a lot of them have played an enormous amount of games so (a) learning and onboarding a new rules paradigm is second nature to them and (b) any passive stance toward playing (rather than driving the play) is utterly foreign and outright anathema to them (so the aggressive player orientation required in most indie games comes natural to them).

 

[mamba]

You could very easily argue they did. They bought TSR, released an edition some didn’t like, released the OGL, and refused to sell any content for older editions in any format. This directly lead to the creation of the OSR. Those last three were essential to the OSR. Without those, there’s no OSR.

That is a bit like saying you caused an accident by not being in the car when your dog flipped it from park to drive. Sure, without the OGL it would not have happened, but this is rather indirect

 

[Mistwell]

Literally none of these issues matter much in the grand scheme of the sales for D&D (with one exception I mention at the bottom). The extreme overwhelming majority of people who buy D&D stuff don't even know about the OGL, and will never see other games. This is almost entirely a "10% of hardcore older gamers who discuss this stuff online."

As an example of what the mass market sees I was at Barnes and Noble yesterday. Their RPG section was almost entirely D&D. The remaining portion was random books intended to play with D&D without being explicitly for D&D, accessories for D&D like dice and stuffies and cards and such, and artbooks.

You know how many Pathfinder books were there? One. And I don't mean multiple copies of one, I mean there was literally only one PF book. And it was from 1e, not 2e. There used to be a lot more PF books three years ago, but they're just not carrying them anymore. You know how many other RPG books were there? Zero. Zero books from games other than D&D and that 1 PF 1e book.

And it's not like it somehow sold out during Christmas - the entire section was well stocked and full, and it was all D&D. The most stocked thing was the D&D starter set boxes. Same as I've seen every week there for years now.

If you look at Target and Walmart and other big box stores, you are likely to similarly see no other RPGs there than D&D.

If you look on streaming platforms, it's the same. The extreme overwhelming majority of views are for people playing D&D or talking about D&D.

There is really only one caveat to all of this - Critical Role. If WOTC cannot work out a side license with Critical Role to exempt them from the standard royalties (and I think that's what they will do) then I can see this issue having a meaningful impact on WOTC.

But other than that I think this is an issue which is largely not impactful to the extreme overwhelming majority of the marketplace. They probably could entirely shut down 3p licensing other than Critical Role at this point and it probably wouldn't have much impact on their sales, though I think PR wise that wouldn't be a good decision. They're just too huge now - WAY exponentially bigger than 3e/3.5e was. In fact, hugely bigger than the launch years of 5e, which were themselves already bigger than any other D&D sales on record. Brand recognition for D&D is an entity unto itself now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could very easily argue they did. They bought TSR, released an edition some didn’t like, released the OGL, and refused to sell any content for older editions in any format. This directly lead to the creation of the OSR. Those last three were essential to the OSR. Without those, there’s no OSR.

True, but that's like saying Loki created the Avengers. Technically true, but wholly unintended and likely regretted at this point, at least by the money people who are likely driving this new OGL.

 

[overgeeked]

True, but that's like saying Loki created the Avengers. Technically true, but wholly unintended and likely regretted at this point, at least by the money people who are likely driving this new OGL.

Yes, 100% unintended and once the OSR became a thing WotC put out older editions as PDFs and some as POD (where’s my B/X POD?). But the genie was already out of the bottle.

And yeah, Loki did create the Avengers. He didn’t mean to, but he still did.

 

[Scribe]

Five or so competing systems, each with their own large and dedicated fanbase, would soon enough make the 3e-4e edition wars look like kids throwing mud pies.

 

[mamba]

Further watching:

Watching this now and typing as I go…

First reason: “5e is not the best version of D&D” … “So what is the best version? That’s completely subjective”…nothing to add, off to a great start

Second: ‘5e is not even the best version of 5e”, then goes on to suggest such 5e games as 13th Age, SotDD, WH40K Sigmar, Torchbearer, DCC or OSE… No complaints about recommendations but saying they are a better 5e is misleading at best. Also, wasn’t there something in #1 about this being completely subjective

3: “WotC thinks you are livestock” because of the conference where they said it is undermonetized. WotC wanting players to buy stuff more frequently (whether subscriptions, or branching out with movies / action figures / …) is like milking a cow. I am not aware of any company that wants to sell me less, so I guess they all think I am livestock

4: WotC squeezes writers, no idea, no opinion, doubt they are worse than others. TSR certainly was but I am sure he likes TSR…rest is pure hyperbole about “contract writers screaming in anguish as their supervisors ask them for more and more pages until they collapse into writing filler”. 3PP on the other hand is where you can make a living and see “unbridled creativity”. Garbage does not adequately describe this point

5: RPGs are more than D&D, didn’t finish past the opening line because that feels like the second point again, just reflavored. This is where all the suggestions that were out of place in 2 should be

So he really has one point: there are also other RPGs, try them as some might cater more to what you like. Could have said that in 2 min or so, and show the ones from 2, but I guess that is not good for youtube’s algorithm

 

[Clint_L]

My take is that rules matter in board games in a way that they don't in RPGs. That's probably just because my personal investment in RPGs lies in the role-playing and stories, not in the particular rules system, unless that rules system actually offers a substantially different way to role-play.

So I am fine with 5e because I prefer not to have to learn a bunch of different rules to accomplish the same end: role-playing. In fact, I think it is good that there is a dominant player, and I don't really care if it is D&D or Pathfinder or Call of Cthulhu or whatever indie version of the same comes along, because I think they are in effect all the same game. It's the different settings that make them interesting, not the ultimately inconsequential variations on dice rolls and action economy and movement and spell lists.

My RPGs of choice are:

1. D&D, because it is the most widely known and well supported rules-heavy RPG and thus easiest to find players for (I also occasionally run Call of Cthulhu, but for the setting and adventures, not because I think the rules make a particular difference).

2. Dread, because it reduces the rules to one pure, narrative-driven mechanism.

3. Fiasco, because it totally reimagines the narrative form by making everyone at the table a co-equal GM.

4. Various indie games with one-page rules systems that are fun for one-shot evenings.

If D&D suddenly vanished from the world and was replaced by Pathfinder, nothing much would change. But barring that, I prefer the OGL to be as open as possible so that more folks can use it.

Also, that video is just more of the same clickbait. Though to be fair it might have made a really great point at the end but I never made it that far because I was afraid my eyes were going to be permanently damaged from rolling them so hard.

 

[overgeeked]

Watching this now and typing as I go…

First reason: “5e is not the best version of D&D” … “So what is the best version? That’s completely subjective”…nothing to add, off to a great start

Second: ‘5e is not even the best version of 5e”, then goes on to suggest such 5e games as 13th Age, SotDD, WH40K Sigmar, Torchbearer, DCC or OSE… No complaints about recommendations but saying they are a better 5e is misleading at best. Also, wasn’t there something in #1 about this being completely subjective

If I remember right, he was talking other games that do specific things that 5E tries to do only they do it better. Want tactical combat? Pathfinder does it better. Want superhero fantasy Age of Sigmar does it better. Etc.

3: “WotC thinks you are livestock” because of the conference where they said it is undermonetized. WotC wanting players to buy stuff more frequently (whether subscriptions, or branching out with movies / action figures / …) is like milking a cow. I am not aware of any company that wants to sell me less, so I guess they all think I am livestock

Yes. That’s capitalism. You are a consumer. That’s it. That’s your whole purpose as far as any company is concerned. All companies think you’re livestock.

4: WotC squeezes writers, no idea, no opinion, doubt they are worse than others. TSR certainly was but I am sure he likes TSR…rest is pure hyperbole about “contract writers screaming in anguish as their supervisors ask them for more and more pages until they collapse into writing filler”. 3PP on the other hand is where you can make a living and see “unbridled creativity”. Garbage does not adequately describe this point

Hyperbole aside, yours and the video makers, there absolutely is more unbridled creativity in non-WotC companies putting out RPGs. Everyone else is free to experiment. WotC can only try to not piss people off and stay on top.

5: RPGs are more than D&D, didn’t finish past the opening line because that feels like the second point again, just reflavored. This is where all the suggestions that were out of place in 2 should be

They fit. You just ignored the context.

So he really has one point: there are also other RPGs, try them as some might cater more to what you like. Could have said that in 2 min or so, and show the ones from 2, but I guess that is not good for youtube’s algorithm

So you have one point. You didn’t fully watch the video and didn’t like most of what you did pay attention to. You likely missed all that context because you were typing your response instead of watching it.

 

[mamba]

If I remember right, he was talking other games that do specific things that 5E tries to do only they do it better. Want tactical combat? Pathfinder does it better. Want superhero fantasy Age of Sigmar does it better. Etc.

yes, under the second point, imo the best part of it. Wouldn't have minded him expanding on each of them a bit more and their strengths and weaknesses and skip all the rest. I liked most of the recommendations, even when I was not interested in them for the very reason he recommended them (knew most of them already, but not a bad list of RPGs to choose from). As he said, this is all subjective - and actually acknowledging this instead of accidently admitting it would go a long way

My only point there was that saying that they do 5e better is misleading, say they do TTRPGs better (or more accurately certain aspects of it, provided how they do it matches your preferences) if you want to. Some / most of them are too far away from 5e to 'do 5e better'

Yes. That’s capitalism. You are a consumer. That’s it. That’s your whole purpose as far as any company is concerned. All companies think you’re livestock.

if it is every company, then do not blame WotC for it

Hyperbole aside, yours and the video makers, there absolutely is more unbridled creativity in non-WotC companies putting out RPGs. Everyone else is free to experiment. WotC can only try to not piss people off and stay on top.

they are not as innovative because they want to keep their playerbase, sure. Not sure that is a negative for WotC or a positive for others. It just is the nature of the game. Being different can be better or worse depending on what the player wants. What it frequently is is more niche, which means players do not seem to want it all that much

That being said, they imo were pretty innovative and willing to take risks to get where they are now. 3e, 4e and 5e are all very different. But with 5e's popularity they will not rock the boat too much for a while.

So you have one point. You didn’t fully watch the video and didn’t like most of what you did pay attention to. You likely missed all that context because you were typing your response instead of watching it.

No, I was pausing and sometimes rewinding, did not miss anything (apart from the part I specifically said I did not bother with because it started out as a rehash) but never intended this to be a transcript so skipped / summarized a lot

 

[pemerton]

D&D with a strong 3PP support environment is a big tent that keep people playing the same game -- a significant benefit to WotC

As WotC knew when they created the OGL, a rising tide lifts all boats, but not all boats equally, the biggest boat gets lifted farther. They have forgotten that

I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable - to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.

But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.

 

[Reynard]

I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable - to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.

But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.

Were they a reliable judge of that when they came up with and implemented the GSL?

Individuals in charge of corporations are not somehow infallible. That should be obvious.

 

[mamba]

I think it's certainly reasonable - more than reasonable - to wish for a permissive OGL if (i) you are a publisher whose business model depends on it, of (ii) you are a consumer of RPG products who wants the offerings of those licensed works.

But I'm not very persuaded by these attempts to argue that WotC doesn't know what it is doing in its own field of business, and hence that a permissive OGL is needed for WotC's own commercial benefit. I tend to think that WotC is the most reliable judge of that.

I am certain they spent a lot more time and money on figuring that out, I am not convinced that means that they are not miscalculating here. 4e seems like a good counterpoint to the claim that they always know what they are doing

Also, I used a direct quote from an interview (the rising tide bit). They believed it then. If they still believed that, they would not change the OGL

 

[Greg Benage]

Were they a reliable judge of that when they came up with and implemented the GSL?

I think there was a Pathfinder-sized hole in their risk-mitigation strategy. And yet, they still would have been fine if they’d designed a game that more of their customers wanted to play.

 

[mamba]

I think there was a Pathfinder-sized hole in their risk-mitigation strategy. And yet, they still would have been fine if they’d designed a game that more of their customers wanted to play.

So whose fault was that then? To me that shows that they do not always know best / make mistakes