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

[mamba]

"If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)

they won't

"...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)

they are about to

"... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)

some will

"...and then start playing different games instead!" (we already do. There is no "instead," there is only "also.")

more will

 

[Reynard]

Well, by all accounts 4e was a commercial success. It was clearly a necessary precursor, in design terms, to 5e (which in mechanical terms has more in common with 4e than with AD&D or 3E).

I don't assert that anyone is infallible. Neither WotC, nor you, nor me. But I still think that WotC is a more reliable judge of what will serve its commercial interests than any poster in this thread.

Lol. Let's shut down the whole discussion then.

 

[overgeeked]

Of course, WotC's commercial benefit is hardly our concern.

What's good for WotC's bottom line isn't always good for game design nor the industry as a whole.

 

[overgeeked]

"If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)

They might release a version of the game a given player or referee might not want to engage with, but they probably won't "destroy" D&D. They might make it less profitable by making boneheaded business decisions, but they won't intentionally shoot their golden goose.

"...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)

They've already announced they're going to.

"... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)

Some already are. But yeah, most will just gobble up whatever WotC puts out.

"...and then start playing different games instead!" (we already do. There is no "instead," there is only "also.")

More will simply stop playing. For a lot of people it's WotC's latest D&D or nothing.

 

[CleverNickName]

They've already announced they're going to.

They've announced they are going to release a more restrictive OGL, yes...but this isn't going to hurt D&D at all. Because:

But yeah, most will just gobble up whatever WotC puts out.

More will simply stop playing. For a lot of people it's WotC's latest D&D or nothing.

Customer loyalty is a thing, yes. Like you said: most of their customers will buy whatever they release. This isn't because of delusion, ignorance, or hypnosis; it's because they are most familiar with the D&D brand, they like the D&D brand more than the other brands, and they want to support the D&D brand. This is a good thing. Because as long as the D&D brand is thriving, other non-D&D brands can, and will, thrive in its shadow.

Nobody is going to "simply stop playing" D&D because of their OGL.

 

[Malmuria]

"If Wizards of the Coast destroys D&D..." (they won't)
"...by publishing a really restrictive OGL..." (they won't, it can't)
"... people would stop playing D&D..." (most won't)
"...and then start playing different games instead!" (we already do. There is no "instead," there is only "also.")

As stated in the OP, it's not conceivable to me that wotc wouldn't still be dominant in the ttrpg space, so I don't think the "destruction of dnd" is on the table. The question pertains more specifically to the impact of an OGL 1.1. I've seen people state that the effect will be negligible because OGL 1.1 will not affect most creators and will not be very onerous to those creators it does affect (this seems to be your position). Others have stated the effect will be negative, as being able to claim compatibility with the latest edition is important for some creators.

My argument is that the OGL 1.1 is potentially a positive development for non-wotc companies and creators, not because its effect might be negligible, but rather in fracturing the 5e ecosystem it would create a more diverse ttrpg landscape overall. This is true even if people stick with "5e" and OGL 1.0: one can imagine a slew of 5e derived content, all loosely compatible with each other but still expressing different intent with regards to gameplay and theme. That's already somewhat the state of affairs (level up, flee mortals, etc) but it would be amplified. Most optimistically, some of those creators would switch to developing content for other similar systems (pathfinder, 13th age, various OSR/NSR games) or maybe even branch out further, and find more of an audience for their products.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It should be if you care about D&D continuing to be produced and supported, not just the game itself, but all IP, including cartoons and movies.

The game itself is about 90% of what I care about, and I have everything I need from them, pretty much. Besides, they really don't need my help. I don't think WotC is in any danger.

 

[overgeeked]

They've announced they are going to release a more restrictive OGL, yes...but this isn't going to hurt D&D at all. Because:

It will hurt them, but it won't hurt them much.

Customer loyalty is a thing, yes. Like you said: most of their customers will buy whatever they release.

Most. Not all.

This isn't because of delusion, ignorance, or hypnosis; it's because they are most familiar with the D&D brand, they like the D&D brand more than the other brands, and they want to support the D&D brand.

Eh. Most likely a big chunk are only aware of the D&D brand and completely ignorant of all other RPGs. D&D is the only RPG that's even close to trying to be a brand.

This is a good thing. Because as long as the D&D brand is thriving, other non-D&D brands can, and will, thrive in its shadow.

That's not how it works. There's a limited amount of money and audience, D&D is hoovering up the overwhelmingly vast majority of both. Leaving almost nothing to spread around to all the other games and companies. D&D goes bye bye (or even takes a solid hit to their sales), then a lot of that money and audience will then spill over to other games and companies. A rising tide does not raise all ships.

Nobody is going to "simply stop playing" D&D because of their OGL.

You must not be reading the same threads on this site that I am, because according to some posters here they already are.

 

[Catolias]

Customer loyalty is a thing, yes. Like you said: most of their customers will buy whatever they release. This isn't because of delusion, ignorance, or hypnosis; it's because they are most familiar with the D&D brand, they like the D&D brand more than the other brands, and they want to support the D&D brand. This is a good thing. Because as long as the D&D brand is thriving, other non-D&D brands can, and will, thrive in its shadow.

This is a non sequitur. Customers liking the D&D brand will not lead to people investigating or being interested in other non-D&D ttrpg. They might stick with 5e, transfer to 1D&D or give up altogether.

D&D is the dominant player that crowds out smaller games and denies the light and exposure for other rule systems. Brands do not thrive in shadows. Especially when entering into a recession / economic downturn.

 

[mamba]

It should be if you care about D&D continuing to be produced and supported, not just the game itself, but all IP, including cartoons and movies.

I really do not care about their cartoons and movies. I was willing to throw them a bone and watch the movie, but no longer am.

 

[overgeeked]

This is a non sequitur. Customers liking the D&D brand will not lead to people investigating or being interested in other non-D&D ttrpg. They might stick with 5e, transfer to 1D&D or give up altogether.

D&D is the dominant player that crowds out smaller games and denies the light and exposure for other rule systems. Brands do not thrive in shadows. Especially when entering into a recession / economic downturn.

Exactly. It's a weird stance to take when we're literally watching non-D&D game companies start producing 5E content because they need the cash. Paizo doing 5E adventure paths, Cubicle 7 doing Middle Earth and Doctor Who in 5E, and so many others.

 

[CleverNickName]

Exactly. It's a weird stance to take when we're literally watching non-D&D game companies start producing 5E content because they need the cash. Paizo doing 5E adventure paths, Cubicle 7 doing Middle Earth and Doctor Who in 5E, and so many others.

Hm. I guess I'll have to check back in a year or two and see how badly I got it wrong.

 

[mamba]

Hm. I guess I'll have to check back in a year or two and see how badly I got it wrong.

I don't think you are off by a lot when it comes to WotC, I am more interested in what happens to the 3PP side though / whether the OGL 1.1 makes any headway or gets essentially rejected

 

[Catolias]

As stated in the OP, it's not conceivable to me that wotc wouldn't still be dominant in the ttrpg space, so I don't think the "destruction of dnd" is on the table.

I agree that it is unlikely, but I do think it is conceivable and possible in given circumstances. The impact of the economic downturn and a move to monetisation will be difficult and have some potential adverse consequences if it goes really bad.

My argument is that the OGL 1.1 is potentially a positive development for non-wotc companies and creators, not because its effect might be negligible, but rather in fracturing the 5e ecosystem it would create a more diverse ttrpg landscape overall.

Totally agree. This has the potential to break weaken WoTC’s dominance, particularly if there are hidden costs on third parties for producing 5e stuff. Those companies might down size but theywon’t necessarily shut up shop—they’ll refocus on to the next best thing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I really do not care about their cartoons and movies. I was willing to throw them a bone and watch the movie, but no longer am.

Wait, what? Watch the movie because it seems interesting. Don't watch it if it doesn't. Shouldn't have anything to do with 1dnd or OGL or whatever.

 

[mamba]

Wait, what? Watch the movie because it seems interesting. Don't watch it if it doesn't. Shouldn't have anything to do with 1dnd or OGL or whatever.

It does not really interest me, at best I am mildly curious and expect little from it. That can be enough to make me see it (more tagging along than anything), it's not like it costs a lot. I spend $10-20 on a whim frequently enough, this would have been no different.

If you think WotC's stance on this has no impact on my purchasing decisions regarding WotC products, you are mistaken. As I said, I believe WotC is completely underestimating the amount of goodwill they are burning, but maybe I overestimate it.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Internally, 4e was known to be "not what it was intended to be" from the start. Joseph Batten murdered his wife and committed suicide. This locked the devs out of the software and tools being developed for 4e, which it was supposed to launch with. They had to retool the rules to be a standalone product without the intended accompanying electronic portion of the game, in a very short period of time.

The GSL was probably related to that topic at the time as well (apparently it was written before this all happened). The electronic tool was likely originally a key component to why a 3rd party developer would want to sign on to the stricter GSL, as it probably was supposed to include access to the digital end of the products.

None of this was " what they were doing" as planned. They certainly made an error in not delaying the product and taking a look at all the aspects that needed to be altered to make it all work, which likely meant either going back to the OGL or re-developing the electronic portion before launch. They also needed a playtest of this alternate version of the game. But reports are things were a bit chaotic and their backs were to a deadline set outside of WOTC.

I am not so sure it's a good example of a counterpoint to them knowing or not knowing what they are doing. These 5e to 5.5e circumstances to not appear similar to the 3.5e to 4e circumstances in terms of "knowing what they are doing."

 

[mamba]

Internally, 4e was known to be "not what it was intended to be" from the start. Joseph Batten murdered his wife and committed suicide. This locked the devs out of the software and tools being developed for 4e, which it was supposed to launch with. They had to retool the rules to be a standalone product without the intended accompanying electronic portion of the game, in a very short period of time.

thanks, wasn’t really paying attention around the time of 4e, so this is new to me. I am sure this contributed to the issue, but I doubt you can put all the blame there.

And the fact that one developer ‘disappearing’ could cause this much disruption goes back to not knowing what they are doing.

The GSL was probably related to that topic at the time as well (apparently it was written before this all happened). The electronic tool was likely originally a key component to why a 3rd party developer would want to sign on to the stricter GSL, as it probably was supposed to include access to the digital end of the products.

I doubt the GSL would have been much more successful otherwise. The objections were about the terms being unacceptable, a better carrot does not change that.

Had the terms been reasonable, then the carrot could have helped.

 

[MNblockhead]

More will simply stop playing. For a lot of people it's WotC's latest D&D or nothing.

Not sure that this is true. If it is, its sad. There is so much good 5e-compatible adventures and rules put out by third parties. I would like to think that the success of MCCM and Critical Role products, at least, so that the newer generation has an appetite for expanding their game with third-party content.

 

[MNblockhead]

That's not how it works. There's a limited amount of money and audience, D&D is hoovering up the overwhelmingly vast majority of both. Leaving almost nothing to spread around to all the other games and companies. D&D goes bye bye (or even takes a solid hit to their sales), then a lot of that money and audience will then spill over to other games and companies. A rising tide does not raise all ships.

I'm not going to play the show-your-sources game, but anecdotally, I find this to be clearly untrue. 5e brought be back into gaming in 2014 and although I do not play non-5e games often, I have purchased at least eight different systems since 2014 and I have spend quite a bit of money on third-party 5e content. I have also spend a lot on software and physical game aids, very little of that put out by WotC. And that was during a period of incredible DnD growth. Would I buy even more TPP content if WotC went bye-bye? Most probably. But the fact that DnD has done so well certainly got me back into the hobby and led to me reading discussion boards, going to conventions and local gaming stores, and finding other games to try. What other TTRPG has a company like Hasbro and its marketing power behind it? If DnD were to go away, existing players might buy a lot more, but I think that fewer new people would be attracted to the hobby and it would sink back into being an obscure niche hobby.