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

[UngeheuerLich]

Pretty sure they would have carried it if there had been demand, anything else is irrational

German editions were cut. The books were just not good. Regarding monetization: most people i know just used the online character builder. So no. The demand probably dropped of hard.

With 5e, I (and probably store owners) can say to someone: buy those books, they are still useful 8 years into the edition. With 4e, I told everyone not to buy those books immediately. I did not buy them.
I guess, there were many people who felt the same, even if they liked 4e back then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok. Never implied that.
Just said that regarding your estimation of what is a good or a bad decision by wotc.
I personall think it is a good idea for wotc to not do it as you like, because it would smaller their customer base.

That does not mean that I don't want your preferences to be supported in some way. I see nothing in the OGL 1.1 that prevents that.

The new OGL, provided that it provides  some actual incentive for 3PP to adopt it, will restrict content released under it. If 3PP whose content I currently enjoy sign onto it, they will restrict their content to what WotC will allow for the license, for whatever benefit WotC sees fit to provide and eventually tell us about. For example, I don't like the direction WotC's new edition is going toward. People writing under 1.1 will likely fall under that direction, thus producing content that I might (probably will) like less.

I don't want that to happen, and the possibility that it doing so might make WotC even more successful and influential in the industry is a point against it to me, not in favor of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course it's true. And we know exactly how true it is EN World-wise by all the posters here who get all up in arms and argue and complain about the work WotC produces. Everything they make in books or in Unearthed Arcana playtest documents have people arrive here on the boards to go over all them with fine-toothed combs and complain about what they've made. Even people who admit they don't actually like or still play WotC-based 5E... still can't help but come here to rant and rave about what WotC does.

THAT tells us all we need to know about just how ubiquitous D&D 5E is. The very definition of "I wish I knew how to quit you." And why this hope of people that "the world of TTRPGs expands out beyond Wizards of the Coast" is I think a rather disingenuous complaint. All these people who want 3PPs or other RPGs to rise up out of the shadow that 5E is casting can't help themselves make the shadow even bigger by still keeping themselves handcuffed to 5E. They still keep involved in its development. They still want WotC to make D&D 5E rules changes in the style of games they want to play.

(General) you complain about WotC and their massive 5E game and how it crowds everybody else out... and yet rather than break ties with this game you feel is an anchor around the hobby... (general) you still care so much about how the game continues and what kinds of books and rules for it get released that you continually stayed involved and talk about it, thus perpetuating its influence. (General) you are as much responsible for WotC's 5E shadow as anyone.

You want me to believe you TRULY care about the larger TTRPG eco-system and want to bring other games and companies out from underneath the shadow of WotC? Break off from 5E once and for all. Stop giving them the press. Because every time you come here onto EN World to talk about it you are showing us all that you actually want to see WotC maintain its position.

90% (made-up number) of talk on this forum concerns WotC D&D, or assumes that it does. Are you asking people to basically leave ENWorld? I can't speak for others, but I don't play constantly, so a lot of my engagement with the hobby I love comes from here. Not weighing in on WotC D&D is an ENORMOUS restriction on discourse.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I did not specifically talked about that. But they hopefully have something planned that allows 3rd parties to do things that he likes.

There is no reason to believe that, and every reason to believe that WotC's goal is to get as many people as possible on board with their game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

German editions were cut. The books were just not good. Regarding monetization: most people i know just used the online character builder. So no. The demand probably dropped of hard.

With 5e, I (and probably store owners) can say to someone: buy those books, they are still useful 8 years into the edition. With 4e, I told everyone not to buy those books immediately. I did not buy them.
I guess, there were many people who felt the same, even if they liked 4e back then.

The invisible corebook known as "The Complete Errata Handbook" was definitely a problem for me when I played 4e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is no reason to believe that, and every reason to believe that WotC's goal is to get as many people as possible on board with their game.

I don't think so. They probably know that there are better options to cater to some tastes (hint: DM's guild).

 

[Maxperson]

No one says they don't. That doesn't give me any reason to think that anyone in this thread has a better grasp than WotC does of its commercial interests.

WotC has fumbled the ball more than once with D&D, though. I don't have a ton of confidence in their ability to make decisions. Further, Hasbro has a lot of influence, which means executives without a lot of experience with RPGs will have hands in the pot.

 

[Catolias]

A rising tide lifts all boats. That's not just a saying. ICv2 reports on sales and they've said as D&D does better, the games below D&D also do better.

True, but the saying assumes that everything else is equal or remains the same. Changing the OGL rules, however, adds another dimension. If the D&D boat is the only one accessed by a marina and they control how and who gets access to it, then have an advantage over the disadvantaged boats on a swing mooring accessed by a row boat.

 

[Catolias]

Bad business decisions happen all the time.

New Coke
The Edsel
The company that passed on buying Google for 750k
Blockbuster passing on Netflix at 50 million

Just to name a few.

You forgot Musk’s Twitter as a current real-time example of bad decision making! (And the cascading impact it is having on Tesla)

 

[pemerton]

I'm not responsible for WotC's profits, and I don't care if they make even more money. What I want is to have WotC's overbearing influence on gaming be less overbearing. This whole thing seems hell-bent on doing the opposite.

Pretty sure they would have carried it if there had been demand, anything else is irrational

I don't think the sentiments underlying these two posts can both be true: that is, I don't see how it can be true both that there is demand for RPGs that is independent of what WotC decides to do (which can result, for instance, in WotC making poor business decisions by misjudging what RPG consumers want), and that WotC exercises overbearing influence on RPGing.

For what it's worth, to me there seems to be a fairly consistent demand from the "mainstream" RPGing population. It falls into the genre/mode of RPGing often called neo-trad. (Here's a description.) The core features of neo-trad RPGing, as I understand it, are (i) players coming up with vibrant conceptions of their PCs, expressed through a mixture of backstory, performance and PC build; (ii) the GM presenting a vibrant fictional world that those PCs can inhabit; (iii) the actual process of play involves the GM heavily curating the fiction - which includes introduction of both their own and the players' backstory, plus framing, plus consequences - in such a way that the players' conceptions of their vibrant PCs can easily and clearly emerge.

I would expect WotC, in its ongoing development of 5e D&D, to try to further strengthen the support for neo-trad RPGing while also maintaining the technical aspects of the game - which manifest primarily in PC and monster build and in the combat rules (and include the resource management aspects of the game) - which are perhaps less important to neo-trad play but are core elements of the D&D tradition and clearly remain important to many D&D players.

I would expect this to be combined with "monetisation" options, both connected to play and selling D&D-branded stuff more generally.

WotC's approach to licensing will (presumably) be based around both concerns. Keeping Critical Role in the tent seems pretty crucial. Preventing some competitor from establishing a break-out digital platform disconnected from WotC seems pretty important to. (This is a point that I've seen @Hussar mention.)

Even people who admit they don't actually like or still play WotC-based 5E... still can't help but come here to rant and rave about what WotC does.

<snip>

You want me to believe you TRULY care about the larger TTRPG eco-system and want to bring other games and companies out from underneath the shadow of WotC? Break off from 5E once and for all. Stop giving them the press. Because every time you come here onto EN World to talk about it you are showing us all that you actually want to see WotC maintain its position.

It seems to me that many of those posters really want WotC to turn the clock back, from its support for neo-trad to something closer to late 80s or early 90s AD&D (which were pretty similar in style despite the updated rulebooks part way through that period).

There's an apparent belief that if WotC changed its approach, the market would follow and hence there would be heaps of players available for those AD&D-style trad D&D games.

My own view is that that belief is false, and that WotC is following the market more than shaping its preferences. The shaping of the preferences is coming from other and more diffuse places - Critical Role, the way protagonist-based action films have developed over the past 40-ish years (Arnie's films being early examples, and MCU showing how it can be done in an ensemble fashion), the sort of RPGing that 3E and then PF encouraged, etc.

The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.

 

[mamba]

I don't think the sentiments underlying these two posts can both be true: that is, I don't see how it can be true both that there is demand for RPGs that is independent of what WotC decides to do (which can result, for instance, in WotC making poor business decisions by misjudging what RPG consumers want), and that WotC exercises overbearing influence on RPGing.

why? You can be dominant and make bad decisions. If you keep doing this, you will not stay dominant forever however

Also, if you look at what these two comments refer to, one is referring to 4e, so maybe 2010, and the other to today. It is hard to argue that the influence / dominance of WotC has remained constant over those years.

 

[Malmuria]

My own view is that that belief is false, and that WotC is following the market more than shaping its preferences. The shaping of the preferences is coming from other and more diffuse places - Critical Role, the way protagonist-based action films have developed over the past 40-ish years (Arnie's films being early examples, and MCU showing how it can be done in an ensemble fashion), the sort of RPGing that 3E and then PF encouraged, etc.

Many of the other seemingly successful gaming companies out there are indeed making neo-trad type games, but I still wouldn't call any of these companies competitors to wotc per say. These include Paizo, Chaosium, Modiphius, Free League, and others. Indeed, in my hypothetical scenario in the OP, I would imagine that if people move off 5e they would either move to 5e clones or to these other neo-trad games.

 

[Mistwell]

True, but the saying assumes that everything else is equal or remains the same. Changing the OGL rules, however, adds another dimension. If the D&D boat is the only one accessed by a marina and they control how and who gets access to it, then have an advantage over the disadvantaged boats on a swing mooring accessed by a row boat.

Only one of the games on the ICv2 list were OGL games that I recall, and that was Goodman who already operate under their own independent license they worked out with WOTC on the side. The rest are their own games I think? Pathfinder 2e, GI Joe, Power Rangers, Cyberpunk, Alien, Fate, etc..

I mean, what is it you think is relevant about the 1.1 license that cannot be done with the existing 1.0 license for other games on the list? The only thing I've speculated is it's probably about access to DNDBeyond and the new VTT, which isn't relevant for other RPGs really. So what Marina and what access to a boat are you talking about? All the other boats are rising, regardless of a 1.1 license.

D&D doing well is good for all RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

Many of the other seemingly successful gaming companies out there are indeed making neo-trad type games, but I still wouldn't call any of these companies competitors to wotc per say. These include Paizo, Chaosium, Modiphius, Free League, and others. Indeed, in my hypothetical scenario in the OP, I would imagine that if people move off 5e they would either move to 5e clones or to these other neo-trad games.

a restricted and less open license from wotc for the forthcoming "onednd" would inadvertently benefit the ttrpg hobby more broadly. While wotc will remain dominant, a restricted license and "walled garden" infrastructure will push some players, streamers, and independent creators toward non-wotc-dnd games.

<snip>

being cut off from the onednd market may encourage third parties to develop content for other systems.

<snip>

While dnd is a likely entry point into ttrpgs, it's also a sticking point, in the sense that players stick within the 5e ecosystem. It has allowed for those making 5e-compatible products to thrive, but its "trickle-down" effect is questionable. One can argue that at a certain point it prevents growth of non-5e games because it makes it seem risky for streamers and creators to switch to other systems.

<snip>

I see many people talking as if wotc-dnd="the hobby," hence why a restricted license would be bad for the hobby more generally. But if the wotc-centric part of the hobby contracts (without collapsing), there is perhaps room for other parts of the hobby to grow.

I've tried to pick out the key bits of your OP that relate to your reply to me.

If the non-WotC, non-D&D games that are going to grow - in your OP scenario - are other games that are very similar to 5e D&D in how they play, I'm not sure how that would benefit the hobby. I can see how it would benefit the publishers of those other games, but it would seem to leave the hobby more-or-less unchanged.

 

[MNblockhead]

So you got back into gaming because 5E made a lot of money?

I suppose not. I bought the PHB from my FLGS close to when it was first released. In a sense, I'm part of the demographic of ex-gamers that 5e brought back into the fold and help make it a commercial success. Brand recognition helped, but I played back in the 80s. I mean, I didn't even know anything about the history of TSR failing, the WotC buyout, or the raise of Paizo until I got back into the hobby. I didn't know about, much less watch Critical Role or any live play games, and Stranger Things wouldn't be released until almost two years after I got back into the game.

But I don't think that I'm the demographic that matters. How do you get people that have no personal or family experience with TTRPGs to be aware of and interested in trying them? This is where Hasbro/WotC can have a much bigger impact than any other publisher in the TTRPG space.

None. That’s part of the problem.

This was in response to my question: "What other TTRPG has a company like Hasbro and its marketing power behind it? I would love to see a TTRPG "DC" to WotC's "Marvel". Having two, or more, major publishers that could grow the hobby would be awesome. But I'm having trouble seeing it happening, at least in the near future. There are a variety of IPs that have related TTRPGs (Witcher, Dr. Who, Star Wars, Dragon Prince, etc.). But I don't think that the average viewer of those shows associate them with games. It seems to be those already in the hobby who are interested in playing TTRPGs based on other IPs. D&D is the one TTRPG brand that someone outside of the hobby will associate with a game. I would rather pin my hopes on the D&D movie being a success and bringing even more people into the hobby, than hoping for the more unlikely scenario that another brand will arise that can make the same connection and have a similar impact.

Except you’re forgetting pop culture. The two main vectors for non-gamers finding out about D&D through pop culture over the last decade had been Stranger Things and Critical Role. Unless something drastic happens, CR and Stranger Things will continue to exist. They will keep going. CR is far more likely to continue putting out new content longer than Stranger Things. That’s not going away.

But both of those are tied to DnD. If DnD were to "go away" what makes you think that someone will be led to a different TTRPG? Also, while I think CR has had a large, positive impact on the hobby, I feel live-stream TTRPG games are fairly niche. CR and D&D are in a symbiotic relationship. The popularity of CR certainly helps D&D but the popularity of D&D also brings more potential fans to CR. I found CR because of D&D, not the other way around.

Word of mouth is still a thing. All the players that exist now, who like the hobby and want to keep engaging with it, will keep on doing so. Regardless of what D&D or WotC does. With D&D around, sucking up the majority of the money and audience, most fans will just stick with them. WotC sours enough fans or tanks the new edition, then interested fans will migrate to other games. We’ve literally been through this before with 4E and Paizo’s Pathfinder.

Did the 4e / Pathfinder situation grow the hobby as a whole or just redistribute existing players? I don't pretend to have a deep understanding of the history and Pathfinder or the overall sales numbers for the hobby from that period, but it seems to me that Paizo was successful mainly by taking away consumers from WotC, rather than bringing large numbers of new fans to the hobby.

If we are at peak numbers of consumers for the hobby, I think your analysis makes sense. But I believe that the hobby as a whole has a lot of room to grow and Hasbro/WotC is best positioned to grow the hobby. I'm also not sure if I agree with your argument that "most fans will just stick with [D&D]." I don't have the numbers and maybe you do, but anecdotally, I see a lot of people who start with D&D branching out to other systems. I certainly did. In my case most of my money is still D&D related, but most of that has been on companies other than WotC: third-party books, terrain, miniatures, VTT and other game-related software. If I had a different work and travel situation, I would play more non-D&D games. It will be interesting to see how my son's middle-school aged D&D group evolves. If my experiences from the 80s hold any relevance to today's youth, I expect that as they move into high school they will branch out to other systems.

At a guess, the “new Pathfinder” will be Critical Role. All they have to do is put out a book of rules and their millions of fans will jump on it. If the rules are close to 5E, great. If not, their fans will still snatch it up. And just like that, you have a giant new competitor to D&D. They instantly have millions of eyes on their products and game system. Week after week after week. Oh, and their animated series on Amazon Prime. You want advertising that rivals Hasbro? There you go. I’d be surprised if they didn’t join up with MCDM to do something, considering they’re friends. Mercer can homebrew some classes and worldbuild better than most, but Colville has the design chops. CR has the fan base. WotC tanks it with the OGL…blam. “New Pathfinder.”

That would be cool, I'm just not as optimistic that CR would be able impact popular culture as deeply and as widely as Hasbro/WotC can. Vox Machina is a fun show. I backed it on Kickstarter and enjoyed the first season. But it is intimately tied with D&D. Also, it isn't something that many parents would let their kids watch. I don't know anyone outside of people I talk to on the Internet that watched it. I don't feel that it will rival the D&D movie, even if the D&D movie under performs. That is not meant as a dig on CR. I love what CR and MCDM have done and have spend a lot on both of their content. But I don't seem them as being in the same league as D&D, but rather good companies profiting from being in D&D's orbit.

 

[Incenjucar]

While it's certainly gaining ground, RPGs still have a way to go before they hit the kind of critical mass that makes them just a normal thing that people do (not counting video games). My sibling-in-law apparently didn't even know about D&D until I mentioned it! It would be neat to be in a situation where D&D was just one of many big-name RPGs that everyone has at least heard of, but it's still a niche area, and having one major company that most people know pushing RPGs is better than having zero. Hopefully we can get to the days where we're all groaning about Disney buying up Kobold Press or something, but we're not quite there yet.

 

[pemerton]

@MNblockhead We've got different relationships to 5e D&D, but everything you say in your post just upthread seems sensible to me. For those of us who are enthusiastic about non-D&D RPGs, I think the best thing is to explain (politely in relevant threads, and most of all by actual play accounts) what we think they have to offer. Then only-D&Ders can work out whether or not they're interested. I don't think the commercial fate of WotC is directly relevant to this one way or the other, except to the extent that D&D does bring new potential players into the fold.

 

[DEFCON 1]

90% (made-up number) of talk on this forum concerns WotC D&D, or assumes that it does. Are you asking people to basically leave ENWorld? I can't speak for others, but I don't play constantly, so a lot of my engagement with the hobby I love comes from here. Not weighing in on WotC D&D is an ENORMOUS restriction on discourse.

I'm saying that if you really want "WotC's overbearing influence" (as you put it) to stop being on top of the hobby... then you have to be a part of that stop. And the only way that happens is if people stop giving their time and energy towards WotC and 5E and spend their time on the games they actually like.

For instance, I don't give a rat's ass about Pathfinder. Good or bad. So I have never once posted in the Pathfinder subforum and probably have only glanced at it a few times over the last dozen years. And I'm even playing in a PF game right now! But by me not spending any of my time or energy adding to that subforum by posting in it... the forum is just ever-so-slightly smaller. Which means other people who might come here and take a look see a forum just ever-so-slightly less active, and thus perhaps they decide not to get involve either (or simply get involved less, because there's less "going on" there.) And if you take my decision and you multiply it by all the other people who also don't care about Pathfinder... eventually the board gets smaller and smaller with nothing of interest to talk about and less new people come looking for it because it's become smaller and smaller. And eventually the Pathfinder board loses influence, cache, and maybe even dies out down the line. And when you take that lack of interest in the subforum and you translate it over to the game, the game then becomes smaller and smaller as well, with less influence or cache. Which is exactly what we have right now... a Pathfinder (and especially a Pathfinder 2) which does not in any way hold any sway in the gaming marketplace like they used to when they were poised up against 4E and were dominant.

And some of the folks here want 5E to follow suit? Then you gotta follow the same playbook.

Isn't the old cliche "There is no bad press"? And that's exactly what is happening here. By constantly talking about D&D 5E (even negatively) you are keeping these boards alive and keeping interactions on the game alive and keeping engagement with the game alive. And thus you are doing the exact opposite of what you need to be doing to lessen WotC's overbearing influence. 5E can't go away if you won't let it leave. And this is true for everyone-- if you truly want the game to reduce its influence and die out... you have to take that first step by being one of the people to just walk away from it and not engage. Only then will other people begin to follow suit... and then ever-so-slowly WotC's influence over the hobby might slowly degrade.