D&D (2024) Would a OneDND closed/restricted license be good, actually?

[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