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

[Malmuria]

Wait.

Youre saying, the proposed non-open-license will injure the WotC corporation, and therefore be good for D&D?

LOL!

*good for the ttrpg hobby, which includes more than wotc-dnd

 

[Yaarel]

*good for the ttrpg hobby, which includes more than wotc-dnd

I got that part.

I think it is funny that

WotC is flirting with the non-open license thinking it will be good for "monetization", while others would egg them on to do it, precisely because they know it wont be.

 

[Malmuria]

I got that part.

I think it is funny that

WotC is flirting with the non-open license thinking it will be good for "monetization", while others would egg them on to do it, precisely because they know it wont be.

Ahh I see
Though it's possible both are true...subscriptions + walled garden leads to "recurrent spending" for wotc and higher revenue. Some fraction of people and creators unhappy with that state of affairs branch off into other games

 

[Catolias]

A closed license will likely benefit other ttrpg, but not at first. There will be a lot of edition and version warring before things settle if D&D move away from OGL. Disruption, baby!

Mistwell’s post that D&D dominates traditional physical retailers in US(?) is true here for Australia. The biggest game shop franchiser here stocks D&D exclusively. The next rung of game shop stocks pathfinder, but you’d be hard pressed to find others - 13th Age, 7th Sea, legend of the five rings, one ring and Cthulhu are pretty much absent except from the very few specialised shops that exist.

I don’t agree that D&D is a gateway into other ttrpg. That’s akin to the satanic panic proposition or that alcohol use leads to other drug use or that marijuana means you’ll be doing heroin, fentanyl or Oct. It took me 20 years to jump to another ttrpg and the reason was one of cost and effort and finding gamers to play with.

For me, the success of 5e is its own worse enemy and WoTC faces a conundrum: OGL is not profitable for monetisation purposes and a closed system that generates profits from monetisation will inevitably be less than an OGL approach.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

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.

 

[mamba]

Well, by all accounts 4e was a commercial success.

not sure about that, it was kicked to the curb faster than any other edition. It had a great first few months, then a steep drop off and a quick death with things getting cancelled (like Dragonlance 4e).

Had that discussion recently, apparently it is too controversial for this forum somehow, so I leave it at that. To me the ‘by all accounts’ is a function of WotC not telling and this forum actively discouraging discussion.

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 even think it was a bad version, but 5e is not the version it would have been if 4e actually had been successful. To me it is more a step back, probably due to the success of PF1

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.

more reliable in general yes, hard to argue against that. They might be here too, cannot deny that. They certainly did more analysis than all of us combined.

I still think they misjudge the risk on that one, not to the point of it being their downfall, but a possible / probable dent in the juggernaut that would not otherwise be there.
I might get the size of that dent wrong and the fees might justify them, time will tell

 

[CleverNickName]

"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.")

 

[MNblockhead]

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

Yeah, basically this. I admit I may have lost the main point of the thread in my reply. The future popularity of 5e is unlikely to have much influence on what games I will play. Arguably, if it hadn't been so successful, I might not be playing it now.

 

[MNblockhead]

Thank you for this perspective. Though, it suggests my thesis is wrong, in that if wotc provides a vtt experience that automates gameplay and makes prep easier, it will be more appealing than ttrpg products (e.g. books) that provide different gameplay experiences.

Not sure. I may be that TTRPGs find the effort to prep materials for even a single popular VTT, much less multiple VTTs, not worth their effort. WotC has the resources to do it, and if they do it well, then having all of WotC adventures fully prepped in a VTT optimized to the 5e system could very well be a major competitive advantage. I would certainly consider switching to the WotC VTT if it is delivers a great experience and has everything prepped for me. And it would make 5e even more sticky as I would be even more invested in it as moving to another system would require that much more effort.