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

[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.