Dungeons and Drama

[Dataweaver]

While I can see moving away from paper, TTRPGs have a social component to them that I just can't see AI DMs replicating.

[TwoDSix]

It's not that I think AI DMs as good, it's that WotC seems to think that the biggest issue with new players getting into D&D is a lack of people willing to DM. Part of this is because a lot of people think GMing is hard work (which is true even for minimal prep styles) and unrewarding (which it isn't, but it's not everybody's cup of tea). The reluctant GM is a bit of a meme, and far too many people get into it from nobody else being willing to run the game they want to play (rather than getting really excited about running a game).

Of course, the real solution would be to create better tools and tutorials for GMs, which would involve a lot of guidelines, adventures, random tables, and honest discussion about how to handle difficult topics and what's acceptable behaviour at the table. But it's something nobody's quite cracked yet (even those who write good advice for experienced GMs), so I can understand the desire for the easy sell of 'no need to fight over who has to come up with an adventure', even if actually delivering that is a pipe dream. Because as you say, GMing is very much a social experience that can involve reconciling nine ideas of what's happening in the game.

I began my GMing career with two premade adventures before moving very quickly to a low prep 'lets see what happens' style, I know other people who can't run a game without writing setting material for six months, and honestly others who just can't concentrate on a game long enough to run them. But I'm very glad I made that leap because I actively wanted to try running, and now I'll more than happily plan a team of a half dozen Deviants because I might use them in a game one day. But learning how to keep people's attention, how to improvise, and how to make a combat encounter actually work because I'll sometimes outnumber the other players two to one and I really can't even be taking half the playtime with my turns, all of it was done with hard work and discussing games with other people who had run them.

So I get the desire for an easy out on both the player and company sides. I'm just not sure it's something that can actually be delivered.

[TheStray7]

I just lost an hour's worth of work typing up my responses to WotC's survey questions, and I'm too boiling mad to rebuild the post. Garrrrrrrr.

[Darksol-aeternium]

While I can see moving away from paper, TTRPGs have a social component to them that I just can't see AI DMs replicating.

Yer right about the social element, but there's other things you miss out on with AIs. It's been proven AI DMs can handle the mechanics of the game and adjudicate set responses (see EVERY RPG VIDEO GAME EVER), but they don't improvise, they don't imagine new scenarios, they don't homebrew, and even if they did the companies involved could not afford such an AI and still have a viable business model. The push for an online-based, AI-driven, subscription model of the game seems like it's trying to appeal to a newer population that they don't believe can exist offline.

[Ragged Robin]

Isn't an ai drive rpg just a video game?

[Dataweaver]

I just watched a YouTube video summarizing statements from people inside WotC; and apparently, the guy in charge of D&D doesn't differentiate between different kinds of gamers. In particular, it looks like his idea for One D&D is to effectively turn out into a video game: his vision of the future of D&D is a subscription-based VTT with AI DMs; and the stunts being pulled with the OGL are designed to kill competitors in the VTT market so that WotC will be able to charge everyone for subscriptions.

[Ragged Robin]

I just watched a YouTube video summarizing statements from people inside WotC; and apparently, the guy in charge of D&D doesn't differentiate between different kinds of gamers. In particular, it looks like his idea for One D&D is to effectively turn out into a video game: his vision of the future of D&D is a subscription-based VTT with AI DMs; and the stunts being pulled with the OGL are designed to kill competitors in the VTT market so that WotC will be able to charge everyone for subscriptions.

Well that sounds shit. Jokes on him I've already got video games and once I have one I don't need to pony up more. I can buy other games.

Pathfinders lot must be licking their lips at all this.

[Knightingale]

I just watched a YouTube video summarizing statements from people inside WotC; and apparently, the guy in charge of D&D doesn't differentiate between different kinds of gamers. In particular, it looks like his idea for One D&D is to effectively turn out into a video game: his vision of the future of D&D is a subscription-based VTT with AI DMs; and the stunts being pulled with the OGL are designed to kill competitors in the VTT market so that WotC will be able to charge everyone for subscriptions.

The crazy thing is that if you're looking at the gaming-space then you have these giant publishers who now have been pushing "games as a live-service" for years and... You have that Avengers game, Bioware's Anthem, Platinum Games' Babylon's Fall, 434's Halo Infinite... All of them failures. Aside from when it's a dedicated Battle Royale game or an MMO, this idea hasn't worked out once. No, wait, there's another scenario where this model has definitely worked out and that's when you've decided to make pay-to-win games solely designed to exploit addiction like, for example, Diablo Immortal. So if Hasbro/WOTC are greedy and have no scruples, that's what One D&D would be turned into, I imagine, to make this profitable.

[Darksol-aeternium]

Pathfinders lot must be licking their lips at all this.

Oh we definitely are! This is exactly the kind of thing that will lead to some much needed polish on PF2.

And Knightingale is right; this ploy didn't work anywhere but MMOs and gatcha-games, which they are late to the party on. I'm already imagining the massive jump-ship that's going to result from this.

[TempleBuilder]

Oh we definitely are! This is exactly the kind of thing that will lead to some much needed polish on PF2.

I swear, this is literally Paizo’s business plan. Just wait until Hazbro makes a bad move, and be close enough for an easy switch when people get frustrated.

And Knightingale is right; this ploy didn't work anywhere but MMOs and gatcha-games, which they are late to the party on. I'm already imagining the massive jump-ship that's going to result from this.

…I hope y’all are right.

[wyrdhamster]

Newest Pathcast episode is about OGL, it's history - and how it's reflected on design of Realms of Pugmire 2E. Reminder - RoP 2E now has Kickstarter - and here it's forum topic! ( OGL talk starts at 20:15 of Pathcast - previous is 90s in culture and RPG industry. )

Bonus - Case of try to copy WHOLE Vampire: The Masquared IP by other game at 36:20 of podcast.

https://onyxpathcast.podbean.com/e/episode-244-realms-of-pugmire-and-the-ogl/

[Dataweaver]

Oh we definitely are! This is exactly the kind of thing that will lead to some much needed polish on PF2.

Agreed on the much needed polish. The content is great; but the organization could use some work. Looking forward to picking up a polished PF2 core book.

[TwoDSix]

I have the things I dislike about PF2 (lots of fiddly bits, not a big fan of the D&D, OMG can we just drop Vancian magic already compared to spell points it's a lot of effort for little payoff), but hey at least Paizo is giving actual support to GMs* instead of trying to remove us from the equation, and it's still a better game than D&D5e. I mean, Starfinder's more my jam if I had to play d20 fantasy, but them doing well wouldn't be a bad thing for the industry in any way.

Hell, if one of my friends was running PF2 I'd definitely join as a Witch.

But yeah, from the sounds of it I'm betting WotC leadership doesn't get why people play TTRPGs, or even more why people actively choose to run them. I mean, if I wanted to play a computer game I've literally got Persona 5 running on a different machine right now, and if I wanted to play a multiplayer one (a strange idea in a world where board games exist) I'm sure I could invite some friends round for couch play. I think it's a very narrow market where this solution is better than 90% of even first time GMs (especially if they've had a chance to pre-read the adventure), at best this might lead to a lot of people picking it up and then dropping a month or so later when they realise AI GMs aren't that fun. Meaning they'll get about the same as each person buying a rulebook, but they won't get people digging out that rulebook years down the line and thinking 'I should give this another shot'.

This feels like the decision not to sell pdfs of 5e all over again. The end result wasn't people who want a pdf moving to their digital platform, it was them at best scanning the books in themselves or at worst having to wait a few days for them to start circulating online. It's just misunderstanding what a significant chunk of the market actually wants (I suspect more people invested in D&D Beyond for the character management rather than the rules reference).

* Mostly on the form of legitimately high quality APs.

[Knightingale]

Alone the idea of adding microtransactions and subscriptions to a VTT dedicated to a roleplaying game already sounds corrosive enough, I think - even without the whole drama of the OGL.

The bad thing about microtransactions (as we've seen with videogames) is that they can quickly turn into incentives for deliberately creating mediocre to bad design. Like, paid cosmetics. Somebody creates new and exciting options for what your character and the UI of the VTT look like, for example. But the moment the look of things is monetized, you create an incentive to make non-paid cosmetics look bland and boring in order to motivate people to buy paid cosmetics. Or just convenience. Like, the ability to just click on a Skill in my char-sheet to trigger a Skill-roll instead of typing out a command. You could monetize that and say "Only people who pay the Advanced Class subscription can do that.".

And this is why it's corrosive: By the same logic of trying to sell to users that this extra paid content is worthwhile incentives are created for making non-paid content worse. In other words, bad design is a good thing all of a sudden because that's how you sell the extra paid content/microtransactions.

Subscriptions are another minefield. You're asking people to pay monthly for playing D&D on a VTT. Asking people to pay a subscription every month means there have to be reasons to stay subscribed. I mean, how many groups are playing their D&D campaign every month in the year to begin with? And then, this model certainly will lead to the expectation that the D&D-team will be dropping new content on a regular basis (like every quarter at least, I'd imagine) in order to keep subscriptions. After all, a subscription-service is only good if it increases subscriptions. That's now a metric executive leadership can use to cast judgment on how the D&D-team is doing. Of course, we've seen with streaming-services like Netflix that this model has its flaws and in the long run won't work. And by putting this demand on the D&D-team where content-production is measured in months and based on subscriptions you run into the same issue that these "games as a live service" often do: Good work takes care and time. But with the demands of keeping subscriptions and getting more, you don't have time. At some point, the content-mill isn't producing what it needs to do. Quality, quantity, both... at some point it just doesn't do what it needs to do. And that's when people start leaving and move on to play something else.

[wyrdhamster]

The #OpenDnD movement won with the Wizards! They backed out of everything - and 5E will be 'forever' on Creative Commons!

Video from D&D Shorts channel about it