(a) no he didn't; roleplaying wargame simulations predate him. He was the first to pull together the specific mix that's used in D&D, but all the components are pre-existing.
(b) so what? "X created the idea that was then improved by Y" does not mean you should use the version introduced by X -- you should use the best version.
Read Jon Peterson's histories of table-top role-playing games.
These are heavily researched academic texts in the field of game studies.
What you are doing is revisionism.
FWIW: Jon Peterson even goes into the influence of wargames and the like on the development of role-playing games. His heftiest tome is around 700 pages in length and has a bibliography stretching to 30 pages. This study even talks about chess and other strategy games. Peterson has a whole book about the disaster that was the management of TSR and that of the relationship between Gygax and Arneson. He still acknowledges and respects their contribution to the hobby. Without them this site would not exist. You would be elsewhere playing video games.
I am reading the book about TSR's disaster, though I have already skimmed through it and read most of the story. To be honest, Gygax did not sound like a good person. He kicked his partner out of the company and took all the credit. When D&D became mainstream, he barely ever mentioned or acknowledged Arneson's contributions after having cut him out of the business for supposedly storming out of the office briefly after a miscommunication between the two.
As for the topic of who made what for the game in the book, Peterson really did not cover that
Contrary to the statement in your most recent post, we are not "consumed by hatred for Gygax". We do recognize, appreciate, and acknowledge the great and incredible deeds that these two men did. Without them, there would be no Dungeons and Dragons and it would have likely taken years for role-playing games like it to develop. However, we are allowed to both recognize someones faults and flaws as well as the good things they did at the same time. On top of that, we are allowed to recognize how some of those flaws of Gygax's may have made it into some of his contributions to the game and world, and how invoking his name as the arbiter of what is good in bad for D&D is not necessarily a good idea.
Anyways, can we please just move back to the subject this thread was meant to be about or end it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Which you will note was a far less successful game than D&D. The reality is that Gygax was not the end-all be-all of RPG designers; plenty of people improved on his ideas.
You will note that some of the finest cinema and finest literature and finest music performs less successfully than the most juvenile blockbusters, trashy fiction, and vacuous pop.
What is good in this world isn't a numbers game.
Your claim that plenty of people improved on Gary's ideas when there is a sub-section of the community who continue to play earlier editions of the game or whose own games try to capture the feel and simplicity and purpose of them is your subjective opinion. You don't speak for everyone.
I am reading the book about TSR's disaster, though I have already skimmed through it and read most of the story. To be honest, Gygax did not sound like a good person. He kicked his partner out of the company and took all the credit. When D&D became mainstream, he barely ever mentioned or acknowledged Arneson's contributions after having cut him out of the business for supposedly storming out of the office briefly after a miscommunication between the two.
As for the topic of who made what for the game in the book, Peterson really did not cover that
Read Playing at the World and The Elusive Shift. These are about the development of the hobby. Game Wizards—the one you're reading—is as you said about TSR. Its management—and mismanagement.
And what exactly does Gygax's conduct as a businessman have to do with his role as a game designer? Just because the man is dead and some people want to scrutinize his life and make him into a monster doesn't automatically mean the game is now in the hands of saints either.
I was not talking about the transition from 5th ed. to "One D&D."
How is that "very true" of game designers who don't even use Wizards' intellectual property? Are you aware of how little Wizards actually own? They own the name of the game. And they own a list of terms. Nothing more. They do not own the rules. That is very true. And you didn't respond to my point about how Wizards are piggybacking off the legacy of the game. Off the work of TSR employees. Off the commitment to the hobby from those of us who have been playing for decades.
Are you saying if a megacorporation has wealth and influence enough to maintain a stranglehold on an industry and outperform others in terms of reach and earnings this must mean what they do is better than what their competitors are doing? Or is it only Wizards that who have achieved this magical status that suddenly sees capitalism as a rose gardens for all involved?
A lot of game designers use Wizards' IP. If they did not, they would not be whining about what Wizards does with the OGL and SRD. Plenty of third parties utilize the SRD to create content, such as subclasses, races, spells, magic items, and so on. Paizo's Pathfinder literally branched off of 3.5e. PF2 is its own thing, but some of the stuff in it can still be traced back to D&D, like Magic Missile.
Wizards does not own just the name of the game and terms. They own the copyright to the SRD. While Wizards does not own the mechanics, at the very least, they do own the overall presentation. Wizards does not own skill checks or druids, but Wizards certainly own the overall idea of druids as presented in the SRD. Just because Wizards put something under Creative Commons does not mean they do not own the material. I might not be copyright lawyer, but I know they own more than just the name and terms.
Wizards did not piggyback off the legacy of the game and TSR employees. Wizards paid for them and bought them out. With money. You know who did not want to give Wizards money despite piggybacking off of them? Third party creators. Based on how many people want Wizards to give them free digital books just because they bought the physical books, I am not convinced of the commitment by some parts of the community.
Wizards does not have a stranglehold on the industry because they are trying to monopolize the market. Wizards have a stranglehold right now because their competitors just suck. Third party creators can succeed and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. As you have said yourself, Call of Cthullu is very successful in Japan. If third party creators are so amazing, they should ditch the OGL and SRD, make their own game, and stand on their own two feet.
I have my beef with capitalism when it comes to industries and markets critical to national security and wellbeing (i.e.: military, healthcare, education, transportation, food, water, housing, etc.), but we are talking about the TTRPG industry, an industry with an extremely low barrier of entry. As much as I do not like monopolies and near-monopolies, I have not really seen Wizards doing anything that is anti-competitive (their competitors just suck), so I am A-okay with their dominance.
A lot of game designers use Wizards' IP. If they did not, they would not be whining about what Wizards does with the OGL and SRD. Plenty of third parties utilize the SRD to create content, such as subclasses, races, spells, magic items, and so on. Paizo's Pathfinder literally branched off of 3.5e. PF2 is its own thing, but some of the stuff in it can still be traced back to D&D, like Magic Missile.
Wizards does not own just the name of the game and terms. They own the copyright to the SRD. While Wizards does not own the mechanics, at the very least, they do own the overall presentation. Wizards does not own skill checks or druids, but Wizards certainly own the overall idea of druids as presented in the SRD. Just because Wizards put something under Creative Commons does not mean they do not own the material. I might not be copyright lawyer, but I know they own more than just the name and terms.
Wizards did not piggyback off the legacy of the game and TSR employees. Wizards paid for them and bought them out. With money. You know who did not want to give Wizards money despite piggybacking off of them? Third party creators. Based on how many people want Wizards to give them free digital books just because they bought the physical books, I am not convinced of the commitment by some parts of the community.
Wizards does not have a stranglehold on the industry because they are trying to monopolize the market. Wizards have a stranglehold right now because their competitors just suck. Third party creators can succeed and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. As you have said yourself, Call of Cthullu is very successful in Japan. If third party creators are so amazing, they should ditch the OGL and SRD, make their own game, and stand on their own two feet.
I have my beef with capitalism when it comes to industries and markets critical to national security and wellbeing (i.e.: military, healthcare, education, transportation, food, water, housing, etc.), but we are talking about the TTRPG industry, an industry with an extremely low barrier of entry. As much as I do not like monopolies and near-monopolies, I have not really seen Wizards doing anything that is anti-competitive (their competitors just suck), so I am A-okay with their dominance.
You previously said "everyone in the industry are riding off of Wizards marketing budget." Now it's just "a lot of game designers use Wizards' IP"?
Since the whole OGL debacle most have decided to no longer use the OGL. A game like Shadowdark for example needn't rely on the SRD. It's basically Basic D&D which many of us know by heart but uses 5th ed. innovations. Not a single thing in it is "Wizards' IP." Wizards don't own the concept of Advantage and Disadvantage. Something they themselves took from an OSR game that beat them to it.
Wizards can pay all the gold in the realm for TSR. Without Arneson and Gygax D&D would not exist. Without TSR D&D would not exist. Without us long-time players Wizards would not exist. Wizards are piggybacking off the legacy of the game: If Wizards named their game anything but D&D few would play it. If another company owned that trademark people would play that other company's game even were it inferior to 5th ed. because consumers are like that. That's piggybacking off the legacy of the game. Just because you refuse to call it what it is doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.
Their competitors "suck" but it's their competitors who consistently win awards for Best Design? Best Art? Best Writing? Take off the rose-colored glasses.
Do great movies and great books "suck" just because they're not earning the millions earned by blockbusters?
You've a beef with capitalism but you think what "sucks" is a numbers game and you believe one company buying out another and a megacorporation then devouring it and now owning the brand it had purchased with its purchase of that other company means what that brand represents is also now theirs and anyone and everyone who made that brand what it is can just go to hell? Right.
EDIT: A regular bookstore here in Tokyo used to sell imported English-language table-top role-playing games. Pathfinder dominated. I've never played Pathfinder. Have no intention to. But acting like Paizo are just hopeless at competing with Wizards when they practically held the fort for six years because Wizards were too busy selling a video game costumed as a TRPG to their customers is revisionism if ever there were.
ALSO: Since the whole OGL debacle Wizards THEMSELVES have acknowledged just how symbiotically third-party publishers support THEM.
Are you saying Wizards are wrong? Or that they're lying?
I think the OG poster is concerned about one d&d changes being forced opon us on DND beyond.
I hope these concerns do not prove true. Because I think not having the option to not use the one d&d versions is a bad thing. I believe having options is a good thing.
It's not Wizards who dominate awards. No book they have produced for the hobby in the past fifteen years can remotely compare to things put out by companies like Free League Publishing, Goodman Games, Mythmere Games, Necrotic Gnome, or even the tiniest of publishers like Lost Pages. Wizards have all the money in the world. But next to zero talent on which to spend it.
If these products are so amazing then why are you here? Leave us D&D fans alone with our "talentless" game then.
I think the OG poster is concerned about one d&d changes being forced opon us on DND beyond.
I hope these concerns do not prove true. Because I think not having the option to not use the one d&d versions is a bad thing. I believe having options is a good thing.
The 2014 books have not gone anywhere. WotC isn't printing/selling any more of them directly, but your own copies still exist and the secondary market exists.
What is obvious from reading this thread is that many who are probably newer to the hobby:
have little to no understanding of the OGL and the ease with which publishers just said they were done with it and went on producing their respective variants of D&D without it and without Wizards' permission which they never needed in the first place
have zero respect for those who came before them including pioneers in the hobby without whom we wouldn't have D&D today
haven't the slightest appreciation for cottage industry game designers who put time and money into producing good content and whose contributions to the hobby have enriched the gaming experience at many a table.
What is it with the crass and gross consumerist attitude?
You previously said "everyone in the industry are riding off of Wizards marketing budget." Now it's just "a lot of game designers use Wizards' IP"?
As much as I like to be right in all my arguments, I rather be proven wrong when I am presented with facts so I can adjust my stance and opinion. I want to be more right in the future.
My previous stance is that everyone and their moms are riding on the back of D&D. There are a few places in the world where other TTRPGs have done better than D&D. Now, my stance is that almost everyone and their moms are still riding on the back of D&D globally; in the United States though, everyone and their moms are still riding on the back of D&D, and some do so more than others.
Since the whole OGL debacle most have decided to no longer use the OGL. A game like Shadowdark for example needn't rely on the SRD. It's basically Basic D&D which many of us know by heart but uses 5th ed. innovations. Not a single thing in it is "Wizards' IP." Wizards don't own the concept of Advantage and Disadvantage. Something they themselves took from an OSR game that beat them to it.
They might not need it, but they still rely on 5e's brand name in its marketing by explicitly mentioning it. If they do not need the OGL/SRD and have full confidence in their own product, they could have scrapped all mentions of it. I do not see Paizo needing to mention 5e or D&D at all to sell PF2. Chaosium does not need to mention D&D to sell Call of Cthullu. Paradox Interactive does not need to mention D&D to sell Vampire: The Masquerade. Games Workshop sure as hell does not need to mention anyone else to sell their own TTRPGs.
Paizo, Chaosium, Paradox Interactive, and Games Workshop have piss poor marketing in this area, and they fail to draw the general public to their TTRPGs, so they are still piggybacking off of Wizards' effort to expand the market. However, they have the confidence and self respect to not invoke 5e in their marketing. I still think Paizo is an ass for talking crap and stirring shit when they could have taken the high road with ORC without making further comments, but at least when they smack talk, they are standing on their own two feet doing so.
Wizards can pay all the gold in the realm for TSR. Without Arneson and Gygax D&D would not exist. Without TSR D&D would not exist. Without us long-time players Wizards would not exist. Wizards are piggybacking off the legacy of the game: If Wizards named their game anything but D&D few would play it. If another company owned that trademark people would play that other company's game even were it inferior to 5th ed. because consumers are like that. That's piggybacking off the legacy of the game. Just because you refuse to call it what it is doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.
That is not piggybacking if they paid fair and square for the IP. Wizards paid money. What the hell are publishers like Green Ronin and Kobold Press paying to Wizards when they utilize the OGL? Zero, nada, zilch, nanimo.
Without PAYING customers, D&D would not exist. I am a LEGO, Pokémon, Fire Emblem, and Taylor Swift grognard, so I know what a loyal fan is. D&D is the first hobby I have gotten into where I have seen a large number of people feeling entitled to get stuff for free or complaining about wokeness. The Fire Emblem community can be pretty toxic at times, but at least we pay for our games and do not feel entitled to get stuff for free, and while we appreciate Kaga Shouzou, we do not put him on a pedestal.
Their competitors "suck" but it's their competitors who consistently win awards for Best Design? Best Art? Best Writing? Take off the rose-colored glasses.
Do great movies and great books "suck" just because they're not earning the millions earned by blockbusters?
Awards do not feed people. Money does. If lots of people part with their hard earned cash to support something, that something usually has something going for it.
I do not give a shit about what critics say because their tastes are out of touch with mine. Just because I like blue cheese, raw/extra rare meat, natto, fermented tofu, roasted insects, and Coffee Coke does not mean you should follow my lead and consume them too. If you are like most people, you will find those foods disgusting and/or unpalatable, and that is fine. I like to eat some pretty weird shit, and they are not for everyone. If you like niche TTRPGs, good for you, but do not act like they are the greatest thing ever either because they are not. There is a reason why people prefer more normal foods, just like how people prefer D&D over other TTRPGs if they even like the hobby at all.
You've a beef with capitalism but you think what "sucks" is a numbers game and you believe one company buying out another and a megacorporation then devouring it and now owning the brand it had purchased with its purchase of that other company means what that brand represents is also now theirs and anyone and everyone who made that brand what it is can just go to hell? Right.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying and I am agnostic, but yes, the general gist is that I think people who do not pay their dues can go to hell. You got to earn your place in heaven, so to speak.
EDIT: A regular bookstore here in Tokyo used to sell imported English-language table-top role-playing games. Pathfinder dominated. I've never played Pathfinder. Have no intention to. But acting like Paizo are just hopeless at competing with Wizards when they practically held the fort for six years because Wizards were too busy selling a video game costumed as a TRPG to their customers is revisionism if ever there were.
Thanks for holding down the fort, but Paizo is delusional if they think they are a serious competitor to D&D in the current generation. They are a competitor, yes, but definitely a very, very, very distant second.
ALSO: Since the whole OGL debacle Wizards THEMSELVES have acknowledged just how symbiotically third-party publishers support THEM.
Are you saying Wizards are wrong? Or that they're lying?
You are not stating the scenario in full context.
Wizards is right about having a symbiotic relationship with third party publishers. However, I think Wizards is wrong for catering to their unreasonable demands, and it sets an expectation that could backfire against the community. Wizards should not have given up any control of their IP by putting it in CC, and by doing so, it gives off the perception that it is okay to use another's work without permission, credit, and/or compensation.
I am saying Wizards understood the situation right, but executed their actions wrong, and third party publishers are overexaggerating or outright lying.
What is obvious from reading this thread is that many who are probably newer to the hobby:
have little to no understanding of the OGL and the ease with which publishers just said they were done with it and went on producing their respective variants of D&D without it and without Wizards' permission which they never needed in the first place
have zero respect for those who came before them including pioneers in the hobby without whom we wouldn't have D&D today
haven't the slightest appreciation for cottage industry game designers who put time and money into producing good content and whose contributions to the hobby have enriched the gaming experience at many a table.
What is it with the crass and gross consumerist attitude?
It is true that they never needed the OGL/SRD in the first place, but they still acted like they did and complained. They could have just signed on with ORC without making a fuss. I have no respect for people who demand respect just because they came before me. I have no respect for people who act entitled to another's work.
I did not learn crassness on my own, that is for sure. I learned the lack of sympathy from those who came before me, those who did not care about my and my younger cohort's wellbeing, downplayed our worries, and belittled our sensitivity. I learned gross consumerism from gross customers and gross management. I have kicked customers out and yelled at their face to **** off when they mess with my workers and peers, and I tell my workers and peers they deserve more in life and they should not take the bullshit from management.
Piggybacking isn't just financial. You don't get to redefine words just so you can be rude.
Fact: You wouldn't be playing D&D were it not for those who created D&D. Wizards wouldn't own D&D had the game not been created byothers.
What you're saying is a bit like wealthy nations of the past who bought artifacts now insisting because they paid for them they are rightfully theirs. That any cultural or historical significance of these things doesn't really matter. Because money exchanged hands. That the museums in which these things are displayed aren't at all piggybacking off the labour of those in far-off lands who had crafted them. Because money exchanged hands.
Fact: Or were it for those who kept the game alive for a quarter of a century before Wizards purchased the brand. many of those years before the advent of the internet. That's no small feat and is worth something no matter how much you might insist because money exchanged hands nothing others ever did to make possible the game and its continuation signifies.
Without the brand—as if the name of a game is of more importance than how good it is—Wizards' D&D would be lucky to sell as much as even the most obscure of role-playing games on the market.
How are game designers in the US whose games take nothing from 5th ed. or anything from even D&D since Wizards have had a hand in the game "riding on the back of D&D" any more than Wizards? Just because Wizards paid for the ride doesn't mean they aren't piggybacking.
Wizards are currently piggybacking off promotion of the hobby in shows like Stranger Things. They are piggybacking off of the success of things like Critical Role.
So Wizards took an idea from an OSR game for Advantage and Disadvantage and another game designer kept that in her retro reimagining of D&D. And you are going to insult her as if without the brand name of 5th ed. her game would be nothing but you have nothing to say about how this innovation didn't even originate in Wizards' Seattle offices?
Her game is getting praise and reached stretch goals in moments not because it uses something found in 5th ed. It is getting praise because it tackles problems many of us have with 5th ed.
I live and work in Japan where I routinely eat raw meat for what it's worth. Those who present such awards might be out of touch with your tastes. But then the very same might be said about you being out of touch with the broader game community given you're in a minority when it comes to the OGL mess. Even Wizards acknowledged that much.
Piggybacking isn't just financial. You don't get to redefine words just so you can be rude.
And third parties devaluing the IP and not paying their fair share to Wizards is not rude? Wizards maybe part of a corporation, but they got workers too, and those workers got bills to pay and families to feed, just like third party publishers themselves. If third party publishers are like Paizo or Games Workshop who can stand on their own two feet without using the SRD or mentioning D&D, then obviously, they do not owe Wizards anything. They are still relying on Wizards to grow the TTRPG market though, but so is Paizo and everyone else. And honestly, only Wizards have the resources and will to try to grow the market, but that is the price Wizards has to pay for being the most dominant company in an industry with such a small market.
I support small businesses and all, but from my view, the level of entitlement is offputting. I am all for putting corporations to the torch and blade, if they did something wrong. Wizards being greedy and wanting to monetize their own IP is not wrong. They can do whatever they want with their IP.
How are game designers in the US whose games take nothing from 5th ed. or anything from even D&D since Wizards have had a hand in the game "riding on the back of D&D"?
If a game designer took nothing from Wizards, they would not be complaining. Those that complain heavily relied on Wizards at one point or another. I do not see Game Workshop complaining and joining ORC; GW does not give a shit about the D&D IP cause they never heavy relied on it at any point.
So Wizards took an idea from an OSR game for Advantage and Disadvantage and another game designer kept that in her retro reimagining of D&D. And you are going to insult her as if without the brand name of 5th ed. her game would be nothing but you have nothing to say about how this innovation didn't even originate in Wizards' Seattle offices?
Her game is getting praise and reached stretch goals in moments not because it uses something found in 5th ed. It is getting praise because it tackles problems many of us have with 5th ed.
As I have said before, Wizards does not own individual mechanics nor common terms. Wizards does not own stats, nor saving throws, nor advantage/disadvantage, etc. However, Wizards does own the overall presentation of the SRD and combination of ideas within it. Wizards does not own druids, but it does own druids as presented within the SRD. Plenty of publishers were and are using the SRD to make druid (or whatever class) subclasses, and making money off of it. They are taking a class as presented in the SRD, which is not their IP, add a little bit of their own ideas in there, and they sell the whole thing without wanting to give Wizards any of it.
I live and work in Japan where I routinely eat raw meat for what it's worth. Those who present such awards might be out of touch with your tastes. But then the very same might be said about you being out of touch with the broader game community given you're in a minority when it comes to the OGL mess. Even Wizards acknowledged that much.
I am glad you love sashimi as much as I do. We have something in common.
Just because most of the TTRPG crowd thinks a certain way does not mean I should bandwagon with them. The TTRPG crowd is also a very niche and a very small crowd. In other industries and markets, it is not the norm for consumers to buy a physical book at a bookstore and get the audiobook for free on Amazon or Google Play. It is not the norm for people to buy Risk on Steam, and then go to a brick and mortar store and demand they get the physical game for free. It is not the norm practically anywhere else where you can take another's IP, earn significant money off of it, refuse to pay the owner's IP some kind of compensation, get away with it, and be applauded for doing so.
Wizards can afford to take the hit and put their SRD in CC. However, there will come a day when a similar situation will pop up and put a smaller business in Wizards shoes, and they might not be able to afford to give up control of their IP nor have the resources to fight it in court. If that small business is one of the third party publishers who complained about the OGL, then tough luck, they shot themselves in the foot, and they deserve it.
Piggybacking isn't just financial. You don't get to redefine words just so you can be rude.
And third parties devaluing the IP and not paying their fair share to Wizards is not rude? Wizards maybe part of a corporation, but they got workers too, and those workers got bills to pay and families to feed, just like third party publishers themselves. If third party publishers are like Paizo or Games Workshop who can stand on their own two feet without using the SRD or mentioning D&D, then obviously, they do not owe Wizards anything. They are still relying on Wizards to grow the TTRPG market though, but so is Paizo and everyone else. And honestly, only Wizards have the resources and will to try to grow the market, but that is the price Wizards has to pay for being the most dominant company in an industry with such a small market.
I support small businesses and all, but from my view, the level of entitlement is offputting. I am all for putting corporations to the torch and blade, if they did something wrong. Wizards being greedy and wanting to monetize their own IP is not wrong. They can do whatever they want with their IP.
How are game designers in the US whose games take nothing from 5th ed. or anything from even D&D since Wizards have had a hand in the game "riding on the back of D&D"?
If a game designer took nothing from Wizards, they would not be complaining. Those that complain heavily relied on Wizards at one point or another. I do not see Game Workshop complaining and joining ORC; GW does not give a shit about the D&D IP cause they never heavy relied on it at any point.
So Wizards took an idea from an OSR game for Advantage and Disadvantage and another game designer kept that in her retro reimagining of D&D. And you are going to insult her as if without the brand name of 5th ed. her game would be nothing but you have nothing to say about how this innovation didn't even originate in Wizards' Seattle offices?
Her game is getting praise and reached stretch goals in moments not because it uses something found in 5th ed. It is getting praise because it tackles problems many of us have with 5th ed.
As I have said before, Wizards does not own individual mechanics nor common terms. Wizards does not own stats, nor saving throws, nor advantage/disadvantage, etc. However, Wizards does own the overall presentation of the SRD and combination of ideas within it. Wizards does not own druids, but it does own druids as presented within the SRD. Plenty of publishers were and are using the SRD to make druid (or whatever class) subclasses, and making money off of it. They are taking a class as presented in the SRD, which is not their IP, add a little bit of their own ideas in there, and they sell the whole thing without wanting to give Wizards any of it.
I live and work in Japan where I routinely eat raw meat for what it's worth. Those who present such awards might be out of touch with your tastes. But then the very same might be said about you being out of touch with the broader game community given you're in a minority when it comes to the OGL mess. Even Wizards acknowledged that much.
I am glad you love sashimi as much as I do. We have something in common.
Just because most of the TTRPG crowd thinks a certain way does not mean I should bandwagon with them. The TTRPG crowd is also a very niche and a very small crowd. In other industries and markets, it is not the norm for consumers to buy a physical book at a bookstore and get the audiobook for free on Amazon or Google Play. It is not the norm for people to buy Risk on Steam, and then go to a brick and mortar store and demand they get the physical game for free. It is not the norm practically anywhere else where you can take another's IP, earn significant money off of it, refuse to pay the owner's IP some kind of compensation, get away with it, and be applauded for doing so.
Wizards can afford to take the hit and put their SRD in CC. However, there will come a day when a similar situation will pop up and put a smaller business in Wizards shoes, and they might not be able to afford to give up control of their IP nor have the resources to fight it in court. If that small business is one of the third party publishers who complained about the OGL, then tough luck, they shot themselves in the foot, and they deserve it.
As I said:
What you're saying is a bit like when wealthy nations bought artifacts in the past and are now insisting because they paid for them they are rightfully theirs. That any cultural or historical significance of these things doesn't really matter and that the museums in which these things are displayed aren't at all piggybacking off the labour of those in far-off lands who had crafted them. Because money exchanged hands.
That is what you are saying to say Wizards are not at all piggybacking off the vision of Arneson and Gygax. Off the hard work of TSR employees without whom D&D would not exist. Off a brand with a quarter of a century behind it before Wizards purchased it.
Shadowdark doesn't use the SRD. At all. It is Basic D&D. Moldvay Basic. Which predates the edition of the game presented in the SRD by more than thirty years. And I've already mentioned how the response from many who were using the SRD was to no longer use it. Their games are still D&D. It's just they are no longer licensees. And as long as their expression of the rules of D&D are not copied and pasted from the SRD or from Wizards' publications there is nothing Wizards nor you can do about that. I don't think you quite understand the purpose of the SRD and how easy it is for a game designer to simply not use it but to still produce a game that is recognizably D&D and not at all violate copyright law in doing so.
We can always find common ground with those with whom we disagree and if that common ground is sashimi then that's wonderful.
I totally agree with you about bandwagoning. So that's two things.
EDIT: Many of the smaller publishers include legal text in their books about how others can use the content freely. Melsonian Arts Council does this. Even Free League Publishing which produces a few successful games does this for some of its product lines.
It's pretty obvious that for many making D&D and other games is a labour of love. Not all businesses care more about making money. That might seem hard to believe but again I reside in Japan. A country where every neighborhood sees small local businesses survive. Many of these are operated by people who barely scrape by. They do it because they love it.
Wizards literally owns the vision of Arneson and Gygax. Said vision was the IP of TSR, which was bought by Wizards, which was bought by Hasbro.
None of the other parties being discussed here have bought the IP from Hasbro.
If one buy a car, the fact that the purchaser did not design or build that car themselves does not mean others get to use said car without the permission of the car's owner.
Without Arneson and Gygax D&D would not exist. I think it's sad you believe you can really put a price on that.
You will notice I haven't said Hasbro don't own D&D. They do. I'm not questioning that.
I have simply said Hasbro are piggybacking off the work of those who created D&D and those who kept it alive for a quarter of a century before Wizards bought it.
Pretty sure that none of us here are the direct descendants or Arneson or Gygax and the game was created by them, via TSR, as a commercial product, not as any 'sacred artefact.' If an indigenous community owns a car and sells it, it does not remain theirs, simply because they are an indigenous community. If they found an entire car company and sell it, the same principles apply.
And regardless, the fact that it originally belonged to, was created by an indigenous community, even if that analogy applied, does not mean that third parties get to use it freely. This is true whether it is a car, a car company, or the specific design of a specific car model or the IP related to a game.
The point of the analogy is that you can't put a price on some things.
Hasbro paid for and own the brand. This is true.
But the vision of Arneson and Gygax?
Many are the games that are recognizably D&D—games continuing the vision of the game's creators—but that do not belong to Hasbro. Castles & Crusades in which the latter even had a hand is closer to AD&D than 5th ed.
So how do you figure they paid for "the vision" of Arneson and Gygax when others freely make use of it?
Hasbro don't own "the vision" of anything. They own the name of the game. They own very particular expressions of its rules. They hardly even own that now they've surrendered the SRD to Creative Commons.
You previously said "everyone in the industry are riding off of Wizards marketing budget." Now it's just "a lot of game designers use Wizards' IP"?
More accurately, XXXGammaRay said that a lot of designers use Wizards' IP, and that the whole ttrpg world relies on advertising they do for the industry. I mean, do you think Paizo has the resources and money to get lots of people in Pathfinder? Not only were they using IP for quite some time, but they rely on the corporation to draw in consumers that they can then turn to their game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
More accurately, XXXGammaRay said that a lot of designers use Wizards' IP, and that the whole ttrpg world relies on advertising they do for the industry. I mean, do you think Paizo has the resources and money to get lots of people in Pathfinder? Not only were they using IP for quite some time, but they rely on the corporation to draw in consumers that they can then turn to their game.
And those third-party publishers who produce books and supplements for 5th ed. who sent customers Wizards' way deserve nothing more than your scorn?
What advertising do Wizards do for "the whole" table-top role-playing game industry? Show me actual evidence of this. Because many are the games that are popular because they do what Wizards are not doing. What role could Wizards possibly play in helping games find players when those games aim to capture old-school play? When they are the anti-5th eds. if you will?
YouTubers do much more to promote the hobby than Wizards do. Were it not for Critical Role, all the DM advice channels, all the reviewers, the game wouldn't have seen such a dramatic increase in interest in the past few years.
A lot of designers may have used the SRD. Wizards burnt bridges and now a lot of designers are making games that are still recognizably D&D without using the SRD.
Why do you reckon Wizards were keen to apologize for the OGL mess?
What did they have to lose by choosing not to give the SRD to the players?
If all the influence is theirs what were they afraid of?
Not all of the vision of Arneson and Gygax was copywritable. It wasn't all then, any more than now. But that does not mean that Hasbro does not own what they do own, or that TSR or Arneson or Gygax owned what they owned before having sold it.
There are valid reasons the IP has a book value.
Whether the Creative Commons thing ends up the best for the game or not still remains to be seen. However, to "hardly even own that now," they had to have had something they gave up, something that they did actually own. And if they didn't really own anything before that, why was that ever an issue?
Property rights exist. They are an actual thing.
You can see what Wizards own as far as intellectual property goes when it comes to the game. The name. Some copyrightable terms specific to settings and such. And their expression of the rules.
They do not own the rules. No one owns the rules of the game.
Now no one can just copy the rules word-for-word from the Player's Handbook and expect not to get into legal trouble.
But anyone can make a player's handbook that is recognizably D&D with classes and races and the same system in place as long as it is all expressed in the author's voice.
Why was the OGL mess ever really an issue then?
Because it went against the spirit of a community that for the twenty-odd years of the license's existence had seen the game as something shared. They managed to piss off people whose games weren't even dependent on using the SRD.
They did give up something. Their expression of the rules as laid out in the SRD. That is why other publishers used the SRD in the first place. So they could just port the rules as is into their games. Focus on the fluff. Or maps. Or interior or exterior art. Or their own embellishments to the rules.
Now it's available for anyone to use. But ...
Most now are just making D&D games without using the SRD. Even games that would be more recognizably D&D than D&D to any old-timer returning to the hobby. Because these publishers no longer want anything to do with Wizards.
The topic of this thread is future changes to D&D, not the OGL, not copyright law, not the past of D&D. Please stay on topic otherwise your posts may be removed and you may receive warnings
Every edition update has been met with "**** YOU WE DON'T WANT IT", and with one notable exception under unusual circumstances that do not apply this time, every new edition has been significantly more successful than the last. One isn't even a new edition; it's a tune-up of 5e, designed to tighten up and smoothen out the ruleset after ten years of learning what works and what doesn't. Changes are opt-in. And yes, you might end up pressured by a table to opt intop changes you aren't fond of, but by the same token you might end up really liking changes but forced to opt out of them because your table's stubborn. It's gonna be a table-by-table negotiation when the One rules hit, which is as it should be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am reading the book about TSR's disaster, though I have already skimmed through it and read most of the story. To be honest, Gygax did not sound like a good person. He kicked his partner out of the company and took all the credit. When D&D became mainstream, he barely ever mentioned or acknowledged Arneson's contributions after having cut him out of the business for supposedly storming out of the office briefly after a miscommunication between the two.
As for the topic of who made what for the game in the book, Peterson really did not cover that
Contrary to the statement in your most recent post, we are not "consumed by hatred for Gygax". We do recognize, appreciate, and acknowledge the great and incredible deeds that these two men did. Without them, there would be no Dungeons and Dragons and it would have likely taken years for role-playing games like it to develop. However, we are allowed to both recognize someones faults and flaws as well as the good things they did at the same time. On top of that, we are allowed to recognize how some of those flaws of Gygax's may have made it into some of his contributions to the game and world, and how invoking his name as the arbiter of what is good in bad for D&D is not necessarily a good idea.
Anyways, can we please just move back to the subject this thread was meant to be about or end it?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You will note that some of the finest cinema and finest literature and finest music performs less successfully than the most juvenile blockbusters, trashy fiction, and vacuous pop.
What is good in this world isn't a numbers game.
Your claim that plenty of people improved on Gary's ideas when there is a sub-section of the community who continue to play earlier editions of the game or whose own games try to capture the feel and simplicity and purpose of them is your subjective opinion. You don't speak for everyone.
Read Playing at the World and The Elusive Shift. These are about the development of the hobby. Game Wizards—the one you're reading—is as you said about TSR. Its management—and mismanagement.
And what exactly does Gygax's conduct as a businessman have to do with his role as a game designer? Just because the man is dead and some people want to scrutinize his life and make him into a monster doesn't automatically mean the game is now in the hands of saints either.
A lot of game designers use Wizards' IP. If they did not, they would not be whining about what Wizards does with the OGL and SRD. Plenty of third parties utilize the SRD to create content, such as subclasses, races, spells, magic items, and so on. Paizo's Pathfinder literally branched off of 3.5e. PF2 is its own thing, but some of the stuff in it can still be traced back to D&D, like Magic Missile.
Wizards does not own just the name of the game and terms. They own the copyright to the SRD. While Wizards does not own the mechanics, at the very least, they do own the overall presentation. Wizards does not own skill checks or druids, but Wizards certainly own the overall idea of druids as presented in the SRD. Just because Wizards put something under Creative Commons does not mean they do not own the material. I might not be copyright lawyer, but I know they own more than just the name and terms.
Wizards did not piggyback off the legacy of the game and TSR employees. Wizards paid for them and bought them out. With money. You know who did not want to give Wizards money despite piggybacking off of them? Third party creators. Based on how many people want Wizards to give them free digital books just because they bought the physical books, I am not convinced of the commitment by some parts of the community.
Wizards does not have a stranglehold on the industry because they are trying to monopolize the market. Wizards have a stranglehold right now because their competitors just suck. Third party creators can succeed and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. As you have said yourself, Call of Cthullu is very successful in Japan. If third party creators are so amazing, they should ditch the OGL and SRD, make their own game, and stand on their own two feet.
I have my beef with capitalism when it comes to industries and markets critical to national security and wellbeing (i.e.: military, healthcare, education, transportation, food, water, housing, etc.), but we are talking about the TTRPG industry, an industry with an extremely low barrier of entry. As much as I do not like monopolies and near-monopolies, I have not really seen Wizards doing anything that is anti-competitive (their competitors just suck), so I am A-okay with their dominance.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
You previously said "everyone in the industry are riding off of Wizards marketing budget." Now it's just "a lot of game designers use Wizards' IP"?
Since the whole OGL debacle most have decided to no longer use the OGL. A game like Shadowdark for example needn't rely on the SRD. It's basically Basic D&D which many of us know by heart but uses 5th ed. innovations. Not a single thing in it is "Wizards' IP." Wizards don't own the concept of Advantage and Disadvantage. Something they themselves took from an OSR game that beat them to it.
Wizards can pay all the gold in the realm for TSR. Without Arneson and Gygax D&D would not exist. Without TSR D&D would not exist. Without us long-time players Wizards would not exist. Wizards are piggybacking off the legacy of the game: If Wizards named their game anything but D&D few would play it. If another company owned that trademark people would play that other company's game even were it inferior to 5th ed. because consumers are like that. That's piggybacking off the legacy of the game. Just because you refuse to call it what it is doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.
Their competitors "suck" but it's their competitors who consistently win awards for Best Design? Best Art? Best Writing? Take off the rose-colored glasses.
Do great movies and great books "suck" just because they're not earning the millions earned by blockbusters?
You've a beef with capitalism but you think what "sucks" is a numbers game and you believe one company buying out another and a megacorporation then devouring it and now owning the brand it had purchased with its purchase of that other company means what that brand represents is also now theirs and anyone and everyone who made that brand what it is can just go to hell? Right.
EDIT: A regular bookstore here in Tokyo used to sell imported English-language table-top role-playing games. Pathfinder dominated. I've never played Pathfinder. Have no intention to. But acting like Paizo are just hopeless at competing with Wizards when they practically held the fort for six years because Wizards were too busy selling a video game costumed as a TRPG to their customers is revisionism if ever there were.
ALSO: Since the whole OGL debacle Wizards THEMSELVES have acknowledged just how symbiotically third-party publishers support THEM.
Are you saying Wizards are wrong? Or that they're lying?
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think the OG poster is concerned about one d&d changes being forced opon us on DND beyond.
I hope these concerns do not prove true. Because I think not having the option to not use the one d&d versions is a bad thing. I believe having options is a good thing.
If these products are so amazing then why are you here? Leave us D&D fans alone with our "talentless" game then.
The 2014 books have not gone anywhere. WotC isn't printing/selling any more of them directly, but your own copies still exist and the secondary market exists.
What is obvious from reading this thread is that many who are probably newer to the hobby:
What is it with the crass and gross consumerist attitude?
As much as I like to be right in all my arguments, I rather be proven wrong when I am presented with facts so I can adjust my stance and opinion. I want to be more right in the future.
My previous stance is that everyone and their moms are riding on the back of D&D. There are a few places in the world where other TTRPGs have done better than D&D. Now, my stance is that almost everyone and their moms are still riding on the back of D&D globally; in the United States though, everyone and their moms are still riding on the back of D&D, and some do so more than others.
They might not need it, but they still rely on 5e's brand name in its marketing by explicitly mentioning it. If they do not need the OGL/SRD and have full confidence in their own product, they could have scrapped all mentions of it. I do not see Paizo needing to mention 5e or D&D at all to sell PF2. Chaosium does not need to mention D&D to sell Call of Cthullu. Paradox Interactive does not need to mention D&D to sell Vampire: The Masquerade. Games Workshop sure as hell does not need to mention anyone else to sell their own TTRPGs.
Paizo, Chaosium, Paradox Interactive, and Games Workshop have piss poor marketing in this area, and they fail to draw the general public to their TTRPGs, so they are still piggybacking off of Wizards' effort to expand the market. However, they have the confidence and self respect to not invoke 5e in their marketing. I still think Paizo is an ass for talking crap and stirring shit when they could have taken the high road with ORC without making further comments, but at least when they smack talk, they are standing on their own two feet doing so.
That is not piggybacking if they paid fair and square for the IP. Wizards paid money. What the hell are publishers like Green Ronin and Kobold Press paying to Wizards when they utilize the OGL? Zero, nada, zilch, nanimo.
Without PAYING customers, D&D would not exist. I am a LEGO, Pokémon, Fire Emblem, and Taylor Swift grognard, so I know what a loyal fan is. D&D is the first hobby I have gotten into where I have seen a large number of people feeling entitled to get stuff for free or complaining about wokeness. The Fire Emblem community can be pretty toxic at times, but at least we pay for our games and do not feel entitled to get stuff for free, and while we appreciate Kaga Shouzou, we do not put him on a pedestal.
Awards do not feed people. Money does. If lots of people part with their hard earned cash to support something, that something usually has something going for it.
I do not give a shit about what critics say because their tastes are out of touch with mine. Just because I like blue cheese, raw/extra rare meat, natto, fermented tofu, roasted insects, and Coffee Coke does not mean you should follow my lead and consume them too. If you are like most people, you will find those foods disgusting and/or unpalatable, and that is fine. I like to eat some pretty weird shit, and they are not for everyone. If you like niche TTRPGs, good for you, but do not act like they are the greatest thing ever either because they are not. There is a reason why people prefer more normal foods, just like how people prefer D&D over other TTRPGs if they even like the hobby at all.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying and I am agnostic, but yes, the general gist is that I think people who do not pay their dues can go to hell. You got to earn your place in heaven, so to speak.
Thanks for holding down the fort, but Paizo is delusional if they think they are a serious competitor to D&D in the current generation. They are a competitor, yes, but definitely a very, very, very distant second.
You are not stating the scenario in full context.
Wizards is right about having a symbiotic relationship with third party publishers. However, I think Wizards is wrong for catering to their unreasonable demands, and it sets an expectation that could backfire against the community. Wizards should not have given up any control of their IP by putting it in CC, and by doing so, it gives off the perception that it is okay to use another's work without permission, credit, and/or compensation.
I am saying Wizards understood the situation right, but executed their actions wrong, and third party publishers are overexaggerating or outright lying.
It is true that they never needed the OGL/SRD in the first place, but they still acted like they did and complained. They could have just signed on with ORC without making a fuss.
I have no respect for people who demand respect just because they came before me.
I have no respect for people who act entitled to another's work.
I did not learn crassness on my own, that is for sure. I learned the lack of sympathy from those who came before me, those who did not care about my and my younger cohort's wellbeing, downplayed our worries, and belittled our sensitivity. I learned gross consumerism from gross customers and gross management. I have kicked customers out and yelled at their face to **** off when they mess with my workers and peers, and I tell my workers and peers they deserve more in life and they should not take the bullshit from management.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Piggybacking isn't just financial. You don't get to redefine words just so you can be rude.
Fact: You wouldn't be playing D&D were it not for those who created D&D. Wizards wouldn't own D&D had the game not been created by others.
What you're saying is a bit like wealthy nations of the past who bought artifacts now insisting because they paid for them they are rightfully theirs. That any cultural or historical significance of these things doesn't really matter. Because money exchanged hands. That the museums in which these things are displayed aren't at all piggybacking off the labour of those in far-off lands who had crafted them. Because money exchanged hands.
Fact: Or were it for those who kept the game alive for a quarter of a century before Wizards purchased the brand. many of those years before the advent of the internet. That's no small feat and is worth something no matter how much you might insist because money exchanged hands nothing others ever did to make possible the game and its continuation signifies.
Without the brand—as if the name of a game is of more importance than how good it is—Wizards' D&D would be lucky to sell as much as even the most obscure of role-playing games on the market.
How are game designers in the US whose games take nothing from 5th ed. or anything from even D&D since Wizards have had a hand in the game "riding on the back of D&D" any more than Wizards? Just because Wizards paid for the ride doesn't mean they aren't piggybacking.
Wizards are currently piggybacking off promotion of the hobby in shows like Stranger Things. They are piggybacking off of the success of things like Critical Role.
So Wizards took an idea from an OSR game for Advantage and Disadvantage and another game designer kept that in her retro reimagining of D&D. And you are going to insult her as if without the brand name of 5th ed. her game would be nothing but you have nothing to say about how this innovation didn't even originate in Wizards' Seattle offices?
Her game is getting praise and reached stretch goals in moments not because it uses something found in 5th ed. It is getting praise because it tackles problems many of us have with 5th ed.
I live and work in Japan where I routinely eat raw meat for what it's worth. Those who present such awards might be out of touch with your tastes. But then the very same might be said about you being out of touch with the broader game community given you're in a minority when it comes to the OGL mess. Even Wizards acknowledged that much.
And third parties devaluing the IP and not paying their fair share to Wizards is not rude? Wizards maybe part of a corporation, but they got workers too, and those workers got bills to pay and families to feed, just like third party publishers themselves. If third party publishers are like Paizo or Games Workshop who can stand on their own two feet without using the SRD or mentioning D&D, then obviously, they do not owe Wizards anything. They are still relying on Wizards to grow the TTRPG market though, but so is Paizo and everyone else. And honestly, only Wizards have the resources and will to try to grow the market, but that is the price Wizards has to pay for being the most dominant company in an industry with such a small market.
I support small businesses and all, but from my view, the level of entitlement is offputting. I am all for putting corporations to the torch and blade, if they did something wrong. Wizards being greedy and wanting to monetize their own IP is not wrong. They can do whatever they want with their IP.
If a game designer took nothing from Wizards, they would not be complaining. Those that complain heavily relied on Wizards at one point or another. I do not see Game Workshop complaining and joining ORC; GW does not give a shit about the D&D IP cause they never heavy relied on it at any point.
As I have said before, Wizards does not own individual mechanics nor common terms. Wizards does not own stats, nor saving throws, nor advantage/disadvantage, etc. However, Wizards does own the overall presentation of the SRD and combination of ideas within it. Wizards does not own druids, but it does own druids as presented within the SRD. Plenty of publishers were and are using the SRD to make druid (or whatever class) subclasses, and making money off of it. They are taking a class as presented in the SRD, which is not their IP, add a little bit of their own ideas in there, and they sell the whole thing without wanting to give Wizards any of it.
I am glad you love sashimi as much as I do. We have something in common.
Just because most of the TTRPG crowd thinks a certain way does not mean I should bandwagon with them. The TTRPG crowd is also a very niche and a very small crowd. In other industries and markets, it is not the norm for consumers to buy a physical book at a bookstore and get the audiobook for free on Amazon or Google Play. It is not the norm for people to buy Risk on Steam, and then go to a brick and mortar store and demand they get the physical game for free. It is not the norm practically anywhere else where you can take another's IP, earn significant money off of it, refuse to pay the owner's IP some kind of compensation, get away with it, and be applauded for doing so.
Wizards can afford to take the hit and put their SRD in CC. However, there will come a day when a similar situation will pop up and put a smaller business in Wizards shoes, and they might not be able to afford to give up control of their IP nor have the resources to fight it in court. If that small business is one of the third party publishers who complained about the OGL, then tough luck, they shot themselves in the foot, and they deserve it.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
As I said:
What you're saying is a bit like when wealthy nations bought artifacts in the past and are now insisting because they paid for them they are rightfully theirs. That any cultural or historical significance of these things doesn't really matter and that the museums in which these things are displayed aren't at all piggybacking off the labour of those in far-off lands who had crafted them. Because money exchanged hands.
That is what you are saying to say Wizards are not at all piggybacking off the vision of Arneson and Gygax. Off the hard work of TSR employees without whom D&D would not exist. Off a brand with a quarter of a century behind it before Wizards purchased it.
Shadowdark doesn't use the SRD. At all. It is Basic D&D. Moldvay Basic. Which predates the edition of the game presented in the SRD by more than thirty years. And I've already mentioned how the response from many who were using the SRD was to no longer use it. Their games are still D&D. It's just they are no longer licensees. And as long as their expression of the rules of D&D are not copied and pasted from the SRD or from Wizards' publications there is nothing Wizards nor you can do about that. I don't think you quite understand the purpose of the SRD and how easy it is for a game designer to simply not use it but to still produce a game that is recognizably D&D and not at all violate copyright law in doing so.
We can always find common ground with those with whom we disagree and if that common ground is sashimi then that's wonderful.
I totally agree with you about bandwagoning. So that's two things.
EDIT: Many of the smaller publishers include legal text in their books about how others can use the content freely. Melsonian Arts Council does this. Even Free League Publishing which produces a few successful games does this for some of its product lines.
It's pretty obvious that for many making D&D and other games is a labour of love. Not all businesses care more about making money. That might seem hard to believe but again I reside in Japan. A country where every neighborhood sees small local businesses survive. Many of these are operated by people who barely scrape by. They do it because they love it.
Without Arneson and Gygax D&D would not exist. I think it's sad you believe you can really put a price on that.
You will notice I haven't said Hasbro don't own D&D. They do. I'm not questioning that.
I have simply said Hasbro are piggybacking off the work of those who created D&D and those who kept it alive for a quarter of a century before Wizards bought it.
The point of the analogy is that you can't put a price on some things.
Hasbro paid for and own the brand. This is true.
But the vision of Arneson and Gygax?
Many are the games that are recognizably D&D—games continuing the vision of the game's creators—but that do not belong to Hasbro. Castles & Crusades in which the latter even had a hand is closer to AD&D than 5th ed.
So how do you figure they paid for "the vision" of Arneson and Gygax when others freely make use of it?
Hasbro don't own "the vision" of anything. They own the name of the game. They own very particular expressions of its rules. They hardly even own that now they've surrendered the SRD to Creative Commons.
More accurately, XXXGammaRay said that a lot of designers use Wizards' IP, and that the whole ttrpg world relies on advertising they do for the industry. I mean, do you think Paizo has the resources and money to get lots of people in Pathfinder? Not only were they using IP for quite some time, but they rely on the corporation to draw in consumers that they can then turn to their game.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.And those third-party publishers who produce books and supplements for 5th ed. who sent customers Wizards' way deserve nothing more than your scorn?
What advertising do Wizards do for "the whole" table-top role-playing game industry? Show me actual evidence of this. Because many are the games that are popular because they do what Wizards are not doing. What role could Wizards possibly play in helping games find players when those games aim to capture old-school play? When they are the anti-5th eds. if you will?
YouTubers do much more to promote the hobby than Wizards do. Were it not for Critical Role, all the DM advice channels, all the reviewers, the game wouldn't have seen such a dramatic increase in interest in the past few years.
A lot of designers may have used the SRD. Wizards burnt bridges and now a lot of designers are making games that are still recognizably D&D without using the SRD.
Why do you reckon Wizards were keen to apologize for the OGL mess?
What did they have to lose by choosing not to give the SRD to the players?
If all the influence is theirs what were they afraid of?
You can see what Wizards own as far as intellectual property goes when it comes to the game. The name. Some copyrightable terms specific to settings and such. And their expression of the rules.
They do not own the rules. No one owns the rules of the game.
Now no one can just copy the rules word-for-word from the Player's Handbook and expect not to get into legal trouble.
But anyone can make a player's handbook that is recognizably D&D with classes and races and the same system in place as long as it is all expressed in the author's voice.
Why was the OGL mess ever really an issue then?
Because it went against the spirit of a community that for the twenty-odd years of the license's existence had seen the game as something shared. They managed to piss off people whose games weren't even dependent on using the SRD.
They did give up something. Their expression of the rules as laid out in the SRD. That is why other publishers used the SRD in the first place. So they could just port the rules as is into their games. Focus on the fluff. Or maps. Or interior or exterior art. Or their own embellishments to the rules.
Now it's available for anyone to use. But ...
Most now are just making D&D games without using the SRD. Even games that would be more recognizably D&D than D&D to any old-timer returning to the hobby. Because these publishers no longer want anything to do with Wizards.
The topic of this thread is future changes to D&D, not the OGL, not copyright law, not the past of D&D. Please stay on topic otherwise your posts may be removed and you may receive warnings
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Every edition update has been met with "**** YOU WE DON'T WANT IT", and with one notable exception under unusual circumstances that do not apply this time, every new edition has been significantly more successful than the last. One isn't even a new edition; it's a tune-up of 5e, designed to tighten up and smoothen out the ruleset after ten years of learning what works and what doesn't. Changes are opt-in. And yes, you might end up pressured by a table to opt intop changes you aren't fond of, but by the same token you might end up really liking changes but forced to opt out of them because your table's stubborn. It's gonna be a table-by-table negotiation when the One rules hit, which is as it should be.
Please do not contact or message me.