Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
D&D Licensing Agreement
-
@Warma-Sheen
The best d20 book everUnforseen Objectionable Material?
So I have not read the actual text, but some of the lawyery sorts on livestreams have brought up the 750k point… does it actually clarify ‘25% of anything in excess’, or is it really ‘you made 800k, 25% of that is 200k, so now you actually only made 600k’? Which would be ridiculous, but also might actually be worded so poorly that’s how it is?
… I do know that it isn’t 25% of profits, but total sales, which is insane.
-
@hellfrog said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
They can be mad, as long as they don’t ruin a bunch of peoples’ livelihoods to maximize profits on the backs of unpaid labor
Exactly.
One of the arguments made in Hasbro’s defense has been that third-parties are using their work to piggyback theirs, and therefore they are essentially freeloading. Which in a way, but I think a flawed way, is true.
The cumulative effect in the work being done by active developers to support 5E is, IMHO, quite underrated. It’s not like 5E is inherently superior as a product compared to its competitors’; what it is is better supported, its appeal is wider since there are many more modules produced by all those different vendors which cater to a variety of playing styles, settings, etc.
Although yes, the profits made off those modules haven’t been going into WotC’s coffers it’s not like the company wasn’t benefiting from it - in multiple ways.
When I see a cool unique module using D20 and buy it, I am also buying into the DnD ecosystem. The company authoring, testing and promoting the module isn’t supporting a competing product line instead. The gaming store providing shelf space to D20-related products is similarly pushing those competitors to some darker, lower-place where their main line will get less exposure.
Those are pretty nifty business partners whose livelihoods were being messed with. I think it was a big mistake, but we’ll see.
-
Yes, people have been making money off the back of D&D. But. That was actually the point of the OGL to start with. It’s how D&D managed to crowd out so many other systems, it’s why the Player’s Handbook is the best-selling TTRPG book of the lot, it’s why so many people have only ever played D&D and expect to mod D&D to what they want to play rather than going to find and learn another system.
D&D has become synonymous with tabletop, and WotC/Hasbro has both eliminated a chunk of their competition over the last two decades and change, and sold a copy of the Player’s Handbook to each and every person who got into it. Over the last couple of days I’ve mentioned on multiple Discords that other RPGs exist to heartbroken nerds who’d thought the entire hobby was dead. Many of them are now looking at other games with interest they never had before D&D’s shot its entire ecosystem in the foot. WotC/Hasbro just killed their golden goose, and the world of tabletop now has a lot of people who’d never looked outside a single system turning to see what else is out there.
The ‘freeloaders’ were serving WotC/Hasbro’s initial purpose by making D&D both ubiquitous and endemic, and that was the whole point from the start. After all, how many tabletop gamers do you know who don’t have a copy of the Player’s Handbook knocking around?
-
@Evilgrayson said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
D&D has become synonymous with tabletop, and WotC/Hasbro has both eliminated a chunk of their competition over the last two decades and change, and sold a copy of the Player’s Handbook to each and every person who got into it. Over the last couple of days I’ve mentioned on multiple Discords that other RPGs exist to heartbroken nerds who’d thought the entire hobby was dead. Many of them are now looking at other games with interest they never had before D&D’s shot its entire ecosystem in the foot. WotC/Hasbro just killed their golden goose, and the world of tabletop now has a lot of people who’d never looked outside a single system turning to see what else is out there.
Since last night I’ve convinced double digits of people on various discords to buy this bundle that includes Mythras, the system I use for fantasy/historical games these days.
-
Their apology wasn’t really an apology. I think this article coves it nicely.
-
What they give you with the OGL is largely what can’t legally be copyrighted anyway, and in turn they saddle you with extra obligations.
The reason it seemed generous in the first place is that TSR’s prolific lawsuits poisoned the marketplace. The OGL was reassurance that Wizards won’t come for you if you make more content compatible with their game.
Most OGL gaming products could strip off the OGL label, reformat and change some names, and still be in the clear, per the EFF. The real question is if the chilling effect of the mere potential of lawsuits will stop people who would otherwise work in the field.
I imagine the answer is yes.
The author of that article appears to be the same lawyer who wrote the game Thirsty Sword Lesbians. They share the same name, at any rate.
-
-
Legal Eagle has done a video with a particular focus on game rules not actually being something copyright can be applied to.
-
@Roz said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
game rules not actually being something copyright can be applied to.
Yeah it’s an interesting subject though. Because while you can’t copyright an idea, you can comment an expression.
So FS3’s generic concept of “roll a number of D8 equal to ability+attribute versus a TN of 6 and count successes” is definitely an idea, not coypyright-able. Any game could use that same basic mechanic (and in fact FS3 is inspired by other games that have a similar one, like Shadowrun and Storyteller).
The specific FS3 player’s guide text is definitely an expression, copyrighted (but made available to games under a Creative Commons license).
But there’s a gray area in the middle where it seems like a lawyer could potentially argue that the rule is an expression. Like the specific effects of a spell, which is kind of rooted in lore. I don’t know - I’m not a lawyer myself - but I think the main benefit of the OGL is the companies being comfortable that they don’t have to worry about defending even a dead-end lawsuit.
-
@Faraday said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
But there’s a gray area in the middle where it seems like a lawyer could potentially argue that the rule is an expression. Like the specific effects of a spell, which is kind of rooted in lore. I don’t know - I’m not a lawyer myself - but I think the main benefit of the OGL is the companies being comfortable that they don’t have to worry about defending even a dead-end lawsuit.
This seems like a lawsuit no one should ever want to bring, because the decision might set a precedent the plaintiff really doesn’t want. Like, if a judge decides that D&D can’t copyright its rules, then that’s it, anything a writer produces for an RPG can become unpaid work for any yahoo who wants to steal it.
-
@GF said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
This seems like a lawsuit no one should ever want to bring, because the decision might set a precedent the plaintiff really doesn’t want. Like, if a judge decides that D&D can’t copyright its rules, then that’s it, anything a writer produces for an RPG can become unpaid work for any yahoo who wants to steal it.
Don’t disagree. I’m just saying that it’s enough of a gray area that the mere possibility would keep game companies away from even trying to make custom D20 games/adventures/whatever if it weren’t for the OGL. Nobody wants to find out if the rules are really copyright-able.
-
Even a lawsuit you win can bankrupt you.
fr fr
(she/her) -
What boggles my mind is… the Dungeons and Dragons movie is coming out in less than two months. Compared to a freakin’ big tent movie (plus stuff like toys, etc) the profits from table-top products are nothing.
I am definitely not saying a bunch of nerds boycotting the film will make a dent in the box office. But the bad press, less word of mouth on social media, etc might damage its profits anyway - compared to the same nerds happily spreading the hype, cosplaying everywhere they go, etc.
Why do all this now. The timing is just… bad.
-
@Arkandel something something ‘before the end of the fiscal quarter’ I guess.
That’s usually why businesses make bad time-related decisions from what I can tell.
-
Total and complete capitulation by WOTC isn’t what I expected, but it was all too clear they had shot themselves in the foot. Maybe this was the only way to control damage.
-
@Selira Forever and always using this as my future example to shut people down when they insist ‘well, it’s not like boycotting Harry Potter will affect anything’
Mummy Pun? MUMMY PUN!
She/her -
@Jennkryst said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
@Selira Forever and always using this as my future example to shut people down when they insist ‘well, it’s not like boycotting Harry Potter will affect anything’
I think there’s a difference between this and other situations. TTRPGers love shit like rules lawyering and there are a lot of lawyers in TTRPGs who were able to effectively call out WotC/Hasbro for their bullshit and how it would be awful for the vast majority of TTRPGers.
There are still a shit ton of transphobes who still have no issue lining Rowling’s pocket with more money.
-
@Rucket said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
There are still a shit ton of transphobes who still have no issue lining Rowling’s pocket with more money.
There were also the ride-or-die folks who were never going to abandon D&D, who had no issue lining Hasbro’s pocket with more money. So because of them, the boycott actually would never have worked!
… except it did work. Because people actually had solidarity for it.
The fact that there are people who call themselves allies but who are going to still spend money on the game ‘because boycotts never work’… like I said, I’ve got a very recent, very visible boycott that DID work to call them out on their bullshit.
Mummy Pun? MUMMY PUN!
She/her -
@Jennkryst said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
‘because boycotts never work’… like I said, I’ve got a very recent, very visible boycott that DID work to call them out on their bullshit.
Absolutes are rarely correct, so of course we can’t say that boycotts never work.
One can say, though, that boycotts rarely work. But don’t take my word for it, listen to the economists:
“The typical boycott doesn’t have much impact on sales revenue.” (source: Institute for Policy Research https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html)
“If the aim is to hurt company sales, boycotts rarely succeed.” (source: NYT https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2017/02/07/when-do-consumer-boycotts-work)
“most [boycotts] fail to have any noticeable impact.” (source: Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2012/08/when-do-company-boycotts-work)
etc.
There are plenty of obstacles to getting enough critical mass behind a boycott to matter, and the perception of “eh, it probably won’t work anyway” is only a small part.
Those articles do note that with the right conditions, boycotts can be successful. Usually it’s negative press that matters more to the companies than any impact to the bottom line, and occasionally it’s possible to drum up enough support to make a dent to sales.
With WotC I’d speculate it was a perfect storm: the negative press was killing them (after all, their whole business model relies on other companies trusting them enough to make games on their platform), and it’s a small market to begin with (fewer actual humans must be motivated to impact the bottom line).
-
@Faraday said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
@Jennkryst said in D&D Licensing Agreement:
‘because boycotts never work’… like I said, I’ve got a very recent, very visible boycott that DID work to call them out on their bullshit.
Absolutes are rarely correct, so of course we can’t say that boycotts never work.
One can say, though, that boycotts rarely work. But don’t take my word for it, listen to the economists:
“The typical boycott doesn’t have much impact on sales revenue.” (source: Institute for Policy Research https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html)
“If the aim is to hurt company sales, boycotts rarely succeed.” (source: NYT https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2017/02/07/when-do-consumer-boycotts-work)
“most [boycotts] fail to have any noticeable impact.” (source: Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2012/08/when-do-company-boycotts-work)
etc.
There are plenty of obstacles to getting enough critical mass behind a boycott to matter, and the perception of “eh, it probably won’t work anyway” is only a small part.
Those articles do note that with the right conditions, boycotts can be successful. Usually it’s negative press that matters more to the companies than any impact to the bottom line, and occasionally it’s possible to drum up enough support to make a dent to sales.
With WotC I’d speculate it was a perfect storm: the negative press was killing them (after all, their whole business model relies on other companies trusting them enough to make games on their platform), and it’s a small market to begin with (fewer actual humans must be motivated to impact the bottom line).
To this, I’d add that the company had a specific metric that it was using (D&D Beyond subscriptions) that could be directly impacted in ‘real time’ by people in a measurable way (canceling said subscription), as well as already including data collection of WHY that metric was changing (the cancelation page asks you why you’re canceling - I specifically indicated the OGL and I’m sure others did likewise).
This made it quite easy for decision makers to rapidly see what impact customer action was having on their profit base, and to know why. Most boycotts - especially for products with a national or international platform - don’t have that luxury.
