General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Give the D&D IP rights to a holding company that has no other business model and I think we'd see some action in this regard.
Probably not even then. Deep pockets make the tactic possible, but don't mean you'll do it. There are two basic times it is worthwhile to try such a lawsuit:
1)The damages the court will award you are substantially higher than your legal fees and other costs associated with the suit (note, the time your execs spend on it counts!).
2)If you win, you stand to reap more extra money out of the IP than you paid in legal fees. (This may be "in the long haul").
The current 3pp folks are, compared to WotC/Hasbro, small fry with small sales. Trying for (1) is trying to squeeze blood from a stone. And, when WotC itself is no longer getting sales from prior editions, (2) is unlikely.
Basically, one of the 3pps has to make it big-time before there's an economic advantage to such a suit.
You're right. Law is not sorcery. It and the courts, however, are subject to all the foibles of humanity. People will and do use the law and manipulate courts for their own aims even out of proportion to their pretext for using the law in the first place.
Absolutely. But the courts do not like being manipulated in this fashion, and they do take measures to prevent it. A lawsuit has to have some shred of plausibility to it; and a suit filed in bad faith can leave the plaintiff open to a countersuit.
Can an unscrupulous company with smart lawyers get around these limitations? Sure, it happens all the time. But that doesn't mean it would be feasible to do it in this particular case.
What would be a likely scenario, besides something like a Pathfinder significantly beating 4E D&D in sales?
I don't think Pathfinder would have to beat 4e sales to pique WotC's interest. A sizable fraction of 4e sales would do it. However, I don't think WotC would go after Paizo even then.
Why not? Because the case would be really hard to make stick. WotC put out a big lump of stuff in the SRD and said, explicitly, "This stuff is OPEN! Have at it!" So long as Paizo kept itself to the stuff in the SRD, the case is pretty darned bullet proof. Plus, the PR backlash would sour the pot - WotC cannot expect to get any sales from cheesed off fans of Paizo if they attempt this.
The case against clones of earlier editions would be easier, as WotC didn't release them under the OGL, indicating what was open. They'd have an easier time trying to get a court to judge that one of them took content that was not just system. However, the chance that a retroclone will make it big enough to matter seems darned slim, to me.
Honestly, I don't see it likely that any tabletop game in the generic heroic fantasy genre is going to make it big enough for WotC to care for the foreseeable future. Nor is any game working in a mechanics-space near D&D. Any challenge will come from a game that, like White Wolf's WoD, differs in genre and mechanics so much that it it is nowhere near D&D.
Honestly, I don't see it likely that any tabletop game in the generic heroic fantasy genre is going to make it big enough for WotC to care for the foreseeable future. Nor is any game working in a mechanics-space near D&D. Any challenge will come from a game that, like White Wolf's WoD, differs in genre and mechanics so much that it it is nowhere near D&D.
Very true. I also think that if a challenge to D&D does arise, it will succeed by drawing on a notably different fanbase - some group that does not currently find D&D appealing for whatever reason.
While inaccurate in many details, the paper does present an interesting idea. My condensation of it reads, basically, that (1) there is a tension between RPGs as a vehicle for collaborative story telling, and the sharp control exercised in the 4E version of D&D, and (2) those tensions have caused a reaction in that a members of the community have chosen to not adopt the new product edition, with a large enough subset in this category that a prominent member of the commercial community (Paizo) has selected to produce a product to server that non-adopting subset.
In this, I find what is interesting is the presentation of RPGs as vehicles for collaborative story-telling, and what that implies in terms of customer-producer relationships.
I agree that the paper gets a lot of the details wrong. I can handle that because I read the paper as a Thesis, subject to critical responses to correct the details. (And, as a critical work subject to critical responses, one is allowed to respond with a statement that paper is wrong, and details are very inaccurate.) Plus, I think the inaccuracies are due to the nature of online critical dialogues, where the focus is on getting your writing out early and using the online community to work it to a better state. I think, though, that critical responses would have to composed at a similar level as the article itself.
The main doomsday scenario I can think of offhand for Hasbro/WotC becoming very litigious, would be if several OGL products become extremely popular and makes significantly more money than WotC's main rpg product lines of 4E D&D or subsequent editions (ie. 5E).
For example, a scenario of Pathfinder PFRPG becoming the #1 best selling rpg and making more profits than WotC's 4E D&D line of products. Though in this hypothetical scenario, I would guess that Paizo and Hasbro/WotC may possibly settle out of court with Hasbro/WotC acquiring Paizo and rebranding Pathfinder as the new 5E D&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggroy
What would be a likely scenario, besides something like a Pathfinder significantly beating 4E D&D in sales?
I doubt there is anything even remotely likely about your scenario. I think you grossly over-estimate how much Pathfinder will sell, even in the wildest dreams of Erik and Lisa.
Just for argument's sake, how many of the 6-7 million D&D players do you think even know that Paizo is making a 3.75?
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
I doubt there is anything even remotely likely about your scenario. I think you grossly over-estimate how much Pathfinder will sell, even in the wildest dreams of Erik and Lisa.
It was a hypothetical scenario where Pathfinder becomes the #1 bestselling RPG.
In general the only way anybody will know the value of Pathfinder, is what price a publicly traded company is able to buy Paizo at and how the goodwill is taken into account on the publicly traded company's 10K.
At the present time, I wouldn't be surprised to see Paizo's equity value being that of a small publishing company which doesn't have much of a historical back catalog of intellectual property which can collect royalties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
Just for argument's sake, how many of the 6-7 million D&D players do you think even know that Paizo is making a 3.75?
I question that 6-7 million D&D players figure. Where did it come from and how exactly was it obtained?
Though with that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that most casual players will be largely clueless about PFRPG. The only exceptions would be the casual players who have been talked into playing an alpha or beta version of Pathfinder.
Last edited by ggroy; 27th June 2009 at 03:39 AM..
I don't think Pathfinder would have to beat 4e sales to pique WotC's interest. A sizable fraction of 4e sales would do it. However, I don't think WotC would go after Paizo even then.
Why not? Because the case would be really hard to make stick. WotC put out a big lump of stuff in the SRD and said, explicitly, "This stuff is OPEN! Have at it!" So long as Paizo kept itself to the stuff in the SRD, the case is pretty darned bullet proof. Plus, the PR backlash would sour the pot - WotC cannot expect to get any sales from cheesed off fans of Paizo if they attempt this.
What do you think is the likelihood of Hasbro/WotC buying up Paizo in a friendly merger/acquisition, and then rebranding Pathfinder as 5E D&D?
WotC's view was that "Hey, we spent millions of dollars and countless hours working on that, and you turn around and publish it without any effort on your part."
Except as mentioned several times over the years on these boards that WOTC had said in their faq that someone could do it and, basically, dared others to do it. And, you have been here long enough to have seen those posts (IIRC, people have pointed you specifically to those quotes in the past).
Edit: In case I am mistaken and you were not one of the people directed to the faq, here is the quote
"
Q: Could I publish the whole thing?
A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try."
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 27th June 2009 at 04:31 AM..
It was a hypothetical scenario where Pathfinder becomes the #1 bestselling RPG.
In general the only way anybody will know the value of Pathfinder, is what price a publicly traded company is able to buy Paizo at and how the goodwill is taken into account on the publicly traded company's 10K.
At the present time, I wouldn't be surprised to see Paizo's equity value being that of a small publishing company which doesn't have much of a historical back catalog of intellectual property which can collect royalties.
I question that 6-7 million D&D players figure. Where did it come from and how exactly was it obtained?
Though with that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that most casual players will be largely clueless about PFRPG. The only exceptions would be the casual players who have been talked into playing an alpha or beta version of Pathfinder.
Official numbers released by WotC, not only to us, but also to the courts for the different court cases.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
What do you think is the likelihood of Hasbro/WotC buying up Paizo in a friendly merger/acquisition, and then rebranding Pathfinder as 5E D&D?
I could see the acquisition happening if Pathfinder proved to be a significant game in the market. By that, I mean a contender to dethrone D&D as the top FRPG. Of course, then someone could raise antitrust issues...
But rebranding it as 5ED? That I don't see.
Its similar enough to 3.5 that they may simply take the best of Pathfinder and the best of 3.5 into a new game...called Pathfinder 2Ed (or whatever Ed it would be if/when the merger occurred).
To do otherwise would make it seem like 4Ed was a mistake, and that WotC/Hasbro was backstepping...AND it would alienate the legion of 4Edphiles who might then launch some 3PP analog of 4Ed.
Its still an unlikely scenario, though. They haven't purchased any other game that mimics their IP- Hackmaster, Midnight, C&C, AU/AE all resemble past versions of D&D in some way, and yet they are still independently produced.
Its similar enough to 3.5 that they may simply take the best of Pathfinder and the best of 3.5 into a new game...called Pathfinder 2Ed (or whatever Ed it would be if/when the merger occurred).
To do otherwise would make it seem like 4Ed was a mistake, and that WotC/Hasbro was backstepping...AND it would alienate the legion of 4Edphiles who might then launch some 3PP analog of 4Ed.
One "lazy" way of going about it would be to "shoehorn" various 4E-isms onto 3.5E/Pathfinder, such as:
- static player hit points
- healing surges, second winds
- replace the 3.5E/PFRPG way of creating encounters, with the 4E version of creating encounters
- fortitude, reflex, and will as static defense stats
- replace 3.5E/PFRPG's saving throws, with the 4E saving throw system or another saving throw system (ie. such as Castles & Crusades's saving throw system)
- every class leveling up at the same XP's
- use the 4E base attack modifier of level/2, instead of the 3.5E version
- eliminate the 4E class powers system
I suppose one could start off from the 3.5E SRD, and proceed from it.
One "lazy" way of going about it would be to "shoehorn" various 4E-isms onto 3.5E/Pathfinder, such as:
- static player hit points
- healing surges, second winds
- replace the 3.5E/PFRPG way of creating encounters, with the 4E version of creating encounters
- fortitude, reflex, and will as static defense stats
- replace 3.5E/PFRPG's saving throws, with the 4E saving throw system or another saving throw system (ie. such as Castles & Crusades's saving throw system)
- every class leveling up at the same XP's
- use the 4E base attack modifier of level/2, instead of the 3.5E version
- eliminate the 4E class powers system
I suppose one could start off from the 3.5E SRD, and proceed from it.
Why would they do such a thing?
Those who love Pathfinder/3.X generally don't care for 4Ed all that much. Such games still exist because of the continued demand for a 3.X-style ruleset...and that differs greatly from 4Ed (and its likely future iterations).
I, for example, am strongly considering Pathfinder, True20 & W&W to add to my collection...but if any of those added half of the 4Ed-isms you mention in a future edition, I probably wouldn't buy that future edition.
Similarly, even were you to do such a thing, you'd have to tread carefully to avoid alienating the early & enthusiastic adopters of 4Ed. Too much 3.X style stuff- like getting rid of the 4Ed style powers system- would be met with the same kind of howls of protest as introducing them elicited from those who have not (and will not) adopt 4Ed over 3.X.
To minimize possible alienation of the 4E crowd when rebranding 3.5E/Pathfinder as a 5E D&D.
In practice, I would probably agree that shoehorning 4E-isms into 3.5E/Pathfinder and releasing it as a hypothetical "5E D&D" in a few years may not go over so well.
Though this would be highly dependent on what happens between now and a possible future, when such a hypothetical "5E D&D" is released. If 4E ends up being relatively short lived with Hasbro closing down the tabletop pen-and-paper D&D division for a generation and shelving the D&D intellectual property, another future generation's minds may be possibly completely fresh to the idea of such a hypothetical combination of 4E and 3.5E being reintroduced as "5E D&D", possibly without as many "grognards" being around by then.
This would all be moot if Hasbro ends up closing down the tabletop pen-and-paper D&D division anyways, and ends up licensing out the D&D brand name for tabletop RPGs. In a possible second hypothetical scenario, Paizo could be the recipient of such a licensing agreement where Pathfinder RPG is essentially rebranded as a "5E D&D". It may turn off and alienate the 4E crowd, but nevertheless Paizo is formally not Hasbro/WotC and probably will not have as much legacy "baggage" as WotC/TSR.
Last edited by ggroy; 27th June 2009 at 04:26 PM..
I'll give free XP to anyone who comes up with an even semi plausible explanation of how this could be done. Its contract law, not witchery.
I imagine that WotC would give more than free XP.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
This appears on every thread about the OGL or GSl, and IT'S WRONG IN EVERY FREAKING ONE. GOOD CHRIST, every one of those threads, right after that accusation is made, shows how, oh wait, no, it was actually stated "Hah hah if a developer can reprint the 3e rules and make money, man, go for it." So that's what Monogoose did. And yet people continue to point at it and claim this was badwrong and how WotC hates them for it. Despite that being the opposite of what actually happened.
Cirno, it was badwrong.
The OGL was designed to allow third parties to make supplements for D&D, not whole new games that would compete with it.
The whole thing was an example of the Tragedy of the Commons
Besides, I believe that the gaming community is better served by people making new systems, rather than staying inside the limitations of 3.5 D20
Case in point, the new Song of Ice and Fire RPG by Green Ronin is a lot more interesting with its own system than it was when it was just another Fantasy D20 game
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
