Why doesn't WotC license older editions?

[Glyfair]

Is there something I'm missing that would make this a bad idea? I mean, someone like Dragonsfoot, for instance, could lobby to be the only third-party producer of 1e material, Diaglo could get the OD&D rights, and someone, surely, would want to take up the mantle of 2e. Wouldn't that go a long way towards making people happy(er)?

Honestly, you probably would see the same fragmentation, especially if they were allowed to publish "core books." You have those that would like to advance the systems in some fashion (in different and lesser directions than later editions of D&D) and those who want to stay with the original (who have the official PDFs online).

Also, remember that at one point WotC allowed companies to create "official" support for discontinued campaign worlds. At this point, these have all ended (for various reasons).

They have on at least one occastion - AD&D was licensed by Kenzer Co. for Hackmaster.

And by some accounts and theories, WotC was forced into that to a avoid a lawsuit from Kenzer (dealing with reproducing KoDT in the digital Dragon Compendium).

 

[MichaelSomething]

And by some accounts and theories, WotC was forced into that to a avoid a lawsuit from Kenzer (dealing with reproducing KoDT in the digital Dragon Compendium).

So all we have to do to get licenses for older editions is to blackmail WOTC (or maybe even Hasbro)? How are we gonna do it?

Are we gonna get Mike Mearls drunk and take compromising pictures?
Hack into the WOTC computer systems and hold it for ransom?
Dig up a deep dark secret of a Hasbro executive?
Threaten to flag their Youtube videos?

 

[jdrakeh]

Why would this idea even be necessary? The previous editions' books don't disappear when a new edition is published. I played AD&D1 for another half decade after it was out of print and AD&D2 was the current edition.

It's only necessary for publishers. In order to publish new content for AD&D (i.e., content specifically branded with the AD&D name), you need a license.

 

[darjr]

There is already a current running older license.

And DRAGON ROOTS says it is printing under that and the GSL, with permission from WotC. Check it out

 

[Reynard]

But let's face some realities. People are generally 'stuck' in their edition of preference and aren't about to buy 4e anyway. It's not like WotC would be losing any money or competing with themselves. Each edition is different enough that it really constitutes a wholly different system.

I prefer 1E. I own every core set for every edition (4E included) and use them all to some degree or another (I play in a 4E game, but won't run it; I use my 2E MM for everything buts stats; my 1E DMG is my bible; the domain and war machine rules from the RC/BECMI are a staple; my next campaign is going to be 3.5)

 

[jdrakeh]

There is already a current running older license.

And DRAGON ROOTS says it is printing under that and the GSL, with permission from WotC. Check it out

Well, as the Dragon Roots representative notes:

Actually, we at Dragon Roots have a special agreement with WOTC

As he goes onto mention, this agreement allows them to publish in a manner unrestrained by either the OGL or the GSL. That is, they are not publishing under the default written terms of either existing license but, rather, as the representative notes, they have a special agreement in place with WotC.

This special agreement may be a formal license, though it may just as easily be a 'gentleman's agreement' or other arrangement. Even if it is a formal license, it's clearly not one that everybody has access to or an agreement that has anything with older editions of D&D (as far as I can tell), which is what we were discussing.

If Dragon Roots is using the AD&D trademark and brand name for promotion and advertising (which, AFAICT, they're not), it might be because they have permission to do so via their special agreement (in fact, I would hope so, as using somebody else's trademark in that capacity without permission is typically infringement).

If that's the case then, yes, it would appear that WotC has freely granted at least one licence to use the AD&D name/system. That doesn't appear to be the case, though.

 

[darjr]

Gentleman's agreement or not, it is a license.

If you look at the OP you'll clearly see it also asks why couldn't there be even JUST ONE 3rd party publisher with a license for older editions.

Anyway, it's not my point to counter anyone in this thread. I thought it was an interesting development, and a possible crack in the wall for others.

I get that the OP probably meant editions older than 3e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You might think that, but you'd be wrong.
<many good points>

I was going to trot out things I learned getting my JD and MBA, but you summed it up pretty well.

I'll just add, it is workable, but the main benefits to Hasbro/WotC would be a (small) revenue stream and a little bit of corporate goodwill.

IOW, its probably not worth it in the long run.

If, OTOH, 4Ed or one of the successor editions flops, you may see WotC republish one of the older editions (the "New Coke" scenario).

 

[jdrakeh]

Gentleman's agreement or not, it is a license.

Yes, but it doesn't appear to be a license for D&D, only an agreement that allows for the simultaneous production of OGL content and GSL content. I don't see that Dragon Roots is using the D&D brand anywhere.

 

[tomBitonti]

I see two questions here (IMO):

1) Will WotC license their older properties?

2) Should WotC license their older properties?

My own answers are:

1) For the most part, no. They are wanting to avoid lessening demand for their new 4E brand.

2) Answer 1: Yes. They sold product to customers who, in good faith, presumed that WotC would continue to support those products, at least minimally.

2) Answer 2: Yes. The reduction in demain to 4E would be small, and the benefit to the community large.

2) Answer 3: No. WotC does not have the resources to manage (even) licensing the content to third parties.

2) Answer 4: No. That would reduce demand for 4E.

(IMO) The answer is really 2.4. (Side note: In my mind, WotC is not acting as a producer in good faith because they do not adopt answer 2.1.)