Why doesn't WotC license older editions?

[Nikosandros]

Emphasis added. I respect your disagreement, but I call outright shenanigans on your "certainly". The existence of multiple simultaneous branches of D&D (basically, two) was certainly not "certainly involved". It was, at best, arguably involved. I disagree that it was involved at all.

Especially since the demise of TSR came much, much later.

I agree with you and RA. There is little or no evidence that having two lines of D&D products was detrimental to the brand. Quite the contrary, the early 80's were arguably the period in which the brand enjoyed the highest success.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I imagine the following conversation...

Scott Rouse: Hey guess what? I'll have 50 spare hours over the next year to do whatever I want with! How should I spend them?
Mike Mearls: That's great! You can finally create licenses for all the older editions!
Scott Rouse: Or we could play through some of the 4th Edition Dungeon Crawl Classics. To ummm, research the compitition!
Mike Mearls: Yes, we need to keep taps on other companies to ensure that they understand 4th Edition. Not because it would nice to play through adventures we never seen before.
Scott Rouse: Of course! Now's let round up some people so we can "conduct some resarch."
Mike Mearls: Done and done.

 

[Mournblade94]

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. I'm now playing D&D3 while D&D4 is the current edition.

If I wanted to pick up AD&D1 again, I'd just pull the books off my shelf and start playing. I don't need anything new published.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

Exactly!

In one of the brick and mortar stores I frequent, last friday night, I saw one small group playing 1st edition, one group playing 3rd edition, and one group playing Mutants and Masterminds. This was friday and not one group playing 4th edition?

I don't need it to be licensed as I have all the books I need, and groups willing to play them.

 

[Kzach]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the comments but it seems that we have a different understanding of licensing.

To my mind, WotC would just create an OGL for older editions and put in a clause that you have to pay X per annum for publishing rights or whatever and for WotC, that'd be the end of any effort.

Aside from policing it, there'd be no real cost associated with it and whatever cost there was would surely be offset by the royalties they'd get.

As for why, not everyone has access to older editions. Just because a bunch of old farts have crusty old copies that smell of dust and silverfish, doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Why not expand the hobby and introduce new players to the grand old traditions? The older systems are just a different way of having the same fun. And new people to the hobby would be seen as a good thing, wouldn't it?

 

[haakon1]

That's exactly the problem. It's bad for WotC if new players have multiple D&Ds to choose from. It means that WotC is then forced to support multiple D&Ds in order to support the new gamers, and the cost of supporting multiple games is prohibitive if they're both aimed at the same general audience: The fantasy-focused RPGer.

He did say "license", not "publish".

All I know is, I can't buy WOTC 3.5e books new, and I've been looking hard for Pathfinder as a substitute (my FLGS says Beta is sold out and the real version is a few weeks away). I bought a copy of Pathfinder Beta (OGL version of D&D with some minor tweaks, IMHO -- really what 4e should have been, IMHO) and passed it on already. When a new player joins my game in May, will he buy a 3.5 PHB used, a Pathfinder book since it's likely close enough, or borrow a 3.5 PHB from someone else?

I dunno, but WOTC isn't getting a dime from my games, which are still growing in number of 3.5 players. How much that bothers them is up to them.

WotC can produce X number of products, maximum. Therefore, it is better for them to aim any given product at the largest part of the market possible.

Telling the printer to run off more copies, or licensing it out, is not a strain on any publisher.

 

[haakon1]

I see two questions here (IMO):
1) Will WotC license their older properties?
2) Should WotC license their older properties?

Good analysis. My answers are:
1) Up to WotC.
2) Up to WotC.

Like I said, I'd like to be able to buy the 3.5e PHB from them, and the other core books would be nice too.

For older books, perhaps "collector's edition" OD&D, AD&D, and 2nd Edition stuff would find a market, or perhaps not. I'd buy OD&D if it were in print.

The other questions (not actually asked here) is about settings. I'd love it if they released Greyhawk to a good home, namely Paizo, or Paizo and Troll Lords. Not sure if either would pay much for it now, since they've found their own ways around that lack.

 

[haakon1]

The last published article in DRAGON for AD&D 1E was in DRAGON #169, May 1991--two years after 2nd Edition's launch. That's a significant difference from WotC's model of a complete and total changeover when a new edition hits.

The bigger difference is that AD&D and 2nd Edition were roughly compatible -- I bought 2nd Edition adventures, Dungeon, and a few rule books even though I only ran AD&D from 1981-2001.

2e -> 3e was a bigger change, but there was some effort at backward compatibity. I remember getting and using a conversion guide, and having the players convert all the PC's using that guide.

For 3e -> 4e, I'm not aware of a conversion guide, the rules seem completely incompatible, and so far as I can tell, the intention was to shut down your old campaign (what was that 3.5 book, the book of how to kill off your campaign world?) and start over. I'm never going to do that, so WotC's non-backwards-compatibility has turned me into a former customer.

Of course, one FLGS owner I know says all versions of D&D, from AD&D through 4e, are more or less compatible, and he runs 4e with unchanged AD&D modules. I'm thinking that can't work too well . . .

BTW, I just checked out the PDF list and it's awesome that WotC is selling all that it is. I might need to pick up some old stuff.

 

[darjr]

...he runs 4e with unchanged AD&D modules. I'm thinking that can't work too well . . .

I was reading a 7th level goodman games 3.5 adventure, the Iron Overlord one. It's not AD&D but the same principles might apply. And besides the below, putting together level appropriate combat encounters based on the fluff is fairly easy and strait forward in 4e. You could almost do it on the fly.

Well, I noticed that the hit points and attack bonuses and damage ranges from that 7th level adventure fell into the 1st level 4e range, right out of the module. If you were to do a couple minor things, like take their fort save bonus, add it to ten, to get their fort defense, it would probably work out just fine.

I'd have to try it, and it'd be 1st level 4e characters in a 7th level 3.5 adventure, but it seems close enough that whats left to swag would be minor. I think I could do it on the fly.

So I looked at other 7th level adventures, and any of the good ones seemed to work out as well. Note that I didn't look really close or in great detail.

I've not done anything indepth mind, nor tried it in play, nor seen if it scales for higher levels.

 

[Reynard]

I'd love it if WotC continued to support 3rd edition, but it's totally unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to. That doesn't make them an evil company - it makes them competent.

As to citing the fact that TSR used to print 1st and 2nd edition simultaneously or that they had the basic D&D game going on at the same time, it boggles my mind that people would hold up anything TSR did as good business. Sure, the company didn't fall apart completely until the 1997, but bad business managment had defined TSR since at least the mid-80s. If anything, I would argue that their business strategies probably kept the game from being an even bigger hit that it was during the 80s.

Regarding the analogies to the record companies, car companies, et cetera, that's comparing apples to atom bombs. The fact is, there is no example in the RPG industry or related industries of a company simultaneously supporting multiple editions and pulling it off with any sort of business success. To expect WotC to support a dead edition for a game or to hand someone else their intellectual property and empower them as a direct competitor is unrealistic at best.

Finally, I don't see the point in longing for an official license from WotC when many dead editions currently have support in some form thanks to the OGL. BECMI has Labyrinth Lord, 1st edition has OSRIC, and 3rd edition has Pathfinder (albeit modified and updated). That's more support than any old edition of any RPG has ever received right there.

There is an example of companies that do just this: video game copanies. Valve, for example, still sells Half Life on the shelves and through digital distribution, even though there's Half Life 2 and newer games. They license the engine and allow professional mods using the engine.

It makes a lot of sense for PnP RPGs, in fact, because ultimately what is an RPG but a game engine ready for your modding?

 

[an_idol_mind]

There is an example of companies that do just this: video game copanies. Valve, for example, still sells Half Life on the shelves and through digital distribution, even though there's Half Life 2 and newer games. They license the engine and allow professional mods using the engine.

I would again argue that it's different, though. First of all, video games require a lot less time for the player. I can play through a whole video game in a week or two of casual gaming, then move onto the next one. During that time, I can only have one or two table top sessions. Essentially, I can play through both Half-Life and Half-Life 2 in the same month, but the odds of me using material for two separate editions of D&D is much less likely.

It makes much more sense for a publisher of a PC game to provide support for older games due to the restraints of technology. A lot of people don't have the hardware to play Half-Life 2; dropping all support for the original is essentially cutting those people out as customers. RPGs, however, all have the same requirements. In the case of D&D, all you need is the core three books to play any given edition. People who stick to older games aren't doing it out of necessit; they're doing it out of preference.

Even if the cost to license old editions is relatively inexpensive to WotC, businesses don't tend to do stuff like that unless there is significant profit involved. They can put together a license, but keeping the status quo and focusing solely on 4th edition will make them much more money. For them to license out the game in a way that would make it worth their while, the cost would likely be too much for 3rd party publishers to justify. Basically, even if the licensing out of older editions seems like a good idea, there would have to be a huge bottom line for it to make any sort of decent business sense to WotC.