If Hasbro Pulls the Plug....

[DragonLancer]

I'd be sad if the D&D brand name vanished, but then like so many others it seems, Pathfinder has become my D&D. Hell, my group and I still call it D&D. Even if WotC brought out a decent 5th edition I don't think I would go back to them. Pathfinder seems to be where to go for D&D these days.

 

[Bluenose]

What will folks do if Hasbro pulls the plug on D&D?

The Escapist article describes Hasbro 'marginalizing' properties that generate less than 50-100 million dollars.

Is that 50-100 million in revenue or profits? Compared to GWs consistent revenue of £120-130 million over the past couple of years, the latter figure seems unlikely to be reached, or even to be within reach. Though I suppose it depends on whether the book division is considered part of D&D or not, since I suspect that's a larger source of revenue than the RPG.

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, with the nature of Paizo's current situation, I'm not sure that they would be the first place that 4E players would go for new material, or for a new fantasy game.

To me, this sounds like an opportunity for companies like Privateer Press, who can come up with their own fantasy system that can cover the feel of D&D without being bogged down by specifically being a D&D Reboot.

 

[William Ronald]

The GSL and 4E were designed in tandem with particular naming conventions and IP to specifically avoid replication, even under the OGL, without leaving so many holes and requiring so many pseudonyms as to make a clone of 4E virtually impractical. OSRIC and other retro/clone games utilize naming conventions and IP that carried over to 3.XE and the era-d20 SRD so that pre-3.XE materials are more easily replicated under the OGL.

So, Mark, would this mean that a site that tried to call healing surges by the name "adrenaline surges" and had names filed off versions of eladrin and tieflings would still violate WotC's trademarks? If so (and I expect that this is the case), it would make a fan produced clone open to a lawsuit.

We don't know what WotC and Hasbro will do, but I think that there is some pressure for Dungeons and Dragons to be a more prominent line in the Hasbro family. If WotC can't pull it off, I could see them just using the license for board games, books, and other non-RPG products.

 

[Jeffrey]

If (and hopefully that is a big IF) D&D has fallen below whatever magic number Hasbro has chosen, what will folks do?

We will continue to play whatever game and whatever version of that game, appeals to us.

And how would it affect the industry?

This is the $54,000 question. It would, presumably, cut loose a number of players who might abandon 4e D&D due to the fact that no new product will be produced. How large that number might be is debatable, as many will hasten to note that they have enough 4e product to continue to play for years. What I don't think is debatable is that it would have a negative effect (whether large or small) on the industry.

What games are in the book trade, aside from Pathfinder, will work as a gateway?

Another high-dollar question. Mr. Grump. There are other systems designed for introducing beginners to the hobby (pardon that I cannot produce them at the moment, but they have been mentioned here at Enworld) and it may be that should D&D become moribund, they may become more prominent in the hobby. Too, there could be that killer new intro game that has yet to be written that might just find the fading of D&D the impetus they need to come into existence.

The shelving of D&D would not, in any measure, be a "win" for the industry. However, it might not have anything close to the dire negative impact that it may appear to have on first blush.

-Jeff

 

[S'mon]

Would it actually need to be an RPG, or could any major release based on the underlying IP- a movie, a line of books, etc.- keep the trademark protected? (I haven't really had to deal with UK/EU TM laws.)

This description looks accurate: Revocation of a Trademark - Trademarks Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room

My understanding of revocation for non-use is that it will depend on the classes of goods & services for which the mark is registered, but this is probably not a big worry as long as they continue to use the mark via licensing.

I think genericisation of the mark as a generic term for RPGs would be a bigger worry; if there is no actual 'D&D' marked game being published, but a whole bunch of D&D-derived games, even informed people are likely to refer to them as 'D&D'. And this would likely have a roll-on effect on their ability to use the mark for licensing.

 

[Relique du Madde]

It would be sad.

I have barely played 4E due to a combination of life and disinterest. When I do play RPGs I usually play Pathfinder, 3.5, D20 Modern, Atlernity, etc. This is, in good part, because these are the games I started playing RPGs with.

Regardless of my distaste for 4E, it has been disheartening seeing the game flounder around with what seems like no real strong direction at all. I own a good deal of 4E material simply because I was hopeful and wanted to support the whole brand.

I really quite like the fundamentals line. It made some friends a lot less concerned about having a set of rules of their own since they were very affordable. There must be some kind of internal struggle going on over at WOTC. The D&D line is just incredibly schizophrenic and like I said, has for a few years now had no discernible direction.

As an aside. I really hate DDI. I really hate the way everything is done to be as lazy as possible with 4E. By putting everything on cards, in online reference, etc. it just encourages people to be extremely lazy about the rules. Nothing has stuck with my players when it comes to 4E because they know they can always just look it up in 5 seconds anyway so why bother learning the game. I know many of you will disagree completely, that's fine. Most likely your players are very dedicated and enjoy reading and learning the rules. In my case though, my players could care less and 4E has only exacerbated this issue by making everything in the game idiot proof because it's all easily accessible to the pint there's no benefit really to remembering/learning.

I think that is actually a strength since its impossible for most people to remember EVERY little rule in the game. Think about how often a game would grind to a halt as people researched a rule as a result of two people remembering the rule in a contradictory fashion, or one person remembering their house rule (from a different gaming group) and insisting that that house rule was raw.

Having an easily accessible online rules archive aids players by cutting cutting down the research time.

Now, I do admit, the rules in some editions easily escapes players. I think that is not a result of having an online resource (3.5 existed when their was an online srd), but rather a deficiency of the ruleset and how it was written itself. Case in point, in previous editions the only players who needed to remember a complex rule set were GMs and magic/psionics users. This changed in 4e as a result of everyone essentially having daily/encounter/at will powers which could be changed or gained every several levels.

-Sent via Tapatalk

 

[Mark CMG]

So, Mark, would this mean that a site that tried to call healing surges by the name "adrenaline surges" and had names filed off versions of eladrin and tieflings would still violate WotC's trademarks?

I'm not a lawyer, just someone who has worked with the OGL for a little over a decade. There are IP issues (not necessarily trademark issues but regardless of using the OGL) involved in that question that would require seeing the exact wording of what was proposed. I wouldn't wish to coment on the legality of any specific situations. However, even if someone changed the names of some IP but kept the descriptions so close as to allow anyone reading it to recognize that the new names meant the exact same thing, it would probably be problematic. At some point, one realizes there is so much that would require name changing and rewording as to make any 4E clone attempt a losing effort.

 

[S'mon]

Maybe, but Hasbro might decide to make it hard for someone to do so. Hasbro could tighten up the GSL or decide to harass a publisher with a threat of a lawsuit.

A 4e clone would not use the GSL. It would use the OGL, which is not revokable or amendable by Hasbro.

Creating a 4e clone without infringing copyright would be tricky, though. I think WoTC deliberately made this hard to do, by eg renaming monsters and creating a lot of new, copyright-protected 'fluff', as well as systems that depart quite radically from 0e-3e. When taking the raw, non-protectable, game mechanics* from 4e, you would need to be very careful not to take any of the copyrightable expression along. All your 'fluff' would need to come from the SRD, or be original.

I teach copyright law for a living and I could probably do it correctly, were I willing & able to put in the large amount of effort it would require. I think for most people it would be pretty risky, though**.

*By contrast it is fine to call eg Healing Surges 'Healing Surges'. A 2-word term like that is not copyright protected. And changing the term won't shield you from liability if your description of how they work is itself a derivative work/adaptation.

**As it is, the guys who did OSRIC did a very good job avoiding any possibility of a (c)-claim; some of the other existing retro-clones look a bit shakier, though.

 

[William Ronald]

A 4e clone would not use the GSL. It would use the OGL, which is not revokable or amendable by Hasbro.

Creating a 4e clone without infringing copyright would be tricky, though. I think WoTC deliberately made this hard to do, by eg renaming monsters and creating a lot of new, copyright-protected 'fluff', as well as systems that depart quite radically from 0e-3e. When taking the raw, non-protectable, game mechanics* from 4e, you would need to be very careful not to take any of the copyrightable expression along. All your 'fluff' would need to come from the SRD, or be original.

I teach copyright law for a living and I could probably do it correctly, were I willing & able to put in the large amount of effort it would require. I think for most people it would be pretty risky, though**.

*By contrast it is fine to call eg Healing Surges 'Healing Surges'. A 2-word term like that is not copyright protected. And changing the term won't shield you from liability if your description of how they work is itself a derivative work/adaptation.

**As it is, the guys who did OSRIC did a very good job avoiding any possibility of a (c)-claim; some of the other existing retro-clones look a bit shakier, though.

Thanks for the clarification. It would seem that creating a clone would be a challenge. The question may be whether someone be willing and able to take the effort to create a clone.