A solution to the "core books sell" problem?

[Jan van Leyden]

Regarding the publication of 3.5e

I believe it was 5 years. IIRC, Monte commented on his blog (the old one, which I think is now gone) that he felt 3.5e came too soon.

That was exactly what Monte Cook told. Note that the progression from 3e to 3.5e was really planned from the outset.

I would honestly be surprised if WotC had a firm plan that lasted more than a few years in advance.

"Plan" and "plan" don't mean the same.

The D&D team has a plan based on the contents they want to publish. Remember the announcements of "one set of core books per year", "one campaign setting per year", and "three books per campaign setting"?

WotC management's plan was probably more like 3Mil for book sales in 2008, 2Mil in 2009, and 1.5Mil per year afterwards for 5 years. Ramping up to 10Mil per year for DDI in 2010. (Note: these numbers were generated using my Random Revenue Table!)

And Hasbro management? "You're several Mils short of the projected 50Mil. Get your act together next year"

 

[delericho]

"Plan" and "plan" don't mean the same.

Heh.

 

[GreyLord]

I'm not sure why you think you're an authority on what "TRUE D&D!!" is, but you're not. While it's fine for you to love or hate whatever editions you choose, adding a "Oh, but you guys don't play REAL D&D because you aren't playing old-skoool enough" is neither accurate nor constructive- it's edition warring at its finest, and frankly, it's insulting to everyone who loves the game in its post-TSR iterations.

The game says "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. The company that owns the brand put it out. Therefore, it is indeed D&D. It may not be D&D to your taste, but claiming that your tastes dictate whether something is "true D&D" or not is just ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as claiming that Sandman isn't a comic because it doesn't have superheroes and it's not an old EC Horror book. It's like saying that the new Star Trek movies aren't Star Trek because Shatner.

The fact is, neither I nor you get to decide what Dungeons and Dragons, comic books or Star Trek are. The guys who own the game decide what D&D is; all we get to decide is whether we're playing, whether we like it and whether to move on with the new edition when it comes out. That's it. Claiming that your taste dictates whether a game is or is not D&D is ignoring the fact that people have different tastes and playstyles and have since the very first days of D&D. It's also taking it for granted that you are not just right for your own tastes, but somehow have some magical objective sense of what D&D is to all other people. Clearly, you don't- because you are discarding two of D&D's editions, each of which has a lot of fans (not to mention a lot to offer the game as a whole!), and all those fans would disagree with you.

So, in short, while it's fine to hate on later editions, please don't act like your way is the One True Way To D&D. It isn't, and acting like it is insults everyone who plays 3e or 4e D&D. "Your game isn't D&D, it's just another RPG" doesn't fly either. It's the sort of contemptuous backhanded attack that says, "Oh, do it your way, but you're doing it wrong."

No. If someone is playing the game (in ANY version) and having fun, you don't get to paint "NOT D&D" on their game.

That's an interesting thought.

Who decides what is what.

Let's take Star Wars. If George Lucas decided that something was NOT Star Wars...would it still be Star Wars?

With him selling the company to Disney...if Disney's new movies came out and George Lucas said it definitely was not Star Wars...I think it would create a rift of people that would agree or not agree with him.

Let's take something else.

If JRR Tolkien was alive, and he saw half the items bearing Lord of the Rings Logos on them, and stated they were NOT LotR...and in fact...only his novels were official canon for LotR...what does that mean for the other items in regards to LotR canon. Does that mean the movie trilogy is no longer LotR canon...and only the novels are really LotR. (Actually, this is already an existent argument).

Here's one more pertinent perhaps. If the publishers of Harry Potter decided to start their own HP series and JK Rowling (I think that's the author's name) stated these new novels were in no way really H.P., despite having the same characters and such...is it officially H.P. or simply the company trying to rebrand it under their own name for profits.

Heres an even better one. A Spanish company decides to remake a game. They own the trademark to the name in Spain, but nowhere else, and have not received permission from the original creator or the original game makers to create the game. However they do have the trademark to heroquest...and are calling their creation Heroquest 25th anniversary. It has different rules, different items, and different quests. Is it actually Heroquest or something else.

Why is this pertinent.

Gygax was credited in 3e. However, after that, other than the acknowledgement, he was ostracized in ways from WotC. He did not truly aknowledge 3e as D&D overall except in deference to his being acknowledged by WotC...and in fact can be found to even state it was NOT D&D. His ideas were that it was not the same rules or same spirit. He was grateful for WotC aknowledgements from what I can tell, but at the same time would have desired D&D (what he defined it as) to have remained and continued instead. (And if he had problems considering 3e/3.5 D&D...I'm almost positive he would not have considered 4e D&D either).

So...if the original creator does NOT consider the creation what they created (aka, Rowling and HP, Tolkien and LotR, Heroquest, and Gygax), is it actually the same thing, or something different that the NEW rights owners have tried to make money off of by slapping a well known name on top of their own creation?

I'm not really taking a side in this post, but I think the analysis of what is or isn't something should take a deeper analysis rather than simply saying, because someone has the rights or trademark, it automatically is whatever they want it to be.

In some instances perhaps, in others, perhaps not...but I don't think it's absolute or as clear cut that one can say instantly yes, or no.


PS: I should ALSO add...Arneson, as opposed to Gygax, seemed to accept 3e/3.5 completely and with open arms. The way he was going, he also accepted/would have accepted 4e with totally and completely open arms. For him both probably would qualify as D&D...Just to give a devils advocate to my own post.

PPS: You should also know, as Gygax heavily influenced me in my youth, though I was more of the wargamer camp back then as opposed the the new RPG camp he was creating...I DO lean more in favor of Gygax's realms of thoughts and his influences.

 

[fjw70]

Legal issues aside (I will let the lawyers argue that) the only reason to say something that bares the name D&D is not D&D is to be exclusionary. And for a bunch of geeks at the edge of society to try to exclude another group of geeks at the edge of society is really rather pathetic.

Personally I take an inclusive and broad view of what is D&D. To me D&D is a class of games that includes all edition of official D&D and similar games (retroclones, Pathfinder, 13th Age, DCC, etc.).

 

[TwoSix]

Personally I take an inclusive and broad view of what is D&D. To me D&D is a class of games that includes all edition of official D&D and similar games (retroclones, Pathfinder, 13th Age, DCC, etc.).

I agree with this. If you can be a level 1 Human Fighter, and roll a d20 to attack, it's D&D enough for me.

 

[am181d]

That's an interesting thought.

Who decides what is what.

Let's take Star Wars. If George Lucas decided that something was NOT Star Wars...would it still be Star Wars?

With him selling the company to Disney...if Disney's new movies came out and George Lucas said it definitely was not Star Wars...I think it would create a rift of people that would agree or not agree with him.

Let's take something else.

If JRR Tolkien was alive, and he saw half the items bearing Lord of the Rings Logos on them, and stated they were NOT LotR...and in fact...only his novels were official canon for LotR...what does that mean for the other items in regards to LotR canon. Does that mean the movie trilogy is no longer LotR canon...and only the novels are really LotR. (Actually, this is already an existent argument).

Here's one more pertinent perhaps. If the publishers of Harry Potter decided to start their own HP series and JK Rowling (I think that's the author's name) stated these new novels were in no way really H.P., despite having the same characters and such...is it officially H.P. or simply the company trying to rebrand it under their own name for profits.

Heres an even better one. A Spanish company decides to remake a game. They own the trademark to the name in Spain, but nowhere else, and have not received permission from the original creator or the original game makers to create the game. However they do have the trademark to heroquest...and are calling their creation Heroquest 25th anniversary. It has different rules, different items, and different quests. Is it actually Heroquest or something else.

Why is this pertinent.

Gygax was credited in 3e. However, after that, other than the acknowledgement, he was ostracized in ways from WotC. He did not truly aknowledge 3e as D&D overall except in deference to his being acknowledged by WotC...and in fact can be found to even state it was NOT D&D. His ideas were that it was not the same rules or same spirit. He was grateful for WotC aknowledgements from what I can tell, but at the same time would have desired D&D (what he defined it as) to have remained and continued instead. (And if he had problems considering 3e/3.5 D&D...I'm almost positive he would not have considered 4e D&D either).

So...if the original creator does NOT consider the creation what they created (aka, Rowling and HP, Tolkien and LotR, Heroquest, and Gygax), is it actually the same thing, or something different that the NEW rights owners have tried to make money off of by slapping a well known name on top of their own creation?

I'm not really taking a side in this post, but I think the analysis of what is or isn't something should take a deeper analysis rather than simply saying, because someone has the rights or trademark, it automatically is whatever they want it to be.

In some instances perhaps, in others, perhaps not...but I don't think it's absolute or as clear cut that one can say instantly yes, or no.


PS: I should ALSO add...Arneson, as opposed to Gygax, seemed to accept 3e/3.5 completely and with open arms. The way he was going, he also accepted/would have accepted 4e with totally and completely open arms. For him both probably would qualify as D&D...Just to give a devils advocate to my own post.

PPS: You should also know, as Gygax heavily influenced me in my youth, though I was more of the wargamer camp back then as opposed the the new RPG camp he was creating...I DO lean more in favor of Gygax's realms of thoughts and his influences.

No, it's entirely black and white. If creators sell the rights to their property, THEY DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO THEIR PROPERTY. The owner of the property decides what isn't and isn't official. Period.

In the case of the Spanish company "dubiously official in Spain" neatly summarizes the rights situation.

Let's be clear: when people say "That's not D&D!" or "That's not Star Wars!" they are not making a claim to the legal status of the property. They are making an emotional appeal, conveying the fact that the new iteration doesn't speak to what made them love the original. It's a METAPHOR. Which is fine. We like metaphors.

When they stubbornly insist the metaphor is FACT, then it becomes hard to communicate with them. And in those cases it is probably best to not.

 

[GreyLord]

No, it's entirely black and white. If creators sell the rights to their property, THEY DO NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO THEIR PROPERTY. The owner of the property decides what isn't and isn't official. Period.

In the case of the Spanish company "dubiously official in Spain" neatly summarizes the rights situation.

Let's be clear: when people say "That's not D&D!" or "That's not Star Wars!" they are not making a claim to the legal status of the property. They are making an emotional appeal, conveying the fact that the new iteration doesn't speak to what made them love the original. It's a METAPHOR. Which is fine. We like metaphors.

When they stubbornly insist the metaphor is FACT, then it becomes hard to communicate with them. And in those cases it is probably best to not.

Actually, if someone sells the rights, they DO NOT LOSE THE RIGHTS. Basically with rights, the copyright stays with the author as long as they live. They do NOT relinquish those rights.

They can sell the right to sell or publish. Depending on the contract, that is normally limited either by time or area (for example, I might get the rights to sell in the Americas and Europe, but I don't have it in Africa...so the rights are sold to someone else there or are not owned by anyone but the author). In some nations, even then, I cannot make changes without the author's consent.

D&D is an oddity. Most games these days still can accredite the author, just like books. D&D is a little of both.

Let's put it in an easier to understand situation. JRR Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings. Due to his copyright it always had to be attributed to him while he was alive. Now if he sold the right to it, they COULD HAVE taken his name off the books...and done all sorts of things. However, the copyright STILL is owned by JRR Tolkien, regardless of what they want to do with that. In the end, JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is WHAT HE WROTE.

There HAVE been other books called Lord of the Rings because he sold the rights, and under those rights they made games such as the Lord of the Rings Roleplaying game.

Does that mean that the RPG or other items are now the official Lord of the Rings and his is not? Or does it mean that they are something else created by others...and the original is STILL the REAL Lord of the Rings? Or does it mean that they both are Lord of the Rings?

Before you simply state that Tolkien's is the one and only Lord of the Rings...What about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings? That's a pretty historic movie trilogy these days. Many would say that the official and core is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. That's what it's all about and what created the entire thing. Hence he should be accredited, but it does not necessarily mean that Jackson's movies don't have an equal right to be called and considered under the same banner these days.

So, I would argue, it's not definitely black and white.

Take what happened with Gygax and Arneson. Gygax tried to continue the original game they made under two different lines. AD&D probably truly IS Gygax's creation, but based on a joint creation that he and Arneson did called Dungeons and Dragons. Gygax hence continued the Dungeons and Dragons line along a different path...and that was attributed for certain monetary items to Arneson. However, despite the attempts by multiple groups to extinguish Arneson's contribution, and eventually Gygax's contributions, they are still recognized as the creator's of D&D, and it will always be so.

So with Tolkien, his books are always considered the LotR, and basically above all other items in what is considered essentially, LotR. If everything else is not considered LotR, his books still will be. The umbrella can spread from there on what is considered as part of that legacy...but his books definitely are LotR despite what those who currently hold the rights to sell the books may or may not proclaim.

Things are not as clear cut as many may want it to be...and that applies to Dungeons and Dragons as well.

 

[Umbran]

Legal issues aside (I will let the lawyers argue that) the only reason to say something that bares the name D&D is not D&D is to be exclusionary. And for a bunch of geeks at the edge of society to try to exclude another group of geeks at the edge of society is really rather pathetic.

Humans, unfortunately, are wired to divide things into Us and Them.

Combine this with Sayre's Law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." While originally coined for politics in academia, it applies here as well, making our disputes over how to pretend to be elves heated indeed.

 

[Morrus]

Actually, if someone sells the rights, they DO NOT LOSE THE RIGHTS. Basically with rights, the copyright stays with the author as long as they live. They do NOT relinquish those rights.

They can sell the right to sell or publish. Depending on the contract, that is normally limited either by time or area (for example, I might get the rights to sell in the Americas and Europe, but I don't have it in Africa...so the rights are sold to someone else there or are not owned by anyone but the author). In some nations, even then, I cannot make changes without the author's consent.

They can sell whatever rights they want to whomever they want. They can most certainly lose the rights if they choose to sell them.

I think you're thinking about licenses. Selling a license is a different thing.

Things are not as clear cut as many may want it to be...and that applies to Dungeons and Dragons as well.

IP law's pretty clear on that. The main source of disputes is evidence that rights have/have not been sold.

 

[GreyLord]

They can sell whatever rights they want to whomever they want. They can most certainly lose the rights if they choose to sell them.

I think you're thinking about licenses. Selling a license is a different thing.



IP law's pretty clear on that. The main source of disputes is evidence that rights have/have not been sold.

Author never loses copyrights in most civilized nations. Period. These days it's normally at least until their death, and in many nations, long after they are dead.

Now the rights of sale (which is what most are referring to) ARE what you are referring to as rights. Those are not the same as copyright however. Depending on what is involved with those contracts, will determine exactly what rights go with that right of sale. For example, Tolkien did not sell the movie rights to the same folks who had the book rights. In addition, there were additional rights which allowed other authors to be attributed to if they wrote under those rights of sale.

However, Tolkien and his heirs still own the copyright, and as such, still own the LotR overall. Sure, they may not be able to do anything with them as the rights of sale are controlled by others, and to try to do something outside that contract would break contract and open them to lawsuits...but that does NOT invalidate their own copyrights of ownership.

Even AFTER the copyright or ownership has finally expired (and this lasts for different amounts of time depending on where, for example, copyright in Australia lasts less time than in the US), it can be odd to determine who or what is the official storyline.

I think one of the closer items to D&D one can look is Conan the Barbarian. REH's Conan was of a particular style and substance. However, the rights to that character were bought by another, and that other actually wrote their OWN books in regards to Conan. Later other authors wrote Conan stories (inclusive of Robert Jordan). So, the question then could come, which is actually Conan. Which is the official Conan.

Is ALL of it, including the stuff that directly contradicts the original creator's Conan? The movies seem more akin to the REH's Kull rather than his Conan in the character that is in them in some ways, and the storyline does not seem to correspond to REH's Conan at all. On the otherhand, it does correspond to some of the books written by others.

Who then, is Conan?

IS REH's Conan, the original and real Conan, the authoritative take on Conan. It was his creation and his character, thence, shouldn't his wishes and designs on what and who Conan should be, be the authoritave take.

Or should it be under someone who merely bought the rights after Howard's death...and then created their own stories considered the authoritative person to decide what and who Conan is, even if it flagrantly discards and in some cases despises the original author as some see the movies (starring the great Arnold of course) doing...be considered the official Conan?

Do you spit on the original author and say he was an idiot and you hate his Conan? Or do you respect his writings, as there would never have been a Conan to begin with otherwise, and say that whatever his take was is the authoritative take on Conan. The others are also other renditions, but the true and final one is Howards.

Or do you say, that was a Conan from a LONG time ago, and more modern writers and authors have come about. It was THEIR writings and publications which actually made Conan popular, and made him an icon. Hence since their version is the iconic form of Conan, (as Howards was basically lost in obscurity before the republished it with their own editings and then created their own version of Conan), Conan is truly their version and the one that should be considered the OFFICIAL Conan.

This is also the situation with D&D I think currently, at least with the fanbase that plays it in the majority now. Most of them know D&D from WotC's D&D, and not Gygax's...but Gygax and Arneson were the original creators.

In these cases, though you may think YOUR OPINION is the absolute and black and white, I don't think there is any clear cut black and white. I think that there will be those that will say...the official Conan is REH's...and all others are pale imitators that stole the name for profit...whilst others will say REH's Conan was lost...the REAL Conan that was made popular and that everyone knows is the one that is and should be the official one.

When you get into the same IP but with drastically different versions...there is no clear cut black and white in my opinion.