Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars

[roguerouge]

See the article here: Bryant

"An industrial rebellion is afoot in the role-playing game (RPG) scene. Traditionally, a tabletop RPG provides its players with a firm rules system within which they can construct their stories, but recent corporate changes to the fourth edition of the oldest and most popular system—Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)—have spawned a negative response so strong that players have actually begun to alter the game system against the wishes of its owners. Further, they have begun to publish these changes. In this essay, I will attempt to detail the development of this fan-created rebellion."

Comments on the paper?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The essay doesn't seem to be anything more than one of the standard edition war posts here. If the essay were an edition war post here, it wouldn't be one of the better ones I've seen.

P.S. I've seen much better anti-4E/anti-WotC arguments here and elsewhere

 

[jensun]

For an allegedly academic article it is lacking any form of referencing. It also makes a number of dubious assertions which are poorly supported.

 

[Cadfan]

What does she mean by saying that WotC tried to "recall" the OGL during the days of 3e?

I feel that her paper would be enhanced by a working knowledge of copyright law, so that she wouldn't treat relatively obvious, basic industry actions as revolutionary.

 

[AngryMojo]

I think the author assumes the anti-4e demographic is a much larger market share than it actually is. By the sound of the article, WotC has ruined the game, and nearly all the old gamers are rejecting the new edition. It also assumes that WotC demands you play the game in a certain way, and introducing your own elements and style to the game is against the rules or not allowed.

It's an opinion piece with a heavy bias, and not very much actual academic information. If the author included sales figures or a comparison of 3pp product releases and sales between 3e and 4e, I would be more likely to lend the argument more credibility. Overall, it can be summarized as an attempt to make edition complaints into an unbiased argument.

 

[malraux]

But [the OGL era] didn't last long. Perhaps threatened by the upsurge in competition, Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast attempted to recall the open license and revoke the rights of third-party publishers, and supporters of the open license were fired en masse.

8 years is a pretty long time for anything in the entertainment industry to last. There's also little evidence to back the claim. Saying that licensees were "fired" is both imprecise and hyperbolic, and trying to extend that to OGL supporters is very poor form.

I just kinda read at random, but man, that essay sucked. I mean really sucked.

[6.1] But if I am less literal in my search for comparisons, I think that mainstream fandom may already be waging its own radical war against corporate control. The emerging arguments of fair use and academic relevance (many in this very journal); the increasing social acceptance of fan fiction and music videos; the sea change at the networks to program for the Internet literate, to provide streaming episodes and Webisodes and online comics, and to encourage the existence of fandom, are all evidence that it is possible to fight for greater control over the way we receive and interact with our stories of choice.

[6.2] RPG fandom is not the only one waging an anticorporate war, even if it is the only one that got handed a large supply of open-sourced bullets.

Lolwut? I assume this isn't a serious journal in any way right?

 

[AngryMojo]

What does she mean by saying that WotC tried to "recall" the OGL during the days of 3e?

About halfway through the production, WotC revised the OGL, stating that in order to have the d20 logo you had to hold the product to certain decency standards. I believe this was in response to Gwendolyn Kestrel's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I could be mistaken. There was a big debate at the time about WotC not following their own rules. At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.

 

[AngryMojo]

Lolwut? I assume this isn't a serious journal in any way right?

Whenever I hear someone ranting or arguing about corporate evils, the Billy Joel song "Angry Young Man" starts running through my head. Funny how that happens.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

About halfway through the production, WotC revised the OGL, stating that in order to have the d20 logo you had to hold the product to certain decency standards. I believe this was in response to Gwendolyn Kestrel's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I could be mistaken. There was a big debate at the time about WotC not following their own rules. At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.

No it didn't, it revised the d20 STL, which is a different license altogether from the OGL.

 

[Doug McCrae]

At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.

Nice! But you can get those in the 3e Monster Manual.