D&D 5E Any word on the gaming license for Next?

[DLIMedia]

For those that know me, you know I've had my run ins with WotC and Hasbro, and have been handed a "cease and desist" once already. I'm arguably very familiar with the legal aspects of licensing, and not in a good way mind you.

Just to reiterate what's been said: the developers, the people that are actively creating the game, have virtually ZERO to do with how the game is licensed. Not only that, they aren't even allowed to speculate as to how it might be licensed. Those decisions fall upon the "branding" group (who decide how it is to be licensed) and the legal team (who enforce it).

Also, I have to point out that - at least in my case - the legal team I dealt with wasn't in Seattle; they're in New York. Any questions I had were sent there and then relayed to Seattle, so it took a while to get any answers. That's why I have the emphasize that the development team seems to have very little input in the licensing; as far as I can tell, they barely interact with the legal team in the first place.

I got a C&D for Gamma World content. As far as I know, every one of the designers I spoke to at WotC was pleased with what I did and eager to keep GW going, but the legal team allowed nothing of the sort.

-=O=-

I've asked countless times how the licensing is going to work and have not gotten a response, or at least nothing more than "we don't know yet". My theory:

1) WotC/Hasbro will either keep the license to themselves or pick one or two developers to grant a license to prior to release of the core product. That makes financial sense; when the core product comes out, people will want support materials. If they create and control everything that exists, you have no choice but to give them more money. If they license it prior to release, they lose a significant market share they would need to recoup the losses they suffered due to the decrease in 4th Edition sales.

2) The designers have acknowledged the flaws with the 4E GSL, but what they think doesn't matter (see above). I imagine the end result would be some sort of middle ground between the GSL and the OGL, but if it's nearer to any one of the two it will probably be to the GSL.

3) I'm hoping that whatever license they choose they maintain at the same level that Paizo maintains theirs. Paizo updates their license the DAY they release a product, unlike the 4E GSL which hasn't changed in over four years.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I will say that I think Paizo loves their customers, and if those customers wanted 5e support I don't think Paizo would be crazy to do it. PROVIDED they could play ball without WotC being able to pull the plug.

If wotc's design team does their job right, then converting stuff from 3e to 5e should be a snap. In that case, I don't think it will matter one way or the other whether Paizo offers official support, since any guy with a few free hours and a blog space could do the job for them.

The thing that really interests me (to go off on a tangent) is how Paizo will respond to wotc's inevitable deluge of settings. Golarion is fine for what it is, but I've played in it a lot and I don't think it holds a candle to the combined weight of the entire D&D setting IP. Vic has described Golarion as "the most valuable thing that Paizo owns"; how will he and Lisa respond to wotc's dilution of the market? New settings of their own? New product lines? Sit tight and trust to the strength of their brand?

Just to reiterate what's been said: the developers, the people that are actively creating the game, have virtually ZERO to do with how the game is licensed. Not only that, they aren't even allowed to speculate as to how it might be licensed. Those decisions fall upon the "branding" group (who decide how it is to be licensed) and the legal team (who enforce it).

Also, I have to point out that - at least in my case - the legal team I dealt with wasn't in Seattle; they're in New York. Any questions I had were sent there and then relayed to Seattle, so it took a while to get any answers. That's why I have the emphasize that the development team seems to have very little input in the licensing; as far as I can tell, they barely interact with the legal team in the first place.

I got a C&D for Gamma World content. As far as I know, every one of the designers I spoke to at WotC was pleased with what I did and eager to keep GW going, but the legal team allowed nothing of the sort.

Do you know whether Mearls (or Slavicsek, depending on the date of your interactions) are part of the branding group? Do they have oversight over either the legal group or the branding group?

I have no doubt that the designers have no influence over these matters, but it's my understanding that the director of r&d reports directly to the CEO.

 

[Perram]

Paizo has already said that they do not want to divide the market with multiple settings.

That if they did, they would have to do it right with the same full range of support that they give Golarion, and that would be a difficult thing to justify.

And that having too many settings was one of the problems with D&D when Wizards bought them.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Paizo has already said that they do not want to divide the market with multiple settings.

That if they did, they would have to do it right with the same full range of support that they give Golarion, and that would be a difficult thing to justify.

I know: that's why the question of what they will do interests me! I suspect that Golarion has benefited from a tremendous windfall in the form of the Spellplague, and from the general unsuitability of 4E settings for non-4E games. How (or whether) they will change things when this windfall gets taken away is an interesting question. (Or so I think.)

Probably a topic for a different thread, though.

EDIT: BTW, I really dig your podcast. Thanks for putting it out there!

 

[darjr]

I think an ogl 5e is very important regardless of the quality of the game.

 

[DLIMedia]

Do you know whether Mearls (or Slavicsek, depending on the date of your interactions) are part of the branding group? Do they have oversight over either the legal group or the branding group?

I have no doubt that the designers have no influence over these matters, but it's my understanding that the director of r&d reports directly to the CEO.

As far as I know, no they're not part of the branding group. Mike Mearls may the only that has some authority in that sense, but quite honestly I imagine Ed Greenwood and R. A. Salvatore probably have more influence in the branding group than Mearls does; Greenwood and Salvatore create the actual living world, while Mearls and his group don't do much more than create the mechanics that make it work.

And I admit I do not know the official chain of command within Hasbro/WotC. I only dealt with lawyers.

 

[dd.stevenson]

As far as I know, no they're not part of the branding group. Mike Mearls may the only that has some authority in that sense, but quite honestly I imagine Ed Greenwood and R. A. Salvatore probably have more influence in the branding group than Mearls does; Greenwood and Salvatore create the actual living world, while Mearls and his group don't do much more than create the mechanics that make it work.

And I admit I do not know the official chain of command within Hasbro/WotC. I only dealt with lawyers.

Understood.

Allowing that Mearls inherited the full responsibilities of the R&D Director's position, it looks like he has considerable control over D&D branding. Here's how Slavicsek describes his responsibilities at WotC:

[h=3]R&D Director, Dungeons & Dragons Games and Novels[/h][h=4]Wizards of the Coast[/h]
Public Company; 201-500 employees; Entertainment industry
1997 – 2011 (14 years)
Directed the creative teams that produced DUNGEONS & DRAGONS roleplaying games, novels, and board games, including game designers, game developers, and game and novel editors. Created annual product line plans for games and novels, included number of titles, creative direction, and release schedules. Formulated strategic direction for the D&D brand and led the creative strategy for all aspects of D&D, including various campaign settings such as Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, and Dragonlance. Directed the creative approval of licensed products including IDW Comics, various Interplay and Atari computer games such as Baldur’s Gate and D&D Online: Stormreach, and the STAR WARS line of roleplaying games and miniatures. Developed trans-media storylines used by analog and digital products, marketing, and licensed partners.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
Do you know whether Mearls (or Slavicsek, depending on the date of your interactions) are part of the branding group? Do they have oversight over either the legal group or the branding group?

I have no doubt that the designers have no influence over these matters, but it's my understanding that the director of r&d reports directly to the CEO.

I'm not the one you asked, but I'll say this:
Last I looked (some months ago), the brand director for D&D was Laura Tomervik. (This may have changed over the past year or so, as more activities involving online play have had to be included.) The brand group also famously includes the author Shelly Mazzanoble.

As far as I know, that (brand) group is not under R&D, nor over them; instead, they're parallel.

And if the legal dept. is located in New York, that's another completely separate department. Mearls couldn't supervise any of that long-distance, right? I would guess that he doesn't.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I'm not the one you asked, but I'll say this:
Last I looked (some months ago), the brand director for D&D was Laura Tomervik. (This may have changed over the past year or so, as more activities involving online play have had to be included.) The brand group also famously includes the author Shelly Mazzanoble.

As far as I know, that (brand) group is not under R&D, nor over them; instead, they're parallel.

And if the legal dept. is located in New York, that's another completely separate department. Mearls couldn't supervise any of that long-distance, right? I would guess that he doesn't.

(Bolded by me) Actually Laura appears to be the Brand Manager. (IME, directors manage managers.)

Furthermore, if Slavicsek is being forthright when he says he "Formulated strategic direction for the D&D brand", then the brand group reported to him (as opposed to another director or VP).

I'm not suggesting that Mearls would have supervisory authority over the legal department; but as director he plausibly has oversight (or at the very least, input) over their work pertaining to D&D.

 

[Iosue]

Allowing that Mearls inherited the full responsibilities of the R&D Director's position, it looks like he has considerable control over D&D branding. Here's how Slavicsek describes his responsibilities at WotC:

Mearls always introduces himself as Senior Manager of R&D, so I don't know if his position completely tracks with Slavicsek's.

If I was a Hasbro executive this is how I would look at it.
Speculation 1. What if 3e wasn't OGL? - We lose gamers into the dispora during the edition change. This is probably made up by the interest in a new edition, and changes in the rules. Likewise, with 4e, we lose gamers on the change, and pick up some new ones. The market for 3.x material becomes basically like TSR-era material. Some underground activity, but no major competitors.

Speculation 2. What if 4e was OGL? - Because 4e is significantly changed from 3.x, it being OGL itself does not prevent dissatisfied people from moving over to Pathfinder. Further, if 4e is OGL, it faces a repeat if it wants to make significant changes in 5e. If no editions are OGL the hard-core loyalists remain with their old rulebooks and take themselves out of the larger market, and new players start with the current edition because it's the only one supported. OGL editions allow competitors to swoop in and revitalize those markets, potentially pulling new customers away from WotC.

I'm not sure that the open source paradigm translates so well to RPGs. I like it as a philosophy, and it can be monetized. But just in terms of financial strength of a company, monopolization as much as possible seems to be the better strategy.