Dungeonosophy
Legend
I'll helpfully model a suggested course of action for Chris Cocks, and a statement thereby:
As CEO of Hasbro, I apologize. Under my leadership, Hasbro's ignorant and greedy actions—and our skewed words—harmed the D&D culture, creating a wave of D&D refugees.
Our actions were not trustworthy, because, at the C-level of leadership (including myself), we did not understand, at the gut level, what the D&D tabletop pencil & paper RPG truly is.
We didn't realize that D&D is primarily a cultural ecosystem. Moreso than a business. What we viewed to be "competitors" were actually beloved co-creators in this living ecosystem. Our ignorant actions in regard to the OGL would have destroyed or lamed those co-creators, large and small. We were greedy, and we killed the golden goose.
Basically, we agree with Christian Lindke's assessment: D&D Wasn't "Under Monetized," but Belief that it was Probably Hurt the Brand
Our actions disenchanted the D&D culture. Folks rightfully feel ashamed of the D&D brand now. You cannot and ought not trust us or any large corporation to steward the game. And so, we are letting go of the game.
This is what we're aiming to do, in order to make space for the goose…the D&D culture..the D&D identity…the D&D lifestyle…to be re-enchanted…to come back to life.
We are differentiating the assets of D&D into two entities.
1) The D&D TTRPG Studio, which will be divested from Hasbro. This entity will own the D&D tabletop pencil & paper RPG. We are looking at a number of models for how this entity would be divested and embodied.
2) D&D Media Properties, a division of Hasbro. D&D Media Properties will retain the exclusive rights to produce and sub-license D&D-branded films, virtual tabletops, computer games, and lifestyle merchandise. These kind of endeavors are where a large corporation can shine—we can make cool stuff.
As for how the D&D TTRPG Studio will be divested. We would like your feedback. And we will also be talking closely with the larger creators and stakeholders in the TTRPG community. These are the models we're considering:
1) The B-Corp model: Divesting and incorporating the D&D RPG Studio as a B-Corp, headed by the existing creative team. Here are some draft ideas of what we'd be aiming for: Though distinct corporations, there would be a perpetual, irrevocable, and mutual right to use each others' creations within their own field of work. For example, the D&D TTRPG Studio would be forever free to use our Hasbro D&D films and television shows to produce RPG content off of that IP. And likewise, Hasbro would remain forever free to make D&D films, VTTs, computer games, and merch using all D&D Studio creations.
The mutual supportiveness of this relationship would be ensured by a perpetual and irrevocable royalty scheme, whereby both entities give, say, 10% of their revenues to the other. The royalty amount (income-sharing) would of an equal percentage both ways.
Both entities would retain a right to produce and sub-license D&D-branded novels and short fiction, Endless Quest gamebooks, miniatures…and pantomimes. There could even be friendly "competition" between the two entities in this regard.
These provisions could also apply to options #2, #3, or #4 below.
2) The Patagonia model. A B-Corp, but with the ownership divvied into two entities: 1) a D&D Purpose Trust, and 2) a D&D Charity Collective. However, who would make up and manage these two entities is as yet unclear, since unlike WOTC's D&D Game Studio, Patagonia was, and still is, stewarded by a single family.
3) The Non-Profit model. Transferring the D&D Game Studio (and ownership of the RPG itself) to a Non-Profit Organization.
4) Selling the D&D RPG Studio to an existing TTRPG company with a better track record of devotion to the pencil & paper tabletop RPG culture, such as Paizo or Kobold Press.
5) Closing Hasbro's D&D RPG Studio, and instead gifting the D&D TTRPG brand to all 3PPs and the wider community—in regard to RPG production only. This option would involve releasing not only the SRD, but also the D&D brand itself into some sort of commons license. We would seek out an existing license which enables us to let go of all rights within a certain medium only: namely, TTRPG production (paper, PDF, and other closely associated mediums). We would also revise our own D&D Trademark so that it does not apply to RPG products. In this option, there would be no single "successor" corporation which holds the D&D TTRPG; rather, any and all companies (such as Paizo and Kobold Press, and you yourself) would be free to brand themselves as "Dungeons & Dragons." The crème would rise to the top. Hasbro would continue to benefit from this creative ferment, by creating films, computer programs, and lifestyle merch with the D&D brand, for which we would retain exclusive ownership in those fields of production. This option would possibly involve either mothballing One D&D, or selling off the One D&D progress so far to another company. We would also wish to facilitate the transition of the design team to other workplaces.
Which of these five options do you prefer and why? Do you have an even better idea?
We are seeking a future where:
1) The shame we marked on the D&D brand is healed.
2) You go see our D&D movies and television shows, and buy some of our cool D&D merch.
3) You let us off of your lifetime boycott.
We have further announcements to come. But please let us know your ideas about how to divest the D&D tabletop RPG. And, like we said, we're having direct dicussions with larger D&D/OGL creators as well. Thank you!
—Chris Cocks
[End of modeled statement]
As CEO of Hasbro, I apologize. Under my leadership, Hasbro's ignorant and greedy actions—and our skewed words—harmed the D&D culture, creating a wave of D&D refugees.
Our actions were not trustworthy, because, at the C-level of leadership (including myself), we did not understand, at the gut level, what the D&D tabletop pencil & paper RPG truly is.
We didn't realize that D&D is primarily a cultural ecosystem. Moreso than a business. What we viewed to be "competitors" were actually beloved co-creators in this living ecosystem. Our ignorant actions in regard to the OGL would have destroyed or lamed those co-creators, large and small. We were greedy, and we killed the golden goose.
Basically, we agree with Christian Lindke's assessment: D&D Wasn't "Under Monetized," but Belief that it was Probably Hurt the Brand
Our actions disenchanted the D&D culture. Folks rightfully feel ashamed of the D&D brand now. You cannot and ought not trust us or any large corporation to steward the game. And so, we are letting go of the game.
This is what we're aiming to do, in order to make space for the goose…the D&D culture..the D&D identity…the D&D lifestyle…to be re-enchanted…to come back to life.
We are differentiating the assets of D&D into two entities.
1) The D&D TTRPG Studio, which will be divested from Hasbro. This entity will own the D&D tabletop pencil & paper RPG. We are looking at a number of models for how this entity would be divested and embodied.
2) D&D Media Properties, a division of Hasbro. D&D Media Properties will retain the exclusive rights to produce and sub-license D&D-branded films, virtual tabletops, computer games, and lifestyle merchandise. These kind of endeavors are where a large corporation can shine—we can make cool stuff.
As for how the D&D TTRPG Studio will be divested. We would like your feedback. And we will also be talking closely with the larger creators and stakeholders in the TTRPG community. These are the models we're considering:
1) The B-Corp model: Divesting and incorporating the D&D RPG Studio as a B-Corp, headed by the existing creative team. Here are some draft ideas of what we'd be aiming for: Though distinct corporations, there would be a perpetual, irrevocable, and mutual right to use each others' creations within their own field of work. For example, the D&D TTRPG Studio would be forever free to use our Hasbro D&D films and television shows to produce RPG content off of that IP. And likewise, Hasbro would remain forever free to make D&D films, VTTs, computer games, and merch using all D&D Studio creations.
The mutual supportiveness of this relationship would be ensured by a perpetual and irrevocable royalty scheme, whereby both entities give, say, 10% of their revenues to the other. The royalty amount (income-sharing) would of an equal percentage both ways.
Both entities would retain a right to produce and sub-license D&D-branded novels and short fiction, Endless Quest gamebooks, miniatures…and pantomimes. There could even be friendly "competition" between the two entities in this regard.
These provisions could also apply to options #2, #3, or #4 below.
2) The Patagonia model. A B-Corp, but with the ownership divvied into two entities: 1) a D&D Purpose Trust, and 2) a D&D Charity Collective. However, who would make up and manage these two entities is as yet unclear, since unlike WOTC's D&D Game Studio, Patagonia was, and still is, stewarded by a single family.
3) The Non-Profit model. Transferring the D&D Game Studio (and ownership of the RPG itself) to a Non-Profit Organization.
4) Selling the D&D RPG Studio to an existing TTRPG company with a better track record of devotion to the pencil & paper tabletop RPG culture, such as Paizo or Kobold Press.
5) Closing Hasbro's D&D RPG Studio, and instead gifting the D&D TTRPG brand to all 3PPs and the wider community—in regard to RPG production only. This option would involve releasing not only the SRD, but also the D&D brand itself into some sort of commons license. We would seek out an existing license which enables us to let go of all rights within a certain medium only: namely, TTRPG production (paper, PDF, and other closely associated mediums). We would also revise our own D&D Trademark so that it does not apply to RPG products. In this option, there would be no single "successor" corporation which holds the D&D TTRPG; rather, any and all companies (such as Paizo and Kobold Press, and you yourself) would be free to brand themselves as "Dungeons & Dragons." The crème would rise to the top. Hasbro would continue to benefit from this creative ferment, by creating films, computer programs, and lifestyle merch with the D&D brand, for which we would retain exclusive ownership in those fields of production. This option would possibly involve either mothballing One D&D, or selling off the One D&D progress so far to another company. We would also wish to facilitate the transition of the design team to other workplaces.
Which of these five options do you prefer and why? Do you have an even better idea?
We are seeking a future where:
1) The shame we marked on the D&D brand is healed.
2) You go see our D&D movies and television shows, and buy some of our cool D&D merch.
3) You let us off of your lifetime boycott.
We have further announcements to come. But please let us know your ideas about how to divest the D&D tabletop RPG. And, like we said, we're having direct dicussions with larger D&D/OGL creators as well. Thank you!
—Chris Cocks
[End of modeled statement]
Last edited:
