D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[Aldarc]

The MCDM RPG, Shadow of the Weird Wizard and Shadowdark are all within the same genre as D&D, and you could even categorize them as "fantasy heartbreakers" (games like D&D, but different). But they cater to different playstyles and tones. They are different games.

Does @SlyFlourish have to list every non D&D 5E game for some reason? There are a LOT of RPG games out there doing very well, some of them are "D&D-adjacent", some of them are not. They don't do anywhere near the sales and player base that D&D has, of course, but that isn't a requirement for a successful RPG. To know this, you just have to be paying attention to the ENWorld news page.

The World of Darkness RPGs are seeing a resurgence. Savage Worlds is doing well. Heck, GURPS is still putting out new material. Monte Cook's Cypher System games are doing well. This is a great time to be an RPG fan, especially if you are willing to step away from D&D. Heck, this is a great time to be a D&D fan, as there is so much content for the current game.

I never had such an unreasonable expectation that SlyFlourish had to list every successful non-D&D RPG. However, I do think that his initial choice of examples were probably not the best for the point that he wanted to make to the person he was responding to, as I suspect that those particular examples could be seen to confirm rather than refute that person's point. That's all.

 

[Umbran]

I agree 100% and not all the word I would have chosen to describe this situation. You'll note that the only reason the word 'unfair' appears in my post is that I was responding to a direct statement from another poster who specifically used that word in their post.

Okay. It is not clear to me how we are supposed to have known that, but I'll accept it now.

Aren't we saying the same thing then?

I find the connotations of your words to be wholly different from what I am saying.

There is a world of difference between, "I am not paying attention," and "I am aware of what you are doing, but allowing you to go ahead without interference." One implies lack of awareness, the other does not.

Well, yes. Again, I think we're saying the same thing. Whether the OGL and its ramifications slipped under the radar

Again, I am pushing back on the "slipped" part, and its connotations. We don't see the details, but there's no particular reason to assume this "slipped". That a company tries to change its approach years later does not imply the original approach was somehow a process failure.

The OGL came out a quarter century ago, and companies are not static or unified in outlook. So, the OGL may have been acceptable in 2000. But, 8 years later when 4e came out, there was a different decision made, possibly by a different person. Then, in 2014 when 5e came out, again a different decision. Then, last year, a decision to try to shift again, quickly followed by a retraction, and the Creative Commons release.

Each of these decisions may have been made by different people, with different information (or lack thereof) and different goals in mind. There is a tendency to speak of Hasbro as if it were monolithic beast with a unified will, but in reality we should not think of Hasbro/WotC as a unit when it comes to their decision making.

And I'll repeat for the nth time, the OGL was actually a good thing in my opinion, both for the 3rd party community and WotC/Hasbro. It was short-sighted of Hasbro not to see it that way.

In general, I agree with you. But, the characteristics of the events during that fiasco suggest to me that it was not "Hasbro" as a whole, who saw it one way or another. Those events had some signs of internal struggle over how the licensing should be handled.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Okay. It is not clear to me how we are supposed to have known that, but I'll accept it now.



I find the connotations of your words to be wholly different from what I am saying.

There is a world of difference between, "I am not paying attention," and "I am aware of what you are doing, but allowing you to go ahead without interference." One implies lack of awareness, the other does not.



Again, I am pushing back on the "slipped" part, and its connotations. We don't see the details, but there's no particular reason to assume this "slipped". That a company tries to change its approach years later does not imply the original approach was somehow a process failure.

The OGL came out a quarter century ago, and companies are not static or unified in outlook. So, the OGL may have been acceptable in 2000. But, 8 years later when 4e came out, there was a different decision made, possibly by a different person. Then, in 2014 when 5e came out, again a different decision. Then, last year, a decision to try to shift again, quickly followed by a retraction, and the Creative Commons release.

Each of these decisions may have been made by different people, with different information (or lack thereof) and different goals in mind. There is a tendency to speak of Hasbro as if it were monolithic beast with a unified will, but in reality we should not think of Hasbro/WotC as a unit when it comes to their decision making.



In general, I agree with you. But, the characteristics of the events during that fiasco suggest to me that it was not "Hasbro" as a whole, who saw it one way or another. Those events had some signs of internal struggle over how the licensing should be handled.

Fair enough...

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I was in the middle of a large scale 'work thing' so didn't give a proper response to this. I'm sure this topic is out of the zeitgeist at this point, but my last response didn't match the effort that was put into the post it responded to (or 'to which it responded' for those who care about grammar in internet posts).

Okay. It is not clear to me how we are supposed to have known that, but I'll accept it now.

That's cool.

I find the connotations of your words to be wholly different from what I am saying.

There is a world of difference between, "I am not paying attention," and "I am aware of what you are doing, but allowing you to go ahead without interference." One implies lack of awareness, the other does not.

Yes. I don't know what happened exactly, clearly. I just picked one of the possibilities. But that's beside the point. One of the positions I was taking earlier in this thread was that before one takes a stand, particularly a strong stand, one should make an attempt to understand what it is one is railing against.

When something happens in the world that is alarming to you, it's super easy to demonise the 'opposition'. It's easy because what the opposition has done is scary to you, or otherwise hits you in the feels. You have a primal reaction. That's human nature.

The problem with that easy path primal reaction is that it doesn't generally lead to good solutions.

So, as hard as it is, it behooves you (the general you), as a person, and benefits society at large, to separate the primal reaction to a problem from actually understanding and dealing with the problem.

Part of that separation is to not assume evil in your 'opponent'. The person or people who have made the decision you are in disagreement with are human beings. Some human beings are altruistic. Most are not horrible, but when push comes to shove, will look out for themselves. Very, very few are truly evil. The problem with a lot of these types of discussions is that those in disagreement immediately default to 'those who disagreed with me are the devil incarnate'. That's the easy path, and helps no one. Maybe you get a few echo chamber type likes, but what greater good have you achieved?

I know you know this, but I'm making my point clear for other potential readers of this post.

Again, I am pushing back on the "slipped" part, and its connotations. We don't see the details, but there's no particular reason to assume this "slipped". That a company tries to change its approach years later does not imply the original approach was somehow a process failure.

That's true. I personally don't think it was a process failure (I've mentioned that several times in this thread).

The OGL came out a quarter century ago, and companies are not static or unified in outlook. So, the OGL may have been acceptable in 2000. But, 8 years later when 4e came out, there was a different decision made, possibly by a different person. Then, in 2014 when 5e came out, again a different decision. Then, last year, a decision to try to shift again, quickly followed by a retraction, and the Creative Commons release.

Each of these decisions may have been made by different people, with different information (or lack thereof) and different goals in mind. There is a tendency to speak of Hasbro as if it were monolithic beast with a unified will, but in reality we should not think of Hasbro/WotC as a unit when it comes to their decision making.

In general, I agree with you. But, the characteristics of the events during that fiasco suggest to me that it was not "Hasbro" as a whole, who saw it one way or another. Those events had some signs of internal struggle over how the licensing should be handled.

Absolutely. I don't know if that was the case. It probably was. If it was, I have no idea who the participants were. All I know about is 'Hasbro' and how 'Hasbro' responded.

 

[mamba]

Yes. I don't know what happened exactly, clearly. I just picked one of the possibilities.

as far as I am concerned you picked something impossible, to excuse WotC’s behavior

Claiming they just were not aware until recently ignores that they dropped the OGL with 4e (without revoking it, since they cannot…) and brought it back with 5e. So this was not just a case of belatedly becoming aware of its existence in 2021

But that's beside the point. One of the positions I was taking earlier in this thread was that before one takes a stand, particularly a strong stand, one should make an attempt to understand what it is one is railing against.

I agree with this. I feel like you believe that everyone who does not share your opinion has not done so however.

I have looked at this, and drawn my conclusions from what I’ve learned about it.

When something happens in the world that is alarming to you, it's super easy to demonise the 'opposition'. It's easy because what the opposition has done is scary to you, or otherwise hits you in the feels. You have a primal reaction. That's human nature.

The problem with that easy path primal reaction is that it doesn't generally lead to good solutions.

So, as hard as it is, it behooves you (the general you), as a person, and benefits society at large, to separate the primal reaction to a problem from actually understanding and dealing with the problem.

that cuts both ways, I am not the one excusing WotC’s behavior with a narrative that does not hold up to reality

Do I consider WotC evil? No. They were paranoid, did not consider the impact of their actions on 3pps, and attempted to revoke a perpetual license through bullying because they had no realistic legal means to do so, but there were also different camps within WotC and they entered negotiations when the 3pps told them just how godawful a new license they had concocted.

Still, I believe it would have wiped out a lot of 3pps, unless this had gone to court (and probably even then, because many cannot afford to wait that long).

Even with better terms, the trust would have been destroyed, and why would I enter a new agreement with WotC that they could again revoke at any time for any irrational reason, just because they are too big for me to fight back.

So they get some credit for releasing the SRD under CC, but as far as I am concerned I am keeping an eye on them and want to see a new CC SRD before I believe that they learned from this

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I love the franchise but I don't trust the CEOs. In my opinion if they had to save money, then they should sacrifice the CEO's bonus instead the lay off.

Somebody believes to be the smartest one, but his tricks fail because he underestimated the target's reaction. They are very cunning and creative at deceiving, but without empathy to truly understand the thoughts of others.

Sun Tzu said "know your enemy and know yourself". These did all the opposite, and then their strategy was not realistic, but an epic fail. They shouldn't have typecasted us into certain stereotypes. We aren't so easy to be tricked.

The damage has already been done, and it will take time to regain customer trust.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

as far as I am concerned you picked something impossible, to excuse WotC’s behavior

?

Claiming they just were not aware until recently ignores that they dropped the OGL with 4e (without revoking it, since they cannot…) and brought it back with 5e. So this was not just a case of belatedly becoming aware of its existence in 2021

I didn't claim anything. Are you sure you understood my post?

I agree with this. I feel like you believe that everyone who does not share your opinion has not done so however.

No, they haven't! Frankly, I don't think you have. You are literally doing the thing I was talking about in the post you responded to.

that cuts both ways, I am not the one excusing WotC’s behavior with a narrative that does not hold up to reality

I haven't excused anything. Again, are you sure you've understood what I've posted?

Do I consider WotC evil? No. They were paranoid, did not consider the impact of their actions on 3pps, and attempted to revoke a perpetual license through bullying because they had no realistic legal means to do so, but there were also different camps within WotC and they entered negotiations when the 3pps told them just how godawful a new license they had concocted.

For sure.

Still, I believe it would have wiped out a lot of 3pps, unless this had gone to court (and probably even then, because many cannot afford to wait that long).

It might have. But it isn't Hasbro's responsibility to keep afloat businesses whose primary reason for existence is the presence of one of their product lines. It might make a business sense for Hasbro to do so (and I think that it does), but it isn't their responsibility. It would be altruistic of them to do so, at the (perceived by them) cost to themselves. It's fantastic when people behave altruistically. Believe it or not, in my daily life, I go well out of my way to do so. It makes the world go round. But to expect that to happen as a matter of fact, and to start a business and take responsibility for the livelihoods of others, and hang your hat on the expected altruism of others... you have done wrong by the employees of your business.

Did streaming services have a responsibility to keep video rental chains in business? How about the horse and buggy industry? Should Ford, etc. have kept that alive as well? At some point, the business operator who owns a business that isn't required anymore or has otherwise fallen out of favour needs to take ownership and move in a direction that protects their employees and their business.

Don't attribute to malice an action that is beneficial to others but doesn't happen to benefit you. They might be protecting their interests or the interests of those under their care (but probably the former).

Even with better terms, the trust would have been destroyed, and why would I enter a new agreement with WotC that they could again revoke at any time for any irrational reason, just because they are too big for me to fight back.

Now you have made a pragmatic and practical decision, right on.

So they get some credit for releasing the SRD under CC, but as far as I am concerned I am keeping an eye on them and want to see a new CC SRD before I believe that they learned from this

I would too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

?

I didn't claim anything. Are you sure you understood my post?

No, they haven't! Frankly, I don't think you have. You are literally doing the thing I was talking about in the post you responded to.

I haven't excused anything. Again, are you sure you've understood what I've posted?

For sure.

It might have. But it isn't Hasbro's responsibility to keep afloat businesses whose primary reason for existence is the presence of one of their product lines. It might make a business sense for Hasbro to do so (and I think that it does), but it isn't their responsibility. It would be altruistic of them to do so, at the (perceived by them) cost to themselves. It's fantastic when people behave altruistically. Believe it or not, in my daily life, I go well out of my way to do so. It makes the world go round. But to expect that to happen as a matter of fact, and to start a business and take responsibility for the livelihoods of others, and hang your hat on the expected altruism of others... you have done wrong by the employees of your business.

Did streaming services have a responsibility to keep video rental chains in business? How about the horse and buggy industry? Should Ford, etc. have kept that alive as well? At some point, the business operator who owns a business that isn't required anymore or has otherwise fallen out of favour needs to take ownership and move in a direction that protects their employees and their business.

Don't attribute to malice an action that is beneficial to others but doesn't happen to benefit you. They might be protecting their interests or the interests of those under their care (but probably the former).

Now you have made a pragmatic and practical decision, right on.

I would too.

So your argument is that no one should have made 3pp based on the SRD, because it's irresponsible as a business owner to base your business on a license from a third party they could try to wiggle out of at any time, despite all the information in place against that? Paizo, for example, should never have existed?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

So your argument is that no one should have made 3pp based on the SRD, because it's irresponsible as a business owner to base your business on a license from a third party they could try to wiggle out of at any time, despite all the information in place against that? Paizo, for example, should never have existed?

Well, no it isn't.

The argument is to be prepared. All businesses, to some degree are dependent on other businesses. If you start a business, be aware of those dependencies and have a plan if something happens to those dependencies.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, no it isn't.

The argument is to be prepared. All businesses, to some degree are dependent on other businesses. If you start a business, be aware of those dependencies and have a plan if something happens to those dependencies.

What plan could account for the OGL debacle? Specifically, what should 3pps have done?