Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9062354" data-attributes="member: 7035894">I generally enjoy extra credits and there is good stuff here. The video is marred by starting with a thesis (the success of D&amp;D is directly related to how how the game is to 3PP) and cherrypicking (or occasionally misrepresenting) facts in order to support that thesis. Was the crash of TSR in 1983 predicated by them being overly litigious with 3PP? Not remotely; that happened because Gygax and the Blumes were terrible at managing a large company and budgeted based on horribly optimistic growth projections. Was the implosion of TSR in the 90s caused by TSR being too litigious? Again, no, it was caused by publishing strategies that favoured short term cash infusions over long term stability, leading to massive debt. 4e, again, primarily did worse than expected due to taking the game in a very controversial direction that divided the fan base and opened the door to Pathfinder: here you could make a case that part of the challenge was caused by the existence of the OGL. And the 2023 thing was, IMO, too short-lived and recent to know what the fallout will be.The video does briefly allude to these other factors, but swiftly disposes of them to stay focused on its central argument, which is a pretty simplistic claim that the success and failure of D&amp;D is mostly related to how open it is to 3PP. The relationship of D&amp;D to 3PP is a fascinating part of the game's history, but there is no simple cause/effect relationship; it's part of a much more complicated story.Oh, and neither Gygax nor Arneson came up with the idea of playing war-games focused on the individual soldier. In fact, Arneson was scarce mentioned at all in this video; I would argue that TSR's legal battle with Arneson has been as consequential to the game as its relationship to 3PP, because that lawsuit is what created the &quot;edition=new game&quot; paradigm that D&amp;D is dealing with to this day (see OneD&amp;D).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9062354, member: 7035894"] I generally enjoy extra credits and there is good stuff here. The video is marred by starting with a thesis (the success of D&D is directly related to how how the game is to 3PP) and cherrypicking (or occasionally misrepresenting) facts in order to support that thesis. Was the crash of TSR in 1983 predicated by them being overly litigious with 3PP? Not remotely; that happened because Gygax and the Blumes were terrible at managing a large company and budgeted based on horribly optimistic growth projections. Was the implosion of TSR in the 90s caused by TSR being too litigious? Again, no, it was caused by publishing strategies that favoured short term cash infusions over long term stability, leading to massive debt. 4e, again, primarily did worse than expected due to taking the game in a very controversial direction that divided the fan base and opened the door to [I]Pathfinder[/I]: here you could make a case that part of the challenge was caused by the existence of the OGL. And the 2023 thing was, IMO, too short-lived and recent to know what the fallout will be. The video does [I]briefly[/I] allude to these other factors, but swiftly disposes of them to stay focused on its central argument, which is a pretty simplistic claim that the success and failure of D&D is mostly related to how open it is to 3PP. The relationship of D&D to 3PP is a fascinating part of the game's history, but there is no simple cause/effect relationship; it's part of a much more complicated story. Oh, and neither Gygax nor Arneson came up with the idea of playing war-games focused on the individual soldier. In fact, Arneson was scarce mentioned at all in this video; I would argue that TSR's legal battle with Arneson has been as consequential to the game as its relationship to 3PP, because that lawsuit is what created the "edition=new game" paradigm that D&D is dealing with to this day (see OneD&D). [/QUOTE]

Verification