WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox talks about D&D on NPRs Here & Now. Topics include Layoffs and OGL.

[TheSword]

that and their SRD blows WotC's away, wish WotC's were more like that

Can I ask? Do you apply the same expectation for WotC to publish SRDs for their games, to other companies?

Is a publisher that doesn’t make their rules freely available wicked in your eyes?

 

[Reynard]

Can I ask? Do you apply the same expectation for WotC to publish SRDs for their games, to other companies?

Is a publisher that doesn’t make their rules freely available wicked in your eyes?

Lots of companies do. There is a 2d20 SRD and a YZE SRD and BRP is open via ORC and FATE is CC and OGL.

Yes. The distilled rules aren't the value, and probably not protected anyway. I can't think of a company that an SRD and open license would hurt, to be honest.

 

[TheSword]

Lots of companies do. There is a 2d20 SRD and a YZE SRD and BRP is open via ORC and FATE is CC and OGL.

Yes. The distilled rules aren't the value, and probably not protected anyway. I can't think of a company that an SRD and open license would hurt, to be honest.

That’s not a lot of companies when you consider the thousands of TTRPG out there. The question wasn’t: is it in their best interests?

The question was: is a company obliged to release an SRD of their rules else be branded a pariah?

The protected characteristic around TTRPG rules has never been tested in court and is just one of those claims bandied around the interest without any substantial evidence. Even if rules aren’t protected are companies expected to make it easier for outsiders to copy their work? Irrespective of these points, while rolling 1d20 and adding a number may not be protected, there is still plenty of creative expression around rules content that would be - the 200+ spells for instance, or the feats or the unique magic items. Or the unique creatures.

What about the publishers that don’t do it? Cubicle 7 for instance with the doctor who games, or Warhammer license? What about board games? Are the makers of Eldritch Horror expected to release their rules for free on the internet? What about other games?

 

[mamba]

Can I ask? Do you apply the same expectation for WotC to publish SRDs for their games, to other companies?

Is a publisher that doesn’t make their rules freely available wicked in your eyes?

wicked no, but they do start at a negative, I rather support ones that have an SRD or something equivalent than ones that do not. It is definitely a factor I consider

 

[Reynard]

That’s not a lot of companies when you consider the thousands of TTRPG out there. The question wasn’t: is it in their best interests?

The question was: is a company obliged to release an SRD of their rules else be branded a pariah?

The protected characteristic around TTRPG rules has never been tested in court and is just one of those claims bandied around the interest without any substantial evidence. Even if rules aren’t protected are companies expected to make it easier for outsiders to copy their work? Irrespective of these points, while rolling 1d20 and adding a number may not be protected, there is still plenty of creative expression around rules content that would be - the 200+ spells for instance, or the feats or the unique magic items. Or the unique creatures.

What about the publishers that don’t do it? Cubicle 7 for instance with the doctor who games, or Warhammer license? What about board games? Are the makers of Eldritch Horror expected to release their rules for free on the internet? What about other games?

That was a nice broad sidestep of my post.

RPG companies are of course not compelled to create SRDs or otherwise open their games to support by others. Yet many do,and none that I know of have been hurt by it. The big vogue now is semi open: things like the Storyteller's Vault and the DMsGuild. They would not do that if there wasn't value in it. And the value is the same that drove the original OGL: support for a game drives sales of that game, and creates ever greater network effects.

And really it was weird for you to come out with this question re: WotC, who originated the idea and initially provided robust SRD support. Paizo and now ENP offer more, but the 3.5 SRD was complete, unlike the 5E SRD, and was followed up with releasing the Epic Level Handbook and Unearthed Arcana under the OGL (plus the d20 Modern SRD).

So yeah, it is reasonable to judge now-WotC for failing to live up to then-WotC's promises.

 

[Pedantic]

So yeah, it is reasonable to judge now-WotC for failing to live up to then-WotC's promises.

This is the thing that's so frustrating about apology on this point. That WotC's promise was extraordinary doesn't excuse breaking it.

 

[MGibster]

I said "women I know". Which means: "some women".

It says "Legend" under your name. It's not unreasonable to assume you know all women.

I feel like I'm an odd duck around here in that I sometimes care enough about how the sausage is made to have some interest in it but I don't have a particular dog in that race. I only use WotC 5E products, so the prospect of WotC gutting the OGL wasn't something I really cared. Though I did recognize it was bad for 3rd party producers and I lamented WotC having that much control over the RPG market as a whole. I recognize it sucks to be laid off, but should I be upset that WotC laid some employees off?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It says "Legend" under your name. It's not unreasonable to assume you know all women.

It is the same as your tag...

I feel like I'm an odd duck around here in that I sometimes care enough about how the sausage is made to have some interest in it but I don't have a particular dog in that race. I only use WotC 5E products, so the prospect of WotC gutting the OGL wasn't something I really cared.

Mostly the same for me. Except for a few ENWorld products.

Though I did recognize it was bad for 3rd party producers and I lamented WotC having that much control over the RPG market as a whole. I recognize it sucks to be laid off, but should I be upset that WotC laid some employees off?

Nope.

*I gues the last answers were not for me. But I can't see any quotes before them. So I think I respond to it.

 

[jayoungr]

Not entirely so.
Some images in older rulebooks were quite repulsive for women I know, because of very light and unrealistic dresses and strange poses.

I actually don’t find that type of art offensive but I have 2 daughter, both in their 20’s, that are both gamers. They told me that a cheesecake cover or anything with an overly sexualized picture (usually women) means that the book starts out at a -1. They still might buy it or read it, but it starts as a deterrent. I imagine that in a society that was rough enough on male nerd would have made it harder for nerd curious women to overcome that -1 in that same society. Tastes changing made a bigger difference and then not starting with -1 helps.

Speaking as a woman who was around during that time, the way I remember it was that mostly you rolled your eyes at the art and moved on. There wasn't much choice because that kind of thing was so ubiquitous, so you expected that sometimes you'd have to push past it to get to the good stuff. Which means that kind of everything started at a -1 or more, to the point where sometimes you didn't even really notice it.

I also remember having a sense of levels of cheesecake--did the cover just have a busty sorceress in a tight but not particuarly low-cut dress? That was pretty tame and I'd barely even pay attention at the time, but I bet it would get some blowback today. But I'd side-eye a full-on chainmail bikini that covered less than half of the "territory," especially if paired (on the same character) with a chainmail loincloth slit up to there. That would be a clue that this thing might not be intended for me--call it a -5.