Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robconley" data-source="post: 8900163" data-attributes="member: 5636">I am a fan of alternate history and <a href="https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/11/travelling-alternate-vision-of-rpgs.html" target="_blank">even came up</a> with <a href="https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/11/travelling-alternate-vision-of-rpgs.html" target="_blank">some stories of my own</a>. Alternative History and it related sibling Future History starts with a single point of departure (PoD), a single what-if. The best alternative history stories or those who are able to weave a story or history out of a single PoD.Before we proceed I want to stress while I put some thought into the numbers, they are a wild-ass guess. My point is to outline a process, you and other can use to arrive at a possible answer of a question like yours. A lot of folks are afraid that what we see folks will not be enough. This is one way of figuring out what you think the situation is at. Thus point to what needs to happen to change it. I have my guess, but it is overshadowed by the realization that we are in an unprecedented situation. Thanks to the internet and 23 years worth of experience working publishing and sharing for D&D by so many people, I don't have anything but a wild-ass guess to go by.  Like so many, I am feeling my way through using whatever I have at my disposal. <a href="https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-network-of-one-three-little-words-and.html" target="_blank">Sometimes I have success</a> but mostly it is a lot of "wait and see".  I am guided by the fact I feel that open-content gaming is the way to go for the hobby and industry. That we benefit more by sharing than by sticking to walled gardens. That this has to be accomplished voluntarily not by coercion hence my preference for licenses that require credit but does not require share-alike.The HypotheticalSo for our future history let's take as our PoD, that Wizards drops things like the financial requirement but keeps the draconian IP requirements. Those licensing requirements are also a spearpoint for a much harder line on anything D&D related. They start issuing strategic Cease and Desists and DMCA notices to create a climate of fear around anything remotely D&D related in terms of mechanics even if it is something simple as a stat block. In our hypothetical, the line Wizards draws is other systems like Mythras, Savage Worlds, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, etc are not touched.Within weeks we have a publishing environment where risks with publishing for D&D has skyrocketed to the point that all but the most ornery or have nothing to lose fight on. Within the year, in our hypothetical, Wizards sues these folks, putting the smallest out of business, and offering a modified deal to the larger ones, or just a buy-out offer that is good enough to make one go "Why I am putting up this fight?"In this situation, by the end of the first year, it has been demonstrated you can't publish without undue risk for D&D unless you submit to one of their draconian IP programs (OGL 2.0, DM's Guild, etc.)Next you need to characterize the hobby community. The first split is between those who deal with something D&D related or not. The folks who don't deal with D&D will drop the OGL 1.0a and a bunch of new licenses will appear. Other than that their release schedule would continue. The hobbyists who play those systems will still have the same availability of material as they enjoyed before in the OGL era. There is a small group of folks involved in non-D&D system that would be irritated by the loss of access to the OGL 1.0a. (Cepheus, Legends, etc.)For those who play or publish anything D&D related what are their options? Here where things get fuzzy as we are in uncharted territory. We do know however some of the factors that could impact the course of future events.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We have a large body of folks who are experienced at publishing or sharing material for D&D related systems,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">These individuals had success in doing the above at several different budget levels. Ranging from a hobby publisher who only releases once or twice a year, like myself, to a traditional publisher with print runs and distribution like Paizo.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We have group of hobbyists who like what these publishers publish.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">However, this group of hobbyists is very fragmented and in that respect mirrors what happens in the non-D&D world.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We have a group of hobbyists who are engaged in social media, ranging to those who just occasionally chat to those, like Critical Role managed to make a career out of engaging the hobby through social media.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We have a large group of publishers whose works are trapped the DM's Guild program.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We have a group of hobbyists who engage in Organized Play, and Organized Gaming like conventions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We have the vast majority of the hobbyist who just are here to play or referee.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We also another group of hobbyists who like to read role-playing material.</li> </ul>In this hypothetical, any group that doesn't impact Wizard's bottom line would be not be holding any cards (to use the phrasing of your post). This hypothetical is about Wizards successfully creating a legal climate of fear and managing in a few cases making it stick (C&D, settlements, etc.). A precedent setting lawsuit is not in the card deck in this hypothetical.So what then? What are the hobby's options. Then it will hinge on enough people who are Wizard's customers saying no. What would that look like? The broad categories of responses will be<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Will continue to play tabletop roleplaying using other systems</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Will cease being involved in tabletop roleplaying</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Will continue as Wizard's customers or participate in Wizard's IP program.</li> </ul>Another is that the groups that I listed in the first bullet list can be divided into two broad categories<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Those who deal directly with Wizard's related content. Buying Wizard's products, participating in the DM's Guild, using the various Wizards SRDs 'as is'</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Those who deal with material related to D&D like the DCC RPG, the OSR, and so on. But otherwise are not customer of Wizards or supports Wizard's products directly.</li> </ul>Now to the "How to make a prediction" party.You take the Responses and take guess to the percentages that apply to each group.For example, is it reasonable to assume that for those who deal directly with Wizards the following hold true after that first year?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">70% will continue as Wizard's customers or participate in Wizard's IP program.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">10% will cease being involved.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">20% will jump  to or create other systems</li> </ul>Is it reasonable to assume that for those who deal with just D&D-related system do the following after that first year?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">10% will become Wizard's customers or participate in Wizard's IP program.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">20% will cease being involved.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">70% will jump to or create other systems.</li> </ul>Last you have to decide the proportion of D&D hobbyists are those who most directly deal with Wizards and those who mostly deal with D&D related content.  I feel the percentage of those who deal directly with Wizards is rather high around 70% to 80% of all D&D hobbyists. So if we are talking 1,000,000 active D&D hobbyists (using a round number here) applying my guess to the percentage above then we are talking580,000 people remaining or becoming WoTC customers120,000 people quitting tabletop all together.300,000 people moving onto other systemsFinally, I can't stress this fits the very definition of a wild-ass guess.</blockquote>

Verification