If Hasbro Pulls the Plug....

[MoxieFu]

Oh, and I agree with those that believe that what we will see might not be officially titled 5E but rather be something on the order of a 40th anniversary game that attempts to incorporate traditional D&D sensibilities more closely into a game with more modern RPG game mechanics, and will possibly try and move the artwork into some blend of old and new as well. Timing this with June 2013 or Gen Con of that year, on the virtual eve of the fortieth year of D&D, makes a lot of sense. Some have suggested names like Ultimate D&D but I think just calling it Dungeons & Dragons with no addendum or prefix makes more sense. There would be no confusion in the marketplace regarding it and the 1974 edition. I think it's detractors and even some who feel the need to distinguish it from previous versions will call it 5E and that those who are more vehement about it's perceived marginalization will use this as provocation for edition warring. And the cycle will continue.

Dungeons & Dragons, Classic?

 

[Dragonblade]

No offense to 4E fans who wouldn't switch but I think PF fans would prefer not having 4E fans switch and begin demanding 4E-like elements be added to PF. I suspect if D&D were shelved as a brand most 4E fans woudl switch to something else and those producing what they could under the GSL (would would actually, likely be revoked, since it can be unlike the OGL) as well as those producing 4E material under the OGL (a very difficult prospect, as anyone who looked into would tell you) would find an ever-dwindling fanbase for which to produce 4E-like material. The IP holders of 4E went to great lengths to ensure trying to produce 4E materials under the OGL would be an extremely difficult endeavor.

The GSL is so limited and its revokable, so its a non-starter. No one would waste any time on it.

If OSRIC can exist as a virtually complete copy of AD&D, I have no doubt a 4e clone can legally exist. Again, all the 4e mechanics are easily derived from the material already out in the SRD.

You obviously can't use WotC's IP and trademarks, but the core game engine, including powers (minus flavor text) is easily turned into an OGL clone. But mostly this is what I would consider the nuclear option if Hasbro/WotC stopped supporting 4e and/or 5e is not a worthy successor.

 

[MINI]

I'd be unhappy if D&D got shelved other than use as a sellable name brand. I think Gygax would have wanted his game to continue on. As far as gameplay I would continue with the editions that I play, 3.5 and 2e as well as some BFRPG. I would really like to see if a valid 5e could be produced to reach out to the gamers that did not embrace 4e only to see what each new edition might bring. Closing the door on that potential would be unfortunate.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

BTW they need to continue to publish a 'D&D' RPG at least every 5 years in order to keep the trade mark rights safe, at least in UK & EU TM law. Given that 'D&D' is often used generically to mean 'RPG', it would be very dangerous to Hasbro's IP portfolio to stop publishing an actual RPG that is 'D&D'.

Would it actually need to be an RPG, or could any major release based on the underlying IP- a movie, a line of books, etc.- keep the trademark protected? (I haven't really had to deal with UK/EU TM laws.)

 

[MoxieFu]

Of -course- they're Vienna sausages. Roman Catholic.

Yes, but it's still not Kosher!

 

[William Ronald]

If OSRIC can exist as a virtually complete copy of AD&D, I have no doubt a 4e clone can legally exist. Again, all the 4e mechanics are easily derived from the material already out in the SRD.

You obviously can't use WotC's IP and trademarks, but the core game engine, including powers (minus flavor text) is easily turned into an OGL clone.

Maybe, but Hasbro might decide to make it hard for someone to do so. Hasbro could tighten up the GSL or decide to harass a publisher with a threat of a lawsuit. The question is who would want to create such a product, and worry that Hasbro might decide to hold onto something it sees as its property.

WotC could release something every few years just to hold onto the trademark, and the Dungeons and Dragons game could be on hold save for those products.

 

[SlyDoubt]

It would be sad.

I have barely played 4E due to a combination of life and disinterest. When I do play RPGs I usually play Pathfinder, 3.5, D20 Modern, Atlernity, etc. This is, in good part, because these are the games I started playing RPGs with.

Regardless of my distaste for 4E, it has been disheartening seeing the game flounder around with what seems like no real strong direction at all. I own a good deal of 4E material simply because I was hopeful and wanted to support the whole brand.

I really quite like the fundamentals line. It made some friends a lot less concerned about having a set of rules of their own since they were very affordable. There must be some kind of internal struggle going on over at WOTC. The D&D line is just incredibly schizophrenic and like I said, has for a few years now had no discernible direction.

As an aside. I really hate DDI. I really hate the way everything is done to be as lazy as possible with 4E. By putting everything on cards, in online reference, etc. it just encourages people to be extremely lazy about the rules. Nothing has stuck with my players when it comes to 4E because they know they can always just look it up in 5 seconds anyway so why bother learning the game. I know many of you will disagree completely, that's fine. Most likely your players are very dedicated and enjoy reading and learning the rules. In my case though, my players could care less and 4E has only exacerbated this issue by making everything in the game idiot proof because it's all easily accessible to the pint there's no benefit really to remembering/learning.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Maybe, but Hasbro might decide to make it hard for someone to do so. Hasbro could tighten up the GSL or decide to harass a publisher with a threat of a lawsuit.

The problem is that you can't copyright game mechanics. Terminology, yes. Specific visual designs, yes. But not the mechanics themselves, and that is what makes cloning games possible.

As long as the cloned game is devoid of coopyrighted visuals or terminology, the threat of a lawsuit is mainly from the expense of defending it, and there are ways to minimize that.

 

[Dragonblade]

Maybe, but Hasbro might decide to make it hard for someone to do so. Hasbro could tighten up the GSL or decide to harass a publisher with a threat of a lawsuit. The question is who would want to create such a product, and worry that Hasbro might decide to hold onto something it sees as its property.

WotC could release something every few years just to hold onto the trademark, and the Dungeons and Dragons game could be on hold save for those products.

Nobody cares about the GSL. Its irrelevant to this discussion. No 4e clone would use it, so what Hasbro does with it doesn't matter.

I also wouldn't think of this as a publishable product per se. More of a labor of love SRD site where fans of the game can go to get all the rules and resources they need to play the game to keep it alive. Kind of like d20pfsrd.com.

 

[Mark CMG]

The GSL and 4E were designed in tandem with particular naming conventions and IP to specifically avoid replication, even under the OGL, without leaving so many holes and requiring so many pseudonyms as to make a clone of 4E virtually impractical. OSRIC and other retro/clone games utilize naming conventions and IP that carried over to 3.XE and the era-d20 SRD so that pre-3.XE materials are more easily replicated under the OGL.