Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 9209518" data-attributes="member: 6680772">That's certainly where my disconnect is, because I can't even imagine what &quot;stewards of the hobby&quot; is supposed to mean.I mean, &quot;stewards of the D&amp;D game,&quot; I can get my head around. Honor its long history, try to make the current version the best version for today's market, keep it in print. I can even see, since the OGL is part of that history, honoring its intent, and keeping the game available for third-party expansion.But &quot;of the hobby?&quot; How is that even supposed to work? Why would the commercial company who happens to own the D&amp;D IP be the appropriate steward for all of role-playing gaming?I thought Sly Flourish's previous observation that, with the release of the 5e SRD to the Creative Commons, WotC was now just one of many 5e publishers, to be a very astute one. But now, when they seek to differentiate themselves from their competitors through use of digital tools, it's bad for the hobby?I'm reminded of the legal podcast that did episodes on the OGL debacle, and how there was a critical disconnect in that they could not grok a commercial company willingly giving its IP up in such a way, that a competitor could create the exact same game. They thought that that must be an unintended outcome resulting from a very poorly drafted license. Our hobby such as it is, is in a really weird space.So, as near as I can tell, WotC, as &quot;steward,&quot; is expected to:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">allow any number of variants of their game to be developed by competitors, allowing those competitors to at best feed off their customer base, and at worst to siphon customers off from it;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">not to compete through provision of their own digital tools, but rather allow other third-party entities to profit from providing digital tools using their IP;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">well, OK, they can have their own digital tools, but they can't be too good, or too exclusive, because that would be &quot;bad for the hobby&quot;;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">within these strictures, make enough revenue to a) justify its existence, and b) get investment from Hasbro, because it would be bad for the hobby for D&amp;D to be mothballed.</li>
</ul>I'm not one for &quot;unfettered capitalism,&quot; but is WotC not allowed (figuratively speaking) any exclusivity of its product? Any differentiation in service or customer experience from its competitors?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 9209518, member: 6680772"] That's certainly where my disconnect is, because I can't even imagine what "stewards of the hobby" is supposed to mean. I mean, "stewards of the D&D game," I can get my head around. Honor its long history, try to make the current version the best version for today's market, keep it in print. I can even see, since the OGL is part of that history, honoring its intent, and keeping the game available for third-party expansion. But "of the [I]hobby[/I]?" How is that even supposed to work? Why would the commercial company who happens to own the D&D IP be the appropriate steward for all of role-playing gaming? I thought Sly Flourish's previous observation that, with the release of the 5e SRD to the Creative Commons, WotC was now just one of many 5e publishers, to be a very astute one. But now, when they seek to differentiate themselves from their competitors through use of digital tools, it's bad for the hobby? I'm reminded of the legal podcast that did episodes on the OGL debacle, and how there was a critical disconnect in that they could not grok a commercial company willingly giving its IP up in such a way, that a competitor could create the exact same game. They thought that that [I]must[/I] be an unintended outcome resulting from a very poorly drafted license. Our hobby such as it is, is in a really weird space. So, as near as I can tell, WotC, as "steward," is expected to: [LIST] [*]allow any number of variants of their game to be developed by competitors, allowing those competitors to at best feed off their customer base, and at worst to siphon customers off from it; [*]not to compete through provision of their own digital tools, but rather allow other third-party entities to profit from providing digital tools using their IP; [*]well, OK, they can have their own digital tools, but they can't be too good, or too exclusive, because that would be "bad for the hobby"; [*]within these strictures, make enough revenue to a) justify its existence, and b) get investment from Hasbro, because it would be bad for the hobby for D&D to be mothballed. [/LIST] I'm not one for "unfettered capitalism," but is WotC not allowed (figuratively speaking) [I]any[/I] exclusivity of its product? [I]Any[/I] differentiation in service or customer experience from its competitors? [/QUOTE]

Verification