WotC didn't necessarily save D&D

[billd91]

If only by virtue of the OGL, yes, WotC broke into the dungeon, smashed the chains, freed the princess and saved D&D. We can't forget the old TSR cease and desist letters.

We take it for granted now, but the OGL was revolutionary for the time.

I have to agree here. That genie (or princess) is out of the bottle for good. If WotC collapsed today and its IP were tied up in litigation for years (a threat TSR was facing), that OGL would remain unstoppable (as far as I can tell).

 

[DEFCON 1]

And, though perhaps I'm splitting hairs, I feel a need for the distinction between WotC and "WotC-owned-by-Hasbro." (WotCobH?)

I don't think this is splitting hairs at all... it's a very important point you're making, Filcher.

Adkinson-Wizards was a much different beast than Hasbro-Wizards. And we've heard many stories from many people who worked at the company during the TSR to WotC to Hasbro transitions that have said of the differing requirements, philosophies, and desires of the company during each part of its history. And for all the crap that Hasbro-Wizards takes... much of that shouldn't be slung at Adkinson-Wizards as well, since they were not the same thing and we shouldn't treat them as such.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think we agree on the point that it wasn't really "heroism". That's the point I've been trying to make. One could just as easily say the WotC was opportunistic enough to scoop up the remnants of a dying competitor, which happened to include the #1 brand name in the RPG genre. The heroism angle, whether directly stated or implied, is just good marketing. (which one can't really fault a business for doing)

So, were not disputing facts but arguing semantics? What a waste of time.

 

[Janx]

If only by virtue of the OGL, yes, WotC broke into the dungeon, smashed the chains, freed the princess and saved D&D. We can't forget the old TSR cease and desist letters.

We take it for granted now, but the OGL was revolutionary for the time.

And, though perhaps I'm splitting hairs, I feel a need for the distinction between WotC and "WotC-owned-by-Hasbro." (WotCobH?)

Thats a very important point.

I was there, and sort of a part of the cease and desist letters era. It was at my prompting on rec.games.frp.dnd that Robb Repp went to the lawyers and got the Official statement on TSR's policy*. That policy totally sucked and shifted but was at the center of what drove the C&D actions.

*Robb had shown up, and wasn't clearly answering policy questions, so I wrote him personally and asked him to get us a formal policy that I would then repost. he did. And I did. And hell followed with.

Those were crappy days to have a D&D website.

When Peter Adkison bought TSR, I could tell from his writing that he cared about the game. So yeah, he saved it.

As for any other company being able to save it, name one. Very few had the financial clout to be able to afford to buy another game company, let alone one with the debts TSR had.

 

[Umbran]

I
The only great thing WotC has done for the hobby is the OGL. That's it.

Certainly, what they've done with D&D has made them money. But I'm no longer a fan of WotC, and I try to avoid buying their products. I don't like where they've taken the gaming hobby as a whole.

I see. So, more current events make it so that things done in the past, regardless of their value at the time, are no longer good?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I see. So, more current events make it so that things done in the past, regardless of their value at the time, are no longer good?

Yup, that about sums it up. I may be annoyed with WotC now - but what they did then was wonderful.

And even regarding WotC now - the policies that annoy me now only do so in contrast with what WotC did then. If it weren't for the OGL then the GSL would have been a major step forward, instead of half a step back and to the right.

The OGL was a wonderful thing, my complaints about the GSL do not diminish that.

The Auld Grump

 

[GreyLord]

I see. So, more current events make it so that things done in the past, regardless of their value at the time, are no longer good?

I guess perhaps from a certain point of veiw (like Obi Wan's certain point of view...which is contentious to say the least).

As I noted, AD&D is no longer in print. That is a current standing.

My belief is that it WOULD BE in print today if someone else had gotten the rights and handled it differently.

I'm trying not to imply whether that's a good or bad thing. In regards to publication however, I think it is pretty clear on AD&D at the present time (past/future not used in this relation...though OTHERS may and should have other relation to their opinions).

Hence, AD&D is not currently saved, but dead and buried...at least in regards to being printed (for the present).

It is a non-competitor on the RPG scene.

The same could be stated for D&D (B/X, BECMI, whatever your preference, though I think some of the retros come close...they don't hit it exactly).

They currently do not compete against 4e D&D. I suppose one could say the same for 3.X...and here you DID see my bias...as I consider 3.X still in print...though refined...in the guise of Pathfinder.

A similar reference could be to the Original Star Wars pre-Special Edition changes.

Now many would say there were several versions (Theatrical, original TV release) of the originals that were released and ask which of those are you referring to as the "Original" version.

But most wondering about the originals are those who referencing mostly any version without the new additions put in for the Special Editions and afterwards.

In Star Wars lingo, one could ask is George Lucas preserving and promoting the Original Trilogy for further enjoyment by future generations with his new releases, or is he destroying his old version in favor of the new?

Is that good or bad?

That's somewhat of a parallel that I'd compare to the question I asked above, but in relation to Star Wars instead of D&D...though maybe the changes to D&D through the years by WotC have culminated in a bigger change than Star Wars (caveat: Unless you ask someone who is solidly behind the idea that Han shot first and to change that changes his entire character aspect in the trilogy...or other such items from the Original Star Wars hardcore fans pre-SE release).

The question is neutral, though an OOTF (Original Original Trilogy Fan) may read bias against the Original trilogy in my statements above, and a Fan of the New editions and changes may also may read bias.

Despite what some may read into this, it actually is somewhat of a neutral question, and I've read some very interesting responses in the thread.

From the responses I also think no one actually realizes my actual position on the issue in relation to WotC as regards to whether I think it was good/bad, or indifferent (though I did state my position on the financials I believe...probably not a good idea for me to do that...but it didn't give anything away about me or my thoughts, and in truth reading the responses people may have assumed things that were not true about me...so no damage done to the results).

I tried to cover all bases for people to answer how they would in whatever manner they would. There is no bad answer to the question though, it is open to interpretation.

You can interpret it as at the time of WotC assuming control of TSR, WotC today, or even WotC/Hasbro merging. I didn't specify when or where...just asked for one's thoughts.

 

[WheresMyD20]

You see, it is all in the connotation. You could just as easily say "opportunistic" or "clever" or "foresightful" - the first has a bit of a negative connotation, the others positive.

Let us remember that, at the time, when we talk about WotC, we are in large part talking about one dude - Peter Adkison. While he has notable qualifications as a businessman, he also personally loves games in general. You want to cast a guy who loves games and has the oomph to buy D&D and do something with it when D&D was flagging as "opportunistic"? Okay,m I guess...

What it comes down to is this: was it good that they did so, or not? They produced an awesome couple of games, that loads of people love, and many fine products. What's to be negative about?




Except that, as stated above, WotC isn't doing it! That puts a major dent in the spin, there. Find us a quote where some WotC person, speaking officially, says that WotC "saved D&D", and maybe you'll have something.

My saying that I'm happy that WotC saved D&D does not count as "marketing" on WotC's part. Failure to actively deny such statements (as if they'd hunt around the messageboards of the world and pounce on people who like them) also does not count as "marketing". It counts as, "free good press for which they bear no responsibility whatsoever."

You asked for a quote, so here's a quote from an interview with Adkison:

Athans: You are the man who single-handedly saved Dungeons & Dragons from bankruptcy in 1997—how much of your decision to bring TSR into the WotC family came from just being a fan of the game, and what did you see in the brand from a purely financial standpoint?

Adkison: There’s no denying that buying D&D was a personal highlight for my career. But I wouldn’t have done it if I thought it was a bad business deal. Did the company make money on acquiring D&D? I’m not sure. I never did that math, but I think it would be close. But my job as CEO of Wizards wasn’t to make money for the company it was to make money for its shareholders. I believed that owning two of the top three games of the hobby game industry (the other at the time being Games Workshop’s Warhammer 40,000) would make the company a more attractive acquisition target for a strategic buyer of the business.
And, indeed, two years later Alan Hassenfeld, the CEO of Hasbro, confirmed my strategy by telling me that Wizards was very interesting to them because it had multiple proven brands.

source here


I find this quote interesting for a couple of reasons:

1) When the interviewer says "You are the man who single-handedly saved Dungeons & Dragons from bankruptcy", Mr. Adkison doesn't offer any correction, denial, or response of any sort. He may not be the one (in this interview at least) saying that he "saved" D&D, but he doesn't seem to mind that statement being made or that impression being created.

2) When the interviewer asks him whether he bought TSR because he was a fan or for financial reasons, he responds only from a financial perspective, particularly one about making the company a more attractive takeover target.


Do you have any quotes from Mr. Adkison where he refutes claims that he "saved D&D" or prove that "opportunistic" is an inappropriate word for describing the TSR acquisition?

Adkison may be a D&D fan and may have been buying a product he loves and believes in, but the acquisition was a calculated business venture and he made quite a bit of money on the deal. Casting him in a purely positive light as a white knight who took a huge risk simply because he wanted to prevent the game he loves from going extinct doesn't tell the whole story.

You asked me "what's to be negative about?" I voted that WotC neither saved nor destroyed D&D. I view it from a somewhat positive, somewhat negative perspective. Judging from the poll and the comments on this thread, there are people here who have a romantic "white knight" impression of WotC and want to cast WotC in a purely positive light. Do you see anything negative about the acquisition or do you view WotC from a purely positive perspective?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think that your assumption that if WotC didn't buy TSR out then AD&D would still be in print is dubious at best.

And that if they had tried to keep AD&D as is then it would be in much the same position that Palladium is in today - a small niche of a niche market.

It is like saying that if Henry Ford was alive today then Ford Motors would still be making Model Ts.... The market has changed, the competition has moved forward, and AD&D is like the DC3, the old VW Bug, and the Model T - much loved, but not particularly suitable for today's market.

More likely, some other game system would have the AD&D label slapped on it, but be just as far from 1st or 2nd editions as 3 was.

If they did keep AD&D as it was then likely the new company would have followed TSR into bankruptcy or would otherwise be unremarkable.

The Auld Grump

 

[WheresMyD20]

So, were not disputing facts but arguing semantics? What a waste of time.

The point was being made about good marketing, which often times has little to do with facts and everything to do with semantics.

Also, just because an idea or opinion isn't a hard fact doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to discuss.