Would D&D be better off in the public domain?

[Alzrius]

I'll object to Mr. Marshall's claim about accountants not understanding the decision. Speaking as an accountant, I'd daresay that accountants have a much better grasp on various types of business decisions, in general, than do gamers.

Also, the claim that MBAs also could not understand it seems silly, considering Peter Adkinson himself is an MBA. These comments seem to be "the suits just didn't get it, man" rather than "maybe there were legitimate concerns with the decisions that were made."

To be fair, you're not the first to call him out on this. From that same thread:

Wow, what an amazing stream of posts. Thank you so much for sharing all those reminiscences!

I do have to take exception with one thing, though...

When the Hasbro financial folks got a look at the bottom lines for D&D and the game stores, they were appalled at the money Wizards was losing to support D&D - but these are the sorts of decisions most accountants and MBAs cannot comprehend. From our perspective it made perfect sense, since the income from Magic: The Gathering was enough for Wizards's needs (a sentence that must sound like gibberish to a bean counter, I'm sure - what is this word, "enough").

"Bean counters"--accountants and MBAs--certainly understand the concept of subsidizing a loss leader with something else that makes money hand over fist. That's actually a common strategy in many industries, where a company wants to keep a foot in the door, or feels like they have to spread across multiple markets or multiple consumer groups, even if they can't make money on all of them.

I think it more likely that the Hasbro "bean counters" simply had no love for D&D, and didn't see any value in promoting it as a loss leader as an effort of corporate goodwill towards their customers. You have to admit that it sounds like Peter's reasons for doing so where kind of esoteric; he loved D&D, so he did it as a labor of love. For a businessman with no love of the property, well, the whole thing doesn't make sense. But not because the strategy of supporting a loss leader with something else doesn't make sense, rather it's because without the love of the game that Peter and Co. had, there isn't any compelling strategic business reason to do so.

I agree. I'm a long time D&D player with an MBA so I see the benefit of a loss leader and have a love for the game so the two can co-exist.

you are right of course. I have friends who are accountants and lawyers and managers - and dear God I've become a manager myself - so that throwaway comment was not only pointlessly hostile it was paradoxical. I know better.

Sometimes when we're tired we open our mouths and the strangest things come out. Thanks for calling me on it.

 

[Fifth Element]

To be fair, you're not the first to call him out on this. From that same thread:

Ah thanks, I read the quote in this thread but didn't go through the original one.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think the hobby carries the industry, rather than the industry carrying the hobby.

Well, it's kinda of ying-yang thing . . . without the hobby, the hobbyists, the fans, there would be no D&D. But I also feel it is true that without D&D there would be no hobby to speak of, and not just from a historical perspective.

What do you think is more significant, as far as bringing in new players: WotC marketing of D&D, or current gamers inviting new people to play? WotC is pretty good at marketing their new products to current gamers. But I think WotC marketing pales in significance, as far as *new* gamers goes.

Do I thing "word-of-mouth" or convincing your friends to play is insignificant? No, I don't, it's pretty important. But it isn't enough. With all of the social problems our hobby is unfortunately rife with, attracting new folks to it without some serious marketing just isn't going to happen.

And WotC marketing actually seems to be doing a good job targeting new players (IMO, of course). I'm hearing great things about the D&D organized play, "Encounters" and "Lair Assault". I think they could do more, especially with licensing, but I think discounting the marketing efforts and new products on shelves is foolish. One of the biggest complaints I hear now about D&D is that there isn't much new product on the shelves, since WotC cut 4E's release schedule WAY down as they prepared for the 5E playtest.

 

[Dire Bare]

Point-blank I would rather have the rules of play of D&D watched over by an organization much like a governing body like other sports.

Isn't that the RPGA? Heh, kidding. "RPGA" always sounded like it involved golf to me for some reason . . .

 

[GhostBear]

Wonder how much better it would fare, if D&D was handled by a non-profit organization or a charity type organization.

Though one point going against such a non-profit/charity organization, would be the analysis paralysis in deciding what to produce for a new edition, with thousands of "fandumb" voices yelling for their particular specialized rules, monster, setting, mechanics, etc ...

No more so than a for-profit company. A "Not For Profit" Company (and I use that phrase intentionally; it is the true classification for what is often mistakenly called "Non Profit") has a board of directors and a President/CEO just like every other company, and is not automatically beholden to its fans or detractors, just like every other company. It simply has different tax laws. It still needs to make money to operate, otherwise it cannot pay for facilities / workers / product / etc.

Point-blank I would rather have the rules of play of D&D watched over by an organization much like a governing body like other sports.

Design By Committee is the best way to ensure that nothing gets done, or that it gets done in a half-assed way with everyone trying to get their own agenda taken care of. Try looking at the standards bodies for HTML, JavaScript, and CSS for examples of how well it works - and those are people who are trying to get something technical done, something that can produce concrete, measurable results.

Imagine the W3C trying to include topics such as "ensuring that these new CSS attributes feel right and enrich the core gameplay experience" down, when such an idea is nebulous and subjective in the first place. It would be a nightmare.

No, D&D, like every other gaming product, is best left to a smaller design team that is on the same page every step of the way, with a "Benevolent Dictator" that makes final decisions. Otherwise you'll end up with a lot of inconsistencies, a muddled vision, and ultimately a poor product. Too many cooks in the kitchen, as it were.

I'd rather see D&D owned by a small(er) private company that is passionate about the product. Paizo was mentioned, and I'd be okay with that. I'm not fond of what they did to 3.5 on a personal level, but they are passionate about what they do. That is the truly important part. Otherwise, it just becomes a spreadsheet in someone's accounting software.

Worse would be putting D&D into the public domain. Now, everyone is entitled to make their own personal version of D&D and sell it. Sounds great, right? It isn't. As an analogy, try to get someone unfamiliar with Linux to pick a good distribution for their needs. They'll go to google, search for Linux, get freaked out by the amount of choice.

Then you have incompatibility issues because there is no longer a "standard" D&D. Again, everyone running around and doing their own thing would make for a confusing world between tables. So you don't end up learning or playing "D&D 3.5 or 4". You end up with "D&D According to Company X". And Y. And Z. And A, B, C, D...

Choice is good, but too much choice is a problem.

Hope some of that made some sense, I'm not feeling too well at the moment.

 

[Mr. Greengoat]

Design By Committee is the best way to ensure that nothing gets done, or that it gets done in a half-assed way with everyone trying to get their own agenda taken care of. Try looking at the standards bodies for HTML, JavaScript, and CSS for examples of how well it works - and those are people who are trying to get something technical done, something that can produce concrete, measurable results.

I respectfully disagree mister bear. HTML, CSS, JavaScript, ARE used by a wide spectrum of people. Linux IS used by people. Like I said upstream, the agreements for change would be very slow and suffer for committee politicking like everything else. Trusting in a benevolent dictator just means you are hoping they don't turn into a malevolent dictator.

All other sports and games that have lasted 100+ years have freely accessible rules of play.

 

[Shades of Green]

"D&D" is already "public domain", in the sense that the core DNA of the rules is open to use by all under the irrevocable OGL. Sure, Hasbro still holds the brand name and a few Product Identity names, but anyone can go out and make a commercial or free game out of the d20 SRD to fit their tastes. Just look at the HUGE number of retro-clone and semi-clone games out there. The OGL, by its very nature, ensures that the DNA of "D&D" will survive as long as there are people who wish to play it, regardless of what happens to the brand name.

Now, that said, D&D itself, as a brand, would probably (IMHO) be better off as the lead product of a small private company run by people who are gamers rather than a niche product of a large corporation whose managers are not invested in D&D as their lead product (it is just one among many).

 

[billd91]

Presumably D&D has been managing to hit at least the $50 million mark more years than not, since it hasn't been "mothballed" yet.

Based on the original thread and subsequent events, I think it's more likely that D&D is not making the $50 million annual mark regularly, is unlikely to do so by continuing on with 4e, and that's what helped prompt an early announcement about D&D Next. My guess is that D&D Next is the big effort to try to get D&D into acceptable performance territory for Hasbro.

 

[billd91]

I'll object to Mr. Marshall's claim about accountants not understanding the decision. Speaking as an accountant, I'd daresay that accountants have a much better grasp on various types of business decisions, in general, than do gamers.

Also, the claim that MBAs also could not understand it seems silly, considering Peter Adkinson himself is an MBA. These comments seem to be "the suits just didn't get it, man" rather than "maybe there were legitimate concerns with the decisions that were made."

Accountants may know quite a bit about various sorts of business decisions in general, but would they know more about the decision to make D&D a loss-leader for the good of the pen and paper RPG community? I'm not so sure about that.

I suspect your typical MBA wouldn't get it either. It would take an MBA with some real familiarity with the RPG scene and the market and mindshare dominance of D&D. And that really isn't your typical MBA nor your typical large conglomerated corporation accountant. I wouldn't be surprised if the suits at Hasbro actually don't get it. I think I'd be much more surprised to find they have a clue about it. It's all well and good to be critical of an over-generalization like "suits don't get it" but we're also looking at a specific situation with a specific set of suits where the statement may actually be true.

 

[Fifth Element]

Accountants may know quite a bit about various sorts of business decisions in general, but would they know more about the decision to make D&D a loss-leader for the good of the pen and paper RPG community? I'm not so sure about that.

The question is whether making D&D a loss leader was for the good of the company, much less the pen and paper RPG community. That's an open question, and one that doesn't have a sure answer. Was WotC losing money on D&D (assuming they did) good for the RPG community? How are we supposed to be able to answer that?

Don't make the mistake of thinking than an open game is the same as a loss leader. Intentionally losing money on the biggest product line in the RPG community is surely questionable at least.