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

[billd91]

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?

How are we supposed to answer that? Same as we always do, by making value judgments that don't necessarily reflect the bottom line on the balance sheets. I think it's pretty clear that the gaming community had a period of vibrant creativity that I haven't seen since the early 1980s in the wake of D&D going OGL. I also think it's pretty clear that WotC gained a lot of prestige and credit rescuing TSR and D&D with the money it sucked out of the market through Magic.

They may have squandered benefits that they gained in the time since, but for a time WotC was doing some pretty exciting and gutsy things with D&D. And I think the gaming community benefited from it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It already is public domain in a sense.

Please don't say this: it isn't true and it muddies things.

While the OGL is quite permissive, the license IS revocable if you don't follow the rules. And while you could easily regain your license, it's not like you would not incur costs while doing so.

Licensees are prevented from distributing, copying, or modifying PI, and may not use the contributor's name for the purposes of marketing or advertising, unless permission is acquired through a separate license or agreement with the holders of the PI.

Finally, the OGL requires attribution be maintained by the copying of all copyright notices from OGC a licensee is copying, modifying or distributing. This requires that the license notice itself must be altered by adding all copyright notices to the Section 15 part of the license.

If you violated the OGL and got caught, you couldn't legally distribute the materials that violated it. That is non-recoverable expense right there- something that would not occur were D&D in the public domain.

 

[Fifth Element]

How are we supposed to answer that? Same as we always do, by making value judgments that don't necessarily reflect the bottom line on the balance sheets.

Ah, and value judgments are necessarily subjective. And the "suits" who disagree may be using different values than someone else - but since there's no "right" set of values, it can be a legitimate disagreement rather than a lack of understanding as you're suggesting. "I disagree" doesn't mean "I don't understand".

(Also, the "bottom line on the balance sheet" isn't what you mean. The "bottom line" refers to the income/profit & loss statement, specifically the net income/profit figure, which is often an important factor in business decisions, but not always the most important one.)

 

[Mark CMG]

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

No organized play in your past gaming?

"I disagree" doesn't mean "I don't understand".

heh, though it might. Particularly if you're too busy making points by correcting his colloquialisms as if they were denotive statements.

 

[Fifth Element]

heh, though it might. Particularly if you're too busy making points by correcting his colloquialisms as if they were denotive statements.

It can mean that, but we have no reason to believe it rather than the other way around. The assumption tends to be "the suits just don't get it" rather than "the suits might have another valid perspective".

And a butchered colloquialism might be reflective of a lack of understanding on the writer's part. If you don't understand that the bottom line is not on the balance sheet, perhaps discussing business matters might not be your strong suit...

I mean, saying that accountants and MBAs don't understand these things because they're too focused on the bottom line of the balance sheet suggests that you don't actually understand the perspectives of the accountants and MBAs, and therefore can't comment on their validity.

 

[Mark CMG]

It can mean that, but we have no reason to believe it rather than the other way around. The assumption tends to be "the suits just don't get it" rather than "the suits might have another valid perspective".

Not getting it might just be the cause of bowing to another perspective, valid or not.

And a butchered colloquialism might be reflective of a lack of understanding on the writer's part. If you don't understand that the bottom line is not on the balance sheet, perhaps discussing business matters might not be your strong suit...

Right, thus the flexibility of language that eludes you precludes you from engaging with language?

I mean, saying that accountants and MBAs don't understand these things because they're too focused on the bottom line of the balance sheet suggests that you don't actually understand the perspectives of the accountants and MBAs, and therefore can't comment on their validity.

Or their detachment from the actual point of the discussion?

 

[Fifth Element]

Not getting it might just be the cause of bowing to another perspective, valid or not.

Keep throwing "might" in there and you'll be all right. But the point I was responding to was a conclusion (the suits don't get it) rather than a suggestion of a possibility (the suits might not get it).

Incompetence is always a possibility. I'm arguing against its general assumption when no information is actually at hand. It's easy to assume that faceless corporate types are clueless. The truth is generally much more complicated than that.

But re-reading what you just said: if bowing to another valid perspective is an example of "not getting it", then you mean something different by the term than I do. Not getting it, to me, implies understanding. You can understand two very different perspectives, and prefer one over the other. The preference of one does not imply lack of understanding about the other.

Edit: Oh, and using a general "they" instead of referring to me specifically does not absolve you of addressing my points rather than implying I just don't get it...

I was pointing out the irony of saying "the suits don't understand this perspective" when the person saying that apparently does not understand the suits' perspective. Better to assume that we all understand what we're talking about, but can have valid disagreements about it, yes?

 

[Mark CMG]

Better to assume that we all understand what we're talking about, but can have valid disagreements about it, yes?

It might be good to assume they understand until they do things that suggest they might not. Agreed?


In any event, D&D in the public domain is not my own idea of what might be good.

 

[Fifth Element]

It might be good to assume they understand until they do things that suggest they might not. Agreed?

Absolutely. When you have real information about something, that should inform your comments. If we had any of that in this case, we could use it.

In any event, D&D in the public domain is not my own idea of what might be good.

Mine neither.

 

[Zireael]

Please don't say this: it isn't true and it muddies things.

While the OGL is quite permissive, the license IS revocable if you don't follow the rules. And while you could easily regain your license, it's not like you would not incur costs while doing so.


If you violated the OGL and got caught, you couldn't legally distribute the materials that violated it. That is non-recoverable expense right there- something that would not occur were D&D in the public domain.

So what violates the OGL...?