Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Catolias]

I'm going to write a setting that has Orcs as the primary world race under PathFinder's SRD once they release it under ORC. I can hardly wait until ORCtober for all the OpenRPG deals that month!

I’m going to wait for @S’mon, @jgbrowning, @pemerton, et al to produce their pfsrd ruleset for playing in-game court cases.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, with the ORC I can see Pathfinder having the name recognition to become the top dog go to game, with D&D becoming more of a legacy product. We live in interesting times!

In this regard, I feel like Hasbro could take the view that RPG audience cohorts (groups of players with varying concerns and preferences) will be differently sized, and that the cohorts with the greatest commercial significance to them will not be producers, consumer-producers, or players of other games, but consumers / players of D&D.

Their strategy may include deepening fractures. Although I think it possible they are over-estimating the fixedness of cohorts, and perhaps due to the recency of 5e's success, their brand's power.

Anyway, I don't think it very likely Pathfinder will become the top dog go to game. In part because that would exclude Hasbro responding to audience behaviour, which they were able to do successfully with 5e (i.e. after 4e) and will be able to do in future. It's not unreasonable for Paizo to try to take advantage of audience dissatisfaction with Hasbro's strategy... even though I don't see that tactic through rose-tinted glasses. It has the appearance of a straightforwardly commercial play to me.

 

[Enrahim2]

In this regard, I feel like Hasbro could take the view that RPG audience cohorts (groups of players with varying concerns and preferences) will be differently sized, and that the cohorts with the greatest commercial significance to them will not be producers, consumer-producers, or players of other games, but consumers / players of D&D.

I seriously doubt it. I have read various articles about ecosystem building in software. It appear most are agreeing independent creators making new content for your platform is an essential component for the ecosystem around the platform to be healthy (along with roles like promoters and consumers). If any of the roles are missing, your ecosystem are in dire trouble.

It is inconceivable to me that those currently running WotC is not aware of these theories given their background. I would be really surprised if they are now not really worried they might have overdone it, and might be loosing their entire creator segment. (With the rampant production before this, a case could be made that the creator segment was too big and oversaturated the marked in a way that it made sense to cull it a bit from an ecosystem management perspective)

 

[demoss]

It is inconceivable to me that those currently running WotC is not aware of these theories given their background.

I might be mistaken, but my impression is that those running WotC are one generation too old to have internalized the lessons about building an ecosystem of successful creators. I suspect they see:

(1) hobbyists creators (for-free or trivial profits) as irrelevant, except for keeping some fans happy.

(2) individual professional creators (trying to earn a living, but not grow a business) as even more irrelevent: fans care less about them, and they're not a really a threat.

(3) creative businesses (doesn't matter how small or big, but someone trying to GROW a business) as a potential thread that needs to be strangled in the crib.

Microsoft wasn't a platform company when those execs were there. Hasbro isn't a platform company either, but an brand IP company.

In my reading they're not looking to build a marketplace and platform where people can make a profit and they get a slice.

They're looking to get royalties out of people using their brand IP, and to build a subscription service that everyone who likes that their brand IP is effectively forced to pay for.

If they accidentally build a market, yes, they're also going to grab that slice, but I don't think that's their goal.

 

[jgbrowning]

They're looking to get royalties out of people using their brand IP, and to build a subscription service that everyone who likes that their brand IP is effectively forced to pay for.

If they accidentally build a market, yes, they're also going to grab that slice, but I don't think that's their goal.

Yep, it's the profit, not the product, that they're interested in producing.

joe b.

 

[Enrahim2]

I might be mistaken, (...)
(...)
Microsoft wasn't a platform company when those execs were there.

You are mistaken. Cynthia Williams, that took over as president for WotC just this autumn, came directly from Microsoft. https://www.linkedin.com/in/cynthia-williams-9382845/

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You are mistaken. Cynthia Williams, that took over as president for WotC just this autumn, came directly from Microsoft. https://www.linkedin.com/in/cynthia-williams-9382845/

I don't think he's mistaken at all about the mindset. Which is his key point.

Williams and Rawson are both ex-Amazon ex-Microsoft, with more time at Amazon than Microsoft. Chris Cocks, who brought them in, is ex-old school Microsoft of exactly pre-platform approach that MS used to take, so he's certainly right there.

They're looking to get royalties out of people using their brand IP, and to build a subscription service that everyone who likes that their brand IP is effectively forced to pay for.

Dan Rawson's experience is certainly about building subscription services and converting people from physical sales to digital sales.

 

[Enrahim2]

I don't think he's mistaken at all about the mindset. Which is his key point.

Well, it was only the claim that Microsoft somehow wasn't a platform company when the execs where there that I thought were surely mistanken. I cannot say for certain that the described mindset is actually not in play, but that would be despite knowing very well the theory around ecosystem building, not despite of it.

Williams and Rawson are both ex-Amazon ex-Microsoft, with more time at Amazon than Microsoft. Chris Cocks, who brought them in, is ex-old school Microsoft of exactly pre-platform approach that MS used to take, so he's certainly right there.

How is Amazon not a platform company? Two of their huge income sources are as a storefront for other creators, and the AWS platform software creators (that they pay hefty sums to use). Chris Cocks left Microsoft in 2016. Microsoft has essentially been a platform company since it's inception (though it's approach to it has evolved). Without 3PP creators making products for DOS or Windows, who would have used them? And who do you think pay for Azure?

 

[DavyGreenwind]

@DavyGreenwind I know you're just using them as examples, but considering how many products out there, specifically Fantasy RPGs of all kinds (TTRPG, MMORPG, CRPG, JRPG, etc) use the base DnD classes in a way similar to WotC's definition (not to mention the race names, the ability scores, etc) how would this affect things, if at all, outside the TTRPG space. If such things ARE copyrightable, then wouldn't that put a huge target on the backs of any RPG game maker that makes or has made similar systems, even if it's not TTRPG?

I would be interested to see reasoning as to why Charisma, which is defined in the dictionary as "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others." would be copyrightable as a mechanic involving the ability to charm or inspire someone. At that point, wouldn't it be copyrighting the natural assumption of what that word means in the context of a game?

It's the actual underlying copyright element about which I am the least sure. It could very well be that everything in the SRD is "Game mechanics" and not copyrightable at all. I really don't know.

To address your question, each element alone is not copyrightable, nor are single words generally (that is more in the area of trademarks). It's the arrangement of the words that would create a copyright. Yes, you can't copyright "Charisma." But could you copyright creating a character with the 6 core ability scores roughly on a scale from 1 to 20, which translate to ability modifiers that are calculated by subtracting 10 and dividing by two? That's the unanswered question. And if I were WotC, I would not want to know the answer.

 

[pemerton]

To address your question, each element alone is not copyrightable, nor are single words generally (that is more in the area of trademarks). It's the arrangement of the words that would create a copyright. Yes, you can't copyright "Charisma." But could you copyright creating a character with the 6 core ability scores roughly on a scale from 1 to 20, which translate to ability modifiers that are calculated by subtracting 10 and dividing by two? That's the unanswered question. And if I were WotC, I would not want to know the answer.

My understanding is that creative expression is pretty central to literary copyright.

To me, a person having their core abilities rated 3 to 18 in six categories of human ability does not look like a creative expression.

But the idea that a person whose WIS is high above-average is apt to be touched by the gods, and hence as they progress in their ability is able to perform this particular sequence of more and more powerful miracles, looks like it might be creative expression.

As is my wont, I'll call on @S'mon to chime in if he has the time.