So the point here is to talk about breaking WotC power over the tabletop RPG hobby in general. But first, I want to review WotC history as I see it.
-------
D&D and the tabletop RPG as a whole were declining during the 1990s. TSR went bankrupt, and while White Wolf did well, its growth didn't equal the shrinkage of D&D. Wizards of the Coast (WotC) acquired D&D thanks to their Magic: the Gathering money. Their dilemma was how to make money on D&D, when TSR couldn't?
I posit that it wasn't primarily a question of design of game mechanics. There have been lots of innovative RPG designs, but that hasn't consistently translated into market success. First of all, creating a great game system just creates a one-time market success. But once everyone buys the core system, then the company is stuck with ever-smaller margins.
On the other hand, the #1 problem for the hobby as a whole has little to do with mechanics. It's that play depends on a group, and it's hard to recruit and organize players into a group. Even a small edge in making new groups is crucial for the success of a major game line. The network effect means that when lots of people have heard of a game and know the genre well, it's easier to recruit for it. For example, I love playing Amber Diceless, but it's harder getting people together for those games than for better-known games like Call of Cthulhu or especially D&D.
Back in 2000, WotC reasoned that their copyright on the AD&D2 game system wasn't actually that valuable. Lots of game designers were coming up with all sorts of new RPG designs, and AD&D2 wasn't especially competitive based on that. But they did have brand name recognition even though play of D&D had dwindled. So they created the OGL v1.0a, which meant that those who used it surrendered their right to declare trademark compatibility, but still created mostly compatible material that enhanced the network effect around D&D fantasy.
This strategy was hugely successful. Twenty two years later, D&D has bigger name recognition and is more popular than ever. The network effect is very strong for D&D-like games. WotC can stay ahead of its competition to market to D&D players because its trademark gives it a strong edge. While 3.5E and 4E seem like failures, I suspect they were reasonable experiments as far as trying to get more money out of D&D. Even though they failed, the attempts might have maybe even helped 5E - just as "New Coke" fiasco helped boost later Coke sales.
-----
So to the point - the OGL 1.1 is an unethical switch, and I would want the hobby to be free of it. Nevertheless, I think there are good things about the boom that we've seen that lots of people have shown interest in the hobby. The strong network effect around D&D is a good thing, and it helps bring people into the hobby. Lots of people love D&D 5E but still hate the OGL 1.1 tactic - or would if it was explained to them.
So I'd encourage sticking with D&D 5E for those who enjoy it. Just don't give WotC money for your 5E campaign - only buy 5E compatible stuff from third parties who haven't signed the OGL 1.1, or free fan material. I've been running a D&D 5E campaign currently, and had been helping my son develop a setting for D&D 5E. I'm not dropping either - but I'd make clear to players and any users of the setting to stay away from any WotC or OGL 1.1 stuff.
Staying in the network helps spread word within the network about problems with WotC. Abandoning D&D would mean that the word doesn't spread within the biggest network around.
How about liberating the hobby from WotC and other mega corps?
I agree that the network effect is real, but I think we're at a crossroads where we can choose to keep on baking corporate sludge (playing, talking about it IS baking it with your time and attention and thus strengtening THEIR network effect) or create a different network effect to push other games that aren't corporate sludge.
My proposal:
1.- Clean your stuff from WotC goo.
2.- Publish under a unified license (in my layman's eyes the CC By SA seems perfect but maybe an Ip/Trademark lawyer knows or creates a better one).
3.- Try and mantain broad compatibility.
These 3 steps will create a network effect, especially now that so many people are mad/angry at WotC. Which in turn would create a rising tide that will lift ALL boats.
D&D is dead, long live the OSR!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 05:01:01 PM
How about liberating the hobby from WotC and other mega corps?
I agree that the network effect is real, but I think we're at a crossroads where we can choose to keep on baking corporate sludge (playing, talking about it IS baking it with your time and attention and thus strengtening THEIR network effect) or create a different network effect to push other games that aren't corporate sludge.
First of all, even if one were to create another successful network outside of D&D (like World of Darkness was close to doing in the 1990s), then corporations would just pivot to sell products to people within that network. Make a successful sci-fi RPG network with tons of players? Then corporations will sell sci-fi RPG products to those players.
Second, I don't think it's practical, in that creating a new network is extremely difficult. No other identifier even close to the network effect of D&D, and lots of people genuinely love D&D. They aren't mind-controlled drones, and most have never taken an interest in the business practices of either TSR or WotC - because why should they? It's just a game they enjoy playing. I think most of them could or would sign onto an anti-OGL-1.1 stance.
Quote from: jhkim on January 10, 2023, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 10, 2023, 05:01:01 PM
How about liberating the hobby from WotC and other mega corps?
I agree that the network effect is real, but I think we're at a crossroads where we can choose to keep on baking corporate sludge (playing, talking about it IS baking it with your time and attention and thus strengtening THEIR network effect) or create a different network effect to push other games that aren't corporate sludge.
First of all, even if one were to create another successful network outside of D&D (like World of Darkness was close to doing in the 1990s), then corporations would just pivot to sell products to people within that network. Make a successful sci-fi RPG network with tons of players? Then corporations will sell sci-fi RPG products to those players.
Second, I don't think it's practical, in that creating a new network is extremely difficult. No other identifier even close to the network effect of D&D, and lots of people genuinely love D&D. They aren't mind-controlled drones, and most have never taken an interest in the business practices of either TSR or WotC - because why should they? It's just a game they enjoy playing. I think most of them could or would sign onto an anti-OGL-1.1 stance.
Yeah, but those corporations wouldn't own/control the first movers, they would be 3PP, and IF one of them creates a good product that's compatible and under CC BY SA (Or whatever other trully open licence)? They are welcome to the club and I will be happy to reap the benefit from their publicity budget.
"It's hard so why try!?"
That's the sum total of your stance.
Black pilled much?
Kobold Press is going out on their own and telling WOTC to pound sand:
https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/
Quote
Raising Our Flag
To our fellow Kobolds,
Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.
This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).
In particular, Deep Magic Volume 2 will remain fully compatible with the 5E rules. We are working with our VTT partners to maintain support for digital platforms.
As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.
All Kobolds look forward to the continued evolution of tabletop gaming. We aim to play our part in making the game better for everyone. Rest assured, Kobold Press intends to maintain a strong presence in the tabletop RPG community. We are not going anywhere.
To receive future announcements and to register to playtest this new core fantasy ruleset, please sign up VIA THIS FORM.
Join the Kobold Press community in our official Discord to unlock new secrets about our upcoming project. Help us #RaiseTheFlag.
Question regarding the history. Were there not two licenses, one that allowed claiming compatibility with D&D but prohibited including character creation rules while the other could not claim compatibility, used the d20 mark and allowed character creation rules? Moreover, was the former not screwed over by 3.5 as there was no provision to distinguish if a work was meant for 3.0 or 3.5 while the two are only notionally compatible?
Quote from: Wisithir on January 10, 2023, 09:01:16 PM
Question regarding the history. Were there not two licenses, one that allowed claiming compatibility with D&D but prohibited including character creation rules while the other could not claim compatibility, used the d20 mark and allowed character creation rules? Moreover, was the former not screwed over by 3.5 as there was no provision to distinguish if a work was meant for 3.0 or 3.5 while the two are only notionally compatible?
Yes. I believe you're talking about the Open Gaming License (OGL, v1.0a) and the d20 System Trademark License. No one else could use the "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D" trademarks, but they have allowed third parties to use a special "d20" trademark that they developed that people would understand means compatibility with D&D. And yeah, there were problems with distinguishing 3.0 with 3.5. You can look over the latest version of it here:
https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/D20_System_Trademark_License
Notably, it has always had the clause,
QuoteWizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or new releases of the d20 System Trademark logos without prior notice. You will, at the earliest possible opportunity, update all material distributed by you to use the updated and/or new version of the d20 System Trademark logos. You may continue to distribute any pre-existing material that bears an older version of the d20 System Trademark logo.
So here's a serious question. Do any of the other "big" TTRPG publishers allow and encourage 3pp to the same extent as OGL 1.0 / 1.0a?
There are about two dozen community content programs on DTRPG/OBS that on first glance seem to have very similar guidelines in that you split any profits from your work with OBS and the publisher of the game. That's where things start to diverge. White Wolf let's you pretty much use any of their games. Chaosium only wants you to publish for 7e Call of Cthulhu. Savage Worlds restricts the use of various Pinnacle settings (Deadlands, Rifts for SW, etc). Monte Cook Games won't let you publish Cypher System content set in Numenera, but you can for Masters of the Night.
Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 10, 2023, 09:43:43 PM
So here's a serious question. Do any of the other "big" TTRPG publishers allow and encourage 3pp to the same extent as OGL 1.0 / 1.0a?
There are about two dozen community content programs on DTRPG/OBS that on first glance seem to have very similar guidelines in that you split any profits from your work with OBS and the publisher of the game. That's where things start to diverge. White Wolf let's you pretty much use any of their games. Chaosium only wants you to publish for 7e Call of Cthulhu. Savage Worlds restricts the use of various Pinnacle settings (Deadlands, Rifts for SW, etc). Monte Cook Games won't let you publish Cypher System content set in Numenera, but you can for Masters of the Night.
Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?
You're mixing some things here. Savage Worlds having restrictions on use of certain settings is no different from the restrictions WotC has on Forgotten Realms. OGL 1.0a is no more permissive than Pinnacle is, it was more intended as outreach because TSR had been like Palladium about suing. So Pinnacle doesn't need to do anything like that because they don't have the history.
If you want to make content for a generic D100 system (basically BRP), you can. It's largely cross-compatible.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 10, 2023, 09:43:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?
Compared to others? No. On the surface, the proposed/leaked OGL is much more similar to something like Savage Worlds' Fan/SWAG licenses with how it is divided between Commercial and Non-Commercial applications. However, the problems begin to arrise when you dig just a little below the surface. OGL 1.1 (as far as I can tell) does not allow you to protect your IP. The 1.0a version had "Product Identity" that kept stuff separate from Open Content. OGL 1.1 just has "Licensed Content" (whatever is in the SRD) and "Your Content" (whatever the licensee publishes), and you must license all of Your Content to WotC without any provision... forever! Oh, they say you still "own" your material, so you can always go publish it somewhere else, but WotC has a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" license to it, so they can treat it as their own without a care in the world. Top it off with their ability to Terminate you license under "sole discretion" for things as vague as being discriminatory or hateful... and these are the type of people who believe microaggressions (i.e. - imaginary injustices) cause "real harm."
The OGL 1.1 is nothing but trap to steal your ideas and hedge you out by allowing WotC to market those ideas themself.
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 10, 2023, 09:43:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, WotC has ham-fisted this proposed poison pill to the OGL, but is it actually less restrictive than just publishing under the DM Guild guidelines, as compared to other publishers' community content open licenses?
Compared to others? No. On the surface, the proposed/leaked OGL is much more similar to something like Savage Worlds' Fan/SWAG licenses with how it is divided between Commercial and Non-Commercial applications. However, the problems begin to arrise when you dig just a little below the surface. OGL 1.1 (as far as I can tell) does not allow you to protect your IP. The 1.0a version had "Product Identity" that kept stuff separate from Open Content. OGL 1.1 just has "Licensed Content" (whatever is in the SRD) and "Your Content" (whatever the licensee publishes), and you must license all of Your Content to WotC without any provision... forever! Oh, they say you still "own" your material, so you can always go publish it somewhere else, but WotC has a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free" license to it, so they can treat it as their own without a care in the world. Top it off with their ability to Terminate you license under "sole discretion" for things as vague as being discriminatory or hateful... and these are the type of people who believe microaggressions (i.e. - imaginary injustices) cause "real harm."
The OGL 1.1 is nothing but trap to steal your ideas and hedge you out by allowing WotC to market those ideas themself.
So here's the thing. That particular piece could be interpreted as share and share alike in that they get to use your IP for free like you are using their IP for free. The way it is worded is troublesome in that they can terminate your access but you can't terminate their's.
The other piece to this is that it appears that you can't access their campaign setting IP under the existing OGL or the proposed OGL 1.1. Under the DM Guild program, you *can* use setting info as long as it is a setting currently supported by them; alternatively if it isn't setting info, you can use the entire 5e rules set in your product. You also retain the rights to your IP up to and including having WotC pay you a licensing fee to use your IP in their products.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, you'd be better protected using the DM Guild licensing structure of you're making content for D&D and the OGL (in it's current form 1.0a) is better suited for just making stuff that uses the 5e rules, such as a modern or superheroes game - but in that case, you don't even really need the OGL at all since xd20 + modifier >= Target isn't their IP. I would even argue that Strength, Constitution, etc. aren't their IP so long as you don't copy their verbiage and don't post the modifiers in tabular form. (Attribute - 10) ÷ 2 round down is not IP.
Want to pub D&D stuff - use the DM Guild licensing to. Want to make Space Pirates using 5e mechanics? No license needed.
You're not better protected using the DM's Guild, it's just that if you want to publish something for Forgotten Realms, you'd have no right to do so under the OGL anyway. It's not like creating your own original setting using the OGL, getting your license terminated and having WotC publish and sell it instead.
Yeah, that's why I'm begining to think it's a poison pill. They wanted to axe the OGL for a while, so they design a version so bad no one will willingly use it. They want the big 3pp to cut custom deals (sans OGL) and have their pretty little walled garden. Who knows how this will play out longterm?
Human nature is what it is. I suspect that everyone not making their living full-time on game-design can get behind a singular Open License... but the moment someone breaks ahead and "get popular" I believe the immediate result will be this same issue we're seeing now with WotC.
Obviously this wouldn't be immediate, but it'll happen I think. Because that's what happens when your IP becomes a valuable brand. There is a reason why non-OGL games keep a tight reign on their IP and have their own rules for licensing, so they don't create their own Doppleganger-Paizo.
But in the "short term" it's a good idea for the general hobby specific to d20 since this will directly undermine WotC and keep "D&D" democratized. For better or worse.
Quote from: migo on January 11, 2023, 10:01:46 AM
You're not better protected using the DM's Guild, it's just that if you want to publish something for Forgotten Realms, you'd have no right to do so under the OGL anyway. It's not like creating your own original setting using the OGL, getting your license terminated and having WotC publish and sell it instead.
You can publish setting *or* non-setting D&D content in DMG without risk of them publishing it out from under you. They may want to use your original IP, but they can't take away your right to do so. You can even use other 3pp content in your own work.
The OGL allows for non-D&D content where the DMG program does not.
In my mind, the DMG program was designed to allow WotC to have 5e content produced at a fraction of the cost it would take to internally staff enough people to do it themselves. OGL allows 3pp to make their own games without WotC directly profiting (even if they may directly benefit).
I think if you want to continue making D&D content, then the DMG program is "safer" for you as a 3pp and it allows you to use all of the D&D IP.
If you want to make non-D&D using D&D mechanics or you want to develop tools that will undercut their shitty electronic offerings, you'll be stuck doing so under OGL 1.1 if they try and claim OGL 1.0a is null and void. So - make those things without using the OGL. Yes, you can't use the SRD, but if your content isn't D&D anyway, who cares.
I think there is a key point in how to stop this OGL 1.1. back in December, there was a chat with Chris Cocks where he indicated that DMs are 20% of the users but they make that lion's share of purchases. People who do the GMing are much more likely to be doing the creating. Get consensus from them to either wholesale switch to a new game or wholesale *not* publish anything on DmGuild or OBD.
Well, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the OGL1.1;
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The gist? "It's a Trap!!!"
ETA: One of the money quotes;
"What Wizards of the Coast can't do is revoke the license, yet continue to hold users to the restrictions in the OGL. If they revoke it, then the people who have relied on the license are no longer under an obligation to refrain from using "Product Identity" if they do so in ways that are fair use or otherwise permitted under copyright law. And unless they are using actually copyrighted material in a way that would infringe copyright, there may be little incentive to agree to such restrictions, let alone the new restrictions and potential royalty obligations of any new version of the OGL that comes along."
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 11:17:21 AM
Well, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the OGL1.1;
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The gist? "It's a Trap!!!"
ETA: One of the money quotes;
"What Wizards of the Coast can't do is revoke the license, yet continue to hold users to the restrictions in the OGL. If they revoke it, then the people who have relied on the license are no longer under an obligation to refrain from using "Product Identity" if they do so in ways that are fair use or otherwise permitted under copyright law. And unless they are using actually copyrighted material in a way that would infringe copyright, there may be little incentive to agree to such restrictions, let alone the new restrictions and potential royalty obligations of any new version of the OGL that comes along."
Called it! An attack on an open license is an attack on all, they needed to say something because of that. Furthermore, since they ARE aware of the issue it might make it a tinny little bit easier to enlist their help on figthing WotC if needed.
Interesting the EFF is weighing in on this...the game is afoot!
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 11:17:21 AM
Well, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the OGL1.1;
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The gist? "It's a Trap!!!"
A trap you say? OGL 1(a) or 1.1? Why not both?
That was a great read. Thanks for sharing.
So just to clarify my own understanding, OGL 1(a) gave us a license to use mechanics, which can't be copyrighted anyway, in exchange for agreeing to not use fluff, a bunch of which we should have been able to use despite copyright law. A suppose the benefit was certainty that WotC would not sue you if you abided by the license. Did I get that right?
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 11, 2023, 12:54:43 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 11:17:21 AM
Well, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the OGL1.1;
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The gist? "It's a Trap!!!"
A trap you say? OGL 1(a) or 1.1? Why not both?
That was a great read. Thanks for sharing.
So just to clarify my own understanding, OGL 1(a) gave us a license to use mechanics, which can't be copyrighted anyway, in exchange for agreeing to not use fluff, a bunch of which we should have been able to use despite copyright law. A suppose the benefit was certainty that WotC would not sue you if you abided by the license. Did I get that right?
Basically, yes. The real advantage of the OGL was always the assurance that you would not face unexpected legal expenses nor "cease and desist" notices in the process of creating and selling your projects. That created a stable ecosystem in which content creators felt safe knowing they could put all their focus on content and not on risk aversion because the lines were 100% clear as to what could or could not be done without triggering the corporation that was heir to "They Sue Regularly."
Just the leak of this move has blown that security to bits and, now with so many people's livelihoods on the line, third-parties basically have no choice but to dump the OGL and take some risks if they want to survive at all.
It sounds like the RPG industry has just been thrust into a cyberpunk dystopia and we are the punks wanting to take down the corporate overlord Hasbrotc.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 11, 2023, 11:17:21 AM
Well, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has weighed in on the OGL1.1;
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The gist? "It's a Trap!!!"
ETA: One of the money quotes;
"What Wizards of the Coast can't do is revoke the license, yet continue to hold users to the restrictions in the OGL. If they revoke it, then the people who have relied on the license are no longer under an obligation to refrain from using "Product Identity" if they do so in ways that are fair use or otherwise permitted under copyright law. And unless they are using actually copyrighted material in a way that would infringe copyright, there may be little incentive to agree to such restrictions, let alone the new restrictions and potential royalty obligations of any new version of the OGL that comes along."
So that would suggest that Beholders and Mind Flayers could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change. Final Fantasy already did it with Evil Eye, the Doom Cacodemon is also pretty close. And Mind Flayers easily fit into the Chtulhu Mythos and could be sort of a mix of Deep Ones and Chthonians.
Quote from: migo on January 11, 2023, 01:57:25 PM
So that would suggest that Beholders and Mind Flayers could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change. Final Fantasy already did it with Evil Eye, the Doom Cacodemon is also pretty close. And Mind Flayers easily fit into the Chtulhu Mythos and could be sort of a mix of Deep Ones and Chthonians.
I mean, WoW literally has floating eyeball monsters called beholders, and other floating eyeball monsters that *aren't* called Beholders but mechanically are basically Beholders.
Wow. OK. That's really strong precedent to go and take characteristic D&D things that have spread more generically.
I'd say there's more to the OGL than the EFF is including, specifically the SRD. Because yes, legally a person could write a RPG book with their own Magic Missile spell and not be infringing on anything. But it's much quicker to just plop onto the OGL train and reference the SRD for Magic Missile and call it a day. A whole lot of writers opted to do exactly that. A lot of online play hinges on SRD data, either directly integrated into the tabletop or opened on an external website for players to refer to, because it saves time spent flipping through books or searching PDFs. So even if the rest of the OGL can be wholly circumvented, the loss of the SRD is a hefty blow, because someone would have to go and type up hundreds of thousands of words in a legally-distinct manner to have the same degree of rules access for players that we have today.
Quote from: Valatar on January 11, 2023, 03:24:42 PM
I'd say there's more to the OGL than the EFF is including, specifically the SRD. Because yes, legally a person could write a RPG book with their own Magic Missile spell and not be infringing on anything. But it's much quicker to just plop onto the OGL train and reference the SRD for Magic Missile and call it a day. A whole lot of writers opted to do exactly that. A lot of online play hinges on SRD data, either directly integrated into the tabletop or opened on an external website for players to refer to, because it saves time spent flipping through books or searching PDFs. So even if the rest of the OGL can be wholly circumvented, the loss of the SRD is a hefty blow, because someone would have to go and type up hundreds of thousands of words in a legally-distinct manner to have the same degree of rules access for players that we have today.
Sure, but literally only one person has to do that. Plenty of fully fledged RPGs are made from scratch by one person with no starting point. This is by comparison much, much easier.
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.
The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.
This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.
I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.
I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: migo on January 11, 2023, 01:57:25 PM
So that would suggest that Beholders and Mind Flayers could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change. Final Fantasy already did it with Evil Eye, the Doom Cacodemon is also pretty close. And Mind Flayers easily fit into the Chtulhu Mythos and could be sort of a mix of Deep Ones and Chthonians.
I mean, WoW literally has floating eyeball monsters called beholders, and other floating eyeball monsters that *aren't* called Beholders but mechanically are basically Beholders.
I wonder if WotC has pushed too far, to the point that Blizzard might push back. Unlike table top, Blizzard has the deep pockets to push back, and a strong reason to do so.
Quote from: Valatar on January 11, 2023, 03:24:42 PM
... because someone would have to go and type up hundreds of thousands of words in a legally-distinct manner to have the same degree of rules access for players that we have today.
I suspect someone at Piazo or Kobold.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
I mean, WoW literally has floating eyeball monsters called beholders, and other floating eyeball monsters that *aren't* called Beholders but mechanically are basically Beholders.
The movie Big Trouble in Little China had a floating eyeball monster and TSR never said squat. I have heard you have to defend your IP or it falls into public usage (see Kleenex vs tissue). If a movie, and massive videogame used the floating eyeball (presumably without permission) then it might be a bit harder to go after that particular one.
Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2023, 04:01:32 PM
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.
The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.
This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.
I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.
I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.
So, assuming no exclusive licensing agreements exist that tie them to WotC, Critical Roll could team up with Paizo or Troll Lord or Kobold or Goodman or Kenzer to begin playing up non-D&D. But the question is - would it be the publishers or the broadcasters that would end up driving people away from D&D? Or does WotC have enough market share that new folks would see a stream and still think D&D?
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 11, 2023, 05:25:37 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2023, 04:01:32 PM
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.
The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.
This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.
I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.
I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.
So, assuming no exclusive licensing agreements exist, Critical Roll could team up with Paizo or Troll Lord or Kobold or Goodman or Kenzer to begin playing up non-D&D. But the question is - would it be the publishers or the broadcasters that would end up driving people away from D&D? Or does WotC have enough market share that new folks would see a stream and still think D&D?
When Pathfinder took off, they had no trouble getting exposure for people new to the hobby, even those who specifically wanted to play "Dungeons & Dragons". If Critical Role were to go back to Pathfinder, they would pretty comfortably get people using it. Goodman is pretty unlikely, DCC isn't a good slot in for the type of show CR is. Troll Lord may be possible to an extent, because C&C actually does have similarity to 5e, so it wouldn't be a drastic shift moving over. It would probably be better if they did a 2nd Edition, cleaning up some of the clunkier aspects of the system and fixing some of the problems while excising OGL content from it. Kenzer I think is quite unlikely, the type of play from Hackmaster 5e is distinctly different from what you get with D&D 5e and is again not suited to the type of show CR is. Paizo/Kobold is the most likely.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 05:04:00 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
I mean, WoW literally has floating eyeball monsters called beholders, and other floating eyeball monsters that *aren't* called Beholders but mechanically are basically Beholders.
The movie Big Trouble in Little China had a floating eyeball monster and TSR never said squat. I have heard you have to defend your IP or it falls into public usage (see Kleenex vs tissue). If a movie, and massive videogame used the floating eyeball (presumably without permission) then it might be a bit harder to go after that particular one.
This seems shaky to me. I think the beholder as a specific monster is likely protected content. It isn't based on prior art, and other people making similar (but still distinct) art doesn't necessarily erode this. Later monsters that are similar but not the same could be seen as "fair use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). They are copying a little part, but not the whole. Like the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China has some physical similarity, but there are also physical differences and it doesn't shoot rays, and isn't intelligent or powerful, and has a different function as a remote viewing. It's also a side movie character rather than an RPG antagonist.
The seminal case for character copyright was over H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. There, it was important that most of the characters were copied - not just one. So someone could probably get away with a beholder-like monster in a RuneQuest adventure. But if someone publishes a D&D retro-clone including all of beholder, displacer beast, carrion crawler, umber hulk, etc. - then I think Hasbro likely has a good argument for copyright infringement.
Re: Beholders
The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: Valatar on January 11, 2023, 03:24:42 PM
... because someone would have to go and type up hundreds of thousands of words in a legally-distinct manner to have the same degree of rules access for players that we have today.
I suspect someone at Piazo or Kobold.
I think my non-OGL game system plus fluff text ended up being about 240k words; though in the process of changes and revisions over the years I put into testing and honing mechanics it's probably been closer to 320k overall.
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders
The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.
Floating Eye Beast works fine.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 05:04:00 PM
I have heard you have to defend your IP or it falls into public usage (see Kleenex vs tissue).
Only for trade marks. Not copyrights.
Though I spoke with a TSR lawyer back in the '90s who didn't seem to know that!
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders
The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.
They still own
copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.
Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.
Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 11, 2023, 05:25:37 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 11, 2023, 04:01:32 PM
Well look guys, the EFF has weighed in - and nothing they say changes the *real* calculus. The incredulity everyone justifiably feels is because WotC has done what everyone assumed would be a step too far.
The point the EFF is making, salient as it is, has *always* been right in front and center: WotC is threatening everyone publishing under the OGL. Even if they *can't* legally win... they can drag you into court ($$$) and effectively bleed everyone dry.
This is why I contend that while it hurts everyone in the OSR... this isn't *really* about the OSR. It's about the big money-makers in Paizo, and Critical Roll. They're actual competition for their future video-game 6e monstrosity as they're directly keeping their sheep, off the newly erected WotC ranch. Engagement in anything NOT OneDnD going forward is competition that prevents their success.
I suspect the OSR are convenient casualties in this regard. And while WotC probably won't win in court, they're betting on clearing the board of as many threats as possible by scaring them off.
I think it's stupid on their part... someone will call their bluff, I'm sure.
So, assuming no exclusive licensing agreements exist, Critical Roll could team up with Paizo or Troll Lord or Kobold or Goodman or Kenzer to begin playing up non-D&D. But the question is - would it be the publishers or the broadcasters that would end up driving people away from D&D? Or does WotC have enough market share that new folks would see a stream and still think D&D?
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
What happens next is everybody scrambles to develop their own system that's going to compete with D&D. The scenarios you suggest, where several companies work together on a system, could compete with D&D... but it's not going to happen. Kobold Press is going to do their system, Paizo already has theirs, etc. Now they're all going to compete against one another and WotC will eat them for lunch. Paizo will have to de-OGL all of their stuff, which will take time and resources. Other companies will have to follow suit, spending the resources. It's all about yanking the rug out from under their competitors.
Mindflayer?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Dr_John_Zoidberg.png)
Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders
The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.
They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.
Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.
Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.
Are you following the conversation? In no way did I imply you can steal beholders off the page. I said the "general idea" (i.e. a floating/flying eyeball creature) is no more copyrightable than zombies, goblins, or dragons.
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders
The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.
They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.
Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.
Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.
Are you following the conversation? In no way did I imply you can steal beholders off the page. I said the "general idea" (i.e. a floating/flying eyeball creature) is no more copyrightable than zombies, goblins, or dragons.
Sorry. I was following up from reply #21, where migo said that beholders and mind flayers "could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change". Replying to that was coloring my slant. Just changing the name is far off.
I agree that copyright doesn't cover any floating eye creature - and I explained that explicitly in my reply #32, using the example of the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China.
Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.
The Matt Finch take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMtk9SAjUI
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.
The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.
Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 09:11:35 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders
The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.
They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.
Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.
Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.
Are you following the conversation? In no way did I imply you can steal beholders off the page. I said the "general idea" (i.e. a floating/flying eyeball creature) is no more copyrightable than zombies, goblins, or dragons.
Sorry. I was following up from reply #21, where migo said that beholders and mind flayers "could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change". Replying to that was coloring my slant. Just changing the name is far off.
I agree that copyright doesn't cover any floating eye creature - and I explained that explicitly in my reply #32, using the example of the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China.
Wasn't that based on the D&D monster?
Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 09:39:55 PM
Sorry. I was following up from reply #21, where migo said that beholders and mind flayers "could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change". Replying to that was coloring my slant. Just changing the name is far off.
I agree that copyright doesn't cover any floating eye creature - and I explained that explicitly in my reply #32, using the example of the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China.
It alright. Sorry for snapping at you. It's just been one of those days for me.
Greetings!
Provided by Tenkar's Tavern (Erik Tenkar)--here is the official statement by Frog God Games. They, too, are joining the resistance against WOTC!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.
The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.
I think I've asked this question previously. They've hired former Microsoft and former Amazon people. How much did it cost them to do so? You don't just leave those places when you are at a high enough level in the food chain without them trying to retain you if you're actually worth whatever more WotC had to offer them to leave. Either WotC is throwing good money after bad, or these guys were already dead weight at their former companies. Is WotC *really* going to be successful at digital this time when every other time has been a complete disaster?
Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.
The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.
The board almost certainly thought that OGL publishers were such small potatoes that mashing them would go completely unnoticed. They were just one more loose end to tidy up before going all-out lifestyle brand.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 12, 2023, 06:31:25 AM
Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.
The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.
I think I've asked this question previously. They've hired former Microsoft and former Amazon people. How much did it cost them to do so? You don't just leave those places when you are at a high enough level in the food chain without them trying to retain you if you're actually worth whatever more WotC had to offer them to leave. Either WotC is throwing good money after bad, or these guys were already dead weight at their former companies. Is WotC *really* going to be successful at digital this time when every other time has been a complete disaster?
Not sure one way or the other, but based on this article from when she was hired on at WotC it seems her title at XBox changed pretty regularly...
"In 2018, Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Business Expansion" at Xbox. It was a job about finding new ways to lure people to Xbox.
"By 2019, and staying in this role for only 10 months, Williams took that title to the Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer division. Well, Mixer. Little wonder that a new role within Microsoft was forthcoming.
"In 2020, and until this week [when she joined WotC], Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team".Prior to 2018, she worked for Amazon for 11 years; advancing from Finance Director at Fulfilment to its General Manager and the to VP at FBA Business and Operations in that time.
Read of that what you will.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 12, 2023, 06:57:57 AM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 12, 2023, 06:31:25 AM
Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.
If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.
The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.
I think I've asked this question previously. They've hired former Microsoft and former Amazon people. How much did it cost them to do so? You don't just leave those places when you are at a high enough level in the food chain without them trying to retain you if you're actually worth whatever more WotC had to offer them to leave. Either WotC is throwing good money after bad, or these guys were already dead weight at their former companies. Is WotC *really* going to be successful at digital this time when every other time has been a complete disaster?
Not sure one way or the other, but based on this article from when she was hired on at WotC it seems her title at XBox changed pretty regularly...
"In 2018, Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Business Expansion" at Xbox. It was a job about finding new ways to lure people to Xbox.
"By 2019, and staying in this role for only 10 months, Williams took that title to the Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer division. Well, Mixer. Little wonder that a new role within Microsoft was forthcoming.
"In 2020, and until this week [when she joined WotC], Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team".
Prior to 2018, she worked for Amazon for 11 years; advancing from Finance Director at Fulfilment to its General Manager and the to VP at FBA Business and Operations in that time.
Read of that what you will.
Yep - because an empty suit with economics and business degrees is going to turn around a company that has always fucked up digital anything...
When they bought DDB (if I were the guys being shown the $146M they paid, I'd sell too), anyone they brought over to WotC to continue working it had no vested interest in its continued success. Fast forward to now - how many of them are still there and prefer it to when they were Fandom?
You can't just throw money at every problem - and that's what Williams and Cocks have been doing. Hammer, meet nail.
For any/all of you with skin this game and can "fight" for a new Open License, please for the love of all the Gods above fight to remove ANY/ALL morality clauses when they show up.
this platform needs to exist for any/all content creators regardless of how morally divergent their ideas are and to have a foundation build upon openess for all to play on the Jungle Gym of RPG's. Let the market decide if the content is vialbe or not and not a nebulous entity or can play Moral Cop on any works. Providing a "safe space" for all parties ranging from F.A.T.A.L to Thirst Sword Lesbians to the Book of Erotic Fantasy to LOTFP and all in between is the path forward and we as consumers will benefit from such a truly Open Gaming Platform.
Anything that has the *ist, *phobe, anti-moniker is dead in the water to me. I would NEVER publish anything where someone can yank my product for Wrong Think.
I'll second that. One of the ugly things about the 1.1 is that it will allow WotC woke skulls to specifically target anyone on their shit list that uses 1.0 with termination letters. Have no doubt that they would be giddy as school girls if they had that kind of veto power.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 12, 2023, 06:57:57 AM
Not sure one way or the other, but based on this article from when she was hired on at WotC it seems her title at XBox changed pretty regularly...
"In 2018, Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Business Expansion" at Xbox. It was a job about finding new ways to lure people to Xbox.
"By 2019, and staying in this role for only 10 months, Williams took that title to the Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer division. Well, Mixer. Little wonder that a new role within Microsoft was forthcoming.
"In 2020, and until this week [when she joined WotC], Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team".
Haha! Those don't sound like actual divisions of the company, they sound like little commitees designed to explore certain unexplored avenues of the industry. She was "General Manager" and/or "Vice President" of each of those *ahem* departments, changing position each year. That tells me the number of people in them was likely small, and her title was more of formality than anything else. She probably had a small amount of purchasing power, so they gave her a lofty-sounding title to seem more important.
What happened to the "Gaming Business Expansion" division when she went to "Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer"? I'd bet you it was folded up and the resources merely transfered to her new position.
Microsoft is large enough and bureaucratic enough that they can afford to hire these small teams to work in temporary positions, exploring different ways to make profit, then just move them onto some other project when things don't look promising. Her title of VP is about as relevant as if she were called Queen of Shit Mountain.
Her time at Amazon, however, looks to have been more prestigious, possibly even earning the title of VP. I'm cynical enough to think that M$ just gave her the "VP" title to placate her. So she can go home and tell her friends, "Oh I used to Vice President of blah blah blah, but now I'm VP of honk honk."