SamuZai
philedwardsinc
philedwardsinc

patreon


The Secret Economics of D&D

What happens when a company tries a huge experiment with their most famous game? And what happens when they change their mind?

Here's the video.

How this video happened

I knew for a while that massive innovative businesses were being built around D&D. But the deeper I got, the more I realized this was one of the first "secret economics" videos I've done to truly have an economic angle, thanks to the IP experimentation with the O.G.L.

Check out more

Here's a link to the commentary video (for some paid tiers). Reaction felt a bit long this week, so it's the most interesting fact I had to cut from each interviewee.

Can you actually copyright a game?

If you've watched the above video, you know that the narrative engine is the creation of (and subsequent rumored revocation) of the Open Game License (the O.G.L.). The story is that the O.G.L. gave creators of all types — long before "creator" was a trendy job title — an opportunity to create content around D&D without fear of a lawsuit.

But could they have done that even without the O.G.L.?

This was actually the meat of my interviews with the two D&D-playing lawyers kind enough to speak with me: Chris Seaman and Bob Tarantino (more about their work is linked down below). I decided it was a bit too in the weeds, and a bit too much of a gray area, for the video proper, but it's an interesting question: the O.G.L. let people create content and spin-off D&D game rules, but could Wizards/Hasbro have even stopped them if they wanted?

Those of you who are familiar with board game trivia may know that games like Monopoly have patents, but many of these patents are more legal arcana than precedent — in many cases, it's become clear that you can't really protect the "rules" to a game (ie, stuff like roll configurations or hit points in D&D). You can mainly protect IP (say, character names, art, or logos). So while the O.G.L. may feel revolutionary, there's some question as to whether it did anything.

In reality, it's all about vibes.

"The O.G.L. license will essentially be our promise to you, that we're not going to sue you," Chris told me.

Bob echoed that: "We're not just sending out a press release and saying, oh, we're not going to sue you. We're creating a license."

While the O.G.L. may have claimed to give up certain rights it didn't necessarily have, it also created a climate that basically said, "we're not TSR. We're totally chill and we want to party with you."

This extends to the fan content approach as well — though I didn't make the connection as explicit as I'd like, it all represents an overall ethos of non-litigiousness that let D&D's creative community flourish.

As importantly, this was in contrast to the old TSR days as well as other board game companies. Chris spent some time contrasting D&D to Magic: The Gathering and Settlers of Catan. Settlers is known for being a bit more lawsuit happy — and the threat of a lawsuit can discourage creativity as much as a successful lawsuit. With regards to Magic, MTG even patented card turning methods.

When Wizards released the O.G.L. under a Creative Commons license as an apology for the controversy of 2022/2023, it did create a meaningful beachhead for open source gaming. Chris pointed out that CC licenses have been legally tested, which is meaningful for creators looking to invest their time and money. And the inclusion of new characters in the CC O.G.L., though somewhat legally murky, is typically read as recognition by Wizards that they had to give fans a cookie after screwing things up so badly.

Lawyer-realm is one to which few D&D campaigns venture, and for good reason — it's a gray area that's all about risk assessment rather than hard and fast rules of right and wrong (at least in my opinion). Ultimately, even if the O.G.L. gave permission to people to do something they already could have done, it also changed the vibes around D&D forever (or at least until late 2022). And that may be just as important.

Sources for this video

Now on to my interviewees, in order of proper appearance in the video:

The Secret Economics of D&D

Comments

i think they are largely focused on paid business accounts! probably a side effect of their bigger usage in different markets.

Phil Edwards

oh wow crazy. never heard of meeple-gate!

Phil Edwards

The board game world recently had a bit of controversy around the word "meeple". Players seem to really love that word and tons of YouTube channels or cafes / etc use the term. Seemingly out of the blue, a big publisher said a company couldn't use the word if they sell in Germany. Companies were forced to change their business names and product names. It seems legally questionable. The same thing happened with the open source website framework WordPress and abbreviation WP. Two examples of what it means for community ownership and licenses when big companies can step in and bully you when they decide it's in their interest.

Dan

Good video. I have never played D&D but the drama behind it was fascinating. At the end of your video you asked for ideas about other secret economics ideas. Totally different direction but I have wondered for years how Meta makes money from WhatsApp. -they don't charge for anything I have noticed -they don't advertise in the app -and until recently, messages were end to end encrypted so they weren't able to use the data. I can usually follow the review plan for most services but Whatsapp has confused me.

Desmond Suarez


More Creators