# Now WotC has taken Dragonlance (merged)



## lrsach01 (Apr 24, 2007)

*Now WotC has taken Dragonlance*

Margaret Weis of Margaret  Weis Production has just posted that WotC has ended their license as well.
http://www.dragonlance.com/features/articles/10040.aspx

Here is the text:


Articles: Dragonlance License
by Margaret Weis

The Dragonlance RPG License has been a labor of love for me and my staff throughout the term of our agreement with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Our goal in creating Dragonlance game product has always been to give the long-time fan quality material that supports our vision for Dragonlance while attracting a new audience to this epic world. Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed. We will be releasing new Dragonlance RPG product through the end of this year and then will step back from our association with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro.

Margaret Weis Productions is thrilled to be associated with incredible properties such as Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, and Supernatural. Our latest endeavor is a collaboration with Tracy Hickman in the development of our new world -- Dragonships of the Vindras -- an epic series featuring Viking-like warriors, three opposing groups of Gods, ships powered by dragons, and the ultimate quest for salvation and survival through recovery of the Five Bones of the Vektan Dragons. This new fantasy world is rich with adventure and romance and is being published by Tor Books on a timeline to coincide with the launch of new game Dragonships product in the classic tradition of Dragonlance. Stay tuned for exciting announcements on this line in the coming months.

In response to the many inquiries we've received, please know we view this as a beginning, not an end. We see this as an opportunity to provide our fans and community with quality product with which we're going to be proud to be associated for many years to come.

Margaret Weis
President
Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 24, 2007)

Surely, all just a coincidence.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 24, 2007)

Just when I thought it couldn't get uglier....


----------



## Festivus (Apr 24, 2007)

Wonder what license is next on the chopping block.

Big Wizards announcement at GenCon this year I'll bet.


----------



## lrsach01 (Apr 24, 2007)

Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?


----------



## freebfrost (Apr 24, 2007)

Pure serendipity.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?




Or it could simply be that the Dragonlance license generated insufficient profit, and it happened to come up at the same time as the Paizo issue.


----------



## marune (Apr 24, 2007)

Nothing about Ed's Greenwood Castlemourn ?


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 24, 2007)

Now I know it is a paraphras, but: 

*BEN: In my experience, there's no such thing as coincidence.*


----------



## smootrk (Apr 24, 2007)

WotC's activities lately are shameful (IMO).

We will probably see Oriental Adventures join the ranks of 'license not renewed', although personally I would like to see a new treatment of that material (especially if revamped for Kara-Tur).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Or it could simply be that the Dragonlance license generated insufficient profit, and it happened to come up at the same time as the Paizo issue.




I figured they were getting their licenses back when Ravenloft returned, but that was a while ago, wonder why it took so long for Dragonlance.


----------



## lrsach01 (Apr 24, 2007)

Festivus said:
			
		

> Wonder what license is next on the chopping block.
> 
> Big Wizards announcement at GenCon this year I'll bet.




Who else is out there? Ravenloft has already reverted. Dark Sun and BirthRight exist solely as web sites. Greyhawk never left. Anything Else?


----------



## BlackMoria (Apr 24, 2007)

Hmmm.  The chess pieces are definitely in motion.  I suspect that WOTC is consolidating all the intellectual properties by bringing them all back under their wing.  I expect shortly to hear similar announcements from or cease and desist to Athas.org, the Birthright site and others.

And if WOTC thought things were hostile with the Paizo affair ....


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

First Ravenloft last year (and other WW licences), then Paizo, than Dragonlance.

Is there a trend here ? 

FYI, RL was put under the rug. What next?

Joël


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

Over the last year WotC has taken their IP licenses back from ...

WW - Ravenloft
CMP - E-Tools
Paizo - Dragon & Dungeon
Weis & Hickman - Dragonlance

Although total conjecture on my part, it seems likely that they are successfully reshaping the RPG industry to fit into some corporate plan.

I believe the idea that has been floating around of WotC wanting to have the sole site for "official" D&D / D20 errata, enhancements, and new material via the DI is the answer.

It also explains why no one from WotC has said anything in going on to 6 days now.  They are waiting for all the bombs to drop.  I just can't chalk this one up to coincidence.  Not unless their management is totally incompetent, something that I simple don't believe.

So what will this reshaping of the RPG industry look like when its done?


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  The chess pieces are definitely in motion.  I suspect that WOTC is consolidating all the intellectual properties by bringing them all back under their wing.  I expect shortly to hear similar announcements from or cease and desist to Athas.org, the Birthright site and others.
> 
> And if WOTC thought things were hostile with the Paizo affair ....




QFT


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Not huge DL fan myself, but sad news nonetheless.  :\


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Over the last year WotC has taken their IP licenses back from ...
> 
> WW - Ravenloft
> CMP - E-Tools
> ...



Yes, I can see a definite trend here, a quite disturbing one...


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 24, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> WotC's activities lately are shameful (IMO).




Sooo, when WOTC gives something, they have to give it forever, relinquishing all rights to IP they've license, or they're shameful?

Nice.

Chuck


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, it was a good run...hopefully we get Races of Ansalon released....

What is really frustrating is that we'll never see a Taladas product now.  They used the novel trilogy as a reason to hold off, until the series was done....now there'll be nothing.

Does withdrawal of a license typically mean that they can't reprint books also?

There's very little product worth buying coming out anymore....March and April didn't really have anything I was interested in from WotC.

Now with settings being shut down, and WotC only supporting two (barely) there's really not much reason to remain interested in anymore.

Iron Kingdoms and Midnight are the only other two I'm personally interested in buying, and neither one of them have been releasing much of anything lately.

Banshee


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Or it could simply be that the Dragonlance license generated insufficient profit, and it happened to come up at the same time as the Paizo issue.




Funny way to run a business, having no money come in from an IP, instead of even a small amount that required almost no effort on their part.


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sooo, when WOTC gives something, they have to give it forever, relinquishing all rights to IP they've license, or they're shameful?
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Chuck




They're perfectly within their rights to take those licenses back.  But it doesn't mean we have to *like* them for it.  Particularly when other companies they'd given the licenses to have done some fantastic jobs with them....in fact, Margaret Weis Products was doing *better* with Dragonlance than WotC/TSR ever did, IMO.

Banshee


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 24, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Funny way to run a business, having no money come in from an IP, instead of even a small amount that required almost no effort on their part.




You're assuming they don't plan to do anything with it. We have no idea if that's the case, do we?


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 24, 2007)

Looks I got to be the first to bust it over on the WOTC board.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=834968


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?




Until there's actual proof, it's probably best not to fan the hysteria with these kinds of rumors.  Wait and see, friend, wait and see.


----------



## Land Outcast (Apr 24, 2007)

The sky is fallin', I tell ye...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I believe the idea that has been floating around of WotC wanting to have the sole site for "official" D&D / D20 errata, enhancements, and new material via the DI is the answer.



Perhaps they want to put the "old settings" online, perhaps as a "Explore _______"-feature, and therefore need al licenses. And no straying Paizohawk.

I mean, they already produced a bunch of nostalgia modules... but they're not going to produce the old settings as books, so they're probably put them online in some form.

Or, that's also possible, the license run out, and Weis Publishing didn't want to renew it. We know nothing right now, right?


----------



## Sejs (Apr 24, 2007)

The timing on this all is very ... odd, to say the least.


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're assuming they don't plan to do anything with it. We have no idea if that's the case, do we?




You're right, we have no idea of what their plans are.  They aren't communicating with their customers, despite all the hoop-la.  All we have to go on is the actions.

Something stinks, and its not my socks.


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sooo, when WOTC gives something, they have to give it forever, relinquishing all rights to IP they've license, or they're shameful?
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Chuck




Yes, I do think it's shameful. IMHO, licenses would have an option for the licensee to renew. 

I've always found it to be rather unfair when a company spends a lot of time and effort building up the value of a property, then have their license yanked from them.

Not that's exactly uncommon.  But people complained when it happened with AEG and Stargate, or WEG and Star Wars.


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 24, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> They're perfectly within their rights to take those licenses back.  But it doesn't mean we have to *like* them for it.  Particularly when other companies they'd given the licenses to have done some fantastic jobs with them....in fact, Margaret Weis Products was doing *better* with Dragonlance than WotC/TSR ever did, IMO.
> 
> Banshee




Well, it's Margaret's baby, so of course she understands the world and treats it well. That doesn't surprise me. 

On your first point, I guess I'm just a little stumped... 

They licensed the material out, we got some great books, now the license is over.

How does this make them bad guys? Shouldn't we be happy they licensed it long enough for a fairly substantial game line to be created, instead of being grumpy when licenses end?


----------



## Agamon (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> So what will this reshaping of the RPG industry look like when its done?




If this keeps up?  Probably a black hole....


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're assuming they don't plan to do anything with it. We have no idea if that's the case, do we?



You're thinking of a "Expedition to _________" thing? Or rather a Digital Initiative thing?

(Not to imply that you're knowing anything, just asking for thoughts)


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're assuming they don't plan to do anything with it. We have no idea if that's the case, do we?




We know from their history that they aren't. Unless you know something otherwise, since you work for them.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I figured they were getting their licenses back when Ravenloft returned, but that was a while ago, wonder why it took so long for Dragonlance.




Could just be the timing on when it came up for renewal.

Honestly, I'm amazed that these licenses (RL, DL) were ever given out. With Wizards pursuing a "low number of settings" strategy, why were they creating competition?

CMP/Paizo is connected to the Digital Initiative, I think. RL/DL are just about regaining control of properties.

Cheers!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, time to grab while the grabbing's good. Will the Dragonlance Bestiary, core book and Time of the Lance all be in print through the end of this year? Ooh, and the Towers of High Sorcery?


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 24, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Yes, I do think it's shameful. IMHO, licenses would have an option for the licensee to renew.
> 
> I've always found it to be rather unfair when a company spends a lot of time and effort building up the value of a property, then have their license yanked from them.
> 
> Not that's exactly uncommon.  But people complained when it happened with AEG and Stargate, or WEG and Star Wars.




The license wasn't "yanked", it ended at the agreed upon time.

As for your first point, so the licensee should have all the power? Once you license something to someone they can renew it perpetually?

You have a weird idea of what ownership means my friend. If you rent your house to me, you can later come to me and say "hey, you were a good tenant, but you lease is up, and I want to empty the place out, repaint it, and move in myself".

That doesn't make you a bad guy. It's not "shameful" in any way. 

Owning things is better than licensing them. That's why owning Dragonlance would cost more than licensing it: it's more valuable. 

If Margaret Weis wants to OWN Dragonlance, she should start raising capital.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sooo, when WOTC gives something, they have to give it forever, relinquishing all rights to IP they've license, or they're shameful?




I personally wouldn't call it shameful.  But, it puts them in a bad light to just start snatching everything back like a spoiled kid in a sandbox.

If we called it WotC in 2000, we should call it the anti-WotC today.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Could just be the timing on when it came up for renewal.
> 
> Honestly, I'm amazed that these licenses (RL, DL) were ever given out. With Wizards pursuing a "low number of settings" strategy, why were they creating competition?
> 
> ...




They've also eliminated all "official" competition in the adventure market.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> WotC's activities lately are shameful (IMO).
> 
> We will probably see Oriental Adventures join the ranks of 'license not renewed', although personally I would like to see a new treatment of that material (especially if revamped for Kara-Tur).




While they might be able to sorta pull back Oriental Adventures, they couldn't pull back Rokugan, which is more expanded upon by AEG than WotC's Oriental Adventures.

Plus, they didn't update OA to 3.5, did they? Maybe my timeline is messed up, but I'm pretty sure the current OA was released 3.0 and then not updated.

All that said, I'm less surprised about the pulling in of IP since, in my view, WotC is running out of some expansion area and it makes a lot more sense to pull in some IP and see what they can do with it.

I don't agree with it, as a lot of work done by others on said IP was pretty good, in a lot of cases (Ravenloft and Dragonlance, as an exmaple).

But, that's the issue with licenses, sooner or later they could get pulled.

I think Dragon and Dungeon were HUGE surprises, while the others have been more of a "That sucks, but duh" sorta feeling.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Something stinks, and its not my socks.





Yep, something's rotten in the state of Washington....


----------



## Fishbone (Apr 24, 2007)

As if the community wasn't going insane enough as it is they drop this not even a week after announcing 2 highly controversial mag cancellations. Doesn't seem too smart from a PR standpoint to me.
So, does this affect more than 1 percent of the community now?


----------



## daemonslye (Apr 24, 2007)

> Something stinks, and its not my socks.




Yep - Taking all their lumps at once I suppose.  Man, to be an employee of that company right now - if you are an actual gamer with any sense of history... They have got to know what is going on.

Hopefully we get at least one person (with some form of conscience) from the company that breaks the silence and gives us a clue.  I can't believe they have something added to the water that makes long-time gamer/employees think this is all just "awesome".

~D


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 24, 2007)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> As if the community wasn't going insane enough as it is they drop this not even a week after announcing 2 highly controversial mag cancellations. Doesn't seem too smart from a PR standpoint to me.
> So, does this affect more than 1 percent of the community now?




Just possibly.


----------



## freebfrost (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> The license wasn't "yanked", it ended at the agreed upon time.
> 
> As for your first point, so the licensee should have all the power? Once you license something to someone they can renew it perpetually?



Do you work for WotC?


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 24, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> We know from their history that they aren't. Unless you know something otherwise, since you work for them.




Yet you, who _don't_ work for WotC, are privvy to insider information?  C'mon, man.  And implying that Ari's hiding something is pretty low as well.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're assuming they don't plan to do anything with it. We have no idea if that's the case, do we?




And this in a nutshell is the problem.  People have vested money, time and attachments in these companies and products, while WotC hasn't even taken the time to comment publicly on what or where all this is heading.  I like anticipation as much as the next guy, but pulling rugs out from under me without giving any type of reason or explanation was tired the first time.  The build up for anticipation only goes so far.  All I can say is I'm glad I decided to roll with Iron Kingdoms for D&D.


----------



## mattcolville (Apr 24, 2007)

WotC views FR and DL as the two great IP creation successes. I'm astonished they ever let DL go in the first place and am not surprised they want to bring it back in-house.

If anything, it might be a result of the sales of Eberron. The Setting Search that produced Eberron was an attempt by WotC to engineer the kind of success they had with FR and DL, and never had with Dark Sun, Planescape, Birthright, et al.

If Eberron underperformed, it would be natural for them to say "let's get DL back in house." It's one of their huge hits.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> You have a weird idea of what ownership means my friend. If you rent your house to me, you can later come to me and say "hey, you were a good tenant, but you lease is up, and I want to empty the place out, repaint it, and move in myself".
> 
> That doesn't make you a bad guy. It's not "shameful" in any way.




No, but evicting someone who had no place to turn just so you could use the house to your store back-issues of National Geographic wouldn't do you much good karma-wise.

Bringing stuff in house so you can take a crack at it is one thing.  Taking licenses back solely so  that others *can't* do anything, while certainly withing their right, is customer-unfriendly.  And my loyalty to a company as a consumer lasts exactly as long as their loyalty to me as a customer.

Now, obviously, we don't know whither Dragonlance.  I never cared for it, myself, but it holds a place of regard in the D&D pantheon, and I hate to see those things fade away.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 24, 2007)

I always thought that the strength of the DL IP was in the novels, not the game products.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> If Margaret Weis wants to OWN Dragonlance, she should start raising capital.




Hopefully, if (big if, since the novels sell well) Dragonlance ever goes on the block, WotC and Hasbro would be kind enough to offer Margaret and Tracy first crack (of course, didn't they do Ravenloft first, too?) at buying the rights.

A point of clarity on something I just said, too, although I do not agree with their pulling the IP from Weis and Co., I won't say that WotC doesn't have the right.

They've owned the IP for DECADES, it's theirs since they first bought it from Margaret and Tracy back in the day up until and through the license, and it is theirs to do with as they please.

I think it sucks, however I've not read a Dragonlance novel in close to 15+ years and the only RPG material I own for it, if I remember rightly, is the original book.   

I loved the world, but I sort of lost my taste for it once Raistlin's story was mostly, fully, told. Him, Caramon, and crew were the stories I started and ended on, although I might hit a book store one of these days and refresh my collection. Tammy, my girlfriend, saw my box of Dl novels one time when we moved and was surprised as she never saw them before - it's a pretty large box since I own just about everything, novel wise, up until the mid 90s.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 24, 2007)

The only time I've seen moves like this as 'classic' in corporations is when they're trying to trim the fat and make things a nice digestible package for sale.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 24, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Now, obviously, we don't know whither Dragonlance.  I never cared for it, myself, but it holds a place of regard in the D&D pantheon, and I hate to see those things fade away.




DL holds up as much more a place as a book setting, not a game setting. (If there are adventures that get slammed more than the original DL adventures, they're called things like "Terrible Trouble at Tragidore").

Personally, I think Joe's comment about this being preparatory for a sale of D&D isn't unfeasible. Quite possible, actually.

Still, I think the ending of the DL license isn't really going to affect many gamers.

Cheers!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The only time I've seen moves like this as 'classic' in corporations is when they're trying to trim the fat and make things a nice digestible package for sale.




I was just thinking the same thing, but didn't want to fan the conspiracy flames.    

So, shall we start a thread to discuss potential buyers?


----------



## Troll Wizard (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Over the last year WotC has taken their IP licenses back from ...
> 
> WW - Ravenloft
> CMP - E-Tools
> ...




Didn't WW chose not to renew Ravenloft and Gamma World because the product's sales did not return the revenue they expected (over the years they had the license) and therefore did not want to continue paying the yearly license fee any longer?  If I remember reading correctly from WW own boards.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The only time I've seen moves like this as 'classic' in corporations is when they're trying to trim the fat and make things a nice digestible package for sale.





Ding Ding Ding..we have a winner.

Actually...normally I would agree with you Joe,  based on my own experience in the corporate world. 

However...it would not make sense with this big rollout of the "digital initiative".

More likely..it's as mentioned previously, a D&D run and produced solely by WOTC/HASBRO, and IMO, a sign 4E..sans OGL/D20 licensing ....is coming....and sooner than we think.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The only time I've seen moves like this as 'classic' in corporations is when they're trying to trim the fat and make things a nice digestible package for sale.



Implying Hasbro will sell WotC off? Or sell D&D off? But then:
1) Hasbro will _not_ sell off WotC, as long as it holds MtG - it's their foothold in the CCG market.
2) Therefore, they're going to sell D&D off? But then... what about D&DMinis? AFAIK, they're also profitable.
3) What about the videogame licenses? They're recently renewed... according to Baur:


			
				Monkex King said:
			
		

> Alas, no. WotC just recently renewed the computer game licenses for D&D to Infogrames. So they aren't taking all licenses in house, and are specifically licensing out some forms of digital content.



 (from here).

Now throw in "Digital Initiative".

Strange, isn't it?

We definitively need a conspiracy-thread... and I don't think of Nightfalls!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 24, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> More likely..it's as mentioned previously, a D&D run and produced solely by WOTC/HASBRO, and IMO, a sign 4E..sans OGL/D20 licensing ....is coming....and sooner than we think.




How is it possible to be sooner than we think, when half the board thought it would be out in 06?


----------



## Razz (Apr 24, 2007)

WotC giving away the _*Oriental Adventures*_ license to Rokugan was pure stupidity. Especially with all the anime fans out there now and Americans in love with Asian culture.

I hope they renew OA under Kara-Tur, a setting filled wit more cultural variety, generalization, and the OA home of the Forgotten Realms (yet simltaneously generalized and big enough to stick in any campaign).

And, yes, they did update OA to 3.5 in the pages of Dragon Magazine. There was an OA 3.5 update article done a couple years ago I believe. Can't remember the exact issue.


----------



## smootrk (Apr 24, 2007)

I find it ironic that being 'accused of working for WotC' is called out as aggressive posting.  Funny.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> How is it possible to be sooner than we think, when half the board thought it would be out in 06?





LOL...well I wasnt around the boards here for a few years.

What I mean is the "we aren't working on 4E" comments are... untruths


----------



## Nyeshet (Apr 24, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> WotC views FR and DL as the two great IP creation successes. I'm astonished they ever let DL go in the first place and am not surprised they want to bring it back in-house.
> 
> If anything, it might be a result of the sales of Eberron. The Setting Search that produced Eberron was an attempt by WotC to engineer the kind of success they had with FR and DL, and never had with Dark Sun, Planescape, Birthright, et al.
> 
> If Eberron underperformed, it would be natural for them to say "let's get DL back in house." It's one of their huge hits.



The only problem I see with this is that any books they create for DL will inevitably be compared to those priorly released for 3.5e - and unless they are excellent to a degree not yet seen from WotC they will at best hold even - and make the players and DMs angry at having to, in effect, re-buy all the DL books all over again. It will be like the switch from 3e to 3.5e and having to re-buy the core 3 books again, but unlike then one can not wait around for the SRD to be posted, for the rules will almost certainly be different in some respects (if only to force the players and DMs to actually buy the books, as the former books will not be compatible with the new WotC books). I can see a lot of people just not buying them - at first, but once the former ones are both no longer published and no longer readily found, they will have little choice if they want new material. 

I can't see WotC being so foolish as that, and I can't see them taking on the cost of re-publishing the current DL books so as to appease players - especially since some negotiations with their creators might be in order if they were to think to do so. 

All in all, I can't see WotC re-releasing the DL setting. More likely, I can see them having an Expedition book (as occurred with RL), and - perhaps - having some occasional articles and crunch on whatever digital thing they are working upon. 

To go from the quality books once enjoyed to a single (albeit hopefully very good) adventure and some occasional articles (if that) seems a rather poor exchange to myself and many others. It is possible they intend to re-release the series, but most of us just don't see it as likely, and anything less seems a poor reason for clipping the wings of the current (3.5e) version of the setting.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

Troll Wizard said:
			
		

> Didn't WW chose not to renew Ravenloft and Gamma World because the product's sales did not return the revenue they expected (over the years they had the license) and therefore did not want to continue paying the yearly license fee any longer?  If I remember reading correctly from WW own boards.




That is fan speculation. No data or info from WotC or WW confirms this.

Joël


----------



## Nyeshet (Apr 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The only time I've seen moves like this as 'classic' in corporations is when they're trying to trim the fat and make things a nice digestible package for sale.



:blink: :blink: 

So, you think that perhaps Hasbro is preparing to sell WotC to the highest bidder? 

That's an interesting idea, but I can't quite see it at the moment. Not that it is impossible, but I still find it rather unlikely. At least not unless Hasbro can think of a way to keep MtG while also offering up the rest of WotC to the bidders. (Minis might bring in some money, but I somehow doubt it brings in as much as MtG.)


----------



## Riley (Apr 24, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If there are adventures that get slammed more than the original DL adventures, they're called things like "Terrible Trouble at Tragidore".




The original DL adventures were a serious railroad, but they included some of the coolest locations in the history of D&D.  The sunken city on the edge of a cliff, the giant gate, the dwarven mountain, the floating tomb, Icewall, the really tall tower/seige, and the city with the erupting volcanoes are all really potent images.  Can't remember the names of these places - and I hated the books - but I've raided the original Dragonlance modules for maps and inspiration over and over.

I'm not moved one way or the other by WOTC reclaiming the DL license.  Seemed odd to have spun it off in the first place.  Of course, it seemed odd  to have spun the peiodicals section off as well.  I wouldn'tve cared about that one as much, either, if they'dve promised to keep publishing the magazines.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Apr 24, 2007)

Imagine the shape of the RPG industry if the d20 license gets pulled.  Companies that are d20-only would be in dire straits unless they have proprietary or non-d20 OGL products lined up.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?





Yes.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 24, 2007)

This may sound silly, but reading the explanation from Weis, it's not clear whether or not, WOTC didn't not to offer the license again or if Weis et al decided not to bother paying the license again.

All she says is, "Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed".


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 24, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Imagine the shape of the RPG industry if the d20 license gets pulled.  Companies that are d20-only would be in dire straits unless they have proprietary or non-d20 OGL products lined up.




Already happened thanks to Glut which had nothing to do with WoTC no? Are there any pure d20 publishers in print these days? Most are PDF/POD thanks to the low entry cost and those that are d20 have a lot of OGL fires in the oven.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm thinking they are shrinking the market to FR and Eberron. Period.

People have expressed their hope that Paizo might get the license for Greyhawk, given Erik Mona's talent with this realm. Dream on, I think. Not gonna happen...

Am usually optimistic, but not today...

Joël


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> They've also eliminated all "official" competition in the adventure market.



Kalamar is alive and kicking.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but reading the explanation from Weis, it's not clear whether or not, WOTC didn't not to offer the license again or if Weis et al decided not to bother paying the license again.
> 
> All she says is, "Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed".




Same bland comment from both parties when RL and GW returned to WotC.

Joël


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?




*The Digital Initiative is 4e!!!*

You heard it here first, folks! Tell your friends and spread the word!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but reading the explanation from Weis, it's not clear whether or not, WOTC didn't not to offer the license again or if Weis et al decided not to bother paying the license again.
> 
> All she says is, "Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed".





It's always like that, they don't need to burn any bridges. "and then will step back from our association with Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro." doesn't sound like they wanted to lose the license, but we'll most likely never hear any real details.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Already happened thanks to Glut which had nothing to do with WoTC no?




During the glut (pre 3.5e mostly), Wizards were really not printing much D&D at all. 

Cheers!


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 24, 2007)

Ok - disclosure: I've been a huge DragonLance fan in the past and my company was even approached about doing a licensed DragonLance computer product in the not too distant past.

I'm actually not upset by this - nor am I surprised.

While it is possible to see this as part of some great conspiracy to bring back licenses within WotC  - I don't think that overall plan need necessarily be so.  It could be, I'll grant you - but there are other issues here.

You need to appreciate that there is something very major which separates DragonLance from Ravenloft: it's called a forthcoming movie with anticipated sequels.

It's pretty odd for WotC to be in a position where the _Dragons Of Autumn Twilight_ movie is coming out this fall and the license rights for the PnP game are held by Margaret's company.

At the same time, Margaret's ongoing involvement with DragonLance isn't something that's ever going to end unless she wants it to. 

Together with Tracy - she's the heart and soul of the brand.

As a fan - I don't see this as a disaster. Sov Press did as much with the license as could reasonably be expected. Apart from the remaining two modules in the classic campaign (which may end up being finished within the year) and the _Races of Ansalon_ book.... well.... they've had a good run with the license and created a vast majority of what fans of the setting could ever want for D20. It's all been high quality stuff for the most part too. 

So really - this is not the doom and gloom associated with _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ and I don't at all think that this need be seen as part of some menacing uber plan.

As a fan, I'm grateful for the license that has been extended to date and the great products that have been created under it. 

So from my perspective sitting in the bleachers, this is not a dire thing at all.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 24, 2007)

Like I said before, (not an advocation) but I hear thousands of limewire and bit torrent accounts spinning up their downloads.


----------



## dargoth3 (Apr 24, 2007)

The 54,000 question is what are they going to do with it once Dragonlace is back in Wizards hands? Are they going to start making Dragonlance products or are they just going to sit on the licence so theres less compition to their own product lines.......


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 24, 2007)

What really blows about this is that they were only halfway through re-releasing the classic DL Chronicles series of adventures. _Dragons of Winter_ is due out in August but will we ever see the final part of the trilogy, _Dragons of Spring_ ? ...


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but reading the explanation from Weis, it's not clear whether or not, WOTC didn't not to offer the license again or if Weis et al decided not to bother paying the license again.
> 
> All she says is, "Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed".




If it looks like a duck ...
and sounds like a duck ...

I know we have no definitive proof, but to me the lack of any WotC statements over the last 6 days, despite all the outpouring of emotions speaks more to this subject (for me) than anything else.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm not bothered at all.  I think something big (and cool) is coming.  When they are ready, I'm sure we'll know.  Call me a sucker; call me loyal.

I still have faith in our friends at WotC.


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

TheYeti1775 said:
			
		

> Like I said before, (not an advocation) but I hear thousands of limewire and bit torrent accounts spinning up their downloads.




I've never downloaded a single pirated copy of a game, and usually buy both a hard copy as well as a pdf of those that I really enjoy.  This is beginning to get me pissed off enough to consider it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> I find it ironic that being 'accused of working for WotC' is called out as aggressive posting.  Funny.



Since the implication is that's the only reason someone could possibly take a contrary view is they work for "teh enemy," yeah, I'd call that pretty aggressive.


----------



## Set (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but reading the explanation from Weis, it's not clear whether or not, WOTC didn't not to offer the license again or if Weis et al decided not to bother paying the license again.
> 
> All she says is, "Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed".




As a writer, she surely knows of the evils of the passive voice.

That had to be a deliberate wording choice.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I've never downloaded a single pirated copy of a game, and usually buy both a hard copy as well as a pdf of those that I really enjoy.  This is beginning to get me pissed off enough to consider it.



Can't say I never have.  But then again, I also own the good majority of everything made since Red Box days.  

I'm sure I'll be several pages behind both here and on WOTC come the AM when I start reading these again at work.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Apr 24, 2007)

Something tells me Margaret probably new this was ending some time ago and for legal reasons simply waited until it was time to make an official statement.  I'm sure it was amicable, and she isn't hurting financially over it.  



> You need to appreciate that there is something very major which separates DragonLance from Ravenloft: it's called a forthcoming movie with anticipated sequels.




Yes, I would want the IP back too knowing what kind of money such movie tie-ins are worth.  And that isn't illegal, immoral, or unethical.  That's good business practice.  It would be stupid of them NOT to bring the IP home.


----------



## smootrk (Apr 24, 2007)

Many have voiced hesitence to jump to conclusions, optimism for the future, and other 'contrary' opinions.  There is a vocal few that actively attack those who fear that worse actions are in place.  Freebfrost made the inquiry against one of this type.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> Something tells me Margaret probably new this was ending some time ago and for legal reasons simply waited until it was time to make an official statement.  I'm sure it was amicable, and she isn't hurting financially over it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would want the IP back too knowing what kind of money such movie tie-ins are worth.  And that isn't illegal, immoral, or unethical.  That's good business practice.  It would be stupid of them NOT to bring the IP home.




You mean, you let other people develop it, then harvest the goods yourself.

Sure, it's a way to do business, and it's not illegal. People who agreed to such license knew what they were doing.

But ethical? Can you say yes without laughing ? 

Joël


----------



## Bardsandsages (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I've never downloaded a single pirated copy of a game, and usually buy both a hard copy as well as a pdf of those that I really enjoy.  This is beginning to get me pissed off enough to consider it.




So a company reclaiming it's IP is reason enough for you to steal?  I'm pretty mad at my health insurance company about changes to my premiums.  Guess I'll go steal my agent's car.....

In my never humble opinion, methinks a few folks here in the forums might want to consider stepping away from their computers for a couple of days.  Tis much ado...not about nothing...but about very little.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> Many have voiced hesitence to jump to conclusions, optimism for the future, and other 'contrary' opinions.  There is a vocal few that actively attack those who fear that worse actions are in place.  Freebfrost made the inquiry against one of this type.



A heroic ad hominem attack? Pretty sure the mods would disagree.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 24, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> What really blows about this is that they were only halfway through re-releasing the classic DL Chronicles series of adventures. _Dragons of Winter_ is due out in August but will we ever see the final part of the trilogy, _Dragons of Spring_ ? ...




Depends on Cam Banks and Jamie Chambers I would guess. 

I really like Cam's stuff. He's a great designer and a great author. Not shy with the word count either! Have you seen the SIZE of _Price of Courage_?


----------



## Bardsandsages (Apr 24, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> You mean, you let other people develop it, then harvest the goods yourself.
> 
> Sure, it a way to do business, and it's not illegal.
> 
> ...




It's a license.  I don't believe Margaret Weiss is stupid, naive, or unsavvy.  She didn't walk into it blind.  She knew it was a temporary situation (as is the nature of such things).  It was a mutually beneficial arrangement.  I don't believe she was manipulated, brainwashed, or otherwise tricked into developing anything.  She made a nice amount of cash working on a mutually beneficial business arrangement.  That arrangement has ended at the end of its term.  I don't see where such is unethical.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 24, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> You mean, you let other people develop it, then harvest the goods yourself.
> 
> Sure, it's a way to do business, and it's not illegal. People who agreed to such license knew what they were doing.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure why it isnt ethical. WOTC could've simply sat on the license and nothing could've come of it and that is exactly what you're arguing for.

To relate this to RPGs, this is nothing compared to Red Sonja.

To most people, Red Sonja is a Howard creation but if you actually know the history behind her, you'll see that 99% of what makes Red Sonja, the she-devil with the sword, is the work marvel put into her.

To a smaller extent, Marvel itself has to be given credit since a large part of Conan's appeal comes from their comics. 

For all their hard work, Marvel only saw a dime during the years of the licence and no longer gets any benefit from either Red Sonja or Conan. Is this fair?


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why it isnt ethical. WOTC could've simply sat on the license and nothing could've come of it and that is exactly what you're arguing for.




Have to agree with you on that.
Nothing unethical about any of the dealings we know about right now.

Just the silence out of WOTC is quite deafening if I do say so.


----------



## Jim Hague (Apr 24, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Imagine the shape of the RPG industry if the d20 license gets pulled.  Companies that are d20-only would be in dire straits unless they have proprietary or non-d20 OGL products lined up.




Except that would only affect companies sporting the d20 logo.  OGL products would be unaffected.  No dire straits, considering very, very few companies go through the hassle of getting that little logo to begin with. You overstate the impact.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Kalamar is alive and kicking.




Yep, forgot about Kalamar.

BTW, does anyone think this has something to do with the forthcoming release of the DL animated movie?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 24, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> BTW, does anyone think this has something to do with the forthcoming release of the DL animated movie?




I find that scenario more likely than the 4E theories, honestly.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2007)

I really want to license products from some of you guys.  Wow, talk about risk free investing.  If I do a bad job, you yank the license from me and I go on my way.  If I do a good job, I get to keep the license forever.  Win win for me.  I never have to do all the grunt work getting the original product off the ground and I get to reap the benefits of your hard work.

Can I license stuff from you?


----------



## Khairn (Apr 24, 2007)

Bardsandsages said:
			
		

> So a company reclaiming it's IP is reason enough for you to steal?  I'm pretty mad at my health insurance company about changes to my premiums.  Guess I'll go steal my agent's car.....
> 
> In my never humble opinion, methinks a few folks here in the forums might want to consider stepping away from their computers for a couple of days.  Tis much ado...not about nothing...but about very little.




I am usually easy going and would never think of doing any such thing.  But the total lack of any communication from WotC despite the now almost 6 days that this firestorm has been raging and the clear decision to deliberately let their customers emotions fester has truly irritated me.

Since IMHO my irritation is justified and caused by the deliberate/planned inaction of WotC, I have no problems continuing to share my opinion in an honest, responsible and open manner.

To me it is not much ado about very little.  Its much ado about something that I am passionate about and hate to see mis-managed as much as its being done these days.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I am usually easy going and would never think of doing any such thing.  But the total lack of any communication from WotC despite the now almost 6 days that this firestorm has been raging and the clear decision to deliberately let their customers emotions fester has truly irritated me.



I'm not sure if this changes your opinion or not, but they've been in touch with us; that's why we had the "questions you want to ask WotC" thread. We should be seeing answers about a lot of these things in the next few days, by my guess.

It's also quite possible that wotC doesn't have their plans finalized, but Paizo does -- which is why Paizo made the announcement. That's just supposition, though.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Apr 24, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> It's also quite possible that wotC doesn't have their plans finalized, but Paizo does -- which is why Paizo made the announcement. That's just supposition, though.




I suspect Paizo was under the gun to make an announcement.  When you're selling a product that won't be delivered until months or years into the future, and trying to sell advertising space in the mag, there are legal and financial concerns that come into play if the product isn't going to, you know, exist.


----------



## coyote6 (Apr 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Can I license stuff from you?




Sure! What did you want to license, and how many multiples (whole numbers only, please) of my yearly salary will you pay for the honor?

I've got some old socks that I could let the rights go for a song. 

[size=-2](Publishing rights on a Beatles song, that is.)[/size]


----------



## VictorC (Apr 24, 2007)

As a huge DL fan I kind of wish this wasn't happening, but it is. MW and crew has done some fantastic work. All I hope is that Wizards does something with the license. Also if they do, that it is at least good it doesn't have to be as good (I don't think they have it in them) just so it isn't absolute crap.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2007)




----------



## Cabled (Apr 24, 2007)

The D&D brand is worth a lot more on the auction block with all these other IP's attached and included too.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2007)

A loss of communications can mean only one thing: invasion.

Err, I mean: WotC is a corporation, corporations do different things at different times. I'm sure they have their reasons, and it wasn't because people hated the recent DL stuff. You can conjecture all kinds of things, many of them exclusionary.

For instance: WotC is going to kill the OGL and wants to bring the cows all home.
Versus: WotC wants to support 4e aggressively through the OGL, viewing their valuable IPs as the real money makers.


----------



## teitan (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?





The OGL can't be withdrawn. once the cat was out of the bag, it was out of the bag.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> A loss of communications can mean only one thing: invasion.
> 
> Err, I mean: WotC is a corporation, corporations do different things at different times. I'm sure they have their reasons, and it wasn't because people hated the recent DL stuff. You can conjecture all kinds of things, many of them exclusionary.
> 
> ...




I imagine the folks at WotC are dying to let us know all about the Digital Initiative.  With all the big changes that have taken place recently, it is not a stretch to say they are taking the DI very seriously.

Being a corporation, I'm sure they can't spill the beans until they have all the ducks lined up.  Like they said, 'We have a plan'.


----------



## teitan (Apr 24, 2007)

smootrk said:
			
		

> WotC's activities lately are shameful (IMO).
> 
> We will probably see Oriental Adventures join the ranks of 'license not renewed', although personally I would like to see a new treatment of that material (especially if revamped for Kara-Tur).




They can't pull that one either as it was produced in conjunction with AEG and used THEIR world, not a WOTC world.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

You know...if you are considering selling a company, you usually first consolidate intellectual property under you wing first.  That way, you don't give a third party veto power over the transaction.

I doubt this is the plan, but it's possible.

And they posted record sales today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18272397/


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You know...if you are considering selling a company, you usually first consolidate intellectual property under you wing first.  That way, you don't give a third party veto power over the transaction.
> 
> I doubt this is the plan, but it's possible.




The same logic would apply if they wanted to bring WotC "in house," that is, roll them into Hasbro proper, or merge them with another interesting division.


----------



## teitan (Apr 24, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> They've also eliminated all "official" competition in the adventure market.





They have? How?


----------



## broghammerj (Apr 24, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> WotC is a corporation, corporations do different things at different times. I'm sure they have their reasons.




Unfortunately whatever those reasons may be, they are beginning to erode consumer confidence.  Consumer perception is a very important thing.  Being from Detroit it vaguely reminds me of the American car companies.  They put out some poorly made cars back in the 80s and began losing the race with Japan.  Now they make great quality cars but everyone's perception is that they still aren't good enough, despite massive strides in quality.  They're not even really making a comeback.

Now there is no real competitor for WOTC especially since they are snapping up all of their licenses.  But what will happen to consumer perception.  A couple of things come to mind:

1. Maybe 4e isn't so far off.  I guess I should stop buying books for now because apparently it will be a sudden announcement with no foreshadowing.  We won't get any warning like 3E.

2. What if I prepay for my digital initiative subscription and WOTC suddenly decides it's not profitable or wants to change the format?  This apparently could happen at anytime

All these actions make me clutch my 3.5 books a little tighter.  As others have concluded WOTC can't go back on the current version of OGL.  That should keep 3rd party companies going for a while.  I can always play the version I have in my hand.  Look at Diaglo he still plays DND the "antique" edition (only kidding)


----------



## Kanegrundar (Apr 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You know...if you are considering selling a company, you usually first consolidate intellectual property under you wing first.  That way, you don't give a third party veto power over the transaction.
> 
> I doubt this is the plan, but it's possible.



 Possibly, but with the huge value of the brand name alone I'd sooner expect a 4E announcement than that D&D is selling.  (Not saying that I am expecting a 4E announcement however.)  After all, the D&D name alone on video games is likely worth more than the book sales.  They have big plans and whatever those plans entail require getting the house in order...


----------



## teitan (Apr 24, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> WotC giving away the _*Oriental Adventures*_ license to Rokugan was pure stupidity. Especially with all the anime fans out there now and Americans in love with Asian culture.
> 
> I hope they renew OA under Kara-Tur, a setting filled wit more cultural variety, generalization, and the OA home of the Forgotten Realms (yet simltaneously generalized and big enough to stick in any campaign).
> 
> And, yes, they did update OA to 3.5 in the pages of Dragon Magazine. There was an OA 3.5 update article done a couple years ago I believe. Can't remember the exact issue.




WOTC was licensing Rokugan, not the other way around...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 24, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> That is fan speculation. No data or info from WotC or WW confirms this.
> 
> Joël



Errr, if I recall correctly WW _did_ mention this publicly. Feel free to go digging and prove me wrong, but I am pretty sure that they did announce this.

The RL license was fairly expensive, going up in price with renewal, and WW was disappointed with the sales of all their D20 lines - they also closed the Scarred Lands in the same announcement, and they owned that setting outright. After the changeover to 3.5 a lot of companies were feeling the pinch. So, WW pretty much dropped out of directly producing D20 materials in preparation for their new and improved World of Darkness.... (Which, locally at least, has been a bit of a flop.) They did continue to distribute some companies' D20 material, Malhavoc, etc.

But I will admit that I find the timing of this latest closing of a license disturbing.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 24, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Depends on Cam Banks and Jamie Chambers I would guess.




Still hard at work!



> I really like Cam's stuff. He's a great designer and a great author. Not shy with the word count either! Have you seen the SIZE of _Price of Courage_?




Biggest DL game product ever!

Thanks for the support, by the way. We like our fans a lot.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Hmm, actually the more I look at the announcement, and what they had already done with it, and the fact that these are sold as 4 year licenses, the more I become convinced that it was not WOTC that pulled the license, but Weis who opted to not renew it.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> If it looks like a duck ...
> and sounds like a duck ...
> 
> I know we have no definitive proof, but to me the lack of any WotC statements over the last 6 days, despite all the outpouring of emotions speaks more to this subject (for me) than anything else.




Wait wait...the lack of WOTC statements, except for two of them one of which was long.  And over the last 6 days, except this only happened 48 hours ago.  What time stream are you living in?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Apr 24, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> WOTC was licensing Rokugan, not the other way around...



The history of the _Legend of the Five Rings_ IP is, in fact, quite complicated.

Suffice to say that Wizards of the Coast, at the time _Oriental Adventures_ was published, owned the Rokugan IP but was licensing it to AEG, and that AEG came into possession of the IP  later.

It's actually covered on the *Wikipedia page*:

AEG and Isomedia designed the original card game. A group of the original people formed the Five Rings Publishing Group with some investors so that they could really publicise the game, and Five Rings bought the _Legend of the Five Rings_ IP - essentially, AEG now licensed the IP from Five Rings. Later, they licensed the rights to make a tabletop RPG from Five Rings, too.

Wizards of the Coast bought the Five Rings Publishing Group, but AEG's licenses remained in effect - though Wizards of the Coast became the publisher of the card game, AEG designed it. Nothing about this setup changed when Hasbro bought Wizards of the Coast, either.

Later on, Wizards of the Coast decided to sell off the _Legend of the Five Rings_ IP - and, luckily for them, AEG won the bidding war.


----------



## Cabled (Apr 24, 2007)

Im sure Devyn was speaking of the whole Dragon/Dungeon thing, not just the DL thing.  My group gamed Saturday morning, and we discussed it then, and that is quite outside 48 hours ago.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 24, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> WOTC was licensing Rokugan, not the other way around...




Not quite.  At the time Oriental Adventures was printed, WotC completely owned the Legend of the Five Rings brand, including the RPG and the CCG.

However, practically while OA was still in the print house, events conspired and the property was sold to AEG.  So it wasn't long after OA hit the shelves that Rokugan was no longer owned by WotC.

WotC never licensed Rokugan to AEG, they sold it to them.  They did license the OA logo and mechanics, however, resulting in a long series of d20 Rokugan books printed by AEG.  The WotC OA book was the "core" book of the line.

Not too long ago AEG came out with the new edition of the original Rokugan game mechanics, which are not d20 based.

That's where I stopped paying attention . . . I'm not sure if the new L5R books were dual-statted after that, or if they dropped d20 and the OA logo entirely . . .


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2007)

Cam, if you're still reading, any chance Towers of High Sorcery can sneak back into print before the axe falls, or should I be haunting the same used bookstores as I am for The Magic Box for BTVSRPG?


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Not to sound hysterical or anything, but is this all the pre-cursor to an all out assault on D20, OGL, and the SRD in preparation for 4th Ed?



My first paranoid thought too!


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Apr 24, 2007)

*edit* oops


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 24, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Do you work for WotC?




Nope. Never have, and probably never will.

My ultimate goal is to work for Green Ronin 

Chuck


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sooo, when WOTC gives something, they have to give it forever, relinquishing all rights to IP they've license, or they're shameful?
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Chuck



Dude. . . you're like a masochist or something, aren't you?


----------



## Vigilance (Apr 24, 2007)

I think this is about the upcoming movie personally.

If the movie is a hit... the license price just went way up.

If it's not... well... sit on it for a couple of years till folks forget 

Chuck


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Cam, if you're still reading, any chance Towers of High Sorcery can sneak back into print before the axe falls, or should I be haunting the same used bookstores as I am for The Magic Box for BTVSRPG?




Actually, I'm not the man to answer that for you, mate. But I can see if Jamie will drop by sometime - he's at GAMA, but he's checking forums when he isn't working like crazy.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Cabled said:
			
		

> Im sure Devyn was speaking of the whole Dragon/Dungeon thing, not just the DL thing.  My group gamed Saturday morning, and we discussed it then, and that is quite outside 48 hours ago.




The announcement was made a little less than four days ago.  Not six days.  And it was followed up a little over 24 hours later with a second much longer announcement.  And they are about to answer questions posed to them.  So almost every day since the announcement WOTC has said something about it, and it's not all that long ago either.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Apr 24, 2007)

Like many of the other conspiracy theorists out there I think the timing of all the recent license consolidation suggests that something BIG might appear on WoTC's release schedual for 2008's first quarter.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Nah, I think the prevailing logic of this being due to the movie is spot-on.

It makes a lot of sense, more so than Weis and Co just letting it go, seriously. If you had the ability to retain a license to a product right before an animated and, per most speculation, likely successful fantasy movie based on it is about to come out, you'd hold onto it.

It makes more sense that WotC, with the same logic in place, save for them retaining the rights instead of licensing it.

While it's obvious that some fans are disappointed, it still makes the most sense AND I'm pretty sure that whatever Weis and Co still have on-hand to sell either gets to finished being sold, or WotC snags it and finishes selling it.

All in all, I'm sure both sides are coming out of this fairly well, not to mention all the other licensed properties they've (Weis and Co) got to work with.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Apr 24, 2007)

Friadoc said:
			
		

> Nah, I think the prevailing logic of this being due to the movie is spot-on.
> 
> It makes a lot of sense, more so than Weis and Co just letting it go, seriously. If you had the ability to retain a license to a product right before an animated and, per most speculation, likely successful fantasy movie based on it is about to come out, you'd hold onto it.




The only problem I find with the movie explination is that they allowed Weis to "hold" onto the license for as long as they did.  I would have expected them to announce the change much earlier after the majority of the Movie's cast was announced (during Feb and early march) and not month or so later right after pulling Dragon and Dungeon's license.


----------



## Winterthorn (Apr 24, 2007)

*Holy coincidence Batman!*

I am wash in the afterglow of serene thought and a cool cider following the weekend's hystrionics in which I too played a role.... Sigh.   

So, I've been reading threads and absorbing this latest round of news. While the Dragon/Dungeon news was a honest to goodness PR debacle of epic proportions (ok, I exaggerate a tad), I suspect this announcement regarding DL is a normal development that typically stems from a change in old business plans. MW & Co did a fab job on DL so far and the year is still young before the license (apparently 4 years long, pretty good I'd say) is up so, on its own, this looks perfectly kosher to me. But... I question WotC's silence on this case too - I'll give them 48 hours to pull their socks up before I draw any more dire conclusions...

Oh, and btw, JoeGKushner's idea of a coral of IP before Hasbro sells WotC (or just D&D)? Well that struck a chord, rung a bell, and chimed a note with me too... What was that about a Chinese curse again?


----------



## Echohawk (Apr 24, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm not the man to answer that for you, mate. But I can see if Jamie will drop by sometime - he's at GAMA, but he's checking forums when he isn't working like crazy.



Cam, are you able to tell us whether we'll see _Dragons of Spring: War of the Lance Chronicles III_ released before the line ends, or is that a question for Jamie too?

PS: Nice to see the Chulcrix back in print in _Price of Courage_!


----------



## variant (Apr 24, 2007)

This is just a sign for me to jump ship completely. I am not going to buy a single book until I see what the future holds for D&D. I may also think about shying away from the new Star Wars game.


----------



## mrswing (Apr 24, 2007)

So on the D&D gets sold-possibility... Mongoose? Who were in talks to get The Holy Grail of Gaming???
Can't get much holier than D&D and all intimately related IPs...


----------



## the Jester (Apr 24, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> So on the D&D gets sold-possibility... Mongoose? Who were in talks to get The Holy Grail of Gaming???
> Can't get much holier than D&D and all intimately related IPs...




I think the real question is, Who could afford it?


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Apr 24, 2007)

caudor said:
			
		

> 'We have a plan'.




You know who else had a plan?  Cylons.  Frakkin' toasters are running WotC.

Ironically, MWP has the rights to the BSGRPG; thus, they could just write the entirety of the Skinjobs of the Coast out of existence.  

-TRRW


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> The only problem I find with the movie explination is that they allowed Weis to "hold" onto the license for as long as they did.  I would have expected them to announce the change much earlier after the majority of the Movie's cast was announced (during Feb and early march) and not month or so later right after pulling Dragon and Dungeon's license.





Except that the license hadn't, I'm assuming, expired yet.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that there is something in the license that keeps such a notice going out until it has expired, but I don't know for sure.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> You know who else had a plan?  Cylons.  Frakkin' toasters are running WotC.
> 
> Ironically, MWP has the rights to the BSGRPG; thus, they could just write the entirety of the Skinjobs of the Coast out of existence.
> 
> -TRRW




The problem with Cylons is that they are not very creative.  The folks at WotC are.

I think once people start to see this plan unfold, more will see the light.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 24, 2007)

Which Cylons are we talking about here?


			
				caudor said:
			
		

> The problem with Cylons is that they are not very creative.  The folks at WotC are.
> 
> I think once people start to see this plan unfold, more will see the light.


----------



## blargney the second (Apr 24, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Surely, all just a coincidence.



This reminded me of James Bond:
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

-blarg


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2007)

Cabled said:
			
		

> The D&D brand is worth a lot more on the auction block with all these other IP's attached and included too.




That's my thinking. This might point towards a sell off of the D&D business. Consolidating the IP and ending licenses to ease transition to another owner.

Caveat: I talking out of my hat here, I've never been involved in business like this, and have nothing but a fleeting vision in my imagination to back this up with.

That said, this has way less effect on me than the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon. And that didn't register much either.

/M


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I think the real question is, Who could afford it?




Maybe, just maybe - Vin Diesel?


----------



## Beckett (Apr 24, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That's my thinking. This might point towards a sell off of the D&D business. Consolidating the IP and ending licenses to ease transition to another owner.
> 
> Caveat: I talking out of my hat here, I've never been involved in business like this, and have nothing but a fleeting vision in my imagination to back this up with.




For once, I would like to try my hand at wild speculation with nothing in the way of facts to back it up: Hasbro is tying up loose ends to facilitate the sale of the RPG and Miniature Gaming parts of WotC to Peter Adkison.  This deal will be announced at Gen Con.

 pass it on.


----------



## Pramas (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, this is an interesting development.


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Well, this is an interesting development.




You mean Green Ronin Publishing is planning to buy WotC?


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 24, 2007)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Well, this is an interesting development.




What a cryptic response.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 24, 2007)

Repent gamers, for the end is nigh!

Seriously though, this does make me nervous. As has been stated, tidying up your affairs is what you do before checking out, which in this case would be selling the D&D property. It may be that, it may be 4E, it may be something else altogether, but I think this is a sign of...something.

Even if it isn't, though, I wish WotC would communicate with their fan base. No they don't need to, but even if it's just a statement of what they're not going to do, information breeds confidence; silence breeds fear.


----------



## Tzeentch (Apr 24, 2007)

In Soviet Seattle, Licenses end YOU!

Seriously, this is a bummer but hardly a big shocker like the Dragon/Dungeon deal was.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Well, this is an interesting development.




You know Mr. Pramas, some people can actually walk by a pot, while carrying a spoon, and not stir it, ya dang pirate. 

*chuckles*


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Repent gamers, for the end is nigh!
> 
> Seriously though, this does make me nervous. As has been stated, tidying up your affairs is what you do before checking out, which in this case would be selling the D&D property. It may be that, it may be 4E, it may be something else altogether, but I think this is a sign of...something.
> 
> Even if it isn't, though, I wish WotC would communicate with their fan base. No they don't need to, but even if it's just a statement of what they're not going to do, information breeds confidence; silence breeds fear.




Just more wild speculation...

If it is indeed the plan to sell WotC, they would certainly need to have all their ducks lined up before making *that* kind of announcement.  Secrecy would certainly make sense during such a time.  Maybe we are really on to something.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Repent gamers, for the end is nigh!
> 
> Seriously though, this does make me nervous. As has been stated, tidying up your affairs is what you do before checking out, which in this case would be selling the D&D property. It may be that, it may be 4E, it may be something else altogether, but I think this is a sign of...something.
> 
> Even if it isn't, though, I wish WotC would communicate with their fan base. No they don't need to, but even if it's just a statement of what they're not going to do, information breeds confidence; silence breeds fear.




One big problem with that line of thought, when a division or company is about to sell off it's self (whole or piecemeal) raises, promotions, bonuses, and other such things that eat into overhead are generally halted.

In fact, layoffs start to occur at a staggered rate, too and last I say, WotC seems to be having promotions, new hires, expansion, and so forth.

WotC is, though, in the process of communication, it's just slow since some of us scared the crud out of them this past week.


----------



## Pramas (Apr 24, 2007)

Friadoc said:
			
		

> You know Mr. Pramas, some people can actually walk by a pot, while carrying a spoon, and not stir it, ya dang pirate.




Hey, I didn't put forward even one crackpot theory. Give me some credit. 

This is just a wacky year I guess. GAMA Trade Show is going on in Vegas this week and traditionally it's used as a platform for big, exciting announcements. The week leading up to GTS we haven't seen hype but controversy. 

I guess it's up to Green Ronin to provide some good news. And look at that, tomorrow is the opening day of GTS...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2007)

Friadoc said:
			
		

> WotC is, though, in the process of communication, it's just slow since some of us scared the crud out of them this past week.



Which was, of course, an absolutely predictable response from the playerbase.

WotC has plenty of smart cookies working there; I do not believe for a moment that no one raised their hand at a meeting and said "Guys? Folks are going to FREAK OUT over this. How about we hit them with our plans right when Paizo drops the bomb?"

The guy who gave that the thumbs down needs to spend some time in the corner.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2007)

Beckett said:
			
		

> For once, I would like to try my hand at wild speculation with nothing in the way of facts to back it up: Hasbro is tying up loose ends to facilitate the sale of the RPG and Miniature Gaming parts of WotC to Peter Adkison.  This deal will be announced at Gen Con.
> 
> pass it on.




That'd be sweet! Back into Peter Adkisons hands again! And then, 4e!

I'd like that, actually.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Dude. . . you're like a masochist or something, aren't you?




Heh, I find Vigilance's posts a good counterweight to the more excited responses these days.   

/M


----------



## Baumi (Apr 24, 2007)

This makes me quite sad ... Dragonlance brought me to D&D and in fact the 1E Dragonlance Book was the first D&D Book I bought. But I'm sure they will continue to make products for Dragonlance, so it will not all be lost, it's just sad that Margret Weiss and Tracy Hickman don't hold the license anymore...

Anyway my though about this is that the cancellation is either because of the movie or because of 4E. Why 4E?: They could try to stop all Official 3.5 Products from other Publishers so they could give out new Licenses when 4E is there with the demand that the new Products have to be for the new Edition (since I am FOR a new Edition this would not be all bad, just a bid forced).


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> So on the D&D gets sold-possibility... Mongoose? Who were in talks to get The Holy Grail of Gaming???
> Can't get much holier than D&D and all intimately related IPs...




If Mongoose would get the license, I'd take that as a nice cue to stop buying more D&D stuff, and just use the books I've got. That should last me ... about 332 years or so.

/M


----------



## sir_ollibolli (Apr 24, 2007)

I've just checked Kenzer's website... 

the newest Kalamar products do not sport the nifty "Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their cover.

Maybe that license also was not renewed... but we didn't hear about that, since Kenzer chose to continue publishing under the d20 license.


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Hey, I didn't put forward even one crackpot theory. Give me some credit.




Fine, I'll give you that.   



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> This is just a wacky year I guess. GAMA Trade Show is going on in Vegas this week and traditionally it's used as a platform for big, exciting announcements. The week leading up to GTS we haven't seen hype but controversy.
> 
> I guess it's up to Green Ronin to provide some good news. And look at that, tomorrow is the opening day of GTS...




*grins*

Good news is nice.

By the way, on a slight tangent, I just recently noticed and bought M&M Second Edition, nicely done.

I figure a late kudos is better than none.

Heck, I also order the M&M items you had in the Lucky 7 sale (Noir and Gizmo, I think), as well as the Second Edition Screen, too.

Anyhow, I look forward to the good news. Best of luck!


----------



## Friadoc (Apr 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Which was, of course, an absolutely predictable response from the playerbase.
> 
> WotC has plenty of smart cookies working there; I do not believe for a moment that no one raised their hand at a meeting and said "Guys? Folks are going to FREAK OUT over this. How about we hit them with our plans right when Paizo drops the bomb?"
> 
> The guy who gave that the thumbs down needs to spend some time in the corner.




Oh, yeah, it'd be fitting if that guy (not the one who said we'd freak out) was the one who got stuck at the booth? Or, better yet, have a special complaints box booth that they'd have to hold in their lap.

*chuckles*


----------



## caudor (Apr 24, 2007)

sir_ollibolli said:
			
		

> I've just checked Kenzer's website...
> 
> the newest Kalamar products do not sport the nifty "Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their cover.
> 
> Maybe that license also was not renewed... but we didn't hear about that, since Kenzer chose to continue publishing under the d20 license.




Wow, I hadn't noticed that.  Sure enough, no D&D logos.  Hum...


----------



## delericho (Apr 24, 2007)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> Yep - Taking all their lumps at once I suppose.




If that's what they're doing, then it's actually very wise. Things won't be markedly worse for them for doing this now than they would have been otherwise, and they're taking one hit instead of two.

However, I'm inclined to think instead that the timing of this is just coincidence - someone high up at Wizards has taken the view that they no longer want to license bits of the IP, so none of the licenses are going to be renewed. Which I have a hard time as viewing as particularly evil, to be honest.

However...

If I were a d20 publisher, I would at this point be very seriously considering dropping it, and switching to all OGL all the time. Because I fear that license might be the next to go.

Also, if there's anything you want from Athas.org and similar setting sites, make sure you get it now, just in case.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm not particularly bothered by this, as I'm not a fan of either Ravenloft or Dragonlance as campaign settings.

But as many others have observed, the timing sure is curious.


----------



## Job (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> ...If you rent your house to me, you can later come to me and say "hey, you were a good tenant, but you lease is up, and I want to empty the place out, repaint it, and move in myself".



In some eyes, this may also best position the owner to sell.

Job.


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 24, 2007)

This is sucking and making it harder to defend wotc.

Wotc shoudl know that they are getting some terrible PR in the gaming community from all of this.  I can understand their reasoning, its not too far off to know that Wotc is the one screwed by having all their licenses out there

But they opened this can of worms.

I don't think I"d enjoy a dragonlance product without margaret weis association. I don't think that I would like a dragon or Dungeon without Eric Mona at the helm (because he's a good editor).  I don't think Id want a part of a 4th edition without monte cook and skip.   This feels like the empire is coming and not giving a darn about us citizens, just point the death start and shoot. I defended the digital magazines and cancelation of dragon and dungeon, but wotc's brash behavior is undefendable.  

We were also told that there would be no announcment at gencon. The PR for these things is just plain horrible. We have to count on the screwed over company to give us the info.


----------



## rounser (Apr 24, 2007)

> I don't think Id want a part of a 4th edition without monte cook and skip.



Don't agree in the least there.  They've left more than enough of a footprint on the game already, both good and bad, thank you very much.  Time for some new blood with new approaches.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 24, 2007)

Something huge is on the horizon. What this might be, exactly, I do not know.

I am feeling very uneasy.


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 24, 2007)

Echohawk said:
			
		

> Cam, are you able to tell us whether we'll see _Dragons of Spring: War of the Lance Chronicles III_ released before the line ends




That's still the plan as far as I know!

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Baby Samurai (Apr 24, 2007)

I haven't been into _Dragonlance _ (krynn) since all of that War of Souls/Chaos malarkey – totally ruined the lovely flavour it had in the mid-80's through the early 90's, IMO, so I'm not that bothered. I'd rather remember _Dragonlance_ fondly (and still campaign in the world).

No other _Dragonlance_ product ever matched the vibe of the 1st edition hardcover _Dragonlance_ book, IMO.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 24, 2007)

Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.  If the time for licence renewal is upcoming, they might not have had a choice but to bring it up now due to contractual obligations.  Remember that Paizo was granted an extension on theirs just to get out the last few issues of their adventure path.

Let's not jump to conclusions until we get some firm news.


----------



## DragonLancer (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm very dissapointed by this news. No one does DL better than MW and crew.

I have to say that this coupled with the loss of Dungeon and Dragon has got my more than a little angry. I'm not going to bash WotC because I'm sure that somewhere (Bizarroworld?  ) they have a good reason for it, but that doesn't make it any less of a bitter pill.

Over the next year, I think WotC need to do something pretty good to compensate for all this because they have just made one bad PR move after another.

And it better not be 4th edition.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 24, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> You mean, you let other people develop it, then harvest the goods yourself.
> 
> Sure, it's a way to do business, and it's not illegal. People who agreed to such license knew what they were doing.
> 
> ...




So no work for hire is ethical?  :\


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 24, 2007)

What non-digital D&D licenses are left now?


----------



## lrsach01 (Apr 24, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> The OGL can't be withdrawn. once the cat was out of the bag, it was out of the bag.




Sorry I wasn't making myself clear....I didn't mean that WotC could withdraw the OGL. I don't know if they can. To be honest, I've never read the fine print in the license.  :\ 

I meant that WotC would try to make it "irrelevant" by pushing 4th Ed. Don't think its possible? How many people play 3.0/3.5 in relation to 1st or 2nd edition? Or SAGA? Or Project CHUPA for that matter? Or even straight up D20?

I don't know the answers my self. All I can do is go by my own impressions. The majority of stuff I see  for sale is 3.5 material. I could have a narrow  view, though,  since 3.5 is what I play. That's why I ask the question...so people much more knowlegable than myself can help me out.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 24, 2007)

I suspect there are many more people playing ADD 1E than we might think. 

And the OGL not being withdrawn, the whole thing could backfire at them big time if they decided to not make 4E OGL. I know I would still purchase 3.5 products from third-party publishers under these conditions.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> _Originally Posted by Joël of the FoS: That is fan speculation. No data or info from WotC or WW confirms this. _
> 
> ---
> 
> ...




I don't know where this comes from, other than fan speculations. Really. We've watched closely everything WW has released about RL, since it's our preferred setting.

Once, a while ago, the developpers said the sales of the RL Gazetteers in particular were disappointing.

But when the licence end announcement came, there were no comments of that sort about sales or licence price, as far as I know. WW sent out the same laconic announcement as Dragonlance's (I think not saying anything is part of the licence  )

But if you have a link saying otherwise, I'd be very interested to read it.

Joël


----------



## Bardsandsages (Apr 24, 2007)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> I meant that WotC would try to make it "irrelevant" by pushing 4th Ed. Don't think its possible? How many people play 3.0/3.5 in relation to 1st or 2nd edition? Or SAGA? Or Project CHUPA for that matter? Or even straight up D20?




I think the difference between 3.0/3.5 and the older editions is that publishers can't legally create support material for older editions.  Whereas the OGL could allow publishers to create support materials for 3.0/3.5 into infinity.  

I don't see the OGL dissappearing even with 4e coming.  There were several reasons the license was created to begin with.  First, to circumvent copyright issues involving whether or not you CAN copyright game rules.  Second, to reduce the proliferation of alternate game systems that compete against d20 (if all your competition is working under the same set of rules, gamers still need YOUR products!).  Third, to have an unlimited amount of support material to keep gamers gaming (and buying).  I mean really, WoTC has the perfect gig.  There are hundreds of publishers (myself included) creating support material for their system.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Apr 24, 2007)

First Dungeon and Dragon and now Dragonlance.  It could just be a coincidence or (more likely) WotC is about to have a shift in direction.  I wonder what is on the horizon?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 24, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> First Dungeon and Dragon and now Dragonlance.  It could just be a coincidence or (more likely) WotC is about to have a shift in direction.  I wonder what is on the horizon?
> 
> Olaf the Stout



This is no coincidence, WOTC has not renewed a license in six months.  Gencon will tell


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Apr 24, 2007)

* No renewals on licensed properties
* Dragon and Dungeon discontinued
* A new "Digital Initiative" going into place
* GenCon is no longer the "official" place for WotC news (now it's D&D Experience, run by RPGA if I recall correctly)

I tell ya, it's all building up to something. Fourth edition comes to mind. If it will not have an OGL as most of us believe, perhaps in WotC's mind the way to drag people along is to eliminate any competing OGL properties that they own rights to. That doesn't mean they can't re-establish licenses under a 4th edition with these companies, but it does give Wizards an opportunity to rewrite all the legalese in the licenses without any third party vendors looking over their shoulder as they wonder what's going on. With no multi-year licenses lingering, Wizards is free to introduce 4E any time from 2008 onward; at this point, I'm thinking '08 is looking ripe for the big change.


----------



## direheroics (Apr 24, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> But if you have a link saying otherwise, I'd be very interested to read it.
> 
> Joël




Here's the text of the WOTC RL announcement as posted on the Arthaus/WW/Sword and Sorcery site:

PS -- As can be determined by the date, this was well over a year ago.  Since the license reverted to WoTC, both the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft product and redone versions of selected RL novels in trade paperback have been produced.

--------------

Atlanta, GA and Renton, WA; August 15, 2005 — Arthaus Publishing, Inc. and Wizards of the Coast, Inc. today announced that they have reached an agreement for the reversion of rights to the RAVENLOFT and GAMMA WORLD campaign settings. Wizards of the Coast has tentatively agreed to allow White Wolf, which solicits and sells all Arthaus products, to continue to sell back stock in both lines under its Sword & Sorcery umbrella brand through June of 2006. 

This reversion means that the RAVENLOFT supplement Van Richten's Guide to the Mists will not see print. Sword & Sorcery Studios will release the unproofed manuscript (by authors Carla Hollar and Rucht Lilavivat and outgoing developers Jackie Cassada and Nicky Rea) as a free download available at http://www.swordsorcery.com. The manuscript will be available this September. 

"It has been a pleasure to publish and work on these two classic properties," said Stewart Wieck, Managing Editor of Sword & Sorcery Studios. "These are icons of the RPG culture, and I think we did them justice, added to their lore, and gave them a fresh treatment for this generation of gamers." 

Arthaus Publishing licensed the rights to RAVENLOFT, the gothic horror brand of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®, in 2001 and—under the Sword & Sorcery banner—has released 19 different products in the line over the last four years. Van Richten's Guide to the Mists was to be the twentieth product in the line. Arthaus licensed GAMMA WORLD in 2002 and released six products in the line. 

"Sword & Sorcery has done a great job with both lines," said Rich Redman, Wizards of the Coast's Assistant Brand Manager for Licensing. "We never had any doubts that these lines were in good hands." 

http://www.white-wolf.com/ravenloft/index.php?articleid=276


----------



## rowport (Apr 24, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The only time I've seen moves like this as 'classic' in corporations is when they're trying to trim the fat and make things a nice digestible package for sale.



This feels dead-on to me.  Still, the crown jewel for the IP would be the video game rights, which Atari already has, right?


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

direheroics said:
			
		

> Here's the text of the WOTC RL announcement as posted on the Arthaus/WW/Sword and Sorcery site:
> 
> PS -- As can be determined by the date, this was well over a year ago.  Since the license reverted to WoTC, both the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft product and redone versions of selected RL novels in trade paperback have been produced.
> 
> ...




Yes, this is the announcement! (and to me, it's pretty similar to the DL one - doesn't say why  the licence has ended).

It doesn't say anything about book sales or licence price. But perhaps AuldGrump was refering to something else?

Joël


----------



## direheroics (Apr 24, 2007)

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> I know this announcement! (and to me, it's pretty similar to the DL one - doesn't say why  the licence has ended).
> 
> But why do you put it to my attention, since it doesn't say anything about book sales or licence price?
> 
> Joël




I was simply pointing it out to everyone that no mention of financials was made in the only official announcement of the product lines' ending.  Many folks may have never seen the original announcement.

I was backing you up with hard evidence!


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Apr 24, 2007)

direheroics said:
			
		

> I was simply pointing it out to everyone that no mention of financials was made in the only official announcement of the product lines' ending.  Many folks may have never seen the original announcement.
> 
> I was backing you up with hard evidence!




Yes, sorry, I saw your answer on the FoS board, understood what you meant, then edited my post here 

Joël


----------



## Vlad Le Démon (Apr 24, 2007)

*WotC recovering freedom from Hasbro ?*

I'm a Magic the gathering player and a D&D player...
WotC will make something special for the 10th edition of MtG: all the cards will get black borders !
If i add this with all the timeshifted cards from the Timespiral block and the news concerning Dragon, Dungeon and Dragonlance...I'm thinking something will come in the near future...
Perhaps Hasbro will sell WotC to another company or will release WotC from captivity...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> WotC has plenty of smart cookies working there; I do not believe for a moment that no one raised their hand at a meeting and said "Guys? Folks are going to FREAK OUT over this. How about we hit them with our plans right when Paizo drops the bomb?"




WotC Marketing Guy: Hey, just thought I'd let you guys in D&D (design/development) know that we're announcing the cancellation of the license with Paizo this week. Give you a heads up and all.

WotC D&D Guy: You serious? Do you have any idea what kind of a madhouse it's going to be on the boards? I have a Play by Post I'm in- and we're in the middle of the climactic battle against Kyuss! Please tell me you Marketing Guys have some kind of Brilliant Plan (tm) that will at least give the fans something to chew on so they aren't tearing us a new one!

WotC Marketing Guy: Hey- that would have been a great idea, huh?

WotC D&D Guy: Maybe some Designated Online Representative (tm) to put a personal face on things for the online community? You, know, kind of like SKR did back in the day for TSR- he somehow managed to survive the wolves and do well for himself in the end.

WotC Marketing Guy: That sounds like it would have been another good idea. Have you ever thought about coming to work for us in Marketing?

WotC D&D Guy: ...

WotC Marketing Guy: Don't worry- give it a couple of days. Something else will come along and they'll completely forget about this whole thing. That games trade show is coming up, right?

WotC D&D Guy: Yeah, I suppose we'll just have to make the best of it.

WotC Marketing Guy: Good man- that's the spirit. Oh- by the way, there might also be some kind of announcement about the Dragonlance license not being renewed. Just so you know.

WotC D&D Guy: On the bright side, I guess I'll have a lot more free time now that I won't be able to ever go online again...


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Apr 24, 2007)

*Answers*



			
				Riley said:
			
		

> The original DL adventures were a serious railroad, but they included some of the coolest locations in the history of D&D.  The sunken city on the edge of a cliff, the giant gate, the dwarven mountain, the floating tomb, Icewall, the really tall tower/seige, and the city with the erupting volcanoes are all really potent images.  Can't remember the names of these places - and I hated the books - but I've raided the original Dragonlance modules for maps and inspiration over and over.
> 
> I'm not moved one way or the other by WOTC reclaiming the DL license.  Seemed odd to have spun it off in the first place.  Of course, it seemed odd  to have spun the peiodicals section off as well.  I wouldn'tve cared about that one as much, either, if they'dve promised to keep publishing the magazines.




Too lazy to see if someone already got to answering this for you.
Xak-Tsaroth: - Sunken City on the Edge of a Cliff
Thorbardin:  Dwarven mountain kingdom
High Clerists Tower:  the really tall tower/seige
Sanction:  the city with the erupting volcanoes
Pax Tharkas:  Dwarven gate fortress 

The sunken city of Ishtar is also a pretty good site, as are the Towers of High Sorcery.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 24, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> This reminded me of James Bond:
> Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.



Goldfinger was a wise man.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 24, 2007)

I don't think the sky is falling yet, But perhaps the d20/OGL market is shrinking enough that WotC doesn't want to make war with its own IP any longer (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Rokugan, Kalamar) so its taking back its IP (worlds or logos) and battering down the hatches to work on a smaller selection of material which is more profitable.

Ryan Dancy said the market is pretty much shrinking, and I assume it will continue to in light of MMORPGS and other digital role-playing. WotC can't withdraw the OGL, but there is no reason it needs to compete with itself for shelf-room, esp as the Game-Store is slowly dying and bigger booksellers (Borders, Amazon) become the new marketing strategy. 

Pulling back DL and RL (and GH via Dungeon/Dragon Mags) eliminates three outside sources of FRPG material. Removing the logos off L5R and Kalamar limit their exposure as well. These companies though, without WotC's swagger, will have to compete harder for shelf-space, while Hasbro/WotC will always have the upper-hand on this. 

Now, WotC only has to compete with a handful of successful d20 publishers (Ronin, Malahavoc, Etc) who together don't have the same strength as WotC. WotCs modules have distribution edges of Goodman's, etc. 

In fact, the only competition WotC is making for itself in the next 12 months is SW SAGA, which has enough Lucasites to make it viable (and doesn't compete deeply with traditional FRPG-style games).

I don't see this as the beginning of 4e or whatever, but I do see it as the final stanza for viable OGL content as is. Perhaps PDF, smaller web-publishing, and such will carry those games (not counting the successful ones, like Ronin) but I think the era of of OGL publishing is over...


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 24, 2007)

*WotC is taking it back!*

We all know the details:

Licenses for the following are all being or have been cancelled/not renewed:

*Dungeon
Dragon
Dragon Lance
E-tools 
Ravenloft*

They also decided to make *D&D eXPerience * (once Winter Fantasy), a convention they control, the main D&D convention, versus *GenCon*, which they sold off a while ago.  

The pattern is pretty clear, and represents a major reversal from past strategy. 

What does it all mean?

(my apologies for adding yet another thread...but, well, they are taking it back!).


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2007)

It's all another step on the road to the heat death of the universe, mang.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 24, 2007)

This just in- WOTC INVADES POLAND!


----------



## Finger Steeple (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm surprised it took WOTC this long to realize that the independent companies that have held licenses to their 'throw-aways' are putting out far superior quality products than when it was in their hands.  

Their arrogant attitude of 'we know whats better for you' which permeated in their Public Relations response has me really turned off to the company.


----------



## GreatLemur (Apr 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> This just in- WOTC INVADES POLAND!



_Niiiiiice._


----------



## Land Outcast (Apr 24, 2007)

First:
Remove Possible Competitors for Future Products (Electronic Initiative, Adventure Publishing) 

Second:
Publish those Products

Then:
Publish an "Updated But Not Core" set of rules with wide differences with the current rules, this results in a narrowing the official supply (effectively having the monopoly of Updated D&D).

This narrowing will "obviously" cause the brainless consumers to keep feeding only from that tight source and resulting in some tasty extra profit.

 Have a nice day.


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 24, 2007)

Pramas said:
			
		

> I guess it's up to Green Ronin to provide some good news. And look at that, tomorrow is the opening day of GTS...




OH. MY. GOD. 

There has been no better RPG news for me in years.

Green Ronin is to produce an RPG for George R R Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire series!

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=23499&mode=thread&order=0

I'm still sad because of Dragon's and Dungeon's canceling, but at least now I know where my gaming dollars (or in my case: forints) will go in the future.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 24, 2007)

This type of shifting of rights often coincides with a change in ownership... Perhaps WotC is moving out of the Hasbro umbrella?


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 24, 2007)

Could be just Hasbro standard modus operandi.  That's the least interesting, but it certainly is consistent.  They like to sit on licenses to see if they get better with age.  They've done it with GI Joe and others as well.

Or, could be that Hasbro is collecting back into itself all possible value corresponding to the D&D brand in preparation to put it up for sale.  That's the most interesting, IMO.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Apr 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> This just in- WOTC INVADES POLAND!




We should step in now and put them down, then divide up Wizards among ourselves. I'd say that the commies get Magic


----------



## Thanee (Apr 24, 2007)

Use others to spread the word and pay for advertising your product.
Then drop them when they are no longer needed and reap the rewards.

Sounds like a good plan for the evil overlord.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Land Outcast (Apr 24, 2007)

> Or, could be that Hasbro is collecting back into itself all possible value corresponding to the D&D brand in preparation to put it up for sale. That's the most interesting, IMO.




Yep, that sounds sensible (Same idea struck me when the Dragon and Dungeon cancellation)


----------



## variant (Apr 24, 2007)

Maybe Hasbro plans to sell off Dungeons & Dragons or they plan to get rid of the d20 license with 4th edition.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 24, 2007)

Maybe they're being audited?


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 24, 2007)

morbiczer said:
			
		

> Green Ronin is to produce an RPG for George R R Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire series!
> 
> http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=23499&mode=thread&order=0




Didn't White Wolf already do that with their "A Game of Thrones" RPG?  

Or is this a different series by GRRM?


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

First, I think the list of license revocations is misleading.  I do not think all of those items were at the behest of just WOTC.  I think some were done by the licensee, and some were mutual.

Second, I do think it is vaguely possible, though unlikely, that Hasbro is preparing for a sale of the D&D line or WOTC in general, to generate cash so it can focus on it's deal with Marvel (which is more in line with their core products that sell in toy stores).


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 24, 2007)

Maybe WotC plans on using these licenses. They put out a Ravenloft adventure of their own, and are turning Dragon/Dungeon into their new online periodical thingy. Dragonlance is going to get some exposure soon with an animated film on the way, so they probably want to do something with that.

Previously, WotC wasn't doing anything with those licenses, os it made sense to give them to other companies. But if WotC plans on using them, it makes just as much sense for them to take the licenses back as needed.

The sky isn't falling.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 24, 2007)

Even if Hasbro is selling D&D, the sky isn't falling.  If anything, I find that possibility very intriguing.


----------



## Razz (Apr 24, 2007)

Why can't someone in WotC "leak" some information or something? There has to be someone that wants to and can easily get away with it by stating it anonymously.

This is why I could never work in the desiging departments of WotC. As a hardcore fan of the game and its customer base, I'd have leaked a lot of information already by now, anonymously.

In the long run, I'd probably get caught but it'd be for the greater good! 

Suprised the folk at WotC don't realize the NDA doesn't do any good if no one knows who spilled the beans.

Hmm...I wonder if I can find a way to become a corporate spy at WotC...?


----------



## Land Outcast (Apr 24, 2007)

Hasbro selling D&D... interesting scenarion...

who would buy it?

EDIT: who bought it? if they are "folding back their extensions" it means someone has already made an offer.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> Why can't someone in WotC "leak" some information or something? There has to be someone that wants to and can easily get away with it by stating it anonymously.
> 
> This is why I could never work in the desiging departments of WotC. As a hardcore fan of the game and its customer base, I'd have leaked a lot of information already by now, anonymously.
> 
> ...




What's weird is that we don't really have "reporters" in this industry.

For example, in the comic book industry you have ComicBookResources.com and Newsarama with actual paid reporters who go out and get stories.  Both of those companies have personal contacts inside the major comic book publishers (Marvel and DC) who leak information.  

We just don't have anything like that in this industry.  EnWorld is the best we have, and it does a great job, but the money just isn't there to be paying reports to work hard to dig up the story when something like this comes around.

Ah well, we will just have to wait for official news.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 24, 2007)

As for the GenCon/D&D expereince thing, why shouldn't they hold major announcements for the event they run?  It gives more validity to their event, and it allows them more control over the information and how it is presented.  GenCon used to be the official con because it was run by TSR.  Now it isn't.  Its nostalgic to think that big announcements should be made at GenCon and nowhere else.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 24, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> We should step in now and put them down, then divide up Wizards among ourselves. I'd say that the commies get Magic




Nah, nobody wants a war.  Let them have Poland.  I'm sure they'll be satisfied with that and leave everyone else alone.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Hasbro selling D&D... interesting scenarion...
> 
> who would buy it?




Peter Adkison? Gen Con LLC? Turbine, Inc?


----------



## mhensley (Apr 24, 2007)

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Hasbro selling D&D... interesting scenarion...
> 
> who would buy it?
> 
> EDIT: who bought it? if they are "folding back their extensions" it means someone has already made an offer.




Games Workshop is probably the only game company rich enough to buy D&D.  And if you think things are bad now...


----------



## morbiczer (Apr 24, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Didn't White Wolf already do that with their "A Game of Thrones" RPG?
> 
> Or is this a different series by GRRM?




There was a Game of Thrones RPG by a company called Guardians of Order. But they went bankrupt after the first book had been released, so the licence went back to GRRM.

This is the same series. The series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire", the first book's title is "A Game of Thrones".


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Games Workshop is probably the only game company rich enough to buy D&D.  And if you think things are bad now...



Not even.  Games Workshop is in a world of financial hurt lately.  Have been for a good five years or so now.

I heard some other folks talking about Blizzard.  Granted, that was pure speculation without the tiniest crumb of confirming evidence, but it was an intriguing idea anyway.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 24, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Not even.  Games Workshop is in a world of financial hurt lately.  Have been for a good five years or so now.
> 
> I heard some other folks talking about Blizzard.  Granted, that was pure speculation without the tiniest crumb of confirming evidence, but it was an intriguing idea anyway.




I can't see Blizzard doing anything like this.  They stand to make far more money if they just put out Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, yet they refuse to provide resources to such projects.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm drifting away from the idea of Hasbro being interested in selling WotC. WotC put out a press release on Friday that they were doing a Transformers battle-card game, to be published this summer (just a bit before the Transformers movie). I doubt Hasbro would have a subsidiary making that game, which will use Hasbro licenses, up for sale.


----------



## Ghendar (Apr 24, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good plan for the *evil overlord.*





Steinbrenner?


----------



## Ghendar (Apr 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Nah, nobody wants a war.  Let them have Poland.  I'm sure they'll be satisfied with that and leave everyone else alone.





What's your name? Chamberlain?


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> (my apologies for adding yet another thread...but, well, they are taking it back!).



If you know a thread is redundant, please don't make extra work for the mods.  I'll merge this.


----------



## Land Outcast (Apr 24, 2007)

Hasbro might sell D&D if an offer is presented, it won't be selling WoTC... 


Afterthought:

I'm not sure wether WoTC is a Cash Cow or a Dog for Hasbro...
M:TG is a Cash Cow on its own (but I don't know wether it complies with Hasbro's profit objectives).

Also, I'm not sure about where D&D fits in the Boston Matrix for WoTC... But I'd risk to say 'tis a dog.

Just in case you wonder why I'm speaking of Cash Cows and Dogs:
http://marketingteacher.com/Lessons/lesson_boston_matrix.htm


----------



## Steel_Wind (Apr 24, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Games Workshop is probably the only game company rich enough to buy D&D.  And if you think things are bad now...




I think Elevation Partners (BioWare Corp.'s parent) is well able to buy D&D if they wanted to.

If Atari's license was at an early end or otherwise could be brought to an end - that might not be such a stretch.

I am not sure they want to, mind you.


----------



## freebfrost (Apr 24, 2007)

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Also, I'm not sure about where D&D fits in the Boston Matrix for WoTC... But I'd risk to say 'tis a dog.



The advantage matrix is better for this - WotC fits the criteria of a "specialized" business to a T.  

Otherwise you have a hard time defining just who their competitors are.


----------



## daemonslye (Apr 24, 2007)

Note that a sale would come with an attendant tax burden.  Also not sure who would be on a buyer list.

If anything, I would think a spin-off which alleviates any tax hit and spins the company into it's own entity.  It could do this in whole or in part.

The only reason I would even contemplate this would happen is that some Hasbro exec on high got his hands on one of the *Fiendish Codex's* and had a fit.  
I mean, its a little far afield from "*So Soft Pony Pinkie Pie*" (http://hasbro.com/).

~D


----------



## Land Outcast (Apr 24, 2007)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> I mean, its a little far afield from "*So Soft Pony Pinkie Pie*" (http://hasbro.com/).
> 
> ~D




2 answers to that:

Option A) Mmmm, Pony Pie

Option B) "*So Soft Phony Pinkie Pie*" Fixed fer ye


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> For all their hard work, Marvel only saw a dime during the years of the licence and no longer gets any benefit from either Red Sonja or Conan. Is this fair?




Feh. I'll shed a tear for Marvel when Steve Ditko gets a cut of the Spider-Man movie profits.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Hasbro selling D&D... interesting scenarion...
> 
> who would buy it?
> 
> EDIT: who bought it? if they are "folding back their extensions" it means someone has already made an offer.




Not necessarily.  When selling divisions, sometimes you put an attractive package together and then seek out buyers.  It can even take up to a year to get things the way you want them internally in preparation for seeking out buyers for a division.  

Who knows.  It could even be a seemingly crazy match-up that they will seek out next year, like Marvel buying the D&D line (because of their track record with printing costs, distribution, marketing, growth into other entertainment mediums, licensing, etc..).  I seriously doubt that will be the case, but it's not inconceivable.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2007)

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> Feh. I'll shed a tear for Marvel when Steve Ditko gets a cut of the Spider-Man movie profits.




Feh.  I'll shed a tear for Ditko when he actually asks for said profits.  If Ditko doesn't think he is owed something, then I'm not going to presume I know more than he does about the issue.


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're assuming they don't plan to do anything with it. We have no idea if that's the case, do we?




They haven't done anything with any of the other settings that were put on hiatus (RL, BR, DS, PS, etc. etc.)...so I'm not sure why we'd think this time would be different.

One of the nice things about the licensing was that those of us who liked some of these settings that WotC didn't see money in could get our fix....in many cases, the products were better than TSR had done for those settings.  Now, if they're just back in hiatus, I'm not sure who it really serves..

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, it's Margaret's baby, so of course she understands the world and treats it well. That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> On your first point, I guess I'm just a little stumped...
> 
> ...




Because there won't be any more.  And because the *perception* is that they've taken the license away.  Nothing has been said to change that appearance of matters.  If this was a matter where Margaret Weis Productions was finding the line unprofitable, or was finding it too difficult to produce products, because a good portion of the team left to other companies, that's one thing.  I can't fault WotC for that.  But if WotC took it away, then yeah, I have a problem with it.  Because then it's a knife in the back of a company that's been supporting WotC's game system, and has invested time and money into developing the property....and now after that investment, you're going to take it away, and then sit on the license again?

Nice.  Sure, it's legal.  But it sure isn't honourable.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> All I can say is I'm glad I decided to roll with Iron Kingdoms for D&D.




Which is great until next week's announcement that they're cancelling D20 or OGL, if that's even possible.  That's likely paranoid supposition, but in light of the announcements of the last few days..

Banshee


----------



## daemonslye (Apr 24, 2007)

Thorion said:
			
		

> Frankly, this action is fascist. Scott Rouse is worse than Hitler!!!




*ducks*


----------



## Winterthorn (Apr 24, 2007)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The only reason I would even contemplate this would happen is that some Hasbro exec on high got his hands on one of the *Fiendish Codex's* and had a fit.
> I mean, its a little far afield from "*So Soft Pony Pinkie Pie*" (http://hasbro.com/).
> ...




Hmmm.... There may be something to that. Hasbro's consumer base is primarily families with young kids. All it takes is some new exec with strong socially conservative sensibilities to step in and stir the pot, cause a stink and order changes... 

Hasbro exec: "What is this D&D stuff? Fiendish Codex? It doesn't look exactly family friendly!"
underling Wotc exec: "It is a roleplaying game for the 12+ crowd and its been their hobby since the late 1970's."
Hasbro exec: "Does it make a good return? How come we haven't heard of this before?"
underling WotC exec: "It is a niche market, and returns are - er- modest."
Hasbro exec: "Hmph. Look, if it has been around for 30-odd years and still doesn't rake in the mega-bucks next quarter, then _we_ will not put up with further risks to our reputation with our main customer base. Sell it."
underling WotC exec: "But..."
Hasbro exec: "Go on. The returns aren't worth the risk. Get rid of it. Oh, and see you at Sunday's golf tournament. Don't forget to bring the wife and kids."
underling WotC exec: "Yeah, sure..."

This is a genuine possibility in some manner; it has happened before where companies quietly adjust products, or discontinued them, just to be "safe" PR-wise.  (I would say more but then this would become very political discussion about multi-proned attacks from the radical religious right...)

I just hope the whole thing is just the usual mundune business shift and that WotC will speak to it's customers (and not over them).


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Apr 24, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This may sound silly, but reading the explanation from Weis, it's not clear whether or not, WOTC didn't not to offer the license again or if Weis et al decided not to bother paying the license again.
> 
> All she says is, "Our agreement has come to term and is not being renewed".




According to Margaret Weis, WotC chose not to renew the licence.

http://www.dragonlanceforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=302765&postcount=152


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 24, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> They haven't done anything with any of the other settings that were put on hiatus (RL, BR, DS, PS, etc. etc.)...so I'm not sure why we'd think this time would be different.




Expedition to Castle Ravenloft probably made WotC more money than the entire Ravenloft license did.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 24, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Or, could be that Hasbro is collecting back into itself...




I just had this sudden image of Hasbro pulling back all its pseudopods and coccooning before transmogrifying into some hideous terror that is unleashed upon us all. Cthulhu lives!!!!


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Apr 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Feh.  I'll shed a tear for Ditko when he actually asks for said profits.  If Ditko doesn't think he is owed something, then I'm not going to presume I know more than he does about the issue.




Since that's about as likely as Marvel asking for a stake in the Conan property, I doubt either of us will be breaking out the hankies any time soon.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> What's weird is that we don't really have "reporters" in this industry...
> 
> We just don't have anything like that in this industry.  EnWorld is the best we have, and it does a great job, but the money just isn't there to be paying reports to work hard to dig up the story when something like this comes around.




Aside from ENWorld, there's also Gamingreport.com that I know of (which is more strictly news oriented than here). 

Back when 3E came out there were a ton of news/scoop/speculation sites (of which Eric Noah's was the most successful as we all know). It is kind of strange that there weren't more, but I think that part of that has to do with the nature of the biz. Comics have a higher profile than RPGs, for a lot of reasons (notably, these days, their movie and television ties).


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> That's still the plan as far as I know!
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




No Taladas though....

Sniff...

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Expedition to Castle Ravenloft probably made WotC more money than the entire Ravenloft license did.




One shot module...not a sourcebook.  Very limited use if once the adventure is done with.

Banshee


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Apr 25, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> One shot module...not a sourcebook.  Very limited use if once the adventure is done with.
> 
> Banshee




Kind of like the original module Castle Ravenloft, you mean?  The one that led to the wider setting in the first place?

I'm sad to see Sovreign lose the DL rights, because they were one of the few companies I actually think had HIGHER production values than WotC and they put out some wonderful Dragonlance material.

At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see Wizards start supporting the setting again to take advantage of the upcoming movie.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 25, 2007)

Razz said:
			
		

> In the long run, I'd probably get caught but it'd be for the greater good!



Leaking non-finalized plans, in general, just freaks people out and isn't for the greater good by any means.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 25, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I can't see Blizzard doing anything like this.  They stand to make far more money if they just put out Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, yet they refuse to provide resources to such projects.



Blizzard has three development teams working on projects at any one time. The only known project is World of Warcraft. It would be a mistake to think that the other teams are working on updates of Pong and Space Invaders.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Apr 25, 2007)

Thorion said:
			
		

> Frankly, this action is fascist. Scott Rouse is worse than Hitler!!!




How dare you? How _dare _ you compare Scott to someone who killed millions of human beings?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Apr 25, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> One shot module...not a sourcebook.  Very limited use if once the adventure is done with.
> 
> Banshee



That was my point, with no facts to back it up, I still feel confident that WotC made more money on that one book than the entire license, not that they will come out with an entire line to support the license.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2007)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> How dare you? How _dare _ you compare Scott to someone who killed millions of human beings?




Please ignore it - it's an alt ID created specifically by a previously banned user to cause trouble.  It's being dealt with.  IP searches are fun.


----------



## lurkinglidda (Apr 25, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Please ignore it - it's an alt ID created specifically by a previously banned user to cause trouble.  It's being dealt with.  IP searches are fun.



Consider it ignored then.

Heck of a way to get someone from WotC to finally respond, no?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 25, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Please ignore it - it's an alt ID created specifically by a previously banned user to cause trouble.  It's being dealt with.  IP searches are fun.




Ah.  I thought that sound I heard was the +5 banhammer being wielded in anger.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2007)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Consider it ignored then.
> 
> Heck of a way to get someone from WotC to finally respond, no?




I think that's the idea - causing trouble.  Please, if you see this sort of thing, don't reply to it - just report it.  He _wants _ people to react to it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 25, 2007)

I believe it was in their printed advertising flier, and on their forums, but I am way too lazy to go digging for something that, frankly, was not all that important to me. If you prefer to think of it as fan speculation then go right ahead. Heck, maybe my memory _is_ being faulty. But I do remember it, I want to say that it was Justin Achilles, but again I could be wrong.

Not just the Gazetteers either - sales of the 3.5 updated player's guide, DM's Guide, and critter books were also sluggish (and according to some sources badly edited as well). Renaming the player's book also did not help. Cutting their losses at that point made sense - I do not fault either WW or WotC in this instance. Finding fault with WW for what they did to the Storyteller rules on the other hand... that I can do.  (I like the changes to the setting alright, but hate the new rules.) If you have a limited pool of creative designers then it is best to put them where you think they will do the most good - and since WoD belongs to WW then that is more profit that can go in your pocket.

And I believe that you can still get the Ravenloft PDFs on DTRPG.

And on to a semi-related topic... Did Paizo and Weiss get their licenses at the same time? I am not remembering that point clearly at all. If so, then it is possible that this is a literal coincidence. The licenses ended together because they were made at the same time.

I am far more annoyed with the Dragon and Dungeon situation than the DL one, I have actually been buying Dungeon lately, hooked by Savage Tides. I have not done more than glance at the DL books.

The Auld Grump



			
				Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> I don't know where this comes from, other than fan speculations. Really. We've watched closely everything WW has released about RL, since it's our preferred setting.
> 
> Once, a while ago, the developers said the sales of the RL Gazetteers in particular were disappointing.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 25, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I think that's the idea - causing trouble.  Please, if you see this sort of thing, don't reply to it - just report it.  He _wants _ people to react to it.



Heh, when I read the banished one's thread all I thought was 'well, that's a stupid thing to say.' I may be a tad miffed with the WotC over Dungeon magazine, but it really is not in the same camp there....

The Auld Grump, who curbed his urge to make a snarky comment about this....


----------



## 00Machado (Apr 25, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Does withdrawal of a license typically mean that they can't reprint books also?




YEs, typically they're allowed to seel remaining inventory and that's it.


----------



## 00Machado (Apr 25, 2007)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Nothing about Ed's Greenwood Castlemourn ?




I don't think this is a wotc property.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 25, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> They haven't done anything with any of the other settings that were put on hiatus (RL, BR, DS, PS, etc. etc.)...so I'm not sure why we'd think this time would be different.
> 
> One of the nice things about the licensing was that those of us who liked some of these settings that WotC didn't see money in could get our fix....in many cases, the products were better than TSR had done for those settings.  Now, if they're just back in hiatus, I'm not sure who it really serves..
> 
> Banshee




Err, wrong.  Wasn't Expedition to CASTLE RAVENLOFT just released a few months ago?

Wouldn't be surprised to see an Expedition to Pax Tharkas or something like that pop up in the not so distant future.  Or more likely, the Dragonlance Movie RPG Companion or such.


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 25, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Err, wrong.  Wasn't Expedition to CASTLE RAVENLOFT just released a few months ago?
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised to see an Expedition to Pax Tharkas or something like that pop up in the not so distant future.  Or more likely, the Dragonlance Movie RPG Companion or such.




Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, which was a remake of the original module that came before Ravenloft became a setting.  So it's really not even applicable.

Expedition to Dragonlance....not exactly sure what you could do with that.  How can you distill what used to be an entire game setting into a single module?

Banshee


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 25, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Err, wrong.  Wasn't Expedition to CASTLE RAVENLOFT just released a few months ago?
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised to see an Expedition to Pax Tharkas or something like that pop up in the not so distant future.  Or more likely, the Dragonlance Movie RPG Companion or such.




After the cartoon is released, I'll bet a module that follows the events of the movie (yes, I know about the books and original modules) would be a best-seller.


----------



## VictorC (Apr 25, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> After the cartoon is released, I'll bet a module that follows the events of the movie (yes, I know about the books and original modules) would be a best-seller.




MWP had recently releced a module that follows the events of the movie and some. Not to mention there War of the Lance source book. If this is there plan I'm interested to see what they have in mind.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 25, 2007)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Now I know it is a paraphras, but:
> 
> *BEN: In my experience, there's no such thing as coincidence.*





Once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.


----------



## lrsach01 (Apr 25, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> After the cartoon is released, I'll bet a module that follows the events of the movie (yes, I know about the books and original modules) would be a best-seller.




Already done! MWP released a 3.5 conversion of the original modules that comprise Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Its EXCELLENT. I've used it as a quick through together night of fun when our original game just couldn't be played...for whatever reason.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 25, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Something huge is on the horizon. What this might be, exactly, I do not know.
> 
> I am feeling very uneasy.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 25, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> IAnd on to a semi-related topic... Did Paizo and Weiss get their licenses at the same time? I am not remembering that point clearly at all. If so, then it is possible that this is a literal coincidence. The licenses ended together because they were made at the same time.




Best I can determine, it appears they were granted around the same time.  Paizo got their license in 2002, and while I was unable to find a specific announcement, the earliest references I found to Dragonlance RPG rights being licensed to Sovereign Press were also in 2002.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Apr 25, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Best I can determine, it appears they were granted around the same time.  Paizo got their license in 2002, and while I was unable to find a specific announcement, the earliest references I found to Dragonlance RPG rights being licensed to Sovereign Press were also in 2002.




September '02 for DL, and July '02 for Dragon/Dungeon.

[EDIT- Corrected and provided links to press releases.]


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Apr 25, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> September '02 for DL, and July '02 for Dragon/Dungeon.
> 
> [EDIT- Corrected and provided links to press releases.]



 I bow before your google-fu.


----------



## Odhanan (Apr 25, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

>




LOL!   

"_I have a bad feeling about this..._"


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 25, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.




Margaret Weis posted on their message boards that it was WotC who initiated ending the license...or rather, not renewing it.  There was a link provided in one of the EN World threads, which went directly to the post on Margaret Weis' website.

Banshee


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 26, 2007)

From the new DND Mini's preview...

"You'll learn which Realms, Eberron, *and Dragonlance * personalities will be immortalized in plastic."


----------



## lrsach01 (Apr 26, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> From the new DND Mini's preview...
> 
> "You'll learn which Realms, Eberron, *and Dragonlance * personalities will be immortalized in plastic."




The Dragonlance mini is Raistlin. This has been planned a long time. I first heard aboud it at last years GenCon.


----------



## pedr (Apr 26, 2007)

I'm not sure there's anything in the inclusion of DL characters in D&D Minis sets.

At the very least we've already had Mina (from the War of Souls) and Raistlin figures.


----------



## sir_ollibolli (Apr 26, 2007)

They've already issued Dragonlance minis. Lord Soth was in "Giants of Legends" and Draconians in "Dragoneye".


----------



## Accursed (Apr 26, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> From the new DND Mini's preview...
> 
> "You'll learn which Realms, Eberron, *and Dragonlance * personalities will be immortalized in plastic."




_Big Deal.... _

There have been a few DL mini's before and there is at least one more planned Raistlin, old news, like I said Big Deal....


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Apr 28, 2007)

sir_ollibolli said:
			
		

> I've just checked Kenzer's website...
> 
> the newest Kalamar products do not sport the nifty "Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their cover.
> 
> Maybe that license also was not renewed... but we didn't hear about that, since Kenzer chose to continue publishing under the d20 license.




Sorry this is late -- been at GAMA for the past five days. If somebody already pointed this out please ignore.

We still have the option to put the D&D logo on Kalamar product. But we've chosen not to recently. Partly to see if anyone noticed. Partly to help build the Kalamar brand (looking out long term to the day when we CAN'T use the D&D logo). 

We may start putting it back on the cover with all the recent developments. Not sure.

But WotC certainly hasn't made any move to 'yank' our license or bully us into giving it up (an odd rumor I ran into more than once at GAMA).

So I'm in the camp that believes it's simply a renewal issue and that NOT allowing renewals is simply Hasbro/WotC policy where D&D is concerned and nothing nefarious.


----------



## EditorBFG (Apr 28, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Expedition to Castle Ravenloft probably made WotC more money than the entire Ravenloft license did.



I think this illustrates why the Dragonlance license issue is more complex. While WotC can probably use Ravenloft to make more money than White Wolf can with the property, the bestselling Dragonlance products are not games (which they license) but novels. And the most profitable novels have Margaret Weis's name on them (especially with Tracy Hickman's). She is under no compulsion to write more Dragonlance novels unless she really wants to, since she is not a WotC employee. Therefore, unlike any other licensor WotC has, making Margaret Weis unhappy risks the profitability of the entire line.

So, business-wise, there is good reason for WotC to be cagey about this one.


----------

