Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Redwolfey 04-30-08, 09:05 PM	Just one quick question... Is AD&D stuff still under copyright? Meaning, could I scan the books and post them or send them to a friend? I've done several searches but never gotten a straight yes or no answer. :confused: Thanks in advanced, Redwolfey
adidamps2 04-30-08, 09:34 PM	send them to a fiend yes...post them no.
Etarnon 05-01-08, 03:27 AM	I think standard copyright is like 150 years past the death of the author? don't quote me. I hear rpgnow is selling these for 4.00 a shot. Ebay you can get a phb and dmg for 10.00 total, any day of the week, multiple copies.
Extempus 05-01-08, 03:36 AM	According to http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html: How long does a copyright last? The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Yep, all AD&D anything is still copyrighted and will be for a very long time...
Redwolfey 05-01-08, 06:28 AM	Sigh... Sorry to hear that, but I guess it's good to know. Thanks for all the help and the quick responses guys. :D Redwolfey
squidyak 05-05-08, 11:14 AM	Well, it's actually not that cut and dry. The problem is that rules can't be copyrighted, but everything else can be. TSR spent a fortune suing everyone that released AD&D compatible game aides, and lost nearly every time. The open gaming licenses are kind of pointless, do a quick google online and you'll find several sights with the rules posted for earlier editions. The OGL is just WotC essentially saying we won't try to sue you if you use our rules system because we'll just lose anyways.
Rosisha 05-05-08, 02:25 PM	Do you have specific cases? I.e. TSR vs. John Doe? Rosisha, off to google
squidyak 05-05-08, 02:43 PM	Do you have specific cases? I.e. TSR vs. John Doe? Rosisha, off to google Criticism After its initial success faded, the company turned to legal defenses of what it regarded as its intellectual property. In addition, there were several legal cases brought regarding who had invented what within the company and the division of royalties. These actions reached their nadir when the company threatened to sue individuals supplying game material on Internet sites (illegitimately, as under special circumstances U.S. copyright law holds that guidelines and rules may not be copyrighted).[11] In the mid-1990s, this led to frequent use of the nickname "T$R" in discussions on RPG-related Internet mailing lists and Usenet, as the company was widely perceived as attacking its customers. Increasing product proliferation did not help matters; many of the product lines overlapped and were separated by what seemed like minor points (even the classic troika of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance suffered in this regard). The company was the subject of an urban myth stating that it tried to trademark the term "Nazi". This was based on a supplement for the Indiana Jones RPG in which some figures were marked with "NAZI(tm)". This notation was in compliance with the list of trademarked character names supplied by Lucasfilm's legal department, specifically referring to a particular illustration of a Nazi on a cardboard game piece, which is legally trademarkable. (Marvel Comics also supplied a list of trademarked Marvel characters which included the term "NAZI(tm)".) Later references to the error would forget its origin and slowly morph into stories of TSR's trying to register such a trademark, possibly aided by TSR's own reputation late in its existence as a "trademark Nazi" company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR%2C_Inc.
Rosisha 05-05-08, 04:09 PM	I have found some cases as well. I will comply them up and post them, and then hopefully we'll have a general idea of where things stand regarding mechanics. From what I can tell, Wizards of the Coast owns the copyrights to things like "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Ed" and all versions there of, specific concepts and names, fluff text, introductions, etc.
adidamps2 05-07-08, 08:07 AM	things here just got interesting?!
Rosisha 05-08-08, 07:07 PM	As part of my research I've been going over the OSRIC system and find it fairly interesting. Their approach is unique, but for pure 1e. I hope I'll have some information up for you guys sometime next week, but so far everything points to the same thing: The rules of a game are not able to be copyrighted, instead, only the artistic presentation of the rules is able to be copyrighted. Common use names, are common use (you cannot copyright the use of your own first name for example, and charge people money to have that as their name: Sam, Bob, and Jane are all public domain, developing a unique name, on the other hand, is open to interpretation, such as Malizaki the Great). Hopefully I'll have citations and such soon! :D Now another question: Is there an OSRIC like project for 2e? Rosisha
readymeal 05-08-08, 11:25 PM	they are working on OSRIC 2 but it looks like it s still based on ADD1... i might be wrong as i just started to read it... http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/index.php
Etarnon 05-09-08, 01:20 AM	Okay the thing is this: You can design a game, that has killing dragons, and abilities and a reserve of damage points, and weapons that do attack points, whatever. You just can't call it, Abilities, Hit points, and Thac0, or BAB, or it comes off as a derivative work. This is why OGL was so important to d20's expansion, it allowed peopl to use "Open Game content." If you are gonna design your own game not part of OGL, use a different die, different mechanics, different things from levels, different skills, etc etc. This is why GURPS is different fromWEG SW, different for FASA Trek, Last Uni Trek, etc, etc. As long as your game looks different, plays different, it can be all about treasure hoards & dragons and such. Hackmaster flew because it was a "parody Work" of 1e AD&D, and they (I'm pretty sure)( got permission from WOTC, plus maybe a licensing ffee. I don't know about that, I don't work for, nor have dealt with Kenzer & Co.) OSRIC really cuts the line pretty close. But it's a fine line to cut, between original work, and derivative work. I'm not saying if you are gonna design a game don't do it. I'm suggestiong do it yourself, from zero, don't base it on anything else, and it will fly. Look at Blue Planet, for instance. Or Conspiracy X 2.0 All new games, not based on d20.
squidyak 05-09-08, 01:42 AM	Okay the thing is this: You can design a game, that has killing dragons, and abilities and a reserve of damage points, and weapons that do attack points, whatever. You just can't call it, Abilities, Hit points, and Thac0, or BAB, or it comes off as a derivative work. Of course you can, as those are rules. You simply can't lift setting materials. You can't use the gods from the PHB for example. But WotC would have a hard time in court if it tried to sue another gaming company for using the term hit points. In fact many games use levels, hit points, experience points, character classes, and many other terms originating with dungeons and dragons.
Extempus 05-09-08, 01:48 AM	That's why other companies used HTK (hits to kill) and other terms to describe the same things in D&D. However, didn't TSR have legal problems with the Tolkein estate or something over the use of some of his ideas? Metron of Urnst http://forums.gleemax.com/images/avatars/TSR-Miles.jpg
Etarnon 05-09-08, 02:27 AM	This is why halflings are halflings. Dwaves and Elves existed in literature long ago. Hobbits didn't.
Rosisha 05-09-08, 12:23 PM	Actually the pure mechanics (names like BAP, Hit Point, Play proceeds to the Left) are not able to be copyrighted. What we are looking at is a confusion between copyright and trademark. A game mechanical system cannot be copyrighted according to the U.S. patent office. I found this link which explains: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/newgames.html On that page is a copy of a form letter from the Patent Office which explains that game mechanics are not able to be copyrighted. Stories, art, and other such aspects of a game are (so the rules regarding gnomes, cannot be copyrighted. The picture of the gnome? Copyrighted). Then there are trademarks. D&D is a trademark Wizards of the Coast is a trademark. AD&D 2nd Ed is a trademark. What you have to do is avoid the trademarked words within the game mechanics. If you avoid the words that are trademarked, then the rest of the game is open according to United States Law. The OGL is actually just Wizards of the Coast saying "hey, we acknowledge reality and aren't going to waste our money on huge legal fees like TSR did!" However, even knowing this, looking to make new content for old ed stuff is still complicated. I wish that WotC would release an OGL and SRD for the old edition. Or at least say "Have fun designing new stuff!" That would be super cool of them. I would even buy a copy of the 4th Ed rules if they did that. Rosisha, trying to meet half way
MacrossSD 05-09-08, 05:03 PM	That's why other companies used HTK (hits to kill) and other terms to describe the same things in D&D. However, didn't TSR have legal problems with the Tolkein estate or something over the use of some of his ideas? Metron of Urnst http://forums.gleemax.com/images/avatars/TSR-Miles.jpg The thing is that that was back when TSR was suing everyone under the sun (including long-time licensees Judges' Guild and Role-Aids) and the camouflaged names were used to avoid a lawsuit altogether. Because the fact is, companies don't have to sue just because they're in the right. If they feel they can get away with it, they can use a lawsuit as siege warfare and basically bankrupt smaller competitors by forcing them to sink large amounts of money in defending against lawsuits. That's probably why Rob Kuntz and others came up with the "HtK" retermings -- not that they didn't feel they could make supplements for AD&D, but that they knew they couldn't afford a lawsuit -- even one they would have probably won.
Etarnon 05-10-08, 01:17 AM	If they feel they can get away with it, they can use a lawsuit as siege warfare and basically bankrupt smaller competitors by forcing them to sink large amounts of money in defending against lawsuits. That is pretty much the corporate tactic. That and buying up smaller companies / competitors then shutting them down.
hellmute 05-16-08, 07:46 AM	I wish that WotC would release an OGL and SRD for the old edition. Or at least say "Have fun designing new stuff!" That would be super cool of them. I would even buy a copy of the 4th Ed rules if they did that. Rosisha, trying to meet half way That isn't going to happen because they don't have the cahjones to actually put their new edition up agaisnt another. the fear how bad their products are versus that which the community can make. Even if they state that older edition products must be free and cannot make a profit. They actually fear their bottom line would take a hit because of their inferior product to the older editions. ;) That is why most of the video of the designers have either blad men, or long haired hippy types. The bald ones don't have the testicular fortitude to even grow hair anymore, and the hippy ones are to busy trying to not make wars to fear the competition. :P Are they so afraid of the old TSR powers to come back and make a better product? Gary... :weep: Dave: Teaching and still doing his Blackmoor Mentzer: working in his wife's bakery. Most of the older TSR crew are either deceased, employed by Paizo, employed by WotC, or no longer in the gaming industry. So what really do they have to fear from the superior TSR versions of D&D? :ahem: Maybe that is it in a nutshell, the older versions were better and will take money away form them. Money, as you said, they aren't even getting anyway. :eek: So what do they stand to lose from people who already aren't buying their products? What do they stand to gain? Litle, but gaining something is better than gaining nothing, and anything that will help pay for those "multiple 7 figures" nivested in the new edition couldn't hurt right? ;) All silliness aside, I wodner if the Dragon Magazine Archive fiasco is still holding back anything on the front of older editions, or what sicne no one will step up and give a reason. They only state that they will not have versions od any GSL/STL/OGL for the older TSR editions. So all I can se if their is not some actual legal reason why they cannot provide some sort of OGL type thing for older edition due to K&C and other issues with the DMA is fear. IMO, a much better author than anyone at WotC put it this way: I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Selgard 05-16-08, 10:49 AM	I wouldn't say they don't do it out of fear- rather they don't do it out of lack of incentive. Few (if any) would pay to still use the old information, and WotC gains nothing by letting you do it for free. Thus, the stalemate. We, as gamers, want to see it done- and like to think that if it was our decision to make, that we would do it. And while I readily -hate- WotC for 4th edition and all the satan spawn that goes with it, they are what they are- a corporation. And a corpration exists to create money for its stockholders. Giving you something for free, even an old OGL for an old system, doesn't support that. Therefore it doesn't exist, and isn't likely to. I wish it weren't so, but.. 'tis. -S
Varl 05-16-08, 11:58 AM	That isn't going to happen because they don't have the cahjones to actually put their new edition up agaisnt another. the fear how bad their products are versus that which the community can make. Even if they state that older edition products must be free and cannot make a profit. They actually fear their bottom line would take a hit because of their inferior product to the older editions. That's what I think too. Fear of competition and losing to that competition. Well, I feel they're already starting to lose with the directions they've taken D&D over the past 2-1/2 editions. They're changing the game in such radical, fundamental ways that D&D has become a shadow of its former self. And we all know what shadows do, don't we? ;) Most of the older TSR crew are either deceased, employed by Paizo, employed by WotC, or no longer in the gaming industry. So what really do they have to fear from the superior TSR versions of D&D? :ahem: Maybe that is it in a nutshell, the older versions were better and will take money away form them. I think so. Money, as you said, they aren't even getting anyway. :eek: So what do they stand to lose from people who already aren't buying their products? That's the irony of it all. WotC could profit off of another company that they relenquished the rights to AD&D over to so that company could create new AD&D product. If you removed their apprehension and concerns over competition by cutting them in for a piece of the OOP pie, why wouldn't they release AD&D? I've always thought all along that one of the worst business decisions WotC has made was to abandon OOP editions entirely, and not treat them as additional revenue streams they could tap into by relenquishing their rights to companies and/or people that love those editions. It'd be a win-win for OOP editions and WotC. After all, how could they still be concerned over competing with themselves if OOP fans are buying new OOP edition materials that WotC would profit from?
xyzchyx 05-16-08, 01:07 PM	It'd be a win-win for OOP editions and WotC. After all, how could they still be concerned over competing with themselves if OOP fans are buying new OOP edition materials that WotC would profit from?Unfortunately, this is probably not the case. This has the potential to create the same scenario that TSR put itself into in the 1990's trying to adequately support multiple campaign settings at the same time. They fragmented their own market beyond the point where enough people would buy any one particular newly published product to be able to sustain themselves as a company and ultimately folded. While one may argue that could be the best thing for WotC to do... to just up and die, one is not likely to convince anyone at WotC that risking doing so is worthwhile, and the fact is that even if that occurred, that is that WotC folded or simply collapsed the D&D product line, it would still be under copyright and OOP gamers would still be roughly in the same place we are today.
hellmute 05-16-08, 03:28 PM	Unfortunately, this is probably not the case. This has the potential to create the same scenario that TSR put itself into in the 1990's trying to adequately support multiple campaign settings at the same time. They fragmented their own market beyond the point where enough people would buy any one particular newly published product to be able to sustain themselves as a company and ultimately folded. While one may argue that could be the best thing for WotC to do... to just up and die, one is not likely to convince anyone at WotC that risking doing so is worthwhile, and the fact is that even if that occurred, that is that WotC folded or simply collapsed the D&D product line, it would still be under copyright and OOP gamers would still be roughly in the same place we are today. I think it is a coy loophole in the anti-trust/monopoly laws. One that Microsoft has just found doesn't work as they had to remove IE 7 or something bundled with recent Windows Service Pack updates, and forcing user to require their proprietary software rather than choosing other internet browsers, and be stuck with the one integrated into Windows itself. The thing is WotC cannot make it to where other people cannot make RPGs. But they can do anything they want with their IP, and will probably try to do so with their "creative commons" style of license for 3rd edition when the GSL comes out. Something that had people gathering pitchforks, not too long ago. The thing is with no other edition allowed under the OOP status that is not covered by the existing OGL, they minimize competition with their own IP. That can only be seen as fear that their most current product is or will be a failure when compared to the other editions. If for some reaosn the license out things where WotC gets royalties off of OOP editions, then WotC would still be geting money yes. But they fear that people may purchase those older editions instead of the new 4th edition. This will hurt their bottom line. The solution to that problem is a simple one. If the existance of some sort of OOP OGL causing a drop in sales to the newest edition, then the newest edition must step-up its quality in order to compete. This works for everyone. The designers keep their jobs at WotC because there will always be work for them to compete with the older edition for the larger share of profits WotC gets from both. The gaming industry wil turn out better products in order to compete. Better of course a relative term depending on what type of product the given consumer wants. But in the end both the companies involved, and the gamers all win. Higher profits for WotC, and the best games available for the gamers. Sadly it seems WotC marketing and legal department must be living in a fantasy world themselves in order to not see the benefits with the little extra required cost. The profits will be more than the losses. again because WotC would be making money off of all of it. Soon when the GSL comes about there will be a telling time when Wotc ses exactly what happens with regards to people wanting the new 4th edition and those who prefer the OGL 3rd edition material. I think they will have there fears answered with the fact that the OGL will continue to sell no matter what they want to happen, even in the influx of people rushing to buy the new edition when it rolls out. The sales for 4th edition will drop off and OGL amterial will pick up and they will end up being even. This is where WotC gets no money from OGL material, and even the open content is closed, in a sesne, for Wotc to use since it will not be compatible with 4th edition. While if they make a good SRD for older editions, and allow it to be used freely under the same type of terms as the GSL, then WotC couldn't really be hurt, as no one would be buying the free material, it still leaves them with money to spend on WotC products. Even better if WotC had some sort of nomial (small) royalty attached to the profit margin of materials that can be sold using OOP OGL, then WotC would be gaining money for doing nothing. That is the best thing about IP. You can sell it, but still keep it and sell it again and again. Look at Larry Elmore and his art sold on eBay. he sells the actual drawing, and offers to modify or color it, but the terms state that you only get the physical piece of work. Larry retains all rights to the image such as publication, etc. I would guess you can in turn still sell said art to someone else, but of course the rights were never yours to sell, so if you were crazy enouhg to sell some Elmore art off, then you only get money for that one piece, while Larry still keeps his rights, and you lost some darn good art! I think many at WotC have ben making fantasy games and using the fantasy econimies far too long to remember the existing economy and the way it works. I don't mean the designers per say, but those responsible for the finances. That is why I think it can only be fear, or some other hidden reason that Wotc cannot legally allow people to use the oop editions anymore. Maybe something going back the the reason K&C was able to make HAckmaster, or farther back to some term or condition in acquiring TSR and its treasure trove of IP.
xyzchyx 05-16-08, 07:40 PM	The solution to that problem is a simple one. If the existance of some sort of OOP OGL causing a drop in sales to the newest edition, then the newest edition must step-up its quality in order to compete.That still doesn't solve the problem of community fragmentation. It's one thing to fragment the community by bringing out new, incompatible editions, as that fragmentation is a one-time thing that they can hope to recover from with future sales, but it's quite another entirely to engage in activities that encourage fragmentation on an ongoing basis. I don't think either form of fragmentation is acceptable, personally, but if they supports OOP games, even indirectly by creating an OGL specifically for OOP games, they would be encouraging such fragmentation, and that's a very large part of what killed TSR in the 90's with their abundance of largely mutually exclusive campaign settings. Do you seriously think WotC would *EVER* be interested in repeating that mistake, or even taking that risk? I don't.
Varl 05-16-08, 08:22 PM	That still doesn't solve the problem of community fragmentation. It's one thing to fragment the community by bringing out new, incompatible editions, as that fragmentation is a one-time thing that they can hope to recover from with future sales, but it's quite another entirely to engage in activities that encourage fragmentation on an ongoing basis. I don't think either form of fragmentation is acceptable, personally, but if they supports OOP games, even indirectly by creating an OGL specifically for OOP games, they would be encouraging such fragmentation, and that's a very large part of what killed TSR in the 90's with their abundance of largely mutually exclusive campaign settings. Do you seriously think WotC would *EVER* be interested in repeating that mistake, or even taking that risk? I don't. It's a bit too late for that. Their decision to make subsequent editions since 2e about as incompatible with its predecessor as they possibly could make them has already fragmented the customer base immensely into numerous cliches and websites catering to the various incarnations of the game. For them to worry about any further fragmentation by releasing some form of OGL for AD&D wouldn't even come close to measuring up to the damage already done. As a DM that found AD&D flawed yet very fixable, and eminently useable, there's really nothing more WotC could do to the game that could possibly make the game further from what I enjoy. Even the death of d20 D&D wouldn't measure up to the horror I felt in 2000 at what they had turned D&D into. At least there'd be closure. :D
xyzchyx 05-17-08, 03:04 AM	there's really nothing more WotC could do to the game that could possibly make the game further from what I enjoy. Maybe not you, but then whatever made anybody think that WotC's decisions were really about what gamers actually wanted? It's only about making money to them, and no matter which way you slice it, fragmentation hits their bottom line. Sure, they've fragmented the community already by bringing out incompatible editions with previous, but in abandoning the previous editions, they can leave the past in the past and at least hope to compensate for it with future sales of the new edition. That wouldn't be the case if they supported OOP games as well because their support of the old would continually impact the sale of the new, and vice versa.
hellmute 05-17-08, 06:44 AM	Maybe not you, but then whatever made anybody think that WotC's decisions were really about what gamers actually wanted? It's only about making money to them, and no matter which way you slice it, fragmentation hits their bottom line. Sure, they've fragmented the community already by bringing out incompatible editions with previous, but in abandoning the previous editions, they can leave the past in the past and at least hope to compensate for it with future sales of the new edition. That wouldn't be the case if they supported OOP games as well because their support of the old would continually impact the sale of the new, and vice versa. Actually they have no way to "leave the past int he past". In this day and age informaiton is easy to get. Places like eBay also exists where it is a simple matter of finding an older edition books to use them. The real kicker is that with so many ediiton, where does the novice gamer go to look if they don't know which the current 4dition is? They find some great DMG on eBay for $2 vs $40 they have been hearing about and buy it up only to find out it is the wrong edition. There are 5 editions that have a PHB and at least 7 versions of PHBs for those edition. It doesn't matter if they allow for OOP material under some OGL, the book already exist, by creating even more new editions, they are creating a bigger problem. Say the person who bought this OOP PHB just gets mad and turns away from D&D for it being too complex to find a book. Well there is lost revenue for WotC. Say this OOP PHB had some OGL support, the person could try it and find out whther they liked it enough to search for more information about newer editions. Remember game stores are not in all areas, and not everyone is willing to travel to hunt down if a poorly stocked store has some product in the multitude of games out there as well as the crowd of card players. So the past will never go away like they want. Their are those of us who prefer older editins that will keep them known for many y4ears to come. Only by killing us will WotC be able to get rid of the older editions completely. Do they think 3rd is just going to magically go away. They need to embrace the past, not forsake it. Even in all the mistakes made by TSR. Again, if some OOP support caused some major impact in the sales of the new edition,. then that means there is a problem with the new ediiton, and both the company and gamers should be questioning what that problem is that is causing people to want older editions over the new edition. If the older editions are better, then that means you need to fix the new edition. We aren't talking about automobiles here where you get what they have and take the new or nothing. That even changed and lots offer other models in their used cars for people who may not want the new car for whatever reason. Ford lots have :eek: Chevrolet cars for sale, as well as Fords as used cars. WotC on the other hand doesn't have to carry or support competitor products, but they refuse to support their own. This trend is never-ending. They do it with each new edition now. I am highly surprised that people still support WotC with how little it supports its gamers, or its own products. this concept of "leave the past in the past", is another point to the way of how WotC discards those who have made them what they are today. Why should I support a company that views its customers as a disposable commodity? Don't forget also, that if not for the past and older editions of D&D even their flagship product Cardboard Crack/Magic the Gathering wouldn't exist and survive as it does. I think it just shows that WotC thinks of themselves as the Gods to all gaming and can do no wrong. They have deluded themselves to think they are the gaming world, and sadly other have also been deluded by them. It isn't really that hard to understand. If you can make money for doing little to know work, such as with a OOP OGL, then why not? Only reason can be the fragmentation or simple fact they do not think the new edition is good enough to survive with other ediitons out their. Oddly in the turmoil of TSR, people bought and played both D&D and AD&D. So really what could an OOP OGL hurt? Does Wotc really spend that much money on the 3rd OGL/SRD to maintain it, or do the static webpages take up the same db space for links, and 200k max for storage. The silly 4th edition cartoons cost more than that, so where does the cost incurred come from to cause a problem?
xyzchyx 05-17-08, 12:23 PM	If WotC supported two or more incompatible editions at once, they would be actively endorsing community fragmentation, and most importantly, they would be doing it _in perpetuity_. Bringing out new editions every few years may fragment the community each time they do it, but in actuality, given the size of the pen-and-paper RPG community compared to its potential, there is no possible way the extent of such fragmentation would affect their bottom line over the same few years period more heavily than such a proposed practice. Each new edition of the game that has come out brings out attracts more new players over the course of its lifetime than not supporting the old alienates, and until the market genuinely approaches saturation, it's not in their best interest to try to support multiple editions. You might think they'd appeal to both market segments that way, but that would only be practical as long as they could bring out enough products in a span of time to satisfy both demographics to the point that they could each be sustainable independently. TSR couldn't even do that with multiple campaign settings, what makes you think that WotC could do something similar with incompatible editions? And if they only went commercial with the latest version, then they'd still be endorsing something that they aren't even getting any revenue stream off of, and even at best that is going to draw some of their potential market segment away from purchasing the current edition (people who feel like they have to buy the current edition solely because the old one is still being supported), and there's no way that sort of negative revenue impact could be in their commercial best interest.
Rosisha 05-17-08, 12:56 PM	Actually they could do it easily while INCREASING their market for their primary system. It is a trick I'm going to use in my own campaign setting and I have no problem sharing it: When you finish writing all the fluff, you provide actual mechanics... you can then provide simplified mechanics (without fluff) in another edition. So you get your big awe inspiring 4e adventure done... and you provide rules in the back to convert it to 3e. Or 2nd Ed AD&D. It actually isn't that hard. Most of the systems use the same general principles to govern rules, and fluff is fluff. I can talk about the Great Elves of Caledonia until my mouth falls off, but the mechanics only take up about a paragraph, so I just add an extra paragraph and BAM there are the rules for the other edition. If every 4th Edition product came with an insert at the back on 2nd Ed Rules... I would probably buy them. It isn't hard to do (I am writing my campaign in 2nd Ed rules... and it takes maybe an additional five minutes and two pages of space to add 3.0 rules) and could do a lot to bring back old edition gamers at no real cost or expense. Rosisha
hellmute 05-17-08, 02:16 PM	If WotC supported two or more incompatible editions at once, they would be actively endorsing community fragmentation, and most importantly, they would be doing it _in perpetuity_. Bringing out new editions every few years may fragment the community each time they do it, but in actuality, given the size of the pen-and-paper RPG community compared to its potential, there is no possible way the extent of such fragmentation would affect their bottom line over the same few years period more heavily than such a proposed practice. Actually I bet it does. People who do not switch are not keeping the bottom line maintained, but causing it to drop. Rather than seeing an increase in sales due to new customers, they are only seeing steady sales for all the $$ put into R&D of a new edition. So from one edition to the next may not generate any more profits, but show a stable bottom line. With trying to get money from those who play the OOP editions, then there will at least be a chacne to get some increase in sales for minimal cost. The idea to create edition neutral fluff is one way, but so far I have only heard of it being so closely tied to an edition, that it won't work without conversion to another edition. Even with the direction 4th eiditon is taking they have nearly made it impossible to create edition neutral adventures since encoutner creation has changed so drastically over the years. You can't just say here is a beholder for your level 8 group to fight. You couldn't name a single monster,but would have to say [insert level 8 monster here] in an edition neutral adventure. There were so many marketing avenues wasted in all this change that would have cost much less money than a new edition. The fragmentation of each new edition does affect their bottom line. No matter which way you look at it there are some people who do not switch. Even those that may switch totally or partially, are not buying as much as they did in the past on the OOP editions, because they fear the quick obscelecane of the eedtion and don't want to waste the money on it for it to suddenly change again in 3 years. There are many people who have said they will ONLY be buying the 3 actual core books versus all the optional supplements they did in the past. This is a big hit the WotC D&D bottom line. No matter what Dancey illustrated in his famous report, the fact remains that the supplemental material is what makes D&D survive, and any other RPG for that matter. WoW, Oblivion, FF, etc owuld not exist without expansions, not even DDM/SWM or Magic would still exist if there was not new material. It isn't that hard to actually think of a way to make something for and compatible with every edition prioir to 4th edition. WotC must always support 3rd ediiton so long as either of them exist thanks to the OGL, and must pay lawyers to handle it. So why not just make a OOP OGL that would cover any edition once it becomes OOP, and that way WotC could do something to show support for the game even when they wish to not make any more product for it? Heck then people could use some SRD for OOP editions and pay a nominal royalty fee for each product to have a logo of the OOP edition on it as the GSL will allow for. This gives Wotc income for stuff they already have created with no work. The community will be playing those older editions whether WotC likes it or not, so might as well make some money off of it since people whine all the time about how they are in it for the money. You will enver have any edition die out, until all copies of the material are gone. With the digital era that is now very unlikely to EVER happen. Fragmentation can no longer be stopped for the D&D community. More editions will only cause it to snowball until D&D dies. Just look at the complications TSR had with 1st and 2nd edition. The same thing is coming from 3rd OGL and 4th edition. But this time WotC is not in a position to make all the money form 3rd as they have cancelled their prodcut line entirely. So 3rd parties will still be making money off of WotC creations, and people will still be playing them as long as they get support form someone. I would be greedy myself and want some money rather than watch everyone else get some. I cannot see how one could think that the fragmentation of the editions will not touch the WotC bottom line as it happened to TSR, and they had a lot better stuff. The cartoon was better than any D&D movie created by WotC, the miniatures were better, etc; and the player quality was better. How do you see the RPG community in regards to non-D&D RPGs? Do you think the other RPgs affect WotC bottom line at all? If they do, then shouldn't WotC be the ones competing against themselves rather than jsut eveyone else? If WotC has 5 RPGs, and the rest of the community has 5 that are major players, then WotC has a 50% share of the market. 4th, 3rd/OGL, OOP, SWSE, I think there is another vs Pathfinder, OSRIC, etc... the big ones Otherwise WotC could only have one ediiton in the market cutting them down to 3:5 and WotC share has dropped and also the popularity of those remaining 3 RPgs would not be equal to that if they had 5. The profits greatly outweigh the cost if done correctly, but the trend seems to be with corporations to not do things correctly, just do what it takes to make a quick buck.
xyzchyx 05-17-08, 05:56 PM	WotC is only one company, and there's only so much material they can produce in a year, regardless of how many editions they support. If they only actively publish in the latest edition but continue to support the old ones, then they are supporting the ongoing use of something that continues to cut into their bottom line without making any money off of it. If they try to commercially support the older editions to profit from the old editions as well as the current one, then what happens is that people who play one edition would generally not purchase material made for others. As a result, there wouldn't be enough purchases of any one published product able to sustain it as a viable product line. There is precedent for this, because it happened to TSR in the 1990's, with their multiple campaign settings that were largely mutually exclusive. TSR fragmented the community beyond the point where it could continue to sustain them, and they perished. Of course, the fact that they had produced a large number of crappy products that nobody bought only sped their demise. One may argue that WotC continues to fragment the community by repeatedly bringing out new editions, but the potential market for RPG's that is untapped at the moment is probably still large enough right now to sustain WotC for the forseeable future.
hellmute 05-17-08, 06:19 PM	OGL and SRD require no work or effort to support, just to create. They are still supporting 3rd edition if they never put another word to page about it because the OGL and SRD for it exist.
Rosisha 05-17-08, 07:27 PM	Exactly. And WotC is one company, but there are other companies out there, and one or two might be interested in exploring the option. Rosisha
xyzchyx 05-17-08, 07:58 PM	OGL and SRD require no work or effort to support, just to create. They are still supporting 3rd edition if they never put another word to page about it because the OGL and SRD for it exist.But as long as they continue to support it, they continue to endorse, however passively, the continued use of the older systems which will cut into their market share, because by supporting it, however passively, it could still be considered to be, by some notion, "current", and they would lose the sales to people who might have otherwise only bought the latest edition if that was all that was available. The number of people who will gobble up whatever they are spoon-fed is staggeringly large, and that's the market that WotC is targetting. And even if WotC decides to just concentrate on OOP editions, a good portion of their market segment would also consider them to be "regressing", and would not bother with them further. The only way 1e or 2e gaming can be kept alive is in the hearts of the players... it has no commercial future with WotC whatsoever.
hellmute 05-18-08, 04:02 AM	But as long as they continue to support it, they continue to endorse, however passively, the continued use of the older systems which will cut into their market share, because by supporting it, however passively, it could still be considered to be, by some notion, "current", and they would lose the sales to people who might have otherwise only bought the latest edition if that was all that was available. The number of people who will gobble up whatever they are spoon-fed is staggeringly large, and that's the market that WotC is targetting. And even if WotC decides to just concentrate on OOP editions, a good portion of their market segment would also consider them to be "regressing", and would not bother with them further. The only way 1e or 2e gaming can be kept alive is in the hearts of the players... it has no commercial future with WotC whatsoever. That is just it. WotC never really endoresed/supported AD&D even what product they put out. The whole time they had it they were working to make 3rd edition and even before. Does it require NBA endorsement for someone to pick up a ball that bounces and put it through a hoop supported above them? No. Is that person playing a form of basketball? Yes. even if "official" ball making has changed and one uses an older style ball that USED TO BE endorsed by the NBA, they are still playing basketball. The problem is the company thinking they have a right to tell people what they can and cannot play. That is the attitude at WotC. They try to make you think you cannot play the older stuff so they can get you to buy the newest. That jsut doesn't fly. Some people are that retarded to blindly follow their wasteful attitude. Whether they like it or not, people want it (OOP editions including but not limited to AD&D and 3rd edition). So if they are going to support or endorse 3rd edition why not other OOP editions? They set a precedent for not allowing products for OOP editions, and now are changing it for their so-called terrible 3rd edition that must be replaced with 4th edition. Well they do not choose what people want to play. They only choose what prodcut line they carry. So if they are going to let people support the OOP 3rd edition, what we are saying is that it is high time they allow the other older editions to be supported as well. If WotC wants some money from it, then fine, or if they want it to be freely given like the OGL 3rd edition IP use, then fine as well. But people want it and do not take kindly to their attitude to the TSR editions, or the players of them. You try to ride on my back to get to higher ground I will gladly knock you back to Earth and let you do your own work to climb up yourself. That is what needs to be done to WotC. They are currently heading down the same path and attitude towards gamers as she-who-must-not-be-named. They are treating gamers only as open wallets to be emptied. 3rd edition has no commercial value to WotC after October and the STL licenses expire, so why don't they cancel all support for it including the OGL?
xyzchyx 05-18-08, 04:57 AM	They try to make you think you cannot play the older stuff so they can get you to buy the newest.Well yes... that's a large part of their marketing strategy, but they never actually come out and tell you that you can't play old editions yourself. In fact, the only way this even affects you or I who won't ever buy any of the new edition stuff is that they *DO* have a right to tell people what they can or cannot publish when it comes to both the current edition of D&D as well as previous editions of the game. So if they are going to support or endorse 3rd edition why not other OOP editions?Where have you seen that they will support or endorse 3e once 4e is out? I have heard nothing to that effect... at least not on any ongoing basis. They are currently heading down the same path and attitude towards gamers as she-who-must-not-be-named.Indeed. About the only difference is that they have a much better marketing strategy these days than TSR did back then. They are treating gamers only as open wallets to be emptied.That's pretty much how it looks to me too. And even once D&D is gone because WotC has milked it dry (probably in another 2 or 3 editions, at the rate they are putting them out), the company will undoubtably still be around to sue anybody who wants to try to distribute their own material that happens to work with an old game system that they bought the rights to. 3rd edition has no commercial value to WotC after October and the STL licenses expire, so why don't they cancel all support for it including the OGL?Well, they aren't using the same license for 4e, and I get the impression that they are regretting the wording they've used for the 3e one. But that's water under the bridge and they can't do much about it now. They have to trust that their marketing strategy of trying to convince people that they need to have the latest version even if they already have the old stuff will continue to work as well as it has so far. They didn't do anything similar to the OGL for 2e or previous editions so they don't need to worry about those at all.
hellmute 05-18-08, 06:16 AM	Well yes... that's a large part of their marketing strategy, but they never actually come out and tell you that you can't play old editions yourself. In fact, the only way this even affects you or I who won't ever buy any of the new edition stuff is that they *DO* have a right to tell people what they can or cannot publish when it comes to both the current edition of D&D as well as previous editions of the game. The problem is that they don't even want to discuss or acknowledge them. Well tough for them. They have no choice but to ackowledge 3rd edition from now until the end of time. The OGL exists, it cannot go away, and they must support it or give up right to it. That means that they will have to maintain both it and they related SRD on their website or other place for public viewing so long as the company exists even if D&D as a product line is cancelled. Maybe even if they sell off D&D. I am not really sure what would become of a license like that when the IP copyright holder changes. So in regards to 3rd edition they really have no rights anymore to tell people what they can or cannot publish. Remember also that game mechanics are not copyrightable only the way the are presented, and you can make something very close to D&D without the OGL. It just depends on the amount of similar content and description. Most of which the core of D&D is public domain ideas anyway, things like elves, dwarves, swords, dragons, magic, etc. They probably couldnt even copyright the term "magic missle" anymore than the term "magic bullet" could be copyrighted. It would just be for a court to decide if the term could be used as a spell description as a missile being some sort of projectile, and magic meaning it is not of the physical plane. Where have you seen that they will support or endorse 3e once 4e is out? I have heard nothing to that effect... at least not on any ongoing basis. See the above in regards to the OGL. Indeed. About the only difference is that they have a much better marketing strategy these days than TSR did back then. Not really, they jsut happen to have Magic to fall back on as well as HASBRO itself for finances, and the internet for information distribution. As well the religious fanatics have moved on to the evils of computer games and Harry Potter, instead of targeting D&D, since their are many more role-playing games. But give some of them a chance to see these "rituals" in 4th edition and odds are that maelstrom will return in equal or maybe greater force. Maybe even from some whose religion revolves around ritualistic beliefs, and see D&D as casting false impressions of the religion with the game. The reason Christianity and JC is not allowed on these forums is for the very same reason that the use of rituals in 4th edition may cause problems. That's pretty much how it looks to me too. And even once D&D is gone because WotC has milked it dry (probably in another 2 or 3 editions, at the rate they are putting them out), the company will undoubtably still be around to sue anybody who wants to try to distribute their own material that happens to work with an old game system that they bought the rights to. Maybe if WotC would quit throwing money away trying to sue people over things that WotC has no rights to like turning playing cards sideways, then they wouldn't need to try to suck peoples wallets dry all the time, and have some money to R&D a decent game. WotC was doing so well to buy TSR, that it in turn was bought by HASBRO. So they screwed up somewhere in my opinon if they had to sell thereselves, or the controlling parties decided the time and effort wasnt worth continuing to do themselves, like dealing with the employes, or just the prodcuts themselves. Well, they aren't using the same license for 4e, and I get the impression that they are regretting the wording they've used for the 3e one. But that's water under the bridge and they can't do much about it now. They have to trust that their marketing strategy of trying to convince people that they need to have the latest version even if they already have the old stuff will continue to work as well as it has so far. They didn't do anything similar to the OGL for 2e or previous editions so they don't need to worry about those at all. The problem is that people aren't stupid, and for all those that are, us other people exist that will tell them clearly you don't need it just because it is labelled "NEW & IMPROVED", or because "everyone else is doing it". Well everyone isn't doing it, and you know what most people say in response to that last one right? Again this is treating the customers badly in caling them so naive to think that they MUST have the new edition. those sort of marketing scams fell apart long ago. I guess the people making D&D were jsut in their basements playing it so much they didn't notice the real world changing aorund them and consumers getting smarter. Sadly there are still those consumers who fall for it though, enough to keep these kind of companies in business, just like gas companies, and allow the prices on thing to skyrocket for no reason because they are afraid of change...yet 4th edition is change for the sake of change. :ahem: There is still no reason why they cant create something similar to the new GSL for OOP editions. It wouldn't require any WotC standards as the OOP editions are not supported or even created by WotC. They can make some money from it. They could get healthy competition that would make their current and future prodcuts better that what we have seen so far. Really do you think when 5th edition comes out (and it will there is no getting around it) they will not be making as much fun of 4th as 4th does of 3rd? OH, hahaha we screwed up yet again with 4th, but trust us we will get it right with 5th edition. TRUST US YOU WILL LOVE IT....this time.... :uh-huh: Maybe with their attitude and inability to produce good product, it is good they don't do anything with the older editions afterall. :thinks:
Rosisha 05-18-08, 10:08 AM	Isn't that the truth. And I wonder what favorite race will be mocked. This time around it was the gnome. Maybe it will be the halfling again. Essentially I agree with the posts above, and this scares me because I like to come here to disagree, so I have to ask that everyone here stop being so reasonable! :D Anywho, just to add another thought, if OSRIC continues to be successful with no challange by WotC, what is the statute of limitations to press a claim? Is there one? More legal research yay! I should have gotten a law degree and not a MA. This has been a pretty fun discussion though. Rosisha P.S. Also, failure to make changes or use a concept/idea/etc will result in a forfeiture of a copyright after X years depending on product. I don't know if the same is true for a trademark. But can wilfully burying a product result in the same charge? Oil companies at least made changes to the patents they bought up to keep off the market, but if 2nd Ed AD&D is purposefully left fallow, and the company says it will not be touched, used, etc, then they are using copyright law against the purpose of copyright law (which isn't to strangle progress, but encourage progress and eventually make it available to all in the name of competition).
xyzchyx 05-18-08, 11:08 AM	Anywho, just to add another thought, if OSRIC continues to be successful with no challange by WotC, what is the statute of limitations to press a claim? Is there one? Well, the U.S. statute of limitations on copyright is defined as three years, afaik, but for copyright, that's measured from the time that the last infringement concluded, not the time that infringement started. So in OSRIC's case, that clock hasn't started yet and won't until they stop publishing it. (Edit - and that's even *IF* OSRIC is actually infringing... which the developers of OSRIC may have reasonable basis to make an allegation that they are not, as game-rules themselves are not copyrightable, even though the presentation and artistic expression of those game rules is). P.S. Also, failure to make changes or use a concept/idea/etc will result in a forfeiture of a copyright after X years depending on product.I'm not sure where you got this. That may be the case for some forms of IP, but not for copyright. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only way a copyright can be abandoned before its term otherwise runs out is by explicit intent of the copyright holder... for example, by explicit announcement that the work may be distributed freely by anyone and without condition.
Rosisha 05-18-08, 11:23 AM	No copyrights expire naturally I believe, and can be reapplied. I'm fairly sure of this... *runs to look it up* well they do expire, but it doesn't matter: http://inventors.about.com/od/copyrights/a/expiration.htm I think we are looking at 95 years minimum... But they do eventually expire! Rosisha P.S. I do have to say, off topic, that the use of copyright to bury anything is in gross violation of the spirit of the law. Protecting a person's product so they can make money is fine, but eventually it should be public domain. This encourages the person to keep making new things, thus encouraging progress, and also makes sure that there is always a market. If you can get an equivalent for free, then the author has to do a better job with the next item. Using copyrights to strangle progress seems counter-intuitive to me. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so maybe thats why I don't understand strangulation and destruction :D No offense to lawyers....
gawain_viii 05-18-08, 11:41 PM	Well, let's see. To solve this problem, let's go straight to the source--the Government! First, what is the difference between a copyright and a trademark? A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. Trademarks, copyrights and patents all differ. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention. How long to copyright last? As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. What does a copyright do? A Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly. What does a copyright protect?The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Or, with a little bit of artistic license, the last part could read: For example, rules for a game could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the test; it would not prevent others from writing text of their own or from making and using the rule mechanics. What this means, is that anyone and everyone can use, re-use, publish, and republish any RPG they wish, so long as they do not use the same text "description" of the rules--BUT if you do that, you cannot use the TRADEMARK "D&D" or "d20". (On top of that, you'll be hard-pressed to figure out how to say everything that needs to be said without plagarizing something, I mean c'mon, how many different ways can you describe "Armor Class"?) So, yes: OSRIC is legal, even if it's just AD&D 1e with different fluff text. What the OGL does is allow you to use WotC's exact description--convienient so you don't have to make up a new definition for "Lawful Good" or "Hit Point". The OGL still does not allow the use of TRADEMARKS unless you also use the d20 System License--which puts restrictions on what you can and can't publish under their trademarked name. I hope this clears things up a bit. Roger PS Copyrights, normally, cannot be re-applied for or extended--when it runs out, it runs out. The exception is that if something was published before 1978, the copyright owner can petition for a 25 year extension. Large companies have a bad habbit of lobbying Congress to extend Copyright terms so that, for example, old films such as early Micky Mouse shows don't expire--and Disney can keep it all under wraps. The last example of this was not too long ago, when "Steamboat Willie" was about to expire, Disney asked Congress to extend "works for hire" from 70 years (the same as individual works) to 95 (the current). There is a lobbying effort going on that is asking Congress to remove the entire "works for hire" limitation clause, which would mean that the company would act as the original author... and since Copyrights exist for "the life of the author" plus 70 years... so long as a company exists (Since TSR and all it's works, TMs and (C)s were SOLD, WotC becomes the new original author) a copyright will never expire.
hellmute 05-19-08, 08:56 AM	WotC tries to claim ownership of a lot of things. They jsut have the people file these trumped up legal documents for them to try to steal other peoples ideas.... Renton-based game developer Wizards of the Coast Inc. has sued Redmond-based Nintendo of America Inc. and several affiliates for breach of contract and patent infringement over the hit Pokemon trading-card game. The lawsuit, filed Oct. 1 in U.S. District Court in Seattle, accuses Nintendo affiliate Pokemon USA of abandoning a contract with Wizards, the longtime producer and distributor of Pokemon trading-card games, and using Wizards-patented methods and technology to manufacture the games itself. The lawsuit also names two former Wizards executives who were hired away by Pokemon USA, accusing them of revealing trade secrets. The suit provides a glimpse of a bitter behind-the-scenes dispute over the Pokemon trading-card games, which became hugely popular in the late 1990s and sold millions of copies nationwide. The game allows players to do imaginary battle using illustrated cards. Wizards, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc., claims it pioneered the idea of a trading-card game and holds the patent rights to it. Its own Magic: The Gathering card game became a cult phenomenon, and generated sales of hundreds of millions of dollars in the mid-1990s. The first collectible card game was The Base Ball Card Game produced by The Allegheny Card Co. and registered on April 5, 1904. Richard Channing Garfield, Jr. (born June 26, 1963 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is a mathematics professor and game designer who created the card games Magic: The Gathering, So yeah WotC surely pioneered CCGs/TCGs since the creator of Magic was born 59 years after the first TCG was created/registered. :rolleyes: Who do they think they are fooling? :ahem:
Varl 05-19-08, 11:59 AM	But as long as they continue to support it, they continue to endorse, however passively, the continued use of the older systems which will cut into their market share, because by supporting it, however passively, it could still be considered to be, by some notion, "current", and they would lose the sales to people who might have otherwise only bought the latest edition if that was all that was available. The number of people who will gobble up whatever they are spoon-fed is staggeringly large, and that's the market that WotC is targetting. Question: if you were (are?) a M:tG fan, who profits off of the sale of an old package of Legends, Arabian Nights, or Antiquities boosters? Is it just the store owner, or does WotC still gain a viable piece of the money from each of those sales? It's an mportant question to ask, because if WotC does still profit off of long dead Magic expansion boosters, the idea that they couldn't profit off of OOP edition materials being reprinted or re-supported simply doesn't float.
xyzchyx 05-19-08, 04:12 PM	It's an mportant question to ask, because if WotC does still profit off of long dead Magic expansion boosters, the idea that they couldn't profit off of OOP edition materials being reprinted or re-supported simply doesn't float.It does if you consider that community fragmentation negatively affects their bottom line more heavily than supporting old games would positively. Now while it's certainly true that each successive incompatible edition causes further fragmentation, but WotC's plans evidently seem to be to try to repeat their past commercial success with 3.0 over 2nd edition, and to use the evidently proven marketing strategy of the latest and greatest version being "new and improved" to overcome the losses as a result of the fragmentation. They can't exactly tout their newest version as being so great if they are going to still say that older editions are still acceptable. Of course, this strategy will only continue to work for so long, and eventually the pen and paper RPG community will be milked dry. But I don't think WotC cares about that... they want to make the most profit they can _right now_ and then when D&D is no longer viable, they'll probably dump it altogether. And due to, of course, the obscenely long duration of a copyright term, the OOP gamers will still be in roughly the same spot where we are today. By the way, it is a blatant fallacy that they need to republish rule books every few years for a game to be successful, as the rules to games like Monopoly, Scrabble, and many others have not changed in the decades that those games existed, yet they continue to thrive and be commercially successful. I wish WotC would see that, but I doubt they will.
Varl 05-19-08, 07:36 PM	It does if you consider that community fragmentation negatively affects their bottom line more heavily than supporting old games would positively. That's the pessimistic way to look at it, sure, but I think that fragmentation damage caused by releasing myriad editions over short periods of time in an effort to "improve" the game is more likely to cause the downfall of D&D than any support they could ever give OOP editions.
Vokos 05-19-08, 08:09 PM	XYZCHYX... the claim that WoTC would lose money (from lost sales of new 4E, etc material) if they began new printing of, reprinted, or even just licensed printing of, OD&D/1E/2E material just doesn't hold true for a lot of people. I, and most of the gamers I know, will NEVER buy ANY 3.xE, 4E, ad nauseum material... thus WoTC gets NOTHING from us now. If they did do any of the above options for the earlier editions, then they WOULD get my money. How hard is that to understand?
sblaxman 05-20-08, 02:18 AM	I think the theory is (whether true or not) that by only printing 4e, they can get 80% of the market to buy all the core books plus splat over the years... if they print 1/2e stuff as well, they'll get 10% buying 1/2, and 75% buying 4e... but they'll lose more money by lossing that 5% of the 4e market than they'll gain from the 10% in 2e (since the they'll be realeasing splat after splat in 4e that will be eaten up) Now, I doubt that would happen (the market for 1/2e will pretty much 98% NOT be putting any money into 4e), but that's the way they are going w/ it. (note, all percents are made up off the top of my head, the point should be there though)
hellmute 05-20-08, 09:01 AM	Even with made up numbers it shows something. WotC may be able to get 85% of the money the market is spending rather than just 80%. Say $1,000,000 was spent on RPGs for the month of June. 800,000 or 850,000 which would you want? Would it matter than 4e only earned 750,000 and OOP earned 100,000? Of course all sales figures don't go to WotC, the retailer get most of it in mark-up, but still. Assume the million was retailers buying from WotC. They care so much about the 3rd party publishers to support in some way the use of GSL and OGL in some fashion at the same time for different "product lines" (whatever that means). So great for them for supporting 3rd party publishers. When does WotC intend to support the gamers? But unless you are playing their newest ediiton you are no longer a gamer in their minds and do not deserve support for past editions. What difference does it matter if it is 4e or 1e/2e? Doesn't D&D compete with Magic and vice versa? So why carry both product lines? I think the biggest problem in al this is that the people at WotC cannot mentally handle the fact that their latest edition will lose sales to older edition material. It would depress them too much to have 4th edition not be as successful for those who worked on it, that everyone is not buying it. Well already people will not buy it. So go ahead and get some therapy, and try supporting some of the OOP editions to pay for that therapy. It is not D&D just because WotC says so or labels it so. They can call it anything for this new edition. The term D&D has just become an advertising campaign for second rate RPGs. WotC/HASBRO just cannot handle the fact that everyone will not buy into their hype.
sblaxman 05-20-08, 11:07 AM	What I intented was 80% of the population, not expenditure.... the average 4e player will be spending more than the average ad&d player... since most of us have at least SOME of the books.... where as the 4e players need to buy everything new... (again, I'm on your side... I wish to heck they'd support 2e) And I do have trouble with calling any of the WotC stuff (especially 4e) d&d.... besides the fact that there are humans, elves, and dwarves... and the fact the spells have the same names (even though different functions), there is little to identify it as being connected to it's roots.
hellmute 05-20-08, 01:23 PM	What I intented was 80% of the population, not expenditure.... the average 4e player will be spending more than the average ad&d player... since most of us have at least SOME of the books.... where as the 4e players need to buy everything new... (again, I'm on your side... I wish to heck they'd support 2e) And I do have trouble with calling any of the WotC stuff (especially 4e) d&d.... besides the fact that there are humans, elves, and dwarves... and the fact the spells have the same names (even though different functions), there is little to identify it as being connected to it's roots. I wasn't disagreeing just expanding on why your example even with made up numebrs work. 3rd edition seems to have taken 2.5 (aka Player's Options) books and ran with it. Well not everyone liked or used that. There is the problem. They saw the player's options as empowering to players. Why did the player's not have power before? their own hang-ups thinking the game was DM vs player, rather than a cooperative effort. :rolleyes: Now is seems the players are supposed to whitch and bine to get their way. Rather than actively taking part in making their characters the way they want or playing it out they see them as just pawns or other playing pieces. That isn't what the concept behind D&D is to make a board game. :yuck: I think you and Wotc would be surprised at the amount AD&D players would spend on new material. Maybe not from WotC because they lack the ability to create decent material as their versions have shown us, but look at the stuff TSR made and people bought by the truckloads. The same type of splatbooks that caused the fall of TSR, and WotC just now calls them "core" to make them seem more needed to kep the company alive. :rolleyes: They already are supporting the selling practices of the later TSR, so why not the editions? :ahem:
xyzchyx 05-20-08, 03:44 PM	I think you and Wotc would be surprised at the amount AD&D players would spend on new material.The counterargument to that goes that if AD&D was so great, why did TSR flop? Of course the answer to that is complex, but it nevertheless is a valid question from a marketing standpoint. They already are supporting the selling practices of the later TSR, so why not the editions? :ahem:One word: marketing. They can tout their latest edition as "new and improved", which they can't as effectively do if they are saying that old versions are acceptable. If WotC supported out of print editions at all, the biggest problem with it would be that there actually *IS* a (non-trivial) segment of the population that would have happily followed wherever WotC will lead them if WotC didn't give them a choice, but will feel that if WotC is saying the old editions are good enough, then they will stick with those. Anyways, if WotC doesn't publish material for old editions, then they won't make any money off of this demographic that they otherwise could have. If they *DO* publish material for those editions, then that cuts into the amount of material they can still publish for the latest edition, which they (reasonably) figure will affect their buttom line more than just not supporting the old edition anymore. Worse yet is the issue of ongoing fragmentation, which could cause the community to be divided into pieces too small to commercially sustain themselves. If they went back to the old editions exclusively, they'd be alienating an even bigger market segment than they are facing right now by introducing a fourth edition. No matter which way you slice it, commercially, it always is going to be a no-win situation for them. The only direction they can move is forward. Now, while I know that they fragment the community anyways by releasing incompatible editions, they seem to figure they can depend on an effective marketing strategy to overcome that... at least for a while. After all, it seemed to work quite well with 3rd edition (WotC made a killing with it, after all)... and I suspect it will probably work well for them for at least another 2 editions of the game to come. Sure it might seem to make more sense to market something that will endure, but I think they are interested in which avenue can make them the most money before the market starts to level off or decrease rather than interested in the long term future of the game. sblaxman's point is well made, IMO. His numbers are off, but conceptually he hits the nail right on the head. WotC is only interested in the single largest market they can target... anything that competes with that they see (and not unjustifiably so) as cutting into their profits more heavily than the marketing of other products could make up for. This attitude isn't good at all for the future of the game, but it does make the most economic sense if their motive is to just make as much money as they can as fast as they can (which it appears to be).
sblaxman 05-20-08, 03:54 PM	Gotcha, my bad. I do agree with you, the irony of them mimicing TSR in the vast amount of splat books.... it seems even worse to me game wise as a dM/player... in 2e, I would buy things from the setting or two that I was interested in, and maybe a few of the "general" books, like complete pallys and complete rangers, and the arms and armor guide (love those three still). With 3e (and from the previews, 4e as well), all of the splat books are considered core, and woe be to the dM who in any board doesn't use one; s/he'll be attacked to no end for being a micro-managing megelomaniac for not allowing everything in. On the other side, it's better for WotC, since that attitude preasures every player/dm to buy everything to keep up with the curve. In 2e, it was more "here are a bunch of settings, and some optional stuff; use what you want". In WotC era, its: "use it all". It helps with sales when everyone needs to buy everything. TSR had to put money into supporting 3-5 major and 3-5 minor settings (lost count), some of which sold well (FR), others less so (al quadim, spell jammer), and they ended up putting in more money than they were getting out. By moving d&d into a kitchen sink game where everything goes if it fits or not, all books are valid for all campaigns, and the only have a single market. Instead of putting out 4 books scattered among different settings, each selling X copies, they can put out 2 books in a single setting, selling 3X of each of them. It's hard for me to argue either way, since I never bought much material at any point. Had the 3 core 2e and 1e books, the darksun and DL box sets, and 4 of the "complete books", and between my players there were 2 other "complete" books and 2 PHBs.... Outside of stuff from dragon/dungeon mag from the early 90's, most everything else we created ourselves. While I'd love to see the older editiosn supported just so the player/dm base stays alive, I honestly doubt I'd be putting in a huge amount of money, but that's me.
sblaxman 05-20-08, 03:59 PM	Worse yet is the issue of ongoing fragmentation, which could cause the community to be divided into pieces too small to commercially sustain themselves. If they went back to the old editions exclusively, they'd be alienating an even bigger market segment than they are facing right now by introducing a fourth edition. The counter to that though, is what percent of people who still play 1/2 will put a single dollar into 4e, if they still don't use 3e (probably not many), and how many people who play 3e and will play 4e will go back to 1/2 if it came back out (probably not many). Maybe I'm wrong (wouldn't that be nice) and 4e would be abandoned for ad&d if both came out, but I seriously doubt that. sblaxman's point is well made, IMO. His numbers are off, but conceptually he hits the nail right on the head. No defense there, those numbers were total BS, just place holders to make a point :D
Varl 05-20-08, 04:39 PM	WotC is only interested in the single largest market they can target... anything that competes with that they see (and not unjustifiably so) as cutting into their profits more heavily than the marketing of other products could make up for. This attitude isn't good at all for the future of the game, but it does make the most economic sense if their motive is to just make as much money as they can as fast as they can (which it appears to be). I agree. I find it disturbing that neither TSR nor WotC have proven capable of establishing a viable marketing schema that is able to keep D&D's head above water. One succumbs under mountains of debt, splats, and an evil greedy PoG, while the other is succumbing to changes editions, fragmenting, selling just as many splats as its predecessor, and is trying its best to make D&D as unrecognizable as ever.
hellmute 05-20-08, 06:58 PM	The counterargument to that goes that if AD&D was so great, why did TSR flop? Of course the answer to that is complex, but it nevertheless is a valid question from a marketing standpoint. Taking a break in the middle of a thunderstorm to visit the forums, so just popping off a few quick responses. If anyone wishes me to address other portions just throw them back at me, and I will reply when weather is more permitting. The answer is not at all complex. Like WotC, TSR was not a company that just made D&D/AD&D therefore other products had a part to play in the success or failure of WotC and/or TSR. Anyone looking solely at AD&D as the cause of the downfall of TSR should try to get a refund for any schooling they took based on marketing as the missed the fact that TSR was not just the makers of AD&D. Other posts: Sadly it seems that the only way D&D will ever have a chance of surviving in this day and age as anything other than fads worth edtions if for it to be removed from the corporations and put back into the hands of gamers. Those people who are interested in not making money, but making worthy games. Not interested in making every Tom, Dick, and Harry happy by being "allowed" to play a simpler game for all ages, but for those few who want to play a good game. Don't get me wrong I don't mind younger aged players, but I don't think everything should be made for everyone. Some things just work better for smaller groups of people. Like D&D itself cannot support 50 people in one game, the game itself cannot support being made for everyone to enjoy it. Not everyone is supposed to enjoy it.
xyzchyx 05-20-08, 08:15 PM	The answer is not at all complex. Like WotC, TSR was not a company that just made D&D/AD&D therefore other products had a part to play in the success or failure of WotC and/or TSR. Anyone looking solely at AD&D as the cause of the downfall of TSR should try to get a refund for any schooling they took based on marketing as the missed the fact that TSR was not just the makers of AD&D.Perhaps "complex" is too strong a word, but it's certainly not as straightforward as a company producing one product that there just wasn't enough of a market for.
Matthew_ 05-22-08, 02:16 AM	Yes, make no mistake folks, OSRIC is completely legal, and even if Wizards of the Coast decide to throw money into a frivolous law suit of some sort, the only people who will have to deal with that are the originators of OSRIC. If you want to see an OSRIC 2e (OSRIC 2 is an attempt to create a more complete rulebook akin to Labyrinth Lord, rather than just a publishing platform), get to it! AD&D is completely backwards and forwards compatable in any case, so you can use OSRIC to publish AD&D 2e materials just as it is or you can create a book of optional rules (somebody already did, but I haven't read it, OSRIC Unearthed, I think it wa called). At the moment efforts in some quarters are underway to put together a sort of 'Old School RPGA' to support people who want to play out of print games and organise them for conventions or to have a presence at already established conventions. Potentially, we [i.e. you and I] could establish local chapters and attempt to reinvigorate the game. At the moment, I am attempting to put together an OSRIC Quick Start Booklet on the 'cheap ass games production value model' with the prospect of distributing it at my local game store on Free RPG Day (21st of June, I think) or as a 'freebie' with every purchase (dependig how long it takes me to frickin' do it). I am also (tentatively) planning on going down to GenConUK in Reading this year. No doubt the convention will be dominated by the release of 4e, but I hope to get my group together and run some 'real' D&D. To put it another way, OSRIC is ours [i.e. the real D&D community] and it will be what we make of it.
xyzchyx 05-22-08, 02:26 PM	To put it another way, OSRIC is ours [i.e. the real D&D community] and it will be what we make of it.Indeed, but a community development effort means that one ends up leaving out anything that doesn't fit the view of the majority, which can often end up only appealing to the lowest common denominator. AD&D itself was quirky... and although I mean no offense at all to the developers of OSRIC, I feel that they have written something that is missing a lot of those types of quirks.
fjw70 05-22-08, 05:00 PM	WOTC does still support 1/2 ed -- at least a little. Just about very 1st ed, 2nd ed, and classic D&D publication is available on pdf for $4 each through Paizo (and other websites). C&C is basically an updated (and improved IMO) version of 1st edition AD&D. There are options for those that love 1st and 2nd edition, even for those that want to start playing those editions.
Matthew_ 05-22-08, 05:51 PM	Indeed, but a community development effort means that one ends up leaving out anything that doesn't fit the view of the majority, which can often end up only appealing to the lowest common denominator. AD&D itself was quirky... and although I mean no offense at all to the developers of OSRIC, I feel that they have written something that is missing a lot of those types of quirks. Hi Xyzchyx, lots to think about there. I didn't mean to imply that the community should be united in any project, indeed I meant quite the opposite. You the individual (who are also part of a wider community) can do wahtever you like with OSRIC. It is yours, mine and everyone else's to with as they will. Autonomy and decentralisation are the watch words of this movement, not all that 'let's get along together and standardise' crap. ;) As to OSRIC being a product by commitee, it's actually not. The original OSRIC document (to my mind, anyway) was something of an experiment to see what could be achieved. It was pretty dry stuff because it was only intended to serve a legal purpose. OSRIC 2 incorporates a far greater degree of what could be taken from the source material. Stuart is the guy in charge, and everything the community contributes to the OSRIC 2 document has to go directly through him. So, it's fair to say that OSRIC 2 is his restatement of the source material, which in its turn reflects the interpretation of the community at Knights & Knaves. Things that couldn't be included are likely to be quirky because that's what makes them impossible to reproduce. Beleiev me, we would much rather reproduce the source text and art verbatum! If you can get a 1e AD&D DMG, PHB and MM, you don't need to bother with the OSRIC document. Unfortunately, though, it is clear that 'on the ground' awareness of OSRIC is limited; modules are very often intermingled with D20 books and staff have no clue what you might be talking about when you point it out. This is part of what is making it necessary to produce OSRIC 2. OSRIC, though, isn't bound by the vision of Knights & Knaves, it is a tool that is subservient to that community, but it is equally subservient to every other individual who downloads it and desires to make use of it. In many ways it is the fulfilment of the Gygaxian (or even Cookist) "if you don't like it, change it" message. Still, I am cool with it not being suitable for everyone, people should only make what use of it they want to, after all. WOTC does still support 1/2 ed -- at least a little. Just about very 1st ed, 2nd ed, and classic D&D publication is available on pdf for $4 each through Paizo (and other websites). C&C is basically an updated (and improved IMO) version of 1st edition AD&D. There are options for those that love 1st and 2nd edition, even for those that want to start playing those editions. They certainly are, and I fully support Castles & Crusades and Troll Lord Games (got me the deluxe faux leather bound versions of the Player's Handbook and Monsters & Treasures) and very much appreciate WotC making the pdfs available (even though the quality could sometimes be better... I know gift horse and all that). Of course, back in the day there was talk of making the whole back catalogue available for free, but I always thought that was crazy talk. ;) However, these are not options for hobbyists (such as myself), or for small time publishers who cannot reach licensing agreements with WotC or TLG, but OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord are OGL and very much available to fulfil that role.
fjw70 05-22-08, 06:54 PM	However, these are not options for hobbyists (such as myself), or for small time publishers who cannot reach licensing agreements with WotC or TLG, but OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord are OGL and very much available to fulfil that role. What do mean by hobbyist?
Rosisha 05-22-08, 07:42 PM	I think he means arm chair publicist but I could be wrong. :D I have dabled with creating an Advanced OSRIC, 2nd Ed but I'm not sure I have enough time. At least, not right now. But I will keep my eyes posted. Until then I'll modify what the OSRIC crew are working on! Rosisha
Matthew_ 05-22-08, 07:44 PM	What do mean by hobbyist? Well, now your asking. ;) Like all models and labels, it's hard to give an exact definition, but I will give it a go... In this context, somebody who plays out of print Dungeons & Dragons, as well as creating material compatable with that system for public consumption, all for the purposes of my own relaxation and entertainment. One option available is to go through Dragonsfoot and electronically publish material through that site; the legal ground for doing so is uncertain (no problem so long as WotC don't care, of course), bur I do not believe that I could legally offer printed material to a game shop to distribute for free. With OSRIC, I can legally produce material, print it out, and share it with the larger internet community, as well as printed material for the local gaming scene. I think he means arm chair publicist but I could be wrong. :D Also a fair description. :D I have dabled with creating an Advanced OSRIC, 2nd Ed but I'm not sure I have enough time. At least, not right now. But I will keep my eyes posted. Until then I'll modify what the OSRIC crew are working on! Sounds cool.
xyzchyx 05-22-08, 11:28 PM	Anything that is published, regardless whether it is commercial or freely distributed, that claims to be compatible with AD&D infringes on WotC's copyright as a derivative work of that product unless they have been explicitly granted permission to do so. OSRIC would not be an exception to this... the developers have simply not actually said they were compatible with AD&D. Whether this is sufficient, I think, may remain to be seen, as everybody who has heard of OSRIC realizes that although it never comes out and says it's compatible, it has a similar enough rulesystem to make porting between OSRIC and AD&D direct and not in need of any explaining.
Matthew_ 05-23-08, 01:23 AM	Anything that is published, regardless whether it is commercial or freely distributed, that claims to be compatible with AD&D infringes on WotC's copyright as a derivative work of that product unless they have been explicitly granted permission to do so. OSRIC would not be an exception to this... the developers have simply not actually said they were compatible with AD&D. Whether this is sufficient, I think, may remain to be seen, as everybody who has heard of OSRIC realizes that although it never comes out and says it's compatible, it has a similar enough rulesystem to make porting between OSRIC and AD&D direct and not in need of any explaining. Interestingly, I do not think that is quite the case. As I understand it, OSRIC cannot say it's compatable with Dungeons & Dragons because that is one of the conditions of using the OGL. Many products were published prior to OSRIC that had 'compatable with AD&D' written on them. A good example would be the original Kalamar material by Kenzer & Company, which says exactly that on the back cover and which is still available for sale through Noble Knight Games (and even in some game stores, I bought one from Playin' Games in London last month - what a find!). Of course, this is all an undecided area of legality, as Ryan Dancey has argued before, and untested until somebody actually makes a legal challenge. That is a part of the adventure of 'old school', but the point is that without OSRIC I would not have any chance of convincing my local game store (which sells OSRIC compatable material) that a Quick Start OSRIC pamphlet was in any way lawful for them to give away. If it happens, it happens, and the primary author of OSRIC will have to make the case for his defence; in some ways that would actually be desirable, as it would put an end to speculation one way or the other. In the meantime, it is a case of nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Rajaat 05-26-08, 04:29 PM	International copyright law states that Copyrights lasts 50 years (not 70, nor 150) from the date a product was published. But it also states that certain products have that kind of protection for 50 years after the death of the author...but since AD&D manuals are usually the work of more than one person (and done for a company) I would say 50 years from date of publishing.
xyzchyx 05-29-08, 12:32 AM	International copyright law states that Copyrights lasts 50 years (not 70, nor 150) from the date a product was published. But it also states that certain products have that kind of protection for 50 years after the death of the author...but since AD&D manuals are usually the work of more than one person (and done for a company) I would say 50 years from date of publishing.What you or I would consider reasonable may be completely different from the way things will actually be handled. I guess we'll find out circa 2028.
Rosisha 05-29-08, 05:52 AM	Yep, until then however, I think OSRIC is legally tight, enough that WotC isn't wasting any ammo on them. Not only that, but I doubt they would waste a courts time on the issue. Rosisha