Revamped / Reskinned / Adapted / Modified / DME'ed mods... which is it? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Revamped / Reskinned / Adapted / Modified / DME'ed mods... which is it?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
corwynn
Dec 30, 2008 16:25:27 I'll be releasing a "reskinned" mod in the next couple of weeks (for CORM1-1 if you're interested). Play-tested and everything :-)

But I don't know what to call it.

Is it an "adapted" scenario? (seems to close to the "Adaptable" scenarios from WoTC though).
Is it a "reskinned" scenario? (reminds me of UI or MP3 players)
Is it a "modified" scenario? (kinda non-descriptive)
Is it a "DM'ed" scenario? (some people have bad connotations with DME).

Any suggestions, or has anyone noticed any general consensus as to what to call this. Has anyone else released their modified scenarios?

Thanks!
#2
KarmaInferno
Dec 30, 2008 17:32:27 I'd be kinda careful about that.

Altering an adventure you are going to run is one thing, and allowed both under copyright law and RPGA rules for LFR.

Handing out a modified version to other judges and GMs falls under the grey area of distributing derivative works. WotC legal has in the past been kinda cranky about that sort of thing.

-karma
#3
rsouthard
Dec 30, 2008 18:42:31 Umm WHY?
#4
_metz_
Dec 30, 2008 18:46:22 A little known thing called intellectual property. There's like laws and stuff ;)
#5
_Mithreinmaethor_
Dec 30, 2008 18:55:27
A little known thing called intellectual property. There's like laws and stuff ;)

And with WOTC actually purchasing the modules from the writers, I am not sure that I would do this. Especially now that you have advertised it.
#6
pedr
Dec 30, 2008 20:00:24 I'm not sure that there would be a legal avenue to prohibit someone saying "here is an alternative storyline for this module. If you want to use this, replace the Gnome with one of Father Christmas's elves, change the description of the location of the first battle to the bar in a ski-lodge, have the first skill challenge involve crafting a sled large enough to carry you all across ice, and describe the sudden melting of a large snow-shelf as revealing the entrance to a hidden and forgotten toy factory."

It's a rather odd thing to think about, and I could very much understand if the powers that be said "don't do that if you're actually using these modules as part of LFR, please" (after all, imagine if someone's first experience of LFR was an adventure which was altered in a way which inadvertantly messed up some about-to-be-released development in the LFR metaplot - it could be very confusing and break any kind of immersion/suspension-of-disbelief).

On the other hand, it looks like people are having fun with this, and making modules fun for replayers seems to be harmless!
#7
corwynn
Dec 31, 2008 1:32:23
I'm not sure that there would be a legal avenue to prohibit someone saying "here is an alternative storyline for this module. If you want to use this, replace the Gnome with one of Father Christmas's elves, change the description of the location of the first battle to the bar in a ski-lodge, have the first skill challenge involve crafting a sled large enough to carry you all across ice, and describe the sudden melting of a large snow-shelf as revealing the entrance to a hidden and forgotten toy factory."... snip ...

On the other hand, it looks like people are having fun with this, and making modules fun for replayers seems to be harmless!

Exactly. Please understand that this is under the context of providing value to replayers.

You still need the original scenario in order to play the reskinned/remixed/revamped scenario, and I'm not copying anything from the original scenario, so I'm not infringing on WoTC's copyright as far as I know.

I'm not the only person to have done this, so this isn't anything new.

What I'm really interested to hear, and what I haven't heard yet, is what you'd like this to be called. "Adapated", "Modified", "Reskinned", ...?

Any thoughts?
#8
eldric_iv
Dec 31, 2008 1:56:47 Reskinned, Altered, or Done-Been-Re-Flavorized would be my choices.
#9
pedr
Dec 31, 2008 5:58:32 Also note, more on-topic, that ADP/ADAP probably should already stand for 'Adapted'; 'Adaptable' was the meaning of ADP applied to year 1 and year 2 LG modules which were capable of being 'adapted' by regional triads to fit regional flavour. The announcement of the Year 6 LG ADP modules described them as 'Adapted', i.e. modules adapted to LG (or LFR) from published retail product.

Any problems with 'Revised'? 'Re-imagined' is a reasonably accurate description, but perhaps a slightly clunky word!
#10
joshuarandall_dup
Dec 31, 2008 9:48:48 Revisited? Reloaded?
#11
KarmaInferno
Dec 31, 2008 11:07:26
I'm not sure that there would be a legal avenue to prohibit someone saying "here is an alternative storyline for this module. If you want to use this, replace the Gnome with one of Father Christmas's elves, change the description of the location of the first battle to the bar in a ski-lodge, have the first skill challenge involve crafting a sled large enough to carry you all across ice, and describe the sudden melting of a large snow-shelf as revealing the entrance to a hidden and forgotten toy factory."

As I said, it's a legal gray area.

Any work based off someone else's work is called "derivative work".

As long as you're doing it for your own personal use, it's not an issue.

As soon as you hand it to someone else, you are distributing a derivative work without permission from the owner of the original work.

It's functionally no different than you writing new chapters for, say, Star Wars, with instructions on where to insert the chapters into the novelization, and then posting the chapters on the internet for download.

Now, it might be possible to ASK WotC for specific permission to distribute the modified adventures. I dunno how they'd react, though.

-karma
#12
corwynn
Dec 31, 2008 14:48:45
Any problems with 'Revised'? 'Re-imagined' is a reasonably accurate description, but perhaps a slightly clunky word!

I like "Re-imagined"! Though I agree it is somewhat clunky.

"Revised" or "Revisited" works as well, though I'm not sure if that would falsely imply some type of stamp of approval from the author or WoTC.

I think right now my two choices are:
* Reskin (lots of precedence in other industries)
* Re-imagined (very appropriate)

Thoughts on these?
#13
howie23
Dec 31, 2008 15:39:13
I'll be releasing a "reskinned" mod in the next couple of weeks (for CORM1-1 if you're interested). Play-tested and everything :-)

I would like to thank Terry for bringing this issue to a head. The original post was cross-posted in Yahoo LivingFR, where there has been a bit of a fire storm.

While the senior staff has previously declined to provide specifics on what DME enables or not, the issue has progressed since August. We are now seeing activity in which DMs are not merely adjusting an adventure for the table at hand in an organic fashion. Instead, we are seeing folks rewrite, adapt, and distribute modified campaign content. We are seeing conventions strive to maintain the exclusive content model by offering battle interactive events that are then reported as a given title. We are seeing the offer of running such interactive events, in which a character nominally replays a highly modified title, but for which that player's participation is not reported.

This is no longer a situation of folks behaving as they choose to in a private environment for the benefit of the players at a given table. This is no longer the case of folks being rooted in a past model and/or having an aesthetic objection. Rather, this has been stretched to the point of the distribution and convention level sanctioning of unauthorized content. As such, it threatens to undermine the RPGA trademark and brand recognition.

The January CCG is the perfect opportunity for the RPGA to provide guidance about what is intended with respect to substantial modification attributed to DME. If this sort of modification for mass consumption is intended, encouraged, or tolerated, folks need to know so that they can understand how the campaign has been retooled so that they can adapt their viewpoint. If this sort of modification is unexpected, outside the scope of what is intended, or prohibited, this needs to be made clear. While I understand the concern about providing guidance that would return us to the days of mythic consistency, I also believe that we have creative people associated with the campaign who can provide a clear message without poisoning the well of empowerment.

David
#14
kinevon
Dec 31, 2008 20:45:55
It's functionally no different than you writing new chapters for, say, Star Wars, with instructions on where to insert the chapters into the novelization, and then posting the chapters on the internet for download.

I wonder what the response would be here to a set of "Enhancing threads like there are over in the Star Wars: Dawn of Defiance boards.

Those threads, one for each module, are GM discussions on what did and didn't work in each module, what they changed to make the module better suited for their players, or more consistent with their group's view of the Star Wars Universe, or handle certain types of interactions in the universe.

To be honest, I don't see this type of thing being much more than a similar type of posting, doing things like letting the more knowledgeable of the FR fill-in the background of an area, such as the posting included during discussions of Beneath Haunted Halls that explained why a war between Cormyr and Myth Drannor would not be a good thing, as that would let the evil Netheril folk have less obstructions to thir schemes from the neighboring power groups.

After all, one of the complaints that I have, as a GM, is that I am not that familiar with FR, so I cannot fill-in this information easily myself, and it is not easy for the author of the module to put in, since there are strict word-count requirements for the published module.

I am planning on running AKAN1-1 in a week and a half, and using the enhancements posted in the AKAN1-1 discussion thread on these boards to increase some of the flavor of that module.
#15
zho
Jan 01, 2009 2:01:54 I am a big fan of DM empowerment. I have, at times, rewritten entire encounters or roleplaying scenarios when I felt the module, as written, failed to present a challenging, engaging, and entertaining experience. On rare occasions, I have recommended other DMs at events I host make similar changes and provided them with all the info needed to institute the changes (if they wanted to).

Please bear in mind that I didn't alter the plot, theme, or mood of the mod; just touched it up to provide what I felt was a more enjoyable play experience.

Still, I would have issues with anyone re-writing an entire mod and freely distributing it. If your work is similar enough to the original (CORM1-1) to be playable as an LFR event, then it is a derivative work (as noted by Karma) and shouldn't be distributed without the express permission of the RPGA--which owns all rights to the original work.

If your work is completely dissimilar from CORM1-1, then you should give it a different name and offer it as your own work. However, if it's different enough for you to do that, it shouldn't be playable as an LFR event.

What, if anything, do the RPGA writing coordinators have to say about this?
#16
SYB
Jan 01, 2009 9:19:02 I think the best answer is a middle ground. I think it would be fine to release a primer that details how one way a DM may choose to change a module. Instead of changing the module yourself, you provide a 1-2 page treatment that says things like: "In encounter 2, change the kobold cutpurse to a goblin and instead of fleeing to the sewers, it flees to the library."

The above is probably less complicated changes than you have made, but the idea is there.

Heck, you could probably start a yahoogroup called LFRModAlterations that was nothing more than a bunch of posts to give DM ideas how to alter mods.

-SYB
#17
Alphastream
Jan 02, 2009 11:43:16 I agree, Syb.

There is a big difference between describing what you would change and posting a revised module. If you take a look at what I posted for AKAN1-1, you really can't use that without having the module. That's on purpose, so as to protect the intellectual property of WotC.

We all want to protect their IP so they make money and create games for us.

Teos
#18
pedr
Jan 03, 2009 11:34:40 On derivative works, with the disclaimer that I'm not an IP lawyer, I believe that a work can only be considered derivative if it is something capable of being copyrighted, i.e. it is, itself, an 'artistic work'.

I'm no expert on how to categorise these things, but I'm not sure that my list of suggestions for how to alter a module, if it is in the form of my example earlier, extended, would be capable of being copyrighted.

An example (though complicated by performance rights vs distribution/copying rights under copyright law) might be if I said: "In my latest production of 'The Crucible', I cast women in all of the men's roles, and men in all of the women's roles. This had the effect of enhancing the shock of lines in Act 2, although I cut the entire opening scene from Act 3 as it did not make sense".* I believe that it would be acceptable to post this on an "AmateurDirectors" Yahoo! Group - and to perform such a play - and that the owners of the copyright in The Crucible could not prohibit it.

What I can't do is write "The Melting Pot", a poignant drama set in the Pakistani immigrant community in Leicester which follows the plot and structure of The Crucible. I could probably write it if it was a parody of the Crucible, though; perhaps if my protagonists were mafia bosses, and I used and subverted lines from the original to (try to!) make a satirical comment on the extent to which hard-working immigrants to America are ennobled and idolised in American theatre.

This is a tangent, of course, but I'm often concerned by the extent to which IP law issues are raised in these discussions, when often they are far, far less clear cut! Should WotC not wish this kind of thing to be done as part of LFR, they could more easily say that the plot and NPCs within a module may not be changed. This wouldn't make it 'illegal' to do it, but it would make any such revised module 'outside' the LFR campaign, just as it would have been in LG.

(* as well as not being an IP lawyer, I'm not a theatre director and am sure that what I've said here would make little sense to anyone more familiar with The Crucible than I; it was merely the first example that sprang to mind!)
#19
joshuarandall_dup
Jan 03, 2009 12:27:42 "More... weight...!"
#20
elder_basilisk
Jan 03, 2009 17:31:57 Just because it would not make sense does not mean that some director somewhere has not tried it--it just means it's more likely to be tried with Shakespeare than anyone else's plays.

(* as well as not being an IP lawyer, I'm not a theatre director and am sure that what I've said here would make little sense to anyone more familiar with The Crucible than I; it was merely the first example that sprang to mind!)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 corwynn Dec 30, 2008 16:25:27	I'll be releasing a "reskinned" mod in the next couple of weeks (for CORM1-1 if you're interested). Play-tested and everything :-) But I don't know what to call it. Is it an "adapted" scenario? (seems to close to the "Adaptable" scenarios from WoTC though). Is it a "reskinned" scenario? (reminds me of UI or MP3 players) Is it a "modified" scenario? (kinda non-descriptive) Is it a "DM'ed" scenario? (some people have bad connotations with DME). Any suggestions, or has anyone noticed any general consensus as to what to call this. Has anyone else released their modified scenarios? Thanks!
#2 KarmaInferno Dec 30, 2008 17:32:27	I'd be kinda careful about that. Altering an adventure you are going to run is one thing, and allowed both under copyright law and RPGA rules for LFR. Handing out a modified version to other judges and GMs falls under the grey area of distributing derivative works. WotC legal has in the past been kinda cranky about that sort of thing. -karma
#3 rsouthard Dec 30, 2008 18:42:31	Umm WHY?
#4 _metz_ Dec 30, 2008 18:46:22	A little known thing called intellectual property. There's like laws and stuff ;)
#5 _Mithreinmaethor_ Dec 30, 2008 18:55:27	A little known thing called intellectual property. There's like laws and stuff ;) And with WOTC actually purchasing the modules from the writers, I am not sure that I would do this. Especially now that you have advertised it.
#6 pedr Dec 30, 2008 20:00:24	I'm not sure that there would be a legal avenue to prohibit someone saying "here is an alternative storyline for this module. If you want to use this, replace the Gnome with one of Father Christmas's elves, change the description of the location of the first battle to the bar in a ski-lodge, have the first skill challenge involve crafting a sled large enough to carry you all across ice, and describe the sudden melting of a large snow-shelf as revealing the entrance to a hidden and forgotten toy factory." It's a rather odd thing to think about, and I could very much understand if the powers that be said "don't do that if you're actually using these modules as part of LFR, please" (after all, imagine if someone's first experience of LFR was an adventure which was altered in a way which inadvertantly messed up some about-to-be-released development in the LFR metaplot - it could be very confusing and break any kind of immersion/suspension-of-disbelief). On the other hand, it looks like people are having fun with this, and making modules fun for replayers seems to be harmless!
#7 corwynn Dec 31, 2008 1:32:23	I'm not sure that there would be a legal avenue to prohibit someone saying "here is an alternative storyline for this module. If you want to use this, replace the Gnome with one of Father Christmas's elves, change the description of the location of the first battle to the bar in a ski-lodge, have the first skill challenge involve crafting a sled large enough to carry you all across ice, and describe the sudden melting of a large snow-shelf as revealing the entrance to a hidden and forgotten toy factory."... snip ... On the other hand, it looks like people are having fun with this, and making modules fun for replayers seems to be harmless! Exactly. Please understand that this is under the context of providing value to replayers. You still need the original scenario in order to play the reskinned/remixed/revamped scenario, and I'm not copying anything from the original scenario, so I'm not infringing on WoTC's copyright as far as I know. I'm not the only person to have done this, so this isn't anything new. What I'm really interested to hear, and what I haven't heard yet, is what you'd like this to be called. "Adapated", "Modified", "Reskinned", ...? Any thoughts?
#8 eldric_iv Dec 31, 2008 1:56:47	Reskinned, Altered, or Done-Been-Re-Flavorized would be my choices.
#9 pedr Dec 31, 2008 5:58:32	Also note, more on-topic, that ADP/ADAP probably should already stand for 'Adapted'; 'Adaptable' was the meaning of ADP applied to year 1 and year 2 LG modules which were capable of being 'adapted' by regional triads to fit regional flavour. The announcement of the Year 6 LG ADP modules described them as 'Adapted', i.e. modules adapted to LG (or LFR) from published retail product. Any problems with 'Revised'? 'Re-imagined' is a reasonably accurate description, but perhaps a slightly clunky word!
#10 joshuarandall_dup Dec 31, 2008 9:48:48	Revisited? Reloaded?
#11 KarmaInferno Dec 31, 2008 11:07:26	I'm not sure that there would be a legal avenue to prohibit someone saying "here is an alternative storyline for this module. If you want to use this, replace the Gnome with one of Father Christmas's elves, change the description of the location of the first battle to the bar in a ski-lodge, have the first skill challenge involve crafting a sled large enough to carry you all across ice, and describe the sudden melting of a large snow-shelf as revealing the entrance to a hidden and forgotten toy factory." As I said, it's a legal gray area. Any work based off someone else's work is called "derivative work". As long as you're doing it for your own personal use, it's not an issue. As soon as you hand it to someone else, you are distributing a derivative work without permission from the owner of the original work. It's functionally no different than you writing new chapters for, say, Star Wars, with instructions on where to insert the chapters into the novelization, and then posting the chapters on the internet for download. Now, it might be possible to ASK WotC for specific permission to distribute the modified adventures. I dunno how they'd react, though. -karma
#12 corwynn Dec 31, 2008 14:48:45	Any problems with 'Revised'? 'Re-imagined' is a reasonably accurate description, but perhaps a slightly clunky word! I like "Re-imagined"! Though I agree it is somewhat clunky. "Revised" or "Revisited" works as well, though I'm not sure if that would falsely imply some type of stamp of approval from the author or WoTC. I think right now my two choices are: * Reskin (lots of precedence in other industries) * Re-imagined (very appropriate) Thoughts on these?
#13 howie23 Dec 31, 2008 15:39:13	I'll be releasing a "reskinned" mod in the next couple of weeks (for CORM1-1 if you're interested). Play-tested and everything :-) I would like to thank Terry for bringing this issue to a head. The original post was cross-posted in Yahoo LivingFR, where there has been a bit of a fire storm. While the senior staff has previously declined to provide specifics on what DME enables or not, the issue has progressed since August. We are now seeing activity in which DMs are not merely adjusting an adventure for the table at hand in an organic fashion. Instead, we are seeing folks rewrite, adapt, and distribute modified campaign content. We are seeing conventions strive to maintain the exclusive content model by offering battle interactive events that are then reported as a given title. We are seeing the offer of running such interactive events, in which a character nominally replays a highly modified title, but for which that player's participation is not reported. This is no longer a situation of folks behaving as they choose to in a private environment for the benefit of the players at a given table. This is no longer the case of folks being rooted in a past model and/or having an aesthetic objection. Rather, this has been stretched to the point of the distribution and convention level sanctioning of unauthorized content. As such, it threatens to undermine the RPGA trademark and brand recognition. The January CCG is the perfect opportunity for the RPGA to provide guidance about what is intended with respect to substantial modification attributed to DME. If this sort of modification for mass consumption is intended, encouraged, or tolerated, folks need to know so that they can understand how the campaign has been retooled so that they can adapt their viewpoint. If this sort of modification is unexpected, outside the scope of what is intended, or prohibited, this needs to be made clear. While I understand the concern about providing guidance that would return us to the days of mythic consistency, I also believe that we have creative people associated with the campaign who can provide a clear message without poisoning the well of empowerment. David
#14 kinevon Dec 31, 2008 20:45:55	It's functionally no different than you writing new chapters for, say, Star Wars, with instructions on where to insert the chapters into the novelization, and then posting the chapters on the internet for download. I wonder what the response would be here to a set of "Enhancing threads like there are over in the Star Wars: Dawn of Defiance boards. Those threads, one for each module, are GM discussions on what did and didn't work in each module, what they changed to make the module better suited for their players, or more consistent with their group's view of the Star Wars Universe, or handle certain types of interactions in the universe. To be honest, I don't see this type of thing being much more than a similar type of posting, doing things like letting the more knowledgeable of the FR fill-in the background of an area, such as the posting included during discussions of Beneath Haunted Halls that explained why a war between Cormyr and Myth Drannor would not be a good thing, as that would let the evil Netheril folk have less obstructions to thir schemes from the neighboring power groups. After all, one of the complaints that I have, as a GM, is that I am not that familiar with FR, so I cannot fill-in this information easily myself, and it is not easy for the author of the module to put in, since there are strict word-count requirements for the published module. I am planning on running AKAN1-1 in a week and a half, and using the enhancements posted in the AKAN1-1 discussion thread on these boards to increase some of the flavor of that module.
#15 zho Jan 01, 2009 2:01:54	I am a big fan of DM empowerment. I have, at times, rewritten entire encounters or roleplaying scenarios when I felt the module, as written, failed to present a challenging, engaging, and entertaining experience. On rare occasions, I have recommended other DMs at events I host make similar changes and provided them with all the info needed to institute the changes (if they wanted to). Please bear in mind that I didn't alter the plot, theme, or mood of the mod; just touched it up to provide what I felt was a more enjoyable play experience. Still, I would have issues with anyone re-writing an entire mod and freely distributing it. If your work is similar enough to the original (CORM1-1) to be playable as an LFR event, then it is a derivative work (as noted by Karma) and shouldn't be distributed without the express permission of the RPGA--which owns all rights to the original work. If your work is completely dissimilar from CORM1-1, then you should give it a different name and offer it as your own work. However, if it's different enough for you to do that, it shouldn't be playable as an LFR event. What, if anything, do the RPGA writing coordinators have to say about this?
#16 SYB Jan 01, 2009 9:19:02	I think the best answer is a middle ground. I think it would be fine to release a primer that details how one way a DM may choose to change a module. Instead of changing the module yourself, you provide a 1-2 page treatment that says things like: "In encounter 2, change the kobold cutpurse to a goblin and instead of fleeing to the sewers, it flees to the library." The above is probably less complicated changes than you have made, but the idea is there. Heck, you could probably start a yahoogroup called LFRModAlterations that was nothing more than a bunch of posts to give DM ideas how to alter mods. -SYB
#17 Alphastream Jan 02, 2009 11:43:16	I agree, Syb. There is a big difference between describing what you would change and posting a revised module. If you take a look at what I posted for AKAN1-1, you really can't use that without having the module. That's on purpose, so as to protect the intellectual property of WotC. We all want to protect their IP so they make money and create games for us. Teos
#18 pedr Jan 03, 2009 11:34:40	On derivative works, with the disclaimer that I'm not an IP lawyer, I believe that a work can only be considered derivative if it is something capable of being copyrighted, i.e. it is, itself, an 'artistic work'. I'm no expert on how to categorise these things, but I'm not sure that my list of suggestions for how to alter a module, if it is in the form of my example earlier, extended, would be capable of being copyrighted. An example (though complicated by performance rights vs distribution/copying rights under copyright law) might be if I said: "In my latest production of 'The Crucible', I cast women in all of the men's roles, and men in all of the women's roles. This had the effect of enhancing the shock of lines in Act 2, although I cut the entire opening scene from Act 3 as it did not make sense".* I believe that it would be acceptable to post this on an "AmateurDirectors" Yahoo! Group - and to perform such a play - and that the owners of the copyright in The Crucible could not prohibit it. What I can't do is write "The Melting Pot", a poignant drama set in the Pakistani immigrant community in Leicester which follows the plot and structure of The Crucible. I could probably write it if it was a parody of the Crucible, though; perhaps if my protagonists were mafia bosses, and I used and subverted lines from the original to (try to!) make a satirical comment on the extent to which hard-working immigrants to America are ennobled and idolised in American theatre. This is a tangent, of course, but I'm often concerned by the extent to which IP law issues are raised in these discussions, when often they are far, far less clear cut! Should WotC not wish this kind of thing to be done as part of LFR, they could more easily say that the plot and NPCs within a module may not be changed. This wouldn't make it 'illegal' to do it, but it would make any such revised module 'outside' the LFR campaign, just as it would have been in LG. (* as well as not being an IP lawyer, I'm not a theatre director and am sure that what I've said here would make little sense to anyone more familiar with The Crucible than I; it was merely the first example that sprang to mind!)
#19 joshuarandall_dup Jan 03, 2009 12:27:42	"More... weight...!"
#20 elder_basilisk Jan 03, 2009 17:31:57	Just because it would not make sense does not mean that some director somewhere has not tried it--it just means it's more likely to be tried with Shakespeare than anyone else's plays. (* as well as not being an IP lawyer, I'm not a theatre director and am sure that what I've said here would make little sense to anyone more familiar with The Crucible than I; it was merely the first example that sprang to mind!)