According to a thread on Enworld, WotC has issued C&Ds for Online D&D 5E Character Generators.
Has anyone heard any further information?
I saw this too. Disturbing, to say the least, especially since WotC hasn't released an alternative. Not a good move on WotC's part, and a big setback for 5e players. I'd maybe be a little less critical if they were making more efforts on actually giving us something wothwhile in the character creation departement (or any departement for what it's worth) instead of chasing away people who are willing to help them support the game. All this silence on their actual plans is starting to become annoying...
JefferyKnight wrote:
This type of bull$#!+ is just so sad...There are many TTRPGs out there that aren't gimped by a toy megacorp, that need our support and money, and that make great products.
The D&D dev team should resign, and either pull a Monte Cook and kickstart their own amazing game (Numenera is amazing) or work for anyone who will hire them to sit around, play with dice, and occaisionally write something.
Personally, I'd rather be a unionized supermarket cashier than have to deal with the castration that Hasbro seems to inflict. What's the point of being a creative professional when the people who sign your paychecks are ruthless, souless, litigious dictators that refuse to allow you to make a quality product line?
Alienating proactive, intelligent fans can and will distroy an already miniscule customer base. Seriously, look around. TTRPGs are enjoyed by what...? Maybe a million people worldwide?
Everyone knows it's easier, cheaper, and often more fun to just play video games if you need a RPG fix.
5e will probably flop so hard it'll make 4e look like a commercial success on the order of an Apple i-product. Very few will be playing it if when 2016 rolls around there's no new non-adventure books to buy.
It's also so sad that Hasbro will NEVER sell the D&D brand name. They are known for sitting on a brand for decades just so no one else can profit from it.
PS: I can't be the only one who sees through that "We do not want to bloat the system with splatbooks this time" BS. It's pretty obvious that's just a lie to cover the fact that they are not being paid to write anything other than FR adventures now that the 3 core books are done.
seti wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
What's their option to a C&D? If he had crossed a line - and it sounds like he did include some copyrighted material - then I'm not surprised.
There's a difference between posting fillable pdf or excel spreadsheets and shutting down a site that automatically fills in racial stats and other information.
He can do this for PathFinder because it's numbers are based on the OGL. If WOTC let people use it's copyrighted material, there would be nothing to stop another company from creating a clone of it's new revised system.
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
Gaminon wrote:
There's a lot of misunderstanding about what trademark and copyright are and which needs to be defended.
Trademark: logos, slogans, certain distinctive images that have may been trademarked. Trademarks do not expire, but they if not protected, the trademark can be lost. This is why the Ellen show recieved a C&D when she mentioned Jacuzzi (a brand name) as a generic term for hot tub. (see who lost their trademarks here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks)
Copyright: the protection of the right to copy created content. In the case of D&D would include the rules, flavor text, images, basically anything between and on the covers. Copyright expires after a certain amount of time and the copy (content) reverts to the public domain. (I don't remember how long, IIRC it's over 100 years now. Disney has Congress change the rules whenever Mickey Mouse is about to slip into public domain). Copyright infringement, is any unauthorized copy of copyrighted material. (whether or not money was exchanged is irrelevent.)
C&Ds would be issued as a first step for either trademark or copyright infringement. I don't know the reasons for the actual C&Ds in this case, if no trade dress was used in the 3rd party apps, it would have to be for copyright.
Also note, that this could also be a case of the Hasbro legal department working on its own without communication with D&D team. It's also a possibility that there are corporate policies in place that the legal team is following that WotC can do nothing about.
EDIT: Based on the end of the ENWorld article, it would appear the C&Ds in this case pertain to copyright and not trademark. Any character generator is copyright infringment as it will be using a copyrighted system of rules. We can only guess at Hasbro's/WotC's reasons for preventing these tools. I wonder if it's because they included material in the PHB. Perhaps they would be more amenable to a character generator that restricted itself to the free rules. (Of course, it's easier to say no char gens than it is to review each one to see what rules it covers.)
CCS wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect a character builder to be released together with the rules of the game.
The same non-software company did it in 2000 and random intenet people can do it in 2014.
But it is very easy to miss basic things like a character builder when you only have eight people on the team.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
On the copyright thing, that's totally correct.
Why do you think Kleenex says the calls itself a "Facial tissue" 3-4 times every commercial? Or why Band-Aid calls themselves "Adhesive bandages" on theirs? It's defense of their trademark. If they allow it to become commonplace, they lose their trademark :P
Shasarak wrote:
WotC has been C&Ding every fan based initiative since mid-3rd edition. So, why is this surprising to anyone at this point? Back then they actually had multiple excellent character builders that were up-dated, flexible and user friendly. Suffice to say that they have never come close since. I almost prefer no builder to the mockery of information technology that WotC has produced for their games so far.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I find "Character Generators" separate you from your "character". I resent 3rd Ed starting the trend of "build" not "character".
Brock_Landers wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
WOTC has chosen a business model in which you can download most of the rules on the web, but you have to buy the PHB to get acces to the character creation options. That is a great thing because it enables players to try the game before they decide to buy it.
But WOTC cannot afford to let players do their character creation for free in the internet. If everything is free then players have no reason to buy the PHB.
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
bob_goes_up wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ah, Character Builds.
Now that is a real First World Problem.
Bluenose wrote:
I generally don't play games that don't have software support, even if it's as simple as an Excel sheet.
Of course, I also don't like using physical books, either. WOTC seems to want to step back in time 20 years with this nonsense.
Echoes of TSR.
I find it sad that some people seem so beholden to character generators; I have never felt that I needed to use a character generator, and in the handful of times that I have used them I have not found them to appreciably accelerate the process. I also find it funny given that a lot of people have mentioned how 5e is so much simpler and more streamlined than other editions.
You kids and your character generators. I remember when character sheets were revolutionary. When I started we wrote our characters on notebook paper. Hell, we didn't even have dice. we had dice chits which were cardboard squares with numbers on them you'd pull out of a cup.
Now get off my lawn! 
ankiyavon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
RCanine wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I think for some people the "character builder" is not just an easy way to organize characters, but it is the most simple form of software support for a gaming system and likely the first product you put out in terms of software/digital support. A lot of people out there, who like software like Hero Lab, Realm Works, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc. probably don't care too much about having a character builder (since, as you said, we can always use pencil and paper), but do see it as a token development from WotC that shows they are at least making an effort to put out software tools, whether they are WotC built or licensed 3rd party things.
Zardnaar wrote:
It's important to remember that this isn't the age of 3.5, where anyone and everyone was welcome to develop content for the core Dungeons & Dragons game, as long as they slapped the OGL logo on it and called it "The world's most successful RPG" instead of D&D. This is an intellectual property currently owned by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. Consequently, people who are developing (and potentially monetizing) products for use with 5th Edition without WotC's invitation/approval are infringing on that intellectual property. I know it doesn't sit well with gamers who just want tools to make their lives easier, or with the stereotypical gamer mindset of "You can't tell me what to do!" But it is what it is.
WotC has been attempting to have a viable digital element to Dungeons & Dragons since 3.0 came out. Does anyone remember Master Tools? It was an ambitious project that really sucked, and ultimately wound up becoming something they just farmed out to the developers of PC Gen over on SourceForge, since they were doing something better anyway (if not as graphically appealing; the UI in MT wasn't awful, just its actual functionality). The only time it's really seemed to work was with D&D Insider's 4th Edition generator, and you only had access to that if you were paying for D&DI. The rules mechanics changed radically enough from 4th Edition to 5th Edition (thank God) that it wasn't an issue of merely adjusting it to work for 5E, it would have required a complete redesign.
I don't get the impression we're going to see nearly as much product released for 5th Edition as we did for 4th, and definitely not nearly as much as 3rd or 3.5. It seems like there's intent to have some digital support, but that's likely (and should be) taking a back seat to getting content out they're fairly confident is going to sell. The next adventure is about Elemental Evil. The first one was about Tiamat. They're going for a nostalgia vibe. 5th Edition's core simplicity hearkens back to earlier concepts of D&D where there wasn't a codified rule for EVERYTHING (and as much as I love 3.5/Pathfinder, that's the one major flaw of that system). Tabletop RPGs being where they are now (more of a niche hobby than ever before, with the advent of online gaming), this isn't the age of a company perpetually hanging on by a thread (if it weren't for Magic: The Gathering, I'm fairly confident Hasbro would have likely closed down WotC by now) being willing to take chances.
Digital tools take a lot of work to keep updated when new product comes out. WotC may not have the resources to do that right now.
It's also worth noting that last year was focused on releasing the three core rulebooks. It isn't a bad idea to give players time to become familiar with the new rules and the books before giving them digital tools. Since so much focus is on getting new players into the game, it's understandable that "veteran" gamers might be impatient to get things that support veteran play, vs. a new player who may be overwhelmed by all the options of using a digital character builder when they're just trying to remember the difference between a Charisma score and a Charisma modifier.
Eldren73 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
Fake-Healer wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
celondon wrote:
Basically I thought that this was handling things the wrong way.
Then Morrus pointed out over at Enworld that someone likely who has an official license, and is paying good money for it may have complained, or WoTC need to clean up some of their IP leakage in order to attract potential license buyers.
There's lots of potentially valid reasons for this that we aren't aware of than just bored lawyers.
Eldren73 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
RCanine wrote:
There does seem to be a tendency to see the cloud in every silver liniing at WotC... or if people are to be believed, HASBRO.
If someone produces something that infringes copyright but is good material, then surely the legally understandable and really quite necessary C&D should arrive hand in hand with an offer to take the creator of said material under the wing of WotC to produce something that supports the community and benefits the game with a suitable contractual arrangement.
After all, the failure to produce credible software support for 5th Ed. is the reason amateur solutions start appearing, they are catering to a need.
Catering to a need is how you make money.
You'd think they understood that!
If someone (for illustration purposes) makes a good quality and free character builder which infringes copyright, then WotC should get into negotiations to support that product with a license, charge a nominal fee or marketing angle to make the effort worth it (let's say a one-off $0.99 charge, or it only being accessible via the official website so anyone wanting it gets to look at product adverts as they find and dowload it) and let it run.
Their decision makes legal sense, but from a marketting and client support basis it's really quite stupid.
Shasarak wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Reius wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
Reius wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Eldren73 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kids these days... 
Tev1138 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Really? IMO, teaching D&D is not hard. I've found this to be especially true of 5e.
I've taught young children, old guys set in their ways, even my wife for cryin' out loud. And she thinks my hobby is silly shenanigans. Still does. But she plays because my daughter wants her to play with us. She's starting to get into it more as time goes on, but has thus far resisted admitting it. ;)
RCanine wrote:
Chris, I agree with you about teaching D&D not being hard. Heck, I don't even consider it particularly difficult to pick up and self learn (which is what I did at age 12 in the mid '90s) if you compare it to a significantly more complex game like Anima: Beyond Fantasy.
However, there is a difference between something being "a good beginner's RPG" and "not hard to teach."
When speaking comparitively, there are numerous RPGs out there which are easier to teach or self learn than D&D is now, even though the modern version of D&D is the one I consider the easiest to teach or self learn.
When speaking objectively... there is a reason for there being a Starter Set and Basic Game instead of expecting beginners to dive directly into the PHB+MM+DMG version of the game, which is to make sure that the current version of D&D is as beginner-friendly as it can be.
Of course, my subjective opinion on the matter probably runs closer to yours than to Mecheon's, as I believe that D&D is plenty easy to learn (especially if someone is helping you through the process) - and this idea that beginner players inherently require "newb gloves" to be worn is absolutely insulting to said beginner players, especially when it extends to the ridiculous behavior of insisting that the new player play a Fighter even if they are interested in a different kind of character. Newbie says he is interested in playing a wizard, then newbie plays a wizard so there is a chance they actually have fun and stay interested, rather than forcing them not to have fun by spouting "sorry newbie, you can't do that until you know how to do that, and you can't learn how to do that except by doing this completely unrelated and entirely dissimilar thing" nonsense.
Oh, totally.
Heck, when I sat my wife down for the first time and asked her what she wanted to play (giving her a Cliff Notes rundown of her general options), she went for an elf wizardess. I did not suggest a human fighter. She didn't consider it.
And she is doing just fine with all the things being an elf and a wizard entails. Sure, she still asks which dice are which. But I know veteran players who still struggle with dice shapes... ;)
ChrisCarlson wrote:
My wife has joined my new 5e campaign as an Elf Rogue (Arcane Trickster) with a map fetish.
(And yay Shadowrun! I work for FASA back in the 90s)
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote: