Kenzer is coming out with a 4th Ed KoK campaign setting.
Adamant Entertainment is coming out with their Venture 4th series.
Goodman games apparently has something in the works.
Plus at least a few others who are releasing 4th ed stuff without the GSL.
It's an interesting development, that's for sure. Of the lot of them Kenzer seems to be in the best position. Dave Kenzer is a lawyer specializing in IP so I doubt he bills himself much. He's also taken on Wizards before (regarding the Dragon CD) and won. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
From Dave Kenzer
“that is not copyright infringement.
copyright infringement is basing your work on someone else’s creative expression. Rules are not creative expression. Also, it is not “based” on their rules. It happens to “work with” their rules.
SHould every programmer that writes a program that works with a computer have to pay the owner of the OS it runs on? I think not. I could be wrong, but fortunately, the US and International copyright laws agree with me.
A world where one could not reference others’ materials in their product would be a dark and sad place.”
Rules are not creative expression.
I would personally disagree rather vehemently with this statement.
I can't comment on the legality of it, though.
Edit: If this comes to litigation and anybody but WotC wins, intellectual property laws are going to get weird and/or go away overnight. Not sure how I feel about that.
Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
And that's about as official as you're going to get without talking to a lawyer
So... if I understand this right, if anyone wants to make "D&D" products they have to follow WotC's rules. Buuut if anyone just wants to use 4e rules to make something, they can?
That seems to be the short version, yep.
I thought so too... till I read this. Praticularly the bit where it says
And that's about as official as you're going to get without talking to a lawyer
Hmm. With that in mind, one wonders why the OGL was necessary in the first place, other than to facilitate business relationships between the companies.
So... if I understand this right, if anyone wants to make "D&D" products they have to follow WotC's rules. Buuut if anyone just wants to use 4e rules to make something, they can?
That's how I read it, if it's all correct.
I think the thing about the OGL that gives it weight is the ability to use the D&D D20 system logo.
Back in the 1st ed days there was a lot of legal wrangling by TSR and companies like Judges Guild that made some great stuff but weren't supposed to say "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons". As I recall (from 20+ years ago) those companies lost in the end and I do believe also that the ones who didn't reference D&D were severely handicapped in the game store market, around here anyway. Players and marketing have changed though, the products not being "official" (lacking the logo) may not matter as much now.
Players and marketing have changed though, the products not being "official" (lacking the logo) may not matter as much now.
I think some of those companies are also relying on their own name recognition to push their product. A fair number of the 3PP's are pretty well known.
Otherwise known as 3rd party publishers telling WoTC exactly where they can shove their GSL.
Good! Exactly what I would like WotC to do with the GSL.
I thought so too... till I read this. Praticularly the bit where it says
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
I've seen Beeropoply, Calgaryopoly, Canadaopoly, Weedopoply, and dozens of others without the MB logo.
Patents cover ideas that are useful, new, and inventive.
Trademarks cover words or marks that distinguish a business or property of a business.
Copyrights cover actual implmentations of written, spoken, or produced works. That picture of the fire in the newspaper is copyrighted to the guy who took it (or whoever he sold rights to.) The guy standing next to him can take pretty much the same picture without being in trouble.
The biggest contention in this issue is trademarks.
Remember, you CANNOT OWN a word. You can own a word in relation to your business. So Wizards can't own Orcs any more than J.R.R. Tolkien can.
So long as you steer clear of the trademarks and patents, you're pretty much golden. I knew this would happen this way, because it's happened this way BEFORE.
So long as you steer clear of the trademarks and patents, you're pretty much golden. I knew this would happen this way, because it's happened this way BEFORE.
That's also why those 'opoly' games rename the properties, call houses and hotels something else and stuff like that. In other words you could make a SeriphamOpoly if you named the different properties after biblical angels or somesuch, not if you actually used Market Garden, Park Place ect. Just like how I could make ImperialusOpoly if I renamed the properties to be provinces from the Roman Empire or somesuch.
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
I'm certain you can. The game was originally patented back in 1924. It's long expired now. The only thing Parker Brothers own is the specific design elements and trademark.
I am recommending this thread be moved to the GSL forum.
Where it may rarely be seen.
There is a lot of money to be made by supporting BOTH 3.x and 4e with the same line of products (at least more than being forced to choose only one edition to support).
I expect this trend to continue in fact. But we will have to see how it shakes out.
love,
malkav
I am recommending this thread be moved to the GSL forum.
*headsmack* sorry. Hadn't realized there was a GSL forum.
Either that or they go the KoK route and continue trucking along with the traditional races that have always been part of Kalmar and ignore Dragonborn and Teiflings.
If given a choice I'll take a product stamped with the GSL (or whatever form of indication Wizards has that says 'we are on board with you making this for our game') then one without it. Good thing I already know of 2 companies making settings that are going GSL that I seem to like (Amethyst and Earthdawn).
I would be if that guaranteed anything worthwhile like product quality.
But it doesn't, so instead I'll vote with overall product quality instead of the ability to fill in a card and place a logo on the back.
This means my impending release of Bat20 (no, I'm not kidding) can be completely above board.
If you include a Kobold named Raz or Manion, you can put my logo on it. But only if it's a lizard kobold. Dog kobolds can bite me.
Hmm. With that in mind, one wonders why the OGL was necessary in the first place, other than to facilitate business relationships between the companies.
It wasn't except for WotC to acknowledge that there was little they could do about it. Heck might have even been some part of a settlement that required them to make some sort of OGL.
Either way it was merely a marketing gimmick, otherwise WotC would be suing every RPG maker out tere that uses 6 ability scores or a set of 6 stats because it infringes on WotC IP as one of the core elements of D&D.
I would bet you could probably even use the EXACT 6 stats for another game without much WotC could do because they are innate natural characteristics of living creatures.
Most times you see DEX switched for Agility, INT and WIS are in 95% of the games as well is STR.
I can't wait to see what happens this time with K&C. Last time didn't they get AD&D as a booby prize for the lawsuit?
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
Hasbro owns both MB and PB now I think so just about all boards games belong to HASBRO.
Avalon Hill
Milton Bradley
Parker Brothers
All subsidiaries of HASBRO I think.
Be funny if WotC put out that game that one of those guys and Games Workshop both did being a competitor to Games Workshop.
Hello sci-fi, here I come...
But it doesn't, so instead I'll vote with overall product quality instead of the ability to fill in a card and place a logo on the back.
Thats why I said given a choice. Thankfully it seems I don't need to worry, Earthdawn was a long ago RPG I loved (though FASA did it at the time) and I have high hopes for it, hopefully the makers won't botch the conversion. Further Amethyst looks damn good to and being that I don't want a huge amount of settings I think I'm covered there. Supplements, well it depends but I don't really except to be wowed, of course I could be pleasantly surprised.
That's also why those 'opoly' games rename the properties, call houses and hotels something else and stuff like that. In other words you could make a SeriphamOpoly if you named the different properties after biblical angels or somesuch, not if you actually used Market Garden, Park Place ect. Just like how I could make ImperialusOpoly if I renamed the properties to be provinces from the Roman Empire or somesuch.
Except the quoted text implies that you wouldn't even have to change the names.
"Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game"
If that were true, then woudln't "Park Place" and "Community Chest" be examples of "trademark material involved in the merchandising or playing of a game", and thus not be protected?
The problem is Wizards is forcing companies to stop selling all their d20 stuff if they want to do 4E. This puts small companies in a difficult position. They don't know which way the wind is going to blow. It effectively forces them to choose now.
That is because those companies signed a contract to do that stuff that has a finite duration of the license. They can easily move to OGL unless the STL doesn't permit that and continue doing what they were doing, just without the logo and by following the OGL rules.
Except the quoted text implies that you wouldn't even have to change the names.
"Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game"
If that were true, then woudln't "Park Place" and "Community Chest" be examples of "trademark material involved in the merchandising or playing of a game", and thus not be protected?
No, because trademark protection is seperate from copyright protection. They wouldn't get copyright protection for their trademarks, but would still have their trademark protection.
It's about time.
I wish all of the companies that are refusing to use the GSL good luck.
"For use with Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition" will grab the attention of buyers that actually read the covers of the books in their game store...
I don't think it will have quite the marketing power of the GSL compliant logo though.
I just hope that all of the 3PP pay close attention to their writers to make sure they don't slip up and use anything that is trademarked.
I still think you're better off going for the logo and avoiding any chance of having to defend yourself (a real chance, even if you're in the right) in a court of law.
But that's just me maybe.
I still think you're better off going for the logo and avoiding any chance of having to defend yourself (a real chance, even if you're in the right) in a court of law.
But that's just me maybe.
Well, in this modern era, most businesses should have a lawyer .. just someone to run product by for this purpose. Besides, it's not like the GSL is devoid of risk either.. agreeing to sink your product at the behest of Wizards can be pretty risky business behavior. If you have everything stacked into a product and they come by and knock it out from under you.. you might wish you'd gone the "no GSL/yes IP law" route.
Havard
This is exactly how third party publishing worked before the OGL existed, they're just going back to how things worked in those days. Its really no big deal.
The GSL, on the other hand, allows no use of text and has no "viral" provisions. It is very difficult to see what the GSL offers that normal copyright law does not, and WOTC has, thus far, not articulated a clear motive for publishers to use the GSL. The right to use the D20 logo turned out to not be very useful in the past -- this is why many publishers abandoned the STL (the trademark license) in favor of just using the OGL and foregoing the logo. WOTC has not yet explained their plans to add sufficient value to the D20 "branding" to overcome the limits of the GSL, which are considerable compared to the OGL/STL licenses.
The OGL granted you the right to use verbatim text -- something normal copyright law doesn't..
Copyright Law allows verbatim citation with a caveat. When it's a small portion and when it doesn't reduce the value of the original work.
Copyright Law allows verbatim citation with a caveat. When it's a small portion and when it doesn't reduce the value of the original work.
Yes, but that's under the fair use doctrine.. which is VERY vague and generally cases that go up against fair use go against the "fair user"
Yes, but that's under the fair use doctrine.. which is VERY vague and generally cases that go up against fair use go against the "fair user"
Fascinating note. Fair Use is part of Copyright law. It's not really that vague. Most cases of people properly using fair use don't go to court.
Copyright Law allows verbatim citation with a caveat. When it's a small portion and when it doesn't reduce the value of the original work.
Sigh.
I DO wish people would remember context, here.
We're talking about game rules in specific, not copyright law in general, and more specifically, about "reproducing" the functionality of a game without violating the copyright of the rules.
The OGL lets me take hundreds of pages of D&D rules -- and thousands more pages of open content -- and slice, dice, copy, paste, edit and reuse them freely (including across systems, such as FUDGE, Action!, Traveller, and Runequest -- all released under the OGL now), unbounded by the limits of "fair use" or citation, and without any fear of lawsuit or having to dance on the grey line between "describing game rules" and copying them. Anyone who thinks this is not "value added" beyond standard copyright law, the job of explaining why so many companies -- which, surprise, surprise, know copyright law as well as armchair internet lawyers -- leaped at the chance to use the OGL...and why acceptance of the GSL, which does not offer more than copyright law does, and indeed offers seemingly less...is garnering a much more tepid response.
Sigh.
I DO wish people would remember context, here.
..
The OGL lets me take hundreds of pages of D&D rules -- and thousands more pages of open content --
You're right. I caught you mention verbatim and fireball and missed how you were talking about how OGL let you copy large volumes verbatim.
I would personally disagree rather vehemently with this statement.
I can't comment on the legality of it, though.
Edit: If this comes to litigation and anybody but WotC wins, intellectual property laws are going to get weird and/or go away overnight. Not sure how I feel about that.
You obviously don't know much about IP law. Kenzer is an IP Attorney and knows his stuff. HE took on WotC once and won, big.
Hmm. With that in mind, one wonders why the OGL was necessary in the first place, other than to facilitate business relationships between the companies.
Simple, it was a carrot to get you to give up some of your rights. You are licensed to use the SRD EXPRESSION of the game mechanics verbatim. In return, you abide by the terms of the OGL.
I'm just going to assume that most of you are too young to remember or have forgotten the fact, but:
This is exactly how third party publishing worked before the OGL existed, they're just going back to how things worked in those days. Its really no big deal.
Exactly. As long as they don't put "Dungeons & Dragons" anywhere on the product, they'll be fine. Just like in the pre-OGL days.
I'm pretty sure Dave Kenzer knows what he's doing.
You obviously don't know much about IP law. Kenzer is an IP Attorney and knows his stuff. HE took on WotC once and won, big.
If I remember correctly it was a different situation though, and it was TSR he took on not WoTC. They basically used his clients intellectual property, i.e. Knights of the Dinner Table comic strips, in a format they had not purchased them for (CDrom) without compensating his client.
But maybe I'm confusing that with something else.
Although, I think he's correct in this situation also.
If I remember correctly it was a different situation though, and it was TSR he took on not WoTC. They basically used his clients intellectual property, i.e. Knights of the Dinner Table comic strips, in a format they had not purchased them for (CDrom) without compensating his client.
But maybe I'm confusing that with something else.
Although, I think he's correct in this situation also.
Nope, you're right. That's why Kenzer was allowed to release KoK as an official setting and as someone else mentioned in the thread got 1st and 2nd edition as a 'booby prize'. That's what saw the release of Hackmaster.
Still though. Dave wouldn't be doing this if he didn't know what he was doing.
So, people are finally realizing that all the OGL did, and all the GSL can do is give you guidelines to make it so your product is eligible for a brand sticker?
It's about time.
I wish all of the companies that are refusing to use the GSL good luck.
"For use with Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition" will grab the attention of buyers that actually read the covers of the books in their game store...
I don't think it will have quite the marketing power of the GSL compliant logo though.
I just hope that all of the 3PP pay close attention to their writers to make sure they don't slip up and use anything that is trademarked.
Sorry, you are confusing the OGL and the STL. TheOGL gives you the right to use the EXPRESSION of game mechanics found in the SRD verbatim. The STL gave you the right to use the d20 logo and certain verbatim expressions fo game mechanics.
The key here is expression. That's why you cannot copy everything, including the rules, of Monopoly verbatim and sell it as Myopoly because you are violating copyright by copying the expression of game mechanics already published by Parker Brothers.
If I remember correctly it was a different situation though, and it was TSR he took on not WoTC. They basically used his clients intellectual property, i.e. Knights of the Dinner Table comic strips, in a format they had not purchased them for (CDrom) without compensating his client.
But maybe I'm confusing that with something else.
Although, I think he's correct in this situation also.
Yep, you're right. taht is exactly the case.
He knows his stuff about copyright law and he can say his game is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons right on the label. He just can't use the Dungeons and Dragons logo.
You obviously don't know much about IP law. Kenzer is an IP Attorney and knows his stuff. HE took on WotC once and won, big.
I wasn't disagreeing with him on a legal level.
For me, building and altering mechanics is a pretty substantial chunk of the creative process. It's my primary creative outlet at the moment, as a matter of fact.
I don't want to go toe to toe with him in a courtroom, but that statement is something that I couldn't disagree more with on a personal level.
i thought it silly in the first place, and would be like anne rice sueing every author who wrote a book with a vampire in it.
I wasn't disagreeing with him on a legal level.
For me, building and altering mechanics is a pretty substantial chunk of the creative process. It's my primary creative outlet at the moment, as a matter of fact.
I don't want to go toe to toe with him in a courtroom, but that statement is something that I couldn't disagree more with on a personal level.
Well, the way you express those mechanics is protected under copyright, so the creative energy you put into the expression is still protected.
That was why the OGL was attractive. You could use anything in the SRD verbatim so long as you followed the terms of the OGL. That's some free IP right there.
Fascinating note. Fair Use is part of Copyright law. It's not really that vague. Most cases of people properly using fair use don't go to court.
Then show me in copyright law where it dictates fair use.
You'll find something pretty surprising when you look for it.
It's not defined well at all. It's extremely vague.
You'll find the copyright law says that four things dictate fair use:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
---
But you'll also see they can't tell you what is and is not fair use. They can't tell you what purposes are fair use. They can't tell you how many words, or lines, or characters constitutes violation. They can't tell you how much of an effect is necessary to be outside of fair use.
For all that, they tell you to go talk to an attorney.
Also, it's interesting that 4e' s exception based design (especially for monsters and NPCs) actually works in favor of these companies because you no longer need to dance around 'Human warlord 10' and can instead just have Drax, the Tactician
copyright infringement is basing your work on someone else’s creative expression. Rules are not creative expression. Also, it is not “based” on their rules. It happens to “work with” their rules.
"Rules are not creative expression" is a true but very misleading statement. You cannot copyright ideas, which is well-established. The problem he has is that while you cannot copyright rules, you CAN copyright the presentation of those rules and various other related things.
I could write "Trolls & Towers" and completely reproduce the 4th edition rules set using different words, but I'd get sued horribly and lose. Why? Because it is a derivative work.
Basically, while the idea of 4th edition cannot be copyrighted, the presentation and execution of their presentation of it can be, and if you're too close to that, then you can be sued and are violating their IP rights.
It sounds to me like he's making this assertion and either knowing that it is misleading and trying to intimidate, or being so caught up in his own head that he's missing the forest for the trees.
SHould every programmer that writes a program that works with a computer have to pay the owner of the OS it runs on? I think not. I could be wrong, but fortunately, the US and International copyright laws agree with me.
D&D isn't an OS. It is an engine, like Doom or Quake. Do you think you can sell a game which uses the Doom or Quake engine without liscensing that engine?
I think most people know the answer to this. (It is no, incidentally).
It is a bit grayer if you do not reproduce the actual engine and instead produce an expansion for the engine (ALA counterstrike, originally). However, the problem is that if you use their code, you can be violating their IP. Do you think he's producing a product which doesn't copy any of their code?
I doubt it.
And if he does copy significant portions, then his material is a derivative work, which of course can only be produced with the blessing of the owner of the IP.
Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
The problem is that this is true but is legalese.
It is absolutely impossible to patent an idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game.
The problem is that the presentation of 4e's rules aren't an idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game.
To break it down for the person who doesn't understand:
The idea of a roleplaying game cannot be copyrighted. The idea of a fighter class cannot be copyrighted. This is how there are so many RPGs and CRPGs which are clearly derivative of D&D.
The system cannot be copyrighted. It is possible that it could be patented; however, 4th edition is not patented and I doubt they could write a patent for it at this point for a variety of reasons - at least, not a patent which is worth anything.
Trademark material clearly falls under trademark law; obviously it wouldn't fall under copyright law.
The rulebooks are not devices used to play the game; those would be dice, miniatures, and the battle mats.
Basically, what is copyrighted is as follows:
The full text of the rules.
The art in the rulebooks.
The name "Dungeons & Dragons" is trademarked, and it is likely that "Monster Manual" and "Dungeon Master's Guide" are both trademarked as well.
He'd have to avoid non-fair use of all of the above.
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
Well, calling it Seraphimopoly might get you sued because you're attempting to imitate the Monopoly trademark and imply you're associated with them. You'd probably be safe, though, unless you deliberately imitated the look of their logo.
However, you could make a Monopoly look-alike. You'd have to be careful to avoid violating their trademarks.
Monopoly is something of a bad example though as there are no copyrights other than the art for the game which apply to Monopoly, as the game predates the indefinite expansion of copyright laws.
Thing is, though, the more complex the game, the harder it is to do this to it. RPGs are probably better protected from this imitation than most board games for a very simple reason - loads and loads and loads of text. That text is copyrighted, and the more text there is, the harder it is to write a game which copies the system without copying their copyrighted text.
Even the races arn't really copyrightable except for Dragonborn and Teiflings. Even then though as long as they called them something different Draco's and Devilmen? It seems like they'd be in the clear.
Well, first off, tiefling may be copyrighted, as may be dragonborn. I've got my doubts, and really, they'd be kind of hard to protect. Secondly, they certainly do not own the idea of dragonmen or half-demons. They don't even own their history. However, rewriting their history in a way that keeps it the same, yet without violating their IP, is kind of hard.
Larry Hotter and the Witch's Rock is not something you could produce (unless it was a parody, but we can assume that these products are not parodies of D&D).
Basically, while they don't own the ideas, producing something too similar to them could very easily get you sued, as it becomes a derivative work.
Either way it was merely a marketing gimmick, otherwise WotC would be suing every RPG maker out tere that uses 6 ability scores or a set of 6 stats because it infringes on WotC IP as one of the core elements of D&D.
That would be completely impossible at this point. You have to protect your IP fairly quickly; if you let ten years go by without protecting it, it is way too late.
You obviously don't know much about IP law. Kenzer is an IP Attorney and knows his stuff. HE took on WotC once and won, big.
I can't find any Kenzer v Hasbro or Hasbro v Kenzer or Wizards of the Coast v Kenzer or Kenzer v Wizards of the Coast on Google. Could you please link me to evidence of this lawsuit so I can read what it is about and the like? Thanks.
FAKE EDIT: Ah, I see, the "TSR blatently violating someone else's IP rights" lawsuit. This is not at all comparable; claiming it is is just plain old silly. Well, unless you say "Kenzer blantently violating Wizards of the Coast's IP".
Claiming he's taken them on before and won is highly misleading.
Exactly. As long as they don't put "Dungeons & Dragons" anywhere on the product, they'll be fine. Just like in the pre-OGL days.
He slapped Dungeons & Dragons on the front cover.
I'm pretty sure Dave Kenzer knows what he's doing.
I'm not. People, including lawyers, often suffer from confirmation bias and subconciously reject things they don't want to know.
He's not creating the Players Handbooke and the Donjon Masters' Guide.
He's creating a campaign setting. He doesn't have to invoke the rules at all. He can print his own custom powers for different classes, using his own descriptions. He can create his own spells. He can create his own monsters.
And, if he uses the 3rd edition SRD, he can even use terms like "hit points", "AC", "Fortitude", "Will", "Str", "Int", "Wis", "Dex", "Con" and "Cha", most class names and almost all the skills without any worries at all. As long he doesn't have to describe how to use the numbers described therein, he isn't describing game mechanics at all. He can depend on the customers owning a 4th edition corebook set. The occasional use of the word "Perception", "Insight" or "Warlock" is unlikely to trigger an IP lawsuit -- particularly since they're actual English words.
Campaigns and Adventures are ideal for this set up. People trying to create new mechanics based on old mechanics will have problems, but Kenzer seems to be steering clear of that.
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight"
- the Eagles, "Get Over It", Hell Freezes Over album
Well, if nothing else, I can still do as I please, because I don't share. Oh well, fun while it lasted.
I can't find any Kenzer v Hasbro or Hasbro v Kenzer or Wizards of the Coast v Kenzer or Kenzer v Wizards of the Coast on Google. Could you please link me to evidence of this lawsuit so I can read what it is about and the like? Thanks.
Can't find the records, but basically Kenzer sued WoTC over the Dragon CD thingamabob that came out back when 3rd ed was released. Wizards had reprinted a bunch of KoDT comics without permission and Dave went for the jugular. That's why Kalmar was an 'official' setting and why Kenzer was able to print Hackmaster using the 1st and 2nd edition rules.
And, if he uses the 3rd edition SRD, he can even use terms like "hit points", "AC", "Fortitude", "Will", "Str", "Int", "Wis", "Dex", "Con" and "Cha", most class names and almost all the skills without any worries at all. As long he doesn't have to describe how to use the numbers described therein, he isn't describing game mechanics at all. He can depend on the customers owning a 4th edition corebook set. The occasional use of the word "Perception", "Insight" or "Warlock" is unlikely to trigger an IP lawsuit -- particularly since they're actual English words.
He can't use the OGL SRD to reproduce the 4e rules, and most/all of those words are fairly generic anyway.
I think the larger problem is avoiding being considered a derivative product.
It all boils down to this - it would be like him making an add-on for a computer game, then selling it as an add-on, without the permission of the people who wrote the original computer game.
Or perhaps like writing a sequel to a series of books, set in the world of another author, even though he uses different characters.
I can't wait to see what happens this time with K&C. Last time didn't they get AD&D as a booby prize for the lawsuit?
"Booby prize"????? I'm still laughing. I've been in a hospital bed all week without much to do other than hang out on this forum. It has been fun, but booby prize is a genuine laugh. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
It is a bit grayer if you do not reproduce the actual engine and instead produce an expansion for the engine (ALA counterstrike, originally). However, the problem is that if you use their code, you can be violating their IP. Do you think he's producing a product which doesn't copy any of their code?
I doubt it.
And if he does copy significant portions, then his material is a derivative work, which of course can only be produced with the blessing of the owner of the IP.
Exactly how much of the 4E core rules do you think is copied in Kingdoms of Kalamar? Based on the preview, I'd guess it's roughly... well.... zero percent. There are some new races, new animals, and new equipment items, but none of that is reproducing the core rules.
He can't use the OGL SRD to reproduce the 4e rules, and most/all of those words are fairly generic anyway.
I think the larger problem is avoiding being considered a derivative product.
It all boils down to this - it would be like him making an add-on for a computer game, then selling it as an add-on, without the permission of the people who wrote the original computer game.
Or perhaps like writing a sequel to a series of books, set in the world of another author, even though he uses different characters.
Like, say Galoob's Game Genie that can be used on Nintendo games without Nintendo's permission? Or like the many unofficial board games expansions like unlicensed Axis & Allies supplements? These have been around for years and proven legal.
I agree that it would be questionable if someone wanted to publish a full duplicate of 4E -- especially if they included creative elements like reproducing the Eladrin, Tieflings, and Dragonborn. However, if someone just is making a setting book, module, or expansion that doesn't reproduce any of the core rules, the issue is moot.
Where it may rarely be seen.
Yep. It's good to be the king.
Remember kids -- Usenet has no kings. Rec.games.frp.dnd.
- Ron ^*^
My only question is this: If people here have problems and are continually whining about flaming on here because they can't enable a wetware filter, let alone the software filter the forum software provides, how in the nine hells will they handle usenet??
Even the smart gamers that own companies, and sell game products. Why does everyone have this weird idea that suddenly overnight WoTC has become sue happy, and out to get us all? I think a lot of people are vastly misunderstanding the GSL, and attributing nefarious motives to it, and WoTC. It's not about anything nefarious. It's about business, branding, and making the D&D name worth something.
Do you all honestly think suddenly WoTC is going to spend its time sueing everyone? Especially when it comes to products like KoK that might actually draw gamers to 4e?
WoTC is trying to grow the market, and they are giving 3pp a chance to hop on and go for the ride. In return, however, they have to be willing to:
- Pitch in an help, by supporting D&D and not muddling up what D&D is. (ie no redefining.)
- Not use the brand of D&D to hep draw people away from D&D to another game.
The GSL doesn't say anythign about if you don't sign this we're going to sue you. It gives access to the brand of D&D, the look and feel of D&D, and the ultimate meaning of D&D. So of course they're going to be a bit more protective of it,
Under the GSL a company can:
- Put a big old D&D logo on their books.
- Make all their new powers, feats, rtuals, monsters, traps, hazzards, poisons, classes, races, diseases, etc... look EXACTLY like the core books.
- Use names, places, and specific IP.
Sure, companies like Kenzer or Goodman can probably make a decent bank roll, enough to support their company. But it's been said over and over and over again... In RPGs there's D&D, and then there's everyone else. The GSL is giving 3pp access to the large majority of gamers that know D&D, but nothing else.
These are the people that walk into the store and look for D&D. They probably had no idea what the d20 logo was, or what it meant. They just look for the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS! logo. The GSL gives you the ability to use that logo and lets you tap into that market.
A conmpany needs to decide, rationaly, whether that opportunity is worth it or not.
These are the people that walk into the store and look for D&D. They probably had no idea what the d20 logo was, or what it meant. They just look for the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS! logo. The GSL gives you the ability to use that logo and lets you tap into that market.
A conmpany needs to decide, rationaly, whether that opportunity is worth it or not.
The problem is, I don't think that there are that many people who walk in and don't know what to look for except for the logo as opposed to those who DO know what they want to buy.
I'm convinced that this is a good move, that people who want Kalamar will buy into it, because they know what a good setting it is. Those who don't, won't.
The problem is, I don't think that there are that many people who walk in and don't know what to look for except for the logo as opposed to those who DO know what they want to buy.
I'm convinced that this is a good move, that people who want Kalamar will buy into it, because they know what a good setting it is. Those who don't, won't.
Sure. I'm sure kenzer will make a fair amount of profit off of KoK.
Again, I'm not trying to say that the GSL is what people should or shouldn't be doing. That's a business choice they ultimately have to make for themselves.
I'm just saying I find the weird conspiracy theories to be odd, and out of place.
There are a sizable number of people that know D&D but nothign else. And if WoTC's plan to grow the market succeeds, I'm guessing that number will increase.
"Booby prize"????? I'm still laughing. I've been in a hospital bed all week without much to do other than hang out on this forum. It has been fun, but booby prize is a genuine laugh. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
Doesn't everyone like getting boobies for a prize? :P
As long as they're attached to the rest of the body... otherwise that's creepy and se7en like...
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
Monoply actually had two decade long lawsuit concerning who owned the patents (Antimonoply v Milton Bradley/General Mills/Hasbro). Msot of MB and Parker Brother games are patented distinctly, while Darrow claims to have the orginal patent he didn't really. Most board games if you were to copy their rules mechanics you would violate patent law. Gygax/Arenson never filed for patents, and now its too common use to be patentable.
Like RPGs use dice rolling to determine the outcome.
So unlike Lorraine and WotC, Gygax wasn't stupid to try something that was obiouvsly wouldn't work.
Do you all honestly think suddenly WoTC is going to spend its time sueing everyone? Especially when it comes to products like KoK that might actually draw gamers to 4e?
Keep in mind that Wizards just recently canceled the D20 license requiring all 3PP to cease publishing and destroy any back inventory of product which is licensed under the d20. It is also a big corporation and it's completely unknown what Hasbro might or might do with the D&D brand should they decide it is not performing adequately.
I tend to agree that it's unlikely they will yank the carpet on the GSL any time soon. On the other hand there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually do so as they did with the D20. Most 3PP are small companies and they pay their rent selling this stuff. I don't care about how benign the companies reputation (and right now Wizard's reputation isn't exactly benign), why would you give someone that power over you if you don't have to?
The benefits of the GSL are few, the powers it gives Wizards are many, why risk your rent money for marginal benefits?
These are the people that walk into the store and look for D&D. They probably had no idea what the d20 logo was, or what it meant. They just look for the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS! logo. The GSL gives you the ability to use that logo and lets you tap into that market.
The D&D Logo will hardly be prominent on 3PP books, it's restricted to specific locations on the book, namely the lower quarter of the back cover and on the legal license page. People casually browsing for D&D stuff are just as likely to notice the non-copyrighted phrase "Designed for use with Dungeons and Dragons(tm)" in the same locations.
Ultimately 3PP generally abandoned the D20 for the same reasons they are not adopting the GSL, it's too restrictive and the benefits are marginal.
Mmmmmmm... bewbies. :D
Keep in mind that Wizards just recently canceled the D20 license requiring all 3PP to cease publishing and destroy any back inventory of product which is licensed under the d20. It is also a big corporation and it's completely unknown what Hasbro might or might do with the D&D brand should they decide it is not performing adequately.
I tend to agree that it's unlikely they will yank the carpet on the GSL any time soon. On the other hand there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually do so as they did with the D20. Most 3PP are small companies and they pay their rent selling this stuff. I don't care about how benign the companies reputation (and right now Wizard's reputation isn't exactly benign), why would you give someone that power over you if you don't have to?
The benefits of the GSL are few, the powers it gives Wizards are many, why risk your rent money for marginal benefits?
That's not my choice to make. As I said before, thats the chocie of whomever is starting a business designed to sell stuff for use with D&D.
I could open a store selling t-shirts and license the right to print Mikey Mouse on them. Disney could yank that right. As a business I have to decide if it's a good idea to do it or not.
It's also a pretty good indication that if I make my rent money on this business venture I should probably have more then one basket for my eggs. Take Paizo for example. They started by supporting D&D with the magazine's but when their license expired, they had already moved into different areas, so they weathered the loss.
The D&D Logo will hardly be prominent on 3PP books, it's restricted to specific locations on the book, namely the lower quarter of the back cover and on the legal license page. People casually browsing for D&D stuff are just as likely to notice the non-copyrighted phrase "Designed for use with Dungeons and Dragons(tm)" in the same locations.
Sure, but it will be on there, and not only that, but you have the benefit of being able to make your book look pretty much exactly like WoTC's books.
If you don't feel it's a good enough draw, then who am I to tell you you're wrong? It's your business, so ultimately it's your choice.
My reason for posting isn't to convince anyone they should or shouldn't sighn on... It's just as a responce to the WoTC is out to get us or destory the OGL posts...
Ultimately 3PP generally abandoned the D20 for the same reasons they are not adopting the GSL, it's too restrictive and the benefits are marginal.
Sure, but:
1. The GSL has a number of fundamental changes that the STL didn't have. Mainly it adds a bit more then just a logo.
and
2. WoTC seems to be trying to build the worth and value of that brand.
It also attempts to keep all products on the same page as to what D&D is (part of building the brand.) If you see the word feat in one product the meaning of that word will be exactly the same in all of the other products.
That's not my choice to make. As I said before, thats the chocie of whomever is starting a business designed to sell stuff for use with D&D.
Indeed and it's very easy for you to sit there in your living room collecting your paycheck from your work while other people have to make that exact decision.
I could open a store selling t-shirts and license the right to print Mikey Mouse on them. Disney could yank that right. As a business I have to decide if it's a good idea to do it or not.
Except selling Tees you have none of your own effort invested in it other than the actual printing process. Making D&D supplements/ adventures requires a significant creative process. You comparison is seriously broken.
It's also a pretty good indication that if I make my rent money on this business venture I should probably have more then one basket for my eggs. Take Paizo for example. They started by supporting D&D with the magazine's but when their license expired, they had already moved into different areas, so they weathered the loss.
Whether you have 1 product line or 20 doesn't change the fact that you have an asset is making you money that Wizards can instantly make worthless by sending you a simple letter.
Sure, but it will be on there, and not only that, but you have the benefit of being able to make your book look pretty much exactly like WoTC's books.
Umm, no you can't make it look any more like WotC's books than anyone else can. You can put one logo on the back cover which isn't seen until people actually pick up the book and look for it.
1. The GSL has a number of fundamental changes that the STL didn't have. Mainly it adds a bit more then just a logo.
What? Formats and color schemes for laying out powers? Seriously, what are these significant benefits that the GSL brings to the table that didn't come with the STL?
2. WoTC seems to be trying to build the worth and value of that brand.
Which benefits Wizards, not 3PP.
It also attempts to keep all products on the same page as to what D&D is (part of building the brand.) If you see the word feat in one product the meaning of that word will be exactly the same in all of the other products.
This is a benefit to customers and to Wizards, it is not a benefit to 3PP. There is no reason third party publishers couldn't use the word feat exactly the way Wizards uses it.
Indeed and it's very easy for you to sit there in your living room collecting your paycheck from your work while other people have to make that exact decision.
What does my paycheck have to do with anything? Did I say it was an "easy" choice? Did I say it was "my" choice?
Except selling Tees you have none of your own effort invested in it other than the actual printing process. Making D&D supplements/ adventures requires a significant creative process. You comparison is seriously broken.
Not at all. The GSL allows you to use someone else's brand to make your product (without having to pay I'll add.) If I make the T-shirts and invest the money into the T-shirts, and then disney tells me to cease and desist, I'm SOL. (and money)
Also I might be allowed to use the trademark of MM but not specific artwork, which is up to me to produce.
But again. If you feel that it's not a good investment for you, don't invest in the use of the GSL or WoTC's brand?
Whether you have 1 product line or 20 doesn't change the fact that you have an asset is making you money that Wizards can instantly make worthless by sending you a simple letter.
Did I say it did? I said just like any business venture, putting all your stock into one thing is often a LOT more dangerous then spreading your investments into multiple areas.
Also WoTC doesn't control your IP with the GSL, only the use of their IP in your products.
Again, however, this is a chocie YOU as a business owner need to make.
Umm, no you can't make it look any more like WotC's books than anyone else can. You can put one logo on the back cover which isn't seen until people actually pick up the book and look for it.
You can also use the color formatting, and laying out powers, and specific names and such. You apparently don't feel that is valuble. Again, who am I to tell you you're wrong for your own business?
But I can tell you a lot of people do find things like color scheme and layout to be a very valuble and important marketing tool. Ask yourself why every starbucks has the same green, or every McDonalds has that same red and yellow, and with either of them the drinks or food taste the same (for the most part) no matter which store you're in?
What? Formats and color schemes for laying out powers?
That's part of it yes. See above.
Seriously, what are these significant benefits that the GSL brings to the table that didn't come with the STL?
Ability to look like the core products and market your product using the sucess of their brand, while using a familiar feel and look. (If you don't feel this is beneficial, you might not want to use the GSL.)
Also since it's geared towards promoting D&D it also helps promote D&D (duh) which is a BIG draw to the market, which ultimately means if you make your cash off that market promoting that cash cow is a good option.
It allows more access to the brand (even in the fact that you can use the words D&D and not just d20)
But again... Your business choice, not mine.
Which benefits Wizards, not 3PP.
If you make your income based off of the brand of another company, then YES it DOES in fact benefit you to drive the power of that brand. If I sell shoes by implying that if you buy them you can be like mike... it's in my best intrest to hope "mike" actually has some meaning to my customers, and to help promote that meaning as well.
It's a circle.
You're helping to drive the worth of the D&D brand which helps bring in more customers which helps you because they might buy your product because it's made for use with that brand.
This is a benefit to customers and to Wizards, it is not a benefit to 3PP. There is no reason third party publishers couldn't use the word feat exactly the way Wizards uses it.
It's a benefit to customers sure. It helps them beause they can open a book and know that those feats they bought aren't going to be joe game designer's personal take on what a feat should be, instead of just more feats, which is what they were looking for. Which is a benefit to WoTC and ultimately you because it helps build the brand. (see above)
It helps build the brand because it helps with the "D&D is..." in a customer's mind.
McDonalds is:
Dunkin Donuts is:
Starbucks is:
Nike is:
All questions that can be easily answered because they have a strong brand.
Also I forgot to answer the second part. There's also no reason without the GSL that a 3pp might not decide to make up a new defenition either. (alternate feats and classes and such have always been popular.)
The GSL gives a definite, "this is what a feat is" stance. You are free to make your own item and give it whatever rules you want, but you can't say it's a feat unless it actually follows the rules of feats from the core books.
This keeps everything standard and keep the answer to "D&D is" on the same field. 9Because again johnny gammer looking for new feats knows he can buy a book with feats and they will be feats... not joe designers version of feats. "Stoopid game nothing makes any sense, I thought feats did X not X and a half????
You obviously don't know much about IP law. Kenzer is an IP Attorney and knows his stuff. HE took on WotC once and won, big.
He didn't "take on WotC and win big." He took on WotC and a boneheaded WotC employee absentmindedly handed him the keys to the kingdom. I doubt it'll happen again.
I thought so too... till I read this. Praticularly the bit where it says
And that's about as official as you're going to get without talking to a lawyer
I think the prior sentence is pretty relevant: "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."
For RPG's that seems like a pretty big grey area. On the extremes things seem pretty clear: Wulfgar? protected, Armor Class? free to anyone that wants to use it. But where is the dividing line in an RPG where mechanics cross over to artistic expression?
Could a company put a stat block for a Dragonborn soldier? Could they include "Dragonborn soldiers" but instead of a stat block refer to the correct page on the Monster Manual? Could they include "Dragonborn soldiers" even if they don't put in any references to D&D? What would the "Dragonborn soldiers" be refering to if not the literary expression in the Monster Manual?
It seems like very tricky terrain to me. Aside from the legal questions, it sees like there are possible impacts on the industry. WOTC dumped a lot of money into developing the 4E mechanics. It would have to be a bitter pill for WOTC management if they perceived a situation of other publishers taking advantage of their investments.
So unlike Lorraine and WotC, Gygax wasn't stupid to try something that was obiouvsly wouldn't work.
Did I miss WOTC sending out cease and desist letters to fan pages?
Remember, the GSL involves third parties that want to use the D&D Trademark and IP to make money. These aren't fans being being sued for trying to talk about Forgotten Realms in a chat room.
I have to admit, I find it very amusing that while Jolly Blackburn is making the same comparision in KotDT, David Kenzer is trying to hitch a wagon to 4th Edition.
I think a lot of gamers are paranoid...
Give a good explanation as to why the no-backconversion clause survives license termination, and I'll set aside my "paranoia".
Like, say Galoob's Game Genie that can be used on Nintendo games without Nintendo's permission?
The reason is thus: the Game Genie doesn't use the Nintendo games' code to function. It may manipulate the code, but it doesn't duplicate the code of the Nintendo games.
This is the line you have to tread.
Do you all honestly think suddenly WoTC is going to spend its time sueing everyone? Especially when it comes to products like KoK that might actually draw gamers to 4e?
They will if they deem it to either A) be profitable or B) because they are worried about IP dilution.
I tend to agree that it's unlikely they will yank the carpet on the GSL any time soon. On the other hand there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually do so as they did with the D20. Most 3PP are small companies and they pay their rent selling this stuff. I don't care about how benign the companies reputation (and right now Wizard's reputation isn't exactly benign), why would you give someone that power over you if you don't have to?
Because you're too incompetant to make your own IP. This statement describes pretty much all 3pp publishers.
Except selling Tees you have none of your own effort invested in it other than the actual printing process. Making D&D supplements/ adventures requires a significant creative process. You comparison is seriously broken.
If they're so creative, why don't they create their own game?
Answer: They aren't.
Could a company put a stat block for a Dragonborn soldier?
No. Well, not WotC's, anyway.
Could they include "Dragonborn soldiers" but instead of a stat block refer to the correct page on the Monster Manual?
Yes. This falls under fair use.
Could they include "Dragonborn soldiers" even if they don't put in any references to D&D?
Yes, because it is impossible to trademark or copyright the idea of dragon men.
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
Monopoly is a bad example. The game has been public domain since the 1920s despite MB suing.
Did I miss WOTC sending out cease and desist letters to fan pages?
I am talking about trying to get a patent for something that is common place. The "tapping" incident that made it clear what part of games could be copyrighted.
Otherwise Yahtzee could have copyrighted rolling more than 2 six-sided dice long ago....
So K&C are making something compatible without needing the GSL....
It just makes you wonder if we will see another TSR v Mayfair Games type thing or since Kenzer isn't producing under the GSL they get around and are able to denote "able for use with 4th edition D&D"?
What does my paycheck have to do with anything? Did I say it was an "easy" choice? Did I say it was "my" choice?
No, but you seem to believe that your trust in Wizards should automatically transfer to everyone else. The word you used was "Paranoid" as in an irrational fear or distrust of others. Personally, I think being cautious about who you trust with the property you created and use to pay your rent is perfectly rational and not paranoid at all.
Not at all. The GSL allows you to use someone else's brand to make your product (without having to pay I'll add.) If I make the T-shirts and invest the money into the T-shirts, and then disney tells me to cease and desist, I'm SOL. (and money)
No, this is why you the GSL is nearly worthless. The IP on a MM Tee shirt belongs to Disney, it's a picture drawn by DISNEY artists, your 'investment' is in your printing equipment and the relatively small cost of setting up a print run.
D&D adventures are created by the 3PP, the GSL license gives them access to a trivial amount of Wizards IP and a small logo you can put on your product. There is no monetary cost, all you have to do is surrender control of the Intellectual Property that pays your rent to a company run by people you will never meet.
Again, however, this is a chocie YOU as a business owner need to make.
Obviously, I was taking note of the fact that you called that choice "paranoid".
Also since it's geared towards promoting D&D it also helps promote D&D (duh) which is a BIG draw to the market, which ultimately means if you make your cash off that market promoting that cash cow is a good option.
Independent publishers reputations are completely independent of the reputation of D&D. You mentioned Paizo previously, and there are plenty of other 3PP that have solid reputations. Gamers understand the difference between Wizards products and 3PP and know to judge products based on the publisher, not the silly D&D logo on the back.
It allows more access to the brand (even in the fact that you can use the words D&D and not just d20)
Incidentally you can use the words Dungeons and Dragons on any product, you just cannot use the copyrighted logo.
Designed for Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is right there on the cover of all non-GSL third party products.
It's a benefit to customers sure. It helps them beause they can open a book and know that those feats they bought aren't going to be joe game designer's personal take on what a feat should be, instead of just more feats, which is what they were looking for. Which is a benefit to WoTC and ultimately you because it helps build the brand. (see above)
You are under the impression that there is some sort of quality assurance under the GSL and that is incorrect. About the only thing the GSL prevents is the rewriting existing feats/ spells/ whatever... which was rarely done under 3.5 and the OGL.
McDonalds is:
Dunkin Donuts is:
Starbucks is:
Nike is:
No. When you buy a Nike shoe you are getting a shoe that is made in a nike factory. When you buy a 3PP you are buying something that is made by that third party person. You trust a brand because you know you get consistent product. The GSL and the D&D branding offer no such guarantee. Gamers are not stupid, they know this and evaluate the publisher, not the stupid D&D logo on the back.
This keeps everything standard and keep the answer to "D&D is" on the same field. 9Because again johnny gammer looking for new feats knows he can buy a book with feats and they will be feats... not joe designers version of feats. "Stoopid game nothing makes any sense, I thought feats did X not X and a half????
Again... was never a problem with third party products under 3.5. Bad publishers produce junk, good publishers product good stuff. People know this and will respond accordingly. If anything the people who have the most to gain from the GSL are the bad publishers, game designers like Paizo, Necromancer, and Kenzer have a reputation in the community and they can trade on that name. "joe game designer" with no reputation will seek out the GSL licensing because he has nothing to lose.
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
Um, there is a company or group of companies that make monopoly variants based on cities, colleges and universities, countries and so on. As far as I know there is a game for every single major state college in the USA. Here in Columbia, Missouri there is Mizzoupoly. I've seen a variant for Indianapolis, Kansas City, etc. The company that produces Monopoly is often in litigation with them, but I could go buy a copy of Mizzoupoly somewhere in this city tomorrow if I wanted to.
I would be if that guaranteed anything worthwhile like product quality.
But it doesn't, so instead I'll vote with overall product quality instead of the ability to fill in a card and place a logo on the back.
We decied to go GSL because...well...initially, we didn't want to rustle any feathers for one. Two...we found it actually made us work harder in creating an original setting, something profoundly unique while also still familiar. Over the past two weeks we've been writing, we've discovered how much freedom we actually have. I just finished revising our races and I think they are way better than our old ones. I am really enjoying the experience in writing this 4ED version. We didn't sign onto the GSL for the seal...its nice, but I never seriously thought it would affect our sales.
Squiggly-games might stick out a fantastic setting under non-GSL release, that becomes the biggest thing ever
4th ed might, overall, be a damp squib after it's massive launch
tommorrow, a whole new "next big thing" might come along (remember the imact of Vampire when it was released in the early 90's/late 80's)
WOTC might launch a subscription service and threaten to sue gamers who don't belong to it (White Wolf considered doing something like that once)
or
D&Di might end up being the biggest flop ever, end up loosing Hasbro a fortune, and so the whole RPG line get's "cut loose"
we have no way of knowing - unless someone is psychic!
Incidentally you can use the words Dungeons and Dragons on any product, you just cannot use the copyrighted logo.
This is untrue. The phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is TRADEMARKED, as is the logo. You CANNOT just use the words Dungeons & Dragons on any product. This is what is known as "illegal".
Trademark laws dictate that you can only use trademarks under certain circumstances:
1) When your product won't be confused with theirs because it is completely dissimilar. If I made a Dungeons & Dragons vaccuum cleaner, and wasn't intentionally trying to indicate I was trying to associate myself with WotC's D&D, I could probably get away with it. I might still get in trouble, though. Clearly, a gaming product does NOT qualify for this; Dungeons & Dragons is a game, so anything which is a game cannot use it in this manner.
2) When you are talking about, reviewing, or comparing their product to something else. For instance, White Wolf could compare itself to Dungeons & Dragons in their advertisements. "50% more dungeon, 50% less dragon" with a vampiress wielding a whip and a giant splash of the Vampire: The Masquerade logo on the ad would be fair, for instance. Phone companies periodically do this in ads. You have to be careful not to imply your product and theirs is equivalent, though - if you try to associate their brand with yours, it is IP dilution. Reviewers, likewise, can say "Dungeons & Dragons" sucks.
3) Parody. I could write a comic making fun of D&D called "Trees & Trolls" and use the D&D name or IP elements and be protected.
No. When you buy a Nike shoe you are getting a shoe that is made in a nike factory. When you buy a 3PP you are buying something that is made by that third party person. You trust a brand because you know you get consistent product. The GSL and the D&D branding offer no such guarantee. Gamers are not stupid, they know this and evaluate the publisher, not the stupid D&D logo on the back.
Gamers aren't stupid? Have you, uh, ever read gamer forums?
And seriously, you're wrong. Trademark laws exist SPECIFICALLY FOR consumer protection. If something has D&D stamped on it, it has WotC's seal of approval, and that DOES mean something. If something says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the front cover in big letters, you know it was made by WotC (or some major liscensee with a special liscense) and that is a guarantee of quality, the same as having McDonald's or Nike logos on your product.
It just makes you wonder if we will see another TSR v Mayfair Games type thing or since Kenzer isn't producing under the GSL they get around and are able to denote "able for use with 4th edition D&D"?
TSR v. Mayfair came down on TSR's side only due to Mayfair at some point having signed a license agreement with TSR. See jhkim's darkshire.net site for more information. Since Kenzer et al haven't accepted the GSL, there's no license agreement for them to break. The case (and others like it, such as the unrelated v. GDW ones which they also effectively lost) contributed to TSR's downfall. Not a recommended route for WotC to take.
As for the Axis & Allies game expansions, those have been sold in stores for over 15 years now just fine. Axis is Allies is now, and has been for several years now, owned by Hasbro (recently as a WotC branded game). There's no way a consumer could not get that these expansions are made for use with Axis and AlliesTM, since they explicitly state so right on the cover or box lid.
This is untrue. The phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is TRADEMARKED, as is the logo. You CANNOT just use the words Dungeons & Dragons on any product. This is what is known as "illegal".
Although I'm not certain of its illegality the recently released Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting has the following on its cover:
For use with 4e Edition Dungeons and Dragons (with the registered trademark symbol).
And the following inside the actual pdf:
With respect to trademarks:
Kingdoms of Kalamar and the Kingdoms of Kalamar logo are registered trademarks of Kenzer and Company.
The Kenzer and Company logo is a trademark of Kenzer and Company. © 2008 Kenzer & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Dungeons & Dragons and Dungeon Master are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. ©2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
So obviously there is at least one company that disagrees with you on this. Not saying I disagree, but just pointing out that if WotC wants to defend its D&D trademark against the concept of use in this manner, then they better act on this b/c its my understanding that you have to actively defend your trademarks to keep them and if this is infringment in their eyes they they need to do something about it. If not they risk losing the ability to keep "For use with 4e Edition Dungeons and Dragons (with the registered trademark symbol)" off the cover of all 3PP that don't use the GSL.
TSR v. Mayfair came down on TSR's side only due to Mayfair at some point having signed a license agreement with TSR. See jhkim's darkshire.net site for more information. Since Kenzer et al haven't accepted the GSL, there's no license agreement for them to break. The case (and others like it, such as the unrelated v. GDW ones which they also effectively lost) contributed to TSR's downfall. Not a recommended route for WotC to take.
Why? What does WotC stand to lose? A few customers?
WotC foremost is owned by Hasbro. That means WotC stands to lose nothing. Hasbro is so big that WotC is probably just one item in their entire profit list.
WotC has MtG. Even if D&D tanked they wouldn't be at a loss for money because of it. Just look at DDM and the other minis games an how poorly they sold. Do you think they jacked the price of D&D because they knew people would buy it to earn money lost from that stupid Transformers paper model game?
No they just added another quarter to the MSRP of every MtG booster pack to take care of that.
WotC has nothing to lose but customers they already don't care about by suing even fansites. They are healthier than TSR was under Lorraine or the Blumes.
That is why you see them treat the customer so badly but those same customers revel in that petty attitude as well because it seeps from the pours of MtG players. That is the only real gamers WotC cares about as without them WotC will fall. Just look at how many websites link to direct images on Gatherer without any threats, and how the entire game of MtG is free by way of proxy cards and yet it is still their biggest selling product line.
D&D is just a set of rules and they are overcharging for the PDFs for it and claiming they need more money.
D&D is not a product line Hasbro cares about, and seemingly not one WotC cares about considering the different ways MtG and D&D is handled.
I guess the big difference then is the fact that nobody but WotC can make MtG related products and for years people have been making their own rules for MtG variant games using the cards. But when it comes to D&D where the game is only rules, they fear a penny loss from someone mentioning it in another product. Yet they belittle the fans of D&D and kiss up to MtG players showing that only D&D players money is good, not the players themselves.
Yes. This falls under fair use.
Yes, because it is impossible to trademark or copyright the idea of dragon men.
Fair use is for review and scholarship. I'm not sure it applies to RPG supplements.
Dragon men, no. But Dragonborn Soldiers is a pretty specific literary expression.
Mutants and Mayhem can have patriotic heroes and dark vigilantes but they can't have Captain America or Batman as characters.
An even more revelant to example would be that they can't have Kree or Skrulls, which I think is parallel to Dragonborn Soldiers.
I am talking about trying to get a patent for something that is common place. The "tapping" incident that made it clear what part of games could be copyrighted.
WOTC hasn't tried to patent the 4E rules eithers.
Publishers are climbing over each other to either sign up for the GSL or find a way to otherwise take advantage of the 4E rules and WOTC is the bad guy? Give me a break.
These third party publishers should call their kids' college savings programs the Loren Greenwood scholarship fund.
And seriously, you're wrong. Trademark laws exist SPECIFICALLY FOR consumer protection. If something has D&D stamped on it, it has WotC's seal of approval, and that DOES mean something. If something says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the front cover in big letters, you know it was made by WotC (or some major liscensee with a special liscense) and that is a guarantee of quality, the same as having McDonald's or Nike logos on your product.
Actually trademark laws protect us from little else than lower prices.
And seriously, you're wrong. Trademark laws exist SPECIFICALLY FOR consumer protection. If something has D&D stamped on it, it has WotC's seal of approval, and that DOES mean something. If something says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the front cover in big letters, you know it was made by WotC (or some major liscensee with a special liscense) and that is a guarantee of quality, the same as having McDonald's or Nike logos on your product.
That has to be the funniest comment I've read in this entire thread.Actually trademark laws protect us from little else than lower prices.
Actually it protects us from going without innovations. If there is no trademark or copyright protects there is no incentive to innovate.
The development of the 4 Editions rules cost Kenzer Co zero, nada, zip, zilch and they are trying to make a buck of it? Sure it may be legal but it is bad for the hobby. How hard would you work at your job if at the end of the week anyone could come in an vie for part or all of your paycheck?
GSL and no OGL, or OGL and some way around the GSL.
WotC created some businesses with the OGL/STL and now trying to destroy them with the GSL.
These people may just be fighting to stay alive.
Still everybody forgets the most important people who sufer in this...the fans.
If there is only WotC then you end up with crap products as there is no one forcing them to make better products for the D&D line.
Sure you can say that other RPGs force D&D to become better, but do they? What effect does WoD have on D&D?
You have some people that like every product that WotC creates, and you have others that like D&D but prefer the other settings created by other people.
D&D is all about choices, so why shouldn't you have a choice in worlds and such when playing? Is everyone forced to play in Eberron? Seems like it now since it has infested D&D itself.
There needs to be something driving D&D to improve otherwise it will stagnate and die. The players will become complacent and just take the Devs words for everything about the game and not be able to think for themselves. we already can see signs of this from before the release of 4th edition.
It doesn't mean that people should get a free lunch, but also means that WotC doesn't own D&D, but just its brand name. D&D is a community of gamers not just a product name anymore.
If WotC refuses to or don't have enough people to supply gamers with things for D&D then someone needs to be able to or the game will die.
The question is which is really more important to WotC.
D&D the game that people play.
or
D&D the brand name.
It seems like for players the game is of importance, but for WotC only the brand is in some instances.
They can control people using the term tapping for card games, but can't control people making new rules for magic and publishing them on websites and such because they choose not to, so why do so with D&D?
WotC even adopted some fan rules for tournament formats!
Actually it protects us from going without innovations. If there is no trademark or copyright protects there is no incentive to innovate.
The development of the 4 Editions rules cost Kenzer Co zero, nada, zip, zilch and they are trying to make a buck of it? Sure it may be legal but it is bad for the hobby. How hard would you work at your job if at the end of the week anyone could come in an vie for part or all of your paycheck?
You still have to buy the PHB, DMG and MM to actually play their setting,
IE to play their game you need to spend $100 dollars on WotC books to play KoK's $25 PDF.
Wouldn't that make my paycheck bigger at no cost to me? I'd LOVE that.
What choice has WotC given them with 4th edition?
They could actually, I don't know, create their own rules set or at least not run around saying their products are compatable with 4E D&D. I don't think it is unreasonable for people working in a creative field to actually be creative. If they think they can make a better version of D&D then they should make a better version of D&D, not the equivelent of a knock-off Rolodex watch or Prada bag.
The choice WotC has given competitors with 4th edition is a much better choice than White Wolf gives for Vampire/Werewolf/Mage/Scion etc, Palladium gives for Rifts, Catalyst gives for Shadowrun 4th edition, or Steve Jackson gives for Gurps. Bear that in mind whenever you hear a person complain about the unfairness of the GSL.
You still have to buy the PHB, DMG and MM to actually play their setting,
IE to play their game you need to spend $100 dollars on WotC books to play KoK's $25 PDF.
Wouldn't that make my paycheck bigger at no cost to me? I'd LOVE that.
I was thinking the same thing but I'm not sure that is the case.
As many have pointed out there are other means of getting the PHB, DMG, and MM than actually paying for them. A person could buy and use KoK without giving a dime to WOTC.
Aside from that, WOTC isn't just basing their business on selling the three core books they are also trying to sell supplements. That $25 spent on KoK is $25 not spent on another WOTC or GSL product.
There is also no evidence that people would buy the core books in order to use the KoK pdf. More realistic is that those people were already buying 4E.
And seriously, you're wrong. Trademark laws exist SPECIFICALLY FOR consumer protection. If something has D&D stamped on it, it has WotC's seal of approval, and that DOES mean something. If something says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the front cover in big letters, you know it was made by WotC (or some major liscensee with a special liscense) and that is a guarantee of quality, the same as having McDonald's or Nike logos on your product.
I'm a big fan of WotC, and really like 4E, but having the Dungeons and Dragons TM on the front is *not* a guarantee of quality.
The choice WotC has given competitors with 4th edition is a much better choice than White Wolf gives for Vampire/Werewolf/Mage/Scion etc, Palladium gives for Rifts, Catalyst gives for Shadowrun 4th edition, or Steve Jackson gives for Gurps.
Ironically, I failed to mention that is a better choice than Kenzer & Co give for Hackmaster and Aces & Eights.
They could actually, I don't know, create their own rules set or at least not run around saying their products are compatable with 4E D&D. I don't think it is unreasonable for people working in a creative field to actually be creative.
Yes God forbid anyone liking D&D enough to want to further the game they like and promote it farther.
Every fan of D&D should go out of their way to destroy it by making a better game!
Guess what. Floor mats for cards don't require Chevrolet of Ford permission to state that they will fit in their K cars. Why? Because compatibility is not something inhereited within a copyright.
Sony CAN stop people from making product for PS3 because it can be considred hacking in the case of game cheating devices and you are required to have a license to make something for PS3 because of computer laws and such.
Kalamar does not in any way alter the 4th edition rules. It does not allow people to play without the 4th edition core books. Whichever set they are able to use depending on how future PHB/DMG/MM are presented and whether they can stand alone or require the first one out now.
Ford can make their own specialized floor mats for their K cars if they want but canot deny others from making them and describing them due to how the floor mats to not detract from the Ford cars.
That would be something for Scott to answer as to whether this product detracts from the D&D brand name. That would be for WotC to prove that it does in court as well.
I forget what or where but using another product in advertisement could be liable or slander depending on the advertisement and how you discuss the other product. This case is neither as they are WANTING people to buy 4th edition and not detracting from it.
The subject matter would be up for the courts to decide.
Where is Clark from Necro when you need this stuff, or Dave Kenzer to explain how they get by with it. I am sure they could state it much better than I.
But the overall point is how the public will view WotC for anything that happens just like JKR vs RDR.
Why do you think TSR and Lorraine Williams has such a bad rep? Because the way fans were treated. Yes K&C is making money from their book, but are they using WotC IP anymore than saying you can use this with X?
It is done everywhere all the time.
It is most often seen in Generic versions of things such as, oh print cartridges for printers not made by the printer manufacturer themselves....
Generic Black can be used with Lexmark models A, B, C.
Like Kalamr you can't use it for much unless you own the printer, or unless you own D&D core books.
The problem would be one that WotC opened itself to with the OGL where people made their own games because the 3rd edition rules were OGC.
I would have prefered to see the OGL changed slightly for 4th.
You can use any term in the core books.
You cannot produce a game or alter the core rules.
You can create supplemental material such as settings, powers, etc.
You cannot use proprietary imagery.
BUT...
Here have a compatibility logo that tells people which books to buy.
Yes God forbid anyone liking D&D enough to want to further the game they like and promote it farther.
Every fan of D&D should go out of their way to destroy it by making a better game!
I understand protecting your rights and such, but they forget who created D&D except to add some attack on him by adding "dedicated to Gary Gygax" in the book, unless that is only in the PDF preview from RPGNow. Knowing damn good and well he did not like anything after 3rd and explicitly stated what he thought about 4th..
Expanding the hobby won't destroy D&D. If people really love D&D and 4E so much why don't they agree to the license put in place by the company that sunk millions into developing 4th Edition. If all it was about was D&D in general these guys could have just stuck with 3.x, what they want is to benefit from the 4E system. If 3PP want to play with D&D and not the GSL they should stick to the OGL.
Again, this isn't about legality, this is about what is good for the hobby. Frankly it is also about not being jerks. Hitching a wagon to 4E at the first possiblity while giving the finger to WOTC is a jerk move.
Dedicating the books to the man who created Dungeons & Dragons is a nice thing to do, even if he didn't like what he heard about 4th Edition. They certainly didn't forget him, or Dave Arneson, Zeb Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, and Peter Adkison. There is a difference between remembering your past and never changing.
Why? Because they stand to lose all if they do. They will lose our devotion to the game. They might win the case, and maybe even get a few quid for the trouble, but what then? Their sales would drop like a kobold hit by a 16 ton weight. I like, even love, D&D, but I would gladly arrange a backyard fire and torch both my books and probably quite a few thousand MtG cards too if they sued some smalltime publisher. There are other games out there, and Wizards know this. One of the reasons I play this one is that I can find alot of unofficial material if I need to, and I am definitely not alone.
The game must go on! The world cannot wait for "licensed" publishers. Release The Talent!
Expanding the hobby won't destroy D&D. If people really love D&D and 4E so much why don't they agree to the license put in place by the company that sunk millions into developing 4th Edition.
Because liking D&D does not mean liking WotC or giving a damn what they have to say or being on some leash from people you could care less what they think about your adventure or whatever?
They did sink money into it. That is their responsibility to make back.
See it isn't K&C or anybody else's problem to make money back for the R&D of 4th.
It isn't my job to make their house payment for them, nor their car payments. They spent the money and took the risk, now they must be responsible for their debts as the law requires.
I won't get dragged into there crap.
Which part of the GSL said "you agree to help in court with".
They would have to pay for my travel and all other expenses for such as declared by the GSL to help WotC sue anybody.
BS.
I am sick and tired of hearing hta crap.
WotC spent the money. It is their problem to make it back or see people fired.
If they want to further alienate the gamers with LW tactics, then they will likely NOT make back the money spent on 4th and see some new job openings when people are fired.
Not my problem! The investors will handle loss of money issues from WotC.
Because liking D&D does not mean liking WotC or giving a damn what they have to say or being on some leash from people you could care less what they think about your adventure or whatever?
But this is about liking the edition that was made by WotC. If this was purely about love of the hobby why the sticker price on the PDF?
Want to express your love for D&D? Make OGL products. Anyone making a 4E product, GSL or not, is acknowledging that WOTC added something of real value and quality to the hobby.
Regardless of what Kenzer and Co think about WOTC there would be no Kingdoms of Kalamar without WOTC and there would be no 4th Edition Kingdoms of Kalamar without 4th Edition.
Ok, so if it is legal, congrats to Dave K. He gets the gold star, the thumbs up, the "Grape Job" sticker. He'll have really Brain VanHoosed it up with his rules laywering. It is still a jerk move.
But we're supposed to believe WOTC is the bad guy because they don't want to completely give up control of their brand?
If I decide to put out material for use with 4e and go the GSL route, do I have to pay WotC anything? Is WotC actually losing money over this?
With non-GSL products it is very likely that they are losing money. Disposable income isn't elastic. If a gamer allocates a budget for 4E material and $25 of it goes to 4E KoK that is $25 out of WOTC's pocket.
But this is about liking the edition that was made by WotC. If this was purely about love of the hobby why the sticker price on the PDF?
Want to express your love for D&D? Make OGL products. Anyone making a 4E product, GSL or not, is acknowledging that WOTC added something of real value and quality to the hobby.
Did you not just answer your own question?
Who says you even have to like 4th edition to want to make and sell material for it to keep the game alive and being spoken about and played?
This is exactly where I expected this issue would be, only much sooner than i expected. I understand why Wizards want to protect their IP, as it means more money for evil Hasbro, but I also understand that they will probably never go as far as suing for infringing.
Why? Because they stand to lose all if they do. They will lose our devotion to the game. They might win the case, and maybe even get a few quid for the trouble, but what then? Their sales would drop like a kobold hit by a 16 ton weight. I like, even love, D&D, but I would gladly arrange a backyard fire and torch both my books and probably quite a few thousand MtG cards too if they sued some smalltime publisher. There are other games out there, and Wizards know this. One of the reasons I play this one is that I can find alot of unofficial material if I need to, and I am definitely not alone.
The game must go on! The world cannot wait for "licensed" publishers. Release The Talent!
If someone fails to protect their trademark in every instance they lose the right to protect their trademark in any instance. If WOTC failed to make a case against a small publisher they wouldn't be able to make a case against a larger one.
Personally, I don't think it is that dire for WOTC to sue people trying to make a profit off of their IPs. I would not be able to care less and I'm not sure the buying public would even be aware of that kind of action.
Did you not just answer your own question?
Who says you even have to like 4th edition to want to make and sell material for it to keep the game alive and being spoken about and played?
Because you are making material for that specific edition. Anyone who doesn't like 4E but is selling material for it is a virtual prostitute.
These other publishers could achive the same aim of keeping the game alive working within the OGL.
Just as you say it isn't other people's responsibility to see that WOTC gets a good return on its investment, WOTC doesn't need any outside, nonlicensed help to keep 4E alive.
Do you think is the STL and OGL had not existed that 3rd edition would have done so well and got so many people playing "d20" games and had their eyes on WotC and D&D?
So WotC then is a virtual prostitute of the Tolkein Estate?
The OGL does NOT exist for 4th edition.
Yes I answered you out of order but meh. :P
Don't they?
Do you think is the STL and OGL had not existed that 3rd edition would have done so well and got so many people playing "d20" games and had their eyes on WotC and D&D?
So WotC then is a virtual prostitute of the Tolkein Estate?
The OGL does NOT exist for 4th edition.
No they don't, if the OGL was that great for them they wouldn't have tried to change it. It think they still get the benefits of the OGL under the GSL but with less drawbacks.
It doesn't matter that the 4th edition doesn't have an OGL. D&D is more than just 4th edition and there is a specific framework for adding to D&D: it is called the OGL, D20, and 3.x edition.
If WOTC was trying to explicitly promote 4th Edition as being based on the the Lord of the Rings universe and while secretly hating Lord of the Rings universe then your comparision would work. Also there is a difference between admitting that no work is wholly original, even Tolkien drew on other sources, and directly trying to piggyback onto someone else's work.
Actually it protects us from going without innovations. If there is no trademark or copyright protects there is no incentive to innovate.
Innovate? Is that what 4E did? That's funny I thought they all sat around playing WoW and ignoring their deadlines until the last minute and then at the 11th hour wrote up some rules they just logged off of.
Innovate. HA!
you think McDonalds is quality?
Many people claim it isn't. They're wrong.
McDonald's food may not be the most nutritious or the best. But it is "good" fast food, and people enjoy the taste. Indeed, someone did a study on children where they provided them with the exact same hamburger, but some was labelled as McDonald's brand and the other wasn't. The stuff with the McDonald's branding, despite being exactly the same food, was considered tastier by a fair margin.
Clearly, their name is worth something.
So obviously there is at least one company that disagrees with you on this. Not saying I disagree, but just pointing out that if WotC wants to defend its D&D trademark against the concept of use in this manner, then they better act on this b/c its my understanding that you have to actively defend your trademarks to keep them and if this is infringment in their eyes they they need to do something about it. If not they risk losing the ability to keep "For use with 4e Edition Dungeons and Dragons (with the registered trademark symbol)" off the cover of all 3PP that don't use the GSL.
There are "fair uses" of trademarks. However, I'm not sure if that is one of them. And yes, they would have to actively defend it within some reasonable time span.
The question is whether they're illegally trying to associate their product with the Dungeons & Dragons trademark. This is the problem; it is borderline.
You are allowed to compare your product to other products. You see this often with off-brand chips or cereals, saying "If you like Lucky Charms, you'll like this!" The issue is when you are attempting to make the customer believe your product IS another product, rather than similar to it. Observe the progression from saying "If you like Lucky Charms, you'll like this" or "Better than Lucky Charms!" to "Lucky Charms, but cheaper!" to simply printing "Lucky Charms" on the front of your cereal box. The first is obviously legal, the last is obviously not. But is "Lucky Charms, but cheaper!" legal? Are you trying to compare your product to Lucky Charms, or are you diluting the Lucky Charms trademark?
Basically, the question is: is he claiming his product is a Dungeons & Dragons product?
If the answer is yes (and I personally feel that is exactly what he is trying to do) then he is illegally infringing upon the intellectual property rights of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
That is why you see them treat the customer so badly but those same customers revel in that petty attitude as well because it seeps from the pours of MtG players. That is the only real gamers WotC cares about as without them WotC will fall. Just look at how many websites link to direct images on Gatherer without any threats, and how the entire game of MtG is free by way of proxy cards and yet it is still their biggest selling product line.
D&D is just a set of rules and they are overcharging for the PDFs for it and claiming they need more money.
Ah yes, the usual "Hellmute spews bile and ignorance." Seriously, educate yourself.
How many people know that the 4th edition books are actually cheaper than the 2nd edition books?
Its true. $35 may sound like more than $20, but once you account for inflation, you realize that in reality, we're getting our books for less than we were in 1994.
WotC isn't treating its customers badly at all, and it would take someone who has no grasp on reality to claim that they were. How have they abused their customers?
They've got good, prompt customer service, and produce the best RPG on the market today. Yes, the best.
Fair use is for review and scholarship. I'm not sure it applies to RPG supplements.
Dragonmen are not "fair use"; WotC doesn't own dragonmen, so they fall outside the purview of copyright entirely. NO ONE owns an idea; it is impossible to do so. This is what many people don't understand about intellectual property.
I could create a game which used ALL of the same races as D&D, and there's nothing WotC could do about it unless I was actually stealing the rules for 4e. The reason is that you do not own the IDEA of a dragon man; you do not own the IDEA of an RPG. You own your particular execution and executions which are too similar, but many things (elves, for instance) are completely indefensible, and dragon men fall into that category.
Dragon men, no. But Dragonborn Soldiers is a pretty specific literary expression.
Not really. Dragonborn is just a word; I could use it for my race if I wanted. You cannot own words. You could potentially trademark the word "Dragonborn", but that doesn't give you ownership over the word, just particular uses of it, and even then the trademark may well be totally useless. Keebler has their elves, and you cannot replicate them, but if you made a race of small elves who made pastries in trees there's nothing Keebler could do about it.
And while yes, you do gain some loose trademark powers via just using a word to identify your product, I'd argue that dragonborn simply haven't been used enough to qualify.
Now, if I was to copy their stat block for non-fair use reasons (and chances are, in an RPG supplement you aren't going to be able to do that) then yes, they'd be able to sue me. They'd be able to sue me even if I changed the name, as it would be a derivative work.
Mutants and Mayhem can have patriotic heroes and dark vigilantes but they can't have Captain America or Batman as characters.
That's because the names Batman and Captain America are both trademarked, and the characters are copyrighted. However, if you look at the superhero market you'll see that there are a lot of superheroes who are actually quite similar owned by different companies; I couldn't make a character named Batman, but I could make a character who was fairly similar, as long as it wasn't too similar. The idea of a wealthy man who develops a vigilante sense of justice and disguises himself to fight crime may sound pretty specific, but Batman and Iron Man both fit that description, and no one would confuse the two characters. Its quite possible to make a character based on that exact concept, and many people have done exactly that.
Publishers are climbing over each other to either sign up for the GSL or find a way to otherwise take advantage of the 4E rules and WOTC is the bad guy? Give me a break.
Yeah, that's because, as I pointed out, they're pretty worthless and incapable of creating their own non-derivative IP.
The development of the 4 Editions rules cost Kenzer Co zero, nada, zip, zilch and they are trying to make a buck of it? Sure it may be legal but it is bad for the hobby. How hard would you work at your job if at the end of the week anyone could come in an vie for part or all of your paycheck?
Indeed. I have no sympathy. And honestly, I think they're breaking the law, and WotC could screw them.
I'm a big fan of WotC, and really like 4E, but having the Dungeons and Dragons TM on the front is *not* a guarantee of quality.
You're wrong, it is. That's the entire point of trademarks. You know the company, you know what you'll be getting.
You can say "Well, I don't think WotC produces that good of products", but doesn't that say something about the quality of their product?
I know I recognize the Jack in the Box trademark as "Stay away, I'm poisonous." That doesn't mean the trademark doesn't tell me about the quality of their products; it does.
I know the -general- quality of a product, and if a company is unknown, there's a higher chance that the product will be of low quality than if it is of a known company - I know how good cheetos are, but if I buy Cheesy Poofs or a similar knock-off, I don't know if I'll be getting as good of a product and usually expect something of lower quality (in fact, I've had no success finding a knock-off brand of cheetoes which wasn't too dry and crunchy
).Same goes for RPG products - I know the quality of stuff made by WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and Paizo. That means that I may well buy the WotC product, I may look at the latter two and if they really impress me I might consider it, and I know the last is total garbage. All of those trademarks told me something about the quality of the product.
If they lacked the trademark, I wouldn't be able to know whether or not it was even worth looking at.
Guess what. Floor mats for cards don't require Chevrolet of Ford permission to state that they will fit in their K cars. Why? Because compatibility is not something inhereited within a copyright.
Guess what? That wouldn't fall under copyright law anyway, as a floor mat isn't intellectual property (though if it had artsy qualities those qualities might qualify). The Ford brand logo, however, could not be reproduced on my floor mats, because it is trademarked, and I couldn't build Ford engines because they're PATENTED.
Obviously you don't know the difference between different sorts of laws.
A copyright, a patent, and a trademark are all very distinct from one another and apply to different things. Some things can be multiple things (Mickey Mouse is both copyrighted AND trademarked, for instance).
Sony CAN stop people from making product for PS3 because it can be considred hacking in the case of game cheating devices and you are required to have a license to make something for PS3 because of computer laws and such.
Not really. The problem is it is very difficult to make a product for the PS3 without violating their patents, not because you inherently cannot do so. They've made it intentionally difficult to produce products for their system without their permission, but it still is possible to make a PS3 game without their permission; you'd just need to get around their encryption and not use any of their code in so doing.
Kalamar does not in any way alter the 4th edition rules. It does not allow people to play without the 4th edition core books. Whichever set they are able to use depending on how future PHB/DMG/MM are presented and whether they can stand alone or require the first one out now.
The problem is that THIS IS NOT RELEVANT.
What IS relevant is whether or not they are A) infringing WotC's trademarks and implying that their product is a Dungeons & Dragons product and B) violating their copyrights by making a derivative product.
Why? Because they stand to lose all if they do. They will lose our devotion to the game. They might win the case, and maybe even get a few quid for the trouble, but what then? Their sales would drop like a kobold hit by a 16 ton weight. I like, even love, D&D, but I would gladly arrange a backyard fire and torch both my books and probably quite a few thousand MtG cards too if they sued some smalltime publisher. There are other games out there, and Wizards know this. One of the reasons I play this one is that I can find alot of unofficial material if I need to, and I am definitely not alone.
No they won't.
This is what is known as "stupid".
NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE 3PPs.
You may say "But I care!" You are no one. No one is anyone. Only many are someone. And there aren't many people who care. If WotC killed KoK, they would NOT lose significant numbers of customers. Shutting down people who violate their IP laws is smart, not stupid.
The question is whether or not they HAVE, not whether or not suing them is a good idea.
IF KoK is violating WotC's IP rights, then WotC SHOULD and MUST sue them to retain their IP rights.
If they aren't, then they shouldn't.
Claiming that suing the 3pps would be disasterous is just silly, though; the vast, vast majority of D&D players don't care at all about 3pps and own ZERO 3pp products.
Because liking D&D does not mean liking WotC or giving a damn what they have to say or being on some leash from people you could care less what they think about your adventure or whatever?
They did sink money into it. That is their responsibility to make back.
Yes, and it is other people's responsibility NOT TO STEAL THEIR PROPERTY.
You don't understand something which is very simple: Kenzer is (quite possibly) stealing WotC IP. That is what is known as "illegal". Do you believe theivery is a good thing?
Then you won't mind if I steal your computer, right?
But it is "good" fast food, and people enjoy the taste.
Hahaha... This invalidates every post you have ever made.
Many people claim it isn't. They're wrong.
t?
No McDonalds sucks. I just ate there because I couldn't find a real place. Good fast food would be something like Wend's, KFC, or Boston Market. McDonalds just leaves you with a funny feeling inside.
D&D is more than just 4th edition and there is a specific framework for adding to D&D: it is called the OGL, D20, and 3.x edition.
D&D is also more than WotC or anything they created.
What was that pathetic attempt at an RPG that ended with a lawsuit over stolen IP that WotC tried?
Does it matter? No because all they did was buy a popular RPG and just fiddle with it rather than create something for themselves such as you are suggesting other to do.
WotC is making money off of work they didn't do because some schmucks named Blume screwed over the person who did.
But is all ok since its within the law for WotC to act they like created D&D just because they own the rights. ;) ;)
D&D never did exist those 24 years prior to WotC buying TSR...
I can tolerate 4th edition fanatics to an extent, but not WotC fanatics. Everything they do is NOT the end all be all of creation.
Hahaha... This invalidates every post you have ever made.
Because, you know, studies on whether or not McDonald's branding make food taste better (even if it is the exact same food) prove me wrong.
Oh, wait, that's right, they don't. They prove me right. As does the fact that McDonald's makes scads of money and lots of people eat at McDonald's every day.
No McDonalds sucks. I just ate there because I couldn't find a real place. Good fast food would be something like Wend's, KFC, or Boston Market. McDonalds just leaves you with a funny feeling inside.
Obviously it doesn't, as you ate there.
Ah hypocrisy. It is so delicious.
If you don't approve of the quality of their product, don't go there. Clearly you approve enough to give them your patronage.
Does it matter? No because all they did was buy a popular RPG and just fiddle with it rather than create something for themselves such as you are suggesting other to do.
Didn't you claim that 4th edition was not D&D because it was too dissimilar?
Is that hypocrisy I smell?
Why yes, yes it is!
You have just lost.
WotC is making money off of work they didn't do because some schmucks named Blume screwed over the person who did.
You should get your eyes checked, as clearly you're blind.
Reality: WotC has made major advances on D&D, and greatly improved it.
Reality: They did all the work for the new editions. They created them.
Reality: Those other companies did not, because they are incapable of it.
You are trying to justify theivery. "They don't really own it." You don't really own your computer; you didn't make it.
You need to quit lying to yourself.
Innovate? Is that what 4E did? That's funny I thought they all sat around playing WoW and ignoring their deadlines until the last minute and then at the 11th hour wrote up some rules they just logged off of.
Innovate. HA!
A lot of publishers seem to be falling all over themselves coming up with material based on writing done at the 11th hour. They really can't wait to get their name associated with a system they can't stop complaining about. They also can't seem to come up with a system, no matter how much time they have, that matches what WOTC did in one hour.
A lot of publishers seem to be falling all over themselves coming up with material based on writing done at the 11th hour. They really can't wait to get their name associated with a system they can't stop complaining about. They also can't seem to come up with a system, no matter how much time they have, that matches what WOTC did in one hour.
The biggest of them are turning their backs. It's the smaller ones that see a vacuum forming in that space who are 'falling all over themselves' and that's just chasing money. What rules D&D uses doesn't even factor into it.
As far as coming up with systems, try Wizkids Heroclix for a system that is similar to 4E and they didn't have to waste all that money on WoW subscriptions to come up with it.
4E is a basic 'fill the slot' class system with very few plug-ins so far for the class slots. It's nothing new, especially among MMO games.
D&D is also more than WotC or anything they created.
Yes but 4th Edition is WOTC's creation. You still haven't made a case why these publishers either can't sign up with the GSL or won't just stick with the OGL.
And let's be honest, Gary wasn't the end all and be all of game designers, let alone businessmen. None of the work he did post-D&D gave any indication that he would have guided D&D to where WOTC took it with 3rd and 4th edition.
In fact, WOTC has had stewardship of D&D longer than Gary did. People keep buying new editions and supplements rather than just using their old TSR books to play the game. They must be doing something right.
The biggest of them are turning their backs. It's the smaller ones that see a vacuum forming in that space who are 'falling all over themselves' and that's just chasing money. What rules D&D uses doesn't even factor into it.
As far as coming up with systems, try Wizkids Heroclix for a system that is similar to 4E and they didn't have to waste all that money on WoW subscriptions to come up with it.
4E is a basic 'fill the slot' class system with very few plug-ins so far for the class slots. It's nothing new, especially among MMO games.
I have played Heroclix and it is nothing like 4th edition.
But hey, if the system is that bad why don't you buckle down and write a new RPG system, publish it, and have it out sell 4th Edition. That way you'd teach WOTC and fans like me a good lesson.
I have played Heroclix and it is nothing like 4th edition.
And I have played 4E DnD and it's closer to Heroclix than DnD.
But hey, if the system is that bad why don't you buckle down and write a new RPG system, publish it, and have it out sell 4th Edition. That way you'd teach WOTC and fans like me a good lesson.
Because I signed my current employer's non-competition agreement.
You should get your eyes checked, as clearly you're blind.
Reality: WotC has made major advances on D&D, and greatly improved it.
Reality: They did all the work for the new editions. They created them.
Reality: Those other companies did not, because they are incapable of it.
You are trying to justify theivery. "They don't really own it." You don't really own your computer; you didn't make it.
You need to quit lying to yourself.
1- Rudeness.
2- That is your opinion and opinions are like, well you know.
3- Prove it. Prove no material was taken from any other source, and that the new editions were not derivative works.
3a- Will, Reflex, Fortitude...Sounds a lot like the sub-abilities form Player's Options, of which Willpower was one of. Lots of 3rd edition was taken from 2.5 and put directly into 3rd. Such as that other Bo9S was used for 4th with SWSE. TSR created Player's Options PRIOR to the WotC buyout.
4- Total crap.
5- Pure nonsense.
6- You need to quit lying to yourself.
Yes but 4th Edition is WOTC's creation. You still haven't made a case why these publishers either can't sign up with the GSL or won't just stick with the OGL.
Can't sign up with the GSL:
1- The would no longer be able to use OGL if they wanted to.
2- there is not 2, and #1 is meaningless really.
Unless they have no hands there is really no reason the "can't" sign up with the GSL, but there is no law that requires anybody to do so.
As to the OGL, well unless you haven't been paying attention for the last few months since 4th have been known about you would know that 4th edition uses something new called the GSL.
If you haven't being paying attention for the last 8 years, the OGL only allows use of 3rd edition.
Either way it is for the courts to decide any damages that may be owed to WotC for any derivative work that may infringe on WotC IP.
Again I will use JKR v RDR Books as an example.
Several books were shot down by JKR and WB on her behalf due to blatant rip-offs.
Other books were allowed because they were works that looked at the Harry Potter series in relation to other things.
Fans are now split between the "billion dollar princess" JKR, and the "money grubbing fan" Steve VanderArk.
I don't really know which way the result will swing and the judge even tried to get them to settle out of court because this was not going to be a quick thing.
All I know is that the website was allowed and the judge will have to consider that. He will also have to consider if this Lexicon in book form actually causes any loses for JKR or WB. What business WB has I have no idea because you can't make a movie from an encyclopedia. I have surely never heard anyone thinking Encyclopedia Brittanica would make for a good silver screen production.
Anyway what little bits of the book that were presented for the public makes me think the book doesn't take anything away from her, and even gives credit though without perfect citations as the reader's guide to the series that it was intended to be.
The same thing will happen with WotC is they attack fans of any sort. D&D has had troublesome times in the past due to lesser things and fanatics attacking D&D, so would WotC really want to cause more turmoil when things have seemed to subside and allow D&D to exist in a favorable light even in light of the "poison-pill" and other recent incidents.
Many people side with JKR in that case because they love her books. Well she has more money than she could ever spend no, so I don't really feel sorry for her, but her "I don't even know if I can write my book that I was going to donate the proceedes to charity anymore because of this" has made me feel very negative towards her for sheer fact of depriving a charity and who it helps because of her pettiness.
WotC doesn't give any of its profits to charity and is owned by one of the biggest soulless corporations out there.
Do you think that if WotC started repeating the stupidity of LW that so many people would stick with D&D or many of the other games made by WotC?
How much do they stand to lose over one game and something that doesn't truly take anything away from them because of fear of a superior product.
Whether K&C or any other company will make a superior product I do not know because I have been out of the game for nearly a decade, but fear of competition only tells me that the company who has the fear doesn't think very highly of their own product so why should i?
So you tell me? Why should anyone HAVE to sign the GSL to make something compatible with 4th edition or any other edition of D&D?
And please explain how someone can make something for 4th edition under the OGL since you must be a lawyer and see things that other lawyers have yet to notice within it.
And I have played 4E DnD and it's closer to Heroclix than DnD.
Care to elaborate?
So you tell me? Why should anyone HAVE to sign the GSL to make something compatible with 4th edition or any other edition of D&D?
And please explain how someone can make something for 4th edition under the OGL since you must be a lawyer and see things that other lawyers have yet to notice within it.
I must have misunderstood me. I never said a publisher could make a 4th edition book under the OGL, I said they could make D&D products with the OGL. My 3rd edition PHB didn't suddenly turn into a copy of Werewolf the Apocalyse when 4E was announced, it is still D&D.
They really don't have to do anything. It is what they should do in my opinion.
Kenzer may be able to legally bite the hand that feeds it. Whether that bodes well for the future of either party is another matter.
3- Prove it. Prove no material was taken from any other source, and that the new editions were not derivative works.
3a- Will, Reflex, Fortitude...Sounds a lot like the sub-abilities form Player's Options, of which Willpower was one of. Lots of 3rd edition was taken from 2.5 and put directly into 3rd. Such as that other Bo9S was used for 4th with SWSE. TSR created Player's Options PRIOR to the WotC buyout.
Irrelevant. They own all relevant copyrights, so they are entirely legally entitled to use them. Indeed, many of the same people from TSR continued on to work at WotC.
NOTHING is entirely original. The original D&D borrowed a lot from Tolkien and Lovecraft, as well as mythology, and from Conan as well.
However, there is acceptable and unacceptable usage of past materials.
Its okay for a company to make their own RPG system; no one owns the idea of an RPG.
It is not okay to make D&D, because someone DOES own D&D, and have made their own version of it. If you're like "Well, I'm just going to take your work, and do..." you lose, because you are TAKING THEIR WORK. You cannot do this.
If 4e was so horrible, then no one would be trying to tie themselves onto it.
However, they all are. Why? Because they, in a word, suck.
The reality is that they AREN'T capable of creating their own IP. They are not competant to do so. So instead, like parasites, they latch onto people with actual talent, then do things and pass it off as their own hard work, when in reality it is anything but.
WotC owns D&D, and has made a number of important innovations. 3e is distinct from 2e player options, and 4e is very distinct from 3e. Do they use ideas from previous editions? Sure. But this is entirely legal as they OWN those previous editions. YOU don't.
Moreover, some things CAN'T be owned. Ideas are one of them. But your representation of an idea CAN be owned, and if people copy your representation too much, you can be sued.
So you tell me? Why should anyone HAVE to sign the GSL to make something compatible with 4th edition or any other edition of D&D?
Because they don't OWN D&D. WotC OWNS D&D.
Do you think you can just steal the Doom 3 engine wholesale and make a game using it without paying the makers of that engine a cent?
EDIT: I wonder just how many of the people who have been trolling this forum and vehemently denouncing the GSL are 3PP producers. It really doesn't seem like players care.
Do you think you can just steal the Doom 3 engine wholesale and make a game using it without paying the makers of that engine a cent?
No, you'd need to license the engine if you want to include the engine with what you're selling.
BUT you can make make a program that modifies or expands on the engine and sell it as long as you don't include Doom 3 engine in the program. In order for the consumer to play it, they'd need to own Doom 3 of course. The videogame term for it is "unofficial expansion" or "unofficial mod" and they're quite legal to make and sell/distribute/etc.
One well known became very popular, enough to make the engine buyers buy its rights a year later was a Half-Life mod known as Counterstrike.
I believe no 3rd party 4e book plans to actually reprint the PHB, DMG, or MM so I imagine that's the argument they'll use in court to probably win.
I believe no 3rd party 4e book plans to actually reprint the PHB, DMG, or MM so I imagine that's the argument they'll use in court to probably win.
Unless of course WotC (and Hasbro) proves that they have effective trademark on terms like 'tide of iron' to refer to something a fighter gets in RPGs.
Which Hasbro pushed and lobbied for the change in trademark laws that makes that eaiser.
Which WotC was sued by Palladium for violation of in the beginning of its life.
Which Kenzer and Co (from what I have seen) stayed from violating.
On "3rd party publishers are worthless becuase they are too imcompetent to come up with their own mechanics." -- This is both luagable stupid, and so hypocritical it is sad. Tell me which gaming system that are completely orginal have you designed? Ya thought so.. guess your pretty worthless then too, huh? Oh-ya you ment as game designers, ok. There is no single mechanic in 4e that is anyway shape or form orginal. Does that mean the devs are worthless? And yes I prove it, name a mechanic any mechanic and I'll name a system which came before 4e that uses it. However if I'm right then you are indirectly calling the WotC devs worthless and imcompetent.
On, "Falling all over themselves to sign the GSL" -- aparently not since many of the larger names aren't, in fact the real gaints are basically doing their own thing, be it 4e or not.
They've got good, prompt customer service, and produce the best RPG on the market today. Yes, the best.
Missed deadlines weren't good customer service the last time that I checked. They are unavoidable at times, and better then putting out a lousy product, but I'm pretty sure that they will never be considered good.
If 4th ed is the best RPG on the market then I am thrilled for them, however imho they will need to step up their adventure quality a whole lot from their previous offerings before I will consider their work superior to a number of the 3pp offerings in my collection. This was true under 3.x, and (while I would love to be proved wrong) I have seen nothing so far that leads me to think that will be different with the 4.0 rule set. I'm willing to give them a fair chance, but if a 3pp again gives me more, and better content, for less money, then it won't be looking good.
Please remember to keep your posts respectful and on topic.
The full Code of Conduct is at http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
One well known became very popular, enough to make the engine buyers buy its rights a year later was a Half-Life mod known as Counterstrike.
But they didn't attempt to -sell- Counterstrike until they got bought, to my knowledge.
In general, you won't get prosecuted unless you're doing something which blatently dilutes their IP, making money off of it, or otherwise being a jerk to them. Counterstrike was encouraging people to purchase Half-Life.
This is the THEORY behind the OGL and the GSL - that people, by producing stuff for D&D, will encourage more people to buy D&D products. The problem is that it is kind of questionable whether or not this is true.
No one has managed to produce a Counterstrike for D&D, yet more people play D&D than played Half Life, AND we're more accustomed to making our own content. Why is this so, especially given that many people actually attempt to make money doing exactly that?
The reason is simple: many, perhaps most games have people capable of making a CS. But most games never have that person care enough to do so, or to distribute it.
I believe no 3rd party 4e book plans to actually reprint the PHB, DMG, or MM so I imagine that's the argument they'll use in court to probably win.
Actually, what would probably happen is this:
They'd ask the question "Does Kenzer produce Dungeons & Dragons products"?
If people answer that question yes, then it is clearly an IP violation, as Kenzer is attempting to dilute the value of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
And I think many laymen will answer yes to that question.
On a dirivative, everything you siad is true, and irrelavent, since KoK is not reproducing any of the core books, simply making a camapign setting which is compatible with the rules.
How is this distinct from, say, writing a book set in the Harry Potter universe, but not using the Harry Potter characters or Hogwarts?
What do you think would happen if you did that?
Futher Kenzar is NOT trying to pass his work off as D&D.
I disagree on the basis of the statement on the front cover.
And that is very legal...You versus him in a court, he'd win...I do hope you don't charge you clients too money, you're legal advice doesn't seem worth all that much, especially since you despense free over the internet.
I'm not a lawyer, I've got better things to do with my time.
On "3rd party publishers are worthless becuase they are too imcompetent to come up with their own mechanics." -- This is both luagable stupid, and so hypocritical it is sad. Tell me which gaming system that are completely orginal have you designed? Ya thought so.. guess your pretty worthless then too, huh?
I haven't designed a gaming system because I've got better things to do, again. I was actually starting to do so when 4e was announced, but I never got far enough to say I have anything worthwhile. Making a game is work, and it requires a lot of mathematical groundwork as well as a good idea of what sort of mechanics will be fun for people. I won't describe the game as, clearly, hacks populate these forums and they have no respect for IP, and I certainly am not going to let them steal it. I may end up developing it out more someday when I'm bored or feeling like I want to do some heavy duty design work.
When I can pay $60 for a good, fun, playtested RPG, that's worth it to me as I dont' have to spend hundreds of hours designing stuff, running equations, ect. to make a game, and then convince people to play it with me.
More to the point, I'm not attempting to make money at it. If I was attempting to make money at it, I would consider myself a failure if I behaved like many of these companies do.
But then, I have high standards.
There is no single mechanic in 4e that is anyway shape or form orginal. Does that mean the devs are worthless? And yes I prove it, name a mechanic any mechanic and I'll name a system which came before 4e that uses it. However if I'm right then you are indirectly calling the WotC devs worthless and imcompetent.
The universal modular encounter/daily/at-will power system which forms the backbone of 4e. The elements existed previously, but no game put them together and used them the way 4e did. That is a novel mechanic.
The encounter power system is at a minimum from the Tome of Battle, though it is arguable the psionics system from Alternity largely worked out this way in practice as well, though not always.
At wills and dailies have both existed historically as well.
Combining them in the way they did is what is innovative.
On, "Falling all over themselves to sign the GSL" -- aparently not since many of the larger names aren't, in fact the real gaints are basically doing their own thing, be it 4e or not.
Ah yes, the larger name companies.
Like, say, White Wolf. And... WotC. And... White Wolf?
Saying "companies" is a bit misleading, given that there really are just the two.
Missed deadlines weren't good customer service the last time that I checked. They are unavoidable at times, and better then putting out a lousy product, but I'm pretty sure that they will never be considered good.
I have never had a problem with WotC customer service. They certainly aren't perfect, but they do a good enough job. It'd be nice if they were -even better-, but given I've never gotten any customer service from any other gaming company...
And hey, sometimes WotC sends me free stuff, which is always awesome.
If 4th ed is the best RPG on the market then I am thrilled for them, however imho they will need to step up their adventure quality a whole lot from their previous offerings before I will consider their work superior to a number of the 3pp offerings in my collection.
I cannot speak for the quality of their adventures; I have not purchased their adventures. The Dungeon adventures I've looked at so far looked okay, but honestly, I'm not at all in the market for pregenerated adventures; I enjoy making my own, and am rather good at it, if I do say so myself.
The choice WotC has given competitors with 4th edition is a much better choice than . . . Steve Jackson gives for Gurps.
I'm not sure about this. Yes, Steve Jackson requires royalties from GURPS licensees, but the contracts don't try to ban the contracted party from putting out D20 versions and don't have SJ-can-modify-at-will clauses.
WOTC was not always the way they are now.
No geek should have missed the article from Salon.com, but just in case anyone would like to read it again to cleanse their palate, here it is:
Death of the Minotaur
4E is a basic 'fill the slot' class system with very few plug-ins so far for the class slots. It's nothing new, especially among MMO games.
It's nothing new for DnD, either. Or have you forgotten the iconic group of "fighter, mage, rogue, cleric" that has been the basis of DnD groups since 1E? All WotC did was change the icons a bit.
The universal modular encounter/daily/at-will power system which forms the backbone of 4e. The elements existed previously, but no game put them together and used them the way 4e did. That is a novel mechanic.
Actually, no, it's not. Believe it or not, but that mechanic was first seen in a number of video games, some of which predate 4E by at least a decade. To be honest, the entire wizard setup itself appears to be based on the way magic works in Shadowrun. My first thought when I saw it was that they were porting over SR mages.
As for the video games: Honestly, we both know they didn't come up with the combination either. They borrowed it from elsewhere. About the only thing that makes it novel in DnD is the inclusion of magic items, yet someone can point to SR and say that not even that is novel.
Kenzer may be able to legally bite the hand that feeds it. Whether that bodes well for the future of either party is another matter.
That is your opinion. I don't think WotC feeds K&C at all. They actually breached a contract int he first place in regards to rights that caused WotC problems and an out of court settlement. (or TSR)
WotC gives nothing to anybody. WotC bit the hand that fed it if you want to think of it that way. (or TSR depending on who actually was owner of D&D at the time of release of Dragon Magazine Archive)
Yes, the future of anything done will be for the fans to decide.
Some fans will blindly follow WotC under any circumstances because they want to be followers or whatever reason.
Others will think for themselves.
The question will be for WotC are there enough blind followers to ignore those that will think for themselves based on any actions taken towards fansites or even other publishers.
Of course thanks to Mickey Mouse D&D copyright keeps getting extended to WotC relief so that nobody can just use the name or material from the oldest editions that WotC has already abandoned for anything.
So we will just have to wait and see what the fans decide should anything happen.
Personally I would definitely think that WotC was afraid of competition and would not even acknowledge them as a gam making company anymore because they would be too liekly to stagnate with no one driving them to produce decent material.
I was thinking the same thing but I'm not sure that is the case.
As many have pointed out there are other means of getting the PHB, DMG, and MM than actually paying for them. A person could buy and use KoK without giving a dime to WOTC.
Aside from that, WOTC isn't just basing their business on selling the three core books they are also trying to sell supplements. That $25 spent on KoK is $25 not spent on another WOTC or GSL product.
There is also no evidence that people would buy the core books in order to use the KoK pdf. More realistic is that those people were already buying 4E.
But if people are going to pirate, people are going to pirate and those people would have pirated 3rd edition books too. I suppose we could use the RIAA's argument here that they would have bought the books otherwise, but most actual research studies find that even at 0 cost, most people (overwhelming majority actually) will purchase a good they think has value even from a faceless corporation. Piracy numbers provided by industry groups (RIAA and MPAA in particular) have been found, under scrutiny, to be wildly over the top by several hundred percent.
Secondarily, their most successful books were the Complete series which was largely compatible with pretty much any campaign anyone wanted to run. They worked with old KoK and I see little reason that they would not be functional with the new KoK.
In general, you won't get prosecuted unless you're doing something which blatently dilutes their IP,
Not the IP but the trademark. You can write a book about how bad the Harry Potter series is and that it sucks and that would dilute the IP, but using the Lightning Scar logo on the book to make it look official would be diluting the trademark.
Any satirical work dilutes the IP but is allowed under fair-use even if it could be considered libelous or slanderous.
It depends then on that as to whether you are actually trying to cause harm to the trademark or just expressing you opinion and 1st amendment right. Which is why it is so very hard to figure out where the line is draw on fair-use.
Is it more important to allow someone to voice their opinion about something they don't like or to protect some product identity by denying people their constitutional rights?
D&D has shown largely in the past that those voicing harmful opinions win out and have the right due to all the problems of the past with religious implications and such as "D&D is the Devils game" was allowed.
Not to mention EVERY set of homebrew rules blatantly dilutes the IP and WotC does not prosecute the players for doing so, which I wouldn't be surprised if someone in their defense stated that and forced WotC to sue the fans for not using D&D RAW. :evillaugh
@ Titanium Dragon And portermj: Firstly, and for most: On a dirivative, everything you siad is true, and irrelavent, since KoK is not reproducing any of the core books, simply making a camapign setting which is compatible with the rules. Futher Kenzar is NOT trying to pass his work off as D&D. *snip* On, "Falling all over themselves to sign the GSL" -- aparently not since many of the larger names aren't, in fact the real gaints are basically doing their own thing, be it 4e or not.
KoK is trying to associate themselves with 4th Edition by advertising them as 4th Edition compatable products. Maybe legal, maybe not, still a situation where they are biting the hand that feeds them. Still a situation that I don't approve of.
I didn't say they were falling over themselves to sign the GSL. I said they were trying to make products associated with 4th Edition, which would include those using the GSL and those who are not using the GSL but are creating 4E compatable products.
KoK is trying to associate themselves with 4th Edition by advertising them as 4th Edition compatable products. Maybe legal, maybe not, still a situation where they are biting the hand that feeds them. Still a situation that I don't approve of.
There is the problem. I don't think the name D&D should have been slapped onto this 4th edition crap and don't approve of it being done.
Neither of us get to make that choice though. Like WotC didn't need my approval to make 4th, K&C doesn't need your approval to say their product is compatible with anything.
I ask again why you think WotC is feeding them anything? WTH are you talking about?
These companies are NOT partners, and the cooperation done between then in the past was not of a friendly nature entirely. WotC tried taking things and liberties that they had no right to in the past, but K&C is doing what they DO have a right to do.
Figuring Dave knows what he is doing since HackMaster used AD&D and caused WotC to settle out of court back then.
That is your opinion. I don't think WotC feeds K&C at all. They actually breached a contract int he first place in regards to rights that caused WotC problems and an out of court settlement. (or TSR)
There wouldn't be a Kingdoms of Kalimar without WOTC creating the D20 system. There wouldn't be a 4E KoK without WOTC creating 4th Edition.
There isn't even really any indication that there would be a living D&D system if WOTC hadn't bought the rights from TSR and relaunched the system. D&D could have just of easily been bought by people only interested in the books and maybe developing the IP for other media like computer games, tv, or movies. Definately no indication that it would have been as successful an RPG line under a different company. Almost certainly it would not have the OGL.
In all likelyhood WOTC made an honest mistake reprinting the KoDT strips when making the Dragon CD, which they rectified. What Kenzer is doing is deliberate.
Neither of us get to make that choice though. Like WotC didn't need my approval to make 4th, K&C doesn't need your approval to say their product is compatible with anything.
I ask again why you think WotC is feeding them anything? WTH are you talking about?
They don't need it, but that doesn't mean I should not express my disapproval. A concept you should be familiar with.
Again, WOTC created the system(s) that Kingdoms of Kalimar is based on. Without WOTC they would have to create their own system. Is Kenzer even up to the task of producing a system that isn't intended to be parody or ironic?
In a bigger sense, is there even as big a market for stuff like Hackmaster without a WOTC making products that keep FLGS in business? That keep them insterested in stocking RPGs?
Fair use is for review and scholarship. I'm not sure it applies to RPG supplements.
Fair Use isn't limited to these things. Factors for consideration in a Fair Use argument have been enumerated by the courts. The problem with Fair Use is there is no bright line as to what is fair use and what isn't. If you're on the extremes of infringement or fair use, it's not a hard determination to make. If you're in the middle, where the grey area between the two exists, you'll find out if your use was fair or not once you get to court.
They could actually, I don't know, create their own rules set or at least not run around saying their products are compatable with 4E D&D.
The IP laws are meant to strike this balance. It doesn't make any more sense to complain about someone doing what is legal under IP law than it does to support people who infringe IP.
There wouldn't be a Kingdoms of Kalimar without WOTC creating the D20 system.
WotC no longer recognizes the d20 system. It still owns the rights, but as far as the system is concerned the d20 system and its trademark license is dead as of 6/6/2008.
I really don't know what you are trying to say. This new product has NOTHING to do with d20.
WotC no longer recognizes the d20 system. It still owns the rights, but as far as the system is concerned the d20 system and its trademark license is dead as of 6/6/2008.
I really don't know what you are trying to say. This new product has NOTHING to do with d20.
I'm saying that KoK came into existance because WOTC created the D20 system. That line, and the profits that come from it, doesn't exist without WOTC's past actions.
KoK 4th edition, and the profits that come from it, doesn't exist without WOTC developing 4th Edition.
I'm saying that KoK came into existance because WOTC created the D20 system.
Wow. I knew Kenzerco had some clever people in it, but I didn't realize they had access to a time machine!
Spiffy!
There is where your problem lies. KoK is not an official WotC product so has little to do with d20 except for it existed during that time.
You are saying that elves came into existance because Gary put them in the first D&D. This isn't true either.
KoK was published USING the d20 system, but not for or because of it.
This new product has nothing to do with d20 so the past means nothing and the d20 licenses are irrelevant to it.
The IP laws are meant to strike this balance. It doesn't make any more sense to complain about someone doing what is legal under IP law than it does to support people who infringe IP.
It does make sense to complain if you think that a companies actions, even if legal, hurts the hobby.
I'm not out of bounds by having expectations that people, in what is a creative field, be creative. It's not out of bounds to expect them to be original. To expect them to not reduce the incentive to create new systems.
Wow. I knew Kenzerco had some clever people in it, but I didn't realize they had access to a time machine!
Spiffy!
Fine, the D20 Kingdoms of Kalimar products. Also known as the Kingdoms of Kalimar products that introduced most people to KoK.
It does make sense to complain if you think that a companies actions, even if legal, hurts the hobby.
I'm not out of bounds by having expectations that people, in what is a creative field, be creative. It's not out of bounds to expect them to be original. To expect them to not reduce the incentive to create new systems.
Making compatible products does not preclude creativity by any stretch of the imagination. No more or less than operating under GSL.
If you think it hurts the hobby, can you explain exactly how?
No. KoK came into existance because K&C created a setting idea. There was nothing that ever forced it to be produced under the STL or OGL.
There is where your problem lies. KoK is not an official WotC product so has little to do with d20 except for it existed during that time.
You are saying that elves came into existance because Gary put them in the first D&D. This isn't true either.
KoK was published USING the d20 system, but not for or because of it.
This new product has nothing to do with d20 so the past means nothing and the d20 licenses are irrelevant to it.
This new product only exists because WOTC created 4th Edition. No 4th Edition, no 4th Edition Kingdoms of Kalimar.
Likewise, no D20, no Kingdoms of Kalimar D20 products.
So what is left of Kenzer's Kingdoms of Kalimar library that isn't D20 or 4E?
Also, elves are not mechanics. This is where a lot of headaches for the hobby are going to come from. People are going to start thinking of literary expressions as mechanics. Great for getting lawyers billable hours, terrible for gamers.
It does make sense to complain if you think that a companies actions, even if legal, hurts the hobby.
I'm not out of bounds by having expectations that people, in what is a creative field, be creative. It's not out of bounds to expect them to be original. To expect them to not reduce the incentive to create new systems.
Except that, according to Ryan Dancey and the other people who created the OGL, it was that "creativity" that was killing the hobby, splintering it so that there were too few people playing any one system to support it. The purpose of the OGL was to make D20 "one system to rule them all", and the justification for this was that, in the long term, it would keep more people gaming and thus in the hobby and thus customers for WOTC products.
Somehow, by the magic of people Making Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air, the very explicit goals of the OGL -- to get companies to use the D20 system instead of homebrew -- has somehow become a "mistake" or an "accident" or "not what WOTC wanted".
Quite frankly, "creativity" does not consist of finding yet another way to determine if you hit an orc. Having an "original" system is not very hard, and usually, the system is just a marginally different way of generating roughly the same spread of probabilities. If you want someone to have a 50/50 chance of accomplishing a task, there may be a hundred different mechanics used to get to that point, but that really doesn't add much. It's like saying "1+3=4" is more creative than "2+2=4".
The OGL allowed game companies to focus on truly creative work -- new worlds, new concepts, new creations -- instead of the relatively mundane task of working out a core engine. It would take a person of extraordinary ignorance and malice to look at settings as divergent as, say, Nyambe and Broncosaurus Rex, and say "There's no creativity here, they're just using the D20 system!" If your definition of "creativity" is limited to "3d6 roll-over is much more creative than 1d20+mods!", well, then, our definitions are so far apart I do not think meaningful communication is possible.
Wow, I never thought I'd see the day where people would get so up in arms against third party publishing...
It's irrational. People are too emotionally tied to companies. For many people, it seems like if you go against GSL you're somehow lodging a personal insult against them if they like WotC. For others, if you support WotC's position, they seem to feel you're a shill for them or hate 3PPs. None of it makes any sense, imo. WotC is going to fine with 4E. For 3PPs, I say for as many as can do well, both within and outside of GSL, more power to them.
Making compatible products does not preclude creativity by any stretch of the imagination. No more or less than operating under GSL.
If you think it hurts the hobby, can you explain exactly how?
Figuring out how not to be sued is not the type of creativity I'm talking about. I'll give the GSL publishers a pass because in my view: WOTC's work, WOTC's rules.
For one, it creates an environment where people are more concerned with how close they can come to infringement without actually infringing, rather than making creative products.
For another, it reduces the incentive to invent new systems. Why bother spending the time to develop a new system when you can just do whatever WOTC is doing? Why create new rules and fluff when all you have to do is crib off of WOTC's paper and add your on fluff?
This is the unintented consquence of the OGL. It created a whole group of publishers that can't function if WOTC doesn't spoon feed them mechanics. The result is that now some of those publishers don't like the spoon but don't know how to make their own dinner.
Wow, I never thought I'd see the day where people would get so up in arms against third party publishing...
I'm not so much against third party publishing, I'm against third parties poking the first party in the eye rather than becoming first party publishers in their own right.
Except that, according to Ryan Dancey and the other people who created the OGL, it was that "creativity" that was killing the hobby, splintering it so that there were too few people playing any one system to support it. The purpose of the OGL was to make D20 "one system to rule them all", and the justification for this was that, in the long term, it would keep more people gaming and thus in the hobby and thus customers for WOTC products.
Somehow, by the magic of people Making Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air, the very explicit goals of the OGL -- to get companies to use the D20 system instead of homebrew -- has somehow become a "mistake" or an "accident" or "not what WOTC wanted".
Quite frankly, "creativity" does not consist of finding yet another way to determine if you hit an orc. Having an "original" system is not very hard, and usually, the system is just a marginally different way of generating roughly the same spread of probabilities. If you want someone to have a 50/50 chance of accomplishing a task, there may be a hundred different mechanics used to get to that point, but that really doesn't add much. It's like saying "1+3=4" is more creative than "2+2=4".
The OGL allowed game companies to focus on truly creative work -- new worlds, new concepts, new creations -- instead of the relatively mundane task of working out a core engine. It would take a person of extraordinary ignorance and malice to look at settings as divergent as, say, Nyambe and Broncosaurus Rex, and say "There's no creativity here, they're just using the D20 system!" If your definition of "creativity" is limited to "3d6 roll-over is much more creative than 1d20+mods!", well, then, our definitions are so far apart I do not think meaningful communication is possible.
Well, maybe Ryan's theory was wrong. There is a difference between "What I think will happen" and "What actually happened". Obviously WOTC doesn't think that OGL met their goal, which is why they modifid it to the GSL.
As far as creativity, I can flip it around to say that coming up with Smorcs to fight instead of Orcs isn't that creative either.
Figuring out how not to be sued is not the type of creativity I'm talking about. I'll give the GSL publishers a pass because in my view: WOTC's work, WOTC's rules.
Your personal view isn't going to be relevant in this regard unless it is shared by a substantial number of people.
For one, it creates an environment where people are more concerned with how close they can come to infringement without actually infringing, rather than making creative products.
I doubt this. It's a highly speculative statement and I don't see any proof of it forthcoming. The argument that people can't be as creative because they'll be spending too much time worrying about lawsuits is a stretch. A HUGE stretch in fact. I work with people all the time who are extremely creative and inventive, and at the same time have to skirt IP boundaries. So no, I don't subscribe to this argument at all.
For another, it reduces the incentive to invent new systems. Why bother spending the time to develop a new system when you can just do whatever WOTC is doing? Why create new rules and fluff when all you have to do is crib off of WOTC's paper and add your on fluff?
This has always been the same throughout the history of RPGs, and I don't see this panning out in reality. The fact is, the copyright rules regarding game rules is long-standing. If what you said was true, it would be true at all points in RPG history. I don't think that it was true in the past, and so I'm not really worried about it now. If anything, the presence of an OGL or GSL would reduce the likelihood of people creating their own system because it's an incentive to move within an existing system. In fact, that was one of the rationales behind OGL.
The result is that now some of those publishers don't like the spoon but don't know how to make their own dinner.
Again, the law on this is exactly the same as it was before OGL and throughout the history of RPGs. So I don't think your fears are founded.
I think you just personally don't like it if a 3PP doesn't follow GSL. That's fine, and a legitimate personal view to have, but when you toss speculative or specious arguments to try to form some kind of objective support for what amounts to a subjective viewpoint, then I think you're going off the track.
It's irrational. People are too emotionally tied to companies. For many people, it seems like if you go against GSL you're somehow lodging a personal insult against them if they like WotC. For others, if you support WotC's position, they seem to feel you're a shill for them or hate 3PPs. None of it makes any sense, imo. WotC is going to fine with 4E. For 3PPs, I say for as many as can do well, both within and outside of GSL, more power to them.
Gee I'd hate for irrationality to creep into a hobby where people pretend to be elves fighting dragons.
Again, if people don't like the GSL, cool. What I am against is publishers saying "No thanks to the GSL, but I'll take second helping of that 4th edition you cooked up." If company can't make their own system, who are they to complain about how WOTC wants to implement 4th Edition?
I'm not so much against third party publishing, I'm against third parties poking the first party in the eye rather than becoming first party publishers in their own right.
I think this is a silly position to hold. Not to mention, I don't think it amounts to a poke in the eye. But we can disagree on a personal level. As for me, if a product is of good quality, I'm as likely to buy it if it doesn't say GSL on it as I am if it does.
Gee I'd hate for irrationality to creep into a hobby where people pretend to be elves fighting dragons.
Hopefully this statement is a joke. The irrationality is in the argument, and has nothing to do with the fantasy nature of the game itself. Obviously the same argument could be had about virtually any kind of product.
Again, if people don't like the GSL, cool. What I am against is publishers saying "No thanks to the GSL, but I'll take second helping of that 4th edition you cooked up." If company can't make their own system, who are they to complain about how WOTC wants to implement 4th Edition?
Like I said, that's fine for your personal opinion. But IP law provides protection to people for their intellectual property. If what a 3PP is doing is fine in terms of IP law, then they're not infringing WotC property to begin with an I don't see any reason for anyone to get bent out of shape over it.
This is the intented consquence of the OGL.
Fixed your typo.
And which publishers would these be?
Would it be Kenzer, whose Aces&Eights game owes nothing to AD&D or D20?
Green Ronin, who is pretty much ignoring 4e from what we've heard, and whose True 20 and M&M lines are divergent enough from D20 that they have spawned licenses of their own?
Mongoose, which now has Runequest and Traveller in addition to their D20 based lines?
Which publishers, exactly, "can't create their own systems"? (Note you have not yet made a case as to why a plethora of systems is actually of value.)
This has always been the same throughout the history of RPGs, and I don't see this panning out in reality. The fact is, the copyright rules regarding game rules is long-standing. If what you said was true, it would be true at all points in RPG history. I don't think that it was true in the past, and so I'm not really worried about it now. If anything, the presence of an OGL or GSL would reduce the likelihood of people creating their own system because it's an incentive to move within an existing system. In fact, that was one of the rationales behind OGL.
What other companies are doing with regards to 4E dependant material has not been done on the same scale in the past. In fact, in the history of RPGs companies have fought against competing products that did far less than stamp "We work with 4th Edition" on their cover.
What other companies are doing with regards to 4E dependant material has not been done on the same scale in the past. In fact, in the history of RPGs companies have fought against competing products that did far less than stamp "We work with 4th Edition" on their cover.
It's all being done primarily by companies that were already in OGL.
And despite what you've been saying, I reiterate that all of this is speculative, and in my view it is way off base. If you have any substantive evidence to back up what you're saying, let's see it. If all of these 3PPs went under GSL you STILL wouldn't have the other game systems whose speculative loss you are lamenting, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I get that you personally don't like a publisher going non-GSL, but the practical effect on the hobby is nil.
Fixed your typo.
And which publishers would these be?
Would it be Kenzer, whose Aces&Eights game owes nothing to AD&D or D20?
Green Ronin, who is pretty much ignoring 4e from what we've heard, and whose True 20 and M&M lines are divergent enough from D20 that they have spawned licenses of their own?
Mongoose, which now has Runequest and Traveller in addition to their D20 based lines?
Which publishers, exactly, "can't create their own systems"? (Note you have not yet made a case as to why a plethora of systems is actually of value.)
Not a typo. It was an unintented consequence.
This applies to any non-GSL publisher that makes products dependant on 4th edition. Whether that product represent all or only part of their business.
It doesn't apply to Green Ronin or Mongoose, so far. I didn't not say that all third party publishers were dependant on WOTC's work in making systems. I said that it created a group of 3PP that is dependant on WOTC making systems.
It's all being done primarily by companies that were already in OGL.
And despite what you've been saying, I reiterate that all of this is speculative, and in my view it is way off base. If you have any substantive evidence to back up what you're saying, let's see it. If all of these 3PPs went under GSL you STILL wouldn't have the other game systems whose speculative loss you are lamenting, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I get that you personally don't like a publisher going non-GSL, but the practical effect on the hobby is nil.
What are you asking? For me to point out the harm that has been done in the few days since these products started to come out? You're being just as speculative as I am.
Again, I have no problem with anyone not going GSL. It is the publishers that are not going GSL but still want to be enriched by the work that WOTC put into 4th Edition.
What are you asking? For me to point out the harm that has been done in the few days since these products started to come out? You're being just as speculative as I am.
Again, I have no problem with anyone not going GSL. It is the publishers that are not going GSL but still want to be enriched by the work that WOTC put into 4th Edition.
What I'm saying is you're the one making the affirmative case (i.e. this is bad for the hobby) but you have nothing but speculation to back it up.
I disagree with you, and I do not think what you're saying will bear out.
Further, I have no personal problem with people going non-GSL 4E compatible if they're within the bounds of the law.
So we'll just have to disagree on it.
I cannot speak for the quality of their adventures; I have not purchased their adventures. The Dungeon adventures I've looked at so far looked okay, but honestly, I'm not at all in the market for pregenerated adventures; I enjoy making my own, and am rather good at it, if I do say so myself.
Ahh ok. Should you ever wish to change this stance, and should (not that I consider it likely) you ever want to pick up some of the older 3.X adventures, I'm afraid that I cannot really recommend those put out by WotC, as I do not consider lack of clarity, or bad editing to be things I would recommend. Some of them could perhaps be useful as inspiration or fodder for ones own work, but as written I can't in good faith recommend them. To this I compare some of the 3pp adventures in my collection, the kind that, when reading them, make me not only want to run them for a group, but make me wish that I was going to be playing. I dislike throwaway towns and such in adventures, I would much rather have a chunk of world for me to add into my own and adjust as desired.
WOTC was not always the way they are now.
No geek should have missed the article from Salon.com, but just in case anyone would like to read it again to cleanse their palate, here it is:
Death of the Minotaur
Yow..... I'd missed it the first time around.... just... yow...
It doesn't apply to Green Ronin or Mongoose, so far. I didn't not say that all third party publishers were dependant on WOTC's work in making systems. I said that it created a group of 3PP that is dependant on WOTC making systems.
And these sad, pathetic, uncreative publishers are? Name some names.
Like I said, that's fine for your personal opinion. But IP law provides protection to people for their intellectual property. If what a 3PP is doing is fine in terms of IP law, then they're not infringing WotC property to begin with an I don't see any reason for anyone to get bent out of shape over it.
Well, that's your opinion. Not everyone's taste is dictated by what is legal or not legal. Nike's business practices may be legal, but it is not automatically irrational to not like them.
I've never said what Kenzer and others are doing is illegal. All I am saying it that it is in bad form.
If I could put my attitude into a metaphor it would be this: WOTC took a dying tree and cultivated it back to health in a way that produced a more popular variety of fruit. They are trying to sell the fruit but they have also said that certain people can try to sell the fruit of that tree as well. Other people are just taking the fruit and selling it. Even if WOTC can't stop those people from taking the fruit and selling it, I can abstain from buying fruit from those people and can encourage others to do the same.
And these sad, pathetic, uncreative publishers are? Name some names.
Kenzer, Adamant, Goodman (IIRC) and any company that puts out a 4E book that isn't under the GSL (other than WOTC for those that can't make that assumption on their own).
If I could put my attitude into a metaphor it would be this: WOTC took a dying tree and cultivated it back to health in a way that produced a more popular variety of fruit. They are trying to sell the fruit but they have also said that certain people can try to sell the fruit of that tree as well. Other people are just taking the fruit and selling it. Even if WOTC can't stop those people from taking the fruit and selling it, I can abstain from buying fruit from those people and can encourage others to do the same.
I think this is a poor analogy, because taking fruit from someone's tree without permission is illegal.
That said, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect many more people are like me and don't really care if a 3PP goes around GSL, so long as they do it legally. But who knows. If they can all succeed at what they are doing, then so much the better.
So what is left of Kenzer's Kingdoms of Kalimar library that isn't D20 or 4E?
Hmmm, perhaps the original generic non-system specific setting that Kenzer put out before 3rd ed was even imagined, back when TSR was still putting out 2nd ed books? The one that got great reviews in particular for the quality of their maps being higher then what anyone else was putting out at the time. :D
edit: Which was known to be compatible with any fantasy ruleset you wanted to use it with... including AD&D 2nd Ed.
Kenzer, Adamant, Goodman (IIRC) and any company that puts out a 4E book that isn't under the GSL.
You really the last clause of your sentence makes your argument circular, right?
The most creative game designer in the world could put out a non-GSL product that was 4E compatible, and then by your argument they suddenly aren't creative anymore. You see what I mean by irrational?
If I could put my attitude into a metaphor it would be this: WOTC took a dying tree and cultivated it back to health in a way that produced a more popular variety of fruit. They are trying to sell the fruit but they have also said that certain people can try to sell the fruit of that tree as well. Other people are just taking the fruit and selling it. Even if WOTC can't stop those people from taking the fruit and selling it, I can abstain from buying fruit from those people and can encourage others to do the same.
I don't have a problem with you putting your view of it that way and can understand it, however I would respectfully submit that you are ignoring the part that the 3pp's played in making the fruit so popular. Those that took the fruit and showed that it could be used in new ways, new recipes using the fruit that I bought, giving it even greater value to me, which has kept me playing D&D longer then I might otherwise have.
I don't have a problem with you putting your view of it that way and can understand it, however I would respectfully submit that you are ignoring the part that the 3pp's played in making the fruit so popular. Those that took the fruit and showed that it could be used in new ways, new recipes using the fruit that I bought, giving it even greater value to me, which has kept me playing D&D longer then I might otherwise have.
Yeah, I agree. Apart from the core books for 3.5, WotC didn't really put out much worth buying IMO. Most everything I have comes from 3PPs.
I think this is a poor analogy, because taking fruit from someone's tree without permission is illegal.
That said, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect many more people are like me and don't really care if a 3PP goes around GSL, so long as they do it legally. But who knows. If they can all succeed at what they are doing, then so much the better.
My metaphor, my rules. In my metaphor it is legal for a person can take fruit from someone's tree without permission.
I don't have a problem with you putting your view of it that way and can understand it, however I would respectfully submit that you are ignoring the part that the 3pp's played in making the fruit so popular. Those that took the fruit and showed that it could be used in new ways, new recipes using the fruit that I bought, giving it even greater value to me, which has kept me playing D&D longer then I might otherwise have.
No matter what the people do with the fruit that they took without permission they shouldn't have taken the fruit in the first place.
They should have grown their own tree and done whatever they wanted with the fruit.
For me, the third parties that came up with the best recipies (Malhavoc and Paizo among others) actually grew trees in their own right.
No matter what the people do with the fruit that they took without permission they shouldn't have taken the fruit in the first place.
They should have grown their own tree and done whatever they wanted with the fruit.
For me, the third parties that came up with the best recipies (Malhavoc and Paizo among others) actually grew trees in their own right.
Are you talking in general (including 3.x) or just with 4th ed? Because if you are including 3.x, when the word goes out "Hey everybody, have a basket of fruit for free, sell it yourself, and help us make our fruit the most popular out there..." I can't really see your problem with people taking them up on the offer.
Now as far as Kenzer goes, I see it as a company going from making a dessert that went well with any kind of fruit (pre-3.X), making D&D flavored fruit pie with 3.x, to saying "Hey, this strudel goes great for desert, you can make it with fruit just like you enjoyed before 3.x) (yeah I know it's not great, but there is only so much I can do with the fruit theme people, I haven't had my nap yet. :D)
Kenzer, Adamant, Goodman (IIRC) and any company that puts out a 4E book that isn't under the GSL.
And how would they be MORE creative if they did use the GSL? Seems to me the content is the same.
Given that the companies you've named all have histories of producing highly regarded products, accusing them of being uncreative parasites strikes me as....dubious. As a point of comparison, what have you produced?
It seems to me that the main issue isn't their lack of creativity, but the fact that the GSL -- unlike the OGL -- doesn't offer anything copyright law doesn't. It serves no purpose, except to allow the use of a trademark/logo of unproven commercial worth. While the OGL granted something special -- access to the exact expression of rules, not merely the idea of them, as well as the viral property that meant everyone benefitted -- the GSL, at present, gives nothing and takes away a lot, and the silence from WOTC on what benefits it offers to publishers has been deafening. Where WOTC worked hard to "sell" the OGL to a skeptical industry, the GSL has been treated as a red-headed stepchild: Delayed, then basically ignored. While this might change in the future, the attitude from WOTC currently seems to say "Here's your license, use it if you want to, but we kind of hope you won't." It is hard to avoid concluding the only reason it exists is that public statements were made promising some from of "open" license, and reneging on such statements, when they influenced the business plans of your competitors, could be extremely risky, legally.
My metaphor, my rules. In my metaphor it is legal for a person can take fruit from someone's tree without permission.
lol. I thought you were trying to have a serious discussion.
Are you talking in general (including 3.x) or just with 4th ed? Because if you are including 3.x, when the word goes out "Hey everybody, have a basket of fruit for free, sell it yourself, and help us make our fruit the most popular out there..." I can't really see your problem with people taking them up on the offer.
Cnath: The metaphor doesn't work to begin with, and his statement that he's making up his own rules for the metaphor just further confuses the issue. You're also dealing with someone who is using circular reasoning to support their creativity argument.
In other words, as I said above, the arguments are irrational. It's an attempt to torture some objective arguments so that they fit a subjective rationale that they don't apply to. You can't expect to persuade someone in this case, because for every argument you have there will be a new definition or piece of fallacious reasoning to counter it. Repeat, ad naseum.
It boils down to a subjective disagreement as to whether it is "nice" for someone to make 4E materials without GSL. There's no winning the argument and no sense in pretending its anything more than that.
...and any company that puts out a 4E book that isn't under the GSL.
OMG, my copy of The Player's HandBook, and Dungeon Master's Guide are 4e and arn't GSLed. WotC is an so uncreative.
Are you talking in general (including 3.x) or just with 4th ed? Because if you are including 3.x, when the word goes out "Hey everybody, have a basket of fruit for free, sell it yourself, and help us make our fruit the most popular out there..." I can't really see your problem with people taking them up on the offer.
Now as far as Kenzer goes, I see it as a company going from making a dessert that went well with any kind of fruit (pre-3.X), making D&D flavored fruit pie with 3.x, to saying "Hey, this strudel goes great for desert, you can make it with fruit just like you enjoyed before 3.x) (yeah I know it's not great, but there is only so much I can do with the fruit theme people, I haven't had my nap yet. :D)
Both, but WOTC changed who they said could pick the latest batch.
And people can enjoy KoK even if it isn't converted to 4th Edition.
~~~~~
On a separate train of thought, isn't the thesis of this thread that companies like Kenser and Adamant are rebelling against the GSL?
Is that really how rebels behave? If they really believe that putting out their 4E products is a net gain for WOTC, where exactly is the rebellion? What is their end game? Do they think they are doing things that will result in WOTC making a less restrictive license?
Wouldn't a more effective rebellion be to make products that are compatable with competing systems such as GURPs fantasy, the Hero System, or Palladium Fantasy?
I think the real rebels are the ones that are striking out with their own system or are sticking with the OGL. They are rebelling against the GSL by not supporting the edition that the GSL was designed for.
If someone really believes that third party support is good for the health of an edition then putting out third party support of that edition is just validating WOTC's choices by increasing their bottom line.
Cnath: The metaphor doesn't work to begin with, and his statement that he's making up his own rules for the metaphor just further confuses the issue. You're also dealing with someone who is using circular reasoning to support their creativity argument.
In other words, as I said above, the arguments are irrational. It's an attempt to torture some objective arguments so that they fit a subjective rationale that they don't apply to. You can't expect to persuade someone in this case, because for every argument you have there will be a new definition or piece of fallacious reasoning to counter it. Repeat, ad naseum.
It boils down to a subjective disagreement as to whether it is "nice" for someone to make 4E materials without GSL. There's no winning the argument and no sense in pretending its anything more than that.
Sticks and stones, Steerpike7, sticks and stones.
I view threads as discussions to provoke thoughtful debate, not a contest that results in a "winner".
No?
I still don't see how WotC makes money on companies that follow the GSL. Do the companies pay for licensing in some way? AFAIK, they don't. The GSL gives 3PP some rights to use logos etc, and for that they give up some IP rights. WotC makes the same amount of profit on 3PP companies under the GSL as they do from those outside of it.
No?
I assume the value to WOTC is that it helps them control their brand and the products that are associated with their system. It helps them avoid stuff like having their brand associated the Book of Erotic Fantasy or having a 3PP reprint the Player's Handbook, but smaller.
I don't see why 3PP don't just make separate D20 and GSL lines if they are so worried about the GSL license being terminated. The GSL allows for it. If they really question whether would consider it reasonably separate they should ask WOTC and get the answer in writing.
I still don't see how WotC makes money on companies that follow the GSL. Do the companies pay for licensing in some way? AFAIK, they don't. The GSL gives 3PP some rights to use logos etc, and for that they give up some IP rights. WotC makes the same amount of profit on 3PP companies under the GSL as they do from those outside of it.
No?
This is correct, the GSL is royalty free. It odes however restrict one form doing a great many things, such as; publishing a product line for both 3.x and 4e, changing the way ability scores are generated, and using drow in ones setting, among many other things. Some other things it does is give large amounts of control in regard to publishing your work to WotC. It further allows WotC to effectively kill any GSL product line at anytime, as well as terminate the license at anytime, and change it without notice, among many other things. However it gives very little, read only a logo which can only be displayed in the back of the book, in return.
Basically what it boils down to is that a 3pp could go with the GSL, or they could not and just go with what is allowed under existing IP law. If they do that then they they essentially lose nothing, except the logo, and gain a lot of advantages over those who are going GSL. The only reason to go GSL compliant is if you are a small enough company that WotC can kill you with a malicious lawsuit, despite them being legally wrong to so. (As you do not have the resources to successfully fight WotC)
Back on topic:
@portermj: Even if it were legal to take the fruit with out permission that is not what is happening here. The 3pps aren't selling D&D, nor are they reproducing any of WotCs mechanics and selling them. What they are doing is making a comparable product. It would be equivalent to them selling a recipe that used the fruit, or coming up with a tool that made peeling the fruit easier. Or a bowl that was specially sized to perfectly fit the fruit.
A better analogy would be an 3pp controller made for a Xbox 360. Or the universal car mats I bought at Walmart becuase the used Toyota I bought didn't have any mats with it.
And again, by your very own arguments, the developers of 4e are uncreative hacks. The isn't a single mechanic in 4e that is original. And I challenge you to name one that is.
Titianuim dragon named the at-will encounter-daily powers system. however fate uses a system very similar were their are abilities usable all the time, seen abilities and once per session abilities. Further, one could point to any MMO's recharge mechanic as the inspiration for that mechanic. basically you have powers that are usable with out recharge, others that take time, and some that you have to wait even longer for. Adapted to D&D's turn based system they would look identical to what we have as at-will encounter and daily.
So again if not being original = uncreative and worthless then it follows that 4e = uncreative and worthless.
And just to really blow your line of thinking out of the water, 4e is basically another variant d20 game. As it uses the core d20 mechanic. Now that is not something the designers came up with themselves, hell it isn't even something WotC owns the rights to. So how original is 4e again?
My metaphor, my rules. In my metaphor it is legal for a person can take fruit from someone's tree without permission.
You're really keen on rules aren't you?
I will never understand people who want imaginary property law to be stricter.
Look, KoK is legal. It's not "stealing money from WOTC" or anything. If they signed up under the GSL they would get LESS rights than what they are given by law.
It'd be like me , offering you a job, and then telling you that to have this job, you have to give me title to your car and your house and a few other personal assets.. and if I don't like the job you do, I can take and sell those assets under you.
Why would you want to work for me under those conditions?
By law, you, as citizens of the US (which I'm going to use since WOTC is covered by US property law) are afforded certain rights. Your businesses are afforded certain rights. Why would you sign away those rights without getting any real significant return?
That's the question that KoK faced, and he chose to answer it in a way that indicates clearly that they do not wish to give up rights that they have inherent for nothing.
It's a fair decision.. it's how this was done before the OGL/d20 license, and it's how it'll be done after.
As for WOTC "saving" this community.. that I don't know. They certainly seemed to standardize everything on D20 and removed a lot of competition.
Obviously it doesn't, as you ate there.
Ah hypocrisy. It is so delicious.
If you don't approve of the quality of their product, don't go there. Clearly you approve enough to give them your patronage.
.
Hypocrisy? I ate there because there wasn't any other place to go and I was hungry. I went there out of desperation, not because I dig their food. This doesn't equal approval of their food. Haven't you ever been on a long drive and been forced to eat at a place with bad food because there isn't any other restaurant for miles?
Also, eating at a fast food place doesn't mean you approve of their food. I grew up poor, and we often had to eat at places like McDonalds because it was cheap and around the corner. We still knew that it was crap. But we couldn't afford to eat at a better establishment. But even in comparison to other fast food joints, McDonalds food is awful.
I still don't see how WotC makes money on companies that follow the GSL. Do the companies pay for licensing in some way? AFAIK, they don't. The GSL gives 3PP some rights to use logos etc, and for that they give up some IP rights. WotC makes the same amount of profit on 3PP companies under the GSL as they do from those outside of it.
No?
In addition to what others have said, I suppose that if 3PPs who are publishing under GSL might further increase the fan base, and so for any new customers who are drawn in by a 3PP, WotC can sell core books, maybe a DDI sub when that goes live, and other ongoing products. I don't know how significant it is, but I think part of the idea is that by allowing 3PPs under OGL or GSL you expand the base of the hobby and that helps WotC as well as others.
I still don't see how WotC makes money on companies that follow the GSL. Do the companies pay for licensing in some way? AFAIK, they don't. The GSL gives 3PP some rights to use logos etc, and for that they give up some IP rights. WotC makes the same amount of profit on 3PP companies under the GSL as they do from those outside of it.
No?
WotC makes no money directly from the GSL/OGL.
The only money they could make from it is with lawsuits.
The STL WotC made money from.
I don't see where GSL signees give up ANY IP rights.
What WotC gains from any open license is more players. The more people have to choose from, the more people will be likely to play.
Take MtG. They put out a new set every month or so to keep the game new and fresh, and this also means that in some way with the Standard tournament format no one has to fight to get out of print material.
Well with D&D this relates because WotC can focus on some things and let 3PP handle others.
WotC doesn't have to worry about making extra settings, they can stick with Eberron the only official setting left since FR was turned into an RPGA only setting. This means 3PP can make settings and such and WotC can focus on the new rules themselves. Getting those classes out that everyone would need, etc.
The STL WotC made money from.
How, precisely, did they make money from the STL and not the OGL?
I don't see where GSL signees give up ANY IP rights.
Perhaps you haven't read it.
A significant portion of the GSL is the restrictions on rights you would ordinarily have under IP law.
I don't see where GSL signees give up ANY IP rights.
Just to name a short list:
The "first sale date" limits your rights to sell products.
You're not allowed to reprint definitions of commonly used words listed in the SRD. Those words are as follows:
Level
Good
Evil
Giant
Script
Common
Speed
Normal
Power
Bold
Fighter
Wizard
You literally sign away rights to do ANYTHING with those words, despite the fact that there are no trademarks, no copyrights, and no patents that would EVER give Wizards of the Coast the power to control those properties. Later on in the license, you actually stipulate outright that Wizards OWNS those above words and that you understand that for case of "legal uses."
And here's the kicker.
Once you are OUT of the GSL.. the clause regarding all those assignment of rights that Wizards doesn't own and your acknowledgment of them.. SURVIVES. If you accept the GSL , you potentially assign rights to words and concepts that Wizards DOES NOT OWN for the lifetime of your company.
Not only that, should you be out of the license, and they decide later on that you are breaching the license (even though you're out of it), they can sue you, and you MUST pay all court costs, no matter what.. because THAT survives too.
In the end, I think Dave knows a bad contract when he sees one. I think that the rights you give up in this contract as opposed to what you get for it are just staggering.
You're not allowed to reprint definitions of commonly used words listed in the SRD. Those words are as follows:
Level
Good
Evil
Giant
Script
Common
Speed
Normal
Power
Bold
Fighter
Wizard
Question: Why would you? The terms are defined in the core books, you can just use them and expect the reader to know what you're talking about.
Answer: Because you're redefining them. The only situation where I can imagine a 3pp having to talk about the definition of Good is if they're changing it ("in this setting, Good is not -PHB definition-, Good is -our own definition-"), and then your product is not GSL compliant.
As you say, wizard doesn't OWN these words. But they expect 3pp's that want to work within the GSL to abide by their definition of these words.
(Not to mention that a bunch of those words you just got off the top of your head, since they're not in the SRD.)
The public domain terms no one has right to claim IP over. That is where a big problem may come with the whole GSL. A company may make their own product and a GSL product and both use the term Wizard or level, then WotC may have to fight both products if the one not under the GSL promotes a different definition of "wizard" than allowed by the GSL and SRD.
This is where it would get tricky because WotC would be defending with little to no rights and make make the inclusion of the term wizard in the GSL null and void as WotC can't try to claim ownership over that public domain term.
How, precisely, did they make money from the STL and not the OGL?
Didn't people have to pay to use the System Trademark License?
Perhaps you haven't read it.
A significant portion of the GSL is the restrictions on rights you would ordinarily have under IP law.
What I mean is that WotC can't claim the work you did to be their own. WotC owns its IP and you own yours, but there is a grey area between them depending on what can turn around and create similar and forbid you to use further under the GSL. One of the reason I would never touch it because it doesn't clearly state who can do what, but at initial creation of a GSL product WotC cannot claim the work within that is not covered by the SRD.
Redcard:
This is where it would get tricky because WotC would be defending with little to no rights and make make the inclusion of the term wizard in the GSL null and void as WotC can't try to claim ownership over that public domain term.
I'd agree with you, except that the survivability clause seems to protect just that. It looks like by signing the GSL, you are signing your rights away and affirming that they own those words as part of their IP.
It even says that you assign those rights to them, and that that assignment of rights survives the exiting of the contract.
As many have pointed out there are other means of getting the PHB, DMG, and MM than actually paying for them. A person could buy and use KoK without giving a dime to WOTC.
Unless Kenzer is actually encouraging people to pirate WotC's copyrighted material (which he is not), then this point is irrelevant. Publishing campaign settings and adventures for 4e actively encourages people to acquire the 4e core books, and the only legal way to do this is to purchase them.
The GSL is designed to encourage people to publish campaign settings and adventures for 4th Ed. - since WotC doesn't charge money for the license, it shouldn't really matter to them whether 3pps are publishing adventures and campaign settings under the GSL or under standard IP laws.
Question: Why would you? The terms are defined in the core books, you can just use them and expect the reader to know what you're talking about.
Answer: Imagine that, in a few years, I decide that 4e isn't the best direction for my company. I design and publish my own original RPG. I can't use terms like "Fighter", "Giant", or "Normal" in my new RPG, because I signed a license that says WotC owns these terms.
Actually, no, it's not. Believe it or not, but that mechanic was first seen in a number of video games, some of which predate 4E by at least a decade. To be honest, the entire wizard setup itself appears to be based on the way magic works in Shadowrun. My first thought when I saw it was that they were porting over SR mages.
I can think of video games which do at-will/daily and at-will/encounter, but I can't think of any which use the full 4e system. Can you name one?
But if people are going to pirate, people are going to pirate and those people would have pirated 3rd edition books too. I suppose we could use the RIAA's argument here that they would have bought the books otherwise, but most actual research studies find that even at 0 cost, most people (overwhelming majority actually) will purchase a good they think has value even from a faceless corporation. Piracy numbers provided by industry groups (RIAA and MPAA in particular) have been found, under scrutiny, to be wildly over the top by several hundred percent.
This is simply untrue and is made up by people who want to feel better about pirating things.
The reality is that there are indeed people who purchase things which they could pirate or have pirated.
The reality is that these people are not the only people who pirate.
The reality is that many people who DO pirate do so in order to avoid paying for the product in question. This is particularly true in the case of D&D products; I know lots of people who refuse to buy the ToB, even though it was the best 3.x product, because they torrented a PDF version. Well, knew, back when I ran the gaming club at university. Some of those people WOULD have bought some of the books they pirated.
Are piracy numbers overreported by the RIAA? Obviously.
Are piracy losses blatently misrepresented by pirates? Absolutely and equally obviously.
Piracy is bad for many businesses. The less your physical product is superior to what you can pirate, the less likely people are to actually bother to buy it. I would argue that the RIAA really is the group that gets screwed the most by piracy, because there really isn't a difference between a song you downloaded and a song you got via CD; indeed, sadly, sometimes the physical version is worse due to the various copy protection garbage they put on it, which does nothing to prevent piracy but everything to prevent people from purchasing your CD.
Not the IP but the trademark. You can write a book about how bad the Harry Potter series is and that it sucks and that would dilute the IP, but using the Lightning Scar logo on the book to make it look official would be diluting the trademark.
That doesn't dilute the IP in any way, shape, or form. You don't understand what IP dilution is.
Dilution of an IP is when you make an IP less identified with a product, service, or company.
Nothing about a book criticizing Harry Potter dilutes the IP. It may DEVALUE the IP by questioning its quality and by associating negativity with it, but it doesn't DILUTE the IP.
EVEN IF your product doesn't create confusion about whether or not it is an X, IT MAY STILL DILUTE SOMEONE'S TRADEMARK.
I know most people don't understand anything about trademark law, or IP law in general, and while I'm far frm an expert, I would suggest you at a minimum educate yourself somewhat about the subject, particularly the terminology, as otherwise you are very likely to not understand what people are talking about.
Any satirical work dilutes the IP but is allowed under fair-use even if it could be considered libelous or slanderous.
Satirical work doesn't NECCESSARILY dilute the IP; most of the time it doesn't. Spaceballs, for instance, does nothing to dilute the Star Wars IP. Indeed, sometimes satire can even reinforce the strength of IP.
Sometimes satirical work CAN dilute the IP; a good example of this would be Mastercard's "priceless" campaign, which has been parodized very heavily. Some campaigns have actually suffered even more with the slogan ceasing to be thought of in the same context as the product at all.
KoK was published USING the d20 system, but not for or because of it.
Wrong. It was published for d20. Saying anything else is pure and willful denial.
This new product has nothing to do with d20 so the past means nothing and the d20 licenses are irrelevant to it.
Right. Instead it is illegally using WotC's IP for 4th edition.
Wow, I never thought I'd see the day where people would get so up in arms against third party publishing...
So you're suprised when a 3PP company violates someone else's IP, stealing it and attempting to make money off of it, people should support them?
Except that, according to Ryan Dancey and the other people who created the OGL, it was that "creativity" that was killing the hobby, splintering it so that there were too few people playing any one system to support it. The purpose of the OGL was to make D20 "one system to rule them all", and the justification for this was that, in the long term, it would keep more people gaming and thus in the hobby and thus customers for WOTC products.
Somehow, by the magic of people Making Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air, the very explicit goals of the OGL -- to get companies to use the D20 system instead of homebrew -- has somehow become a "mistake" or an "accident" or "not what WOTC wanted".
You missed the actual purpose of the OGL.
The purpose of the OGL WAS to make everyone make stuff for the d20 system. But you're missing something very important.
The reason they wanted everyone to play d20 was not altruistic. It was so that more people would purchase WotC's products.
This is what many people missed. They didn't actually understand what they were reading.
Would it be Kenzer, whose Aces&Eights game owes nothing to AD&D or D20?
Green Ronin, who is pretty much ignoring 4e from what we've heard, and whose True 20 and M&M lines are divergent enough from D20 that they have spawned licenses of their own?
Mongoose, which now has Runequest and Traveller in addition to their D20 based lines?
Which publishers, exactly, "can't create their own systems"? (Note you have not yet made a case as to why a plethora of systems is actually of value.)
All of them.
How well does Aces & Eights sell? Poorly. Who has even heard of Aces & Eights? No one.
True 20 and M&M are both d20 based.
Are Runequest and Traveller their own systems? I'm pretty sure those are pretty old; do they own the IP now, or are they simply liscensing it from the owners? Have they made new editions for it, or are they just reprinting old rules?
And in any event, how many people play any of these systems? Very, VERY few. Negligable numbers, really.
So obviously their ability to come up with their own systems is pretty poor, wouldn't you say?
The most creative game designer in the world could put out a non-GSL product that was 4E compatible, and then by your argument they suddenly aren't creative anymore. You see what I mean by irrational?
There's two types of compability: Generic and Specific.
Generic compability is something with no rules at all beyond those which are self-contained; it is a book of fluff. For instance, you can convert Bleach into d20; that doesn't make Bleach non-creative, because it wasn't designed for d20.
Specific compability is KoK. It is derivative; they're using the 4e rules to build their world. They're making it FOR 4th edition.
Given that the companies you've named all have histories of producing highly regarded products, accusing them of being uncreative parasites strikes me as....dubious. As a point of comparison, what have you produced?
So highly regarded that none of them have appreciable market share.
Honestly, much as people may say "OMG these 3pps are awesome!" the reality is that they aren't. Their products don't capture appreciable market share, and their target demographic is basically "People who play real roleplaying games and want something else as well."
Seriously, people compliment these guys, but its pretty clear it is pretty hollow given how few people actually purchase their products.
It seems to me that the main issue isn't their lack of creativity, but the fact that the GSL -- unlike the OGL -- doesn't offer anything copyright law doesn't.
This is simply untrue. It gives them the ability to legally use a lot of things that are completely ILLEGAL otherwise. It allows you to make what amounts to derivative works legally.
The reason they're whining is that, essentially, some of them are thieves, and now that they have to actually give up something in order to use WotC's IP, they're rebelling and claiming what they're doing is legal.
It isn't. They are breaking the law by making derivative works without a liscense from WotC.
You can see a number of them on the GSL forums, whining about how they are wronged, how the GSL sucks, ect. The reality is that the GSL doesn't suck, it is just that WotC isn't giving away their IP rights for free anymore, and these people are angry.
I still don't see how WotC makes money on companies that follow the GSL. Do the companies pay for licensing in some way? AFAIK, they don't. The GSL gives 3PP some rights to use logos etc, and for that they give up some IP rights. WotC makes the same amount of profit on 3PP companies under the GSL as they do from those outside of it.
No?
The actual reason is pretty simple: The purpose of the GSL is to get people to produce things for D&D, thus increasing D&D's market share. HOWEVER, the point is that you're doing something which helps the modern D&D brand.
The reason for the whining is that people can no longer do things like print their own PHBs for free (and even sell them) and that once 5e comes out 4e will be considered dead and they won't be able to continue making products for it, something WotC is doing in order to prevent its own IP from competing with itself.
As you can readily tell, the whining is thus transparent greed on the part of the 3PPs. They are upset that WotC is not allowing them to steal their work for nothing anymore.
They will dress it up in various ways, but this is the core of it.
This is correct, the GSL is royalty free. It odes however restrict one form doing a great many things, such as; publishing a product line for both 3.x and 4e, changing the way ability scores are generated, and using drow in ones setting, among many other things. Some other things it does is give large amounts of control in regard to publishing your work to WotC. It further allows WotC to effectively kill any GSL product line at anytime, as well as terminate the license at anytime, and change it without notice, among many other things. However it gives very little, read only a logo which can only be displayed in the back of the book, in return.
This is simply false.
It gives you the right to make derivative products.
Look, KoK is legal. It's not "stealing money from WOTC" or anything. If they signed up under the GSL they would get LESS rights than what they are given by law.
This is simply untrue.
What KoK is doing is most likely ILLEGAL, as it is, in part or in whole, a derivative work, as well as its cover arguably diluting the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
What WotC gains from any open license is more players. The more people have to choose from, the more people will be likely to play.
The problem with this thinking is that it is, fundamentally, wrong.
The OGL didn't end up bringing in more players as far as can be told.
THAT is why it was a failure and is not being continued; it didn't make WotC any more money than they would have made otherwise, and may have even made them less money.
Look, the long, short, and middle of it is thus:
Everyone who says that the GSL doesn't give you any rights you lack otherwise is what is known as a "liar" or what is known as "horribly misinformed."
The GSL gives you the ability to make certain derivative 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons products, as well as limited rights to do some other things with WotC IP.
YOU CANNOT MAKE A DERIVATIVE 4E PRODUCT WITHOUT USING THE GSL LEGALLY.
This is the long, the short, and the middle of it.
Is Kingdoms of Kalamar a derivative product? Its status is quite borderline, and its usage of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark on the front cover may very well constitute dilution of WotC's trademark.
YOU CANNOT MAKE A DERIVATIVE 4E PRODUCT WITHOUT USING THE GSL LEGALLY.
This is the long, the short, and the middle of it.
Is Kingdoms of Kalamar a derivative product? Its status is quite borderline, and its usage of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark on the front cover may very well constitute dilution of WotC's trademark.
Is it "derivative" or "compatible"?
The way I see it, if I can buy a third party xbox controller, why couldn't I buy a 3rd party D&D supplement?
Is it "derivative" or "compatible"?
Derivative. It is possible to do things under the 4e GSL that are normally inpermissible as they would constitute a derivative product.
The way I see it, if I can buy a third party xbox controller, why couldn't I buy a 3rd party D&D supplement?
Because the two things are different. More to the point, it is likely that it is very difficult to make a meaningful controller patent these days, so it is likely that the XBox controller either isn't patented, or it is easy to replicate without violating Microsoft's patent, or perhaps the third party people liscense the right to produce their own controllers from Microsoft.
Derivative. It is possible to do things under the 4e GSL that are normally inpermissible as they would constitute a derivative product.
And are these things worth working within the GSL? That's what I'm wondering.
Because the two things are different. More to the point, it is likely that it is very difficult to make a meaningful controller patent these days, so it is likely that the XBox controller either isn't patented, or it is easy to replicate without violating Microsoft's patent, or perhaps the third party people liscense the right to produce their own controllers from Microsoft.
And you feel it's impossible to produce a product that works with 4E that doesn't impede on their patent?
YOU CANNOT MAKE A DERIVATIVE 4E PRODUCT WITHOUT USING THE GSL LEGALLY.
This is the long, the short, and the middle of it.
Is Kingdoms of Kalamar a derivative product? Its status is quite borderline, and its usage of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark on the front cover may very well constitute dilution of WotC's trademark.
The key word is "derivative," as in a derivative work.
You can, however, legally make a compatible product if you know what you're doing with respect to IP law.
I think it remains to be seen whether 4E Kalamar is entering illegal territory.
EDIT: I've looked at the preview PDF and don't see anything that is immediately troubling to me.
And you feel it's impossible to produce a product that works with 4E that doesn't impede on their patent?
There is no patent on 4E. If there are any pending apps we aren't aware of them.
No, but you seem to believe that your trust in Wizards should automatically transfer to everyone else.
never once did I say that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. (or keyboard as the case may be.)
The word you used was "Paranoid" as in an irrational fear or distrust of others. Personally, I think being cautious about who you trust with the property you created and use to pay your rent is perfectly rational and not paranoid at all.
Yes. Being cautious is different then paranoid.
Deciding that a legal contract is too risky for you to sign, and choosing to go another route: Rational business decision.
Looking at said contract and deciding based on no evidence that the person who wrote it has a neffarious scheme to steal your IP, and destroy small business competitors with their "trap"... Paranoid.
The latter was what I was calling paranoid. The number of posters who call the GSL a trap designed as a scheme by wizards to destroy game companies in some way.
(personally I don't think they care one way or the other if you sign on or not. If you want to use their IP and logos and such to support D&D, great.. here's the method of doing so for free! If not... great, see you later!)
No, this is why you the GSL is nearly worthless. The IP on a MM Tee shirt belongs to Disney, it's a picture drawn by DISNEY artists, your 'investment' is in your printing equipment and the relatively small cost of setting up a print run.
Unless you're drawing the artwork, and not using pre-made art from Disney.
D&D adventures are created by the 3PP, the GSL license gives them access to a trivial amount of Wizards IP and a small logo you can put on your product. There is no monetary cost, all you have to do is surrender control of the Intellectual Property that pays your rent to a company run by people you will never meet.
In what way does it cause you to surrender control of your IP? The GSL has nothing to do with your IP, (aside from not allowing you to re-publish it in the OGL)
If you feel that's too harsh, you probably don't want to sign the GSL. Rock on.
Obviously, I was taking note of the fact that you called that choice "paranoid".
See above.
Independent publishers reputations are completely independent of the reputation of D&D. You mentioned Paizo previously, and there are plenty of other 3PP that have solid reputations. Gamers understand the difference between Wizards products and 3PP and know to judge products based on the publisher, not the silly D&D logo on the back.
Did you ignore the rest of my comments? (See below)
Incidentally you can use the words Dungeons and Dragons on any product, you just cannot use the copyrighted logo.
Designed for Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is right there on the cover of all non-GSL third party products.
Again, did you read the rest of the comments or just ignore them to make a point?
The use of the D&D look and the actual D&D logo has the power of brand. Whether or not it's worth something, is:
1. Up to your own business to decide.
2. Somewhat dependant ont he market you're trying to sell to.
3. Somewhat dependant on if WoTC can actually build the "market" as seems to be their plan.
Seems like you don't feel the D&D brand has any power. So probably the GSL is not for you. Rock on.
You are under the impression that there is some sort of quality assurance under the GSL and that is incorrect.
I am? That's news to me, as never once did I say this.
What I said was that when you purchase a book of x: x will always mean the same thing.
There might be a problem with quality products, and balance sure, but the definition remains the same.
About the only thing the GSL prevents is the rewriting existing feats/ spells/ whatever...
Yes. It prevents rewriting of terms. A Big Mac is always a Big Mac.
which was rarely done under 3.5 and the OGL.
Great!
NoWhen you buy a Nike shoe you are getting a shoe that is made in a nike factory.
Sure. This is different then Branding.
When you buy a 3PP you are buying something that is made by that third party person.
True.
You trust a brand because you know you get consistent product. The GSL and the D&D branding offer no such guarantee. Gamers are not stupid, they know this and evaluate the publisher, not the stupid D&D logo on the back.
Sure.
McDonalds is a franchise.
The idea of the brand is that you have a consitancy throughout the various places the brand is used. A big Mac always means the same thing.
The quality of said product sometimes varies.
A feat always remains the same thing. The quality of the feats sometimes varies. (Even in WoTC products.)
I never said gamers were stupid. Again, please stop trying to put words in my mouth. (or keyboard as the case may be.)
Again... was never a problem with third party products under 3.5. Bad publishers produce junk, good publishers product good stuff. People know this and will respond accordingly. If anything the people who have the most to gain from the GSL are the bad publishers, game designers like Paizo, Necromancer, and Kenzer have a reputation in the community and they can trade on that name. "joe game designer" with no reputation will seek out the GSL licensing because he has nothing to lose.
You seem to be responding to my comments as if I'm trying to produce support for the GSL. I'm not. I couldn't really care any less if you, or anyone uses the GSL. My only concern as a gamer is whether or not I can buy quality game material for my games, be it under the GSL or under some other thing.
My comments weren't about trying to gain support for it. They've been in responce to people attributing weird motives to the document, as opposed to just business reasons.
It sounds like you really don't like the GSL, and don't feel it offers you any benefits. Right on. Don't use it- go another route!
If you want to see what some of the best products out there really are, you might want to look at the ENnies awards.
For the rest of your posts, you're not a Lawyer. The guy in charge of Kenzer is. I think he's thought carefully about this whole thing.
How well does Aces & Eights sell? Poorly. Who has even heard of Aces & Eights? No one.
True 20 and M&M are both d20 based.
Are Runequest and Traveller their own systems? I'm pretty sure those are pretty old; do they own the IP now, or are they simply liscensing it from the owners? Have they made new editions for it, or are they just reprinting old rules?
And in any event, how many people play any of these systems? Very, VERY few. Negligable numbers, really.
So obviously their ability to come up with their own systems is pretty poor, wouldn't you say?
I doubt that you have any real idea of how many people play this game or that game. There aren't even reliable, independent sales figures for the RPG industry, let alone any kind of research into how many people play what games.
What KoK is doing is most likely ILLEGAL, as it is, in part or in whole, a derivative work, as well as its cover arguably diluting the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
Unless you've read the Kingdoms of Kalamar book, and have a solid grounding in IP legal history, you're almost certainly not qualified to make that claim.
Everyone who says that the GSL doesn't give you any rights you lack otherwise is what is known as a "liar" or what is known as "horribly misinformed."
The GSL gives you the ability to make certain derivative 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons products, as well as limited rights to do some other things with WotC IP.
The GSL gives very limited rights, and also removes rights that exist under normal IP law. Many people (myself included) feel that the rights you gain under the GSL are worth less than the rights you lose.
This is simply untrue and is made up by people who want to feel better about pirating things.
And about a zillion economists, most mainline economic books, and a host of other sources. But, you say its not true and therefor they must all be wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Phew. You might want to share your sage wisdom with CNN.
The reality is that there are indeed people who purchase things which they could pirate or have pirated.
And they make up the vast minority of the people who would have actually bought the books in the first place so their piracy does nothing to the bottom line of the company in question.
The reality is that these people are not the only people who pirate.
No, most rpg pirates are also rpg players who purchase rpg books.
The reality is that many people who DO pirate do so in order to avoid paying for the product in question. This is particularly true in the case of D&D products; I know lots of people who refuse to buy the ToB, even though it was the best 3.x product, because they torrented a PDF version. Well, knew, back when I ran the gaming club at university. Some of those people WOULD have bought some of the books they pirated.
First off, you know a bunch of scumbags. I'd say they probably would not have bought the ToB anyway so that's no real money lost. And ToB wasn't the end all get out of 3.x books.
Would when? Eventually? Never? Borrow it from a buddy when the new game smell worn off most likly. In the old days we 'shared' books. My group has a gaming shelf with 100+ 3x books on it and about 40 3pp books. We all don't buy even 'awesome' books like ToB because we have a shelf copy and there is no point. Or buy it form a half price book store, which wizards still doesn't get any money from. That's where 90% of our duplicate copies of any book came from.
Are we going to protest 1/2 price book stores next? They give Wizards just as much money as a torrent.
Piracy is bad for many businesses. The less your physical product is superior to what you can pirate, the less likely people are to actually bother to buy it. I would argue that the RIAA really is the group that gets screwed the most by piracy, because there really isn't a difference between a song you downloaded and a song you got via CD; indeed, sadly, sometimes the physical version is worse due to the various copy protection garbage they put on it, which does nothing to prevent piracy but everything to prevent people from purchasing your CD.
But the stigma attached to an all pdf roleplayer is still pretty substantial. I won't let one at my table, your position obvoiusly differs, and you are the only DM I"m aware of who appearntly lets all PDF players at his. Our comic book shop is very pro book, and I'd be curious as to see what an cyber-warrior would manage there.
I'm sure you could find groups that only play with pirated books, but they are always in the minority. Course, i remember when 2nd edition came out and our local gaming shop only got in about 10 books for 50 orders. Most everyone photocopied about everything so they could play. And then bought the books when they came in. Course, that was back in the old TSR days and we loved the hobby.
That said, the GSL is going to reduce the number of 3pp books and odds are unless the next few 4th edition books totally rock we are headed back down to 3rd in a month or so. When comparing the last generation of 3x books form Wizards to 3pp, I'd say that 3pp did very well. Better in a number of highly useful cases.
What KoK is doing is most likely ILLEGAL, as it is, in part or in whole, a derivative work, as well as its cover arguably diluting the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
What, exactly, do you think is diluting on the cover? What dilution claim do you think WotC would have?
And are these things worth working within the GSL? That's what I'm wondering.
Absolutely. Especially if your goal is to be noticed and hired by WotC. But even otherwise, being able to make some derivative properties is pretty nice, especially given I didn't have to pay WotC a cent in order to do so.
And you feel it's impossible to produce a product that works with 4E that doesn't impede on their patent?
4e isn't patented, it is copyrighted. And no, I don't feel it is impossible, but I feel that it is more work than it is likely worth.
The key word is "derivative," as in a derivative work.
That was indeed my point.
EDIT: I've looked at the preview PDF and don't see anything that is immediately troubling to me.
The sections I'd expect issues with (magic items, creatures, new paragon paths and epic destinies, ect.) aren't in the preview, by and large.
Basically, writing a campaign setting in and of itself is pretty much entirely unprosecutable and entirely legal; its just like literature.
The more you use the 4e rules, the more likely you are to create something which is derivative of their rules set.
The other potential issue is the note on the cover regarding Dungeons & Dragons potentially causing confusion on the part of the customer as to whether the product is a Dungeons & Dragons product, or whether it dilutes the trademark even though it doesn't create confusion.
TD. You fall into a number of fallacies, such as the classic 'Most Sold = Best Product' idea. Which is false. WoTC have a number of advantages with their product, such as the massive brand recognition and Hasbro's and MTG's money behind them, allowing them to produce products on masse. If other companies had the money to throw at production, perhaps they would be selling just as many products as WoTC.
The problem is that "Most sold = best product" isn't a fallacy. Many people misunderstand what is being said when I say this, but more to the point, many people don't understand that, by and large, it is also true that these products are "better" in some way than their competitors.
In short, the best product is the product which makes the most money for its parent company, plain and simple. That's what the "best product" from the point of view of the company is. The best product from the point of view of the customer is the product which best fulfills their needs. Most often, the best product for the company is the best product for the consumer as well - essentially, the company supplies some high demand product at the price which maximizes their profit, and people generally see that as a reasonable price and purchase it. This is not always true - luxury goods are a good example, as while many people would enjoy the luxury goods, the people who manufacture them can charge very large amounts of money for them and make more money off of the rich people who can afford them even at the higher price and will still purchase them at the higher price.
Dungeons & Dragons does a better job of fulfilling consumer needs than other RPG companies; this is why Dungeons & Dragons outsells every other RPG by a wide margin. People will talk about marketing and extant market share and brand power but, in reality, in the end the product is better. You can tell this because many people have tried other RPGs and yet still play D&D, and moreover, virtually all of the people who play RPGs either have played D&D or are currently playing D&D. The only company whose players aren't almost all D&D players is White Wolf, because they've managed to appeal to a demographic that WotC does not appeal to quite as well. This is why these are the two important companies, and why the 3PPs are largely meaningless. The 3PPs do not produce high quality products; if they did, they'd be able to rise up. D&D, Exalted, Star Wars, and World of Darkness have all risen up to be major players, yet no one else in the RPG industry has done so, despite their presence for 20-30 years.
In short, the idea that the 3PPs produce better products but fail to market them as well is indeed wrong, because they don't. People don't WANT their products, by and large, and indeed, most people see 3PP productions as garbage or don't even know they exist. They do not fulfill their consumer's needs as well as Wizards of the Coast does, nor even as well as White Wolf does, so they don't sell very many copies at all.
Lots of people just don't want to believe that their pet company or they themselves are not doing as well as WotC for reasons other than "WotC is already big." The reality is that failure is your own fault, and no one else's.
Many people will say stuff like "But McDonald's doesn't make the best fast food hamburger!" Now, let's assume for a moment that taste tests said that McDonald's hamburgers don't taste better than their competitors, but that McDonald's still outsold their competitor's hamburgers. Why would this be? The reason is that there is more to a product than just the product itself. For instance, the McDonald's name makes children believe food tastes better, so the trademark itself has some impact on the value of the product. Additionally, other factors may come into play - McDonald's food may be cheaper, for instance, or faster, or of more consistant quality, all of which may help it be a "better product" than its competitor's. It may be more accessible - maybe their outlets are more numerous or better situated for the needs of their customers. All of this factors into what makes for the "best product".
If you want to see what some of the best products out there really are, you might want to look at the ENnies awards.
Worthless. Awards are almost invariably garbage, and often are little more than popularity contests among the voters. What is truly the best product comes out in sales and genuine word of mouth.
Getting an award from these people is like getting a gold star, and if an award isn't well known, even among gamers, then it is probably not particularly meaningful.
For the rest of your posts, you're not a Lawyer. The guy in charge of Kenzer is. I think he's thought carefully about this whole thing.
Irrelevant. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand law, and lawyers are very often wrong. One might say even half the time ;) Though that is not really the case, as oftentimes the lawyer will simply be optimizing their odds of success, rather than believing that what they're doing is correct or will pan out - its just the best course of action. On the other hand, lawyers are often wrong about legal interpretations, and lead their client into trouble, or simply are completely amoral and hold whatever opinion they're paid to.
Lawyers are generally more knowledgable about the law than the layperson, but this is not always the case, and in any event, lawyers can be wrong, especially when it benefits them to be wrong. I would not expect any lawyer to say they're wrong even if they know they are unless it is over.
I doubt that you have any real idea of how many people play this game or that game. There aren't even reliable, independent sales figures for the RPG industry, let alone any kind of research into how many people play what games.
There actually are such numbers.
Wizards of the Coast has them. They have relased some of the old ones, such as the ones from when they were researching 3rd edition. They did another one recently, but haven't released its numbers, most likely to deny their competitors access to them.
We do know some things about sales though - we can look at Amazon, we can listen to some gaming magazines (which indicate that no one other than WotC and White Wolf has appreciable market share, according to their surveys), we can look at making bestsellers lists, ect.
We know more than you think, and it doesn't take much effort to find it. Google is your friend.
And they make up the vast minority of the people who would have actually bought the books in the first place so their piracy does nothing to the bottom line of the company in question.
Incorrect. They make up a minority, this is true, but they DO impact the bottom line of the company.
But the stigma attached to an all pdf roleplayer is still pretty substantial. I won't let one at my table, your position obvoiusly differs, and you are the only DM I"m aware of who appearntly lets all PDF players at his. Our comic book shop is very pro book, and I'd be curious as to see what an cyber-warrior would manage there.
When you play with people online, it is impossible to tell whether or not they own a single book. And I have never met a DM who wouldn't let someone play because they used PDFs. Ever. You would be the first.
What, exactly, do you think is diluting on the cover? What dilution claim do you think WotC would have?
I think it could be argued that the statement on the cover is misleading and implies it is a Dungeons & Dragons product. For instance, several D&D books I own state that they are for use with Xth edition Dungeons & Dragons. That's very similar to the statement on the front cover of his book. If I was some random person who bought D&D books, and I saw that book for sale on the shelf next to other D&D products, would I be able to distinguish between it and similar products, produced by Wizards of the Coast?
The other issue is that it is possible people will associate it with Dungeons & Dragons even though it isn't a Dungeons & Dragons product; even without confusion, it is possible that it would be diluting WotC's trademark.
This just shows your ignorance. There actually are such numbers.
Wizards of the Coast has them. They have relased some of the old ones, such as the ones from when they were researching 3rd edition. They did another one recently, but haven't released its numbers, most likely to deny their competitors access to them.
Apparently you don't know what "independent" means. Also, are you implying that you have seen the more recent market research that Wizards has done, but hasn't released to the public?
We do know some things about sales though - we can look at Amazon, we can listen to some gaming magazines (which indicate that no one other than WotC and White Wolf has appreciable market share, according to their surveys), we can look at making bestsellers lists, ect.
We know more than you think, and it doesn't take much effort to find it. Google is your friend.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure that you know less than you think. I worked as a manager in the book business for 8 years, and 'bestseller' lists are crap - they are compiled from a small selection of non-representative retailers, and they are frequently falsified to promote sales of specific titles.
Nothing's stopping you from posting grandiose claims, but if you can't back them up with actual information, you come across as a windbag.
Apparently you don't know what "independent" means. Also, are you implying that you have seen the more recent market research that Wizards has done, but hasn't released to the public?
No, although we do know some of the numbers for it (for instance, more people play D&D today than did when they did their last market study).
Also, to be fair, it isn't WotC which does the studies (or at least, they didn't do the last one); they hire an external firm to do the study for them. This is often the way of things, and it also helps you get better results - the company you hire is less likely to pollute the results with wishful thinking your company may insert subconciously.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure that you know less than you think. I worked as a manager in the book business for 8 years, and 'bestseller' lists are crap - they are compiled from a small selection of non-representative retailers, and they are frequently falsified to promote sales of specific titles.
I am well aware that bestseller's lists are only as valuable as their methodology. Conversely, if multiple bestsellers lists are listing something, it is more likely it is true.
I think it could be argued that the statement on the cover is misleading and implies it is a Dungeons & Dragons product.
The other issue is that it is possible people will associate it with Dungeons & Dragons even though it isn't a Dungeons & Dragons product; even without confusion, it is possible that it would be diluting WotC's trademark.
The problem is you are trying to say D&D players are stupid and don't know to look for the D&D logo, then try to claim the compatibility statement in some way damages the D&D logo?
They are not diluting the trademark as they are not using the trademarked logo on their products.
Words or phrases I don't think can be trademarled, they are copyrighted.
Anyone stupid enough to not know what they are buying like some aunt, uncle parent, grandparent, gets the lashing from the person they are buying it for for not caring enough to get the right thing. Otherwise someone that already knows about D&D will know what to loot for or ask.
Anyone thinking Random Sales Clerk/Stockperson A at Store Z knows about every product is kidding themself.
There is little excuse these days to know be able to tell what things are. If you can't figure out whether something is official D&D or not, then you are either to lazy to take the time to learn a bit about it or should NOT be buying D&D related material.
As to the derivative work argument, the one thing you might be overlooking is that the right to prepare derivative works is part of the bundle of rights of a valid copyright. Since the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, there is no right to prepare derivative works of the rules that can be enforced by WotC.
To the extent that non-rules expression is protected by copyright, I think it is going to be difficult to make a good derivative work argument unless someone does something extremely foolish.
The big question mark here is where rules end and creative expression begins. You could make a good argument, for example, that monster stat blocks are rules - they are rules for use in adjudicating combat with that creature. On the other hand, the monster templates (i.e. the presentation of the monster) seems to me to be subject to copyright.
In any event, the issue isn't nearly as cut and dry as you imply, and I think one could very well make a campaign setting that is compatible with 4E without running afoul of IP laws. The easiest way to get around the monster problem, for example, would be to simply refer to them by name and cite the MM. The name alone isn't likely to be copyright protected. Or else make a monster of the same name like "goblin" but provide your own stats for them.
It's by no means necessarily true that Kalamar infringes IP rights.
I think it could be argued that the statement on the cover is misleading and implies it is a Dungeons & Dragons product. For instance, several D&D books I own state that they are for use with Xth edition Dungeons & Dragons. That's very similar to the statement on the front cover of his book. If I was some random person who bought D&D books, and I saw that book for sale on the shelf next to other D&D products, would I be able to distinguish between it and similar products, produced by Wizards of the Coast?
The other issue is that it is possible people will associate it with Dungeons & Dragons even though it isn't a Dungeons & Dragons product; even without confusion, it is possible that it would be diluting WotC's trademark.
Oh, I don't know about the misleading statement. Even if that were true it could be fixed with the addition of a single sentence.
But to get to the analysis of dilution let's look at the elements of dilution. As a threshold question, WotC would have to prove they have a "famous" mark, because dilution only protects famous marks. That's actually harder to do since the law changed in 2006, because now being famous in a niche market doesn't count anymore.
Assuming they show the mark is famous, you've get either blurring or tarnishment. Those are the two forms of dilution you have to work with. Tarnishment doesn't seem to apply, so we have blurring.
Typically blurring occurs when you use an identical or very similar mark on unrelated products - products that the famous trademark own doesn't produce, so the likelihood of confusion argument is difficult to make because of disparate goods. Say I started a car company called Coca-Cola cars. Coca-cola is a famous mark. They don't make cars, but they'd have a good blurring argument against me.
In this case, the D&D mark itself isn't being us (the logo I mean). The words D&D are accompanied by specific text indicating the mark belongs to WotC or Hasbro. I'm not sure how you get to blurring. In fact, even though blurring doesn't require likelihood of confusion many courts have thrown out claims for blurring without it. This isn't the type of blurring that applies to disparate products - it's the same type of product WotC makes, and I think it is pretty clear that Kalamar isn't part of that. So I don't know if you have a blurring argument OR a regular trademark likelihood of confusion argument.
My point is, again, that this is no where near an open and shut case. The tone and wording of your posts seem to indicate that there's no question about Kalamar being infringement. I guarantee you that's not nearly the case.
TD:
As to the derivative work argument, the one thing you might be overlooking is that the right to prepare derivative works is part of the bundle of rights of a valid copyright. Since the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, there is no right to prepare derivative works of the rules that can be enforced by WotC.
Interesting. As I was catching up on this thread and saw that comment, this was exactly the thought that popped into my mind.
I might vaguely understand this IP stuff yet! :P
The problem is you are trying to say D&D players are stupid and don't know to look for the D&D logo, then try to claim the compatibility statement in some way damages the D&D logo?
Absolutely.
And more to the point, it is a campaign setting, and campaign settings such as Eberron have Eberron written in big letters on the cover in the place of the usual logo. Additionally it is a new edition, so there is more ability to accept different covers for D&D products.
They are not diluting the trademark as they are not using the trademarked logo on their products.
Words or phrases I don't think can be trademarled, they are copyrighted.
This is incorrect. Words and phrases can indeed be trademarked, and the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is trademarked. Even words can be trademarked; a good example is "Windows". Coca Cola is trademarked, as is Harry Potter.
Anyone stupid enough to not know what they are buying like some aunt, uncle parent, grandparent, gets the lashing from the person they are buying it for for not caring enough to get the right thing. Otherwise someone that already knows about D&D will know what to loot for or ask.
Irrelevant. They are purchasing the product, and therefore are consumers of it. If they are being misled by the product, and they are purchasing it, they are therefore customers who are being decieved by the cover.
As to the derivative work argument, the one thing you might be overlooking is that the right to prepare derivative works is part of the bundle of rights of a valid copyright. Since the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, there is no right to prepare derivative works of the rules that can be enforced by WotC.
I'm well aware of the fact that rules are impossible to copyright. However, your particular representation of the rules of a game can indeed be copyrighted, as you well know. If something is too close to this, you can be considered a derivative work, which makes it somewhat difficult to imitate an extant game too closely. As you point out, it is difficult to really draw the line here, and I'm not sure that it ever has been clearly drawn, or ever will be.
The big question mark here is where rules end and creative expression begins. You could make a good argument, for example, that monster stat blocks are rules - they are rules for use in adjudicating combat with that creature. On the other hand, the monster templates (i.e. the presentation of the monster) seems to me to be subject to copyright.
This is true. He doesn't seem to be exactly copying the template for the monsters, though it certainly is reminiscient of the one WotC uses.
In any event, the issue isn't nearly as cut and dry as you imply, and I think one could very well make a campaign setting that is compatible with 4E without running afoul of IP laws. The easiest way to get around the monster problem, for example, would be to simply refer to them by name and cite the MM. The name alone isn't likely to be copyright protected.
This would indeed be entirely legal and completely impossible for WotC to do anything about, as it is entirely legal to cite another source or point to it. If this was all they did, they'd be completely impossible to prosecute, at least for copyright infringement.
It's by no means necessarily true that Kalamar infringes IP rights.
I agree that I made far too strong a statement by saying that they are, definitively. I apologize for that.
I believe that they are doing so, but it is not like someone pirating copies of the PHB - its much more ambigious.
But to get to the analysis of dilution let's look at the elements of dilution. As a threshold question, WotC would have to prove they have a "famous" mark, because dilution only protects famous marks. That's actually harder to do since the law changed in 2006, because now being famous in a niche market doesn't count anymore.
This is true, but really unimportant. While this could potentially cause issues for White Wolf, Dungeons & Dragons is famous even outside of the niche market - the moral panic of the 1980s helped ensure that, and it is still often referenced in popular culture. It is not difficult to find examples of comedians and television shows referincing D&D; as such, it'd be pretty easy for them to demonstrate that Dungeons & Dragons is a famous mark.
Assuming they show the mark is famous, you've get either blurring or tarnishment. Those are the two forms of dilution you have to work with. Tarnishment doesn't seem to apply, so we have blurring.
I agree (unless the KoK book is of very low quality indeed).
My point is, again, that this is no where near an open and shut case. The tone and wording of your posts seem to indicate that there's no question about Kalamar being infringement. I guarantee you that's not nearly the case.
I again apologize for the certainty in my statements. I am not CERTAIN that it is. However, I feel that it is potentially so, and I'd wager that if WotC DID make a case out of it, the judge wouldn't throw it out for lack of merit. WotC may not WIN (after all, I'm not a seer) but I think it's possible, and I feel that the statement really could confuse customers as to whether or not it is a Dungeons & Dragons product.
This is incorrect. Words and phrases can indeed be trademarked, and the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is trademarked. Even words can be trademarked; a good example is "Windows". Coca Cola is trademarked, as is Harry Potter.
And still, I can label my software "For use with Windows" right on the front of the box without any license or whatever. And nobody's going to think my software might be an official Microsoft Windows product, thus "diluting" their trademark...
Ah, but sitting at the computer complaining is much too easy isn't it?
Don't kid yourself that this thread is anything but an attempt to legally steal the work of fellow gamers like Mearls, Wyatt, Heinsoo and Collins. It doesn't matter if they work for WotC or they are independent - get your own bloody ideas eh?
Joe
And still, I can label my software "For use with Windows" right on the front of the box without any license or whatever. And nobody's going to think my software might be an official Microsoft Windows product, thus "diluting" their trademark...
The issue is that the two products differ in nature. D&D is more like a program than an OS.
You know what? If people put half the effort into actually creating their own ruleset, rather than trying to work out ways to rip off fellow gamers without breaking the law, there might actually be some viable alternatives to D&D. Heck, maybe even a tabletop RPG industry where people get paid more than a pittance for their work.
First of all, people are making new core rules. But what seems completely backwards to me is this... A new core rules set is far more likely to take ideas from D&D and other prior RPG systems than, say, an original adventure or an original setting is going to. i.e. An alternate system like Palladium or Lord of the Ring take a lot more from the D&D core rules ideas than a setting like Kalamar does.
I don't believe in the slightest that if people stopped making adventures and settings, that suddenly we'd have much better rules systems. It doesn't work that way.
You know what? If people put half the effort into actually creating their own ruleset, rather than trying to work out ways to rip off fellow gamers without breaking the law, there might actually be some viable alternatives to D&D. Heck, maybe even a tabletop RPG industry where people get paid more than a pittance for their work.
Again, you ignore the research done by WOTC in the late 1990s (that led to the creation of the OGL), which showed that *too* *many* systems was what was hurting the market, leading to the exact problems you note. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
Don't kid yourself that this thread is anything but an attempt to legally steal the work of fellow gamers like Mearls, Wyatt, Heinsoo and Collins. It doesn't matter if they work for WotC or they are independent - get your own bloody ideas eh?
Yeah, I'd hate to be lumped in the same category as whatever lame-o wrote "Iron Heroes", totally ripping off the work of Monte Cook and and John Tweet. Whatever happened to that loser wannabe "designer" who couldn't come up with his own ideas, anyway?
Absolutely.
And more to the point, it is a campaign setting, and campaign settings such as Eberron have Eberron written in big letters on the cover in the place of the usual logo. Additionally it is a new edition, so there is more ability to accept different covers for D&D products.
This argument is often harder to make with niche products, where you have more "sophisticated" buyers (and I only mean sophisticated in the sense that they know quite a bit about the products in their hobby and are less likely to be confused). I also don't think the cover logo for Kalamar is confusing, but I suppose one could argue the point.
This is incorrect. Words and phrases can indeed be trademarked, and the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is trademarked. Even words can be trademarked; a good example is "Windows". Coca Cola is trademarked, as is Harry Potter.
Yep. Short phrases and words typically don't get much copyright protection, but they can definitely be the subject of trademark protection.
I'm well aware of the fact that rules are impossible to copyright. However, your particular representation of the rules of a game can indeed be copyrighted, as you well know. If something is too close to this, you can be considered a derivative work, which makes it somewhat difficult to imitate an extant game too closely. As you point out, it is difficult to really draw the line here, and I'm not sure that it ever has been clearly drawn, or ever will be.
But the other thing 3PPs have in their favor is this: the policy reasons behind rules not being subject to copyright. It doesn't make much sense to have a legal structure where rules can't be copyrighted, but then still make it practically impossible to use those rules without violating copyright law. That interpretation would vitiate the policy against copyright of rules. So it stands to reason that the mere fact that rules aren't subject to copyright means there is some space available to use any game's ruleset without infringing IP. Just what that space is is going to be the interesting question.
This is true. He doesn't seem to be exactly copying the template for the monsters, though it certainly is reminiscient of the one WotC uses.
There are some similarities, but I don't know how actionable it would be. Colors are gone, the alternating lines of background are gone. There are limited ways to reasonably present things like stats, and WotC isn't going to be able to tie up all of them. This is another area where it would be interesting to see how a court case came out to find out where the line is.
This is true, but really unimportant. While this could potentially cause issues for White Wolf, Dungeons & Dragons is famous even outside of the niche market - the moral panic of the 1980s helped ensure that, and it is still often referenced in popular culture. It is not difficult to find examples of comedians and television shows referincing D&D; as such, it'd be pretty easy for them to demonstrate that Dungeons & Dragons is a famous mark.
I agree that Dungeons and Dragons would likely be considered a famous mark. It's a bit harder to prove that your mark is famous since 2006, but I suspect WotC would be able to do it. There are actually a list of factors to consider in making the analysis.
I again apologize for the certainty in my statements. I am not CERTAIN that it is. However, I feel that it is potentially so, and I'd wager that if WotC DID make a case out of it, the judge wouldn't throw it out for lack of merit. WotC may not WIN (after all, I'm not a seer) but I think it's possible, and I feel that the statement really could confuse customers as to whether or not it is a Dungeons & Dragons product.
Yeah, I'm not saying it would get thrown out. Who would win would of course depend on the facts at hand.
I think I'd follow the "Dungeons and Dragons is a registered trademark...." statement with another that says "This product is not endorsed by or in any way affiliated with Hasbro or Wizards of the Cost." Or something like that. I'd probably think about it a bit and tweak the wording. Something right after the first trademark statement that is going to make it very difficult for someone to claim they were confused.
The issue is that the two products differ in nature. D&D is more like a program than an OS.
Maybe, but you're only confusing the issue by saying that. People can sell maps and levels for games like Doom, and even say "compatible with Doom", without entering into a licensing agreement with the software publisher. They can also sell car accessories saying "compatible with the Toyota Land Cruiser" without entering into a licensing agreement with Toyota. They can even sell iPod speakers saying "compatible with iPod" without entering into a licensing agreement with Apple.
Do you understand why? It's because this kind of use is well-established in IP law. Furthermore, as long as these accessories require the customer to purchase the original product from Toyota, Apple, or Wizards of the Coast, they actually enhance the value of the original product.
You can claim that these producers of accessories are uncreative "thieves" who should be creating their own line of motor vehicles or mp3 players, but that's nothing more than your own uninformed opinion.
The real issue is that WotC wants 3rd parties to create certain products for D&D, as long as those products enhance the value (and sales) of the D&D books that Wizards publishes. The only way that the GSL enters into this is that it is so restrictive that a number of publishers are saying "no thanks" and avoiding 4e altogether (Paizo, Green Ronin), or saying "no thanks" and publishing under normal copyright law (Adamant, Kenzer).
So let me get this straight. That seems to be saying that I can make a board game that is exactly like Monopoly, down to every rule, and can release it freely without paying Milton Bradley a dime, as long as I don't CALL it Monopoly?
So it can be the exact same game, just called "Seraphim-opoly", and I can sell that? That seems...not true.
Its extremely true, especially since Monopoly existed in the public domain )google "The Landlord Game" for more info) before Parker Brothers ever bought it. It can't LOOK like Monopoly, because the graphics, name etc. are trademarked, but it can play exactly like Monopoly.
Allen
How well does Aces & Eights sell? Poorly. Who has even heard of Aces & Eights? No one.
Actually, Aces & Eights is selling quite well, thank you.
The first printing sold out more quickly than we expected (I believe it even leapt into the top 10 best-selling rpgs when it premiered - according to Comics and Games Retailer figures), and the brand new print run is moving along nicely too. And based on the awards, award nominations, and good reviews, I'd say a few people have heard of it. Certainly it's not selling at the numbers of the 4E D&D core books from the best-known fantasy rpg that's been around for longer than many of its players have been alive... but then that's not really unexpected either.
Honestly, much as people may say "OMG these 3pps are awesome!" the reality is that they aren't. Their products don't capture appreciable market share, and their target demographic is basically "People who play real roleplaying games and want something else as well."
Seriously, people compliment these guys, but its pretty clear it is pretty hollow given how few people actually purchase their products.
Last I heard (February), Wizards holds an impressive 37.20% share of the rpg market (again according to C&GR figures, but it could be as much as 50%), perhaps with a bit more right now with the release of 4E. Even so, us other publishers must be selling to somebody in that leftover 50%. ;)
What KoK is doing is most likely ILLEGAL, as it is, in part or in whole, a derivative work, as well as its cover arguably diluting the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
I'm not going to debate trademark and IP law with you, since I am not an IP lawyer (I only work for one). I will point out that we've been publishing 3.5E-compatible Kingdoms of Kalamar supplements and adventures (not under the OGL or D&D logo) for years now, and even 2E-compatible material before that. It's nothing new, it's only the advent of the GSL that has started the whole debate.
As I've said on other forums, and as David Kenzer put recently, "folks misunderstand this move. This is not a heroic gesture or a jab at WoTC. We're just some guys with some kewl IP sittin around that would be better served making revenue. If anything, having a top-notch campaign setting converted to DD4 can only help Wizards sell more DD4 books.
If they feel somehow slighted because we didn't follow a license that we've never needed before, well I can't help how they feel. but somehow I doubt they feel slighted. They're pros after all."
----------
Mark Plemmons
Art Director, Editor, Writer
Kenzer and Company
----------
RPG products which are NOT D&D related do not sell well with a very few exceptions on the East Coast. They tend to be overpriced compared to other products. There is a small specialty market that will buy products such as Basic Roleplaying (Chaosium), Traveller (Mongoose), Aces & Eights (Kenzer), Battlestar Galactica (Margaret Weiss), etcetera.
The exceptions are White Wolf, Rifts, Serenity, and WH40K Dark Heresy. Three of these (WW, Rifts, and WH40K) are because they are built on the backs of long-term established publishers with strong fan bases. Serenity was good, because people liked the license.
Licensed 3rd party products sell better, to those who have interest in the license (by this sort of license I am referring to licensing a concept from the mass media, such as Serenity, Buffy, Conan, etcetera, NOT the GSL).
As far as D&D products are concerned:
80-90% of OGL-produced 3.5 products sucked BADLY. Mongoose Publishing flooded the market with crap, and crap was produced by a LOT of people that pretty thoroughly stank on ice. A whole lot of publishers got on the bandwagon without a whole lot of thought and lost a whole lot of money that way, producing product that was subpar, or broken, or useless. This left a bad taste in most peoples' mouths.
At the beginning, a lot of it did sell because of the novelty. But people who ran, say, any of the established campaign worlds from WOTC didn't buy them and the eventual degree of schlock became so large that you couldn't really tell the wheat from the chaff.
Some were excellent. Green Ronin, Goodman Games, Monte Cook, Spycraft, and a bunch of others sold really well because they were new and novel applications of the rules in some cases and in other cases (Goodman Games) were just solid modules.
Having the GSL behind you is a good idea, in my opinion. It doesn't GUARANTEE quality control, but in my opinion it will certainly enhance it. The idea that Wizards doesn't have any right to protect their IP, that their game system should somehow be free to use, is a pretty silly argument, because after all, it's them who put it together. Why shouldn't they have control over it?
Right. Instead it is illegally using WotC's IP for 4th edition.
The word you're looking for is unlawful, copyright breaches are a civil, not a criminal matter. Now, there are some cases which cross the line (e.g. the deliberate counterfeiting of a product to make the consumer think it's a legitimate product, such as dvd copies put out with photocopied sleeves) but this obviously doesn't apply here.
Whether it is deemed to be unlawful would take a judge to decide. Current precedent would indicate not, but there's never been a specific case on the matter of roleplaying game derivation to determine, as one could argue, that the game's expression of the rules is distinct from the rules themselves and thus worthy of protection.
So you're suprised when a 3PP company violates someone else's IP, stealing it and attempting to make money off of it, people should support them?
I'm fairly sure the guys at Kenzer were either given advance copies of the rules, as some publishers were, or they plunked down their dollars like everyone else.
You seem to like throwing emotionally charged phrases around without any substance behind them, no one's 'stolen' anything here (given your lecturing on others for their misunderstanding of trademark and Intellectual property law you should probably try to understand what legally constitutes 'stealing' before accusing anyone of it.
Wrong. It was published for d20. Saying anything else is pure and willful denial.
Actually, Kingdoms of Kalamar predated d20. It was updated for d20, so, you know, no 'pure and wilful denial' going on other than with yourself.
How well does Aces & Eights sell? Poorly. Who has even heard of Aces & Eights? No one.
Well, it did just win an Origins award, so everyone who read that announcement certainly has.
By the way, you do know you're using a lot of logical and rhetorical fallacies in your posts, right? You should probably try and argue the substance of your point and not resort to cheap rhetorical tricks that are easy to see through. Just a tip.
Are Runequest and Traveller their own systems? I'm pretty sure those are pretty old; do they own the IP now, or are they simply liscensing it from the owners? Have they made new editions for it, or are they just reprinting old rules?
They're new editions and not just reprints of old rules. And, for that matter, even if they were, is being old a bad thing in your universe? What colour's the sky over there?
And in any event, how many people play any of these systems? Very, VERY few. Negligable numbers, really.
Please define what 'negligible numbers' are to you.
Note, I have an excellent idea of what constitutes good sales for any company other than WotC, and a reasonable idea of what would be good/average/poor for them from those figures. Roleplaying game sales are probably less than most people think, but not 'negligible' for those who get into the 2nd or 3rd tier of the market.
Specific compability is KoK. It is derivative; they're using the 4e rules to build their world. They're making it FOR 4th edition.
And once again, if you're going to try and lecture people on a subject, do try and understand it first. KoK existed before 4e, ergo they're not using it to 'build' their world. They rebranded it to be compatible with 4e. It's a big, big difference. Now, whether a judge would find that derivative (highly unlikely in my opinion but stranger things have happened in court) is another matter. But you're not a judge, and your legal opinion has been shown to be distinctly lacking, as is your grasp of the full facts of what you're discussing.
Honestly, much as people may say "OMG these 3pps are awesome!" the reality is that they aren't. Their products don't capture appreciable market share, and their target demographic is basically "People who play real roleplaying games and want something else as well."
So what is a 'real roleplaying game', is T20? M&M? Runequest? My Life with Master? Og? Pendragon? Call of Cthulhu? Senzar? The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen?
Is an rpg only a 'real' rpg when it has an appreciable market share as defined by you?
What colour's the sky over there again?
Please look up ad hominem attacks, straw men, sweeping generalisations. Ohh and reading comprehension while you're at it.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and then use those poorly realised arguments to come to a conclusion. That doesn't make it a fact, other than in your own mind and doesn't actually advance the substance of your argument at all other than to head towards flaming territory. Ohh, and if you'd actually named anyone in that rant, you'd be the one who'd be legally liable for, at the least, libel.The OGL didn't end up bringing in more players as far as can be told.
I'd love to see your evidence for this. But let's use a different argument and see what you come up with.
The OGL expanded the market and increased sales throughout all three tiers as more people spent more money on more products. Allowing for market downturn due to the economy and blips over the eight years.
Edit, can't believe I missed thisall of them
You realise you just stated that no publisher in the industry can create their own system. You sure you want to make that point there, because just about everyone who can read can refute it.
From a single retailer's perspective:
RPG products which are NOT D&D related do not sell well with a very few exceptions on the East Coast.
Pathfinder products are doing well enough here, at least since 4E launched, to justify giving it dedicated shelf space, which it didn't have before.
Also, added to the list of 3PPs who put out quality products, I'd include Privateer Press, though they are doing primarily (if not exclusively) miniatures products at this point (i.e. warmachine and hordes).
From a single retailer's perspective:
RPG products which are NOT D&D related do not sell well with a very few exceptions on the East Coast. They tend to be overpriced compared to other products. There is a small specialty market that will buy products such as Basic Roleplaying (Chaosium), Traveller (Mongoose), Aces & Eights (Kenzer), Battlestar Galactica (Margaret Weiss), etcetera.
While I don't disagree given market shares, 'sell well' is a soft concept. What percentage of your annual turnover comes from non-WotC companies, or even non-WotC, non OGL/D20 companies?
While no one would disagree that non-D&D books sell less than D&D products (though with spikes that saw X company/book outsell any individual 3.5 book in a particular month) that doesn't mean that it's negligible.
Taken as an overall market, if D&D accounts for between 37 and 50 percent (numbers are hard to ascertain at the moment given the slowdown on 3.5 sales and the recent release of 4e) that means the rest of the industry, as a whole, has an equal share.
The difference for a distributor and retailer is that 100 individual title D&D books might be equivalent to 1000 individual title non-D&D books.
Moreover, different stores see highly different market shares for different companies. The one truism for roleplaying stores is that they need to know their local market. I know of stores where D&D sells poorly, for example, wheras for 99.9% of retailers out there, that's definitely not the case.
I know of stores where D&D sells poorly, for example, wheras for 99.9% of retailers out there, that's definitely not the case.
Yeah, it's odd but true. I used to go to a store to get D&D products, but they always had a very small supply of them (as opposed to White Wolf, of which they had a lot). When the supply shrank even more I asked the owner about it and he just said the D&D stuff wasn't selling, but the White Wolf stuff was selling a lot. Surprised the hell out of me, but I guess that happens in some places.
I can think of video games which do at-will/daily and at-will/encounter, but I can't think of any which use the full 4e system. Can you name one?
I don't have to. The mechanic itself originated with DnD. In fact, you can find it by looking in the 3.5 MM. All they did was combine the monster powers of the 3.5 MM with the way magic works in Shadowrun and removed the little issue of the caster possibly causing themselves to pass out or have to worry about background count.
Having the GSL behind you is a good idea, in my opinion. It doesn't GUARANTEE quality control, but in my opinion it will certainly enhance it. The idea that Wizards doesn't have any right to protect their IP, that their game system should somehow be free to use, is a pretty silly argument, because after all, it's them who put it together. Why shouldn't they have control over it?
No one is saying WotC doesn't have the right to protect their IP. At least no one worth listening to at any rate. However the laws for Ip as they stand now allow a certain amount of lee-way and rights to publishers who want to use certain aspects of another IP. In this case what the law allows is more then what the GSL allows, so it doesn't make much sense for a publisher to sign the GSL. Not that WotC doesn't have a right to offer the GSL, but companies also have the right to refuse to sign it, and just publish using existing IP law.
Again, you ignore the research done by WOTC in the late 1990s (that led to the creation of the OGL), which showed that *too* *many* systems was what was hurting the market, leading to the exact problems you note. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
I didn't say I wanted a plethora of game systems, I just said I wanted a viable alternative. Some cajones you must be packing to quote the company you are stealing from as a means to justify your actions.
WotC really don't ask for much in return for third parties taking advantage of a wildly popular game they spend millions of dollars developing. I'm sick to death of people acting as if they have a God-given right to exploit D&D.
Yeah, I'd hate to be lumped in the same category as whatever lame-o wrote "Iron Heroes", totally ripping off the work of Monte Cook and and John Tweet. Whatever happened to that loser wannabe "designer" who couldn't come up with his own ideas, anyway?
Oh, ok now I realise where you're going with this. It's ok to steal as much of someone else's work as you can legally get away with, and you are righteous for doing so because you think one of the people you are stealing from may have done the same in the past.
Yup, there's a lesson to teach the children.
Joe
I would personally disagree rather vehemently with this statement.
I can't comment on the legality of it, though.
Edit: If this comes to litigation and anybody but WotC wins, intellectual property laws are going to get weird and/or go away overnight. Not sure how I feel about that.
The problem with the copyrights when it comes to gaming rules is that there are a ton of terms that are defined as they are in the dictionary - and in earlier works - so that there's really no way for WotC (or anyone else) to "own" IP on them. Who can really claim that they "own" the idea for "Dexterity" being a measure of a character's agility, hand-eye coordination, and general ability to react to dangers around him/her? (Note: I didn't use the PHB or SRD verbatim definition - ON PURPOSE - because the way I said it basically entails everything those definitions do).
And adding a "numerical scale" and a "mechanical aspect" to the definition for "conflict/contest resolution" between like aspects of characters in the system's mechanics is hardly new, novel, or grounds for a copyright infringement - unless they're using the text verbatim from the WotC material. Otherwise the basic ideas (which have been duplicated in tons of other gaming systems - both before and since the OGL and 3rd edition) have been around for a very long time - guess what, they weren't new when Gygax and company started to create their first rules set either! They adapted and expanded what others had done with other ideas... That is how ideas get spread and how creativity grows and flourishes. Restrict that over petty "it's my toy and you can't use it" toddler mentality and you'll wind up paying a tax to use our own frakkin' language(s) - because somewhere, somehow, there's a copyright on the dictionary and the words of the language - and by using them for gain or pleasure without permission is illegal...
I know, that's WAAAY overblown, but it's supposed to be. Sarcasm, ever hear of it? (and let me guess... the answer is "No!" (sarcastically, of course)). ;)
Oh, ok now I realise where you're going with this. It's ok to steal as much of someone else's work as you can legally get away with, and you are righteous for doing so because you think one of the people you are stealing from may have done the same in the past.
I hope you are not making some kind of moral issue about IP and copyright. Since they are their solely to help motivate people to make things for the public to use. There is no moral demand for someone's IP to be protected, but there certainly is a pragmatic reason to do so.
Yeah, I'd hate to be lumped in the same category as whatever lame-o wrote "Iron Heroes", totally ripping off the work of Monte Cook and and John Tweet. Whatever happened to that loser wannabe "designer" who couldn't come up with his own ideas, anyway?
I don't know, what?
If they feel somehow slighted because we didn't follow a license that we've never needed before, well I can't help how they feel. but somehow I doubt they feel slighted. They're pros after all."
----------
Mark Plemmons
Art Director, Editor, Writer
Kenzer and Company
----------
Well some of those pros seem to have very thin skin.
Art director eh..... So you make sure better images appear in products than thing that we saw in....well...you make sure the art is good right?
Oh, ok now I realise where you're going with this. It's ok to steal as much of someone else's work as you can legally get away with, and you are righteous for doing so because you think one of the people you are stealing from may have done the same in the past.
You are misreading the comment that was made, probably purposefully based on the tone of your posts here. I think the point was that it's odd to criticize 3PP developers as lacking talent or skill, while maintaining that WotC is the repository of quality, when some of the same people are producing WotC works who used to put out 3PP materials.
Again, you ignore the research done by WOTC in the late 1990s (that led to the creation of the OGL), which showed that *too* *many* systems was what was hurting the market, leading to the exact problems you note. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
I think that is a misconstruing of the research.
I think what their conclusion was had something more to do with them - basically, there was a limited market, and marketing a bunch of niche products and too many campaign settings was just competing against themselves. Hence why we saw fewer campaign settings produced for 3.x by WotC.
But the other thing 3PPs have in their favor is this: the policy reasons behind rules not being subject to copyright. It doesn't make much sense to have a legal structure where rules can't be copyrighted, but then still make it practically impossible to use those rules without violating copyright law. That interpretation would vitiate the policy against copyright of rules. So it stands to reason that the mere fact that rules aren't subject to copyright means there is some space available to use any game's ruleset without infringing IP. Just what that space is is going to be the interesting question.
There are some similarities, but I don't know how actionable it would be. Colors are gone, the alternating lines of background are gone. There are limited ways to reasonably present things like stats, and WotC isn't going to be able to tie up all of them. This is another area where it would be interesting to see how a court case came out to find out where the line is.
Indeed to both.
The bigs ones may have shelf space, but the rest jsut take up too much retail space for a single book to sit around for months without selling as that is space another D&D book could have sat and sold several times over.
I hope you are not making some kind of moral issue about IP and copyright. Since they are their solely to help motivate people to make things for the public to use. There is no moral demand for someone's IP to be protected, but there certainly is a pragmatic reason to do so.
Man what?
Copyright, copyright infringement, creator rights etc. are all entirely wrapped up in moral issues. That's why so many aspects of them are seen as shades of grey. For a modern look and an interesting take on it, see Pogue's post on the generational divide on copyright morality. Try taking a look at the meaning of morality (and ethics) at the same time.
I don't know, what?
He went on to design 4th edition D&D. He was making a sarcastic point.
WotC really don't ask for much in return for third parties taking advantage of a wildly popular game they spend millions of dollars developing.
That's a matter of opinion. Some publishers, like Chris Pramas, disagree with you.
Oh, ok now I realise where you're going with this. It's ok to steal as much of someone else's work as you can legally get away with
It's not "stealing", and yes, it's OK to use as much of it as you are legally allowed to use. That's the point of IP law.
He went on to design 4th edition D&D. He was making a sarcastic point.
Ah, I only know a few names of people that make games. I hardly pay attention to any of them because so few have a singular author you never know what comes from who to care about any one name amongst the crowd....
That's a matter of opinion. Some publishers, like Chris Pramas, disagree with you.
Naturally. Chris Pramas wants to use all of WotC's R&D for free. This is unsurprising.
This is the entire reason for IP - the point of IP is to prevent people like Pramas using other people's hard work and R&D dollars and putting it to use themselves. In short, the purpose of IP is to protect R&D; without IP, R&D becomes MUCH less valuable because anyone can just steal it, so you basically threw money at something only for your competitors to be able to use it as well.
Naturally. Chris Pramas wants to use all of WotC's R&D for free. This is unsurprising.
This is the entire reason for IP - the point of IP is to prevent people like Pramas using other people's hard work and R&D dollars and putting it to use themselves. In short, the purpose of IP is to protect R&D; without IP, R&D becomes MUCH less valuable because anyone can just steal it, so you basically threw money at something only for your competitors to be able to use it as well.
So you know him and have spoken to him on this?
Green Ronin has decided not to publish 4e products at all, other than a character sheet which, obviousl, anyone can do.
Your posts (and I notice you're ignoring the ones that shred your earlier statements) are becoming more and more insulting and lacking in any logic or reasoning.
You're wrong on the 'point of IP'. Intellectual Property is a concept that exists, it doesn't have a point behind it. It's like saying 'the point of economics'. Intellectual property law exists to protect a company's intellectual property and, also, to determine what rights other parties have to use those rights.
I strongly suggest you actually read up on Copyright, trademark and IP law before you continue making your incorrect (and now bordering on defaming) statements.
It's also evident you really have no actual grasp on the industry, how it works and the people who work in it. Chris Pramas is a former WotC staffer who runs (with his wife) one of the first companies to take up the OGL. They (Green Ronin) entirely bought into the OGL and helped to push it forwards. That they've chosen not to produce products for 4th edition gives you absolutely no right to insult him or his company.
Dragon Magazine Archive
Magic The Gathering Artist fiasco
Something called Primal Order....
Don't act like WotC is a saint or innocent victim.
Don't also forget the ideas behind the OGL that remain constant with the GSL.
Find that audio file of the meeting WotC people had with publishers and see how disgruntled the publishers were and how WotC didn't want to give much with the new license.
Look where the license is now and how it changed from that file.
There is give and take on both sides. WotC KNOWS it has to give something in order to keep the fanbase, including 3PP and allow and created the OGL and GSL for people TO use their IP. In return WotC keeps support for the game in general and doesn't have to worry about spending money on EVERYTHING the gamers of a niche of a niche game want, but can devote time to the main game and make sure that it remains stable.
So if you don't approve of WotC allowing other people to use their IP in any fashion, then make your own closed content game TD.
Did I just somehow defend WotC a little bit there? I'm sorry, didn't intend to.I'm sick to death of people acting as if they have a God-given right to exploit D&D.
Oh, ok now I realise where you're going with this. It's ok to steal as much of someone else's work as you can legally get away with, and you are righteous for doing so because you think one of the people you are stealing from may have done the same in the past.
Yup, there's a lesson to teach the children.
Personally, I teach my son that there is nothing wrong in learning from others. He should listen to other people's ideas, learn from them, and use them. However, he should not copy things verbatim and claim them as his own, and should always give credit where credit is due.
People who claim to be totally original and have never learned any ideas from others in their field are either lying or stupid.
Naturally. Chris Pramas wants to use all of WotC's R&D for free. This is unsurprising.
That's not true. Chris Pramas wants to sell RPG products. He makes use of the OGL and d20 licenses because they are available to him. He has chosen not to use the 4e GSL at this time because it is not in his business interests.
Green Ronin has produced a large number of creative and popular RPGs, campaign settings, and adventures. They even license out use of their own IP to other RPG publishers. Making offensive statements about Pramas' motives is pointless.
This is the entire reason for IP - the point of IP is to prevent people like Pramas using other people's hard work and R&D dollars and putting it to use themselves. In short, the purpose of IP is to protect R&D; without IP, R&D becomes MUCH less valuable because anyone can just steal it, so you basically threw money at something only for your competitors to be able to use it as well.
You obviously don't understand much about Intellectual Property. Patent law protects R&D, not copyright, and WotC doesn't have patents on any of their RPG game rules (as opposed to their CCG and CMG rules).
Green Ronin has decided not to publish 4e products at all, other than a character sheet which, obviousl, anyone can do.
And?
You're acting as if IP exists so it can be liscensed. A great deal of IP is never liscensed out. The "cost" of liscensing 4e is too large for Pramas. He is annoyed at the GSL because he isn't willing to pay the price and he would LIKE to pay nothing for it.
Your posts (and I notice you're ignoring the ones that shred your earlier statements) are becoming more and more insulting and lacking in any logic or reasoning.
Such as what exactly?
Hellmute's hilarious argument that you cannot trademark a word or phrase?
I have yet to see a post which "shreds" my argument. I have seen many posts of people angry at me for telling them they're wrong. I have seen posts which point out that it is not a clear cut case (and I agree, its not like a judge would summarily judge against them either; its not absurdly obvious that they're violating WotC's rights). But "shreds"? No.
You're wrong on the 'point of IP'. Intellectual Property is a concept that exists, it doesn't have a point behind it. It's like saying 'the point of economics'. Intellectual property law exists to protect a company's intellectual property and, also, to determine what rights other parties have to use those rights.
Wrong. IP exists because humans created it. It has a purpose, an intended function. That intended function is to do exactly what I said. If you don't believe me, read the United States Constitution; it lays it out.
Many things have no purpose in existing because they were not created via concious processes. For instance, the existance of the human species is purposeless; we exist due to evolution, but that doesn't mean we exist FOR a reason. However, if I create a law, I'm creating that law FOR a reason.
I strongly suggest you actually read up on Copyright, trademark and IP law before you continue making your incorrect (and now bordering on defaming) statements.
I apparently know a great deal more about it than you do if you don't know the purpose of it. :|
It's also evident you really have no actual grasp on the industry, how it works and the people who work in it. Chris Pramas is a former WotC staffer who runs (with his wife) one of the first companies to take up the OGL. They (Green Ronin) entirely bought into the OGL and helped to push it forwards. That they've chosen not to produce products for 4th edition gives you absolutely no right to insult him or his company.
I'm not insulting him. Nothing in my statement is an insult. It is what is known as "reality".
Would you want to get everything you ever wanted for free? Many, perhaps most people would.
I'm not insulting him for not producing a 4e product. I already explained what I was talking about above.
In short, he decided that the cost of producing a 4e product (signing the GSL) is not worth the benefit (producing products for 4e). That is a business decision, and there is -nothing wrong- with that. He is entitled to produce whatever products he so pleases. He may end up changing his opinion when the d20 market dries up, or he may not and actually go on to produce something worthwhile and independent. I am not a seer; I can only extrapolate from extant data so far.
But that he wanted to be able to produce 4e products for less than he has to "pay" from the GSL is clear from his statements. He isn't not producing 4e products because he just doesn't want to; its because he considers the opportunity cost too high.
Yes because WotC created D&D before WotC even existed so its all good. WotC never stole someone else's work be it legally or otherwise.
Completely irrelevant and silly.
D&D was purchased by WotC, therefore they own it. If you don't understand the concept of IP rights, I suggest you read up on them. You can sell your IP to other people, and they henceforth own it. That is exactly what happened. Complaining about that would be like me complaining that you shouldn't own a computer because you didn't scour out the processor with acid yourself.
And it is also irrelevant whether or not they have stolen things in the past. Just because someone has committed a crime in the past does NOT mean you're legally entitled to commit the same crime against them.
Dragon Magazine Archive
I can't find this on google. Explain what the problem is.
Magic The Gathering Artist fiasco
Isn't this where they can't reuse a bunch of old card art because they only liscensed it? If so, then this isn't a "fiasco". Or are you talking about when they got rid of the horrible artist and a bunch of whiners complained? Or is this something else entirely?
Something called Primal Order
So let me get this straight:
Because in the past, they didn't understand IP laws, they cannot in the future enforce IP laws?
You obviously need to work on your logic skills.
Find that audio file of the meeting WotC people had with publishers and see how disgruntled the publishers were and how WotC didn't want to give much with the new license.
Tough. As I pointed out before, they wanted to take advantage of WotC's R&D dollar for absolutely nothing. That they thought they were entitled to it and complained when WotC pointed out they actually own the rights to it...
Reality: Those 3pp publishers were being unreasonable in expecting to get something for nothing. This is not to say that WotC may have been asking for too much; they may have been. But expecting the OGL to continue was unreasonable.
So if you don't approve of WotC allowing other people to use their IP in any fashion, then make your own closed content game TD.
Who said I was?
Oh, that's right, you.
Maybe you should try making rational arguments and understanding what you're talking about before you insult me and erect straw men.
That's not true. Chris Pramas wants to sell RPG products. He makes use of the OGL and d20 licenses because they are available to him. He has chosen not to use the 4e GSL at this time because it is not in his business interests.
No, it is true. He wants to be able to use WotC's IP for free, or at least for less than what they're asking. That's why he's not producing 4e materials. There's nothing immoral about that. I want a hundred million dollars, but just wanting it doesn't mean someone should give it to me.
You obviously don't understand much about Intellectual Property. Patent law protects R&D, not copyright, and WotC doesn't have patents on any of their RPG game rules (as opposed to their CCG and CMG rules).
Do you think Wizards of the Coast did any research and development on 4th edition Dugeons & Dragons?
The answer, very clearly, is yes.
Can you patent 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons?
Probably not, in any meaningful way.
Is 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons copyrighted?
Why yes, yes it is.
So are copyright laws protecting Wizards of the Coast's R&D on 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons?
The answer is yes.
This is true of all games.
And development is protected by copyright; that is indeed what copyright protects. If I write a book, that's a form of development - I'm developing my story idea into a finished product. While that final product is what is protected by copyright, that finished product is the result of my development (writing, or what have you), so the copyright is protecting my investment in the creation of my final product.
In short, copyright laws do indeed protect research and development. That is not what they're always protecting, but they still do protect it from time to time.
You're really keen on rules aren't you?
I will never understand people who want imaginary property law to be stricter.
Where did I say I want intellectual property law to be stricter? If Batman, Superman, and Mickey Mouse become public domain tomorrow I'd be a happy camper.
I just don't think Kenzer and others are making the right decision going this route, legal or not.
I did notice that Green Ronin is doing a 4E product under the OGL. Assuming it flies, it shows that 4E compatable products are possible under OGL.
Nice to see a Kenzer rep here. Can we get an ETA on the Aces & Eights OGL?
Oh, ok now I realise where you're going with this. It's ok to steal as much of someone else's work as you can legally get away with, and you are righteous for doing so because you think one of the people you are stealing from may have done the same in the past.
Yup, there's a lesson to teach the children.
Joe
Uhm....so, do you have training in Jump To Conclusions, or is it a Class Feature?
Where is this "Stealing" stuff coming from, anyway? Who has "stolen" anything -- or violated copyrights/used trademarks unlawfully/otherwise done anyrthing either illegal *or* unethical?
How was using the OGL "stealing"?
My point had nothing to do with whether anyone "Stole" anything. Rather, saying that developers who used the OGL were "uncreative" or otherwise sub-par and inferior because they didn't just design their own totally unique and original way to say "Roll this number or higher to hit the orc" is somewhat specious (look it up) when you consider many of those designers were the ones charged with making the next edition of D&D -- which, one must note, builds heavily on the prior edition. (As did Third Edition, of course....)
Clearly, Mike Mearls, et al, are much less creative than the people who have made up their own brilliantly original systems which owe nothing to any prior game...and which sell ten copies, nine of which are to people sharing at least 25% of the designer's DNA, and one of which is to me, 'cause I collect obscure and unplayable games.
This is the entire reason for IP - the point of IP is to prevent people like Pramas using other people's hard work and R&D dollars and putting it to use themselves. In short, the purpose of IP is to protect R&D; without IP, R&D becomes MUCH less valuable because anyone can just steal it, so you basically threw money at something only for your competitors to be able to use it as well.
You really have no idea how IP laws work and what they are designed to do.
IP laws are designed to encourage people to put their stuff out there in the open and allow people to build off of it.
Patents, for example, can only be gotten if you have provided a full and complete disclosure of your invention. Full and complete in that someone skilled in the art can reproduce it, and develop off of it.
You really have no idea how IP laws work and what they are designed to do.
IP laws are designed to encourage people to put their stuff out there in the open and allow people to build off of it.
Patents, for example, can only be gotten if you have provided a full and complete disclosure of your invention. Full and complete in that someone skilled in the art can reproduce it, and develop off of it.
Uh, no. While you're right about how you get a patent (though getting a patent is far too easy these days):
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Direct from the US constitution.
Isn't the main benefit of the OGL and GSL is that they permit the use of certain logos? I don't see the a moral difference there, and I don't think there's much legal difference. A good game supplement is no worse for not having "D20" or "Wizards of the Coast" on the cover, and bad game supplement is no better for showing the same.
This is the entire reason for IP - the point of IP is to prevent people like Pramas using other people's hard work and R&D dollars and putting it to use themselves. In short, the purpose of IP is to protect R&D; without IP, R&D becomes MUCH less valuable because anyone can just steal it, so you basically threw money at something only for your competitors to be able to use it as well.
IP law is there to strike a balance. If you develop a product that isn't protectable by IP, then you can't complain that you don't have IP protection. If you develop a product that is partially protected by IP and partially unprotected, then that's the business decision you make as the IP owner. I don't think it speaks negative of third parties that they're operating within the legal limits of IP protection. The reason there are limits to IP protection in the first place are because of the counterbalancing policies that favor access to innovation and creation.
People are acting like WotC is somehow getting screwed out of IP. Not the case. The limits around WotC IP were in place long before they developed 4E. The 3PPs are no more to "blame" in a negative sense than WotC is for developing a product that entirely covered by IP laws. Both are business decision.
Patents, for example, can only be gotten if you have provided a full and complete disclosure of your invention. Full and complete in that someone skilled in the art can reproduce it, and develop off of it.
This is the enablement requirement. The idea is that the government will give you the right to exclude others from practicing your invention for a set period of time (currently 20 years from filing) and in exchange you will provide enough detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can make and use the invention when the patent expires.
You are misreading the comment that was made, probably purposefully based on the tone of your posts here. I think the point was that it's odd to criticize 3PP developers as lacking talent or skill, while maintaining that WotC is the repository of quality, when some of the same people are producing WotC works who used to put out 3PP materials.
I am *not* belittling the talents of any 3PP. What I am doing is expressing disdain for a thread whose sole purpose seems to be deducing methods by which to steal as much of someone else's work as possible without being forced by law to acknowledge or credit them.
That is the moral aspect of this discussion, of IP law and it leaves a sour taste to see people *gloating* when they've worked out a way to make money off someone else's work without so much as acknowledging them.
Joe
I am *not* belittling the talents of any 3PP. What I am doing is expressing disdain for a thread whose sole purpose seems to be deducing methods by which to steal as much of someone else's work as possible without being forced by law to acknowledge or credit them.
That is the moral aspect of this discussion, of IP law and it leaves a sour taste to see people *gloating* when they've worked out a way to make money off someone else's work without so much as acknowledging them.
I think it is a mischaracterization to imply that anyone who is publishing outside a GSL is automatically "working out" some way to steal from someone else. The fact is, IP laws have boundaries for a reason, and there is ground for others to operate legally around those boundaries. That's part of the law and WotC (Hasbro) likely has more attorneys and legal sophistication at its disposal than any of these 3PPs. The idea that the 3PPs are all somehow at fault because WotC chooses to operate in an area where there are some limits to IP protection is ridiculous.
I am *not* belittling the talents of any 3PP. What I am doing is expressing disdain for a thread whose sole purpose seems to be deducing methods by which to steal as much of someone else's work as possible without being forced by law to acknowledge or credit them.
You keep using this word "steal". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Did Gary Gygax steal the displacer beast from AE Van Vogt? I mention this one (of uncounted many) creature "inspired" by another writer's work because it's one of WOTC's "iconic" creatures, never released to the SRD -- yet it is 100% lifted from an old science fiction story, less original than mind flayers or beholders (both of which have many antecedents).
Without the OGL, there is no way to (legally) copy text verbatim beyond small snippets governed by fair use, which is not at issue here. All that anyone using either the GSL or simple IP law can do is use *ideas* -- which cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, and it would be a very foolish person to posit that they ought to be. Someone who writes a 200 page setting book "for use with" D&D has done 200 pages worth of creativity; the fact that the numbers used to define entities in that world are "compatible with" the numbers used to define entities in D&D is pretty damn trivial. To claim this is uncreative because they write "Armor Class 17" instead of "Defense Rating: Good" is pretty much indefensible.
A somewhat stronger case could be made that "splats" which are pure mechanics are more derivative and might well be illegal -- but those sorts of things are much more likely to be published under the GSL anyway, since there's unlikely to be any IP at risk which would have value outside of 4e.
I am *not* belittling the talents of any 3PP. What I am doing is expressing disdain for a thread whose sole purpose seems to be deducing methods by which to steal as much of someone else's work as possible without being forced by law to acknowledge or credit them.
That is the moral aspect of this discussion, of IP law and it leaves a sour taste to see people *gloating* when they've worked out a way to make money off someone else's work without so much as acknowledging them.
Hmm. I'm not seeing any sort of immoral end-run here. Yeah, they're piggy-backing off of someone else's system, but there are plenty of examples in this thread showing how this sort of thing takes place in every industry. (I can make car parts compatible with a Ford Taurus, but I can't represent them as Ford products.)
The OGL and GSL have never been about the control of gaming supplements--they're about control of logos. Is your supplement an "official" product (whatever the hell that means), or just compatible? It's semantics. Publishing a GSL-compliant product involves the same piggy-back approach to design as publishing a WotC independent product. Before the OGL thing, 3PP were printing out reams of supplements; they just didn't get to put "TSR" on the front.
I think it's unfortunate that the surest way to scratch out a profit in tabletop RPG's is to hitch your wagon to the current D&D ruleset. With the OGL, we saw every genre imaginable shoehorned into the D20 system. Some of the D20 stuff was very innovative, too. I can only dream about what some of those guys may have come up with if they had been doing completely original work.
I am *not* belittling the talents of any 3PP. What I am doing is expressing disdain for a thread whose sole purpose seems to be deducing methods by which to steal as much of someone else's work as possible without being forced by law to acknowledge or credit them.
That is the moral aspect of this discussion, of IP law and it leaves a sour taste to see people *gloating* when they've worked out a way to make money off someone else's work without so much as acknowledging them.
You are using words that imply that the 3pps who are producing 4E products without the GSL are using some law trickery or other devious means to do so, when that is about as far from the truth as you can get.
They are using means that are written directly into the (American) legal system as part of IP laws. They are doing what they are allowed to do.
I can only dream about what some of those guys may have come up with if they had been doing completely original work.
Nothing, since there would have been such a small market most of them would never have been offered work.
I have to wonder, does this charge of "uncreativity" apply to anyone who works in a system they didn't design from scratch themselves? I've written for D20, GURPS, and Dying Earth, and I think I had a lot more options for creativity there than if I'd spent the time trying to write my own system first. The fact is, there's very little room left in system design -- aside from weird-ass Forge-style games, I don't think there's been a truly original system which has had any kind of market success since, oh, the White Wolf dice pool system from 1991, and I might be simply ignorant of earlier dice-pool style systems. The bulk of modern system ideas were created between 1974 and 1981 -- D&D (the first), Traveller (skill based), Runequest (percentiles), Hero (Point based). Diceless roleplaying and die pool systems appeared in the late 1980s. Since then...what? Uncounted trivial variations on a lot of old themes, most of which can be easily categorized as either flat distribution (d20), bell curve (GURPS, Hero), percentile (Rolemaster, BRP), or dice pool (White Wolf, among others). "System" simple isn't where innovation is taking place, partly because there's a lot of caps on how much you can do with a system and still have a playable game, and partly because you no more need a new system for every genre or playstyle than you need a new interface for every computer program.
And that's a good analogy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, before Windows 3.0, there were a good half-dozen GUI toolkits for Intel based machines, with Windows 286/386 being a leading one. GEM was one; I forget the rest. There was a big market in making GUI libraries for DOS, I remember seeing pages of them in Programmer's Paradise catalogs. All of them did pretty much the same thing -- buttons, menus, windows, dialog boxes. Each had their own unique API. Each was 100% incompatible with all the others and had to be learned from scratch. Ghu knows how many programmers did nothing but create these windowing toolkits for use by other programmers, instead of writing programs that DID things. Then, of course, Windows 3.0 and 3.1 exploded, and those other systems died, and instead of finding yet another way to draw button or a menu on a screen, programmers started USING the buttons and menus they'd been given to write actual, useful, programs. And there was an explosion of new tools built on Windows, like Delphi, and the plug-in market for that. By providing a single common GUI standard, creativity was *enhanced*, because programmers spent less time making tools and more time making things WITH the tools.
Just like the OGL. The games and settings the OGL made possible would most likely have never existed, because while there was a need for great settings for one system, or great variants on that system, there was no need for yet another "new" game system bundled with a setting, no matter how cool the setting might be. Only a very few settings really need their own system. If you look just at the systems under the OGL -- D20, Action!, Runequest, Traveller, FUDGE, Tri-Stat -- you'll be hard pressed to come up with a playable setting which can't be reasonably modeled by one of them (or a mix, since the OGL draws no lines between systems).
I think it is a mischaracterization to imply that anyone who is publishing outside a GSL is automatically "working out" some way to steal from someone else.
I reiterate - my problem is with people who are trying to obtain use of as much of the work of WotC designers as they legally can without acknowledging them.
That some of the posters in this thread are gloating over not having to do this is in extremely poor taste imho. If you are going to be a 3PP and make a living creating D&D-based work, the least you can do is acknowledge the people that did the 'heavy-lifting' to make what you do for a living possible.
I feel that if you are going to adopt that 'evil empire' attitude, perhaps you're better off creating your own game, or at least not hypocritically make a living off the game you hate.
Not all 3PP are like that and at no stage did I say that.
I think it's unfortunate that the surest way to scratch out a profit in tabletop RPG's is to hitch your wagon to the current D&D ruleset. With the OGL, we saw every genre imaginable shoehorned into the D20 system. Some of the D20 stuff was very innovative, too. I can only dream about what some of those guys may have come up with if they had been doing completely original work.
That, I 100% agree with. Again, if a 3PP is going to carry on like some of the posters (not neccessarily 3PP themselves) have in this thread, go and create original work for pete's sake! It might even be good and you can topple this 'evil empire' I keep hearing about...
Joe
That being said, I believe that 3pp have a right to create work based on being compatible with DnD 4e, as opposed to saying "this is DnD 4e" (which to me would be stealing the IP of WotC)
If they write an adventure, they can sell it (in my opinion) without problem if people are willing to buy it.
I think this will drive sales for DnD4e ("Oh look, this awesome adventure is compatible w/ DnD4e, but not the whole ruleset in this one book, we should buy the mainbook too") and ultimately help WotC.
Stop all the armchair law school stuff and focus on what is happening here, people are creating adventures that will drive sales of the product we want sold (so more people will game..)
everything other than that is bubkiss in my eyes.
Go 3pp! drive more gamers into the hobby!
Direct from the US constitution.
And I am guessing the part about "for limited Times" sort of got lost in your understanding of it.
Not to mention the part about "to Authors and Inventors" combined with the whole "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" referring to both individuals and the nation as a whole instead of just corporations paying off Congress to extend copyright every time it comes close to expiring and so promote only their bottom line rather than any progress or compensation for the actual creative people.
Maybe you should pick another cross to hang yourself from. That one definitely does not favor your cause.
You are misreading the comment that was made, probably purposefully based on the tone of your posts here. I think the point was that it's odd to criticize 3PP developers as lacking talent or skill, while maintaining that WotC is the repository of quality, when some of the same people are producing WotC works who used to put out 3PP materials.
I think this is untrue for a variety of reasons.
First off, part of making a good product is having a good team to work with. If you're the only decent person working for your company, your products will often not be up to snuff because there isn't anyone around who is good enough to bounce ideas off or who you respect enough to really think when they tell you no or say it is a bad idea.
Secondly, you need to know what you're making the product for and what the consumers want. I'd argue part of the problem with a lot of the 3pps is that they don't have correct design goals, which shows in their work. A good example of this is GURPS; a cute idea, to make one game which works for everything. Problem is, I'm not sure there's really a demand for it, and some of the stuff they did to make it generic and universal also makes character creation an enormous hassle. Additionally, combat is too lethal for a big market. If you're only trying to be a bit player, and are focusing in on a tiny niche market, that's fine, but a lot of these people seem to think they're making games for a broad audience, when they aren't.
Third, WotC hires good talent from the 3pps, and I suspect a lot of the people who leave WotC are either A) not good enough to hack it, B) want to do other things, C) aren't getting along well, or D) feel they're not being paid enough money. While some of these people are certainly competant, some of the people who used to work for WotC aren't necessarily all that talented, and over time, I'd argue that the quality of WotC's products has continued to increase. The difference between 4e and 3e is enormous, and if you look at their magic cards they've progressed considerably in their design abilities over time.
I think it is a mischaracterization to imply that anyone who is publishing outside a GSL is automatically "working out" some way to steal from someone else.
I disagree. They're clearly using what WotC has produced to turn a quick buck for themselves without having to spend money on R&D or playtesting costs. They wouldn't be producing for 4e if they weren't.
They are using means that are written directly into the (American) legal system as part of IP laws. They are doing what they are allowed to do.
Says you and them. Says me, they're not.
Go 3pp! drive more gamers into the hobby!
I think this is the fundamental flaw in the thinking of all too many people.
The reality is that they don't. 3pps are scavengers and parasites, not people who draw people into the hobby.
Even Monte Cooke admits this. The 3pps aren't out to bring in fresh blood or tap new markets. They're not capable of doing so. They're here to feed on WotC's scraps. The only company which doesn't is White Wolf.
I think this is untrue for a variety of reasons.
First off, part of making a good product is having a good team to work with. If you're the only decent person working for your company, your products will often not be up to snuff because there isn't anyone around who is good enough to bounce ideas off or who you respect enough to really think when they tell you no or say it is a bad idea.
There are plenty of succesful and highly critically regarded publishers and authors who work on their own. Check out Reign by Greg Stolze for example.
Secondly, you need to know what you're making the product for and what the consumers want. I'd argue part of the problem with a lot of the 3pps is that they don't have correct design goals, which shows in their work. A good example of this is GURPS; a cute idea, to make one game which works for everything. Problem is, I'm not sure there's really a demand for it, and some of the stuff they did to make it generic and universal also makes character creation an enormous hassle. Additionally, combat is too lethal for a big market. If you're only trying to be a bit player, and are focusing in on a tiny niche market, that's fine, but a lot of these people seem to think they're making games for a broad audience, when they aren't.
You know that Gurps has its own succesful niche of the market, right? Albeit the vast majority of \steve Jackson Games' sales now are from Munchkin because of how succesful it was, they still put out books every month that sell.
Roleplaying is a niche hobby, different people within the hobby want different things, and as such there are games that cater for them. A good chunk (let's just go on the last year's overall market breakdown), say fifty percent don't, or rarely buy anything by WotC. That chunk might then be subdividied into White Wolf, Palladium, Mongoose, Green Ronin etc but those publishers are still selling and profitable. There are a reasonable number of companies that have full time staff, then a much higher number of companies that are essentially self-employed publishers who make extra money out of their writing/books. That doesn't in any way mean they're bad, for all that you tried to link 'good' with 'most popular' (note, before you try it, I'm a big fan of 4e, it got me back into D&D having not bought any D&D books in almost five years).
Third, WotC hires good talent from the 3pps, and I suspect a lot of the people who leave WotC are either A) not good enough to hack it, B) want to do other things, C) aren't getting along well, or D) feel they're not being paid enough money. While some of these people are certainly competant, some of the people who used to work for WotC aren't necessarily all that talented, and over time, I'd argue that the quality of WotC's products has continued to increase. The difference between 4e and 3e is enormous, and if you look at their magic cards they've progressed considerably in their design abilities over time.
You're really, badly, misinformed on this. WotC has had several downsizing cutbacks, that doesn't mean those people let go 'can't cut it' or anything else, it means they were made redundant. Some are doubtless making far more money in other industries - there's no company in the industry that can pay me what I make in mainstream publishing for example.
Do I prefer 4e, yes, quantifiably, but it's bad form to insult people you don't know who doubtless went through the heartache of being made redundant. Note, a number of them went on to continue to be highly succesful in the roleplaying industry.
I disagree. They're clearly using what WotC has produced to turn a quick buck for themselves without having to spend money on R&D or playtesting costs. They wouldn't be producing for 4e if they weren't.
Playtesting is a zero-cost expense in this industry. Likewise R&D costs=people writing/developing the product. WW for example has extensive development time on their books, other companies do the same, some have far less down to zero time. But it's not like the R&D costs in other industries, it's primarily just employee time. And what's more all those companies got to do it legally using the OGL and can, so long as they conform to copyright laws on fair use etc, do the same using 4e inside or outside the GSL. Outside the GSL they can't use the brand logo but they can still publish a compatible product legally, just as happened for 1st edition, 2nd edition etc.
I think this is the fundamental flaw in the thinking of all too many people.
The reality is that they don't. 3pps are scavengers and parasites, not people who draw people into the hobby.
Wait what?
I know, personally, of people who have gotten back into roleplaying because of products put out by companies publishing under the OGL. I know people who stopped buying D&D books but carried on buying OGL books. And there are tens of thousands of people who have gotten into the industry without having D&D as their gateway, for all that it was for the majority. To call every other roleplaying game (or even just non-Wotc) publisher a scavenger and a parasite who doesn't draw people into the industry is misinformed and, again, insulting.
You are incredibly wrong on your comprehension of the industry (and the law).
Even Monte Cooke admits this. The 3pps aren't out to bring in fresh blood or tap new markets. They're not capable of doing so. They're here to feed on WotC's scraps. The only company which doesn't is White Wolf.
So what about the third biggest company in the industry, or the fourth. Do you know who they are? Do you know how their sales and profits compare to WotC, or White Wolf?
Once again you show your sheer class.
I disagree. They're clearly using what WotC has produced to turn a quick buck for themselves without having to spend money on R&D or playtesting costs. They wouldn't be producing for 4e if they weren't.
Agreed. The million(s) spend on playtesting and developing the end product seem to be conveniently forgotten when some champion the 'rights' of people to make money off the back of WotC. See anyone else ponying up that kind of cash to develop a game? No, 3pps get to take advantage of a fully developed game, without the inconvenience of actually having to fund development of it...
I think this is the fundamental flaw in the thinking of all too many people. The reality is that they don't. 3pps are scavengers and parasites, not people who draw people into the hobby.
Even Monte Cooke admits this. The 3pps aren't out to bring in fresh blood or tap new markets. They're not capable of doing so. They're here to feed on WotC's scraps. The only company which doesn't is White Wolf.
QFT. Now, I don't begrudge 3pps developing adventures and settings based around D&D. The problem I have is the apparent glee that is expressed when some of them realise they can produce content without giving any acknowledgement to the people who actually created the game.
Produce D&D adventures, fine. Just don't lord it up because you think you're getting one up on 'the man' by using loopholes to avoid using the GSL...
Joe
P.S. Again, this does not apply to all 3pps, just some of the more obnoxious ones that may have posted in this thread...
Agreed. The million(s) spend on playtesting and developing the end product seem to be conveniently forgotten when some champion the 'rights' of people to make money off the back of WotC. See anyone else ponying up that kind of cash to develop a game? No, 3pps get to take advantage of a fully developed game, without the inconvenience of actually having to fund development of it...
Firstly, playtesting is effectively zero-cost in the industry.
Secondly, even including print costs I cannot see how the D&D books can cost 'millions'. My company releases books that make multiple millions in sales and take, on average, 3 years to develop and release and unsurprisingly we don't have anywhere near that cost because if they did cost that much then they'd be unprofitable.
Other companies release books with comparable, or even higher print quality as the D&D books, and have their own development. There seems to be this idea being put about by certain posters that WotC is the only company developing games and everyone else in the industry is feeding off of their systems. This is not the case.
P.S. Again, this does not apply to all 3pps, just some of the more obnoxious ones that may have posted in this thread...
Now, to be fair I've not read every post in the thread, but I've not seen any publishers being in any way obnoxious in this thread. I have, however, seen numerous insults levied at other publishing companies, either by name or collectively.
Firstly, playtesting is effectively zero-cost in the industry.
I thought about being glib here, but decided to be a little more adult.
Wages, marketing and promotional costs are not "effectively zero-cost". Raw staffing costs aside, nobody, not even White Wolf, can hold a candle to the amount of money WotC devotes to their promotional activities at Gen Con (Indy, UK, Australia etc.), DDXP and Origins, not to mention the World-Wide D&D Gameday or the RPGA. 3pps do not have to assume any of these costs, but by heck they sure benefit from them!
Internal employees, external contractors, PR firms all cost. WotC carries the biggest staff, and the 'incubation' period for their games are as long or longer than any other rpg company, so dismissing the amount of money they've sunk into the game as "effectively zero-cost" is a little out of order, no? Tax deductability doesn't account for much when all is said and done.
Secondly, even including print costs I cannot see how the D&D books can cost 'millions'. My company releases books that make multiple millions in sales and take, on average, 3 years to develop and release and unsurprisingly we don't have anywhere near that cost because if they did cost that much then they'd be unprofitable.
Well they've printed more than a million 4E books already, so unless every employee is working for free and the books cost next to nothing to make, they've reached and breached the million dollar mark some time ago I'm afraid.
Joe
P.S. Again, this does not apply to all 3pps, just some of the more obnoxious ones that may have posted in this thread...
Honestly, to me, the more obnoxious stuff in posted in this thread has come from WotC supporters. I've seen a significant amount of bile thrown at the 3PPs whether or not they were doing anything significant for 4e, whether or not they had actually said obnoxious in this thread, whether or not they came into this thread politely. So calling them obnoxious is somewhat backward to me.
Internal employees, external contractors, PR firms all cost. WotC carries the biggest staff, and the 'incubation' period for their games are as long or longer than any other rpg company, so dismissing the amount of money they've sunk into the game as "effectively zero-cost" is a little out of order, no? Tax deductability doesn't account for much when all is said and done.
I speciically said that playtesting was effectively zero cost, I didn't touch on marketing.
Well they've printed more than a million 4E books already, so unless every employee is working for free and the books cost next to nothing to make, they've reached and breached the million dollar mark some time ago I'm afraid.
Joe
And your source for this is where? WotC never releases print numbers or sales figures. Moreover I was refuting the claim of multiple millions, not one million (which it could well have hit with the print costs).
And your source for this is where? WotC never releases print numbers or sales figures. Moreover I was refuting the claim of multiple millions, not one million (which it could well have hit with the print costs).
You are correct. WotC never release print numbers or sales figures. No, I will not provide my source on a public forum.
Sorry to be evasive, it's up to you whether or not to take my statement at face value.
You are correct. WotC never release print numbers or sales figures. No, I will not provide my source on a public forum.
Sorry to be evasive, it's up to you whether or not to take my statement at face value.
but isn't it kind of moot to join an debate with points that cannot be proven?
just sayin,
malkav
but isn't it kind of moot to join an debate with points that cannot be proven?
just sayin,
malkav
Agreed, although that was only one of a number of points being raised. I didn't enter the debate with the intention of eventually being asked to quote a confidential source. And yes I think that particular issue has run its course now.
Playtesting is a zero-cost expense in this industry.
This is simply untrue.
You have to get the playtesters, which eats up your time, and thus money.
You then have to get the materials to the playtesters (more time/money).
You then have to compile the comments of the playtesters, interview them, observe them, ect. all of which takes more time and money.
You then have to figure out what you need to do on the basis of the playtesting results.
This is not free, even if you don't have to pay the playtesters themselves a cent, unless you don't pay your employees either.
And if you want good playtesting results, you need to get a good mix of playtesters which represent your target audience, not just "random schmoes on my forum".
I know, personally, of people who have gotten back into roleplaying because of products put out by companies publishing under the OGL.
This was the intended purpose of the OGL.
I know people who stopped buying D&D books but carried on buying OGL books.
This was not, and does not benefit WotC at all. Hence why they got rid of the OGL.
And there are tens of thousands of people who have gotten into the industry without having D&D as their gateway, for all that it was for the majority.
Yeah... people who started with White Wolf games. :P
To call every other roleplaying game (or even just non-Wotc) publisher a scavenger and a parasite who doesn't draw people into the industry is misinformed and, again, insulting.
Not really, no. And I don't count White Wolf among them, as again, they actually have a market which isn't "people who play D&D".
So what about the third biggest company in the industry, or the fourth. Do you know who they are? Do you know how their sales and profits compare to WotC, or White Wolf?
Their market share is small enough that the surveys done by the only magazine I'm aware of which appears to have any real statistics on gaming stores cannot distinguish between their sales and those of any other company.
If you aren't WotC and White Wolf, you don't matter.
Firstly, playtesting is effectively zero-cost in the industry.
See the above refutation. In short, the only person who says this is someone who doesn't do it. These people are very likely to produce worthless products.
Secondly, even including print costs I cannot see how the D&D books can cost 'millions'.
Because if you have, let's say, 20 man years of people working on something, and you assume each of them makes 75K/year, that's 1.5 million dollars right there. And even assuming printing costs of a dollar a book, that'd be over a million dollars already given how many they've printed.
Not to mention art (you know, you do have to pay artists for their work...), and various other things (PR, advertisements, ect.)
If you really do work for a 3pp, I'd love to know which one it is, so I know to tell people to steer clear.
Because if you have, let's say, 20 man years of people working on something, and you assume each of them makes 75K/year
Bwahahahaahhahahahaah!
Oh gods....
Bwahahahaahahah!
Must...stop...laughing....scaring....cats...
Bwahahahaah!
You have NO IDEA about how the gaming industry works, do you?
Seventy....five...thousand....a year.
In the P&P RPG industry....
Oh gods...oh gods....I think I'm hurting myself....
Snort.
You should go on tour. You'd be playing to sellout crowds in Vegas. You're comedy gold, man. Comedy gold.
Because if you have, let's say, 20 man years of people working on something, and you assume each of them makes 75K/year, that's 1.5 million dollars right there. And even assuming printing costs of a dollar a book, that'd be over a million dollars already given how many they've printed.
Not to mention art (you know, you do have to pay artists for their work...), and various other things (PR, advertisements, ect.)
First, I'll handle this in order.
The playtests for this product outside the company were almost all PDFs. In some cases, they'd print something up and send it to you. They had no artwork present and we're talking copier paper.
Second, No, they don't make $75k a year. They don't make anywhere close to that. Maybe product leads make that. But your standard worker is somewhere around $40-$50 at the highest.
Finally, Hasbro/Wotc has always done art in house or paid for artwork with products. On occasion.. on RARE occasion.. they'll buy a piece of artwork for money. But their standard operating procedure is to use backstock to purchase the artwork, or use the product itself. I know quite a few M:TG artists and boardgame artists who had lots of games that way.
This is simply untrue.
If you really do work for a 3pp, I'd love to know which one it is, so I know to tell people to steer clear.
I never said I did, I work in mainstream publishing, I said earlier that you can't make what I do in the rpg industry.
On your point on manhours, you're assuming those people do no other work in that time, how many other books came out in that time? Note, I'm not questioning that 4e is a significant investment (which has almost certainly already been returned) but the amounts being bandied around.
On your playtesting, it's evident you've never been involved in it. No company I've spoken to (of which it's several on this subject, including people at wotc in the past) assigns a dollar cost to playtesting. It's not something you can quantify given how it's processed. So sure you could say 'Bob's X salary included compiling the playtest comments and distributing the material' but its a zero-cost line because you can't assign a dollar amount.
As for observing them, different industry. Playtesters aren't 'observed' in the rpg industry (I believe from talking to Dancey that something along these lines happened prior to 3e but it's not standard practice), and they certainly weren't for 4th ed (inhouse groups playing and discussing yes, but that has a different meaning to your 'observe' as it's no different to any designer) unless you know of a specific group that did this, but then you're long on sweeping generalisations and short on facts again.
This was not, and does not benefit WotC at all. Hence why they got rid of the OGL.
They didn't get rid of the OGL, the OGL exists in perpetuity, that's why it was a safe harbor for publishers to release under. They didn't release 4e under it (which is entirely their right to do so, just as most of their books weren't put into the SRD and available under the OGL). But a publisher 100 years from now can release something under the OGL if they wanted to.
Their market share is small enough that the surveys done by the only magazine I'm aware of which appears to have any real statistics on gaming stores cannot distinguish between their sales and those of any other company.
I've got no idea what magazine you've looked at then as Comic and Games Retailer broke down the top selling lines/books month by month. Its reliability owing to how it was reported wasn't certain (some stores would report by book, some by company for example) but it was the closest thing to hard figures available in the industry outside getting the figures from the distributors. As such, that would be another one you've gotten wrong.
Nothing, since there would have been such a small market most of them would never have been offered work.
Well, there's a point. Even if all of that 3PP (and indie pub) creative energy had been directed toward original work, much of it would never have been published because of the guaranteed financial loss.
Still, there have been some moments of brilliance. The Forge-like games have provided some interesting innovations that can (and seemingly have) been incorporated into more mainstream stuff. I suppose the main problem is just the nature of the hobby (or industry, absurd as the term seems to be here).
I have to wonder, does this charge of "uncreativity" apply to anyone who works in a system they didn't design from scratch themselves? I've written for D20, GURPS, and Dying Earth, and I think I had a lot more options for creativity there than if I'd spent the time trying to write my own system first.
I, for one, wouldn't attack the creativity of 3PP's--I'm just bemoaning the absence of originality, of new systems. There is genius in OGL products, and there is additional genius in unpublished stuff up on the internet.
Like I said, I just hate to see the hobby reduced to D&D's current system and a few derivative systems. It may be the economic reality (I personally think that TTRPG's are on their way to heat death), but I miss the atmosphere in the 80's, when everyone was writing his own game. Yeah, there was a lot of weirdness out there, but there were great ideas popping up all over. If everyone's writing for the same system, we just won't see as much innovation.
Like I said, I just hate to see the hobby reduced to D&D's current system and a few derivative systems. It may be the economic reality (I personally think that TTRPG's are on their way to heat death), but I miss the atmosphere in the 80's, when everyone was writing his own game. Yeah, there was a lot of weirdness out there, but there were great ideas popping up all over. If everyone's writing for the same system, we just won't see as much innovation.
Again, we get back to my original point -- there's only so many ways to say "Roll to see if you hit the orc", and the bulk of them were designed in the late 1970s/early 1980s and have been refined so much since then that further refinement is too much work chasing too little gain. Is there some Great New Model waiting to be discovered? Maybe. Is it guaranteed? No.
Most attempts at "originality" are just "lets make up new words for the same old stuff" (Immortal, Dangerous Journeys). A rare few are cases where a unique setting/tone/theme requires truly unique mechanics -- but those tend to not be "portable" to other genres/settings and will never become mainstream -- you're unlikely to ever see "My Life With Dungeon Master", IOW. (And, of course, there's "originality" in setting design which consists of "My elves have beards!" or "My dwarves ride horses!" or "No elves -- just another race of long-lived, highly-magical, aloof and mysterious forest dwellers called Alfs or Alves or Floopies or something, but THEY'RE NOT ELVES!")
After playing RPGs for just about 30 years now, I have become somewhat soured on cries of "originality" -- mostly, the people making such claims are merely ignorant of the past. (Just like every generation thinks it invented kinky sex. Check out Roman mosaics, dudes...there's no really new way to insert tab a into slot b. Trust me on this.) I am much more interested in quality, balance, fun, and usability -- none of which require an entirely new method of saying "Roll 10 or higher to hit the orc", and I'd rather not have skilled designers feel obliged to waste their time doing that kind of *un*creative gruntwork instead of starting with any of several well-tested, well-designed, flexible and legally available game engines and going from there.
Agreed. The million(s) spend on playtesting and developing the end product seem to be conveniently forgotten when some champion the 'rights' of people to make money off the back of WotC. See anyone else ponying up that kind of cash to develop a game?
And you're conveniently forgetting that WotC is a sophisticated business that is well aware of IP law when they decide to put money into developing an RPG.
The fact is, IP laws strike a balance that has been decided as a matter of public policy. We allow a certain area of protection, and we allow a certain area of freedom to operate outside of that protection. So long as people are operating in an area in which they are legally allowed to act, the complaining is nonsense. Most of it comes from people who would probably just as quickly argue the other side if a company they liked was on the other end of it. Most of it also comes from people who haven't even bothered to research IP law or understand the policy reasons behind why it is the way it is. In other words, most (not all) of the complaining is just a knee-jerk reaction from people who feel the need to protect WotC as though they're innocent lambs in the woods. They aren't. They're a business with full awareness of IP law when they make their decisions. Which is probably why you don't see any whining coming from WotC itself.
Personally, I teach my son that there is nothing wrong in learning from others. He should listen to other people's ideas, learn from them, and use them. However, he should not copy things verbatim and claim them as his own, and should always give credit where credit is due.
You are a good father. At least, in this matter.
While I don't disagree given market shares, 'sell well' is a soft concept. What percentage of your annual turnover comes from non-WotC companies, or even non-WotC, non OGL/D20 companies?
June 5, 2007-June 5, 2008 (expressed as a percentage of all RPG and RPG Related Products sold, not as a percentage of my total business):
RPG Dungeons and Dragons 37%
RPG D&D Minis 31% (mostly bought for RPG purposes)
Total D&D Share: 68%
RPG Other 16%
White Wolf 12%
Accessories (Dice, etc) 3%
Palladium 1%
The particular dates indicated above are there to illustrate the lion's share that D&D represents **before 4th edition**, in the waning days when there were no real 3.5 products coming out.
Of the D&D products sold during this time, 9.88% of them were from third-party publishers. The primary ones--I would say 85% of these sales--were Goodman Games and Paizo's Pathfinder stuff, with Goodman Games being much larger than the others. Also sold were some other items from Judge's Guild, etcetera...plus a single copy of Kingdoms of Kalamar.
Expressed as a percentage of my total sales during that time period, all RPG products are about 20% of my business. We do pretty good business.
*******************************
"On your playtesting, it's evident you've never been involved in it. No company I've spoken to (of which it's several on this subject, including people at wotc in the past) assigns a dollar cost to playtesting. It's not something you can quantify given how it's processed. So sure you could say 'Bob's X salary included compiling the playtest comments and distributing the material' but its a zero-cost line because you can't assign a dollar amount."
Simply because //you// can't assign a dollar amount doesn't mean that there isn't a cost associated with it, expressed (perhaps not explicitly) in terms of salaries and hourly rates for same and mailing and office supplies and, well, lots of other things. It is part of the R&D budget as a whole.
********************************
What I consider the height of arrogance about the tones taken here is the idea that Wizards is bad for not having a more permissive GSL, and those 3PP who are "flaunting it" (which may be a misrepresentation of the way they view things) are somehow heroes of the rebellion.
How many other game publishers have anything APPROACHING a GSL or any permissiveness whatsoever regarding sharing their systems with other imprints?
Of those, how many have gone so far out of their way to embrace the concept and push it forward?
Why is it so horrible/bad/evil/wrong for Wizards to want to maintain //some// form of control with regards to their IP/trademarks systems?
Why would you cheer people on who want to flaunt this?
Why would you want to buy products that pertain to 4th edition that don't even ATTEMPT to match the 4th edition qualifications by working with WotC? If you acknowledge the value of the 4th edition system as a whole, how can you then hold in contempt the company's R&D staff that made it? It reminds me of Satanism, which is remarkably silly as a rejection of Christianity because its religion is based on someone else's (and which, at its core, requires the embracing of the things it tends to profess to hate). Go play a different system if you don't like WotC's, neh?
June 5, 2007-June 5, 2008 (expressed as a percentage of all RPG and RPG Related Products sold, not as a percentage of my total business):
RPG Dungeons and Dragons 37%
RPG D&D Minis 31% (mostly bought for RPG purposes)
Total D&D Share: 68%
RPG Other 16%
White Wolf 12%
Accessories (Dice, etc) 3%
Palladium 1%
The particular dates indicated above are there to illustrate the lion's share that D&D represents **before 4th edition**, in the waning days when there were no real 3.5 products coming out.
That's interesting Scott, thanks for sharing those. The actual rpg sales at 37% is pretty comparable to the last three years of C&GR figures, but your wotc book sales are a chunk lower than the 'average' (bearing in mind that the C&GR figures are as close as you can get to a representation of the market and are unreliable but still all there is). Then again, the C&GR sales figures on rpgs were supposedly on books alone, but there's no certainty that x number of stores weren't adding in miniatures sales, while y number didn't. That was always the problem with those numbers for reliable information, not that they weren't better than nothing. Palladium's odd, some stores seem to do huge numbers on their stuff.
What I consider the height of arrogance about the tones taken here is the idea that Wizards is bad for not having a more permissive GSL, and those 3PP who are "flaunting it" (which may be a misrepresentation of the way they view things) are somehow heroes of the rebellion.
Just in case this is levied at me, I don't think they're bad for not reproducing the OGL for 4e. I might wish a more permissive one for more support, but there's nothing stopping me creating my own stuff (which I'm doing) or translating 3e items/monsters/ideas to 4e. If you look through my posts on this thread you'll see that all I've done is counter incorrect legal statements, defamation of other companies and so forth.
How many other game publishers have anything APPROACHING a GSL or any permissiveness whatsoever regarding sharing their systems with other imprints?
Right now off the top of my head, Pinnacle for Savage Worlds, Mongoose for Runequest and Traveller, Grey Ghost for Fudge (though I think EvilHat are the company that really gave it an audience with Fate and SotC), there are a couple more I can't think of off the top of my head. Note, that's excluding companies such as Green Ronin with their licence of a license for Mutants and Masterminds and True 20
Of those, how many have gone so far out of their way to embrace the concept and push it forward?
Pinnacle certainly have, Green Ronin to some extent, I don't know of anything for Runequest or Traveller.
Why would you want to buy products that pertain to 4th edition that don't even ATTEMPT to match the 4th edition qualifications by working with WotC? If you acknowledge the value of the 4th edition system as a whole, how can you then hold in contempt the company's R&D staff that made it? It reminds me of Satanism, which is remarkably silly as a rejection of Christianity because its religion is based on someone else's (and which, at its core, requires the embracing of the things it tends to profess to hate). Go play a different system if you don't like WotC's, neh?
I don't hold them in contempt, I've had beers and swapped gaming stories with some of them. But liking the company and the product doesn't mean ignoring someone posting insulting and inflammatory remarks about other companies/people in the industry or making blatantly false statements about IP law. I think it was a page or two back where I said something along the lines that the moral side of the discussion and the legal one were not the same thing (or if not it was something I'd meant to say).
You should check your pms btw.
What I consider the height of arrogance about the tones taken here is the idea that Wizards is bad for not having a more permissive GSL, and those 3PP who are "flaunting it" (which may be a misrepresentation of the way they view things) are somehow heroes of the rebellion.
I think the idea that either side is bad is misguided. Both are business doing what they feel is right for their business. So long as they are all operating within the bounds of the law I don't have a problem with any of them.
Good! Exactly what I would like WotC to do with the GSL.
Yeah, because, you know, God forbid that WotC be able to create an environment that allows others to make products to work with the biggest selling RPG and make money from them while in turn fostering an environment that allows WotC to make money and protect their investment.
You're right... those evil, evil, bastards!
Why would you want to buy products that pertain to 4th edition that don't even ATTEMPT to match the 4th edition qualifications by working with WotC?
Because I personally do not care about the WotC seal of approval. I don't know about you, but I can determine what quality is required for my gaming dollar. (On a side WotC often doesn't meet this qualification...Their rules set is good, books are crap)
If you acknowledge the value of the 4th edition system as a whole, how can you then hold in contempt the company's R&D staff that made it?
I don't. I personally do not care for the way WotC has treating its customers as of late, and that will effect my purchasing decisions. But I don't hold their R&D staff in contempt, or any of that nonsense. That doesn't mean I'll buy just any old crap so long as it says WotC, or give that anymore wait then anything else. I look for the best product for my gaming needs...whomever produces it.
It reminds me of Satanism, which is remarkably silly as a rejection of Christianity because its religion is based on someone else's (and which, at its core, requires the embracing of the things it tends to profess to hate). Go play a different system if you don't like WotC's, neh?
I can see this is an emotional topic for you. I neither share this opinion, nor fully understand it. However, I will not try to dissuade you of it. Perhaps the time has come to agree that we disagree of morality and ethicalness of this application of IP law.I think the idea that either side is bad is misguided. Both are business doing what they feel is right for their business. So long as they are all operating within the bounds of the law I don't have a problem with any of them.
QTF
Bwahahahaahhahahahaah!
Which part is funny? 20 man years? 75k/year?
The playtests for this product outside the company were almost all PDFs. In some cases, they'd print something up and send it to you. They had no artwork present and we're talking copier paper.
This still costs money to prepare.
Second, No, they don't make $75k a year. They don't make anywhere close to that. Maybe product leads make that. But your standard worker is somewhere around $40-$50 at the highest.
I'm glad I decided to go into engineering and not game design then, eh? :P
Though this explains a lot about the product quality of RPGs in general. I'm actually somewhat surprised by this low of wage, honestly; while I know that's decent for a liberal arts major, I was under the impression that WotC R&D had a number of engineers and similar "hard science" folks. Maybe I was wrong or misunderstood some of the things Mark Rosewater has said?
Finally, Hasbro/Wotc has always done art in house or paid for artwork with products. On occasion.. on RARE occasion.. they'll buy a piece of artwork for money. But their standard operating procedure is to use backstock to purchase the artwork, or use the product itself. I know quite a few M:TG artists and boardgame artists who had lots of games that way.
Yeah, I know they paid for artwork with products, but a lot of their artists are not in house ones. Magic cards are a good example of this, unless this has changed recently; they comission and purchase the art for it, but most of the artists seem to be independent, at least as far as I can tell from their websites.
I never said I did, I work in mainstream publishing, I said earlier that you can't make what I do in the rpg industry.
Fair enough.
On your point on manhours, you're assuming those people do no other work in that time, how many other books came out in that time? Note, I'm not questioning that 4e is a significant investment (which has almost certainly already been returned) but the amounts being bandied around.
I'm not assuming 20 people spent a year continously working on it. I was saying 20 man years of time. That's something rather different. That COULD be 20 people working for a year, but given the long lead time on the product, I suspect it more is along the lines of a few people spending about three years on it, with roughly half their time spent on it over the course of that (probably peaking sometime in 2007), with some people working on it only from 2007-early 2008, for roughly a year or so, with not all their time devoted to it, ect.
Look at the credits inside of the PHB, DMG, and MM. There are TONS of names there. All of those people spent some time working on the project, with some of those people spending pretty significant time on it.
I don't know how good of an estimate 20 man years is, but I don't think it is a completely unreasonable estimate either. And that isn't counting external playtester time, which I'm assuming to be more or less free; what is costly about playtesting is all the rest of the stuff you have to do dealing with it from the employee end.
On your playtesting, it's evident you've never been involved in it. No company I've spoken to (of which it's several on this subject, including people at wotc in the past) assigns a dollar cost to playtesting. It's not something you can quantify given how it's processed. So sure you could say 'Bob's X salary included compiling the playtest comments and distributing the material' but its a zero-cost line because you can't assign a dollar amount.
Then they aren't doing very good accounting, or they're simply lumping it in with the rest of the development costs. It DOES cost money, in the form of time. Maybe they just don't count it as seperate from development costs in general.
People do this all the time in other industries. Maybe the RPG industry is just weird, but I've seen everyone from state employees to engineers to lawyers figure out how much tasks like this "cost" in terms of time.
As for observing them, different industry. Playtesters aren't 'observed' in the rpg industry (I believe from talking to Dancey that something along these lines happened prior to 3e but it's not standard practice), and they certainly weren't for 4th ed
This is simply untrue. It has been outright stated on one of their podcasts that they observed people playing; their new setups for rulebooks are in part fallout from watching people play.
They didn't get rid of the OGL, the OGL exists in perpetuity, that's why it was a safe harbor for publishers to release under. They didn't release 4e under it (which is entirely their right to do so, just as most of their books weren't put into the SRD and available under the OGL). But a publisher 100 years from now can release something under the OGL if they wanted to.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. By "Get rid of the OGL" I meant "stopped using it".
The fact is, IP laws strike a balance that has been decided as a matter of public policy. We allow a certain area of protection, and we allow a certain area of freedom to operate outside of that protection. So long as people are operating in an area in which they are legally allowed to act, the complaining is nonsense. Most of it comes from people who would probably just as quickly argue the other side if a company they liked was on the other end of it. Most of it also comes from people who haven't even bothered to research IP law or understand the policy reasons behind why it is the way it is. In other words, most (not all) of the complaining is just a knee-jerk reaction from people who feel the need to protect WotC as though they're innocent lambs in the woods. They aren't. They're a business with full awareness of IP law when they make their decisions. Which is probably why you don't see any whining coming from WotC itself.
This is a forum. If mature people never spoke about IP law, then why are you here talking about it with us? Why are the 3pps bleating about it? (Well, some of them?) Why are people who (apparently) work for or run such companies expressing dissatisfaction with the GSL? And why is Green Ronin not producing 4e products if the GSL is so easy to bypass?
I think the long, the short, and the middle of it is that people enjoy arguing and learning, and forums are an excellent place to do both. As well, some people see forums as a way to simply make others listen, or as a means of promoting their products (both have been evident on these forums in the past).
There's nothing wrong with us debating IP law. Nothing we do personally is likely to matter. But it is fun learning and arguing and seeing whether or not your points hold up under scrutiny.
I think the idea that either side is bad is misguided. Both are business doing what they feel is right for their business. So long as they are all operating within the bounds of the law I don't have a problem with any of them.
Well some of us feel that they're crossing that line, or at the very least are dangerously close to it, and are behaving in an unethical manner by taking someone else's hard work.
It reminds me of Satanism, which is remarkably silly as a rejection of Christianity because its religion is based on someone else's (and which, at its core, requires the embracing of the things it tends to profess to hate).
Most people don't really understand Satanism. It isn't a rejection of Christianity any more than any other religion is; its beliefs really have little to do with Christianity. They mostly just call themselves Satanists to mess with Christians, because they find it hilarious and Satanism is about that sort of thing - basically, acceptance of what Jung would call "the shadow", and really the deification of the self.
Mongoose is putting out Wraith Recon for the GSL. A person from Mongoose is saying the goal is to put out a pure fantasy setting that turns the genre on its head the way that Dark Sun did.
Kenzer reheated their old campaign setting with a bare minimum of crunchy bits.
Even if Wraith Recon doesn't meet its goals, I have to respect any effort driven by the idea that a setting should push the genre more than I would respect an effort whose tag line could be: "D&D, but with more hobgoblins and fewer vowels!".
Seriously, even WOTC did a complete overhaul of the game's flavor in advance of 4th Edition and they are the ones making D&D.
The lastest announcement regarding Mongoose's upcoming GSL product gives a good contrast
Mongoose is putting out Wraith Recon for the GSL. A person from Mongoose is saying the goal is to put out a pure fantasy setting that turns the genre on its head the way that Dark Sun did.
Kenzer reheated their old campaign setting with a bare minimum of crunchy bits.
Even if Wraith Recon doesn't meet its goals, I have to respect any effort driven by the idea that a setting should push the genre more than I would respect an effort whose tag line could be: "D&D, but with more hobgoblins and fewer vowels!".
Seriously, even WOTC did a complete overhaul of the game's flavor in advance of 4th Edition and they are the ones making D&D.
Wraith Recon looks pretty interesting from what I saw on the site. I hope it's executed properly. Could be loads of fun to play with.
I'm not a lawyer, I've got better things to do with my time.
I haven't designed a gaming system because I've got better things to do, again.
Is posting on this and other boards what you refer to as "better stuff to do?"
I'm not a lawyer, I've got better things to do with my time.
That's interesting. I'm not an engineer because I have better things to do. Like telling engineers what to do :D
Most people don't really understand Satanism. It isn't a rejection of Christianity any more than any other religion is; its beliefs really have little to do with Christianity. They mostly just call themselves Satanists to mess with Christians, because they find it hilarious and Satanism is about that sort of thing - basically, acceptance of what Jung would call "the shadow", and really the deification of the self.
Incorrect. most people don't realize that there are many forms of satanism in existence. what you describe sounds much like Anton Szandor LaVey's church of Satan but not at all similar to deist satanism which sprang up in rebellion against Christianity. Both draw strongly from inversed christian rites an example of which would be the black mass.
Basically you are part of the" Most people don't really understand Satanism" demographic you mentioned.
Well some of us feel that they're crossing that line, or at the very least are dangerously close to it, and are behaving in an unethical manner by taking someone else's hard work.
I have a hard time sympathizing with WotC on this account. I have a good friend whos work was stolen by WotC. Ive seen the emails they exchanged, both hers and theirs. She kept them all. In the end it amounted to 'We own it now so go screw yourself.' So if anyone is stealing their hard work, well I call it karma. You reap what you sow.
Well some of us feel that they're crossing that line, or at the very least are dangerously close to it, and are behaving in an unethical manner by taking someone else's hard work.
I'm glad I don't share your attitude. Otherwise, I'd have to get angry at you for quoting me in your posts - why should all my hard typing work be wasted helping you to pad your post count?
:headexplo
The lastest announcement regarding Mongoose's upcoming GSL product gives a good contrast
Mongoose is putting out Wraith Recon for the GSL. A person from Mongoose is saying the goal is to put out a pure fantasy setting that turns the genre on its head the way that Dark Sun did.
Kenzer reheated their old campaign setting with a bare minimum of crunchy bits.
Even if Wraith Recon doesn't meet its goals, I have to respect any effort driven by the idea that a setting should push the genre more than I would respect an effort whose tag line could be: "D&D, but with more hobgoblins and fewer vowels!".
Seriously, even WOTC did a complete overhaul of the game's flavor in advance of 4th Edition and they are the ones making D&D.
Can you praise one company without insulting another?
The lastest announcement regarding Mongoose's upcoming GSL product gives a good contrast
Mongoose is putting out Wraith Recon for the GSL. A person from Mongoose is saying the goal is to put out a pure fantasy setting that turns the genre on its head the way that Dark Sun did.
Kenzer reheated their old campaign setting with a bare minimum of crunchy bits.
Even if Wraith Recon doesn't meet its goals, I have to respect any effort driven by the idea that a setting should push the genre more than I would respect an effort whose tag line could be: "D&D, but with more hobgoblins and fewer vowels!".
Seriously, even WOTC did a complete overhaul of the game's flavor in advance of 4th Edition and they are the ones making D&D.
This is so Hypocritical it's not even funny. First off, do you have any idea how old FR is? Any at all... Secondly, you know a lot of people don't like massive changes to the settings they've been playing for years. Thirdly, if it isn't broke, why fix it?
Also I'm a little confused, why is Kenzer a worthless hack for producing a well liked, creative and extremely good setting that is compatible with the 4e rule set. And Mongoose publishing is not for going the exact same thing? The only difference between the two is that one is published with the GSL license while the other isn't. (Oh and as an aside should mongoose decide to publish the setting exactly as advertised, it is in breach of said GSL.)
And you still haven't answered my question, in like 11 pages...There isn't a single "new" or "original" mechanic in 4e. Are the devs who made it worthless hacks too?
(And, of course, there's "originality" in setting design which consists of "My elves have beards!")
Ah, but those are not original either as Elves in Middle-Earth had beards when they reached their third life-cycle. Cirdan the Shipwright had a beard and was a Telerin Elf (quite an old one in fact). :D
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I must say that all this arguing over Kingdoms of Kalamar has now got me wondering if I missed out on a good setting. So I shall plop down some money, most likely, for this interesting setting.
:evillaughSorry, couldn't help myself. I must say that all this arguing over Kingdoms of Kalamar has now got me wondering if I missed out on a good setting. So I shall plop down some money, most likely, for this interesting setting.
It's an amazingly awesome setting. I highly recommend that you do.
(Oh and as an aside should mongoose decide to publish the setting exactly as advertised, it is in breach of said GSL.)
actually they are all ready broken the terms of the GSL do to the size and placement of the logo in there advertisement.:D
Is posting on this and other boards what you refer to as "better stuff to do?"
Yes. You are all my puppets! Bwahahahahaha!
Satanism off-topic stuff
Oh yes, Gothic Satanism. AKA it doesn't exist Satanism. Yeah, maybe there are like five people who worship the Christian Satan, but their numbers are completely negligable assuming they even exist.
Or did you think SRA actually happened? Here's a hint: it didn't.
The black mass exists for the sole purpose to make Christians angry.
Incorrect. most people don't realize that there are many forms of satanism in existence. what you describe sounds much like Anton Szandor LaVey's church of Satan but not at all similar to deist satanism which sprang up in rebellion against Christianity.
Oh yes, Gothic Satanism. AKA it doesn't exist Satanism. Yeah, maybe there are like five people who worship the Christian Satan, but their numbers are completely negligable assuming they even exist.
Or did you think SRA actually happened? Here's a hint: it didn't.
Both draw strongly from inversed christian rites an example of which would be the black mass.
The black mass exists for the sole purpose to make Christians angry.
If I cared about my post count, my posts wouldn't be three pages long. In any event, it is what is known as "fair use".
Right, but you are the one who has drawn a distinction between what is legal and what is right. After all, what Kenzer is doing is a form of "fair use" as well - specifically, nominative use.
Your work as an engineer probably wouldn't get very far if you weren't allowed to make use of ideas like "lever", or "molecule", or "electricity". The fact that scientists have spent significant amounts of time and money developing these ideas over the centuries doesn't take away your right to invent new things based on these ideas.
Right, but you are the one who has drawn a distinction between what is legal and what is right. After all, what Kenzer is doing is a form of "fair use" as well - specifically, nominative use.
Not really. They're deriving their work from WotC's copyrighted materials and associating themselves with the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
Your work as an engineer probably wouldn't get very far if you weren't allowed to make use of ideas like "lever", or "molecule", or "electricity". The fact that scientists have spent significant amounts of time and money developing these ideas over the centuries doesn't take away your right to invent new things based on these ideas.
You cannot own ideas, and you can't own mathematics or the laws of physics either. You can own executions thereof. Its pretty clear you don't understand IP laws if you think you could own any of those things. You cannot own a mathematical formula, nor electromagnetism, nor gravity, nor a theory of gravity. You could own a book about a theory of gravity, or a paper you wrote about a theory of gravity. You could own a transistor design. But you couldn't own the electromagnetic force that the transistor design uses, nor the mathematics that your transistor design was derived from.
Not really. They're deriving their work from WotC's copyrighted materials and associating themselves with the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
Are they breaking the law? If they're not, sounsd like fair use to me. If you say they are breaking the law then you might want to wait until WotC actually does something. Because they've got a lawyer saying otherwise and you're just an anonymous internet poster.
Are they breaking the law? If they're not, sounsd like fair use to me. If you say they are breaking the law then you might want to wait until WotC actually does something. Because they've got a lawyer saying otherwise and you're just an anonymous internet poster.
Because clearly, an lawyer with a stake in a company is going to say "Yeah, my company is breaking the law."
I think they are breaking the law or at least bordering on doing so. Its not "wrong" to think otherwise, but I think that is the case. It is my hypothesis. It is difficult to test that hypothesis, however, without a court case, as it is borderline, and I'm not sure that WotC will bother.
I have a good friend whos work was stolen by WotC.
A good friend huh? Way to name names and be specific. What material was stolen?
You honestly believe "I have a friend whose work was stolen by WotC", without a name, what the work is, or when this happened, or any evidence, is going to convince anyone?
That's pretty weak.
If dav posted anymore information then he did, it would have been removed and you never would have seen the post unless it was subscribed and forwarded to your mailbox. "Friend of a friend" I could understand as being suspect, but he is flat out saying he saw some kind of evidence. Does he have any reason to lie?
I'll reverse it...
Who is the Titanium Dragon that we should believe anything that comes out of it's mouth.
Who is the Titanium Dragon that we should believe anything that comes out of it's mouth.
Why, he is Fahamut, the lesser known brother of the Platinum Dragon!
Not really. They're deriving their work from WotC's copyrighted materials and associating themselves with the Dungeons & Dragons trademark.
You keep saying this, but you can't back it up. Something doesn't become true just because you repeat it incessantly.
YIts pretty clear you don't understand IP laws if you think you could own any of those things.
It's pretty clear that you didn't read my post very well, either.
If dav posted anymore information then he did, it would have been removed and you never would have seen the post unless it was subscribed and forwarded to your mailbox. "Friend of a friend" I could understand as being suspect, but he is flat out saying he saw some kind of evidence. Does he have any reason to lie?
Yes. He's someone on the internet.
And more to the point, do you -really- think it'd be removed? Have you watched these forums? People don't get banned for bashing on WotC.
The reality is that without evidence, we're unlikely to believe far-fetched claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
It's pretty clear that you didn't read my post very well, either.
If you knew they were strawmen, why post them?
Oh, that's right, that's the purpose - strawman arguments.
Why, he is Fahamut, the lesser known brother of the Platinum Dragon!
Nooo, my secret identity! Currrrrse youuuuuu!~
Yes. He's someone on the internet.
And more to the point, do you -really- think it'd be removed? Have you watched these forums? People don't get banned for bashing on WotC.
1)Yup I do. 2)Yup I have. 3)No they don't.
So what if he is "someone on the internet" That doesn't make him a liar. You are someone on the internet, show 2 posts in this thread where you have lied and I'll believe you.
As for him getting banned... I didn't say banned, why would you say banned? You clearly knew I meant the 'post would be removed' and jumped to some conclusion that he would get banned. Quite the logical acrobat.
This is so Hypocritical it's not even funny. First off, do you have any idea how old FR is? Any at all... Secondly, you know a lot of people don't like massive changes to the settings they've been playing for years. Thirdly, if it isn't broke, why fix it?
Also I'm a little confused, why is Kenzer a worthless hack for producing a well liked, creative and extremely good setting that is compatible with the 4e rule set. And Mongoose publishing is not for going the exact same thing? The only difference between the two is that one is published with the GSL license while the other isn't. (Oh and as an aside should mongoose decide to publish the setting exactly as advertised, it is in breach of said GSL.)
And you still haven't answered my question, in like 11 pages...There isn't a single "new" or "original" mechanic in 4e. Are the devs who made it worthless hacks too?
Mongoose is putting out a new setting and is attempting to expand the definition of the fantasy genre. KoK, not so much with the boundry pushing.
I would say the presentation of the mechanics in 4th is original even if individual components could be found in other sources. Can you point me to a game that proceeded 4th Edition D&D that had the exact same rules system? Unlike 4th Edition KoK, whose rules are solely derived from one source.
If you knew they were strawmen, why post them?
Oh, that's right, that's the purpose - strawman arguments.
Not straw men - they were examples of ideas which, like game rules, are not subject to copyright. You obviously understand that these things cannot be copyrighted, and yet you seem to insist that the ideas behind D&D are somehow different and subject to greater protection, when they simply aren't.
Nominative use of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark name is also well-established in law, and is neither illegal nor immoral. And yet, you continue to insist that you think Kenzer's actions are illegal and immoral. What specific legal or moral principles do you think Kenzer is violating?
It seems apparent to the vast majority of people posting in this thread that you are wrong, but you continue arguing, moving the goal posts or changing your position to try to appear as though you were right all along. When that doesn't work, you start attacking people's motives. It's all very tiresome.
Common derivative uses of "fair use" IP and the concept of IP laws being used to forward expression based on earlier usages are (in ideal practice) not used to attempt to profit off of that IP separately but to add to a body of knowledge or creative work with positive acknowledgement and support for the original.
When Wizards puts out a GSL, they are saying, in essence: We are more than glad for you to use our IP, but under these particular restrictions. If you want, you can put out your own stuff not under the GSL, but we'd really prefer you didn't and you can't use our logo if you do. They're also essentially giving notice with the GSL that this is the basis of their legal standing on the matter, and things done with 4.0 IP outside of that are things which they *MIGHT* take legal action regarding.
Ethically, then, it's not bad for a company prima facie to put out stuff using 4.0 without the GSL. It's not bad for them to complain that they don't like the GSL because it's too restrictive. What is bad, in my opinion, is them (or us) viewing them as the 'good guys' because they're doing it, or as 'rebels'. It's one thing to respectfully disagree, or to opt out; it's another thing entirely to attack the company that is the source of the system from which they hope to profit and in essence waggle their red-painted butts out the window going "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you can't catch us you evil empire!"
That's just one man's opinion. Considering the ethical standards I hope (perhaps futilely) that playing in a game with goodly heroes striving against evil engenders, I am vaguely hopeful that other people share it.
Mongoose is putting out a new setting and is attempting to expand the definition of the fantasy genre. KoK, not so much with the boundry pushing.
So did the book of Erotic Fantasy...Is pushing the boundaries always a good thing? Besides what if I happen to like KoK, but don't like playing 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd, and haven't tried Hack Master. Wouldn't it make sense for me to buy, and use a campaign setting for the rule system I like?
I will Probably buy Wraith Recon when it comes out, along with Faruin 4e, and Amethyst 4ED and whichever else looks cool. For me GSL/no GSL/New/old doesn't make much of a difference. I want Quality in my games.
I would say the presentation of the mechanics in 4th is original even if individual components could be found in other sources. Can you point me to a game that proceeded 4th Edition D&D that had the exact same rules system? Unlike 4th Edition KoK, whose rules are solely derived from one source.
Ah so the Presentation is whats makes something original? Ok please point to a campaign setting that came before KoK which presents the same world, and fluff as KoK? If we follow this line, everything that is not a copy of something is original...
Or on the flip side I guess Ebberron and Faruin are unoriginal and uncreative and worthless becuase they were designed for existing rules sets (Faruin multiple times even). Yep those worthless hacks at WotC can't come up with anything new.
I will Probably buy Wraith Recon when it comes out, along with Faruin 4e, and Amethyst 4ED and whichever else looks cool. For me GSL/no GSL/New/old doesn't make much of a difference. I want Quality in my games.
This.
The fact that, for the WotC Campaign settings at least, there will only be 3 books, makes it much easier to get into the campaign settings.
I didnt post names, not because I thought the post would be deleted, but because I didnt ask this persons permission to cite her as an example. When the incident occured she didnt post threads attacking WotC or anything of the sort. She kept the matter between her, WotC, and the friends and family she confided in. Suffice it to say it was a story and it is on this website.
This.
The fact that, for the WotC Campaign settings at least, there will only be 3 books, makes it much easier to get into the campaign settings.
Completely or kindly off-topic, but it does also present a bit of problem, as Forgotten Realms needed to be retrofit to work with 4th, anything that gets extensive work on a setting could cause problems in the future as people did not much like the level of detail given to the Realms. Also having many different authors to a setting hurts because like in past settings some things just don't mesh well with each other even if they are all on the same team unless they are working closely together and just split who gets top billing on the settings material.
I do think it does give WotC a better chance to devote proper time to fewer settings and the GSL/OGL/[insert two letters here]L being able to give other settings will make sure that they will be stronger things IF taken care of rather than run wild like seems to be a boon that 3rd had.
Assuming this is what you meant by "getting into the settings" as giving them more level of detail by having more time with fewer settings to devote to the few settings and make them work better...aka quality control.
Actually, Aces & Eights is selling quite well, thank you.
Certainly it's not selling at the numbers of the 4E D&D core books from the best-known fantasy rpg that's been around for longer than many of its players have been alive... but then that's not really unexpected either.
late to the party (as usual). Well put, Mark.
I really don't get the "Game X blows because it doesn't sell like 4e" argument.
In my mind the only justification a game needs for its existence is an audience large enough to make it worthwhile for its publisher.
Aces and Eights has certainly been worthwhile for us and then some.
We're not a large company. We don't need to sell at 4e levels/numbers to have what we consider a hit. All we need from a new product is for it to make enough to pay our overhead, health insurance, 401ks, salaries etc.
If it brings in money beyond that? Gravy. ;)
One of the things I like about my job (and our company) is the fact we have the luxury of making games we ourselves want to play. As opposed to working on games dictated to us because of the market or current trends.
In the case of Aces and Eights we just happened to have a burning desire to do a western rpg. Not because we thought it would go gangbusters. But simply because we ourselves happen to love the genre. We like to think if you put a lot of passion into your work it will be infectious. Or at least be appealing to others who have the same sort of passion for the subject matter.
We're not alone in this. Most small game publishers I know feel the same way. We cater to our fans. Not to our detractors. Who has that sort of bandwidth?
So it's all good.
This is going to sound silly, but my primary objection to people not using the GSL and attempting to skirt the fringes of it isn't a legal one. It's an ethical one.
Common derivative uses of "fair use" IP and the concept of IP laws being used to forward expression based on earlier usages are (in ideal practice) not used to attempt to profit off of that IP separately but to add to a body of knowledge or creative work with positive acknowledgement and support for the original.
When Wizards puts out a GSL, they are saying, in essence: We are more than glad for you to use our IP, but under these particular restrictions. If you want, you can put out your own stuff not under the GSL, but we'd really prefer you didn't and you can't use our logo if you do. They're also essentially giving notice with the GSL that this is the basis of their legal standing on the matter, and things done with 4.0 IP outside of that are things which they *MIGHT* take legal action regarding.
Ethically, then, it's not bad for a company prima facie to put out stuff using 4.0 without the GSL. It's not bad for them to complain that they don't like the GSL because it's too restrictive. What is bad, in my opinion, is them (or us) viewing them as the 'good guys' because they're doing it, or as 'rebels'. It's one thing to respectfully disagree, or to opt out; it's another thing entirely to attack the company that is the source of the system from which they hope to profit and in essence waggle their red-painted butts out the window going "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you can't catch us you evil empire!"
That's just one man's opinion. Considering the ethical standards I hope (perhaps futilely) that playing in a game with goodly heroes striving against evil engenders, I am vaguely hopeful that other people share it.
Scott, you have just said everything I wanted to in this thread, just in a much more eloquent fashion.
What do the 3pps who are active on this thread think of this stance?
Joe
Scott, you have just said everything I wanted to in this thread, just in a much more eloquent fashion.
What do the 3pps who are active on this thread think of this stance?
Joe
I am niether a lawyer, nor a 3pp.
I don't think that is what Kenzer is doing, or entending to do. In fact if you read earlier in this thread mark Plemmons stats that they simply made the what they felt was the best business decsion for their company.
Thats why I'm having such a hard time understanding why posters like TD and portermj are tacking kenzers move so personally. There was nothing personal about it. kenzer did not see enough benefit in the GSL to sign it, and felt it was both a good business move, and a legal one, to produce a version of KoK for 4e. Niether Kenzer nor Wotc are doing anything ethically wrong, they are simply making descions that feel are in their best interests.
I person do not like the GSL. It in the short and long term will most likely mean less 3pp support for 4e, which means i get less products to choose from for my game. However Wotc has every right to produce, or not, a GSL as they see fit. Simmilarly anyone can opt for, or against it as they see fit. i'm having a hard time seeing who either decsion is unethical. So long as no one outright steals anyone else's IP. But that has not happened here.
So did the book of Erotic Fantasy...Is pushing the boundaries always a good thing? Besides what if I happen to like KoK, but don't like playing 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd, and haven't tried Hack Master. Wouldn't it make sense for me to buy, and use a campaign setting for the rule system I like?
I will Probably buy Wraith Recon when it comes out, along with Faruin 4e, and Amethyst 4ED and whichever else looks cool. For me GSL/no GSL/New/old doesn't make much of a difference. I want Quality in my games.
Ah so the Presentation is whats makes something original? Ok please point to a campaign setting that came before KoK which presents the same world, and fluff as KoK? If we follow this line, everything that is not a copy of something is original...
Or on the flip side I guess Ebberron and Faruin are unoriginal and uncreative and worthless becuase they were designed for existing rules sets (Faruin multiple times even). Yep those worthless hacks at WotC can't come up with anything new.
Look, if you are trying to get me to put up a formula where products plugged in a mathmatical result is the outcome you aren't going to get it. There is no quality that always makes a product good or bad. But there for me there are certain common qualities that are usually associated with things I like and certain common qualities that are usually associated with things I don't like.
I'm more inclined like products that push boundries, that doesn't mean I like all things that claim to be genre changing. I tend to like Batman stories, that doesn't mean I can't hate Batman & Robin while geeking out to Dark Knight.
For me, there is a clear distinction between what 4th Edition brought to the hobby in terms of the game system and what KoK brings to the table. John and Paul didn't invent any new notes or words when they created "A Day in the Life" they just put them together in a very inspired way. If you don't see it, you don't see.
Again, there is no mathmatical proof that Kingdoms of Kalimar is cliche ridden and unimaginative. All I can say is that in my own experience with Kingdoms of Kalimar and other RPGs, novels, and games is that it is what you expect when asked to imagine a generic fantasy world.
I'm not going to set up a double-blind experiment before I feel comfortable saying that I'm not going to be surprised if many publishers that make 4E GSL materials will find themselves forced to be creative. Or that many third party publishers that do the anything to tie a sourcebook or campaign setting to 4th Edition without actually signing the GSL will end up putting the least amount of effort into their products.
I'm not going to set up a double-blind experiment before I feel comfortable saying that I'm not going to be surprised if many publishers that make 4E GSL materials will find themselves forced to be creative. Or that many third party publishers that do the anything to tie a sourcebook or campaign setting to 4th Edition without actually signing the GSL will end up putting the least amount of effort into their products.
And you were making so much, right up to here. here is were you assign that double blind binding quality to creativity. What your saying here is that the only difference between a creative product and non creative product is the GSL. This, at least to me, is complete nonsense.
I can understand that you don't feel Kingdoms of kalamar is uncreative. the setting is 20 years old, its not surprising it seems cliched to you, it is the cliche. However you don't like it becuase it is your basic fantasy setting with out any ping or pop or hip and new. And thats fine. But don't say it's uncreative becuase it isn't GSl, thats just silly talk. Similarly you may end up liking wriath recon becuase it is new and exciting and all that. I'm ceritanly interested and plan on giving it a try. However being GSL won't make it any better or worse then if it weren't GSL. That will be the sole result of its creator.
Not straw men - they were examples of ideas which, like game rules, are not subject to copyright.
Except, of course, that ALL ideas are not subject to copyright. You cannot copyright an idea.
You obviously understand that these things cannot be copyrighted, and yet you seem to insist that the ideas behind D&D are somehow different and subject to greater protection, when they simply aren't.
You don't understand. The rules may not be copyrightable, but the presentation of those rules can indeed be copyrighted.
In short, just because you can build a game based on the same ideas doesn't mean if you build a game based on the exact same mechanics that you're likely to end up with a marketable product.
Nominative use of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark name is also well-established in law, and is neither illegal nor immoral. And yet, you continue to insist that you think Kenzer's actions are illegal and immoral. What specific legal or moral principles do you think Kenzer is violating?
Dilution of the trademark by using it in order to associate themselves with it.
It seems apparent to the vast majority of people posting in this thread that you are wrong, but you continue arguing, moving the goal posts or changing your position to try to appear as though you were right all along. When that doesn't work, you start attacking people's motives. It's all very tiresome.
There's like five people in this thread. You aren't one of them.
So did the book of Erotic Fantasy...Is pushing the boundaries always a good thing?
I have no problem with the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Why would I care?
Ah so the Presentation is whats makes something original? Ok please point to a campaign setting that came before KoK which presents the same world, and fluff as KoK? If we follow this line, everything that is not a copy of something is original...
The problem is non-fair use of extant materials, not the lack of originality present in their world (though from what I read of the PDF, nothing about it made me think "Oh, this would be awesome to play.")
I really don't get the "Game X blows because it doesn't sell like 4e" argument.
I really don't get "This is better than 4e, this is why no one buys it."
And yes, not selling well IS an indication of quality, especially when your schitck is "D&D, but with a funny hat!"
Thats why I'm having such a hard time understanding why posters like TD and portermj are tacking kenzers move so personally.
Maybe because we actually create useful IP (or are trying to), and hate to see our IP ripped off by hacks, so we dislike all hacks who rip off other people's IP?
When Wizards puts out a GSL, they are saying, in essence: We are more than glad for you to use our IP, but under these particular restrictions. If you want, you can put out your own stuff not under the GSL, but we'd really prefer you didn't and you can't use our logo if you do. They're also essentially giving notice with the GSL that this is the basis of their legal standing on the matter, and things done with 4.0 IP outside of that are things which they *MIGHT* take legal action regarding.
That is not what they are saying.
What they are saying is that they know very well just how much of their property they can defend in court, and that they are aware of how much bad publicity they would get and how much money they would have to spend to try and crush every derivative publisher the way TSR did.
So rather than try and do that, what they are going to do is cut a deal with every third party publisher. Not only can those people use what they are allowed to use, they will get to use a bit of extra stuff they would not normally be allowed to use. In return, they have to agree that the stuff they could normally use, stuff that WotC could only outspend people in court to prevent them from using, belongs to WotC anyway, and that they recognize that.
They are also saying one other critical thing; that when they did the OGL they either forgot or nobody cared about what would happen when they changed the system again. What they do not want in a big way is people using their old rules system anymore. The GSL ensures that nobody will be using 4E after WotC moves to 5E.
Think of it like wanting to use the local public baseball field or basketball court. Anybody can use it, but there is inevitably some group of really sharp players who are always around, insisting that since they are there first, if you want to use the place, you have to beat them first. Today though they are willing to cut you a deal. Not only can you use the field, but you can borrow their high quality bases and other equipment. All you have to do is agree that they really and truly own the field, and give way when they say to, and you can have that other cool stuff.
The GSL takes it to another level. Now those people claiming the field have gone down the block and built this brand new field on some other public property. So again they cannot keep you off it. Of course they will let you join their league. And provide even more equipment. But now you have to agree they own everything and back them up on that always. Oh, and if you want to go back and play on the other field, which they do not own but which you agreed they did, you are not allowed to.
Of course, in that comparison, the people trying to hog the field come across as pretty selfish and annoying. That is not the intent of the GSL, or the OGL before it. Instead it is just a very simple attempt to serve their own business interests. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with any company choosing to take a pass on it.
Maybe because we actually create useful IP (or are trying to), and hate to see our IP ripped off by hacks, so we dislike all hacks who rip off other people's IP?
Can't speak for you, but when I see people reusing my OGC, I do not feel ripped off, I feel flattered.
And you were making so much, right up to here. here is were you assign that double blind binding quality to creativity. What your saying here is that the only difference between a creative product and non creative product is the GSL. This, at least to me, is complete nonsense.
Good thing that isn't what I am saying.
Except, of course, that ALL ideas are not subject to copyright. You cannot copyright an idea.
That's what I said.
You don't understand. The rules may not be copyrightable, but the presentation of those rules can indeed be copyrighted.
If I don't understand it, then why is that exactly what I said?
In short, just because you can build a game based on the same ideas doesn't mean if you build a game based on the exact same mechanics that you're likely to end up with a marketable product.
We're not talking about whether 3rd party products are "marketable", we're talking about whether they're "legal" and/or "ethical".
Dilution of the trademark by using it in order to associate themselves with it.
That's an extremely weak argument, though - Kenzer's disclaimers are very clear, and it is highly unlikely that any court would rule it as dilution.
Do you have any other specific legal or moral principles which you believe that Kenzer is violating, or is the incredibly weak 'dilution of trademark' argument the best you can come up with?
The problem is non-fair use of extant materials, not the lack of originality present in their world (though from what I read of the PDF, nothing about it made me think "Oh, this would be awesome to play.")
Everything in KoK is either fair use, or IP which Kenzer already owns and has owned for years and years.
Incorrect. most people don't realize that there are many forms of satanism in existence. what you describe sounds much like Anton Szandor LaVey's church of Satan but not at all similar to deist satanism which sprang up in rebellion against Christianity. Both draw strongly from inversed christian rites an example of which would be the black mass.
Basically you are part of the" Most people don't really understand Satanism" demographic you mentioned.
And this is a problem how? Are satanists misunderstood crazies? Should we come to know their form of craziness better?
Not knowing satanism has never been a detriment, since most people that claim to be satanists are simply sensationalists.
Thank you for the additional clarifications. In my wash of ethical and moral considerations I neglected (and unintentionally colored) my commentary solely based on the way I think that some people at WOTC think. Your explanation makes sense from the legal and corporate standpoint, making it probably more likely.
They are also saying one other critical thing; that when they did the OGL they either forgot or nobody cared about what would happen when they changed the system again. What they do not want in a big way is people using their old rules system anymore. The GSL ensures that nobody will be using 4E after WotC moves to 5E.
This is certainly true.
The OGL certainly expanded the field in the sense of "IP encouraging creativity based on derivation of former works", as Mutants and Masterminds, Blue Rose, Kingdoms of Kalamar, and others show. Additionally, the fact (in my experience) is that most, if not all, of the sort of people who would buy these third-party games will also buy the 4E stuff ANYWAY--at least the main books. Third-party gaming publishers who aren't White Wolf or Games Workship appeal to gamers who are already invested in the hobby but are looking for an alternative to D&D (be it 3.5 or 4.0). The sort of people who aren't going to at least check out the 4.0 books by buying and reading them are also (gross generalization here, based solely on my experiences as a retailer!) the sort of people who don't want to really try new things and/or object to reinvesting in D&D books they've already spent a lot of money on.
To use Kenzer as an example, of the people who bought Aces & Eights in the store every one of them was an existing roleplayer who already played D&D and was looking for something different to try out. Mutants & Masterminds was the game-of-choice for people who played Champions/Hero and were looking for something easier--and these people also are folks who started out in D&D.
So it's not really about D&D not selling. I don't think WOTC loses sleep over 3pp sucking money out of their coffers. What you said about edition change is a lot more logical: what they want is that the 3PP people can create whatever they want to, so long as they don't dilute the D&D "main product" into a dozen different branches of old edition stuff, new edition stuff, etcetera. They don't want future sales by 3PP who benefitted from 3.5's OGL to draw attention away from their new IP, they want to build on their new IP.
Which is pretty much what you said, I'm just more wordy about it.
There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with any company choosing to take a pass on it.
This is the essence of my objection to some of the tones of the posters here on both sides of the argument. There's nothing wrong on either side. It's NOT a "rebellion" as the title of the post would have you believe, it's not Good Guys vs. Bad Guys.
This is certainly true.
Well, no, it isn't. When the OGL was created, the intent was it would be what DROVE system change, that as dozens of developers created from the 'base' of D20, the best changes and fixes would be rolled back into the core rules by WOTC -- in effect, the rest of the gaming business would be their R&D department, and all they (WOTC) would have to do would be to take the best rules. It didn't work out this way, for a variety of reasons, one of which was that the people who believed in it left the company early and the ones who remained were, at best, ambivalent about the whole OGL concept.
So it is most assuredly not true that "nobody thought" about new versions when the OGL was created; dealing with system evolution was one of the purposes of the OGL.
I really wish that anyone who wants to talk about what the OGL is/was/was intended for/etc would read Ryan Dancey's extensive essays on the topic. There's a lot of debate over whether the OGL "worked", or achieved its objectives, or was good/bad for WOTC or the game industry, or whatever, but the purpose of it and what it was "supposed" to be used for is not a matter of debate, but of public record. (i.e, there's still people out there spreading the meme that WOTC was "surprised" by people reprinting large chunks of the SRD or "didn't want" people to make their own game systems based on D20.)
Samwise,
Thank you for the additional clarifications. In my wash of ethical and moral considerations I neglected (and unintentionally colored) my commentary solely based on the way I think that some people at WOTC think. Your explanation makes sense from the legal and corporate standpoint, making it probably more likely.
I am sure a lot of people at WotC, both past and present, involved in the OGL and GSL have noble motives.
I am equally sure they want to get paid. On every level, from the game succeeding, to them keeping their jobs because it is succeeding, to Hasbro not pestering them about changes because the game is succeeding, to sensing the pattern there.
Occam's Razor suggests that self interest, enlightened or otherwise, should always be the first consideration in contemplating someone else's business motives.
This is certainly true.
The OGL certainly expanded the field in the sense of "IP encouraging creativity based on derivation of former works", as Mutants and Masterminds, Blue Rose, Kingdoms of Kalamar, and others show. Additionally, the fact (in my experience) is that most, if not all, of the sort of people who would buy these third-party games will also buy the 4E stuff ANYWAY--at least the main books. Third-party gaming publishers who aren't White Wolf or Games Workship appeal to gamers who are already invested in the hobby but are looking for an alternative to D&D (be it 3.5 or 4.0). The sort of people who aren't going to at least check out the 4.0 books by buying and reading them are also (gross generalization here, based solely on my experiences as a retailer!) the sort of people who don't want to really try new things and/or object to reinvesting in D&D books they've already spent a lot of money on.
To use Kenzer as an example, of the people who bought Aces & Eights in the store every one of them was an existing roleplayer who already played D&D and was looking for something different to try out. Mutants & Masterminds was the game-of-choice for people who played Champions/Hero and were looking for something easier--and these people also are folks who started out in D&D.
You have some apples and oranges in there.
Settings are one thing. Variant rules sets are quite another. And while they may not have been intended, to some extent they were inevitable.
Why?
Because not everyone who wants to role-play likes fantasy role-playing. WotC understood this to some extent as shown with D20 Modern, but they could not develop that fully. So third party publishers stepped up to fill those holes, which did create a competition with WotC.
So it's not really about D&D not selling. I don't think WOTC loses sleep over 3pp sucking money out of their coffers. What you said about edition change is a lot more logical: what they want is that the 3PP people can create whatever they want to, so long as they don't dilute the D&D "main product" into a dozen different branches of old edition stuff, new edition stuff, etcetera. They don't want future sales by 3PP who benefitted from 3.5's OGL to draw attention away from their new IP, they want to build on their new IP.
Which is pretty much what you said, I'm just more wordy about it.
Well that is certainly a consideration, but it is another consideration, separate from a desire to prevent variant systems which would actively compete because they are different genres. It also very strongly suggests that, despite assertions otherwise, WotC is very much already looking forward to 5E.
This is the essence of my objection to some of the tones of the posters here on both sides of the argument. There's nothing wrong on either side. It's NOT a "rebellion" as the title of the post would have you believe, it's not Good Guys vs. Bad Guys.
That is quite true.
We're not talking about whether 3rd party products are "marketable", we're talking about whether they're "legal" and/or "ethical".
Ethical?
Do you consider it unethical to provide alternative material for a game when WOTC can't provide enough or won't put it out.
A Prime Example is Adventures. I am sure there are groups out there that have already ran through the Adventures that WOTC has released since 4E has been released. Many DMs can't or won't take the time to "make-up" something on the Fly.
So what were Gaming Groups suspose to do In between H1 Released In May and H2 in July..What do they do Until H3 comes out in August.
How About after
FR1 in September
P1 in October
P2 In December
and then So far in 2009
P3 in March
E1 in April
Quality over "Offical" means more than having A Stupid LOGO slapped on It.
Companies that Provide Quality Products Survive. Companies that Provide Crap go the way of the DODO bird..Unless they slap an "official" logo on it, then the Brand Fanatics buy it up regardless.
Lets Look at how many Adventures WOTC has Put out since 2003 and scheduled so far through 2009. What good are game suppliments without Adventures?
Year: #adventures(months released) (* Adventures released same month)
2003: 0
2004: 2 (7,9)
2005: 2 (1,9)
2006: 8 (2,4(*3)7,9,10,11)
2007: 9 (2,4(*3),6(*2),8,9,11)
Its been 3rd Party Companies that have been keeping Adventures alive.
WOTC has been dumping Novels, Suppliments, Minis and other Accessories that really just line thier pockets with Money..While Companies Like Paizo, Mongoose, Goodman have been providing the Adventures. Our Group was meeting at least 4 times a month. If we relied on WOTC Adventures only we would have nothing to do 75% of the Time besides watch movie, eat pizza and drink Beer, Play Morrowind on XBox...
Not everyone has gone 4E and Companies should be able to provide for any Edition they want, and Products should be able to be provided in Multiple editions if they want..Why Shouldn't an adventure be presented in 1, 2 3, 3.5 and 4E at the same time.
Shoot WOTC has rehashed several classics with the Return To and Expidition Series.
As a creator, it's almost impossible to find something that hasn't been done before. The challenge nowadays is doing it in a new, refreshing and creative way. I write things everyday, some are sold, some stay hidden amid the rubbish of my hard drive, and still others get tossed out there for free. Some are good enough for others to borrow from, and that's good. Is it right for someone to do so? It really matters to how much of an extent, IMO.
Companies who are going around the GSL are certainly within their legal rights to do so. And, they are in a position to produce varied products (both in content and quality) that WotC isn't producing. In a way, as part of the RPG community, it has been generally accepted and often expected for them to do so--the old, share the knowledge principle. Again, IMO, the base rules of an RPG shouldn't be the sole crowning achievement of that RPG. The story, art, layout, editing and all aspects of the creation are judges, and by varying degrees by a variety of individuals. The options presented in the GSL simply weren't beneficial for some of these companies. If you make something that can only stand on its systematic workings, you have failed in a product made for the masses. Cars are designed to look a certain way and provide a variety of creature comforts. Computer games come with far more than a resolution system. RPGs as well come with more than just rules, and those things that are more than rules or overly done concepts is what other creators want to stay away from ethically. The laws were written from an ethical standpoint, and it was deemed that while specific presentation of those rules could be considered a work of art, the nuts and bolts couldn't.
I have my own reasons for accepting and signing the GSL. If I were a larger company, I probably would have done what others have and have both GSL and non-GSL products. Those who have decided openly not to accept the GSL have very different standards and reasons for mine, but these companies are in no ethical violation in skirting the license. They are presenting their work as original, using tnhe framework for an existing, popular product. It's like adding a fourth blade to the triople-bladed razor--hey, you took their idea and did something different with it! Yes, but the point is: it's different. Some people might just want the nuts & bolts, as proven by the pocket player's guides in 3x, but then the chances are these 3pp probably aren't for them. So, even while skirting the GSL, these companies aren't competing on any different level with WotC than pro-GSL companies are.
That's what I said.
If you use something you know isn't copyrightable as a strawman...
We're not talking about whether 3rd party products are "marketable", we're talking about whether they're "legal" and/or "ethical".
That's exactly what I meant by marketable; that it is legal to produce and thus to sell at a profit. If you produce a product which they can sue you over and thus make you lose money.
To use Kenzer as an example, of the people who bought Aces & Eights in the store every one of them was an existing roleplayer who already played D&D and was looking for something different to try out. Mutants & Masterminds was the game-of-choice for people who played Champions/Hero and were looking for something easier--and these people also are folks who started out in D&D.
Which is my point - these companies are leeches. They are incapable of attracting their own demographic or break new ground, so instead sell only to people who already have played D&D. The IDEA of the OGL was to encourage more people to purchase D&D products, but what actually happened was the 3PPs just tried to suck up WotC's target market. Buying Aces & Eights means you aren't buying a WotC product, and some of those gaming dollars could have gone to WotC rather than to someone else.
In short, WotC screwed up by creating the OGL because they basically forgot that the 3pps are leeches on D&D, not people who actually help draw people into the hobby. The OGL thus didn't pull in any new customers, and if someone just purchases 3pp D&D knockoffs rather than purchasing D&D books themselves, then the 3pps are taking money away from the people who made the system they're leeching off of.
The reality is that the GSL helps to prevent this by preventing the whole "You can just look up the rules online" thing, as well as preventing other companies from printing PHBs and the like. The GSL forces anyone who wants to play a 3pp D&D knockoff to purchase books from WotC to use the 3pp products. That's the purpose of the GSL - so as to use the 3pp companies for WotC's own profit and suck back in people who were leeching off 3.x and just using online rules rather than purchasing their own rulebooks.
Which is my point - these companies are leeches. They are incapable of attracting their own demographic or break new ground, so instead sell only to people who already have played D&D. The IDEA of the OGL was to encourage more people to purchase D&D products, but what actually happened was the 3PPs just tried to suck up WotC's target market. Buying Aces & Eights means you aren't buying a WotC product, and some of those gaming dollars could have gone to WotC rather than to someone else.
In short, WotC screwed up by creating the OGL because they basically forgot that the 3pps are leeches on D&D, not people who actually help draw people into the hobby. The OGL thus didn't pull in any new customers, and if someone just purchases 3pp D&D knockoffs rather than purchasing D&D books themselves, then the 3pps are taking money away from the people who made the system they're leeching off of.
The reality is that the GSL helps to prevent this by preventing the whole "You can just look up the rules online" thing, as well as preventing other companies from printing PHBs and the like. The GSL forces anyone who wants to play a 3pp D&D knockoff to purchase books from WotC to use the 3pp products. That's the purpose of the GSL - so as to use the 3pp companies for WotC's own profit and suck back in people who were leeching off 3.x and just using online rules rather than purchasing their own rulebooks.
HUHHHHHHHHHHH
Didn't WOTC leech off of TSR by buying them?
As you put it they should have come up with thier own products instead of relying on Existing D&D Customers. What exactly did WOTC Offer us New and Independant upon the Existing D&D Brand? Nothing,
Why didn't they Come out with thier own System?Sure the game has evolved but its still the same Game..A Fantasy Role Playing Game.
Beause they Knew D&D was a Goldmine. People already knew and loved the Game.
WOTC didn't want to do certain types of Accessories, mainly Adventures
I have posted this Info in another thread already but How Many Adventures did WOTC Offer in 2003....None..Nadda..Zip..Zero..They relied upon your So Called Leaches to do it for them. If WOTC wasn't willing to provide us with stuff, so just where did they expect the Money lost to the Leaches to come from?
WOTC hasn't done anything to attract new Customers, Existing Players have always been the Suppliers of new players. If a friend hadn't asked me to play I never would have played...a Game that never ends...now that was a stupid concept..What good is a game without a winner. I don't see how splatbook after spaltbook attracts any new Players...
In short, WotC screwed up by creating the OGL because they basically forgot that the 3pps are leeches on D&D, not people who actually help draw people into the hobby.
3pps are leeches? Do you really believe this or are you putting everyone on? Regardless of your hysterics, 3pps have been beneficial for the hobby in more ways than you might want to admit. For those that thought 3E was too heavy and bloated, GR gave us True20. For folks who wanted in-print & supported replicas of old school D&D, 3pps offered us LL and OSRIC. TLG's C&C bridged the gap between old school and more modern gaming.
3pps are "not people who actually help draw people into the hobby"??? Last I checked, the hobby was roleplaying games. You don't believe D&D is the only game bringing people into the hobby, do you? Sure, most people are introduced to the hobby through D&D, but not everyone.
More importantly, 3pps kept folks in our hobby. Those disgruntled with the changes brought about by 3E could have left the hobby, but LL and OSRIC were there to keep them interested and involved in RPGs. Sure, they might have left D&D but they they didn't leave gaming.
then the 3pps are taking money away from the people who made the system they're leeching off of.
I'm a fan of old school D&D (B/X and 1E) and really disliked 3E. If 3pps wern't around, WotC (in the 3E days) wouldn't get my $. With 3pps putting out old school compatible products, whey might get my $, but WotC still doesn't. Either way, with or without 3pps, WotC didn't/wouldn't get my $.
Didn't WOTC leech off of TSR by buying them?
No. What part of "buy" do you not understand?
As you put it they should have come up with thier own products instead of relying on Existing D&D Customers. What exactly did WOTC Offer us New and Independant upon the Existing D&D Brand? Nothing,
Well, given that they increased the number of people who played D&D, obviously they did something right, eh?
Why didn't they Come out with thier own System?Sure the game has evolved but its still the same Game..A Fantasy Role Playing Game.
They bought it. If someone buys something, they now own it. If you buy another company, you're also purchasing their market for the product.
Beause they Knew D&D was a Goldmine. People already knew and loved the Game.
Which is why TSR was going out of business, clearly.
WOTC hasn't done anything to attract new Customers, Existing Players have always been the Suppliers of new players. If a friend hadn't asked me to play I never would have played...a Game that never ends...now that was a stupid concept..What good is a game without a winner. I don't see how splatbook after spaltbook attracts any new Players...
Except for some bizzare reason, almost everyone starts with D&D. I wonder why that is... oh, wait, no I don't.
No.
3pps are leeches? Do you really believe this or are you putting everyone on?
Its true. Just because reality isn't appealing doesn't make it any less real.
Regardless of your hysterics, 3pps have been beneficial for the hobby in more ways than you might want to admit.
Such as what exactly? Maybe keeping a few more people playing RPGs, something we have little real evidence of? And how does that benefit WotC?
Answer: It doesn't if they aren't purchasing WotC products.
3pps are "not people who actually help draw people into the hobby"??? Last I checked, the hobby was roleplaying games. You don't believe D&D is the only game bringing people into the hobby, do you? Sure, most people are introduced to the hobby through D&D, but not everyone.
Actually, they are introduced via one of two means:
1) D&D.
2) A white wolf game.
Seriously. 3pps DON'T draw in new customers; they leech off of D&D's customer base. The target of 3pps is "People who play D&D". They aren't trying to get new people into the hobby and don't.
More importantly, 3pps kept folks in our hobby.
A) This doesn't benefit WotC.
B) I rather doubt it was all that significant, honestly. Would you not play 2e D&D, or some other previous edition? Would you have really quit entirely, or would you have done that, or even converted because you didn't have a choice?
I'm a fan of old school D&D (B/X and 1E) and really disliked 3E. If 3pps wern't around, WotC (in the 3E days) wouldn't get my $. With 3pps putting out old school compatible products, whey might get my $, but WotC still doesn't. Either way, with or without 3pps, WotC didn't/wouldn't get my $.
So why should WotC help you? Or them? You aren't buying WotC products, so you're pointless, and if they killed the 3pps, they would lose what, exactly? Nothing, that's right. So why are they obligated to help them? They aren't.
This is the point, more or less. If you are only purchasing 3pp products, then those 3pps are either hurting WotC or at best not helping them; in neither case should they help the 3pps.
If you use something you know isn't copyrightable as a strawman...
That's exactly what I meant by marketable; that it is legal to produce and thus to sell at a profit. If you produce a product which they can sue you over and thus make you lose money.
I like how you completely ignore direct questions which might undermine your argument, and instead try to attack your opponents by using buzzwords and strange definitions.
Apart from "dilution of trademark", which you admit is unlikely to be proven in court, do you have any other specific legal and/or moral objections to Kenzer's Kingdoms of Kalamar supplement for 4th Ed.?
To use Kenzer as an example, of the people who bought Aces & Eights in the store every one of them was an existing roleplayer who already played D&D and was looking for something different to try out. Mutants & Masterminds was the game-of-choice for people who played Champions/Hero and were looking for something easier--and these people also are folks who started out in D&D.
Which is my point - these companies are leeches. They are incapable of attracting their own demographic or break new ground, so instead sell only to people who already have played D&D. The IDEA of the OGL was to encourage more people to purchase D&D products, but what actually happened was the 3PPs just tried to suck up WotC's target market. Buying Aces & Eights means you aren't buying a WotC product, and some of those gaming dollars could have gone to WotC rather than to someone else.
Your statements here prove you really have no idea what you're talking about. You do realize that Aces & Eights doesn't use the OGL because IT ISN"T A D20 GAME? Just because a person used to play D&D in no way means that suddenly a 3PP has "stolen" a customer from WotC. It does, however, mean exactly the opposite of your argument: it means that the 3pp has attracted its own demographic AND broken new ground!
When people left Champions behind to play Mutants & Masterminds, what part of the D&D demographic was "leeched" away from Wizards? Champions is non-d20 and has been around for decades, and M&M is a d20 variant system. At no time was anyone who plays either of these systems playing medieval fantasy, although it is entirely possible that at one time in their lives they did play D&D.
Do you rail against all car companies because they are all leeches, sucking of a demographic created by Ford? All these automobiles out on the road are clearly derivatives of the base Model-T, and therefore every auto maker out there making cars, trucks, etc., are a bunch of leeching, unoriginal bastards! Buying a Honda means you aren't buying a Ford product, and some of those car dollars could have gone to Ford rather than to someone else.
Actually, they are introduced via one of two means:
1) D&D.
2) A white wolf game.
Seriously. 3pps DON'T draw in new customers; they leech off of D&D's customer base. The target of 3pps is "People who play D&D". They aren't trying to get new people into the hobby and don't.
Oh I see. The entirety of original ideas--and of the roleplaying game industry can be summed up by two companies, WotC and White Wolf. How about some of the other companies out there that make/used to make non-D20 and non-WOD games?
- Chaosium (Call of Cthulhu, the original RuneQuest)
- Palladium (Rifts)
- Hero Games (Champions)
- Iron Crown Enterprises (RoleMaster)
- GDW (Traveler; now published by Mongoose)
- Guardians of Order (Big Eyes Small Mouth)
- Atlas Games (Feng Shui)
The list is far longer, but ou get the idea. I know many people who entered into roleplying through Champions, Traveler, and CoC, and some of them have NEVER tried D&D in any incarnation, nor have they played any World of Darkness game.
You are looking at the industry through VERY narrow blinders. D&D may be the biggest kid on the block, but it is still just one game of many. You are working under the delusion that D&D is the entire industry, and all other companies exist merely on the whims of Wizards of the Coast. This is so far off the mark as to be laughable.
Buying Aces & Eights means you aren't buying a WotC product, and some of those gaming dollars could have gone to WotC rather than to someone else.
If I buy Aces & Eights, it's going to be because I want a western game... something that WotC hasn't been interested in providing me. So how would they have got my gaming dollars again? I'm not seeing it.
The OGL thus didn't pull in any new customers, and if someone just purchases 3pp D&D knockoffs rather than purchasing D&D books themselves, then the 3pps are taking money away from the people who made the system they're leeching off of.
Well, one 3pp in particular saying that they were going to support 4.0 was one of the major things that sold me on buying it... However the GSL's delay in letting 3pp's release 4.0 product (and the many missed deadlines in putting the GSL out to start with) have had a simple result... I have bought only the Players Handbook at this time. That means that my not being able to buy 4.0 product from a 3pp whose writing I trust (Necromancer Games) has meant that WotC have (so far) lost out on the $40-70 (figuring 20-35 each for the MM and DMG) that I would have spent on their products by this point.
On the side note, do you plan to answer the question/comments as to the 3pp's stepping in and providing adventures when WotC was unwilling to do so? (you know, the money that the 3pp's were taking from WotC by providing adventures that I found to be superior to what WotC adventures I got the chance to examine/experience) Or is the fact that (if I am correctly remembering) you have stated that you don't bother to buy/examine/consider pre-made adventures precluding a response?
Not everyone has gone 4E and Companies should be able to provide for any Edition they want, and Products should be able to be provided in Multiple editions if they want..Why Shouldn't an adventure be presented in 1, 2 3, 3.5 and 4E at the same time.
Because WOTC is doing all the heavy lifting for D&D, especially for 3rd-4th Edition. It is bad form to be promoting a product specifically as a 4th Edition outside of the GSL.
Nothing is stopping companies from making truly generic adventures. Clearly there is a cache in using the 4E label. You don't see Kenzer putting out Palladium, D6, Tunnel & Trolls, Earthdawn, etc versions of Kingdoms of Kalimar. By putting out products with 4E labels they are acknowledging the value of the edition without acknowledging the work that WOTC put into creating it.
Where is the GSL or OGL for Aces & Eights? Maybe some 3PP would like to fill niches for that game that Kenzer isn't filling? If it is such a net gain for WOTC to have the OGL wouldn't Kenzer want to get the same benefit for their game? Maybe they should work on it in advance of their follow ups to Hackmaster and Aces & Eights: "Smop Smecret", "Smamma Smorld", and "Smtar Smrontsmears".
It seems only fair. Looking at the history of the setting, Kenzer has always relied on the efforts of TSR or WOTC to provide the mechanics for their setting. I imagine they're like an animal raising in captivity that can't fend for themselves in the wild.
Because WOTC is doing all the heavy lifting for D&D, especially for 3rd-4th Edition.
Might I ask then your opinion as to what it says that WotC has been putting out very few adventures in the past years, and plans to put out only a few more in the next while?
I'd be thrilled to see licensing deals offered for Aces & Eights and the new version of Hackmaster, if nothing else, they put out both d20 and HackMaster versions of several adventures, so perhaps they will open things up to do that kind of thing for other pubs with the new version.
Well, given that they increased the number of people who played D&D, obviously they did something right, eh?
Wrong I am willing To bet most people here will tell you that it was people playing that introduced them to D&D and NOT WOTC
Which is why TSR was going out of business, clearly.
Wrong..It was Mismanagement that caused the collapse or TSR..Failure to produce Quality Products...instead of Monthly Suppliments. Ever Wonder why People wanna play Classic Moduals Like TOEE over and Over. Because they were Quality Products. WOTC is getting the same reputation that TSR was MoneyGrubbers. I don't think its a Coincidence that if you hit the Shift Key while typing 4E you get $E. People have already complained and are tired of rebuying books over and over. TSR was pumping out suppliment after suppliment and the Quality went down. WOTC stepped in and Reproduced the Same books over in 3e, and then again in 3.5 and Now they want you to buy them again in 4E.
Such as what exactly? Maybe keeping a few more people playing RPGs, something we have little real evidence of? And how does that benefit WotC?
Answer: It doesn't if they aren't purchasing WotC products.
So You believe that only WOTC Products are keeping everyone Playing. I Only Purchased the 3.5 PHB, MM. DMG, and MIC. I didn't buy any Books other than those even from 3PP
Actually, they are introduced via one of two means:
1) D&D.
2) A white wolf game.
Seriously. 3pps DON'T draw in new customers; they leech off of D&D's customer base. The target of 3pps is "People who play D&D". They aren't trying to get new people into the hobby and don't.
If You look at the Paizo forums you will see alot of New People comming into D&D and Its because of friends Not WOTC once again. Funny how you Mention a Leech as the 2nd Main reason people play RPGs
A) This doesn't benefit WotC.
B) I rather doubt it was all that significant, honestly. Would you not play 2e D&D, or some other previous edition? Would you have really quit entirely, or would you have done that, or even converted because you didn't have a choice?
Well WOTC won't be getting any of My Money from 4E so Unless They release Moduals in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 3.5 Editions they won't be getting any more of my Money even without 3PP so that doesn't support your reasoning, I will continue to Homebrew.
So why should WotC help you? Or them? You aren't buying WotC products, so you're pointless, and if they killed the 3pps, they would lose what, exactly? Nothing, that's right. So why are they obligated to help them? They aren't.
This is the point, more or less. If you are only purchasing 3pp products, then those 3pps are either hurting WotC or at best not helping them; in neither case should they help the 3pps.
I wouldn't be just Buying 3PP Moduals if WOTC still offered Moduals I could Use.. WOTC would still be getting some of My Money If they hadn't killed Dragon and Dungeon Print Magazines
Hay guise lets make a D&D knockoff... only this time, we'll base magic off the power of the FOUR ELEMENTS! And... OUR orcs will be different! Oh, oh, and magic items are so rare and precious that every sword has its own name!
Personally, it would not bother me for a moment if WotC banned ANY third party 4E supplements. It'd be a great thing. Who knows, maybe you'd see some original systems or something crazy like that?
EDIT: I think that's actually unfair, we might see some decent third party supplements in the future of 4E. There were a few cases of third party guys actually getting serious inspiration even in the 3E days, like Monte Cook's Chaositech, though its a shame C-tech was a one shot thing and he went back to MOAR OVER 9000 SPELLS (my favorite was in Arcana Unearthed, he claimed part of it was to balance casters... and he still used the Shapechange: assume any non divine form)
Clearly People are posting to irritate People over the Subject.
The Companies they are insulting are reputable companies.
They are definately trolling now.
I have little respect for most third party publishers, I was so freakin disappointed when I would go into a bookstore, look at a promising new RPG book... and finding out its another damn d20 product. From 3e to 3.9e they were flooding the bookstores with the most derivative garbage I've ever seen.
Hay guise lets make a D&D knockoff... only this time, we'll base magic off the power of the FOUR ELEMENTS! And... OUR orcs will be different! Oh, oh, and magic items are so rare and precious that every sword has its own name!
Personally, it would not bother me for a moment if WotC banned ANY third party 4E supplements. It'd be a great thing. Who knows, maybe you'd see some original systems or something crazy like that?
Did that effect your decision to Purchase them?
Did it keep you from purchasing WOTC products because someone else's Product a crappy in your opinion?
If You felt the Product was good, did you still not buy it just because it wasn't a WOTC product?
Do you purchase WOTC because it has the "Offical" Stamp of approvel on it regardless of the Quality?
And I really like D&D 4e but I am one of them GMs that don't have alot of time to spend making stuff for a campaign so if I can't get quality adventures that I can alot paste together if they don't run an entire campaign in and of itself then I doubt I will even play which means more of my money is lost to Wizards.
I bought alot of the splatbooks for 3.5e but the reason I did was because I was still playing the game and the reason I was still playing the game was the Age of Worms Adventure Path being released in the magazine... I have literally all of Paizo's adventure paths from Shackled City to Curse of the Crimson Throne and it was the only think keeping me tied to D&D 3.5 but now that is gone because of the GSL and Wizards.
However currently D&D 4e is standing on its own merits as a system (even if it could have been The MMO Tabletop RPG and not used D&D) but that will only take it so far without quality products being put out to support the system.
Which is my point - these companies are leeches. They are incapable of attracting their own demographic or break new ground, so instead sell only to people who
Volkswagan, Mitsubishi, Daewoo, Toyota, Chrysler... these people are leeches, they are incapable of attracting their own demographic or breaking new ground. They're just leeching off of Ford who invented the car!
TSR failed because there was hardly ANY 3pp support. There just wasn't enough products to keep the game going and there was alot of other games out there getting more support and was drawing people away. Then comes the OGL and suddenly it revitalizes the name brand people that had been playing other games were drawn into D&D (aka d20) because a bunch of 3pp were taking their old stuff and going d20 with it. That is why D&D once again became a powerhouse and I fear that with the tightened restriction of the OGL and all the old 3pp that had really supported the OGL who are going off to make their own rpg systems again will fracture the market and become even less profitable for D&D.
Err...no, that's not why TSR failed at all. Absolutely not. Do some research on the subject. TSR was over-producing on some of their product lines, producing box sets that actually cost the company money etc. Lack of support had nothing to do with it.
A) This doesn't benefit WotC.
Actually, it does. Firstly you should probably read Dancey's essays and reasons for the OGL when it was first introduced.
To make it simple for you, although I know this point has already been made.
D&D represents at most 50% of the sales in the 'industry'. White Wolf at most 25% (note, these numbers are deliberately high, they're typically lower than this) and the rest of the industry 25%.
Remove the rest of the industry and X amount of game stores go out of business. Without the bricks and mortar stores less people will come into the industry. And while not everyone who comes into the industry via a.n.other game than D&D will go on to purchase D&D an amount of them will.
You keep stating as absolute fact that no one comes into the industry via any company's products other than WotC or White Wolf. Because you state it as an absolute fact, one single person coming into the industry via another company disproves it.
A friend of mine came in via Champions and has in fact never played D&D. Ergo that one example disproves your statements.
There is no charge for awesomeness....
You can find more info here
Think WotC will sue them too?
hey TD and co, I know this is gotta but a bug in your craw....
There is no charge for awesomeness....
You can find more info here
Think WotC will sue them too?
Considering they haven't even started suing Kenzer yet....
Volkswagan, Mitsubishi, Daewoo, Toyota, Chrysler... these people are leeches, they are incapable of attracting their own demographic or breaking new ground. They're just leeching off of Ford who invented the car!
Just been reading through this thread, not really feeling the need to join in, but just for the record Ford did not invent the car. Still I understand what you are saying.
Because, you know, a world of dozens of different incompatible operating systems and hardware is sooooo much better than one with 2-3 dominant standards. The old days of having to find if a program worked with Apple II, Commodore, TRS-80, Atari 800, or the Mattel Aquarius was quite superior to the rise of "IBM Compatible".
That these "parasite" businesses produced better hardware at better prices is irrelevant; they were "unoriginal", and there can be no greater sin.
But wait! Wasn't the original IBM PC built with 95% off-the-shelf hardware, which is why it was so trivial for other manufacturers to duplicate? And didn't IBM buy their OS from some third party company? (What happened to them, anyway?) And didn't that third party company just buy another developers knock-off of CP/M?
Boy, this "originality" stuff is hard to pin down. First we note Ford didn't invent the car, just commercialized it for the masses, now we see IBM wasn't very original...
TD has implied he works in the computer field. I hope, for the sake of his moral consistency, he is using a computer manufactured by IBM, running OS/2, with the MicroChannel architecture. Or a Macintosh, but not one running OS/X, which leeches off the developers of Unix. (I assume he will burst into flames if he ever installs Linux). To use anything else, he'll be supporting unoriginal parasites and leeches.
He also better write all of his own code. No API libraries for him, no sir! That would be stealing, even if the people writing the libraries wanted them to be used in other peoples code -- only unoriginal parasites use work others have done instead of doing their own from scratch! Remember, folks -- originality is found in reinventing the bubble sort, not in using a sorting algorithm in a program that actually does something useful!
So what were Gaming Groups suspose to do In between H1 Released In May and H2 in July..What do they do Until H3 comes out in August.
How About after
FR1 in September
P1 in October
P2 In December
and then So far in 2009
P3 in March
E1 in April
Lets Look at how many Adventures WOTC has Put out since 2003 and scheduled so far through 2009. What good are game suppliments without Adventures?
Year: #adventures(months released) (* Adventures released same month)
2003: 0
2004: 2 (7,9)
2005: 2 (1,9)
2006: 8 (2,4(*3)7,9,10,11)
2007: 9 (2,4(*3),6(*2),8,9,11)
Its been 3rd Party Companies that have been keeping Adventures alive.
Perhaps you forgot about a little something called Dungeon Magazine? Owned by WotC, licensed to Paizo for publication, and now back in house (Although authorship of advantures is still the same process, it's not like it was ever in house at either company).
WOTC has been dumping Novels, Suppliments, Minis and other Accessories that really just line thier pockets with Money..While Companies Like Paizo, Mongoose, Goodman have been providing the Adventures.
Oh... right. I forgot that only WotC sold products to make money and line their pockets. Those other publishers sold their stuff at a loss out of the kindness of their hearts because they didn't want to make any money of them. :rolleye2:
Why do so many people want 4E to fail? It is good system. It is really fun, and very well balanced. I don't understand why people want it to go under.
Uhm...who has wanted it go under? Most people in this thread want to see more third party support for it, which means they want it to succeed. Third parties don't support flop games.
Uhm...who has wanted it go under? Most people in this thread want to see more third party support for it, which means they want it to succeed. Third parties don't support flop games.
That isn't my take home from this thread. It looks to me like lots of people are getting really excited that 4e has met some difficulty with its GSL. People mostly complain about the GSL not permitting 3rd parties to publish d20 material. It looks like they would rather see that on the market than 4e stuff to me.
Why do so many people want 4E to fail? It is good system. It is really fun, and very well balanced. I don't understand why people want it to go under.
Without reading back through this entire thread, I don't think the intent of this thread is to say "I want 4E and Wizards to fail." It seems to be an argment over the legitimacy of 3PPs creating product that uses the 4E ruleset. People that want to see 3PPs succeed do not, by doing so, wish for WotC to fail. In fact, one could argue the opposite, that it wants the industry as a whole to grow and for all participants to succeed.
Considering they haven't even started suing Kenzer yet....
Past precedent suggests the "Compatible With" kind of thing is legal. Prior to 3rd Edition, 3PP put things like "For Use with Dungeons & Dragons" on their stuff. They were careful not to represent their stuff as "official" or anything (well, except for Judges Guild), but there didn't seem to be any problem with what they were doing.
With the OGL, I didn't see any of that, but I figured that was because anyone could just slap the logos on their stuff.
The GSL isn't about the right to produce a D&D-compatible product--it's about the right to use the logos and be "official". The logos might be a competitive edge among 3PP's because it lends an air of credibility, but I don't think they're necessary to create the compatible product.
That isn't my take home from this thread. It looks to me like lots of people are getting really excited that 4e has met some difficulty with its GSL. People mostly complain about the GSL not permitting 3rd parties to publish d20 material. It looks like they would rather see that on the market than 4e stuff to me.
Not exactly, at least not how I read it. It's not 4E that is having difficulty, it's Wizards of the Coast. GSL does not disallow 3PPs from publishing compatible material, but it is rather draconian in its restrictions to the point (IMHO) that is is dictating future product decisions to other companies. I think that people getting "excited" (are they?) about 3PPs doing an end run around the GSL is a natural tendncy to "stick it to The Man," if you will.
The problem is that the thread is devolving into two camps. One has no problem with 3PPs, the other believes that D&D is the be-all, end-all of gaming, and all other companies are unworthy peons stealing its fire.
OK that's harsh, but tells you what camp I'm in.
That isn't my take home from this thread. It looks to me like lots of people are getting really excited that 4e has met some difficulty with its GSL. People mostly complain about the GSL not permitting 3rd parties to publish d20 material. It looks like they would rather see that on the market than 4e stuff to me.
The GSL does allow the publication of D20 material -- you don't see Mongoose dropping Conan, do you? It doesn't permit 'dual statting', which is a different issue, or having a 4e and OGL version of the same book. The main problem with it from the perspective of 3PPs is that if they invest a valuable IP in 4e, and the GSL is cancelled, they will not be able to use that IP in any OGL-derived system, which is a serious problem.
Basically, the GSL is very publisher-hostile, and the lack of wide third party support might make 4e much less popular than it otherwise could be (as well as driving off gamers who might like the 4e rules but prefer a different genre, style, or tone to what WOTC's marketers have determined is popular). Under the OGL, if you wanted to play, say, a superhero or a western game, you could play M&M or Sidewinder, and then go back to D&D, without learning an all-new system. Under the GSL, once you don't want to play bog-standard D&D, you don't get to play ANY D&D -- you might as well learn GURPS, Hero, or My Life With Master, so you leave the "D&D Space" entirely. (And according to WOTCs 1999-2000 market study, this means you're more likely to leave gaming entirely.)
The success of 4e is due largely to how well the OGL kept gamers "close" to WOTC and D&D, even if they weren't playing it. I think the GSL will lead to a smaller, fragmented market, which is bad for 4e, bad for WOTC, and bad for gaming.
Might I ask then your opinion as to what it says that WotC has been putting out very few adventures in the past years, and plans to put out only a few more in the next while?
I'd be thrilled to see licensing deals offered for Aces & Eights and the new version of Hackmaster, if nothing else, they put out both d20 and HackMaster versions of several adventures, so perhaps they will open things up to do that kind of thing for other pubs with the new version.
In the month or so that 4E has been out I have picked up H1, H2, Escape from Sembia, and the Treasure of Talon Pass. Additionally, adventures have been made available through Dungeon.
Gamers will always want "more" and they want it yesterday. It is still bad form to run around with that 4E logo stamped on a product calling itself 4E if you aren't WOTC or under the GSL or going the 4E via OGL route.
Actually, it does. Firstly you should probably read Dancey's essays and reasons for the OGL when it was first introduced.
Dancey was writing about the theory of OGL, not the history. What he thought would happen and what did happen are two different things.
Think WotC will sue them too?
This is an interesting one. It seems to me that "4th Edition" isn't a trademark, and I doubt it could be trademarked because it isn't distinctive. WotC doesn't even use the term "4th Edition" in most of their marketing, and it's not printed on the core books at all.
If non-GSL 3rd party publishers use this logo, then they can't even be accused of "dilution of trademark".
Your statements here prove you really have no idea what you're talking about. You do realize that Aces & Eights doesn't use the OGL because IT ISN"T A D20 GAME? Just because a person used to play D&D in no way means that suddenly a 3PP has "stolen" a customer from WotC. It does, however, mean exactly the opposite of your argument: it means that the 3pp has attracted its own demographic AND broken new ground!
I am well aware it isn't a d20 based game. However, that wasn't my point.
My point was that the 3pp companies are not attempting to create their own markets but instead leeching off of WotC, yet they simultaneously seem to expect that WotC should let them use their IP for free without restrictions.
WHY would WotC want to help these people?
Oh I see. The entirety of original ideas--and of the roleplaying game industry can be summed up by two companies, WotC and White Wolf. How about some of the other companies out there that make/used to make non-D20 and non-WOD games?
Yes, it actually CAN be summed up by two companies, because those two companies make up roughly 80% of RPG sales. This isn't to say that no one else can ever do anything cool, just that the other companies aren't attempting to create their own market but instead leech off of WotC's (and White Wolf's, though to a much smaller degree).
I'm not saying they are BAD for doing so.
What I'm saying is that WotC has no reason to help out these people by allowing them to use their IP without restriction.
There's nothing wrong with making your own game or even trying to steal WotC's audience, though I do think there's something wrong with producing low quality products.
There IS something wrong with stealing WotC's IP.
I have no problem at all with Chaosium et. al. making games which don't use WotC's IP. I have no problem with them liscensing WotC's IP and producing products that way. I'd have no problem with one of them buying WotC and selling their IP.
I have a problem with people who steal people's IP. This is, I suppose, what people don't understand. And I consider KoK not operating under liscense from WotC to amount to exactly that.
You are looking at the industry through VERY narrow blinders. D&D may be the biggest kid on the block, but it is still just one game of many. You are working under the delusion that D&D is the entire industry, and all other companies exist merely on the whims of Wizards of the Coast. This is so far off the mark as to be laughable.
Well, many essentially do.
Might I ask then your opinion as to what it says that WotC has been putting out very few adventures in the past years, and plans to put out only a few more in the next while?
They produced the system. Adventures are completely irrelevant compared to that, as they are BASED ON the system. Making an adventure really isn't much work and doesn't require that much effort.
WotC IS doing all the heavy lifting because they do all of the R&D.
Adventures are completely irrelevant by comparison. Completely.
Wrong I am willing To bet most people here will tell you that it was people playing that introduced them to D&D and NOT WOTC
And why did they get those people to play?
Because D&D is fun, and is more fun now than it used to be; it is also easier to get into.
TSR failed because there was hardly ANY 3pp support.
Wrong. Horribly wrong. Hilariously wrong, in fact.
TSR died because TSR was producing a lot of products not enough people wanted. THAT is why TSR died. They produced too many campaign settings, and spread their resources too thin, producing books too few people wanted. They didn't look at what the market desired, they just pumped out stuff and hoped it sold.
Volkswagan, Mitsubishi, Daewoo, Toyota, Chrysler... these people are leeches, they are incapable of attracting their own demographic or breaking new ground. They're just leeching off of Ford who invented the car!
My first car was a Toyota. Indeed, I've never owned a non-Toyota vehicle.
So, no, they aren't leeches. Sorry!
Actually, it does. Firstly you should probably read Dancey's essays and reasons for the OGL when it was first introduced.
I have read them. Have you?
The long, the short, and the middle of it is that the OGL was made to benefit WotC. The purpose of the OGL was not to help out the 3pps, but rather, to make a cottage industry of companies which served to help WotC's bottom line.
The long, the short, and the middle of it is that it didn't work.
THAT is why 4e isn't under the OGL. If the OGL actually benefitted WotC, they'd have kept it.
It doesn't. This is what you and many people simply don't and never have understood. The OGL wasn't made to help out the 3pps, but to help out WotC; it just happened to help out the 3pps.
The GSL is written to benefit WotC more, both by preventing certain abuses of the OGL as well as allowing WotC to kill products for 4e after 5e comes out. Its an insanely generous liscense, though, even with the restrictions on it. People are whining about it, but its just silly to whine for an obvious reason:
It is free.
Seriously. The GSL is very favorable for the 3pps, just not as insanely favorable as the OGL was. Being able to use WotC's IP is worth a lot more than the restrictions of the GSL lisence.
Remove the rest of the industry and X amount of game stores go out of business. Without the bricks and mortar stores less people will come into the industry. And while not everyone who comes into the industry via a.n.other game than D&D will go on to purchase D&D an amount of them will.
Remove the rest of them, and... nothing will happen. Game stores simply don't make a significant portion of their income off of RPGs in general - 20% would be high. 20% of 20% is 4%, and of that 4%, a great deal of that would go to other gaming products instead (most likely other RPGs), so their income wouldn't be affected at all.
Uhm...who has wanted it go under? Most people in this thread want to see more third party support for it, which means they want it to succeed. Third parties don't support flop games.
Every person who supports Kenzer and other companies which go around the GSL are against D&D.
This is an interesting one. It seems to me that "4th Edition" isn't a trademark, and I doubt it could be trademarked because it isn't distinctive. WotC doesn't even use the term "4th Edition" in most of their marketing, and it's not printed on the core books at all.
If non-GSL 3rd party publishers use this logo, then they can't even be accused of "dilution of trademark".
They can still be prosecuted for infringement of intellectual property rights (namely, copyright), just not D&D.
They could also potentially be hit for false advertising, potentially - if you label your product misleadingly, it is possible to get nailed for such. It is arguable that because of the prominence of the 4th edition part, it is an attempt to mislead the customer about what the product is. This has nothing to do with copyright or trademark law, though.
My point was that the 3pp companies are not attempting to create their own markets but instead leeching off of WotC, yet they simultaneously seem to expect that WotC should let them use their IP for free without restrictions.
But this is where your argument falls apart. You keep referring to it as Wizards' market, and that other companies are leeching off of it. The fact is that it is NOT Wizards' market, it is the roleplaying game market in which Wizards is the biggest player. WotC and all these other companies share the same market. When a company gains market share then yes, it is very likely that they have taken some small percentage of market share from WotC. But that doesn't mean they stole or leeched customers away from Wizards, it means that their marketing campaign and their product was more successful at attracting a member of a limited pool of customers than was the campaign and product of WotC.
In a sense, I can also say that Wizards has been leeching customers from Chaosium, White Wolf, etc. for years.
Volkswagan, Mitsubishi, Daewoo, Toyota, Chrysler... these people are leeches, they are incapable of attracting their own demographic or breaking new ground. They're just leeching off of Ford who invented the car!
My first car was a Toyota. Indeed, I've never owned a non-Toyota vehicle.
So, no, they aren't leeches. Sorry!
So now you're saying that because you own a Toyota and never owned a Ford that other car companies aren't leeches? So whatever you do makes it OK? Suppose somebody who has only played Kingdoms of Kalamar has never played straight D&D. Doesn't that prove that 3PPs aren't leeches? According to your logic it doesn't matter, the mere fact that Toyota stole the idea for how to build a car from Ford should make them leeches unworthy of your dollar!
At this point I can only conclude that you're arguing this for the sake of getting a reaction and can see no point in anyone continuing to feed you for your own gratification.
But this is where your argument falls apart. You keep referring to it as Wizards' market, and that other companies are leeching off of it. The fact is that it is NOT Wizards' market, it is the roleplaying game market in which Wizards is the biggest player. WotC and all these other companies share the same market. When a company gains market share then yes, it is very likely that they have taken some small percentage of market share from WotC. But that doesn't mean they stole or leeched customers away from Wizards, it means that their marketing campaign and their product was more successful at attracting a member of a limited pool of customers than was the campaign and product of WotC.
In a sense, I can also say that Wizards has been leeching customers from Chaosium, White Wolf, etc. for years.
It is Wizards' market; they created it. It is not inappropriate to refer to something as X's market in the English language.
In any event, leeching people's customers is fine, IF you're doing it by creating your own IP. Stealing customers via stealing IP is not.
And really, the fact of the matter is they aren't trying to create new customers, which means that they are bad for the gaming community because ultimately they don't bring more people in. WotC and White Wolf do, and WotC is doing all of the heavy lifting for the 3pps - creating Dungeons & Dragons (which they use) and doing the marketing to attract customers (which they try to steal).
I'm sorry, but 3pps who do nothing but try to leech customers off of White Wolf and WotC are bad for the gaming community, not good for it. And that's all the 3pps do. So if your concern is the gaming community, you shouldn't support 3pp companies, especially not ones which go around the GSL.
So now you're saying that because you own a Toyota and never owned a Ford that other car companies aren't leeches? So whatever you do makes it OK? Suppose somebody who has only played Kingdoms of Kalamar has never played straight D&D. Doesn't that prove that 3PPs aren't leeches? According to your logic it doesn't matter, the mere fact that Toyota stole the idea for how to build a car from Ford should make them leeches unworthy of your dollar!
Obviously you don't understand the concept of the public domain, nor much about the history of the automobile, nor intellectual property laws in general.
You cannot own ideas. Period. People need to understand this fact. You apparently don't, otherwise you wouldn't say something like "the idea of an automobile".
Second, Ford didn't come up with the idea of the automobile. Many Americans hilariously and erroneously believe he did. No one is quite sure who came up with the idea or built the first one, but some claim inventions from the 17th and 18th centuries qualified as automobiles.
In fact, the automobile is originally from Europe. Karl Benz invented and patented a gasoline automobile in the 1880s, and electric vehicles existed in the late 1800s.
Indeed, Ford didn't even invent the assembly line procedure for manufacturing automobiles! He did improve it greatly, however. Olds, of Oldsmobile fame, was the guy who came up with it. Indeed, Ford didn't adopt the practice until about ten years after Olds did.
In any event, patents only last twenty years or so, so by this point, those old car designs are all in the public domain ANYWAY.
In any event, patents only last twenty years or so, so by this point, those old car designs are all in the public domain ANYWAY.
But you've been making the argument that it doesn't matter what those darn communist "copyright" and "trademark" laws say, if a man doesn't invent his own gaming system from scratch and only sell to people who never played an RPG before, he's a no-good gol-durn horse thievin' leech! Now you're saying "As long as the law says you can steal other people's ideas, it's A-OK!"
Kenzer's Kalamar product is, as far as anyone can tell, 100% legal.
But according to you, it's still "IP Theft". Even though 90% of the product is setting fluff which is 100% created by KenzerCo.
(Also, if I read you right, every single game company besides WOTC and WW (the two credited with being the 'first game' of all but a vanishingly small minority of gamers) is a parasite, because the bulk of any company's customers -- from FASA, Chaosium, and GDW in the 1970s to Atlas, Fantasy Flight, and Green Ronin today -- started as D&D players. Is that actually what you're trying to say? Because if it is, you are setting a standard no other industry has ever achieved or could reasonably be held to. Then again, as I think most posters in this thread are aware 'reasonable' and 'consistent' aren't really Class Skills for you, are they?)
At this point, all I can imagine is that you think if you rant long enough against 3PPs, someone from WOTC will recognize your own brilliance and offer you a job. Given most of those currently working there got their start as "uncreative parasites" and are still close friends with/business associates with people at those "leeching" companies, I don't think you're winning a lot of fans...
This arguement won't go away till he gets the last word in.
If You don't like the leeches don't buy thier products, stick with WOTC products only.
Personally I will stick with leeches..thier products are better in my opinion.
Obviously you don't understand the concept of the public domain, nor much about the history of the automobile, nor intellectual property laws in general.
This is coming from the person who thinks that Wizards of the Coast "owns" the roleplaying market because they came out with the first product. Does McDonalds own fast food because they came first, and Burger King, Wendys, etc. are just leeches because they came later and sell hamburgers and fries? Don't those other fast food chains dilute the trademark established by McDonalds? After all, each makes a similar product, and I can mix and match a McDonalds burger with a Burger King fries and Wendys Frosty any time I like. Those are dollars that should all go to Micky-D!
I'll take your argument even further. Wizards of the Coast have to be the biggest losers in the industry, because not only could they not come up with an original game that brought in new customers that had never played an RPG before, they couldn't even come up with a competing game for D&D. These low-lifes had the nerve to outright buy the company that originally sold it and make the brand its own! Basically they stole the market from TSR. What they should have done was let TSR go out of business and allow D&D to die a natural death. But no, these scumbags stole the entire market from its rightful owners!
In the month or so that 4E has been out I have picked up H1, H2, Escape from Sembia, and the Treasure of Talon Pass. Additionally, adventures have been made available through Dungeon.
Gamers will always want "more" and they want it yesterday. It is still bad form to run around with that 4E logo stamped on a product calling itself 4E if you aren't WOTC or under the GSL or going the 4E via OGL route.
I do apologuise as I was perhaps not as clear as I might have been, I had been refering to Mr. Stoddard's post HERE. Would you care to comment on the historical differences between what WotC has put into the market vs the adventures put out by the more reputable 3pps?
It is Wizards' market; they created it. It is not inappropriate to refer to something as X's market in the English language.
In any event, leeching people's customers is fine, IF you're doing it by creating your own IP. Stealing customers via stealing IP is not.
Might I request a responce to my post dealing with markets that WotC chooses not to deal with (Westerns in my example) that others decided to create product for?
The later portion of the post of course you have already replied to and stated your opinion that adventures are all but pointless and meaningless when considering the market. (I cannot agree with you, my own purchases having dealt chiefly with such products, but I know that I'm not likely to change your views)
My first car was a Toyota. Indeed, I've never owned a non-Toyota vehicle.
So, no, they aren't leeches. Sorry!
This is absolutely the most hypocritical thing anybody has said in this entire thread. Technically, Toyota is just like one of those 3rd party companies becoming number 1 in the RPG market using the OGL to 'steal' WotC's IP.
If game company Y uses W's license, they are talentless hacks.
If car company T uses the same principles for a car that Benz invented, they are not talentless hacks... because you own a car that company T makes? Or because they have beat out Benz's sales numbers.
Now lets get onto the definitions in some of your previous posts.
'Best' is brutally subjective. 'Best' by definition can mean most profit generating, but as soon as you move away from sheer volume... with that logic McDonald's makes the best hamburgers on the planet? No (by most people's standard). Is McDonald's the most profitable burger place? Yes.
Toyota Corolla is the best selling car of all time. Is it the best car? Brutally simple answer 'no.' But it has sold the most units... The Mclaren's, BMWs, Lexus, Jaguars, and Benzs all are 'better' cars. It might even be the best car for an individual, but it is not the best overall car.
But by your definition, the best RPG is... Pokemon (most units sold and profit made, out of the overall RPG market). Everyone whole-heartedly admits that D&D is the best-selling P&P RPG. But beyond that the 'best' of anything is an incredibly subjective term.
Now, is truly the best product the one with highest profit margin or the one with highest total units solds or the one that brought home the biggest gross profit or perhaps the one with the biggest net profit overall?
Best can be used objectively when adding it to objective statements... like best-selling, best-performing, best returns... it does not work well when used in conjunction with subjective or generalized qualities, concepts, or objects. The best game of all time... the best taste... the best this or that. Unless it is in direct regard to a quantifiable matter, 'best' is just opinion. Try to support it with any facts you like.
Please assist me in understanding best.
$10 to 3PP resulted in $40+ to WOTC. I offer that as evidence in case anyone wants to say the WOTC never benefits from any of its customers purchasing any 3PP products. I doubt that it was ever true, but as of last week, I can say that it isn't!
I do apologuise as I was perhaps not as clear as I might have been, I had been refering to Mr. Stoddard's post HERE. Would you care to comment on the historical differences between what WotC has put into the market vs the adventures put out by the more reputable 3pps?
Not particularly, since I was responding to your comment about the number of adventures WOTC plans to release for 4th Edition.
$10 to 3PP resulted in $40+ to WOTC. I offer that as evidence in case anyone wants to say the WOTC never benefits from any of its customers purchasing any 3PP products. I doubt that it was ever true, but as of last week, I can say that it isn't!
That doesn't mean that it has been a net benefit for WOTC overall.
Perhaps you forgot about a little something called Dungeon Magazine? Owned by WotC, licensed to Paizo for publication, and now back in house (Although authorship of advantures is still the same process, it's not like it was ever in house at either company).
Amazing how people blame Paizo for the so called Bad Adventures, yet as you say it never was totally in house. However the people at Paizo were responsible for finding the authors who produced good stuff. And WOTC chooses to use the same Authors.
Oh I didn't forget about Dugeon, nor did I forget about Dragon. Since WOTC brought them back in house lets see we got.
The Haunting of Kincep Mansion 07/23/2008
Rescue at Rivenroar 07/11/2008
Sleeper in the Tomb of Dreams 06/27/2008
Heathen 06/13/2008
Keep on the Shadowfell 06/06/2008
City of Blood 05/09/2008
Night of the Straw Men 05/07/2008
Touch of Madness 03/12/2008
Witching Season 02/29/2008
Caravan of Glauu the Seer 02/20/2008
Prisoner of the Castle Perilous 02/11/2008
Teleport Gone Awry 01/07/2008
The Plague Tree 12/26/2007
Essence of Evil 12/21/2007
The Last Breaths of Ashenport 12/07/2007
Moagim's Clone 12/19/2007
Iggwilv's Legacy: 11/02/2007
Hell's Heart 10/31/2007
And this falls well short of the monthly print Issues
Oh... right. I forgot that only WotC sold products to make money and line their pockets. Those other publishers sold their stuff at a loss out of the kindness of their hearts because they didn't want to make any money of them. :rolleye2:
Go Back and look around the Forums. It has been documented by WOTC Fans that WOTC didn't do Moduals because they were not profitable enough for WOTC. Whats thier excuse now?
Not particularly, since I was responding to your comment about the number of adventures WOTC plans to release for 4th Edition.
So another words you have no answer for the Question?
I just thought I'd jump in and point out that I bought a pretty great 3PP 4E compatible adventure ($10), then went out and purchased nearly 30 WOTC D&D minis and two sets of WOTC Dungeon Tiles in order to flesh out the adventure.
$10 to 3PP resulted in $40+ to WOTC. I offer that as evidence in case anyone wants to say the WOTC never benefits from any of its customers purchasing any 3PP products. I doubt that it was ever true, but as of last week, I can say that it isn't!
That doesn't mean that it has been a net benefit for WOTC overall.
So if I were to have bought just the figures and just two sets of tiles, then there is no "net benefit" to WOTC? How would my purchase of a 3PP product make a difference? At what point do my purchases have a "net benefit" to WOTC? Please define. I've bought every release so far short of the dice*.... am I getting close? Or are you saying my purchases make no material difference?
Because I don't see how my purchase of a 3PP product -- which led to additional unplanned purchases of WOTC official D&D merchandise -- could possibly result in a net deficit for WOTC. If you think so, please explain.
Otherwise, it was a "net" wash or a "net" benefit. Odds are, it was the latter. But please feel free to tell me that my being a customer of WOTC makes no difference whatsoever, just so we know where you definitively stand.
*Seems to me that they must have made quite a "net benefit" from my purchase of the Character Sheets, btw. :D
:D :D
WOTC can't passibly survive with everyone only spending 75% of thier budget for D&D on WOTC's products..
*Seems to me that they must have made quite a "net benefit" from my purchase of the Character Sheets, btw. :D
I always wondered who bought them :D
I'm sorry, but 3pps who do nothing but try to leech customers off of White Wolf and WotC are bad for the gaming community, not good for it. And that's all the 3pps do. So if your concern is the gaming community, you shouldn't support 3pp companies, especially not ones which go around the GSL.
This is especially funny when you consider that Wizards of the Coast started out as a 3rd party publisher, and that White Wolf has a division devoted to publishing D&D-compatible products.
I'm sorry, but 3pps who do nothing but try to leech customers off of White Wolf and WotC are bad for the gaming community, not good for it. And that's all the 3pps do. So if your concern is the gaming community, you shouldn't support 3pp companies, especially not ones which go around the GSL.
What about companies that support 3pp? Do they have any responsibility?
I would say they do. And I think anyone who believes what you do should stop supporting them immediately because of the harm they do to the gaming community.
So everyone, stop supporting WotC because they keep enabling 3pp to hurt the gaming community by letting them leech customers. Teach them a lesson!
What about companies that support 3pp? Do they have any responsibility?
I would say they do. And I think anyone who believes what you do should stop supporting them immediately because of the harm they do to the gaming community.
So everyone, stop supporting WotC because they keep enabling 3pp to hurt the gaming community by letting them leech customers. Teach them a lesson!
One could argue that the GSL is an attempt to stop enabling the 3pp to leech customers. (ie no redefine.)
Although personally I'm not sure "hurt the gaming community" is the proper choice of words.
Hurt D&D's sales... (which might ultimately hurt the gaming "community" if you believe said community cannot last without D&D.)
One could argue that the GSL is an attempt to stop enabling the 3pp to leech customers. (ie no redefine.)
Although personally I'm not sure "hurt the gaming community" is the proper choice of words.
Hurt D&D's sales... (which might ultimately hurt the gaming "community" if you believe said community cannot last without D&D.)
I do feel that 3rd party publishers, in general, don't do enough to promote the hobby to new people. In this respect, I can agree that they are 'leeches' on WotC - but that has nothing to do with Wizards' IP and everything to do with their advertising budget.
One could argue that the GSL is an attempt to stop enabling the 3pp to leech customers. (ie no redefine.)
Although personally I'm not sure "hurt the gaming community" is the proper choice of words.
Hurt D&D's sales... (which might ultimately hurt the gaming "community" if you believe said community cannot last without D&D.)
One could also argue that the GSL, like the OGL before it, is an attempt to leech off of 3pp and other creative people, getting them to produce products to support D&D, sucking up free advertising for their product while giving nothing of equal creative value on a continuing basis in return.
Or one could stop thinking that a word like "leech" even vaguely applies to the circumstances at hand, and stop trying to spew nonsense propaganda that does not bolster WotC in the least.
I doubt that will actually happen, but one could actually do that.
I do feel that 3rd party publishers, in general, don't do enough to promote the hobby to new people. In this respect, I can agree that they are 'leeches' on WotC - but that has nothing to do with Wizards' IP and everything to do with their advertising budget.
And WotC does not do enough to promote third party publishers, making WotC a leech, using the products of those third party publishers to promote their core game. And WotC certainly has the advertising budget to pay all those third party publishers.
One could also argue that the GSL, like the OGL before it, is an attempt to leech off of 3pp and other creative people, getting them to produce products to support D&D, sucking up free advertising for their product while giving nothing of equal creative value on a continuing basis in return.
That's an opinion though. The, nothing of equal value in return bit I mean.
WoTC is offering free use of their IP in return for your support of their product. Whether or not you feel it's worth it, is your own opinion. It's equally as valid as someone who has the oposite opinion, whatever it may be.
Or one could stop thinking that a word like "leech" even vaguely applies to the circumstances at hand, and stop trying to spew nonsense propaganda that does not bolster WotC in the least.
Or one could stop calling an opposing viewpoint "propoganda."
Especially since I'm not arguing that any company IS leeching off of WoTC, merely pointing out that if WoTC does consider 3pp games to be leeching, then you can argue that the GSL is a direct attempt to stop it. Again, as you can't redefine.
And WotC does not do enough to promote third party publishers, making WotC a leech, using the products of those third party publishers to promote their core game. And WotC certainly has the advertising budget to pay all those third party publishers.
If 3pp cannot exist without WoTC then it's in their best interest to keep WoTC afloat. If WoTC CAN exist without 3pp what incentive do they have to keep 3pp afloat?
Furthermore, if those 3pp seem to be instead trying to attract customers who would otherwise buy D&D again what incentive does WoTC they have to keep them afloat?
But you've been making the argument that it doesn't matter what those darn communist "copyright" and "trademark" laws say, if a man doesn't invent his own gaming system from scratch and only sell to people who never played an RPG before, he's a no-good gol-durn horse thievin' leech! Now you're saying "As long as the law says you can steal other people's ideas, it's A-OK!"
Ah, strawmen. Too bad had you read my posts you'd know this was completely untrue.
I would advise reading and understanding my posts before you insult me, otherwise you're simply engaging in flamebaiting.
Kenzer's Kalamar product is, as far as anyone can tell, 100% legal.
Except not, because several people have said they feel it is otherwise.
But according to you, it's still "IP Theft". Even though 90% of the product is setting fluff which is 100% created by KenzerCo.
Irrelevant. If it is a derivative product, then it is a derivative product. Doesn't matter if it is "90% new" if it is violating someone's copyrights.
This is coming from the person who thinks that Wizards of the Coast "owns" the roleplaying market because they came out with the first product.
I never said that. Too bad, yet again, you failed to read or understand my posts. I would recommend doing so before you continue to attack me.
Does McDonalds own fast food because they came first, and Burger King, Wendys, etc. are just leeches because they came later and sell hamburgers and fries?
Fast food is a really, really, really ancient idea. McDonalds didn't come up with it, and in any event, there's nothing paritcularly novel about getting your food quickly.
Again, you should do some research before you flame me, as apparently you really don't know what you're talking about here. Try to find a -real- analogy, something wherein there is something which can actually be owned, and we'll talk.
Don't those other fast food chains dilute the trademark established by McDonalds?
No, because they don't say "Just like McDonalds!" on their signs.
Wizards of the Coast have to be the biggest losers in the industry, because not only could they not come up with an original game that brought in new customers that had never played an RPG before, they couldn't even come up with a competing game for D&D.
Well, first off, you're wrong; they sell quite a few copies of Star Wars Saga Edition, more than any 3pp sells of any of their terrible knock off products.
But more to the point, again, you don't understand what I'm saying. Like your compatriots in this thread, you should read my posts and understand them, as it is quite apparent you didn't and don't. Please do so in the future before flaming me.
These low-lifes had the nerve to outright buy the company that originally sold it and make the brand its own!
This is entirely legal, and more to the point, entirely acceptable. I've said this numerous times before. Perhaps had you actually read my posts...
But no, of course not, you're too busy insulting me.
You see, there's nothing wrong with a company liscensing another company's product, nor is there something wrong with one company buying another company's product. There's no harm done here.
Moreover, you aren't harming the product by doing so. Why 3pps who go around the GSL are bad is because they're stealing from WotC, the company which paid for all the R&D for a good new edition of D&D.
In short, they're trying to kill D&D by making it unprofitable for WotC to do R&D work. If your work isn't protected from the competition just stealing it, there's no reason to innovate because the competition can immediately steal it and sell the same thing.
Might I request a responce to my post dealing with markets that WotC chooses not to deal with (Westerns in my example) that others decided to create product for?
Might I point out that this isn't relevant? It isn't an important market, and moreover, it says something that people who play all these other games usually started out with White Wolf and D&D.
This is absolutely the most hypocritical thing anybody has said in this entire thread. Technically, Toyota is just like one of those 3rd party companies becoming number 1 in the RPG market using the OGL to 'steal' WotC's IP.
Except they aren't. The design of a Toyota is different from the design of a Ford is different from the design of a... you get the picture.
Do you know what patents are?
Are you saying that a Toyota Prius is the same as a Ford Explorer?
Because that is what you are saying.
Just because they're cars doesn't mean they're infringing on anything, and the IDEA of a car is impossible to own, just as the IDEA of an RPG is impossible to own.
If you claim one more time that I am saying you can own the idea of an RPG, I will mark your post for the trolling that it is. I have never said you can own the idea of an RPG, and anyone who says I have is doing nothing but flamebaiting.
Please read my posts before you insult me. Thank you.
This is especially funny when you consider that Wizards of the Coast started out as a 3rd party publisher, and that White Wolf has a division devoted to publishing D&D-compatible products.
No one ever said they can't later become real publishers. However, WotC hit it big by doing something original, not something derivative, and White Wolf actually has its own audience. So claiming they're the same is silly, because, reality, they aren't.
In short, read my posts, please quit trying to erect strawmen, and please quit flaming me. Come up with real examples and try to understand what you're posting about.
Its a bit tiresome to read people claiming that you can own ideas, when several of us have pointed out that you cannot, repeatedly. Its even worse when you claim that I have claimed it, when I have repeatedly rebuked people for claiming you can.
If you don't understand IP law, don't argue with people about it. If you don't know you can't own an idea, you don't understand IP law.
That's an opinion though. The, nothing of equal value in return bit I mean.
WoTC is offering free use of their IP in return for your support of their product. Whether or not you feel it's worth it, is your own opinion. It's equally as valid as someone who has the oposite opinion, whatever it may be.
It is likely to be many other people's opinion as well.
In fact, it is likely to be more people's opinion as the whole shtick about "leeching" keeps getting repeated.
Or one could stop calling an opposing viewpoint "propoganda."
Why? The opposing viewpoint is being just as dismissive calling all third party publishes leeches.
Especially since I'm not arguing that any company IS leeching off of WoTC, merely pointing out that if WoTC does consider 3pp games to be leeching, then you can argue that the GSL is a direct attempt to stop it. Again, as you can't redefine.
Maybe you should review the thread.
One person has been screaming that meme over and over. Unless he is a sockpuppet or agent for someone from WotC, there is nothing but directly contradictory statements from people who work for WotC that they consider third party publishers quite beneficial to their bottom line.
If 3pp cannot exist without WoTC then it's in their best interest to keep WoTC afloat. If WoTC CAN exist without 3pp what incentive do they have to keep 3pp afloat?
To paraphrase The Matrix, there are levels of existence WotC is prepared to accept, and other levels they are not prepared to accept.
The incentive to WotC to help third party publishers is the greater returns to WotC from it. It costs WotC absolutely nothing to have the OGL and GSL. All they do is get collateral sales as a result.
Furthermore, if those 3pp seem to be instead trying to attract customers who would otherwise buy D&D again what incentive does WoTC they have to keep them afloat?
None.
If WotC is not interested in keeping them afloat, by making the GSL appealing, what incentive do they have to support WotC?
It is likely to be many other people's opinion as well.
In fact, it is likely to be more people's opinion as the whole shtick about "leeching" keeps getting repeated.
Doesn't matter. Opinion is still opinion.
Why? The opposing viewpoint is being just as dismissive calling all third party publishes leeches.
I wasn't being dismissive. You made the comment:
So everyone, stop supporting WotC because they keep enabling 3pp to hurt the gaming community by letting them leech customers. Teach them a lesson!
My statement was that the GSL is different from the OGL in that it seems to directly interfear with 3pp reformating the base D&D rules into a new game designed to appeal to players of D&D.
Maybe you should review the thread.
One person has been screaming that meme over and over. Unless he is a sockpuppet or agent for someone from WotC, there is nothing but directly contradictory statements from people who work for WotC that they consider third party publishers quite beneficial to their bottom line.
You quoted me, and responded to my statement.
The incentive to WotC to help third party publishers is the greater returns to WotC from it.
I agree. If WoTC is seeing greater returns as a result of 3pp then there is an incentive for WoTC to support them.
The argument can be made, however, that WoTC IS supporting them by having a game people wish to play. (That 3pp can then produce product for, and make money off of, without owing anything to wizards.)
3pp profit free of charge from WoTCs R&D, sales, advertising, etc. Provided they in return support D&D with their products.
It costs WotC absolutely nothing to have the OGL and GSL. All they do is get collateral sales as a result.
Unless the OGL or GSL are instead harming their sales.
If WoTC spends money on R&D, and such, only to have 3pp take that research and morph it into another system designed to compete with D&D, then WoTC is spending money against itself.
If WotC is not interested in keeping them afloat, by making the GSL appealing, what incentive do they have to support WotC?
Appealing is an opinion. Is having the ability to use WoTC's IP free of charge appealing? That's a choice only the individual company can make.
WoTC has incentive to support those that support them. It does not have incentive to support those that do NOT support them or work directly against them.
Doesn't matter. Opinion is still opinion.
Then why are you arguing with me?
My statement was that the GSL is different from the OGL in that it seems to directly interfear with 3pp reformating the base D&D rules into a new game designed to appeal to players of D&D.
No, your statement was:
One could argue that the GSL is an attempt to stop enabling the 3pp to leech customers. (ie no redefine.)
You chose to phrase it that way.
I agree. If WoTC is seeing greater returns as a result of 3pp then there is an incentive for WoTC to support them.
The argument can be made, however, that WoTC IS supporting them by having a game people wish to play. (That 3pp can then produce product for, and make money off of, without owing anything to wizards.)
3pp profit free of charge from WoTCs R&D, sales, advertising, etc. Provided they in return support D&D with their products.
And WotC profits free of charge the third party publishers R&D, sales, advertising, etc., provided they in return allow use of additional materials under the OGL to entice the third party publishers from creating a completely competing game system themselves.
The argument can be made, but it works both ways.
Unless the OGL or GSL are instead harming their sales.
If WoTC spends money on R&D, and such, only to have 3pp take that research and morph it into another system designed to compete with D&D, then WoTC is spending money against itself.
Except such is not proven by anything.
It is shouted by some, but absolutely no evidence supports it.
In this case, not every opinion is of equal worth.
Appealing is an opinion. Is having the ability to use WoTC's IP free of charge appealing? That's a choice only the individual company can make.
They can already use some of the IP free of charge.
Is being able to use more of the IP under extreme restrictions appealing?
That is the question that must be considered.
WoTC has incentive to support those that support them. It does not have incentive to support those that do NOT support them or work directly against them.
So WotC does not support them and they do not support WotC.
How is that in any way unfair or unreasonable?
TD's inchoate rants are especially interesting in light of the fact that, back in 2000, WOTC was the Big Evil Monster which was going to crush all the small independent game companies by forcing everyone to use the D20 system, not to mention "stealing" all the great ideas of third parties and using them for themselves, bwahahaha!
As it turned out, the 3pps needn't have worried; they didn't produce anything worth stealing. ;)
They can already use some of the IP free of charge.
They cannot use any of the IP free of charge save under fair use, and gaming products simply aren't going to qualify as such.
This product is protected under IP, right? It is patented and the brand is trade marked, etc. Now according to TD i could not make, or advertise a product as being compatible with this. And yet this both exists and is advertised. So TD how do you explain this? (PS, the cartridge is not licenced)Then why are you arguing with me?
Because I'm a masochist? :D
Realy I do my best not to argue with anyone. I will happily debate a topic, but arguements I try to step away from. Debating is fun. Arguments get personal. (I know it's semantics but...)And WotC profits free of charge the third party publishers R&D, sales, advertising, etc., provided they in return allow use of additional materials under the OGL to entice the third party publishers from creating a completely competing game system themselves.
Possibly. I'm not really saying that WoTC does or doesn't benefit from 3pp. I'm in no positionto know that, as I don't have any kind of marketing data.
All I'm saying is the GSL appears to be saying to me, that WoTC feels that they benefit from 3pp using their IP only if thost 3pp are actively supporting their poduct.The argument can be made, but it works both ways.
Yeah. I agree. There's always 2 sides. (Which was kind of what I was indicating in my first post to you. That without the actual market data info, speculation works both ways.)Except such is not proven by anything.
It is shouted by some, but absolutely no evidence supports it.
In this case, not every opinion is of equal worth.
Yeah, definitely nothing is proven, but if you have a license that seems to show that it only wants to support 3pp if they are actively supporting their product, then it does seem to lend some cred to the thought that WoTC doesn't want their IP for some reason used in competing products. (Go figure.)They can already use some of the IP free of charge.
Is being able to use more of the IP under extreme restrictions appealing?
That is the question that must be considered.
Extreme compaired to the OGL sure. Extreme compaired to other IP use licenses? Extreme when standing alone? I don't think it's really that extreme when not compaired to the OGL. (Which was extreme on the open side.)
(I'd like to see what a license for using say, Star Wars IP, looks like.)
And yeah... Are the benefits worth the price is always a question you ask when going into ANY business venture. Even taking a new job as an employee.So WotC does not support them and they do not support WotC.
How is that in any way unfair or unreasonable?
When did I say it wasn't? If a company chooses not to support WoTC more power to them.
If they feel they can make a greater profit through use of the GSL, more power to them as well.
Because I'm a masochist? :D
Oddly, I understand that.
Realy I do my best not to argue with anyone. I will happily debate a topic, but arguements I try to step away from. Debating is fun. Arguments get personal. (I know it's semantics but...)
Actually, I agree.
Possibly. I'm not really saying that WoTC does or doesn't benefit from 3pp. I'm in no positionto know that, as I don't have any kind of marketing data.
As I said, we do have statements from WotC people that the OGL benefited them. I am inclined to accept them at their word on that.
All I'm saying is the GSL appears to be saying to me, that WoTC feels that they benefit from 3pp using their IP only if thost 3pp are actively supporting their poduct.
I think you are jumping ahead too much there.
While WotC certainly wants third party publishers to stick to direct support, the GSL reflects certain other things over and above that, a preference to have them support the current edition being a lot more obvious. (Again, taking them at their word as to intent.)
Yeah. I agree. There's always 2 sides. (Which was kind of what I was indicating in my first post to you. That without the actual market data info, speculation works both ways.)
The problem is, that argument assumes a zero-sum game as an absolute, and a constant state of competition. By that standard, WotC is being foolish to let third party publishers produce anything, even just adventures, for 4E. With that information, we can rather safely assume the entire premise is incorrect, and dismiss both sides of that argument as irrelevant, uninformed, and unsupported.
Yeah, definitely nothing is proven, but if you have a license that seems to show that it only wants to support 3pp if they are actively supporting their product, then it does seem to lend some cred to the thought that WoTC doesn't want their IP for some reason used in competing products. (Go figure.)
There is no very marginal support for third party publishers in the GSL.
There is no support for third party publishers in the OGL.
It is more reasonable to assume that the license is focused on supporting WotC, with support of any third party publisher being incidental.
Extreme compaired to the OGL sure. Extreme compaired to other IP use licenses? Extreme when standing alone? I don't think it's really that extreme when not compaired to the OGL. (Which was extreme on the open side.)
Actually, yes, extreme compared to other IP use licenses.
I know people like to casually compare the two, but they are not that equitable. The IP for game rules is much more open. You can, and people are, going to publish 4E material without the GSL. This is in stark contrast to your example below, where nobody could publish any sort of material for Star Wars without a license. That right there puts the two kinds of IP into completely separate categories of perceived value when considering the restrictions of any license.
(I'd like to see what a license for using say, Star Wars IP, looks like.)
I am sure it is quite horrible.
And yeah... Are the benefits worth the price is always a question you ask when going into ANY business venture. Even taking a new job as an employee.
Which is why many people are choosing not to use the GSL.
When did I say it wasn't? If a company chooses not to support WoTC more power to them.
If they feel they can make a greater profit through use of the GSL, more power to them as well.
That is what I say.
My comments are in opposition to the "leech" meme that is trying to be spread, along with the "all third party material is worthless" meme.
No one ever said they can't later become real publishers. However, WotC hit it big by doing something original, not something derivative, and White Wolf actually has its own audience. So claiming they're the same is silly, because, reality, they aren't.
Just Exactly what did WOTC do Original?
3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 Are Not Derivatives of the Original Games?
How Many Elements are totally original in thier Game?
Did they come up with a Fantasy Role Playing Game based on A War Game? Did they come up with the idea of using Minatures in the Game to represent the participants and enemies?
Did WOTC not go outside the Company to find a Leech to come Up with "Thier Setting" Eberron, Why did they have to do that?
Just because you have money to buy up something, doesn't make you original nor does it make it right.
You are still skirting the Question, If WOTC can't or won't provide accessories in a certain area such as Adventures, Why are 3PP who provide those services Leeches?
WOTC is Leeching off its customers by rehashing Books over again?
Who here hasn't bought a PHB...boy thats an original name by the way..about at least 3 times from WOTC already?
Just Exactly what did WOTC do Original?
3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 Are Not Derivatives of the Original Games?
How Many Elements are totally original in thier Game?
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a single orginal mechanic in 4e.....
Leeches seems a bit harsh. If they are still in business, obviously someone likes their products. They might not be corporate giants, but sometimes that's a good thing.
I understand WotC not going with the OGL again since it did result in some books (some of which I own, but most of them turned out to be garbage anyway) that completely reprinted their stuff with a few fluff changes, but the GSL is way too restrictive. I can't fault a 3pp for not signing it, I sure as hell wouldn't (I designed my own d20 game, but since I'm not publishing it nor do I have any plans to do so, take that last statement for what its worth).
So another words you have no answer for the Question?
No, it means I was responding to his comment about the number of adventures WOTC plans to release for 4th Edition.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a single orginal mechanic in 4e.....
exactly
While looking around the net I found a Quote I find Amusing
"
Ryan Dancey, Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, believed that TSR failed before of
"...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy.
"
And History repeats itself.....
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a single orginal mechanic in 4e.....
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not answering because a game system isn't a single mechanic.
Maybe some other game in some medium has minions as they work in 4E, maybe some entirely other game has encounter powers, maybe some other game has defender with the "marking" mechanic, but no other game brings together all those elements, and more, into a single system the way that 4E does.
Let's reframe the challenge: give me an RPG system that precedes 4th Edition that you feel has identical mechanics to 4th Edition and I will give you at least one mechanic that 4E has that the other system doesn't.
exactly
While looking around the net I found a Quote I find Amusing
"
Ryan Dancey, Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, believed that TSR failed before of
"...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy.
"
And History repeats itself.....
"Customers", plural. If people are buying 4th Edition in the numbers that have been suggested, it would seem that WOTC is making the changes that make customers happy.
Except not, because several people have said they feel it is otherwise.
Your claim that it violates copyright is completely hollow unless you can offer evidence. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that they are violating copyright.
In other words, you can't make a baseless claim true by repeating it ad nauseam.
In short, read my posts, please quit trying to erect strawmen, and please quit flaming me. Come up with real examples and try to understand what you're posting about.
It's amusing to see you admonishing people for doing exactly what you've been doing for the entire thread. You consistently ignore direct questions. In case you missed it the last two times: what specific legal or moral principles (apart from "trademark dilution", which you can't prove) are Kenzer & Co. violating with the new Kingdoms of Kalamar supplement?
If you don't understand IP law, don't argue with people about it. If you don't know you can't own an idea, you don't understand IP law.
Maybe you should take your own advice, since several people in this thread have pointed out major errors in your understanding of IP law.
For example, you said:
Basically, while they don't own the ideas, producing something too similar to them could very easily get you sued, as it becomes a derivative work.
This is misleading. You can sue anyone for anything, but producing something "too close to" someone else's ideas doesn't mean that you will lose the lawsuit. For example, Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent sued Dan Brown over using their ideas in his best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code. Even though Dan Brown admitted that he had based his book heavily on Leigh & Baigent's writings, including following the same structure and even naming a character after Leigh & Baigent, the court ruled in Brown's favor. Why? Because even though Dan Brown's book was essentially a novelization of Leigh and Baigent's book, Brown didn't use their exact expression of their ideas, and the ideas (and the order in which those ideas were presented) are not subject to copyright. Granted, this was British law and not American law, but it's highly unlikely that an American court would have ruled any differently.
"Customers", plural. If people are buying 4th Edition in the numbers that have been suggested, it would seem that WOTC is making the changes that make customers happy.
Are Customers really Happy or are the just being part of the "In Crowd"?
But that doesn't have anything to do with the Discussion going on?
exactly
While looking around the net I found a Quote I find Amusing
"
Ryan Dancey, Vice President of Wizards of the Coast, believed that TSR failed before of
"...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy.
"
And History repeats itself.....
I HAVE TO ASK.....Who is the replacement from WotC to take the heat as the new LW?
Are Customers really Happy or are the just being part of the "In Crowd"?
But that doesn't have anything to do with the Discussion going on?
Customers, as a whole, are happy. It is insulting, and more than a little nonsensical, to claim that people are buying the game to be popular.
Your Dancey quote is about how he thinks TSR failed because they didn't keep customers happy. You stated that history was repeating itself, presumably that you think WOTC will follow in TSR's footsteps. If customers are happy, and the number of 4E books sold indicates that they are, then according to Dancey's theory WOTC is in good shape.
No, it means I was responding to his comment about the number of adventures WOTC plans to release for 4th Edition.
Ok I will ask you directly...If WOTC does not provide enough Adventures where are DMs suspose to get them from, if 3PP are not allowed to do them?
And don't bring Up Homebrewing, because I have doing that since 1978.
If You use Only "Offical" WOTC products there are only 6 Products Announced
H1 1-3
H2 4-6
H3 7-10
P1 11-14
P2 14-17
P3 ? - 20
So we get 6 Adventures in 10 Months set for Core
1 Adventure Scheduled for Forgotten Realms
and 1 Adventure Scheduled for Unknown Setting..I am betting Ebberon
Customers, as a whole, are happy. It is insulting, and more than a little nonsensical, to claim that people are buying the game to be popular.
Your Dancey quote is about how he thinks TSR failed because they didn't keep customers happy. You stated that history was repeating itself, presumably that you think WOTC will follow in TSR's footsteps. If customers are happy, and the number of 4E books sold indicates that they are, then according to Dancey's theory WOTC is in good shape.
You speak for everyone buying products and the reason they are Buying 4E?
You think everyone is happy, look around. Theres plenty of Unhappy Customers out there. Look around on the WOTC Forums and other Companies Forums.
Even if you refuse to admit it...To Play "official" D&D people had to switch...or be a LEECH..
You continually insult every third party publisher, proclaiming all of their work to be leeching garbage, when you yourself have admitted in at least a couple of posts that you have either never heard of a given product or have never tried to use it.
You continually disregard every comparative example given, telling posters they don't understand IP law. When they do make sense, you claim the arguments are irrelevant.
When people come back with arguments against your viewpoint and tell you that you are wrong or counter your insults, you call them trolls who are flaming you.
Your misuse of terminology and interchangeable definitions of IP and copyright law only exacerbate the issue. To quote my favorite radio personality, arguing with you is a biblical experience. I now appreciate what it feels like to be smited by the jawbone of an ass.
Believe what you will, I'm out of this thread.
Might I point out that this isn't relevant? It isn't an important market, and moreover, it says something that people who play all these other games usually started out with White Wolf and D&D.
and the Adventure market is just as irelevant I'm guessing? (at least in your opinion) :D and ironically enough, I started with the James Bond RPG and then on to Rifts, moving to AD&D 2nd only later on. (not that it goes against your point as to peoples first rpg's, just figured I'd mention)
Just Exactly what did WOTC do Original?
I'm going to take a wild guess that the original WotC idea that was meant was Magic:TG, though I could of course be wrong.
You speak for everyone buying products and the reason they are Buying 4E?
You think everyone is happy, look around. Theres plenty of Unhappy Customers out there. Look around on the WOTC Forums and other Companies Forums.
Even if you refuse to admit it...To Play "official" D&D people had to switch...or be a LEECH..
I'm not speaking for everyone, I am saying the the rational assumption is that people spend their discretionary income on things they like, aka that they are happy with.
If content of forums was an indication, people who play D&D have never been happy.
I am proposing that the desire to play "official" D&D isn't the driving force of the RPG buying public at large. I believe that the driving force is having fun. If people aren't having fun then being "official" isn't going to save it.
Ok I will ask you directly...If WOTC does not provide enough Adventures where are DMs suspose to get them from, if 3PP are not allowed to do them?
And don't bring Up Homebrewing, because I have doing that since 1978.
If You use Only "Offical" WOTC products there are only 6 Products Announced
H1 1-3
H2 4-6
H3 7-10
P1 11-14
P2 14-17
P3 ? - 20
So we get 6 Adventures in 10 Months set for Core
1 Adventure Scheduled for Forgotten Realms
and 1 Adventure Scheduled for Unknown Setting..I am betting Ebberon
You are ignoring Dungeon adventures, promtional adventures like the one handed out on Free RPG day, and the adventures that come with retailer kits like "Escape from Sembia". There are also the adventures will be put out under the GSL.
If you have been creating your own adventures since 1978 why isn't that a valid option?
You are ignoring Dungeon adventures, promtional adventures like the one handed out on Free RPG day, and the adventures that come with retailer kits like "Escape from Sembia". There are also the adventures will be put out under the GSL.
If you have been creating your own adventures since 1978 why isn't that a valid option?
If you ignore certain facts your not making a rational Assumption, your making a skewed decision.
I ain't ignoring the Dungeon Adventures..
In Issue 155..We got 2 Adventures
In Issue 156 ...2 out of 3 promised Adventures
But In 155 No first level adventure for New Campaigns, Instead we had to jump to 5th level...or be 8th Level. Not Handy
Sure we did get some Addition Material, Useful if you Bought H1..otherwise nice pictures.
In 156 We got a 1st Level adventure...oppsss kinda late.
Got a 12th Level...and Still waiting on another 8th level..
People are still waiting on the H2 Material....Imagine that Its 24 days into the Month and people are waiting on Material.
Lets not go into the failure to deliver stuff earlier..thats another discussing, find one and discuss it there?
Escape from Sembia??? where do We find that?
I don't see it on WOTC Site, is that a "leech's" product?
Is that something everyone can get from WOTC?
Wow Promotional Material...........In case you missed your Free RPG Game day, when can we expect WOTC to deliver it?
I have been homebrewing since 1978, it is a valid option...but in regards to 3PP leeches discussion Its irrevelent, because as you guys are putting it, WOTC makes no money from us.
I'm going to take a wild guess that the original WotC idea that was meant was Magic:TG, though I could of course be wrong.
Actually they bought that from Richard Garfield....But they were the first to market it. An interesting point is that MTG: Was hidden in a shell company while WotC was being sued by Palladium. WotC has not ever produced a truly orginal product, although thtye came close with 3e, one could even call that inovative.
portermj: Your gonna need to clarify your point. What i'm reading is that you feel that if the devs don't come up with their own orginal work, they are useless hacks. Kalamar was an orginal camapign setting when it was first marketed, but used a few things, namely system rules, from whatever system it was adapted to. Now your telling me that a work is judged on the some of its parts, if that is true then Kalamr is orginal. If a work is judged on its individual parts being orginal, then 4e is recycled.
The other thing i'm having trouble is that your are trying to say that 4e is one large mechanic? True all the mechanic in 4e have never been assembled and combined in the same manner. But none of them are new. The designers basically canablized all the mechanics they liked from numerouse systems, clobbled them together, and formatted them to work with the d20 system. It is a new system, but made 100% from recycled rules.
WotC has not ever produced a truly orginal product
Everway was original. Roborally was original. Filthy Rich was certainly original, as is Guillotine.
If you ignore certain facts your not making a rational Assumption, your making a skewed decision.
I ain't ignoring the Dungeon Adventures..
In Issue 155..We got 2 Adventures
In Issue 156 ...2 out of 3 promised Adventures
But In 155 No first level adventure for New Campaigns, Instead we had to jump to 5th level...or be 8th Level. Not Handy
Sure we did get some Addition Material, Useful if you Bought H1..otherwise nice pictures.
In 156 We got a 1st Level adventure...oppsss kinda late.
Got a 12th Level...and Still waiting on another 8th level..
People are still waiting on the H2 Material....Imagine that Its 24 days into the Month and people are waiting on Material.
Lets not go into the failure to deliver stuff earlier..thats another discussing, find one and discuss it there?
Escape from Sembia??? where do We find that?
I don't see it on WOTC Site, is that a "leech's" product?
Is that something everyone can get from WOTC?
Wow Promotional Material...........In case you missed your Free RPG Game day, when can we expect WOTC to deliver it?
I have been homebrewing since 1978, it is a valid option...but in regards to 3PP leeches discussion Its irrevelent, because as you guys are putting it, WOTC makes no money from us.
You failed to mention Dungeon in the post that I responded to.
Your post stated that there were only 6 adventures in ten months set for core. I refuted that by correctly pointing out that WOTC was releasing more than six adventures in ten months. I am in possession of five 4th Edition WOTC adventures right now (Keep on the Shadowfell, Thunderspire Labyrinth, Treasure of Talon Pass, Escape from Sembia, and Into the Shadowhaunt).
There are additional adventures in Dungeon. One of which, Rescue at Rivenroar, is the start of an adventure path that will cover level 1 through 30.
"We" can find Escape from Sembia at "The Google".
If you missed Free Game Day you might try asking your local flgs if they have extras, or if you are really keen to have it you can try Ebay. Regardless, your statement was about the number of adventures we can expect in 10 months, not the method they are made available to the public.
Additionally, the question of whether John Paul Stoddard likes the adventures WOTC puts out is a completely different issue than the number of adventures WOTC puts out. WOTC could put out a new module every day and there would be people that would be adamant that none of them are any good.
The claim that WOTC doesn't produce a reasonable amount of adventures is not a fair one if the claim really is that you don't like WOTC's adventures.
portermj: Your gonna need to clarify your point. What i'm reading is that you feel that if the devs don't come up with their own orginal work, they are useless hacks. Kalamar was an orginal camapign setting when it was first marketed, but used a few things, namely system rules, from whatever system it was adapted to. Now your telling me that a work is judged on the some of its parts, if that is true then Kalamr is orginal. If a work is judged on its individual parts being orginal, then 4e is recycled.
The other thing i'm having trouble is that your are trying to say that 4e is one large mechanic? True all the mechanic in 4e have never been assembled and combined in the same manner. But none of them are new. The designers basically canablized all the mechanics they liked from numerouse systems, clobbled them together, and formatted them to work with the d20 system. It is a new system, but made 100% from recycled rules.
Kalamar was not very original, it was cliched. The sum of its parts was very similar to other campaign settings, even when it debuted. On a more elemental level, when I played in a Kalamar campaign and read the campaign book I couldn't identify the hook of the setting, what made playing a Kalimar campaign a unique experience. It is a matter of taste and if you don't agree, if you think it was the Citizen Kane of RPG settings, so be it. Also, let's be clear the "whatever system" has tended to be the current edition of D&D as far as I can tell.
Also, I am not saying that 4E is one large mechanic. I am saying that they put together a lot of mechanics in an interesting way. The "single" original mechanic is a red herring, the building blocks have always been there. A marble statue is made of the material that existed before the scuplture made one chip. A song is made of notes that have been around as long as there have been instruments.
In a more down to earth example, Quentin Tarintenno films are heavily drawn from other films. I wouldn't say that his movies aren't original. Michael Bay on the other hand clearly has not studied film to a degree anywhere close to QT, yet his films are really cliched. Again, it is a matter of taste.
I really don't get "This is better than 4e, this is why no one buys it."
And yes, not selling well IS an indication of quality, especially when your schitck is "D&D, but with a funny hat!"
Hmmm... not sure what products you are talking about. HackMaster? I think people would be stunned to learn exactly how many copies we sold of that game.
Enough that developing a new edition was a no brainer for us.
But that's not really a debate I enjoy participating in. It's enough for me that we have good cash flow and the resources to pretty much work on any product we choose without feeling like we're rolling the dice or putting all our chips on the table.
I don't want the world. Just a small piece of it. ;)
Anyway interesting dicussion TD but there are three things I don't discuss on the net or in mixed company. Politics, religion and um, legal matters.
But I am enjoying this thread quite a bit.
Which is my point - these companies are leeches. .
Sir, I'm insulted.
;)
We prefer to be called Bottom Feeders.
Carry on.
What about companies that support 3pp? Do they have any responsibility?
I would say they do. And I think anyone who believes what you do should stop supporting them immediately because of the harm they do to the gaming community.
So everyone, stop supporting WotC because they keep enabling 3pp to hurt the gaming community by letting them leech customers. Teach them a lesson!
I think we should stop buying from any game store or bookshop that sells 3PP D&D-compatible products, because they're helping these leeches. Surely WotC would appreciate that.
Irrelevant. If it is a derivative product, then it is a derivative product. Doesn't matter if it is "90% new" if it is violating someone's copyrights.
These are legal arguments. Please get back to us when WotC sues Kenzer. As they HAVE to if their copyright and trademark are being violated, because otherwise they'll lose the trademark.
I think we should stop buying from any game store or bookshop that sells 3PP D&D-compatible products, because they're helping these leeches. Surely WotC would appreciate that.
I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek or not but I think not buying stuff you don't like is protest enough.
I'm not even dropping Knights of the Dinner Table from my pull list. When I get bothered, even a little upset, at the guys' treatment by a 501st stormtrooper I know the book has hooked me and reeled me in.
I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek or not but I think not buying stuff you don't like is protest enough.
No, no, he is right.
We must cut out the support of these leeches at all levels.
It is the only way they and WotC will learn a lesson!
Sir, I'm insulted.
;)
We prefer to be called Bottom Feeders.
Carry on.
I do think that this is my favorite response of this thread.
Thank you.
Oddly, I understand that. Actually, I agree.
Cool... Too many people take stuff too personally. :p
As I said, we do have statements from WotC people that the OGL benefited them. I am inclined to accept them at their word on that.
So am I. The question I have is in what way did it benefit them?
Does just having 3pp out there (no matter what they're doing) benefit them, or does it only really benefit them when they're doing stuff to support D&D?
If the majority of people get into gaming through 3pp and then move into D&D, then yes, 3pp doing whatever they want will benefit WoTC.
But if the majority of people get into D&D, and then find out about 3pp, the benefit wil only come when those 3pp are supporting D&D (in ways that WoTC is not) so that people's interest in D&D remains active longer. (As opposed to the 3pp making full game systems that pull people away from D&D.)
Again, I'm in no way able to say this IS the case. If Scott or Linae came in here and said it wasn't I'd say, ok, I'm incorrect. As it stands, however, the GSL (and the fact that assuming people start gaming with D&D isn't that unreasonable) indicates the argument can be made.
I think you are jumping ahead too much there.
While WotC certainly wants third party publishers to stick to direct support, the GSL reflects certain other things over and above that, a preference to have them support the current edition being a lot more obvious. (Again, taking them at their word as to intent.)
Yes, supporting the current edition is part of the concept. If you can support other editions, you can pull customers away from WoTC, thus not really benefiting them.
The problem is, that argument assumes a zero-sum game as an absolute, and a constant state of competition. By that standard, WotC is being foolish to let third party publishers produce anything, even just adventures, for 4E. With that information, we can rather safely assume the entire premise is incorrect, and dismiss both sides of that argument as irrelevant, uninformed, and unsupported.
I'm not totally sure what you mean here? (I forgot my coffee today, I'm surviving on tea, so forgive me...)
There is no very marginal support for third party publishers in the GSL.
There is no support for third party publishers in the OGL.
It is more reasonable to assume that the license is focused on supporting WotC, with support of any third party publisher being incidental.
Again, I'd say that depends on what you consider support, but yes, it is reasonable to assume a company wants to see anything done regarding its product benefiting them...
Actually, yes, extreme compared to other IP use licenses.
Honestly I'd need to see an example before I can accept this one way or the other.
I know people like to casually compare the two, but they are not that equitable. The IP for game rules is much more open. You can, and people are, going to publish 4E material without the GSL.
Sure, but the GSL/SRD aren't about the rules this time around really. it's more about the IP.
This is in stark contrast to your example below, where nobody could publish any sort of material for Star Wars without a license. That right there puts the two kinds of IP into completely separate categories of perceived value when considering the restrictions of any license.
I admit, it's not a very similar IP issue, but I was trying to illustrate a point. That companies for the most part like to protect the use of their IP.
I am sure it is quite horrible.
Me too.
Which is why many people are choosing not to use the GSL.
I'm not advocating that they do or do not.
That is what I say.
My comments are in opposition to the "leech" meme that is trying to be spread, along with the "all third party material is worthless" meme.
I'll agree with you there, that people shouldn't assume 3pp are in anyway being "leeches" especially if WoTC hasn't directly said that, or they don't have any marketing info to support it.
Also, as someone who's bought and used a LOT of 3pp material in the past, I'd far from argue that it's worthless! Quite the opposite actually.
My comments were just stating that you can argue the point (Given the terms of the GSL) that perhaps WoTC felt 3pp using the SRD to create non D&D games that compete with D&D to be harmful to D&D.
Making an adventure really isn't much work and doesn't require that much effort.
Wow...I mean, really....wow
I wonder if Bruce and Mike would agree?TD, I give up. Any rebuttal to your arguments results in a very snobby "clearly you do not understand what I've written and have not read my prior statements." I'm sorry if you think it's trolling, but you are really coming off as an elitist prick. Go ahead and tag me for trolling if you think that's what it is, but it seems to me the reverse is the case.
You continually insult every third party publisher, proclaiming all of their work to be leeching garbage, when you yourself have admitted in at least a couple of posts that you have either never heard of a given product or have never tried to use it.
You continually disregard every comparative example given, telling posters they don't understand IP law. When they do make sense, you claim the arguments are irrelevant.
When people come back with arguments against your viewpoint and tell you that you are wrong or counter your insults, you call them trolls who are flaming you.
Your misuse of terminology and interchangeable definitions of IP and copyright law only exacerbate the issue. To quote my favorite radio personality, arguing with you is a biblical experience. I now appreciate what it feels like to be smited by the jawbone of an ass.
Believe what you will, I'm out of this thread.
Thanks for saying what I, and i'm sure others as well, have been thinking for the past 16 pages.
So am I. The question I have is in what way did it benefit them?
Does just having 3pp out there (no matter what they're doing) benefit them, or does it only really benefit them when they're doing stuff to support D&D?
If the majority of people get into gaming through 3pp and then move into D&D, then yes, 3pp doing whatever they want will benefit WoTC.
But if the majority of people get into D&D, and then find out about 3pp, the benefit wil only come when those 3pp are supporting D&D (in ways that WoTC is not) so that people's interest in D&D remains active longer. (As opposed to the 3pp making full game systems that pull people away from D&D.)
Again, I'm in no way able to say this IS the case. If Scott or Linae came in here and said it wasn't I'd say, ok, I'm incorrect. As it stands, however, the GSL (and the fact that assuming people start gaming with D&D isn't that unreasonable) indicates the argument can be made.
It is the basic concept that Ryan Dancey put forth for the OGL.
If "everyone", that is third party publishers, are making D20 system products, then "everyone" is playing D20, and can "easily" start playing D&D, as well as "have to" buy the D&D core books to get started.
And based on everything I have ever heard, and despite the separate sub-systems, that is what the OGL achieved.
Unless everyone from WotC I have talked to was just yanking my chain, they expect the same feeder support, just better, with the GSL.
Yes, supporting the current edition is part of the concept. If you can support other editions, you can pull customers away from WoTC, thus not really benefiting them.
Just note here, "support other editions" means using the OGL, as I cannot currently imagine that being done with the GSL. Then again, I am not inclined to try designing such a game, so I am not trying to imagine such a thing anyway. :P
I'm not totally sure what you mean here? (I forgot my coffee today, I'm surviving on tea, so forgive me...)
It means that what Titanium Dragon is saying is only relevant if gamers will only ever spend a particular amount of money on gaming, and if that particular amount will always go to WotC as first choice if all products are for systems exclusive to each publisher.
Again, I'd say that depends on what you consider support, but yes, it is reasonable to assume a company wants to see anything done regarding its product benefiting them...
Support = makes a product or sells a product.
Honestly I'd need to see an example before I can accept this one way or the other.
Check out the Mongoose Traveller OGL and SRD. :P
Sure, but the GSL/SRD aren't about the rules this time around really. it's more about the IP.
Errr . . .
Yes and no.
They are at heart about the rules.
There is a significantly more protective attitude about the IP.
I admit, it's not a very similar IP issue, but I was trying to illustrate a point. That companies for the most part like to protect the use of their IP.
The thing is, that is what everyone wants to compare it to. Hence my comment above about them not really being equitable.
This is really a very distinct method of using IP, not to mention, as I suggested elsewhere, a method of getting recognition of material not otherwise defendable as IP.
I'm not advocating that they do or do not.
I only care if they expect to have me write something for them. ;)
I'll agree with you there, that people shouldn't assume 3pp are in anyway being "leeches" especially if WoTC hasn't directly said that, or they don't have any marketing info to support it.
Also, as someone who's bought and used a LOT of 3pp material in the past, I'd far from argue that it's worthless! Quite the opposite actually.
My comments were just stating that you can argue the point (Given the terms of the GSL) that perhaps WoTC felt 3pp using the SRD to create non D&D games that compete with D&D to be harmful to D&D.
I doubt it is harmful to D&D.
I expect it is harmful to certain corporate perceptions of the bottom line.
I still believe it is likely to be significantly more linked to the desire to switch D&D to an online format, and restrict development to material usable in such format. They want to license mods for a pseudo-MMORPG, not supplements and modules for a TRPG.
At least a certain faction does. And they are currently the ones dominating setting the terms for the GSL.
Wow...I mean, really....wow
It is true that writing an adventure isn't much work and doesn't require much effort. Same can be said about writing a book or even making a movie. However, this does not immediately mean that it is anything that is either noteworthy or even worth the paper it's printed on.
In addition, some people are more suited and skilled to write mods so they will have a much easier time at it than others. In the end though, anyone who produces quality work - even people who are gifted at it - will admit that quality work does take time and effort.
Heck, I can pull really fun adventures out of my head at a moment's notice. But to put them down on paper and make them legible for others to understand in order to run them with the same zeal and theatrical impact that I did? That's a great deal of work.
It is the basic concept that Ryan Dancey put forth for the OGL.
If "everyone", that is third party publishers, are making D20 system products, then "everyone" is playing D20, and can "easily" start playing D&D, as well as "have to" buy the D&D core books to get started.
And based on everything I have ever heard, and despite the separate sub-systems, that is what the OGL achieved.
Unless everyone from WotC I have talked to was just yanking my chain, they expect the same feeder support, just better, with the GSL.
I undersdtand the concept of what the OGL was intended to do. I'm just saying is that what happened? There are a number of games out there based on the d20 system that neither require the use of the D&D core books, nor promote their purchase. They just use the OGL.
Just note here, "support other editions" means using the OGL, as I cannot currently imagine that being done with the GSL. Then again, I am not inclined to try designing such a game, so I am not trying to imagine such a thing anyway. :P
Which is what I was saying. The GSL seems designed to discourage someone from taking the base rules of D&D 4e and morphing them into another game.
It means that what Titanium Dragon is saying is only relevant if gamers will only ever spend a particular amount of money on gaming, and if that particular amount will always go to WotC as first choice if all products are for systems exclusive to each publisher.
I still don't see how that applies to what I said?
Support = makes a product or sells a product.
Ok, so WoTC makes a product. It's a valuble product. They make that product available for others to make money off of.
Check out the Mongoose Traveller OGL and SRD. :P
I will. However, I'm not sure that's enough top convince me. I need to see a company with a product as strong as D&D. Traveller is a cool game, but as strong as D&D?
Maybe if you showed me the license for developing stuff for WoW or soemthing? Or for developing stuff designed to be used with say, Grand Theft auto... (don't know what that would be...)
Errr . . .
Yes and no.
They are at heart about the rules.
There is a significantly more protective attitude about the IP.
Ehh... maybe.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if WoTC does anythuing about the "4e compatible" stuff.
The thing is, that is what everyone wants to compare it to. Hence my comment above about them not really being equitable.
This is really a very distinct method of using IP, not to mention, as I suggested elsewhere, a method of getting recognition of material not otherwise defendable as IP.
Ok, I see what you're saying. But see above?
I only care if they expect to have me write something for them. ;)
Why? It's on the company to choose the GSL or not.
I doubt it is harmful to D&D.
I expect it is harmful to certain corporate perceptions of the bottom line.
Same thing to an extent. If they hurt the bottom line, then it hurts WoTC's incentive to promote them.
I still believe it is likely to be significantly more linked to the desire to switch D&D to an online format, and restrict development to material usable in such format. They want to license mods for a pseudo-MMORPG, not supplements and modules for a TRPG.At least a certain faction does. And they are currently the ones dominating setting the terms for the GSL.
Where are you getting THAT from? You say I'M reading too much into the GSL... :P
It is true that writing an adventure isn't much work and doesn't require much effort. Same can be said about writing a book or even making a movie. However, this does not immediately mean that it is anything that is either noteworthy or even worth the paper it's printed on.
In addition, some people are more suited and skilled to write mods so they will have a much easier time at it than others. In the end though, anyone who produces quality work - even people who are gifted at it - will admit that quality work does take time and effort.
Heck, I can pull really fun adventures out of my head at a moment's notice. But to put them down on paper and make them legible for others to understand in order to run them with the same zeal and theatrical impact that I did? That's a great deal of work.
You beat me to posting this.
Many people can slap down notes for an adventure at home with little effort.
Translating those notes into something for everyone takes a considerable amount of effort, and involves not just the author, but a developer and editor as well.
I would very seriously doubt anyone who thinks otherwise has ever prepared an adventure to be published, and would give the quality of any a very close look.
Just Exactly what did WOTC do Original?
3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 Are Not Derivatives of the Original Games?
How Many Elements are totally original in thier Game?
WotC made Magic: The Gathering, the first collectible card game.
And you don't really understand, either. WotC owns D&D. You don't. Nor do the 3pps. If you buy something, you own it; that you didn't make it originally is irrelevant.
Obviously you don't understand the concept of intellectual property. Just like other forms of property, it can be bought, sold, and traded.
Incidentally, unneccessary capitalization is very annoying to read. Its the online equivalent of attempting to be pretentious and failing at it.
Did WOTC not go outside the Company to find a Leech to come Up with "Thier Setting" Eberron, Why did they have to do that?
They didn't have to. They did it because it was a good publicity stunt and because there was a chance someone had something awesome they could use, saving them on R&D.
Just because you have money to buy up something, doesn't make you original nor does it make it right.
No, actually, it DOES make it right.
Are you saying you don't have the right to sell what you own?
Are you saying it is okay to steal your computer, because you didn't make it yourself?
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a single orginal mechanic in 4e.....
Skill challenges. The at-will/encounter/daily system. The mathematical construction of monsters.
Your claim that it violates copyright is completely hollow unless you can offer evidence. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that they are violating copyright.
I already have.
It's amusing to see you admonishing people for doing exactly what you've been doing for the entire thread. You consistently ignore direct questions. In case you missed it the last two times: what specific legal or moral principles (apart from "trademark dilution", which you can't prove) are Kenzer & Co. violating with the new Kingdoms of Kalamar supplement?
I have answered this. Remember:
In other words, you can't make a baseless claim true by repeating it ad nauseam.
I'm tired of repeating myself. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, quit posting in it.
Are Customers really Happy or are the just being part of the "In Crowd"?
But that doesn't have anything to do with the Discussion going on?
I can see you now, sitting there with your shirt "You laugh because I'm different. I laugh because you're all the same." which you bought at Hot Topic from a rack of identical shirts.
Ok I will ask you directly...If WOTC does not provide enough Adventures where are DMs suspose to get them from, if 3PP are not allowed to do them?
Who ever said that 3pps can't produce adventures? As I've said time and again, if you liscense or purchase someone's IP, you're allowed to use it. What part of this don't you understand?
You speak for everyone buying products and the reason they are Buying 4E?
You think everyone is happy, look around. Theres plenty of Unhappy Customers out there. Look around on the WOTC Forums and other Companies Forums.
Even if you refuse to admit it...To Play "official" D&D people had to switch...or be a LEECH..
There is an extremely small number of unhappy customers. This is reality. And a lot of them are simply what are known as "whiners". These people will complain about anything and everything. They are fanboy from UGMadness.
All they do is rant and rave and complain and whine about everything, but there's no substance to what they say and they purchase the products anyway, by and large.
We saw the same thing with 3rd edition. You are no different from your predecessors. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to make the same mistakes.
TD, I give up. Any rebuttal to your arguments results in a very snobby "clearly you do not understand what I've written and have not read my prior statements." I'm sorry if you think it's trolling, but you are really coming off as an elitist prick. Go ahead and tag me for trolling if you think that's what it is, but it seems to me the reverse is the case.
I'm sorry, but when people don't understand what I'm talking about, me just repeating myself won't do any good, and it is a waste of my time.
It is difficult to tell if people genuinely don't understand what I'm talking about, don't WANT to understand, or simply are trolling/flamebaiting.
I'm sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about, but this thread has gone on for 15 pages and a lot of people are just here insulting me. At this point, I think my arguments have all been made earlier in the thread. And still people claim stuff like "WotC is just mooching off of TSR!" and "You can't own ideas!".
I'm tired of hearing it and it is clear that many people here simply don't want to understand my posts; they just want to be angry. I am going through and reporting the posts which I consider to be nothing more than trolling/flamebaiting. I don't think I've marked any of yours because I don't think you've crossed the line.
But In 155 No first level adventure for New Campaigns, Instead we had to jump to 5th level...or be 8th Level. Not Handy
Sure we did get some Addition Material, Useful if you Bought H1..otherwise nice pictures.
Except of course, you had H1, Keep on the Shadowfell, which was designed for first level characters. Not to mention the sidequest thing mentioned relating to Keep on the Shadowfell which IIRC was for first level characters.
In 156 We got a 1st Level adventure...oppsss kinda late.
Got a 12th Level...and Still waiting on another 8th level..
People are still waiting on the H2 Material....Imagine that Its 24 days into the Month and people are waiting on Material.
Why would you expect to get multiple continous adventure paths simultaneously in Dungeon? I wouldn't. I'd expect one, and then expect the rest to be one-offs of various random levels.
The reality is you have unrealistic expectations. The primary purpose of Dungeon is to give random one-off adventures for DMs to use when they don't want to have to prepare adventures. The primary purpose is not to be a substitution for the adventure module series which WotC is releasing. An adventure path plus a seperate set of adventure modules you can purchase is two choices, which is what you can expect.
Escape from Sembia??? where do We find that?
We don't, it was at the D&D experience.
Actually they bought that from Richard Garfield....But they were the first to market it. An interesting point is that MTG: Was hidden in a shell company while WotC was being sued by Palladium. WotC has not ever produced a truly orginal product, although thtye came close with 3e, one could even call that inovative.
It came from Richard Garfield, sure, but WotC developed it and sold it, and have been doing so for how long now?
The other thing i'm having trouble is that your are trying to say that 4e is one large mechanic? True all the mechanic in 4e have never been assembled and combined in the same manner. But none of them are new. The designers basically canablized all the mechanics they liked from numerouse systems, clobbled them together, and formatted them to work with the d20 system. It is a new system, but made 100% from recycled rules.
So you're saying Tolkien was plagarizing and did nothing original? So you're saying your post is nothing but stuff you've copied from other people?
Please. You don't understand originality.
Claiming something has to be entirely built from nothing to be original is just plain old silly. You can use something old and have a new take on it and be original.
4e is original. It has new takes on mechanics. Skill challenges are a new, innovative, and ultimately better version of complex skill checks from Alternity. The powers system is original as it has never been done this way before.
Hmmm... not sure what products you are talking about. HackMaster? I think people would be stunned to learn exactly how many copies we sold of that game.
I wouldn't be surprised, honestly. I know what hackmaster is, and I pay no attention to 3pps most of the time. I knew what it is before I started looking into their products.
Your name recognition is far above that of other random D&D knockoffs. Unless I'd looked into it, I'd have no idea what True 20 is, nor Mutants & Masterminds, nor any number of other 3pp products. But I knew what Hackmaster was. I also knew what GURPS and Palladium were (and Call of Cthulu). So clearly some people have more name recognition than others.
What I'm talking about are the random knockoff products which have been produced in the last 8 years which nearly no one knows of.
In any event, people claim I have a problem with people liscensing or even purchasing IP, despite my statements to the contrary.
Stealing other company's customers is a time-honored tradition. If you steal their customers by stealing IP, though, I have a problem with you. If you steal their customers by making your own product, who am I to complain?
Wow...I mean, really....wow I wonder if Bruce and Mike would agree?
It isn't by comparison. Its a lot less work than designing a game system, that's for sure. It is also much easier.
I undersdtand the concept of what the OGL was intended to do. I'm just saying is that what happened? There are a number of games out there based on the d20 system that neither require the use of the D&D core books, nor promote their purchase. They just use the OGL.
Yes, it is what happened.
The number of products that are not their own system compared to the ones that are pretty much says all that needs to be said on that.
Which is what I was saying. The GSL seems designed to discourage someone from taking the base rules of D&D 4e and morphing them into another game.
It does not discourage it, it prohibits it. That does not make that the primary focus of it.
Ok, so WoTC makes a product. It's a valuble product. They make that product available for others to make money off of.
Except that neither produces nor sells the other product.
No WotC product requires the use of a third party adventure or supplement.
I will. However, I'm not sure that's enough top convince me. I need to see a company with a product as strong as D&D. Traveller is a cool game, but as strong as D&D?
It has lasted as long as D&D. And with the RTT version, in a sense, the original rules have lasted longer.
Maybe if you showed me the license for developing stuff for WoW or soemthing? Or for developing stuff designed to be used with say, Grand Theft auto... (don't know what that would be...)
I doubt anyone other than the people with those licenses has them.
The Mongoose license is open.
Ehh... maybe.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if WoTC does anythuing about the "4e compatible" stuff.
I expect so.
Why? It's on the company to choose the GSL or not.
Because I would rather they keep paying me rather than get sued out of existence.
Enlightened self interest and all that.
Same thing to an extent. If they hurt the bottom line, then it hurts WoTC's incentive to promote them.
But they do not harm the bottom line. Whatever sales for a particular product might be lost are more than made up for by sales of other products, as well as the general advertising effect.
It is pennywise and pound foolish.
Where are you getting THAT from? You say I'M reading too much into the GSL... :P
Way too many sources.
Read various comments about how certain elements of the DDI drove design considerations, comments about Hasbro wanting to shift from print to electronic format, comments from Ryan Dancey and others about shifting the industry, then toss in the limitations of the GSL. By the time you finish adding all those factors up, you wind up with either a major coincidence, a thoroughly confused policy, or an obvious if unstated business plan.
Skill challenges. The at-will/encounter/daily system. The mathematical construction of monsters.
There are complex skill tasks from UA and the entire encounter trap system from Dungeonscape. Skill challenges are not new in 4E. (And that is a bad selection given how the whole system has already been thrown out in errata.)
Tables for monster construction existed in 3E. The only significant change to the entire system of creating and advancing monsters in 4E has been modifying how NPCs are created.
At-will, encounter, and daily powers are new only in tabletop games. Powers with recharge times already existed in computer games.
No new systems there.
There are complex skill tasks from UA and the entire encounter trap system from Dungeonscape.
And there are complex skil checks in Alternity, which is where the UA thing was taken from. And encounter traps aren't from Dungeonscape either. That said, 4th edition has new takes on them, which are vastly superior from their predecessors.
Tables for monster construction existed in 3E. The only significant change to the entire system of creating and advancing monsters in 4E has been modifying how NPCs are created.
They didn't work and they didn't give you all the information which was required.
At-will, encounter, and daily powers are new only in tabletop games. Powers with recharge times already existed in computer games.
Powers with recharge times already existed in D&D; see the 3.x tome of battle, or indeed daily spells in general (they refresh after a long rest).
The fact is that they are a new TAKE on them, and they never existed IN THIS FORM previously.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. Just because they're not built from scratch doesn't mean they're not new.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. Just because they're not built from scratch doesn't mean they're not new.
So new does not mean new?
Well, given how you like to redefine IP rights, that is rather inevitable.
You are however just plain wrong.
The Sky is Blue
That is because it is leeching off the color of the ocean.
Everyone stop having anything to do with the sky until it gets a color of its own!
That is because it is leeching off the color of the ocean.
Everyone stop having anything to do with the sky until it gets a color of its own!
Nope, the Ocean leeched Off of the Sky.
The Sky came up with Original Blue.
That is because it is leeching off the color of the ocean.
Everyone stop having anything to do with the sky until it gets a color of its own!
It does have a color of it's own. I think it's supposed to be grey or something isnt it? It's the damn ocean forcing it's color on the sky that is to blame. :P
Nope, the Ocean leeched Off of the Sky.
The Sky came up with Original Blue.
Then we must reject the Ocean.
No fishsticks or tuna salad for anyone!
I will note though that the Sky enables the Ocean to act in that manner by taking up evaporation and returning it as precipitation. We may have to take a strong stance against the Sky as well if that continues.
You are ignoring Dungeon adventures, promtional adventures like the one handed out on Free RPG day, and the adventures that come with retailer kits like "Escape from Sembia". There are also the adventures will be put out under the GSL.
If you have been creating your own adventures since 1978 why isn't that a valid option?
Ok some Direct Questions for You.
How Many Dugeon Adventures Are Announce for Publication and when will they be Released According to WOTC's Posted Schedule?
What are thier Settings?
What are the Levels?
Since you keep bringing up Adventures in Dungeon when I keep talking about the Release dates for scheduled Adventures.
So new does not mean new?
Well, given how you like to redefine IP rights, that is rather inevitable.
You are however just plain wrong.
So I'm wrong because... I pointed out that by your definition of new, nothing is new?
Heck, I could argue that because we cannot create our own matter, we can't really "make" anything ourselves, and as we're simply employing the laws of phsyics, everything is preset.
I could even say that there is no such thing as free will, and there's a good chance I'm right. However, this is highly unproductive.
A new take on something IS new.
You are claiming a faster computer isn't new because there were computers before.
You are obviously incorrect.
- any text has been directly copied from the D&D rulebooks
- the formatting of any rules material is similar enough to the D&D rulebooks to be legally considered derivative
- any art has been directly copied from the D&D rulebooks
- any WotC-trademarked term has been used except as normally permitted for indicating a compatible product
- the product is in any way defamatory of WotC or D&D
At least one of the above would have occur for there to be a case for IP theft or copyright/trademark violation.
Incidentally, I suggest everyone go read up on the subject: it's fascinating.
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/
http://www.godsmonsters.com/?ART=153
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm
So I'm wrong because... I pointed out that by your definition of new, nothing is new?
Every few things in this world are "new". There are many improvements on existing technologies, but that is not "new" it is an improvement on old.
Heck, I could argue that because we cannot create our own matter, we can't really "make" anything ourselves, and as we're simply employing the laws of phsyics, everything is preset.
.....uhm, no. It doesn't have to be "new" for it to be created. I can make a house. Is the house "new", in the sense of i bought a new car it is. But is the house roginal? Am i the first person to ever create a house. But if i built it, I made the house. Simmilarly I can follow a reciep for cake. I did not think up the reciep, it is not new in that sense. But i did make the cake.
I could even say that there is no such thing as free will, and there's a good chance I'm right. However, this is highly unproductive.
You could, but you wouldn't be the first. I'd interested in seeing how the concept of free will relates to our discussion at all. Then again you've used almost every other poor debating technic, muddying the water would be par for the course at this point.
A new take on something IS new.
No it isn't. But we'll let slide for for now. How is a new take on D&D uncreative and worthless when a 3pp does it, but orginal and creative when WotC does it. I find this really, really confusing. When Andy Collins made Iron Hereos he was a worthless hack leeching of the work of Monte Cook, Skip williams and Jonathan Tweet. But when he works for WotC, does a another take on D&D, this time 4e, he was created soemthing new, and orginal. But when Monte Cook does a different take on D&D, he's a worthless hack now. You really aren't making any sense at all.
You are claiming a faster computer isn't new because there were computers before.
You are obviously incorrect.
A faster computer isn't new. The first computer ever invented was new. The faster computer is simply an improvement on the old. Still good and still inovative, but not new.
P.S: WotC did not make M:TG they bought, and marketed it. Also D&D wasn't the first RPG, it is a new take on Chain mail.
.....uhm, no. It doesn't have to be "new" for it to be created. I can make a house. Is the house "new", in the sense of i bought a new car it is. But is the house roginal? Am i the first person to ever create a house. But if i built it, I made the house. Simmilarly I can follow a reciep for cake. I did not think up the reciep, it is not new in that sense. But i did make the cake.
Ah, but are all houses the same?
The answer is no.
If I come up with a new design for a house that no one has done before, that's a "new" house design. However, the house is made out of the same materials as other houses, and still contains bathrooms, bedrooms, ect. You're claiming it is not new, but it is a demonstrably different design.
You could, but you wouldn't be the first. I'd interested in seeing how the concept of free will relates to our discussion at all. Then again you've used almost every other poor debating technic, muddying the water would be par for the course at this point.
Well, if there's no such thing as free will, then the arguments are all pointless anyway, as nothing is truly novel because it is all predestined.
A faster computer isn't new. The first computer ever invented was new. The faster computer is simply an improvement on the old. Still good and still inovative, but not new.
New
Not the same as what was previously known or done.
Was a computer previously as fast? No? Then it is a new computer.
Game. Set. Match.
New
Not the same as what was previously known or done.
Was a computer previously as fast? No? Then it is a new computer.
So your saying that if I upgrade my ram, thus making my computer faster it's an entirely new computer? What about if I delete a few spem programs and add ware from my PC, that improves it's speed, new computer as well?
Game. Set. Match.
Hardly you still have to explain who come up with an new take on D&D is uncreative for a 3pp, but creative for WotC.
I already have.
No, you haven't. You've made the claim that Kenzer is guilty of "dilution of trademark", which they're not. You've also claimed that Kenzer & Co. is guilty of copyright infringement, which is not the same as trademark infringement. So, prove it.
Ok some Direct Questions for You.
How Many Dugeon Adventures Are Announce for Publication and when will they be Released According to WOTC's Posted Schedule?
What are thier Settings?
What are the Levels?
Since you keep bringing up Adventures in Dungeon when I keep talking about the Release dates for scheduled Adventures.
While WOTC hasn't released a full ten month Dungeon schedule, it is reasonable to believe that Dungeon will release adventures in each issue. We know that they have announced at least one adventure path that will cover levels 1-30.
We know that they are planning to continue the RPGA which is another fairly regular source of new adventures, some of which will be for the various "Living" campaign settings.
So all levels will be covered.
Settings is kind of a moot issue because it isn't like another publisher is going to make Ravenloft or Dragonlance adventures without a license. That isn't even something 3PPs could do under the OGL.
What is the point of narrowing the question to release dates for scheduled adventures? The greater point is how many adventures WOTC is expecting to release and has released for 4th Edition. Only talking about a subset of the adventures that WOTC produces is pointless.
WOTC will release more adventures in the next ten months than you stated (8). They have already released more than that number of 4E adventures so far.
So your saying that if I upgrade my ram, thus making my computer faster it's an entirely new computer? What about if I delete a few spem programs and add ware from my PC, that improves it's speed, new computer as well?
Only part of a computer.
Hardly you still have to explain who come up with an new take on D&D is uncreative for a 3pp, but creative for WotC.
Such novel new takes as making a highly generic fantasy campaign setting using made up names with no real interesting cohesion?
Do you see something like 4e being marketed by a 3pp? Because I don't.
No, you haven't. You've made the claim that Kenzer is guilty of "dilution of trademark", which they're not. You've also claimed that Kenzer & Co. is guilty of copyright infringement, which is not the same as trademark infringement. So, prove it.
I've already stated my basis for both statements. Please read my posts for the reasoning behind my statements.
As for proving it: only way to "prove" it would be in a court of law, and I have no standing to sue them nor do I have money with which to do so, and that's how it would be determined. You aren't guilty until you're convicted of it in this country, and in any event, you don't want to believe me, and you won't be convinced regardless of the evidence I present. You aren't like me. You haven't bothered to read my other posts given your accusations of me not having any basis for my claims, so I daresay me reposting it won't do me any good as you won't be reading that either.
We know that they are planning to continue the RPGA which is another fairly regular source of new adventures, some of which will be for the various "Living" campaign settings.
So all levels will be covered.
I can see keeping Dungeon in the stats for the moment, and by the time that we start having to pay for it, there may be a enough WotC adventures out to be purchased for someone just starting to have a good amount to use.... however, normal people (non-rpga members) such as myself have no access to the RPGA adventures (short of ebay) without a decent amount of travel and scheduling problems, (in order to get to a playsite and join) so I can't really see them as a good addition to the math.
I can see keeping Dungeon in the stats for the moment, and by the time that we start having to pay for it, there may be a enough WotC adventures out to be purchased for someone just starting to have a good amount to use.... however, normal people (non-rpga members) such as myself have no access to the RPGA adventures (short of ebay) without a decent amount of travel and scheduling problems, (in order to get to a playsite and join) so I can't really see them as a good addition to the math.
Well if a person is opting out of getting the adventures that really doesn't change the number of adventures made. Getting something through Ebay isn't some crazy high barrier to getting RPGA modules.
I've already stated my basis for both statements. Please read my posts for the reasoning behind my statements.
I've read all of your posts in this thread, and I haven't seen anything to substantiate your claim of copyright infringement.
As for proving it: only way to "prove" it would be in a court of law, and I have no standing to sue them nor do I have money with which to do so, and that's how it would be determined. You aren't guilty until you're convicted of it in this country, and in any event, you don't want to believe me, and you won't be convinced regardless of the evidence I present. You aren't like me. You haven't bothered to read my other posts given your accusations of me not having any basis for my claims, so I daresay me reposting it won't do me any good as you won't be reading that either.
For "proving" it, I would be satisfied with a coherent argument where you don't appeal to emotion, disparage other people, argue that you weren't really saying what you were just quoted as saying, or claim superior knowledge of IP law. I've given up hope on ever seeing one from you, though.
Everway was original. Roborally was original. Filthy Rich was certainly original, as is Guillotine.
1- never heard of it.
2- played something similar long ago.
3- never heard of it
4- Isn't that a Dilbert card game rip-off?
So 50% of "WotC original" products I have never heard of... 25% are retro rip-offs, 25% is current rip-off.
Sorry. Don't look like a very good track record with just that. and M:tG IIRC was bought by WotC, or the maker of MtG created WotC or something. Not really remembering all details on how Richard got it to WotC.
Either way it was not all that original. Just combining baseball cards and card games. Kids were "playing" with baseball cards before Magic.
Sorry. Don't look like a very good track record with just that. and M:tG IIRC was bought by WotC, or the maker of MtG created WotC or something. Not really remembering all details on how Richard got it to WotC.
Not exactly. Richard Garfield brought it to WotC to be produced by them. They did some testing with it as well, and basically once they realized just how much people were hoarding playtest cards, they knew they had a great product.
They didn't know HOW good of an idea it was, though, which is why Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, and even the Dark were underproduced. They sold out insanely quickly.
Either way it was not all that original. Just combining baseball cards and card games. Kids were "playing" with baseball cards before Magic.
You really have no conception of how original Magic is. It was the most innovative game since D&D, which introduced the concept of the roleplaying game and the hit point. Being a CCG was only a part of the innovation inherent in Magic.
Magic is about as creative as you GET. If that doesn't meet your standards, then you have impossible standards and are indeed claiming nothing is original.
There are three types of IP protection.
Patents cover ideas that are useful, new, and inventive.
Trademarks cover words or marks that distinguish a business or property of a business.
Copyrights cover actual implmentations of written, spoken, or produced works. That picture of the fire in the newspaper is copyrighted to the guy who took it (or whoever he sold rights to.) The guy standing next to him can take pretty much the same picture without being in trouble.
The biggest contention in this issue is trademarks.
Remember, you CANNOT OWN a word. You can own a word in relation to your business. So Wizards can't own Orcs any more than J.R.R. Tolkien can.
So long as you steer clear of the trademarks and patents, you're pretty much golden. I knew this would happen this way, because it's happened this way BEFORE.
Without reading through all of this gazillion post thread, this sound about right to me. BUT, we must consider copyright was well. It would be hard to write a rpg supliment/adventure that did not use copyrighted materials in some way. If you cant quote or sight the original rules (copyright) and you cant use trademarks (claim its a partiuclar game, or particular edition) you would have to be writing some very generic products to get them past a good intellectual property lawyer.
So I'm wrong because... I pointed out that by your definition of new, nothing is new?
That was your definition of new, remember? Back when you were calling anyone who did an OGL, GSL, or compatible but unlicensed product a leech.
A new take on something IS new.
You are claiming a faster computer isn't new because there were computers before.
You are obviously incorrect.
The same argument, third party material.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
1- never heard of it.
2- played something similar long ago.
3- never heard of it
4- Isn't that a Dilbert card game rip-off?
So 50% of "WotC original" products I have never heard of... 25% are retro rip-offs, 25% is current rip-off.
Sorry. Don't look like a very good track record with just that. and M:tG IIRC was bought by WotC, or the maker of MtG created WotC or something. Not really remembering all details on how Richard got it to WotC.
Either way it was not all that original. Just combining baseball cards and card games. Kids were "playing" with baseball cards before Magic.
Well- those were just four samples of "original" games. You can't take my little sampling and say that ALL of WotC products apply to your percentages. I.E. 50% you've never heard of.
Which means they MUST be wholly original, since you've never heard of anything like them. :D
And just because you didn't hear about them, doesn't make them unoriginal, nor uncountable in my counter to your statement that WotC makes NO original games. They do. Those four are just four random examples.
One game you said you think you've played before. What was it? That example can't be dismissed unless there's tangible proof that such game existed.
And finally, I present these two smileys- ;) and :P for trying to dismiss my forth game suggestion as being a rip off of another game. Guess who makes the Dilbert game? (Insert above smileys here.)
4- Isn't that a Dilbert card game rip-off?
Speaking as someone who loves Guillotine, it is nothing like The Dilbert Shuffle :p
And finally, I present these two smileys- ;) and :P for trying to dismiss my forth game suggestion as being a rip off of another game. Guess who makes the Dilbert game? (Insert above smileys here.)
Particularly as the Dilbert Shuffle was an alternate version of The Great Dalmuti, also put out by WotC.
1- never heard of it.
2- played something similar long ago.
3- never heard of it
4- Isn't that a Dilbert card game rip-off?
So 50% of "WotC original" products I have never heard of... 25% are retro rip-offs, 25% is current rip-off.
Sorry. Don't look like a very good track record with just that. and M:tG IIRC was bought by WotC, or the maker of MtG created WotC or something. Not really remembering all details on how Richard got it to WotC.
Either way it was not all that original. Just combining baseball cards and card games. Kids were "playing" with baseball cards before Magic.
HAH even Shakespeare said there is not an original plotline left, just rehashing of old ideas. Originality is really not the most important thing, otherwise we are going to have timewarp to 1960.
HAH even Shakespeare said there is not an original plotline left, just rehashing of old ideas. Originality is really not the most important thing, otherwise we are going to have timewarp to 1960.
1960? Some people say Flatland was the last original plot, or indeed idea.
1960? Some people say Flatland was the last original plot, or indeed idea.
How so?
It's basically the same ideas talked about in The Cave, and to an extent The Bible...
Speaking as someone who loves Guillotine, it is nothing like The Dilbert Shuffle :p
Guillotine (great game) has a LOT of similarities to Mayfair's classic Mafia card game, Family Business. Same idea -- different theme.
HAH even Shakespeare said there is not an original plotline left, just rehashing of old ideas. Originality is really not the most important thing, otherwise we are going to have timewarp to 1960.
Wasn't that line from King Solomon in Ecclesiates?
So what would have happened if WotC just didn't offer any license? They'd be perfectly within thier rights not to and keep everything in house.
Some companies would do what Kenzerco is doing and produce stuff for 4.0 using IP law as it is written. Kinda like D&D. Others would simply not produce at all, and we would lose many good products, such as the Amethyst campaign setting. Some would continue to support their own games, those that have them. I suspect the majority would use the OGL and publish for 3p.
So what would have happened if WotC just didn't offer any license? They'd be perfectly within thier rights not to and keep everything in house.
Titanium Dragon would have a fit over all the 3PPs.
So what would have happened if WotC just didn't offer any license? They'd be perfectly within thier rights not to and keep everything in house.
Some 3PPs would follow Kenzer's example and publish supplements under regular IP law. It's likely that some others would publish 4e-compatible materials under the OGL, because most (if not all) of the game mechanics in 4e already exist as open content under the OGL.
Frankly, the GSL is so restrictive that it wouldn't make much difference if WotC didn't offer it at all.
You cannot own ideas, and you can't own mathematics or the laws of physics either. You can own executions thereof. Its pretty clear you don't understand IP laws if you think you could own any of those things. You cannot own a mathematical formula, nor electromagnetism, nor gravity, nor a theory of gravity. You could own a book about a theory of gravity, or a paper you wrote about a theory of gravity. You could own a transistor design. But you couldn't own the electromagnetic force that the transistor design uses, nor the mathematics that your transistor design was derived from.
Actually, you don't need to own an idea to protect it. You just need to own the means to implement the idea, whether that be through copyrights, patents, or trademarks. It's for this reason that one doesn't need to own a mathematical formula, gravity, or electromagnetism to create a device such as say...a hydro-electric dam that utilizes water being affected by gravity to generate electric force. Sure, you don't own the forces involved. But you own the implementation of that idea, and thus others cannot use that same implementation.
In theory, the same applies to the rules books. It's true, WotC can't own the idea of orcs, because they're mythic creatures. But, they can own ideas such as vorpal longswords and mind-flayers, because they created them. More importantly, they can own the implementation of dice rolls that they utilize in the PHB. One would have to come up with a new implementation of these rules to not have them violate WotC's IP rights. Otherwise, you'd see plenty of companies taking D&D, changing a few terms, and calling it Caves & Critters or something of that sort.
And also, consider that even if some of WotC's IP rights have been violated in the past, odds are pretty good that the companies involved weren't making enough off the ideas for it to be worth a lawsuit. Just because a company has legal standing to file suit does not mean they will. There are a lot of circumstances involved. That's why big corporations tend to have lawyers on hand most of the time for consulting, not just when they're in court or negotiating contracts.
But, they can own ideas such as vorpal longswords and mind-flayers, because they created them.
Well, Lewis Carrol and HP Lovecraft might disagree...
Furthermore, at least as far as IP law is concerned, no, they can't own ideas. WOTC can no more own the idea of "magically sharp sword" or "monster that eats brains nom nom nom" than George Lucas can own the idea of "farmboy becomes hero" or "laser sword".
What WOTC can copyright is the text of the various rulebooks they've published, and they can trademark various names, images, and "trade dress". (And in terms of owning die rolls, "Roll X+modifiers vs. Target Number" is not original to WOTC; Traveller used the mechanic in 1977, and they might not have been the first. Many other games have used it since.) No, you cannot simply copy the rules wholesale, changing "Fighter" to "Fighty-Man" and hope to get away with it, but you can recreate the mechanics entirely using your own words. The main advantage of the OGL was that it made doing so *unnecessary* -- you could reproduce as much of the rules as you needed to, without having to find ways to rephrase or rewrite things. Many back in 2000 asked "What's the point of the OGL? It doesn't give you any rights you don't already have!", and they were wrong -- it gave the right to use text as written, and that was quite a lot. The GSL, in turn, gives nothing copyright law doesn't (except the right to use a logo of currently unproven value), and that's why it's seen as a bad license. It's all stick, no carrot.
More importantly, they can own the implementation of dice rolls that they utilize in the PHB.
They can, but they don't, because that would involve a patent on the game mechanics which, as far as I know, they don't hold. What they DO definitely own is the text which describes that implementation. But as long as that exact text is not reproduced, anyone can make use of the mechanic.
Actually, you don't need to own an idea to protect it. You just need to own the means to implement the idea, whether that be through copyrights, patents, or trademarks. It's for this reason that one doesn't need to own a mathematical formula, gravity, or electromagnetism to create a device such as say...a hydro-electric dam that utilizes water being affected by gravity to generate electric force. Sure, you don't own the forces involved. But you own the implementation of that idea, and thus others cannot use that same implementation.
So you're quoting me, saying "actually", and then proceeding to agree with me?
Typically you don't precede agreement with "actually".
They can, but they don't, because that would involve a patent on the game mechanics which, as far as I know, they don't hold. What they DO definitely own is the text which describes that implementation. But as long as that exact text is not reproduced, anyone can make use of the mechanic.
It doesn't have to be the exact text, it only has to be demonstrated to be derivative.
It doesn't have to be the exact text, it only has to be demonstrated to be derivative.
Just derivative isn't enough, because there are degrees of derivation, many of which are actively encouraged by the law and the industry: it has to be demonstrated to be plagiarism, and the determination of whether something is plagiarism or not is dependent on several factors, including how many ways there are to express that particular concept.
Now, as we all agree that game rules are covered by patent and not by copyright (and that WotC doesn't own the patent), that means that they technically fall into the same category as the material that appears in textbooks: nobody objectively owns them. Because the rules are fairly precise in most respects, there are a limited number of ways to reasonably express them. So as long as someone shies away from the exact expression of the text, or similar enough that a casual observer can look at two passages side-by-side and be able to say 'that was copied,' they can express 4e's rules in their own terms and not be committing plagiarism.
In practical terms (for creating new, compatible material) this generally means not copying the stat block layout. Presenting a different style of stat block (which provides all the same information, just in a different order/style template) is fine, assuming all the fictional material in that block is new. Generally, it's safe to assume that anything you create from scratch without reference to a previous document will probably be free from plagiarism.
What's so unusual about the OGL is that it permits plagiarism, to a certain degree. The GSL doesn't... but then, the GSL isn't actually a successor to the OGL, but to the d20 System Trademark License. 4e doesn't have an equivalent of the OGL.
Just derivative isn't enough, because there are degrees of derivation, many of which are actively encouraged by the law and the industry: it has to be demonstrated to be plagiarism, and the determination of whether something is plagiarism or not is dependent on several factors, including how many ways there are to express that particular concept.
Exactly. The definition of a "derivative work" is extremely unclear - for example, the film version of Pride and Prejudice is supposedly different enough from the original novel (which is in the public domain) that it qualifies for copyright protection, but the film version of Harry Potter is automatically considered a derivative work because it is not different enough from the novel to be considered a "new work".
Originally Posted by Kenzer
Rules are not creative expression.
I would personally disagree rather vehemently with this statement.
The thread is long and someone may have covered this, but Kenzer is right. Rules are not covered under any copyright laws and they cannot be covered under trademark laws, either. Rules are considered mathematical formulas and the such and as such cannot be copyright.
Here's a federal goverment web page elaborating on this: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
The thread is long and someone may have covered this, but Kenzer is right. Rules are not covered under any copyright laws and they cannot be covered under trademark laws, either. Rules are considered mathematical formulas and the such and as such cannot be copyright.
Here's a federal goverment web page elaborating on this: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
I don't think he was making a legal statement as much as he was making a philosophical statement. Developing games and game rules is a form of creative expression even if the law doesn't recognize it as such.
I don't think he was making a legal statement as much as he was making a philosophical statement. Developing games and game rules is a form of creative expression even if the law doesn't recognize it as such.
I've been trying to find something about this in more detail, because it's interesting to me, but can't find where he made those statements (at least not on the Kenzer website).
Got any links? I'm genuinely curious about this.
I've been trying to find something about this in more detail, because it's interesting to me, but can't find where he made those statements (at least not on the Kenzer website).
Got any links? I'm genuinely curious about this.
I believe he was referring to Batshido, not Kenzer.
I believe he was referring to Batshido, not Kenzer.
Ah. Well I wasn't disagreeing with Batshido. I don't have a stance as far as ethics go. Was only strictly pointing out the legality issue.
I don't think he was making a legal statement as much as he was making a philosophical statement. Developing games and game rules is a form of creative expression even if the law doesn't recognize it as such.
So hopefully after 18 or whatever pages we have established that the rules printed in a Dungeons and Dragons book cannot be legally copyrighted. The text can be of course - to prevent someone from publishing another players handbook and selling it for cheaper (a reasonable use of copyright law).
But many at these boards seem to be ethically against the idea of creating any work deriving from Dungeons and Dragons, or work compatible with Dungeons and Dragons.
I think its a good thing that other companies can legally create something based on, or for the use with, another person's or company's intellectual property. This generally has a beneficial effect on a community. It also allows a community to not only consume a product or idea, but to contribute.
We see this kind of community emerging more and more especially on the internet - for example remixing music or creating anime music videos. AMV's use copyrighted anime video and music. Sometimes the copyright holders of this music or video even ask websites like youtube to take down the violating videos.
I think we are fortunate that anyone can legally make a derivative work of a game. In this way I as a player or DM have access not only to WoTC produced products but a wide plethora of community created works, some for sale some free. I can even write some supplements and adventures myself and post them on the internet, or if I so chose I could even make some money off of them.
Having something like the OGL or GSL is a nice thing if it works for all parties. It allows players to have something like a seal of approval from WoTC to look for when purchasing products, and that they can expect certain things from that product. This works well as an opt in system.
Of course copyright law is important, but it only exists to prevent copying. Obviously if someone like WoTC creates a work and someone comes along and publishes an exact copy then this is wrong (This was actually done under the OGL I believe - I think Mongoose published the pocket players handbook - an exact copy of the players, without pictures, printed much smaller, and for much cheaper, I believe WoTC had to change the OGL in response (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this))
I guess the ethical question boils down to this: do you want to live in a culture of mindless consumption, or of interaction with the art and creations you enjoy.
But many at these boards seem to be ethically against the idea of creating any work deriving from Dungeons and Dragons, or work compatible with Dungeons and Dragons.
I think its a good thing that other companies can legally create something based on, or for the use with, another person's or company's intellectual property. This generally has a beneficial effect on a community. It also allows a community to not only consume a product or idea, but to contribute.
Yes, which is largely the point of (much) IP law. It's a bargain between the public and content creators. We give content creators LIMITED rights (both in duration and extent) with the trade being that that content finds it's way into the public domain. Enriching the public domain for all.
The ability to derive, and once protection has expired, use completely copy protected work is fundamental to the whole concept.
Those that are complaining about it on "ethical grounds" clearly have no clue what they're talking about.
Well, Lewis Carrol and HP Lovecraft might disagree...
They might disagree on the Call of Cthulhu game in the first place.
As for D&D mind-flayer, it may be a derivative of Lovecraft's monster, but it is D&D's own version of the creature and can be copyrighted.
Of course copyright law is important, but it only exists to prevent copying. Obviously if someone like WoTC creates a work and someone comes along and publishes an exact copy then this is wrong (This was actually done under the OGL I believe - I think Mongoose published the pocket players handbook - an exact copy of the players, without pictures, printed much smaller, and for much cheaper, I believe WoTC had to change the OGL in response (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this))
:D As requested, you are wrong. The Mongoose PHB was a copy of the rules from the SRD, with it being put out as an OGL game due to their adding char creation rules and such to the book. It was nowhere near an exact copy of the PHB that WotC put out to put it mildly. It had none of the WotC IP, and didn't have pictures or flavortext.
Myself I wish that WotC would put out pocket versions themselves, it could be a rather nicer size for carrying around then the normal hardcover. (imho, ymmv of course)
:D As requested, you are wrong. The Mongoose PHB was a copy of the rules from the SRD, with it being put out as an OGL game due to their adding char creation rules and such to the book. It was nowhere near an exact copy of the PHB that WotC put out to put it mildly. It had none of the WotC IP, and didn't have pictures or flavortext.
Myself I wish that WotC would put out pocket versions themselves, it could be a rather nicer size for carrying around then the normal hardcover. (imho, ymmv of course)
ahh thank you for the correction...i was misinformed
ahh thank you for the correction...i was misinformed
Not a problem, it's been rather a major flashpoint for a lot of people and things get garbled a bit in the passing.
The interesting thing is that while one of the main arguments against putting out a "pocket" version (or a paperback for that matter) is that they would compeat with the regular version, I've noticed that at least one publisher other then Mongoose has done so with thier main product lines and seems to have done well. (Green Ronin in this case, with thier True20 and Mutants and Masterminds lines)
Wizards of the Coast started this whole mess by doing the Open Game Liscensing in the first place. The idea was to use it to help build a gaming community and make a system others could use to promote their own.
Now that Wizards has a large group of followers again the liscensing doesn't matter. D20 is a system that almost every 3rd party system uses in one form or another. (even though the original system was birthed in Alternity). Now they don't want other publishers... which they have supported by the way in the past (KOK) to not publish said gaming under their system? Listen I don't like the switch to 4th edition in the first place. 3.5 and 3rd. had so much content that you don't really need a fourth. In my opinion the whole thing is about corporate greed.
I rule in favor of the defendents... third party games. WOTC opened the door on this themselves. Personally I'd prefer if everyone just used the 3.5 system. It's simpler in the long run. I appreciate customization but with all the choices you get as a character it's ridiculous. How do you keep up with it all. 4th edition is rushed. It has major flaws of gaming balance (No destinies for martial heroes?) and it seems like overkill.
The sentence: WOTC should let them release things with the open gaming license without their express permission if only to promote the new system. Furthermore WOTC should be careful not to anger their loyal fan base to get more noob players. Fourth edition was and still is in my opinion needless. It is the ruling of this fictitious court that they are to start making 4.5 already and release it in 4 years so that we all get angry enough to beat them senseless and take over the company ourselves.
Now I gotta go. I gotta see a robot about a taco. Bye!
D20 is a system that almost every 3rd party system uses in one form or another. (even though the original system was birthed in Alternity).
NOOO!!!
*burns all his d20 books because it does not originate from D&D past editions but from Alternity*
I've listened to the arguements and the advantages and all this stuff. Time for a ruling.
Wizards of the Coast started this whole mess by doing the Open Game Liscensing in the first place. The idea was to use it to help build a gaming community and make a system others could use to promote their own.
Now that Wizards has a large group of followers again the liscensing doesn't matter. D20 is a system that almost every 3rd party system uses in one form or another. (even though the original system was birthed in Alternity). Now they don't want other publishers... which they have supported by the way in the past (KOK) to not publish said gaming under their system? Listen I don't like the switch to 4th edition in the first place. 3.5 and 3rd. had so much content that you don't really need a fourth. In my opinion the whole thing is about corporate greed.
I rule in favor of the defendents... third party games. WOTC opened the door on this themselves. Personally I'd prefer if everyone just used the 3.5 system. It's simpler in the long run. I appreciate customization but with all the choices you get as a character it's ridiculous. How do you keep up with it all. 4th edition is rushed. It has major flaws of gaming balance (No destinies for martial heroes?) and it seems like overkill.
The sentence: WOTC should let them release things with the open gaming license without their express permission if only to promote the new system. Furthermore WOTC should be careful not to anger their loyal fan base to get more noob players. Fourth edition was and still is in my opinion needless. It is the ruling of this fictitious court that they are to start making 4.5 already and release it in 4 years so that we all get angry enough to beat them senseless and take over the company ourselves.
Now I gotta go. I gotta see a robot about a taco. Bye!
The Demigod, Eternal Seeker, and Trickster destinies are available to all classes, even martial ones- your premise that 4e is somehow more imbalanced than 3e is false. Going by board anecdotes, 4e has returned many vetereans to the table in addition to recruiting new players: we should see that as a good thing.
Going by board anecdotes, 4e has returned many vetereans to the table in addition to recruiting new players: we should see that as a good thing.
You mean veterans, and I'm not one of them ... at least not yet.
But I was there during the 3e Era and I saw a lot of veterans coming back to D&D for that edition.
Considering WotC managed to swindle the legal system into letting them patent CCGs, forgive me if I'm not sympathetic when someone pokes a hole in their dubious IP protecting schemes for D&D.
If you think something is wrong with the Patent Office, go apply for a job there.
If they wanted to protect their IP overzealously (not just vigilantly*), they wouldn't even release something as ridi ... something like a GSL in the first place.
*Trademark ownership last forever, as long as you protect them as vigilant as possible. Fail to protect them means you lose them.
If you think something is wrong with the Patent Office, go apply for a job there.
Strictly speaking, marbles fall under the patent WotC holds for CCGs. Patenting the concept of CCGs is already a stretch, but patenting it the way it was done is really unacceptable (I might almost just as well patent the concept of boardgames using markers to represent players, that's not that much broader an idea). Getting a job at the Patent Office isn't going to change that.
Strictly speaking, marbles fall under the patent WotC holds for CCGs. Patenting the concept of CCGs is already a stretch, but patenting it the way it was done is really unacceptable (I might almost just as well patent the concept of boardgames using markers to represent players, that's not that much broader an idea). Getting a job at the Patent Office isn't going to change that.
Unless it is an improvement on existing invention.
After all, before TCG/CCG, what other card game use tapping as a game effect?
I wouldn't worry too much. Patent is a short-lived IP type, among the three, only 14-20 years after the date of application. Once patent is expired, CCG companies like Decipher don't have to pay WotC for commercially using tapping in their games.
Admittedly (fortunately!) WotC didn't rigidly enforce this patent, but it's far too vaguely delimited to be right (in my non-lawyer opinion).
(Note that this is based upon my experience as a Canadian Patent Examiner and a brief reading of the patent. It should not be taken as actual legal advice, etc etc etc.)
It then has numerous additional elements related to the range of different elements on the cards.
I think this is a key passage that defines the patent:
"At the present, there are no known games that use freely tradable game elements or components, such as trading cards, and further, games that enable a player to form a unique combination of components that competes against the combinations of other players."
In many ways, "they got a patent on tapping" is one of those kewl soundbite things that falls far short of describing the entire situation. It sounds good, particularly if you disagree with it, but it is just not the whole story.
Tapping isn't what makes a CCG a CCG,
I didn't say that tapping makes a TCG in my previous post. All I asked is what other card game use tapping as an in-game benefit.
Admittedly (fortunately!) WotC didn't rigidly enforce this patent, but it's far too vaguely delimited to be right (in my non-lawyer opinion).
Are you sure? I know Decipher may not talk as much, but they could be paying WotC for the application of tapping in their CCG.
But as I said before, patent is a short-lived IP. After the patent expire, no TCG/CCG company that use tapping have to owe WotC.
I think this is a key passage that defines the patent:
"At the present, there are no known games that use freely tradable game elements or components, such as trading cards, and further, games that enable a player to form a unique combination of components that competes against the combinations of other players."
I was told by a more law-savvy friend that tapping (or a same mechanic by any other name) is not required to fall under the patent. If he is mistaken, I'll happily retract my words.
However, if the above passage defines the patent I could point at, for instance, the numerous wargames that existed long before M:tG where players can compose their armies by combining different components (which are tradeable) to compete against those of others. There are games played with marbles that would fall under this definition as well. Lastly, the passage above doesn't really illustrate the collectible part - *constructible* card games such as Knizia's Blue Moon would fall under the patent as well (the difference between constructible and collectible mainly being the method of obtaining the cards other than by trading - with constructible card games you know exactly which cards you buy, with collectible card games you don't).
Are you sure? I know Decipher may not talk as much, but they could be paying WotC for the application of tapping in their CCG.
Actually, I believe they are. I'm not saying WotC aren't enforcing the patent at all. As far as I know they're not enforcing it when it comes to games that would fall under the broad patent but wouldn't generally be considered CCGs. That's fair and good, but it doesn't mean it's ok for such a broad patent to have been granted in the first place.
Actually, I believe they are. I'm not saying WotC aren't enforcing the patent at all. As far as I know they're not enforcing it when it comes to games that would fall under the broad patent but wouldn't generally be considered CCGs. That's fair and good, but it doesn't mean it's ok for such a broad patent to have been granted in the first place.
Meh. Challenge the patent issue in court for an interpretation of IP law.
NOOO!!!
*burns all his d20 books because it does not originate from D&D past editions but from Alternity*
Hey, Alternity was a great game, albeit extremely difficult. Still, nothing quite like succeeding on that +6 Step action.
However, if the above passage defines the patent I could point at, for instance, the numerous wargames that existed long before M:tG where players can compose their armies by combining different components (which are tradeable) to compete against those of others. There are games played with marbles that would fall under this definition as well. Lastly, the passage above doesn't really illustrate the collectible part - *constructible* card games such as Knizia's Blue Moon would fall under the patent as well (the difference between constructible and collectible mainly being the method of obtaining the cards other than by trading - with constructible card games you know exactly which cards you buy, with collectible card games you don't).
*MEGASHRUG*
It is not my patent.
I do not have to justify it in court.
I was merely noting that it is more than just tapping.
That such is pretty near identical to any sort of miniatures wargame that relies on collectible pieces that can be traded and combined in numerous ways and that employ a form of notation for which units have taken a turn and thus the statement was not particularly accurate . . . someone else can file that lawsuit. At this point it may well be a waste of effort due to how long the patent has survived.
Hey, Alternity was a great game, albeit extremely difficult. Still, nothing quite like succeeding on that +6 Step action.
I do not think it was that difficult.
The only difficulty I experienced with it was the character development mechanic. (The experience points, leveling, and buying new skills.) From the designer comments, I get the feeling they felt the same way. Like Classic Traveller, it was just too difficult to actually improve your skills in the rapid manner most people could see in D&D.
Hey, Alternity was a great game, albeit extremely difficult. Still, nothing quite like succeeding on that +6 Step action.
Never bothered to buy it at the time. Thank goodness for poverty. ;)
At this point it may well be a waste of effort due to how long the patent has survived.
Not long.
*MEGASHRUG*
It is not my patent.
I do not have to justify it in court.
I was merely noting that it is more than just tapping.
That such is pretty near identical to any sort of miniatures wargame that relies on collectible pieces that can be traded and combined in numerous ways and that employ a form of notation for which units have taken a turn and thus the statement was not particularly accurate . . . someone else can file that lawsuit. At this point it may well be a waste of effort due to how long the patent has survived.
Read the claim and identify one game that did this before M:TG. If you can, you could kick this patent back into the reexamination proceeding at the USPTO, and, assuming you really did find a game that did this before M:TG, you could invalidate the patent.
If you cannot, then recognize that the entire point of the patent system is to allow a person to come up with something that has never been done before, teach everyone how to do it and get a limited monopoly on it in return, and give up all rights to it after a couple of decades. I don't like M:TG and do not play it, but it was a GREAT idea that catapulted WotC into prominence (in certain circles). I don't know if they would have done much worse without the patent. Who knows? However, it certainly seems appropriate that someone with an idea that is as good as M:TG be able to capitalize on it with some reasonable protection by enriching society. Like I said, I don't even like M:TG, but it is undeniable that this game has enriched some lives.
So, read the claim and see if you can break it. If you can, let the USPTO know about it.
1. A method of playing games involving two or more players, the method being suitable for games having rules for game play that include instructions on drawing, playing, and discarding game components, and a reservoir of multiple copies of a plurality of game components, the method comprising the steps of:
each player constructing their own library of a predetermined number of game components by examining and selecting game components from the reservoir of game components;
each player obtaining an initial hand of a predetermined number of game components by shuffling the library of game components and drawing at random game components from the player's library of game components; and
each player executing turns in sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of executing a turn comprises:
(a) making one or more game components from the player's hand of game components available for play by taking the one or more game components from the player's hand and placing the one or more game components on a playing surface; and
(b) bringing into play one or more of the available game components by:
(i) selecting one or more game components; and
(ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation.
Holy bureaucratic redundancy, Batman!
I guess I should have assumed this had already been said, given the number of pages. :embarrass
I do not think it was that difficult.
The only difficulty I experienced with it was the character development mechanic. (The experience points, leveling, and buying new skills.) From the designer comments, I get the feeling they felt the same way. Like Classic Traveller, it was just too difficult to actually improve your skills in the rapid manner most people could see in D&D.
Yes, it isn't actually that difficult, but rather the difficulty curves very quickly and rapidly upwards. Like many other games of its age it very much rewards being conservative and extra-cautious in everything you do. I suppose it bothered me less then because every other game was also like that and we focused mostly on Dark*Matter which was all about paranoid precautions as a genre convention.
http://www.godsmonsters.com/?ART=153
Make sure you read the cited works under "For More Information" as well.
The KoK release intended for use with 4th Edition D&D is not a derivative work, it's not infringing on copyright or trademark, and it's not doing anything illegal - it can't even be accused of "false advertising" in the event of rules incompatibilities, because it's not saying that it's compatible with D&D 4th Edition - it's simply saying that it's for use with it.
Dislike it all you want, but don't libel the work, the company, or the people behind it because of your ignorance of the law and established precedent.
I strongly suggest that those of you that think that Kenzer & Company, or other 3PPs operating in a similar manner are somehow "in the wrong" read up on this:
http://www.godsmonsters.com/?ART=153
Make sure you read the cited works under "For More Information" as well.
The KoK release intended for use with 4th Edition D&D is not a derivative work, it's not infringing on copyright or trademark, and it's not doing anything illegal - it can't even be accused of "false advertising" in the event of rules incompatibilities, because it's not saying that it's compatible with D&D 4th Edition - it's simply saying that it's for use with it.
Dislike it all you want, but don't libel the work, the company, or the people behind it because of your ignorance of the law and established precedent.
If I remember right, Kenzer & Co. are not using the OGL. By not doing so and just apply standard IP law, they can do the above, with legal help.
I strongly suggest that those of you that think that Kenzer & Company, or other 3PPs operating in a similar manner are somehow "in the wrong" read up on this:
http://www.godsmonsters.com/?ART=153
Make sure you read the cited works under "For More Information" as well.
The KoK release intended for use with 4th Edition D&D is not a derivative work, it's not infringing on copyright or trademark, and it's not doing anything illegal - it can't even be accused of "false advertising" in the event of rules incompatibilities, because it's not saying that it's compatible with D&D 4th Edition - it's simply saying that it's for use with it.
Dislike it all you want, but don't libel the work, the company, or the people behind it because of your ignorance of the law and established precedent.
The problem with the cited article is that it was written pre Harry Potter Lexicon lawsuit.
The outcome of that case changed alot of assumptions people had about fair use.
Its still remains to be seen how this will all turn out for copywrite law in general. Further decisions could affect it further or it could even be appealed and overturned but riight now Fair Use law is looking rather shaky.
For instance consider this statement from the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Ethan Horwitz, an IP lawyer at King & Spalding, told the Law Blog: “What Judge Patterson is saying is that when you look at fair use, one of the dominant issues is, are you providing commentary or taking the value of the work and selling it as your own? He decided that the value of the work was being taken, that [Rowling] had the ability to put out the kind of encyclopedia that [Vander Ark] was putting out, and that she’d indicated an intent to do so.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/08/no-fair-use-rowling-wins-copyright-spat-over-hp-lexicon/
Judge Patterson in his decision makes it clear that Fair Use is meant mostly to protect "commentary".
Does say a non GSL4e "compatible" 3pp Monster Manual count as commentary?
The problem is that while people assume Fair Use law is clear it really is a rather murky area of the law.
Its alot like Constitutional Law in that regard. No two legal scholars will agree as to what exactally the 2 Admendment does. Any one scholars postition on the 2 Admendment is almost entirely dependent on their politics and not any reading of the law. People will bicker endlessly over what is and is not Constitutional. We really only know what is truelly Constitutional or not when the Supreme court weighs in. As for example with the DC handgun case. No one really knew if the City of DC could really ban handguns untill the Court said they couldnt.
Similarly in regards to Fair Use you have two equalally polarised sides. On one side you have the Corprate Lawyers and on the other side you have Free Speech/Defenders of Artistic Expression Guys.
They both have radically diffrent readings of Fair Use and they both agrue endlessly over it. And again we really only know what Fair Use actually means untill the courts chime in.
Just like you shouldnt decide that Constitutional Scholar X is right about the 2nd Admendment and therefore saw off your shotguns and convert all your semi auto guns into full auto guns and pray you dont go to jail nor should you count on any one IP lawyers reading of Fair Use to keep you out of legal hot water.
You still can be sued and you can still get burned just ask RDR Books whos lawyers convinced them they were absouletly in the right......
We're talking use of generic fantasy terms and concepts of which the publisher (Kenzer) has not assigned rights to anyone, and which nobody can claim that they "own" (e.g. WotC can't claim that they own the idea of humans, elves, wizards and fighters in a fantasy setting).
We're talking a statement of compatibility (and I use the term compatibility loosely, since KoK isn't claiming to be compatible with 4E, but rather, that KoK is designed to be used with 4E) with someone else's copyrighted work.
Fair use doesn't apply.
For what it's worth, the Harry Potter Lexicon used quite a bit of IP in it - nobody can argue that terms like Muggle or Quidditch aren't unique creations.
Further, the Harry Potter Lexicon judgement didn't say that a book like the Harry Potter Lexicon was wrong. What the Judge did say (and I quote), was:
"While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled."
He went on to say that the Lexicon used TOO MUCH of Rowling's creative work - that's the fair use violation here. Fair use depends on the quantity of the copyrighted work used.
I haven't read the book myself, nor do I know if it ended up getting leaked, but from what I've read on the case, one could buy the Harry Potter Lexicon, and they'd have far more than a Cliff's Notes of the book, with scads of details, essentially not needing to buy the books to get the whole story.
Note that the judge said "current state". It's conceivable that the Lexicon could be edited, pared down and released in a non-infringing presentation.
Now, does a non-GSL 3PP Monster Manual count as commentary? Again, fair use doesn't apply here. If I publish a book of monsters, if I don't call it Monster Manual (that's a trademark, remember), but instead, call it "Kythri's Kompendium of Kreatures" or something else, if my monsters are unique creations (or unique takes on "public domain" critters such as a banshee, or a gargoyle, or any of a variety of other beast that can't be "owned" by someone), and I present those monsters in a stat-block form that's compatible with 4E, I've published a supplemental work, not a commentary. My supplemental work is a unique production, it's MY intellectual property, and it's protected by the same copyright laws that WotC's works are.
Provided that I don't design and style my book to look like it's the work of another publisher, I'm not violating copyright or trade-dress, and I'm not representing my work as being published by someone else. As I stated above (and as has been not only done in the past, but successfully defended in court in the past), I can even place a statement of compatibility on the cover. I can explicitly say "This Book Designed For Use With The Fourth Edition Of The Dungeons & Dragons Game". I can't use their logo or artwork, and I can't style the font to be similar to their logo, but I *CAN* make that statement, without infringing on any copyright.