# C&Ds for Online D&D 5E Character Generators



## Gecko85 (Feb 5, 2015)

IIRC, it included info for non-basic rules classes (Bard, for example) and races (Half-Elf, for example), calculating class and race bonuses, etc...So, that would be my guess as to why they sent a C&D. I'd imagine if was strictly limited to what's in the freely available basic rules, it would be OK.


----------



## Greybird (Feb 6, 2015)

While WotC is well within their rights, they need to be careful.  They're starting to get a FOX-like reputation going.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> IIRC, it included info for non-basic rules classes (Bard, for example) and races (Half-Elf, for example), calculating class and race bonuses, etc...So, that would be my guess as to why they sent a C&D. I'd imagine if was strictly limited to what's in the freely available basic rules, it would be OK.



Maybe. Very possibly. But we *don't* know. Which is a problem.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

A good example would be the Fight Club 5 iOS apps. They have all the built-in info for the classes, races, spells, etc. that are in the free basic rules. Then, they give you the ability to add your own, so you can manually enter the info from the PHB. That way, they're not violating anything. Had they included info from the PHB, they'd be shut down.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Maybe. Very possibly. But we *don't* know. Which is a problem.




See my followup post about the Fight Club 5 character generator. No problems so far with it...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> A good example would be the Fight Club 5 iOS apps. They have all the built-in info for the classes, races, spells, etc. that are in the free basic rules. Then, they give you the ability to add your own, so you can manually enter the info from the PHB. That way, they're not violating anything. Had they included info from the PHB, they'd be shut down.




Whether or not the source of the data is free or not has nothing to do with it.  The price is irrelevant; it's the ownership of it that matters.  I don't know why the Fight Club apps are still there; maybe we've just drawn attention to them - it may be that nobody at WotC has purchased it yet. Dunno.  But the price of the original content has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Whether or not the source of the data is free or not has nothing to do with it.  The price is irrelevant; it's the ownership of it that matters.  I don't know why the Fight Club apps are still there; maybe we've just drawn attention to them - it may be that nobody at WotC has purchased it yet. Dunno.  But the price of the original content has nothing to do with it.



Well, they've had a 4e version for a long time, and it's been a very popular app, so I don't see how WotC wasn't aware. I could very well see them being OK with generators that only use the basic rules, because it would help promote the game and build the brand. Once you include anything from the PHB, though, is where they draw the line. That makes sense.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Once you include anything from the PHB, though, is where they draw the line. That makes sense.




That's just not true.  They've sent C&Ds to things which use the Basic Rules before.  The price of the source content has nothing to do with it.

The sticking point appears to be reproduction/distribution of content (which makes sense; that's pretty much what IP violation is).  Thus the spell cards that someone was making.  I'm not 100% clear where the issue with this particular site lies, as the creator hasn't shared the contents of the C&D. I imagine that would explain more.  They also seem to have issues with automated stuff, but the processes in the background aren't IP, so I'm not sure what angle that's being approached from.  

The C&D no doubt has more specific information. The closing-down post is pretty vague; it doesn't mention whether they referred to trademark infringement or copyright infringement, or what.  

Generally speaking, you can make a thing compatible with someone else's thing, and you can say so (just look at all the third-party iPhone chargers and cases).  So I'm guessing there's something else going on there.


----------



## mcbobbo (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> So I'm guessing there's something else going on there.




I can't see how it matters.  D&D 5e just lost a valuable resource and nobody benefited, WotC included.

Imagine a farmer with a talented pig who can oink the alphabet.  People come from miles around to appreciate said pig.  Farmer kills and eats said pig.

Within the farmer's rights?  Yeah.

Stupid, wreckless, and destructive beyond reason?  Yep.


----------



## Ashran (Feb 6, 2015)

I wish they were making more efforts on actually giving us something wothwhile in the character creation departement (or any departement for what it's worth) then chasing people willing to help them support the game... All this silence on their actual plans is starting to become anoying...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

mcbobbo said:


> I can't see how it matters.  D&D 5e just lost a valuable resource and nobody benefited, WotC included.
> 
> Imagine a farmer with a talented pig who can oink the alphabet.  People come from miles around to appreciate said pig.  Farmer kills and eats said pig.
> 
> ...




I'm not commenting on whether it's a good idea or not. Merely that using the Basic Rules makes no difference.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Weird thing is, there are auto calculating character sheets right here on this site, and those appear to be fine (and very helpful).


----------



## TheMadGent (Feb 6, 2015)

Losing a tool like this sucks, but it's the nature of the beast with IP law. Not taking action against infringing, if innocuous sites, has the potential to weaken WoTC's case against battles they need to win, like sites copying the book wholesale.


----------



## Fergurg (Feb 6, 2015)

mcbobbo said:


> I can't see how it matters.  D&D 5e just lost a valuable resource and nobody benefited, WotC included.
> 
> Imagine a farmer with a talented pig who can oink the alphabet.  People come from miles around to appreciate said pig.  Farmer kills and eats said pig.
> 
> ...




Actually, I suspect it's more like this:

Farmer's neighbor's pig can talk because of the food that grows on the farmer's yard. Everybody comes from miles around to appreciate the pig. Farmer decide that he wants a talking pig of his own and to charge people to see it; the neighbor is showing off his talking pig for free. So farmer builds a fence to make sure that the neighbor's pig can't come into his yard to eat, in hopes that without the special food in his yard, the pig won't be able to talk anymore.

If the plan works, the only way people will see a talking pig is by paying for it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Whether or not the source of the data is free or not has nothing to do with it.  The price is irrelevant; it's the ownership of it that matters.  I don't know why the Fight Club apps are still there; maybe we've just drawn attention to them - it may be that nobody at WotC has purchased it yet. Dunno.  But the price of the original content has nothing to do with it.




Well, legally, yes Wizards is actually the only one entitled to _distribute_ their rules data.  But when said data is given out for free, it becomes legally difficult to defend clamping down on 3rd party distribution.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

shidaku said:


> But when said data is given out for free, it becomes legally difficult to defend clamping down on 3rd party distribution.




No, it doesn't.  The price of the material makes no difference at all, and doesn't make anything legally difficult.

This is a pretty common misconception. The fact that a company allows you to access something for free doesn't affect its ownership of the material one bit.  

Free means you don't have to pay for it; but it doesn't mean you can distribute it yourself.

All that aside, of course, I don't think this particular generator actually contained any such material. But I could be wrong - I wasn't too familiar with it.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Feb 6, 2015)

Well, here comes back the last days of T$R.  Except it is now Wizard$ of the Coa$t a wholly owned subsidiary of Ha$bro.


----------



## was (Feb 6, 2015)

Maybe all these C n D's are a prelude to a product release where they offer generators on CD's or as an incentive/inclusion in an archived 'edition' package.  Like the 2nd ed. generator sold on CD that accessed a bunch of books.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Well, here comes back the last days of T$R.  Except it is now Wizard$ of the Coa$t a wholly owned subsidiary of Ha$bro.




oh my god... if I never see a $ for an s again I would be happy... it's not evil or self destructive to say "No you can't use our stuff for free."

Hasbro and WotC gets hit because they are 'the man' or 'make plenty of money'... if I made a new game (and in my case I'm a dirt poor guy with little income) and it took off, but people where doing things with it including handing pieces away for free... it would be very bad for me. If I gave away a basic quick play set of rules on my website, with the hopes that people who come there even just for the free would drive interest up, and someone remote hosted it... they get the hits off my free product instead of me...

a company (no matter how big) is  the same... if I can't afford to make more for my game because you stole part of it I can't feed my family. If another company can't afford to make a product they can't play there employees and those employees can't feed there families...

in this world where so many people NEED more money we should celebrate companies shutting down copy right infractions... Even if that means that we loose something we want, because it means a victory for workers everywhere...


----------



## holyground (Feb 6, 2015)

This sucks because of how great the generator was. It was nice to whip up a character and just have the stuff. It didn't have any rules in it, merely names of spells and abilities, so you still needed a PHB to actually use the character.

Isn't that the point? If you need the PHB to actually play, what's the harm?


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 6, 2015)

But it is self destructive to fail to put out compelling tools, when the game value is only partially unlocked without such tools, and it is self destructive to fail to give out a clear policy.

Anyways, the way I see it, at the heart of this, standard IP practices don't mesh well with RPGs, which build strength from a community which is enmeshed in the game, and with players who become co-contributors of content as a part of a normal interaction with the game.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 6, 2015)

Wow, that's awful. I used a lot of Ed's character generators back in the 2e days.

Funny how history repeats itself. TSR was very strict about that stuff for a while, shutting down every fan work they could find. Right now Hasbro only seems to be doing it to character generators....but it's not a good sign.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 6, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> But it is self destructive to fail to put out compelling tools, when the game value is only partially unlocked without such tools, and it is self destructive to fail to give out a clear policy.
> 
> Anyways, the way I see it, at the heart of this, standard IP practices don't mesh well with RPGs, which build strength from a community which is enmeshed in the game, and with players who become co-contributors of content as a part of a normal interaction with the game.




Actually, I think standard IP practices today is to leave fan created material alone, as long as it's not a commercial project. Companies have learned that allowing it to exist doesn't actually cost them anything, but alienating fans by being strict about derivative material will.

(edit: Fanfiction.net is a great example of this)

And in some cases, even commercial products seem to be okay. Look at Bethesda approving of that Fallout web series Kickstarter...


----------



## Uder (Feb 6, 2015)

This is self-destructive and stupid - and so shortly after riding such a big wave of good will. Whoever is responsible should be canned.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Feb 6, 2015)

This may be a good sign that Wizards may be developing its own generator


----------



## GlobeOfDankness (Feb 6, 2015)

as someone who's used Pathguy's generator in the past, i will surely miss them. i hope WotC is doing this as part of their gear-up to releasing a suite of tools of their own. i was one of the few people who had no problem paying for the insider tools back when i was playing 4e.


----------



## tomservo999 (Feb 6, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> This may be a good sign that Wizards may be developing its own generator




Hopefully it turns out better than Master Tools did...what a turd that turned out to be.

I don't claim to understand copyright/IP laws, but I fail to see how this generator was a threat to WotC/Hasbro any more than any of the fan created material here on ENworld is. Like the material here it generates interest in a game/hobby that in this age of constant electronic stimuli is sorely needed. As was mentioned earlier, you still had to own all the books to make use of it.

Even if they are within their legal rights, it just seems very short sighted and bad PR to me.


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 6, 2015)

5e is a great edition.  The tools were very handy, and being free allowed me to get a number of new gamers to buy into RPGs in general and 5e in particular.  Like having a friendly cousin who'd help you get your sheet right, or tie your skates on before you get onto the ice.

I would welcome something similar on the WotC site, even with ads on the pages so they get marketing value (ie: every time we go to make new characters, or update them, we see ads for their products).  Even without that, Ed's site was a helpful model, and something the industry needs in some form or other.  I need something I can use to convert new gamers BEFORE they pay money.  The basic rules are a great start, but something to help me "bean count" new characters on the fly?  Handy.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 6, 2015)

Its this kind of crap that makes me wary of converting my stuff. I don't know if I will ever be able to let people see it since they refuse to release information about an OGL or fan content. Wizards, get your crap together. If you don't want to let people do this, then TELL US before we go to all this work. Release your fan content license please!


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

It's just like I always say:  If at first (or second, or third) you don't succeed, call in the lawyers.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Wizards, get your crap together.




If only.


----------



## DaveDash (Feb 6, 2015)

Seems pretty silly and behind the times. Since they have limited resources they should be encouraging their community of fans to build content, tools, etc.

This isn't really growing D&D, is it?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

I've always maintained that the sight of a vibrant fan community creating stuff for your game is something that many game designers and companies would give an arm and a leg for.  This is what you want: it's people embracing and playing the game with public and open enthusiasm. It's a wonder to behold, and something to be hung on to.

As a whole I think WotC does a good job at that. There are hundreds of blogs and sites producing homebrew material for 5E. Sure, the quality varies, but that's not the point. There's a dynamic, creative fan community surrounding this game unlike that seen since the early days of 3.x. I think WotC should be applauded for not interfering with that.

Then, occasionally, out of those hundreds and hundreds of things, they'll ask someone to stop doing doing something. It's happened about a half dozen times. 

The question, then, is what is it about those half dozen things that prompted this? What makes them different? What behaviour exactly is it that WotC doesn't want? Automation? Trademark usage? Content distribution? My guess is the latter.

I wish these folks would share the C&Ds so we all didn't have to guess.


----------



## DaveDash (Feb 6, 2015)

The only thing that makes sense to me is they're on the verge of releasing something online themselves, and want to drive traffic to their site and not someone else's.

Could even be a lite basic character builder or whatever.

I still think it's the wrong approach. The more people building D&D stuff the better for their brand. If they want to build their own stuff make it better than everyone else.


----------



## Paraxis (Feb 6, 2015)

A lawyer type person could weight in much better than I on this, but isn't there something along the lines of how they have to be able to show they defended their IP with these C&D's for when they do go to court on someone, because if they ever do need to fight someone in court and that person's lawyers can point to dozens of examples of them not protecting their IP when they knew about infringements then that is a valid defense for the guy they do end up suing.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> A lawyer type person could weight in much better than I on this, but isn't there something along the lines of how they have to be able to show they defended their IP with these C&D's for when they do go to court on someone, because if they ever do need to fight someone in court and that person's lawyers can point to dozens of examples of them not protecting their IP when they knew about infringements then that is a valid defense for the guy they do end up suing.




There's an element of that with trademarks. Not with general copyright infringement though.  They have to protect the name "Dungeons & Dragons" (see Xerox, Hoover, Photoshop). They don't have to protect the description of magic missile (not that there might not be other compelling reasons to do so, but it's only trademarks you're in danger of losing if you don't protect them).

Contractual issues might be one thing. If they've given someone an exclusive  license to do something, problems might arise if it transpires that it's not quite as exclusive as was promised. Even more so if someone paid thousands for a license to do something that you're quite happily letting everybody else do for free.

Of course, that only applies if someone is infringing on your IP, not just because they're doing something you don't want them to do. That's why I'm curious about the actual C&D and what type of violation it addresses.


----------



## DaveDash (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> There's an element of that with trademarks. Not with general copyright infringement though.  They have to protect the name "Dungeons & Dragons" (see Xerox, Hoover, Photoshop). They don't have to protect the description of magic missile (not that there might not be other compelling reasons to do so, but it's only trademarks you're in danger of losing if you don't protect them).
> 
> Contractual issues might be one thing. If they've given someone an exclusive  license to do something, problems might arise if it transpires that it's not quite as exclusive as was promised. Even more so if someone paid thousands for a license to do something that you're quite happily letting everybody else do for free.




Hmmm these are good points that I did not consider.


----------



## delericho (Feb 6, 2015)

If the sample character in the OP is an accurate representation of what the tool provides, then something is amiss - as we know game mechanics can't be protected by copyright (only the specific expression of them), and there's nothing else there. That suggests to me that the tool _must_ have provided more - probably write-ups for the various selected powers/backgrounds/race selections/etc. In which case, WotC are indeed right to take action.



Gecko85 said:


> Weird thing is, there are auto calculating character sheets right here on this site, and those appear to be fine (and very helpful).




See above. As long as the auto-calc sheet only does the numbers for you, but requires you to enter the text (for power descriptions, etc) yourself, there shouldn't be an issue.



chibi graz'zt said:


> This may be a good sign that Wizards may be developing its own generator




I'll believe that when I see it. And by "when I see it", I mean the working product, not an announcement, beta, or other interim step.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Contractual issues might be one thing. If they've given someone an exclusive  license to do something, problems might arise if it transpires that it's not quite as exclusive as was promised. Even more so if someone paid thousands for a license to do something that you're quite happily letting everybody else do for free.



That shouts out as being the case here.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I wish these folks would share the C&Ds so we all didn't have to guess.




It is likely that there was no official C&D, in this particular case at least.  Speaking from personal experience, I received a very nice email asking that I take down particular content owned by WotC.  No threats, no warnings of legal action, just a request to honor their copyright.  It really sucked, and I hope to change it someday, but there it is.  There are likely cases where an official letter was issued, but I suspect that is reserved only when they need to start getting serious about legal action, and the offending party is ignoring the initial polite requests.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 6, 2015)

Again though, theres the bigger problem of us fans not knowing what and what will not get shut down except through arcane guess work. Wizards has every right of shutting anyone down, it's their IP and they can do with it as they wish. Now clearly a game that ENCOURAGES people to take it and make it their own seems to be a bit... contradictory. From they very first day of the launch of the Starter Set back in the summer they should have had a fan use policy. That's one of the first things any competent company does. Take numenera for example, as soon as the game was released they laid out the rules. 

If they keep their IP close to them and no one else then you will eventually start loosing fans. Granted Wizards are not that bad yet, but they are starting on that path to be sure. As much as I love D&D, Wizards have abysmal PR. We rarely get any information about the future and their business plans. Of course this leads into their release schedule nonsense. Anyway, the point is they won't tell us anything until it's too late! God, it's so annoying.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> It is likely that there was no official C&D, in this particular case at least.  Speaking from personal experience, I received a very nice email asking that I take down particular content owned by WotC.  No threats, no warnings of legal action, just a request to honor their copyright.  It really sucked, and I hope to change it someday, but there it is.  There are likely cases where an official letter was issued, but I suspect that is reserved only when they need to start getting serious about legal action, and the offending party is ignoring the initial polite requests.




That's nice to hear. That's exactly how I would hope they would approach it.  Most everything in this world can be resolved amicably.


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 6, 2015)

I can certainly understand WOTC wanting to protect their IP, and at the very minimun, I can appreciate them being polite and not threatening legal action upon initial requests to take down items they feel violate their copyrights. 

I do hope this is a sign that WOTC is currently working on their own character generators, to be released to the masses as an official product. 

One thing I find a bit odd is that whille they are freely giving away the game on their website, and encouraging as many people to play as they can get, that they would have an issue with a fan created character generator. I guess my line of thinking is that it gets more people playing, and therefore should lead to more sales of the core books, or at least the PHB at a minimum. Either way, WOTC doesn't veiw it the same, so we must accept that. 

Initially (out of ignorance), I was wondering how you could play using only the free PDF files on their website. After I bought the 3 core books, and ran a few sessions (starter set LMoP and homebrew) I realized that they truly did give 5E away for free. As I was explaining this to a couple of new players, it really hit me how generous that move was. Really, you could honestly play D&D 5E for the rest of your life, and never have to spend any money to do so. Of course, you may get bored with the limited number of player options and/or monsters after a while, but still, it can be done at no cost. If/when you do hit a point that you want more options, you can always choose pick up the 3 core books to feed the itch for more content. As far as I am aware, they haven't done that with any edition in the past. 

Once I had that "moment of realization" so-to-speak, it actually made me feel good to know that I was supporting a game (financially, and by word of mouth/encouragement) that was not only the most well known RPG, but one that I could show people a couple of links, and introduce them to years and years of RPG fun for free. 

While it's easy to come on a message board and point out everything we may find to quibble with, IMO it's hard to argue that WOTC haven't been more than generous to its fans with 5E.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 6, 2015)

Given the failure of Morningstar, and the total lack of an OGL or any other kind of licensing mechanism for 5E, this bodes pretty ill for the long-term future of 5E, I suspect. This is 2015. People want online tools for character generation and advancement.

By cracking down on stuff like this, they successfully depend their IP, but no matter how politely they do it, they also illustrate their own failings, and tell fans of the game "don't try to create any kind of programs for this, because we may just ask you to take them down" (you can't even stick to the material in the basic stuff and be sure, in the absence of any OGL or legal language stating you can). It's nice that they're not being rude/abusive/legally nasty, but a polite takedown notice is still basically "burn all the work you've done".

There's absolutely no reason to believe that they're developing any digital tools like this themselves. They already contracted it out once and then rapidly called time on it, and historically, WotC has a very poor record of creating tools, and a very good record of announcing anything digital as soon as it's even planned.

Realistically, though, unless WotC does make some sort of official API, or officially licensed offering, we're pretty much not going to get any tools for 5E, and that's just not going to work long-term, not if they want to maintain or grow D&D, rather than to appeal to an ever-shrinking core of traditionalists.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 6, 2015)

The nerd edition of THE SLAP premieres Friday Feb 6th. 


This stupid decision is right up there with pulling the sales of classic D&D pdfs and then complaining about piracy. 

WOTC launched a very successful game and now seem content to let enthusiasm for it die. I hope for the sake of the brand, that there is ton of non tabletop stuff coming that will make money because the player base will wander to other games that offer more than slapdowns and silence.


----------



## Uder (Feb 6, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> This may be a good sign that Wizards may be developing its own generator




Or that, like Games Workshop, they just don't care.


----------



## graypariah (Feb 6, 2015)

I am very saddened to see this. I did not use the tool myself (nor was I even aware about it) but for me it makes me wonder if they truly intend to release a usable OGL for 5th edition. Even a polite request for someone to take something down that in a few months would have been compliant seems unnecessary unless one of two things is true. A) They don't intend to release an OGL at all or B) they intend to release their own version of the product _before_ the OGL. This isn't a case where in a few years they will release an OGL, we were led to believe that it will be released in the spring or summer. 

There is such a thing as looking the other way. A business can prohibit something and at the same time not enforce their prohibition, we do it all the time where I work. WotC should have done just that if they truly intended to provide us with an OGL in a few months time.


----------



## talsharien (Feb 6, 2015)

I don't think that this situation would be quite as bad if Wizards actually got off their useless backsides and delivered an online tool of their own. The fact that they don't have a clue about such things but insist on blocking every other attempt is just terrible. The fact that people are out there putting generators up and the like and they are very popular would cause most businesses to sit back and think "wow we may be able to make some money here" but Wizards seem oblivious to this need and demand. 
As stated in previous posts I think ultimately that people will eventually drift to other games, despite how good this one is.
It is like a little kid having a ball and no friends but not wanting to share his ball.


----------



## shadowva (Feb 6, 2015)

As far as I know, you can not claim IP on a game's mechanics, so don't know why they could ask to pull this down. I think the rational might be the use of Tieflings and Halflings, those might be copyright material. Ironic that the halfling was created to get around the hobbit IP issue.


----------



## JediSoth (Feb 6, 2015)

Oh bother. I was using those generators to create NPCs/Hirelings quickly.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> If the sample character in the OP is an accurate representation of what the tool provides, then something is amiss - as we know game mechanics can't be protected by copyright (only the specific expression of them), and there's nothing else there. That suggests to me that the tool _must_ have provided more - probably write-ups for the various selected powers/backgrounds/race selections/etc. In which case, WotC are indeed right to take action.




I used the generator for convention pre-gens. The material shown is representative. There are no blocks of copyrighted text. This is WotC pretending it is 1999.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

talsharien said:


> As stated in previous posts I think ultimately that people will eventually drift to other games, despite how good this one is.




That is precisely what will happen if they don't change direction right quick.  Unfortunately, they seem determined to party like it's 1999. 

 The fact that 5E is such a good game just makes it that much more painful to watch.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> That is precisely what will happen if they don't change direction right quick.  Unfortunately, they seem determined to party like it's 1999.
> 
> The fact that 5E is such a good game just makes it that much more painful to watch.




Also, it seems incomprehensible that they can look at the success of Pathfinder, which gives away all of its game mechanics almost as quickly as they are published and in an accessible and user friendly format, and somehow think OGLing 5E would have a negative impact on the success of 5E.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Reynard said:


> Also, it seems incomprehensible that they can look at the success of Pathfinder, which gives away all of its game mechanics almost as quickly as they are published and in an accessible and user friendly format, and somehow think OGLing 5E would have a negative impact on the success of 5E.




This is usually the part where someone says "but WotC has more information than some random guy on the Internet.  They must know what they're doing!" Yeah, well I watched them "information" 4E into an early grave...an exercise they seem hell-bent on repeating with 5E.  

Fixing it would be simple and fast: 

1.  OGL 5E.
2.  License Lone Wolf (with very modest fees) to do an a 5E package for Hero Lab.
3.  Release 5E PDFs on D&DClassics.com.

*Then just get out of the way. * The game would absolutely thrive, because they have a fantastic product and a superior brand. 

 Like I said, painful to watch.


----------



## Pauper (Feb 6, 2015)

Guys, it's really not that complex.

Gale Force 9 has a license from WotC to produce spell cards. Someone at GF9 notices a few free online spell-card generators and sends a note to WotC asking why they're paying a license fee when other folks are using the same material for free. WotC sends out friendly, 'please respect our copyright' notices.

Lone Wolf gets into discussions with WotC about licensing the Fifth Edition rules set so that Lone Wolf can produce a module for HeroLab. WotC quotes a license figure, and Lone Wolf responds that the number seems a bit steep when others are producing character generators online without paying a dime. WotC sends out friendly 'please respect our copyright' notices.

Homebrew settings, houserule mechanics, those things are fair game and part of the way in which the fans 'own' D&D. But WotC actually owns D&D, so publishing your 'homebrew' module "The Schmemple of Schmelemental Schmevil" is probably going to draw some attention.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Pauper said:


> Guys, it's really not that complex.




On that, at least, we agree.



Pauper said:


> Gale Force 9 has a license from WotC to produce spell cards. Someone at GF9 notices a few free online spell-card generators and sends a note to WotC asking why they're paying a license fee when other folks are using the same material for free. WotC sends out friendly, 'please respect our copyright' notices.
> 
> Lone Wolf gets into discussions with WotC about licensing the Fifth Edition rules set so that Lone Wolf can produce a module for HeroLab. WotC quotes a license figure, and Lone Wolf responds that the number seems a bit steep when others are producing character generators online without paying a dime. WotC sends out friendly 'please respect our copyright' notices.
> 
> Homebrew settings, houserule mechanics, those things are fair game and part of the way in which the fans 'own' D&D. But WotC actually owns D&D, so publishing your 'homebrew' module "The Schmemple of Schmelemental Schmevil" is probably going to draw some attention.




And meanwhile the months roll by with NO tools, NO PDFs, and NO digital options.  If they're not careful, they're going to "protect" 5E into an early grave.


----------



## rbiddle (Feb 6, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Again though, theres the bigger problem of us fans not knowing what and what will not get shut down except through arcane guess work. Wizards has every right of shutting anyone down, it's their IP and they can do with it as they wish. Now clearly a game that ENCOURAGES people to take it and make it their own seems to be a bit... contradictory. From they very first day of the launch of the Starter Set back in the summer they should have had a fan use policy. That's one of the first things any competent company does. Take numenera for example, as soon as the game was released they laid out the rules.
> 
> If they keep their IP close to them and no one else then you will eventually start loosing fans. Granted Wizards are not that bad yet, but they are starting on that path to be sure. As much as I love D&D, Wizards have abysmal PR. We rarely get any information about the future and their business plans. Of course this leads into their release schedule nonsense. Anyway, the point is they won't tell us anything until it's too late! God, it's so annoying.




There's an easy way to know what will or will not get shut down without any magic divination or arcane guessing...  The developer can email the company and let them know what they are doing and either get their permission to use their IP or be told up front, that it won't be allowed.  I got in a bit of hot water with Chaosium for not asking before I made a Call of Cthulhu item, but we talked since and we're on good grounds (and I officially got permission to use some of their IP). I should have asked first and might have actually gotten better support while I was in development still.

Asking WoTC would just take an email to find out if they would or would not issue a C&D.


----------



## Zaran (Feb 6, 2015)

When it comes to WotC and stuff to do on the computer, there just is no mixing.   They have a clunky website that they barely use.  They constantly choose terrible partners for online content.  They think internet piracy is why 4e didn't sell. and they think Neverwinter Online is the bee's knees.   I really don't think it will get better.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 6, 2015)

shadowva said:


> As far as I know, you can not claim IP on a game's mechanics, so don't know why they could ask to pull this down.



Mechanics are mostly, kinda, non-copyrightable, but you certainly can copyright the presentation of those mechanics. That means you have to rewrite everything in your own words. Given 5E's "natural language" approach, that requires quite a bit of work, and could lead to discrepancies if your interpretation differs from someone else's.

I don't have a problem with WotC enforcing their copyright. I do wish they would hurry up and tell us what they have in mind around licensing. From what I've seen, the sense of the community right now is that at least part of 5E is slated to be OGL-ed, based on comments by (I think) Chris Perkins. Those comments are a few months old now, however, and we've heard nothing more since.


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 6, 2015)

Well, 5e definitely does have that 2e feel.

Its feeling like the marketing on 5e is really fumbling in the dark.

Cancelled projects
Poor release schedule
Poorly articulated use and distribution agreements 
Poorly edited secondary content

All in all, disappointing


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 6, 2015)

I'll tell you what's annoying... the old "If we don't have online tools, the game is going to DIE!" meme.

No it's not.  Online generators or tools will having nothing to do with it.  It never did and it never will.  4E had several online generators and tools created by WotC itself and it's not like that magically saved the game.  And before you try and come back with "Well, if the tools were better, the game would have been more popular and lasted longer"... just stop right there.  No it wouldn't have.  I know it, and you know it.  D&D Insider was probably a wonderful moneymaker for Wizards and they worked very well for a large percentage of the players who subscribed... but there is nothing that can be gleamed from having the tools themselves to determine whether it prolonged or shortened the game's lifespan.

Are online tools nice?  Absolutely.  Are they nicer in people's opinions if they are FREE?  Even more absolutely.  But does the largest percentage of the D&D populace *not* use them or quite frankly even know of their existence?  Even morest absolutely.

So no... these C&Ds will annoy an extremely small segment of players... but which will do very little to the success or failure of D&D 5E on the whole.  Because let's face it... even of that extremely small segment of players, only an extremely segment of THEM will quit 5E ENTIRELY because they won't have an online character generator to use.  Sure, they'll continually complain about it... but if the game itself is that good, they'll keep playing regardless of how automated tools they have at their disposal to assist them.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Sure, they'll continually complain about it... but if the game itself is that good, they'll keep playing regardless of how automated tools they have at their disposal to assist them.




Just like they kept playing 4E, AMIRITE?  The fact is, a company's actions matter.

As for the importance of digital itself...agree to disagree.  *I don't play or run 5E, strictly because of the digital situation; therefore, I can state with 100% confidence that at least one customer has been lost.  *It isn't hard to find others saying the same thing.  But ultimately, each of us can only speak for ourselves.  No one -- not even WotC -- knows how many people will vote with their feet, but a smart company would try to figure that out by _listening_​ in places like this thread.

Edit:  Calling something a meme isn't actually an argument against that thing.


----------



## delericho (Feb 6, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'll tell you what's annoying... the old "If we don't have online tools, the game is going to DIE!" meme.




Very few people are saying that. It's the lack of online tools _and_ the lack of a license for third-party support _and_ the light release schedule _and_ the absence of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

Removing one pillar of support won't harm the edition. Removing them all might.



> Online generators or tools will having nothing to do with it.  It never did and it never will.  4E had several online generators and tools created by WotC itself and it's not like that magically saved the game.




While I agree with your premise here, your logic is flawed. If having the tools was a _necessary but not sufficient_ condition for the game to survive, then not having the tools could indeed kill 5e, while having the tools was not enough to save 4e.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 6, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So no... these C&Ds will annoy an extremely small segment of players... but which will do very little to the success or failure of D&D 5E on the whole.  Because let's face it... even of that extremely small segment of players, only an extremely segment of THEM will quit 5E ENTIRELY because they won't have an online character generator to use.  Sure, they'll continually complain about it... but if the game itself is that good, they'll keep playing regardless of how automated tools they have at their disposal to assist them.




It goes well beypnd the impact of a singular digital tool like a character generator (especially for 5E since you can literally whip up a 20th level character in under an hour, much less so for the simpler builds). At issue is the general digital presence of 5E. People can talk about how they used to play (A)D&D back in the day with nothing but their books and their dice (I am one of them, btw -- playing since 1985) but the fact is that the digital space is where hobbies thrive, especially niche ones. How do you find out about new releases? Online. How do you fine out when the next local con is? Online. Where do you go to look up something you need to know? Online. Ignoring the online space (or nearly ignoring it as WotC seems to be doing) is terribly ineffective for a hobby like table top roleplaying gaming. The old argument that only a small subset of games are active online is just that -- an old argument. it might have held water in 1999, but even then I doubt it. i remember talking about games on usenet and compuserve and certainly by the early 90s we were using AOL to organize games and play online. Ask [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] if ENWorld would be as successful as it is if only a tiny fraction of gamers relied on the digital space.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

I ran Lost Mines of Phandelver on Roll20, with 5e rules and a very robust 5e auto-generating character sheet. I guess those digital tools were a figment of my imagination?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> I ran Lost Mines of Phandelver on Roll20, with 5e rules and a very robust 5e auto-generating character sheet. I guess those digital tools were a figment of my imagination?




Do you get a commission from WotC's legal department?  You seem to be going out of your way to bring a lot of things to their attention!


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Assuming the "very robust 5e auto-generating charater sheet" you mention still exists, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing Wizards is targeting. 

But really, is your argument actually that WotC is doing a bang-up job in the digital space *because someone, somewhere has temporarily avoided being shut down by their legal team?*


----------



## Reynard (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> I ran Lost Mines of Phandelver on Roll20, with 5e rules and a very robust 5e auto-generating character sheet. I guess those digital tools were a figment of my imagination?




They were fan made, which means they are subject to a C&D, which is the whole point of the discussion and the argument that WotC should produce an OGL or something similar to allow fans and third parties to produce this stuff (without uncertainty hanging over their heads) since they tend to do it much more effectively and efficiently than WotC can or is willing to.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 6, 2015)

If WotC's response to an online tool is to C+D that doesn't bode well for the OGL permitting digital tools. If they were planning on permitting tools and someone was jumping the gun, it would be easier to just ignore than risk negative publicity.

That doesn't look good for DungeonScape or HeroLabs being able to release things. Trapdoor Tech beter start circulating their resume...


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Do you get a commission from WotC's legal department?  You seem to be going out of your way to bring a lot of things to their attention!




Lol. There's no way they didn't know about Roll20...


----------



## weldon (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Contractual issues might be one thing. If they've given someone an exclusive  license to do something, problems might arise if it transpires that it's not quite as exclusive as was promised. Even more so if someone paid thousands for a license to do something that you're quite happily letting everybody else do for free.




I absolutely agree with this point.

Consider the Morningstar project. That had a budget of $500k (and was more ambitious than just a character generator). Let's say D&D still has a vision of producing an electronic tool that is equally ambitious.

WotC won't do it in-house. They will license it out to someone. WotC has to send out these letters in order to show good faith towards any potential licensor. To do otherwise would demonstrate that they don't care about the project. If they don't really care about the project to begin with, that would turn away any number of potential partners.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Lol. There's no way they didn't know about Roll20...




Lol.  That's obviously not what he was referring to.  Don't be willfully obtuse.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Assuming the "very robust 5e auto-generating charater sheet" you mention still exists, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing Wizards is targeting.
> 
> But really, is your argument actually that WotC is doing a bang-up job in the digital space *because someone, somewhere has temporarily avoided being shut down by their legal team?*




No, I'm saying that "OMG, 5e is going to DIE...DIE I TELL YOU...if they don't get DIGITAL TOOLS RIGHT NOW!!!" is bogus. Digital tools do exist...big ones that have not been shut down.

I don't know what the issue was with the generator that sparked this thread, but it had to be *something* he was doing that ran afoul of WotC's legal team. The 5e character sheet on roll20 had been there since the D&D Next playtesting. They're very well known, and well documented in their wiki. Roll20 is used by many, many people. There's zero chance WotC hasn't known about this for a long time...yet it still exists. Might that change? Possibly. But it seems something else was going on with the generator in question.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Lol. There's no way they didn't know about Roll20...



Do you *really* think the WotC legal team plays D&D and spends time looking into how D&D is consumed? 
WotC is a CCG company. And their legal team is focused on that.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Lol.  That's obviously not what he was referring to.  Don't be willfully obtuse.




With roll20 come the character sheets. Don't be willfully obtuse.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 6, 2015)

It would be nice to have a mechanism to throw together a quick 7th level Wizard NPC on the fly but the system is light enough that it isn't necessary for my game.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Do you *really* think the WotC legal team plays D&D and spends time looking into how D&D is consumed?
> WotC is a CCG company. And their legal team is focused on that.




Do you *really* think they don't know about the largest virtual tabletop system, used by tens of thousands of players?


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> No, I'm saying that "OMG, 5e is going to DIE...DIE I TELL YOU...if they don't get DIGITAL TOOLS RIGHT NOW!!!" is bogus. Digital tools do exist...big ones that have not been shut down.
> 
> I don't know what the issue was with the generator that sparked this thread, but it had to be *something* he was doing that ran afoul of WotC's legal team. The 5e character sheet on roll20 had been there since the D&D Next playtesting. They're very well known, and well documented in their wiki. Roll20 is used by many, many people. There's zero chance WotC hasn't known about this for a long time...yet it still exists. Might that change? Possibly. But it seems something else was going on with the generator in question.




Except that when you have to resort to distortion and exaggeration to make your point, there's a problem.

No one has said d&d is going to DIE RIGHT NOW.  What we have said is that WotC's mis-handling of digital is beginning to have an impact, and that we're afraid that impact may eventually be severe if they don't right the ship.  Further, if history is any indication, they probably won't right the ship.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> With roll20 come the character sheets. Don't be willfully obtuse.




It was a character generator that was shut down. I do not know of any character sheet sites that were given C&Ds.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> With roll20 come the character sheets. Don't be willfully obtuse.




Whatever, man.  Just like I said, some people will defend WotC no matter what.  You even arrived on cue.

Meanwhile, some of us are concerned because we see a real problem.  If it's not a problem for you, great, but why do you have to insist it's not a problem for us?


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> As for the importance of digital itself...agree to disagree.  *I don't play or run 5E, strictly because of the digital situation; therefore, I can state with 100% confidence that at least one customer has been lost.  *It isn't hard to find others saying the same thing.  But ultimately, each of us can only speak for ourselves.  No one -- not even WotC -- knows how many people will vote with their feet, but a smart company would try to figure that out by _listening_​ in places like this thread.




I agree with your point that a smart company would try to figure out how digital tools would affect their product.  This is much is just common sense.  However, regarding the original thought from DEFCON 1:



			
				DEFCON 1 said:
			
		

> Sure, they'll continually complain about it... but if the game itself is that good, they'll keep playing regardless of how automated tools they have at their disposal to assist them.




In the two games I'm involved in (one as DM, other as PC), the lack of sanctioned digital tools has not had a negative effect on our desire to play.  Most of the guys I DM for would not even use the tools if they were available.   We (people on the forums) are biased toward online tools because it's where we are...but I doubt its the driving force behind D&D.  That said, WotC really does need to issue an OGL to encourage growth in those areas that are being left behind by ignoring the digital area of the hobby.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> In the two games I'm involved in (one as DM, other as PC), the lack of sanctioned digital tools has not had a negative effect on our desire to play.  Most of the guys I DM for would not even use the tools if they were available.   We (people on the forums) are biased toward online tools because it's where we are...but I doubt its the driving force behind D&D.  That said, WotC really does need to issue an OGL to encourage growth in those areas that are being left behind by ignoring the digital area of the hobby.




Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, I'm running two Pathfinder games that would both be 5E games if digital books and a character generator were available.

Again, if it's not a problem for you, great.  Why do you feel the need to insist it's not a problem for others?


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Do you *really* think the WotC legal team plays D&D and spends time looking into how D&D is consumed?
> WotC is a CCG company. And their legal team is focused on that.




/whisper

sssshhhhhhh, they are watching this thread....{looks around cautiously}


- humor


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Whatever, man.  Just like I said, some people will defend WotC no matter what.  You even arrived on cue.
> 
> Meanwhile, some of us are concerned because we see a real problem.  If it's not a problem for you, great, but why do you have to insist it's not a problem for us?




Moving targets and strawmen are great, aren't they?


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Moving targets and strawmen are great, aren't they?




I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Some of us have a problem and wish WotC would improve their digital offerings.  Further, we're concerned if they don't, the consequences for 5E could be bad.  I'm sorry these things offend you.


----------



## Slayyne (Feb 6, 2015)

Pauper said:


> Guys, it's really not that complex.
> 
> Lone Wolf gets into discussions with WotC about licensing the Fifth Edition rules set so that Lone Wolf can produce a module for HeroLab. WotC quotes a license figure, and Lone Wolf responds that the number seems a bit steep when others are producing character generators online without paying a dime. WotC sends out friendly 'please respect our copyright' notices.




Did this part happen, or is it based on conjecture in order to make your point? I know that Lone Wolf issued a statement about it in early January but they made it sound like they were waiting on an OGL not negotiating on the price.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Do you *really* think they don't know about the largest virtual tabletop system, used by tens of thousands of players?



Yes. There's no reason to assume they'd know any more than lawyers in, say, the traffic defence firm done the road would know. 
The legal team at WotC's primary goal is to defend the IP of a brand that makes hundreds of millions of dollars. Their second goal is to protect their other brand that makes hundreds of millions of dollars. D&D is somewhere around third or fourth. Protecting D&D IP is something likely done periodically but nothing they can invest time and too much effort into, because spending time researching D&D is literally time wasted when they could be better defending Magic or Duel Masters. 

Finding an infringing character builder is easy, as those have been around for years and the search terms are obvious. 
Roll 20 is new, under two years old, and really only something you're aware of if you're looking for a VTT or really deep into the D&D community. And on a casual glance at the software you're unlikely to find any infringing material. You need to hit the forums to find stuff like that.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, I'm running two Pathfinder games that would both be 5E games if digital books and a character generator were available.
> 
> Again, if it's not a problem for you, great.  Why do you feel the need to insist it's not a problem for others?




Ah, that is not what I'm saying.  I agree that there should be a digital offering.  It would help to potentially draw more people in.  I just don't believe that the lack thereof will be the end of the game.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 6, 2015)

tomservo999 said:


> Hopefully it turns out better than Master Tools did...what a turd that turned out to be.
> 
> I don't claim to understand copyright/IP laws, but I fail to see how this generator was a threat to WotC/Hasbro any more than any of the fan created material here on ENworld is. Like the material here it generates interest in a game/hobby that in this age of constant electronic stimuli is sorely needed. As was mentioned earlier, you still had to own all the books to make use of it.
> 
> Even if they are within their legal rights, it just seems very short sighted and bad PR to me.




I am not a lawyer. I am especially not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
*In the US...*Trademarks have to be defended or they can be voided. If the generator was using trademarked terms, then, in order to not lose them, WotC MUST order the host to take them down when they become aware of them. Failure to do so can void the trademark. You can, however, use someone else's trademarks, provided you properly acknowledge them. (I've only received one takedown notice in 25 years on the internet... because I put up a page about the element Palladium, and Palladium games sent a sneering C&D... which I proceeded to threaten to sue them over, because it's obvious that the page had nothing to do with their game... Never got a reply back. Not a summons.)

Copyrights do not have to be aggressively defended, but there's a misconception that they do. If a company is shown to have lax policies regarding their copyrighted materials, however, it can reduce damages awarded when they do crack down on some particular abuser. (As has been noted in several legal decisions I've read.)

The combination of Copyright and Trademark violations absolutely requires them to act because they are part of a public stock company. Failure to act puts the board and the VP's under potential lawsuit threat for failure to act in the company's best interests; they have a legal duty/obligation to maximize profits. Loss of the trademarks and devaluation of the copyrights is in fact grounds for removal of VP's and/or the BoD as it stands to reduce profits. And their job is not content creation nor fan support; their one and only job, under the law, is to generate profits — fan support and publications are methods for generating profits, not the goals themselves.

Given the imperatives, that they started with polite C&D letters is a sure sign of sensitivity to fan desires. They could have pulled a GW, and started with an ultimatum: "Take down within 30 days or we sue you." They cannot, at present, go straight to the lawsuit mode; Even GW can't, as the copyright law and trademark law both require the C&D letter as a first remedy attempt.

The ones not getting takedowns are probably acknowledging the trademarks and paraphrasing the rules. That's legal. (TSR v. Mayfair Games). And they aren't using 5E trade dress. (ibid.)

Moreover, Hasbro has a crack team of lawyers - and it's not hard to see where the generators are infringing, if you know where to look and what to look for.

So it boils down to this *TL/DR*: 

infringements against the basic rules have less damage potential because the basic rules are free.
Infringements against the PHB and other non-free works have significant damage potential, because of loss of sales
failure to act shows a permissiveness that can reduce the claimable damages in Copyright and can void the Trademarks.
The higherups *must* protect the IP under US laws.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Very few people are saying that.




And that's still a few too many.


----------



## Slayyne (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm sure someone else has already raised this same point within this thread, but why is it so selective? Why are they not going after the form-fillable pdf's and mobile apps which were have no apparent difference than the websites? This is not to say that I think they should. Community involvement and investment is the sign of a healthy game.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Whatever, man.  Just like I said, some people will defend WotC no matter what.  You even arrived on cue.
> 
> Meanwhile, some of us are concerned because we see a real problem.  If it's not a problem for you, great, but why do you have to insist it's not a problem for us?





Um...you're kind of doing the exact same thing though.  Just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone, which is sort of the implication there with many of the posts earlier (WoTC is killing 5e with their stupidity!!!).


And also, when you lead off your reply with a strawman ad hominem?  Doesn't make me all that receptive to the rest of what you're saying.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 6, 2015)

If the matter were trade dress or trademark, couldn't that be addressed by removing the use of such?  If the matter were the inclusion of text (or other material clearly subject to copyright), that could be addressed by avoiding such usage.

I worry, though, about where to draw the line on what is subject to copyright.  For example, do class names fall under copyright?  Do power names and feat names fall under copyright?  I don't think you can copyright a feat effect ("this feat grants a +1 bonus to attacks made with a weapon specified when the feat is taken"), but you can (perhaps) copyright the feat name and particular wording.

I worry too, about the difficulty of differentiating private usage (for one's self) from public usage (for anyone on the net), because the target use is "local" (one's self, and one's gaming group), with the gaming group very easily growing to a local community (a gaming club), to the public at large -- better tools might see their usage grow very quickly, what with the speed which which references can be cross the net.


----------



## seebs (Feb 6, 2015)

TheMadGent said:


> Losing a tool like this sucks, but it's the nature of the beast with IP law. Not taking action against infringing, if innocuous sites, has the potential to weaken WoTC's case against battles they need to win, like sites copying the book wholesale.




This is not generally the case, so far as I can tell. I'm not a lawyer, but I have talked to them about this topic.


----------



## Nylanfs (Feb 6, 2015)

And these C&D's right here are why we at PCGen are waiting on WotC to FINALLY put out their license to see if we can use it, we already know we can support the system rules. If we were a real entity I'd be approaching WotC for a license.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Um...you're kind of doing the exact same thing though.  Just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone, which is sort of the implication there with many of the posts earlier (WoTC is killing 5e with their stupidity!!!).
> 
> 
> And also, when you lead off your reply with a strawman ad hominem?  Doesn't make me all that receptive to the rest of what you're saying.




Sorry; I felt very much like you opened with a straw man yourself, but that doesn't excuse my behavior.

The thing is, they're absolutely damaging D&D.  They've lost me as a customer. They've lost my groups as customers.  Several others have said the same thing.  The only reasonable point of contention at this point is how much damage they're doing.  I think more, you think less.  Fine.  Frankly, no one -- not even WotC -- knows for sure.

But the question remains...why are they doing it at all? It's not as if a lack of tools is going to *win *them customers.  As demonstrated on this thread, people who don't use the tools don't care.  

Finally, I don't find the "Wotc knows best" argument at all convincing, especially after watching the self-inflicted 4E death spiral.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> The thing is, they're absolutely damaging D&D.  They've lost me as a customer. They've lost my groups as customers.  Several others have said the same thing.  The only reasonable point of contention at this point is how much damage they're doing.  I think more, you think less.  Fine.  Frankly, no one -- not even WotC -- knows for sure.



 yes by doing there jobs and maintaining the business end they lost your business... what is the alternate path? Not defend there IP, and shut there doors?



> But the question remains...why are they doing it at all? It's not as if a lack of tools is going to *win *them customers.  As demonstrated on this thread, people who don't use the tools don't care.



lets try this, reread where people point out why they issue C&D... then read how this is part of there jobs, and that the people receiving the C&D might be in the wrong, but because you want what they do, that should matter.





> Finally, I don't find the "Wotc knows best" argument at all convincing, especially after watching the self-inflicted 4E death spiral.



 I don't find "People who just want free stuff know best" a better argument at all.

infact it seems to me that the people who complain about C&D letters are those that want free online resources... so because they wont give you what you want you think someone else has the right to illegally use the IP...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> The thing is, they're absolutely damaging D&D.  They've lost me as a customer.




I'm pretty sure they've lost you as a customer at least three times now!


----------



## delericho (Feb 6, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> infact it seems to me that the people who complain about C&D letters are those that want free online resources... so because they wont give you what you want you think someone else has the right to illegally use the IP...




Here's the thing, though: in *this* case it looks very much like the IP _wasn't_ being used illegally. If that is the case (which I'll concede isn't 100% established - nor will it ever be) then there is cause for complaint, because it would be a matter of WotC asserting rights they don't have and taking away something that has every right to exist.

I have every sympathy with content providers who want to protect their work. Copyright laws exist for very good reasons. But copyright laws also have their limits, again for very good reasons.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Here's the thing, though: in *this* case it looks very much like the IP _wasn't_ being used illegally. If that is the case (which I'll concede isn't 100% established - nor will it ever be) then there is cause for complaint, because it would be a matter of WotC asserting rights they don't have and taking away something that has every right to exist.
> 
> I have every sympathy with content providers who want to protect their work. Copyright laws exist for very good reasons. But copyright laws also have their limits, again for very good reasons.




This is crazy... of course people (yes even lawyers working for big companies) make mistakes. Maybe it was sent in error, but if so, so what? If they did nothing wrong why take down anything? It is a C&D, it is basically the beginning of a discussion not an end. It in fact is a friendly dialog OPENER... if you really get one in error, write back. If on the other hand you know you have no leg to stand on, or can't be bothered just take it down...


I have a wiki for my games. Anyone can come look, but to post you need my permission. it isn't really hidden, but it also isn't easy to find (and who would want to). Back at the opening of 4e one of my players uploaded a warlock pact for me to look at for him to use. The company that owned it sent me an email (like 2 months after I let him use it no less) saying I had 'copyrighted material' posted.  I sent them an email back explaining what it was for and that it was only for our use... they asked me to delete it anyway... witch I did, but the funny part is the site I used keeps an archive for 2 years of changes... so after I 'deleted' it, it stayed up for 2 years...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 6, 2015)

It seems at this point that WoTC simply can't win.

"Damn them to hell for laying people off!"
"Damn them to hell for not letting anyone put out 5e stuff on their own!"

If you can't see how the second amplifies the first, then I don't know what to tell you.  5e JUST came out.  Give them some time to put together a quality digital product before lighting the torches.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> It seems at this point that WoTC simply can't win.
> 
> "Damn them to hell for laying people off!"
> "Damn them to hell for not letting anyone put out 5e stuff on their own!"
> ...





companies are all supposed to pay there employees, and have plenty of work for them, but not charge for there services, and let other people use there IP willy nilly... now where the money comes from, no one cares "Let them take it from Magic sales" I'm sure is what some think... but then what if they handled magic that way...


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes by doing there jobs and maintaining the business end they lost your business... what is the alternate path? Not defend there IP, and shut there doors?
> 
> 
> lets try this, reread where people point out why they issue C&D... then read how this is part of there jobs, and that the people receiving the C&D might be in the wrong, but because you want what they do, that should matter.
> ...




Who said _anything_ about "free stuff?" I'm not sure which argument you think you're having. 

 As for what they should do, I've outlined a perfectly viable course of action up thread.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm pretty sure they've lost you as a customer at least three times now!




Nope; just the once.  I simply check back from time to time in the hopes that they'll grow a clue.  But apparently they'd rather I play Pathfinder (or 13th Age.  Or Savage Worlds.  Or Fate. Or Dungeon World. Or C&C.  Or any of the *hundreds *of other RPGs that do much more digitally than D&D...and with much less).

But since you've taken to attacking my credibility, rather than my argument, I'm out.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Who said _anything_ about "free stuff?"
> 
> I'm not sure which argument you think you're having.  As for what they should do, I've outlined a perfectly viable course of action up thread.




people are complaing that people are being given a C&D for there free character builders... people seem to think WotC owes them a builder... and if they can't get one (because trap door flaked) then they should let people do so for free...


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> people are complaing that people are being given a C&D for there free character builders... people seem to think WotC owes them a builder... and if they can't get one (because trap door flaked) then they should let people do so for free...




I'm not sure what _people_ are complaining about, but you responded to me.

I have no expectation of receiving anything for free.  I'm happy -- eager even -- to pay to consume the content in the manner most convenient to me.  The problem is that for some reason, WotC cant (or won't) get. it. done.

Instead of telling people who want to consume content digitally that they're being unreasonable, perhaps you might try acknowledging that the preference-- especially in the context of an industry where *every other company gets it* -- is a valid one.   And further, it is a demand that WotC is failing to meet.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> The problem is that for some reason, WotC cant (or won't) get. it. done.



WotC was trying to get it done...they even advertised for their upcoming digital tools. Turns out the company they had hired wasn't able to deliver to their satisfaction, so they canned them. That doesn't mean WotC is abandoning digital tools. The PHB has been out 5 months, the DMG less than 2. The full-suite of digital tools was supposed to be happened right about now. The amount of hand-wringing over the fact there's been a setback is insane. Seems the sky is perpetually falling...


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> WotC was trying to get it done...they even advertised for their upcoming digital tools. Turns out the company they had hired wasn't able to deliver to their satisfaction, so they canned them. That doesn't mean WotC is abandoning digital tools. The PHB has been out 5 months, the DMG less than 2. The full-suite of digital tools was supposed to be happened right about now. The amount of hand-wringing over the fact there's been a setback is insane. Seems the sky is perpetually falling...




I guess you've missed the last decade or so?

I was at Gencon in '07 when they announced 4E, along with all the digital tools.  And again in '08, and '09.  I waited patiently, but those tools never came to pass.  Now, almost unbelievably, they've* done it again* with 5E. Fool me once...

At this point I can see no reasonable explanation for a decade of failure save simple incompetence.  If you have a practical alternative, I'd love to hear it, but please refrain from dismissing my position as "nerd rage" or "wanting free stuff."


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> I guess you've missed the last decade or so?
> 
> I was at Gencon in '07 when they announced 4E, along with all the digital tools.  And again in '08, and '09.  I waited patiently, but those tools never came to pass.  Now, almost unbelievably, they've* done it again* with 5E. Fool me once...
> 
> At this point I can see no reasonable explanation for a decade of failure save simple incompetence.  If you have a practical alternative, I'd love to hear it, but please refrain from dismissing my position as "nerd rage" or "wanting free stuff."




So, D&DI never happened? Weird...Maybe it didn't have everything you wanted, but to say "those tools never came to pass" is disingenuous. Character Builder, Rules Compendium, Monster Builder, Encounter Builder, Ability Generator, and two online magazines. Again, not perfect...they never did release a virtual tabletop (but others have stepped in to fill that void), but to say they never released any digital tools is just flat-out false.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> I'm not sure what _people_ are complaining about, but you responded to me.



 yes, uyou think that they should not have sent a C&D letter for a place giving away a free character builder.... you are one of the many people on here complaining about it... 


> I have no expectation of receiving anything for free.  I'm happy -- eager even -- to pay to consume the content in the manner most convenient to me.  The problem is that for some reason, WotC cant (or won't) get. it. done.



ok... done... they can't or won't what else is there to complain about then?



> Instead of telling people who want to consume content digitally that they're being unreasonable, perhaps you might try acknowledging that the preference-- especially in the context of an industry where *every other company gets it* -- is a valid one.   And further, it is a demand that WotC is failing to meet.



 it is a demand that someone do something your way... yes I get that, you don't get why they can't or won't do it though... so instead of insulting and complainging you could try understanding from there side...


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> So, D&DI never happened? Weird...Maybe it didn't have everything you wanted, but to say "those tools never came to pass" is disingenuous. Character Builder, Rules Compendium, Monster Builder, Encounter Builder, Ability Generator, and two online magazines. Again, not perfect...they never did release a virtual tabletop (but others have stepped in to fill that void), but to say they never released any digital tools is just flat-out false.




*sigh*

I didn't say that. But several of the most high-profile ones, including the 3D game table and the 3D character visualizer, never came to pass.

Here's the bottom line:  Expecting a minimum amount of digital support isn't unreasonable, especially since the level of support in question is the industry norm.  I can use HeroLab to build my characters in Fate, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, WoD, and Shadowrun.  I can reference complete versions of the rules for all these games in digital form.  I can do neither of these things with 5E.  It's like they're offering a car I really like, but without air conditioning.

Whether or not that's a problem for you, it's a problem for me. So maybe try saying, "yeah, that sucks, but not a problem for me" instead of "No, you're wrong, that's not a problem!"  Because it really is.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I didn't say that...<snip>




Yes, you did:



Bugleyman said:


> I guess you've missed the last decade or so?
> 
> I was at Gencon in '07 when they announced 4E, along with all the digital tools.  And again in '08, and '09.  *I waited patiently, but those tools never came to pass*.  Now, almost unbelievably, they've* done it again* with 5E. Fool me once...







Bugleyman said:


> Here's the bottom line:  Expecting a minimum amount of digital support isn't unreasonable, especially since the level of support in question is the industry norm.  I can use HeroLab to build my characters in Fate, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, WoD, and Shadowrun.  I can reference complete versions of the rules for all these games in digital form.  I can do neither of these things with 5E.  It's like they're offering a car I really like, but without air conditioning.




And you could build your characters for 4e in D&DI, even if you want to pretend you couldn't. They also had digital rules compendiums (not the full rules/core books, but a ton of stuff...) and all the other tools I mentioned. They also announced plans to have that, and more, for 5e. They had a problem with the developers.

If and when they get the digital tools they had previously announced, great. It'll be helpful to a lot of people. And if you want to pick up your toys and go home until that happens, that's fine too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> It's like they're offering a car I really like, but without air conditioning.




it's more like you came to a place to talk about Toyotas and said "Hey ford has X Y and Z and Dodge, and mercadies have after market add on that can do it too." 

ok, great, go buy one of them. If you want to recommend that Toyota do so to, great, I doubt anyone will say "No they shouldn't" but don't pretend "Toyota is destroying there own company" or "Toyota is going to be hurt when everyone (or just a lot of people) flock to these other companies"

Its even worse, because you know Toyota is trying (maybe badly) to get the option but they found a third party selling and or giving away the option illegally and politely asked them to stop... Toyota did nothing wrong here...


back to WotC.

If you want them to sell PDFs (I don't care if they do I have the books) Ok, lets see if they do. If you want them to have cool tools to play with, then me too, but if they don't it isn't some huge issue. If you need these tools, then I'm sorry, but it's not anything personal they just can't or wont bring them out... they have there resons, and not 1 of them is "They don't want you to play"


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

To repeat: Expecting a minimum amount of digital support isn't unreasonable, especially since the level of support in question is the industry norm.  Maybe _you_ don't personally care, but it's still a deficiency in WotC's product line.  And it is a deficiency that is costing them (an admittedly unknown number of) players.  

None of those facts are in dispute...which attacking me won't change.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 6, 2015)

I do find it funny that most of these responses are, "I never used this thing, I don't really know how extensive this thing was in use of copyright and trademark and trade dress and such,  I had never even heard about this thing, but this thing being shut down bothers me anyway".

If you're looking for things to be upset about because of, "the principal of it" then you will find them.  But in general I think it's wisest to reserve ire for when things you actually use and know about get taken down.  There is enough to be upset about in life without looking for things to be upset about based on "the principal of it".

That's not to say I have no sympathy for those who are bothered by this, particularly if you did use it.  If it's really bothering you, I feel for you man as I can appreciate the desire for digital tools.  I don't personally have much of that desire right now, but I have at times in my life and it's a legit thing to want.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> To repeat: Expecting a minimum amount of digital support isn't unreasonable, especially since the level of support in question is the industry norm.  Maybe _you_ don't personally care, but it's still a deficiency in WotC's product line.  And it is a deficiency that is costing them (an admittedly unknown number of) players.
> 
> None of those facts are in dispute...which attacking me won't change.




Who said I (or others) don't care? (Oh, right...you did. Bad habit, that.)

Anyway, you're right - expecting a minimum amount of digital support isn't unreasonable. But, insisting there was no digital support for the previous edition, when clearly there was, IS unreasonable. Ignoring the recent issues with the developer of (wait for it) online tools for the current version IS unreasonable. Declaring a months-new version dead in the water because they don't have everything *you* want RIGHT NOW is unreasonable.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Who said I (or others) don't care? (Oh, right...you did. Bad habit, that.)
> 
> Anyway, you're right - expecting a minimum amount of digital support isn't unreasonable. But, insisting there was no digital support for the previous edition, when clearly there was, IS unreasonable. Ignoring the recent issues with the developer of (wait for it) online tools for the current version IS unreasonable. Declaring a months-new version dead in the water because they don't have everything *you* want RIGHT NOW is unreasonable.




Ok, you win.  The PHB has been out for six months.  When do I have your permission to expect digital tools?  Or even just a digital book (which should take about an hour of effort)?

Good lord somethings I *hate* the Internet.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 6, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Ok, you win.  The PHB has been out for six months.  When do I have your permission to expect digital tools?  Or even just a digital book (which should take about an hour of effort)?
> 
> Good lord somethings I *hate* the Internet.




you can EXPECT anything you want... but you can't pretend that when you don't get it that the company is failing or doing you a disservice....

Wotc wanted online tools and books for December, they hired a company (Trap door there was a big blow out you can look it up) they failed to deliver and at the end of nov/beginning of Dec where let go. WotC has said they are working on providing online tools and refrences, but they do not wish to just relsease the PDFs... what else do you want?


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 6, 2015)

Actually, no.  I don't have to pretend.  They are objectively failing to meet my needs.

What do I want?  Frankly, I'd be happy with a PDF release of the core books on D&D classics.  That should take all of an hour.  But I'm sure you'll now proceed to tell me how unreasonable expecting industry-standard PDFs within SIX MONTHS of the dead tree release is, and how entitled I am...  

But whatever.  I get it.  WotC can do no wrong.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 6, 2015)

Drop it, please, you two. Neither of you are going to win a prize or anything.


----------



## JoeCrow (Feb 6, 2015)

Well, it may not be illegal or unethical to pre-emptively C&D fan materials that fill a gap that you're currently unable or unwilling to fill yourself, but it's certainly stale. As someone who got a lot of use out of Pathguy's generators, this is a serious disappointment.


----------



## Koloth (Feb 6, 2015)

Sadly, this is a repeating pattern for WOTC.  At least with V3, they included in the initial printing of the PHB, a CD with an alpha version of Mastertools which did included a limited function character generator.  The company that was supposed to finish MT failed.  WOTC wound up working a license deal with a sub group of the PCGen character generator folks to both finish MT which wound up being called E-Tools and also making data sets for the PCGen program.  Everyone won.  Folks had their computerized character makers and WOTC could crank out more books.  Don't remember if this was a 3.0 deal that carried over to 3.5 or if 3.5 was already out when the deal was made.  

When V4 was announced, WOTC yanked all the licenses and said they were going to go a different direction.  3.5 data sets ready to ship were pulled leaving customers without a legal way to purchase updates.  This was well before V4 shipped.  Then it took them a while after V4 shipped before the official WOTC tools became useful.  

Fast forward to V5.  V5 was publicly in development for over two years IIRC.  The final rules had to be set months before the books were sent to the printers.  Why couldn't WOTC develop a simple character generator for simultaneous release with the PHB?  They could have used it as free advertising for whatever tools they finally manage to get pushed out the door some number of months from now.  Making or modifying a character generator for V5 can't be that hard since WOTC is sending out C&D letters to folks that have already created them.  

Watching this is very much like watching Groundhog Day as we are now on the third trip down this loop.


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 6, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> I am not a lawyer. I am especially not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
> *In the US...*Trademarks have to be defended or they can be voided.So it boils down to this *TL/DR*:
> 
> infringements against the basic rules have less damage potential because the basic rules are free.
> ...




Assuming this is correct:  thank you for the information, and for bringing us back to the point.  This makes sense to me.

I hope whatever is going to happen, happens soon.  3pps need to make material, and the initial push of the 5e release is going to fade if a process (whatever that is) isn't decided upon relatively soon.  A tiny selection of official modules isn't enough support, imho.  Right now, post-holidays, is a great time to do content, gearing up for the summer reading season.  Otherwise, releases will be forced to miss GenCon, and wait on September or even Christmas.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 6, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> It seems at this point that WoTC simply can't win.




Of course WotC can win.

But the problem is that they can not just say that they are working on a secret plan for winning which they will release at an unspecified time in the future.

Even in 2000 WotC can release a Players Handbook with a Character Builder attached so by 2014 they should have the process perfected for "winning".


----------



## miniaturehoarder (Feb 7, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Do you get a commission from WotC's legal department?  You seem to be going out of your way to bring a lot of things to their attention!



Sadly dropping a dime to Hasbro's legal department is a thankless hobby.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 7, 2015)

I'm going to say it once more. A fan license would clear this up in a heart beat. Why have they not given us a license yet? Every other company in this space has one. Why do wizards not?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> I'm going to say it once more. A fan license would clear this up in a heart beat. Why have they not given us a license yet? Every other company in this space has one. Why do wizards not?





um..they've said, for a long time now, that we'd hear information on that topic in the spring of 2015.  Have you not been paying attention, or just forgot?


----------



## dream66_ (Feb 7, 2015)

What I don't understand about shutting down Pathguy.com is WHY NOW!


He's had a deal with TSR to make character generators since before WOTC bought TSR!!! He's been doing this since 2nd edition 

(they were downloadable commandline dos programs.)   He made them for 2nd edition and alternity, he made them for 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and now 5?

So why change now he had permission back in the TSR days did the permission expire and get overlooked?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 7, 2015)

dream66_ said:


> What I don't understand about shutting down Pathguy.com is WHY NOW!
> 
> 
> He's had a deal with TSR to make character generators since before WOTC bought TSR!!! He's been doing this since 2nd edition
> ...




that's a very good question, was it a full licence, or just "Hey do what you want" thing?


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 7, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> um..they've said, for a long time now, that we'd hear information on that topic in the spring of 2015.  Have you not been paying attention, or just forgot?




[citation needed]
And even if so. Why are they waiting? Again, every company in this space has a license ASAP. Even the small companies. You would think the big player would be on top of this stuff


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> [citation needed]
> And even if so. Why are they waiting? Again, every company in this space has a license ASAP. Even the small companies. You would think the big player would be on top of this stuff



. I'm not going to go digging for all of Mearls' tweets.  You've been here long enough, and a prolific poster, so I gotta think you've seen them every time a thread like this gets opened.

I work for a large company, and I'm here to tell you the bigger the company, the longer things take.  Red tape and lawyers.  This is not unusual, especially when they're probably still hashing out what sort of license they want.

I suggest everyone just chill, and at the very least wait until the time they told us has passed.  Oh, and before someone says it, the spring time frame was when we would hear something about it, not that that is when there would be an official licence.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 7, 2015)

I've been here a while, but I don't read every single thing. I have not heard this spring announcement. You shouldn't assume everyone has and if you can't prove it then why say it? Also it may take a while, in that case they shouldn't have released it before they had all of their ducks in a row. It seems really shady that they would release something, with no way of actually controlling it other than issuing cease and desist letters. I mean.. certainly I can't be the only one who thinks this is fishy. 

Its just another Public Relations failure. First the morning star incident, then not disclosing what is in store for the future, announcing things had been cut from the DMG after it had reached the hands of consumers (mass combat, kender, warforged), now cease and desist letters for fan tools, no fan license. These things each alone aren't worth getting mad about but when they start adding up it's getting irritating to say the least. Is it so much to ask that you talk to your fan base and let them know what's going on, at least tentatively? Yes after the DMG came out they said they would publish these things for free. Why did they wait so long to tell us, and even then they just surprised us. No one had any inkling that it would just be released into the wild with no forethought. 

To me, it's a crappy way of running a company since your company is quite literally based on fan usage and creation. They have every right to do what they are doing, but to me, it's crappy. I'm clearly not the only one who is getting irritated as well.


----------



## weldon (Feb 7, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Also it may take a while, in that case they shouldn't have released it before they had all of their ducks in a row. It seems really shady that they would release something, with no way of actually controlling it other than issuing cease and desist letters. I mean.. certainly I can't be the only one who thinks this is fishy.




I can't quite figure out what you are talking about here. WotC should not have released WHAT exactly? The core rulebooks before they were ready to release open content under an OGL? They shouldn't have released an announcement that an OGL for 5e was coming?

I don't understand what is shady or fishy.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 7, 2015)

They shouldn't have released this edition if they had no clue how they were going to handle fan creations. Hell we don't actually even know what licensing they are giving to other companies. As far as I can tell it's all under the table. We know they are having other companies make stuff like adventures we don't know the specifics of HOW they are doing this. So no, if you can't take care of your franchise then you shouldn't be releasing this stuff. Going on a case by case basis and evaluating material is 1. Fishy and shady we don't know whos going to get C&D, we dont know WHY because they haven't put out any stipulations. We can only go off of general legalese with copyright and IP infringements. Again it's a shot in the dark. This stuff should have been ironed out before the edition was released. GSL was released VERY shortly after 4th edition (if not exactly when it was launched), 3e's OGL was released in 2000 right along side 3e launch. They did it then, they should have had the foresight to do it now. Being a big company show have given them MORE incentive. You iron out contracts for this kind of stuff ASAP. I don't even know why I'm trying to defend something that should be a given. You can't argue against this. You can't defend this kind of stuff, you just cant. Anyone in business knows you get your crap together legally before this type of stuff hits. I'm going to take my leave, I've said what I wanted, and I can't believe people are defending wizards decision to not put out a license during release. Do you people not WANT a fan licesnse? Are you happy that wizards can just pick off whatever they want? I dont... i can't even try to convince anyone this is bad if you can't clearly see what is going on here. 

Fans don't have what we need to make stuff for a game that relies on fans making stuff! I must be just insane to expect something like this apparently.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

you're making an awful lot of claims as to what should be done.  So I ask you, what is your expertise and experience in business and these sorts of projects?


----------



## Blue Phoenix RPG (Feb 7, 2015)

Bottom line: WOTC is failing at each step of this product. The one thing I can say positive about 5e is that it is an amazing game engine and the 3 source books have exceeded my expectations. BUT, WOTC needs to gets its legal act together and fix the absence of digital tools (which includes a viable forum/blog). This is the FIRST time they've released an edition without any sense from the fans that they're being heard or communicated to. This will ultimately alienate many. Myself I have hope and patience that by the end of this year that this will change, especially in digital tools.

I think that hardcore D&D player like myself aren't going anywhere but if they want to capture new players they will definitely have to step it up a notch. The Pathfinder publishers and other are way out ahead of them on source material, miniatures, digital tools, etc. At least fourth edition had the really cool online tools for slapping together NPC/Monster block stats and the like. It did not seem to be an impossible task so it shouldn't be one now to recreate those tools for DMs. Also, the webs and forums are gone, as well as a TON, and I mean TON, of older source materials that are now no longer present online.

By restricting new products, not having digital tools, threatening C&D issues, no magazines, no forums (they have one but it's totally worthless IMHO), removing older free content, and restricting fan generated content, WOTC actions might cause this to be the final edition we see for a while and that would be tragic.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

not listening to the fans?  What the heck do you think the playtest was?


----------



## BoldItalic (Feb 7, 2015)

Personally, I do not share the sense of rage or the sense of entitlement that others seem to have expressed.

I like 5e, as a game. I've bought the books and that entitles me to - read the books and join in the fun. It doesn't entitle me to demand that WotC tell me their business plans; they are not accountable to me at all, except for the physical quality of the copy of the book that I've bought, just as any book publisher is.

I bought the PHB so that I could make characters and play D&D. It would be slightly annoying to find that someone unconnected with WotC was giving away the ability to make the same characters for nothing. Slightly annoying because it would mean I had wasted my money. Only slightly annoying, because it wasn't a huge amount of money. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to see that WotC are going to try to stop that happening. They are acting to preserve the monetary value of the book that I've bought from them. For me, personally, that's good, not bad.


----------



## delericho (Feb 7, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> We know they are having other companies make stuff like adventures we don't know the specifics of HOW they are doing this.




Sure we do. The adventures done by Kobold and Sasquatch have come about because WotC contracted them to write the adventures, but the printing and distribution is done in-house. The other officially-marked licensed stuff, such as GF9's spell cards, came about because GF9 approached WotC a few years ago to get a license for that purpose. We don't know the _exact_ detail of the contracts themselves, but that's hardly unusual - it's no different from any contract used by any RPG company ever.

The other 5e adventures and supplements are being produced under the OGL (from 3e days) and are nothing to do with WotC at all. In theory, WotC could hit any of those with a C&D, and wouldn't _that_ be interesting...


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 7, 2015)

I don't understand all of the rage against WOTC on this forum. Really, I just don't get it.

They had 5E heavily play tested by fans, they used that feedback to structure the game. The game (by all accounts I have read) is a nice throwback to the "good old days", then they proceed to give it away for free!   

Less than a month after the DMG comes out, the complaints about not enough books being out are getting louder and louder. Then an official book is announced and posted to their official web page. Shortly thereafter, they give us some free material via UA, and the free material gets picked apart. 

Now that people can't complain that the "radio silence" is killing them, it's time to complain about UN-necessary software. 

At this point, I honestly feel that nothing WOTC does will make people happy. Let's say they release digital tools...I can guarantee the forum will light up with complains that it's useless crap. They know this as well. 

Why keep giving to an audience that will only be satisfied when you let them run your business for you? 

IMO WOTC owes us nothing, they have given us a great game (isn't that what we're all here for, the actual game?). The 3 core books are beautiful, we have more books on the way, more free stuff on the way, and even some 3rd parties are using existing licenses to give us their content as well. 

The reality is this, there are plenty of games out there with everything that some people seem to be clamoring for. Some of these games are also great games, I'm sure. I know I love Pathfinder myself. If the product released by WOTC is not what your looking for, and you seem to be suffering through so much agony over it, why not play another game that meets all of your needs?

It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would be so distraught over a game! If you hate WOTC, and everything they do is a mistake and too late when they do it, then maybe it's simply not for you. Perhaps you should play a game that makes you happy. Life is way too short to be that miserable over a game. It's also too short to be angry about what a corporation does. 

Take care of yourselves, find your inner peace, and evaluate why you play games in the first place. Is it for digital tools? Is it for PDF files? Is it so you can spend your money?

I play for none of those reasons. I play because I think it's fun. When you're no longer having fun, play something that is fun. 

IMO, YMMV, Etc.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 7, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> I don't understand all of the rage against WOTC on this forum. Really, I just don't get it.
> 
> They had 5E heavily play tested by fans, they used that feedback to structure the game. The game (by all accounts I have read) is a nice throwback to the "good old days", then they proceed to give it away for free!
> 
> ...




I have to wonder how many of the whingers actually _play_ 5E. Most of the complaints seem to be ivory tower non-played comparisons to prior editions rather than evaluating 5E as an integral game of its own... a new game  that just happens to share the name and many of the tropes of prior editions.

And the demands for more material are understandable, but it's not like it's hard to find the AL adventures nor the password for them.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 7, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> I don't understand all of the rage against WOTC on this forum. Really, I just don't get it.




They've also produced two other editions, each of which has legions of fans, they've reprinted old editions and re-introduced a vast range of PDF titles.

Rarely but sometimes the company's decisions have irritated me. However, I congratulate them for the efforts they have made to appeal to fans of every edition of D&D, not just with 5e but with everything else they've been doing.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Whatever, man.  Just like I said, some people will defend WotC no matter what.  You even arrived on cue.





This is from several pages back, but I'm going to use it as an example.

At the point when you're going to start claiming that the other side is not rational, it is time for you to STOP.

Walk away.  Learn to walk away before you become a rude jerk.

When you say things like this, you yourself are not being rational either.  The discussion, such as it was, has stopped, and has turned into two sides venting at each other.  It has become about being right, and winning, and you've become willing to say nasty things about people you don't really know to do it.

And, if you cannot learn to stop before you say something jerkish, you are in grave danger of the mods hearing about it, and coming in and making an embarassing, upsetting example of you, or just giving you a vacation from the site.

Treat each other with respect.  If you have lost respect, don't respond.  Is that clear?  I hope so.  If not, please take it up in e-mail or PM with one of the moderators.  Thanks, all.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

Perhaps I can help put things into context a bit.  HASBRO is a pretty big company.  I imagine WoTC is probably not all that big, but a fairly good sized one anyway.  A bit about me:  For the past 10 or so years, I have worked in project management for a very large corporation.  I think that gives me some insight as to how things are working, rather than armchair guessing.  That being said, of course I don't work for WoTC so I don't know exactly what they are doing.  Just giving some insight on the way things typically work.

When you have a project (like adding digital tools that replicate everything in the core books), from the start of the project (requirements definitions) to the actual roll out/install of the project, it easily takes a year.  Longer if you have more hands in the pot, which it sounds like WoTC/HASBO has.  It's a sucky process, but there's a lot of stuff that goes into it (I won't list them all out here because it will bore you).  And this is doubly true if you want to put out software that is actually good, and not a pile of buggy crap.

Let me put it to you like this.  You've got only a couple people whose job it is to replicate as many possible scenarios with that software as hundreds of thousands of customers will do.  I come from a tester background, and when I write my scripts, I have to think of every possible way a customer might use that product in addition to just validating the requirements and every possible scenario (class/race/background combination, etc).  It's time consuming.  That's why coming out with reliable software is WAY more complex than just putting out the books.  And from what we know, WotC wasn't happy with how things were going with MorningStar, so they probably had to start from scratch.

Re: the OGL, Mearls had officially announced it would be "early 2015".  What does that mean?  Any time before May, really.  And he only promised we'd hear something about it, not that we'd have it.  WoTC just recently posted a position for someone to handle licensing.   All things point to something getting done.  Just because it's not out yet people seem to be getting all worked up.  Again, coming from a business perspective, this is not unusual.  Their priority was putting out a core game of D&D, and focus on the license at a later date after the core books are completed.  That's not unusual at all.  In fact, I would much rather have them working on the core game _only_ leading up to the release, than to have spread their resources between the game and a license and release them at the same time.  Especially with how much legal crap is need to get green lit to release a license. 

Bottom line, is that you can think they are dropping the ball on a lot of things here, but I'm guessing you don't have any experiences working on projects in a corporate environment.  This isn't some business that you or I run out of our home and can make decisions at the drop of a hat.  It's a lot more complex than most realize.

I hope that helps a bit.


----------



## dream66_ (Feb 7, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> I don't understand all of the rage against WOTC on this forum. Really, I just don't get it.
> 
> They had 5E heavily play tested by fans, they used that feedback to structure the game. The game (by all accounts I have read) is a nice throwback to the "good old days", then they proceed to give it away for free!
> 
> ...




Let me give you my point of veiw to help you understand.    I do not pretend that this is shared by everyone, might even just be me.

When I went thru the playtest I did not understand the goal to be "back to the good old days"  I heard stuff about bringing all editions together, and rules modules to let you play the way you wanted.   To me that meant if you liked AEDU they're be a module for it, if you like Martial healing that would be an option, if you like tactical miniature play there would be an option.     Magic Items shops on every corner option, and zero magic historical recreation option.     What I feel like I got is a very fun, very improved version of 1e.   But I'm still waiting on all those optional modules.

And adventure paths do not do it.  So doesn't matter how many princes of the apocolype they publish if they don't have the "D&D without casters" module or whatever.    I'm looking for the toolkit D&D that was talked about in the playtest,  a subclass wizard and a couple races do not fill that out.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 7, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Bottom line, is that you can think they are dropping the ball on a lot of things here, but I'm guessing you don't have any experiences working on projects in a corporate environment.




...and you would be mistaken; I've worked in corporate america for almost 20 years.  I believe the evidence is overwhelming that they are simply dropping the ball:  

P1 -- Releasing PDFs (at a *minimum*) is the RPG industry norm for digital support.
P2 -- It is reasonable to expect the industry leader (WotC) to provide product offerings which (again, at a *minimum*) match the industry norm.
P3 -- There are no (legal) PDFs, despite ample time and opportunity (and a pre-existing distribution channel) to release them.
Conclusion -- WotC has failed to meet reasonable expectations (aka "they have dropped the ball").

I do appreciate what you're saying about corporate politics; however, I would characterize five _years_ of no PDFs as a problematic level of dysfunction.  In other words, I don't doubt that politics are the problem -- in fact that is my expectation -- that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.  If that problem doesn't affect you, great!  But what I don't get is why some people insist on telling me (quite rudely) that there is no problem.

As for me, I'll (happily) come back to D&D if and when WotC adopts a less digital-hostile stance.  Until then, I (regretfully) play other games.  

-- A lapsed (but hopefully future) D&D fan


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> ...and you would be mistaken; I've worked in corporate america for almost 20 years.




Ok, that's nice.  But what is your specific experience managing projects in corporate America?


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 7, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Ok, that's nice.  But what is your specific experience managing projects in corporate America?




First of all, that's not what you said.  You said "experiences working on projects in a corporate environment."

But as it happens, I work in IT for Pearson, one of the largest publishers in the world.  While I am not a project manager, I interact with them on a daily basis.  And I've watched our company grapple with the digital revolution, and mostly get it wrong.  Frankly, it is that experience that has led me to believe WotC, also a publisher, is exhibiting similar dysfunction.  They, like us, clearly haven't fully shed the dead-tree publisher mentality.  In many ways we have paid the price; I'm fearful that WotC will pay the price as well.  Only in this case, that might mothball a game I love and have played for decades. 

 Sure, you don't know me, and it's easy to write me off as "some random guy on the Internet," but really, this isn't about me.  This is about my argument, which I presented two posts up.  At a minimum, PDFs would represent an acceptable -- and industry standard -- form of digital support.  Yet WotC has been "looking at a solution" for literally five-plus years, and have yet to offer one.  They can't even get ebooks done, let alone software.  That is dysfunctional.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 7, 2015)

Actually, there a lot of folks here with a wide range of experience.  This is not a fruitful line to take.

Being in a corporation isn't always a disadvantage.  There should be a lot of folks with deep experience to draw on when needed.  There should be a database of game information already created as an output of the game formation.

My sense is that Hasbro/Wotc is just not a software company.  Their focus is on other things, so they are inept at doing the software thing.  My 2c though.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 7, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> My sense is that Hasbro/Wotc is just not a software company.  Their focus is on other things, so they are inept at doing the software thing.  My 2c though.




Exactly.  But for some reason that is a very contentious position to take on this board.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> First of all, that's not what you said.  You said "experiences working on projects in a corporate environment."
> l.




Um...there's not much difference in what I said, at least in how it impacts my point.  Whether you managed projects yourself, or were directly involved in the project is what I was getting at.  I.e, having at least some experience in how the project management process goes.  And if you work with the project managers on a daily basis, than I'm assuming you're more than familiar with the project lifecycle, whether your company followed Integrated Methodology or some other process.  In my experience, regardless of the "official" process you follow, they're all pretty much the same, from inception, to requirements drafting, to BRDs, FSD, MDDs, etc. all the way up to production rollout.  And since I'm assuming you know all this (since you said you interact with them on a daily basis), you must know just how lengthy and detailed a process like that is.

And to be honest, if we're going to go by what people said, you clearly were talking about things other than just PDFs.  In fact, the first two things on your list were an OGL and software like a character generator.



> Fixing it would be simple and fast:
> 
> 1. OGL 5E.
> 2. License Lone Wolf (with very modest fees) to do an a 5E package for Hero Lab.
> 3. Release 5E PDFs on D&DClassics.com.




  Then you also made several posts after that talking specifically about tools like a character generator, and not PDFs.  I'll also note that in my post you quoted, I was talking about OGL and software, and not things like PDFs, so why you chose to ignore what you posted earlier and what I was replying to and instead focus only on PDFs is a bit odd to me.  It addresses nothing I said for one.  Secondly, it appears to me as massive goal post shifting, from "here's a list of things" to "here's just one thing".

So you're accusing them of dropping the ball massively, but haven't been able to refute anything I've said regarding two of the most important things on _your_ list as to why they actually haven't in fact, "dropped the ball"---licensing and software.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 7, 2015)

I chose to elaborate on PDFs because they're the low-hanging fruit.  In other words, I was picking the _easiest_ thing for them to get right.  And yet they haven't. *I literally don't know how to more clearly articulate the argument for why this represents a failure* than I've already done upthread (repeated below for your reference).   If you'd believe there is a flaw in my argument, by all means let's discuss it, but otherwise I have nothing more to say on the matter.  

*Premise 1:*  Releasing PDFs (at a minimum) is the RPG industry norm for digital support.
*Premise 2:*  It is reasonable to expect the industry leader (WotC) to provide product offerings which (again, at a minimum) match the industry norm.
*Premise 3*:  There are no (legal) PDFs, despite ample time and opportunity (and a pre-existing distribution channel) to release them.
*Conclusion: * WotC has failed to meet reasonable expectations (aka "they have dropped the ball"). 

As for me, I think I've explained that I do, in fact,  have at least some knowledge of how corporations operate; specifically how publishing companies operate. I'm sorry, but your assumption to the contrary was mistaken.  In any event, how about we focus on the topic, instead of on each other?


----------



## BoldItalic (Feb 7, 2015)

How did we get from "WotC issued a C&D" to "WotC haven't put out a PDF of the PHB" as the bone of contention?

I can see an argument that, if the PDF were available it would result in WotC having to issue _more_ C&D's because it made it easier for people to copy the text and violate their copyright, but I fail to see how it would lead to fewer, if that is what people are advocating.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 7, 2015)

Perigorn said:


> Bottom line: WOTC is failing at each step of this product.




So, record sales, and a product you like a whole lot, but they're failing at each step?



> This is the FIRST time they've released an edition without any sense from the fans that they're being heard or communicated to.




This sentence, to me, looks like it's written in a bizzaro world.  This was the largest playtest ever, for any RPG game, in the history of RPGs.  It's the MOST fan feedback any company has ever had on an RPG.  But in your view, you think this is the first edition with no sense of being heard?

I can't tell if this is normal internet exaggeration for effect, or if you really have an alien viewpoint relative to my own. I mean, I understand either way - you're either really frustrated and so figured exaggeration will bring attention to the thing you're frustrated about, or else you have a perspective totally different than mine.  But...I am not really understanding your view right now.  If I were WOTC and I saw your view, as you wrote it, I would dismiss you as someone impossible to satisfy - they can't spend that much time and money on a playtest that large and then do anything meaningful with comments like that which claim it's the first edition where there is no sense of the fans being heard.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> I chose to elaborate on PDFs because they're the low-hanging fruit.  In other words, I was picking the _easiest_ thing for them to get right.  And yet they haven't. *I literally don't know how to more clearly articulate the argument for why this represents a failure* than I've already done upthread (repeated below for your reference).   If you'd believe there is a flaw in my argument, by all means let's discuss it, but otherwise I have nothing more to say on the matter.
> 
> *Premise 1:*  Releasing PDFs (at a minimum) is the RPG industry norm for digital support.




The easy response is, in an industry with essentially only 2 players, there is no industry standard.

I mean, if Pepsi, RC cola, and Joe's grape flavored soda all sell their drinks at a large movie theater chain but Coca Cola does not, does that mean Coca Cola is failing to meet an industry standard? No...there's really only two genuine players in that market, and there is no real industry standard if one decides to do something different from the other.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2015)

Oh, for goodness' sake. They're under pressure from retailers and distributors to delay electronic releases. How is this not obvious? 

If anyone literally thinks WotC is not selling PDFs because they just don't feel like it right now, then I don't know what to say to them.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

Morrus; they pulled the 4E PDFS FIVE YEARS AGO.  At the time, they _explicitly stated_ it was due to piracy.  I don't think they're not selling them because "they don't feel like it."  And further, I think you know that.  I believe they're not selling them because their executives don't get digital.  At all.  I've seen it at my own company...they're scared, and so they cling to an antiquated business model.  

As for pressure from retailers, I honestly don't understand how the on Wizards is any different than the pressure on Paizo, or Troll Lord, or Pinnacle, or Green Ronin, or Evil Hat, or Pelgrane Press, or anyone else. Yet somehow, *every single one* of those companies sells PDFs day and date.

Look, I get that this is your site.  But if you don't want people questioning what WotC does, why don't you just say that?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Morrus; they pulled the 4E PDFS FIVE YEARS AGO.  At the time, they _explicitly stated_ it was due to piracy.




And then they started selling PDFs again later.  Now you can buy a whole ton of PDFs from WOTC at dndclassics.com, and I think it's been that way for 2 years now.  So, your point seems rather outdated.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Ans then they started selling PDFs again later.  Now you can buy a whole ton of PDFs from WOTC at dndclassics.com.  So, your point seems rather outdated.




Actually, it isn't.  You *still* can't buy the 4E core books there, let alone the 5E ones. If you could, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

...but you already knew that.  So how about we both stop beating our heads against a brick wall and agree to disagree?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Morrus; they pulled the 4E PDFS FIVE YEARS AGO.




4E PDFs are available right now on dndclassics.com.

Calm down. You are getting too excitable. It's just a conversation about D&D.



> Look, I get that this is your site.  But if you don't want people questioning what WotC does, why don't you just say that?




Attempts to portray expression of an opposing opinion as censorship is _the_ most obnoxious - and weak - position you can take here. Don't be so silly. If you literally cannot handle my having a dissenting opinion to yours, that's an issue you will have to internalise and process yourself.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Actually, it isn't.  You *still* can't buy the 4E core books there, let alone the 5E ones. If you could, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> ...but you already knew that.  So how about we both stop beating our heads against a brick wall and agree to disagree?




First, the 4e books are available there.

Second, you said there was some corporate philosophy which was preventing PDFs sales (in general) because of piracy concerns.  You may recall they pulled PDF sales of older products at the same time as that piracy comment.  Whatever concerns they had, they seemed to go away a few years later when they started to sell those PDFs again, and even added a whole bunch more PDFs to those sales.  If they still were not selling PDFs (in general) because of piracy, then they never would have opened dndclassics.com.  So, it seems like their thinking has changed since the event you noted.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

*sigh*

No, what I said was, you can't get the 4E core books in PDF.  And you can't; go check.  But that's really beside the point.  The point is the 5E books.  And you can't get those in PDF, either.

As for dissenting, I have no issue with what you choose to believe.  What I "have an issue with" is your use of a straw man, who apparently believes that WotC is "not selling PDFs because they just don't feel like it right now."  

On the other hand, if you have an actual logical rebuttal to my argument, feel free to offer it.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> *sigh*
> 
> No, what I said was, you can't get the 4E core books in PDF.  And you can't; go check.




I did.  The rules compendium is right there.

More to the point, if they are not selling PDFs because of piracy issues, why are so many 4e books available as PDFs? I mean, there is a serious ton of them! If there was some anti-piracy still in effect, why are they selling (for a random example) the Monster Manual II?


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> First, the 4e books are available there.
> 
> Second, you said there was some corporate philosophy which was preventing PDFs sales (in general) because of piracy concerns.  You may recall they pulled PDF sales of older products at the same time as that piracy comment.  Whatever concerns they had, they seemed to go away a few years later when they started to sell those PDFs again, and even added a whole bunch more PDFs to those sales.  If they still were not selling PDFs (in general) because of piracy, then they never would have opened dndclassics.com.  So, it seems like their thinking has changed since the event you noted.




Or perhaps they realize that out-of-print products have no dead tree revenue source?  Which is obviously not the case with 5E.  Yet somehow they seem to still mistakenly believe that not offering 5E PDFs somehow prevents them from being pirated.

Really, if you have some sort of alternative explanation for their behavior that makes sense, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

The core books are the PHB, the DMG, and the MM.  99.99% of D&D players would tell you that without hesitation.  And as has been previously noted, the Rules Compendium_ does not contain the rules necessary for play_.  But again, this is beside the point.  So let's pretend that the 4E core books are available.  Great.  The point is 5E.  Can we agree those aren't available and get back to the actual debate?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Or perhaps they realize that out-of-print products have no dead tree revenue source?  Which is obviously not the case with 5E.  Yet somehow they seem to still mistakenly believe that not offering 5E PDFs somehow prevents them from being pirated.
> 
> Really, if you have some sort of alternative explanation for their behavior that makes sense, I'd love to hear it.




Morrus already gave you the reason! 



Morrus said:


> Oh, for goodness' sake. They're under pressure from retailers and distributors to delay electronic releases. How is this not obvious?
> 
> If anyone literally thinks WotC is not selling PDFs because they just don't feel like it right now, then I don't know what to say to them.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

And I pointed out a rather long list of other publishers that sell to retail but somehow still sell PDFs, despite the pressure they are presumably under.  Seriously, the only other RPG I am aware of that I can't get in PDF is the Star Wars stuff, and that's because it's licensed. 

 So if retailer pressure is the reason WotC won't sell 5E in PDF, why doesn't that reason apply to _anyone _else in the industry?  Seriously...I'm asking this question in earnest.  If that's it, how does pretty much everyone else manage to get around it?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> On the other hand, if you have an actual logical rebuttal to my argument, feel free to offer it.




This isn't the first time you've done this. If you wish to disagree with others, that's fine. But repeatedly attacking the motives and competency of those who disagree with you needs to stop now, as do the accusations of various shenanigans against those who disagree with you. If you have any further questions on this, feel free to email me or another moderator for clarification, but further ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.


----------



## Bugleyman (Feb 8, 2015)

"Your rebuttal wasn't logical" isn't a personal attack.  It's an observation.   

In any event, it is clear that you do not hold yourself to the same standards to which you are now holding me.   But it's your playground.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> So straw men and ad homs are a-ok for you, but not me, eh?  Whatever.  Enjoy your tinpot kingdom.  If I were you, I'd erase this argument, though, because you lost it.




Well, I guess there's no stepping back from a post like that. It's late, I tried. Take a few days off. If you decide to return, please review the rules you agreed to first. If you decide not to, feel free to tell yourself it was because I disagreed with you if it makes it easier - most people do!


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 8, 2015)

Looks like Pathguy's notice was updated. He was forced to pull down the Pathfinder generator as well. (Ignore if it as already mentioned; I was trying to skip over the sidetracks in this thread.)


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 8, 2015)

Wow, looks like I missed a lot in this thread of late! Amazing how much shorter they get after a well placed addition to the Ignore list.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2015)

Grazzt said:


> Looks like Pathguy's notice was updated. He was forced to pull down the Pathfinder generator as well.




How odd. Now I _really_ want to see the request!


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 8, 2015)

Morrus said:


> How odd. Now I _really_ want to see the request!




No doubt. I don't even know how/why they'd be interested or concerned with a PF generator.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 8, 2015)

Bugleyman said:


> Actually, it isn't.  You *still* can't buy the 4E core books there.




I heard the reason for that is because they are under pressure from retailers and distributors to delay electronic releases of 4e.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

Morrus said:


> How odd. Now I _really_ want to see the request!




I am now suspecting it's because he didn't do it under the OGL.


----------



## Nylanfs (Feb 8, 2015)

That is damn interesting, unless he didn't have an ogl with a proper Sec 15, or had remnants of WotC closed content in his pathfinder generator he should have been fine.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2015)

Grazzt said:


> No doubt. I don't even know how/why they'd be interested or concerned with a PF generator.




All of Pathfinder's core rules derive, ultimately, from the d20 SRD which is copyright Wizards. The OGL allows for software using it, but...

Here's the Software FAQ: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i


			
				Software FAQ said:
			
		

> Q: How can the OGL be used with software?
> 
> A: Just like with other material, the OGL allows you to use any Open Content, provided you follow the terms of the OGL. Follow the requirements of the License, include the text of the license and the appropriate copyright information, and clearly identify Open Content.
> 
> NOTE: The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content." This doesn't mean you can say "all rules in my program are Open", the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.




If the character generator violates that, Wizards (as the ultimate source of the material at the heart of Pathfinder) does have the ability to shut it down.

Of course, no idea if this really applies, but I think those would be the basics.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2015)

Just had a look at the wayback machine cache of the Pathfinder Generator: No sign of the Open Gaming License anywhere.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 8, 2015)

Grazzt said:


> Looks like Pathguy's notice was updated. He was forced to pull down the Pathfinder generator as well. (Ignore if it as already mentioned; I was trying to skip over the sidetracks in this thread.)




Wow that's unfortunate. Even if he didn't include the proper OGL notice for it, there's really no way for this to end up as anything but a PR nightmare for WotC.

Pathguy has had some really cool fan stuff on his page since 2e (his Planescape stuff especially), and it's really unfortunate to see takedown requests targeting fan created material like his character generators (even if it's legally correct).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

Shemeska said:


> Wow that's unfortunate. Even if he didn't include the proper OGL notice for it, there's really no way for this to end up as anything but a PR nightmare for WotC.
> 
> Pathguy has had some really cool fan stuff on his page since 2e (his Planescape stuff especially), and it's really unfortunate to see takedown requests targeting fan created material like his character generators (even if it's legally correct).




I really don't get this... if it is legally correct, then it is legal... if it is legal why do people care?


----------



## tomservo999 (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I really don't get this... if it is legally correct, then it is legal... if it is legal why do people care?




Not that I am taking sides in this argument, because honestly, I can really see the merit in both sides, but seriously? Is this your argument? "What is legally correct, should be enforced, and when it is enforced, no one should care? Are you sure you want to open this can of worms?

I am  really not trying to start a flame war. You have made a lot of valid points in this whole back and forth. I just think you need to really think of the ramifications of this particular argument.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 8, 2015)

So, wizards took down his pathfinder program too? To be clear, I'm making sure this is WOTC and not Paizo who issued the C&D. I need to make sure I shape my views around the deserving company who did this.


----------



## Rhylthar (Feb 8, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> So, wizards took down his pathfinder program too? To be clear, I'm making sure this is WOTC and not Paizo who issued the C&D. I need to make sure I shape my views around the deserving company who did this.



Yes, that´s what he says:



> I was disappointed that WoTC's attorney also required me to remove my           "Pathfinder" generators.


----------



## reelo (Feb 8, 2015)

Rhylthar said:


> Yes, that´s what he says:



I really wonder what issue WotC have with the PF generators?!?


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 8, 2015)

reelo said:


> I really wonder what issue WotC have with the PF generators?!?




probably "use of WotC Owned Open Content without proper OGL documentation." Which, since the PSRD is largely also the D20 SRD, and the d20 SRD is wizards... he was using their content (indirectly) without attributing them.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 8, 2015)

TheMadGent said:


> Losing a tool like this sucks, but it's the nature of the beast with IP law. Not taking action against infringing, if innocuous sites, has the potential to weaken WoTC's case against battles they need to win, like sites copying the book wholesale.




I own several IP's.  The nature of the beast is who has the money to defend against a company such as Hasbro. 

There are many ways to make money. Actions like this eventually alienates their customer base.

In my experiences when dealing with people about 90% of them are doing nothing wrong. It's the 10% that you have to worry about.

But this is what happens when dealing with a corporate entity. Soulless beasts that is beholden to their stock holders.


----------



## neobolts (Feb 8, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Oh, for goodness' sake. They're under pressure from retailers and distributors to delay electronic releases. How is this not obvious?
> 
> If anyone literally thinks WotC is not selling PDFs because they just don't feel like it right now, then I don't know what to say to them.




This is acutally an interesting point. I've always assumed the bottom line with PDFs was piracy concerns and a desire for a proprietary digital system. I guess the RIAA and MPAA color my opinion of media delivery in general. Coming to mind are Sony's early and inconvenient failed proprietary music system, and the current Utraviolets and Vudus and whatnot that come with Blu-rays that I lack confidence in as a consumer.

Can you give more insight into WotC's likely relationship with its retailers and how that impacts digital? Is it the big box stores? Why aren't Paizo hands similarly tied? I know some of the other commenters have gotten out of hand, but you've genuinely piqued my interest.


----------



## delericho (Feb 8, 2015)

Grazzt said:


> Looks like Pathguy's notice was updated. He was forced to pull down the Pathfinder generator as well.




Well, there goes the theory that this was because there's an official generator coming.

I wonder how long it will be before they come for ENWorld's Downloads section?


----------



## delericho (Feb 8, 2015)

neobolts said:


> I've always assumed the bottom line with PDFs was piracy concerns...




When they pulled the PDFs a few years ago, the stated reason was indeed piracy concerns. In particular, someone had put a legally-purchased (watermarked) PDF of, IIRC, "Arcane Power II" on one of the torrent sites, and it had been downloaded some thousands of times.

(Note: the initial purchase of the PDF was done legally. Obviously, putting it up for further distribution was not.)

It's worth noting that at that time they _also_ required the vendors of PDFs to stop allowing further downloads of those PDFs. There was a grace period of about a week for this; unfortunately, I was on holiday for just over a week when this all went down, and so lost some (very few) PDFs that I had purchased but not yet downloaded.

A couple of years ago, they changed their policy, and now allow PDFs sales again through a single vendor. Plus, the PDFs that are now being made available are better than the older ones, which is nice.

They haven't, as yet, made the core rulebooks for most editions available for download (IIRC, B/X is available, as is the Rules Cyclopedia, but that's all). Given that they're selling PDFs at all, the reason for this is very unlikely to be piracy concerns, so what Morrus says about vendors wanting a delay makes sense. (Note that printed core books for 1st, 2nd, 3e, 4e, and 5e are all easily available in stores; B/X and the Rules Cyclopedia are pretty much the only ones that _aren't_.) But, AFAIK, WotC have never put out any official word as to why.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Why aren't Paizo hands similarly tied?




One of the chief differences between Paizo and Wizards is that Paizo came up through magazines, then an online subscription program, and finally into the big time with brick'n'mortar stores. Meanwhile, Wizards started with brick'n'mortar, and then went into online & magazines. They're very different models.

And although you might initially assume that Wizards' concerns with brick'n'mortar are RPG-based, this isn't the case. Instead, Wizards begin and end with where they actually make their money: Magic: the Gathering. While we grouse and grumble about how they run D&D, on the other side of the building they run one of the most successful game products in decades. Magic is *huge*. And it's getting bigger. Mark Rosewater said in his review of 2014 that the Theros set was the biggest selling set of all time (that's the 2014 big set). It's generally believed that the current set - Khans of Tarkhir - has sold even more.

One of the reasons Wizards does so well with Magic is that they understand very well how to design sets, but - even more - they understand how to support the game. And Magic lives and dies by how many people are playing it. I have seen CCG after CCG wither and die, because people weren't playing it any more. For a CCG to be successful, it needs a lot of people playing it, and it needs them to be able to find each other. And Wizards identified, entirely correctly, that the brick'n'mortar game store was the place where most Magic players would be able to meet up. And so they support them - significantly.

The other side of this is that a lot of game stores wouldn't be open today if it weren't for Magic and the two or three other CCGs that have done well. The income from CCGs tends to be more reliable and more significant that most other gaming products (well, at least the ones you can buy in a game store... computer games are a different kettle of fish!)

So, Wizards - just through Magic - has a very strong desire to see brick'n'mortar stores do well. And it goes into their handling of D&D as well. Their support of Organised Play has moved more and more towards supporting stores.

And that's where we are at the moment.

Cheers!


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> When they pulled the PDFs a few years ago, the stated reason was indeed piracy concerns. In particular, someone had put a legally-purchased (watermarked) PDF of, IIRC, "Arcane Power II" on one of the torrent sites, and it had been downloaded some thousands of times.
> 
> (Note: the initial purchase of the PDF was done legally. Obviously, putting it up for further distribution was not.)




Players Handbook 2, to be accurate:

http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/14690/wizards-sues-eight

The court filing even gave the names of the people charged at the time.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I really don't get this... if it is legally correct, then it is legal... if it is legal why do people care?




Because how legal it is is tangential to the argument? Despite the legality of it, it is about harassing well meaning fans providing a service that never detracted from Wizard's sales, wizard's themselves aren't providing, and it could actually help sales. I have open one of such outputs at hand (from 3.5) without the books to understand what it what it is not useful, I liked those generators they always helped with the math for equipment.


----------



## igwig2 (Feb 8, 2015)

The 5th edition D&D Character Generator has been saved off and is now at (content removed)- this has nothing to do with Ed Frielander, the website is available on the Internet Cache and was retrieved, saved and rebuilt.  Please share this amongst as many gamers.  I know for a fact that this website helps sell a TON of 5th Edition material, and some attorney shouldn't be able to stop our hobby.


please do not post material or links that violates someone's intellectual property


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Because how legal it is is tangential to the argument? Despite the legality of it, it is about harassing well meaning fans providing a service that never detracted from Wizard's sales, wizard's themselves aren't providing, and it could actually help sales. I have open one of such outputs at hand (from 3.5) without the books to understand what it what it is not useful, I liked those generators they always helped with the math for equipment.




what you don't seem to under stand (and I am not signaling you out I am using you as in everyone complaining about C&Ds) is that WotC doesn't block or C&D people who play by the rules... someone on this thread (Merric I think) used a casched version of the sight and confirmed that he was not useign the OGL... If the law says you can only drive 65mph, and you go 75mph complaining a cop pulled you over is wrong... he just did his job, he only pulled you over because you did something illegal... If they sent a legal C&D because someone was doing something illegal (again I think it was a page or two back someone confirmed they where) shouldn't you be mad at the person doing the illegal thing?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

igwig2 said:


> The 5th edition D&D Character Generator has been saved off and is now at REDACTED - this has nothing to do with Ed Frielander, the website is available on the Internet Cache and was retrieved, saved and rebuilt.  Please share this amongst as many gamers.  I know for a fact that this website helps sell a TON of 5th Edition material, and some attorney shouldn't be able to stop our hobby.



OMG!!!! why would someone take something that was legally requested taken down and put it up again... I hope who ever did it understands how wrong it is to not only break IP, but to flaunt it...

man, I feel like this entire hobby gets dirtier every day...I'm going to take a shower.


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2015)

[MENTION=6790277]igwig2[/MENTION], could you please remove the link? If Ed willingly complied with the request, I'm pretty sure he himself wouldn't want others proliferating his work everywhere.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Can you give more insight into WotC's likely relationship with its retailers and how that impacts digital? Is it the big box stores? Why aren't Paizo hands similarly tied? I know some of the other commenters have gotten out of hand, but you've genuinely piqued my interest.




I suspect because Paizo sells most of their products direct to the customer, while WOTC sells most of their products through distributors and retail.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> what you don't seem to under stand (and I am not signaling you out I am using you as in everyone complaining about C&Ds) is that WotC doesn't block or C&D people who play by the rules... someone on this thread (Merric I think) used a casched version of the sight and confirmed that he was not useign the OGL... If the law says you can only drive 65mph, and you go 75mph complaining a cop pulled you over is wrong... he just did his job, he only pulled you over because you did something illegal... If they sent a legal C&D because someone was doing something illegal (again I think it was a page or two back someone confirmed they where) shouldn't you be mad at the person doing the illegal thing?




But you are not understanding this is an emotional response, completely unrelated to the legality of it. Now you say if we play by the rules we won't get into trouble, but what are the rules to play in this case? where do they draw the line? And this isn't as clear cut as you claim, the legality or not legality of pathguy's character creators lies on a grey area, yes they weren't following or using the OGL, but all the OGL is is a trade of certain fair use rights for the benefit of access to certain trademarks and not being demanded. As far as I know those character creators referenced mechanics (not subject to copyright) and indexed non-significant portions of a copyrighted text without reproducing trade dress (which as far as I know is fair use)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I suspect because Paizo sells most of their products direct to the customer, while WOTC sells most of their products through distributors and retail.



 atleast in my area my 2 lgs (including my flgs) go through diamond disturber who also do all the major comics and toys for the local shops, and they do both Paizo and WotC




MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> But you are not understanding this is an emotional response, completely unrelated to the legality of it. Now you say if we play by the rules we won't get into trouble, but what are the rules to play in this case? where do they draw the line? And this isn't as clear cut as you claim, the legality or not legality of pathguy's character creators lies on a grey area, yes they weren't following or using the OGL, but all the OGL is is a trade of certain fair use rights for the benefit of access to certain trademarks and not being demanded. As far as I know those character creators referenced mechanics (not subject to copyright) and indexed non-significant portions of a copyrighted text without reproducing trade dress (which as far as I know is fair use)




your right I can't understand an emotional response, at all in this case. I guess I just am not invested enough to get it. I consider it a major victory that these things can be handled by polite emails within a small community, and that if things are done by mistake people can just talk it out. I know other people (myself included) have gotten C&D and talked it out. If someone's response is to take down then it 'feels' to me like they relize they were in the wrong. 

On the other hand I have a major emotional response to people trying to get away with breaking rules, and even if those rules I disagree with. That is why a link above is driving me nuts. the whole idea of "We were told no but we did it anyway" drives me up a wall. In real life I tell people not to smoke in sno smokeing area's and call attention when I see shop lifters, and yell at cars littering... I guess I am just a rules guy...


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> OMG!!!! why would someone take something that was legally requested taken down and put it up again... I hope who ever did it understands how wrong it is to not only break IP, but to flaunt it...
> 
> man, I feel like this entire hobby gets dirtier every day...I'm going to take a shower.




Not only that, but he didn't even have the good sense to *this time* include the required verbiage from the OGL. Not that I think it'd matter - looking at the replaced version, it includes a ton of stuff from both the PHB and the DMG. No way that info would be allowed to stand.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> your right I can't understand an emotional response, at all in this case. I guess I just am not invested enough to get it. I consider it a major victory that these things can be handled by polite emails within a small community, and that if things are done by mistake people can just talk it out. I know other people (myself included) have gotten C&D and talked it out. If someone's response is to take down then it 'feels' to me like they relize they were in the wrong.
> 
> On the other hand I have a major emotional response to people trying to get away with breaking rules, and even if those rules I disagree with. That is why a link above is driving me nuts. the whole idea of "We were told no but we did it anyway" drives me up a wall. In real life I tell people not to smoke in sno smokeing area's and call attention when I see shop lifters, and yell at cars littering... I guess I am just a rules guy...




Well I have been witness of stories of people being screwed by the law -more so by the letter of the rules law- people close to me, and the horror stories in the media don't help at all. If I ever received a C&D form wizards I would panic, close down my wizards account erase my hard drive and donat emy books and magic cards to charity, all out of pure fear of being screwed by the system without ever stopping to consider if what I did was right or wrong. And a polite C&D is even scarier, from my cultural POV you can allow yourself to be polite as a display of power, if you know you can do as you wish with someone, being polite drives the point even further.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Well I have been witness of stories of people being screwed by the law -more so by the letter of the rules law- people close to me, and the horror stories in the media don't help at all.



 I always just assume those are few and far between, that for the most part the system works for most people...again I'm a rules guy.  




> If I ever received a C&D form wizards I would panic, close down my wizards account erase my hard drive and donat emy books and magic cards to charity, all out of pure fear of being screwed by the system without ever stopping to consider if what I did was right or wrong.



  that is mighty extreme... when I got my C&D letter, I calmly wrote back to them and asked for clarification, and went on to explain what I was trying to do. For me it was the beginning of a discussion, not the end. I also very much never took anything down. 

I feel kind of sorry for you to be honest, not having any faith in the system must be pretty scary.



> And a polite C&D is even scarier, from my cultural POV you can allow yourself to be polite as a display of power, if you know you can do as you wish with someone, being polite drives the point even further.



 wow... so you would prefer what? I mean would you prefer threats and accusations?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> atleast in my area my 2 lgs (including my flgs) go through diamond disturber who also do all the major comics and toys for the local shops, and they do both Paizo and WotC




Many people buy RPG stuff direct from Paizo, often on subscription.  Not all people of course, but a decent number.

Magic cards however are sold through distributors and retailers.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 8, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I always just assume those are few and far between, that for the most part the system works for most people...again I'm a rules guy.




It is not exactly lack of faith in the system, but lack of faith on people not being jerks who abuse or outright buyout the system to get whatever they want or to apply it so selectively they hurt the most vulnerable ones. 



> that is mighty extreme... when I got my C&D letter, I calmly wrote back to them and asked for clarification, and went on to explain what I was trying to do. For me it was the beginning of a discussion, not the end. I also very much never took anything down.




I don't think I could do that, I just can't shake the compulsion to stay safe and out of trouble, if not for myself, for the sake of my family and loved ones. I just have so much to lose and so little to gain on that I wouldn't gamble with it. That's why I feel for Pathguy, and i consider that taking the generators down is not so much an admission of guilt than just not wanting problems. 



> I feel kind of sorry for you to be honest, not having any faith in the system must be pretty scary./QUOTE]
> 
> No need to feel sorry, the world is a scary and confusing place. I prefer to accept that and move on with mt life hoping I never blink on the radar. I just cannot have blind faith on the system, more so because laws change, but what is truly right or wrong remains the same.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 8, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Well I have been witness of stories of people being screwed by the law -more so by the letter of the rules law- people close to me, and the horror stories in the media don't help at all. If I ever received a C&D form wizards I would panic, close down my wizards account erase my hard drive and donat emy books and magic cards to charity, all out of pure fear of being screwed by the system without ever stopping to consider if what I did was right or wrong. And a polite C&D is even scarier, from my cultural POV you can allow yourself to be polite as a display of power, if you know you can do as you wish with someone, being polite drives the point even further.




Wow.

If you got a polite C&D you'd burn your house down (figuratively)? That's a bit of an . . . overreaction.

The situation with Pathguy isn't exactly the "law screwing somebody over", far from it. There are good laws and bad laws, and sometimes it is morally justified to break the law to call attention to its unjustness (Rosa Parks). But hosting generators for a GAME!?!?! My sympathy began and ended before this debate even started.

Cold facts are, WotC owns D&D. It's their game, and they get to set the rules. And the rules they have set are eminently reasonable and fair. Also fairly easy to comply with. Pathguy might be a great guy, and his generators might have been pretty cool, but he did not take the time to follow WotC's rules when using their IP. So, when WotC notices, they politely ask him to remove his content that is violated their IP rights. Polite, reasonable, fair.

I have zero sympathy for Pathguy's "plight" or the whining of the constantly aggrieved anti-WotC lobby. The loss to the RPG community is barely noticeable, and the only fans WotC is alienating are the ones already alienated because they see underhandedness is every action WotC takes. No big loss there either.

And regarding the Pathfinder content . . . I doubt WotC's attention was drawn to Pathguy because of the Pathfinder content, but once the "eye of Sauron" (heh) fell upon his site they politely asked him to remove ALL content that violated their IP. Fairly simple and easy to understand, IMO. Pathfinder IS D&D 3E after all and is based on WotC's OGL license and IP.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> If you got a polite C&D you'd burn your house down (figuratively)? That's a bit of an . . . overreaction.




I would do whatever it took for them stop giving me the bad kind of attention. 



> The situation with Pathguy isn't exactly the "law screwing somebody over", far from it. There are good laws and bad laws, and sometimes it is morally justified to break the law to call attention to its unjustness (Rosa Parks). But hosting generators for a GAME!?!?! My sympathy began and ended before this debate even started.




I say it is a pity, those generators had their uses. And I believe they would have stood a chance to be declared non-infringing if they ever were presented in court. But I sympathize with Pathguy, a few character generators are not worth gambling your honor, your integrity and your finances over. But that is the same reason many corporations can get away with a lot of stuff, nobody has the money to stand a process.



> Cold facts are, WotC owns D&D. It's their game, and they get to set the rules. And the rules they have set are eminently reasonable and fair. Also fairly easy to comply with. Pathguy might be a great guy, and his generators might have been pretty cool, but he did not take the time to follow WotC's rules when using their IP. So, when WotC notices, they politely ask him to remove his content that is violated their IP rights. Polite, reasonable, fair.




WotC owns D&D IP, I've never discussed that. But IP ownership has limits under law, and WotC might want to impose as many limits as they want on their IP, they cannot go over the limits stated by law without a legally binding contract. There's this thing called fair-use, and game mechanics not being subject of copyright. I believe the generators fell right into that zone, other might not agree, but unless it ever reaches court we will never get a definite answer. SO it isn't as black and white not as clear cut as you think. 



> I have zero sympathy for Pathguy's "plight" or the whining of the constantly aggrieved anti-WotC lobby. The loss to the RPG community is barely noticeable, and the only fans WotC is alienating are the ones already alienated because they see underhandedness is every action WotC takes. No big loss there either.




I don't feel alienated as a consumer, but as a tinkering fan I feel insecure, I wish to share some of the settings I have cooked over the years, but until it is safe to do I won't.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I suspect because Paizo sells most of their products direct to the customer, while WOTC sells most of their products through distributors and retail.






Mistwell said:


> Many people buy RPG stuff direct from Paizo, often on subscription.  Not all people of course, but a decent number.
> 
> Magic cards however are sold through distributors and retailers.



opps, ok now I get what you mean... I thought you ment who was distributing to the retailers... yea WotC is a much more 'in bed' with the brick and morter stores... in fact my FLGS (Cave comics in Newtown CT shameless plug) the owner often tells me that for a few years mtg and pokemon card games are the only way he got to keep the doors open.

He is a HUGE WotC fan boy and cheerleader... and sometimes he rembemers one of those role playing games comes from them too


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 8, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> I don't think I could do that, I just can't shake the compulsion to stay safe and out of trouble, if not for myself, for the sake of my family and loved ones. I just have so much to lose and so little to gain on that I wouldn't gamble with it. That's why I feel for Pathguy, and i consider that taking the generators down is not so much an admission of guilt than just not wanting problems.



 I don't understand at all, if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and have no problem... The system isn't fool proof, and I admit it isn't 100% accurate, sometimes it fails, but I can't imagine living in the scary world you do. I know I can tell a police officer where to stuff it if he wants to search my house with out a warrant, but I also know that if they are looking for a little kid and I have nothing to hide it is WAY better for that kid to let them in then make them waste time on a non lead... 

if pathguy did nothing wrong (witch again is false, merric looked, and the site was not a legal site it did not have the proper stuff up) then he could have just said so. However since we know he was in the wrong (again it has been verified) then isn't this a victory, the ststem worked? The guy not doing things above board (Confirmed by merric) got asked to change how he does things....



> No need to feel sorry, the world is a scary and confusing place.




that _IS_ what I feel sorry for, this world is hard enough without imagining it being worse... I can't imagine how much harder it must be believing the way you do.




> I prefer to accept that and move on with mt life hoping I never blink on the radar. I just cannot have blind faith on the system, more so because laws change, but what is truly right or wrong remains the same.



 well yes, but we aren't talking about big world changing laws... we are talking about laws affecting our chosen hobby...





> I'd prefer never having to receive one.



 best way to do that is to always do everything above board (Witch _AGAIN_, pathguy did not)


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> I don't feel alienated as a consumer, but as a tinkering fan I feel insecure, I wish to share some of the settings I have cooked over the years, but until it is safe to do I won't.




Pretty much this for me. I sure would like to know what I can and can't do with this system and sharing my stuff. It's not good to be in a state of constant fear making a private blog for your friends, or wanting to work on a PDF to sell. I want to be a contributing member of the community. I love the system, but right now I don't know if I want to put in all this effort just to be slapped with a C&D. From what they say in this thread we will know a licensing agreement in spring... maybe. And even then we will just get news, nothing concrete. Which is frustrating to say the least.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't understand at all, if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and have no problem... The system isn't fool proof, and I admit it isn't 100% accurate, sometimes it fails, but I can't imagine living in the scary world you do. I know I can tell a police officer where to stuff it if he wants to search my house with out a warrant, but I also know that if they are looking for a little kid and I have nothing to hide it is WAY better for that kid to let them in then make them waste time on a non lead...




I won't elaborate too much further because it might start getting too much into politics, but check your privilege, people's experiences aren't universal. If you don't believe me, you just mentioned the police searching for a little kid, in my country that only happens if that little kid is the child of someone important or with power, we get amber alerts and stuff, but moreover having a police officer at your door is never good and never harmless. You say nothing to hide nothing to fear, but everybody has something they want to keep private, and even if you may think you are a model citizen who can do no wrong, you can be mistaken, just going by the insane volume of laws around you are bound to have broken at least one without knowing it. 



> if pathguy did nothing wrong (witch again is false, merric looked, and the site was not a legal site it did not have the proper stuff up) then he could have just said so. However since we know he was in the wrong (again it has been verified) then isn't this a victory, the ststem worked? The guy not doing things above board (Confirmed by merric) got asked to change how he does things....




Just by not going the ogl route, doesn't mean it is entirely wrong, there is a chance these generators might have fallen under Fair use and outside the reach of copyright, and until we get a judge ruling on the matter -and we will never get it- it will remain forever in a grey area of IP law. In that way it is proven the system isn't working, the easiest way to get out of trouble is to blindly comply and allow the situation to keep repeating forever, risking a costly legal process is just not worth it. The sad thing is that should that kind of ruling happen it could improve everybody's lives by making the limits of IP clearer.  



> that _IS_ what I feel sorry for, this world is hard enough without imagining it being worse... I can't imagine how much harder it must be believing the way you do.
> 
> well yes, but we aren't talking about big world changing laws... we are talking about laws affecting our chosen hobby...
> 
> best way to do that is to always do everything above board (Witch _AGAIN_, pathguy did not)




Again I'm not a cynic nor something like that, I'm mostly cheerful and always trying to do better and playing by the rules, I just try to be cautious not to get unwanted attention from the wrong people, it is incredibly easy for anybody to use the law to screw another people's lives.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> I won't elaborate too much further because it might start getting too much into politics, but check your privilege, people's experiences aren't universal.




PRIVILEGE?!?!?!?!? what in the hell? what privilege do you think I have, I wasn't born rich (hell I was born to lower class family,). I don't have money or power. I bearly am working... My experiences is that this world is hard, and hard work itself isn't enough you need luck... You need to check what you say to people...





> If you don't believe me, you just mentioned the police searching for a little kid, in my country that only happens if that little kid is the child of someone important or with power, we get amber alerts and stuff, but moreover having a police officer at your door is never good and never harmless.



 neither of us know what country the other lives in. I'm sorry if you live in some horrible oppressive country, but I live in the USA.



> You say nothing to hide nothing to fear, but everybody has something they want to keep private, and even if you may think you are a model citizen who can do no wrong, you can be mistaken, just going by the insane volume of laws around you are bound to have broken at least one without knowing it.



 Maybe I have, I'm sure it is something I can explain... what kind of little blue book law do you think I can BOTH not know I broke and matters?




> Just by not going the ogl route, doesn't mean it is entirely wrong, there is a chance these generators might have fallen under Fair use and outside the reach of copyright, and until we get a judge ruling on the matter -and we will never get it- it will remain forever in a grey area of IP law.



Wait... why would you trust a judge when you just went over how you don't trust anyone or anything?!?






> In that way it is proven the system isn't working, the easiest way to get out of trouble is to blindly comply and allow the situation to keep repeating forever, risking a costly legal process is just not worth it. The sad thing is that should that kind of ruling happen it could improve everybody's lives by making the limits of IP clearer.



wait... so you do trust the system, you just have no confidence you could win?!?!? If someone really had a leg to stand on, they would stand up for themselves... by backing down over and over again, you do kind of look like you know you would loose...



> Again I'm not a cynic nor something like that, I'm mostly cheerful and always trying to do better and playing by the rules, I just try to be cautious not to get unwanted attention from the wrong people, it is incredibly easy for anybody to use the law to screw another people's lives.



 I'm pretty sure that is not true... it isn't EASY for ANYBODY to use the law to mess with someone... it may be POSSIBLE for SOMEPEOPLE to do so, but not easy and not anybody...


----------



## Zireael (Feb 9, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> If the matter were trade dress or trademark, couldn't that be addressed by removing the use of such?  If the matter were the inclusion of text (or other material clearly subject to copyright), that could be addressed by avoiding such usage.
> 
> I worry, though, about where to draw the line on what is subject to copyright.  For example, do class names fall under copyright?  Do power names and feat names fall under copyright?  I don't think you can copyright a feat effect ("this feat grants a +1 bonus to attacks made with a weapon specified when the feat is taken"), but you can (perhaps) copyright the feat name and particular wording.
> 
> I worry too, about the difficulty of differentiating private usage (for one's self) from public usage (for anyone on the net), because the target use is "local" (one's self, and one's gaming group), with the gaming group very easily growing to a local community (a gaming club), to the public at large -- better tools might see their usage grow very quickly, what with the speed which which references can be cross the net.




That's a very good question.



> He's had a deal with TSR to make character generators since before WOTC bought TSR!!! He's been doing this since 2nd edition
> 
> (they were downloadable commandline dos programs.)   He made them for  2nd edition and alternity, he made them for 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and now 5?
> 
> ...




That's the key question.

And tertio, why take down Pathfinder too? Wizards have no copyright on this one...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2015)

Zireael said:


> why take down Pathfinder too? Wizards have no copyright on this one...



Yes they do. Pathfinder is published under a licence - the OGL - which has as one of its terms Paizo's acknowledgement of WotC's copyright in the d20 SRD.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> PRIVILEGE?!?!?!?!? what in the hell? what privilege do you think I have
> 
> ...but I live *in the USA*.




Which is a privilege, it gives you an advantage that not everybody has.  (sorry for the unintended vitriol)

(In case you are wondering, my country's name roughly translates to what I said in the sidebar -just adjusted to sound more poetic-. You just need to say it in a certain language, and curiously that language's endonym is roughly the same word as the country's name)



> Maybe I have, I'm sure it is something I can explain... what kind of little blue book law do you think I can BOTH not know I broke and matters?




It can be something as simple as owning a cutter, and the punishment can be as hard as a felony/ a third strike which means prison time. 



> Wait... why would you trust a judge when you just went over how you don't trust anyone or anything?!?




I never said I don't trust anybody, I just don't have blind faith in the system. A judge ruling would be a good thing overall to clarify the limits of IP law, which depending on the actual ruling either means less abusive C&Ds or clearer limits which allow people to be more free to create. Something of an improvement over the current situation were a big corporation with lots of money can engage in scare tactics with impunity exercising rights it may not have. 



> wait... so you do trust the system, you just have no confidence you could win?!?!? If someone really had a leg to stand on, they would stand up for themselves... by backing down over and over again, you do kind of look like you know you would loose...




One thing is knowing you are right and that justice in your side, another very different is having the time and tens of thousands of dollars to waste in legal fees to get a favorable ruling. Even if you win, your reputation is ruined just by the mere fact of having been through a criminal process, and all those legal fees you'll never see them back.  There is a reason innocent people plead guilty.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 9, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Pretty much this for me. I sure would like to know what I can and can't do with this system and sharing my stuff. It's not good to be in a state of constant fear making a private blog for your friends, or wanting to work on a PDF to sell. I want to be a contributing member of the community. I love the system, but right now I don't know if I want to put in all this effort just to be slapped with a C&D. From what they say in this thread we will know a licensing agreement in spring... maybe. And even then we will just get news, nothing concrete. Which is frustrating to say the least.




Its WOTC's game. If they want to mudstomp all creativity & enthusiasm for it then it is their right. Right now they are doing everything they can to ensure the huge burst of popularity 5E enjoyed upon release dies in a fire.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Which is a privilege, it gives you an advantage that not everybody has.  (sorry for the unintended vitriol)




Yes, but with respect - I am pretty sure nobody in the current world is getting hauled off for violating WotC copyright.  The risk to your person from getting a C&D is exceedingly low, no matter what country you live in.  

I'm going to guess that, if your country is that bad, you'd never actually receive the C&D anyway, and the local government would do squat-all to assist enforcement.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but with respect - I am pretty sure nobody in the current world is getting hauled off for violating WotC copyright.  The risk to your person from getting a C&D is exceedingly low, no matter what country you live in.
> 
> I'm going to guess that, if your country is that bad, you'd never actually receive the C&D anyway, and the local government would do squat-all to assist enforcement.




Of course not, but just to put it in context, that part is more about different worldviews, and it started when GMforPowergamers expressed condolences over my worldview, a part of the back and fort is about it. Just a way to tell him that my worldview isn't pessimistic just appropriate to my circumstances which are very different from his. 

And it all kind of started when I said that complying with with a C&D isn't an admission of guilt, just not wanting problems. He said he has actually answered and contested one in the past and I told him that in my culture no conflict with the law is small enough for you not to put your integrity first and just do whatever it takes for it to be over and quickly.


----------



## weldon (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Just by not going the ogl route, doesn't mean it is entirely wrong, *there is a chance these generators might have fallen under Fair use and outside the reach of copyright*, and until we get a judge ruling on the matter -and we will never get it- it will remain forever in a grey area of IP law. In that way it is proven the system isn't working, the easiest way to get out of trouble is to blindly comply and allow the situation to keep repeating forever, risking a costly legal process is just not worth it. The sad thing is that should that kind of ruling happen it could improve everybody's lives by making the limits of IP clearer.



They will always fall within the reach of copyright, but there is a very slim chance that something like this could be permitted under fair use. I can accept your point that there is some grey area, but it's still narrow.

Even if you clear the fair use hurdle, you would still run afoul of trademark law. It's hard to imagine a useful character generator that is not properly licensed to use ALL of the IP needed for character creation and advancement, including spell lists, etc.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 9, 2015)

weldon said:


> Even if you clear the fair use hurdle, you would still run afoul of trademark law. It's hard to imagine a useful character generator that is not properly licensed to use ALL of the IP needed for character creation and advancement, including spell lists, etc.




How much of the spell lists and individual spells are actually trademarked? a lot of character creation and advancement are simple math, and mechanics cannot be trademarked nor copyrighted.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> How much of the spell lists and individual spells are actually trademarked? a lot of character creation and advancement are simple math, and mechanics cannot be trademarked nor copyrighted.




Trademarked?  None of them, I should think.  Trademarks are typically used for company and product names, not the content of the books. The spells can be copyrighted, though; the expression of them.  You could theoretically rewrite them all in your own words if you wanted to.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Trademarked?  None of them, I should think.  Trademarks are typically used for company and product names, not the content of the books. The spells can be copyrighted, though; the expression of them.  You could theoretically rewrite them all in your own words if you wanted to.




Some of them would have to be renamed as well as re-writing the description.. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tenser, Otiluke, Drawmij, etc are all owned by WOTC.


----------



## weldon (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> How much of the spell lists and individual spells are actually trademarked? a lot of character creation and advancement are simple math, and mechanics cannot be trademarked nor copyrighted.




The point is that a useful character generator needs access to ALL the content. A license is the only safe way to do that. To respond more directly to your question, there's about 20 or so spells that have proper names in them. There's no way to use those in a character tool without a license.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Some of them would have to be renamed as well as re-writing the description.. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tenser, Otiluke, Drawmij, etc are all owned by WOTC.




That's exactly what the OGL and the SRD did 15 years ago.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 9, 2015)

weldon said:


> The point is that a useful character generator needs access to ALL the content. A license is the only safe way to do that. To respond more directly to your question, there's about 20 or so spells that have proper names in them. There's no way to use those in a character tool without a license.




I never used the 5e generator. But among the 4e and 3.5 ones, the 3.5 one only referenced spell names, no description of them and just for spontaneous casters.   The 4e on referenced power names, but again as far as I can remember no descriptions -but I could be wrong-. Both were fairly useful.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's exactly what the OGL and the SRD did 15 years ago.




Correct.  In simple terms you can not copyright game mechanics but you can copyright how the game mechanics are expressed.  Now even that can be argued.  All it costs unfortunately is money.


----------



## weldon (Feb 9, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> I never used the 5e generator. But among the 4e and 3.5 ones, the 3.5 one only referenced spell names, no description of them and just for spontaneous casters.   The 4e on referenced power names, but again as far as I can remember no descriptions -but I could be wrong-. Both were fairly useful.




Those generators had all kinds of references to WotC trademarks. PHB, DMG, book names, monster and character names. They were a mess in terms of compliance. They also had all of the options available from all of the books. Something that you couldn't do just by using the SRD.

I still think it's hard to imagine a character tool that isn't licensed. If you go out on your own without a license, you have a range of choices.

On one extreme, you could make a tool that has the same number of attributes and number ranges but uses different names for everything. That would appear safe from copyright infringement, but would be difficult to use.

On the other extreme, you lift everything straight from the PHB and DMG, including descriptions. You've clearly violated copyright here.

In between (which is what I think MoonSong is trying to explore), you can make a tool that uses all the same mechanics (# of attributes, ranges of values, etc.) but uses all the exact same terms without the descriptions. I think this is going to be murky water in court. You've not lifted passages of text, but you have copied all the same terms and presented them as options in the same order that the PHB presents character options. In my mind, if the tool says that the "rogue class" can take "thief, arcane trickster, or assassin" at "3rd level" you are walking that line pretty close. I realize others may see it differently, but this combination of terms, presentation order, limited choices, etc. all lean towards recognizing that the tool is derivative of the PHB, even if it doesn't copy passages of text directly.

Another approach would be to wait for the OGL/SRD for 5e. The OGL/SRD is helpful, but we'd just end up in the situation we had with 3.5SRD where not all of the player options were made open content.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 9, 2015)

weldon said:


> Those generators had all kinds of references to WotC trademarks. PHB, DMG, book names, monster and character names. They were a mess in terms of compliance. They also had all of the options available from all of the books. Something that you couldn't do just by using the SRD.




note that you can reference trademarks as part of fair use


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 9, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Its WOTC's game. If they want to mudstomp all creativity & enthusiasm for it then it is their right. Right now they are doing everything they can to ensure the huge burst of popularity 5E enjoyed upon release dies in a fire.




Heh. No.

WotC isn't stomping on anyone's creativity, and they aren't doing their own game a disservice. Outside of some small internet circles, no one even knows who Pathguy is much less that WotC has asked him politely to remove his generators. And many of us who are aware agree with the actions WotC has taken. Pathguy chose not to follow WotC's guidelines on fan content, and was asked to stop. He could have taken the time initially to make sure he was in the clear with WotC, but did not. Not saying he's a bad guy, I'm sure his intent wasn't ill.

You want to play somebody else's game? Play by their rules. Don't like it? Don't play.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2015)

He's also choosing not to share the details of the request (and I asked him on Facebook). So I'm half inclined to think there was an alternative resolution he chose not to adopt.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 9, 2015)

weldon said:


> Those generators had all kinds of references to WotC trademarks. PHB, DMG, book names, monster and character names. They were a mess in terms of compliance. They also had all of the options available from all of the books. Something that you couldn't do just by using the SRD.




Not really responding to Weldon here, but I've noticed something in some quotes of folks on my ignore list.

I'm not familiar with Pathguy's generators, but it appears he's been making them since the 2E days for all the successive versions of D&D, including Pathfinder. It was implied by a previous poster that Pathguy had TSR and later WotC's permission to do so. So the question was, "why now"?

While I'm of course not privy to the details, the answer to that seems simple to me. Pathguy never had permission from TSR, WotC, or Paizo to create any of his generators. He was not asked to remove them earlier, because he wasn't on TSR/WotC's radar until now. The internet is a big place, and I bet there are all sorts of IP, trademark, copyright, and license violations going on all the time that the IP holders simply don't know about.

Just because nobody's telling you to stop, doesn't mean you are following the rules correctly. And it won't stop somebody from bringing down the hammer years later when they finally stumble upon what you are doing.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> He's also choosing not to share the details of the request (and I asked him on Facebook). So I'm half inclined to think there was an alternative resolution he chose not to adopt.




Thank you for the followup. It is good to know as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 10, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Heh. No.
> 
> WotC isn't stomping on anyone's creativity, and they aren't doing their own game a disservice. Outside of some small internet circles, no one even knows who Pathguy is much less that WotC has asked him politely to remove his generators. And many of us who are aware agree with the actions WotC has taken. Pathguy chose not to follow WotC's guidelines on fan content, and was asked to stop. He could have taken the time initially to make sure he was in the clear with WotC, but did not. Not saying he's a bad guy, I'm sure his intent wasn't ill.
> 
> You want to play somebody else's game? Play by their rules. Don't like it? Don't play.




Please for the love of god link these 5e guidelines! PLEASE! I want to follow them, show me where they are and I'll be HAPPY to follow them!!


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 10, 2015)

The problem with crushing fan created tools that this big gaming company has failed to provide us is that it causes us no longer to be fans. I'm upset with the firing of employees and now I'm upset about this big gaming company asking fans to remove these wonderful character creation tools. So what I'm going to do is stop supporting this big game company and go over to Pathfinder. I'm going to take the best of Pathfinder and 13th Age and I'm going to design a better game myself and promote it.


----------



## Stormonu (Feb 10, 2015)

"big Gaming Company?"

There's like eight guys now.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 10, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> note that you can reference trademarks as part of fair use




Others have observed that Pathguy's work was a minefield of potential trademark infringement. I don't know if that's the case or not but there's a wider problem with the nominative use defence and that is this:

It's US law. Trademarks must be protected internationally (unless you want to stick to the US, of course). Many countries have no equivalent of the US concept of 'fair use'. (Shock, horror.) Nominative use is no defence in much of the world. And if you do not vigorously protect your trademarks, you are asking to lose them.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 10, 2015)

Excuses, excuses. Copy right this and slap a lawsuit on that. Pathfinder is now king in my world. I will now actively create tools and promote Pathfinder. That other company be damned to fail.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 10, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> (In case you are wondering, my country's name roughly translates to what I said in the sidebar -just adjusted to sound more poetic-. You just need to say it in a certain language, and curiously that language's endonym is roughly the same word as the country's name)



Say, here's an idea.  Instead of making everyone guess what country you're from, or go looking up country name etymologies to figure it out, why don't you just _tell_ us where you are from?

/kramerasmoviephone



Stormonu said:


> "big Gaming Company?"
> 
> There's like eight guys now.



The eight guys responsible for D&D R&D are not the whole company, and likely have the least amount of input on whether to allow generators, put out an OGL, or PDFs, or whether to hire or fire anybody.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 10, 2015)

Ranes said:


> Others have observed that Pathguy's work was a minefield of potential trademark infringement. I don't know if that's the case or not but there's a wider problem with the nominative use defence and that is this:
> 
> It's US law. Trademarks must be protected internationally (unless you want to stick to the US, of course). Many countries have no equivalent of the US concept of 'fair use'. (Shock, horror.) Nominative use is no defence in much of the world. And if you do not vigorously protect your trademarks, you are asking to lose them.




But it is the internet, we also need to decide whether the most strict or the softest law apply. Because if it is the strongest then Mexico's law on copyright applies, which deprives the public domain in the net of every work done after 1915 -no explicit provisions for early release into pd- and of every author who died after the same year -100 years after death of the autor-, oh and the OGL just doesn't work -we oughta tell Paizo that one-.



Iosue said:


> Say, here's an idea.  Instead of making everyone guess what country you're from, or go looking up country name etymologies to figure it out, why don't you just _tell_ us where you are from?



Where's the fun in that?



Dire Bare said:


> Not really responding to Weldon here, but I've noticed something in some quotes of folks on my ignore list.




 am I on your ignore list?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 10, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> The problem with crushing fan created tools that this big gaming company has failed to provide us is that it causes us no longer to be fans. I'm upset with the firing of employees and now I'm upset about this big gaming company asking fans to remove these wonderful character creation tools. So what I'm going to do is stop supporting this big game company and go over to Pathfinder. I'm going to take the best of Pathfinder and 13th Age and I'm going to design a better game myself and promote it.




Blending Pathfinder and 13th Age sounds very cool, more power to you there. But swearing off a game you like (if you indeed like 5E) over business decisions where you only have partial information, and in all likelihood, are very reasonable decisions, is a bit silly. And I don't think WotC is worried about droves of folks following you.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 10, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> am I on your ignore list?




No.  We're not agreeing on much here, but I only smack the "ignore" button on folks who are excessively negative or rude.

But it isn't "fun" trying to guess your country when you are making it part of the discussion in the first place. Either don't bring it up or just tell us where you're from.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 10, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> But it is the internet, we also need to decide whether the most strict or the softest law apply. Because if it is the strongest then Mexico's law on copyright applies...




I was talking about trademarks but whatever. When countries differ on points of law, we don't all default to the harshest. Is that how you think the world works?



MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> oh and the OGL just doesn't work -we oughta tell Paizo that one-.





Oh good grief. As has been pointed out several times, it looks as though the generators weren't protected by that licence, either by the terms of the licence or the use of it by the generator's author.


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 11, 2015)

His Pathfinder generators are back.


----------



## Nylanfs (Feb 11, 2015)

Still not OGL compliant...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> note that you can reference trademarks as part of fair use



But you can't use them to promote your own work. The same wikipedia page you linked has a link to the page on "passing off", which in common law countries is one of the main causes of action whereby trademark infringement is challenged (the other being statutory actions for infringement of registered marks).


----------



## Blue Phoenix RPG (Feb 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> So, record sales, and a product you like a whole lot, but they're failing at each step?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, you obviously didn't read the whole post and just made sound-bite quotes out of what I said. You completely did not obviously understand anything I posted. The basic point I was trying to make is that sure it's a great product, sure it was play-tested to death, etc. I get it, you'll get no argument from me about quality. My point was that they need to change with the times and have similar tools and roll-outs of products like they did for 3.5 and 4.0. When 4.0 was rolled out all the main books were done and they had free digital tools for DMs. BUT nothing for 5E AT ALL! The product took way too long to roll out a DM guide and then after the main books were done it just feels like they're just going to let players hang dry in wait for further Monster Manuals, realm books, and digital tools. Re read my original post and you'll see that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not impossible to please I just want my customer service levels to equal the days of 3.5 and 4.0 releases.


----------



## delericho (Feb 11, 2015)

Perigorn said:


> My point was that they need to change with the times and have similar tools and roll-outs of products like they did for 3.5 and 4.0.




I'm confused. They have to change with the times by doing the same thing they did twelve and eight years ago?



> When 4.0 was rolled out all the main books were done and they had free digital tools for DMs.




No, they didn't. They had the promise of such tools, but the DDI was delayed by a very long time. And when it was released it wasn't free. It was 3.0e that had the free tool, in the form of the character creator program, but that wasn't terribly well regarded.



> The product took way too long to roll out a DM guide




4e is actually the only "full" edition where the three books were released at the same time: with 1st Ed they came out a year apart, 2nd Ed had them a couple of months apart, and 3.0e was a month apart. (3.5e released all three at once, hence my "full" edition qualifier.)


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 12, 2015)

Perigorn said:


> Wow, you obviously didn't read the whole post and just made sound-bite quotes out of what I said. You completely did not obviously understand anything I posted.




Yes I know, that's why I said I am not understanding your viewpoint.



> The basic point I was trying to make is that sure it's a great product, sure it was play-tested to death, etc. I get it, you'll get no argument from me about quality. My point was that they need to change with the times and have similar tools and roll-outs of products like they did for 3.5 and 4.0. When 4.0 was rolled out all the main books were done and they had free digital tools for DMs.




No, they did not.  At this point in the 4e roll-out we had zero digital tools for it.  It took quite some time to get those up and running.  



> BUT nothing for 5E AT ALL! The product took way too long to roll out a DM guide




It was quick in my opinion.  4e is the ONLY popular RPG I know of that rolled out all three simultaneously, and the errors were so bad from doing it so fast that they created nearly a book of errata rather quickly.  Everything else takes at least a month or two to roll-out, like 3e did, 2e, 1e, and even PF.  Regardless, your point was that they are not listening to the fans, and yet the overwhelming response to their roll-out schedule for the core three was "that's fine".  Where are they not listening to the fans on the roll-out schedule?  Sounds like your preference was a minority one but you are complaining they didn't go with yours? Going with a minority opinion instead of the majority WOULD be ignoring the fans, right?



> and then after the main books were done it just feels like they're just going to let players hang dry in wait for further Monster Manuals, realm books, and digital tools.




They're working on other stuff, they've announced some other stuff as well, but all their survey's showed an overwhelming view that people wanted less bloat and fewer overall products.  That's them listening to fans.

As for digital tools - they are listening, they simply lost their initial 3rd party programming company and are working on a replacement.  It's not like they didn't tell us that.



> Re read my original post and you'll see that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not impossible to please I just want my customer service levels to equal the days of 3.5 and 4.0 releases.




Except most people DON'T want what you want.  They DON'T want a lot more books.  They're fine with the initial release schedule.  Listening to fans means listening to all of them, not just you.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'm confused. They have to change with the times by doing the same thing they did twelve and eight years ago?
> 
> No, they didn't. They had the promise of such tools, but the DDI was delayed by a very long time. And when it was released it wasn't free. It was 3.0e that had the free tool, in the form of the character creator program, but that wasn't terribly well regarded.
> 
> 4e is actually the only "full" edition where the three books were released at the same time: with 1st Ed they came out a year apart, 2nd Ed had them a couple of months apart, and 3.0e was a month apart. (3.5e released all three at once, hence my "full" edition qualifier.)





I think I see what he's driving at.  Essentially, he feels they need to change with the times insofar as they need to release all three books at once (like the last two times they released three core books with 4E and 3.5E) and they need to have digital tools ready on release (digital tools like they had for 3.5E and 4E, even if those were late for those editions and not ready for the release).  He seems to be saying that in this day an age, the leader of the RPG market needs that sort of thing on release as a minimum.  Kinda like with how new cars used to have just radios, then tape players as options, then tape players or CD players as options . . . But how many don't have a regular sound system with CD player as standard these days?  Of course those are going bye-bye soon enough as a new standard is approaching but you get the idea.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 12, 2015)

Yes, it would have been nice to have a full set of digital tools ready at the same time as the physical books.  However, I would much rather have the books now, and the tools later.  Can you imagine the uproar if WotC were to have waited for Trapdoor to produce its suite of tools?  I think we're much better off having the books in hand than waiting while software is developed.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> Yes, it would have been nice to have a full set of digital tools ready at the same time as the physical books.  However, I would much rather have the books now, and the tools later.  Can you imagine the uproar if WotC were to have waited for Trapdoor to produce its suite of tools?  I think we're much better off having the books in hand than waiting while software is developed.





You've missed the point about the standards expected of the industry leader.  No one is suggesting they should produce the books and sit on them until tools are done.  The idea is that the industry leader might want to step up their game and get both done in tandem.


----------



## delericho (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Essentially, he feels they need to change with the times insofar as they need to release all three books at once (like the last two times they released three core books with 4E and 3.5E)




Okay, fair enough. FWIW, I disagree - by focussing on one at a time they appear to have achieved a better standard throughout than would otherwise have been the case.



> and they need to have digital tools ready on release (digital tools like they had for 3.5E and 4E, even if those were late for those editions and not ready for the release).




If WotC do indeed intend to be the leader in the RPG industry then I agree they need digital tools, but I disagree that they need them on launch - in fact, I doubt that's a realistic objective unless they're willing to delay the print books for an additional year while getting the tools ready.

That said, the 'if' at the start of the previous paragraph is a big question - I don't think WotC actually do indeed intend, or even care, to be the leader of the RPG industry. Their focus lies elsewhere.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> You've missed the point about the standards expected of the industry leader.  No one is suggesting they should produce the books and sit on them until tools are done.  The idea is that the industry leader might want to step up their game and get both done in tandem.




The trouble might be the definition of "industry standards."  There are just not a lot of big companies in the RPG world.  It's kind of hard to develop a standard when its just Paizo and WotC.  (Not meaning any disrespect to other publishers here...but most other rulesets are pretty small compared to PF and D&D).  That said, I think that releasing an OGL shouldn't have been that big of a deal.  I'm sitting on my own set of digital tools, just waiting to see what I can release for download.  I do at least get to use them in my home game.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> The trouble might be the definition of "industry standards."  There are just not a lot of big companies in the RPG world.  It's kind of hard to develop a standard when its just Paizo and WotC.  (Not meaning any disrespect to other publishers here...but most other rulesets are pretty small compared to PF and D&D).





There's probably a few more than just those two.  Nevertheless, it's going to be hard to dispute it being the new standard if some other company comes along and releases all that at the same time, even with a smaller ruleset.  At that point, it will be yet another blow to WotC's already shaky position as top dog in the RPG field.  Selling the most and being the most recognized worldwide are a big deal but nobody goes around saying McDonald's is the best restaurant nor the Big Mac the best burger, not even McDonald's.




Toxic_Rat said:


> That said, I think that releasing an OGL shouldn't have been that big of a deal.  I'm sitting on my own set of digital tools, just waiting to see what I can release for download.  I do at least get to use them in my home game.





I'm sure others will like to see them as well.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> There's probably a few more than just those two.  Nevertheless, it's going to be hard to dispute it being the new standard if some other company comes along and releases all that at the same time, even with a smaller ruleset.  At that point, it will be yet another blow to WotC's already shaky position as top dog in the RPG field.  Selling the most and being the most recognized worldwide are a big deal but nobody goes around saying McDonald's is the best restaurant nor the Big Mac the best burger, not even McDonald's.
> 
> I'm sure others will like to see them as well.




You're right.  It would have been nice to have WotC move the standard in this direction.  It's difficult for them (anyone) to really know what the effect would have been had they waited and released digital and print together.  Would it have brought in more customers?  Probably.  Would that have been enough to justify the extra cost in time and money?  I don't know.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> You're right.  It would have been nice to have WotC move the standard in this direction.  It's difficult for them (anyone) to really know what the effect would have been had they waited and released digital and print together.  Would it have brought in more customers?  Probably.  Would that have been enough to justify the extra cost in time and money?  I don't know.




I really don't think you understand.  You keep saying "waiting" when I keep explaining that building them in tandem doesn't require one to wait for the other.  It probably requires more manpower than WotC is willing to hire in-house but maybe someone like Paizo could handle it.  Or maybe we'll see someone like Green Ronin pull it off with some new game by working with someone outside the company.  I get the feeling WotC is tied so closely to such a big corporation that it doesn't have the flexibility to work with someone outside on something like this; too many over-chefs for various approvals to make it possible for simultaneous release.  Even with adventures and supplements licensed out, there seem to be problems, so something like digital tools which they've had huge problems with in the past might be well beyond their capabilities, in-house or licensed.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I really don't think you understand.  You keep saying "waiting" when I keep explaining that building them in tandem doesn't require one to wait for the other.




Oh.  Here is where we do disagree then.  I think that digital (talking about tools here, not the pdf's) of necessity does lag behind the game development.  It's just lost work if the digital side starts coding the character generation when the rules team is still changing things.  Can digital and pre-press run at the same time?  Yes, but I suspect that getting the book ready for printing takes less time than development of a digital tool suite.  Plus, when you have to commit to a deadline, it's easier to predict when X copies of the book will be available vs. when the digital tools will be ready for release.  They _had _to have books ready for GenCon '14.  Anything that got in the way of making that deadline probably got shelved until after that time had passed.

At any rate, more manpower would definitely have been needed, or at least a decent subcontractor.  Remember,  while 5E is a success now, there was no guarantee it would be.  It would make better business sense to get 5E out the door as soon as possible (and have it be a quality product) and make sure it was well received, than to spend the time/money on adding digital to the mix.  I just don't think that adding digital tools makes or breaks the success of 5E.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> Oh.  Here is where we do disagree then.  I think that digital (talking about tools here, not the pdf's) of necessity does lag behind the game development.  It's just lost work if the digital side starts coding the character generation when the rules team is still changing things.  Can digital and pre-press run at the same time?  Yes, but I suspect that getting the book ready for printing takes less time than development of a digital tool suite.  Plus, when you have to commit to a deadline, it's easier to predict when X copies of the book will be available vs. when the digital tools will be ready for release.  They _had _to have books ready for GenCon '14.  Anything that got in the way of making that deadline probably got shelved until after that time had passed.
> 
> At any rate, more manpower would definitely have been needed, or at least a decent subcontractor.  Remember,  while 5E is a success now, there was no guarantee it would be.  It would make better business sense to get 5E out the door as soon as possible (and have it be a quality product) and make sure it was well received, than to spend the time/money on adding digital to the mix.  I just don't think that adding digital tools makes or breaks the success of 5E.





I see what you're saying but its really a matter of having enough manpower on each side of the equation to ensure simultaneous release.  Again, you think of it as "adding" digital tools, so your conclusions about what needs to be done first is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  They didn't *have* to have the books ready for any particular time.  It's a larger overall project and just needs to be planned properly for it to come about in that manner.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 12, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> note that you can reference trademarks as part of fair use




On the other hand, the OGL states "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."

Some might argue that fair use overrides the license. Others would argue the license requires you to forego that particular right in order to benefit from the other parts of it. I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Staffan said:


> On the other hand, the OGL states "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
> 
> Some might argue that fair use overrides the license. Others would argue the license requires you to forego that particular right in order to benefit from the other parts of it. I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know.





You've got the right of it, in that you gain some benefits from entering into the contract (using the OGL) but give up other rights by doing so as well.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 12, 2015)

Staffan said:


> On the other hand, the OGL states "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
> 
> Some might argue that fair use overrides the license. Others would argue the license requires you to forego that particular right in order to benefit from the other parts of it. I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know.




My understanding is that if you use the OGL, you cannot use Fair Use because you're agreeing not to.  You can't really have it both ways.  If you want to use Fair Use, you can't use the OGL.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 12, 2015)

Staffan said:


> On the other hand, the OGL states "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
> 
> Some might argue that fair use overrides the license. Others would argue the license requires you to forego that particular right in order to benefit from the other parts of it. I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know.






Sacrosanct said:


> My understanding is that if you use the OGL, you cannot use Fair Use because you're agreeing not to.  You can't really have it both ways.  If you want to use Fair Use, you can't use the OGL.




The generators weren't OGL, which is the entire point. just because of that, it doesn't means they were wrong. Fair use is fair use, maybe they were pushing it, but only a court could rule if they were actually infringing.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> The generators weren't OGL, which is the entire point. just because of that, it doesn't means they were wrong. Fair use is fair use, maybe they were pushing it, but only a court could rule if they were actually infringing.





Fair use doesn't allow for wholesale copyright infringement by someone putting out a product, for free or for sale.  Did the generator use a lot of the text from the game?  Seems like that would be the only way it would be useful as a generator for the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

"Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship."

It's not like just anyone can ignore copyright and then say, "I think that's fair!"


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I see what you're saying but its really a matter of having enough manpower on each side of the equation to ensure simultaneous release.  Again, you think of it as "adding" digital tools, so your conclusions about what needs to be done first is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  They didn't *have* to have the books ready for any particular time.  It's a larger overall project and just needs to be planned properly for it to come about in that manner.




Manpower = money. For developing a professional-quality suite of e-tools, it's a _lot_ of money; tens of thousands of dollars for even very simple stuff, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) for something like DDI or Morningstar. And there ain't a lot of money in RPGs. Paizo and Wizards are the only companies that could dream of putting up that much cash ahead of release. For a new, untested entrant into the field? Forget it.

And why would you blow that kind of money when you can just hand it over to the community and let them take the risks and do the heavy lifting? That's what Paizo did, and it's worked out great for them. Meanwhile, Wizards keeps trying to build its own e-tools (sometimes in-house, sometimes with contractors) and falling on its face. This is the third edition in a row that they've tried to provide digital support on release and failed.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Manpower = money. For developing a professional-quality suite of e-tools, it's a _lot_ of money; tens of thousands of dollars for even very simple stuff, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) for something like DDI or Morningstar. And there ain't a lot of money in RPGs. Paizo and Wizards are the only companies that could dream of putting up that much cash ahead of release. For a new, untested entrant into the field? Forget it.
> 
> And why would you blow that kind of money when you can just hand it over to the community and let them take the risks and do the heavy lifting? That's what Paizo did, and it's worked out great for them. Meanwhile, Wizards keeps trying to build its own e-tools (sometimes in-house, sometimes with contractors) and falling on its face. This is the third edition in a row that they've tried to provide digital support on release and failed.





No doubt, yet it has to be the goal for the industry leader.

I don't think they go into development of a new edition of D&D even considering that it might fall on its face.  And, let's face it, to even have simple tools at all at some stage, the work and the money commitment has to be budgeted long before the release even if they *aren't* going to have the tools available until somewhere down the road.


So (and I know this isn't something you are necessarily arguing against, Dausuul) the question becomes, does it help the new edition to have digital tools in place concurrent with the edition release more than if you make the customers of the new edition (mind you, your best customers who are early adopters) wait until who-knows-when?

And you're right that we know they tried multiple times to get some tools right for 3.XE at various stages but, by every best guess, the tools were a huge revenue stream for 4E with the subscription-based digital tools.  So, I have no idea why anyone would think there is a more compelling argument NOT to do their best and plan to have tools ready to launch alongside the edition release in this era.

Do we have any guesses how many core books were sold and what sort of money was made from them?  Millions?  What of the DDI?  I don't think I opened a thread  for four or five years where someone didn't mention the number of visible subscriptions and it seems that anyone could calculate roughly what a monthly fee times the number of subscriptions time however many months they were in operation to figure out the millions it brought in.  Given that the life cycle of an edition is limited to, let's say, five to seven years, why would you shave a year off the front of that potential revenue stream?  Did the experience of 4E DDI not get them prepared to have tools in place at launch?  I just don't get it.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 13, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> The generators weren't OGL, which is the entire point. just because of that, it doesn't means they were wrong. Fair use is fair use, maybe they were pushing it, but only a court could rule if they were actually infringing.




There was no cease and desist.  It was just a letter politely asking them to stop.  And the guy who got the letter refuses to show anyone else what it said, despite Morrus asking him politely.  So it's not a matter of WOTC circumventing a court system or anything like that - it's not even vaguely close to that.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 13, 2015)

I find it rather silly to see some people claiming releasing all three core books is the "industry standard" when the only company that's done that (that's a real player in the industry) is WOTC itself.  So if they set the industry standard before (despite Paizo not following that standard) then you're saying they set the new standard now.  Which means them not releasing them all at once is the new industry standard.

None of this "release all at the same time" makes sense from an "industry standard" basis.  It's not the industry standard, and never was.  One company has done that, it was WOTC itself, and they didn't like the results so decided to change their minds on how to do it.  You can dislike it, but the "industry standard" argument doesn't make sense for that part of this topic.

Moreover, it's meaningless now.  You had to wait a few months, and those months are done now, and it's obviously not the end of the world here or even a genuine mark against them - I see no evidence it hurt their sales or games started in 5e because of the core release schedule - a schedule somewhat similar to their primary competitor (Paizo).  It doesn't "add up" to another list of complaints to tip any scale - anything which was as finite as a few months, that's already passed, during heavy sales, is a sign it is not a factor contributing to any "adding up" of factors which harm the game.  It's a one-off issue that they got through just fine, at worse.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 13, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> The generators weren't OGL, which is the entire point. just because of that, it doesn't means they were wrong. Fair use is fair use, maybe they were pushing it, but only a court could rule if they were actually infringing.




In addition to what others have said, step back and look at it from a common sense angle.  If you could do all that with just fair use, would it make sense to have an OGL at all to begin with?  Probably not.  Fair Use is actually pretty tightly defined in what you can do.  See Mark's post above.  The whole reason of the OGL was to give extra tools for 3PP to use to be compatible with the specific edition.  Any by agreeing with the OGL, you agreed to other limitations that you might have been able to do under fair use.

It very much is NOT "take the best of both and put that into your product."  It very much is "Choose either or, but you need to follow the rules of which one you do use."


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 13, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> In addition to what others have said, step back and look at it from a common sense angle.  If you could do all that with just fair use, would it make sense to have an OGL at all to begin with?  Probably not.  Fair Use is actually pretty tightly defined in what you can do.  See Mark's post above.  The whole reason of the OGL was to give extra tools for 3PP to use to be compatible with the specific edition.  Any by agreeing with the OGL, you agreed to other limitations that you might have been able to do under fair use.
> 
> It very much is NOT "take the best of both and put that into your product."  It very much is "Choose either or, but you need to follow the rules of which one you do use."




Actually the ogl only has two benefits: 1) it is a warranty you won't be sued by WotC, 2) it allows you to liberally copy entire sections from the srd verbatim. Appart form it, it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do by fair use, in fact you renounce certain rights when using the OGL. 

But from a certain point of view it made a lot of sense to do it:
1) It created goodwill in the aftermath of the later TSR days, where the company went so lawsuit happy on fans and 3PP. 
2) Many people don't get copyright, so it lets them have a certain degree of control over 3PP by restricting them from doing certain things.
3) By the wording of it, it was a way for Ryan Dancey to make sure no company could ever safely kill the game.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 13, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Actually the ogl only has two benefits: 1) it is a warranty you won't be sued by WotC, 2) it allows you to liberally copy entire sections from the srd verbatim. Appart form it, it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do by fair use, in fact you renounce certain rights when using the OGL.
> 
> But from a certain point of view it made a lot of sense to do it:
> 1) It created goodwill in the aftermath of the later TSR days, where the company went so lawsuit happy on fans and 3PP.
> ...




3 is wrong. 

3 should be: It was Ryan and Monte ensuring that they could take their work with them if they left Wizards. 
Monte's made bank on it...


----------



## delericho (Feb 13, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Actually the ogl only has two benefits: 1) it is a warranty you won't be sued by WotC, 2) it allows you to liberally copy entire sections from the srd verbatim. Appart form it, it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do by fair use, in fact you renounce certain rights when using the OGL.
> 
> But from a certain point of view it made a lot of sense to do it:
> 1) It created goodwill in the aftermath of the later TSR days, where the company went so lawsuit happy on fans and 3PP.
> ...




4) It lets people support the game with third-party products secure in the knowledge that WoTc _won't_ try to make trouble for them.

While the law _may_ allow third-party products without, the only way to be sure is to try it, have WotC contest it, and fight it through the courts to a victory. Virtually nobody in the RPG sphere has the resources to go against WotC in that manner, where even a victory is liable to be devastating.

The security that comes from _knowing_ you're in the clear is huge, and let to the explosion of third-party products.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 13, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> 3 should be: It was Ryan and Monte ensuring that they could take their work with them if they left Wizards.
> Monte's made bank on it...




And it was worth it just for that alone.


----------



## MoonSong (Feb 13, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> 3 is wrong.
> 
> 3 should be: It was Ryan and Monte ensuring that they could take their work with them if they left Wizards.
> Monte's made bank on it...




fair enough.



delericho said:


> 4) It lets people support the game with third-party products secure in the knowledge that WoTc _won't_ try to make trouble for them.



Another way to say 1) n_n

But check this http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_/TTnT_209.phtml , it is illuminating. And Kenzer is my hero.


----------



## delericho (Feb 13, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Another way to say 1) n_n




I would argue that it's related by slightly different: one talks about goodwill where four talks about assurance for the risk-averse.



> But check this http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_/TTnT_209.phtml , it is illuminating. And Kenzer is my hero.




An interesting read, but as she notes the only way to be sure is for a case to come to judgement. It _looks like_ third party supplements _should_ be possible without any license at all... but you'd have to be willing to fight WotC through the courts to judgement, and who really has the time or resources to do that? Especially when any potential gain is going to be very small indeed.

(Very important disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2015)

Staffan said:


> the OGL states "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."
> 
> Some might argue that fair use overrides the license. Others would argue the license requires you to forego that particular right in order to benefit from the other parts of it. I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know.



I'm not an American contract lawyer, but I would be pretty surprised if contract law in any American jurisdiction did not permit giving up fair use rights as part of a contractual bargain.



MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Actually the ogl only has two benefits: 1) it is a warranty you won't be sued by WotC, 2) it allows you to liberally copy entire sections from the srd verbatim. Appart form it, it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do by fair use, in fact you renounce certain rights when using the OGL.



I think when you say "it only has two benefits" that's a bit like saying "permission to enter my house only gives you the benefit that if you do come in I won't call the police to force you to leave". Ie, it's a pretty big "only". Fair use would not permit anyone to verbatim reproduce the text found in the WotC's SRDs.

The OGL also is not a warranty that you won't be sued by WotC. It is an agreement with WotC (and any other contributors of OGC whose OGC you use) that they permit to use that OGC, in respect of which they enjoy certain IP rights, subject to certain conditions. If you violate those conditions then you are absolutely liable to be sued.



MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> But check this http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_/TTnT_209.phtml , it is illuminating. And Kenzer is my hero.





delericho said:


> It _looks like_ third party supplements _should_ be possible without any license at all... but you'd have to be willing to fight WotC through the courts to judgement



Third party supplements are absolutely possible without licence - provided that you don't violate WotC's IP rights.

That means not infringing their trademark rights - which shouldn't be too hard - and not reproducing their copyrighted material. This is what I think is harder, because the boundaries between non-copyrightable mechanics and copyrightable story and expression are relatively vague within the context of an RPG.

The author of the blog linked to upthread suggests that TSR settled its lawsuits because it thought it wouldn't win. In my view this is silly. Nearly all private litigation settles before coming to court, often on the courthouse steps. Running a court case costs time and money, and there are no guarantees. It's also in the interests of a large company like TSR or WotC to manage potential competitors via contractual relationships, where they can negotiate the terms, rather than via litigation.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I'm not an American contract lawyer, but I would be pretty surprised if contract law in any American jurisdiction did not permit giving up fair use rights as part of a contractual bargain.




You're right.  There are very few things in this world so special that you can't agree to not do them.  You can agree to do or not do plenty of things in a contract, and be legally bound by that agreement. You're legally allowed to not eat ice cream, but if you sign a contract saying you won't eat ice cream, you can't eat ice cream.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> You can agree to do or not do plenty of things in a contract, and be legally bound by that agreement. You're legally allowed to not eat ice cream, but if you sign a contract saying you won't eat ice cream, you can't eat ice cream.



Whether or not an injunction will issue to stop you eating ice cream is an interesting question! (If not, the plaintiff will be confined to damages.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 14, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Whether or not an injunction will issue to stop you eating ice cream is an interesting question! (If not, the plaintiff will be confined to damages.)





They can cause a whole lot of financial hardship in the process of seeking those so-called damages.  You might be put right off your ice cream.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 14, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> They can cause a whole lot of financial hardship in the process of seeking those so-called damages.  You might be put right off your ice cream.




So let me get this straight...the lack of an OGL means that WotC can keep me from eating  ice cream?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> You're right.  There are very few things in this world so special that you can't agree to not do them.  You can agree to do or not do plenty of things in a contract, and be legally bound by that agreement. You're legally allowed to not eat ice cream, but if you sign a contract saying you won't eat ice cream, you can't eat ice cream.



Another detour while we're about it.

Even in American contract law there are some rights that can't be contracted away - for instance, your right not to be enslaved. (Though there are libertarian thinkers out there who regard this limitation as an impermissible burden on liberty.)

I imagine that American contract law, as in other common law jurisdictions, has the concept of contracts that are void for illegality or being contrary to morals or public policy. (So eg a contract entered into with a hitman is not legally valid.) But - bringing this back on-topic - I doubt that a contract in which I waive fair use rights would be considered contrary to public policy.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 14, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> So let me get this straight...the lack of an OGL means that WotC can keep me from eating  ice cream?





Well, it's more complex than that . . . OGL = Only Good Lactose


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Toxic_Rat said:


> So let me get this straight...the lack of an OGL means that WotC can keep me from eating  ice cream?




Yup.  But feel free to eat as much of Paizo's Frozen Yogurt as you wish.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Another detour while we're about it.
> 
> Even in American contract law there are some rights that can't be contracted away




Yes.  I said that.


----------

