# Third Party Character Creation iOS App Removed



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

I understand takedown notices if WOTC has the intention to release a character creation app soon(tm*soon trademarked Blizzard ent.).  I could understand C&D notices if WOTC already _had_ a character creation app available.  But they don't.  As far as I'm aware their intended product will never be completed.  There is no word of a replacement on the horizon, or any plan to do so.  At best this is equivalent to C&D notices for fan-fiction.  It doesn't accomplish anything but rile up the customer base.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I understand takedown notices if WOTC has the intention to release a character creation app soon(tm*soon trademarked Blizzard ent.).  I could understand C&D notices if WOTC already _had_ a character creation app available.  But they don't.  As far as I'm aware their intended product will never be completed.  There is no word of a replacement on the horizon, or any plan to do so.  At best this is equivalent to C&D notices for fan-fiction.  It doesn't accomplish anything but rile up the customer base.




um, so if I own a book series (and I hope to someday be published) but couldn't put out a toy line, or video game does that mean anyone could put those things out for my characters??? Is my inability to produce something that I have the right to give you the right to take that from me? Does it change if I were rich(witch I am far from)


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Nobody has actually shared one of these C&Ds yet, and others have indicated that what they actually received was simply a friendly email asking that they respect WotC's trademarks, so it's not entirely clear what is happening. Hopefully somebody will share one soon!




Is there any essential difference in the end result between a friendly email and an official CnD?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Is there any essential difference in the end result between a friendly email and an official CnD?




Apparently not. Both result in people announcing that they received a C&D! Since we don't know what these things actually said, all we can do is guess.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Apparently not. Both result in people announcing that they received a C&D! Since we don't know what these things actually said, all we can do is guess.




It's almost like WotC could threatened to send leg breakers and hitmen, and not gotten WORSE reactions...


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 14, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> um, so if I own a book series (and I hope to someday be published) but couldn't put out a toy line, or video game does that mean anyone could put those things out for my characters??? Is my inability to produce something that I have the right to give you the right to take that from me? Does it change if I were rich(witch I am far from)




It doesn't give that person a right, but how does it harm the company if they have no competing product to offer?

If anything, character generators and such help Hasbro because it gets people playing the game, which in turn sells more books.

I mean, look at Star Trek. There are no Star Trek shows on TV but CBS not only allows fans to make their own shows, they even let fans form non-profit corporations and run kickstarters for them. Because they realize that allowing fan stuff only helps their brand in the long run.


----------



## DaveDash (Feb 14, 2015)

WOTC clearly plan to make money off D&D via licensing. They don't really care about selling books now that the core 3 are out, they want to sell more licenses.

In that context the C&Ds make sense.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 14, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> um, so if I own a book series (and I hope to someday be published) but couldn't put out a toy line, or video game does that mean anyone could put those things out for my characters??? Is my inability to produce something that I have the right to give you the right to take that from me? Does it change if I were rich(witch I am far from)



If someone made a free fan video game of you book, would you really mind? 
Do you really think a free game, even a well made one, would hurt sales of an official game?

I don't entirely fault WotC for their actions. But it'd be nice if they spelt out what we could or could not do, rather than finding out when a C+D is sent. Making software is time consuming and I'm sure the developer wished he hadn't wasted his time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 14, 2015)

trancejeremy said:


> It doesn't give that person a right,



so they have no right to use other peoples IP, copyright, and trademark..


> but how does it harm the company if they have no competing product to offer?



 well that depends... in my example, where I wrote a book (still waiting I'll let everyone know if I get published) I could loose a lot from someone else taking my characters and my setting and using it. I could loose the right to sue people who do other things I do plan on doing, or worse it could turn into me loseing my fandom to someone else...

now for wotc, I am sure they would loose money from selling the rights and/or there own. It doesn't have to be today either... if they want to put out there own app for $0.99 but it wont be ready for a year, then stoping this one now means that a year from now no one has one yet...



> If anything, character generators and such help Hasbro because it gets people playing the game, which in turn sells more books.



 I hear this all the time, but it always rings hollow, I don't know anyone who read a character generator, then go out and buy the book.


> I mean, look at Star Trek. There are no Star Trek shows on TV but CBS not only allows fans to make their own shows, they even let fans form non-profit corporations and run kickstarters for them. Because they realize that allowing fan stuff only helps their brand in the long run.




and if someone wanted to make a toy, or novel, or phaser toy I bet they would not be so nice.... if someone wants to write an adventure they wont mind... even if you put it on kickstarter...


----------



## Eminence_Grise (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I understand takedown notices if WOTC has the intention to release a character creation app soon(tm*soon trademarked Blizzard ent.).  I could understand C&D notices if WOTC already _had_ a character creation app available.  But they don't.  As far as I'm aware their intended product will never be completed.  There is no word of a replacement on the horizon, or any plan to do so.  At best this is equivalent to C&D notices for fan-fiction.  It doesn't accomplish anything but rile up the customer base.




The problem is with american trademark law. If you don't defend your trademark, you risk loosing it. It's called failure to police. For WOTC, the risk is simply not worth it compared to sending a simple cease & desist.



> *Failure to Police*
> 
> Trademark rights may also be lost when a trademark owner fails to effectively police its trademark against eroded distinctiveness owing to the presence in the marketplace of confusingly similar third-party marks. For example, if many third parties subsequently begin using the same or a similar trademark in commerce in connection with goods and/or services similar to the trademark owner’s after the trademark owner has already begun use, and the owner does little or nothing to police its trademark, the trademark is likely to lose some or all of its value as a source identifier in the marketplace. As a result, the trademark will become weaker, and in some cases it may lose its distinctiveness entirely. To help avoid such adverse consequences, the trademark owner may police its mark by enforcing its trademark rights through various legal means, such as (a) sending demand letters, (b) proceeding with opposition and cancellation proceedings with administrative entities, (c) proceeding with litigation in the courts, and/or (d) entering into licensing and/or other agreements with third parties, as may be appropriate under the circumstances. While some courts have determined that trademark owners need not necessarily prosecute every infringing third-party use of the mark, such third-party uses can still affect the distinctiveness of the mark in the minds of the public. The optimal policing and enforcement efforts for particular marks may vary with the particular circumstances involved, such as the nature and importance of the mark, the nature of the trademark owner and the size of its legal budget, and the number and nature of the potential third-party trademark infringements.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If someone made a free fan video game of you book, would you really mind?
> Do you really think a free game, even a well made one, would hurt sales of an official game?



I guess it depends. If I never hear about it, I can't complain. If I hear after they already put it out I would be pretty mad. If someone came to me and asked I would be very happy to let them as long as they didn't mangle it anymore then any other game based on a book...




> I don't entirely fault WotC for their actions. But it'd be nice if they spelt out what we could or could not do, rather than finding out when a C+D is sent. Making software is time consuming and I'm sure the developer wished he hadn't wasted his time.



  I think that making software is something that you should only do when you are sure...


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Feb 14, 2015)

Whew, fortunately I downloaded these into my iPad a month ago, they are still working 
This probably means that Wizards is developing an app and dont want competition.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 14, 2015)

Luckily I already have it. Great app.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 14, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think that making software is something that you should only do when you are sure...



I could say similar things about converting adventures or making new subclasses or updating races...


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 14, 2015)

This is only going to get worse for the little guy.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If someone made a free fan video game of you book, would you really mind? .




Hell yeah I would.  When I create something, I want some sort of element of control over it, and I sure as heck don't want someone releasing something using my IP to create slashfic, or to implement things like racism or any number of things I wouldn't approve of.  Especially if there could be confusion from customers as to what my product is all about.  I.e., if I create a game (which I have), I don't want people putting out a video game where part of it glorifies killing kids or endorses sexism.  And yes, I've actually had people solicit approval for video games in the past using my creations.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If someone made a free fan video game of you book, would you really mind?
> Do you really think a free game, even a well made one, would hurt sales of an official game?



Betrayal at Krondor! Amazing old game. Never would've even known of the books (which I haven't read in forever, and even then, only the first two) without that game (which was awesome, and fan-made, if I recall).

But yeah. Stupid move for WotC, in my opinion.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Eminence_Grise said:


> The problem is with american trademark law. If you don't defend your trademark, you risk loosing it. It's called failure to police. For WOTC, the risk is simply not worth it compared to sending a simple cease & desist.




No offense, but that's a crap argument.  Some of these builders have been around for YEARS.



GMforPowergamers said:


> um, so if I own a book series (and I hope to someday be published) but couldn't put out a toy line, or video game does that mean anyone could put those things out for my characters??? Is my inability to produce something that I have the right to give you the right to take that from me? Does it change if I were rich(witch I am far from)




Nothing is being taken from you, for starters.  There is still a wealth of material that can only be accessed through purchase.  You have no competing product, so how are you harmed?  

"the point" which I feel you are missing, is that fan-creations BENEFIT the hobby.  I mean look at all the fan-made stuff out there for D&D.  Fan fictions, fan-art, fan-character creators, fan-campaigns, etc...  These bring more people, lower the entry bar and generally increase sales.

"You" are not being hurt by these in the slightest, in fact you statistically will *benefit*.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 14, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> WOTC clearly plan to make money off D&D via licensing. They don't really care about selling books now that the core 3 are out, they want to sell more licenses.
> 
> In that context the C&Ds make sense.




Yep.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2015)

Try selling something using JK Rowlings Potterverse material and see how long it lasts.   Try selling novels set in Martin's Game of Thrones universe and see how long it lasts.

Let's not forget here, this wasn't free.  This was a for profit activity.  If you want to sell something using someone else's property you should bloody well ask first.  End of story.  

It utterly baffles me that people defend this sort of thing.  This is pretty clear violation of copyright.  Full stop.  That's the end of the discussion right there.  This isn't fanfic, this isn't some little guy being stepped on by The Man.  This is flat out taking something that does not belong to you and selling it.  There is no justification for this.  Ever.

Look, I get that people want a character builder app, but this is not the way to get one.  Quite obviously the D20 Fight Club owner did not have permission to do this.  He went ahead and did it anyway.   How is this possibly justifiable in any way?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> No offense, but that's a crap argument.  Some of these builders have been around for YEARS.




Not relevant to the point, or to the law


> Nothing is being taken from you, for starters.




Patently false.  Not only is his (or her) IP rights being taken, but also is the potential for him or her to profit off of his or her own creation.  If he is unable to make a character generator now due to lack of funding (or any reason really) and someone else does.  What happens down the road when he is able to make a generator?  Things that cause a reduction in his ability to profit off his own creation include but are not limited by:

* an already established product that consumers have acquired so they won't need or want to buy his
* starting to compete in a market already firmly established by someone else
* an established precedence that _anyone_ has free reign to do the same thing, flooding the market
* Additional costs to get out a product better than anyone else's that has already been established that wouldn't normally be assessed



> "You" are not being hurt by these in the slightest, in fact you statistically will *benefit*.




Do you have a citation for this?  Because I'm pretty sure something like "Book of Erotic Fantasy" didn't help the sales of D&D.  In fact, I've seen it used by the anti-D&D crowd as an example of how it's such a horrible game.  And as a creator?  I can tell you I don't want someone using my material to put out garbage like that and getting my creations stained with such a reputation.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Not relevant to the point, or to the law
> 
> 
> Patently false.  Not only is his (or her) IP rights being taken, but also is the potential for him or her to profit off of his or her own creation.  If he is unable to make a character generator now due to lack of funding (or any reason really) and someone else does.  What happens down the road when he is able to make a generator?  Things that cause a reduction in his ability to profit off his own creation include but are not limited by:
> ...




I'm honestly not going to respond to people who cut up my posts like that.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

Wait, what?  I quoted the parts I was responding to in order to reduce confusion, so you knew exactly what I was replying to.  What specifically is your issue in not responding to my counter points?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2015)

There's the licensing issue to consider too.  It seems to be common wisdom that WOTC is farming out a lot of it's work to other companies.  Fine and dandy.  Now, you're some software developer and WOTC approaches you to make a character builder.  They want you to pay them a licensing fee and then you can sell your software. 

Wouldn't your first question be, "Well, why would I pay you a licensing fee?  These guys over here do it for free, why can't I?"  Who in their right mind would pay for a license if they don't have to?  And, why should they have to compete, after paying for the license, with another company that is doing the exact same thing but not paying for the license?  Makes the license kinda worthless doesn't it?

So, [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION], THAT'S how this is taking money from WOTC.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Hussar said:


> There's the licensing issue to consider too.  It seems to be common wisdom that WOTC is farming out a lot of it's work to other companies.  Fine and dandy.  Now, you're some software developer and WOTC approaches you to make a character builder.  They want you to pay them a licensing fee and then you can sell your software.
> 
> Wouldn't your first question be, "Well, why would I pay you a licensing fee?  These guys over here do it for free, why can't I?"  Who in their right mind would pay for a license if they don't have to?  And, why should they have to compete, after paying for the license, with another company that is doing the exact same thing but not paying for the license?  Makes the license kinda worthless doesn't it?
> 
> So, @_*shidaku*_, THAT'S how this is taking money from WOTC.




I already pointed out: sending out C&Ds when you're releasing your own products (or licensing them) is one thing.  Sending out C&Ds with no clear intention of doing so is just bullying.

WOTC already declared their lack of intention to release their own tool when they canceled their *licensed* tool.

This is why I don't respond to people who chop up my posts, because it is almost universally a _reaction_ to what you think I meant as opposed to what I actually wrote.


----------



## lkj (Feb 14, 2015)

Hussar said:


> There's the licensing issue to consider too.  It seems to be common wisdom that WOTC is farming out a lot of it's work to other companies.  Fine and dandy.  Now, you're some software developer and WOTC approaches you to make a character builder.  They want you to pay them a licensing fee and then you can sell your software.
> 
> Wouldn't your first question be, "Well, why would I pay you a licensing fee?  These guys over here do it for free, why can't I?"  Who in their right mind would pay for a license if they don't have to?  And, why should they have to compete, after paying for the license, with another company that is doing the exact same thing but not paying for the license?  Makes the license kinda worthless doesn't it?




It does strike me that this is the most logical reason that they might be hunting down character creators right now. We can hope it is a sign that there will be an announcement of a licensing deal in the coming weeks. Less optimistically I suppose it could be the preliminaries to a negotiation. Least optimistically, it might be that they just happen to be getting around to people they feel are infringing and it has nothing to do with any deals or negotiations.

I guess we'll see.

AD


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I already pointed out: sending out C&Ds when you're releasing your own products (or licensing them) is one thing.  Sending out C&Ds with no clear intention of doing so is just bullying.




Again, patently false.  You may think so, and apparently you do.  But you have a clear misunderstanding of what copyright/trademark laws are and how they work.



> This is why I don't respond to people who chop up my posts, because it is almost universally a _reaction_ to what you think I meant as opposed to what I actually wrote.




I'm replying to what you are actually writing.  If you mean something different, I can't be blamed for not being a mind reader and knowing you mean something other than what you wrote.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Again, patently false.  You may think so, and apparently you do.  But you have a clear misunderstanding of what copyright/trademark laws are and how they work.



Legal and ethical are not the same thing.  

D&D is a system supported by fans.  You piss your fans off, your product takes a dive.  We don't need it to get to work.  We don't need it to fill our bellies.  But they do need us to make money.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 14, 2015)

I'm just surprised it took so long. I downloaded Fight Club a couple months ago to have a look, and it was blatantly infringing; huge chunks of text straight out of the rulebooks.

I understand the desire to get some decent digital tools for 5E, and I'll be the first to say WotC continues to fail utterly at digital. But it's not at all unreasonable for them to defend their copyright.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Legal and ethical are not the same thing.
> 
> D&D is a system supported by fans.  You piss your fans off, your product takes a dive.  We don't need it to get to work.  We don't need it to fill our bellies.  But they do need us to make money.



WotC has every right, ethical as well as legal, to defend its copyright. Whether it helps or hurts them financially is not relevant to whether it's ethical (unless you want to argue about Hasbro's fiduciary duty to shareholders)

 And frankly, I don't believe it does hurt them financially. The vast majority of D&D players have no clue any of this is going on, and probably wouldn't care if they did.


----------



## turkeygiant (Feb 14, 2015)

Eminence_Grise said:


> The problem is with american trademark law. If you don't defend your trademark, you risk loosing it. It's called failure to police. For WOTC, the risk is simply not worth it compared to sending a simple cease & desist.




This is very much true, but there actually is a very slim risk of losing a trademark (read that as all but impossible) because of failure to police under the current legislation. But for a company like WotC/Hasbro who probably has a in house legal department it is literally so insignificant for them to send a C&D letter that there is no reason not to do it just to be safe.

I agree that it sucks that they don't have a character creator out there, and that they are shutting down the 3rd party options that are filling those gaps. But they do intend to release their own at some point or at least set up a license, and I completely understand why as a business they would flex their legal rights to ensure that the way is clear of completion when they finally do release something.

If I were them however I would try to strike a middle ground for the sake of community good will, as long as an app is free to use, not generating ad revenue, and generic enough in its ability/spell  descriptions not to render the physical PHB unnecessary leave them be until you get you own official product on the market.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Hell yeah I would.  When I create something, I want some sort of element of control over it, and I sure as heck don't want someone releasing something using my IP to create slashfic, or to implement things like racism or any number of things I wouldn't approve of.  Especially if there could be confusion from customers as to what my product is all about.  I.e., if I create a game (which I have), I don't want people putting out a video game where part of it glorifies killing kids or endorses sexism.  And yes, I've actually had people solicit approval for video games in the past using my creations.



The video game example raised was likely a poor analogy as video games have to have their own content, while this is a companion app. A better example might be an unauthorized encyclopedia. Something copying your IP and representing the information in an easier to consume yet incomplete fashion.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 14, 2015)

To me, it seems telling that they appear to be targeting character generators.  Not any of the other myriad 5e-derived material out there, like the encounter calculators, or character sheets, or original material (subclasses, backgrounds, etc.).



shidaku said:


> WOTC already declared their lack of intention to release their own tool when they canceled their *licensed* tool.




Well, that's ridiculous.  WotC declared their lack of intention to release the tool that Dungeonscape was working on.  Canceling it hardly means they have no intention of releasing their own tool through other developers.

Not long ago, Obsidian was pooh-poohing WotC for not knowing what it was doing with its licensing and people were saying, "Yeah!  They haven't announced a thing!"  The low-and-behold, there was a big announcement about a new D&D video game, surprising everyone.  WotC plays their cards close to their chest.  Just because they aren't saying anything doesn't mean they don't have plans in the works.


----------



## fantasmamore (Feb 14, 2015)

trancejeremy said:


> It doesn't give that person a right, but how does it harm the company if they have no competing product to offer?




Well, first of all, they may, someday, create their own character generator. Why would they want to have competition on their own product?
Then, there is the aesthetics (graphics) part. The "Rise of Tiamat" and "Hoard of the Dragon Queen", even the Spell Cards were designed to have the same aesthetic result as the three core books. The logo is always the same, the background, art, fonts etc. So, when I buy one of these products I am in a familiar environment that I identify as "D&D". Most customers will not be able to understand that they are made from other companies. So, why is this important? Because when I buy a product for D&D, I expect a certain quality, a specific presentation. By not letting anyone use my IP I have control over a lot of things. 
That said, I am 100% with you. They must create a character generator program, they have to release an OGL and let the community create amazing things, maybe with a sepcific "5e compatible" logo. There is demand, obviously...


----------



## Paraxis (Feb 14, 2015)

I like the art style, anyone know who did the picture of the dwarf?


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 14, 2015)

There is a right way and a wrong way when dealing with your customer base. 

I've been dealing with multinationals in my sphere of influence. you NEVER piss off your customer base.  Because the majority of the time you are not going to get them back.

Yes Hasbro is a huge company, but news does travel fast about anything perceived or not.  It also helps their competition as well.
Any name brand can become toxic.  Right now with their sub standard modules, their layoffs,  and these robo C&D's sounds like to me that WotC has been given a quota to meet on a yearly basis. 

Looks like to me another 4thED business fiasco in the making.

Finally it does NOT matter if Hasbro is right or wrong.  It is HOW Hasbro is handling their IP's.  And it looks like this is the standard heavy handed method.  Quite frankly, at this moment this is the typical business tactic done by a souless organization.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Do you have a citation for this?  Because I'm pretty sure something like "Book of Erotic Fantasy" didn't help the sales of D&D.  In fact, I've seen it used by the anti-D&D crowd as an example of how it's such a horrible game.  And as a creator?  I can tell you I don't want someone using my material to put out garbage like that and getting my creations stained with such a reputation.




It always amazes me that a game based on murdering things to get their stuff would threatened by a book that focuses on having sex with them instead.

Did no one ever watch original Star Trek?


----------



## delericho (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I already pointed out: sending out C&Ds when you're releasing your own products (or licensing them) is one thing.  Sending out C&Ds with no clear intention of doing so...




I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's _software_ they're going after, more than just Character Builders specifically. After all, _we know_ that a Character Builder isn't a video game, but does that one overworked guy in Hasbro's Legal Dept know that? Perhaps more importantly, do WotC's potential license partners know that - or are they liable to use the existence of a CB as reason to demand a better licensing fee?

Not that it matters all that much: Dausuul's post above indicates that this CB was clearly infringing on WotC's IP. Assuming that's right (and I have no reason to doubt him), then WotC are absolutely within their rights to have this pulled, competing product or not.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 14, 2015)

I'm now calling for a boycott of Wizards.
Let's make our own game.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 14, 2015)

Wizards has the right to police its copy right and remove all products even though they don't have an official character generator.

Wizards also has the right to lose its entire fan base.


----------



## delericho (Feb 14, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> I'm now calling for a boycott of Wizards.
> Let's make our own game.




Isn't it just more efficient to instead switch to one of the many other games that are out there already - be it Pathfinder, 13th Age, Firefly, or whatever else suits?

As for a boycott of Wizards, I'm not sure how that would work, since they stubbornly refuse to produce anything for us to buy.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 14, 2015)

I'm considering those games, yes.


----------



## Paraxis (Feb 14, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> I'm considering those games, yes.




13th Age is wonderful, if I wasn't playing 5e I would be playing that.

Here is the Pelgrane Press licensing page http://www.pelgranepress.com/site/?tag=licensing&cat=248

Here is an online SRD site http://www.13thagesrd.com/

I have no issues with companies running themselves how they wish, WoTC will still get my business as long as I enjoy the game, but good gaming to you and your group.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2015)

This one was a for profit enterprise so I don't fault WOTC for shutting it down.  Fan made stuff just to share with other fans is one thing, but setting up a business and profiting from it is a whole different bucket of worms. If it was popular, and worked well, then perhaps they should consider offering the creator a consultant job. After all, he not only demonstrated the ability to create a product, but get it to market successfully as well.


----------



## Carl H (Feb 14, 2015)

There is lots of fantastic fantasy RPG's available from other companies. There is a lot of good reasons to play them instead of D&D.

WOTC defending it's copyright is not a very good reason to decide to stop playing a game you like.

My suspicion is that the people proclaiming that this is going to stop them from playing 5e were either not playing to begin with or already on their way out.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> There is a right way and a wrong way when dealing with your customer base.
> 
> I've been dealing with multinationals in my sphere of influence. you NEVER piss off your customer base.  Because the majority of the time you are not going to get them back.
> 
> ...




Sorry dude... but the few people who have actually downloaded and used this app aren't their customer *base*.  At best, it's a customer *fringe*.  Their customer *base* are the tens of thousands of players who buy the books, play the game, and that's it.  They NEVER go on message boards, they never pay attention to what is or isn't released until they see it on the shelves or on Amazon or the D&D website, and they never use anything other than whatever they have made for themselves.

So if they annoy the handful of players who actually give a rat's ass about Cease & Desist letters, then too bad for them.  The other 98.5% of the player base will continue playing D&D the same way we always have, unconcerned and none's the wiser.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Their customer *base* are the tens of thousands of players who buy the books, play the game, and that's it.  They NEVER go on message boards




This 1990s dinosaur is a myth. 10 years ago it was true.  Nowadays *everybody* goes on the internet to check out their hobbies, from grandmothers to children. If you're surrounded by people who don't do that, you're in a very unusual situation.


----------



## BuddyRich (Feb 14, 2015)

Anyone know if the 5E DM Minion line on Android was also served with a cease and desist?  I just bought d20 Fight Club and the DM tool for iPad and ito evaluate it, though decided to still stick with pencil and paper.  If they shipped it without monsters and any trademarked references (such a D&D, etc.) they'd probably be OK.  Actual rules crunchy bits cannot be copyrighted as far as I am aware.  As it is they only included monster stats from the free Basic PDF, not the larger MM so I am not sure if that matters or not, but I don't think the free PDF was released under the OGL as such, but just a freebie with copyright still belonging to WotC.


----------



## Toxic_Rat (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> This 1990s dinosaur is a myth. 10 years ago it was true.  Nowadays *everybody* goes on the internet to check out their hobbies, from grandmothers to children. If you're surrounded by people who don't do that, you're in a very unusual situation.




I doubt that either extreme is correct, as far as D&D goes.  Of the six guys playing in my regular campaign, I'm the only one that follows D&D/WotC stuff online with any regularity.  Now, they have all asked about digital tools, and when I tell them there are none available, they just shrug it off and pick up the pencil and we go on a playin'.  

To be fair, I have been called unusual, so YMMV.


----------



## wardrake (Feb 14, 2015)

Well. I haven't purchased D&D5 yet nor will I while the Wizzhards can't get decent electronic support for their game and won't let anyone else do it either. I guess me and my $50 per month game budget can just keep on supporting Paizo - bye bye D&D - it was nice knowing you.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 14, 2015)

wardrake said:


> Well. I haven't purchased D&D5 yet nor will I while the Wizzhards can't get decent electronic support for their game and won't let anyone else do it either. I guess me and my $50 per month game budget can just keep on supporting Paizo - bye bye D&D - it was nice knowing you.




Can I have your gold before you leave?


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 14, 2015)

I won't tolerate for profit either. So that one was o.k. It is all the other free Character Gens that I'm angry about. Pathguy's application wasn't particularly pretty and it had a few mistakes, but it was vital for organizing the class features and spells. I took my free app down before Wizards could hound me for it.

I had a brief summary of each class and racial feature and a brief summary of each spell that I never published on my website. Too bad Wizards.. Too bad D&D5.. I think I will design my own game and see if it will catch on.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 14, 2015)

5th Edition is a really good game and a nice counter balance to Pathfinder's much more granular system (also good). Together they almost remind of the 80s with BECMI and AD&D existing side by side. Material isn't really compatible between the two but it isn't a lot of work to use a lot of material between them (especially PF fluff with 5E). That said, what Pathfinder has above 5E is the open nature of the rules because of the OGL. It is trivially easy to find stats or rules online or to find apps and tools to do things like create characters and build encounters. In an increasingly digital world where even our pen and paper hobbies are enhanced by our smartphones, it seems egregiously nshort sighted for there to still be no 5E OGL or fan license, no PDF books and no official or 3rd party electronic support. I think there are a lot more people on the fence between 5E and PF than some folks in this thread are willing to admit, and the presence or lack of digital tools and easily, legally available community creations has a significant impact on where to spend limited entertainment dollars.


----------



## Eminence_Grise (Feb 14, 2015)

delericho said:


> As for a boycott of Wizards, I'm not sure how that would work, since they stubbornly refuse to produce anything for us to buy.




That made me laugh so much! Thanks. 

For me, the reaction of Wizards is part of the reality of the modern world. I don't agree with their decision, but I certainly understand it and don't feel entitled for anything.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Feb 14, 2015)

Wizards is actively tightening down on things in regards to 5e. Pathguy was never bothered until he posted 5th edition character creation information, word for word, which is not allowed. They didn't even allow that information in the SRD for 3rd edition.

As for people saying there is no future electronic products or generators coming out, show me the WotC release plan you have a copy of that says such. Barely anyone knew about Sword Coast: Legends upon its reveal even though it has been in production for quite some time.

These blanket statements without fact just hurt the hobby and impressionable new players. Also,  why boycott a product made with love for us by fellows like us, simply because their publisher (WotC) is now firmly handling IP enforcement?  Buying a book doesn't keep WotC in business, it keeps great people like Mearls and Perkins and Thompson employed.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Feb 14, 2015)

WOTC has every right to defend their IP however they wish.  If not, what's to stop bad products from being produced by irresponsible parties that harm their brand?  Or for a third party to put out competing products against WOTC's current or planned ones?  Once that door is open it becomes very hard to close.  

Sure, I'd like an e-tool for D&D, and I'm sure WOTC knows it.  Whether one comes along is their choice and becomes a factor in my long-term satisfaction with the game.  Until then the sky is not falling and I'll continue having fun.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Sorry dude... but the few people who have actually downloaded and used this app aren't their customer *base*.  At best, it's a customer *fringe*.  Their customer *base* are the tens of thousands of players who buy the books, play the game, and that's it.  They NEVER go on message boards, they never pay attention to what is or isn't released until they see it on the shelves or on Amazon or the D&D website, and they never use anything other than whatever they have made for themselves.
> 
> So if they annoy the handful of players who actually give a rat's ass about Cease & Desist letters, then too bad for them.  The other 98.5% of the player base will continue playing D&D the same way we always have, unconcerned and none's the wiser.




Man, you said it before I did.  This is 100% true.  "Entire fan base"?  Come on people.  Fringe is exactly right.



Morrus said:


> This 1990s dinosaur is a myth. 10 years ago it was true.  Nowadays *everybody* goes on the internet to check out their hobbies, from grandmothers to children. If you're surrounded by people who don't do that, you're in a very unusual situation.




I don't think so.  I'm in a very similar situation.  But don't take my word for it.  How many active users do you have in this 5e forum on a weekly basis?  How many people do you think play 5e on a weekly basis?  I feel very comfortable saying that the vast majority of 5e players don't hang out on internet forums, let alone think of boycotting WotC for things like this.  Nope, instead I see the vast majority of 5e players continue to play 5e whether or not there's an online character generator because they_ enjoy playing 5e._

Heck, I know a LOT of people who ban electronic devices at game tables except for the DM.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> But don't take my word for it.




Don't worry!  I don't plan to! 



> How many active users do you have in this 5e forum on a weekly basis?




Ah, I see the confusion!  When I said "online" I didn't mean "on EN World".  I'm not quite so arrogant as to assume my little website constitutes the internet! Though, for the record, about 250,000 unique users read EN World each month.

No, they use social networks.  Facebook, Twitter, G+, Reddit. And they see a *lot* of stuff. This stuff is all over the place.  WotC has _half a million_ fans on its Facebook page alone, and that's not even touching how the stuff spreads on networks.

It's 2015.  The internet's a thing now!  These people exist, and in very large numbers.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Ah, I see the confusion!  When I said "online" I didn't mean "on EN World".  I'm not quite so arrogant as to assume my little website constitutes the internet! Though, for the record, about 250,000 unique users read EN World each month.
> 
> No, they use social networks.  Facebook, Twitter, G+, Reddit. And they see a *lot* of stuff. This stuff is all over the place.  WotC has _half a million_ fans on its Facebook page alone, and that's not even touching how the stuff spreads on networks.
> 
> It's 2015.  The internet's a thing now!  These people exist, and in very large numbers.




I'm not disagreeing that the internet is a thing.  I'm disagreeing with how inflated you are making the numbers.

For example, even though ENWorld isn't the only site, it is one of the largest, and I can't help notice that the people making the posts here are by and large the same people who make the posts at the RPGSite, RPG.net, and the official WoTC forums.

And that unique visitors per month?  Doesn't answer my question.  How many users come to this forum on a weekly basis?  And if you take away all those that came here only once, and only for a minute or so, how many are left?  I.e., the people who actually came here looking for information and/or spent enough time here to actually _get_ any information or read a topic?  Then compare that with how many people do you think is a reasonable number that played 5e in that same week.

So yeah, the internet has a lot of people.  But don't assume that because someone has been on the internet at some point, they go and read threads like this.  According to CNN, 83 million of the facebook accounts aren't even real for example.  I'm subscribed or "like" a few hundred websites on FB, but I don't keep up with them, nor do I go check to see what they are saying.  I'm subscribed to a few dozen G+ communities, but I hardly ever go all of them to see every recent post.  I dn't think I'm unusual in that regard.

In other words, some serious grain of salt taking is advised before I'd trust any of those numbers.  I would bet my still shrikwrapped Holmes Basic set that the number of people who actually go online with any substantial or significant time investment needed to actually see a conversation like this is way, way lower than what you think it is or what you quoted.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm not disagreeing that the internet is a thing.  I'm disagreeing with how inflated you are making the numbers.




Excuse me?  I'm quoting the numbers.



> For example, even though ENWorld isn't the only site, it is one of the largest, and I can't help notice that the people making the posts here are by and large the same people who make the posts at the RPGSite, RPG.net, and the official WoTC forums.




Who cares how many people make the posts?  It's how many people read them that count.  Doesn't matter if it's just one person making the posts, as long as lots of people are reading them. This article, just since it was posted last night, has been viewed over 10,000 times.  By the end of next week, it'll be ten times that.  And a little site like this is small fry compared to the social networks.



> And that unique visitors per month?  Doesn't answer my question.  How many users come to this forum on a weekly basis?




Divide it by four if you like!



> In other words, some serious grain of salt taking is advised before I'd trust any of those numbers.




Oh well.  I don't mind.  Carry on!


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 14, 2015)

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], I don't know if you're right or wrong, but I /hope/ you're wrong.  I like to think that at least a slim majority of people in our hobby do something more constructive with their non-working, non-gaming time than troll forums and social media.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> @_*Morrus*_, I don't know if you're right or wrong, but I /hope/ you're wrong.  I like to think that at least a slim majority of people in our hobby do something more constructive with their non-working, non-gaming time than troll forums and social media.




I'm sure they do other things, too.  I know I do. It's not a binary option.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Excuse me?  I'm quoting the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're not reading my post.  I didn't say "only count the people who make the posts".  I said the people who do make the posts are the same ones who make the posts on all the other major sites, so you _can_ use this site as a metric when trying to figure out how many people hang out on internet forums compared to how many play the game in total.  I also said to only take away those people who aren't here long enough to have actually read anything.  The don't have to actually make posts, but why would you count someone who wasn't even on this site long enough to read the thread titles, let alone an actual discussion?

I also disagreed with your implication that just because someone "likes" or "follows" a particular company/group, that means they are keeping up to date with everything that company/group does.  I gave an example of myself, liking tons of different groups and sites but I don't ever actually go there and truly follow them or what they say.

So again, how many people visit _this subforum_ (the 5e one, since we're talking about 5e and not your site in general) on a weekly basis, and have stayed long enough to have actually read information?  And how many people do you think played 5e in the past week in total?

I don't have your analytics data of course, but I am certain it's a lot less than 250,000 who have come to this subform and researched information


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Well, that's ridiculous.  WotC declared their lack of intention to release the tool that Dungeonscape was working on.  Canceling it hardly means they have no intention of releasing their own tool through other developers.



Not announcing a release is, from the buyers perspective, no different than not having one at all.  If they don't make their intentions known, the default assumption should always be that they don't have any.



> Not long ago, Obsidian was pooh-poohing WotC for not knowing what it was doing with its licensing and people were saying, "Yeah!  They haven't announced a thing!"  The low-and-behold, there was a big announcement about a new D&D video game, surprising everyone.  WotC plays their cards close to their chest.  Just because they aren't saying anything doesn't mean they don't have plans in the works.



Yes, because even as someone who enjoys video games, when I play tabletop D&D and I want Wizards to release more product for *tabletop* D&D, what I really want to hear them announce is a multi-million-dollar plan to create a competing digital product.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Not announcing a release is, from the buyers perspective, no different than not having one at all.  If they don't make their intentions known, the default assumption should always be that they don't have any.
> .




So by this logic, we'll never see another version of D&D because it wasn't announced yet?  Or we'll never see another Marvel movie that hasn't been announced?

Needless to say, I disagree with your argument.  I don't think the default assumption by customers is that "there isn't one" just because one hasn't been announced yet.  I think most people assume there will be one, just with no idea when that might be.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> So again, how many people visit _this subforum_ (the 5e one, since we're talking about 5e and not your site in general) on a weekly basis, and have stayed long enough to have actually read information?




I have no idea.  I'm reading this on the news page, which is where the 250K people per month read it.  Which is, as I keep mentioning, only a tiny fraction of the number of people on social networks who are exposed to RPG related news and information.



> And how many people do you think played 5e in the past week in total?




Seven. Plus one guy who flipped through the books. 



> I don't have your analytics data of course, but I am certain it's a lot less than 250,000 who have come to this subform and researched information




Nobody but you has been going on about a subforum or research. The topic I'm discussing is the number of people who will have seen this news item in some form, whether here, or elsewhere.

But you drew me back in.  I feel you don't want information, you want to be right.  That's fine, but I'm honestly not interested enough in the conversation to continue it.  It's Valentine's Day!  

So, in the interests of escaping - yes, you're right. Nobody sees news about their hobbies on the internet.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 14, 2015)

Honestly, I'm not sure what's the deal with your hyperbole and passive aggressiveness.  What I'm doing, is agreeing with the earlier post that disagreed with the other posters who were mentioning boycotts and WotC "Losing their entire customer base", because like him (or her), I think the people really getting upset to the point where they would stop playing 5e or want to boycott WoTC for sending a C&D letter are by far the vast minority and fringe.  As that poster had said.

So I don't know what your beef is today, but everything I've posted after that was in support of that earlier comment that you disagreed with as well.  Yeah, pretty much everyone these days is on the internet.  But being on the internet =/= getting such an emotional investment in D&D that you'd quit playing it because WoTC happened to protect their legal rights.  Most people just don't give a crap, and I"m betting most people will continue to play 5e because they enjoy it, whether or not WotC sends out C&Ds or not.


----------



## MormonYoYoMan (Feb 14, 2015)

Tapatalk quoted a sacrosanct post on its timeline screen. I need not read the rest of this thread. Never trust anyone who accuses someone of being passive-aggressive.

Just a word of advice from Grandpa.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> So by this logic, we'll never see another version of D&D because it wasn't announced yet?  Or we'll never see another Marvel movie that hasn't been announced?
> 
> Needless to say, I disagree with your argument.  I don't think the default assumption by customers is that "there isn't one" just because one hasn't been announced yet.  I think most people assume there will be one, just with no idea when that might be.




I stopped replying to you ages ago because you take my statements and make the most ridiculous straw-men out of them.  I mean if you're not going to take the time to actually parse what I said and you're just going to make up the most asinine scenarios possible then you shouldn't wonder at all why I don't reply to you.

Of course I don't expect them to tell me if they're planning to release a 6th edition, they might honestly not know if they're going to.  But the next year's worth of releases?  That should be as close to set in stone as possible.  I pre-order comics 3 months in advance, and I always know what's coming out more than 6th months in advance.  And we're talking about companies that have hundreds of product lines releasing 20-30 of them every month.  

If Wizards is only going to release 2-3 products a year, then it should be no big deal for them to have that whole year planned out in advance.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 14, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> Wizards has the right to police its copy right and remove all products even though they don't have an official character generator.
> 
> Wizards also has the right to lose its entire fan base.




Heh, heh. You're funny! Wizards is in absolutely no danger of losing even a significantly small portion of their fan base over this, much less everybody. Tempest in a teacup, and all of that. The vast majority of the D&D fanbase isn't even aware of this issue.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I understand takedown notices if WOTC has the intention to release a character creation app soon(tm*soon trademarked Blizzard ent.).  I could understand C&D notices if WOTC already _had_ a character creation app available.  But they don't.  As far as I'm aware their intended product will never be completed.  There is no word of a replacement on the horizon, or any plan to do so.  At best this is equivalent to C&D notices for fan-fiction.  It doesn't accomplish anything but rile up the customer base.




It protects the trademarks from falling into the public domain.

US Trademark laws *require* proactive enforcement on the part of the holder. Failure to be proactive can be used to nullify them, even if registered.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> It protects the trademarks from falling into the public domain.
> 
> US Trademark laws *require* proactive enforcement on the part of the holder. Failure to be proactive can be used to nullify them, even if registered.




What protects trademarks even better is releasing products people want to buy, instead of forcing them to create their own.  These character builders might exist if Wizards had a builder tool out, but the C&Ds would be much more understandable, because WOTC has their own and they want you to buy/use it.  But they don't.  WOTC has chosen to put the burden on the consumer base, and chosen to increase the burden instead of lessen it when given the opportunity.

Why not pair the C&D notice with an invitation to develop a new, light-weight tool to do the same thing?  

Why?  Because WOTC, like many corps, has chosen to be combative rather than cooperative.  Because that's how capitalism works in America.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> It protects the trademarks from falling into the public domain.
> 
> US Trademark laws *require* proactive enforcement on the part of the holder. Failure to be proactive can be used to nullify them, even if registered.




While this does get dragged out in every thread of this type, it always misses an important nuance.

Protection doesn't equal prevention.  Simply asking someone to acknowledge the trademark is more than enough. If you're asking them to _remove _it, then you're doing it for some other reason (which may be perfectly sensible, but is not required to protect the trademark).  There is no requirement in law, US or elsewhere, for you to go out of your way to prevent anybody from using your trademark, only that you seek its acknowledgement.

That's why you see those trademark acknowledgements everywhere.  People are either proactively saving companies the effort of asking them to do it, or have been asked to. 

Takedowns have nothing to do with trademark protection, though.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I already pointed out: sending out C&Ds when you're releasing your own products (or licensing them) is one thing.  Sending out C&Ds with no clear intention of doing so is just bullying.
> 
> WOTC already declared their lack of intention to release their own tool when they canceled their *licensed* tool.




No. Not bullying, not even remotely close. And as Sacrosanct pointed out, not announcing their plans does not equate with "no plans". That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week.

WotC clearly had plans to release online tools for D&D 5 with DungeonScape. When that fell through, the logical assumption is that they STILL have plans, but it's going to take a while as they have to start the process over from scratch. And they are WISE to not discuss their future plans, as sooooo many cranky fans take every word from WotC as a "promise", and then when things inevitably change, scream that "promises" were "broken". They've been burned in the past on this, ESPECIALLY over online tools.



> This is why I don't respond to people who chop up my posts, because it is almost universally a _reaction_ to what you think I meant as opposed to what I actually wrote.




This is also silly. It's a common practice on these forums when responding to posts.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 14, 2015)

We have no idea what they said in there letter we do know the people who got them took down ther stuff... I don't get why this isn't "worked out right"


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> No. Not bullying, not even remotely close. And as Sacrosanct pointed out, not announcing their plans does not equate with "no plans".




For example, the major video game just announced, which has clearly been worked on for a couple of years, and which we knew nothing about.

Just because we don't know about a thing doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist or is not planned. And WotC is renowned for treating info about a game like a national security issue.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> No. Not bullying, not even remotely close. And as Sacrosanct pointed out, not announcing their plans does not equate with "no plans". That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week.




I said not announcing their plans is _tantamount_ in the eyes of the consumer to having no plans.  The default assumption should never be one of trust and assumption of further production.  WOTC has been burned?  Sure.  But they've done a good deal of burning themselves, both to consumers and to those partnered with them.  I have no reason to trust in the good judgement of WOTC as a business, indeed we have all been given plenty of reason over the years NOT to trust in the judgement of WOTC when it comes to D&D.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> This is also silly. It's a common practice on these forums when responding to posts.




It's common, but it's annoying as heck.  I don't discuss stuff with people who do it, either.  It basically turns a single conversation into 10 different ones, and then those 10 conversations in 10 more.  It's a variation on the gish-gallop, and once it begins, the only real option is to back out or block out a week of spare time to deal with it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> This 1990s dinosaur is a myth. 10 years ago it was true.  Nowadays *everybody* goes on the internet to check out their hobbies, from grandmothers to children. If you're surrounded by people who don't do that, you're in a very unusual situation.




All of my nerdy friends are active on the internet, but few regularly visit message boards of any type, ENWorld, WotC, rpgnet, etc, etc. And few pay any attention at all to what's going on with RPG news. Anecdotal, of course, but I also doubt that fans active on internet message boards are a decent portion of the D&D fan base. I'm sure the situation has changed since the 90s, and I'm not saying message board fans are insignificantly small, but the endless back-and-forth in these threads certainly isn't impactful, IMO.

Of course, kinda hard to tell. I'm sure WotC has studied the situation in their market research, and that it factors in to how they deal with copyright and trademark infringers. Perhaps by sending polite requests rather than scary, threatening, C&D's?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> It's common, but it's annoying as heck.  I don't discuss stuff with people who do it, either.  It basically turns a single conversation into 10 different ones, and then those 10 conversations in 10 more.  It's a variation on the gish-gallop, and once it begins, the only real option is to back out or block out a week of spare time to deal with it.




Huh. Learn something new every day! I honestly see this all the time here, do it myself, and have no issue when folks do it to me. I'm kinda the opposite, when you want to discuss part of someone's post, quoting the whole thing annoys me!

But it's good to know that this annoys others, I honestly had no idea. Personally, I won't exactly stop, but will be more careful not to snip out things that change what is being said in someone's post I'm responding to. And I've certainly seen this practice taken to the extreme, with dozens of mini-quotes making a response post a bear to read . . . but I also tend to skip "wall-of-text" posts also . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 14, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I said not announcing their plans is _tantamount_ in the eyes of the consumer to having no plans.  The default assumption should never be one of trust and assumption of further production.  WOTC has been burned?  Sure.  But they've done a good deal of burning themselves, both to consumers and to those partnered with them.  I have no reason to trust in the good judgement of WOTC as a business, indeed we have all been given plenty of reason over the years NOT to trust in the judgement of WOTC when it comes to D&D.




No, no it's not. In your eyes, obviously, but the average consumer? No. And even if it did, so what? Because WotC has not announced plans, and you therefore assume they have *no plans*, it's okay for you to infringe upon their copyrights and create your own for-profit product that could compete with any future (announced) plans? Or even a not-for-profit fan product that still infringes on their copyrights and could compete with future, announced, plans?

No.

WotC, or one of their licensed partners, hasn't announced any plans for a new D&D movie. They are clearly battling in court over the rights, but have not announced any plans. So, therefore, that's *tantamount* to not having plans. So, it's okay for me to start production on my own D&D movie, right? I mean, there's nothing official for me to compete against, is there? And if WotC pressures me to stop, politely or otherwise, I guess that means they are being a big bully, huh?


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> No, no it's not. In your eyes, obviously, but the average consumer? No. And even if it did, so what? Because WotC has not announced plans, and you therefore assume they have *no plans*, it's okay for you to infringe upon their copyrights and create your own for-profit product that could compete with any future (announced) plans? Or even a not-for-profit fan product that still infringes on their copyrights and could compete with future, announced, plans?
> 
> No.
> 
> WotC, or one of their licensed partners, hasn't announced any plans for a new D&D movie. They are clearly battling in court over the rights, but have not announced any plans. So, therefore, that's *tantamount* to not having plans. So, it's okay for me to start production on my own D&D movie, right? I mean, there's nothing official for me to compete against, is there? And if WotC pressures me to stop, politely or otherwise, I guess that means they are being a big bully, huh?




No.

Obviously WOTC wants to produce a new D&D movie.  I don't think they could make that much clearer with the fact that they _are_ going to court to regain their rights from whatever that other company is that has made all the terrible D&D movies so far, or some of them.  

But I'm not talking about WOTC wanting to produce _anything at all_.  I'm talking about a specific product.  One that there is clearly a demand for.  One that does not require the amount of investment WOTC has been putting into and not following through with on the issue.  For the amount of money WOTC has spent on their failed apps, they could likely have hired _everyone_ they send a C&D to and already produced a product.

So now we're left with no product.  No clear intentions to make a product.  And no competing products to fill the gap.

I trust one thing: businesses want to make money.  This thing that WOTC is doing?  That's not how you make money.  
Announce the creation and soon-to-be release of a product.  Send out C&Ds.  Direct people to your product.  Money made.
Announce nothing.  Release nothing.  Send out C&Ds to stifle the market.  Direct people to nothing.  No money made.  

When businesses make moves that are not in the interest of furthering their immediate profits, I question their motives.  All actions cost money.  If the end result of spending money isn't to make more money, then why take the action?


----------



## DaveDash (Feb 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> All of my nerdy friends are active on the internet, but few regularly visit message boards of any type, ENWorld, WotC, rpgnet, etc, etc. And few pay any attention at all to what's going on with RPG news. Anecdotal, of course, but I also doubt that fans active on internet message boards are a decent portion of the D&D fan base. I'm sure the situation has changed since the 90s, and I'm not saying message board fans are insignificantly small, but the endless back-and-forth in these threads certainly isn't impactful, IMO.
> 
> Of course, kinda hard to tell. I'm sure WotC has studied the situation in their market research, and that it factors in to how they deal with copyright and trademark infringers. Perhaps by sending polite requests rather than scary, threatening, C&D's?




I agree with this. I'm the only one in my group that hangs out on the forums and learns about these things. I don't even discuss it with anyone outside the forums really, because I know very little about the facts of the matter.


----------



## redrick (Feb 14, 2015)

I am confused by the surprise that a character builder would be off limits (from a legal standpoint.) Under 4e, the only major 3pp character builder I knew was Hero Lab. It required the end user to have a DDI subscription and then use a spider tool to rebuild all the build options from the Wizards website. Sort of a high tech version of saying, "you have to enter all the information yourself."

Similarly, Lone Wolf has indicated that they are developing a 5e character builder, but will release nothing without a clear license from Wizards. In the eyes of people who actually have something to lose, character builders require a license.

And, while I don't have the source on my phone, I remember Wizards saying that they still planned to release digital tools when the agreement with Trapdoor fell through. That's not a product announcement, for sure.

And finally, a fan receiving a request from wizards needn't be a major chilling action on fan creation. The point of fan content is that we create it for ourselves. Sharing it is great, but one instance of being asked not to do something isn't hardship. I'm not going to consult a lawyer just to keep a cop from asking me to stop standing somewhere. I'm gonna do my thing, and if I get yelled at, I'll stop. In other words, I create my fan content and I'll use it, and maybe I'll share it, and if wizards tells me to take it off my website, I'll move on. Since I'm a fan and not a business making money of an investment, it's not a load of skin off my back.

(Now, if I'm selling or profiting off borrowed IP, that's another story!)

I want digital tools for 5e. I want PDFs or ebooks or something because I do my reading on an ereader. I was a little angered at the trapdoor debacle, but that doesn't open the door up to freeloaders, ethically or legally.


----------



## Rune (Feb 14, 2015)

Sorry. Phone browser is acting up. Didn't mean to laugh at your post (not even sure how it happened, since I wasn't on this page) and can't undo it.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 14, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> Wizards has the right to police its copy right and remove all products even though they don't have an official character generator.
> 
> Wizards also has the right to lose its entire fan base.




You're using the term "fan base" a little loosely, here. Policing intellectual property is a reality of business. Being able to stay in business is what allows companies to continue making products that fans enjoy. So I'll be abundantly clear: *If WotC policing its intellectual property suddenly makes you want to boycott them, you probably weren't part of their fan base to begin with.*

Or did you think being a fan was a one-way relationship where you're just entitled to things?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> This 1990s dinosaur is a myth. 10 years ago it was true.  Nowadays *everybody* goes on the internet to check out their hobbies, from grandmothers to children. If you're surrounded by people who don't do that, you're in a very unusual situation.




I look forward to seeing it announced on Wizards Twitter feed and Facebook page then that they have sent a C&D to d20 Fight Club.  Because if their customer base is going to be pissed off about that, it'll have to show up via their primary method for gaining online info on it, right?


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 14, 2015)

If people are taking Wizard's intellectual property and making money off of it then it is perfectly o.k. for Wizards to send a Cease and Desist notice to them and get the application removed.

If fans are making no money off of a D&D5 online tool they created and Wizards has no official alternative, then that is terribly evil for Wizards to send a Cease and Desist notice to the fans and force them to remove the application.

The fact that the Wizards legal department doesn't know the difference is what really bothers me here.

I'll tell this story again in case you haven't heard it. FOX network's legal department went around the entire Internet and forced its Simpson's fans to remove images of Homer and Bart. Those fans were promoting the Simpsons animated tv show to people all over the world. Those fans were helping the Simpson's show. But the legal department didn't understand that. Yes the show is still running, no thanks to the viscious embarrassing punishment of its fans by those who made the show.

Wizards seems to me to be an unethical disloyal group that does not respect its employees who created the game, nor does it respect its fans that spent years playtesting the game for free, nor does it respect fans such as Pathguy who put out a Character Generator to help people create characters and navigate through the game and learn how to play it. The Player's Handbook does a very poor job organizing and ordering the steps of character creation.

If you have your own company, never punish your fans for producing something that promotes your product or producing something that you don't have, such as an online character generator. That is just basic business sense. Something Wizards doesn't seem to have seeing as how the 5E game system was designed by the fans and Wizards botched the editing, formating and even the quality of the books.

But I will step down off the pulpit now. It is foolish of me to expect Wizards to make a good product when they gave us 4th Edition.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I look forward to seeing it announced on Wizards Twitter feed and Facebook page then that they have sent a C&D to d20 Fight Club.  Because if their customer base is going to be pissed off about that, it'll have to show up via their primary method for gaining online info on it, right?




I have no idea what that means. I'm detecting a snide tone, though.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 15, 2015)

shidaku said:


> No.
> 
> Obviously WOTC wants to produce a new D&D movie.  I don't think they could make that much clearer with the fact that they _are_ going to court to regain their rights from whatever that other company is that has made all the terrible D&D movies so far, or some of them.
> 
> ...




You keep saying WotC has no clear intentions of producing D&D tools, and yet you are still wrong. They haven't said anything like, "Q3 of 2015 is the release of the new supercool virtual tabletop. Really, we mean it this time!" But to take the lack of that sort of announcement as WotC having no clear plans is ridiculous. They haven't shared their plans with YOU, but why should they? If their plans change, you will complain about that! (_and I don't mean "you" as in Shidaku, but "you" as in the average overeager D&D fan angry with WotC for not doing what THEY feel is right IMMEDIATELY_) You mention there is no competing product, as if that would be a reason for WotC to allow folks to create one by infringing on copyright. That's insane! Why would WotC want a competing product?

You act as if your own knowledge of "how to make money" is clearly superior to the fools running WotC who are *just leaving money on the table*. You "question their motives"? Huh? While I feel WotC is run by humans prone to error (and they have certainly made some), I trust the folks who work there who have done market research and who have lived through past mistakes . . . I trust their experience, their skill, and their desire to grow the D&D game.

I doubt we are going to convince each other of anything, but I really can't see the difference between WotC producing a D&D movie and producing D&D online tools. WotC isn't going to contact some fans working on a D&D fan movie and say, "Hey, you're infringing, but why don't we LICENSE you to make an official movie?" And WotC isn't going to contact some guy making an online character generator and say, "Hey, you're infringing, but why don't we LICENSE you to make an official D&D character generator?"

WotC has struggled to produce D&D online tools since the release of 3E fifteen years ago. It's a comedy of errors at this point, although not all of the errors are of WotC's doing. But that doesn't justify third parties, fan or profit, to infringe on WotC's copyrights, and it still makes sense for WotC to police those copyrights. And when WotC does license somebody to create the next attempt at online tools (and they will, if they haven't already), they aren't going to choose somebody who doesn't understand how to properly use and respect copyright and trademarks. And then there is the quality issue. All of the D&D tools I've seen so far, are cool fan projects. But their quality is leagues away from something I would pay real money for.

_EDIT: Oh yeah, I just remembered . . ._

WotC HAS licensed character generation tools to fan groups in the past! When the 3E character generator first failed, WotC contracted with Code Monkey Publishing, the guys behind PCGen at the time. The resulting official character generator, e-Tools, created by a group of fans was AWFUL. I don't really blame Code Monkey, or even WotC, for the mess e-Tools became, but I also don't blame WotC for learning that lesson and not deciding to go down that rabbit hole again.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 15, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I look forward to seeing it announced on Wizards Twitter feed and Facebook page then that they have sent a C&D to d20 Fight Club.  Because if their customer base is going to be pissed off about that, it'll have to show up via their primary method for gaining online info on it, right?




I think you and I are in agreement mostly, but come on. Of course WotC would not do that. But the fan who's online generator has gotten a takedown request could certainly tweet and Facebook about it. So could various RPG news sites and fan sites. Overall, while not meaningless, those voices would be small compared to official tweets and such from WotC themselves, they are out there.

I think we're moving towards a society where fan voices can be just as powerful, if not moreso, than "official" voices. We're not there yet though. I agree with you DefCon, that this controversy may be loud on the messageboards, but is quiet in the overall D&D fanbase. It won't stay that way forever though. I've got mixed feelings about when that day comes.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> Betrayal at Krondor! Amazing old game. Never would've even known of the books (which I haven't read in forever, and even then, only the first two) without that game (which was awesome, and fan-made, if I recall).
> 
> 
> 
> But yeah. Stupid move for WotC, in my opinion.





Ummmmmm, no, Betrayal at Krondor was a major production from Sierra that Feist wrote for, and was paid royalties for when Sierra sold the game to customers.  Licensed, official product, not fan-made...


----------



## JamesonCourage (Feb 15, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Ummmmmm, no, Betrayal at Krondor was a major production from Sierra that Feist wrote for, and was paid royalties for when Sierra sold the game to customers.  Licensed, official product, not fan-made...



Well, I don't know too much (it's been many, many years), but here's what I found on wiki:


> *Neal Hallford and Feist's influence*
> Although the game was licensed from Raymond E. Feist, a long held myth was that the text and the story of the game were actually created by Feist himself. Feist states in his afterword to Krondor: The Betrayal that he was busy writing The King's Buccaneer during the game's production and that the plot, text, and new characters were created solely by designers Neal Hallford and John Cutter. Feist did have editorial final say on the game, but most of what Hallford and Cutter created was left intact.



So yeah. He was involved. He didn't write for it, though. But if he was involved, it sides more against my initial point that for it, for sure. (Like, quite against it  ). But what do I know? I'm drinking with my roommate for Valentine's, so I'm going to go back to her now. Have a good day, dude (or dudette), and thanks for the correction!


----------



## Dannager (Feb 15, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> If people are taking Wizard's intellectual property and making money off of it then it is perfectly o.k. for Wizards to send a Cease and Desist notice to them and get the application removed.
> 
> If fans are making no money off of a D&D5 online tool they created and Wizards has no official alternative, then that is terribly evil for Wizards to send a Cease and Desist notice to the fans and force them to remove the application.




No, it isn't.

If someone uses your intellectual property and spreads it around for free, it's undermining your business. It matters *zero* that they weren't charging for it. In fact, not charging for it can often be *worse*, because it means that people have no reason not to consume the infringing material!



> The fact that the Wizards legal department doesn't know the difference is what really bothers me here.




You need to understand the difference yourself before you can make statements like that.



> Wizards seems to me to be an unethical disloyal group that does not respect its employees who created the game,




How awesome of you to get offended on their behalf! I bet they really appreciate you guessing at their emotions and then using your guess to capitalize on an argument!



> nor does it respect its fans that spent years playtesting the game for free,




Yes, what a colossal sacrifice we fans made playing a game without having to pay for it.



> nor does it respect fans such as Pathguy who put out a Character Generator to help people create characters and navigate through the game and learn how to play it.




He didn't respect WotC's rights - rights they are legally and ethically entitled to. Why should WotC offer him some kind of special respect towards his non-existent rights?



> The Player's Handbook does a very poor job organizing and ordering the steps of character creation.




It doesn't matter. You don't get to take their creative material, "fix" it for them, and turn around and distribute it for free. That's not something that you have the moral or legal right to do.



> If you have your own company, never punish your fans for producing something that promotes your product or producing something that you don't have, such as an online character generator.That is just basic business sense.




No, it isn't. A free character generator can cannibalize book sales if players who might have otherwise purchased the book to guide them through character generation instead go to the free character builder to have it do that for them. And, more importantly, *that's not your call to make*. It doesn't matter if you think their decision is dumb, it's their right to make that decision, and no matter what decision they make, it's going to be an ethical one.



> Something Wizards doesn't seem to have seeing as how the 5E game system was designed by the fans and Wizards botched the editing, formating and even the quality of the books.




Wow. Holy wow. Yeah, again, people who clearly are not part of a company's fan base and have not _*been*_ a part of that fan base for the better part of a decade probably should avoid speaking for that fan base while pretending to be part of it.



> But I will step down off the pulpit now. It is foolish of me to expect Wizards to make a good product when they gave us 4th Edition.




My god. Please stop.


----------



## fantasmamore (Feb 15, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> I agree with this. I'm the only one in my group that hangs out on the forums and learns about these things. I don't even discuss it with anyone outside the forums really, because I know very little about the facts of the matter.




Me too. I am DM in two groups and only ONE of my 7 players hangs on the forums or even buys books. However, since I am the only one that spends money for the hobby, searches for things and is informed of new releases etc, my players are not the normal customers wotc would like. If I decide tomorrow to do something else instead of playing RPGs, the groups will dissolve. So it's in the interest of wotc to keep me happy and make my life easier. 
For all of those that say that 5e is simple and we don't need e-tools, just think of persons like me that must prepare everything for each session - from maps and tokens till the choices for my players' level up...


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 15, 2015)

WotC/Hasbro manages to appeal to a divided fan base with a new edition. Then it manages to divide it again. If only clear communications were made to explain stuff to fans.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> WotC/Hasbro manages to appeal to a divided fan base with a new edition. Then it manages to divide it again.




No, not really. This thread is pretty clear evidence to the contrary. The people acting offended by this aren't part of the fan base, and haven't been for years now. The most vocal critic in this thread (and the one who has taken great pains to sound like he's speaking on behalf of the fan base) hated 4e, thinks the fans are responsible for everything positive in 5e, and doesn't think of WotC as an ethical company. He's about as far removed from the fan base as you can get.

The fan base isn't being divided by this. The fan base doesn't care.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 15, 2015)

Whatever. I already know the Pathfinder system. 13th Age has some great ideas but the numbers are too large to work with. I will join the Pathfinder Party. It's been a good experience and a learning experience being a part of the 5th Edition play-test. But now it is time to move on to Pathfinder and support them for awhile.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 15, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> You act as if your own knowledge of "how to make money" is clearly superior to the fools running WotC who are *just leaving money on the table*. You "question their motives"? Huh? While I feel WotC is run by humans prone to error (and they have certainly made some), I trust the folks who work there who have done market research and who have lived through past mistakes . . . I trust their experience, their skill, and their desire to grow the D&D game.




The experts at Hasbro do indeed know what they are doing, which is to make as much money as they can from the D&D BRAND. They are not overly concerned with the game or what is best for it unless that impacts the generation of brand revenue. I trust them to squeeze every nickel that they can out of the D&D brand but I no expectation that in doing so, they care about the quality of the D&D game.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 15, 2015)

I am a serial fan material producer, for a variety of games such as Cyberpunk, Call of Cthulhu and even Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Everything I do is done with my understanding that I am using other companies IP, and that they can choose to shut me down whenever they feel like it. And yet, I don't worry about it, and I wouldn't bear the companies any ill will should they send a C&D to me. 

It's part of the game, it's not something that's never ever has been on the table ever before in the history of games.

And someone being shut down after selling stuff using another company's IP? A given, and really something no one should be surprised by or in my opinion even upset about.

Still the app looked good, judging from the screenshot.

/Maggan


----------



## Uchawi (Feb 15, 2015)

They just run the risk of offending the players, who may want to play the game, but nothing official has been released for "online/offline tools". I believe the better approach would be to correct what was done wrong, i.e. distributing copyright material found in books, but otherwise leave the app alone.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 15, 2015)

If the problem can be corrected by removing the copyrighted material, there should be no problem for the app creator to rerelease the app soon enough. If it's not using any IP from WotC, then there's nothing they could do about it.

So we'll see how much utility was from using the copyrighted material, and how much was from other, non-copyrightable functions.

/Maggan


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> WotC/Hasbro manages to appeal to a divided fan base with a new edition. Then it manages to divide it again. If only clear communications were made to explain stuff to fans.




The fan base is not dividing over these events.  Almost nobody had even heard of these things, let alone used them.  No meaningful number of people are going to react strongly over any of this.  It takes a heck of a lot more to divide a fanbase.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 15, 2015)

WotC having a clear fan and commercial policy would certainly be the best solution.  Unfortunately, I doubt even they know at this point what they want.  (And, of course, "they" is actually different groups within the company so who knows when we will actually see something.)

They seem to be making it up as they go along with regard to D&D.  (Which I guess can be expected since, for the first time in its history, the flagship of D&D is not the RPG, but the brand.)


----------



## Dannager (Feb 15, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> Whatever. I already know the Pathfinder system. 13th Age has some great ideas but the numbers are too large to work with. I will join the Pathfinder Party. It's been a good experience and a learning experience being a part of the 5th Edition play-test. But now it is time to move on to Pathfinder and support them for awhile.




Uh-huh.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Feb 15, 2015)

I wonder if the developer forked over to WotC any of the money he made?

The least he can do for stealing from them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2015)

sanishiver said:


> I wonder if the developer forked over to WotC any of the money he made?
> 
> The least he can do for stealing from them.




If I were WoTC I would sue for all profits plus damages plus punitive and bankrupt the guy...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 15, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If I were WoTC I would sue for all profits plus damages plus punitive and bankrupt the guy...




How vindictive of you.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure WotC is made up of fairly nice people.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> How vindictive of you.
> 
> Fortunately, I'm pretty sure WotC is made up of fairly nice people.




Yea. I get vindictive sometimes... You don't want to know what I would do if I ever fought the guy who 5 years ago broke in to my house and stole almost a thousand dollar worth of gifts, our tv, and my mothers jewelry box...I can't really say Eather in a form friendly way...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 15, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yea. I get vindictive sometimes... You don't want to know what I would do if I ever fought the guy who 5 years ago broke in to my house and stole almost a thousand dollar worth of gifts, our tv, and my mothers jewelry box...I can't really say Eather in a form friendly way...




Not exactly the same thing.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Not exactly the same thing.




Not even _remotely_ the same thing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Not exactly the same thing.



No in the case of WoTC though there is a big pr issue Anne I understand why they not take the same tactic as I would... However I dare someone to make a Rifts app...man that would be fire works


----------



## Morrus (Feb 15, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> No in the case of WoTC though there is a big pr issue Anne I understand why they not take the same tactic as I would...




I'm fairly sure they don't behave in a psychotic manner for reasons other than PR. Ruining someone's life for making a character generator is not reasonable by any moral standard.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm fairly sure they don't behave in a psychotic manner for reasons other than PR. Ruining someone's life for making a character generator is not reasonable by any moral standard.




I don't believe I am psychotic...or that I have any moral issues, I just don't believe in proportional responders, I believe if someone does something against you, you have to hit them back harder to try to stop people from starting things with you . I don't believe in starting a fight, but I do believe in stopping one quickly. 

I am surprised you of all people would think that a personal choice of vengeance is too far in a moral standing


----------



## Morrus (Feb 15, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't believe I am psychotic...or that I have any moral issues, I just don't believe in proportional responders, I believe if someone does something against you, you have to hit them back harder to try to stop people from starting things with you . I don't believe in starting a fight, but I do believe in stopping one quickly.
> 
> I am surprised you of all people would think that a personal choice of vengeance is too far in a moral standing




Me of all people? What have I ever done to make you believe I'm a big fan of vengeance?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Me of all people? What have I ever done to make you believe I'm a big fan of vengeance?




I don't know but I always got the feeling you were someone bad to cross... The not quick to anger but powerful anger when roused. Maybe I miss read you, but as much as I'm sure you would be polite to someone that you would not let them take advantage... Guess I was wrong.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 15, 2015)

Haha wow this thread took a _*really*_ weird turn.


----------



## Uchawi (Feb 15, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> The fan base is not dividing over these events.  Almost nobody had even heard of these things, let alone used them.  No meaningful number of people are going to react strongly over any of this.  It takes a heck of a lot more to divide a fanbase.



The only fan base that would be in question are those that use digital tools, but tie that to social media (also online) and the perception may radiate out farther.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 15, 2015)

Reading this, I'm reminded of a story a while back where fans were badgering George R R Martin to hurry up and finish writing the next instalment of A Song of Ice and Fire.  Neil Gaiman wrote a fantastic bit on his blog - George R. R. Martin is not your bitch.  

The most relevant passage for me is:



> People are not machines. Writers and artists aren't machines.
> 
> You're complaining about George doing other things than writing the books you want to read as if your buying the first book in the series was a contract with him: that you would pay over your ten dollars, and George for his part would spend every waking hour until the series was done, writing the rest of the books for you.
> 
> No such contract existed. You were paying your ten dollars for the book you were reading, and I assume that you enjoyed it because you want to know what happens next.




That's precisely what is happening here.  You paid your money to buy the Dungeons and Dragons game.  There is absolutely no contract stating that WOTC will produce ANYTHING beyond that.  If you feel that buying the Dungeons and Dragons game somehow entitles you to have a digital character generator available, you would be very, very wrong.  You can want such a thing, but, at no point in time are you actually entitled to it. 

If WOTC decides to produce a digital character generator, fine and dandy, but, that is THEIR decision, not yours.  Nor is the decision of some third guy who puts it online for you to use.  IT'S NOT HIS PROPERTY.  Full stop.  There's no other way to look at this.  Charging for it or for free, he or she has absolutely no right to do so.  None.  

Just remember, WOTC is not your bitch.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 16, 2015)

I certainly feel like a fool working with all the fans who did all the play-testing for WOTC for free and made free apps that WOTC has no official versions for yet. I guess the joke is on the fans.


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 16, 2015)

Uchawi said:


> The only fan base that would be in question are those that use digital tools, but tie that to social media (also online) and the perception may radiate out farther.




Actually, we can make a good estimate of how big the effect on the fan base is. Morrus gives an estimate that 10,000 people have read this thread. Of those one (or maybe two) have decided to ditch 5e because of it. I'd tend to think that anyone who would care enough to do so would likely post, but let's assume that for every vocal quitter there are 5-10 "silent quitters". 

So, yes, this issue will split 5e. 

99.9% to 0.1%

Maybe.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> That's precisely what is happening here.  You paid your money to buy the Dungeons and Dragons game.  There is absolutely no contract stating that WOTC will produce ANYTHING beyond that.  If you feel that buying the Dungeons and Dragons game somehow entitles you to have a digital character generator available, you would be very, very wrong.  You can want such a thing, but, at no point in time are you actually entitled to it.
> 
> If WOTC decides to produce a digital character generator, fine and dandy, but, that is THEIR decision, not yours.  Nor is the decision of some third guy who puts it online for you to use.  IT'S NOT HIS PROPERTY.  Full stop.  There's no other way to look at this.  Charging for it or for free, he or she has absolutely no right to do so.  None.
> 
> Just remember, WOTC is not your bitch.




George and WotC can of course do what ever they want but not if they really want that precious $10 that is currently in my pocket.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> I certainly feel like a fool working with all the fans who did all the play-testing for WOTC for free and made free apps that WOTC has no official versions for yet. I guess the joke is on the fans.




I thought you were done with your pulpit.

You felt like a fool playing a game - for free - that someone else designed for you? Yeah, how disrespectful of them.

You felt like a fool for being loosely affiliated with some other people who infringed on WotC's intellectual property? Uh huh.

You need to start looking for the joke and its punchline elsewhere. Who do you think is laughing, here, exactly? It's not you. And it's not WotC.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> George and WotC can of course do what ever they want but not if they really want that precious $10 that is currently in my pocket.




Why would WotC consider a handful of $10 bills worth being blackmailed into allowing their intellectual property to be freely infringed upon? Your money doesn't have the power that you think it does. You are a fickle consumer, and long-running businesses know that fickle consumers aren't worth going out of their way to cater to.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Why would WotC consider a handful of $10 bills worth being blackmailed into allowing their intellectual property to be freely infringed upon? Your money doesn't have the power that you think it does. You are a fickle consumer, and long-running businesses know that fickle consumers aren't worth going out of their way to cater to.




I am sure all long-running businesses know that customers are in fact worth going out of their way to cater to.

That is why they are long running businesses after all.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 16, 2015)

Long running companies understand their core competencies and actively ignore the noise from everywhere else. Remember when the blogosphere, tech pundits, and message boards were all saying Apple MUST release a netbook, because everyone else was, or they were DOOMED! They ignored the noise. Seemed to work out pretty well. Chasing the whims of the vocal minority on blogs and message boards is a guaanteed recipe for failure.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> George and WotC can of course do what ever they want but not if they really want that precious $10 that is currently in my pocket.




And that's fair.  Vote with your wallet.  Give you money to someone else who is providing you with the products that you want.

That still, in no way, means that WOTC should not protect its IP.  Say, just for arguments sake, they leave this character builder alone.  They let it run.  It was priced as what, a 99 cent download from iTunes?  Should that mean that not only should WOTC allow someone else to freeload off of its IP, but should also let that freeloader dictate their own price points?  After all, if WOTC's character builder is $ 2.99 (for example) wouldn't you just buy the cheaper one?  

In your mind, what rights does creating something and having the copyright to it confer?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 16, 2015)

Did anyone notice there is a Fan Site Kit up? As in an official WOTC one?

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/fan-site-kit


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 16, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Did anyone notice there is a Fan Site Kit up? As in an official WOTC one?
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/fan-site-kit



so is this over, is that what people wanted?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And that's fair.  Vote with your wallet.  Give you money to someone else who is providing you with the products that you want.




That is a good point.



> That still, in no way, means that WOTC should not protect its IP.  Say, just for arguments sake, they leave this character builder alone.  They let it run.  It was priced as what, a 99 cent download from iTunes?  Should that mean that not only should WOTC allow someone else to freeload off of its IP, but should also let that freeloader dictate their own price points?  After all, if WOTC's character builder is $ 2.99 (for example) wouldn't you just buy the cheaper one?




If the only difference between a $2.99 character builder and a free character builder was the price then sure it is a no brainer.  But if that $2.99 character builder came with a Dragon/Dungeon subscription then it is no longer so black and white with the obvious exception of a subscription based character builder of course.



> In your mind, what rights does creating something and having the copyright to it confer?




Well for a start it gives you the right to try and earn my next $10. After all just because I have given you my first $10 does not entitle George or WotC to get the next $10.


----------



## redrick (Feb 16, 2015)

Edit. Sorry. Snark removed.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I am sure all long-running businesses know that customers are in fact worth going out of their way to cater to.
> 
> That is why they are long running businesses after all.




Cute.

I didn't say that WotC shouldn't bother catering to customers. I said that WotC shouldn't (and doesn't) bother catering to the demands of fickle consumers. "Customers" (as you are using the word) is a massive group, and WotC has found a market segment therein that keeps it afloat. It doesn't cater to all customers, because some customers are unreasonable and make silly demands of them (like demanding that they stop protecting their own intellectual property). But it caters to the reasonable ones.

After all, WotC and Hasbro are both long-running businesses.

You having $10 in your pocket doesn't make you worth WotC's time. Most of the country has $10 in their pocket. What makes you worth WotC's time is having $10 in your pocket, and being receptive to what WotC is offering. You aren't receptive. You might *think* that you are, but the second you start saying things like, "I won't consider purchasing their products until they give up on protecting their own intellectual property," you put heinous terms on the dialog between you and the company. You are no longer receptive. You - you, and a handful of other people - now must be satisfied that WotC has crippled itself; why in the world would you think that sounds like a good deal to WotC? They could much, *much* more easily (and inexpensively) expand their marketing efforts to draw in new customers than bow to your demands.

You have made yourself a poor prospect for companies like WotC. You will not find your personal desires given the same consideration that other consumers' desires are given.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Dannager said:


> You have made yourself a poor prospect for companies like WotC. You will not find your personal desires given the same consideration that other consumers' desires are given.




I presume when you (Dannager) say "you" you are referring to the general imaginary "yous" rather then specifically you (Shasarak).


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I presume when you (Dannager) say "you" you are referring to the general imaginary "yous" rather then specifically you (Shasarak).




Both in the general and the specific (assuming, that is, that you were actually referring to yourself when you described the $10 in your pocket that WotC wouldn't be getting).


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Both in the general and the specific (assuming, that is, that you were actually referring to yourself when you described the $10 in your pocket that WotC wouldn't be getting).




Oh, OK.  It was just that your post did not address me at all.  After all it is not you who decides who gets to be a customer or not.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Oh, OK.  It was just that your post did not address me at all.  After all it is not you who decides who gets to be a customer or not.




I'm not sure what you mean by that. This isn't about who "gets to be a customer or not". This is about which people WotC decides to target with their products and services. You don't need to be the within their target audience in order to be a customer, but you are certainly more likely to be a customer if you are.

Refusing to pay WotC $10 unless they give up their intellectual property protections is a lot like refusing to order pizza from Pizza Hut unless it replaces all of its delivery drivers with dudes on rollerskates. It doesn't make you powerful. It just makes it very easy to ignore you and focus on the people who are worth marketing to.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> That is a good point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But now you are back to making demands. You will only pay if they also offer more than the free guy. 

That misses the point that the free guy had no right to offer a free product at all.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But now you are back to making demands. You will only pay if they also offer more than the free guy.
> 
> That misses the point that the free guy had no right to offer a free product at all.





It is not a demand to expect a product that I am being asked to pay for to be worth the amount that is being asked.  That is just basic economics.

All I know about your product is that it is $2.99.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> It is not a demand to expect a product that I am being asked to pay for to be worth the amount that is being asked.  That is just basic economics.




Do you honestly not understand why we consider your expectations a little ridiculous? You're saying that someone can steal WotC's intellectual property, *sell it*, and force WotC to compete *with its own property*, and that you support this!

I mean, you even argued that tacking on a Dungeon or Dragon subscription might entice you. What if the IP-stealing app dude took the PDFs of Dragon and Dungeon and added those to his app? What's to stop him from doing exactly that with *every* value-add WotC tries to use to avoid having its market devoured by someone undercutting them with their own property?

Hell, imagine that you sold cakes, and that you baked 10 cakes every day. Imagine that someone came in the middle of the night, every night, and stole 5 of your cakes. Imagine that he then sold those cakes for $1.00 per cake. Imagine that you normally charge $10.00 per cake to cover your costs. Imagine that he set up shop, *with your cakes*, right next door. And - here's the kicker - imagine that people are telling you that you shouldn't do anything about him stealing your cakes and selling them, and that *you* are the unethical one for trying to fight back!


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Do you honestly not understand why we consider your expectations a little ridiculous? You're saying that someone can steal WotC's intellectual property, *sell it*, and force WotC to compete *with its own property*, and that you support this!




Yeah, I guess if I said that it really would be ridiculous.



> I mean, you even argued that tacking on a Dungeon or Dragon subscription might entice you. What if the IP-stealing app dude took the PDFs of Dragon and Dungeon and added those to his app? What's to stop him from doing exactly that with *every* value-add WotC tries to use to avoid having its market devoured by someone undercutting them with their own property?




Well before we worry about what some dude is going to steal - first there has to be *something* to steal.  Lets see these value-add ons of which you speak.



> Hell, imagine that you sold cakes, and that you baked 10 cakes every day. Imagine that someone came in the middle of the night, every night, and stole 5 of your cakes. Imagine that he then sold those cakes for $1.00 per cake. Imagine that you normally charge $10.00 per cake to cover your costs. Imagine that he set up shop, *with your cakes*, right next door. And - here's the kicker - imagine that people are telling you that you shouldn't do anything about him stealing your cakes and selling them, and that *you* are the unethical one for trying to fight back!




What about McDonalds for example - I can easily copy their products and sell them right next door.  In fact a lot of Burger chains are doing that right now and yet somehow McDonalds is bigger then Hasbro by more then a factor of 10 to 1.


----------



## MasterTrancer (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Yeah, I guess if I said that it really would be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hmm...but they're selling their own brand hamburgers, not McDonald's ones but cheaper. The competition is then on the brand, the recipes, the stalls and so on. Not the same actually. What you're hinting at is what has been going on with, say, Paizo: they're selling a different taste of RPG...and I've yet to see WotC sue Paizo.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Yeah, I guess if I said that it really would be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Well before we worry about what some dude is going to steal - first there has to be *something* to steal.  Lets see these value-add ons of which you speak.




But wotc doesn't have to add anything. They are the sole legal source of ANY product. That's the point you are missing. If the want to offer a chargen program at any price point, that is entirely their right. 

Why do they have to compete with someone who is outright stealing their IP?



> What about McDonalds for example - I can easily copy their products and sell them right next door.  In fact a lot of Burger chains are doing that right now and yet somehow McDonalds is bigger then Hasbro by more then a factor of 10 to 1.




Try it. Try selling a Big Mac, named a Big Mac with golden arches outside your restaurant and see how long you last. 

Because McDonalds value isn't in the recipe. It's in the brand. You could sell burgers that exactly copy a Big Mac without a problem. But the second you call it a Big Mac, you're boned.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Try it. Try selling a Big Mac, named a Big Mac with golden arches outside your restaurant and see how long you last.
> 
> Because McDonalds value isn't in the recipe. It's in the brand. You could sell burgers that exactly copy a Big Mac without a problem. But the second you call it a Big Mac, you're boned.




I suggest calling it a Big Mick, and don't use sesame seed buns!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2015)

Lets put this in perspective shall we?  Wotc spent millions of dollars developing 5e. Easily millions. 13 full time employees for three years is already about two million dollars and you haven't even turned on the lights yet. 

Any product they produce has to go towards making a decent ROI on that investment. Which is one factor in deciding price points. Not the only one but certainly a factor.  

The guy making a free app has only invested his time. Nothing else. He can afford to price at zero or close to zero because the return is virtually instant. He's not out of pocket at all. 

You cannot compete with that. It's not possible. And you certainly shouldn't have to.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 16, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Did anyone notice there is a Fan Site Kit up? As in an official WOTC one?
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/fan-site-kit




It's not quite the same thing.  That gives you a small ZIP file of logos, graphics, and wallpapers you can use on your fan site in exchange for a bunch of restrictions you agree to.


----------



## graypariah (Feb 16, 2015)

The arguments that a product being offered for free makes no difference as far as it's effect on their sales, doesn't take into account the realities of modern table top gaming and piracy. Whether someone agrees with piracy or not, they at least need to take into account the realities of it and understand that the table top gaming hobby (and most similar hobbies) are primary made up of computer literate people. Heck, probably more than half of the people who play the hobby and buy the books also casually pirate information. 

Additionally the arguments that there is no contractual obligation for them to produce material is true, but like many people in this hobby I need to know that they are producing a product worth investing my time and money into. I was really psyched about 5th edition and I would be perfectly ok if they never produced another book, but I do need the game system I play to either have fan made material and tools readily available or have functional and affordable versions available. Currently there are some of the former available, but if they start removing them without replacing them with the latter I wont have much choice but to jump ship.

I think a lot of the people that are posting against WotC's decision are like me, they really love the game system and are struggling to avoid not having to switch to a different one.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 16, 2015)

Morrus said:


> It's not quite the same thing.  That gives you a small ZIP file of logos, graphics, and wallpapers you can use on your fan site in exchange for a bunch of restrictions you agree to.



Funny thing.  I was looking for an EN World thread on the new Fan Site Kit and found a real long one.  It took me a few pages of reading to realize it was from 2009.  With a few changes, the text is virtually the same from the 2009 kit for 4e, including reference to a GSL.

Based on that, I suspect we won't see an OGL, but we will see a new GSL.  Hopefully less restrictive than the old one.


----------



## Nylanfs (Feb 16, 2015)

WotC Fan Policy said:
			
		

> Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to *publish, distribute* or sell your own free-to-use games, *modules or applications* for any of Wizards' brands...




That right there is kind of a killer for almost everything digital.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 16, 2015)

Nylanfs said:


> That right there is kind of a killer for almost everything digital.




It's an odd one. Basically, though it says "fan site policy" it's actually a "trademarks/graphics use policy".  You can use the resources in the ZIP file as long as you follow the rules.

If you don't use the resources in the ZIP file, the whole thing doesn't really apply to you. You're back in the realm of regular law.  

There is a weird line in there which says that if you use *anything* from wizards.com you agree to the rules, which sounds fairly weak a far as enforceability goes to me (a lawyer might weigh in). And another weird line which says that you can't post unapproved photos or pics of upcoming stuff anywhere (which would prevent me showing the _Temple of Elemental Evil_ board game contents in the news today, for example). So it's not a policy suitable for a website like this one.

The article is a year old, dated January 2014, refers to the GSL, but contains _Tyranny of Dragons_ graphics.


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 16, 2015)

Morrus said:


> There is a weird line in there which says that if you use *anything* from wizards.com you agree to the rules, which sounds fairly weak a far as enforceability goes to me (a lawyer might weigh in). And another weird line which says that you can't post unapproved photos or pics of upcoming stuff anywhere (which would prevent me showing the _Temple of Elemental Evil_ board game contents in the news today, for example). So it's not a policy suitable for a website like this one.



Interesting, to say the least. I would assume that this website would be considered a fansite as it's not an official forum, correct?

If the wording is that you aren't allowed to show any upcoming products and use logos at the same time, wouldn't this essentially restrict all RPG news sites from reporting about D&D?

Am I mis-understanding this?


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> If the wording is that you aren't allowed to show any upcoming products and use logos at the same time, wouldn't this essentially restrict all RPG news sites from reporting about D&D?



I expect it's covered under "fair use." Legally, there are a number of circumstances where it's permissible to reproduce copyrighted material. If you're just reproducing excerpts for reporting purposes, you're usually okay.



Iosue said:


> Funny thing.  I was looking for an EN World thread on the new Fan Site Kit and found a real long one.  It took me a few pages of reading to realize it was from 2009.  With a few changes, the text is virtually the same from the 2009 kit for 4e, including reference to a GSL.
> 
> Based on that, I suspect we won't see an OGL, but we will see a new GSL.  Hopefully less restrictive than the old one.



I wouldn't read too much into that fan site policy. It's dated 1/1/14, well before 5E's release. I expect Wizards is still wrestling internally with what the new policy should look like; in the meantime, the old 4E fan site policy remains in place.

Here's a question. Fight Club was reproducing lots of stuff from the PHB. Do we have any examples of people getting C&Ds for Basic-only content? Even though Wizards gives BD&D away for free, they still have the option to block anyone from using it in derivative works. I'm curious to know if they're exercising that option. If not, it might be a tip-off to what they have in mind for an open license.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 16, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> I expect it's covered under "fair use." Legally, there are a number of circumstances where it's permissible to reproduce copyrighted material. If you're just reproducing excerpts for reporting purposes, you're usually okay.




I am not a lawyer, natch, but it struck me as the kind of thing to prevent sites from passing themselves off as official sites making announcements, particularly with leaked art or other media.  So, the contents of an announced, soon to be released game?  I don't think they would have batted an eye.  OTOH, the early leaked cover art for the (unannounced!) Elemental Evil products probably would not have been kosher, at least on any section of the site using art from the Fan Site Kit.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 16, 2015)

correct me if I'm wrong, but that fan site policy would let me open up a page, and put my house rules, and homebrew on it no problem...as long as I wasn't charging...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 16, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> Interesting, to say the least. I would assume that this website would be considered a fansite as it's not an official forum, correct?
> 
> If the wording is that you aren't allowed to show any upcoming products and use logos at the same time, wouldn't this essentially restrict all RPG news sites from reporting about D&D?
> 
> Am I mis-understanding this?




Yup. It only applies to you if you agree to it.

It's a good deal for fan sites. News sites would obviously do their own thing.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 16, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Here's a question. Fight Club was reproducing lots of stuff from the PHB. Do we have any examples of people getting C&Ds for Basic-only content? Even though Wizards gives BD&D away for free, they still have the option to block anyone from using it in derivative works. I'm curious to know if they're exercising that option. If not, it might be a tip-off to what they have in mind for an open license.



I don't think Fight Club has/had any info from the PHB - it was only from the Basic rules. When I created my Bard, I had to enter most things manually relating to the Bard class, since Fight Club only had class info for the classes in the Basic rules. The only spells it had were Wizard and Cleric. Anything else would have to be entered manually.

I believe if the creator removes D20 from the name, removes the Wizard and Cleric spells, and possibly makes the race names generic (not sure about that one - does WotC hold copyright for things like Dwarf and Elf? Probably not...), he'll be able to start selling it again. In other words: make it as generic as possible.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 16, 2015)

Also, it sounds like the developer is hopeful. He posted on FB that this won't affect any current users of the app (meaning, he wasn't asked to push an update removing existing functionality/info), just that he can't offer the app "for the time being". That, to me, sounds like he believes he'll be able to offer a re-worked app at some point.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 16, 2015)

I really want to thank every one who responded here to my comments.

In summary, I think it is wrong for people to sell Wizards content in an app.

I think it is wrong for Wizards to force fans to take down free apps that Wizards has no official app for.

Pathguy's app was so useful. I could not keep track of all the class feature details without his character generator.

Spell summary lists were also vital and saved me a lot of prep time. But all the lists were taken down.

The attitude of some of you, you know who you are, is just terrible.
D&D is just a job to you. You spit on the fans. When I ask you to play-test your own modules you wrote, you argue with me and make excuses saying it ain't your job. Honestly, you smoke too much pot when you should be working.

No names, but you are the reason 5E won't grow.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Also, it sounds like the developer is hopeful. He posted on FB that this won't affect any current users of the app (meaning, he wasn't asked to push an update removing existing functionality/info), just that he can't offer the app "for the time being". That, to me, sounds like he believes he'll be able to offer a re-worked app at some point.




Ha, didn't see that. Also didn't realize it was using only Basic content--I could have sworn when I looked at it it had stuff from the PHB as well as Basic. Maybe I was looking at something else.

Anyway, that all sounds pretty encouraging for those of us hoping for a 5E OGL, or at least a much less restrictive GSL.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> The attitude of some of you, you know who you are, is just terrible.
> D&D is just a job to you. You spit on the fans. When I ask you to play-test your own modules you wrote, you argue with me and make excuses saying it ain't your job. Honestly, you smoke too much pot when you should be working.



They may know who they are, but I have no idea who you're talking about.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 16, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but that fan site policy would let me open up a page, and put my house rules, and homebrew on it no problem...as long as I wasn't charging...




Which you could do without a policy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 16, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> In summary, I think it is wrong for people to sell Wizards content in an app.



yes, wrong on every level...



> I think it is wrong for Wizards to force fans to take down free apps that Wizards has no official app for.



 why? Do you think that it is OK to take something and use it as if it was your own even though there is a legal owner of it?



> Pathguy's app was so useful. I could not keep track of all the class feature details without his character generator.
> 
> Spell summary lists were also vital and saved me a lot of prep time. But all the lists were taken down.



 they were taken down by pathguy though... nobody forced him to, he was just asked to only do legal things and his answer was to take it down...



> The attitude of some of you, you know who you are, is just terrible.
> D&D is just a job to you. You spit on the fans. When I ask you to play-test your own modules you wrote, you argue with me and make excuses saying it ain't your job. Honestly, you smoke too much pot when you should be working.



 I have never smoked anything, nore do I plan to. I don't belive that insulting anyone even with no names is right. WotC will grow the 5e line it will be the best selling RPG if it isn't already. They are expanding the brand to include games and movies and other things... they are doing a good job and no one has the right to take what they are doing and do anything with it with out permission...





> No names, but you are the reason 5E won't grow.



 if you really need tools, maybe you should start by asking WotC for them, instead of demanding that other people get to infringe on there rights...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 16, 2015)

DaveMage said:


> Which you could do without a policy.




but people up thread claimed they could not do so without fear of a lawsuit... so this ends that right? No one can complain they can't hombrew adventures and classes and races and put it up on the web for free...


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> I think it is wrong for Wizards to force fans to take down free apps that Wizards has no official app for.
> 
> Pathguy's app was so useful. I could not keep track of all the class feature details without his character generator.
> 
> Spell summary lists were also vital and saved me a lot of prep time. But all the lists were taken down.




This juvenile attitude needs to go. Yes, it was useful to you. Yes, your life is worse now that it's taken away. No, that doesn't give you *any moral standing whatsoever* to claim that you've been somehow wronged. "But it made my life better!" isn't justification for taking someone else's content without their permission.



> The attitude of some of you, you know who you are, is just terrible.




Fix your own, first.



> D&D is just a job to you. You spit on the fans. When I ask you to play-test your own modules you wrote, you argue with me and make excuses saying it ain't your job. Honestly, you smoke too much pot when you should be working.




It sounds like you're talking about someone specific, and doing a fair amount of character assassination in the process. Wouldn't this be better suited to being handled off a public message board, where you can actually talk to the people you're (frankly, pointlessly) angry with? The tone of your post makes it sound like you're personally familiar with the people who make D&D, but you very clearly aren't, because there is essentially no one working on D&D at WotC for whom it's "just a job."


----------



## Rune (Feb 16, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't believe I am psychotic...or that I have any moral issues, I just don't believe in proportional responders, I believe if someone does something against you, you have to hit them back harder to try to stop people from starting things with you .




Wow. Spoken like every great D&D villain I've ever run.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 16, 2015)

Rune said:


> Wow. Spoken like every great D&D villain I've ever run.



so most of your villains are only going after people who provable and demonstrably have committed a crime against them?!?!? sounds kind of weird....


edit: no wait, It was just explained to me that you were not really making an observation, but an insult. So I take that back. What your really mean is that I am an Evil SOB... thanks, I am very sick of this kind of stealth insult though. I think that you should be ashamed of yourself.... comparing someone to a villain in your game, let alone EVERY villain in your game is pretty insulting the more I think about it...

2nd edit: I would expect that most villains are more like the jerk who a few days before Christmas broke into my house and stole stuff, including gifts for my then 4 year old and 1 month old niece and nephew. The people who did series damage to a house and took presents from 4 different people In what should be the giving time of year... that sounds more like most villains in my games... or people who think that laws should only be obeyed when it suits them... you know like people pirating and stealing...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 16, 2015)

OK, time to calm it down, people. This is starting to turn ugly.


----------



## Rune (Feb 16, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so most of your villains are only going after people who provable and demonstrably have committed a crime against them?!?!? sounds kind of weird....
> 
> 
> edit: no wait, It was just explained to me that you were not really making an observation, but an insult. So I take that back. What your really mean is that I am an Evil SOB... thanks, I am very sick of this kind of stealth insult though. I think that you should be ashamed of yourself.... comparing someone to a villain in your game, let alone EVERY villain in your game is pretty insulting the more I think about it...
> ...




I mean no insult. Being wronged hurts. I've been wronged before. I feel your pain (well, more accurately, I feel my own pain, but I can recognize a parallel). 

I was merely pointing out that a doctrine of disproportionate response is...disproportionate (also, many of my villains are not evil). 

I do not, however, intend any comment on your character, which is something I am in no way qualified to comment on. 

I therefore have little else to do, but appologize to you. I am sorry.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But wotc doesn't have to add anything. They are the sole legal source of ANY product. That's the point you are missing. If the want to offer a chargen program at any price point, that is entirely their right.
> 
> Why do they have to compete with someone who is outright stealing their IP?




Maybe they should focus on trying to grow their own brand by offering products and value add ons.



> Try it. Try selling a Big Mac, named a Big Mac with golden arches outside your restaurant and see how long you last.
> 
> Because McDonalds value isn't in the recipe. It's in the brand. You could sell burgers that exactly copy a Big Mac without a problem. But the second you call it a Big Mac, you're boned.




I dont need to because I could go to Burger King, Wendies or the Burger Fast Food place and get the exact same product right now.

If you say that the value is in the brand then it is up to WotC to grow that brand and if they want my $10 then they have to earn it the old fashioned way.


----------



## Derren (Feb 16, 2015)

Strange how it is so super obvious that WotC would go against 3rd party apps to save the brand, yet other RPGs have no problem with fan made character generators (Chummer for Shadowrun for example).


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 16, 2015)

Derren said:


> Strange how it is so super obvious that WotC would go against 3rd party apps to save the brand, yet other RPGs have no problem with fan made character generators (Chummer for Shadowrun for example).




Are any of those other brands held by a major corporation with public investors who are looking for a return on said investment?

Honestly, I have no idea, but if that anser is "no" then there is your answer. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Maybe they should focus on trying to grow their own brand by offering products and value add ons.




Maybe they are. You have no idea, because you don't work there. More importantly, *it doesn't matter*. Regardless of what you think they ought to be doing to grow their own business (and I'm going to repeat: *their own* business), you don't get to claim the moral high ground. They have a right to protect their intellectual property, and it is amoral and unjust of you to act as though you have been somehow wronged, or slighted as a consumer, by them exercising that right.



> If you say that the value is in the brand then it is up to WotC to grow that brand and if they want my $10 then they have to earn it the old fashioned way.




The "old fashioned way" doesn't include them being forced to compete with someone else stealing their work and selling it for less.

You seriously need to stop for just a few minutes here and spend some time thinking about this. Your position here is flat-out wrong. This isn't something that opinions merely differ on. There is no rhetorical ground for you to stand on. I think you probably don't even believe the things you're arguing at this point; I think you chose to attack WotC for something legitimate, and when people corrected you, you simply decided to double down (repeatedly) on the error. Now you've found yourself with an extreme position and no way to argue yourself out of it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2015)

graypariah said:


> The arguments that a product being offered for free makes no difference as far as it's effect on their sales, doesn't take into account the realities of modern table top gaming and piracy. Whether someone agrees with piracy or not, they at least need to take into account the realities of it and understand that the table top gaming hobby (and most similar hobbies) are primary made up of computer literate people. Heck, probably more than half of the people who play the hobby and buy the books also casually pirate information.
> 
> Additionally the arguments that there is no contractual obligation for them to produce material is true, but like many people in this hobby I need to know that they are producing a product worth investing my time and money into. I was really psyched about 5th edition and I would be perfectly ok if they never produced another book, but I do need the game system I play to either have fan made material and tools readily available or have functional and affordable versions available. Currently there are some of the former available, but if they start removing them without replacing them with the latter I wont have much choice but to jump ship.
> 
> I think a lot of the people that are posting against WotC's decision are like me, they really love the game system and are struggling to avoid not having to switch to a different one.




No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  You do not need any of that.  You might and probably do want those things and you are likely very willing to buy such things.  But, at no point do you actually need them.  Nor are you ever entitled to them.  If not having them means that you "jump ship" then fine.  Considering they aren't offering what you want, that's exactly what you should do.  But, that doesn't mean that they have to provide what you want, nor does it mean that they have to allow others to provide what you want.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 16, 2015)

Derren said:


> Strange how it is so super obvious that WotC would go against 3rd party apps to save the brand, yet other RPGs have no problem with fan made character generators (Chummer for Shadowrun for example).




The key word there is "brand". Shadowrun has a history as a product line and a fictional universe, but as a brand? Not so much. It has been handled, at various points, by FASA, WizKids, FanPro, Topps, and Catalyst Game Labs. There's not a lot of stability there. Compare to D&D, which has been around significantly longer than Shadowrun and has only ever changed hands once.

Heck, look at the history of Shadowrun video games - most of them are titled, simply, _Shadowrun_, and every last one of them has the word "Shadowrun" in the game's name. There wasn't enough brand presence and staying power for them to develop anything resembling a cohesive line of diversified game products. Compare to D&D, which has _series_ (plural) of games, and most of them had such a strong grounding in the brand that they didn't even need "Dungeons & Dragons" in the title of the game!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2015)

Derren said:


> Strange how it is so super obvious that WotC would go against 3rd party apps to save the brand, yet other RPGs have no problem with fan made character generators (Chummer for Shadowrun for example).




Yeah, because comparing a multi-million dollar business to someone's garage product makes so much sense.  Jeez.  Hey Derren, howzabout I photocopy the stuff you've worked on and provide it for free.  You'd be perfectly fine with that wouldn't you?  After all, if its fine for WOTC, then why should you get paid for your work?  Let's go one better.  How about you provide all your freelance work for free?  After all, no one should have to pay for it should they?  I mean, if it's fine for people to provide WOTC material for free, then it should be fine for you too, right?

So, do you work for free Derren?  Why do you expect to get paid for your freelance work?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, because comparing a multi-million dollar business to someone's garage product makes so much sense.  Jeez.  Hey Derren, howzabout I photocopy the stuff you've worked on and provide it for free.  You'd be perfectly fine with that wouldn't you?  After all, if its fine for WOTC, then why should you get paid for your work?  Let's go one better.  How about you provide all your freelance work for free?  After all, no one should have to pay for it should they?  I mean, if it's fine for people to provide WOTC material for free, then it should be fine for you too, right?
> 
> So, do you work for free Derren?  Why do you expect to get paid for your freelance work?




I thought WotC and Hasbro was printing money, they could pay a ton of employees, never lay anyone off, never downsize or restructure, have the best highest paid talent, AND let people steal there IP, or just give stuff away..


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Sending out C&Ds with no clear intention of doing so is just bullying.



I think there are two ways of responding to this.

The first involves denial: it's not bullying for a commercial publishing house to try and stop another commercial publisher from profiting, without licence, from intellectual property produced by the first of the two publishers. And it's not as if WotC is just squatting on its rights: it's selling thousands, presumably tens or hundreds of thousands, of books.

The second involves modus tollens: Let's add to your claim the premise that WotC is not a bully; and then we get the conclusion that WotC has clear intentions to release some sort of character generator. Sound pretty plausible to me!



ren1999 said:


> The fact that the Wizards legal department doesn't know the difference is what really bothers me here.



I think it's more likely that Wizard's legal department just doesn't share your view that fans should be able to reproduce WotC's copyrighted text without permission.



ren1999 said:


> If you have your own company, never punish your fans for producing something that promotes your product or producing something that you don't have, such as an online character generator. That is just basic business sense.



I don't think it's that straightforward. All WotC has to make money from, on the D&D side, is its IP - trademarks + copyrighted text and images. If they just decided to squat on it all and stop others enjoying it, that might be one thing. But manifestly they are not doing that. They are publishing rulebooks, and adventures, and almost certainly in due course will publish some sort of digital tools.

It's their prerogative to decide what the best way to do this is. That's the nature of a market economy: private property owners get to decide what to do with their property. In this case, that means that WotC gets to decide who can digitally publish their rules text.



ren1999 said:


> Wizards seems to me to be an unethical disloyal group that does not respect its employees who created the game, nor does it respect its fans that spent years playtesting the game for free, nor does it respect fans such as Pathguy who put out a Character Generator to help people create characters and navigate through the game and learn how to play it.



The relationship between WotC and its employees is a topic for another time and place. I gather that by American standards they are a relatively respectable employer as far as salaries and benefits go. The broader merits of American labour laws is something that forum rules preclude expressing an opinion on.

I suspect that WotC doesn't regard Pathguy as deserving respect. They want to control how people encounter their game and come to their material. That is their prerogative: they are the publisher.

As for their fans, most fans didn't spend years _playtesting_ the game for free. They spent years _playing_ the game for free, ie without having to pay for it. If that's hardship, sign me up for more of it!


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 17, 2015)

pemerton said:


> The second involves modus tollens: Let's add to your claim the premise that WotC is not a bully; and then we get the conclusion that WotC has clear intentions to release some sort of character generator. Sound pretty plausible to me!




Never assume.  And "their intentions" could be to release a character building tool two years from now that's half baked and requires fans to "fix" it ala the original 4e character builder, until which time WOTC discontinues the product because they realize they can skim more money off the top through subscription fees instead of one-time sales of a singular product.  AND release that product on a platform that half the computer users can't even use and even web developers don't like (Silverlight).  

Yes, I have a low expectation of WOTC because they have a reputation of not seeing the bar very high to begin with.

I assume Wizards has no intention of doing anything until they actually state _specific_ intentions.  "We're going to release something something digital something." is *not* that.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Never assume.




Okay. You guys first.

Or are we not counting pretending to know the thoughts and motivations of multiple departments within a company no one in this thread works at as "assuming"?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> There is a weird line in there which says that if you use *anything* from wizards.com you agree to the rules, which sounds fairly weak a far as enforceability goes to me (a lawyer might weigh in).



I'll have a go, though American contract law is not exactly my field.

The Fan Site Kit Policy defines itself as being part of the Website Terms of Use. And the Terms of Use (that are linked to on the Fan Site Kit Policy page) talk about compliance with the Fan Site Kit Policy.

So if the Terms of Use are binding, then that line in the policy is probably binding also.

On general principles as they apply in Anglo-Australian contract law I don't see how the Terms of Use could be binding, and hence don't see how that line in the policy could be binding. For instance, neither the WotC home page nor the D&D page prominently display the Terms of Use: you have to scroll to the bottom of the page and then follow a link to find them. Only once you start reading the Terms of Use do you find the line that "Your use of our Websites or Services constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use . . ."

That said, anyone who _has_ read the Terms of Use or the Fan Site Kit Policy is probably bound at that point. There may also be special rules that apply to online/website contracts that I'm not aware of, that override the general rules about display of fine print that I am applying in my reasoning in the previous paragraph.

But in any event being bound by the policy doesn't seem to amount to much: the prohibitions on altering downloaded Tool Kit material or on merchandising material bearing WotC trademarks or material probably already apply as part of general IP law.

The other rules seem to apply only to Fan Sites, which are defined as being "for your own personal use" as one of the game's "fans, collectors and commentators". So I don't think they apply to someone running a site like ENworld. Hence, for instance, I don't see that - say, by reading the 5e Basic PDF - you as owner of ENworld have contractually promised not to "publish, display, exhibit or use any information about products (including any photographs, game text, rules, or drawings of such new products or their prototypes) that has not already been released to the general public by Wizards or that Wizards has otherwise expressly authorized for release to the collector community".

Another possible construction would be that, if you use the tool kit material on your site - and hence bring your site into the category of "fan site" - you have promised not to also have that prohibited material on your site.

(A further complexity is that most such material wouldn't count as "Wizards Material" (which is defined as the stuff in the tool kit), but the prohibition appears under the heading "guidelines and policies for use of Wizards Material". But this wouldn't be the first time a contract had an unhelpful heading.)


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 17, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Okay. You guys first.
> 
> Or are we not counting pretending to know the thoughts and motivations of multiple departments within a company no one in this thread works at as "assuming"?




I'm not assuming.  I'm telling you what is _known_ with the facts currently available.
At one time WOTC intended to release a digital tool.  That release has been canceled.  No subsequent announcements have been made on the subject.   Therefore WOTC's intentions to release a new tool are unknown.  Having neither stated that they ARE or ARE NOT going to release something, in a capitalist system default position should always be the easiest path for the producer: do nothing.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I'm not assuming.  I'm telling you what is _known_ with the facts currently available.
> At one time WOTC intended to release a digital tool.  That release has been canceled.  No subsequent announcements have been made on the subject.   Therefore WOTC's intentions to release a new tool are unknown.  Having neither stated that they ARE or ARE NOT going to release something, in a capitalist system default position should always be the easiest path for the producer: do nothing.





Doesn't follow logically; they had a falling out with a vendor, so they did not release one tool set.  They are continuing to exercise their rights to not have their property stolen, which as @pemerron says dies imply a continued interest, not just logically but legally


----------



## Iosue (Feb 17, 2015)

"Assume nothing" doesn't mean you assume they won't do something, or that they plan not to.  It means you recognize you don't have enough information to decide either way.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 17, 2015)

If it seems like I know the people I am crticizing it is because I am from Seattle.

Now please Wizards, continue to ignore my advice and as you were.

Time for me to stop insulting you to get you to change and put my efforts into improving Pathfinder, not that it is already doing a great job.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I'm not assuming.  I'm telling you what is _known_ with the facts currently available.
> At one time WOTC intended to release a digital tool.  That release has been canceled.  No subsequent announcements have been made on the subject.   Therefore WOTC's intentions to release a new tool are unknown.  Having neither stated that they ARE or ARE NOT going to release something, in a capitalist system default position should always be the easiest path for the producer: do nothing.




Let's not pretend at an advanced understanding of economics, hm? You literally are making an assumption in your last sentence - the easiest path for the producer is to do nothing, therefore you can treat it as though they are doing nothing regardless of what the reality is - otherwise known as "assuming".

Or we can just agree that it's silly for you to be telling us not to assume anything! That works for me, too!


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> If it seems like I know the people I am crticizing it is because I am from Seattle.




Oh my gosh, you and 3.5 million other people!

I notice that you said "I am from Seattle," not "I actually talk to these people in person," or "I get drinks with them sometimes," or even "I've driven by their offices in Renton a couple times!"

And, again, there is frankly no amount of familiarity you could pretend at that would convince us that the guys working on D&D over at WotC see it as "just a job." There are too many people on this site who have _*actually*_ interacted with those folks - many at considerable length - for you to get away with that one.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 17, 2015)

Just a bit of an update, but this is getting quite a bit of bad press outside of the internet. Local comic shop it was quite the conversation around the tables. I'd wager 20 or so people. Interesting to say the least... many of these people are casual players coming with their friends. I hope wizards fixes something soon. Release a damn official players license or something.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Just a bit of an update, but this is getting quite a bit of bad press outside of the internet. Local comic shop it was quite the conversation around the tables. I'd wager 20 or so people. Interesting to say the least... many of these people are casual players coming with their friends. I hope wizards fixes something soon. Release a damn official players license or something.




That is exactly what I have comment on previously.  It is not whether WotC is right or wrong. It is how their customer base perceives it how they are treating people who have help kept. D&D alive between editions. Especially after 4ED fiasco.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> That is exactly what I have comment on previously.  It is not whether WotC is right or wrong. It is how their customer base perceives it how they are treating people who have help kept. D&D alive between editions. Especially after 4ED fiasco.




The "customer base" who is aware of the issue in the first place is the set of people who are aware of the internet goings-on surrounding D&D; in other words, exactly the sort of person who is on these forums. Posting on here that the problem is about perception is just a cop-out - it's the sort of thing I expect to see in political punditry. You know WotC is in the right, morally and legally. There's no question of that. If the problem is perception among the people who read about D&D news on the internet, *this is the place where we correct that perception*.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Just a bit of an update, but this is getting quite a bit of bad press outside of the internet. Local comic shop it was quite the conversation around the tables. I'd wager 20 or so people. Interesting to say the least... many of these people are casual players coming with their friends. I hope wizards fixes something soon. Release a damn official players license or something.




Why was it getting bad press? Were you there? If so, did you set the people giving it bad press straight? If not, why not?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> It is how their customer base perceives it how they are treating people who have help kept. D&D alive between editions. Especially after 4ED fiasco.



This makes no sense. 4e players aren't some sort of insurgents who tried to destroy D&D. We are D&D players.

Also I assume that most subscribers to DDI are 4e players, so they actually played a rather significant role in "keeping D&D alive between editions".


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 17, 2015)

Dannager said:


> The "customer base" who is aware of the issue in the first place is the set of people who are aware of the internet goings-on surrounding D&D; in other words, exactly the sort of person who is on these forums. Posting on here that the problem is about perception is just a cop-out - it's the sort of thing I expect to see in political punditry. You know WotC is in the right, morally and legally. There's no question of that. If the problem is perception among the people who read about D&D news on the internet, *this is the place where we correct that perception*.




I'll express my opinion  in a polite manner dealing with the spheres of influence that I know.


Until then congratulations, welcome to the world of ignore and if you do not like to hear what I have to say in a polite manner then please go ahead and place me on your ignore list.  

Bty you are my first.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 17, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This makes no sense. 4e players aren't some sort of insurgents who tried to destroy D&D. We are D&D players.
> 
> Also I assume that most subscribers to DDI are 4e players, so they actually played a rather significant role in "keeping D&D alive between editions".




 Let explain a little further.  4ED was  not a profitable product that Hasbro wanted to be.  What I remember in the interwebs are the people that on their own time and effort that (IMHO) kept D&D alive in their web sites,  The did this by creating their own created content, when little of anything was coming out of WotCs.  I also loved some of their home brew games. They did it because they loved the game and wanted to share with others.

It is those people who should be praised for their efforts. It is because of them that I am still interested in investing and creating content for 5thED.  I have the financial luxury that many have here on this site don't have. So if I want to so something on a whim I can.  I do like 5thED.  The developers did a very good job in streamlining the game and should be commended on it.    But I know Hasbro and how it does business, and because of their business ethics I am leaning towards Paizo in creating content. If there is as general license that is reasonable or a OSL is being offered it might get my interest back into 5ED in content creation. 

In this day and age we got a lot of talented people and I want them to succeed and created new and different things.   I respect them  and at times I envy them for they can do things that I can not do.   Create something beautiful, written or visual from scratch.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 17, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Why was it getting bad press? Were you there? If so, did you set the people giving it bad press straight? If not, why not?




I was there. I usually listen rather than chime in, but there was nothing to correct about what they were saying. It was all fact about how they have been issuing cease and desist letters with no guidance on what the community should actually be doing to comply with a game that has no actual way of compliance apart from releasing things under the OGL as a back door. There was talk of morning star, all of which had nothing positive to say about either company. There was comparison and contrast on how Wizards is conducting their game and Paizo theirs (which is to be expected in a conversation like this). There was talk about the silence we have gotten from wizards while other companies/games  all have a fairly solid schedule, and make sure their relations are good within the community. The general tone I got about Wizards was... for lack of a better word.... oppressive. 



Dannager said:


> The "customer base" who is aware of the issue in the first place is the set of people who are aware of the internet goings-on surrounding D&D; in other words, exactly the sort of person who is on these forums. Posting on here that the problem is about perception is just a cop-out - it's the sort of thing I expect to see in political punditry. You know WotC is in the right, morally and legally. There's no question of that. If the problem is perception among the people who read about D&D news on the internet, this is the place where we correct that perception.




I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Posting on here about a perception, isn't a cop out. I don't even know what I'm copping out of. The facts are that people ARE talking about this. There ARE casuals who are getting exposed to this information. These people DONT go online to read the boards, they are friends who tag along to the shop and are being introduced to these games. Let me repeat again just to make it doubly clear THEY DO NOT GO ON SITES BECAUSE THEY JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS HOBBY.

I agree with your statement about legality, they can do whatever they want, but things like this spread even though you think it is neatly contained in the internet's online community this is simple 100% untrue, by my evidence of speaking with these people both new and old to the game. It is also true that despite what the actual details are, what is being presented  by internet gamers is what is being perceived by new players. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter at all. Wizards has no PR department, which they should have. Instead we the internet community at this point ARE their PR. 

If they want things to change, then wizards need to speak up and let us know what is specifically going on with the game, until then we can only infer for ourselves and draw conclusions however wrong they may be. We simply have no other way to speculate. If your reply is "stop speculation" then this conversation has no point, because it is in humanity's nature to speculate and no amount of force can change that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> I was there. I usually listen rather than chime in, but there was nothing to correct about what they were saying.



so they were saying "Someone stole from an RPG company, and they totally asked nice for them to stop and they did... everything worked out with a friendly email..." 



> It was all fact about how they have been issuing cease and desist letters with no guidance on what the community should actually be doing to comply with a game that has no actual way of compliance apart from releasing things under the OGL as a back door.



LIAR!!!!

there is guidance, you and others just don't like it. It is loud and clear "Wait for our announcements later this year" IS guidance... you just don't want to wait and see like they have reputedly asked... Someone earlier pointed out the SoIaF and G Martian comparison.... 

You should have pointed out those "fans" were in the wrong and WotC was in the right...





> There was talk of morning star, all of which had nothing positive to say about either company.



 what in the heck did WotC do wrong there>!>!>
trust the wrong company?




> There was comparison and contrast on how Wizards is conducting their game and Paizo theirs (which is to be expected in a conversation like this).



ok, one created the 3 versions of the game, the other put out house rules for one of them... 




> There was talk about the silence we have gotten from wizards while other companies/games  all have a fairly solid schedule, and make sure their relations are good within the community. The general tone I got about Wizards was... for lack of a better word.... oppressive.




WHat the hell? We do know a lot about what is comeing, and we just got a bunch of articles on there website and youtube... they have a slow relese scheduil and said the OGL will be addressed shortly... you are just impatient...



> op-pres-sive
> 
> 
> [uh-pres-iv]
> ...




that word is such an over reaction it isn't even funny. there is nothing burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: about a friendly email to someone stealing and in one case making money off your product...




> I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Posting on here about a perception, isn't a cop out. I don't even know what I'm copping out of. The facts are that people ARE talking about this. There ARE casuals who are getting exposed to this information.



the information should be "Don't steal other peoples IP"






> These people DONT go online to read the boards, they are friends who tag along to the shop and are being introduced to these games. Let me repeat again just to make it doubly clear THEY DO NOT GO ON SITES BECAUSE THEY JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS HOBBY.



 then what do they care? Why should it stop them from enjoying the game because SOMEONE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL STOPED IT?!?!?!!?



> I agree with your statement about legality, they can do whatever they want, but things like this spread even though you think it is neatly contained in the internet's online community this is simple 100% untrue, by my evidence of speaking with these people both new and old to the game. It is also true that despite what the actual details are, what is being presented  by internet gamers is what is being perceived by new players. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter at all. Wizards has no PR department, which they should have. Instead we the internet community at this point ARE their PR.




what should they do different? They told us there is news coming and to wait and see, they only sent out friendly emails, and even then only to people STEALING FROM THEM?!!?!?




> If they want things to change, then wizards need to speak up and let us know what is specifically going on with the game,



they have, people just don't like "We are working on an OGL, and will get back to you shortly on it....



> until then we can only infer for ourselves and draw conclusions however wrong they may be. We simply have no other way to speculate.



 sure we do... we can speculate they are trying to get some electronic stuff up and running, and that STEALING IP is BAD


> If your reply is "stop speculation" then this conversation has no point, because it is in humanity's nature to speculate and no amount of force can change that.



 how about stop supporting pirates and thieves??!!?


----------



## MasterTrancer (Feb 17, 2015)

Just to clear my mind: by the same tokens defended in many posts, it's perfectly rightful to download the scanned manuals because WotC hasn't yet announced when they would be selling the 5e PDFs?

Just wondering...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 17, 2015)

MasterTrancer said:


> Just to clear my mind: by the same tokens defended in many posts, it's perfectly rightful to download the scanned manuals because WotC hasn't yet announced when they would be selling the 5e PDFs?
> 
> Just wondering...




no it isn't... it is a crime... it is moraly arong to take something for free that you know is for sale elsewhere in a different format.

it is no different then me saying "Well if I rob a bank all the poor people have FDIC insurance so will get there money back, so I am morally not hurting anyone and there is no real crime involved...because no one got hurt but the big bad company"


----------



## MasterTrancer (Feb 17, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't... it is a crime... it is moraly arong to take something for free that you know is for sale elsewhere in a different format.
> 
> it is no different then me saying "Well if I rob a bank all the poor people have FDIC insurance so will get there money back, so I am morally not hurting anyone and there is no real crime involved...because no one got hurt but the big bad company"




I know you would answer like this, and I'm with you.

I know also that digital download is not the same of thieving solid stuff, but let's face it: we're talking about an hobby with a thin market (as recently discussed in other threads), and the lowering of the sales can lead only to drying it up. I for one would like to have a plethora of tools, possibly low-cost, PDF edited for an A5 format included with the physical copy of each manual and so on, but the only way to have this is probably to have WotC sell D&D back to some small product-oriented company.

Hey, let me throw an idea: with so many people here, a good part of which seem quite apt at running businesses by their own words, why don't we put up a crowdfunding to buy the D&D TTRPG line? I'm serious. Does anyone know how much could it be worth? No, I'm not joking, I'm really wondering.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 17, 2015)

MasterTrancer said:


> I know you would answer like this, and I'm with you.
> 
> I know also that digital download is not the same of thieving solid stuff, but let's face it: we're talking about an hobby with a thin market (as recently discussed in other threads), and the lowering of the sales can lead only to drying it up. I for one would like to have a plethora of tools, possibly low-cost, PDF edited for an A5 format included with the physical copy of each manual and so on, but the only way to have this is probably to have WotC sell D&D back to some small product-oriented company.
> 
> Hey, let me throw an idea: with so many people here, a good part of which seem quite apt at running businesses by their own words, why don't we put up a crowdfunding to buy the D&D TTRPG line? I'm serious. Does anyone know how much could it be worth? No, I'm not joking, I'm really wondering.




Hasbro has a history of not selling IP, but I bet if you wrote up a business plan to lease the rights to just the rpg itself and leave them the rest of the brand for say 10 years, and offered $30,000,000 it would atleast be considered.... in order to get your company off the ground though you would need another atleast half mill...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 17, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> LIAR!!!!




OK, I think it's time you stepped away from this thread. That's not even close to acceptable here. You're getting far too excited and upset. Take a deep breath, step away, and find and enjoy some threads which don't enrage you. WotC can handle itself, I'm sure.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 17, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> I'll express my opinion  in a polite manner dealing with the spheres of influence that I know.
> 
> 
> Until then congratulations, welcome to the world of ignore and if you do not like to hear what I have to say in a polite manner then please go ahead and place me on your ignore list.
> ...




Please don't publicly announce ignore list additions. If you want to ignore somebody, just go ahead and do it. There's no need for a parting last word.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 17, 2015)

Well, obviously some people get very emotional over this issue.  I don't have a horse in this race at the moment since I'm not playing 5E.  However, as someone who has been very impressed with the initial 5E ruleset (and the marketing rollout thereof), it's quite disappointing that the follow-up (fan and commercial licensing, software support, RPG products to come announcements) has not been as excellent.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Ino guidance on what the community should actually be doing to comply with a game that has no actual way of compliance apart from releasing things under the OGL as a back door.



For me, this is the sticking point. The guidance is clear: comply with WotC's intellectual property rights.

That may not be the guidance you are hoping for, but it is nevertheless pretty clear guidance.

For those who want to publish for money, I would suggest that legal advice might be desirable.

For those who want to publish for fun, the stakes are overall much lower. In that case, I would say it is pretty simple:

(i) Don't reproduce any text from WotC products verbatim (this goes for their free products as well as their for-sale products);

(ii) Don't use any WotC images except in accordance with the Fan Site policy discussed upthread;

(iii) Don't try and pass yourself as WotC (and the Fan Site policy includes some WotC-approved disclaimer text for just this purpose).​
This is not legal advice, of course. Nevertheless, I think if you follows (i) through (iii) you will probably avoid infringing any copyrights or trademarks/trade dress rights that WotC owns with your not-for-profit, "for fun" fan-created content.



Icon_Charlie said:


> What I remember in the interwebs are the people that on their own time and effort that (IMHO) kept D&D alive in their web sites,  The did this by creating their own created content
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is those people who should be praised for their efforts. It is because of them that I am still interested in investing and creating content for 5thED.  I have the financial luxury that many have here on this site don't have. So if I want to so something on a whim I can.  I do like 5thED.  The developers did a very good job in streamlining the game and should be commended on it.    But I know Hasbro and how it does business, and because of their business ethics I am leaning towards Paizo in creating content. If there is as general license that is reasonable or a OSL is being offered it might get my interest back into 5ED in content creation.



For the sake of clarity - the people who have been getting polite messages and/or requests to C&D have not been creating their own content. They have been reproducing, without permission, WotC content. That is what WotC has stopped them doing.

You might wish that things were otherwise - eg that fans of D&D has some sort of rights in respect of WotC-owned content. You might even be right about that! (I'm not expressing a view.) But the law is very clear.

Conversely, if you want to create your own content, I think it's easy to do so . You don't need a licence from WotC if you are creating your own content rather than reproducing theirs: see steps (i) through (iii) above for some thoughts on how to avoid infringing WotC rights.

Have you heard of anyone being contacted by WotC for creating their own content for 5e?


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I'm not assuming. I'm telling you what is _known_ with the facts currently available.
> At one time WOTC intended to release a digital tool. That release has been canceled. No subsequent announcements have been made on the subject. Therefore WOTC's intentions to release a new tool are unknown. Having neither stated that they ARE or ARE NOT going to release something, in a capitalist system default position should always be the easiest path for the producer: do nothing.




I have to laugh when people keep bringing up the deal with Trapdoor. 

Let's take a look at the facts. 

D&D was working with Trapdoor, so that Trapdoor could release officially licensed D&D digital tools. Nobody (outside of those two companies) knows exactly why that deal fell through, but logic would suggest that Trapdoor were unable to develop a product to the standard that WoTC required, within the timeframe and bugdet alloted. If they could have, it would have happened already. 

After that, Trapdoor attempted to keep their software alive by switching to Pathfinder and creating a kickstarter that failed miserably. One of the biggest complaints I saw with the kickstarter was that the abilities of the software were never clearly defined. What could it do? What were its limitations? Etc, etc... Doesn't that tell you something about the quality of the software they were developing? Doesn't that maybe give us a clue as to why WoTC broke ties with them? It certainly does to me. 

To try to say that WoTC have failed in this area is a stretch, at best. It's more a case of they attempted to work with a company to have these things available, and that company couldn't provide what they needed. 

What does that mean to us? That means WoTC had to start over again. Either working to develop digital tools in house, or searching to find a softaware company that could come through with what they needed, clear and concise descriptions of what their software does, and then they need to hammer out all of the financial and legal details. 

I don't seriously believe this could happen in such a short span of time. It wasn't that long ago that Trapdoor failed. 

Additionally, we have no idea of what is going on "behind the scenes" (nor should we). There could be something in the works as I type this, there may not...either way, to say that Wizards failed on the digital tools front is a bit out of line IMO. They didn't fail, Trapdoor did. Wizards has to clean up the mess and move forward. 

IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 17, 2015)

pemerton said:


> For the sake of clarity - the people who have been getting polite messages and/or requests to C&D have not been creating their own content. *They have been reproducing, without permission, WotC content.* That is what WotC has stopped them doing.



This. So much this. The Character Generation Process has always been protected (see the 3.5 SRD). The sites/apps that are being asked to stop reproduce (often verbatim) the class features, feat details, racial traits, etc... of content that is not in the basic rules or the online rules.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2015)

DaveMage said:


> However, as someone who has been very impressed with the initial 5E ruleset (and the marketing rollout thereof), it's quite disappointing that the follow-up (fan and commercial licensing, software support, RPG products to come announcements) has not been as excellent.



With that, I can certainly agree.

I believe WotC has the right to do what it's doing. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see them do something different. They seem stuck on the idea of keeping control over their electronic tools, which is fine in theory, but after bungling it horribly for three editions in a row*, you'd think they'd start to consider alternatives. I would really like them to come out with some kind of licensing scheme where software developers can reproduce some content (the Basic rules, say) for free, and the rest for a modest per-user fee. I think the result would be a lot better for both them and us.

However, it's their decision and their property.

[SIZE=-2]*Four if you count TSR's attempts to shut down fan websites. Not quite the same thing, but I think it definitely counts as "horrible bungling."[/SIZE]


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> I was there. I usually listen rather than chime in, but there was nothing to correct about what they were saying. It was all fact about how they have been issuing cease and desist letters




So that's the first falsehood (these are not your falsehoods, it's falsehoods apparently uttered by people you overheard in a store).  As far as we can tell, zero cease and desist orders have been issued.  From what we can tell, some polite emails were sent asking people to stop using some content - no cease and desist (which is the first legal step to further legal action).  And you know the only place that called them a cease and desist? That's right...message boards like this one.  The original source didn't call it that, and no paper publication I know of called it that.  So the only source for (falsely) calling them C&D's is message boards.  So someone there was reading message boards.



> with no guidance on what the community should actually be doing to comply with a game




And that is the second at least partial falsehood.  We have not seen the letters WOTC sent, but it seems that perhaps (we're not positive) there was guidance in there on how to comply.  So far the two people refuse to reveal what was in the letters, which at least to me is suspicious.  Maybe not to you, but we don't know there was no guidance in those letters on how to comply.  At least one of the companies says they plan on re-opening with some changes. Regardless, the least guidance we do have is "don't use their stuff without a license".  That's pretty good guidance, it's just not satisfying guidance 



> There was talk about the silence we have gotten from wizards while other companies/games  all have a fairly solid schedule




What is not solid about their release schedule? Looks pretty solid to me.  You don't like the quantity of things they plan to release, but the schedule is real.



> and make sure their relations are good within the community.




WOTC conducted the largest open playtest in tabletop RPG history, the largest ongoing surveys, the largest closed playtest, and is still doing surveys, and is more communicative directly with fans on Twitter than any other company as well.  If you feel there are bad relations, it just goes to show there is nothing they can do for some people to foster "good" relations.



> These people DONT go online to read the boards, they are friends who tag along to the shop and are being introduced to these games.




That looks false as well.  Some of what you're mentioning is ONLY from being online on boards.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> So that's the first falsehood.  As far as we can tell, zero cease and desist orders have been issued.  From what we can tell, some polite emails were sent asking people to stop using some content - no cease and desist (which is the first legal step to further legal action).



Is there actually a difference? In my (admittedly limited) understanding, there isn't a set format for a C&D. There's no rule saying they have to be threatening and hostile. They just have to notify you that you are violating their IP and ask you to stop. A friendly e-mail from Mike Mearls is just as valid as a scary letter from a lawyer.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 17, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Is there actually a difference? In my (admittedly limited) understanding, there isn't a set format for a C&D. There's no rule saying they have to be threatening and hostile. They just have to notify you that you are violating their IP and ask you to stop. A friendly e-mail from Mike Mearls is just as valid as a scary letter from a lawyer.



There's a world of difference between a polite letter, and a promise of legal action if nothing is done in a set time-frame.

This thread has obsessed over "perception"...well couching these things as "C&D's" does a very good job of colouring the perception of everyone who hears about them.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> I was there. I usually listen rather than chime in, but there was nothing to correct about what they were saying. It was all fact about how they have been issuing cease and desist letters with no guidance on what the community should actually be doing to comply with a game that has no actual way of compliance apart from releasing things under the OGL as a back door.



Funny how the creator of the very iOS app we're discussing in this thread seems to have a different take than the "facts" people not involved in the process were discussing. He's hopeful about getting his app re-released, which flies right in the face of the supposed "no guidance" claims of those who aren't involved.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 17, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Is there actually a difference? In my (admittedly limited) understanding, there isn't a set format for a C&D.




There is.  To sue for infringement you must first demonstrate you demanded cessation of usage based on your rights, to demonstrate an attempt to mitigate damages.  A polite letter is not a demand, it's a request without a clear assertion of rights by the claimant.  Of course, if you ignore, it's often followed by an actual Cease and Desist, but not necessarily. 



> There's no rule saying they have to be threatening and hostile. They just have to notify you that you are violating their IP and ask you to stop. A friendly e-mail from Mike Mearls is just as valid as a scary letter from a lawyer.




I disagree.  Ignoring a polite non-demand request letter is just that - denying a request.  Ignoring a demand letter is running contrary to an asserted legal claim - if the claimant doesn't do anything after sending a C&D they're liking demonstrating a waiver of their rights.  I've never seen a lawsuit over IP that failed to first have a formal cease and desist.


----------



## Derren (Feb 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, do you work for free Derren?  Why do you expect to get paid for your freelance work?




Interesting that you have at no point in your lengthy rant addressed the actual content of my post.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 17, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> So that's the first falsehood (these are not your falsehoods, it's falsehoods apparently uttered by people you overheard in a store).  As far as we can tell, zero cease and desist orders have been issued.  From what we can tell, some polite emails were sent asking people to stop using some content - no cease and desist (which is the first legal step to further legal action).  And you know the only place that called them a cease and desist? That's right...message boards like this one.  The original source didn't call it that, and no paper publication I know of called it that.  So the only source for (falsely) calling them C&D's is message boards.  So someone there was reading message boards.




Hmmm.  Mistwell, you might want to double check that.  The original source did, indeed, say that he got a C&D (it's quoted in my initial post). Whether he was exaggerating or not, I don't know.  But it's what he said.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> I was there. I usually listen rather than chime in, but there was nothing to correct about what they were saying.




I think that's worth examining!



> It was all fact about how they have been issuing cease and desist letters with no guidance on what the community should actually be doing to comply with a game that has no actual way of compliance apart from releasing things under the OGL as a back door. There was talk of morning star, all of which had nothing positive to say about either company. There was comparison and contrast on how Wizards is conducting their game and Paizo theirs (which is to be expected in a conversation like this). There was talk about the silence we have gotten from wizards while other companies/games  all have a fairly solid schedule, and make sure their relations are good within the community. The general tone I got about Wizards was... for lack of a better word.... oppressive.




Except, of course, that they aren't oppressive in any way, at all. They're doing exactly what they ought to be doing. It's a sort of twisted narrative that's been coaxed into being, here, when you can put forward the idea that a company choosing to simply release products and protect the content in those products somehow qualifies as "oppressive" and a handful of people actually agree with you!



> I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Posting on here about a perception, isn't a cop out. I don't even know what I'm copping out of.




Countering that perception with reality.



> The facts are that people ARE talking about this.




Some, sure! And some of those people have some pretty silly ideas about what qualifies as oppression. Hint: Not being able to steal someone's content and sell it on the internet doesn't let you claim that you're being oppressed!



> There ARE casuals who are getting exposed to this information. These people DONT go online to read the boards, they are friends who tag along to the shop and are being introduced to these games. Let me repeat again just to make it doubly clear THEY DO NOT GO ON SITES BECAUSE THEY JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS HOBBY.




Cool, so are you, as a well-informed individual who _does_ follow this sort of thing online, making sure that these misconceptions don't spread?



> I agree with your statement about legality, they can do whatever they want, but things like this spread even though you think it is neatly contained in the internet's online community this is simple 100% untrue, by my evidence of speaking with these people both new and old to the game. It is also true that despite what the actual details are, what is being presented  by internet gamers is what is being perceived by new players. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter at all. Wizards has no PR department, which they should have. Instead we the internet community at this point ARE their PR.




You are very much in the wrong about WotC not possessing the equivalent of a public relations team. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they don't have one. It would be kind of inconceivable for a hobby game company responsible for, among other things, a wildly popular trading card game with an elaborate organized play structure to not have people responsible for interacting with the public. Now, some of that PR may be handled by an group external to the company proper, but that's hardly uncommon.

The reality is that you aren't being told the things you want WotC to tell you because they aren't interested in telling them to you.



> If they want things to change, then wizards need to speak up and let us know what is specifically going on with the game,




Why? Why do they have to do this? We don't have the right to demand that of them, and it is simply not conscionable for us, as fans, to hold their decision not to lay their plans out to us as evidence of "oppression". You're essentially saying, "Yeah, they're not in the wrong, but public perception is that they're in the wrong, and I'm not going to bother correcting that perception until they meet my personal demands." How is that okay?



> until then we can only infer for ourselves and draw conclusions however wrong they may be.




_*Or we can stop drawing conclusions*_. That's an option! It really is! I know it's tough to consider, but most people do it for most companies most of the time!

But no, gamers are _*passionate*_. And our passion entitles us to hound companies for information, even though we have a storied history of being irresponsible with that information when it's given to us. And when we're not told the things we want to hear, it's _*totally okay*_ for us to assume the worst as a way of punishing WotC for keeping that which we are entitled to from us.



> We simply have no other way to speculate. If your reply is "stop speculation" then this conversation has no point, because it is in humanity's nature to speculate and no amount of force can change that.




It's in "humanity's nature" to do a lot of things, but somehow we've risen above! I mean, can you imagine? "It is in humanity's nature to enslave weaker populations, and nothing will ever change that!" Is that really what you want to make the cornerstone of your moral position?

You have a slew of people in this very thread who have somehow managed to tame their inner savage long enough to decide that it's probably not reasonable to look at this situation and assume the worst possible outcome. Are the people around those gaming tables you listened in on incapable of that?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Hmmm.  Mistwell, you might want to double check that.  The original source did, indeed, say that he got a C&D (it's quoted in my initial post). Whether he was exaggerating or not, I don't know.  But it's what he said.




Ah, OK fair enough I am mistaken.  I thought that was the original post that called them that.  My bad for not paying attention to the details.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 17, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> I have to laugh when people keep bringing up the deal with Trapdoor.
> 
> Let's take a look at the facts.
> 
> D&D was working with Trapdoor, so that Trapdoor could release officially licensed D&D digital tools. Nobody (outside of those two companies) knows exactly why that deal fell through, but logic would suggest that Trapdoor were unable to develop a product to the standard that WoTC required, within the timeframe and bugdet alloted. If they could have, it would have happened already.




Except that, according to Tradoor, the Ipad app was ready to go.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Except that, according to Tradoor, the Ipad app was ready to go.




Source?

If it was ready to go, switching the rules to Pathfinder should have been quick and easy, yet they started two different crowdfunding campaigns to finish working on it/converting it to Pathfinder rules, and both failed.

Here was there original announcement about the cancellation of DungeonScape:



> Greetings friends,
> 
> Today, we have news that is both sobering and hopeful. Wizards of the Coast and Trapdoor Technologies will no longer be working together to develop DungeonScape for Fifth Edition D&D, and we will not be releasing the product in its current form. The beta program on all platforms will be shutting down at noon (MST) on Friday, October 31.
> 
> ...




Nothing there said it was completed and ready to go. Did they post a followup? (I can't find it if they did...)

After their Kickstarter campaign (and the one before it...can't remember the funding site) failed, they posted this message, which is still up on their website:



> The Trapdoor Team thanks you for your incredible support during our Kickstarter campaign. Although we did not meet our funding goal, we are still committed to our original mission - to build the first fully-integrated tabletop RPG app. This includes not only game play elements - a character builder, an adventure tracker and a rules engine - but also robust authoring and publishing features based on our core company technology. In the end, we believe the fun of roleplaying is storytelling and RPG tools should enhance that experience.
> 
> We are extremely passionate and we are not going to give up. The adventure will continue albeit at a different pace. Our current plan is to release Morningstar 1.0 focused on the characters, adventures, campaigns, parties and library modules already developed. The initial release will support iOS - with Android and web versions to follow. Pathfinder PRD is the current rule set of choice, although we are exploring other options. While we can't commit to an exact release date, our goal is to release Morningstar 1.0 quickly. Additional development, including the Forge, will be funded organically and prioritized, as always, by community feedback - a slower process than Kickstarter but still achievable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 17, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Source?
> 
> If it was ready to go, switching the rules to Pathfinder should have been quick and easy, yet they started two different crowdfunding campaigns to finish working on it/converting it to Pathfinder rules, and both failed.
> 
> ...




They says it several times. ios was ready, pending approval.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 17, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Source?
> 
> If it was ready to go, switching the rules to Pathfinder should have been quick and easy, yet they started two different crowdfunding campaigns to finish working on it/converting it to Pathfinder rules, and both failed.




I believe it was on one of the Tome Show podcasts where they spoke to the owner of Trapdoor.  He was talking about how he ran a whole session using just his Ipad.


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> They says it several times. ios was ready, pending approval.




Ok...I guess I stand corrected. Couldn't find it anywhere, though...Perhaps they scrubbed the posts.


----------



## Mirtek (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Except that, according to Tradoor, the Ipad app was ready to go.



 That means they at most got only 1/3 done (less considering the market shares between Android, Windows and iOS).

According to the testers calling the windows version a "beta" was stretching it and the Android app was even more behind


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 17, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> That means they at most got only 1/3 done (less considering the market shares between Android, Windows and iOS).
> 
> According to the testers calling the windows version a "beta" was stretching it and the Android app was even more behind




That just means that you do a staggered roll out.

Like for example how you may release the PHB first, then the MM and then after a short delay the DMG.

Besides I thought that consumers enjoy paying to be able to Beta test products now a days?


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Except that, according to Tradoor, the Ipad app was ready to go.



Yes, but it wasn't approved by WoTC, so my reasoning still stands. Trapdoor were unable to develop a product to the standard that WoTC required, within the timeframe and bugdet alloted. They may have had _something_ ready to go for the ipad, but that doesn't mean they met the obligations they were hired to meet. 

In fact, WoTC seemed to agree with that statement, and cut ties with them. At the end of the day, it was Trapdoor who failed to deliver what they had promised WoTC. If they had delivered, this conversation (and many others) would not be taking place. 

I am not sure why you want to encourage the idea that WoTC failed here. If the iOS software they had was REALLY good, I can see WoTC perhaps allowing them to release the sofware on the various platforms at a staggered pace. After all, that is certainly not unheard of. 

I would rather WoTC release nothing, than release half baked software that we would be stuck with, and may never fuction as intended. I would rather they wait until it's perfect, then release it. 

Sure, they get some grumpy players in the meantime, but I would venture to guess that there would be MANY more grumpy players if the official software wasn't working as intended.

IMO, waiting on quality software is much better than getting broken software earlier.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2015)

Was Trapdoor filling an order for WotC or was it working from a license? I'm curious to know, cause it would meen WotC put in their license contract that they could pull the plug on a product/license agreement.


----------



## Mirtek (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> That just means that you do a staggered roll out.



That depends on what you were obliged to have completed by date X according to your contract.

The sad state of the web/android versions and the sudden cancellation of the contract by WotC give me strong suspision that Trapdoor failed to reach certain milestones in time and Wotc took an exist clause instead of risking to be once again burned by trusting a software developer who can't deliver what he agreed to (like the desaster with the 4e e-tools)


goldomark said:


> Was Trapdoor filling an order for WotC or was  it working from a license? I'm curious to know, cause it would meen WotC  put in their license contract that they could pull the plug on a  product/license agreement.



 Normally such plugs are keyed to certain conditions (e.g. unable to reach certain milestones in time) or they had a very weak contract which allowed Wotc to just end the relationship at any time with no fault of Trapdoor. That would mean they had a very bad legal deparment and also were very venturesome to put money and hours working on such thin ice


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 17, 2015)

painted_klown said:


> Yes, but it wasn't approved by WoTC, so my reasoning still stands. Trapdoor were unable to develop a product to the standard that WoTC required, within the timeframe and bugdet alloted. They may have had _something_ ready to go for the ipad, but that doesn't mean they met the obligations they were hired to meet.
> 
> In fact, WoTC seemed to agree with that statement, and cut ties with them. At the end of the day, it was Trapdoor who failed to deliver what they had promised WoTC. If they had delivered, this conversation (and many others) would not be taking place.
> 
> ...




There is no real evidence that the product did not meet WotC "standards" just like there is no real evidence that a Trapdoor exec told a WotC exec that their butt really did look big in that dress.

My guess would be that Trapdoor showed WotC the story sharing feature and WotC could not work out how to charge for people sharing their own information with each other.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 17, 2015)

Guys all I'm saying is that this stuff is making it's rounds outside the internet. No longer can a person say that this only matters to someone who goes on these boards. You may not have liked how I handled it, but that is tough for you, if you want to change it go to these places and set them straight. All I'm saying is that you can't use the argument that this is contained on the internet. People know, and people are not exactly happy. That's the last thing I will say about it.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 17, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> The sad state of the web/android versions and the sudden cancellation of the contract by WotC give me strong suspision that Trapdoor failed to reach certain milestones in time and Wotc took an exist clause instead of risking to be once again burned by trusting a software developer who can't deliver what he agreed to (like the desaster with the 4e e-tools)




Except that the 4e tools were an epic disaster involving one individual that no reasonable person could blame on either WotC or that particular software provider.

I presume that you are aware of the real story?


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 17, 2015)

Well, whatever they had for iOS, evidently the Pathfinder fans didn't think it was all that, either. Their Kickstarter to convert it to Pathfinder rules only met 17% of their funding goal.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> There is no real evidence that the product did not meet WotC "standards" just like there is no real evidence that a Trapdoor exec told a WotC exec that their butt really did look big in that dress.




Woah, since when has "evidence" been required before jumping to conclusions in this thread?



> My guess would be that Trapdoor showed WotC the story sharing feature and WotC could not work out how to charge for people sharing their own information with each other.




Nevermind.


----------



## painted_klown (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> My guess would be that Trapdoor showed WotC the story sharing feature and WotC could not work out how to charge for people sharing their own information with each other.



I'll play along and say that you are 100% correct. You could very well be spot on with that point, I'm not saying that you're not.

If that is correct, it further proves that the product delivered to WoTC did not meet the standards they had set forth. It doesn't matter "what" standard it didn't meet (be it a quality issue or a functionality issue), the bottom line is that WoTC was not happy with what was presented to them. They cut ties with Trapdoor. This is self explanatory. If Trapdoor HAD delivered what WoTC wanted, there would be software available today. 

This point should not be difficult to understand.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> Normally such plugs are keyed to certain conditions (e.g. unable to reach certain milestones in time) or they had a very weak contract which allowed Wotc to just end the relationship at any time with no fault of Trapdoor. That would mean they had a very bad legal deparment and also were very venturesome to put money and hours working on such thin ice



My guess is that WotC deals with such small compagnies because WotC wouldn't have the upper hand when dealing with large compagnies like Ubisoft and Blizzard. D&D has little brand recognition and no movie in the pipes. What can it actually offer to large designers? With small compagnies they can have anything they want in the contracts. No more Sweetpea or Atari deals. It pissed off Obsidien Entertainment though. For better or worse. 

It is a bit like when Marvel was going bankrupt in the 90s and made the very bad deals with 20th century Fox and Sony for the movie rights of X-Men, FF and Spider-Man. Marvel wasn't in a position to ask a lof when negociating. 

Still, this doesn't answer my question. Did Trapdoor get a license from WotC or were they just doing work they were contracted for?


----------



## Jacob Marley (Feb 17, 2015)

Just a quick perusal through the iPhone App Store shows dozens of third-party apps related to Magic: the Gathering. Many of those apps include not just the card text but the card art as well. Many of those apps are $0.99 or more. Given that Magic: the Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons are owned by the same company, it seems pretty clear that Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro are perfectly accepting of third-party apps. Given that the creator of d20 Fight Club for D&D 5th Edition said "Hopefully [D&D apps will] be back in some form someday." leads me to believe that this is nothing more than establishing a proper agreement between the two parties. There is nothing nefarious or morally outrageous about what is going on. This is pretty standard business.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 17, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Well, whatever they had for iOS, evidently the Pathfinder fans didn't think it was all that, either. Their Kickstarter to convert it to Pathfinder rules only met 17% of their funding goal.




Yeah, the Kickstarter did not go so well.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 17, 2015)

Gecko85 said:


> Well, whatever they had for iOS, evidently the Pathfinder fans didn't think it was all that, either. Their Kickstarter to convert it to Pathfinder rules only met 17% of their funding goal.




As a Pathfinder fan, the Kickstarter utterly failed to convince me that they were providing anything I didn't already have from Hero Lab and Realm Works.  (Their software indeed may have provided other benefits, but they were unable to communicate clearly what those benefits were to my satisfaction.)  

And I didn't like their leader's communication style either.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D has little brand recognition




What gave you that impression? There are some pretty famous (in these parts, at least) market research reports from some years ago that noted a brand recognition for D&D of above 90%, which is phenomenal.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Guys all I'm saying is that this stuff is making it's rounds outside the internet.




In one place, one time, according to one guy who admits he is very biased in that direction to begin with.  Which proves...one place at one time, according to one biased source.  So yeah, I am saying it only matters to someone who goes to message boards.  I can say that.  I am saying that.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Except that the 4e tools were an epic disaster involving one individual that no reasonable person could blame on either WotC or that particular software provider.
> 
> I presume that you are aware of the real story?




Not many are.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 17, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> In one place, one time, according to one guy who admits he is very biased in that direction to begin with.  Which proves...one place at one time, according to one biased source.  So yeah, I am saying it only matters to someone who goes to message boards.  I can say that.  I am saying that.




Just so long as you admit it happened and very much -IS- happening and -IS- a reality that people outside the internet ARE paying attention and getting exposed to this! That's all I ever wanted....Thanks!


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> My guess is that WotC deals with such small compagnies because WotC wouldn't have the upper hand when dealing with large compagnies like Ubisoft and Blizzard. D&D has little brand recognition and no movie in the pipes. What can it actually offer to large designers? With small compagnies they can have anything they want in the contracts. No more Sweetpea or Atari deals. It pissed off Obsidien Entertainment though. For better or worse.
> 
> It is a bit like when Marvel was going bankrupt in the 90s and made the very bad deals with 20th century Fox and Sony for the movie rights of X-Men, FF and Spider-Man. Marvel wasn't in a position to ask a lof when negociating.
> 
> Still, this doesn't answer my question. Did Trapdoor get a license from WotC or were they just doing work they were contracted for?




You are the first person that made an correlation with Marvel Comics except they did file for bankruptcy in late December 1996.
Oh I could tell you the horror stories about what really happened back then but that is irrelevant for this topic as well as I do not betray my friends who are in the entertainment industry, past nor present.   

Thanks for the posting.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2015)

Dannager said:


> What gave you that impression?



A mix of common sense, lack of self-aggrandizement*, the absence of mass marketing, lack of pop culture penetration and people from the industry saying it is a niche hobby?

Spider-Man had more brand recognition in the 90s and it still led to Marvel signing a terrible contract with Sony. Which was my original point before you ignored it and hyperfocused on what you saw as a slight toward your doubleplusfavorite brand. 

But please, tell me how it is awesome. I'm pretty sure a lot of people will give you XP for it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2015)

Derren said:


> Interesting that you have at no point in your lengthy rant addressed the actual content of my post.




If you actually had a legitimate point, then it might be worth my time to address it.  Otherwise, it's just more same old same old sour grapes.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 17, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Just so long as you admit it happened and very much -IS- happening and -IS- a reality that people outside the internet ARE paying attention and getting exposed to this! That's all I ever wanted....Thanks!




I trust that you saw it happen that one time.  None of that says it "is" happening and "is" a reality that non-internet users are paying attention to news that is found only on the internet about a couple of small time internet tools being taken down - that's a nonsensical theory in fact.  That's a new claim - that non-internet users are upset about news sourced from the internet which ONLY impacts internet users (these were all internet based tools). I am pretty sure the guys you saw talking about this read the news on the internet somewhere.

Evenglare, can you honestly and sincerely say you know this type of event you witnessed has ever been repeated, anywhere, ever? If not, why are repeating it like it has (and after you said you were done with the topic in fact)?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> A mix of common sense, lack of self-aggrandizement*, the absence of mass marketing, lack of pop culture penetration and people from the industry saying it is a niche hobby?
> 
> Spider-Man had more brand recognition in the 90s and it still led to Marvel signing a terrible contract with Sony. Which was my original point before you ignored it and hyperfocused on what you saw as a slight toward your doubleplusfavorite brand.
> 
> But please, tell me how it is awesome. I'm pretty sure a lot of people will give you XP for it.




How was the contract with Sony horrible?  Five blockbuster movies that have all made mountains of money.  A couple of which are considered the gold standard in superhero movies these days.  

Yeah, Marvel totally screwed the pooch on that one.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> How was the contract with Sony horrible?  Five blockbuster movies that have all made mountains of money.  A couple of which are considered the gold standard in superhero movies these days.
> 
> Yeah, Marvel totally screwed the pooch on that one.



It is always worth educating oneself before speaking. It helps saving oneself from embarassement. http://www.vox.com/2014/8/11/5974743/marvels-x-men-conspiracy-theory-guardians-future

You're welcomed. 

So, for the lazy ones who do not read articles. Well, the contracts weren't very good for Marvel. Like only 5% of the profits of the movies and not a lot from merchandise. There are reasons why they want to get the rights back and support the comics less and less. 

But please, spin away how that guy from Disney/Marvel doesn't meen what the author of the article and I think it meens.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 17, 2015)

The Sony contract is only bad from the perspective of Marvel having created its own studio arm.  Back when the deal was made it was awesome: every few years Sony would make a Spider-Man movie, which would bring all kinds of ancillary revenue.  And Marvel would have a hand in advising production, so that the movies stayed close to the character.

Marvel producing its own movies was by no means thought to be an obvious, orthodox move.  It was a tremendous gamble.


----------



## Derren (Feb 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> If you actually had a legitimate point, then it might be worth my time to address it.  Otherwise, it's just more same old same old sour grapes.




You apparently found it worth enough to reply to my post.
And your unwillingness to address my question why other companies allow fan made generators even though that would, according to some posters, mean that they forfeit all rights on the brand, and that you instead post a, in my eyes, quite hate filled rant, which only has little to do with my post speaks volumes about your attitude here.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> A mix of common sense, lack of self-aggrandizement*, the absence of mass marketing, lack of pop culture penetration and people from the industry saying it is a niche hobby?




Okay. You need to be careful about common sense, though. D&D has tremendous brand recognition.



> Spider-Man had more brand recognition in the 90s and it still led to Marvel signing a terrible contract with Sony. Which was my original point




No, it wasn't, but that's okay.



> before you ignored it and hyperfocused on what you saw as a slight toward your doubleplusfavorite brand.




I didn't perceive it as a slight, just something worth correcting.



> But please, tell me how it is awesome. I'm pretty sure a lot of people will give you XP for it.




You need to take a step back, maybe. There are a few too many personal jabs in this post.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 18, 2015)

Jacob Marley said:


> Just a quick perusal through the iPhone App Store shows dozens of third-party apps related to Magic: the Gathering. Many of those apps include not just the card text but the card art as well. Many of those apps are $0.99 or more.




How can these people get away with stealing from WotC!


----------



## Jacob Marley (Feb 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> How can these people get away with stealing from WotC!




They're not. Those third-parties have agreements with Wizards. That's the point. Wizards has no problem with third-party publishers that work with them.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 18, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> Not many are.




I am aware of the story, and I can and do blame WotC. A company should be able to compensate for one person leaving, whether that "leaving" takes the form of a horrific murder-suicide or just quitting to work elsewhere. Maybe the schedule slips by a couple of months. Maybe quality suffers a bit. Fine. But if the loss of one guy could sink the whole project, the project was headed for disaster already.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2015)

Derren said:


> You apparently found it worth enough to reply to my post.
> And your unwillingness to address my question why other companies allow fan made generators even though that would, according to some posters, mean that they forfeit all rights on the brand, and that you instead post a, in my eyes, quite hate filled rant, which only has little to do with my post speaks volumes about your attitude here.




Hate filled?  Really?  Saying that companies that own their IP should get paid for using that IP is hate filled?  

Other companies allow fan made generators for many reasons.  Off the top of my head:  The company's brand is so tiny that any means of getting the word out there is worth it;  Free advertising;  The companies brand is so worthless that it doesn't hurt them to allow free generators;  the company is poorly run;  the company lacks the legal department to know how to deal with people stealing their IP.

Pick one of the above.  

While you're doing so, could you answer my question?  If I take something that you published, copy it, put my name on the cover and then sell it for 99 cents on DriveThruRPG, do you have any right to complain?  Are you not hurting the brand by complaining?  After all, I'm just providing something to the fans that they want.  For some in this thread, that means that not only am I justified in doing so, but, if you want to sell your book, you should have to offer more in order to justify the higher price, otherwise, you have to offer it at my price point.

Why is that wrong?


----------



## darjr (Feb 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I believe it was on one of the Tome Show podcasts where they spoke to the owner of Trapdoor.  He was talking about how he ran a whole session using just his Ipad.




If I remember correctly there was a room at GenCon where several tables where using it on the fly in their games.


----------



## darjr (Feb 18, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> I am aware of the story, and I can and do blame WotC. A company should be able to compensate for one person leaving, whether that "leaving" takes the form of a horrific murder-suicide or just quitting to work elsewhere. Maybe the schedule slips by a couple of months. Maybe quality suffers a bit. Fine. But if the loss of one guy could sink the whole project, the project was headed for disaster already.




He was in charge. The guy in charge can do a ton of damage, and yes, even wreck a project that might otherwise have made it. Software is hard anyways, this ongoing thing that lead to the tragedy could have easily wrecked the project. The guy was the boss. But yes, it might have never worked anyway. We'll never know. But I don't think anyone can easily dismiss managements possible influence on a project.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 18, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Okay. You need to be careful about common sense, though. D&D has tremendous brand recognition.



I'm very careful about strangers telling me stuff on the internet. Somehow, just their gut feeling about their favorite brand is not enough to convinced me o much. Especially compared to actual facts. 



> No, it wasn't, but that's okay.



Here you go, educate yourself. You'll post more informed opinions after reading it. 

You're welcomed.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm very careful about strangers telling me stuff on the internet. Somehow, just their gut feeling about their favorite brand is not enough to convinced me o much. Especially compared to actual facts.




Great policy! Fortunately, this isn't my gut feeling! Which I already told you, of course, but you didn't believe me because you think I might be a liar.

So, here you go! I'd make a snide comment about telling you to educate yourself, and how your opinions will magically improve after reading it, and snarkily tell you that you're welcome, but I think that kind of useless snark is getting more than a little stale in this thread.

Hilariously, someone upthread was talking about how D&D can't approach Blizzard because its brand recognition isn't strong enough. Of course, the reality is that D&D's brand recognition was 9 points higher than World of Warcraft's back in 2008, at the height of WoW's popularity and mainstream exposure.

Cheers!


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 18, 2015)

I did not expect to see that 54% of people have played DnD and 94% think it is the same as WoW.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2015)

Several of you are being snarky, snide, condescending, and/or generally showing that you are fatigued and annoyed.

Please stop. 

The world does not hinge on the outcome of arguments here.  You can, in fact, let it go, and the world will not end because someone on the internet is wrong about the contract with Sony, or because you think their post didn't have legitimate points, or something. 

If you cannot be respectful to your fellow posters, please just walk away.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I did not expect to see that 54% of people have played DnD and 94% think it is the same as WoW.



"Same or better".  That means there was a value judgment, such as "Which is better, WoW or D&D?"  The "D&D is better" and "They're the both about the same" responses added up to 94%.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Several of you are being snarky, snide, condescending, and/or generally showing that you are fatigued and annoyed.
> 
> Please stop.
> 
> ...




Know that you are trying to get the point across but you might want to try another color as this orange sort of bleeds in the message box.
Perhaps  that trim color of that greyish blue on the today tag would work.  I just had a bit of a hard time reading it

Thanks.

Also I paid for a gold subscription today and wondering where is the info on what I get for it as well as those little perks.
I like to put my money where my mouth is.  

Or if you like sweets,... its... I like to place my mouth where the money is.... such as donuts... and Cake!!! but we all know that the Cake is a lie so is back to donuts.... hmmmm with sprinkles.....


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 18, 2015)

Iosue said:


> "Same or better".  That means there was a value judgment, such as "Which is better, WoW or D&D?"  The "D&D is better" and "They're the both about the same" responses added up to 94%.




Especially since only 80% know what WoW is.

I wish they had added Diablo in there as an option as well.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It is always worth educating oneself before speaking. It helps saving oneself from embarassement. http://www.vox.com/2014/8/11/5974743/marvels-x-men-conspiracy-theory-guardians-future
> 
> You're welcomed.
> 
> So, for the lazy ones who do not read articles. Well, the contracts weren't very good for Marvel. Like only 5% of the profits of the movies and not a lot from merchandise. There are reasons why they want to get the rights back and support the comics less and less.



5% of the _revenue_.  5% of the revenue from the first X-Men movie got them just under $15 million from the box office alone, not counting DVD sales, merchandise (which is totally separate from the contracts with Fox and Sony), and indeed, increased sales of the comic books.  They would get $20 million from X-Men 2, and even more from X-Men 3.  Spider-Man got them $41 million, and that's assuming they licensed him for the same amount as the X-Men, which I find unlikely.

That doesn't make the contracts bad.  Marvel was the toast of the town for a while.  Everyone was feting Avi Arad for having turned the company around and saved Marvel.  Those contracts are what gave Marvel the wherewithal to start their own movie studio.



> But please, spin away how that guy from Disney/Marvel doesn't meen what the author of the article and I think it meens.



Given that he refers to "X-Men truthers", I'm not sure you and the author are on the same page.  But all the article says is that the studios were in a strong position when they negotiated the contracts, so X-Men was licensed for 5% of revenue, which of course is a pittance when Marvel's making its own movies and keeping 100% of the profits.  That doesn't mean the contracts were bad.  It means producing your own product, if you can, is better on the whole than merely getting licensing revenue.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Especially since only 80% know what WoW is.
> 
> I wish they had added Diablo in there as an option as well.




I think it's very likely that the value judgment was made up of only respondents familiar with both properties (WoW and D&D).

Also, the research took place in 2008. Diablo didn't have very much relevance at that point.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 18, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Great policy! Fortunately, this isn't my gut feeling! Which I already told you, of course, but you didn't believe me because you think I might be a liar.



Hahaha! Not a liar. Just someone who isn't very critical. Don't take things so personally. D&D is just a game. 



> So, here you go! I'd make a snide comment about telling you to educate yourself, and how your opinions will magically improve after reading it, and snarkily tell you that you're welcome, but I think that kind of useless snark is getting more than a little stale in this thread.



I'll help you out. There is one key info that is missing. Who were questioned for this poll? With aid, 89% of people know about D&D? What is "aid"? 89% of whom? I doubt old folks, who represent more than 11% of population know about it. 89% of people between 18 and 35 years old? That is a key democraphic and makes could make more sense. Not convinced? Let us continue our journey!

54% played it!? That is huge for the entire adult population of the US. Even if people lied about it, that is very high for a RPG who had 24 million people play it at one point or another (so less than 1% of total US poluation). Yeah, things do not add up. Scout Rousse's numbers need a bit more clarification. They need to be put into context. Who was questioned for this? But I'm not someone wants to make them tell a story. I'm just being critical.  

And once again, I'm glad to be of help. 



> Hilariously, someone upthread was talking about how D&D can't approach Blizzard because its brand recognition isn't strong enough.



Haha! No, you misread or doing what is called a strawman. Check it out, it is very common on these boards. Now, the the learning moment as pass, so let us go back to what I actually said. I said that WotC wasn't in a position to get the upper hand in negociation with Blizzard, like Marvel wasn't in a great position in the 90s (what was the brand recognition of Marvel and its heros in the 90s? oh yeah, I guess pretty high) when it negociated with Sony and 20th Century Fox. Did you read the article I linked? It had more words than my short post, so I guess there are more chances you misunderstood. But now I explained some of it. All is well. 

Of course, WotC negociating with the world famous Trapdoor Entertainment certainly meens that it is giving small players a chance to shine since D&D is so well known. WotC is great like that. WotC is love. WotC is life.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I did not expect to see that 54% of people have played DnD and 94% think it is the same as WoW.



Which democraphic was questioned? That is an important info we do not have. I suspect 18 to 35 years old. I have doubts that a lot of 70 years old were aware of WoW and D&D. In the post above this one I have a link to an article where WotC says that 24 million people use to play D&D. 24 million people is less than 1% of the US's population. Things do not add up. More clarifiation is need on the brand recognition numbers.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 18, 2015)

Iosue said:


> 5% of the _revenue_.  5% of the revenue from the first X-Men movie got them just under $15 million from the box office alone, not counting DVD sales, merchandise (which is totally separate from the contracts with Fox and Sony), and indeed, increased sales of the comic books.  They would get $20 million from X-Men 2, and even more from X-Men 3.  Spider-Man got them $41 million, and that's assuming they licensed him for the same amount as the X-Men, which I find unlikely.
> 
> That doesn't make the contracts bad.  Marvel was the toast of the town for a while.  Everyone was feting Avi Arad for having turned the company around and saved Marvel.  Those contracts are what gave Marvel the wherewithal to start their own movie studio.
> 
> Given that he refers to "X-Men truthers", I'm not sure you and the author are on the same page.  But all the article says is that the studios were in a strong position when they negotiated the contracts, so X-Men was licensed for 5% of revenue, which of course is a pittance when Marvel's making its own movies and keeping 100% of the profits.  That doesn't mean the contracts were bad.  It means producing your own product, if you can, is better on the whole than merely getting licensing revenue.



Heh. Predicted it.







> But please, spin away how that guy from Disney/Marvel doesn't meen what the author of the article and I think it meens.




It is a gift. I need to use my powers for good, not evil. 

I need to use my powers for good, not evil. 

I need to use my powers for good, not evil.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 18, 2015)

Dannager said:


> I think it's very likely that the value judgment was made up of only respondents familiar with both properties (WoW and D&D).
> 
> Also, the research took place in 2008. Diablo didn't have very much relevance at that point.





**Cough**1996 and 2000**Cough**


----------



## Dannager (Feb 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'll help you out. There is one key info that is missing. Who were questioned for this poll? With aid, 89% know about D&D. What is "aid"?




You would know the answer to that, if you were familiar with market research. "Aided awareness" is the term for the metric that determines brand recognition. "Unaided awareness" determines something called brand recall. You can read more about it, at this link.



> 89% of whom? I doubt old folks, who represent more than 11% of population know about it. 89% of people between 18 and 35 years old? That is a key democraphic, it could make more sense. How many men and women in that sample?




The survey was carried out by a professional market research group as part of a survey conducted for internal reasons. The survey's results are not a marketing tool. They are to assist WotC in making sound business decisions. Accordingly, you shouldn't expect them to be inflated in any way. They were probably conducted against a representative sample of the total market.

More importantly, why does it matter? The original argument was that WotC can't sit at the table with big names like Blizzard Entertainment because D&D's brand recognition can't compete. I just provided a market research study that shows D&D's brand recognition to be significantly higher than World of Warcraft, Blizzard's star property. That's about as bulletproof a rebuttal as anyone could possibly muster.



> 56% showed a high interest in buying it? That is huge for the entire adult population of the US. Even if people lied about buying it, that is very high for a RPG who had 24 million people play it at one point or another (so less than 1% of total US poluation).




Oh god, how many people do you think live in the United States? The U.S. has a population of just over 300 million people. 24 million is more than 7% the total national population.



> 56% of US population wants to buy D&D produtcs for less than 1%? Yeah, things do not add up.




Namely, your math.



> Scout Rousse's numbers need a bit more clarification. They need to be put into context.




No, they really don't. This is very standard stuff.



> I'm not someone wants to make them tell a story. I'm just being critical.




You're not in a position to be critical. I want to be clear, I'm not trying to insult you, here, when I say that you simply don't have the requisite knowledge to be leveling meaningful criticism at this study.



> And once again, I'm glad to be of help.




Come on, man.



> Haha! No, you misread or doing what is called a strawman. Check it out, it is very common on these boards. Now, the the learning moment as pass, so let us go back to what I actually said. I said that WotC wasn't in a position to get the upper hand in negociation with Blizzard, like Marvel wasn't in a great position in the 90s (what was the brand recognition of Marvel and its heros in the 90s? oh yeah, I guess pretty high) when it negociated with Sony and 20th Century Fox. Did you read the article I linked? It had more words than my short post, so I guess there are more chances you misunderstood. But now I explained some of it. All is well.




You literally used the words "brand recognition" as evidence that WotC can't hold their own at the negotiating table. If you don't want to be corrected on critical points, don't talk about things you aren't familiar with.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> **Cough**1996 and 2000**Cough**




Pardon? I know when the games were released.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 18, 2015)

Dannager said:


> The survey's results are not a marketing tool.



I neve said they were . I sahred a link to strawman. What am I suppose to do mre here? Sigh. 



> I just provided a market research study that shows D&D's brand recognition to be significantly higher than World of Warcraft, Blizzard's star property.



It is dated. 2009. Things change. Brand recognition too. I was also comparing with Marvel. Do you think Spider-Man wasn't know in the 90s? that didn't help Marvel get the upper hand in the contracts with Fox and Sony. 



> Oh god, how many people do you think live in the United States? The U.S. has a population of just over 300 million people. 24 million is more than 7% the total national population.



Oh yeah bad. Math. Late. My point still stands. 

54% of the people in the survey say they play D&D. WotC says 7% of the US's population played D&D in there lives. Total. Ever. Numbers do not add up. Your bullet proof whatever, isn't proof. The key point misising is which demographics was surveyed. I suspect 18 to 35 years old. Not the entire US population. There is a difference. 



> I say that you simply don't have the requisite knowledge to be leveling meaningful criticism at this study.



Oh irony, I love you. 



> Don't talk about things you aren't familiar with.



Right back at you, mate.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Heh. Predicted it.




No response?  I guess I win the argument.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 18, 2015)

Dannager said:


> Pardon? I know when the games were released.





So by 2009 that gives  plenty of people a chance to play Diablo.

I would estimate about 34%


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2015)

About that 5%.

While 5% of anything in the movie contracts going to Marvel may not sound like much- and IS indicative of the relative bargaining positions of the parties- _if the bargained-for compensation was derived from "revenues" and not "profits"_, than Marvel actually did pretty well.  Hollywood is full of sharks, and most deals struck with outsiders for a share of "profits" are just a legalized robbery.

Because in Hollywood accounting, most movies don't show a profit.  If you want to make money in a Hollywood deal, ALWAYS make sure you get paid up front or- if by percentages- out of revenues.

Is it better for Marvel to get out of those contracts now?  Most probably.  But in the context of the time in which they were negotiated, they really were not only a lifeline for a struggling company, but were actually pretty well negotiated and drafted.


----------



## martinlochsen (Feb 18, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I understand takedown notices if WOTC has the intention to release a character creation app soon(tm*soon trademarked Blizzard ent.).  I could understand C&D notices if WOTC already _had_ a character creation app available.  But they don't.  As far as I'm aware their intended product will never be completed.  There is no word of a replacement on the horizon, or any plan to do so.  At best this is equivalent to C&D notices for fan-fiction.  It doesn't accomplish anything but rile up the customer base.




Yes! These are excactly my thoughts on the matter. I'm not one to jump on the "hate the big bad company"-wagon, but this pisses me off just a tiny little bit. Even an announcement that they had something planned would have helped a lot. Why make the game more diffucult to play? I don't get it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2015)

Under the law, they have to defend their patents & trademarks (copyrights are different) or risk having them diluted or even losing them.  While they may not have derivative product X in development NOW, if they have any plan of doing so in the future, they have to act.

That's the law.  Don't like it?  Well, as the saying goes, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Personally, I would recommend that they do send those C&D letters- or more, if required- but also keep an eye out on exactly what those unlicensed products were doing and how popular they were.  If they were significantly well thought out and executed, it might make good business sense to buy out or license those product and being them into the official product line, rather than merely make the offending products disappear and- if they were planning on doing something similar- reinventing the wheel when it came time to bring it to market.  It is efficient and customer pleasing, and businesses do it all the time.

Most recent example I can point to: Space Bags.  The company that created them got bought out by Ziplock.


----------



## Newtonian (Feb 18, 2015)

I wish them well.  C&D's suck, regardless of if it's amicable or not.


----------



## Fergurg (Feb 19, 2015)

There is one angle that is probably not true, but I would be curious on where people would stand if it were:

What if WotC doesn't want Dungeons and Dragons to have a character builder?

Understand that this is theoretical. Scenario: WotC announces that they aren't going to make a character builder because they want to discourage people from bringing their iPods to the game table when they aren't the GM. Under this idea, you have a company that is explicitly saying that that thing you want to have an as option with D&D (a computerized character builder) ... you can't. Even though it would make many people angry, that decision is part of a bigger decision of branding Dungeons and Dragons as, "A table-top game, not a computer game".

How would this affect your view of WotC sending out C&D's to character builder makers?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> What if WotC doesn't want Dungeons and Dragons to have a character builder?
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> How would this affect your view of WotC sending out C&D's to character builder makers?



I would be surprised if that hypothetical were true.  If it were true, I would be surprised at WotC's seeming lack of vision.  

It wouldn't affect my view of their sending out of C&D letters, though.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 19, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> There is one angle that is probably not true, but I would be curious on where people would stand if it were:




The problem with that is that Wizards want there to be a character builder. (They just want it to be theirs, or at least properly licensed).

Wizards got burnt badly by the failure of Morningstar. As a rule, companies really don't like announcing things that then fail to eventuate. 

I'm pretty sure the current state of things is that they're working to get a new builder up, but the negotiations (or coding) hasn't yet reached the state where they're ready to announce something.

Cheers!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2015)

I read the web-article about the X-Men and Spider-Man contracts. My main take-home was that X-Men fans are still whinging 20 years later!

From the article:

In the latest run of Uncanny X-Men, SHIELD, the Avengers, and She-Hulk have all shown up at one point or another.

<snip>

And further, the franchise's 50th birthday was marked by an event called "Battle of the Atom," largely seen by X-Men fans as underwhelming.​
X-Men has been a cross-over vehicle for ever (X-Men Annual number 10 (?) was a cross-over with the Avengers); and underwhelming franchise events go back at least to Age of Apocalypse.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2015)

MerricB said:


> The problem with that is that Wizards want there to be a character builder. (They just want it to be theirs, or at least properly licensed).
> 
> Wizards got burnt badly by the failure of Morningstar. As a rule, companies really don't like announcing things that then fail to eventuate.
> 
> ...




AIR, WOTC never did actually announce that Morningstar was making the Character Builder, Morningstar did so.  I seem to recall that Morningstar was pretty vocal about getting their program off the ground.  I can't imagine, after being burned like that, that anyone licensing from WOTC for another CB will be allowed to announce anything before the program is ready to be released.

That there is no announcement isn't evidence of lack of progress.


----------



## seebs (Feb 19, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Under the law, they have to defend their patents & trademarks (copyrights are different) or risk having them diluted or even losing them.  While they may not have derivative product X in development NOW, if they have any plan of doing so in the future, they have to act.




I've seen lawyers discuss this at length, and they have always come down very unambiguously on the side that says "this is not even a tiny bit how it works".

There's no patents here that we know of. Trademarks, you don't have to sue people or demand that they stop, only that the usage reflects your ownership of the mark. For instance, Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark, but they do have to make sure that people distinguish between their products and Official Ford Products.

There's no reason for which WotC would be obliged to prevent people from making a thing which clearly indicates that it's not a Wizards product, but claims to be compatible with D&D, and reminds the user that D&D is a trademark of Wizards.

Well, none in terms of things they must do in order to protect their legal rights, anyway.

Personally, I just think they haven't got a coherent plan and they don't want anyone else muddying the waters and possibly hurting their position in negotiations, and I think that the huge error here is not having had a coherent plan ready to go. They should have at least *known* what their licensing plans were by the time the PHB was in final editing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2015)

Actually, I am a lawyer, so with both apologies and respect:

First, I _was_ incorrect about patents.  I was thinking of 35 U.S.C §102(b), which talks about loss of a patent by abandonment.  However, that code refers to the patent holder's abandoning the pursuit of filing patent papers in a timely fashion, which can result in the loss of the ability to patent the invention if certain other conditions are met.  IOW, I was in error.  That's what happens when I try to express opinions outside of my areas of expertise.

(There are reasons why patent attorneys have to pass a separate bar exam, and I haven't done so.  )

However, computer programs are patentable, so it is possible that WotC is defending software we don't know about.T

Trademarks differ in that extant trademarks can be lost by Genericism, Abandonment, Naked Licensing or Failure to Police.  The key here is that lawsuits and C&D letters are key in defending against all four.

And to clarify, the reason



> Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark




Is because that is fair use of its trademark.  IOW, there is nothing they CAN do.



> There's no reason for which WotC would be obliged to prevent people from making a thing which clearly indicates that it's not a Wizards product, but claims to be compatible with D&D, and reminds the user that D&D is a trademark of Wizards.




"D&D" is not the only trademark being defended.  There's all the little terminology within the game product they've protected over the years.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (copyrights are different)




Damn, was I having a bad day or what?  That's wrong and I know better.  Better proofreading is clearly required on my part.

The doctrine of laches means that a failure to act to enforce your copyrights in a timely fashion can lead to a loss of them.  According to the Supreme Court's 2014 case, _Petrella v. MGM_, the window to act is 3 years.  Beyond that point, you snooze, you lose. 

Furthermore, the duty to police your copyrights is essentially a self-help thing- there is no universal method of seeking out all copyright violations, and modern tech makes it much easier to access, copy and distribute copyrighted content without permission than it is to protect it.  

Since it IS the IP holder's responsibility to find out who is doing what with their stuff, it is understandable that many seek to use certain cases as examples to other would-be infringers.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 19, 2015)

seebs said:


> I've seen lawyers discuss this at length, and they have always come down very unambiguously on the side that says "this is not even a tiny bit how it works".
> 
> There's no patents here that we know of. Trademarks, you don't have to sue people or demand that they stop, only that the usage reflects your ownership of the mark. For instance, Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark, but they do have to make sure that people distinguish between their products and Official Ford Products.
> 
> ...




The law for Trademarks, in the US, blackletter, pretty much requires the trademark defense start with a C&D letter. Next step can be a lawsuit or requesting an injunction, or as is usual, both. Failure to obey a properly worded C&D letter is grounds to be sued - the laws as presented in the CFR are not quite as intelligible, about this part, but it's not too hard. Any trademark litigation is a major risk, but usually,  the plaintiff wins by settlement as the cost of litigation renders the respondent in danger of bankruptcy. Even when it doesn't settle, it still favors the plaintiff, especially with the standard being preponderance of the evidence ("is it more likely than not")...

Look at USOC vs AEG... their trademarks are quite distinct, and in totally separate fields (both of which contribute to lack of confusion of one for the other, one of the standard elements in defense in trademark), but the ruling came down that AEG's was too close to USOC's... because both are 5 interlocking rings, despite one being a chain, and the other a rosette.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 19, 2015)

seebs said:


> I've seen lawyers discuss this at length, and they have always come down very unambiguously on the side that says "this is not even a tiny bit how it works".
> 
> There's no patents here that we know of. Trademarks, you don't have to sue people or demand that they stop, only that the usage reflects your ownership of the mark. For instance, Ford doesn't have to sue people for making "Ford-compatible" parts to protect their trademark, but they do have to make sure that people distinguish between their products and Official Ford Products.
> 
> ...




I disagree. First, this is mostly a copyright issue - these sites were using whole sections of WOTC text in their tools.  Second, you can see a brief review of the three defenses related to this issue here.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 19, 2015)

seebs said:


> Personally, I just think they haven't got a coherent plan and they don't want anyone else muddying the waters and possibly hurting their position in negotiations, and I think that the huge error here is not having had a coherent plan ready to go. They should have at least *known* what their licensing plans were by the time the PHB was in final editing.



They did know. They even told us about it. Their plans were to have Trapdoor Technologies develop a licensed set of digital tools. If I remember right, those tools were supposed to ship sometime around the PHB release.

Then something happened which made them abandon that plan. What, we don't know. Trapdoor's oblique hints are not very informative, and Wizards hasn't even hinted. The simplest explanation is that Trapdoor was failing to deliver and WotC pulled the plug, but there are any number of other possibilities. Regardless, it knocked WotC's stated plan into a cocked hat.

Have they got a new plan? Probably. It's been months since the Dungeonscape meltdown. That's plenty of time to come up with a new strategy. Are they going to _tell_ us the new plan before they have something to show? Heck no. Considering how deep the budget knife has sliced into the D&D division over the last few years, I doubt they have the capital for a big in-house effort. Therefore, their new plan almost surely relies on some other software company (my bet is Lone Wolf), and they don't want to risk a repeat of Dungeonscape.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 19, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I disagree. First, this is mostly a copyright issue - these sites were using whole sections of WOTC text in their tools.  Second, you can see a brief review of the three defenses related to this issue here.




Regardless it still comes down to money.  He who has the money has the power to influence things. That is the most unfortunate thing that exists. Seen it first hand. Dealt with situations (not this particular situation as due to how I protect my IP's ) in a court of law. In the end of the game it comes down to who as the money and the better attorney in any litigation.

These are the situations I have had to deal with.  I would rather deal with people and come to a conclusion than become my signature.


----------



## delericho (Feb 19, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> Regardless it still comes down to money.  He who has the money has the power to influence things. That is the most unfortunate thing that exists. Seen it first hand. Dealt with situations (not this particular situation as due to how I protect my IP's ) in a court of law. In the end of the game it comes down to who as the money and the better attorney in any litigation.




And if the person with the most money is also the person who happens to be right, is it still an injustice?

Because that appears to be the case here - yes, WotC have the big scary lawyers, but they also happen to be the rightful owners of the IP. And it does appear that there has been infringement on their rights.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Feb 19, 2015)

Here is an interesting snippet by Trapdoor Technologies.

"*Just FYI, we did not fail to meet deadlines re: wotc partnership. The contract was dissolved due to differences in core business philosophies, especially regarding digital distribution.*"


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 19, 2015)

Digital distribution?

Anyway, it seems Trapdoor had a license. I they were just contractors the client can do what it wants with the product. Here Trapdoor had a word in the matter.


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> And if the person with the most money is also the person who happens to be right, is it still an injustice?
> 
> Because that appears to be the case here - yes, WotC have the big scary lawyers, but they also happen to be the rightful owners of the IP. And it does appear that there has been infringement on their rights.



I have an attorney that deals with my IP's.  Do you?  Because dealing with Trademarks, Intellectual Properties, Copyrights are not all clear cut cases.  That is why I have an IP attorney.  You should really look at the IP lawsuits between Samsung and Apple and how long and mirky these court cases are.

Protecting ones IP is not the case here.  WotC has every right to protect their IP's  The question here is how it is done and to some it is why?
It does not have to be heavy handed.  A polite letter is all it takes bringing concerns in question.  And if the party in question does not comply then you get heavy handed with them.  Then you get nasty.


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 19, 2015)

This is obviously a hot issue. Anyone on this thread who has been saying that digital tools don't matter, or a few of us are the only ones concerned, is wrong.

To these people I say, stop being prideful and stubborn. Listen to the criticism of your fans and make some changes on how you distribute your Cease & Desist orders.

Is someone making money off of your Intellectual Property? C&D them.
Is a fan making no money off of a digital tool that you have no official alternative for? Apologize to them and ask them to publish their digital tool online again to promote your game.

If not, people like me are going to not only go to another game, we are going to actively bad mouth you.

I work with copyright lawyers every day. I teach them English and we were playing 5th Edition. Now we have moved to a d20 Edition which promotes a modified mix of Pathfinder and 13th Age.

I literally have a team of the best copyright lawyers in Japan. 
I can prove with email that during the play-testing of 4th Edition, I was among the first to suggest actions and reactions and also among the first to suggest many game elements that 5th edition uses.

I can prove it here and now. Many of you on En World, know just how irritating I was trying to convince 5th Edition that multiple actions was a good idea and I repeatedly published action economy systems here. 

I created this digital tool in just a few days.
http://d20game.weebly.com

What is your excuse for not having a digital tool?


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 20, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> This is obviously a hot issue. Anyone on this thread who has been saying that digital tools don't matter, or a few of us are the only ones concerned, is wrong.
> 
> To these people I say, stop being prideful and stubborn. Listen to the criticism of your fans and make some changes on how you distribute your Cease & Desist orders.
> 
> ...




Yea this guy has more or less the correct way to look at how this should go down.    Gave him xp for it. Might have to talk to him about certain things as well.

Which is -why- I am here on this site.  To decide whether to create content or not. Finances are not the problem.  The problem is the logistics of it all and do I really want to lock horns with certain companies/persons in the near future.  So it is data gathering 101 and seeing how things progress  in the near future are my goals.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> dealing with Trademarks, Intellectual Properties, Copyrights are not all clear cut cases.  That is why I have an IP attorney.  You should really look at the IP lawsuits between Samsung and Apple and how long and mirky these court cases are.
> 
> Protecting ones IP is not the case here.  WotC has every right to protect their IP's  The question here is how it is done and to some it is why?
> It does not have to be heavy handed.  A polite letter is all it takes bringing concerns in question.



Two things.

First, just because some situations are not clear doesn't mean that none are. If the tool in question is reproducing text from WotC's books or PDFs, that is a breach of copyright. It is possibly also a breach of contract, because in downloading material from the WotC website there is at least an argument that a user had agreed to the Terms of Use, which include (in clause 6) terms and conditions on which use of Wizards' IP is granted.

Second, how do you know that the message in this case was heavy handed rather than a polite letter? Or that, if it was a formal request to cease and desist, that there was not a polite letter that preceded it?


----------



## Icon_Charlie (Feb 20, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Two things.
> 
> First, just because some situations are not clear doesn't mean that none are. If the tool in question is reproducing text from WotC's books or PDFs, that is a breach of copyright. It is possibly also a breach of contract, because in downloading material from the WotC website there is at least an argument that a user had agreed to the Terms of Use, which include (in clause 6) terms and conditions on which use of Wizards' IP is granted.
> 
> Second, how do you know that the message in this case was heavy handed rather than a polite letter? Or that, if it was a formal request to cease and desist, that there was not a polite letter that preceded it?




They only person so far that has got it is ren1999.

Since some of you want to argue for argument's sake go ahead and knock yourself.

I can clearly see what I don't to see with some of you here.

Done posting on this topic and will not reply back to this topic.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 20, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> This is obviously a hot issue. Anyone on this thread who has been saying that digital tools don't matter, or a few of us are the only ones concerned, is wrong.




Did you just argue "If people reply about general legal issues and WOTC, then they specifically think this issue of digital tools is important to them, and anyone who disagrees is wrong"?

Looked that way.  In which case, that's terrible logic.  I could post a thread about Orc & Pie and get lots and lots of replies, and nobody would actually care about it.  I could post ANY topic about the internal workings of WOTC, down to the price of their vending machine stuff and what's in those machines, and get lots of replies.  Being a hot issue is not the same as proof people care about part of that issue for real - it just means they like to talk about it (because it's fun).



> To these people I say, stop being prideful and stubborn.




Doctor, heal thyself.  Oh, and stop being so damn insulting to your peers.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 20, 2015)

I love Orc and Pie but I dont think I could eat a whole one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2015)

> Is a fan making no money off of a digital tool that you have no official alternative for? Apologize to them and ask them to publish their digital tool online again to promote your game.




The only way I would advise a client of mine to do that is if there was an explicit license granted to do that (possibly with a steep discount to just a nominal fee) coupled with a NDA specifically covering terms of the deal.

Profit doesn't matter. 



> Not charging for the copies does not automatically make the copying permissible.
> http://sites.lib.byu.edu/copyright/about-copyright/basics/



By granting the discounted license, you protect your rights and mitigate "infringement creep".


> Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyright, there may be broader unauthorized uses than you would like. It is a good idea to pursue enforcement actions as soon as you discover misuse of your copyright protected material.
> http://sites.lib.byu.edu/copyright/about-copyright/basics/


----------



## Rune (Feb 20, 2015)

Shasarak said:
			
		

> I love Orc and Pie but I dont think I could eat a whole one.




Mmmm. Orca pie.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 20, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> I created this digital tool in just a few days.



Y'know, if you become a Community Supporter, you could probably put that link in your sig, and then you wouldn't have to spam it in every post you make on the subject.


----------



## delericho (Feb 20, 2015)

Icon_Charlie said:


> I have an attorney that deals with my IP's.  Do you?  Because dealing with Trademarks, Intellectual Properties, Copyrights are not all clear cut cases.  That is why I have an IP attorney.  You should really look at the IP lawsuits between Samsung and Apple and how long and mirky these court cases are.




I notice you didn't actually answer my question.

Those _other_ cases have only tangential relevance to _this_ one. Yes, IP law can indeed get murky. Yes, there are complexities, and yes money can have a disproportionate effect.

But so what? In _this_ case someone put out a software tool that, it appears, infringed on WotC's IP. So WotC took action. Are they wrong to do so, just because they have the bug lawyers and the other side is the little guy?



> It does not have to be heavy handed.  A polite letter is all it takes bringing concerns in question.




Which, coincidentally, appears to be what WotC have in fact done.


----------



## martinlochsen (Feb 20, 2015)

Having a legal right to do something doesn't make it morally right, and it does not make it wise. I know this is a tired old argument, but Paizo is handling cases like this in a very different way, and they are making a lot of money. You don't have to beat down on your fans to make money. Really. And for the record, I'm talking primarily about the Pathguy site here.

Pathguy is someone who has contributed to the community and to the hobby for a very long time with his generators for all editions of the game, right. And now, suddenly, it all gets taken down in one sweep. Originally, he also removed his Pathfinder generators because the letters he got demanded that as well. But after a few days, those were back up. The generators are very much alike, in terms of how much copyrighted content they contain. So what does that tell you? Paizo don't mind. That's what it tells you. They have a completely different business model based on giving their fans easy access to their stuff instead of hoarding it and proteting it like a gluttonous dragon.

And I'm not a Paizo fanboy either. I played Pathfinder for two years and I didn't like it. For many reasons. It's not really relevant, but this is the sort of thing some people get hung up on, you know.

I can easily understand the logic behind these actions. With the rules of the game freely available on the net, the extra character options presented in the PHB will be it's main selling point. The pathguy site did give people the opportunity to enjoy those extra options without buying the book. It is an understandable, but unwise and really quite cowardly act to shut it down. Paizo has all of their material (sourcebooks and everything) available for free on their website. They sell their books in easily pirateable pdf-format.  And they are still selling those same books like crazy, to the point of becoming the leading company in the industry.

So my real point here is just that I think Wizards is choosing the wrong tactic here, being to scared of the digital reality. And I'm not really angry or anything. I see that they are within their rights to do everything that they are doing. It's just very, very frustrating being a fan of a game that is being supported by a company that seems more interested in protecting their property than giving us players what we want and need to play the game. When I heard the news about the free Basic rules, I was really surprised and happy. I thought they had decided on a new direction for their marketing tactics. Now I see that I was wrong, and it makes me both a bit disillusioned and disappointed.
I will still play 5e to death though, because I love it.

---edit: Added spaces between paragraphs, for readability


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2015)

> Having a legal right to do something doesn't make it morally right, and it does not make it wise.



Doing something illegal, even if popular, does not make it morally right, and it does not make it wise.



> So what does that tell you?



Nothing.  

Perhaps it is as you say.  But for all you know, he and Paizo reached an out of court settlement, possibly not unlike the one I mentioned upthread.  Or, perhaps he has decided to defy Paizo's wishes, like the guy who is making left shark models and, after initial compliance, has decided to fight Katy Perry et alia over whether he can do so.

Maybe he successfully blackmailed Paizo's management into backing off.

IOW, without more info, all we know is that his stuff is back up, we know nothing of how Paizo feels about it.


----------



## delericho (Feb 20, 2015)

martinlochsen said:


> Having a legal right to do something doesn't make it morally right, and it does not make it wise. I know this is a tired old argument, but Paizo is handling cases like this in a very different way, and they are making a lot of money. You don't have to beat down on your fans to make money. Really. And for the record, I'm talking primarily about the Pathguy site here.




In cases like these, the details matter. In particular, it matters whether the generator is produced within the bounds of IP law or if it does not. In this case, it looks like infringement; in the Pathguy case it looks a bit different, and so my reaction is a bit different. (But, of course, not being an IP lawyer, and also not knowing every detail of both cases I stand ready to be corrected on any point - always a peril of working with incomplete information.)



> Originally, he also removed his Pathfinder generators because the letters he got demanded that as well. But after a few days, those were back up. The generators are very much alike, in terms of how much copyrighted content they contain. So what does that tell you?




Actually, nothing. The Pathfinder generator was taken down because of a letter _from WotC_, not Paizo. AFAIK, Paizo have taken no action at all as regards the generator, either to say "stop" or to say "we're okay with it."

Besides, just because person P is okay with you using their stuff doesn't mean person W should also be okay with it - if it's their stuff then they get to choose who gets to use it.



> So my real point here is just that I think Wizards is choosing the wrong tactic here, being to scared of the digital reality.




I'm inclined to agree that WotC could do better in the digital sphere, and that does indeed include such things as making PDFs available for sale and getting their own tools up and running.

But that's really a _different_ issue from their response to these character generators, and tying them together really doesn't help. Because it's WotC prerogative to decide when (or even if) to make these things available, and not that of people who produce tools that infringe* on their IP.

* Again, that "infringe" is an important detail. As I noted in that other thread, copyright laws exist for a very good reason but they also have some significant limits _also for good reason_. And so a person who can produce a _non-infringing_ tool should be able to go about his lawful business without being hassled by WotC. It's only if and when the line is crossed that that changes. As I said, the details matter.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 20, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> This is obviously a hot issue. Anyone on this thread who has been saying that digital tools don't matter, or a few of us are the only ones concerned, is wrong.
> 
> To these people I say, stop being prideful and stubborn. Listen to the criticism of your fans and make some changes on how you distribute your Cease & Desist orders.
> 
> ...




Oh my god what are you even

By the way, your d20game.weebly.com website is engaged in an infringing use of ArenaNet property. And the iTorrentz bookmark in your browser toolbar in that screenshot sure shows a clear respect for intellectual property rights. Glad you have a team of the best copyright lawyers in Japan watching your back over there!


----------



## ren1999 (Feb 20, 2015)

I do. The screen shot is intentional. I am awaiting any response. Dannager, before you say anything else, I want you to know that I am not just an English teacher here in Japan. I do have a connection with the U.S. Government. Be very careful what you say.

Edited to say,
If you are law enforcement, or a member of a federal agency, you better inform me now.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2015)

ren1999 said:


> I do. The screen shot is intentional. I am awaiting any response. Dannager, before you say anything else, I want you to know that I am not just an English teacher here in Japan. I do have a connection with the U.S. Government. Be very careful what you say.




While Dannagar scored an Olympic Gold in obnoxious snide, you just went overboard in creepy threats. Neither of you post in this thread again, please. You both fundamentally misunderstood what you agreed to when you registered.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2015)

ren1999..._dude._


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 21, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Did you just argue "If people reply about general legal issues and WOTC, then they specifically think this issue of digital tools is important to them, and anyone who disagrees is wrong"?
> 
> Looked that way.  In which case, that's terrible logic.  I could post a thread about Orc & Pie and get lots and lots of replies, and nobody would actually care about it.  I could post ANY topic about the internal workings of WOTC, down to the price of their vending machine stuff and what's in those machines, and get lots of replies.  Being a hot issue is not the same as proof people care about part of that issue for real - it just means they like to talk about it (because it's fun).
> 
> ...




Importance of topic and volume of non-humor posts _tend_ to correlate fairly strongly... I don't see a whole lot of laughter here...


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Importance of topic and volume of non-humor posts _tend_ to correlate fairly strongly... I don't see a whole lot of laughter here...




I disagree.  Importance of topic correlates with very little, and I am not even sure how you'd measure what is important.  But, it's definitely not post count or humor level.  It's the Internet, and this a message board devoted to a geek hobby.  We can literally argue about anything, in a serious tone, for weeks.  That doesn't make it important.  I once participated in a serious-toned, months long thread concerning who could win in a straight fight, Hulk or Superman.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I once participated in a serious-toned, months long thread concerning who could win in a straight fight, Hulk or Superman.




Neither one is 100% butch.


----------



## TheSwartz (Mar 1, 2015)

As someone fully willing to just throw my money at WoTC, this makes me mad.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 2, 2015)

DrGerm said:


> As someone fully willing to just throw my money at WoTC, this makes me mad.




If you're really willing to just throw your money at WotC... buy yourself a couple boxes of Magic cards.  I'm pretty sure they'll take your cash that way.


----------



## MormonYoYoMan (Mar 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Neither one is 100% butch.




And we wouldn't like you when you're mad?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2015)

MormonYoYoMan said:


> And we wouldn't like you when you're mad?




[video]https://38.media.tumblr.com/010754e9294d447eb0f6ee46e661fab8/tumblr_mw4wd8uxOr1qb73b0o1_500.gif[/video]


----------



## MormonYoYoMan (Mar 2, 2015)

MormonYoYoMan said:


> And we wouldn't like you when you're mad?




Y'know, I was positive that I was quoting Dr Germ's declaration of anger. My response looks entirely silly when connected to Dannyalcatraz's comment.

But Dannyalcatraz's response to me (via video link) is classic, so all's well that Hulks well.


----------

