# OGC and what a RPG should be?



## AustEvergreen (Oct 11, 2002)

I've made use of PCGen to create and maintian characters in my campaign; which with as some of you may know poses a problem lately.  WOTC recently started inforcing it's rights RE: Open Gaming License (OGL) upon the numerous programs available on line similar to PCGen.  Content which was once available for gaming use is now gone and may never return (for free at least, I'm talking about all source material for Forgotten Realms and all of the supplements WOTC has published such as "Sword and Fist").  I hope I'm not the only one upset about this.  Personally I wish I'd not laid out my cash for the supplements and FR books now as I can't make use of this material electronically without lots and lots of work done on my own time; In the computer age I'm reduced, effectively to pen and paper or the equivalent.  While WOTC undisputedly owns the rights to this material it doesn't seem to be in their (or our) interest for them to be quite this stingy, especially since in my opinion they dropped the ball in a very big way on creating their own product for campaign maintainence.    How does anyone else feel about this?     My feelings at this point boil down to: "If it's not Open Gaming Content I'm not buying it!".


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 12, 2002)

AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *My feelings at this point boil down to: "If it's not Open Gaming Content I'm not buying it!". *




Wow, that's a strong POV.  Fortunatetly, I think it's workable, with all the d20 companies out there.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 12, 2002)

I'm surprised that a lot of PnP gamers put electronic as the top priority for playing RPG. I mean are these PnP gamers the new generation that first learned of RPG via MMORPG and CRPG?

Are we suddenly spiraling down that path to make PnP paperless?

Guess I'm an old fogey. While I consider computer to be of great convenience and a great tool, I do not allow it to be my crutch when it comes to enjoying an old-fashioned role-playing game.

Weird. Software developers create user-friendly electronic tools, yet users do not want to do the job themselves whatever the excuses are, relying on said developer (who uses THEIR free times to develop the tools in the first place) to create expansions.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 14, 2002)

*Fogness in general*

I'm fairly fogey myself.   Enough so that I'm reluctant to state my age here.   I have to admit if I could go paperless with PnP games I would do so and see that as a major time saver.  Not to mention the tree hugging aspect of the situation.

I Have to admit that WOTC stance and timing have me steamed up.   WOTC could have objected to the use of non srd material as it was first used (and you can't tell me they weren't aware, I won't follow that line of thought far).  Instead the objection comes after their etools hits the market;  my thoughts are a bean counter type person said "We can't have this anymore, it cuts into our profits.   Stop them!" and thus we have the "Wiz" throwing it's legal clout around.    All I'm trying to say is that as consumers we should point out to them that we don't appreciate their attitude or their actions buy saying "OK OGC means convenience for me so if your material isn't open and you insist on making things difficult for me as a consumer of your products then I won't buy them".  I have to say I'm shocked that no one has said this before me (that I've seen).    The younger generation will put with a lot more, or so it seems.   I am outraged by what WOTC is doing and has done.   If they want to sell their software then they should make it better than everone else's and not crush the competition into non-existence / irrelevance  by threatening legal action.  I would buy etools if it were better or if it at least included all the source materials I wanted to use, but from what I've read it doesn't.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 15, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *I'm surprised that a lot of PnP gamers put electronic as the top priority for playing RPG. I mean are these PnP gamers the new generation that first learned of RPG via MMORPG and CRPG?
> 
> Are we suddenly spiraling down that path to make PnP paperless?
> 
> ...




At least in the case of Twin Rose, we work directly with the orriginal author/developer of a book to make an expansion for the program.  This works really well in that we can get orriginal files, etc, and reduce dev time to almost nothing, and can include the actual text of the books!

WOTC has said that the FRCS, Splatbooks, etc will one day make it to the SRD.  In the mean time, though, there are lots of campaign and splatbooks out there from other publishers, and you can find a lot of 'similar' things anyway.


----------



## DMFTodd (Oct 15, 2002)

> the "Wiz" throwing it's legal clout around



.







> crush the competition into non-existence / irrelevance by threatening legal action



While I agree that the timing of the WOTC compaint was, er....convenient, you're being a little unfair to WotC. 

By all accounts, WotC bent over backwards helping PCGen get their software legal. They did not have to do that. And it's WotC who gave us the licenses so that software like DM's Familiar, Campaign Suite, etc. can even exist. They could have set things up so they would have no competition if they wanted to. 

As someone who makes and sells gaming sofware, I'm glad WotC threw their weight around. It's not fair to those of working to be legal to let illegal software go unchecked (not saying PCGen was, talking in generalities here). And besides, it was their property. If WotC doesn't want someone distributing it, they have every right. 

As for the second part of your comments, I agree with the theory 100% (I'm an old fogey as well, maybe that's why). If you value OGC, then, certainly, purchase only OGC material. There is lots of it out there.







> crush the competition into non-existence / irrelevance by threatening legal action


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 15, 2002)

*I stand by my original statment*

First of, I don't believe I'm being a bit unfair to WOTC.  Granted if they hadn't put the basics of the game out as SRD and OGC there would be no legal 3rd party software out there.   

1: WOTC should have put the so called 'splat books' into OGC from the start.  I have to admit to a certain feeling of betrayal that they did not do this after the 'good start' they got with the basic of the game.   

2: The way they handled the 'Let's everyone get in gear with the License' issue could have been much better and beyond any doubt in my mind they have cause some damage to the gaming communities trust in WOTC.   I would have had no cause to complain at all if WOTC had taken a "Look, you are violating our copyright, BUT well let you keep that material in your product if you begin negotiations in good faith now; otherwise you need to remove all non-srd materials and get in line with the license" stance instead of doing what they did.   I never disputed their right to their material just the handling of this event.    "Bent over backward"....... by who's rekoning?    Not mine.   I believe I've outlined bent over backwards here.

3: Those that don't appreciate WOTC actions should let them know how they feel.   I am.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 16, 2002)

Are you saying this as a software developer or as a customer?

Honestly, I don't give that much of a crap. As long the program can accept data that I can manually input, I'd be glad to spend one whole night inputing the information from _Sword and Fist_ for my own personal use.


----------



## Klintus Fang (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: Fogness in general*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *I'm fairly fogey myself.   Enough so that I'm reluctant to state my age here.   I have to admit if I could go paperless with PnP games I would do so and see that as a major time saver.  Not to mention the tree hugging aspect of the situation.
> *




not so sure about the tree hugging aspect....  the chemicals in the back of your montor's cathode ray tube are pretty noxious and will likely prevent a fair number of plants from ever growing if not disposed of very carefully...


----------



## Klintus Fang (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: I stand by my original statment*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *1: WOTC should have put the so called 'splat books' into OGC from the start.  I have to admit to a certain feeling of betrayal that they did not do this after the 'good start' they got with the basic of the game.
> *




I work for a large company that protects its intellectual property very obsessively (I think most do nowadays).  I've seen how compicated it can be to release anything.  If I were to write a short research paper for an obscure academic journal that even remotely had anything to do with the industry that my company works in, it would take 2-3 years before the legal department would eventually approve it.  And in those 2-3 years, the legal department would probably rewrite my paper multiple times until it looked like complete gibberish, forcing me to keep re-re-writing it myself many times until we all eventually converged on something that the legal department was happy with.  I'm not saying that's how things work behind the scenes at WoTC, but I am not surprised at all that WoTC/Hasbro is moving slowly on that front.  It's frustrating as all heck, but I think its normal behavior for a large company.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 16, 2002)

*rangerreg and other comments*

Rangerreg, I see you've now posted here almost as much as I have.  It's amazing to me, the number of people who will step up and try and defend a company like wotc, (not just you).     Are you all trying to encourage this type of activity by them?     Just a thought.   At first I looked at your comment about PnP gaming and how you thought we shouldn't need a crutch like PCGen to enjoy the game.   Well, you did strike guilt there.   But I don't enjoy re-inventing the wheel.......numerous times (for each sourcebook I enter data from.   BTW I work a keyboard all day and you must type much faster than I do.   And I'm no slouch.).   I've done the total PnP route enough.  I have a family and other activities also.  I don't just play DnD.  So... guilt moderated a bit.   I later started wondering what a Pen and Paper advocate was doing here (in this section of the message boards).   But that's not terribly important.     I do understand that large companies move slowly sometimes.    I guess that's a certain lack of market nimbleness on wotc's part.     No offense meant by any comment here btw (not even to wotc.  I just want them to act more intelligently.   If you want an example go see baen books web page for their on line library).

Oh, and no, I'm not a developer.   I program at work all day at a university.  I want to do other stuff at home.

So back to topic.................It seems like most of the other posts here support Wotc more than condemn them for their missdeeds.    Is no one else upset about this?   What has the world come to?  A few heartfelt, of course, "Right on man!"s would be much appreciated if anyone actually feels this way.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: rangerreg and other comments*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *It seems like most of the other posts here support Wotc more than condemn them for their missdeeds.    Is no one else upset about this?   What has the world come to?  A few heartfelt, of course, "Right on man!"s would be much appreciated if anyone actually feels this way.  *



Sorry, man, here's another guy who disagrees with you, but you're far from the first to bring up this idea. Just peruse some of the previous threads in this forum: there are plenty of outraged folks like you who have started similar threads, so that's a form of support.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: rangerreg and other comments*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It seems like most of the other posts here support Wotc more than condemn them for their missdeeds.    Is no one else upset about this?   What has the world come to?  A few heartfelt, of course, "Right on man!"s would be much appreciated if anyone actually feels this way.  *




Many of us have first hand experience working with Wizard's of the Coast and have learned they are -not- an evil corporate giant but a company willing to work with smaller companies to expand the market.  They move slowly - so what?  I'd rather they took their time and did things right than release stuff early that they later have to change because it wasn't okay with their legal department.  Many of us smaller companies own all the rights to the stuff we work with, so we can release it as OGC or we can do whatever we want with it.


----------



## Nine Hands (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: rangerreg and other comments*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *So back to topic.................It seems like most of the other posts here support Wotc more than condemn them for their missdeeds.    Is no one else upset about this?   What has the world come to?  A few heartfelt, of course, "Right on man!"s would be much appreciated if anyone actually feels this way.  *




As sort of an insider to the development of PCGen (my name is on the product but I don't do much for it now other than complain and suggest features), I was at GenCon when Anthony V. spoke with the developers (although I was not at the meeting myself) and found him and the rest of the people at WOTC to be very friendly and helpful.

My discussions with Bryan, Mynex, Emily, and Leopold left me with the feeling that WOTC was VERY helpful and wanted the product to continue on (within the confines of the d20 license).  It was nice to sit with them and hash out how the code was going to change and what was needed to comply.  PCGen has grown alot in the months since GenCon and I am pretty impressed with it (although I dislike the removal of the die rolling, but that is another story).  

I have a feeling that WOTC will allow PCGen to use its IP and non-SRD material asE-tools is an OK product but just can't cut it for most things (templates are my biggest issue with it).  I would not be surprised if some WOTC employees use it to make characters


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: rangerreg and other comments*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *
> Rangerreg, I see you've now posted here almost as much as I have.  It's amazing to me, the number of people who will step up and try and defend a company like wotc, (not just you).     Are you all trying to encourage this type of activity by them?
> 
> So back to topic.................It seems like most of the other posts here support Wotc more than condemn them for their missdeeds.    Is no one else upset about this?   What has the world come to?  A few heartfelt, of course, "Right on man!"s would be much appreciated if anyone actually feels this way.  *



Well, except for their decision to go with Fluid (no apologies from here, business is business) to develop their _e-Tools,_ I will not condemn a PnP game publisher because they simply cannot do software. That's NOT my priority when it comes to my RPG hobby.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 17, 2002)

*resigned but resolute?*

Ok, I'm done. But my opinion is unchanged.  WOTC could have done it better.  And as an example of a company doing it better I'll point everyone again to baen (no I don't own stock).   I will admit that if there is support for my point of view out there it's to shy to say so or hasn't found it's way here.  Too bad, I feel the discussion was slightly unbalanced.

And I'll say this again.   I use software to make my life easier.  It takes a lot less time to create characters using tools like PCGen, (or Redblade or what have you.   I haven't tried the others.)   My hat is off to those who spend their time doing this; or would be if I wore one.   I can spend my time thinking of what I want a character I'm developing to be like instead of counting skill points or what have you when creating it.     In my book that's a major plus.    Sorry Rangereg I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.   For me the idea that a game like DnD came out without (an adequate) tool to manage the overhead of the game indicates something is wrong.    I realize that puts my opinion in the minority at this point, but I don't feel that's bad.

Thanks to all who participated.  I'm sure we'll discuss more later, but about something else.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 17, 2002)

*IP is valuable and must be protected.*

The Intellectual Property (IP) that WotC owns (non-OGC) is valuable. In fact, IP may be the *only* thing generating value for WotC! Thus, the company *must* act to protect its IP. To do otherwise would be bad business and, frankly, stupid.

As more and more companies derive value from IP instead of physical goods, people *might* begin to appreciate the fact that just because something only exists as words/software doesn't make it free. Nor do you have the right to demand free IP from WotC anymore than you have the right to demand a free car from GM.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: resigned but resolute?*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *
> Sorry Rangereg I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.   For me the idea that a game like DnD came out without (an adequate) tool to manage the overhead of the game indicates something is wrong.    I realize that puts my opinion in the minority at this point, but I don't feel that's bad.*



Fine by me.

Just out of curiosity, how did you get into PnP RPG?


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 18, 2002)

*Thought I was done but..........*

For: Rangerreg .
How did I get into PnP Gaming?   ok.   Oddly enough I was introduced by a past girlfriend in 1985 to first edition DnD.

For JERandall.   YOU REALLY NEED TO GO VISIT WWW.BAEN.COM and see it done BETTER.   This is not as much about copyright as it is about the correct way to treat a customer ......namely "US"...... WOTC's treatment of the gaming community is stupid.    WOTC slamming down the hammer on the third party publishers is a slap in the face of the DnD game user and was not necessary at all.   Personally, I'm tired of publishers over asserting their rights.   Yes over asserting, and to their own detriment too (re: the RIAA even though I think napster was wrong not payring royalties).    I have the suspicion you've never touched PCGen.   Now there is someone who's really bent over backward to make a useful product that not only doesn't infringe on wotc copyright (intentionally anyway but then PCGen is free........hmmm have you thought about that.) but promotes sales of the products included in it's database.     I have purchased product I first saw there and would not have otherwise even been exposed to.    Also there was a day when publishers saw "Fan based" utilities as a sign that their product was doing well and actually appreciated the free press and advertising that it amounted to.    Sadly that's gone.   Too bad, but maybe PCGen could charge WOTC for the free exposure.   Did you consider that angle.  It's obvious that many publishing companies have made some terribly bad decisions lately.    Not just WOTC.   But they and their actions are what we're discussing here.     And just for the record copyright law in the US is badly in need of some pro consumer updating.   It is and has been heavily biased in favor of publishers to the public's detrement for years.

Lastley JE   I paid $ for my DnD books from WOTC.    I think I deserve my fair use rights.   Those like PCGen that distribute free support for WOTC and D20 products should have been covered under fair user too.   If they charged for it, that would be different.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Thought I was done but..........*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *
> For: Rangerreg .
> How did I get into PnP Gaming?   ok.   Oddly enough I was introduced by a past girlfriend in 1985 to first edition DnD.*



Really? I got into it 1982 and have maintained my hobby ever since. What about you? How did you survive the Pre PC-n-PDA Era?



> *Lastley JE   I paid $ for my DnD books from WOTC.    I think I deserve my fair use rights.*



Actually, Fair Use only covers criticism/review and educational purposes, not entertainment. Games like these is entertainment.

But then I'm not a practicing lawyer.  




> *Those like PCGen that distribute free support for WOTC and D20 products should have been covered under fair user too.   If they charged for it, that would be different. *



Sorry. It's not just a matter of profiting from someone else's wares without permission. It is DISTRIBUTION.

If PCGen maker, Soulforge, are within their legal right to do what they did because they are protected under the Fair Use law, then they should the court decide.

But they're the ones who initiated a talk with Anthony Valterra last GenCon. They're the ones who wanted to make PCGen more compliant with the licenses, and they're the ones who complied by removing the non-OGC material from their software.

They. Soulforge. PCGen maker.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 21, 2002)

*PRE-PC n PDA era survival*

Well, I was only a player back then.   My girlfriend's older brother, was DM so the only work I had to do was maintaining my own character.   I didn't DM a game for about 3 years; and if memory serves that was done mainly by hand.    Yes...... I have gone that route.   And not having children then I had more time to devote to doing that as well.

I'll make the same comment as you before I say this.  "I am not a lawyer".   I think (with emphasis on not truly knowing) this extends to things like making backup copies for your own personal use only of software you've purchased and music and taping things broatcast on radio and tv and similar things; but then fair use law is poorly defined, or so I've heard.   Fair use is on the slate of future projects at the nations congress right now and hopefully when it is better defined we can only hope that congress will do a good job on this if not much else ;-).   This is what the Russion programmer "Skylarov" (sp?) was arrested for at a convention here is the US.  He made a program that allowed you to copy something (can't remember exactly what  it's from a year ago but of course is has to do with adobe) in line with his countries fair use rights which adobe took great exception to.   They arranged to have him arrested when they found he attended a convention in the US and he spent several month's as a guest of the government even after adobe tried to drop all charges because of the backlash the government wouldn't and kept him in custody.

In terms of legal use of materials published by WOTC or anyone for that matter; aren't we lucky they allow us to write down their copyrighted material such as feats and spells onto character sheets and other notes we use to manually play the game with?  Of course this is extreme but how many ways have you looked at this issue from.  

I still maintain that wotc could have been just a bit on the kinder side of this issue.     I'm certain that fair user doesn't cover PCGen now but perhaps it should?    

Perhaps someone can tell me exactly how wotc was hurt by what pcgen and redblade and others did?    Point to and name an exact wound here.    Not a hypothetical one.    I already know that they "violated wotc copyright".    So what?      Where was the harm?   I still say wotc could have and definitely should have allowed PCGen and others to keep non-srd material in their data while they were negotiating.   That they did not show's a lack of consideration for their customers.   And that lack of customer appreciation from a producer of luxury items non the less (or can anyone truly say they couldn't live without DnD if they had to).


----------



## herald (Oct 22, 2002)

> Perhaps someone can tell me exactly how wotc was hurt by what pcgen and redblade and others did? Point to and name an exact wound here. Not a hypothetical one. I already know that they "violated wotc copyright". So what? Where was the harm?




It doesn't make a differance if there was no harm in what they did, WOTC must protect it's Intelectual Property. If it fails to do this for a time and another company comes along and creates another product using WOTC's IP then it becomes harder to go to court to stop the new company for using it. 

WOTC would have to prove to the court that it was not unfairly signling out that company unfairly. And since allowing freeware to use it's IP would set a precident of not caring who uses it's IP, it has to go after "Redblade" and others.

So it has nothing to do with the harm that is happening how or the recent past. It has to do with what happens in the future. 


Now is where I make my usual caviet. I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I understand IP law as it was explained to me. 

Your opinion might vary from mine. So at this point   AustEvergreen, I would suggest that you speak to a lawyer who is an IP specialist who can explain exactly how the laws work in this issue and you might get a better understanding of this issue.


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Thought I was done but..........*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *If PCGen maker, Soulforge*



Ummm....actually, Bryan "Merton Monk" McRoberts is PCGen's creator.  SourceForge is just a host for Open Source products.  You can find more about SourceForge here.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 22, 2002)

*getting in deep*

I concede your point.   Yes WOTC probably had to go after the various 3rd party publishers of support materials or it would be more difficult for them to persue someone who was more maliciously (sp?) trying to take advantage of them.   Don't doubt that and never have.    I don't want anyone to take advantage of wotc copyrighted material and profit from it unfairly.  This is not in my interest as a customer.   I want them to make a decent profit.   I also want decent treatment from WOTC, who is as I've already mentioned a producer of luxury goods and should have the "we need to be tip toeing on thin egg shells" attitude with regards to how to treat their customer base.    And they don't seem to have this attitude.    I don't see it.   Or perhaps it's better to say I don't see things that way.  It's been pointed out to me here that they've bent over backwards to be nice.   I disagree.   WOTC could have allowed the various producers of utility programs to keep the non-srd material in their databases while negotiations were underway and did not and this is their "Sin" against us, the customer.   Saying that WOTC was completely within it's legal rights is irrelevant.    Not everything legal to do is also moral or right to do, and from my perspective I've been (yes only slightly, but still enough for me to be steamed about it) harmed by what they did.   Inconvenienced.   Is that more accurate?   I purchased the srd books and all the splat books and what's more Forgotten Realms material which I have been using for an ongoing campaign where I've been using PCGen to help in the maintainence of the characters and NPC's in my campaign.   Now I'm cut off with not much in the way of relief in sight    My point of view is now that I regret purchasing the splat books and the FR materials because they're unusable at the moment and for the forseable future.    Wasted $, perhaps.   If WOTC allows this material to be included in PCGen database in the future, when they do I'll probably be cool with this but for now........ "If it's not OGC then I'm not buying it!".   The sooner they do this or something more or less equivalent the happier I (and I believe many others) will be.    The sooner they reach agreement the less harm they do to the level of trust their DnD customer base has in them.

I have to wonder if WOTC is aware that some of their customers are unhappy with what they've done?


----------



## herald (Oct 23, 2002)

> WOTC could have allowed the various producers of utility programs to keep the non-srd material in their databases while negotiations were underway and did not and this is their "Sin" against us, the customer.




What negotiations are you talking about?

Much of the software that was made available by third parties was out for over a year before WOTC took action. It then sent out C&D letters asking people to stop. 

Hasbro is a much tougher on people they feel are stealing IP and generally go straight for the lawyers. Ask the guy who makes up the "Get Out of Hell Free" Cards and sells them on the internet. He basically is creating parody cards and had a long fight with them. Monopoly is sacred to them. Mess with Uncle Moneybags and bad things will happen.

The sheer fact that WOTC agreed to meet and speak with any software maker other than "Fluid" proves that they are serious about the OGL and the STL.

They have an obligation to release all the information to all individuals at the same time or the OGL and the STL is worthless. Companies like Morris's Natural 20 Press would be at a disadvantage if PCGEN others could use non-SRD material and he couldn't in his products. After all why is it fair that electronic products get this treatment, but not print. 

Honestly, if they weren't going to release the PRCs in any of the other splatbooks, why would they bother with adding the psionics material to the SRD?

It's my opinion that WOTC is running with a modest, but serious amount of autonomy from Hasbro. (don't bring up the layoffs, I know, I know). Saddly at this point all I have to tell you is that if you want to get your PrCs back in PCGEN, your just going to have to wait.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 23, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Thought I was done but..........*



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> *
> Ummm....actually, Bryan "Merton Monk" McRoberts is PCGen's creator.  SourceForge is just a host for Open Source products.  You can find more about SourceForge here.*



My bad. I stand corrected.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 23, 2002)

*Perhaps I have this wrong re negotiations but........*

re: what negotiations I'm talking about.....  Perhaps none are happening but that's not what I've "heard".     For more on this I'll refer you to the post made earlier by nine hands who claims to be "something of an insider to the development of PCGen".   Also I have never heard that any earlier letter was issued to anyone to stop (before the convention mentioned by nine hands).  Perhaps this is how things happened, perhaps not.    I have my assumptions,     You have yours of course too.    Maybe WOTC would be so kind as to enlighten us by telling us when what event happened.    Either way I'm still steamed about this.    Either way it's still a bad way for WOTC to treat the gaming community who are their paying customers, in my opinion.    I have reviewed other threads in this area and have seen others make a similar statement about not purchasing WOTC product.   If you want to make use of a utility program like PCGen to maintain your campaign why purchase anything not available within that utilities database.  Incentive for me to purchase any new realms books is pretty low now.

I would like to see an official wotc reply posted here, there is some serious customer dissatisfaction going on right now............but I think that it's most likely that they'll remain silent.

I know everyone doesn't agree.   That's ok.
What I would have liked to have seen done with DnD3e is that when books were published they included a patch to "Mastertools" of whatever you wish to call it which included all the new material their-in.  I think that in these times that new RPG's should come with programs like character generators and should come with patches for the update books included within.   Especially for what we're paying for them.  Less in the way of "Hidden costs" that way.  And if the publisher is not so inclined then they should give blanket permission for developement by someone else of this, certainly with the provision that if it's done for profit that they get their fair share of that profit.  Please don't post here that I'm suggesting that RPG companies give away their copyrighted material, because that's not what I'm saying.   Cars all come with radio's and rear view mirrors now.   RPG games should come with maintainence software.


----------



## herald (Oct 23, 2002)

AustEvergreen 
I understand what you are asking for, but you really need to think of all the legal costs it would take to try and allow what your asking for. We could go round and round about this, but in reality, if this is what you think is fair, talk to a lawyer and ask him if he feels that this is possible. I don't think that you will like his answer.


----------



## bushfire (Oct 23, 2002)

*Re: Perhaps I have this wrong re negotiations but........*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *
> I know everyone doesn't agree.   That's ok.*




ok



> *What I would have liked to have seen done with DnD3e is that when books were published they included a patch to "Mastertools" of whatever you wish to call it which included all the new material their-in.  I think that in these times that new RPG's should come with programs like character generators and should come with patches for the update books included within.   Especially for what we're paying for them.  Less in the way of "Hidden costs" that way.*




You mean like *every other* RPG publisher does   

Where do you get the idea that Wotc, or any other game company, is obligated to provide you with software to use thier product? I mean, I can see that you want it badly but so what. Hundreds of thousands of people play D&D every week, and only a small percentage of them are using any kind of computer program to do it. 

As far as costs of RPG products how much more are you willing to spend to get these "updates". Nothing comes for free. I get the impression you already think costs are too high as it is. How much more to have a CD stuck in every book (manually done btw), let alone having the data sets created and debugged? And why should those who don't need or want such material have to pay for it?



> *And if the publisher is not so inclined then they should give blanket permission for developement by someone else of this, certainly with the provision that if it's done for profit that they get their fair share of that profit.  Please don't post here that I'm suggesting that RPG companies give away their copyrighted material, because that's not what I'm saying.*




But you *are* suggesting they give away thier copyrighted material. RPG games do not come with software (the PHB only shipped with a *demo* in the first printings) so Wotc (or anyone else) has no obligation to provide you with updates for free *or* for profit. Wotc has released some of thier material via the OGL/D20 and that people can and do use in programs with Wotc's blessings. Everything else they publish is copyrighted to them or licensed from other copyright holders. I can't see them giving "blanket permission" to anyone for any reason.



> *Cars all come with radio's and rear view mirrors now.   RPG games should come with maintainence software. *




Should, maybe, but as of now they don't. I can't think of one RPG that comes with "maintenance software". Not GURPS, not Rifts, not even  Rolemaster.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Oct 29, 2002)

*obligation vs..........*

Hearld:   I'm not talking primarily about law but about customer service.  I'm not interested in a lawyers opinion here.   Drop it, please.

Bushfire: No,  That's my point.   They don't.    So I understand once (before my time) cars did not come with things like radio's or rear view mirrors or seat belts.   These things were added later for various reasons.    At least some of the reason was that this is what the customer wanted, though it is more complicated than that.   I understand that there was opposition to adding some of these features to cars at one time.    Too expensive perhaps?  Who'll pay for that?    -----------  Was it really more expensive in the long run?

Obligation......... what a interesting concept.  Publisher's aren't obligated to do a lot of things we take for granted and would be upset if these 'rights' dissappeared on us.    When you buy a book you can loan it to a friend legally (or so I believe anyway, please no see a lawyer advice here.  If you are one quote the law here, if not leave that alone) and they can read it and loan it out etc. all without paying any more to the publisher.   Is this right?  I think so, but various others would dissagree, I'm sure. ok.... this is kind of, but not completely off topic here.   WOTC does things not because of obligation but because it's good business and it makes them money (or at least causes them not to lose money).   I've heard before that "the customer is allways right".   If enough people are upset about this and make their opinion known this will become good business.


----------



## herald (Oct 29, 2002)

AustEvergreen,
 You want to complain about something, but your unwilling to do the research about what you want. You can't expect people to change the world just for you.

There are very valid realities that prevent what you want. You choose to ignore them. I expect that if you do this alot of things in life that you will be a very unhappy person.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 30, 2002)

For what it's worth, I agree with AustEvergreen.  WOTC dropped the ball so badly on E-tools that it's not even funny.  I run a game and play in two others, and every single player uses some kind of software to generate their character sheets.  Except for the low level game, only one player doesn't have a character with levels in one or more prestige classes.  Prestige classes that E-tools doesn't support.  Yeah, there are ways around it, but I for one don't have the software background to change the database around, nor do I have the time to learn Access - or the cash to buy Microsoft Office, for that matter.  I don't know as I'll boycott WOTC over it, but for the most part, I only own the core books, FR setting, and the rest of my stuff is D20.  And it is apt to stay that way with the quality I've seen from WOTC lately.  I said WOTC dropped the ball, but actually Hasbro is the guilty party.  I'd much rather give my money to a small publisher like Mongoose or S&SS than the greedy Haze Bro's.  I have E-tools, but it's useless for my campaign.  If anyone wants to market a REAL piece of software to manage my characters, you can have my money.  WOTC won't get any more of it - at least not where software is concerned.


----------



## Troll-Hunter (Oct 30, 2002)

*Re: Thought I was done but..........*

AustEvergreen,

Just out of curiosity, why are you using Baen Books as a business model that WOTC should follow?
I also very much enjoy Baen books, I am especially a fan of David Weber, John Ringo, and Eric Flint’s series of books.

While they are both publishers, Baen is strictly a book merchant, while WOTC is a gaming/book company.  From what I have read over at Baen’s boards (been lurking over there for about 3 years), Jim Baen has led the push into e-books - selling books in electronic format directly from his web site.  THOUGH, he does this because it leads to more sales of deadwood books.  I believe they stated at the beginning of this year that he did finally make a “profit” from his e-book division, besides increased “cross-over” sales in hardcopies.

Also most people (myself, all of my friends & many on Baen’s boards) buy the electronic versions, hardback and paperback versions.

With the exception of the latest David Weber book “War of Honor,” none of the previous “hardcopy” books gave you the right to electronic version of the book.  Of course only buying the e-version you could print it out, but having done this “once” on 8.5x11 paper, binding it, cover(?), carrying it, - it just fell apart to easily – and was not worth the trouble.

So he does expect people to buy the e-version ($15/month for 4-5 books), like it and then buy the hardcopy version.  You have noticed that a lot of Baen books are being first printed in hardback ($24), then about a year later the paperback will come out.

I am sure that WOTC would like to have that kind of return on their products as well.


----------



## poilbrun (Nov 2, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> *AustEvergreen,
> You want to complain about something, but your unwilling to do the research about what you want. You can't expect people to change the world just for you.
> 
> There are very valid realities that prevent what you want. You choose to ignore them. I expect that if you do this alot of things in life that you will be a very unhappy person. *



If a company wants to keep his customers, it tries to make them happy. Have you seen a book about flowers and gardens in D&D? No. Why not? Because not many people would like it, and hence buy it. Customers would like to have access to a character generator with material from the books they buy. And yet, WotC doesn't want to allow character generators to use that material. Or even other material-producing companies. Wouldn't it be better if anotehr company could use feats from the books other than the Core three? Seriously, it wouldn't harm them very much if a NPC in a book from another company had the feat Blooded (from the FRCS) instead of Improved Initiative (I do not ask WotC to let another company reprint the feat and the description, just to let them use feats and PrC from their non-Core books). If a DM runs only official adventures, he will never get to use anything from the BoVD, for example. And yet, everybody thinks that's fine. Companies who produce other rpg have the same stance, but at least, they re-use their own material. WotC won't, because the consumer is supposed to only have the three Core rulebooks. So, if a DM who runs only official adventures has 4 players who take each a PrC, it means that all the PrC from all the splatbooks except 4 are money he threw out the window. I have troubles understanding how people can say WotC does the right thing, from a consumer's point of view.

When I buy a book, I don't ask myself whether it is well done from a lawyer's point of view. I ask myself whether it's well done from a player's point of view. And I often think that WotC does good books, but doesn't support its consumers very well.


----------



## gariig (Nov 2, 2002)

I thought I would post an example (OT) of how not protecting your IP can be dangerous.  Well, it's more about protecting your brand names, but works the same.  

A few years ago there was this company that got the notion to make roller skates that had the four wheels in a row or better know as inline skates.  So the company Roller Blades was born and made inline skates called roller blades.  Years later the market becomes saturated with business and other companies started to make inline skates called "rollerblades" and the Rollerblade company didn't do anything about it.  Now, Rollerblade is sitting in court trying to battle for it's Trademark on the Rollerblade name but they have a good chance to lose because the name "rollerblade" has been generalised to mean inline skates.  Morale of the story is a company MUST MUST MUST protect IP/Trademarks from being used (even if it's a good/non-harming use like PCGen) because you could start a very bad precedent.  Just a little tidbit of info for you.

Gariig


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 3, 2002)

While I agree that protecting your IP is essential, trademark protection works very differently from copyright protection. Trademarks _must_ be protected to remain valid, while copyright remains valid no matter how many infringements are made.


----------



## gariig (Nov 3, 2002)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *While I agree that protecting your IP is essential, trademark protection works very differently from copyright protection. Trademarks must be protected to remain valid, while copyright remains valid no matter how many infringements are made. *




You got me there.

Gariig


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 5, 2002)

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *
> If a company wants to keep his customers, it tries to make them happy. Have you seen a book about flowers and gardens in D&D? No. Why not? Because not many people would like it, and hence buy it. Customers would like to have access to a character generator with material from the books they buy. And yet, WotC doesn't want to allow character generators to use that material.*



Doesn't mean you can manually input it in the generator yourself for your own personal use.





> *Or even other material-producing companies. Wouldn't it be better if anotehr company could use feats from the books other than the Core three? Seriously, it wouldn't harm them very much if a NPC in a book from another company had the feat Blooded (from the FRCS) instead of Improved Initiative (I do not ask WotC to let another company reprint the feat and the description, just to let them use feats and PrC from their non-Core books).*



While it may be nice to some customers, other customers will find it a hassle to get the _FRCS_ to understand what the hell is a Blooded feat, such customers are not _FR_ fans and gamers. So no matter what you do, you will find criticism.




> *If a DM runs only official adventures, he will never get to use anything from the BoVD, for example. And yet, everybody thinks that's fine. Companies who produce other rpg have the same stance, but at least, they re-use their own material. WotC won't, because the consumer is supposed to only have the three Core rulebooks. So, if a DM who runs only official adventures has 4 players who take each a PrC, it means that all the PrC from all the splatbooks except 4 are money he threw out the window. I have troubles understanding how people can say WotC does the right thing, from a consumer's point of view.*



Then that is something you should discuss with said DM who prefers to run only official adventures. Perhaps you should task a different DM to run their games differently.

For now, I don't mind if an adventures stick the baseline rules. That way, if I have a supplement like _BoVD_ I can decide if I want to incorporate it, while another group 10 miles away are using the same adventure but incorporating _The Silver Marches._

The result: that same adventure is being purchased, regardless of different uses.




> *When I buy a book, I don't ask myself whether it is well done from a lawyer's point of view. I ask myself whether it's well done from a player's point of view. And I often think that WotC does good books, but doesn't support its consumers very well. *



Well, it helps to know what support is lacking and then determine if the majority of the fan base agrees with you, as long as they can still retain legal copyright and trademark.

Forgive me if I have high expectation of _D&D_ consumers that knows how to be creative enough to incorporate nonessential supplements into their games.


----------



## herald (Nov 5, 2002)

> If a company wants to keep his customers, it tries to make them happy. Have you seen a book about flowers and gardens in D&D? No. Why not? Because not many people would like it, and hence buy it. .




This has nothing to do with the conversation, therefore I have no rebutal.





> Customers would like to have access to a character generator with material from the books they buy. And yet, WotC doesn't want to allow character generators to use that material. Or even other material-producing companies. Wouldn't it be better if anotehr company could use feats from the books other than the Core three? .




No, it would be bad,very bad. It would prove that WOTC is giving perfered treatment to software makers than people who use the OGL/D20 licences. At that point, the D20 Brand would be diluted and open up lawsuits than nobody needs. 




> Seriously, it wouldn't harm them very much if a NPC in a book from another company had the feat Blooded (from the FRCS) instead of Improved Initiative (I do not ask WotC to let another company reprint the feat and the description, just to let them use feats and PrC from their non-Core books). If a DM runs only official adventures, he will never get to use anything from the BoVD, for example. And yet, everybody thinks that's fine. Companies who produce other rpg have the same stance, but at least, they re-use their own material. WotC won't, because the consumer is supposed to only have the three Core rulebooks. So, if a DM who runs only official adventures has 4 players who take each a PrC, it means that all the PrC from all the splatbooks except 4 are money he threw out the window. I have troubles understanding how people can say WotC does the right thing, from a consumer's point of view.




The last part of your statement is so confusing I don't know where to start. The fact is that a being a DM and running a D&D game is totally differant that making and distributing software. 

Any DM is free to use any any book he wants in his game,  I myself have used "Heart of Nightfang Spire" with characters using information from "Oriental Adventures, Sword and Fist, Song and Silence, Masters of the Wild, and Tome and Blood". As a DM, I'm free to modify any game I want with information from BOVD, (And I am, updating Die, Vecna Die with it right now). I'm Also getting to run a Dragonstar game and I'm thinking of getting the new book from perpitrated press to flesh out the firearms section. 

So what about about companies who want to use materials that have not been released to the SRD?

Simple.

I would suggest that they contact WOTC to see if they could use the information in thier books. 

No I can just guess what your about to say poilbrun. Your going to say, I bet that they wouldn't do that in a million years. 

Well take a look at "Tome of Horrors". Its a book that was created by the fine folks over at the Creature Catalog, in conjuction with Necromancer Games. WOTC worked with them to make sure monsters were not duplicated and allowed them to update monsters from 2e and 1e games.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Nov 6, 2002)

*clarity*

This is not about trademark infringement or protection or maintaining wotc's copyright.   It is about customer service.   I feel harmed by wotc actions.  They've given me an incentive not to purchase their product.  I'm not buying until things change. Period.    If wotc wants my business they'll have to 'loosen up' a bit and let the third party software makers have permission to use material from their supplements that aren't part of the srd.   While I'm just one person and my one man boycott won't by itself count for much I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way.   And just possibly this will get noticed by management at wotc if other consumers feel strongly enough to act in a similar manner.  "Hey, do you know why X-mass sales were down yet?"   "Oh, yes.   It seems a significant number of customer's were somewhat upset.   Perhaps you should read some of these comments......".   Well, we can hope anyway.   I, at least would like to think some of this is getting back to wotc for their cogitation, now.   I am also still inviting (beyond much hope of reply) an official comment within this thread by anyone from management at wotc.

Just so it's been said I don't think wotc are evil, just engaged in annoying business practices.

Why are you defending wizards?  Is this just "I believe it's right!"?  So, I take it non of you other's like herald, gariig and fast learner are not in the least bit upset about what's been done.  No harm to me, so no foul here at all?  Or is the 'harm' to you not rellevant? I'd like to know.


----------



## herald (Nov 6, 2002)

Point of Fact: No matter how many times you say that this is a customer service issue, it's not. Not ever, not going to be, never will be.

WOTC cannot do what you want it to do. 

But if you want to protest WOTC, I would suggest that you put your point of view in the form of a letter, and address it directly to Customer Service. After all that's who your really trying to get your message across to.

custserv@wizards.com 

You can address your concerns to them via email, or you can ask for an address to mail your complaints via snail mail.

However, if all you are going to do is wage a one man war right here on ENworlds message boards against WOTC. I will be glad to point out to others your misunderstandings that you have against WOTC and why WOTC must protect thier Intellectual Properties.

I defend WOTC for a simple reason, I believe in the open gaming system. I want it to flurish and grow. But to ensure that it does, there must be a level playing field. What you propose is not fair. Your asking for software makers to get preferencal treatment over print makers. 

Wizards has stated that they will release material to the SRD as soon as they feel that they can do so reasonably. At this point, all that is left is information from psionics. d20 modern is going to be added soon and supposed to be in its entirety. 

All the splat books must be stripped of game world specific material before it is put on to the SRD, so there will be a lag there. 

Another fact of the matter here is that you seem to be mostly upset that WOTC is not producing OGL material on a scedule that you apporve of. Well, I'm sure they would like to accomidate you, but the truth is that it's not like they have any model to base thier work off of. They are making it upas they go along. And they have to make sure that what they do is legal, and that they have protection.  

Here's a suggestion, head over to http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html 

Go to the list servers and read the archives. There has been alot of discussion over software and OGL/D20. You should read it. You might get a clearer idea of what your asking ofr WOTC to do. There is a lot of posts from Ryan Dancy, the person that once headed up the OGL thing for WOTC, but got caught up in the layoffs. It's pretty clear how impossible it is to acomidate what your asking.


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by herald _I defend WOTC for a simple reason, I believe in the open gaming system. I want it to flurish and grow. But to ensure that it does, there must be a level playing field.




Yes, Ryan had a great idea in the "Open Gaming System" (OGS).  However, much like eTools, the implementation hasn't been really all that great aside from all the actual effort needed to strip the game system of the relavent IP.

D20 was and is simply the wrong system to have led the OGS fight.  D20 is not a generic system, it is essentially D&D 3rd Ed. stripped and renamed.  D&D was redesigned to make the game flow better, update it [to some extent] and so forth, claims even going as far as being declared as easier to implement via computer [a complete falacy.. anyone with a decent amount of professional technical expertise would and should laugh].  As a redesign of the age-old D&D, its fine and dandy and works just fine; sure we may all gripe and groan over the fine points and some may or may not like all parts, but overall it still maintains the D&D flavor.

However, the D&D flavor, is not good for any other system than D&D.  Period.  No exceptions.   StarWars is a good example;  WEG's d6 is far suprerior to the d20 version of StarWars [even with the annoyance of having to roll so many damn d6s at high "levels"].  Level-based systems aren't much in vogue, but they aren't necessarily restrictive either.  However, class based systems are quite so and about the only major game you find a class based system is D&D; because its traditional.  

Again, the OGS is a great idea that Ryan came up with.  Allows multiple people to add new things to a core system without worrying about lawsuits, C&Ds, etc. [for the most part ] and all having a fair and equal shot at it.  Great idea.  Just the wrong system to both have led it *AND* been the core system used in every other non-D&D game content.

I would have prefered to see a D&D, as it has been, put out as an OGS.  That way people like Green Ronin, et al. could put out all the source material they have for D&D.  Great stuff.

However, a more generic game system that is more flexible and better handles a variety of situations and has no backwards ties to former editions of D&D would have been better suited for the initial core system for OGS.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 7, 2002)

*Re: clarity*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *Why are you defending wizards?  Is this just "I believe it's right!"?  So, I take it non of you other's like herald, gariig and fast learner are not in the least bit upset about what's been done.  No harm to me, so no foul here at all?  Or is the 'harm' to you not rellevant? I'd like to know. *



You are correct, I am not the least bit upset by WOTC protecting it's IP. Would it have been better (even "nicer") for them to come up with a clear policy on software a couple of years ago? Unquestionably. Am I somehow "upset" that they didn't have the appropriate and reasonable foresight to do so? Not in the least.

Perhaps part of my lack of concern is the fact that I generate IP for a living (at least part of it), and so am very big on seeing it protected in general.


----------



## Baumi (Nov 7, 2002)

I'm VERY angry at WOTC for it's treatment on the Free Software Tools. To close Redblade after one day and to disallow PCGEN to Roll the Attributes is an offense.

Every other RPG with a medium sized Community has one or more Character-Generators, Dice Rollers, etc. and none of them had any problems like Redblade or PCGen had. Even Ad&d 2nd and older Editions had free Generators. But now they close every one of them or limit them so much that they are uninsteresting.

I do understand that they have to insist on there rights if they Tools would be sold for money, but we are talking about Freeware from Fan's for Fan's! Besides, you need to read the books to use them, they are not giving so much away that the purchase of a book would be unnessasary.

Sorry about the Rant, but that's how I feel as a Costumer. They definitifely lost me as a Costumer because of it's actions not because some tools (60$+ per Week for RPG's).

But anyway....

Have FUN!
Baumi


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 7, 2002)

Personally, using _D&D_ to promote _d20_ and the Open Gaming movement is a great business idea. Trying to promote _d20_ with a new game woud have been much slower to catch on, but using the _D&D_ brand would bring everyone into the fold of the new rules system. Granted, some _D&D_ gamers think that there is no life beyond _D&D_ but then there are some open-minded gamers that are willing to take a chance to check out such games as _Dragonstar_ and _Spycraft._ Heck, I even tried out those mini-games in _Polyhedron,_ the very magazine attached to _Dung_ that is detested by many fundamental _D&D_ gamers (I consider myself a moderate).

I do agree, that the license is ill-suited for software publishng but very suited for PnP publishing. Will Wizards consider changing the the two licenses with regards to "interactive games" (legal definition)? Well, that depends on pressure from well-established _d20_ publishers. I think the pressure is getting to them now, and we should thank the failure of the _e-Tools_ project for that. Had that project succeeded as originally planned (i.e., _Master Tools_) the pressure would not be so heavily forced upon Wizards.


----------



## MonkeyBoy (Nov 7, 2002)

Ranger REG:

"Will Wizards consider changing the the two licenses with regards to "interactive games" (legal definition)?"

Remember that Hasbro sold the rights to produce "interractive games" based on their IP to Infogrames (i think thats the right company). This specifically means they CANNOT allow anyone else to do so. It also means, because it would be legally difficult to stipulate successfully - and in all likelyhood the licence doesn't give rights only for commercial development, that they cannot differenciate between sold and given away software on this basis; their only option is to tell everyone to make sure that their s/w is A: based on OGC not WoTC IP, and B: not an "interactive game".

Of course their definition of any random generation being an interractive game is... indefensible.


----------



## herald (Nov 7, 2002)

Random generation is something that has been defended by D&D owners for years. This nothing new and PCGEN wanted to try and comply with WOTC and the OGL as best as it could. 

And if you ask PCGEN makers, I'd be willing to believe that they are quite happy with thier arrangement with WOTC. They have held meetings to discuss what can and cannot happen and they have made corrections accordingly. 

Redblade as far as I can remember could have stripped the sword and fist material and more than likely been fine. So once again, what  *little* outrage over this slight is pointless. 

WOTC and by extention Hasbro is entitled to make profits from it's IP for a time until which it decideds to ad it's IP to the OGL. It's as simple as saying, the toys (IP) belong to WOTC, you can have them when WOTC is done Playing with them. 

As for situation of D20 being sutable for all gaming situations, Personally, I find D20 just to my liking. I've played with more than a few and thi is the one I perfer right now. D20 modern might change that, and I might start to like that better. 

As for interactive games, Infrogrames holds those right now, but if I understood that's not a permanate deal, after a few years the rights could revert back to Hasbro. 

I don't want to hijack the thread but think of this. I don't know if anyone say the tools that shipped with Neverwinter nights. The NPC builder in NWN, pretty much rocked. A drag and drop interface for equipment, I wonder what would happen if Bioware took a shot at it.


----------



## smetzger (Nov 7, 2002)

MonkeyBoy said:
			
		

> *Ranger REG:
> 
> "Will Wizards consider changing the the two licenses with regards to "interactive games" (legal definition)?"
> 
> ...




I agree that it is indefensible and I agree that random character generation does not fit the definition of interactive game.  However, the crux of the problem is that d20 is WOTCs license and they can revoke that license according to how they interpret the license.  Because its their license their interpretaion is the only interpretation that matters.  You can always contest in court however because WOTC owns the license I believe that your case would be very weak even if you did not have any gray areas in your compliance.


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 7, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Personally, using _D&D_ to promote _d20_ and the Open Gaming movement is a great business idea. Trying to promote _d20_ with a new game woud have been much slower to catch on, but using the _D&D_ brand would bring everyone into the fold of the new rules system.




Up to a point, I agree.  The rules work much better for D&D than previous versions did, IMO, although there will always be perceived short-comings in the game.



> Granted, some _D&D_ gamers think that there is no life beyond _D&D_ but then there are some open-minded gamers that are willing to take a chance to check out such games as _Dragonstar_ and _Spycraft._.




Well I consider myself a moderate, as I've ha played many variety of role-playing games from D&D to Amber to StoryTeller, et al.  But since I mentioned that D&D's core rule-system, ala what Wizards calls d20, is ill-suited for anything but D&D, I'll take offense at your statement.  Not much, but at least enough to respond.  Personally I either DMd or played D&D for the last 16 years on and since 88 I also did a fair share of GMing or playing WEG StarWars [plus all sorts of other stuff in between].  Being a StarWars afficanado and owning most of the core stuff for the 2 editions from WEG, I of course checked out StarWars from WotC.  And since many of the players were also looking at D&D at the time, I changed my WEG:SW campign to WotC:SW to see how it would go.  Guess what?  Everyone of my players, even the ones that love 3rd Ed. D&D, and myself absolutely hated WotC:SW because of the rules mechanics.  Suddenly we saw our cool Bounty Hunters, Smugglers, Pilots, Technicans, et al. going from being able to do and grow as they pleased based on experience [I only let them upgrade skills they either used in play or sought out training for] and character growth.  They were stifled, they were irratated, they were enraged at the slowness of fast blaster combat and general plodding mechanisms of WotC:SW.  d20 just fails there.  Dragonstar is ShadowRun in the more distant future and seems to be a good setting.   And maybe the fantasy part allows d20 to sorta work there, but not enough to me to offset the lead weight of a level and class based system.  Spycraft and d20 Modern suffer from the same.

Suffice to say, I do think the OGS was a good idea.  I do think that creating the D&D SRD and making it OGS was a good idea as it allows non-WotC and fans to add to the D&D game without legal ramifications [well as long as you follow the OGL and/or d20 licenses].  However, making the SRD into d20 and having pushed it as the core system to be used as the rules system for other OGS settings was a mistake.  No one rules system fits every game (Ryan and company never stated d20 should be used by every product anyways) and while sure its nice to have a common rules system for a variety of products, d20 was the wrong one due to its inherient inflexibility.

Saying all that, I do think I am open-minded to have given the core system out of D&D 3rd Ed. a shot at use in other systems; but having seen it in action, I prefer to only use [with house rules of course! ] with the D&D game and thats it.  Which is why I'm glad to see some games, such as Cthulu, producing material thats useable in their own format and d20... that way I can have a choice and not be sucked into having to use d20.



> I do agree, that the license is ill-suited for software publishng but very suited for PnP publishing.




Actually the OGL license does not say anything about "interactive software" at all.  It simply gives you the ability to create derivative works and translations of the SRD in any format desired, including source code.  If you go with the OGL you can express your own character creation and advancement system as that is not covered by the SRD.  However, while no one can copyright a set of rules, only the expression of them, you have to express the rules with completely different language than used in the copyrighted D&D expression.

The d20 is the one that gets you into trouble due to the "d20 Guide" referenced in the license as it limits fairly restrictively what you can and can't do in order to be able to slap on a "d20" logo; if the mass gaming market even understand what that means.   

So simply don't use d20 license with the software and, with the exception of the stickiness around character creation/advancement, you have no real problems.  Unless of course WotC decides to be the "evil corporate giant out to smash any and all who see things slightly differently than their lawyers".



> As for situation of D20 being sutable for all gaming situations, Personally, I find D20 just to my liking. I've played with more than a few and thi is the one I perfer right now.




Thats fine, thats personal choice!!  Personally, I think yer a blathering idiot [only teasing] because you like it. 



> D20 modern might change that, and I might start to like that better.




<scratches his head> Ok I'm confused.  I haven't seen d20 Modern in print yet or read through it so can't say my knowledge extends to more than what is on WotC's site and such.  But I really don't see that the core mechanics of d20 Modern are any different than the core d20 system residing in D&D.   It still has levels, hitpoints, saving throws, base attack bonuses, skills, feats [or are those talents?] and last of all, CLASSES!!  How is it different [yes, I realize this is completely off topic too!!  And so will keep the comments about it in this block as follows: 
With d20 modern you are still tied to being forced into classes... argh, such limited flexibility.  Its, as in D&D, an all or nothing affair... either you gain everything that class has to offer at the level, or you simply don't take that class.  There isn't a freedom to evolve your character [and hopefully you do this from a roleplaying and character development standpoint and not simply as a min/max exercise! ] in the manner you see your character elvoving in.  And lets not even start with hitpoints and how it works in a modern-esque world.  Bleah. ]


----------



## herald (Nov 7, 2002)

Hollywood said...



> Thats fine, thats personal choice!! Personally, I think yer a blathering idiot [only teasing] because you like it.




Well from blathering idiot to the next, we will agree do disagree.  

I'm going to just say this about D20 modern and then I will not comment on it anymore because it's hijacking the thread.
My D20 M experiances are based on what I have read about it polyhedron whn they presented the base "classes". 

I don't know if saw the write ups, but classes flat out based on a base attribute. The Strong Hero, The Smart Hero, ecetera. So while you do have "Classes", they aren't as quite iconic like D&D "Classes".

If my memory serves, classes are pretty much generic across the board, so there is the posibility of more choice freedon.

I myself was a White Wolf convert for a long time, and ran a game that lasted for years. And the great thing about the White Wolf games was the simple fact that you could go in many differant directions as a character as you picked up your skills. But as time went on, my players got tired of it. 

Don't ask me why, but when I asked them why they lost interest in it they would mention that the characters didn't seem "focused". It took me a while to understand, but it seemed to me that they were more interested in using a mostly closed system and using expantions to broaden thier character, than use a broad character creation system and define who they were. 

So it becomes an arguement of Flexability vs. Focus. My players wanted focus, yours wanted Flexability, and as gamemasters we choose a road that would accomidate our players and make us happy.


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 7, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> Well from blathering idiot to the next, we will agree do disagree.




<laughs>  Fair enough... and wouldn't have it any other way! 



> I don't know if saw the write ups, but classes flat out based on a base attribute. The Strong Hero, The Smart Hero, ecetera. So while you do have "Classes", they aren't as quite iconic like D&D "Classes".




Ok, thanks... to me, thats a huge difference over straight d20 from D&D.



> Don't ask me why, but when I asked them why they lost interest in it they would mention that the characters didn't seem "focused". It took me a while to understand, but it seemed to me that they were more interested in using a mostly closed system and using expantions to broaden thier character, than use a broad character creation system and define who they were.




Yes, I can actually understand that.  And I will say that my players felt the same way.  However, because WEG d6 had templates, which are in some ways similiar to classes, but not as restrictive IMO... I had them each "focus" on those templates.  When creating the character, if they didn't like the standard templates, there could come up with their own but I found that by enforcing the base concepts of the templates they found focus,but also flexibility.

I do know that in my present D&D campaign [although we have rotating DMs], that the players often come up with great, and focused, character concepts that simply don't fit within the iconic classes and take a lot of work to let exist and evolve.  But eh, oh well.



> So it becomes an arguement of Flexability vs. Focus. My players wanted focus, yours wanted Flexability, and as gamemasters we choose a road that would accomidate our players and make us happy.




Yes, I agree and its nice we have such choices.  However, to get somewhat back on topic, I don't agree that the use of the d20 system as the core OGS for many, possibly, cool campaign worlds is a good choice.  It does not allow the gamemaster to choice Flexability vs. Focus or some combination of the two to best suit himself and his players.  It just simply lays down the "Focus" concept with a minute amount of flexibility.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 8, 2002)

Hollywood said:
			
		

> *
> Well I consider myself a moderate, as I've ha played many variety of role-playing games from D&D to Amber to StoryTeller, et al.  But since I mentioned that D&D's core rule-system, ala what Wizards calls d20, is ill-suited for anything but D&D, I'll take offense at your statement.  Not much, but at least enough to respond.  Personally I either DMd or played D&D for the last 16 years on and since 88 I also did a fair share of GMing or playing WEG StarWars [plus all sorts of other stuff in between].  Being a StarWars afficanado and owning most of the core stuff for the 2 editions from WEG, I of course checked out StarWars from WotC.  And since many of the players were also looking at D&D at the time, I changed my WEG:SW campign to WotC:SW to see how it would go.  Guess what?  Everyone of my players, even the ones that love 3rd Ed. D&D, and myself absolutely hated WotC:SW because of the rules mechanics.  Suddenly we saw our cool Bounty Hunters, Smugglers, Pilots, Technicans, et al. going from being able to do and grow as they pleased based on experience [I only let them upgrade skills they either used in play or sought out training for] and character growth.  They were stifled, they were irratated, they were enraged at the slowness of fast blaster combat and general plodding mechanisms of WotC:SW.  d20 just fails there.  Dragonstar is ShadowRun in the more distant future and seems to be a good setting.   And maybe the fantasy part allows d20 to sorta work there, but not enough to me to offset the lead weight of a level and class based system.  Spycraft and d20 Modern suffer from the same.*



Granted, I do acknowledged that not everyone is going to take Wizards' _Star Wars_ immediately, but then there are those who are so glad to have moved away from the "bucket o dice" system (like me) that there is an option that is more enjoyable and playable (by my own preference and style) that re-ignite my interest in another sci-fi series (my fave will always be _Star Trek_). I also enjoy _Spycraft_ for taking the rules mechanics and use it to create a superspy RPG product.

As for class-level system being a lead weight, I don't feel it. Granted there were restriction in past products (I do acknowledge the ridiculous demihuman multiclass combination allowed list and the even more ridiculous dual-class for human rules). Removing the restriction, even moreso for modern and sci-fi genre games makes it easier to diversify your character.

Besides, if class-level is the worst problem, Palladium Book would have shut down a long time ago, and _FASA_ would be selling their _MechWarrior: Third Edition_ RPG off the shelf.

So that can't be a problem.




> *Suffice to say, I do think the OGS was a good idea.  I do think that creating the D&D SRD and making it OGS was a good idea as it allows non-WotC and fans to add to the D&D game without legal ramifications [well as long as you follow the OGL and/or d20 licenses].  However, making the SRD into d20 and having pushed it as the core system to be used as the rules system for other OGS settings was a mistake.  No one rules system fits every game (Ryan and company never stated d20 should be used by every product anyways) and while sure its nice to have a common rules system for a variety of products, d20 was the wrong one due to its inherient inflexibility.*



You have to make SRD into _d20;_ it is the foundation to build a _d20-_ compatible product.

It's a good thing that the SRD is more of a designer's toolkit and that 100% of that content is Open Game Content, which means you have the option of reprinting (or not) or modifying the game content that is more suitable for your game. If you don't like Alchemy skill in your sci-fi RPG, don't use it. Or modify the Alchemy skill into something more modern like Chemistry skill.




> *Saying all that, I do think I am open-minded to have given the core system out of D&D 3rd Ed. a shot at use in other systems; but having seen it in action, I prefer to only use [with house rules of course! ] with the D&D game and thats it.  Which is why I'm glad to see some games, such as Cthulu, producing material thats useable in their own format and d20... that way I can have a choice and not be sucked into having to use d20.*



For such well-established, long-running products like _CoC_ or _Deadland,_ making the game available in other rules system such as _GURP_ allow that publisher to attract more gamers that are more familiar with that set of rules. More gamers means people will buy your wares, increasing your business revenue.

BTW, I have yet to see Chaosium start putting up supplement for _CoC d20._ They have made promise but no result on the shelves. Wizards can't do anything about it since they agreed to the core rulebook deal.




> *Actually the OGL license does not say anything about "interactive software" at all.  It simply gives you the ability to create derivative works and translations of the SRD in any format desired, including source code.  If you go with the OGL you can express your own character creation and advancement system as that is not covered by the SRD.  However, while no one can copyright a set of rules, only the expression of them, you have to express the rules with completely different language than used in the copyrighted D&D expression.*



Actually, I have heard the debate of whether the OGL itself can be as good as other open source license like the GPL. It ranges from how does one "clearly indicate what is OGL in the program's codes" (from a "reasonable person" standard, whether it be a programmer or an average user of said program) to allowing OGL to work with GPL or other open source code license.



> *<scratches his head> Ok I'm confused.  I haven't seen d20 Modern in print yet or read through it so can't say my knowledge extends to more than what is on WotC's site and such.  But I really don't see that the core mechanics of d20 Modern are any different than the core d20 system residing in D&D.   It still has levels, hitpoints, saving throws, base attack bonuses, skills, feats [or are those talents?] and last of all, CLASSES!!  How is it different [yes, I realize this is completely off topic too!!  And so will keep the comments about it in this block as follows:
> With d20 modern you are still tied to being forced into classes... argh, such limited flexibility.*



Why do you always see "classes" as such a bane? I mean, if you decided on a military career, then one should take the path that would make him a better soldier. If you want to learn to knit then that's your choice of an outside hobby but it will prove to be an obstacle to becoming better soldier, if you are distracted from your goal.




> *Its, as in D&D, an all or nothing affair... either you gain everything that class has to offer at the level, or you simply don't take that class.  There isn't a freedom to evolve your character [and hopefully you do this from a roleplaying and character development standpoint and not simply as a min/max exercise! ] in the manner you see your character elvoving in.  And lets not even start with hitpoints and how it works in a modern-esque world.  Bleah. ] *



Sorry, the "all-or-nothing" excuse may apply toward the predecessors of the _d20_ system (i.e, _AD&D_ strict multiclassing/dual-classing rules) but not so with the current incarnation. For _d20 Modern_ you are encouraged to multiclass from an ability-based Hero Class (e.g., Strong Hero that focus on character's Strength) to an Advanced Class (Strong Hero becomes a Soldier) to a Prestige Class (Strong Soldier become an Army Ranger).


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ranger REG _but then there are those who are so glad to have moved away from the "bucket o dice" system (like me) that there is an option that is more enjoyable and playable (by my own preference and style)




Well, of course there is that choice.   Although, I will agree, that the worst thing about the WEG SW and d6 was the bucket of dice.



> my fave will always be _Star Trek_




I despise it actually... even if I have been watching Enterprise as of late.   So you know there will be differences in our thought patterns.  Then again, I always preferred the writtings of Jerry Pournelly and David Drake.   Hard-core military sci-fi. 



> As for class-level system being a lead weight, I don't feel it. Granted there were restriction in past products (I do acknowledge the ridiculous demihuman multiclass combination allowed list and the even more ridiculous dual-class for human rules). Removing the restriction, even moreso for modern and sci-fi genre games makes it easier to diversify your character.




D&D has tons of it.  Can you be a rogue thats not a thief?  Sure, but instead of being able to get rid of abilities that don't fit your character, you are stuck with them.   Not so in a more flexible system.  And no, while the Giskard's Zeroth law, oops wait... wrong genre ... the Zeroth law is nice; its a lazy solution to the problem.



> Besides, if class-level is the worst problem, Palladium Book would have shut down a long time ago, and _FASA_ would be selling their _MechWarrior: Third Edition_ RPG off the shelf.




I disagree.  Palladium is Palladium, think I've played one game of Rifts; didn't care for the world concept.  And MW, well, right or wrong that was designed with the genre and the boardgame in mind.  Would hate to see a d20 version of MW.



> You have to make SRD into _d20;_ it is the foundation to build a _d20-_ compatible product.




The SRD is _NOT_ a d20 licensed product, its an OGL product.  You don't have to use the d20 license at all to produce a SRD based product.  All that you need the d20 license for is to put the d20 logo on your product, which more tightly affiliates your product with d20 and D&D.



> It's a good thing that the SRD is more of a designer's toolkit and that 100% of that content is Open Game Content, which means you have the option of reprinting (or not) or modifying the game content that is more suitable for your game. If you don't like Alchemy skill in your sci-fi RPG, don't use it. Or modify the Alchemy skill into something more modern like Chemistry skill.




SRD is literally VB as compared to C/C++ before .NET came around and they all compile into one bytecode that is run within the same virtual machine.

However, when you use as an example the Alchemy skill, you are automatically talking about "fluff".  I am talking about the very base mechanics in the SRD, stripped of all fluff, i.e. the feats, skills, weapons, armor, spells, monsters, etc.  Rather how the various mechanics suchs levels, classes, hitpoints, attacks, armor class, etc. interact with each other.




> For such well-established, long-running products like _CoC_ or _Deadland,_ making the game available in other rules system such as _GURP_ allow that publisher to attract more gamers that are more familiar with that set of rules. More gamers means people will buy your wares, increasing your business revenue.




Yes, by giving the gamers a choice that allows them to choose a mechanic that best fits their gaming styles and preference.



> BTW, I have yet to see Chaosium start putting up supplement for _CoC d20._ They have made promise but no result on the shelves. Wizards can't do anything about it since they agreed to the core rulebook deal.




If I was Chaosium, I wouldn't either.  Not until I saw sells of the d20 CoC making gains on the normal CoC sells.  However, if producing CoC supplements, I'd go to the trouble of including OGL'd d20 information so that CoC d20 players don't feel left out.




> Actually, I have heard the debate of whether the OGL itself can be as good as other open source license like the GPL. It ranges from how does one "clearly indicate what is OGL in the program's codes" (from a "reasonable person" standard, whether it be a programmer or an average user of said program) to allowing OGL to work with GPL or other open source code license.




Well, not everyone likes the GPL license either..   But as someone else pointed out, OGL is not compatible with even other open-source licenses.  GPL is probably a bad one as an example, but while I forget the name of it, there is another GNU based license that concerns open-source documentation.




> Why do you always see "classes" as such a bane? I mean, if you decided on a military career, then one should take the path that would make him a better soldier. If you want to learn to knit then that's your choice of an outside hobby but it will prove to be an obstacle to becoming better soldier, if you are distracted from your goal.




A hobby is just that, a hobby.  Anyone, by virtue of it being a hobbby, can do it if its something they are interested in.  Your profession has absolutely no bearing on how good or how talented you may be at a hobby.  Now, you may spend less time at your hobby than someone with a different profession, but if you have the talent it matters not.  Nor is it an obstacle to becoming a better solider, in this example.  Different people excel at different things.  One solider may just be more adept at the skills necessary for a solider and therefore spends less time at it.  Another solider may need to spend a lot more time prefecting the "art" of being a solider.  Whereas, a third solider spends more times with his hobbies than either of the first two, and while he may be a good solider, hasn't spent his time or effort as wisely.  With the class system, as represented in the SRD, you are limited to basically one of those three choices, choice one.  With your DM, and rule Zero, you *may* be able to get around those... but _NOT_ by any set rules laid down by the game system; rather by judgement calls that will vary from DM to DM.




> Sorry, the "all-or-nothing" excuse may apply toward the predecessors of the _d20_ system (i.e, _AD&D_ strict multiclassing/dual-classing rules) but not so with the current incarnation.




No, the "all-or-nothing" argument applies to the current version of D&D just as it did in the original D&D, 1st Ed and 2nd Ed.  I've played them all, so have a good ground to based my opinion on.   With 3rd Edition, there are more built in rules that integrate together [skills being one; they integrate better than they did when first presented in the Wilderness Guide for 1st Ed. and of course in 2nd Ed] in a more seamless matter.  However, without applying the all encompassing Zeroth rule, you are still fairly limited in differences between one character and the next in ability.  

And frankly, the limitations of the 3rd Ed. system are quite evident in the discussion of base classes such as the Ranger where folks argue with other folks about them creating a new Ranger that has some abilities of the Druid and no spell casting, etc.  Why would people do that?  To get around the limitations, even with multi-classing, that are present in the base D&D system [which is defined currently in the SRD and forms the basis of the d20 system].  In essense they are arguing about the Zeroth rule and whose interpretation of it is correct.  A more flexible system, say GURPS or Hero [although am not a huge fan of either persay] built the system and mechanics to basically handle situations such as these.



> For _d20 Modern_ you are encouraged to multiclass from an ability-based Hero Class (e.g., Strong Hero that focus on character's Strength) to an Advanced Class (Strong Hero becomes a Soldier) to a Prestige Class (Strong Soldier become an Army Ranger).




At this point, d20 Modern is hardly out and its not part of the SRD or OGS, so is really irrelavent to the conversation.  But nonetheless, they have tried to open up the d20 Modern so that the class system is not as stifling to the modern personaes which may not fit as nicely into archtypes.  In effect they are saying, ok... we don't see that the SRD and d20 worked well in this setting, so we're going to change it so it hopefully works better.  

That being said, I haven't had the opportunity yet to sit down 
and read through it, though probably will.  Nonetheless, I must ask... why bother with classes at all in this case? [note, I don't mention levels]  Why not, rather than force players to define their characters as a collection of skills and feats that the player feels best represents the characters abilities and experience at any given level?  This is a more fine-grained approach than the coarse-grained "bucket" system approach of the class system.    Classes can still be useful, especially in modern and sci-fi systems as they can represent packages of skills that are learned through some type of educational scheme, not necessarily through use and experience.  In essesnse, more of a Prestige Class effect.


----------



## herald (Nov 8, 2002)

> And frankly, the limitations of the 3rd Ed. system are quite evident in the discussion of base classes such as the Ranger where folks argue with other folks about them creating a new Ranger that has some abilities of the Druid and no spell casting, etc. Why would people do that? To get around the limitations, even with multi-classing, that are present in the base D&D system [which is defined currently in the SRD and forms the basis of the d20 system]. In essense they are arguing about the Zeroth rule and whose interpretation of it is correct. A more flexible system, say GURPS or Hero [although am not a huge fan of either persay] built the system and mechanics to basically handle situations such as these.




But what you see as a liability some see as boon. 

In my opinion, the most powerful OS out there is UNIX. It's a very powerful, flexable system. It can emulate other operating systems very well and is very stable.

But it has a HUGE learning curve for alot of people. UNIX is so intimidating, any people don't know a single thing about it, even though much of what is in UNIX is in other OS's. They just shrug thier shoulders and walk away from it. But then again, ther are plenty of people who embrace it, love it and insist upon it. Those are your open ended system players. White Wolf, (Especially Mage), d6 Starwars, ect...

Then there are others who want simplicty. The Microsoft users, they want a system that does alot of things and well, and they will live with a few bugs in the sytem, as long as it will do just about everything else fairly well. Those are the D&D players, especially those that haven't even came up from 1e or 2e. 

Then you have those that Linux, it has alot of the power of Unix, and alot of the interface of Microsoft. It's so robust that it doesn't seem like a hybrid of Microsoft and Unix, it is its own thing.

Linux is all about owners/users being able to strip down and rebuilding thier systems just the way they like. From hardware, OS and Software anything can be tinkered with. 

And that is closer to what I feel the D20 players are. They can use the system straight out of the box, or they can modify it as they see fit. 

(I'm not going to bring in Apple, I can't figure how to fit them into this analogy since they switched to a Unix based OS.   )


----------



## herald (Nov 8, 2002)

Oh, by the way Hollywood. Here is the srd for D20 modern.

http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=msrd


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 8, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> Oh, by the way Hollywood. Here is the srd for D20 modern.




Hey thanks... I missed that. 

Mmms, so can I be a 5th level Strong Hero and a 4th level Smart Hero?  And does that make any sense whatsoever?   Dunno, my question is... who says that a Fast Hero should get more skill points than a Strong Hero?  And why should an Smart Hero get even more skill points than a Strong Hero?  Smart Hero by definition will, hopefully, have a high intelligence so he gets a bonus to skills anyways so why should they get even more base skills?  

Dunno, would have to really read the full rules to make a judgement call.  But just for the SRD, I'd have a hard time using it.


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 8, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> And that is closer to what I feel the D20 players are. They can use the system straight out of the box, or they can modify it as they see fit.




Well technically thats true for any gaming system, aka house rules.   However, you just can't mass distribute them unless allowed by a some sort of agreement or license for use of the product.  Thats what the OGL or Dominion L, etc. bring to the table.

And while I do understand your analogy, and understand what you are trying to say, I'll stick to my guns and disagree.


----------



## herald (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm not talking just about house rules, I'm talking about 3rd party rules. But then again,  I think that you get my drift. 

And I do see your side, having the dissent in this way is good. It makes designers want to work harder to improve from all sides.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Nov 11, 2002)

*Not quite a war, just a boycott*

Hello again herald.

It IS a customer service issue.     It has very little or nothing at all to do with IP protection.   If WOTC wanted to do well by it's customer base it would sign an agreement with PCGen and redblade et all which covered them and allowed use of the material as well.   If there were an agreement for PCGen (or others) to use this material (on a case by case basis.   Redblade separate from PCGen, separate from .....) even if wotc allowed free use of their material they would then have defended their IP and trademark.   The would have a written agreement with each group (I'd like to say company, but that's probably not right).  What would be a better word........producer.   Anyway, This is about shutting down the competition (because they can) for their product etools.   That's pretty much it.  If it were about defending their IP it would have happend last before etools was published, and or it would be a done issue by now and there would be nothing to discuss or argue about.

It's been implied that my viewpoint is extreme.   I disagree.   If you're upset about what wotc did to PCGen or Redblade or any other software 'producer' then continuing to purchase their material is like saying what they did is ok with you.     Is what they did OK with you or not.  Everyone has to decide that.

But I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, Herald.

Personally I like Champion's game system a little better, but there's tons of D6 involved in that too.   Typical damage rolls were 12-15d6.  But there were no classes and nothing random about character design.  You probably wouldn't like it.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 11, 2002)

Hey, AustEvergreen:

We get your point. Got it. Constant repetition of it isn't making it more valid in anyone's eyes.

Really.


----------



## herald (Nov 11, 2002)

AustEvergreen

Once again, I will state the facts!

WOTC can not accomidate what you are asking and have the OGL and d20 licences. Did you even go over and read the archives over at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html ?

What WOTC "did" to PCGEN and Redblade, was not only justified, it was moral and ethical. That's it, end of story. you want an unfair advantage over everyone else, or you want WOTC to give away the farm, which leads them into the poor house. It's that simple. 

Once again, I beg you to educate yourself on the facts. DO some research, nothing you post has any basis in anything other than your feelings.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Nov 12, 2002)

*Repition.   Touche'    and now.....*

Hey fast learner.   Maybe you should take that comment about repitition and mention it to Hearld.   But then I think most of you on the other side of this issue should look at what you've been saying, over and over.   Don't tell me I don't have a valid point, without doing a bit of looking in the mirror.   People have a right to be a bit steamed over what wotc did and your difference of opinion (or even your laws) won't change anyone's feelings on that matter.   Other people hold other opinions and laws change from time to time.   Companies have even been known not to fully enforce their rights under the law and still make a fair buck, and they do this just to make their customers happy so they'll purchase more.   Please quit trying to beat me over the head with how happy you are over what wotc did and how it's right.    I got you.    Really.

Personally I think some of you may be a bit to close to this issue.  Fast Learner generates IP for a living.   Hmmmm.   What about that?  Well, maybe not much but I hope you never try to claim a 'balanced' point of view on this issue.  You are definitely and firmly on the 'non-consumer rights' side of this issue.  What you think or what Hearld thinks wotc can't do is an opinion.   Hearld's opion.  Fast Learner's opinion.     My opinion, just to make fast learner happy I'll make short of and say I've already stated most of it.   Any type of noticible boycott of wotc d20 product can make a point that publishers need to beware of offending their marketplace. 

Oh and Herald, no offense but please get this.    Legally and morally justified can still mean bantha poodo to people if what you do hurts/inconveniences them.   And the law has been gotten around before to your benefit.  And for a proof I point to what you're using the read this post and ask you.....was it made by IBM?   Have you sent a check to them to cover your share of their loss over having the pc platform taken out from under them?   No?  Admit it.  We've all 'profitted by other companies reverse engineering of the pc way back in the early 80's.  Let's drop this.   This talk of legal and moral justification is not relevant.   WOTC would not be noticibly harmed by allowing (by written agreement) PCGen and other producer's of D20 software to use the material we've been discussing.  So why don't they?    Good question, eh?

I guess I still owe fast learner an appology.   I've gone and droned on and on again and even repeated things I've said before.  Your last comment was very short and to the point.    Even if it raised my ire a bit I still liked it for that.   Sorry, I've allways been on the talkative side.   If you don't like this thread because I'm too wordy exorcise your rights and don't read it.

Are we done here yet or should be all just get together and make a better game system to replace DnD and all the others next?


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 12, 2002)

*Re: Repition.   Touche'    and now.....*



			
				AustEvergreen said:
			
		

> *Hey fast learner.   Maybe you should take that comment about repitition and mention it to Hearld.*



Yes, he's been responding every time, also repetitively, though he seems to be attempting to change his tack each time in order to present it differently.



> *Personally I think some of you may be a bit to close to this issue.  Fast Learner generates IP for a living.   Hmmmm.   What about that?  Well, maybe not much but I hope you never try to claim a 'balanced' point of view on this issue.  You are definitely and firmly on the 'non-consumer rights' side of this issue.*



Actually, no, you're wrong about that. For example, I think the length of current copyright law is total BS. Copyright for life is perfect as it protects the artist just fine. Right now copyright is life plus 75 years (with a potential extension to 90 years in the courts) because Disney doesn't want to let Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse to enter the public domain. I believe strongly that IP should revert to the public domain upon the creator's death.

Am I firmly on the 'non-consumer rights" side of it?

How, precisely, do you expect authors, artists, singers, etc. to make a living if anyone is allowed to copy thier works? Have you ever run your own business? Do you understand how hard it is to run your own business _and_ generate IP? Do you understand how little those skillsets overlap?

As such, do you understand why someone who generates IP might need to work for a publisher, like, say, WOTC? And if the publisher wants to be able to pay the IP creators (the only way they'll work for the publisher), that the company has to be able to make money? And that the only way they can make money is if they are paid for every copy of the IP? And that, while that a publisher might make a mistake, they _still_ need to protect their IP, even after making that mistake?

Do you have any sense of any of this? The point you keep repeating (without change) ignores everything I asked in the last two paragraphs. Because you _don't_ generate IP for a living for run a company that publishes IP, you're just simply clueless about the issues. You want a certain thing to go your way, and you seem to keep jumping up and down insisting that it should be that way without taking any of the real world issues into consideration.

As such, I suggested you stop repeating yourself. Frankly, it makes it appear that you can't reason through the reality of the situation.

If you can in fact reason through it, please explain to me how a person who creates IP is supposed to make a living without being paid for it, or how a company that publishes that IP for the creators can afford to pay them without protection.


----------



## herald (Nov 12, 2002)

> Oh and Herald, no offense but please get this. Legally and morally justified can still mean bantha poodo to people if what you do hurts/inconveniences them. And the law has been gotten around before to your benefit. And for a proof I point to what you're using the read this post and ask you.....was it made by IBM? Have you sent a check to them to cover your share of their loss over having the pc platform taken out from under them? No? Admit it. We've all 'profitted by other companies reverse engineering of the pc way back in the early 80's. Let's drop this. This talk of legal and moral justification is not relevant. WOTC would not be noticibly harmed by allowing (by written agreement) PCGen and other producer's of D20 software to use the material we've been discussing. So why don't they? Good question, eh?




AustEvergreen

Once agian you speak out without knowing the full facts. Your referance to IBM shows that you don't understand computer history very well.

IBM didn't have it's technology stolen from themselves because they gave the tech away. literally. 

Many people have no idea of the amount of research IBM gives away in hopes of opening up new markets to excel in. 

You see, I have a unique little insite to this. Back in early 80's, my father was the incharge of the North American repair center for IBM. It was a job that was farmed out Philips Electronics and existed in Tampa, Fl right on the corner of  Waters and Dale Mabry.

One of the resons that Philips go the job was simple. My father was lured away from Honeywell were he was the liason between IBM and Honeywell. During the Late 70's IBM would come down to Honeywell St. Petersburg to use plotters and drafting machines that were hard to come by. Sadly the six architects of what would would become the modern pc all died in a plane crash. This loss of technical expertise is why insurance companies now have regulations on howmany importaint personel they will allow on one flight on company trips.

My early teens were spent on IBM XT clones running DOS on 32 K of ram. Hard Disks were a pipe dream and if you could afford it, having two floppy disks was a luxury.

So back to the original point. The reason that we don't pay IBM for PC tech is simple. They gave the tech away to anyone who would take it at that time. All other development from that point was expected to be "Black box" and differant from what they produced.

WOTC is in the same boat. They have created a tech and released it through the OGL. They have other other tech, built off of the original tech and it belongs to them. 



> Legally and morally justified can still mean bantha poodo to people if what you do hurts/inconveniences them.




Personally I like to think that people (and by that extention, most of the posters to this message board) respect companies that perform in a legal and moral way, even if it hurts/inconveniences them. I expect any company that I do business with to pay taxes, follow laws on all levels and treat people in a fair way.  

And could you please explain how this hurts you? I'm sure your not doing business with any of this software so you can't claim monitary damages. So all this talk about damages is as you would say bantha poodo. 

As for inconvenaces, like the Rolling Stones say, "You Can't Always Get What You Want. And further "...you can try sometimes, and sometimes, you get what you need."



> This talk of legal and moral justification is not relevant. WOTC would not be noticibly harmed by allowing (by written agreement) PCGen and other producer's of D20 software to use the material we've been discussing. So why don't they? Good question, eh?




And I have given you the answer over and over again. It's not fair to give them access to the material and not give everyone else access to the material. So to answer you, your question is bad. 

I've often heard that there are no stupid questions, but when you ask the same question over and over and you get the same answer you have to wonder what's wrong with the questioner.

So now I will ask this question again, since you avoid answering it. Did you read the forums over at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html ?


----------



## Hollywood (Nov 12, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> It's not fair to give them access to the material and not give everyone else access to the material. So to answer you, your question is bad.




Unless they pay fair market value for it.  

Personally, I don't think d20 is worth more than maybe 50 cents, but eh...


----------



## herald (Nov 12, 2002)

Hollywood said:



> Unless they pay fair market value for it.




Giving and Selling are two differant things.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 12, 2002)

It seems to me that the whole thing is about convienence. By everything I have read, and I don't claim to be a expert on any of this, the people who created PCGEN were fine with this and are trying to work in the guidelines given. Your upset that your free character generator has to play by the rules? The law is the law, it's just how it is, WOTC didn't do anything it wasn't entitled to do, for that matter it did what it was expected to do, it did what it had to do. Was it goor PR? was it good customer relations? It doesn't matter, they took the steps needed to protect their company, and it seems that they actually tried to work with the other companies to do it as painlessly as possible. Yes some people were inconvienenced but nobody was actually hurt by this. If your upset because you were inconvienenced by a free computer program well I feel sorry for you in the real world. I haven't tried PCGEN, I am still waiting to see if they can fix e-tools (a program by the actual company in question that I had to pay for). WOTC might not be a perfect company but they are not a Evil Empire out to rule the world (that's Microsoft), I'm sure they didn't intentionally set out to inconvienence the people who use their products, and to think that that was any part of their intention is just silly.


----------



## Twin Rose (Nov 12, 2002)

Well, if you are looking for other supplements along the same lines, here's a list of publishers I work with directly to make Campaign Suite expansions:

Ambient, Inc.
Natural 20 Press
Bastion Press
Mystic Eye Games
Mongoose Publishing
Vigilance Press
Thunderhead Games
Dark Quest Games
Second World Simulations

This list should be expanding very soon and these publishers make everything from splatbooks, to super heroes games, to modern-postmodern games, to cities, to adventures.  Anything I do an expansion for I consider highly recommended.  In fact, Bastion Press gave us the rights to use everything from Arms & Armor, descriptive text and all.  And we're giving that away for free!

Information and links about these and others can be found at:
http://www.twinrose.net/


----------



## AustEvergreen (Nov 13, 2002)

YOUR RIGHT!!!.   How could I have been so blind?   I see it now.   Thank you, thank you.   You both have opened my eyes.   WOTC is a wonderfull company and did nothing wrong in serving notice to those rebel upstarts at PCGen and Redblade that they should stop violating their legal copyright of the material we're discussing.
.
.
.
.
OK, Spoiler warning.   Fast Learner and Herald, If you want to go home happy, read no further.  




You were warned!

Class.  Class!   Pay attention now.

Herald asked how I'm harmed by this.  Well, we've covered that.  Next subject.   Herald seems to think the existing law should dictate my feelings on this matter.  Really!  Absurd!!

And by the way.   Yes, I've asked around here a bit and it seems you remember the IBM thing better than I.   (Herald preens).   Don't feel  too proud of that young man, after all it's not really the item we've been discussing here.  It was only an example.   Stupid huh!  HAH!   No I'm just stubborn.  I won't have my valid opinion changed by someone who's shooting blanks with their irrellevant arguements.

Fast Learner says he's reasonable and I'm not and you know what.    He's right.  I'm not even interested in being reasonable on this particular issue.

So, Class, what did Herald and Fast Leaner not see?   Anyone? 

Alright.  Here it is.  This is an emotional issue not a reasonable issue and most certainly and emphatically no longer a legal issue.  This is a matter of perspective.  How do I expect those who create IP to make their money?  Well, in specific wotc has already made their money.   They sold me the various splat books and all the FR books.   Would it be reasonable for them to want me to pay more for patching say 'etools' to add this data to my database.   NO.   not from my perspective.   It's like charging me twice for the same thing. You may think that's cool.   I DON'T.  Will it be done that way anyway?  Probably.   Will people buy it anyway?  Probably.   Will they have been ripped off?   Yes!  But they might not care. (Ahhhh apathy!)  Admittedly how ripped of you are is a matter of opinion.  I've made mine clear as have Fast 
Learner and Herald.   Do I think you have a balance point of view on the IP issue.  Well, maybe.  But your revealed position as an an insider makes me want to view what you say with suspicion. Still.  I do have more respect for you than for Herald right now.   (calling someone stupid because they have a differnt opinion.    uh-huh.)   Have I challenged that wotc was within it's legal rights to do what it did?  Or even within it's moral rights?   Well, yes. but you can't contest that this is within the law right now.   So?   So what?  The ouch factor is still present.    How much Ouch you feel is a matter of opinion.  You can tell me it's within the law all day long and all I'll ever say back is "I DON'T CARE! OUCH!!".

The truth is that a boycott will probably not happen because too few will have the willpower to say no to those new WOTC books that are out.  D20 modern.  Mmmmmmmmmmmm  tempting, yes?  It's a shame.   A very very valid point could be made.  Still could be made.  I don't believe it'll happen with the level of support I've seen posted on this thread.

Let's be done with this now.

I ask you respect this and let me have the last post as thread starter.  If you feel you still have more to say GO START YOUR OWN THREAD. The sole exception to this request would be: unless you wanted to start a new thread as a kind of non scientific pole of opinion.  If we did this I'd like to see something like the follwing.

a simple neutral perspective statement of the issue.  Which we would negotiate here in folloing posts and come up with something that the three of us could be happy with.
1 Do you generate intellectual property for a living? Yes/No
2 Are you a lawyer or in some way involved with law enforcment or interpretation professionally?> Yes/No
3 Are you DM  or Player?
4 Pick one of the following.
   a - those folks got what they diserved and what wotc did is fine with me.
   b - what wotc did hurt.  I cry "FOUL"!   I deserved better consideration and I resent their lack of respect for me and my time.

We set a time limit for response.  Say 30 days.

And we all learn from the results, what ever they might be. And maybe find something more fun to discuss in some other post another day, no hard feelings.


----------



## DMFTodd (Nov 13, 2002)

> Would it be reasonable for them to want me to pay more for patching say 'etools' to add this data to my database. NO. not from my perspective. It's like charging me twice for the same thing




I agree. I bought the splat books. I demand Wizards provide me with the following at no cost:

* A second paper copy in case I lose the first one
* A hardcover edition to make it more durable
* A softcover one cuz I don't like carrying the hardcover one
* An extra copy that I can keep in the bathroom in case I need reading material in there
* A PDF version for reading on my laptop
* An eBook format I can read on my ereader
* A Palm version
* A large-print version in case my eyes get bad. 
* If any errata is ever released, they should provide me free copies of all of the above

After all, I've already paid for it once. It's not fair to charge me twice for the same thing.

I'll give you credit though Aust, you're amazingly stubborn. 

Sorry, I'll let you have the last word now. This thread has gotten too stupid for further comment.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Nov 13, 2002)

*If you like it then go ahead a buy it.*

Too stupid.  hmmm.   Seems to me your a big part of that!


----------



## herald (Nov 13, 2002)

AustEvergreen

Hmm, been a long time since any one called me a young man. I guess by some peoples standards that I am. But after 35 years, I guess young man is alittle... off. I guess it could be worse, you could have called me boy.

And I do find it interesting that you have finally managed to bring someone who actually makes 3rd party software into the discussion. Irronically he seems to be put off by you. 

But here is the real irony on the whole debate that you put forward. Your topic is OGC and what a RPG should be. By looking at the topic, it would appear that you wanted to talk about Open Game Content and you have haven't even go the decency to do any research about the OGL. 

And that is what I have to say is so strange, I mean you and your one man crusade to boycott WOTC is sad. Has anyone contacted you to start this operation?

Right now over at the WOTC there getting ready to release a patch that will improve e-tools. Davin Church has had a sneek peek at the patch and has writen a free 3rd party app that will allow people to enter and edit....classes.....

Now, I know I used the word "stupid", but I didn't use it to describe you. I may have wondered about you but hey welcome to the internet. Hollywood thinks that there is something wrong with me to.

So AustEvergreen, let me get this straight, you want to bring in all the off topic referances you want but your going to knock me for going out of my way for explaining why I have an insite and understanding of a subject. 

Well AustEvergreen, you've just proven one thing, you can't be reasoned with and all your trying to do is grandstand to get some king of sympothy and support. 

If all you are going to do protest until the cows come home, I'm more than happy to point out that the emperor has no clothes. 

I support the OGL, I support the D20 and I support WOTC.


----------



## herald (Nov 13, 2002)

AustEvergreen said:



> Too stupid. hmmm. Seems to me your a big part of that!




That's the spirit AustEvergreen. I'm sure you'll bring them to your side if you keep that up.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 13, 2002)

Well, since you don't have the last word anymore AE (which I'm totally cool with), I think your post was great.

It points out to me -- and perhaps this is what you were going for all the time and I missed it, which is _entirely_ possible -- that you're trying to say that you feel hurt, that it is perhaps logically unreasonable, but that your feelings are still valid.

With that I most certainly agree. 

I was under the impression that you were trying to say that from some objective sense of justice and right (or even from society's perspective) that you were hurt and that we should agree that WOTC was wrong. 

I absolutely believe you have a total right to feel hurt.


----------



## AustEvergreen (Nov 13, 2002)

*Topic*

I have to appologize for the hot response to DMFTodd.   Usually I'd say calling someone stupid is the last response of someone without a valid arguement.   But then Here I am calling him stupid.

DMFTodd can be upset with me if he wants.  I imagine I've made no friends at any of the 3rd party shops.  That's fine.  I'd prefer he'd taken his rudeness and crudeness elsewhere but hey.  I think they're too afraid wotc will pull the whole rug out from under them.   

DMFTodd.   I request you take it elsewhere.

Herald.   Really.   Please forgive me for being a bit off my original topic.   I didn't know where we'd wind up after everyone's opinion was posted.      The heart of the matter is that (some) people are upset about what was done (obviously not you).  They had a legal right to do what they did.   No question.   Should they have given this more thoght before they did it.   I think so.  I'd venture you think not.   I'm sure if you re-read the entire thread and give it some thought you'll see you have changed my opinion somewhat but come on.   Do you really expect the legal and moral arguement to matter?   If someone thinks this is a bad move on wotc's part the legal moral stuff doesn't even come into the picture.  And Yes, I did come looking for some support.   A one man boycott's like one person playing twister.   Seems it's not there though.   Sad.   Is that you're best shot.   ranks up there with calling someone stupid, and  for the same reason.           All right no more of that.

I've gotten a bit hot over some things said and if I've offended anyone with my comments, sorry.  Will I recieve appolgies for things said about me.    I doubt it.

I've (virtually) stood out here and let all of you take shots at me for some time.    I had to be stubborn to withstand the barrage.   Though I'll admit I came with some stubborness before hand.  I don't think you can get too far without the fortitude to keep your opinion where it's valid despite opposition.  Or should I  fold at the slightest perception of dissagreement from someone else.  I don't percieve your arguements are valid.   The nature of my reaction to this precludes the possibility of my seeing your arguements as valid.

I stand by my offer over making a pole to find out what the majority opinion is here.  I doubt you'll take me up on it.

More negative comments about my stubborness and or stupidity I'll deem show a lack of any type of intelligence or class.


----------



## DMFTodd (Nov 13, 2002)

> DMFTodd. I request you take it elsewhere.



This is a PUBLIC message board. If you don't want reponses to what you post, you can (A) Stop Posting or (B) Move it somplace PRIVATE.



> If someone thinks this is a bad move on wotc's part the legal moral stuff doesn't even come into the picture



If that someone is a spoiled 8-year-old, then yes. If the someone in question is a mature adult, then no, the legal and moral explanations should hold more weight than some emotional, baseless, uninformed position. 



> Or should I fold at the slightest perception of dissagreement from someone else



*Slightest* perception? No. 
Some *ONE* else? No.

If no one agrees with me, if multiple people disagree with me, if multiple people give concise explanations why I am wrong; then I start to reconsider my position. Your mileage my vary.



> I stand by my offer over making a pole to find out what the majority opinion is here.



I would think that reponses to your posts would have given you some clue but if you want to post a poll, be my guest. After all, it's a public forum. You don't need my permission.


----------



## herald (Nov 13, 2002)

AustEvergreen,

You've already made it clear that you have a low opinion of me, to which makes not one differance to me one way or the other.

I haven't called you stubborn or stupid, so once again. I have said that you can't be reasoned with. I have pointed many differant sources of information that explain im much better terms the situation that WOTC, and the OGL are in. And you don't seem to want to even acknowledge that they exist. 

I will ask you again, Have you gone over and read the messages over at the list servers at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/index.html  

This is the difinative place to go about OGC. It explained why things aren't OGC and why some things are. 

So address me if you will. Feel free to make me look like a bad guy. Heck, continue with you discussion if you wish. 

You opened the topic with OGC and what a RPG should be? So please do yourself a favor and give it a read.


----------



## Henry (Nov 14, 2002)

This thread REALLY sounds like it's run its course, and has little to contribute other than flaming. Austevergreen, I will say that I as a fan of PCGen followed their developments with WotC very closely, and currently the PCGen staff has a very positive relationship with WOtC. All indication is that the removed splatbook material will eventually added into OGC, but not just for PCGen. Many things take time, but I am willing to give those directly concerned both the time and the benefit of the doubt.

Thread closed.


----------

