PDA

View Full Version : WotC bans OGL use (merged thread)



Noir-Neko
2008-04-22, 05:22 PM
Just reading Slashdot and this caught my eye:

D&D 4th Ed vs. Open Gaming (http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/04/21/1215234.shtml)

Basically, they're saying "If you wish to continue using OGL to make 3.5 products, fine, no problem, but if you want to make 4e compatible products, you have to DISCONTINUE any and all use of OGL, stop creating 3.5e/d20 compatible content and sign up for our "New and Improved" 4e Game System Licence. You got up to June 6th to decide."

When asked "Why?", the answer is "We invested several million $ into 4e and we want YOU to create 4e compatible content, so that you boost our sales (like what you did with 3e, thank you very much), and not create "backwards" content."

Incredible.

RukiTanuki
2008-04-22, 05:23 PM
I saw the discussion going on at ENworld, and noticed that no one had yet been talking about it here. I also figured I had a rant built up. :)

There's several posts in Saturday's news about 4e third-party publisher licensing. It appears that the 4th Edition license will prevent publishers from releasing any additional 3rd Edition content.

From the post here: (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51)


In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride.

It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice. It is not "well, this product will be 4E using the GSL but the next one will be for 3E under the OGL."

In other words, Necro cant do 3 books for 4E then decide to go back and do a 3E book.

Or, along the same lines, if Paizo wants to do Pathfinder 3E, it cant do 4E products. If it does, it can no longer do 3E ones.

I have, however, specifically clarified that Necro can do 4E and Paizo can keep doing 3E Pathfinder stuff and that is just fine.

Once you are in for 4E, you are in, and cant go back (well, you could but you would presumably lose the right to use the GSL from that point forward).

I have to clarify if I will be able to do 3E stats as seperate downloads for 4E books. My guess is that I will not be allowed to do that under the GSL. But I havent asked that direct question.


A request/warning: Please don't even bother posting if your contribution is something to the effect of "greedy corporation" or "obviously they'd do that." I'd like a meaningful discussion.

Now, here's my perceptions.

---

One thing seems clear: Wizards is switching over to 4th Edition, one hundred percent. The third-party publishing community has been great for 3rd Edition, and Wizards would probably like them to come along. They can't force anyone to switch; however, they do need to look at whether they should provide incentives to switch, especially if the publishing choices third-party publishers make directly influences 4th Edition's success.

Making 4e/3e an either/or proposition is risky, for Wizards (I suspect) as much as anyone else. I didn't bother trying to project my own thoughts into their brains, or guess their intentions. That wouldn't get me anywhere. Instead, I tried comparing the market in both cases: one where third-parties pick one side or the other, and one where third parties were free to use both.

Free to use both:
The reactions I've seen about 4e seem to hint that third-party publishers are nervous. Most talk regarding 3rd-to-4th conversions has ended with "just start over from scratch." We may see large-scale adoption of 4th Edition, but 3rd has a very large install base right now (and the books aren't going anywhere).

I know that I'd be tempted to play both sides of the field. The most attractive option would seem to be a combination 3e/4e book. Early on, I'd probably make 3rd Edition content like I normally did, with a 4th Edition conversion guide. Likely, I'd wait to see what market 4th Edition had before committing to 4e-focused content. (This is just the decisions I feel I'd make if I had to look my friends and coworkers in the eye and make the choice that determines whether they continue to get paid.)

If most publishers did that, the 4th Edition content would probably not be taking the spotlight. It'd be valuable for companies to "double-up" their content and release 4e and 3e versions. As such, the content likely wouldn't be tailor-made to either product (and if so, it'd tend toward the more-familiar 3e, at least to start). Two sets of rules will need to be produced, tested, and made to fit well with the flavor and style of the material. With a lack of focus (not only in design, but in production, with teams either splitting or working on more content), the product would be likely to suffer. Both 3rd and 4th Edition would have products that spent a little less time and love on making them work as well as possible for their specific setting.

One or the other:
Forcing a choice, however, makes each company make the difficult decision Wizards has made. Which install base will provide the most potential: the new 4e users craving content, or the existing 3e base craving something new?

Maybe the publisher thinks that 4e is a product that will catch on. If they sign on for 4e, they're going to (by necessity) be whole-hog about it. They will only produce for 4th Edition, so (hard workers they are) they'll produce the best content possible. Their success will hinge not only on their own efforts, but on whether 4th Edition succeeds.

Conversely, they may feel it's too risky to abandon the license they know well. Some may stick with 3rd Edition. Any players that make the same choice will want quality material. The market may even open up more as other publishers join the 4e lineup. Their success depends on their own efforts as well as a reduced or delayed adoption of 4e. However, if they're wrong (if, say, the 3e market starts shifting towards, say, the AD&D adventure market of today), they may find themselves running in the red for however long it takes for them to adopt a better strategy (whether it be creating a new system, signing on to 4e, etc.) If they do switch later on, they'll be behind relative to other publishers who signed up early.

Wizards themselves got a pretty good eyeful about what low-quality third-party d20 content could do to the perception of the brand. They want publishers to join 4e, sure, but they'd also like those companies to put forth their best effort in creating 4th Edition content. The question is how much prodding is appropriate. It looks like Wizards is asking companies to decide whether they'll bet better off with 4e, or without.

The whole thing's a gamble. Personally, I'm okay with that. I've been enjoying the shakeup 4e has had in general; it's challenging some of the ideas the gaming community has about what parts of our hobby are impermeable, unchangeable. I don't like the idea of people gambling their livelihoods on the matter, but I will watch with great interest as the everyone uses their knowledge of game design, marketing, and what their customer base wants, and make a significant decision about what they believe will be the best for themselves and for gaming.

It's going to be an interesting few months.

---

P.S. As stated before, please contribute meaningfully. If you find yourself saying something negative about someone (as opposed to saying , for example, that you don't agree with their decision), please hit Backspace a few times and try again.

RukiTanuki
2008-04-22, 05:29 PM
Shoot, I thought I could get away with not checking for the last few minutes I spent typing my post on the same subject. I got the news at Enworld, which got it a bit more correctly than Slashdot seems to have done.

I have a long list of thoughts (and the link to Enworld, including the publisher's post) over here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4229436)

Terraspaz
2008-04-22, 05:31 PM
At least there's no limitations on homebrewing. (I think? Still learning about this stuff.)

Jasdoif
2008-04-22, 05:39 PM
OK, I can't check the linked article/thread (it's blocked here), so I have to ask: What exactly does this license entail for the publisher? Do they have to buy a license? And what's the penalty if they publish under the OGL after acquiring/using this "GSL"? How's the whole thing work?

If it's a term like "releasing under the OGL after this date forbids you from using the GSL ever again", and it doesn't take any/much money, it's actually a clever move. Everyone who's interested can try 4E stuff, and if it doesn't work out for them they can revert to OGL terms at that point. Setting a date is a way to get everyone who might be sufficiently interested on board with it at one point, meaning there will be a lot to choose from in the initial months. The odds of having getting something good out there is increased with the number of people making the attempt.

EvilElitest
2008-04-22, 05:41 PM
Hmmmmm, i highly highly disagree if this is true, but i have to admit WotC is quite clever, because from a business perspective this is a good idea


Why are they doing this? What do they gain
As with all edition changes, there are always people who don't want to make the switch and still stubbornly refuse to play the new edition. Many people still play second edition. THe different between this switch and the 2E/3E switch is the ratio, a lot more people are playing the game now

Lets say out of 100 gamers who played 2E, 10 of them refuse to play 3E, and 5 stop playing all together and go off to "graduate" to white wolf. ten more make the switch, but still play 2E on a regular basis and know the rules, and are only some what enthusiastic. 5 people "update" or "fix" 2E, but as they lack a real publishers, only one of them is actually able to make their change public, and only a few people are interested. The rest play 3E without any regrets.

this time however the scale is larger and the 3E people ahve companies on their side. Companies that want to appeal to both kinds of people, 3E supporters and 4E fans, as well as those who play both. The 2E fans were not large enough to really threaten their business, but they were content to play their own stuff

However, if tehse other publishers start publishing 3E material, then 3E will like another game system, and a direct rival to 4E. And so WotC, a business after all, wants to make sure that any company that sells 3E material, can't also provide 4E material. As 4E is the newest thing, most business are going to take 4E instead of 3E, because they don't want to be left behind. So a "fixed' 3E game to get published and able to act as a rival to the new and still untested 4E is now not likely. Any company that makes 3E material, will suffer losses.

Cunning.

however WotC takes a risk, if more companies don't want to be bullied by wotC and choose not to publish 3E, however i really doubt this will happen. I imagine paizo might become pro 4E


What i actually think, fitting in with the OP's request, i really don't like this idea. It effectivly ruins the "you play your improved game, i play mine" and basically destroys the hope of anyone who didn't want to play 4E but wanted a fix. That being said, it is WotC's right, and a cunning move, and so unless lots of people protest openly, it isn't going to change
from
EE

potatocubed
2008-04-22, 05:44 PM
It's an interesting decision, if you can call it that. I mean, the GSL isn't final yet. Wizards sent their senior brand manager to GAMA (big trade show in case you didn't know) without any concrete answers. They're still very much fumbling around with this one.

If the GSL stays the same? Things get complex for your third-party publishers. I'm pretty certain none of the big ones are going to bother switching. Most of the survivors of the initial d20 boom have jumped to other games entirely by now and might as well keep selling their back catalogue of 3.5 stuff rather than lose it for the uncertain 4e market.

The question for smaller companies is difficult - do they trust that those aforementioned back catalogues will keep the 3.5 market alive and stick with that, or do they try to ride the 4e wave in the knowledge that the 'big boys' aren't competing? It's tricky, alright. Especially since many of the biggest 3.5-based lines can be licenced for free in their own right - True20, MnM, Spycraft, and so on. You could conceivably switch all your 3.5 products over to Tru20 with next to no work and just keep on trucking.

However, there is another option. The directors of a gaming company can simply incorporate a second legal entity for dealing with 4e material. You can sublicence any intellectual property from one to the other if you feel like it (tricky but workable under US law, easier in other countries) and that's the end of that.

I don't think anything will be final until the day 4e is released, and possibly not even then. Wizards have handled this affair with all the grace and skill of an epileptic hippo and they've already changed plan once in the face of overwhelming lack of support (the plan to sell 'advance licences' for $5000 each, abandoned when everyone said "no thanks"). My opinion on how this will unfold? I reckon they'll back down and/or 'clarify'.

Jayabalard
2008-04-22, 05:45 PM
I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

Talya
2008-04-22, 05:52 PM
I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

This.

Plus the two entities would have the same corporate parent, who cannot be legally held responsible for what it's separately incorporated subsidiaries are doing.

RukiTanuki
2008-04-22, 05:58 PM
OK, I can't check the linked article/thread (it's blocked here), so I have to ask: What exactly does this license entail for the publisher? Do they have to buy a license? And what's the penalty if they publish under the OGL after acquiring/using this "GSL"? How's the whole thing work?

Here's my understanding: There's the 3rd Edition OGL (which lets you use content in the SRD), the 3rd Edition STL (which lets you publish with the d20 logo), and the 4th Edition GSL (which lets you publish 4th Edition content). There is no OGL for 4th Edition. Ergoe, if you sign up for the GSL, you stop publishing OGL content.

Things are up in the air. This is a quote from a publisher who had a phone call about it. There are still details that aren't set in stone, and obviously, Wizards hasn't come out and put everything on the table.



However, if tehse other publishers start publishing 3E material, then 3E will like another game system, and a direct rival to 4E.

I will give you that; 3rd Edition does compete with 4th Edition. That's part of why I'd be tempted to get the best of both worlds and sell content for both. By the same token, I understand why Wizards would like to discourage that. If nothing else, they'd probably like 4e to be judged on whether it's a better system, and they'd like publishers to decide that for themselves.


I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

It's a thought. The complications are pretty visible: You'll split up your employees, making it very visible that you're spending less resources on each piece of content. It does block "works in both versions" products as well, which is the one part of this whole thing that I'll be sad to see disappear. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how far one could get away with that plan, either. Then the last question becomes: is it worth it? Is it better to pick a side?

Reinboom
2008-04-22, 05:59 PM
I expect we may see some publishing companies split into two separate entities, each dedicated to a specific edition while granting each other rights to the others intellectual property.

This. (as well)

It has already been discussed by a couple of the company leads on the enworld thread in question.


OR, because the companies have already announced "nah nah nah, we can just split to get around your silly agreement!", wizards may just wise up and remove the 'useless' clause.


It's a thought. The complications are pretty visible: You'll split up your employees, making it very visible that you're spending less resources on each piece of content. It does block "works in both versions" products as well, which is the one part of this whole thing that I'll be sad to see disappear. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how far one could get away with that plan, either. Then the last question becomes: is it worth it? Is it better to pick a side?

Not usually. You can be hired in to two companies simultaneously while just under the payroll of one.

AslanCross
2008-04-22, 06:00 PM
Having been a WotC consumer for over a decade now (I began with Magic: The Gathering back when I was 12 years old), I'm not really surprised at this. They are a gaming business, and they have the right to do what is profitable to them, even if they ended up alienating some of their clientele in doing so. (Many of my friends used to play Magic, but their complaint about getting back into it now is "there are too many rules, I don't want to have to learn them." However, the main difference between D&D and Magic is that Magic is far more backwards-compatible without second- or third-party improvisation.) Churning out content for free isn't a good way to survive in the capitalist world. The gaming industry is a business, not charity. The OGL was a very good move for them, and I'm sure it did contribute a lot to WotC's profits.

However, with this development, the clients lose out either way. I was pretty optimistic about being able to handle both 3.5 and 4E games when 4E does come out, but this seems to be strangling the third party publishers. (Magic never had third party publishers, so it doesn't seem to have the same problem.) The 3PPs are faced with a dilemma: Do they stick to 3.5 to support the base they've built already, or do they take a leap in the dark, abandon all their old content (and fans who would rather not use the new edition) to support the new one?

I find it weird, since the GSL seems to be treating the 3PPs more as competition than allies.

Tura
2008-04-22, 06:00 PM
I won't comment yet, just adding some info and questions, for now.

Paizo has declared that future Pathfinder books will be based on 3.5 SRD. They also say, and I quote (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG):

Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won't cross over with our Pathfinder products. We know our fans are a creative bunch, though, so we fully expect to see our community create 4th Edition conversion notes for our Pathfinder products—in fact, some of our fans have already started working on 4E conversions of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, as well as one of our first standalone modules.
... which kind of confuses me, because it doesn't make clear if publishing 4E products will forbid them from publishing 3.5 again. Are we sure this is on a publisher by publisher case, and not on a project by project or something? Or maybe Paizo (or anyone for that matter) could simply make a subsidiary company and publish 4E material from there. Hmmm....

Another question I have is what happens with non-commercial uses of the SRD. I find this even more important for the moment, since it affects not only easy access to 3.5 content for all, via non-commercial sites, but potentially our right to refer to crunch information even in sites like this forum. And play 3.5 PbP, come to think of it.

Does anyone have any information about this part? Because I didn't find anything relevant with a quick search.

Draz74
2008-04-22, 06:05 PM
OR, because the companies have already announced "nah nah nah, we can just split to get around your silly agreement!", wizards may just wise up and remove the 'useless' clause.

I doubt it. I think Wizards still wants this clause, if only to keep any company (no matter how it splits) from releasing an official 3e/4e hybrid system.

Which is too bad, because that's exactly what I, in an unofficial and amateur capacity, would like to do. Take the best things from both systems (and homebrew) and mix them up.

adanedhel9
2008-04-22, 06:06 PM
At least there's no limitations on homebrewing. (I think? Still learning about this stuff.)

Except that there's no legal definition of "homebrewing". If I jot a spell down on the back of a napkin and pass it to my friend, legally speaking, I'm publishing that feat. If I were to put a 3e spell on one side of the napkin and a 4e spell on the other, Wizards could take action against me. Not that they would, of course: I'm small fry.

But it would still make some people uncomfortable. Prolific homebrewers might find themselves on the line; maybe warranting a Cease & Desist if they break the rules.

The 3e/4e choice doesn't really bother me that much. What bothers me is the implication that publishers would have to abandon all OGL use, even if the publisher applied the OGL to a completely original work. This could put a publisher in a position to choose between supporting the strongest brand and supporting their own creations. I don't envy that choice.

mikeejimbo
2008-04-22, 06:10 PM
I have but one thing to say on this subject: Aw darn. :(

Renegade Paladin
2008-04-22, 06:10 PM
At least there's no limitations on homebrewing. (I think? Still learning about this stuff.)
They can't effectively limit homebrewing even if they wanted to. It's not like they get to come search the houses of every DM in the world to make sure he's not deviating from the published material.

potatocubed
2008-04-22, 06:14 PM
Then the last question becomes: is it worth it? Is it better to pick a side?

I'd say the short answer is 'no'. Wizards are attempting to force people to pick sides - specifically, their side - because it's in their best interest to get everyone off 3.x and onto 4e. However, it's in the best interest of third-party publishers to hedge their bets and work with both until a clear leader emerges. Less risk that way.


Does anyone have any information about this part? Because I didn't find anything relevant with a quick search.

You'll be lucky. There is no information. Not even inside Wizards itself. That's part of the problem. I figure just hold on and wait for the storm to break. Until there's a signed and sealed official document, everything's really just guesswork.

Reinboom
2008-04-22, 06:16 PM
I won't comment yet, just adding some info and questions, for now.

Paizo has declared that future Pathfinder books will be based on 3.5 SRD. They also say, and I quote (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG):

... which kind of confuses me, because it doesn't make clear if publishing 4E products will forbid them from publishing 3.5 again. Are we sure this is on a publisher by publisher case, and not on a project by project or something? Or maybe Paizo (or anyone for that matter) could simply make a subsidiary company and publish 4E material from there. Hmmm....

Another question I have is what happens with non-commercial uses of the SRD. I find this even more important for the moment, since it affects not only easy access to 3.5 content for all, via non-commercial sites, but potentially our right to refer to crunch information even in sites like this forum. And play 3.5 PbP, come to think of it.

Does anyone have any information about this part? Because I didn't find anything relevant with a quick search.

This information mostly comes in combinations between Scott Rouse (Senior Brand Manager for WotC), and Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games who asked for the info specifically.


I doubt it. I think Wizards still wants this clause, if only to keep any company (no matter how it splits) from releasing an official 3e/4e hybrid system.

Which is too bad, because that's exactly what I, in an unofficial and amateur capacity, would like to do. Take the best things from both systems (and homebrew) and mix them up.

I believe this was part of the goal as well. However, a simple product to product based clauses could handle that.


My own speculation, giving light to wizards:
They have mentioned before that they will be expanding what 'core' means. They have also mentioned there will be a new PHB, DMG, and MM every year, expanding on to more options.
Perhaps, though the chance may be slim, that these new 'cores' will actually be core in that they will be thrown in to an ever expanding SRD.

Of course, restricting this SRD to make damn sure it never sees 3.x light would be a goal, otherwise they may just be back playing in to an old market.

Jayngfet
2008-04-22, 06:18 PM
well it looks like the giant has to stay 3.5 with his articles now:smallfrown:.

Hawriel
2008-04-22, 06:24 PM
Homebrewing is well just playing the game. At what point does the GM using rule 0 and the player rollplaying become 'homebrewing'? Also when does 'homebrewing' become a legal term? If I deside to run off and kill Drizzt because the character just needs to die, does wizards opon finding out get to sue me for ilegal homebrewing? Or if I make my own world to play in and use 4th ed crunch rules, does my 'homebrewed' world now belong to Wizards?

In short now it doesnt. Thats like Ford taking legal action agaist me for putting a racing stripe on my mustange of my own desine.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-22, 06:41 PM
I don't like the Computer comparison in there. Yes Linux is "Open Source" but it doesn't belong to Microsoft.

The OGL is "Open" but in a very specific way that means it still belongs to WotC.

All they are saying is either you never touch Vista, or you never get to touch XP again.

And that's perfectly fair, and nothing against open gaming, hell they are releasing the 4E mechanics as "Open" material. That's pretty much the opposite.

Will it be a tough decision for some people? Sure. Is it a risky business move? Yes. Is it motivated by Business concerns? Of course. Is it unreasonable or even unexpected? No.

Lokey
2008-04-22, 06:42 PM
Except that there's no legal definition of "homebrewing". If I jot a spell down on the back of a napkin and pass it to my friend, legally speaking, I'm publishing that feat. If I were to put a 3e spell on one side of the napkin and a 4e spell on the other, Wizards could take action against me. Not that they would, of course: I'm small fry.

But it would still make some people uncomfortable. Prolific homebrewers might find themselves on the line; maybe warranting a Cease & Desist if they break the rules.

The 3e/4e choice doesn't really bother me that much. What bothers me is the implication that publishers would have to abandon all OGL use, even if the publisher applied the OGL to a completely original work. This could put a publisher in a position to choose between supporting the strongest brand and supporting their own creations. I don't envy that choice.
No. Even if you charge your single friend money I don't think that flies as publishing. It's important but not relevant.

You as an individual (and probably Giant's or Sean Reynolds' freely distributed rules articles) aren't under a publishing agreement with WotC or their parent/subsidiary...(5 pages of legalese). It just doesn't apply in this case, the only ones it matters to are companies like Paizo that publish DnD 3rd party products.

Gorbash
2008-04-22, 06:46 PM
My hopes rest with Paizo/Pathfinder... I do hope they don't abandon OGL...

sikyon
2008-04-22, 06:49 PM
They can't effectively limit homebrewing even if they wanted to. It's not like they get to come search the houses of every DM in the world to make sure he's not deviating from the published material.

They could get witnesses saying you've done it and then get the police to obtain a search warrant for your house and seize the evidence.

Guildorn Tanaleth
2008-04-22, 06:49 PM
No. Even if you charge your single friend money I don't think that flies as publishing. It's important but not relevant.

Legally, distribution is publishing; his example is perfectly valid.

AmberVael
2008-04-22, 06:52 PM
They could get witnesses saying you've done it and then get the police to obtain a search warrant for your house and seize the evidence.

Yes, technically... but the point was that they are hardly capable of doing that to everyone, or even a moderately large group for extended periods of time. It's like catching people downloading illegal files- sure, you can be charged for that, but it's not like anyone really has the resources or time to devote to catching you.

Mando Knight
2008-04-22, 06:58 PM
I don't see any official notice that corporations cannot use both OGL and GSL, and the first page of the ENWorld thread so often linked to doesn't confirm such a notion either. Rather, it seems that the idea came from one of the posters on that forum and then the Internet happened to it.

It makes sense to me that a certain book can be published under either OGL or GSL but not both at the same time, since the two are based on somewhat different game systems.

I haven't seen the terms of the new license, so I will not assume that accepting the GSL forbids you from using the OGL.

This is all apocalyptic speculation, and should be taken with a graintruckof salt until the GSL is actually released/fully leaked.

vivi
2008-04-22, 06:59 PM
wtf! All this does, is make us 3.5ers screwed over!

RS14
2008-04-22, 07:11 PM
From the comments of that Slashdot article, I'm somewhat skeptical. And as this poster says it better than I could hope to...

Sure sounds terrible, doesn't it. Of course, Wizards of the Coast did NOT make the announcement Mxyzplk claims they did.

Instead, a publisher posted on one of the www.enworld.org forums that he had had a conversation with someone at WotC and that this was his understanding of what the new license does. The individuals at WotC who responded did make comments that suggest that such a policy may be part of their new GSL, however there have also been indications that they are backing away from that position. Of course, since no one has actually seen the new license, no one knows precisely what is permitted and prohibited.

An announcement is expected today, which should clarify the issue.


Of course, if anyone cares to show me that I'm wrong, I'll be all too ready to run in circles screaming. :smallamused:

Oh, also, wasn't there some 2E clone that existed solely as a brand 3rd party publishers could market their products as compatible to? Or did I just imagine this?

Thinker
2008-04-22, 07:12 PM
It doesn't screw anyone over.

If a company really wanted to publish 3.5 and 4e compatible material at the same time, it could simply split into 2 companies with the same owners and share resources, which could include employees, campaign settings, etc.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-22, 07:20 PM
wtf! All this does, is make us 3.5ers screwed over!

Three words: Ding. Ding. Ding. It's a company. Companies exist to make money. What better way to make money than make people pay for the chance to make you money? It's just the nature of the beast, nothing personal. However, I do not intend to switch to 4.0. I'll just homebrew like a fiend and modify rules until the system works for the way I like to run games. The next version looks to be generic and MMOish, not exactly the stuff of high fantasy tabletop gaming. If anything, I may get back into Serenity or another classless system. That said, if the good folks at Wizards crank out a 4.0 video game... I'd give it a look.

Collin152
2008-04-22, 07:24 PM
Likewise, mein fruend.
Hmm... hombrew fiends like a fiend, anybody up for it?

sikyon
2008-04-22, 07:24 PM
It doesn't screw anyone over.

If a company really wanted to publish 3.5 and 4e compatible material at the same time, it could simply split into 2 companies with the same owners and share resources, which could include employees, campaign settings, etc.

Easily challenged and found illegal. I'm sure there are clauses against that and WotC/Hasbro has thought of it.

Ascension
2008-04-22, 07:27 PM
It doesn't screw anyone over.

If a company really wanted to publish 3.5 and 4e compatible material at the same time, it could simply split into 2 companies with the same owners and share resources, which could include employees, campaign settings, etc.

That's all well and good for the big companies that can afford to split their company on a whim, but what about the little folks? I understand their motivations, I understand that it's best for them if the whole industry shifts to 4E, but there are a whole heck of a lot of publishers who have put out and continue to put out 3.5 material, and it could seriously hurt them to have to drop their 3.5-based lines if they publish anything for 4E.

Don't get me wrong, publishing stuff on an open license in the first place was both a risky decision and a very nice gesture, and I respect WotC for continuing to do it, but if all the various OGL publishers didn't hurt them during the reign of 3.5, why bring the hammer down now?

TheThan
2008-04-22, 07:28 PM
It could be that companies that actively sell 3.5 material have already received such a notice and someone on the inside of one of these companies has decided to let the world know by posting it on enworld.




So basically they’re not making 4th edition OGL. They’re also forcing those that choose to adopt 4th to totally abandon 3.5.
Hmm, I wonder what the chances of them earning royalties for their source materials is going to be.

By that I mean are companies going to have to pay to use 4th edition rules in their products? Is WOTC going to make money off of other companies’ products because it uses 4th edition rules? Like a musician whose songs are on the radio.


WOTC already makes enough money with 3.5, and more than likely will make a killing with 4.0. Do they really need to resort to this sort of business practices?

Has WOTC fallen completely to the dark side?

Artanis
2008-04-22, 07:30 PM
It could be that companies that actively sell 3.5 material have already received such a notice and someone on the inside of one of these companies has decided to let the world know by posting it on enworld.




So basically they’re not making 4th edition OGL. They’re also forcing those that choose to adopt 4th to totally abandon 3.5.
Hmm, I wonder what the chances of them earning royalties for their source materials is going to be.

By that I mean are companies going to have to pay to use 4th edition rules in their products? Is WOTC going to make money off of other companies’ products because it uses 4th edition rules? Like a musician whose songs are on the radio.


WOTC already makes enough money with 3.5, and more than likely will make a killing with 4.0. Do they really need to resort to this sort of business practices?

Has WOTC fallen completely to the dark side?
...what?

How the HELL did you make the jump from "it seems that they might make the 3e and 4e open-source stuff mutually exclusive" to "OMGWTF THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE FOR 4E'S OGL-EQUIVALENT!"?

sikyon
2008-04-22, 07:30 PM
WOTC already makes enough money with 3.5, and more than likely will make a killing with 4.0. Do they really need to resort to this sort of business practices?

Has WOTC fallen completely to the dark side?

It's a company's job to make money. That's what companies do.

Reinboom
2008-04-22, 07:31 PM
It could be that companies that actively sell 3.5 material have already received such a notice and someone on the inside of one of these companies has decided to let the world know by posting it on enworld.




The first source of this information came from Clark of Necromancer Games (Orcus on EnWorld).
The more significant source? Senior Brand Manager for WotC.


This thread needs to be merged with the other one.

BRC
2008-04-22, 07:37 PM
Well, It's not really bad that they didn't make 4th edition OGL, letting other people make money from your work isn't exactly expected of a company. I am wondering why they would make it so if you payed to be able to use 4.0 you couldn't use 3.5 OGL stuff, unless...
[Speculation]
They want to boost 4th edition sales, so the proffessional 3rd party sourcebook makers who switch to 4thed will be forced to focus all their release stuff on it, meaning that they won't keep coming out with 3.5 stuff, giving more people reason to switch to 4th edition. [/spoiler]

[..]Stigma[..]
2008-04-22, 07:40 PM
It could be that companies that actively sell 3.5 material have already received such a notice and someone on the inside of one of these companies has decided to let the world know by posting it on enworld.




So basically they’re not making 4th edition OGL. They’re also forcing those that choose to adopt 4th to totally abandon 3.5.
Hmm, I wonder what the chances of them earning royalties for their source materials is going to be.

By that I mean are companies going to have to pay to use 4th edition rules in their products? Is WOTC going to make money off of other companies’ products because it uses 4th edition rules? Like a musician whose songs are on the radio.


WOTC already makes enough money with 3.5, and more than likely will make a killing with 4.0. Do they really need to resort to this sort of business practices?

Has WOTC fallen completely to the dark side?

Yes. Yes they have. And suffice it to say, it should be expected.

Jayabalard
2008-04-22, 07:43 PM
Easily challenged and found illegal. I'm sure there are clauses against that and WotC/Hasbro has thought of it.Separate corporations are separate legal entities, and agreements that legally bind one corporation do not bind another corporation, regardless of who owns them.

Starting up an additional publishing company, selling off the rights to the 3.5 material that you've produced to that company, publishing 4.0 material with the new GSL... I don't see any reason why each company could not continue to publish the material that they make as long as they each stick strictly to the OGL or GSL as appropriate.

It's a great deal less shady than the sort of things that regularly happen in the airline industry...


Legally, distribution is publishing; his example is perfectly valid.If so, you probably won't be allowed to discuss 4ed homebrew on these forums, since the giant will probably want to keep publishing his OGL comic (unless the oots moves to 4ed).

AmberVael
2008-04-22, 07:47 PM
So basically they’re not making 4th edition OGL. They’re also forcing those that choose to adopt 4th to totally abandon 3.5.
Hmm, I wonder what the chances of them earning royalties for their source materials is going to be.

By that I mean are companies going to have to pay to use 4th edition rules in their products? Is WOTC going to make money off of other companies’ products because it uses 4th edition rules? Like a musician whose songs are on the radio.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

No, they won't have to pay.

To quote:


The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contacted by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.

Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL).

Thinker
2008-04-22, 07:50 PM
Easily challenged and found illegal. I'm sure there are clauses against that and WotC/Hasbro has thought of it.

Not illegal in the least. The owners of the company can put up the money to incorporate another gaming company. Simply have the first company license out campaign material or any other unique stuff they have to the second company. Have the second company hire the same employees as the first company and both pay salary. The same owners happen to own 2 companies that happen to have a very close relationship.

Several car companies did this to get around tariffs on imported cars into America. That's why we have Honda and Acura, even while both have the same owners.


That's all well and good for the big companies that can afford to split their company on a whim, but what about the little folks? I understand their motivations, I understand that it's best for them if the whole industry shifts to 4E, but there are a whole heck of a lot of publishers who have put out and continue to put out 3.5 material, and it could seriously hurt them to have to drop their 3.5-based lines if they publish anything for 4E.

Don't get me wrong, publishing stuff on an open license in the first place was both a risky decision and a very nice gesture, and I respect WotC for continuing to do it, but if all the various OGL publishers didn't hurt them during the reign of 3.5, why bring the hammer down now?

Its really not that expensive to get incorporated most places. Incorporation runs from $50 - $350, business license is $25 - $200, and in Pennsylvania alone a $150 - $300 publishing fee. That is a grand total of $75 - $850. If the owners of the company are not seeing enough profit to justify up to $850 (only up to $350 of which is a recurring, annual fee), they may not want to stay in both markets.

Jayabalard
2008-04-22, 07:52 PM
It's a thought. The complications are pretty visible: You'll split up your employees, making it very visible that you're spending less resources on each piece of content.Not necessarily; each corporation would have support contract with the other company. They pass money back and forth to pay for the costs; such supporting contracts would specify that the supporting company would retain no publishing rights or credit.

Alternately, the parent company would have all of the employees, and the two subsidiaries would contract out all of their labor from that parent company.


It does block "works in both versions" products as well, which is the one part of this whole thing that I'll be sad to see disappear. This is, in my opinion, what they're trying to stop.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 07:56 PM
Separate corporations are separate legal entities, and agreements that legally bind one corporation do not bind another corporation, regardless of who owns them.

Starting up an additional publishing company, selling off the rights to the 3.5 material that you've produced to that company, publishing 4.0 material with the new GSL... I don't see any reason why each company could not continue to publish the material that they make as long as they each stick strictly to the OGL or GSL as appropriate.

It's a great deal less shady than the sort of things that regularly happen in the airline industry...

Yeah. It's fully legal. The companies can even share staff, offices, and everything else.

You start up 3 companies. 1 publishing company for each edition and an RPG consulting/contracting company. The two publishing companies hire contractors from the 3rd company. Basically you have 1 set of offices, 1 set of employees, and a company that has 2 clients. The fact that what you are doing is blatantly obvious is irrelevant. It's legal.


If so, you probably won't be allowed to discuss 4ed homebrew on these forums, since the giant will probably want to keep publishing his OGL comic (unless the oots moves to 4ed).
Discussing 3e or 4e falls under Fair Use and so does OotS. I don't know how Mr. Burlew has his business ventures organized but its highly unlikely that the edition change would have any legal relevance to the comic or these forums.

Jasdoif
2008-04-22, 07:57 PM
If so, you probably won't be allowed to discuss 4ed homebrew on these forums, since the giant will probably want to keep publishing his OGL comic (unless the oots moves to 4ed).What? OOTS isn't OGL.

Ascension
2008-04-22, 07:58 PM
Its really not that expensive to get incorporated most places. Incorporation runs from $50 - $350, business license is $25 - $200, and in Pennsylvania alone a $150 - $300 publishing fee. That is a grand total of $75 - $850. If the owners of the company are not seeing enough profit to justify up to $850 (only up to $350 of which is a recurring, annual fee), they may not want to stay in both markets.

But that's not taking into account the fact that you'll have to build name recognition all over again almost from scratch with your new company. You'll have to be able to afford to promote both separately. True, you will, for the most part, be targeting two different audiences... the 3.5 faithful and those converting to 4E, but it's still inconvenient and you could possibly lose some potential customers because of it.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 08:05 PM
Yeah. It's fully legal. The companies can even share staff, offices, and everything else.

You start up 3 companies. 1 publishing company for each edition and an RPG consulting/contracting company. The two publishing companies hire contractors from the 3rd company. Basically you have 1 set of offices, 1 set of employees, and a company that has 2 clients. The fact that what you are doing is blatantly obvious is irrelevant. It's legal.

Exactly. You wouldn't even have to sell the rights (As in, no money has to 'change hands', you could just formally sign them over.) Or create a brand new company with the same staff that does 4e. I'm not sure on the legal charges of creating a new business, so that could be a legitimate wrinkle, but there's nothing stopping one from doing it.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 08:10 PM
But that's not taking into account the fact that you'll have to build name recognition all over again almost from scratch with your new company. You'll have to be able to afford to promote both separately. True, you will, for the most part, be targeting two different audiences... the 3.5 faithful and those converting to 4E, but it's still inconvenient and you could possibly lose some potential customers because of it.

No. Let's use Pazio as an example.

Pazio starts up 2 subsidiary corporations Pazio 3e Publishing and Pazio 4e Publishing. Both 3e and 4e contract with Pazio to provide game designers for specific projects. There contract with Pazio is that Pazio receives 100% of all profits for the sale of whatever product in exchange for Pazio providing contractors, office space and supplies, play testers, marketing, and allowing Pazio 3e to use the Pazio brand.

It's legit. So long as Pazio doesn't actually publish any products, 3e or 4e, WotC can't touch them. And both of the subsidiaries follow all the rules for publishing D&D material.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 08:22 PM
Actually Tippy, you could just start the one company. Paizo starts Paizo Fourth, Paizo Fourth gets to use Trademark, gives 100% of their profit to Paizo, and is permitted to use Paizo resources. But your way, honestly.. sounds like a bigger FU to WotC, so I like it better.

Solo
2008-04-22, 08:24 PM
The willingness of people to believe things without hard evidence is always amusing.

It also makes me lose faith in humanity.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-22, 08:25 PM
Gee... how hard is it to make a subsidiary corporation? Not sure if 4e will fly? Just whip up another corporation for the 4e line. If 4e flops, just declare bankruptcy for the sub. You're out maybe a grand in legal fees plus whatever you sank into 4e. If 4e does fly, then you just fold 3.x in the parent company and buy back the sub. This is inconvenient at worst, but it won't stop any company that wants to hedge their bets.

senrath
2008-04-22, 08:29 PM
The willingness of people to believe things without hard evidence is always amusing.

It also makes me lose faith in humanity.

You still had faith left to lose? But you are right, until WotC officially announces what they're doing, all of this is just idle speculation, nothing to get worked up about.

Solo
2008-04-22, 08:31 PM
It is currently at -5 and bleeding.

Collin152
2008-04-22, 08:32 PM
It is currently at -5 and bleeding.

Deathknell.

Congratulations, I've done you a huge favor.

Roland St. Jude
2008-04-22, 08:35 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Warning! The two threads on this have been merged. So there's probably some oddity in the continuity of the above posts.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 08:37 PM
Actually Tippy, you could just start the one company. Paizo starts Paizo Fourth, Paizo Fourth gets to use Trademark, gives 100% of their profit to Paizo, and is permitted to use Paizo resources. But your way, honestly.. sounds like a bigger FU to WotC, so I like it better.

Yeah but WotC could structure the license so that any company wanting to use it has to agree to provide no support and not do business with any company besides WotC that is publishing 3.5 material. How legit said license is depends on many, many factors but WotC has a bigger and better legal department than anyone they would be up against.

With 3 companies and doing it my way there is no way the license can be structured to make it illegal.

Collin152
2008-04-22, 08:41 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Warning! The two threads on this have been merged. So there's probably some oddity in the continuity of the above posts.

Wooh, it's only an alert of a merger.
I was afraid there was some kind of infraction.
Modpeech is very firghtening, is all.

Artanis
2008-04-22, 08:49 PM
The willingness of people to believe things without hard evidence is always amusing.

It also makes me lose faith in humanity.
This post is made of Truth and Win.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 08:50 PM
You know why I think that simply splitting your company won't work?

WotC isn't stupid, and they are backed by Hasbro. Either the new license will have specific good faith clauses or something similar that will render such acts to circumvent the license a breach of contract or they'll just sink anyone who does it in the courts with legal fees and a production stop and bad press as an example.

Any answer to this you've thought of, I'm sure WotC has thought of. You do not go into something this constraining with your pants around your knees.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 09:03 PM
You know why I think that simply splitting your company won't work?

WotC isn't stupid, and they are backed by Hasbro. Either the new license will have specific good faith clauses or something similar that will render such acts to circumvent the license a breach of contract or they'll just sink anyone who does it in the courts with legal fees and a production stop and bad press as an example.
They can't. Legally all 3 companies are separate entities and neither of the publishing companies have any relationship with one another at all. They may be able to do something if you have just 2 companies, depending on exactly how the license is written, but doing it with 3 companies like I am talking about shields you from all of that.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 09:07 PM
They can't. Legally all 3 companies are separate entities and neither of the publishing companies have any relationship with one another at all. They may be able to do something if you have just 2 companies, depending on exactly how the license is written, but doing it with 3 companies like I am talking about shields you from all of that.

Put a good faith clause in, then they prove that the entire reason the companies were formed were to get around the license, which would be true.

Look, I don't care how it happens. All I know is that WotC isn't stupid. I seriously doubt that you or I or pretty much anyone on this forum are more versed in law than WotC/Hasbro's lawyers. Just by postulating these examples seriously you're assuming that they havn't thought of these and found some sort of countermeasure.

EvilElitest
2008-04-22, 09:17 PM
Ok, due to thread mering, i'm going to repost my option here. This is why i think WotC did this in detail. It is not a professional option, so please correct me where i'm wrong




from my other post on this topic


Note, nether one of these is a professional option and just a gut reaction to this action.


Hmmmmm, i highly highly disagree if this is true, but i have to admit WotC is quite clever, because from a business perspective this is a good idea


Why are they doing this? What do they gain
As with all edition changes, there are always people who don't want to make the switch and still stubbornly refuse to play the new edition. Many people still play second edition. THe different between this switch and the 2E/3E switch is the ratio, a lot more people are playing the game now

Lets say out of 100 gamers who played 2E, 10 of them refuse to play 3E, and 5 stop playing all together and go off to "graduate" to white wolf. ten more make the switch, but still play 2E on a regular basis and know the rules, and are only some what enthusiastic. 5 people "update" or "fix" 2E, but as they lack a real publishers, only one of them is actually able to make their change public, and only a few people are interested. The rest play 3E without any regrets.

this time however the scale is larger and the 3E people ahve companies on their side. Companies that want to appeal to both kinds of people, 3E supporters and 4E fans, as well as those who play both. The 2E fans were not large enough to really threaten their business, but they were content to play their own stuff

However, if tehse other publishers start publishing 3E material, then 3E will like another game system, and a direct rival to 4E. And so WotC, a business after all, wants to make sure that any company that sells 3E material, can't also provide 4E material. As 4E is the newest thing, most business are going to take 4E instead of 3E, because they don't want to be left behind. So a "fixed' 3E game to get published and able to act as a rival to the new and still untested 4E is now not likely. Any company that makes 3E material, will suffer losses.

Cunning.

however WotC takes a risk, if more companies don't want to be bullied by wotC and choose not to publish 3E, however i really doubt this will happen. I imagine paizo might become pro 4E


What i actually think, fitting in with the OP's request, i really don't like this idea. It effectivly ruins the "you play your improved game, i play mine" and basically destroys the hope of anyone who didn't want to play 4E but wanted a fix. That being said, it is WotC's right, and a cunning move, and so unless lots of people protest openly, it isn't going to change
from
EE
Second response, this one spoiler ed for space

[SPOILER]




Expanding upon that, i'd actually like to make an analogy about your best of both worlds


Lets say, I am EE, and i run EE's gaming and publishing company. And You are running RT incorporated (your initials) and are the head of 4th edition. Now when you tell me that 4E is coming out, i say "Ok, new thing, i want in on this". I look around and find their is a lot of support and neutral stances towards 4E. But i also note a lot of hostility. Some of it comes from conservatism and unwillingness to change, which can be expected. Those people however, won't buy any new products at all. Other people might not play D&D any more and simply walk away, but those people can't be helped, through other companies like WW that want to "graduate them" However, something i notice is this. A Sizable minority (love them or hate them, anti 4E pro change people are a very large group, if still a minority) who want a new edition and want change, but protest against 4E for what ever reason, normally under the claim that it is simplifying D&D, or making it to much like a wargame/video game or what ever. I, as a private publisher, realize that these people will flock to any game that changes 3E to suit their needs. So i order my top people to plan a new 3E game, 3.7, as well as buying 4E materials. To appeal to the people who don't even want a new edition at all (the are a somewhat large number of them) i buy newly made 3E books from smaller companies to sell or make my own. Unlike 2E, there are a lot more D&D fans and so selling to the people who don't like 4E and like 3.7 or 3.5 or even 3.0 is actually profitable

Not you, Ruki, realize this. You also realize that i am directly hindering your profits. There is a risk that my 3.7, might, just might, be as good, better, or at least almost as good as your game. You like your 4E, but you still don't know how well it will do. It might plunge, for what ever reason, or do well but not well enough to make up for the profit loss. You already have people who won't play your game, the people who have started playing other systems, the people who will simply play 3.0 or 3.5 (or even people who will revert back to 2E, rare through they may be) or people who won't play because they don't like the changes and want different changes along with people who have just had enough. weather the people who have criticized 4E's changes are right or wrong is irrelevant to you at the moment, President Ruki, what matters is that a sizable number of your fan base is protesting loudly (if not hte majority, who is neutral, or the second majority, who is pro i think, through i don't know) and causing other people to move away from 4E, or at least harbor doubts. You can't afford this product not being a major success. If this fails, then you will be in a lot of trouble.

However, the anti 4E people have a problem. They like D&D, then want change, but there isn't any other option. So a lot of them will sign, and cough up enough money to buy 4E simply because of lack of options. While they will protest, because their isn't anything else, they will eventually lose steam and only the most die hart anti 4E people won't buy any more

Now things are hard enough with all of the critisizem, unfounded or founded, when people like Mr. EE are now selling to the people who don't want to play your system. Now not only are these people not buying from you, they are buying from somebody else, who is selling a very very similar system.

now unlike people who play WW, these people's system is very much like yours, except it is better suited to this groups tastes. There is a risk that it might simply be a better balanced game, and a more interesting one, not a high one, but a risk none the less. With such a similar game, a rift will arise between the anti 4E people who are now being catered to, and the people you are aiming to

The pro 4E people will of course support your product, but the anti 4E people who like this new system (from this point on called 3.7 fans) will like their own product and spend their money on a product other than yours. The two groups will have nerd wars, where they attack each others systems and if 4E isn't the most perfect system in the history of the world, the 3.7 fans will find some flaws to pick at. Now the majority of the D&D players, the neutral people, will look at both sides, and people who normally would simply buy 4E, will now honestly consider this other company. Some won't buy your product, some will buy both, and many will be less inclinded to cough up cash because they now have an option, a viable option, on where they spend your money

And to make matters worse mr. Ruki, you can't go on a negative attack against their system, because it is basically your old system improved. You don't want to remind people of the mistakes you've made in 3E, because that hurts your credibility

So instead you force Mr. EE to make a choice, ether he is selling 4E, or 3.7

Now Mr. EE wants to make money. he does care about his product, but he isn't stupid, he knows that if he misses out on 4E he will be losing a lot, and i mean a lot of business. It is a lot less work to simply sell 4E then make and run 3.7 and it isn't good to piss off WotC.


That being said, Mr. Ruki is taking a big risk. By doing this, you are pissing people off and hurting your PR. you are also making the anti 4E people even more upset

And also, if even one company (like paizo maybe) publishes 3.7 or even 3.5 material, then all of these anti 4E people will flock to that company.

That being said, it is better one rival who will do less damage then someone who sells both


[SPOILER]




It doesn't screw anyone over.

If a company really wanted to publish 3.5 and 4e compatible material at the same time, it could simply split into 2 companies with the same owners and share resources, which could include employees, campaign settings, etc
most small business can't afford that, and most won't take the risk. Also small business are weaker than one larger one


Personally i morally am against this. As i said, i know why WotC is doing it, then need to make money, there a business, that is what they do. That being said, this is absurdly, well oppressive isn't the right word, but hard upon anyone who disagrees with 4E. It shows their real motives, making money is more important than the product, which you can't really fault them for because that is what a company does. It is very nasty of them to do this and unless there is a lot of open protest, it will work
from
EE

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-22, 09:18 PM
Look, I don't care how it happens. All I know is that WotC isn't stupid. I seriously doubt that you or I or pretty much anyone on this forum are more versed in law than WotC/Hasbro's lawyers. Just by postulating these examples seriously you're assuming that they havn't thought of these and found some sort of countermeasure.

Just by postulating the above statements you are postulating that there actually is a countermeasure for everything.

Some things are unbeatable. When you are giving out free content, there's not a lot you can do to make sure only the people you want it get it, and not the other mean nasties. Sorry, but just because they have a bigger legal department doesn't mean they get what the want. Sometimes the bigger legal department saves them the money and bad publicity of fighting a losing battle.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 09:23 PM
Put a good faith clause in, then they prove that the entire reason the companies were formed were to get around the license, which would be true.
Ah, but the licensed company is operating in good faith. Thats the point of using 3 companies. Pazio 3e has absolutely nothing to do with 4th Edition at all. It is making no attempt to get around the license. Pazio 4e has absolutely nothing to do with 3rd Edition at all. It is making no attempt to get around the license. Pazio is not publishing any 3e or 4e material at all. It is just licensing its IP, Trademark, and Copyrights to various other companies and providing other services it is contracted to provide.

The fact that all 3 companies are owned by the same people is irrelevant. The fact that both use the same staff and offices is irrelevant. They are all separate legal entities and nothing that any of them do has any legal bearing on what any of the other companies do.


Look, I don't care how it happens. All I know is that WotC isn't stupid. I seriously doubt that you or I or pretty much anyone on this forum are more versed in law than WotC/Hasbro's lawyers. Just by postulating these examples seriously you're assuming that they havn't thought of these and found some sort of countermeasure.
There isn't a counter measure. This is common in the corporate world. It's primarily used for tax reasons and to shield a person or persons (or company)
from liability.

Look at walmart. Walmart has a real estate holding corporation that is wholly owned by Walmart and which leases space to the Walmart retail corporation, which has its goods moved by the Walmart Shipping corporation. This is all done for tax and liability reasons. And I think Walmart may have a bank now as well.

Thinker
2008-04-22, 09:37 PM
most small business can't afford that, and most won't take the risk. Also small business are weaker than one larger one

How much do you think it costs? I already broke it down in another post: less than $1000. If they can't afford this, even with a loan, they were probably going to go under anyway.


Personally i morally am against this. As i said, i know why WotC is doing it, then need to make money, there a business, that is what they do. That being said, this is absurdly, well oppressive isn't the right word, but hard upon anyone who disagrees with 4E. It shows their real motives, making money is more important than the product, which you can't really fault them for because that is what a company does. It is very nasty of them to do this and unless there is a lot of open protest, it will work
from
EE

Its not that hard on anyone. Its easy to go around and this entire post is based on hearsay. Wait for an official release of some sort.

EvilElitest
2008-04-22, 09:59 PM
How much do you think it costs? I already broke it down in another post: less than $1000. If they can't afford this, even with a loan, they were probably going to go under anyway.

I wasn't referring to cost so much as it is damn annoying and will take a lot of time and effort. There are risks too, you can't deny that. Some companies might do it sure, but some small business won't think is is worth the effort



Its not that hard on anyone. Its easy to go around and this entire post is based on hearsay. Wait for an official release of some sort.

My post is based on reasoning, not hearsay. I admit i might be wrong, but that is why i think that WotC is doing this. I think is isn't a moral thing to do, but it certainly is a cunning and business thing to do and i thin i know why it is happening. If i'm wrong, fine, but at least tell me what is wrong not simply say it is wrong
from
EE

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 10:08 PM
I wasn't referring to cost so much as it is damn annoying and will take a lot of time and effort.
Not really. Maybe 8 hours worth of work, total. And its pretty much a 1 time thing. And your lawyer can do most of the work.


There are risks too, you can't deny that.
Actually there aren't. The owners of the corporation aren't liable for anything the corporation does. It would actually be less risky for most small businesses. Why do you think most major companies use holding corporations and trusts? Its to shield them.


Some companies might do it sure, but some small business won't think is is worth the effort.
It takes very little effort and I know of 3 different small businesses that were/are doing some version of this (different markets but they are doing it for liability and tax reasons).

sikyon
2008-04-22, 10:10 PM
Some things are unbeatable. When you are giving out free content, there's not a lot you can do to make sure only the people you want it get it, and not the other mean nasties. Sorry, but just because they have a bigger legal department doesn't mean they get what the want. Sometimes the bigger legal department saves them the money and bad publicity of fighting a losing battle.

Do you think that they'd seriously put out this restriction if they knew they couldn't enforce it? It, in fact, costs them publicity. Not worth a bluff. And a bigger legal department might not make them win, but it'll stop the other guy from winning indefinatly.





Look at walmart. Walmart has a real estate holding corporation that is wholly owned by Walmart and which leases space to the Walmart retail corporation, which has its goods moved by the Walmart Shipping corporation. This is all done for tax and liability reasons. And I think Walmart may have a bank now as well.

Yes, lets look at walmart. A giant corporation wtih a huge legal department enforcing it's will. I'm betting contacts you sign with wal-mart are more leak-proof than the US tax code. And that's whats going to happen here, with Hasbro.


I ask you again - why would they forbid the use of 3.5 with 4 if they knew they couldn't enforce it? This costs them publicity and they know there's going to be a backlash. It's not like this isn't going to cost them. Popularity, furthere polarization of the gaming community (reduced user base), etc. They have some way of enforcing this. It's frankly too expensive to be a bluff.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 10:12 PM
Good Faith is going to settle who cares the most about this topic. Because I for one, am not digging through precedent so as to show either side more correct. However, the legal definition can go either way ;)



I ask you again - why would they forbid the use of 3.5 with 4 if they knew they couldn't enforce it? This costs them publicity and they know there's going to be a backlash. It's not like this isn't going to cost them. Popularity, furthere polarization of the gaming community (reduced user base), etc. They have some way of enforcing this. It's frankly too expensive to be a bluff.
CEOs are oft-incompetent. Are you new to the United Stated Economic Wonder?

EvilElitest
2008-04-22, 10:14 PM
Not really. Maybe 8 hours worth of work, total. And its pretty much a 1 time thing. And your lawyer can do most of the work.


Actually there aren't. The owners of the corporation aren't liable for anything the corporation does. It would actually be less risky for most small businesses. Why do you think most major companies use holding corporations and trusts? Its to shield them.


It takes very little effort and I know of 3 different small businesses that were/are doing some version of this (different markets but they are doing it for liability and tax reasons).
wait, before i respond, explain the last part again in detail
from
EE

sikyon
2008-04-22, 10:16 PM
CEOs are oft-incompetent. Are you new to the United Stated Economic Wonder?

Yeah those CEO's of Hasbro, the second largest toy makers in the world are oft-incompetent, as well as their huge legal departments.

Or they are cunning devils who don't tip their hand and let their foes underestimate them.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 10:17 PM
Microsoft is fragging huge, and I've seen its CEOs commit or utter great stupidity. Being large, or having huge market share, clearly, has less correlation with CEO intelligence then you seem to think.

TheThan
2008-04-22, 10:22 PM
I didn’t have all the information regarding the situation. When I posted the above.

Now let me elaborate.

I don’t have a problem with the concept of royalties, as its pretty much the only way for artists like musicians to make even a decent living at what they do.

But for a company like WOTC, which is already making money on their products (talking about 3.5 here). Switching to a royalty situation would repel, or out right prevent some 3rd party companies from selling 4.0 products. In addition it will drive up the cost of a 3rd party’s products (those that chooses to convert to 4.0), since they will need to make up for the royalties they are forced to give to wotc. It might not drive the prices up a significant amount, but it’s the principle that matters here.

Fortunately they’ve decided not to do this.


I would never blame a company for simply trying to make some money. However how a company conducts itself is as important as making money. However making people pay for the chance to make you money sticks of greed to me, which is crossing the line from “good” business practices to “bad” (or unscrupulous if you prefer) business practices.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 10:23 PM
Microsoft is fragging huge, and I've seen its CEOs commit or utter great stupidity. Being large, or having huge market share, clearly, has less correlation with CEO intelligence then you seem to think.

Massive mistakes with its contracts?

That kind of stuff usually doesn't happen as they have competent, legal overhead. You know, highly paid, highly experienced lawyers telling them what's possible and what's not.


But, you know, it's OK if people think that this new clause means nothing because anyone with half a brain can get around it. People should go around giving out business advice for a fee if they're so confident. If they're right, they'll reap the rewards. If not, they'll get sued when the company that paid them loses its lawsuit. Let's roll that d20, baby!

EDIT:



However how a company conducts itself is as important as making money.

Why? Bad conduct might make less people buy from you but if it still makes more money then money wins out. The purpose of a company is to make money, just like the purpose of life is to reproduce.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-22, 10:25 PM
Do you think that they'd seriously put out this restriction if they knew they couldn't enforce it? It, in fact, costs them publicity. Not worth a bluff. And a bigger legal department might not make them win, but it'll stop the other guy from winning indefinatly.

Or they could be issuing it to, as we already stated, prevent hybridization of the two systems.

Forcing people to remain completely 3.5 is good for 4E, certainly better then letting them steal the good parts of 4E. It blocks hybridization, it doesn't stop any corporation from working around it to publish both types.

And it doesn't matter if you keep them from winning, because the whole time they are not winning and you are not winning, they are producing both 4E and 3E material. IE getting exactly what they want.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 10:29 PM
Or they could be issuing it to, as we already stated, prevent hybridization of the two systems.


Why couldn't they just make that more explicit, if it were their intent?




And it doesn't matter if you keep them from winning, because the whole time they are not winning and you are not winning, they are producing both 4E and 3E material. IE getting exactly what they want.

In certain disputes you are able to block the production or distribution of products during a trial. I'm not sure what exactly that situation is, but I know of it.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 10:30 PM
We're not talking about Hasbro's lawyers (FYI: I dearly, dearly hope you prove to be the only person on these boards who does in fact have more legal experience, with your rather brazen attitude towards other posters). We're talking about Hasbro's *CEOs"? Do I think there is the potential for making some broad statement about existing or soon-to-be-made legal code /without actually consulting with the legal department/? Yes. Yes as a matter of fact I /do/ think one can be stupid enough to attempt to make definitive statements on something they have no idea about. If CEOs can be blatantly, hideously wrong about the state of their own market, they can do stupid crap like not talk to the legal department before a press release about legal matters.

At any rate, if you want to keep round-a-bout claiming that you're more right, go dig up some precedent to back you up.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 10:38 PM
We're not talking about Hasbro's lawyers (FYI: I dearly, dearly hope you prove to be the only person on these boards who does in fact have more legal experience, with your rather brazen attitude towards other posters). We're talking about Hasbro's *CEOs"? Do I think there is the potential for making some broad statement about existing or soon-to-be-made legal code /without actually consulting with the legal department/? Yes. Yes as a matter of fact I /do/ think one can be stupid enough to attempt to make definitive statements on something they have no idea about. If CEOs can be blatantly, hideously wrong about the state of their own market, they can do stupid crap like not talk to the legal department before a press release about legal matters.


I'm talking about how you're jumping up and down like you've found the candy dump, and saying that the leaders of major compaines are idiots. I'm no legal expert. However, I know not to underestimate powerful people and I don't think you should either. But your estimation of them is your own call, and you seem to have many dispositions already. Mine is simple, they are in important positions, therefore they must have done something to earn them.



At any rate, if you want to keep round-a-bout claiming that you're more right, go dig up some precedent to back you up.

Precedent: Large companies tend to crush smaller companies legally.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 10:43 PM
What they did to earn their position is be smarter then their internal competition politically, not be more competent legally or financially, generally. And that is not, in any reality in which I exist, legal precedent. I'm saying if you want to say you're right, it comes down to legal precedent. If you're not going to do the work, don't claim to be more accurate. I'm perfectly fine iwth you offering your opinion; After all, I'm not doing the work, I can't claim higher accuracy either. But I don't want you claiming to be more accurate as to the legal reality when you're not doing the work to support your position.

Legal Work is srs bsns. I don't care to listen to inaccuracy about it bandied about as truth.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 10:46 PM
Legal Work is srs bsns. I don't care to listen to inaccuracy about it bandied about as truth.

I have no interest in offering legal precedent, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a scientist, so I'm offering reasoning based on statistics.

Artanis
2008-04-22, 10:51 PM
And I'm a mathematician, and reject your statistics - which can say whatever the hell somebody wants them to say - and want to see proof.

EvilElitest
2008-04-22, 10:51 PM
hey i wrote a giant essay of doom on why WotC is doing this and i didn't even go on an anti 4E rant, so can somebody please respond
form
EE

Solo
2008-04-22, 10:55 PM
hey i wrote a giant essay of doom on why WotC is doing this and i didn't even go on an anti 4E rant, so can somebody please respond
form
EE

Your ability to write giant essays based on no real, solid, or first hand evidence is admirable.

EvilElitest
2008-04-22, 10:57 PM
Your ability to write giant essays based on no real, solid, or first hand evidence is admirable.

fair enough, as i said i'm not a proffesional and haven't claimed to be, but that doesn't mean my essay isn't wrong. Is it a viable possibility or not. Specifics people
from
EE

Gorbash Kazdar
2008-04-22, 10:58 PM
This doesn't surprise me much at all, due to some rumors I heard some time ago. A little background from the rumor mill might help illuminate things a bit (keep in mind this is basically speculation informed by second-hand gossip)...

After 3e (with the original OGL) was published, WotC was acquired by Hasbro. Word is that Hasbro hates the OGL - they'd shelled out a lot for WotC and it's IPs and licenses, and WotC has this crazy thing where people can publish stuff for their system for free? Not something they were particularly happy with, but they also couldn't do anything about it. At least, not under 3.5/d20. However, having no license of any sort for 4e would not be good PR. The fact that the 4e license is likely to be more restrictive I pretty much expected, and while I didn't see the OGL kickback coming, it's not out of the blue.

I mention this somewhat because I think it highly unlikely WotC had any "grand conspiracy" or "cunning plan" to set this situation up back when they wrote the OGL.

That being said, I don't see this as particularly dire. In fact, I don't see how anyone can say people who stick with 3.x are screwed. Compare this situation with 2e. No one can legally publish any 2e stuff except WotC, who does not (unless they license it, which they haven't and won't). So ever since 2000, when 3e came out, nothing has been officially published under 2e rulesets, and it's highly likely nothing new ever will be.

However, the OGL situation means that 3.x material can still be legally published. And given how much stuff is out there, and that a certain percentage of the gaming population won't update to 4e (or will at least delay doing so), it would certainly be financially feasible for a company to stick with 3.x. Thus, even though it's been eclipsed by a new edition, new 3.x material will continue to come out until it's no longer financially viable - which probably means it will continue to come out for a very long time. This is probably the best possible outcome when a new edition for a game comes out.

Others have already touched on the ways for a given company to publish 3e and 4e stuff at the same time. I'd also not be surprised to see situations where one company switches to 4e and licenses an IP to a truly separate company to publish 3e material for. Eg. say Privateer Press updates to 4e and doesn't want to bother making subsidiaries for 3e. However, it sells a license to, say, Green Ronin 3.5 Publishing (partnered with Green Ronin, parallel to Green Ronin 4th Publishing) to publish Iron Kingdoms material for 3.5. A similar thing is happening with Shadowrun - WizKids owns the license and made a SR game (that was unsuccessful), and licensed first FanPro and now Catalyst Games to publish an RPG. FanPro and Catalyst Games are entirely separate companies from WizKids.

I think it's also good to keep in mind that no other major gaming company has ever opened up it's system to free third party use, or done anything remotely similar (possible exception for Guardians of Order and TriStat, but they're defunct and were sort of niche anyways). Moreover, many of those same companies most certainly did publish quite a bit of d20 material under the OGL.

D&D/d20 is one of the only systems I can think of where there's going to be any legal, professionally published support for an old edition of a flagship RPG at all. Certainly didn't happen with World of Darkness. Not with Shadowrun or Exalted. Not Legend of the Five Rings, Ars Magica, Earthdawn, Gamma World, or Conan...

Of course, I remember when the OGL was announced that it was denounced for creating a situation where one system dominated the hobby and encouraged other companies to jump on the bandwagon rather than making their own unique systems... :smallsigh:

Solo
2008-04-22, 10:58 PM
fair enough, as i said i'm not a proffesional and haven't claimed to be, but that doesn't mean my essay isn't wrong. Is it a viable possibility or not. Specifics people
from
EE

I don't think anyone will reply to an essay whose premise may be fundamentally flawed because it rests on assumptions made from secondhand news.

Of course I am probably wrong, as there are plenty of people willing to have a debate over nothing.

Aquillion
2008-04-22, 11:01 PM
It isn't like it's that complicated. It's the same thing Microsoft realized a long time ago: When you're the biggest one in the business by this much, you become your own worst enemy -- every new product you put out has to compete with all the things you put out before it. And those earlier products are more entrenched, have more support from third-party developers, have loyal customers who will be more used to the way they work... you get the idea. Once you've sold people on a good product, you have to constantly keep outdoing yourself to sell more, and there's a limit to that. And you've invested millions of dollars in this new thing, so if it flops it could seriously damage the company.

Look at Vista; the biggest marketing campaign any software has ever gotten, and it still flopped (in relative terms.) Both Microsoft and WotC know that their biggest challenge isn't making new products, it's killing off the old ones so people will actually buy the new stuff.

I will say that I think that this sort of situation is a basic market failure (one of the reason why having a market so heavily dominated by one product is a bad thing.) It puts companies like WotC and Microsoft in a position where they have to actively sabotage their own products in order to keep selling anything and stay in business, and one where they're actively encouraged to avoid making anything too good or too enduring (because then they can't sell you the next version!) That's stupid.

But the problem isn't specifically Microsoft or WotC, not in this case. The problem is their position in the market, which ends up encouraging practices that are awful for the consumer.

sikyon
2008-04-22, 11:02 PM
And I'm a mathematician, and reject your statistics - which can say whatever the hell somebody wants them to say - and want to see proof.

I don't need a causal relation between the two here, both can stem from a single cause and it doesn't make a difference.

Larger companies typically bind smaller companies tightly to contracts and don't allow many loopholes in them, and almost never this obvious (If you disagree with this then please say so)

Since WotC is a large company, their contract will probably not allow this easy loophole.

I don't need a causal relationship. Observe:

When ice cream sales go up, incidents of drowning go up.

I am given the information that drownings have just gone up. Should I invest in ice cream?

Statistically, yes. No causality but the correlation is there.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 11:03 PM
Do you think that they'd seriously put out this restriction if they knew they couldn't enforce it? It, in fact, costs them publicity. Not worth a bluff. And a bigger legal department might not make them win, but it'll stop the other guy from winning indefinatly.
The most likely reason for it is to prevent hybridization (as has been said).


Yes, lets look at walmart. A giant corporation wtih a huge legal department enforcing it's will. I'm betting contacts you sign with wal-mart are more leak-proof than the US tax code. And that's whats going to happen here, with Hasbro.
Incorrect. You don't have to sign a contract with WotC to use the 4e license, or the 3e license. Thats what I meant by permissive licensing.


I ask you again - why would they forbid the use of 3.5 with 4 if they knew they couldn't enforce it? This costs them publicity and they know there's going to be a backlash. It's not like this isn't going to cost them. Popularity, furthere polarization of the gaming community (reduced user base), etc. They have some way of enforcing this. It's frankly too expensive to be a bluff.
As has been said, to prevent hybridization.


wait, before i respond, explain the last part again in detail
from
EE

While you can sue a company and the company can be liable the owners of the company aren't liable. You can't sue the stockholders of a company and you can't touch the assets of a companies stockholders. You could sue a CEO or other officer of a company over actions they or the company have taken but you are suing them in their capacity as an officer of the company, not as an owner of the company. And for most of the civil things you can sue a companies officer over you have to be a stockholder (criminal liability is slightly different but thats irrelevant to this discussion).

So lets take Walmart. In the event that someone sues the Walmart Shipping Company for some reason and wins massive damages, none of Walmarts other companies assets can be touched. Even if all the companies assets were seized, the courts couldn't order its real estate seized.

Now comes the tax reasons. Walmart Retail leases real estate from Walmart Real Estate at a lower than market price, meaning that Real Estate is taking a loss that can be deducted from their taxes. This gets really complex but suffice it to say that it allows tax deductions out the ass.


Why couldn't they just make that more explicit, if it were their intent?
They may. No one knows what the final license will look like. But I can think of a few reasons that they don't want too. Companies want things to be as broad as possible in their favor so if something comes up in the future they have more options.


In certain disputes you are able to block the production or distribution of products during a trial. I'm not sure what exactly that situation is, but I know of it.
Yes you can. What I am talking about isn't 1 of them.

Rutee
2008-04-22, 11:08 PM
Slightly subtle difference, Tippy. Shares aren't control over the company. Shares are control over the company's Profits.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 11:10 PM
Slightly subtle difference, Tippy. Shares aren't control over the company. Shares are control over the company's Profits.

Depends on the type of shares. Traditional stock is part ownership of a company. If you own 51% of the companies voting shares you can generally do whatever you want with its assets.

Norsesmithy
2008-04-22, 11:31 PM
Depends on the type of shares. Traditional stock is part ownership of a company. If you own 51% of the companies voting shares you can generally do whatever you want with its assets.

Even if you own a single voting share, you will likely get a letter about proxy voting every year, it's just that your vote doesn't count for all that much.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-22, 11:44 PM
Even if you own a single voting share, you will likely get a letter about proxy voting every year, it's just that your vote doesn't count for all that much.

Yep.filler

Tyger
2008-04-23, 12:12 AM
Slightly subtle difference, Tippy. Shares aren't control over the company. Shares are control over the company's Profits.

Actually no. A share is an even portion of the value of the company. Technically all it entitles its holder to is an even and proportional share of the division of assets upon corporate dissolution. Not its profits, its actual value. But that's a moot point.

I find it interesting that so many people are taking the "I bet companies are just waiting to see if 4e flops..." view. Realistically folks, what are the odds of that happening? I would take bets, large ones even, against that happening. Hasn't happened with any previous editions, won't happen with this one. Well, until 5E comes out anyway.

As for the proceeding discussions on corporate responsibility, formation of new corporations to avoid certain restrictions, yup, that is pretty much exactly what would happen. And I am a lawyer. A civil litigation lawyer who specializes in contract law and dabbles in administrative law. :)

That said, no matter how good the Hasbro / WotC lawyers are, no matter how "iron-clad" the alleged (do we have anything resembling official confirmation of this thing yet?) liscence / contract is, there are other lawyers out there who will find the holes. Granted, if its as described thus far, the hole isn't even a hole... its a vortex, which doesn't even require a law degree (or even average intelligence) to see. :smallbiggrin:

Rutee
2008-04-23, 12:15 AM
What? I have words for you that I can not express on this board, Tyger. You're a practicing lawyer? I lost the one pedantry claim I ever had :smallyuk:

But yeah, we need the boiler plate to say anything legitimately definitive. I'm willing to grant that Sikyon's right, what WotC released is nothing nearly close to the actual wording of the agreement. But it doesn't look good for them.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-23, 12:18 AM
As for the proceeding discussions on corporate responsibility, formation of new corporations to avoid certain restrictions, yup, that is pretty much exactly what would happen. And I am a lawyer. A civil litigation lawyer who specializes in contract law and dabbles in administrative law. :)
A better source than me. I was just an intern at a law office for a year and am a person who takes an interest in the law.

Crow
2008-04-23, 12:23 AM
A good legal team can tie a party up for a loooong time, even when the corporation they work for is completely in the wrong. If there is some sort of order preventing further printing and distribution in the meantime until the case is resolved, there is a chance that a lot of small companies wouldn't be able to survive that.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-23, 12:28 AM
A good legal team can tie a party up for a loooong time, even when the corporation they work for is completely in the wrong. If there is some sort of order preventing further printing and distribution in the meantime until the case is resolved, there is a chance that a lot of small companies wouldn't be able to survive that.

Yeah but the small corp would win in summary judgment. What I'm talking about really is that clear cut legally. If I was WotC and really wanted to do this I would put the right to bar any company from using the 4e stuff for any reason.

Whether or not thats legal and the fight over it would be a lot more in WotC's favor.

sikyon
2008-04-23, 12:31 AM
They may. No one knows what the final license will look like. But I can think of a few reasons that they don't want too. Companies want things to be as broad as possible in their favor so if something comes up in the future they have more options.



Yes they do like broad strokes but this would be seriously overextending. This hurts their popularity so they should really have a good reason for going whole hog. Just preventing hybridization is again, overkill. Companies usually don't take broad, careless strokes if it can actually cost them seriously.

Matthew
2008-04-23, 12:31 AM
Oh, also, wasn't there some 2E clone that existed solely as a brand 3rd party publishers could market their products as compatible to? Or did I just imagine this?

You are no doubt thinking of Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC, which are occasionally referred to as simulacrums or retro clones of Basic Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, respectively. If the GSL turns out to prohibit the simultaneous publishing of OGL related products, then anyone who wishes to publish D20 2e stuff under the GSL will be unable to produce anything for Labyrinth Lord or OSRIC. So, for instance, if Expeditious Retreat Press were to begin publishing under the GSL, they would have to discontinue their Advanced Adventures line, given that what is being said is true, which would be a sad loss to me and many consumers like me.

OSRIC is not quite AD&D 2e or, indeed, AD&D 1e, but close enough that publishers can use the OSRIC License, which is subordinate to the Open Game License, to produce material compatable with either edition of AD&D.




That being said, I don't see this as particularly dire. In fact, I don't see how anyone can say people who stick with 3.x are screwed. Compare this situation with 2e. No one can legally publish any 2e stuff except WotC, who does not (unless they license it, which they haven't and won't). So ever since 2000, when 3e came out, nothing has been officially published under 2e rulesets, and it's highly likely nothing new ever will be.

Well, I would say this is both true and not true. Aside from things that have been published via OSRIC, a number of AD&D compatable publications have appeared using only the OGL (Goodman Games' 1e specials, for instance). Of course, these are not official 2e products, but neither are D20 and 3e quite the same thing, in my estimation.

To put it another way, Wizards of the Coast (and for a while, Kenzer and Company) were the only ones publishing official Dungeons & Dragons 3e material from 2000. Everyone else was publishing D20 material, which is compatable (to different degrees) with Dungeons & Dragons 3e.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-23, 01:02 AM
I tend to agree with EE's sentiments. I have my doubts about the accuracy of the issue, but it makes perfect sense to try and smother your competition in this manner, from the perspective of the megacorp.

I already have my printout of Pathfinder 1.2 though, so they can't take that away from me. I just hope Paizo continues to have the stones to stand up to WotC and ditch 4E in favor of their own creation (assuming the rumor is true, if it isn't, I want them to make 4E support material too, as horrible as I think it is, to be fair to those people)

Not that my two cents amounts to anything, as I was done with WotC as soon as they put out 4E.

Vaynor
2008-04-23, 01:04 AM
Problem I see is, what if 4e sucks ass, then publishers are pretty much screwed. WotC should at least wait until the products have been out for a while to let the publishers decide.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-23, 01:17 AM
WotC should at least wait until the products have been out for a while to let the publishers decide.

Ethically, yes. Strategically, no. If 4E sucks, and WotC managed to get major publishers like Paizo to legally not be able to produce 3.5 material, then gamers who want to play a supported game are stuck with 4E until 5th comes out, unless they jump systems entirely.

Artanis
2008-04-23, 01:21 AM
Problem I see is, what if 4e sucks ass, then publishers are pretty much screwed. WotC should at least wait until the products have been out for a while to let the publishers decide.
Uh...as far as I can tell, they are. They're letting publishers switch later if they want, as opposed to some EVAHL plot involving ninjas and Barney to force them to switch instantly.

Matthew
2008-04-23, 01:21 AM
It's unlikely that publishers won't be able to go back to the OGL. What they probably won't be able to do is go back and forth between the two. Currently, it is being suggested that Wizards will have complete and arbitrary control over who is permitted to use the GSL. So, for instance, if Paizo were to publish something under the GSL and then something under the OGL, Wizards could prevent them making further use of the GSL, but not the OGL.

What this would also mean is that Wizards can 'pull' the GSL at any time (oh, say about five years when it's time for D&D 5e) and leave all its partners, competitors and licensees hanging.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 02:22 AM
Not that my two cents amounts to anything, as I was done with WotC as soon as they put out 4E.

You know, it really helps to listen to the professional in the thread. Nobody in here has remotely the same qualifications as a practicing attorney...

Mind that they can patch this up in the future, and nobody's got the boiler plate in front of them. (Or at least none of us do) Literally nobody can be sure what the final product can be like. But then, y'all are putting some measure of overstock in the idea of "Bigger Law Firm = More Infallible." Has anyone seen what writing by committee tends to look like? Not that I'm aware of the exact process by which a legal /department/ handles any one issue anyway.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-23, 02:25 AM
You know, it really helps to listen to the professional in the thread. Nobody in here has remotely the same qualifications as a practicing attorney...

1) What the heck did I say to get that kind of response?
2) There is no such thing as qualifications on the internet.


Has anyone seen what writing by committee tends to look like?

I could take a cheap shot at 4E here, but I'm going to just imply it by posting this instead.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 02:34 AM
1) What the heck did I say to get that kind of response?
2) There is no such thing as qualifications on the internet.
Siding with the doom and gloom espoused by Sikyon and the like, over the professional, the intern, and the dedicated student, all of whom are the only ones whom can claim anything resembling genuine knowledge? But as negative as the view "One can not possess qualifications on the net" is, that at least has its own brand of logic, so I can't debate /that/. I'm willing to take people at their face, rather then assume they lack credibility because they do not always agree with me (This would rather explain the semi Tippy drove through RAI by following RAW, though)




I could take a cheap shot at 4E here, but I'm going to just imply it by posting this instead.

Game systems don't get written by committee. Ever. Consensus, sometimes, but not by committee. Super Demolition Christ, you'd think some people have some basic decency for the concept of differing opinions. As much as I despise 3e, I haven't even implied it was written by monkeys (Except on balance concerns, where it's pretty undeniable), just that it was not written for anyone with anything vaguely resembling my tastes.

Charity
2008-04-23, 02:56 AM
Rutee, Rutee

The people who live in a golden age usually go around complaining how yellow everything looks. ~Randall Jarrell

Man spends his life in reasoning on the past, in complaining of the present, in fearing future. ~Antoine Rivarol

The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom of little souls and inferior intellects. ~Lord Jeffrey

You'll not change their opinion one iota, why expend the effort.

Reinboom
2008-04-23, 02:59 AM
"You get a choice, here's product A. We're giving you this for free, yep, free. No cost. We've been giving this to you for free for a long time now.
Now, we have also just made product B, and we really like it... but, despite what are highest of superiors would like us to do, you can have that too. Yep, absolutely free. Now there's a catch, you can only choose one of them. You can keep using product A til you start using product B, but the moment you start using product B, still free of course, you can't use product A."

"...what? EVIL COMPANY! I WANT THEM BOTH FOR FREE!"


I'm seeing a bit of hypocrisy from anybody calling Wizards greedy right now. :smallconfused:

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-23, 03:01 AM
Siding with the doom and gloom espoused by Sikyon and the like, over the professional, the intern, and the dedicated student, all of whom are the only ones whom can claim anything resembling genuine knowledge?

OK, that wasn't clear based on what you quoted. Also, I did express doubts that WotC was actually pulling a stunt like that. I have some respect left for the basic decency of my fellow gamers, even if they are corporate, and don't play the game the way I do.

Also, even if I was having this conversation with a long-time friend of mine who I know is a lawyer, I would not take his word for it just because it is his word on the subject. I judge an argument on its own merit, not on the authority of the person making the arguement.


Super Demolition Christ, you'd think some people have some basic decency for the concept of differing opinions.

I said it was a cheap shot.

Matthew
2008-04-23, 03:36 AM
I'm seeing a bit of hypocrisy from anybody calling Wizards greedy right now. :smallconfused:

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Let's be careful here. There is a degree of hypocrisy in what is being done here. The original D20 FAQ discussed the future of D&D and what a fourth edition would eventually likely mean and the idea at that time was not to release it under another license.

Yes, the market has changed. Yes, it's a totally different staff working on D&D now. Yes, Wizards and Hasbro are totally within their rights to do as they are doing. No, it's not what was envisioned in 2000.

nagora
2008-04-23, 04:05 AM
Is this even legal? If I enter into a contract with someone and they later want out of it (as Hasbro does now), is it legal to make the abandomnent of a separate contract a pre-condition of forming a new contract? Couldn't a lawyer make an argument that such a pre-condition was coercion, and thus nullify the new contract?

Either way, let's not kid ourselves that this is about free stuff for the gamers - this is about free stuff for Hasbro: free product development, free publicity, free marketing. They had all that from the old licence and now they want to have that AND control of what's produced. That looks fairly greedy to me.

Kompera
2008-04-23, 04:07 AM
However, there is another option. The directors of a gaming company can simply incorporate a second legal entity for dealing with 4e material. You can sublicence any intellectual property from one to the other if you feel like it (tricky but workable under US law, easier in other countries) and that's the end of that.

This was my first thought after reading the OP and the linked post on /..
I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked for a company which did the exact same thing, except in this case the 'dummy' company only held the officers in common with the primary company but none of the employees. By funneling sales and sales renewals to the 'dummy' this allowed the primary company to avoid paying out commissions. They were in court often, but to the best of my knowledge they made this model work for them on a financially successful level, as slimy as it was.

It seems to me that doing this would be a fairly trivial thing for any company which would like to publish for both 3e and 4e while remaining in compliance with the OGL.


Is this even legal? If I enter into a contract with someone and they later want out of it (as Hasbro does now), is it legal to make the abandomnent of a separate contract a pre-condition of forming a new contract? Couldn't a lawyer make an argument that such a pre-condition was coercion, and thus nullify the new contract?
I don't think it would be illegal. Again, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that coercion would not apply in this case. No company producing 3e compatible products is forced to produce products for 4e. So the simple non-coercive option for the 3e product producing company is to not enter into a contract to produce 4e material and abandon the ability to produce 3e material. Also, abandonment of prior contract is quite frequently a requirement of forming a new contract. Otherwise a labor union, for example, could negotiate for better wages in a new contract and then turn around and insist that the benefits package, reduced in the new contract, be enforced according to the provisions of the prior contract.

J.Gellert
2008-04-23, 04:14 AM
That is also what I thought; Paizo could make a sub-company or whatever you call it in english to continue Pathfinder, for example. Still I wonder, haven't the evil wizards who live by the coast thought of that? :smalltongue:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-23, 04:24 AM
Question: The Giant is likely to be employed at some point to write 4.0 material. He currently plans to continue producing and profiting from a comic which relies heavily on the material from 3.5. How is this going to affect those 2 issues?

Matthew
2008-04-23, 04:33 AM
Is this even legal? If I enter into a contract with someone and they later want out of it (as Hasbro does now), is it legal to make the abandomnent of a separate contract a pre-condition of forming a new contract? Couldn't a lawyer make an argument that such a pre-condition was coercion, and thus nullify the new contract?

Either way, let's not kid ourselves that this is about free stuff for the gamers - this is about free stuff for Hasbro: free product development, free publicity, free marketing. They had all that from the old licence and now they want to have that AND control of what's produced. That looks fairly greedy to me.

According to the various legally minded folk on EnWorld, it's likely perfectly legal in the United States, but probably somewhat more dubious in the European Union, particularly somewhere like Germany. So, what might look illegal to us across on this side of the pond, sounds like it may be perfectly normal on the other side.



That is also what I thought; Paizo could make a sub-company or whatever you call it in english to continue Pathfinder, for example. Still I wonder, haven't the evil wizards who live by the coast thought of that? :smalltongue:

They almost certainly have. In fact, in their reply to the inquiry of Necromancer Games as to the status of their partnership with Paizo, Wizards of the Coast were notably clear on the importance of the 'pre-existing' nature of the partnership with regards to how 'okay' it would be. All Wizards would have to do, assuming the GSL looks anything like we're being led to believe, is rescind the GSL from anyone who attempts to do this.



Question: The Giant is likely to be employed at some point to write 4.0 material. He currently plans to continue producing and profiting from a comic which relies heavily on the material from 3.5. How is this going to affect those 2 issues?

Probably no effect. I am pretty sure that Burlew uses Wizard's IP, such as Beholders, under fair use (or parody?) terms, but as a freelancer he would not (in all probability) be bound by the GSL in any case. If he were to begin publishing stuff for 4e himself, any games he might produce under D20 rules (such as an Order of the Stick RPG) would be vulnerable.

Kompera
2008-04-23, 04:38 AM
That is also what I thought; Paizo could make a sub-company or whatever you call it in english to continue Pathfinder, for example. Still I wonder, haven't the evil wizards who live by the coast thought of that? :smalltongue:
I'm willing to bet that Hasbro employs or retains at least one lawyer. :smallwink:

Kompera
2008-04-23, 04:45 AM
Question: The Giant is likely to be employed at some point to write 4.0 material. He currently plans to continue producing and profiting from a comic which relies heavily on the material from 3.5. How is this going to affect those 2 issues?
The Giant has already converted to a new version once (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html), why do you think he wouldn't do the same thing again?

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-23, 04:57 AM
I recall there being a discussion on this very matter in the OOTS discussion board. The biggest point brought up was that 4E lacks a certain amount of reverse compatability with 3E. It would be a drastic change to the flavor of the characters, and since OOTS is less joke driven (aka 'has an ongoing plot we care about) now than it was in the old days, that would be a bad thing.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-23, 04:58 AM
The Giant has already converted to a new version once (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html), why do you think he wouldn't do the same thing again?It has been specifically said he won't, and especially as a lot of the mechanics wouldn't even be similar (stat Elan), it is close to impossible. (IIRC, WotC is on-record as saying there is no possible way to upgrade characters from 3.5 to 4.0, so it would at least be difficult)

Anon-a-mouse
2008-04-23, 05:07 AM
I find it interesting that so many people are taking the "I bet companies are just waiting to see if 4e flops..." view. Realistically folks, what are the odds of that happening? I would take bets, large ones even, against that happening. Hasn't happened with any previous editions, won't happen with this one. Well, until 5E comes out anyway.


2010 then.

Jolly Steve
2008-04-23, 05:07 AM
Remember folks -

i) you can't copyright rules (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html)

ii) It's almost certainly legal to sell products with the note that they're "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 3.5" or whatever, without needing any license from WotC, as long as various criteria are met.

Kompera
2008-04-23, 05:08 AM
It has been specifically said he won't [convert OOTS to 4e]
Could you point me at the source, please? I'm not doubting you in any way, I just think that reading the discussion surrounding that announcement would be interesting.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-23, 05:16 AM
Could you point me at the source, please? I'm not doubting you in any way, I just think that reading the discussion surrounding that announcement would be interesting.Huh. I seem to have been mistaken, as the closest thing to that in the most recent "OotS in 4.0" thread makes no mention of it, only referencing the Giant's regret about making the update joke in #1. Sorry.

nagora
2008-04-23, 05:18 AM
I don't think it would be illegal. Again, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that coercion would not apply in this case. No company producing 3e compatible products is forced to produce products for 4e.

It's the fact that the change affects the companies working relationship with other companies, not just with Hasbro. This seems to have "restraint of trade" implications on parties who are not involved in the new contract.

Dunno, and I suppose, don't care. Multinationals are not noted for caring about either their suppliers, their customers, nor the quality of their product. If it could make a profit by selling D&D-branded ammo to Zimbabwe, then Hasbro would probably do it.

Kompera
2008-04-23, 05:25 AM
If it could make a profit by selling D&D-branded ammo to Zimbabwe, then Hasbro would probably do it.
While again stating that I am no lawyer, I find myself in complete agreement with your position. :smalltongue:

nagora
2008-04-23, 05:40 AM
While again stating that I am no lawyer, I find myself in complete agreement with your position. :smalltongue:

I forgot to add that they would defend their actions, and any slightly more likely actions, with the old "we have a legal responsibility to do anything that makes money for the shareholders". Faceless corporations love to wheel that excuse out when its discovered that they're doing something that would make Satan blanch.

EvilElitest
2008-04-23, 06:15 AM
I don't think anyone will reply to an essay whose premise may be fundamentally flawed because it rests on assumptions made from secondhand news.

Of course I am probably wrong, as there are plenty of people willing to have a debate over nothing.

Not totally second hand, it is subjection. What is wrong with it

From
EE

EvilElitest
2008-04-23, 06:20 AM
I tend to agree with EE's sentiments. I have my doubts about the accuracy of the issue, but it makes perfect sense to try and smother your competition in this manner, from the perspective of the megacorp.

I already have my printout of Pathfinder 1.2 though, so they can't take that away from me. I just hope Paizo continues to have the stones to stand up to WotC and ditch 4E in favor of their own creation (assuming the rumor is true, if it isn't, I want them to make 4E support material too, as horrible as I think it is, to be fair to those people)

Not that my two cents amounts to anything, as I was done with WotC as soon as they put out 4E.

Horray. Basically WotC is doing something clever. WotC might have another reason, but making sure 3E doesn't compete with 4E, which they are betting a lot on
from
EE

nagora
2008-04-23, 06:51 AM
Not totally second hand, it is subjection. What is wrong with it


"Subjection"? The act of exercising lordship or control? I'm having trouble deciding if that's what you meant to write and I just don't understand what you mean or if you meant to write something else and I'm just not seeing what it was.

J.Gellert
2008-04-23, 07:03 AM
When a company goes and does something nasty to make money... Yes it is to be expected, but no I do not have to like it. This world needs responsible companies just as much as it needs responsible consumers.

Sure, the Dark Side wins, but you do not have to be evil to make money. :smalltongue:

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 07:33 AM
And a bigger legal department might not make them win, but it'll stop the other guy from winning indefinatly.

Actually, it can't. In order for WotC to actually get anything out of such a lawsuit (even in the short run) they would need an injunction to be granted against the opposing company. Otherwise, all they will do is create legal fees for themselves and the other side. Depending upon the nature of the suit, those fees may be awarded to the defendants. Were I defendants counsel, I would definatly argue that the case is frivilous and demand fees back. Now, I do not know if Hasboro has in house counsel or not, so their own costs may be negligable (except in terms of man hours).


That kind of stuff usually doesn't happen as they have competent, legal overhead. You know, highly paid, highly experienced lawyers telling them what's possible and what's not.

You know, I always find this argument interesting. Many of the best lawyers I know do not, and never have, been highly paid lawyers in private practice. In fact, most firms I am aware of, excluding the partners, tend to have relativley green associates who do most of the work and do most of it from boilerplate.


Yes as a matter of fact I /do/ think one can be stupid enough to attempt to make definitive statements on something they have no idea about. If CEOs can be blatantly, hideously wrong about the state of their own market, they can do stupid crap like not talk to the legal department before a press release about legal matters.

They can also proceed to include provisions in contracts that may or may not really be enforcable but just as a deterrent. WotC has something of a history of this, as their ToS on the gleemax forums (which caused quite a stir some months ago) is also questionable.


Precedent: Large companies tend to crush smaller companies legally.

Actually, large companies, who are in the wrong, tend to settle with smaller companies for reasonable amounts or have legal teams that are wise enough to keep them from engaging in no-win lawsuits.


And I'm a mathematician, and reject your statistics - which can say whatever the hell somebody wants them to say - and want to see proof.

Heck, I'd settle for the actual statistics.


As for the proceeding discussions on corporate responsibility, formation of new corporations to avoid certain restrictions, yup, that is pretty much exactly what would happen. And I am a lawyer. A civil litigation lawyer who specializes in contract law and dabbles in administrative law. :)

QFT. I am not a lawyer, but will be entering a law school in fall '09 (after the wedding). I am a paralegal in a firm and mostly deal with commercial litigation and have been for over 2 years. Also, both my parents are lawyers and have been beating stuff like this into my head since I was like 4.


Yeah but the small corp would win in summary judgment. What I'm talking about really is that clear cut legally.

Not only is that the case, Hasboro would quite possibly owe fees and costs to the defendants.



What this would also mean is that Wizards can 'pull' the GSL at any time (oh, say about five years when it's time for D&D 5e) and leave all its partners, competitors and licensees hanging.

Yes and I fully expect that they will (I think seven years for 5e though). I suspect a number of execs as Hasboro are not happy about the OGL. Since they can't undo it, this is a step to mitigate it, and in a few years, kill it.


Remember folks -

i) you can't copyright rules (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html)


I'm pretty sure you can patent them though, the way WotC did with CCG's.


Horray. Basically WotC is doing something clever. WotC might have another reason, but making sure 3E doesn't compete with 4E, which they are betting a lot on
from
EE

WotC is doing something clever. Even if the langauge is unenforcable in a practical sense, that does not mean that the mere threat of enforcement will not scare some companies into going along with it.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-23, 07:56 AM
Of course, WotC, not being rubes, may see the new corporation get formed and promptly NOT sell them the license. They do have the right to NOT sell it, don't they?

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 08:01 AM
Of course, WotC, not being rubes, may see the new corporation get formed and promptly NOT sell them the license. They do have the right to NOT sell it, don't they?

Depends upon the kind of liscence. If it's like the current OGL, then no, it's public. If it is an individually agreed to liscence, then yes. Of course, going that route increases legal costs to WotC and Hasboro and potentially reduces 3rd party interest in 4e since they may not want to spend the money in legal fees when they can just use 3x.

potatocubed
2008-04-23, 08:11 AM
Of course, WotC, not being rubes, may see the new corporation get formed and promptly NOT sell them the license. They do have the right to NOT sell it, don't they?

It may go the route of the True20 licence - free and open, but the owning company reserves the right to yank your product if they choose. That would allow Wizards to block the 'second company' strategy if they have the time and inclination.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 08:18 AM
It may go the route of the True20 licence - free and open, but the owning company reserves the right to yank your product if they choose. That would allow Wizards to block the 'second company' strategy if they have the time and inclination.

Given their statments about stronger 'community standards' language in the new Liscence this seems to be the tactic they are planning to use. This does raises costs for WotC and Hasboro if they want to enforce those clauses and depending upon what they hope to get out of it may or may not be worth the trouble.

Duke of URL
2008-04-23, 08:28 AM
This subject is still mostly speculation (and Slashdot is hardly a bastion of solid, concrete, unbiased fact) until the final GSL is released.

As many folks have pointed out, it would be nearly trivial for a company to simply spawn a separate legal entity to handle publishing under 4th edition (I've been toying around with the idea of "Forefront Publishing" as a sort of pun, i.e., "4"-front), and in the end, WotC/Hasbro would gain nothing except causing these companies a bit of hassle and a few hundred dollars.

What makes much more sense from WotC/Hasbro's point of view, is to enforce the "no mixing GSL and OGL" concept to each specific product. It satisfies their goals (new content for 4e is produced specifically for 4e, and does not also compete with 4e by being published for an earlier version) without placing undue burden on the 3rd-party publishers.

Taking Victorious Press as an example, there are four products in the development pipeline now (well, four actually being worked on -- the pipeline of ideas is deeper) for our upcoming launch. Three of these products are very specific to the 3.5 edition -- I don't see any reasonable way of converting them to 4e without completely re-writing them. The remaining product could be published under either system, it would just take some retooling of its mechanics. Future products could be developed for either system, though some of those might be too tied to 3.5 to ever really work as 4e products.

If they go this more sensible route, what does it mean to VP? Mostly that we will have to decide which version to publish each product for, when there isn't a true dependency on one mechanic or the other, meaning we'll lose the opportunity to leverage some work for 3.5 in our 4e products, and vice-versa.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-04-23, 08:29 AM
Well, all I can do is echo Solo here - there is an awful lot said about this which, to be honest, noone should trust. No offence to the lawyers, here, but this is the internet, and, as ljdrama noted, we are all e-lawyers.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about international and treaty law, but, unless WotC begin their own genocide, or illegally invade and occupy White Wolf, my knowledge of the Rome Statute ain't worth jack.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 08:39 AM
This subject is still mostly speculation (and Slashdot is hardly a bastion of solid, concrete, unbiased fact) until the final GSL is released.


Well yes, any decisions or serious discussion of the legal issues must wait until after the GSL is actually released. Speculation can be fun though!

Fhaolan
2008-04-23, 08:59 AM
I've read through the entire ENWorld forum thread, and I've noticed something that may or may not be relevant.

The fellow who is the brand manager for D&D in WotC hasn't seen the final GSL yet. He apparantly won't get to a chance to analyze it properly until Friday this week, due to other commitments.

And yet, he was one of the major forces in WotC pushing for creating a OSG-like entity for 4th ed.

Given what his job is, I would have thought that he would have been in on the creation of the GSL itself, in an advisory capacity at least. This implies that he *wasn't*, which makes me think that this GSL is being imposed upon WotC by Hasbro, rather than something WotC came up with on their own.

Even with WotC's past history of shenannigans, I'm getting the distinct impression that there are parts of 4e, including the GSL, that are being dictacted to WotC by their parent company in a nasty kind of 'do what I say or you're out' kind of way.

I could be wrong, of course. This is all just my personal opinion.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 09:08 AM
Even with WotC's past history of shenannigans, I'm getting the distinct impression that there are parts of 4e, including the GSL, that are being dictacted to WotC by their parent company in a nasty kind of 'do what I say or you're out' kind of way.


I had pretty much assumed that this was the case all along. Why buy a company if you don't plan to dictate to it? Shut up Mr. Buffet!

Duke of URL
2008-04-23, 09:15 AM
Why buy a company if you don't plan to dictate to it? Shut up Mr. Buffet!

Because it was profitable doing what it was doing, and so just leave it alone to keep doing it?

Nah, that'd never fly...

Unfortunately, I'm not being sarcastic, companies who acquire other companies never seem to follow this simple strategy.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 09:17 AM
Because it was profitable doing what it was doing, and so just leave it alone to keep doing it?

Nah, that'd never fly...

Unfortunately, I'm not being sarcastic, companies who acquire other companies never seem to follow this simple strategy.

I see you missed the white text. :smallwink:

nagora
2008-04-23, 09:19 AM
I had pretty much assumed that this was the case all along. Why buy a company if you don't plan to dictate to it? Shut up Mr. Buffet!

Because they're doing a great job and you want the profits? It's just a thought.

Sleet
2008-04-23, 11:24 AM
Actually, large companies, who are in the wrong, tend to settle with smaller companies for reasonable amounts or have legal teams that are wise enough to keep them from engaging in no-win lawsuits.

Heh. Forgive my cynical laughter. I've watched a very large company walk all over a much smaller one belonging to a close relative, driving them close to bankruptcy.

I'm not nearly so trusting anymore.

Fhaolan
2008-04-23, 11:38 AM
Because they're doing a great job and you want the profits? It's just a thought.

Unfortunately, that doesn't match the history of D&D. WotC bought TSR because at the time TSR didn't have any profits. Due to some bad business decisions, TSR and the D&D brand was actually losing money quite fast. They were supposedly in the process of filing for full bankruptcy when WotC stepped in as a 'white knight' buyer. WotC thought they could turn TSR's brands around and actually make money off of them.

Which they did.

Then Hasbro stepped in and bought out WotC. And I have to assume they believed the same thing, that they (Hasbro) could do a better job at running WotC than WotC could, and get *even more profit* out of it.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 11:49 AM
Also, even if I was having this conversation with a long-time friend of mine who I know is a lawyer, I would not take his word for it just because it is his word on the subject. I judge an argument on its own merit, not on the authority of the person making the arguement.
That's ludicrous. We're discussing a legal matter. By definition the lawyer's argument carries more weight, if you assume honesty from people (That is, that they're not trying to obfuscate the truth). That's like saying you wouldn't listen to a physicist tell you how the Theory of Relativity works in favor of some unschooled person, just because the unschooled person sounds more agreeable.



I said it was a cheap shot.
You were also taking it, via implication.


2010 then.
If past is indicative of present, 2016, minimum. I sincerely hope you're not a 3.X fan, since 3.0 came out just as soon after 2e as 4e did after 3e :smallbiggrin:

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 12:05 PM
Then Hasbro stepped in and bought out WotC. And I have to assume they believed the same thing, that they (Hasbro) could do a better job at running WotC than WotC could, and get *even more profit* out of it.

I wonder. Does Hasbro own any other table top RPG brands? Did it at some time? It never occurred to me before but if they have they may have a track record in terms of this sort of thing that we can extrapolate from.

Also, for the record, since it seems my little joke just seemed to confuse people: I fully expected Hasbro to dictate to WotC once it bought WotC. I was joking about 'why else would you buy a company' (hence the Warren Buffet reference in white, since he built part of his fortune by buying companies, installing his own CFO, and then leaving them the heck alone).

Artanis
2008-04-23, 12:11 PM
Hrm, I recall seeing the Hasbro logo in the opening cinematic for MechCommander...maybe they had something to do with Battletech? *shrug* I'll look into it a bit.

Anon-a-mouse
2008-04-23, 12:49 PM
If past is indicative of present, 2016, minimum. I sincerely hope you're not a 3.X fan, since 3.0 came out just as soon after 2e as 4e did after 3e :smallbiggrin:

Only if you don't count 3.5. Even then it's actually (unless I'm mistaken) 11 years fron 2e to 3e and 8 from 3e to 4e. Counting 3.0 to 3.5 it's 3 years.

These sorts of things have a tendency to get worse anyway. Just look at how often premiership football clubs change their kits.

Of what has been revealed of 4e, I like some bits and dislike other bits. Overall my tendancy is towards dislike. There are a few areas in which I prefer 2e to 3e. But my personal preferences are irrelevant. I believe 4e is more likely to flop than 3e was because they've changed too much (which serves no real purpose and risks alienating people) and because there's a lot less room for improvement (look at the saves in 2e). Even if 4e turns out to be a great system (and it's too early to say that it won't) there is not a lot of reason for people to ditch 3e.

If the 4e PHB hasn't been superseded (either by 5e or by 4.5) by 2016, I will eat my hat and post a film of it on youtube.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 12:52 PM
No, I wasn't counting 3.0 to 3.5. 2e had a '2.5' of sorts, it just wasn't called that; I was going straight by the .0s.

I'll be amazed if 4.0 survives without a .5 til 2016 (Since every edition has had a .5) but I'll be far less surprised if it makes it without a 5.0

Fhaolan
2008-04-23, 12:56 PM
I wonder. Does Hasbro own any other table top RPG brands? Did it at some time? It never occurred to me before but if they have they may have a track record in terms of this sort of thing that we can extrapolate from.


Technically, yes, through I'm not sure it helps. The Avalon Hill brand was purchased by Hasbro in 1998, one year before they bought WotC. Avalon Hill had a few RPGs, but think they were all dropped when Hasbro took over. Everything else got handed over to WotC during the restructure. Other than that, I believe Parker Brothers and Milton Bradly (also subs of Hasbro) had computer-based RPG-type things, but not table-top.

RukiTanuki
2008-04-23, 01:24 PM
Aw... I come back to find five pages of legal chatter. (And a thread merging... which, bravo, probably needed done, and I know my post was a minute after this one, but to my knowledge, OGL isn't getting banned. To clarify, I'm not requesting a change, thanks for the merge.)

Hopefully, the conversation can be steered away from "what companies can or cannot do" and a discussion of the potential impact this decision Wizards (may have) made will have on the game.

The whole thing's a nice complicated quagmire, and I'm trying to make sure I've got the OGL, STL, and GSL all separate in my head.

I look at it this way: 3rd Edition publishing is unchanged. 4th Edition publishing is exactly what it was planned to be before this came to light. Both offer publishing opportunities far beyond what's been offered in the industry before.

I can't fault Wizards for saying "We want you to stand proudly behind 4th Edition, not shyly poke at it halfway with a stick while you figure out whether supporting it is in your best interests." At least, I can't blame them anymore than I can blame publishers for saying "We'd like to publish content for both and market to everyone."

The very interesting question to me is that if this is real, and if it's enforceable literally as a "pick one or the other" dilemma... what will the publishers do?

That's what I'd like to talk about. :)

Starshade
2008-04-23, 01:25 PM
My though, is why did 3. ed really work? was it the OGL who make it popular in first place?

Wont this possibly hurt the firms who started making products who helped their profits? :smallconfused:

nagora
2008-04-23, 01:30 PM
The very interesting question to me is that if this is real, and if it's enforceable literally as a "pick one or the other" dilemma... what will the publishers do?

That's what I'd like to talk about. :)

Without this new idea of having to pick one, most publishers probably would have pushed out a couple of new 4ed products and waited to see how they sold. This makes it hard to do that and, financially, it would be madness to just turn your back on a thriving 3ed product line just because Hasbro promises that 4e is going to be da bomb.

Legally, I think Hasbro are forcing many publishers to NOT back 4ed because they have dramatically increased the risk involved if 4ed isn't an overnight success. Even a slow burn to good sales is bad news for anyone who is currently getting decend 3ed sales because they lose all that cashflow while the new system establishes itself.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 01:36 PM
Legally, I think Hasbro are forcing many publishers to NOT back 4ed because they have dramatically increased the risk involved if 4ed isn't an overnight success. Even a slow burn to good sales is bad news for anyone who is currently getting decend 3ed sales because they lose all that cashflow while the new system establishes itself.

There is also an additional risk, depending upon the language of the GSL. If the move to 4e is 'irrevocable' then WotC could, potentially, through use of the expected stronger 'community standards' clause, selectivley block publishers from putting out enough material to stay in business. Now, I don't know of Hasbro is that short sighted/evil, but if I owned a publishing company it would worry me.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 01:39 PM
...I thought you did own/work part time at a publishing company? The whole Victorious Press thing?

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 01:51 PM
...I thought you did own/work part time at a publishing company? The whole Victorious Press thing?

I do. Sorta. I don't get paid or anything. VP is just getting off the ground and I don't own it. However, yes, we are already having discussions about this.

I'm not worrying too much about it yet, since the current projects are 3.5 and at least 2 of them really can't be converted easily or at all. Also, I don't know what the actual language will be yet. I'm willing to speculate on threads about what the legal implications would be in one case or another but I'm not even going to worry about it in terms of VP until I see the actual legal langauge.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 01:53 PM
That would effectively be the only time you could make real decisions, I'll agree with that. Just making sure I wasn't crazy on the VP thing.

Overlord
2008-04-23, 01:57 PM
If past is indicative of present, 2016, minimum. I sincerely hope you're not a 3.X fan, since 3.0 came out just as soon after 2e as 4e did after 3e :smallbiggrin:

No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D), 2nd Edition came out in 1989. 3E came out in 2000. 4E is scheduled for this year, 2008. Eight years wouldn't be as big a deal for people, but 3.5 came out in 2003. That's why people are getting annoyed.

EDIT: Epically Ninja'd, but first with a link to the all-important, infallible Wikipedia page. :smallbiggrin:

RukiTanuki
2008-04-23, 02:03 PM
My though, is why did 3. ed really work? was it the OGL who make it popular in first place?

Wont this possibly hurt the firms who started making products who helped their profits? :smallconfused:

I can see two ways this can "hurt" publishers:
* They are not being given a theoretical opportunity; they cannot sell the things they currently sell, and sell 4th Edition content at the same type.
* Their current market may be altered by the release of 4th Edition. They're being asked to decide which market will be best for them.

It's not really "hurting" them in a "take away something they already have" sense. The new offer being made is just much more strict that expected.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 02:11 PM
No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D), 2nd Edition came out in 1989. 3E came out in 2000. 4E is scheduled for this year, 2008. Eight years wouldn't be as big a deal for people, but 3.5 came out in 2003. That's why people are getting annoyed.

EDIT: Epically Ninja'd, but first with a link to the all-important, infallible Wikipedia page. :smallbiggrin:

2nd Ed Revised came out in 1995, as per your own link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons _.26_Dragons_2nd_edition

potatocubed
2008-04-23, 02:13 PM
I can't fault Wizards for saying "We want you to stand proudly behind 4th Edition, not shyly poke at it halfway with a stick while you figure out whether supporting it is in your best interests." At least, I can't blame them anymore than I can blame publishers for saying "We'd like to publish content for both and market to everyone."

The very interesting question to me is that if this is real, and if it's enforceable literally as a "pick one or the other" dilemma... what will the publishers do?

My prediction, if this is all real and enforceable, is that publishers who already have 3.5 or OGL-based products will avoid 4e like the plague. Necromancer have come out in favour of 4e already, but Mongoose, Paizo and Green Ronin are all strongly committed to the OGL.

However, the GSL may fuel a boom in small 4e publishers in much the same way as the OGL fuelled a boom in small 3e publishers. The problem with this is that 4e has so far completely and comprehensively failed to generate buzz. When 3e came out, there was a groundswell of support for the new edition, which provided a strong market for the million and one small presses. Fourth edition hasn't done that yet. Everybody's kind of 'meh' about it.

I think that the GSL is actually a reaction to that 'meh', and it's not the first attempt by Wizards to artificially generate interest. If people were really wound up about the new edition they wouldn't need to legally separate the editions - they could trust the market to swing with them. But 4e is nothing special, so they're trying to force it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - Wizards' handling of this process has been diabolical. People wanted information at Gencon last year, and there wasn't any. People wanted information at 'the phone call' in January, and there wasn't any. People want information at GAMA, right now, and there isn't any. I don't think it's so much a case of 'evil corporation' as it is a case of 'huge internal ****-up'.

Overlord
2008-04-23, 02:18 PM
2nd Ed Revised came out in 1995, as per your own link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons _.26_Dragons_2nd_edition

At least they had the sense not to call it a new edition. :smalltongue:

I think the main reason 3.0 was accepted better than 4.0 is going to be is because it seemed more acceptable for Wizards to make the new edition sense they had just taken over the brand. They were the ones who made 3.5, though, so some people felt that it was their "fault" that 4th Ed was coming out so soon after 3.5.

Duke of URL
2008-04-23, 02:23 PM
However, the GSL may fuel a boom in small 4e publishers in much the same way as the OGL fuelled a boom in small 3e publishers. The problem with this is that 4e has so far completely and comprehensively failed to generate buzz. When 3e came out, there was a groundswell of support for the new edition, which provided a strong market for the million and one small presses. Fourth edition hasn't done that yet. Everybody's kind of 'meh' about it.

Part of the problem is that virtually no one has any clue as to what the 4e SRD is going to be, yet. How can an indie developer start working on 4e products without knowing a) the system at all, and b) what the license terms will be?

Sure, you can do things like plot out adventures, subject to tweaking for the actual mechanics, but if they really wanted third-party support close to initial launch, they would have 1) provided more information to existing third-party developers, and 2) not scare the **** out of those developers, to the point that it seems like they're actively excluding them.

Rutee
2008-04-23, 02:23 PM
I'll admit there's a certain brand of illogic to the stance. But that doesn't change that you can't level claims of 5e in 2 years on 4e any more then you can on 3rd ed. Heck, if they were going to go for broke on namewhoring, 4e would have been out 2 years ago; Clearly, DnD players will buy, perhaps grumblingly, a new set of core books in 3 years. They waited 5 years (If you count development time; I do because it doesn't change anything anyway, dev time is always a factor :P). They're not being nearly as bad about this as they're being portrayed.

I'm given to understand that 3.5 was as much of a priority as it was because of Living Greyhawk, really. People were TPKing on a regular basis due to DR at the time requiring +X; A CR 12 encounter might require a +3, or whatnot. And if that CR 12 was the 'final boss' for a group of ECL 8 or 9, then it was literally impossible (In Living Greyhawk, where you had to be Level X to buy +Y to your sword) to overcome that DR, and it made TPKs more common.

potatocubed
2008-04-23, 02:29 PM
Part of the problem is that virtually no one has any clue as to what the 4e SRD is going to be, yet. How can an indie developer start working on 4e products without knowing a) the system at all, and b) what the license terms will be?

Yeah, pretty much. Wizards needed to get out more information, sooner, but they didn't. The impression I got was that 4e was announced and mega-hyped months before anyone had actually written any material for it. Bad, bad management.

nagora
2008-04-23, 02:34 PM
There is also an additional risk, depending upon the language of the GSL. If the move to 4e is 'irrevocable' then WotC could, potentially, through use of the expected stronger 'community standards' clause, selectivley block publishers from putting out enough material to stay in business. Now, I don't know of Hasbro is that short sighted/evil, but if I owned a publishing company it would worry me.

All the more reason to stay back at 3.5 and let guinea-pigs like Necromancer taste the waterhole and see if it's poisoned or not. The late-comers can move up to 4 any time; the early-comers can't so easliy go back, or might not be able to. Let them and Hasbro take the risk.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-23, 02:34 PM
If you have no existing products, jumping on the 4e bandwagon is probably a good idea. You can always go back to 3.x if it all goes pear-shaped.

Maybe. It depends very much on what the SRD and GSL eventually look like. If to get any of the really needed stuff you need to enter a more expansive, and costly, contract with WotC then most start-ups will probably be knocked down just on the basis of start up cost alone.

TheThan
2008-04-23, 06:39 PM
It hurts smaller companies because they will not have the whole market open to them. They are being forced to sell to either the 4th edition crowd or the 3rd edition crowd. With no information on what the full system looks like, and what the GSL will look like they will have to make a tough choice. They have to play it safe and stay with 3rd or take a huge risk in switching to 4th.

If they choose to switch to 4th edition, they are being forced to abandon their previous 3rd edition products; thusly they are being forced to alienate their consumers that are still playing 3rd edition.

If 4th edition bombs, then those companies that switched to 4th will loose money, and can very easily go out of business, particularly if their very small start up companies like VP.

A huge company like Hasbro can take that sort of loss. Since they have tons of other products they sell aside from the WOTC made products; they can survive that sort of big hit. A smaller company probably won’t be able to. Sure they won’t want to take that hit to their bottom line, but if it happens they can afford it.

Hasbro has the finical clout to control the RPG industry and its using it to do just that.

EvilElitest
2008-04-23, 08:15 PM
It hurts smaller companies because they will not have the whole market open to them. They are being forced to sell to either the 4th edition crowd or the 3rd edition crowd. With no information on what the full system looks like, and what the GSL will look like they will have to make a tough choice. They have to play it safe and stay with 3rd or take a huge risk in switching to 4th.

If they choose to switch to 4th edition, they are being forced to abandon their previous 3rd edition products; thusly they are being forced to alienate their consumers that are still playing 3rd edition.

If 4th edition bombs, then those companies that switched to 4th will loose money, and can very easily go out of business, particularly if their very small start up companies like VP.

A huge company like Hasbro can take that sort of loss. Since they have tons of other products they sell aside from the WOTC made products; they can survive that sort of big hit. A smaller company probably won’t be able to. Sure they won’t want to take that hit to their bottom line, but if it happens they can afford it.

Hasbro has the finical clout to control the RPG industry and its using it to do just that.

Actually as i said in my mega essay/speculation (hint hint people, read it) i think that sticking with 3E is more risky. Even if 4E is like the F.A.T.A.L. of Table Top RPGs (and even i am not predicting that) many people will buy it before playing it because it is the newest thing and tehy pre ordered it. And for all my dislike for 4E, i don't think it will fail miserable, through it might lose money and not be as good as people claim, it will sell. Most sellers have an advantage in going alone with the newest thing, because odds are it is going to do well because it is the newest thing that WotC is putting all of their effort into. As for 3.5 or 3.7 or what ever it might be, you are risking being left behind with the times

Also AKA bait, was my theory at all close to the mark?





"Subjection"? The act of exercising lordship or control? I'm having trouble deciding if that's what you meant to write and I just don't understand what you mean or if you meant to write something else and I'm just not seeing what it was.

sorry, i meant subjective, as it my word isn't absolute. I like my theory it makes sense and sadly nobody has pointed out its flaws yet.

from
EE

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-04-23, 08:38 PM
Well, I guess this confirms my intent to never touch 4.x. I enjoy 3.5 too much to give it up forever and for all time the moment I touch a 4.0 anything.

Congratulations, Wizard. You're further alienating those people who might eventually be tempted to browse it. You've lost all potential to lure those people who enjoy 3.5 into trying 4.0 if they hadn't already decided to do so by threatening to sue them if they do so and go back to 3.5.

In short, they are saying that once you try 4.0, you can *NEVER* go back. So if 4.0 is one of the worst systems on record, with more rules lawyering than GURPS and more rules inconsistancy than RIFTS, you would never be able to go back to 3.5 once you figured this out. That is enough to scare the fence sitters off.

It also screws themselves over. You see, you can't use anything in the 3.5 SRD if you use 4.0. That means everything save seven or eight entries in the Monster Manual. Congratulations, you've just prohibited yourself from using your own monsters. Brilliant!

Thinker
2008-04-23, 09:06 PM
Well, I guess this confirms my intent to never touch 4.x. I enjoy 3.5 too much to give it up forever and for all time the moment I touch a 4.0 anything.

Congratulations, Wizard. You're further alienating those people who might eventually be tempted to browse it. You've lost all potential to lure those people who enjoy 3.5 into trying 4.0 if they hadn't already decided to do so by threatening to sue them if they do so and go back to 3.5.

In short, they are saying that once you try 4.0, you can *NEVER* go back. So if 4.0 is one of the worst systems on record, with more rules lawyering than GURPS and more rules inconsistancy than RIFTS, you would never be able to go back to 3.5 once you figured this out. That is enough to scare the fence sitters off.

It also screws themselves over. You see, you can't use anything in the 3.5 SRD if you use 4.0. That means everything save seven or eight entries in the Monster Manual. Congratulations, you've just prohibited yourself from using your own monsters. Brilliant!

Are you confusing playing with game design?

And to EE: No.

EvilElitest
2008-04-23, 09:08 PM
Are you confusing playing with game design?

And to EE: No.

You do realize that all i want is a detailed reason for why i'm wrong. Ergo, what specifically is wrong with my theory
from
EE

Leewei
2008-04-23, 09:26 PM
I'll start by saying that I'm not a lawyer. I am, however, a rules-lawyer. :smallbiggrin:

I also have a job where I frequently deal with small manufacturers. By the American laws governing incorporation, it is completely acceptable to have a dozen businesses operating out of the same building with the same office and manufacturing equipment and employees. The tricks to doing this are sketched out elsewhere in the thread. It's a valuable cornerstone of the American economy. Many business owners wouldn't take the risk of starting a new enterprise if they couldn't protect themselves and their other enterprises from possible liabilities using incorporation.

It just sounds weird as hell to people who aren't used to the notion.

Since a different corporation is a different entity, open contracts could not reasonably expect to bind other, related entities to their terms. At a glance, incorporating to dodge the proposed 4E license looks like a solid practice for more reasons than just the dodge.

Having said this, what recourse would WotC-Hasbro have? 4E license would probably have to NOT be open but rather a signed agreement which WotC-Hasbro could then implement as they saw fit. Even then, I can think of a dodge or two.

Thinker
2008-04-23, 10:14 PM
You do realize that all i want is a detailed reason for why i'm wrong. Ergo, what specifically is wrong with my theory
from
EE

You do realize I have no intention of reading your essay. I skimmed it and didn't agree with it. I don't have to give a detailed response.

Solo
2008-04-23, 10:19 PM
Question: Why is this still going on?

The original complaint was hearsay. It was not enough evidence to spawn a six page debate over.

EvilElitest
2008-04-23, 10:19 PM
You do realize I have no intention of reading your essay. I skimmed it and didn't agree with it. I don't have to give a detailed response.

Why not? What is wrong with it? I'm sure it has plenty of mistakes, but nothing is accomplished by saying "Its wrong, i don't bother" on ether end
from
EE

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 12:06 AM
That's ludicrous. We're discussing a legal matter. By definition the lawyer's argument carries more weight, if you assume honesty from people (That is, that they're not trying to obfuscate the truth). That's like saying you wouldn't listen to a physicist tell you how the Theory of Relativity works in favor of some unschooled person, just because the unschooled person sounds more agreeable.

Nope, that's logic. The soundness of an argument is not changed based on the person delivering it.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical _fallacy)

Roland St. Jude
2008-04-24, 12:07 AM
Question: Why is this still going on?

The original complaint was hearsay. It was not enough evidence to spawn a six page debate over.

Welcome to the internet. :smallamused:

Woot Spitum
2008-04-24, 12:19 AM
I honestly think it would be more risky for companies to stick with 3.5 than it would be for them to switch to fourth edition, simply because there is so much less content out there for fourth edition (none actually) compared to 3.5. The problem with continuing to publish material for 3.5 is that there are very few ideas for new books out there that could sell enough to be financially viable. People have already been complaining for some time now about the glut of sourcebooks out there that they wouldn't pay five dollars for, much less the thirty dollar actual price. Most of the interesting things that could be done with third edition have already been done, except for a complete overhaul. Therefore it makes more sense to swich to the overhaul (fourth edition) than it does to stay with the current system.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-24, 12:27 AM
Nope, that's logic. The soundness of an argument is not changed based on the person delivering it.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical _fallacy)

Appeal to Authority is when the authority is an authority on something else. It's like saying "such-and-such, PhD, says...", when we're talking about physics and the guy's PhD is in, I dunno, Philosophy.

If the authority in question is an expert on a subject, it's perfectly appropriate to invoke them.

Tallis
2008-04-24, 12:32 AM
Alright, I only read the first few pots, not the whole 7 pages, so sorry if someone already said this.

It wouldn't be all that hard for a company to get around a WotC rule saying they can't do both 3.5 and 4e. They could trademark and register a new name then publish 3.5 products under one name and 4e under the other. Legally, as long as they kept separate books for each, they would be separate companies and not bound by the same contracts.

Paizo is already working on a safety net for this with their Pathfinder RPG. If Pathfinder is sufficiently changed to not be published as OGL then it wouldn't interfere with a 4e license.

That opens up questions about other d20 games like Mutants and Masterminds. Since they are separate games rather than 3.5 D&D are they affected by a prohibition against doing 3.5 and 4e?

Edit: Okay, so I've read a bit more and I see this was already brought up. Just take this as agreeing with the people that've already said it.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 12:37 AM
Appeal to Authority is when the authority is an authority on something else. It's like saying "such-and-such, PhD, says...", when we're talking about physics and the guy's PhD is in, I dunno, Philosophy.

If the authority in question is an expert on a subject, it's perfectly appropriate to invoke them.

Logic doesn't work that way.

TheThan
2008-04-24, 12:38 AM
Actually as i said in my mega essay/speculation (hint hint people, read it) i think that sticking with 3E is more risky. Even if 4E is like the F.A.T.A.L. of Table Top RPGs (and even i am not predicting that) many people will buy it before playing it because it is the newest thing and tehy pre ordered it. And for all my dislike for 4E, i don't think it will fail miserable, through it might lose money and not be as good as people claim, it will sell. Most sellers have an advantage in going alone with the newest thing, because odds are it is going to do well because it is the newest thing that WotC is putting all of their effort into. As for 3.5 or 3.7 or what ever it might be, you are risking being left behind with the times

Also AKA bait, was my theory at all close to the mark?

from
EE

It does hurt 3rd party businesses. The system will make money in the short term. But once the gaming community gets a hold of it and starts dissecting it, we’ll see whether it has the stuff to survive.

Being able to “test the waters” as it were and make 3rd and 4th edition products is a very safe business decision. Because even if 4th edition fails, that business still has 3rd to fall back on. If 4th takes off and starts to really make people money, they can choose to refocus their resources on 4th and abandon 3rd altogether.

But being forced to permanently choose between the two current systems forced a company to make a very risky business decision. Either they upgrade to a new system and risk that system failing or make a safer business decision and risk getting left in the dust by their competitors, should 4th edition prove to be as good as WOTC’s hype.

The biggest problem with this whole thing is that people are going to be forced to make that decision before they even get to see the new edition.

Tallis
2008-04-24, 12:59 AM
If so, you probably won't be allowed to discuss 4ed homebrew on these forums, since the giant will probably want to keep publishing his OGL comic (unless the oots moves to 4ed).

I would be surprised if OotS didn't switch to 4e. It did start out highlighting the change from 3e to 3.5 after all (reread the first strip). This changeover could be even better since it'll be more significant.

Norsesmithy
2008-04-24, 01:08 AM
Logic doesn't work that way.

No, it does.

Unless you were to site precedent cases and show relevant statutes, a lawyers word, on legal matters, has a higher value than a lay-man's.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority in question is in no stronger a position than a Layman. For instance a Catholic Priest telling you how to file income taxes, or podiatrist advertising for laser eye surgery.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-04-24, 01:20 AM
No, it does.

Unless you were to site precedent cases and show relevant statutes, a lawyers word, on legal matters, has a higher value than a lay-man's.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority in question is in no stronger a position than a Layman. For instance a Catholic Priest telling you how to file income taxes, or podiatrist advertising for laser eye surgery.

Actually, as a world-class expert on critical thinking (:smallwink:), it doesn't. Maybe it's more likely if the lawyer says it, but if neither side's stated a case beyond their credentials, then you can't give it to the lawyer on those grounds.

Sorry, but this is logic. You need facts/arguments/counterarguments for logic, not status.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 01:22 AM
Yeah, but those have all been provided. Basically, Skjald is taking unschooled, uninformed opinions over informed ones.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-04-24, 01:25 AM
Yes, and Skjaldbakka & co. provided counter examples (including why it's a bad idea to take anything at face value on the internet - news, profession, etc).

Saying 'I'm a lawyer' isn't a 'win argument' card.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 01:28 AM
Skjald didn't provide a counter argument. And it may not be an "I win" card, but it sure as hell grants some gravity in a legal discussion.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 01:29 AM
No, it does.

Unless you were to site precedent cases and show relevant statutes, a lawyers word, on legal matters, has a higher value than a lay-man's.

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority in question is in no stronger a position than a Layman. For instance a Catholic Priest telling you how to file income taxes, or podiatrist advertising for laser eye surgery.

And now we have a circular argument. It is, in point of fact, impossible for your statement to be true, or at least for me to accept it, as I happen to be an authority in the subject of logic.

We are left with two possibilities. Either the argument is more important than the credentials of the person making the arguement, or the credentials are more important than the arguement.

If the credentials are more important, than either you (and every other person involved in this side debate) must be authorities in the field of logic as well, or else you have proven that the (superior) arguement of a lay person takes precedent over the credentials of a professional. Since this is a logical contradiction, it cannot be true. A statement cannot both be true and false.

In your specific examples, if the Catholic Priest happens to know a thing or two about filing income taxes, and gives sound advice in doing so, then his advice is no less sound for it coming from a priest. Are you likely to seek out a priest for this service? No. Seeking out someone with credentials to give you advice is not a logical fallacy. Assuming that someone is right because they have credentials, IS.


The only exception to this is if the subject matter about which you seek advice is so baffling to you that you can't make heads or tails of it. In which case you are wise to seek out a second opinion on the matter, as even professionals are sometimes wrong. That fact being the reason an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and is always a logical fallacy.


Skjald didn't provide a counter argument. And it may not be an "I win" card, but it sure as hell grants some gravity in a legal discussion.

I don't need to provide any counter argument, because I didn't make any claims about the legal matter at hand. All I said was that what EE said makes some amount of sense, but that I don't think WotC is actually pulling a stunt like that.

Which got blown out of proportion when logical fallacy kept getting thrown in my face to somehow 'disprove' my claims. Not that I made any. Prehaps I am guilty of the same kind of nitpicking that a English professor might make when people say rouge when they mean rogue. I don't like letting flat out failures in logic stand.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 01:30 AM
What 'superior arguments'? All you've said was "I don't think it works that way, because someone else doesn't htink so" You in point of fact did the exact same logical fallacy, but you did so /to someone who wasn't an authority/.

In short: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/JeepJeep8/facepalm.jpg

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 01:35 AM
In my use of the word superior, I was not referring to my own arguement, but rather the arguements of you guys(on the subject of logic, not on the main thread topic) if you are in fact right.

You in fact cannot be right at this point, because you would attack your own premise (that argument from authority is valid) in order to even start.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 01:37 AM
Lest ye have forgotten, the central premise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4231537#post4231537)
Poor form for logicians to engage in obfuscation. Poor form.

Oh, and a twofer.


I tend to agree with EE's sentiments. I have my doubts about the accuracy of the issue, but it makes perfect sense to try and smother your competition in this manner, from the perspective of the megacorp.

1: An appeal to authority.
2: Not an actual counter argument.

In short: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/JeepJeep8/facepalm.jpg

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 01:43 AM
I am not obfuscating anything. My point is not that you are wrong about the main topic of this thread because you have lawyers.

My point is that argument from authority is never logically valid. Which is true, and you can't win an argument to the contrary, because that logical truth is, in addition to being true, also supportable by arguments from authority (which are only valid if you are right).

In other words, if arguments from authority are logically valid, then arguments from authority are not logically valid, because he, himself, said it*.

*referring to Aristotle here, if you don't get the reference.


I tend to agree with EE's sentiments. I have my doubts about the accuracy of the issue, but it makes perfect sense to try and smother your competition in this manner, from the perspective of the megacorp.

Not an appeal to authority, because I wasn't making an argument. I was expressing my general sentiment on the topic of the thread.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-24, 01:44 AM
Logic doesn't work that way.

Of course it does! A lawyer is a more trustworthy source on law than someone who isn't one. Duh.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 01:47 AM
Of course it does! A lawyer is a more trustworthy source on law than someone who isn't one. Duh.

True. However, just because a lawyer says something about the law, and someone who is not a lawyer says something different, does not necessarily imply that the statement made by the lawyer is true.

That is the point I was trying to make, which was a relatively minor one, and a logician's nitpicking, but it seems to have gotten blown all out of proportion.


Yes, and Skjaldbakka & co. provided counter examples (including why it's a bad idea to take anything at face value on the internet - news, profession, etc).

Just to clarify, while I may or may not be part of the co. on that side of the argument, I am certainly not the head of the group. I have made no attempts to support either side's argument, except to make a minor logical correction. Does this someone make me on the side of the ones he did not make that particular logical error? No.

Also, I think it is probably more EE % co.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 01:50 AM
He's saying that the crux of the argument, due to my phrasing, is that those schooled in law automatically know more. The crux of the argument is the above post. It happens to have, as some backup, that it's been agreed upon by the more schooled. While it's true that the argument can't sustain itself on "I know more, so I'm right", that's not exactly the central crux.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 01:51 AM
He's saying that the crux of the argument, due to my phrasing, is that those schooled in law automatically know more. The crux of the argument is the above post. It happens to have, as some backup, that it's been agreed upon by the more schooled. While it's true that the argument can't sustain itself on "I know more, so I'm right", that's not exactly the central crux.

That is not what I am saying at all. I'm not going to repeat what I said, because to do so would be to assume that you haven't been reading what I've been saying. Which would be rude.

Charity
2008-04-24, 01:53 AM
Just back from the taxidermist, I'm selling my house and I prefered the taxidermists assesment on how long the transaction would take over that know it all solicitor.
thats logic.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-24, 01:55 AM
True. However, just because a lawyer says something about the law, and someone who is not a lawyer says something different, does not necessarily imply that the statement made by the lawyer is true.

That is the point I was trying to make, which was a relatively minor one, and a logician's nitpicking, but it seems to have gotten blown all out of proportion.

You are correct. However in this case the lawyer, the intern, and the paralegal are all right.

What we are talking about is done all the time, its almost more common than not. Hell, I got my parents to set up a holding corporation owned by a trust to own their home and property. It's better for tax and liability reasons. Their total net worth is nothing, all of its owned by the holding corporation. This means that any civil suit against my parents can't touch any of those assets.

If WotC writes the license like is being talked about then this is a perfectly legit way to get around it. If WotC adds in a "we can yoink it from you at any time for any reason with no warning clause" you need to use different tactics but it can still generally be gotten around.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 02:06 AM
Somehow, I had few doubts that you would fail to understand the basic principle of logic that I was talking about. I've found that people who study law tend to be somewhat versed in the field of logic and debate as well. Which of course makes sense.

Now that that has been settled, we can get back to the actual discussion.

For those that are curious, based on what people have said from since I got de-railed by this logic debate, I still tend to think that WotC is unlikely to try and pull a stunt like that, especially in light of the ways it could be got around.

I'd like to think that WotC wouldn't pull a stunt like that because it would be dirty and underhanded, but I probably can't count on that.

My running theory at the moment is that WotC (more likely Hasbro) is planning to pull 4E out from under the competition when they release 5E, by making the new version of OGL something they can revoke. I still have some small hope for corporate decency, but facelessness can make people more dirty and underhanded than they otherwise would be, and corporations like Hasbro are faceless.

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-24, 02:20 AM
Somehow, I had few doubts that you would fail to understand the basic principle of logic that I was talking about.

Appeal to authority? I understand it. I just find the whole thing meaningless to the discussion at hand. I don't know the relevant law off the top of my head, I know its possible and even how to do it in general terms but I can't site specific case law to prove my point.

I know that you won't find any US case law to support yours though (this stuff has been settled law for decades).

So, basically, its not worth mine or anyone else's time to look up the evidence to prove our position to your satisfaction.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 02:26 AM
I never said "you guys are making an appeal to authority, and are therefore wrong". That is in itself a logical fallacy as well.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 02:27 AM
You know, I think by his diction, he meant to say "I had few doubts you would understand.." rather then "Fail to understand". It just seems strange to say "I didn't think you would get it, since you have some grounding in this thought process"

Emperor Tippy
2008-04-24, 02:39 AM
You know, I think by his diction, he meant to say "I had few doubts you would understand.." rather then "Fail to understand". It just seems strange to say "I didn't think you would get it, since you have some grounding in this thought process"

Yeah. It is liek 4 AM EST so he might be sleepy like me. So good night all.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 02:51 AM
I suppose I shouldn't use the double negative. You are correct in what I meant, Rutee. I'm not a grammatician, after all (is that even a word?).

Having thought about this further, I wonder why the heck WotC is being so secretive about this whole thing. If Tippy is right, and neither tactic would actually hold up to much legal scrutiny, then why even bother? Are they trying to stop some company from making a new system that merges the best parts of 3 and 4, creating some kind of . . . 7th edition?

We can't have that, we want to see 5 and 6 first! :smallwink:

If the legal eagles on the giantitp forum can tell that it won't work, one would think the legal eagles at Hasbro could figure it out to.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 03:25 AM
Are they trying to stop some company from making a new system that merges the best parts of 3 and 4, creating some kind of . . . 7th edition?

Someone else mentioned it as well; This is the probable reason for it. You can't build one product that has both OGL and GSL content in the same game, as it stands. Aside from that, probably not a whole lot.

nagora
2008-04-24, 03:42 AM
In other words, if arguments from authority are logically valid, then arguments from authority are not logically valid, because he, himself, said it*.

*referring to Aristotle here, if you don't get the reference.


However, Aristotle was an eejit. Seriously.

Appeal to authority is not in fact an argument, is is mearly an assertion of faith and an admittance of ignorance. However, out in the real world, few people are personally experts on every subject they need to deal with. As such, authority is the only reasonable recourse. And it IS a reasonable recourse most of the time. If it wasn't then, for example, courts could have no useful forensic evidence.

It is true, of course, that authority can be disputed (just as I dispute that Aristotle was anything other than a grumpy old git who talked drivel to young men for pay). But as a practical matter, authority is a prefectly reasonable means of putting forward an argument.

Logic belongs in the classroom; it is not of much use in real life. That's the most important thing they don't teach people in logic classes.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 03:49 AM
1) You're Wrong. Since you think logic is worthless, you can't contest that in any meaningful manner.

2) It doesn't actually matter whether Aristotle was right. I was not in fact making an argument from authority. If you valued the ability to think straight, you would have figured that out on your own.

3) That entire issue has already been resolved, several posts ago.

nagora
2008-04-24, 04:30 AM
1) You're Wrong. Since you think logic is worthless, you can't contest that in any meaningful manner.

I didn't say it was worthless. As a programmer, I use it every day. But I use it where it works, not where it doesn't.

People who pull out "Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy" generally mean "I don't agree with your authority but I can't think of any sensible reason why, so I'll fall back on something that sounds clever but means nothing instead".

Which is pretty well what you did - you had nothing to contribute to the argument but you just felt that it was wrong so you did the old "I'm an authority on logic; everybody pay attention to me" routine.

Then you attempted to confuse the issue futher by putting in stuff about "soundness" of arguments when everybody else was dealing in "reasonableness".

J.Gellert
2008-04-24, 04:33 AM
Here is a new issue for you: If a company takes 3,5 edition and sticks to it some of the (rare?) good stuff about 4th edition, are they breaking the law?

It is still going to be 3rd edition but, for example, Tieflings will be featured in their main book, and sneak attacks will work against almost all foes (a 4th ed change that Pathfinder has already adoped, for example). In essence, though upgrading a character may be hard or impossible, both systems use the basic d20 dice, the same concept for hps, AC, feats, saving throws*, and so on.

Isn't that halfway through the editions?

And what about products like the Conan D20 RPG? It is clearly very different from 3.5 edition, so why cannot a publisher do something similar to that, only this time borrowing ideas from 4th edition (and it will not even be copying if he does it in a general sense - meaning, "unlimited" spells and magic rituals is not a new idea in RPGs, and I doubt WotC has the copyright for it, simple because 4th edition has it. Theoretically, anyone can stuff it into his 3.5 edition product, and I think Monte Cook already has).

Surely it will not be a product compatible with either 3.5 or 4, but it can be a whole new game that has the best of both.


*In the end, most of the stuff in 4th ed is not even new. You can say that items which grant bonuses to saves "3.5 edition style" will be obsolete because 4th edition saves are a static value, but Unearthed Arcana had presented that as a variant years ago.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 04:53 AM
Here is a new issue for you: If a company takes 3,5 edition and sticks to it some of the (rare?) good stuff about 4th edition, are they breaking the law?
Arguably, the entire purpose of the GSL and OGL being different is to keep someone from doing just that.


And what about products like the Conan D20 RPG? It is clearly very different from 3.5 edition, so why cannot a publisher do something similar to that, only this time borrowing ideas from 4th edition (and it will not even be copying if he does it in a general sense - meaning, "unlimited" spells and magic rituals is not a new idea in RPGs, and I doubt WotC has the copyright for it, simple because 4th edition has it. Theoretically, anyone can stuff it into his 3.5 edition product, and I think Monte Cook already has).
You're right; Unlimited spells are old news (Which is fine by me; I like 'em). However, the Day/Encounter/At Will setup isn't. If you were going to use that precise setup, you'd probably need to be using GSL content. The issue is whether or not the newer system (And Conan D20, btw, is fine because D20 has the OGL, which permits you to use aspects of their game mechanics for 'free'.) will permit free usage, and if so, how?

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 04:57 AM
I didn't say it was worthless.


Logic belongs in the classroom; it is not of much use in real life. That's the most important thing they don't teach people in logic classes.

There is little point in arguing with someone who disdains logic. However, I never said "you are wrong because you appealed to authority".

But you knew that already, since I'm sure you read my posts before making statements like that. That would be the logical thing to do. Oh wait. . .

Rutee
2008-04-24, 04:58 AM
"Of much use" is not "Useless", I feel compelled to point out.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-24, 05:00 AM
I could say something like "if he is going to put words in my mouth, it is ok for me to return that in kind" but that wouldn't be fair, would it? Or logical.

Charity
2008-04-24, 05:09 AM
It seems that logical rigor need only be applied to one side of a discussion about logical rigor... seems logical.

anyone remember what this thread was about?

nagora
2008-04-24, 05:27 AM
It seems that logical rigor need only be applied to one side of a discussion about logical rigor... seems logical.

anyone remember what this thread was about?

Well, it's about something that hasn't appeared yet, so we're all having to resort to discussing what people close to the process have said or hinted - ie, we're having to appeal to authority and discuss what weight to give that authority, just like the vast majority of human debate. If we ruled out appeals to authority because they're a logical fallicy then hardly any debate could ever be carried out except by actual researchers with access to primary sources and human progress would grind to a halt. But at least we'd all be logical cavemen (and women, Stan).



"'Ere, there's a guy in the next valley says you can start fires by banging this special type of rock together; let's go and get some, I'm freezing."

"Away and fee upon your appeal to authority! How do we know this `next valley' even exists?"

"Well, I've just been there."

"Bah! Another appeal to authority. I can see no next valley; why should I believe you? Prove the existance of this valley."

"What? It's behind that ridge. I can't prove it without you leaving the cave."

"Cave? Says who?"

"Right, that's it - I'm off."

"Can you prove that you exist...Oh, he's gone."

Anyway:

I think the Conan example is a very good one of something that the rumored licence will make into a nightmare for any publisher who takes it up, and a good illustration of what the risks are. Indeed, uncertainty is a risk in business in and of itself. If there are grey areas in the licence then it becomes even more like a minefield.

Paul H
2008-04-24, 07:49 AM
Hi

Forgive me if this has already been thought of, but there may be a simple answer to publish both 3.5 & 4.0 ed:

Create a 'holding company', with it's own brand, and transfer the old 3.5 licence & your product there. Use your existing company to concentrate on the new 4.0 ed stuff. Both you and the other company are seperate, and can specialise in either 3.5 or 4.0.

That way you can keep an 'overview' as a parent company for your old 3.5 material, and still produce 4.0 yourself.

Cheers
Paul H

Jayabalard
2008-04-24, 08:41 AM
Nope, that's logic. The soundness of an argument is not changed based on the person delivering it.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical _fallacy)Not true

When we're discussing logical fallacies, "appeal to authority" or "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" has a very specific meaning; Argumentum ad Verecundiam is the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. It is fallacious only when the person in question is not an expert in the field where they are making claims.

So claiming that the argument of an expert (a lawyer) speaking in the field of their expertise (law) carries more weight than a laymen (non-lawyer) talking out of their field of expertise (ie, out of their ass) is not fallacious logic.


We are left with two possibilities. Either the argument is more important than the credentials of the person making the arguement, or the credentials are more important than the arguement. False dilemma; a third possibility exists, where: neither credentials nor validity of the argument are necessarily more important than the other.

These are not boolean conditions; people have varying degrees of expertise, and arguments have varying degrees of validity on their own.

The credentials of an expert giving an opinion in the field of their expertise does give an argument more weight than an argument made by a non-expert, or an expert outside of their field of expertise. The validity of the argument itself also gives weight to that argument, with a well constructed argument giving more weight to it's side.

This is getting rather off topic though; if you want to argue logic, we should start a new thread elsewhere for this kind of meta-discussion.


Forgive me if this has already been thought of, but there may be a simple answer to publish both 3.5 & 4.0 ed:Yup, it was the 2nd or third post in the other thread.

Duke of URL
2008-04-24, 08:55 AM
Here is a new issue for you: If a company takes 3,5 edition and sticks to it some of the (rare?) good stuff about 4th edition, are they breaking the law?

It is still going to be 3rd edition but, for example, Tieflings will be featured in their main book, and sneak attacks will work against almost all foes (a 4th ed change that Pathfinder has already adoped, for example). In essence, though upgrading a character may be hard or impossible, both systems use the basic d20 dice, the same concept for hps, AC, feats, saving throws*, and so on.

Isn't that halfway through the editions?

It depends on how you do it. Concepts aren't copyrightable, only specific expressions of those concepts. If you take the concept of some 4e mechanics, but not the specific names and descriptions, then you don't need to abide by the GSL at all.

There's a gray area here, which is something I'm trying to deal with from a legal sense in creating essentially a complete re-do of invocation classes (3.5 ed) without resorting to using the names, descriptions, and specific rules used for the Warlock and Dragonfire Adept classes and their associated invocations. It'll be obvious to anyone reading the finished product that these classes influence the concept, but everything is being re-written from the ground up and the mechanical differences should be enough to be legitimate, though I'd want some solid legal advice on that subject first.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-24, 09:00 AM
Actually as i said in my mega essay/speculation (hint hint people, read it)

Could you link it please? I'll read it if it's important to you.


Also AKA bait, was my theory at all close to the mark?

From the paragraph above this, no. Sorry EE. Getting left behind with the times is the fate of any start up rpg company at this point since they will not be albe to release anything until after the larger 3rd party publishers who bought the 'kit'. The six month lag from release to open gaming content being publishable by small third parties is enough time to know if the system is good and popular but too long to get in on the 'oooh it's new and shiny' effect.


Nope, that's logic. The soundness of an argument is not changed based on the person delivering it.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical _fallacy)

Yes, because someone who knows more than you saying something does not logically prove it to be true and an argument always stands by itself. However, much of the discussion about this, and where there are issues, is not a logical argument in the strict sense. It is simply someone with an advanced degree making a statement of fact about the area in which they are an expert (I'm refering to the real lawyer not myself). Logical fallacies don't come into it. Verification theory does.


Welcome to the internet. :smallamused:

Thanks Roland, now half my office is wondering just what the heck was so funny.


If the credentials are more important, than either you (and every other person involved in this side debate) must be authorities in the field of logic as well, or else you have proven that the (superior) arguement of a lay person takes precedent over the credentials of a professional. Since this is a logical contradiction, it cannot be true. A statement cannot both be true and false.

I was a grad student in an analytic philosophy department and took classes on logic from Saul Kripke. Do I count as an authority who disagrees?


Prehaps I am guilty of the same kind of nitpicking that a English professor might make when people say rouge when they mean rogue. I don't like letting flat out failures in logic stand.

I'd say so.


Having thought about this further, I wonder why the heck WotC is being so secretive about this whole thing. If Tippy is right, and neither tactic would actually hold up to much legal scrutiny, then why even bother? Are they trying to stop some company from making a new system that merges the best parts of 3 and 4, creating some kind of . . . 7th edition?

It may also simply be a tactic to discourage small companies from getting into the 4e market early. Or, it could just be that they are screw ups and don't even really know what they are doing yet.


However, Aristotle was an eejit. Seriously.

Hey, you leave my second favorite philosopher alone!


It is true, of course, that authority can be disputed (just as I dispute that Aristotle was anything other than a grumpy old git who talked drivel to young men for pay).

I think you might be confusing Aristotle with Socrates. In which case, I agree with you. However, if you aren't, I'm sorry but you are flat wrong. This isn't the place to argue it but there would not be a western civilization as we know it without Aristotle.


Logic belongs in the classroom; it is not of much use in real life. That's the most important thing they don't teach people in logic classes.

Not going to rant... not going to rant... not going to rant...

DeathQuaker
2008-04-24, 09:31 AM
"'Ere, there's a guy in the next valley says you can start fires by banging this special type of rock together; let's go and get some, I'm freezing."

"Away and fee upon your appeal to authority! How do we know this `next valley' even exists?"

"Well, I've just been there."

"Bah! Another appeal to authority. I can see no next valley; why should I believe you? Prove the existance of this valley."

"What? It's behind that ridge. I can't prove it without you leaving the cave."

"Cave? Says who?"

"Right, that's it - I'm off."

"Can you prove that you exist...Oh, he's gone."

Wow, I didn't know they had recordings of the writings of Jacques Derrida's ancient ancestors. Fascinating.

Topic? I'm sorry. *hands it back to thread*

EvilElitest
2008-04-24, 09:54 AM
It does hurt 3rd party businesses. The system will make money in the short term. But once the gaming community gets a hold of it and starts dissecting it, we’ll see whether it has the stuff to survive.

Being able to “test the waters” as it were and make 3rd and 4th edition products is a very safe business decision. Because even if 4th edition fails, that business still has 3rd to fall back on. If 4th takes off and starts to really make people money, they can choose to refocus their resources on 4th and abandon 3rd altogether.

But being forced to permanently choose between the two current systems forced a company to make a very risky business decision. Either they upgrade to a new system and risk that system failing or make a safer business decision and risk getting left in the dust by their competitors, should 4th edition prove to be as good as WOTC’s hype.

The biggest problem with this whole thing is that people are going to be forced to make that decision before they even get to see the new edition.

Fair enough. I think it is slightly more risky to stick with 3E, because i don't think 4E will bomb, but it is a risk none the less. I think WotC is rather cunning in forcing these companies to make the choice. While they risk losing business in going along with WotC, it is very risky to go against WotC's wishes and not trust that their product will sell
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-04-24, 10:15 AM
Could you link it please? I'll read it if it's important to you.


Here you go


Hmmmmm, i highly highly disagree if this is true, but i have to admit WotC is quite clever, because from a business perspective this is a good idea


Why are they doing this? What do they gain
As with all edition changes, there are always people who don't want to make the switch and still stubbornly refuse to play the new edition. Many people still play second edition. THe different between this switch and the 2E/3E switch is the ratio, a lot more people are playing the game now

Lets say out of 100 gamers who played 2E, 10 of them refuse to play 3E, and 5 stop playing all together and go off to "graduate" to white wolf. ten more make the switch, but still play 2E on a regular basis and know the rules, and are only some what enthusiastic. 5 people "update" or "fix" 2E, but as they lack a real publishers, only one of them is actually able to make their change public, and only a few people are interested. The rest play 3E without any regrets.

this time however the scale is larger and the 3E people ahve companies on their side. Companies that want to appeal to both kinds of people, 3E supporters and 4E fans, as well as those who play both. The 2E fans were not large enough to really threaten their business, but they were content to play their own stuff

However, if tehse other publishers start publishing 3E material, then 3E will like another game system, and a direct rival to 4E. And so WotC, a business after all, wants to make sure that any company that sells 3E material, can't also provide 4E material. As 4E is the newest thing, most business are going to take 4E instead of 3E, because they don't want to be left behind. So a "fixed' 3E game to get published and able to act as a rival to the new and still untested 4E is now not likely. Any company that makes 3E material, will suffer losses.

Cunning.

however WotC takes a risk, if more companies don't want to be bullied by wotC and choose not to publish 3E, however i really doubt this will happen. I imagine paizo might become pro 4E


What i actually think, fitting in with the OP's request, i really don't like this idea. It effectivly ruins the "you play your improved game, i play mine" and basically destroys the hope of anyone who didn't want to play 4E but wanted a fix. That being said, it is WotC's right, and a cunning move, and so unless lots of people protest openly, it isn't going to change
from
EE

and part 2




Expanding upon that, i'd actually like to make an analogy about your best of both worlds


Lets say, I am EE, and i run EE's gaming and publishing company. And You are running RT incorporated (your initials) and are the head of 4th edition. Now when you tell me that 4E is coming out, i say "Ok, new thing, i want in on this". I look around and find their is a lot of support and neutral stances towards 4E. But i also note a lot of hostility. Some of it comes from conservatism and unwillingness to change, which can be expected. Those people however, won't buy any new products at all. Other people might not play D&D any more and simply walk away, but those people can't be helped, through other companies like WW that want to "graduate them" However, something i notice is this. A Sizable minority (love them or hate them, anti 4E pro change people are a very large group, if still a minority) who want a new edition and want change, but protest against 4E for what ever reason, normally under the claim that it is simplifying D&D, or making it to much like a wargame/video game or what ever. I, as a private publisher, realize that these people will flock to any game that changes 3E to suit their needs. So i order my top people to plan a new 3E game, 3.7, as well as buying 4E materials. To appeal to the people who don't even want a new edition at all (the are a somewhat large number of them) i buy newly made 3E books from smaller companies to sell or make my own. Unlike 2E, there are a lot more D&D fans and so selling to the people who don't like 4E and like 3.7 or 3.5 or even 3.0 is actually profitable

Not you, Ruki, realize this. You also realize that i am directly hindering your profits. There is a risk that my 3.7, might, just might, be as good, better, or at least almost as good as your game. You like your 4E, but you still don't know how well it will do. It might plunge, for what ever reason, or do well but not well enough to make up for the profit loss. You already have people who won't play your game, the people who have started playing other systems, the people who will simply play 3.0 or 3.5 (or even people who will revert back to 2E, rare through they may be) or people who won't play because they don't like the changes and want different changes along with people who have just had enough. weather the people who have criticized 4E's changes are right or wrong is irrelevant to you at the moment, President Ruki, what matters is that a sizable number of your fan base is protesting loudly (if not hte majority, who is neutral, or the second majority, who is pro i think, through i don't know) and causing other people to move away from 4E, or at least harbor doubts. You can't afford this product not being a major success. If this fails, then you will be in a lot of trouble.

However, the anti 4E people have a problem. They like D&D, then want change, but there isn't any other option. So a lot of them will sign, and cough up enough money to buy 4E simply because of lack of options. While they will protest, because their isn't anything else, they will eventually lose steam and only the most die hart anti 4E people won't buy any more

Now things are hard enough with all of the critisizem, unfounded or founded, when people like Mr. EE are now selling to the people who don't want to play your system. Now not only are these people not buying from you, they are buying from somebody else, who is selling a very very similar system.

now unlike people who play WW, these people's system is very much like yours, except it is better suited to this groups tastes. There is a risk that it might simply be a better balanced game, and a more interesting one, not a high one, but a risk none the less. With such a similar game, a rift will arise between the anti 4E people who are now being catered to, and the people you are aiming to

The pro 4E people will of course support your product, but the anti 4E people who like this new system (from this point on called 3.7 fans) will like their own product and spend their money on a product other than yours. The two groups will have nerd wars, where they attack each others systems and if 4E isn't the most perfect system in the history of the world, the 3.7 fans will find some flaws to pick at. Now the majority of the D&D players, the neutral people, will look at both sides, and people who normally would simply buy 4E, will now honestly consider this other company. Some won't buy your product, some will buy both, and many will be less inclinded to cough up cash because they now have an option, a viable option, on where they spend your money

And to make matters worse mr. Ruki, you can't go on a negative attack against their system, because it is basically your old system improved. You don't want to remind people of the mistakes you've made in 3E, because that hurts your credibility

So instead you force Mr. EE to make a choice, ether he is selling 4E, or 3.7

Now Mr. EE wants to make money. he does care about his product, but he isn't stupid, he knows that if he misses out on 4E he will be losing a lot, and i mean a lot of business. It is a lot less work to simply sell 4E then make and run 3.7 and it isn't good to piss off WotC.


That being said, Mr. Ruki is taking a big risk. By doing this, you are pissing people off and hurting your PR. you are also making the anti 4E people even more upset

And also, if even one company (like paizo maybe) publishes 3.7 or even 3.5 material, then all of these anti 4E people will flock to that company.

That being said, it is better one rival who will do less damage then someone who sells both







From the paragraph above this, no. Sorry EE. Getting left behind with the times is the fate of any start up rpg company at this point since they will not be albe to release anything until after the larger 3rd party publishers who bought the 'kit'. The six month lag from release to open gaming content being publishable by small third parties is enough time to know if the system is good and popular but too long to get in on the 'oooh it's new and shiny' effect.


I wasn't referring to that theory actually but thanks, could you explain that in a little more detail please?

from
EE

TheThan
2008-04-24, 01:17 PM
Fair enough. I think it is slightly more risky to stick with 3E, because i don't think 4E will bomb, but it is a risk none the less. I think WotC is rather cunning in forcing these companies to make the choice. While they risk losing business in going along with WotC, it is very risky to go against WotC's wishes and not trust that their product will sell
from
EE

Very true, but a lot of this stems from the fact wotc is owned by Hasbro, and therefore has the financial muscle to be able to single handedly change the current state of the gaming industry. Which is clearly what they are doing, whether they intend to or not.

The major problem is they have no real competitors out there. It’d be like if Microsoft didn’t exist (or maybe wasn’t as huge), we’d all be typing on macs right now.

if WOTC wasn't owned by Hasbro, they'd still be a major company and have al ot of weight, but they'd still have to worry about competition from other companies.

EvilElitest
2008-04-24, 07:56 PM
Very true, but a lot of this stems from the fact wotc is owned by Hasbro, and therefore has the financial muscle to be able to single handedly change the current state of the gaming industry. Which is clearly what they are doing, whether they intend to or not.

The major problem is they have no real competitors out there. It’d be like if Microsoft didn’t exist (or maybe wasn’t as huge), we’d all be typing on macs right now.

if WOTC wasn't owned by Hasbro, they'd still be a major company and have al ot of weight, but they'd still have to worry about competition from other companies.

Well if another company might publish excursively for the 3E people who want change just not 4E might make another company quiet powerful. I mean i don't think WotC expected Paizo
from
EE

TheThan
2008-04-24, 08:00 PM
Yeah, I honestly don’t know how powerful Pazio is compared to WOTC.

As far as their decision to stick with 3.5, well only time will tell if they will have a significant impact on the community and the industry in general.

But the simple fact that they are listening to their customers while they develop their pathfinder system is encouraging.

EvilElitest
2008-04-24, 08:08 PM
Yeah, I honestly don’t know how powerful Pazio is compared to WOTC.

As far as their decision to stick with 3.5, well only time will tell if they will have a significant impact on the community and the industry in general.

But the simple fact that they are listening to their customers while they develop their pathfinder system is encouraging.

I wrote them a letter, i feel happy

It also shows that there is dissent in the D&D community, or at least a somewhat large group of the D&d community for 4E. Which is bad for WotC and they are smart enough to know that. I imagine we are going to see more such activities

Do you agree with my essay above?
form
EE

Rutee
2008-04-24, 09:36 PM
It may also simply be a tactic to discourage small companies from getting into the 4e market early. Or, it could just be that they are screw ups and don't even really know what they are doing yet.

People are remarkably accurate with throwaway guesses in this thread! :smallyuk:

Seriously, I have a strong feeling we're overestimating WotC.

EvilElitest
2008-04-24, 09:40 PM
People are remarkably accurate with throwaway guesses in this thread! :smallyuk:

Seriously, I have a strong feeling we're overestimating WotC.

You bring up a fine point, i mean they don't exactly have the best track record you know. Say what you want about WW, they certainly have better control over their product (if not their advertising market).

That doesn't look good for 4E
from
EE