Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
General RPG DiscussionFor discussion of RPG topics in general, GM/player issues, and topics which don't belong in a specific game forum below.
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
Congratulations. So you succeeded in embarassing the poor man for no reason; you knew he wouldn't answer the question. Well done you; I hope you enjoyed it. I feel for him. You're right, his embarrassment and discomfort is of no consequence compared to your desire to know what he thinks about something he doesn't want to talk about.
I don't know what your motives for such things were/are, but when it's clear you're not going to get a policy statement in response to someone on the internet who just yesterday said they thought it would be hilarious and karmic if people were to pirate WotC's materials (in fact, if you haven't made Scott's ignore list yet, I'd be amazed!), combined with the fact that you went to law school which suggests a certain level of intelligence and are aware of the above, you'll understand why folks are having trouble assigning good motives to the question.
Well the guy was paid thousands of dollars to be there. He was one of the most famous celebrities to come out of the OJ case. He just withstood grueling days of questions and cross-examination on that very topic from some of the country's best attorneys. If the guy was put on the spot by a question from a lowly lawstudent, during a seminar to which he owed those thousands of dollars of income to his fame in the case about which the question was asked, then so be it. I have no regrets.
I also have no regrets when at similar events in my undergrad years I asked Jean Kirkpatrick former ambassador to the UN during the first gulf war whether if she thought the war was legal under the US Constitution, nor do I have regrets after asking Faye Vincent, former Commissioner of Major League Baseball about the hypocrisy of kicking Pete Rose out of baseball when keeping guys who used drugs like Howe. They get paid to be there, big money, because of their connection to the issues I asked questions about. I state these as examples, and not as a way to bring up taboo topics into the conversation. If they are inappropriate feel free to delete them.
I have nothing against Scott. He is a good guy by all reports. He seems to be on the side of gamers. He is the only person to ask the question of though. If you like I could change the title of the thread to replace Rouse with Leeds, but it would still be Rouse who answers.
Whether the question gets answered or not, its still a valid question that in my mind, and the minds of others, deserves an answer. I'm sorry if Scott feels uncomfortable answering it, but frankly that's his job.
WOTC is not just the company that owns the intellectual property called Dungeons and Dragons, they are also the caretakers of a hobby that thousands enjoy every day. In that regard, they have a different level of responsibility which, to the extent that they are not carrying out that responsibility while paying attention to the bottom line, they seem to land themselves in hot water.
I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.
That's my take on it. Those are my motives. To the extent I don't like how WOTC has handled D&D lately, that surely taints my approach as to how touch-feely I am when I ask the questions. I also admit that at this point I am gradually coming around to the point of view that I don't really care if WOTC fails, due to my feelings of how they have treated thir customers. I used to think the hobby needed them to survive, but I am not so sure now. I would feel bad about people losing their jobs though. I know how that feels. I would also feel bad for people whose version of the game is no longer supported. I know how that feels too. As to my comments on the hilarity of their site getting cloned or hacked, so be it. I honestly don't care, and I think it would be karmically fitting. I'm not going to lie about that. *shrug*
Understand that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the bulk of the creative folks at WOTC. We're all gamers. It's the business end of the company that I have a problem with. Scott speaks for them. The question goes to them.
It's highly likely that this question never gets answered. I know that. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an answer, and therefore someone should pose the question.
__________________ ~Joe
Last edited by joethelawyer; 21st June 2009 at 12:28 AM..
So The SRD lets me talk about Trolls, and how they regenerate, and I can use the algorithm loophole to access rules.
So I add my own Ideas like them feeding off flames instead of being hurt by them, or changing their terrain from "Any Swampland" to "Teh Internet" and maybe give them the At-Will powers of appeal to false authority by putting signs around there neck that directly attempt to make themselves seem more intelligent or matter more by hanging a sign around their neck saying "Bob the Giant", trying to make people respect them, pointing out that These gaming creatures are not worthy of respect, why would they bother pointing out that they were a giant other wise.
__________________ New Sig Rules are lame, and I am cheap.
I never saw them "attacking" OSRIC. [...]
Having concerns about OSRIC is not saying "OSRIC" sucks.
I'm not 100% positive about what Steve said, but I'm certain that Clark used some heavy language against OSRIC in a thread here on ENWorld about one year ago. Being a fan of NG (and to a lesser extent also of TLG) I was somewhat disappointed with this stances, but this hasn't prevented me from still buying product from them that I liked.
__________________ 'Can a magician kill a man by magic?' Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. 'I suppose a magician might,' he admitted, 'but a gentleman never could.'
Well the guy was paid thousands of dollars to be there. He was one of the most famous celebrities to come out of the OJ case. He just withstood grueling days of questions and cross-examination on that very topic from some of the country's best attorneys. If the guy was put on the spot by a question from a lowly lawstudent, during a seminar to which he owed those thousands of dollars of income to his fame in the case about which the question was asked, then so be it. I have no regrets. ...(snip)
Well said sir, kudos to you, and fwiw I don't think you did anything wrong in this thread but then again I'm not offensive imagery removed. Let's say it meant... hmm.. "biased.".
__________________ DnD has always been my game of choice regardless of edition.
Last edited by Piratecat; 21st June 2009 at 01:10 AM..
Well the guy was paid thousands of dollars to be there. He was one of the most famous celebrities to come out of the OJ case. He just withstood grueling days of questions and cross-examination on that very topic from some of the country's best attorneys. If the guy was put on the spot by a question from a lowly lawstudent, during a seminar to which he owed those thousands of dollars of income to his fame in the case about which the question was asked, then so be it. I have no regrets.
I also have no regrets when at similar events in my undergrad years I asked Jean Kirkpatrick former ambassador to the UN during the first gulf war whether if she thought the war was legal under the US Constitution, nor do I have regrets after asking Faye Vincent, former Commissioner of Major League Baseball about the hypocrisy of kicking Pete Rose out of baseball when keeping guys who used drugs like Howe. They get paid to be there, big money, because of their connection to the issues I asked questions about. I state these as examples, and not as a way to bring up taboo topics into the conversation. If they are inappropriate feel free to delete them.
I have nothing against Scott. He is a good guy by all reports. He seems to be on the side of gamers. He is the only person to ask the question of though. If you like I could change the title of the thread to replace Rouse with Leeds, but it would still be Rouse who answers.
Whether the question gets answered or not, its still a valid question that in my mind, and the minds of others, deserves an answer. I'm sorry if Scott feels uncomfortable answering it, but frankly that's his job.
WOTC is not just the company that owns the intellectual property called Dungeons and Dragons, they are also the caretakers of a hobby that thousands enjoy every day. In that regard, they have a different level of responsibility which, to the extent that they are not carrying out that responsibility while paying attention to the bottom line, they seem to land themselves in hot water.
I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.
That's my take on it. Those are my motives. To the extent I don't like how WOTC has handled D&D lately, that surely taints my approach as to how touch-feely I am when I ask the questions. I also admit that at this point I am gradually coming around to the point of view that I don't really care if WOTC fails, due to my feelings of how they have treated thir customers. I used to think the hobby needed them to survive, but I am not so sure now. I would feel bad about people losing their jobs though. I know how that feels. I would also feel bad for people whose version of the game is no longer supported. I know how that feels too. As to my comments on the hilarity of their site getting cloned or hacked, so be it. I honestly don't care, and I think it would be karmically fitting. I'm not going to lie about that. *shrug*
Understand that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the bulk of the creative folks at WOTC. We're all gamers. It's the business end of the company that I have a problem with. Scott speaks for them. The question goes to them.
It's highly likely that this question never gets answered. I know that. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an answer, and therefore someone should pose the question.
I'm not 100% positive about what Steve said, but I'm certain that Clark used some heavy language against OSRIC in a thread here on ENWorld about one year ago. Being a fan of NG (and to a lesser extent also of TLG) I was somewhat disappointed with this stances, but this hasn't prevented me from still buying product from them that I liked.
OSRIC is, in my view, 100% illegal and infringing. I wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole. And doing what you call for is, in my view, similarly illegal.
Please quite holding up the fact that Wizards find OSRIC too irrelevant to take action against as some evdence of its legality.
Yes, there was that post, but also this one. The "worse" part (from my POV, naturally) was
Quote:
You just know it is wrong. Its like Napster
Where OSRIC is compared to illegal file sharing.
__________________ 'Can a magician kill a man by magic?' Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. 'I suppose a magician might,' he admitted, 'but a gentleman never could.'
From WotC's point of view, it might be a case of plausible deniability. If they don't know about something, they don't have to act on it. OSRIC might be below the level concern for WotC and if they don't say anything public about it, they might not have to "do" anything about it. By leaving things nebulous, WotC doesn't have to address a flee and BIGGER names will avoid (too much to lose of the giant awakens). Frankly, if you (joe) want to provoke something, you need to do it a way that someone at the company answers the question in a public forum. ENWorld is not that type of forum. It's too easy to ignore this type of discussion... or at least deny reading it. Something like a public QnA session at GenCon WOULD be. Or even better, in a court setting of some sort.
Also remember that both of those gents are businessmen and are running for-profit businesses, while OSRIC is more of a fan based thing, so there is more risk if you're a publisher.
Where is this "it's a fan thing" coming from? OSRIC is, and always has been, about people creating and selling 1e compatible adventures and supplements. The very first OSRIC adventure ever published was released by Expeditious Retreat Press, one of the bigger and better known 3PPs in the RPG industry. They remain one of the most active publishers of OSRIC material. Are you seriously suggesting that XRP is a "fan operation"??
Last edited by Ourph; 21st June 2009 at 01:51 AM..
I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.
Some opportunity this is. The opportunity to do something they could do anytime they felt like it? You aren't giving them anything. And it's not much of an opportunity anyway when any kind of statement could come back to haunt them, and most assuredly no matter what is said will be twisted into more fuel for the disgruntled. I suspect you know that as well.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
Some opportunity this is. The opportunity to do something they could do anytime they felt like it? You aren't giving them anything. And it's not much of an opportunity anyway when any kind of statement could come back to haunt them, and most assuredly no matter what is said will be twisted into more fuel for the disgruntled. I suspect you know that as well.
Like others have said, they have had a few years to do it and have not yet. The opportunity cmes through the "uncomfortableness" this thread may cause in them. They can choose to support the hobby in the uncomfortable moment, or the bottom line. Hence the opportunity which didn't exist before due to the lack of anyone every asking the question directly.
As to it coming back to haunt them through people being disgruntled---I can't see who would be disgruntled if WOTC said "Go ahead and develop the retroclones, they are hereby declared to be not violative of our IP rights. You ave a license to sell them and develop for them."
I'm not anything close to a WoTC fat cat, but with past occurances in mind I can assume the official statement would be to send a "Cease and desist" notice, pending further legal action.
It makes the most sense to me, and enough websites have vanished this way that I think it's been proven.
Though I do agree with you Joe, sometimes it is nice to ask a question just to see if it'll get answered.
__________________ Want to be part of a future podcast? Want to try out new games? PM me for info!
My Blog: http://lifeafterxtheth.blogspot.com/
Whether the question gets answered or not, its still a valid question that in my mind, and the minds of others, deserves an answer. I'm sorry if Scott feels uncomfortable answering it, but frankly that's his job.
I think you are mistaken as to Scott Rouse's job. His job isn't to say "how high?" whenever joethelawyer says "jump"! It isn't to make binding legal statements on the internet in response to random posters who just yesterday were crowing how karmic it was that their products get pirated.
Quote:
I'm offering them an opportunity to carry out not just the corporate mission statement to make money, but to help other aspects of the hobby out, which by all accounts has little or no impact on their bottom line.
You aren't "offering" them anything. If they choose to make any policy statements, they will do so according to their own procedures. They won't do so on a thread on the internet, and nor should they.
Quote:
I also admit that at this point I am gradually coming around to the point of view that I don't really care if WOTC fails, due to my feelings of how they have treated thir customers.
Yes, Joe. That's clear. We all gathered that.
Quote:
It's highly likely that this question never gets answered. I know that. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an answer, and therefore someone should pose the question.
IF it "deserves" an answer (which is a premise I don't agree with in the first place - they don't owe you an answer), you aren't the person who deserves that answer. Any legal relationship betwene a company and WotC is a private relationship; you aren't privy to that and, again, nor should you be.
If you produce an OSRIC-like system, then contact WotC directly. A third party callng them out on a random thread on teh intrawebs? Not so much.
The thing is, you know this, Joe. You say you're a lawyer, right? Does your company make legal policy on random messageboards when someone on the internet posts a thread demanding that they do so? No, of course not.
Recent News
Linear Mode
