General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Precisely. That was a (presumably unforeseen) consequence of having a license as the OGL. The OGL was intended, I believe, to allow third parties to publish material compatible with 3E, not reprint 3E itself.
Completely unofficially, I've heard a rumor from a rather reliable source that one of the 3e designers had also paired up with a publishing company and was planning on releasing an annotated PhB. All the rules and text with notes from the designer about basic, unwritten assumptions about the system. WotC gave said designer a gentle "Don't do this if you want to continue working for us" and he dropped the project.
Once again, it's something I may have heard somewhere
No, it's a serious journal, albeit a very, very new one. I've met Kristina Busse, one of the editors, probably at Slayage. She's got a good head on her shoulders.
I think the symposium is the academic version of the op-ed piece, so perhaps saying "studies" was a bit strong in my title. Note that the word limit is 2500 words, whereas the Theory or Praxis articles can range to 8000.
I'll just say that this article is prima-facie evidence that the journal isn't. Don't get me wrong, there is actually an interesting topic here (the idea of canon in fan fiction and RPGs), but the author never develops that idea and instead goes off on a weird and generic anti-corporation screed. Basic facts are wrong, the main idea is ignored, and the content is unoriginal. Even if this works at the level of Op-Ed, which has looser standards of proof and allows for a more personal tone, you really should want such material to be accurate and insightful.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Guys! When will you learn not to take the internet at face value? Not everything published in an academic journal is actually an academic article!
This essay is published in the Journal of Transformative Works and Culture's "Symposium" section. The Journal describes this section as follows:
Quote:
Symposium offers shorter editorially reviewed essays on fan related issues. We especially invite fans to contribute their ideas and viewpoints at Symposium.
That stands in contrast to their Theory and Praxis sections:
Quote:
Theory and Praxis present peer-reviewed academic essays that analyze fan works and communities within cultural and theoretical frameworks.
In short, it's basically an unsolicited opinion piece from Joe Blog on the street, neither academic nor scientific. Feel free to go back to ignoring it.
Guys! When will you learn not to take the internet at face value? Not everything published in an academic journal is actually an academic article!
This essay is published in the Journal of Transformative Works and Culture's "Symposium" section. The Journal describes this section as follows:
Quote:
Symposium offers shorter editorially reviewed essays on fan related issues. We especially invite fans to contribute their ideas and viewpoints at Symposium.
In short, it's basically an unsolicited opinion piece from Joe Blog on the street, neither academic nor scientific. Feel free to go back to ignoring it.
It is something editorially reviewed, and published under their name. Thus the personal tone and scarcity of references would seem to be acceptable. The inaccuracy and incoherence, on the other hand, would recommend against putting something like this anywhere in a publication that hopes to be taken seriously.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
There's no point revising the OGL, since one of the OGL's terms is "You may use any edition of this license" - the OGL is a beautiful poison pill vs future shenanigans by whoever owns D&D.
Has the OGL been challenged in a court of law so far, and held up in making a legal precedent of any sort?
Precisely. That was a (presumably unforeseen) consequence of having a license as the OGL. The OGL was intended, I believe, to allow third parties to publish material compatible with 3E, not reprint 3E itself.
The funny thing is, that around the time of the release of 3e, Ryan Dancey pretty much dared 3rd party publishers to do just that: reprint the SRD as a commercial product unto itself (like the Mongoose guides did).
Somebody took them up on that, and now that (in many fans eyes) D&D as we have known it has been unceremoniously killed and an unrecognizable doppleganger has replaced it, we have the DNA of the original to clone it and revive it.
The SRD and OGL has made D&D 3.0 and 3.5 virtually immortal among editions. Long after WotC has moved to a 5e which is completely incompatible with 4e and any prior editions and 4e is completely abandoned in terms of publications, gamers can still print and reprint 3.x and compatible materials thanks to the SRD and OGL.
Has the OGL been challenged in a court of law so far, and held up in making a legal precedent of any sort?
No. What would that even look like? Who would sue whom, and why? What provisions would be challenged and how would they be challenged? What would someone gain by "challenging" the OGL? What sort of useful precedent would be established by the interpretation of a specific, privately written license, given that future license writers can adopt or reject the OGL's language as they see fit?
In short, it's basically an unsolicited opinion piece from Joe Blog on the street, neither academic nor scientific. Feel free to go back to ignoring it.
It is an unsolicited opinion piece that passed muster in their editorial process as being high enough quality to appear in their academic publication. The editors get to set the bar of quality - so it still reflects on them that it appeared.
No. What would that even look like? Who would sue whom, and why? What provisions would be challenged and how would they be challenged? What would someone gain by "challenging" the OGL? What sort of useful precedent would be established by the interpretation of a specific, privately written license, given that future license writers can adopt or reject the OGL's language as they see fit?
I think the fear here is that somehow WotC will declare that they are rescinding the OGL and sue third party publishers or fans that use the OGL to continue to produce gaming materials for D&D 3.x, d20 Modern, or derivatives those games and WotC will somehow try to get a court to hold the OGL unenforceable and that WotC to get a court to agree that they didn't have the right to grant such an extremely open-ended license regarding their own IP, or even WotC they thought they would eventually lose they could force the issue into litigation where it's Hasbro's deep pockets against smaller parties that would be forced into bankruptcy by any major litigation even if frivolous.
From what I got from someone I talked to, one of the big reasons for the change was 3PPs taking the 3e rules wholecloth and reprinting them (like Mongoose's pocket player guide). WotC's view was that "Hey, we spent millions of dollars and countless hours working on that, and you turn around and publish it without any effort on your part."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Element
Precisely. That was a (presumably unforeseen) consequence of having a license as the OGL. The OGL was intended, I believe, to allow third parties to publish material compatible with 3E, not reprint 3E itself.
This appears on every thread about the OGL or GSl, and IT'S WRONG IN EVERY FREAKING ONE. GOOD CHRIST, every one of those threads, right after that accusation is made, shows how, oh wait, no, it was actually stated "Hah hah if a developer can reprint the 3e rules and make money, man, go for it." So that's what Monogoose did. And yet people continue to point at it and claim this was badwrong and how WotC hates them for it. Despite that being the opposite of what actually happened.
Oh god there I go vomiting out all blood again.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
No. What would that even look like? Who would sue whom, and why? What provisions would be challenged and how would they be challenged? What would someone gain by "challenging" the OGL? What sort of useful precedent would be established by the interpretation of a specific, privately written license, given that future license writers can adopt or reject the OGL's language as they see fit?
An example would be Hasbro attempting to sue Pathfinder or the retroclones (ie. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc ...) out of existence, in a futile bid to reclaim back their intellectual property which they felt was wrongly released by the Adkison/Dancey regime at WotC. One strategy would be to find a way to invalidate the OGL in a court of law.
An example would be Hasbro attempting to sue Pathfinder or the retroclones (ie. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc ...) out of existence, in a futile bid to reclaim back their intellectual property which they felt was wrongly released by the Adkison/Dancey regime at WotC.
I know that's the fear, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggroy
One strategy would be to find a way to invalidate the OGL in a court of law.
I'll give free XP to anyone who comes up with an even semi plausible explanation of how this could be done. Its contract law, not witchery.
I'll give free XP to anyone who comes up with an even semi plausible explanation of how this could be done. Its contract law, not witchery.
I can't see an obvious legal strategy offhand, which could invalidate the OGL easily in a court of law. Though that's not to say that somebody won't try, especially if one side has very deep pockets.
More likely the legal strategy will be for Hasbro/WotC to tie up Pathfinder or the retroclones in court, such that one side eventually runs out of money from legal fees and/or are willing to settle out of court. Even if in the end the OGL doesn't get invalidated in a court of law, Hasbro/WotC will have developed a bad reputation for being litigious against others using the OGL.
I can't see an obvious legal strategy offhand, which could invalidate the OGL easily in a court of law. Though that's not to say that somebody won't try, especially if one side has very deep pockets.
More likely the legal strategy will be for Hasbro/WotC to tie up Pathfinder or the retroclones in court, such that one side eventually runs out of money from legal fees and/or are willing to settle out of court. Even if in the end the OGL doesn't get invalidated in a court of law, Hasbro/WotC will have developed a bad reputation for being litigious against others using the OGL.
Court doesn't work that way. You can't tie someone up in court without a plausible explanation for why you're in court in the first place.
Court doesn't work that way. You can't tie someone up in court without a plausible explanation for why you're in court in the first place.
SCO did it in the SCO-Linux lawsuits where they alleged that much of the source code for Linux was their IP and released into open-source improperly, although they didn't have a shred of proof and dragged it through courts for years on the mere suspicion that copyright was violated.
It's that kind of copyright paranoia litigation that people get twitchy about with doomsday scenario theories regarding WotC.
Ok first I know nothing about law texcept what I picked up from LA law in the 80's and Ally Mcbeal in 90's...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggroy
I can't see an obvious legal strategy offhand, which could invalidate the OGL easily in a court of law.
I get this is the most well held theory..
Quote:
More likely the legal strategy will be for Hasbro/WotC to tie up Pathfinder or the retroclones in court, such that one side eventually runs out of money from legal fees and/or are willing to settle out of court.
now here comes the quastion...doesn't this only work if the company throws money at the case...It seams to me that Hasbro can't sue me for selling my old Magatron on ebay for sevral thousand dollors...they just have no leg to stand on, and throwing money means nothing when the judge loughs it out of court...
So how can they make the suit last when it has no leg to stand on??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
27
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
