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.
Why not? Each room in that context is its own "product."
-O
Because that's what the license says.
Could you create individual rooms in standard html / blogging software? No. (not a format supported by Section 3 and specifically called out in 5.5)
Could you create individual rooms and publish each in a separate pdf? Yes.
Can you link those rooms together with an overview map and have the users come back and download them as necessary? No. (Stops being a single-download book format as you need multiple downloads to acquire the dungeon.)
Can you create a variety of pdfs that represent the adventure as it grows day by day so people can download their preferred point in the product evolution? Yes. (Each pdf is self-contained and would count as a single-download book format)
Do these rules make a whole lot of sense in this situation? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSL Section 3
3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf) , and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSL Section 5.5
5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).
But it still leaves us wondering what WotC's web site policy is...
That is true.
Here's the thing I think folks are missing: Fansite policy is never going to be treated as a binding contract. Given that, the question, then is not, "What's the Policy?" but instead, "Is WotC going to be a bunch of jerks about fansites?"
If they are jerks, their stated policy is not relevant - if they don't like the results, they'll change the policy and then come after you. The policy gives you no real protection or assurance, so why bother?
If they aren't going to be jerks, they don't need to state a policy, because if there's a problem they'll enter into a polite discussion about it before doing nasty things. So again, why bother? Unless they find they have to enter in many such discussions, it is better for the fans to leave it open and not artificially restrict people before the fact.
Here's the thing I think folks are missing: Fansite policy is never going to be treated as a binding contract. Given that, the question, then is not, "What's the Policy?" but instead, "Is WotC going to be a bunch of jerks about fansites?"
If they are jerks, their stated policy is not relevant - if they don't like the results, they'll change the policy and then come after you. The policy gives you no real protection or assurance, so why bother?
If they aren't going to be jerks, they don't need to state a policy, because if there's a problem they'll enter into a polite discussion about it before doing nasty things. So again, why bother? Unless they find they have to enter in many such discussions, it is better for the fans to leave it open and not artificially restrict people before the fact.
What concerns me is whether or not this policy/license will convince people, in particular the people running certain fansites, that WotC is going to be jerky (to use your words). To use one example, Candlekeep has held back their latest issue of the Candlekeep Compendium for about a year waiting for this policy, and this might convince them that they need to cancel the whole thing. Hopefully not.
According to a post on another board, Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) defines disparagement as: "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
So it has a legal meaning, and it appears to be in the same realm as libel and dishonesty.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
What concerns me is whether or not this policy/license will convince people, in particular the people running certain fansites, that WotC is going to be jerky (to use your words). To use one example, Candlekeep has held back their latest issue of the Candlekeep Compendium for about a year waiting for this policy, and this might convince them that they need to cancel the whole thing. Hopefully not.
It's a policy that may keep many fansites from pursuing 4th edition altogether. Which, in turn, is counterproductive to what WotC wants.
Some fan sites may decide it isn't worth it anymore, which will leave many disappointed fans.
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
I'm taking the EULA thing they put in the "fan kit" as a whole, as an edict.
It is certainly your prerogative to interpret every statement made by WotC in the most negative light possible and react accordingly. Just be careful not to disparage WotC while doing so.
Here's the thing I think folks are missing: Fansite policy is never going to be treated as a binding contract. Given that, the question, then is not, "What's the Policy?" but instead, "Is WotC going to be a bunch of jerks about fansites?"
If they are jerks, their stated policy is not relevant - if they don't like the results, they'll change the policy and then come after you. The policy gives you no real protection or assurance, so why bother?
If they aren't going to be jerks, they don't need to state a policy, because if there's a problem they'll enter into a polite discussion about it before doing nasty things. So again, why bother? Unless they find they have to enter in many such discussions, it is better for the fans to leave it open and not artificially restrict people before the fact.
Good points.
But let's not look at it from the point of view of whether they are or are not jerks. From WotC's point of view, would it make sense to have a policy?
Potential fan-site creators (who do not want to accept the new fan site kit and license) may be confused by and/or perceive risk in the lack of a stated policy. As a result they may be afraid to put too much work into their sites or perhaps even decide not to create them at all. Fewer, less developed fan sites aren't in WotC's interest.
Why then wouldn't WotC just go ahead and come up with a policy? They might find it very difficult to create a good policy. And if they did come up with something, once it was specified they'd risk going down the "being jerks" path unintentionally if there was an error or some unintended consequence in the policy, and they felt that they had to change it.
So, it may be a tradeoff between the negative uncertainties of no policy vs. the potential negatives in a realized policy...
I'm just speculating, of course. What other costs and benefits are there to having a policy vs. having no policy?
(I'm trying to consider it here in an idealized, rational domain... who knows, in reality there could be office politics, budget/resource issues, inertia that enter into the actual decision.)
I'm taking the EULA thing they put in the "fan kit" as a whole, as an edict.
I'm confused, did you want to use the stuff in the fan kit? If so, I guess you could look at the EULA as an edict. If not, it's irrelevant to you.
I could take the rules about using the pool at the condominium next door as an offensive "edict", but since I don't live there or use the pool, it would be pretty silly of me to do so.
"Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License"
Does this than apply only to material directly related to their licensed products only. Such as say a module for Forgotten Realms. Or is it only if use the stuff provided by by the toolkit. I assume it's to ensure that fan content and official content don't mix on the same site, that fanes don't do wholesale reproduction of rules, or infirnge on specific wizard content, but that is only an interpretation.
IF I say develop an alternate super hero world using the concept of Striker, Defender, Controller, and Daily/Encounter/Utlity powers but come up with my own powers and races, without using anything from the toolkit is that a breach of these terms or not?
We need clarification by more than just learned fans and certainly need formula less complicated than a professional insurance company. Geez I just want to make sure If I want to add a new worlock pact of my own design I won't be going up river!
I understand protecting their products and realize that wizard lost a lot of potential revenue from the OGL. but stilfling creativity (sa the above rule implies) is not protection.
Seems to counterdicts everything they wrote in their nice DM guide about coming up with your own adventures, skill challenges, monster modification and the like for your party; well at least if you tend to actually tell anyone about it.
Ultimatly this may limit the lifespan of 4e as ideas dry up and become secert home projects, or fans just returning back to 3.5.
Last edited by Rangergord; 8th August 2009 at 09:57 AM..
I thought the wording of the license was funny. As in I smiled when I read about the "suits".
Checking out the kit now. It looks ok, but the selection of pictures available was disappointing to me. I hope they expand it to have at least one picture for each class, and some more iconic monsters as well.
Although I sure that would cost them quite a lot of money, if they have to pay extra to the artist for using their pictures like this.
Anyways, an interesting first step, which I hope is expanded with more graphics.
/M
__________________ iAltdorf. An interactive map of the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
http://altdorfer.blogspot.com - Check out the Altdorf Correspondent! A WFRP blog about life in the Imperial capital.
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
"Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License"
Does this than apply only to material directly related to their licensed products only. Such as say a module for Forgotten Realms. Or is it only if use the stuff provided by by the toolkit. I assume it's to ensure that fan content and official content don't mix on the same site, that fanes don't do wholesale reproduction of rules, or infirnge on specific wizard content, but that is only an interpretation.
IF I say develop an alternate super hero world using the concept of Striker, Defender, Controller, and Daily/Encounter/Utlity powers but come up with my own powers and races, without using anything from the toolkit is that a breach of these terms or not?
IANAL.
The toolkit and its license are linked - the license is for that specific package of content. If you are not using that content, they cannot apply that license to you, and breaching that licenses terms is not relevant to you.
However, the things you are talking about have nothing to do with the content of the toolkit. You're now talking about use of content of the D&D game, not the content of the toolkit, or whether you are running a fansite. Thus, standard copyright or GSL are involved, not the fansite toolkit license.
Why then wouldn't WotC just go ahead and come up with a policy? They might find it very difficult to create a good policy. And if they did come up with something, once it was specified they'd risk going down the "being jerks" path unintentionally if there was an error or some unintended consequence in the policy, and they felt that they had to change it.
So, it may be a tradeoff between the negative uncertainties of no policy vs. the potential negatives in a realized policy...
These are my thoughts as well. Folks here speak as if creating a good policy that works for fans and WotC is easy. It isn't. The fans, if they had their druthers, would have a policy that said, "Do anything, so long as you don't make money at it". That probably wouldn't make much sense for the business, though, so a policy would have to strike a balance, and that is not trivial work by any means.
4E as a game is not affected. You can still play it and enjoy it.
That's not entirely the point, though.
Let's say that your fan site is dedicated to keeping one of the 2e settings alive. One of the key ways of doing that is to create world-specific 4e rules for your setting.
So the point is that not only do I want to play 4e, but I want to share materials with fans so that they can play 4e with their favorite setting. I need to post some rules on my website in order to do that.
The million dollar question isn't our interpretation, it's WotC's. Does their policy apply to the kit only, or are they applying that beyond?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
