Banned for mentioning CBLoader...

[Scribble]

There are all kinds of ways one can modify Colt firearms, but that doesn't mean Colt will just let you post threads on their boards about those modifications. Its well within the realm of possibility that they would boot you, at least for a short time.

Not being a Colt owner, I couldn't tell you if they do or don't, but its within their rights, so you shouldn't be surprised if it did happen.

And the same goes for WotC.

Disputes on gun forums aren't handled by mods- You just knock the card table over and challenge the other guy to a draw at high noon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Disputes on gun forums aren't handled by mods- You just knock the card table over and challenge the other guy to a draw at high noon.

Double-aught! I shoot him right between the eyes, mortal wound. STILL think my Stephenson is a girl's gun?

 

[renau1g]

. actually, maybe we should all think about our D&D addiction since we are on here on turkey day

Only for you Yanks Up in Canada we had ours last month.

 

[Ardulac]

There are all kinds of ways one can modify Colt firearms, but that doesn't mean Colt will just let you post threads on their boards about those modifications. Its well within the realm of possibility that they would boot you, at least for a short time.

Not being a Colt owner, I couldn't tell you if they do or don't, but its within their rights, so you shouldn't be surprised if it did happen.

And the same goes for WotC.

This isn't really a good analogy since Colt has legitimate concerns about products liability if someone alters one of their guns in a dangerous way. As far as I know, the Character Builder can't cause physical injury. From what everyone else has said about this CBLoader, it sounds like Wizards is just being extremely careful about IP concerns which is a very different sort of legal concern.

I also think a lot of people are completely missing the OP's point. He's not saying that Wizards has broken the law or shouldn't be allowed to do what they did. He just seems to be questioning whether they're being overprotective jerks for doing so. I'm personally very pro-modding, so stifling discussion about modding programs because of some tenuous possibility of piracy doesn't sit well with me. I mean seriously, any halfway competent pirate can find the whole CB available for download. All this program does is make it easier to add content.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This isn't really a good analogy since Colt has legitimate concerns about products liability if someone alters one of their guns in a dangerous way. As far as I know, the Character Builder can't cause physical injury. From what everyone else has said about this CBLoader, it sounds like Wizards is just being extremely careful about IP concerns which is a very different sort of legal concern.

Actually, it's extremely unlikely that Colt would be liable, since they would not be then proximate cause of potential injuries. Their concerns are more to do with protecting databases of user info (if the mod poster posted something illegal); and the expensive nuisance that even unsuccessful lawsuits could be.

Oh yeah, and protecting the integrity of their product...just like WotC and every other producer of commercial goods.

I also think a lot of people are completely missing the OP's point. He's not saying that Wizards has broken the law or shouldn't be allowed to do what they did. He just seems to be questioning whether they're being overprotective jerks for doing so. I'm personally very pro-modding, so stifling discussion about modding programs because of some tenuous possibility of piracy doesn't sit well with me. I mean seriously, any halfway competent pirate can find the whole CB available for download. All this program does is make it easier to add content.

I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY got his point, and the consensus seems to be that we're predominantly unsurprised that a company would not look kindly on people posting product modding data on the company's own website.

One of my other hobbies is playing guitars. One of the most common things guitar players do besides play them is modify them. Very few guitar companies let modding info stay on their boards unless it involves their own modding products. You find modding info on 3rd party sites, like those hosted by magazines, or private fan sites analogous to ENWorld.

 

[the Jester]

I also think a lot of people are completely missing the OP's point.

Well, I think a lot of people are completely disagreeing with the OP's point. We get it, we just don't agree with it.

 

[SteveC]

For whatever it's worth, the existence of this program is the thing that will most likely keep me as a subscriber to DDI. That may sound ironic, but it's true.

--Steve

 

[Scribble]

Same thing will happen if you log on to the Xbox live forums and start talking about Modding xboxes btw.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[SoulsFury]

Only for you Yanks Up in Canada we had ours last month.

I always forget the foreign races of the world don't celebrate the holidays properly!

 

[Ardulac]

Actually, it's extremely unlikely that Colt would be liable, since they would not be then proximate cause of potential injuries. Their concerns are more to do with protecting databases of user info (if the mod poster posted something illegal); and the expensive nuisance that even unsuccessful lawsuits could be.

Great Googling, but I have actually taken Torts, and proximate cause isn't necessary for products liability (at least not between the company and the harm). Either way, whether the lawsuit would be successful or not isn't important. The point is that it is a liability issue either way. And I'm not sure how banning users who modify guns is protecting databases, but whatever.

Oh yeah, and protecting the integrity of their product...just like WotC and every other producer of commercial goods.

Different companies do this to different degrees. Some encourage modding, some go out of their way to make it difficult/impossible. If the discussion is about how hard a company should resist mention of modding programs, then generalizing isn't helpful.

I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY got his point, and the consensus seems to be that we're predominantly unsurprised that a company would not look kindly on people posting product modding data on the company's own website.

One of my other hobbies is playing guitars. One of the most common things guitar players do besides play them is modify them. Very few guitar companies let modding info stay on their boards unless it involves their own modding products. You find modding info on 3rd party sites, like those hosted by magazines, or private fan sites analogous to ENWorld.

Most of the replies seem to be about what WotC CAN do, not what they should do. I think they should be more open to modding since D&D is the sort of game that relies on experimentation and the goodwill of the fans, and the sort of knee-jerk, "it might lead to piracy, so we must prevent any mention of it" reaction they're displaying cuts against that. Then again, I thought 3rd edition and the SRD were pretty much the golden age of gaming and that thing was pretty much piracy on wheels, so I probably lean a lot more C than L.