D&D Fan Site Toolkit

[Dragonhelm]

I really don't think this will happen. Has anyone taken any content off their site that was there yesterday as a result of this action?

I have not as of this time. I'm kind of taking a "wait and see" approach.

 

[FireLance]

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.

 

[ryryguy]

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.

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.)

 

[ryryguy]

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.

 

[Rangergord]

I need a DM guide to law for this

It's this statement that's troubling:

"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.

 

[Maggan]

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

 

[Umbran]

I need a DM guide to law for this

It's this statement that's troubling:

"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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

]

 

[DaveMage]

Meh - it's their IP.

Their policy.

Use it or don't.

4E as a game is not affected. You can still play it and enjoy it.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Meh - it's their IP.

Their policy.

Use it or don't.

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?