Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[Echohawk]

The second situation you mention has to do with the MMII. They used monsters that were open source but forgot to place the OGL in the book.

My MMII has the OGL on page 222.

 

[Dire Bare]

My tone of argument? What argument? Last I checked I am not arguing anything. Unless the word opinion = argument to you

Well, not an argument in terms of angry shouting and red faces (at least I hope not). But discussion is argument, hopefully civilized. Differing points of view and all. I didn't mean to imply that you were being dismissive or jerky or anything like that. In fact, in retrospect, my posts I think skirt closer to that line than any of yours, so if I offend I apologize.

It is not WotC's job to ensure the health of their own competition, merely their responsibility to play fair while protecting their own interests. It is the job of the competition to provide worthwhile alternatives, again while playing fairly. And if using WotC IP, they must also play by WotC's rules. The specific situation is muddied because the competition we are discussing isn't alternative RPGs, but alternative tools to WotC's D&D RPG.

Like it or not, D&D belongs lock, stock, and barrel to WotC. It is their decision on how to approach fans turned competitors on products that use WotC's IP. WotC managment has changed views on how open to be, as their is significant difference between the OGL and the GSL, but they remain the most open major RPG company to date. The very fact that I can publish my own book, for profit, about the dragonborn race is pretty freakin generous.

WotC has decided, wisely or unwisely, but completely within the right, that both fans and business competitors can create electronic aids for D&D 4e . . . . as long as they don't use protected WotC IP. Ema did this, he got shut down. Others have not done this, and they have been left alone.

WotC could be way more draconian than they have been and go after everybody that is infringing on their IP in the slightest way, but they haven't and likely won't. Ema just went a little too far.

To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.

 

[dinelendarkstar]

The public wants a lot of things changed regarding what there is now in the world. It is struggling with the current system. It is not something automatic, easy and that simple that we can solve in a forum -even for the specific case here which is rather deeper I think regarding what a forum discussion can do.

Maybe so. But nothing in life happens until you take action. Even if the action is just making your voice heard. No matter what the medium.

Only by exciting open discussion can things in the end, truely be resolved or changed.

Will it change anything? Who knows.

But I do know I am a 29 year player of D&D, I will always be a fan of D&D.
I have grown quite fond of where the game community has gone in those years. Technology and table top gaming have completely merged.

I would like to have options of what software I use for my gaming. I surley don't want to have to settle for just one. Nor should anyone else. But if you play 4E D&D and want to use software at the table, that might just be your fate.

Remind you I say MIGHT. I don't have a crystal ball. But that is the way I see things looking on the horizon. I hope I am wrong.

I'd hate to have to eat Mc Donalds every day.

 

[xechnao]

WotC has decided, wisely or unwisely, but completely within the right, that both fans and business competitors can create electronic aids for D&D 4e . . . . as long as they don't use protected WotC IP. Ema did this, he got shut down. Others have not done this, and they have been left alone.

WotC could be way more draconian than they have been and go after everybody that is infringing on their IP in the slightest way, but they haven't and likely won't. Ema just went a little too far.

To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.

Wotc has not decided this. It is the law. Wotc cannot exclude compatibility with 4e. What they can exclude is your access to certain ways of using their IP and it is what they are doing.
And IMO Wotc is in a certain sense limiting competition by its huge capital and thus marketing advantage in a market very prone to marketing (culture & entertainment). But those who make the laws perhaps want it this way.

 

[xechnao]

Maybe so. But nothing in life happens until you take action. Even if the action is just making your voice heard. No matter what the medium.

Only by exciting open discussion can things in the end, truely be resolved or changed.

Will it change anything? Who knows.

But I do know I am a 29 year player of D&D, I will always be a fan of D&D.
I have grown quite fond of where the game community has gone in those years. Technology and table top gaming have completely merged.

I would like to have options of what software I use for my gaming. I surley don't want to have to settle for just one. Nor should anyone else. But if you play 4E D&D and want to use software at the table, that might just be your fate.

Remind you I say MIGHT. I don't have a crystal ball. But that is the way I see things looking on the horizon. I hope I am wrong.

I'd hate to have to eat Mc Donalds every day.

It works this way. You make the application or software for games. Companies that make games may choose to license it from you or not for their games. You cant offer though something that draws from their games' IP without license from them.

 

[dinelendarkstar]

It is not WotC's job to ensure the health of their own competition, merely their responsibility to play fair while protecting their own interests. It is the job of the competition to provide worthwhile alternatives, again while playing fairly. And if using WotC IP, they must also play by WotC's rules. The specific situation is muddied because the competition we are discussing isn't alternative RPGs, but alternative tools to WotC's D&D RPG.

...

To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.

No apology needed but thanks none the less.

I agree with you here completly. It is not their job at all. I am just saying that looking at it in a strictly business point of view. I think that WotC could look at this in a different light but aren't. They could be like other companies and license the use of the IP for the purpose of Alternate tools or charcter generators. But they are looking at it as people should only use theirs or nothing. The difference is those companies that do license don't have a gen of their own they are trying to market.

Which brings me back to my point from before. D&DI isn't made of just the Character Builder and is still worth it's weight for all it's other tools. I seriously don't think a few other companies doing alt tools of any kind are going to hurt that bottom line. I just can't see that as a reality. But I do see the opportunity for WotC to profit from those alt tools also, if they so choose. Win Win for them. And still a win for the 3PP.

No loss to bottom line + increase in bottom line = happy shareholders.

make a lot of your customers mad and they go somewhere else to play = loss to bottom line = Not happy shareholders.

 

[xechnao]

Which brings me back to my point from before. D&DI isn't made of just the Character Builder and is still worth it's weight for all it's other tools. I seriously don't think a few other companies doing alt tools of any kind are going to hurt that bottom line. I just can't see that as a reality. But I do see the opportunity for WotC to profit from those alt tools also, if they so choose. Win Win for them. And still a win for the 3PP.

This is your POV. I think Wotc disagrees. If they do this for the Character Builder they could also do it for every other tool of DDI and eventually even with their IP as they had done so with OGL. And software competition is worse than game content competition because one chooses the version that he likes best and does not bother with others at all.

 

[alleynbard]

My MMII has the OGL on page 222.

I misspoke. I believe they miscredited the Creature Collection. They stated it was developed by Necromancer Games when, in fact, it was produced by Sword and Sorcery. Though, Necromancer was publishing under the S&S banner at the time. I can't remember, but I thought the info was listed incorrectly in the OGL portion of that book. It might only be incorrectly listed in the sidebar text. I don't have the book near me at the moment.

Honestly, my point was to say the issue wasn't really a situation where Wizards took IP without permission. And that point still stands.

 

[dinelendarkstar]

This is your POV. I think Wotc disagrees. If they do this for the Character Builder they could also do it for every other tool of DDI and eventually even with their IP as they had done so with OGL. And software competition is worse than game content competition because one chooses the version that he likes best and does not bother with others at all.

Well if they were getting a licensing fee from the companies they allowed to use the IP, then they are still getting something from it. If someone doesn't like D&DI and doesn't choose to use it they loss a peice of that customers money. But if that customer buys a licensed product and uses it, they still get a peice. So a peice of x number pies is still better than 0.

Yes this is my point of view and nothing more. But in this economic time, I would think that more businesses would welcome ways to profit. But that is the dog eat dog world we call business. Like it or not.

I can just hope for the best and that it was all worth it in the end.

 

[xechnao]

Well if they were getting a licensing fee from the companies they allowed to use the IP, then they are still getting something from it. If someone doesn't like D&DI and doesn't choose to use it they loss a peice of that customers money. But if that customer buys a licensed product and uses it, they still get a peice. So a peice of x number pies is still better than 0.

Yes this is my point of view and nothing more. But in this economic time, I would think that more businesses would welcome ways to profit. But that is the dog eat dog world we call business. Like it or not.

I can just hope for the best and that it was all worth it in the end.

It seems there are various companies that have made products compatible with 4e playing with the known and established rules (GSL license or fair use). I guess if you want to offer something compatible with 4e this seems the most reasonable way to go. And the business alternatives you have is to also look for other crunchy products that could make good use of software and see if and how you can support them.