Matt James
Game Developer
Jon, we're to the point where I think you just don't get what's being said--or are choosing to ignore it. I'll let the debate rage on, and withdraw before it gets really whacky.
Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias
- Thread starter Wicht
- Start date
- Status
Perram
Explorer
And here I thought you felt your products were better than average.
since you have a somewhat unusual sales system (I'm thinking of the subscription model of the AP), the best approach would be to compare your 4e sales with your 3e sales for the same time period, no? It's not perfect of course, since it is probable that some who wanted the AP for 3e would have picked it up prior to the 4e conversion and your move to a subscription model.
Emberion's anecdotal evidence does suggest that for some product types, Pathfinder can sell better a 1:6 ratio for 4eF for identical product out the same amout of time with the 4e product receiving award mention is notable.
dmccoy1693's earlier post also gave more evidence where he went over the research they did to decide to go with PF over 4e as a company.
The other thing to consider is that PF already has a lot of APs coming from the main company, and they get great reviews. Conversely, 4e's adventures... not as well received.
I can see 4e being the better choice in Morrus' case because of both the nature of his product AND his early mention of getting a big slice of a small pie.
That said... I'm sure someone coming into the market now wouldn't want to get a 'small piece of a small pie.'
Which suggest for other product types, the ratio reverses.
If we look at the product types in question, we see that Paizo specialises in adventure paths (presenting about 2 per year) and you aren't marketing directly to their product brand, but to the legacy into which they are tied.
Emberion's product sounds much more like a focus on a creature type that WotC produces (Draconomincon, Fiendish Codices, Libram Mortis, etc.) that Paizo is not known to produce. Perhaps part of the difference in experience relates to the attached system and the apparent amount of competition from the brand holder for that market segment.
It's a hard hypothesis to test without much wider access to the market and/or a publisher willing to experiment with their money and time.
Well, yeah - we deliberately specialize in 4E adventure paths because the massive gap in the market there benefits us. Frankly, it's an awesome gap, and we'll have another two 4E APs to fill it very soon.
I daresay that we could not sell a Pathfinder AP because there are so many of them. It would certainly be a very expensive experiment, given that we spend tens of thousands on an AP over the course of its lifetime.
Because the text of the license prevents them from doing so.
The could - and did - revoke the d20 STL. The OGL is an open license, and can never be revoked.
Frylock
Explorer
Matt James asked me to contribute to this thread. I’m not sure my legal expertise is entirely on point, so I’ll save most of my views for a future article on loremaster.org, where I have a series of articles called Protection from Chaos. However, considering how badly some of you are going off topic, I feel comfortable addressing a side issue that was raised earlier.
After Matt (henceforth, “JackholeDM”) suggested going outside the GSL, Dmccoy1693 responded, “JBE is not interested in going non-license. We play nice.” (Post #25). There’s nothing “not nice” about ignoring the GSL. As we all know, game rules aren’t copyrightable because they are “functional” (we have patents for that); however, we tend not to fully appreciate the ramifications of that. What is copyrightable is the word, “bulette,” for example, describing a creature created by Gygax, Arneson, or whomever. “Elf” is not. It existed prior to the game, and in fact prior to the concept of copyright law. As an interesting side note, I had to go to Wikipedia to verify that bulette is actually a creation of D&D. There really aren’t that many D&D monsters that are original creations.
So, what does the GSL protect? It protects the word bulette (SRD, page 61), but it doesn’t protect the functional parts of the stat block or the rules under which those stats are applied. Moreover, it doesn’t protect use of the term “Strength” to represent physical might because that term is used too generically to contain any semblance of “originality.” In other words, WotC isn’t permitted to own the word Strength (as is proven by just about every other non-WotC RPG on the market). Truthfully, there is so little that is protectable by WotC, it seems petty (or at least ignorant – which doesn’t mean stupid, so don’t start whining) to complain when they protect what little intellectual property (“IP”) they actually have.
The GSL protects IP, but simultaneously maintains game integrity. What I mean by that is as follows: Without the GSL, you can’t use the term bulette (though you can create something very similar with the same exact stats), so the GSL protects WotC’s IP in the term. What it also does is require you to accept their definition of an elf. They don’t own elf, but they force you to comply with their vision of the elf in order to receive permission to use bulette. This is a fair trade, and it is not “unlawful tying” (for my fellow legal geeks***), because it assures them that all officially licensed products are on the same page creatively speaking.
If, however, you don’t use the GSL, then you may not use the term “bulette.” That’s it. You can’t say, “bulette.” Dragon, elf, and as I learned just yesterday, peryton, are all legendary creatures, and like most D&D monsters, are fair game. As a general rule, all copyright law forbids is your use of proper names, both for creatures (e.g., “Elminster”) and locations (e.g., “Toril”). If you do a quick internet search and find that a fantasy-based creature existed prior to the game, they don’t own it, though Tolkien or Lovecraft might.
There’s nothing “not nice” about going this route, nor is it particularly difficult to travel.
Now, before you take this as legal advice, let me say it absolutely isn’t. I don’t just say this to protect my law license. I say this to protect you from doing something stupid because space limitations preclude me from making more than mere generalizations. There are intricacies to this area of the law, but it would be horribly offensive for WotC to claim ownership in things they clearly don’t own. On the flip side, though, it’s horribly offensive for anyone to complain that they make business decisions to protect what little IP there is to be had in this area.
*** I could find only one case on unlawful tying in the context of copyright law (can’t find the cite immediately), and it was from decades ago (50’s, I think) and in California, where the courts have an incentive to protect copyright. The copyright monopoly was considered too weak to extend unlawful tying to it. The subject hasn’t been brought up in a published decision since.
After Matt (henceforth, “JackholeDM”) suggested going outside the GSL, Dmccoy1693 responded, “JBE is not interested in going non-license. We play nice.” (Post #25). There’s nothing “not nice” about ignoring the GSL. As we all know, game rules aren’t copyrightable because they are “functional” (we have patents for that); however, we tend not to fully appreciate the ramifications of that. What is copyrightable is the word, “bulette,” for example, describing a creature created by Gygax, Arneson, or whomever. “Elf” is not. It existed prior to the game, and in fact prior to the concept of copyright law. As an interesting side note, I had to go to Wikipedia to verify that bulette is actually a creation of D&D. There really aren’t that many D&D monsters that are original creations.
So, what does the GSL protect? It protects the word bulette (SRD, page 61), but it doesn’t protect the functional parts of the stat block or the rules under which those stats are applied. Moreover, it doesn’t protect use of the term “Strength” to represent physical might because that term is used too generically to contain any semblance of “originality.” In other words, WotC isn’t permitted to own the word Strength (as is proven by just about every other non-WotC RPG on the market). Truthfully, there is so little that is protectable by WotC, it seems petty (or at least ignorant – which doesn’t mean stupid, so don’t start whining) to complain when they protect what little intellectual property (“IP”) they actually have.
The GSL protects IP, but simultaneously maintains game integrity. What I mean by that is as follows: Without the GSL, you can’t use the term bulette (though you can create something very similar with the same exact stats), so the GSL protects WotC’s IP in the term. What it also does is require you to accept their definition of an elf. They don’t own elf, but they force you to comply with their vision of the elf in order to receive permission to use bulette. This is a fair trade, and it is not “unlawful tying” (for my fellow legal geeks***), because it assures them that all officially licensed products are on the same page creatively speaking.
If, however, you don’t use the GSL, then you may not use the term “bulette.” That’s it. You can’t say, “bulette.” Dragon, elf, and as I learned just yesterday, peryton, are all legendary creatures, and like most D&D monsters, are fair game. As a general rule, all copyright law forbids is your use of proper names, both for creatures (e.g., “Elminster”) and locations (e.g., “Toril”). If you do a quick internet search and find that a fantasy-based creature existed prior to the game, they don’t own it, though Tolkien or Lovecraft might.
There’s nothing “not nice” about going this route, nor is it particularly difficult to travel.
Now, before you take this as legal advice, let me say it absolutely isn’t. I don’t just say this to protect my law license. I say this to protect you from doing something stupid because space limitations preclude me from making more than mere generalizations. There are intricacies to this area of the law, but it would be horribly offensive for WotC to claim ownership in things they clearly don’t own. On the flip side, though, it’s horribly offensive for anyone to complain that they make business decisions to protect what little IP there is to be had in this area.
*** I could find only one case on unlawful tying in the context of copyright law (can’t find the cite immediately), and it was from decades ago (50’s, I think) and in California, where the courts have an incentive to protect copyright. The copyright monopoly was considered too weak to extend unlawful tying to it. The subject hasn’t been brought up in a published decision since.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
I know your points and I am rejecting them. Your point is is that, I as a small publisher should beg and plead Wizards to let me work on their game, or I should go the less polite option and ignore the license ... because D&D is just that worth it.
I am saying, I don't have to. I have an inviting environment over here that (according to several publishers that quit creating 3rd party 4E material and now produce 3rd party Pathfinder material, according to DriveThruRPG's numbers, according another source that I privately shared with Morris) sells in greater numbers.
Seriously, I can't state it any more clearly. Wizards has to change, not me. As it stands now, I'm not interested in working on 4E in any capacity and I am really stumped why any company would really want to.
But you keep saying that. "WotC has to change". Why? Why does it have to change? Why do you keep maintaining that it does have to?
That's Matt's point, the one to which you are not replying. You keep making a statement, and people are asking you to qualify it.
It doesn't have to change, IMO. It has no reason to. It doesn't want you to produce 3PP products; those that are possible were begrudgingly allowed after Scott Rouse campaigned for it. It does not agree that 3PPs will benefit it. In addition, I am personally quite happy for it not to do so, because I get a larger piece of the pie that way.
No, you don't have to convince WotC of anything. You do have to convince your fellow debaters in this thread, though, in order to be taken seriously; otherwise why are you even here, posting? Making statements and saying "Nyah nyah, I don't have to!" when asked to back them up is not debating. It's barely conversation.
That's what we're doing, right? Debating this amongst ourselves? To take part in the debate, you have to back up what you say. And that is by answering the question: "Why?"
Last edited:
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
Post deleted, it was not necessary.
- Status
Similar Threads
