Fallen Seraph
First Post
Or old MageActually, I think that might have worked in Planescape.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
4e: The final word
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
Betote
First Post
Your definition is based on the idea that a concept such as "intellectual property" can be an absolute, and it's only so from a certain point of view...
You're 
RefinedBean
First Post
Your definition is based on the idea that a concept such as "intellectual property" can be an absolute, and it's only so from a certain point of view...
Granted. But if anyone has the right to affirm what D&D is, it's the owners of said property. All other people my interpret as they want, but that's just wishful thinking on their part. (shrug)
WalterKovacs
First Post
This is where the "kill them and take their stuff" comes about.
EDIT:
It's good to know that if a thousand say it's a horse and a hundred say it's not, then it isn't a horse ...
Last edited:
Betote
First Post
And that's what I was trying to say. Can an idea or concept as "D&D" have an owner? And if it can, who is that owner?
There are people who'd say that an idea is the sole property of its author. So, then, "D&D" is whatever Gygax and Arneson say (said
) it is.There are other people who'd even say that an idea can't be the sole property of anybody, so "D&D" would be whatever the majority of people say it is.
I'd go further on this, but it'd be stepping on political grounds and no one here wants that
The owners only get the right to use the term/logo professionally, and for profit.
They cannot change history only the present.
The more someone changes and renames things and "brands" them D&D, then it only furthers the dilution of what it is other than a term/logo.
The Coke/New Coke thing proved that the owners didn't really decide what was Coke, by the falling sales of the new product because the consumer said pretty much..."This isn't Coke" and bought something else.
So the owners had to undo their mistake, and accept the consumers decision that the new thing was not Coke, no matter how much the owners wanted it to be.
:twocents:
JackSmithIV
First Post
Agreed. What I'd edited before was a very vitriolic rant about how sometimes consumers claim ownership of an intellectual property without consideration for authorship, and I finished with a sarcastic note about how if Poison Ivy Press released a product that people didn't like, I'd at least hope that they didn't try and pretend that it wasn't legitimate based on their own opinion or experience. I understand the D&D has changed hands, but it's offensive to those who make a living investing in D&D and trying to better it for others by denying their authorship or ownership of the product.
You may not like what they do, and you may not buy it or appreciate it, but it's an insult to those at WotC who work on the game to say that their work is not valid or true because of your personal experience with the D&D product.
[EDIT] I don't mean to point this at anyone, these are just the words of someone who has written material himself, and I hope they don't offend.
Me me me me....pick me!Sorry for being honest, but why should I care?
You sit around all day making games for a living and playing games for a living and expect sympathy for making something some don't like?
Get thicker skin if you cannot take the most severe of criticisms.
Game designers probably get paid more than most of the people that play their games do, so they should be able to take a little flak and understand that not everyone will like what they do.
Look at Scott Rouse. He doesn't write any part of the game, that I know of, but is out there defending it and WotC tooth and nail even within itself. HE doesn't yield what he believes in so why should those that disagree with a direction any company took with a product?
That is the risk every artist takes be it paintings, writing, etc that someone is not going to like what you did. So what?
Do it because you want to do it, not to impress others. If you do what you like, then why should anything someone else has to say be able to bother you?
That being said, why should anyone who doesn't like something done to something they liked in the past to alter it in such a way that makes them feel like their work as a consumer was discarded show any emotion towards those who made it including sympathy?
It is a two way street.
Like people can complain about not liking 3rd WotC can create 4th in the hopes of making some of them happy, and then those not liking for have every right to not like it.
Each side has their part to play in the whole scheme of things. WotC exercises its right with the direction of the product, and consumers exercise their right with their purchases and cheers/jeers of the product.
I think Super Chicken said it best: "You know the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!"
PS: Not offended by it, just wondering why should the consumer care about anything other than the quality of the product they are buying? Did the author not get paid to do it?
Similar Threads
