Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[xechnao]

We can't objectively agree that WotC saved D&D as a brand? Really? I mean, love 3E or hate it, D&D was all but dead when WotC bought TSR, wasn't it?

I was trying to be clear pointing out that D&D as a roleplaying game is not something that can be valued objectively -as a roleplaying game. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
A brand OTOH is something objectively recognized. But it is not the same thing. A brand is about money, a game is about love and white knights and whatever.

 

[Cor Azer]

Again, these aren't mutually exclusive. (Though instead of "be heroes to the masses," I'd have categorized it as "save a game that they loved and knew millions of others loved.")

We're probably arguing semantics here. In my opinion, if you're doing something for any extra reason in addition to altruism, the activity as a whole can't really be considered altruism. It can still be beneficial to others, but it's not altruism/White Knight.

Was it tried?

Point. I should have said "apparently wasn't possible", since it doesn't look like it was attempted.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

We're probably arguing semantics here. In my opinion, if you're doing something for any extra reason in addition to altruism, the activity as a whole can't really be considered altruism. It can still be beneficial to others, but it's not altruism/White Knight.

"White Knight" has a business meaning, too. Admittedly, I was using it as a hybrid of that meaning and one that fits more comfortably on this board.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I know it's a civil case, I called it that in my post.

However, I still don't think your reasoning here has merit. Given how expensive legal fees are, if a corporation files suit against an individual, and said individual goes to trial over it, they'll almost certainly never make it all the way to a verdict - their money will run out long before that.

If you can't afford a lawyer (or, quite often, team of lawyers) to make it all the way through a case, you've as good as lost. Arguing the merits of a civil case yourself isn't really a practical option, since no matter how right your position was, a practiced lawyer would utterly annihilate you in front of a judge.

Hence why I say that the actual legality of something isn't the most important factor in a civil suit - if WotC wants to stop a site from using anything that they think even remotely resembles their IP, a C&D letter will almost always suffice. No one person that they'd sue has the money to take them to court and actually make it to a verdict.

Almost always is the right phrasing. Sure WotC has deep pockets, but how deep and how much of those deep pockets are they willing to spend and for what. There risk is who they decide to go after. If the person, like myself, believes in what they are doing and has the money to fight back they may just get that fight. If the person they sue has enough cash for a lawyer to begin with, but no deep pockets, and is willing to lose all their money over principle, then WotC could be in trouble. Sure WotC would eventually be able to outspend them, but WotC would end up spending hundreds of thousands and if they win they would end up with nothing. Since America has no debtors prisons, all WotC would have is a judgment against future income that would amount to practicality nothing. Plus, as has been mentioned, there is also the countersuit for legal fees, so if the defendants can find a lawyer who also believes that the defendant is right and is willing to stick around after the initial cash is used up then they might still get paid. Then WotC could be on the hook for even more with absolutely nothing to show for it.

The C&D letters make for a good scare tactic, but unless WotC is sure they will win then actually suing is something they will actually have to seriously think about. In this particular case WotC would likely win, but if the owner of the site is willing to put up money even knowing they will lose, then it still may not be worth it financially for WotC to press the case. Again, WotC only collects damages if the defendant can pay damages. Remember, WotC is a business and all those lawyers have to be paid, and if paying those lawyers is more expensive than the profits they will make from increased sales of Power Cards then that is not a wise use of their money. People often collect personal injury damages because it is cheaper to pay claimants a few thousand dollars, than it is to spend tens of thousands of dollars for lawyers to fight the case. If it is Trademark, then they have to sue or risk losing their Trademark, but for Copyright only they don't have to sue.

 

[Cor Azer]

Except there is plenty of evidence that Peter Adkinson was more interested in saving the game than buying another brand to expand his empire. Sure he wanted to make money as well, but the purchase of TSR was as a White Knight wanting to protect the brand from being auctioned off in the dissolution of TSR in bankruptcy.

Again, I'm not saying that Adkinson and WotC didn't love the game, but in my opinion, if they were also in it for money/the brand, it's not being a White Knight.

As people often say about rules changes - had D&D stopped being published with the end of TSR, there wouldn't have been some police force that went out and collected all our books. The WotC crew could still play their games; all of us would still have our 2E campaigns (or whatever other RPGs we were playing).

I don't think the game needed saving.

WotC enjoyed their gaming experiences and had fond memories. They also saw some value in the brand. They had some ideas for how to grow it and rework parts of it to, with luck, make it more fun. This would obviously have the benefit of giving all the D&D fans new books to enjoy, but as publishers, this mainly meant revenue.

I'm not trying to ascribe black hats to WotC in place of this white knight image. I don't think they "stole" D&D or anything. They wanted to help improve the game (and I generally think they've succeeded), but they are a business, and that means they exist to try to make money.

As far as I'm concerned, if one of your goals is to make money (or perhaps, more exactly, to earn profit; this distinguishes those fans who share their own material but derive income from showing ads to support their site), then that is mutually exclusive from altruism. Obviously, your view of altruism may differ.

 

[Cor Azer]

"White Knight" has a business meaning, too. Admittedly, I was using it as a hybrid of that meaning and one that fits more comfortably on this board.

Really? I did not know that. I was considering it in the colloquial sense. I'll have to go read up about the business/technical definition.

Onward to wikipedia!

 

[Scribble]

Except there is plenty of evidence that Peter Adkinson was more interested in saving the game than buying another brand to expand his empire. Sure he wanted to make money as well, but the purchase of TSR was as a White Knight wanting to protect the brand from being auctioned off in the dissolution of TSR in bankruptcy.

And then he promtly sold it to one of (if not the) largest toy companies.


just sayin.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

And then he promtly sold it to one of (if not the) largest toy companies.


just sayin.

And still pushed through the OGL before leaving the company.

 

[Scribble]

And still pushed through the OGL before leaving the company.

Sure.

I just don't think his actions were quite as altruistic as a lot of people seem to claim.

 

[xechnao]

And still pushed through the OGL before leaving the company.

So are you saying the OGL was not for the commercial interests of D&D's brand owner?