C&Ds for Online D&D 5E Character Generators

Ed Friedlander reports that WotC has asked him to remove his D&D character generators. Ed ran the generators at his site, Pathguy.com, including a D&D 5E character generator. His Pathfinder RPG character generator is still running. Thanks to Slayyne for the scoop (who also reports that at least one other site has also closed). [Update: while the actual request has not been shared, others have reported that these are very amicable requests].

You can see his closing note here.

"After almost two decades, Wizards of the Coast has asked me to remove my online character generators. I appreciate the many people who have written and thanked me for my work, and I hope you will continue to enjoy the hobby.

As a physician and gamer, I've supported and defended the hobby, and helped concerned families understand its value.

The "Dungeons and Dragons" phenomenon has encouraged young people to study other cultures. It is a game in which people work together to accomplish a meaningful goal. Characters even define themselves in terms of their good morals and their ethics. On one level, it simulates the spiritual warfare described in the Christian scriptures and in the Arthurian legends on which the game is based. I am proud that I was able to make a contribution.

My generator for Pathfinder will of course remain online. Click here for more information about this role-playing game.

May your dice come up 20s.

Ed Friedlander MD"

Back in November, the D&D Tools website suffered a similar fate, as have a couple of spellcard websites. While WotC appears to be largely easygoing as far as fan creations are concerned, they do take action when content from their products is copied or distributed.

Ed's character generator created characters by selecting a number of options, and output a character sheet similar to below. I'm not all that familiar with it, so I don't know what text, if any, it may have borrowed from the official rules.

As yet, there's no license (Open Gaming or otherwise) for D&D 5th Edition (although WotC does intend to do so), although a number of publishers have published books anyway using the older Open Gaming License for D&D 3E and 3.5.

What is interesting to hear is that some people who have received such requests describe them as very amicable. Toxic Rat says "Speaking from personal experience, I received a very nice email asking that I take down particular content owned by WotC. No threats, no warnings of legal action, just a request to honor their copyright." That's great to hear.

​

 

[DEFCON 1]

Very few people are saying that.

And that's still a few too many.

 

[Slayyne]

I'm sure someone else has already raised this same point within this thread, but why is it so selective? Why are they not going after the form-fillable pdf's and mobile apps which were have no apparent difference than the websites? This is not to say that I think they should. Community involvement and investment is the sign of a healthy game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Whatever, man. Just like I said, some people will defend WotC no matter what. You even arrived on cue.

Meanwhile, some of us are concerned because we see a real problem. If it's not a problem for you, great, but why do you have to insist it's not a problem for us?

Um...you're kind of doing the exact same thing though. Just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone, which is sort of the implication there with many of the posts earlier (WoTC is killing 5e with their stupidity!!!).


And also, when you lead off your reply with a strawman ad hominem? Doesn't make me all that receptive to the rest of what you're saying.

 

[tomBitonti]

If the matter were trade dress or trademark, couldn't that be addressed by removing the use of such? If the matter were the inclusion of text (or other material clearly subject to copyright), that could be addressed by avoiding such usage.

I worry, though, about where to draw the line on what is subject to copyright. For example, do class names fall under copyright? Do power names and feat names fall under copyright? I don't think you can copyright a feat effect ("this feat grants a +1 bonus to attacks made with a weapon specified when the feat is taken"), but you can (perhaps) copyright the feat name and particular wording.

I worry too, about the difficulty of differentiating private usage (for one's self) from public usage (for anyone on the net), because the target use is "local" (one's self, and one's gaming group), with the gaming group very easily growing to a local community (a gaming club), to the public at large -- better tools might see their usage grow very quickly, what with the speed which which references can be cross the net.

 

[seebs]

Losing a tool like this sucks, but it's the nature of the beast with IP law. Not taking action against infringing, if innocuous sites, has the potential to weaken WoTC's case against battles they need to win, like sites copying the book wholesale.

This is not generally the case, so far as I can tell. I'm not a lawyer, but I have talked to them about this topic.

 

[Nylanfs]

And these C&D's right here are why we at PCGen are waiting on WotC to FINALLY put out their license to see if we can use it, we already know we can support the system rules. If we were a real entity I'd be approaching WotC for a license.

 

[Bugleyman]

Um...you're kind of doing the exact same thing though. Just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone, which is sort of the implication there with many of the posts earlier (WoTC is killing 5e with their stupidity!!!).


And also, when you lead off your reply with a strawman ad hominem? Doesn't make me all that receptive to the rest of what you're saying.

Sorry; I felt very much like you opened with a straw man yourself, but that doesn't excuse my behavior.

The thing is, they're absolutely damaging D&D. They've lost me as a customer. They've lost my groups as customers. Several others have said the same thing. The only reasonable point of contention at this point is how much damage they're doing. I think more, you think less. Fine. Frankly, no one -- not even WotC -- knows for sure.

But the question remains...why are they doing it at all? It's not as if a lack of tools is going to win them customers. As demonstrated on this thread, people who don't use the tools don't care.

Finally, I don't find the "Wotc knows best" argument at all convincing, especially after watching the self-inflicted 4E death spiral.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The thing is, they're absolutely damaging D&D. They've lost me as a customer. They've lost my groups as customers. Several others have said the same thing. The only reasonable point of contention at this point is how much damage they're doing. I think more, you think less. Fine. Frankly, no one -- not even WotC -- knows for sure.

yes by doing there jobs and maintaining the business end they lost your business... what is the alternate path? Not defend there IP, and shut there doors?

But the question remains...why are they doing it at all? It's not as if a lack of tools is going to win them customers. As demonstrated on this thread, people who don't use the tools don't care.

lets try this, reread where people point out why they issue C&D... then read how this is part of there jobs, and that the people receiving the C&D might be in the wrong, but because you want what they do, that should matter.

Finally, I don't find the "Wotc knows best" argument at all convincing, especially after watching the self-inflicted 4E death spiral.

I don't find "People who just want free stuff know best" a better argument at all.

infact it seems to me that the people who complain about C&D letters are those that want free online resources... so because they wont give you what you want you think someone else has the right to illegally use the IP...

 

[Morrus]

The thing is, they're absolutely damaging D&D. They've lost me as a customer.

I'm pretty sure they've lost you as a customer at least three times now!

 

[delericho]

infact it seems to me that the people who complain about C&D letters are those that want free online resources... so because they wont give you what you want you think someone else has the right to illegally use the IP...

Here's the thing, though: in this case it looks very much like the IP wasn't being used illegally. If that is the case (which I'll concede isn't 100% established - nor will it ever be) then there is cause for complaint, because it would be a matter of WotC asserting rights they don't have and taking away something that has every right to exist.

I have every sympathy with content providers who want to protect their work. Copyright laws exist for very good reasons. But copyright laws also have their limits, again for very good reasons.