Did WotC Effectively KILL the En World community's conversion process?

[scadgrad]

Hey Gang,

Just wondering... I just cruised over to the Conversion library & it's looking pretty light compared to what it once was. No offense to anyone who has put the hours in on those that are included. And by all means please find time to do more.

But it seems odd that there are so many modules (mentioned in countless threads on the boards) that I'm sure we'd all love to see converted, but sadly most of us haven't the time to convert them ourselves.

That's really sad isn't it. Every time I look at all my old modules, I just flip threw them & then move on to something that has been designed for 3.5.

Just wondering if anyone else was frustrated by this.

 

[Nifft]

Surfeit good!

Frustrated at having too much good stuff to bother re-working old stuff? Never!

Besides, you can mine old stuff for evil ideas -- NPC personalities, maps, etc. -- which are IMHO far harder than making a bunch of monster stats.

-- Nifft

 

[Snoweel]

Re: Surfeit good!

Besides, you can mine old stuff for evil ideas -- NPC personalities, maps, etc. -- which are IMHO far harder than making a bunch of monster stats.

Yep.

Stats are the easy part.

I bought 2e "Slavers" nearly a year after 3e came out and had fun converting it to my 3e homebrew.

 

[green slime]

Hey Gang,

Just wondering... I just cruised over to the Conversion library & it's looking pretty light compared to what it once was. No offense to anyone who has put the hours in on those that are included. And by all means please find time to do more.

But it seems odd that there are so many modules (mentioned in countless threads on the boards) that I'm sure we'd all love to see converted, but sadly most of us haven't the time to convert them ourselves.

That's really sad isn't it. Every time I look at all my old modules, I just flip threw them & then move on to something that has been designed for 3.5.

Just wondering if anyone else was frustrated by this.

IMO, yes, WotC killed the conversion process.

If you wanted to "publish" the information on the net, you are only allowed to present the barebones. Which is fine and dandy. I can handle that. You are also required to stick to the letter of original. So if it the original has 1e/2e monsters in it, that are way out of line with their updated 3e counterparts (CR-wise, for the level of the party) you can't change anything. Which takes away the last final gist of any creative part that was left, and makes the whole exercise one of sheer "death by stats boredom".

I started to convert Bruce Cordell's Mindflayer series when I discovered just how strict those rules are, so I didn't bother finishing.

It really is a shame, but few people are interested in doing all the hard work, and have such ludcrious difficult encounters stringed together without any thought for what the target level for the participating party should be.

 

[Mark]

WotC is in a tough position. They are legally required to defend their property or risk losing it. But unlike early internet days where companies came down on proponents of conversions with an iron fist, WotC put time and manpower into creating a legal way in which folks could pursue conversions. It's unfortunate that a conversion of a string of encounters doesn't take into account the evolution of the rules system when it comes to a conversion being a viably-useful, final product. I think WotC did what they could to meet a public desire half way if not more.

 

[rounser]

Very true Mark. Unfortunately, I doubt that 90% of that intellectual property is ever going to see the light of day in published form for a new edition ever again, which effectively means that you can convert in a customised fashion for yourself, but the community can't benefit.

I think, perhaps, that copyright law deserves the frown in this case - on the surface of it, I think that losing your copyright if you "don't defend it" leaves a lot to be desired, as far as laws go. Sounds like a overly simple attempt at a blanket solution to a complex problem.

 

[Mark]

Very true Mark. Unfortunately, I doubt that 90% of that intellectual property is ever going to see the light of day in published form for a new edition ever again, which effectively means that you can convert in a customised fashion for yourself, but the community can't benefit.

I think, perhaps, that copyright law deserves the frown in this case - on the surface of it, I think that losing your copyright if you "don't defend it" leaves a lot to be desired, as far as laws go. Sounds like a overly simple attempt at a blanket solution to a complex problem.

I agree that the "blanket" doesn't appear to serve the common good, but the subject of the thread places the blame on WotC whereas it is not their call to make. They are as bound to the law defending their property as the person who unwisely chooses to misuse it.

As you note, the conflict does not come in the conversion, but in the distribution.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Mark, I'm not sure if you're confusing copyright and trademark law. I don't think they risk losing copyright on something unless they explicitly give it up. Simply turning the other way, or even defining the ways that they will allow their back-catalogues to be used without licence does not mean they forego copyright on them. Trademark is completely different, though. I think they could loosen things up, but it is mostly as you say, they aren't totally sure, and are erring on the side of caution.

 

[rounser]

I agree that the "blanket" doesn't appear to serve the common good, but the subject of the thread places the blame on WotC whereas it is not their call to make.

Yes, the thread title does do that, and I think you've pointed out some very serious problems with that line of thinking.

They are as bound to the law defending their property as the person who unwisely chooses to misuse it.

To be clear, I didn't mean to imply otherwise - I was simply stating that most of the intellectual property will probably never be published in an updated form again as a fact. Not saying that it should ever be published again, just not practical, no money in it - no blame intended. Just that it probably won't, and that's that.

 

[Mark]

Mark, I'm not sure if you're confusing copyright and trademark law. I don't think they risk losing copyright on something unless they explicitly give it up. Simply turning the other way, or even defining the ways that they will allow their back-catalogues to be used without licence does not mean they forego copyright on them. Trademark is completely different, though. I think they could loosen things up, but it is mostly as you say, they aren't totally sure, and are erring on the side of caution.

I'm no lawyer, as I've mentioned before, but I'm discussing intellectual property and have been careful not to use the terms copyright or trademark up until this point.