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

[dcollins]

I'm not sure you can ever force someone to destroy a personal copy of something. Isn't that language meant to forbid all future distribution of unauthorized copies?

I have to disagree with this. As I said before, this is actually a fairly common inclusion in confidentiality agreements. (After use of shared information, upon request, destroy all copies of the information in question.)

The specific language in the agreement looks pretty clear -- note that the end of distribution is separate from, and in addition to, the destruction of all personal copies:

Wizards or its designated agents may terminate this agreement at any time by notice to you via email or surface mail. If this agreement is terminated, you agree to remove any electronic versions of this conversion under your control from distribution, and to destroy any printed versions of this conversion in your possession immediately.

Now, let me change topics for just a moment. As many problems as the Conversion Agreement has, I'm not convinced that's the main reason for a lack of conversions recently. I might think it's just as likely that as time goes forward, people have less motivation to feel that converting old materials is worthwhile. At the moment of the edition switch, yes, it feels like the existing stack of gaming materials should be usable... but later on, as the current edition library fills out, maybe enough products satisfy those needs directly that it becomes less of an issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if the waning of conversion interest wouldn't have happened anyway regardless of the policy switch. But that's just a hypothesis.

 

[dcollins]

It semed some people were interested in seeking a policy change that would make it possible to do more conversions. I simply thought I would throw a view psts toward finding a way that this could happen.

Are you saying that you think I am wasting my time, because I certainly won't do something on your boards if you feel that way. Without your support toward finding a solution it would be pointless for me to try.

Mark, if you're thinking of bringing this up with WOTC for possible alterations, that's great, and much appreciated.

However, I must say I'm a bit personally discouraged because most of this has been brought up with them previously with no changes. The FAQ here at ENWorld includes a whole series of questions to Anthony Valterra, who himself asserts that a bunch of things need to be changed with the agreement. Here's one example:

3a) What past TSR products are off limits for converting?...
Good Catch. We will need to include those in the next version of the Conversion Document.

There's a bunch of other stuff he said needed changing, such as (a) listing specific trademark prohibitions, (b) listing specific edition sets, (c) allowing other game systems, (d) fixing the language that requires a (nonexistent) ESD link, etc. You can see that all here (as you probably already know): http://www.enworld.org/modules.php?...ns&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=22&page=2

Those responses have been posted for over a year, since the original release of the agreement, and no such changes have ever been made to it.

Finally, something that isn't on that page and I can't immediately find a reference for: Somewhere Mr. Valterra was asked about what (I think we agree) is the most glaring error in the agreement: the mis-attribution of a d20(tm) trademark. On that score, Mr. Valterra actually said that was intentional, and believed WOTC lawyers were applying for that trademark. However, that hasn't been the case to date, as a search at USPTO.gov shows. At any rate, I for one feel uncomfortable agreeing to a license containing untrue statements of trademark ownership within it.

In summary: This has all been brought up with designated WOTC representatives in the past, and no changes were made at that time or since. Somewhat discouraging.

 

[spunky_mutters]

I really think WotC will feel that they have way more to lose than to gain by opening up this can of worms any more than it already is. I think the only way we'll see them put any real effort into this is if it coincides with any future endeavours on their part (e.g. if they decided to market a fan-made conversion collection or something, and needed a base to draw from).

 

[spunky_mutters]

Tell you what... I can't really help along those lines. I don't think that a policy change can be affected with that approach. If Morrus doesn't mind an effort being made in this area on his boards then I'll leave it to you to be in charge of it. You seem to know what needs to be done.

Well obviously you're not an internet whiner; you're here in a professional capacity.

 

[green slime]

Re: I'm with Morrus on this one

And no I don't agree that it's dead easy to convert critters, traps, etc. The CR of many creatures have drastically changed. Just for arguments sake, do you really think you'd convert Return to the Tomb of Horrors on the fly? Or even the D series?

Sorry folks to get this off topic:

Yes. I'd have read the adventure first a time or two. Have a few spawnings of ideas in my head. The players characters capabilities would be known. Their levels and the CRs of the monsters. It is easy to adjust hp, and BAB should the PCs be taking too much of a beating, but after using the system for while this isn't necessary so much. The CR system is a good guideline. It's easy to see, "CowDung, the 7 PCs are only level 10, 20 hill giants are too much..." Having read the adventure before hand, and reviewed appropriate monsters, there are heaps of ways to accomodate. Perhaps the room has 20 sick and diseased hill giants, with reduced Strength, Con, hit points, and they can only take partial actions? Fewer Hill giants? Ogres? Whatever.

Knowing the abilities of the players, it is easy to set appropriate skill DC's, to find and disarm traps, climb walls, evade traps. Whether the steading of the hill giants actually contains hill giants, or ogres is surely irrelevant to the players, who are more involved in the story. Knowing the players, it is easy to guide them into adventure paths, with appropriate clues/hints.

And therein lies the difficulty in rewriting the module for others: You have no idea of the capacity of their characters, nor of their play style. You are far more straightjacketed, and you cannot adjust things should you make a mistake. In making it available for others to use, you are held to an entirely different standard. This is true for all published adventures.

 

[Red Baron]

HeavyG !!

I'd like to talk to you, but your email address isn't available. Could you please email me at sholdenj@rogers.com?

Thanks, dude.

 

[D'karr]

Re: Re: I'm with Morrus on this one

...

Knowing the abilities of the players, it is easy to set appropriate skill DC's, to find and disarm traps, climb walls, evade traps. Whether the steading of the hill giants actually contains hill giants, or ogres is surely irrelevant to the players, who are more involved in the story. Knowing the players, it is easy to guide them into adventure paths, with appropriate clues/hints.

And therein lies the difficulty in rewriting the module for others: You have no idea of the capacity of their characters, nor of their play style. You are far more straightjacketed, and you cannot adjust things should you make a mistake. In making it available for others to use, you are held to an entirely different standard. This is true for all published adventures.

However, you don't have to know the abilities of the PCs that will play. All you have to do is rewrite using the "standard encounter philosophy (SEP)" of 3e.

I'll use the Giants Series as an example because that is what I was referring to with my original first post. The original module was designed for 6-8 players of levels 8-12. At the beginning of the module it specifically says that the optimum mix for a group is 9 characters of various classes with an average experience level of at least 9th. As you can well notice that is twice as many characters as the average SEP party for 3e. I now have a dilemma; make the conversion to still be for 9 PCs or create a conversion for 4 PCs.

Since everything in 3e (CR, EL, XP) revolves around the SEP I would be tempted to go that route. It just means that the adventure is now better balanced for a party of 4 characters of levels 10-12. That is my first conversion decision, to what level am I going to balance this. So as I go through the original module I keep in mind that I want to balance the Encounter Level of any existing encounter to fit with that average I already decided on.

Then I reach area 11 and I run into a massive problem. This area has the following creatures:
(1) Giant Chief - Frost Giant - HP 65
(1) Chief's Wife - Hill Giant - HP 41
(1) Sub-chief - Doesn't specify giant type - HP 49
(1) Cloud Giant - HP 63
(3) Stone Giants - HP 51, 48, 43
(22) Hill Giants - HP ranges from 44 to 27
(8) Ogres - HP ranges from 31 to 20
(1) Cave bear - HP 43

So let's make the straight conversion to 3e as suggested by the current conversion policy.

(1) Giant Chief - Frost Giant - HP 133 - CR 9
(1) Chief's Wife - Hill Giant - HP 102 - CR 7
(1) Sub-chief - Let's make him a hill giant - HP 102 - CR 7
(1) Cloud Giant - HP 178 - CR 11
(3) Stone Giants - HP 119 - CR 8
(22) Hill Giants - HP 102 - CR 7
(8) Ogres - HP 26 - CR 2
(1) Cave Bear - Let's say a Brown Bear - HP 51 - CR 4

As can be easily seen the giants are way more powerful in 3e. This encounter, if it turns into a fight, will be a slaughterhouse. Can 4 PCs of levels 10-12 handle this encounter? Most probably not. So the only way to balance this encounter is to make the giants way less challenging (decreasing HP and capabilities) or removing a boat load of them. Making the giants less challenging is not a good idea because it gives the players the wrong impression of the creature. So decreasing the number and substitution seems to be the only good option.

So you can see from the above example how worthless the conversion policy made fan-based conversions.

My proposed fix would simply be that the conversion author has license to keep the spirit of the encounter as long as he also provides the letter of the encounter. This will give the conversion author the ability to balance the encounter in interesting ways without breaking any copyright, IP or other legal mumbo-jumbo that WotC wants to hold. We would have many more conversions because the creative process for the author is not stifled. We could conceivably have as many conversions of this series as there are members in ENWorld because each could come up with a new twist to that encounter.

As we can see this encounter will be very challenging but do they have to run into all the giants at once? Probably not. There are 37 giants in that encounter. So let the conversion author innovate as long as he stays within the original spirit of the module. If conversions are submitted to an ENworld committee that evaluates the module for blatant copyright infringement (copy and paste text) before it gets posted in the conversion library then we know that the conversion is just that a conversion that stays within the spirit of the original.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Makes money != Right thing to do

Sorry for bringing this back up so late, but time away from the boards will do that to a person.

Your not one of those people who equates the 'right' thing with their own interests are they? How would that have been morally more sound than using the resources to create products which large numbers of people are actually willing to PAY for?
Peace..

I've never claimed that what WoTC did wasn't in the best interest of the business - in fact, I think it was the smartest thing they could have done from a dollar perspective.

But business cannot simply run based on profits and losses - particularly in an industry where gamer satisfaction is key to your continued existence. Unlike the company that sells you your car tires, WoTC lives and breathes based on the satisfaction of the gamers, and yes, even those of us online despite how quick people are to self-deprecate our interests. WoTC continues to sell game extensions based on being perceived to be doing the "right" thing for our beloved hobby. Devaluing that mindshare (3.5 cash-ins aside) is the quickest way for them to return to the irrelevance of the old TSR.

In this case, the "right" thing isn't defined by my personal interests, but by what helps assure a better, longer-lasting relationship between WoTC and its customers - a relationship that brings them vastly more dollars down the line than they may expend upfront.

It would have cost relatively little for WoTC to have come to some sort of arrangement which allowed the conversions to continue to exist, though perhaps in an updated form. While it certainly would have required involvement from their legal teams to hammer out something workeable, it would not have required them to examine and update each module, there were already people lined up to do it for them.

The cheapest, quickest, and easiest answer was certainly to be draconian about it. That does *NOT* somehow translate to being the right thing to do, even in a capitalist society. Maximizing profits makes your shareholders happy, but doesn't please your customers very much. Just as you can't always do everything to please your customers, you can't do absolutely anything to please your shareholders either.

If at the absolute very least the new policy didn't have a self-destruct clause by which any subsequent conversions could also be terminated, we could at least pull up our socks and start over. As it stands, there's no reason for anyone to convert at all, as the work can be wasted in the blink of an attorney's eye.

 

[jasamcarl]

Re: Makes money != Right thing to do

Sorry for bringing this back up so late, but time away from the boards will do that to a person.



I've never claimed that what WoTC did wasn't in the best interest of the business - in fact, I think it was the smartest thing they could have done from a dollar perspective.

But business cannot simply run based on profits and losses - particularly in an industry where gamer satisfaction is key to your continued existence. Unlike the company that sells you your car tires, WoTC lives and breathes based on the satisfaction of the gamers, and yes, even those of us online despite how quick people are to self-deprecate our interests. WoTC continues to sell game extensions based on being perceived to be doing the "right" thing for our beloved hobby. Devaluing that mindshare (3.5 cash-ins aside) is the quickest way for them to return to the irrelevance of the old TSR.

In this case, the "right" thing isn't defined by my personal interests, but by what helps assure a better, longer-lasting relationship between WoTC and its customers - a relationship that brings them vastly more dollars down the line than they may expend upfront.

It would have cost relatively little for WoTC to have come to some sort of arrangement which allowed the conversions to continue to exist, though perhaps in an updated form. While it certainly would have required involvement from their legal teams to hammer out something workeable, it would not have required them to examine and update each module, there were already people lined up to do it for them.

The cheapest, quickest, and easiest answer was certainly to be draconian about it. That does *NOT* somehow translate to being the right thing to do, even in a capitalist society. Maximizing profits makes your shareholders happy, but doesn't please your customers very much. Just as you can't always do everything to please your customers, you can't do absolutely anything to please your shareholders either.

If at the absolute very least the new policy didn't have a self-destruct clause by which any subsequent conversions could also be terminated, we could at least pull up our socks and start over. As it stands, there's no reason for anyone to convert at all, as the work can be wasted in the blink of an attorney's eye.

So you have basically conceded the point that the 'right' thing has to translate to sales for Wotc down the line. So we are making this a quantitative argument. Cool. Now that you have also conceded that the audience for these conversions is relativly small, and even the value placed on them by that small audience is in doubt; is there any reason to believe that the payoff for Wotc in either real sales gains or by minimizing oppurtunity cost would have been such that it would have paid for the legal hassles that would have come with a more comprehensive conversion policy? Please, cite some real evidence of this, given that you are making a factual cost-benefit analysis. At this point I trust Wotc to know what is in their interest moreso than an obviouisly self-interested internet poster.

And high profits do make consumers happy, because it insures that somone will have an incentive to produce said products; as long as the price is smaller than what they are willing to pay, everyone wins. Could profits be smaller? Perhaps, but probably not without reducing the viability of the DND brand as commodity and without reducing the incentive in invest in the quality of said brand through good production values or distribution networks. The higher price can be argued as an extranality. The concept of profit maximization already takes into account the needs of the consumer...

 

[Morrus]

I understand, Morrus. I don't like it either.

However, I'm going to hazard a guess as to why you were asked to make sure the conversions were legal:

If any of the conversions were illegal, ENworld could be liable for any damage that caused to WotC.

Sure - but it was WotC who, in the same breath, made those conversions "illegal" (for want of a better word). Prior to that, they were all fine and existed with WotC's permission.