Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 4658815" data-attributes="member: 18182">Well, not an argument in terms of angry shouting and red faces (at least I hope not).&nbsp; But discussion is argument, hopefully civilized.&nbsp; Differing points of view and all.&nbsp; I didn't mean to imply that you were being dismissive or jerky or anything like that.&nbsp; In fact, in retrospect, my posts I think skirt closer to that line than any of yours, so if I offend I apologize.It is not WotC's job to ensure the health of their own competition, merely their responsibility to play fair while protecting their own interests.&nbsp; It is the job of the competition to provide worthwhile alternatives, again while playing fairly.&nbsp; And if using WotC IP, they must also play by WotC's rules.&nbsp; The specific situation is muddied because the competition we are discussing isn't alternative RPGs, but alternative tools to WotC's D&amp;D RPG.Like it or not, D&amp;D belongs lock, stock, and barrel to WotC.&nbsp; It is their decision on how to approach fans turned competitors on products that use WotC's IP.&nbsp; WotC managment has changed views on how open to be, as their is significant difference between the OGL and the GSL, but they remain the most open major RPG company to date.&nbsp; The very fact that I can publish my own book, for profit, about the dragonborn race is pretty freakin generous.WotC has decided, wisely or unwisely, but completely within the right, that both fans and business competitors can create electronic aids for D&amp;D 4e . . . . as long as they don't use protected WotC IP.&nbsp; Ema did this, he got shut down.&nbsp; Others have not done this, and they have been left alone.WotC could be way more draconian than they have been and go after everybody that is infringing on their IP in the slightest way, but they haven't and likely won't.&nbsp; Ema just went a little too far.To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dire Bare, post: 4658815, member: 18182"] Well, not an argument in terms of angry shouting and red faces (at least I hope not). But discussion is argument, hopefully civilized. Differing points of view and all. I didn't mean to imply that you were being dismissive or jerky or anything like that. In fact, in retrospect, my posts I think skirt closer to that line than any of yours, so if I offend I apologize. It is not WotC's job to ensure the health of their own competition, merely their responsibility to play fair while protecting their own interests. It is the job of the competition to provide worthwhile alternatives, again while playing fairly. And if using WotC IP, they must also play by WotC's rules. The specific situation is muddied because the competition we are discussing isn't alternative RPGs, but alternative tools to WotC's D&D RPG. Like it or not, D&D belongs lock, stock, and barrel to WotC. It is their decision on how to approach fans turned competitors on products that use WotC's IP. WotC managment has changed views on how open to be, as their is significant difference between the OGL and the GSL, but they remain the most open major RPG company to date. The very fact that I can publish my own book, for profit, about the dragonborn race is pretty freakin generous. WotC has decided, wisely or unwisely, but completely within the right, that both fans and business competitors can create electronic aids for D&D 4e . . . . as long as they don't use protected WotC IP. Ema did this, he got shut down. Others have not done this, and they have been left alone. WotC could be way more draconian than they have been and go after everybody that is infringing on their IP in the slightest way, but they haven't and likely won't. Ema just went a little too far. To claim or imply that WotC is unfairly limiting competition (a la Microsoft) paints an inaccurate picture of the situation, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification