Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
HEROLAB'S 5E Update Is Here!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="techno" data-source="post: 7693281" data-attributes="member: 695"><p>Rob (a Lone Wolf staff member) posted (on the Lone Wolf forum) the following information in response to questions about the viability of creating community files to fill in the missing non-SRD content:</p><p></p><p>Here are some thoughts on this subject that will hopefully address some of the questions/concerns expressed above...</p><p></p><p>1. It is absolutely possible to extend the 5E data files in substantial ways. For reference, look at the myriad extensions for Pathfinder. The vast majority of Pathfinder 3PP data files, including the material we official sell, is created by the 3PPs themselves. In addition, the mammoth catalog of 3.5E community packs is all user-created. And it's all done without direct access to the raw data files. The same can be readily achieved for 5E.</p><p></p><p>2. The 3.5E community packs have existed for many years (nearly a decade). They were started back before 4E was even released. So the assumption that community files for 5E would be summarily shutdown by Wizards is not accurate. The first real question is whether the community files violate Wizards' copyright protections. Copyright protects the expression of an idea - not the idea itself - and it is not possible to copyright mechanics (that requires a patent). That means Wizards can absolutely require that users don't re-use the names, images, or complete descriptive text of anything they create - and they should. However, reproducing the mechanics of a particular feat or path is not covered by copyright protection. This means that a community-driven effort is viable, provided that it avoids using protected names (e.g. rename Mind Flayer to something similarly suggestive), omits all images, and paraphrases any descriptions. With those criteria met, I believe the community pack would generally be safe. Disclaimer: I'm NOT a lawyer, but I’ve talked to one extensively about this, and this is my understanding.</p><p></p><p>3. The other real question, and probably the more important one to Wizards, is whether any community-created data files would negatively impact Wizards’ sales of D&D products. So an important aspect of any community effort would be to ensure the data files don't “compete” against sales of the rulebooks or other products that Wizards is selling. As long as that requirement is met, it’s highly unlikely that Wizards would take exception to the community effort. And if the community data files are structured such that Wizards perceives them as making the game more accessible or easier for players/DMs (i.e. indirectly boosting sales of books), then we’ve achieved a truly symbiotic relationship. That’s the ideal scenario here, and it’s one that I believe is readily achievable. Disclaimer: I’m not privy to Wizards’ thinking on this, but I’m viewing this from the perspective of a business owner.</p><p></p><p>4. There is no reason for a community effort to go on hold based on the possibility of an official license. We’ve been striving to secure an official license for a very long time now, and the process is fraught with hurdles. Some of those hurdles are now behind us, but others still remain. A big hurdle has been, and will continue to be, expected pricing. Even if we do secure an official license, my assumption is that the required price point will be a barrier for some players, so I believe there’s a place for both an SRD-based community pack AND an officially licensed version of D&D – both through Hero Lab. There will be plenty of users who are happy to pay a premium for all the official text, the images, the simplicity, and the added testing of an “official” version. There will also be plenty of users who are content to use the unofficial community packs and save some money. I think there’s a place for both, and that assumes we CAN secure an official license (far from a sure thing). From my perspective, this means anyone interested in contributing to the community effort should not hold off based on the mere possibility of an official license.</p><p></p><p>I hope these thoughts prove helpful to everyone when determining whether to contribute to the community effort and how best to realize that effort.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="techno, post: 7693281, member: 695"] Rob (a Lone Wolf staff member) posted (on the Lone Wolf forum) the following information in response to questions about the viability of creating community files to fill in the missing non-SRD content: Here are some thoughts on this subject that will hopefully address some of the questions/concerns expressed above... 1. It is absolutely possible to extend the 5E data files in substantial ways. For reference, look at the myriad extensions for Pathfinder. The vast majority of Pathfinder 3PP data files, including the material we official sell, is created by the 3PPs themselves. In addition, the mammoth catalog of 3.5E community packs is all user-created. And it's all done without direct access to the raw data files. The same can be readily achieved for 5E. 2. The 3.5E community packs have existed for many years (nearly a decade). They were started back before 4E was even released. So the assumption that community files for 5E would be summarily shutdown by Wizards is not accurate. The first real question is whether the community files violate Wizards' copyright protections. Copyright protects the expression of an idea - not the idea itself - and it is not possible to copyright mechanics (that requires a patent). That means Wizards can absolutely require that users don't re-use the names, images, or complete descriptive text of anything they create - and they should. However, reproducing the mechanics of a particular feat or path is not covered by copyright protection. This means that a community-driven effort is viable, provided that it avoids using protected names (e.g. rename Mind Flayer to something similarly suggestive), omits all images, and paraphrases any descriptions. With those criteria met, I believe the community pack would generally be safe. Disclaimer: I'm NOT a lawyer, but I’ve talked to one extensively about this, and this is my understanding. 3. The other real question, and probably the more important one to Wizards, is whether any community-created data files would negatively impact Wizards’ sales of D&D products. So an important aspect of any community effort would be to ensure the data files don't “compete” against sales of the rulebooks or other products that Wizards is selling. As long as that requirement is met, it’s highly unlikely that Wizards would take exception to the community effort. And if the community data files are structured such that Wizards perceives them as making the game more accessible or easier for players/DMs (i.e. indirectly boosting sales of books), then we’ve achieved a truly symbiotic relationship. That’s the ideal scenario here, and it’s one that I believe is readily achievable. Disclaimer: I’m not privy to Wizards’ thinking on this, but I’m viewing this from the perspective of a business owner. 4. There is no reason for a community effort to go on hold based on the possibility of an official license. We’ve been striving to secure an official license for a very long time now, and the process is fraught with hurdles. Some of those hurdles are now behind us, but others still remain. A big hurdle has been, and will continue to be, expected pricing. Even if we do secure an official license, my assumption is that the required price point will be a barrier for some players, so I believe there’s a place for both an SRD-based community pack AND an officially licensed version of D&D – both through Hero Lab. There will be plenty of users who are happy to pay a premium for all the official text, the images, the simplicity, and the added testing of an “official” version. There will also be plenty of users who are content to use the unofficial community packs and save some money. I think there’s a place for both, and that assumes we CAN secure an official license (far from a sure thing). From my perspective, this means anyone interested in contributing to the community effort should not hold off based on the mere possibility of an official license. I hope these thoughts prove helpful to everyone when determining whether to contribute to the community effort and how best to realize that effort. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
HEROLAB'S 5E Update Is Here!
Top