House Rules in the Character Builder

[Scribble]

If I were them, I would do this through a separate "Power Builder" tool, which would have the ability to export the finished power to the Character Builder, rather than including the ability to build custom powers into the CB directly.

But then, as I mentioned on another thread, I think the next step for the DDI is to allow users to 'open' their creations (monsters, powers, adventures, etc) for other people to use. That way, they get a DDI that is constantly increasing in value for minimal development effort - all they would need is an editorial team to take the best of the community work, apply errata, and promote it to official status.

I think they will do exactly that in the adventure tools. The DM will get a custom power/feat/item builder.

My guess is they plan to link all of the tools together, so the DM gets to choose what options are available for a campaign, as well as add any houserules, and the players will see his campaign show up as one of the options like the current ones show up now (Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Encounters, etc...)

Then all that stuff gets to be imported into the game table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I remember that discussion too. It certainly is a good long-range vision. Probably pretty tricky to make it all work, but they could get there eventually.

I'm dubious they'll create a way to publish stuff for other people to use and do anything like promoting stuff to official status or rating it. Not that those are bad ideas, but they're certainly a legal/community relations hairball. If they leave ownership of the game element in the hands of its author, then they lose control of the game as it actually exists (vs whatever the published rules are). If they assert IP rights over each element people put in that doesn't sit well with the community either, and it also obligates them to defend those rights when they have little to no idea where they came from or what 3rd party material might overlap with them. It also kills any DMCA safe harbor they might otherwise assert on user-submissions.

Basically for a commercial game like D&D working under standard accepted IP rules the legal and creative headaches might simply outweigh the benefits in their thinking. At least until someone does it all without them and they aren't left with a choice.

Honestly I think the funny thing is that the OGL was way ahead of its time. It actually burned WotC when they used it, but something like the GSL they use now will be wholly inappropriate to what will likely exist 10 years from now, when an OGL type license probably make huge sense and their business model will be collecting subscription payments to run community game support and some basic editorial direction instead of selling books and other gewgaws. They should have used something like GSL on 3e and something like OGL might be the ticket for whatever edition is the thing in 2015 and on, by which time this whole vision could be realized.

 

[Kzach]

Must spread XP. As a web applications programmer, I agree entirely with the entire post.

NO!

It's THEIR fault!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

hehehe. You type 2 you! lol.

 

[delericho]

I'm dubious they'll create a way to publish stuff for other people to use and do anything like promoting stuff to official status or rating it. Not that those are bad ideas, but they're certainly a legal/community relations hairball.

I would be more than a little surprised if the current DDI T&C didn't already include a clause hidden away that gives WotC ownership of everything that gets put on there. Of course, they would be unwise ever to assert those rights...

However, I don't see any community relations issue in allowing people to open their stuff up for other users. After all, it's not like anyone is forcing them to do it! (Sure, some people will claim this is a big IP grab - but those people are insane and should be ignored.) And they can incentivise it using some sort of online "DM Rewards" program, allowing people to claim credits when other people use their stuff, and thus save for some sort of goodies (much like the DM Rewards programs that exist(ed) for Organised Play).

Now, it is true that there's a much bigger issue with upgrading things to 'official' status, since at this point WotC would have to explicitly take full ownership of the IP. But they're hardly strangers to paying people for submissions - surely it wouldn't be much different from them paying for Dragon/Dungeon articles, except that they already know the material is popular and good quality?

If they assert IP rights over each element people put in that doesn't sit well with the community either, and it also obligates them to defend those rights when they have little to no idea where they came from or what 3rd party material might overlap with them.

That's an issue, but it's an issue now. What is there to stop a malicious person using a picture of Mickey Mouse as his character portrait, contacting Disney, and having WotC sued for distributing copyright images? (Well, other than that he would also be sued.)

 

[mudbunny]

That's an issue, but it's an issue now. What is there to stop a malicious person using a picture of Mickey Mouse as his character portrait, contacting Disney, and having WotC sued for distributing copyright images? (Well, other than that he would also be sued.)

I believe (and IANAL) that before WotC could be sued by The House of Mouse (or any other company who has an image being used improperly) that because WotC is not putting it up, but that users are putting it up, WotC must be given notice about the image as well as a reasonable time frame in which to remove the offending material before further legal action may be taken.

 

[Umbran]

Problem #3: funding. WoTC is not a software company and the DDI interfaces are not where they get their money. They really should have outsourced instead of hiring their own.

Look back before DDI, and you'll see why they didn't outsource - they got bitten badly (multimillion dollars badly) by outsourced development in the past.

The only folks who can reliably manage outsourced software development are folks who already do software development. If you know how to manage software projects, you can effectively and efficiently extend your abilities by hiring other folks to do it. But, if you're clueless, things will go bad whether you do things in-house or with external resources.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would be more than a little surprised if the current DDI T&C didn't already include a clause hidden away that gives WotC ownership of everything that gets put on there. Of course, they would be unwise ever to assert those rights...

However, I don't see any community relations issue in allowing people to open their stuff up for other users. After all, it's not like anyone is forcing them to do it! (Sure, some people will claim this is a big IP grab - but those people are insane and should be ignored.) And they can incentivise it using some sort of online "DM Rewards" program, allowing people to claim credits when other people use their stuff, and thus save for some sort of goodies (much like the DM Rewards programs that exist(ed) for Organised Play).

Now, it is true that there's a much bigger issue with upgrading things to 'official' status, since at this point WotC would have to explicitly take full ownership of the IP. But they're hardly strangers to paying people for submissions - surely it wouldn't be much different from them paying for Dragon/Dungeon articles, except that they already know the material is popular and good quality?



That's an issue, but it's an issue now. What is there to stop a malicious person using a picture of Mickey Mouse as his character portrait, contacting Disney, and having WotC sued for distributing copyright images? (Well, other than that he would also be sued.)

Right, well, nothing prevents that from happening, and you notice that it took a LONG while for WotC to dare dip its toe in the waters of letting anyone upload anything. The DMCA Safe Harbor rules are the only defense a service provider has there really, and they require you A) don't profit from the infringement, and B) take action to remove anything you suspect might be infringing, and C) comply with notice and takedown procedures. I'm sure they did a very careful analysis of their legal position on that before they decided to allow even character portraits (and remember, you can't even share those AFAIK).

I think they can work something out. It is just kind of tricky and requires having procedures and legal opinions and such in place. In fact the whole DMCA thing may simply put it on a bad footing, as charging for DDI is a pretty heavy argument on the "you profited from this" side of things.

There are more subtle variations of this kind of issue as well, which can come up. Such as what happens when WotC publishes things very SIMILAR to user submitted stuff that is up on DDI? "Hey you stole my idea" is a big pain the butt. Obviously they get submissions now to the magazines and it can be something of an issue there too in theory. OTOH they have to get ideas from SOMEWHERE.

I don't think any of these things are show stopping insurmountable problems and they've been worked out before in other contexts, but they are the kind of thing that makes people go slow and can lead to sleepless nights in some circles. That may partly explain why there has been very slow movement in this kind of fairly obvious direction. In a sense the fact that DDI is a subscription service works against it here. OTOH no non-commercial online community is ever likely to muster the resources to do that kind of thing. So it will happen I'm sure, in some form or other. The suites just have to see the benefits over time and get comfortable with the risks and realize it is well worth it to do.

OTOH maybe they've decided it just isn't a good business case to go that direction, or its too soon, or who knows what.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Look back before DDI, and you'll see why they didn't outsource - they got bitten badly (multimillion dollars badly) by outsourced development in the past.

The only folks who can reliably manage outsourced software development are folks who already do software development. If you know how to manage software projects, you can effectively and efficiently extend your abilities by hiring other folks to do it. But, if you're clueless, things will go bad whether you do things in-house or with external resources.

Quite true. The other thing is for a company that plans to run a customer-facing system and will be doing a lot of maintenance and upgrades on it over time it rapidly doesn't make sense anymore to outsource. Maybe now and then to get a big new chunk of functionality in there where you need to scale up for just a while, but like you say, you really want the core business knowledge in house. Consulting firms come and go and rotate staff constantly, so even if they understand your app and business needs today they'll have lost that knowledge in a couple years. Insourcing at least enough stuff to keep your key staff on hand OTOH means you always retain the expertise, but then it can be slower to get new stuff out there.

 

[mudbunny]

Quite true. The other thing is for a company that plans to run a customer-facing system and will be doing a lot of maintenance and upgrades on it over time it rapidly doesn't make sense anymore to outsource. Maybe now and then to get a big new chunk of functionality in there where you need to scale up for just a while, but like you say, you really want the core business knowledge in house. Consulting firms come and go and rotate staff constantly, so even if they understand your app and business needs today they'll have lost that knowledge in a couple years. Insourcing at least enough stuff to keep your key staff on hand OTOH means you always retain the expertise, but then it can be slower to get new stuff out there.

And, as they spend more time doing stuff in-house, they will start to gain experience in managing digital products.