Is All Still Quiet on the SRD Front?

[SteveC]

Hopefully they'll take the time to READ the material. I don't want to see another Foundation superhero RPG.

I am sure that a lot of copies of the Foundation are still around...I see them in used bookstores from time to time. I would like to suggest that WotC mail a copy of the Foundation along with every draft of the rules they send out, with a "don't do this" tag attached.

That was some seriously bad stuff, and I know my game store stocked a ton of it.

--Steve

 

[Ranger REG]

What if WoC does not send out the SRD because they want to be the only ones selling 4th edition products for the first few months?

Sucks for us d20 gamers. We still have 3.0e/3.5e SRD and 2nd-gen SRD-based games to use.

We can hope that d20 Modern get the same overhaul treatment and WotC provide a new SRD for that game. Then again, a major portion of d20 gamers could care less for d20 Modern.

D&D fans who never use third-party d20 product could care less.

 

[Ranger REG]

That was some seriously bad stuff, and I know my game store stocked a ton of it.

And it hasn't gone out of business because of that? Lucky.

 

[DaveMage]

It has been my feeling that some Companies have not received the rules, but there are plenty of FREELANCERS of note that have the rules and are not legally connected to specific companies.

Erik Mona pretty much confirmed this earlier. So maybe the companies can't say that they've received it, but if some notable writers have gotten the rules (either for playtesting or otherwise), then we could still see some 4e products at launch.

Maybe. But hopefully they're busy puting their thoughts together about improving the game rather than writing for 4E.

On the other hand, I think I read somewhere that Ari was going to help write a 4E Necromancer product due to come out sooner rather than later, and I'm guessing he's a 4E playtester too. So maybe you're right.

 

[catsclaw227]

Maybe. But hopefully they're busy puting their thoughts together about improving the game rather than writing for 4E.

I am guessing that they can do both simultaneously. While working on improving the game through playtesting, they get a fairly firm grasp of the concepts behind the 4e system, it's core paradigm shifts and can then consider and develop adventures accordingly. If they learn the core basics about how the environment can shift an encounter, or how per encounter abilities can alter the combat, then they can take their already well developed adventure writing skills and adapt to develop adventures based around interesting encounters.

On the other hand, I think I read somewhere that Ari was going to help write a 4E Necromancer product due to come out sooner rather than later, and I'm guessing he's a 4E playtester too. So maybe you're right.

He would be an obvious choice for a playtester since he writes for Dungeon already, and because he knows the inner workings of many of the high profile 3rd party game companies because of his freelance experience, he can both plan adventures and playtest at the same time. He's got experience writing adventures and supplements for the varied 3.x audiences.

 

[Goobermunch]

Uhm, as both the president of Necromancer Games and an attorney, I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is no such liability for WotC. I mean, this isnt even close to true. Not trying to be a dick here, just telling you that you are 100% wrong. That statement above could not be more incorrect.

So you're suggesting that if you reasonably relied on representations made by WotC about their release dates, and they bungled it up, costing you money and leaving you with product you couldn't release, you wouldn't have a cause of action? Because to me that sounds like you might have a promissory estoppel claim.

Now, I don't know what the format of their new license is, but don't you think that it might be a bad idea for them to put themselves in a position where there could be liability for consequential damages? Now the extent of those consequentials might not be as extensive as I hypothesized, but it sure looks to me like there could be some exposure.

Even if the publisher didn't have a solid claim, isn't there also the possibility that it might sue out of frustration (or anger)? And wouldn't that cost WotC a substantial amount of time and money?

This is all pure hypothetical, but I could see a company being a little cautious about announcing dates and providing others with the opportunity to incur expenses in reliance on those dates until they were certain they'd be meeting the dates.

--G

 

[Mistwell]

Uhm, as both the president of Necromancer Games and an attorney, I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is no such liability for WotC. I mean, this isnt even close to true. Not trying to be a dick here, just telling you that you are 100% wrong. That statement above could not be more incorrect.

And as a fellow attorney, any time I hear someone say they have 100% certainty that no liability can be found for something, they are usually wrong. You know as well as I do, there is rarely 100% certainty about the law. The odds are that you are correct, but it's not 100% certain. If a client came to me and wanted to sue for such a thing, I could probably come up with a case that would get past a dismissal.

 

[Orcus]

So you're suggesting that if you reasonably relied on representations made by WotC about their release dates, and they bungled it up, costing you money and leaving you with product you couldn't release, you wouldn't have a cause of action? Because to me that sounds like you might have a promissory estoppel claim.

Now, I don't know what the format of their new license is, but don't you think that it might be a bad idea for them to put themselves in a position where there could be liability for consequential damages? Now the extent of those consequentials might not be as extensive as I hypothesized, but it sure looks to me like there could be some exposure.

Even if the publisher didn't have a solid claim, isn't there also the possibility that it might sue out of frustration (or anger)? And wouldn't that cost WotC a substantial amount of time and money?

This is all pure hypothetical, but I could see a company being a little cautious about announcing dates and providing others with the opportunity to incur expenses in reliance on those dates until they were certain they'd be meeting the dates.

--G

No. No claim. Not even a hint of one.

Please dont pollute the boards with uninformed legal guesses that are dead wrong. It just leads to people posting on other boards that they saw something on another board that... you know what I mean. I know you want to seem smart by busting out prommisory estoppel and stuff like that, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Orcus]

And as a fellow attorney, any time I hear someone say they have 100% certainty that no liability can be found for something, they are usually wrong. You know as well as I do, there is rarely 100% certainty about the law. The odds are that you are correct, but it's not 100% certain. If a client came to me and wanted to sue for such a thing, I could probably come up with a case that would get past a dismissal.

Mistwell, could pigs fly, hey maybe. I'm not 100% sure pigs cant fly. I mean, maybe somewhere that I dont know about a genetic scientist has modified pigs to give them wings. Or maybe they are about to evolve wings. So I guess you are right that I cant say 100% sure there is no claim. Dont be contrarian just to be contrarian. Sure, maybe you should never say 100%. But that doesnt change the fact that there is no claim here. Now that you posted that people will confuse your criticism of my use of 100% with the fact that there may be some claim, which there isnt. Period.

But with that same lack of certainty in mind, I'll put it this way:

I am as sure that there is no claim as I am that pigs cant fly.

 

[Goobermunch]

No. No claim. Not even a hint of one.

Please dont pollute the boards with uninformed legal guesses that are dead wrong. It just leads to people posting on other boards that they saw something on another board that... you know what I mean. I know you want to seem smart by busting out prommisory estoppel and stuff like that, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

I guess I should surrender my law license too?

I suppose it's true: get three lawyers in a conversation and you'll get six opinions on liability.



--G