No 4E Fan Content Allowed on the Intenet?

[Dannager]

You know, it's easier to say "I don't believe you" then to make a whole paragraph that basically says "I'm a giant prick"

Cheers!

I think what he was illustrating was that claiming something potentially incendiary with no way to back it up is generally a bad idea; it doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion, and can really only degrade its civility.

Now, clearly, that's not what you got from it. But at the same time, it's much easier to simply not respond than it is to call someone else a giant prick.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gents,

Next person to use the words "giant prick" in this thread can expect to get a week's vacation. Paraphrasing using inflammatory language... is an unwise way to accuse another of bad behavior.

 

[Theroc]

Was way behind, my post was unnecessary.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

But again, to summarize, only the big boys in RPG publishing need a fan site policy and who are the big boys?

My list would be:
WotC
Paizo
White Wolf
Chaosium
Steve Jackson

Of those five, four have clearly stated fan site policies and the other (Chaosium) openly supports fan sites.

- and a *big* thank you to Chaosium for that! They are excellent folks.

 

[Morrus]

Edit: Moreover, if your only determination of whether a company needs a policy is size then I find it confusing. Surely the determination should be how many fan sites there are, or how many people want to have fan sites for the company's products. The one doesn't automatically correlate to the other.

I imagine there is a very strong correlation between the two.

 

[Wicht]

- and a *big* thank you to Chaosium for that! They are excellent folks.

This is another potential threadjack but it seems to me that such open encouragment of the fans is very much in keeping with the spirit of Lovecraftian literature. Lovecraft actively encouraged people to play in his world and it has created one of the richest, imaginative ventures ever; with artists, fans and gamers still today eager to continue to play there.

 

[Hairfoot]

I know of at least one site that published every feat from pretty much every WOTC book out there - Dandello's Realms Help pages

That HAS to be violating something. But, it's been up for years.

Thanks for the link.

That's all 3E stuff. The last feats update was 4 months after 4E's release, but I'm assuming that it was violating the OGL before that.

In that regard, we can't ignore the fact that while 3E was initially published by a company run by gamers, for gamers, 4E is published by a large entertainment corporation that will pursue profits in the most efficient manner possible, which the withdrawal of the OGL seems to indicate clearly. I have very little confidence that Dandello's page would still be up if it contained 4E material.

I don't think the tolerance of old WotC can be trusted as an indicator of Hasbro's future behaviour, so it will be interesting to see if it attempts to clamp down on unofficial creativity.

 

[AllisterH]

Isn't practically all of chaosium's stuff public domain? What does Chaosium have to protect?

I thought RIFTS was still considered one of the big boys of the industry and apparently it has a fansite policy...

 

[JohnRTroy]

Isn't practically all of chaosium's stuff public domain? What does Chaosium have to protect?
.

While the earliest of Lovecrafts works have passed into the public domain, many later works haven't. The game CoC licenses some works from Arkham House, and creates its own lore. Those elements are still protected under copyright.

In many cases, a lot of authors add to the Mythos, but some refuse to have their interpretations added or used by other. I believe, for instance, Brian Lumley has written some stories based on the public domain versions but his new creations have not been added or authorized for use by other authors.

 

[El Mahdi]

...In that regard, we can't ignore the fact that while 3E was initially published by a company run by gamers, for gamers, 4E is published by a large entertainment corporation that will pursue profits in the most efficient manner possible, which the withdrawal of the OGL seems to indicate clearly. I have very little confidence that Dandello's page would still be up if it contained 4E material.

I don't think the tolerance of old WotC can be trusted as an indicator of Hasbro's future behaviour, so it will be interesting to see if it attempts to clamp down on unofficial creativity.

Even with the disagreements I've had with WotC practices, especially their PR, which combined have led me to no longer patron WotC - I and I'm sure a lot of people who work at WotC would take serious issue that they aren't "gamers, for gamers". And, any company that doesn't pursue profits in the most efficient manner possible has no reason being in business in the first place. Now, alienating your customers, any of your customers, IMO is poor business practice - but, I'd attribute that more to PR gaffs and poor implementation than trying to make a GSL to stifle creativity. Making an overly draconian GSL is not in their best interest nor would it be concucive to the most efficient pursuit of profits. The existence of 3pp products actually help increase WotC sales. Bad 3pp products do not. The GSL was meant to prevent those bad products through better control of their IP, not by clamping down on unofficial creativity.

IMO, the logic in the quote just doesn't hold up. WotC could have made an even more draconic GSL than what's already out, they could have refused to amend it after the furor over the original version, or they could have simply not allowed any kind of license at all - completely shutting out 3pp's and fan sites. They did none of those things.

Nothing that they've done seem to contradict their stated goal of creating a license to better protect their IP than the OGL did. I won't deny they've botched it's implementation and the PR concerning it - but implying that the current WotC is not a company of gamers, or that they are less concerned with making a "gamers" game than making profits is really uncalled for, and ... just mean.

Also, WotC past tolerance, or apparent lack of current tolerance, has absolutely nothing to do with "clamping down on unofficial creativity".

I challenge anyone to find an instance of WotC clamping down on any site, person, or medium with the intention of "clamping down on unofficial creativity". Clamping down on violation of their IP - absolutely. Clamping down on creativity - No.