Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hairfoot" data-source="post: 4967443" data-attributes="member: 23732">&quot;Don't ask, don't tell&quot; sounds a lot like &quot;suspend an axe over the necks of enthusiastic gamers&quot;.It's not nice to menace the fanbase with uncertain terms and conditions.&nbsp; It's understandable that Hasbro doesn't want to test the legal limits of its stated policies, but having a legal team peering over the shoulder of every gamer on the net isn't very encouraging of fan-produced material.&nbsp; It seems similar to Hasbro's <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/257909-question-scott-rouse-re-retroclones.html" target="_blank">line on old-edition clones</a>: you can enjoy them only as long as we tolerate you.Is it unreasonable to view these approaches as a deliberate attempt to control content so that only official, trademarked creativity is allowed into Dungeons &amp; Dragons?Retaining control over system details is sensible, but how far does the limitation go on trademarked names and ideas?&nbsp; Obviously, it's not OK to put up a site containing lists of feats and powers copied verbatim from a book, but how about a tweaked or new feat with an existing name?&nbsp; What if someone uses &quot;Eladrin&quot; or &quot;Shadow Wizard&quot; or &quot;Greyhawk&quot; in a fan fic?Gamers often put a lot of time and effort into their own material.&nbsp; Is it acceptable for Hasbro to be able to limit or seize that material without clearly explaining beforehand what's allowed?While less refined, Chateau Chunder is also reliable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hairfoot, post: 4967443, member: 23732"] "Don't ask, don't tell" sounds a lot like "suspend an axe over the necks of enthusiastic gamers". It's not nice to menace the fanbase with uncertain terms and conditions. It's understandable that Hasbro doesn't want to test the legal limits of its stated policies, but having a legal team peering over the shoulder of every gamer on the net isn't very encouraging of fan-produced material. It seems similar to Hasbro's [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/257909-question-scott-rouse-re-retroclones.html"]line on old-edition clones[/URL]: you can enjoy them only as long as we tolerate you. Is it unreasonable to view these approaches as a deliberate attempt to control content so that only official, trademarked creativity is allowed into Dungeons & Dragons? Retaining control over system details is sensible, but how far does the limitation go on trademarked names and ideas? Obviously, it's not OK to put up a site containing lists of feats and powers copied verbatim from a book, but how about a tweaked or new feat with an existing name? What if someone uses "Eladrin" or "Shadow Wizard" or "Greyhawk" in a fan fic? Gamers often put a lot of time and effort into their own material. Is it acceptable for Hasbro to be able to limit or seize that material without clearly explaining beforehand what's allowed? While less refined, Chateau Chunder is also reliable. [/QUOTE]

Verification