OGC and what a RPG should be?

[herald]

AustEvergreen,
You want to complain about something, but your unwilling to do the research about what you want. You can't expect people to change the world just for you.

There are very valid realities that prevent what you want. You choose to ignore them. I expect that if you do this alot of things in life that you will be a very unhappy person.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

For what it's worth, I agree with AustEvergreen. WOTC dropped the ball so badly on E-tools that it's not even funny. I run a game and play in two others, and every single player uses some kind of software to generate their character sheets. Except for the low level game, only one player doesn't have a character with levels in one or more prestige classes. Prestige classes that E-tools doesn't support. Yeah, there are ways around it, but I for one don't have the software background to change the database around, nor do I have the time to learn Access - or the cash to buy Microsoft Office, for that matter. I don't know as I'll boycott WOTC over it, but for the most part, I only own the core books, FR setting, and the rest of my stuff is D20. And it is apt to stay that way with the quality I've seen from WOTC lately. I said WOTC dropped the ball, but actually Hasbro is the guilty party. I'd much rather give my money to a small publisher like Mongoose or S&SS than the greedy Haze Bro's. I have E-tools, but it's useless for my campaign. If anyone wants to market a REAL piece of software to manage my characters, you can have my money. WOTC won't get any more of it - at least not where software is concerned.

 

[Troll-Hunter]

Re: Thought I was done but..........

AustEvergreen,

Just out of curiosity, why are you using Baen Books as a business model that WOTC should follow?
I also very much enjoy Baen books, I am especially a fan of David Weber, John Ringo, and Eric Flint’s series of books.

While they are both publishers, Baen is strictly a book merchant, while WOTC is a gaming/book company. From what I have read over at Baen’s boards (been lurking over there for about 3 years), Jim Baen has led the push into e-books - selling books in electronic format directly from his web site. THOUGH, he does this because it leads to more sales of deadwood books. I believe they stated at the beginning of this year that he did finally make a “profit” from his e-book division, besides increased “cross-over” sales in hardcopies.

Also most people (myself, all of my friends & many on Baen’s boards) buy the electronic versions, hardback and paperback versions.

With the exception of the latest David Weber book “War of Honor,” none of the previous “hardcopy” books gave you the right to electronic version of the book. Of course only buying the e-version you could print it out, but having done this “once” on 8.5x11 paper, binding it, cover(?), carrying it, - it just fell apart to easily – and was not worth the trouble.

So he does expect people to buy the e-version ($15/month for 4-5 books), like it and then buy the hardcopy version. You have noticed that a lot of Baen books are being first printed in hardback ($24), then about a year later the paperback will come out.

I am sure that WOTC would like to have that kind of return on their products as well.

 

[poilbrun]

AustEvergreen,
You want to complain about something, but your unwilling to do the research about what you want. You can't expect people to change the world just for you.

There are very valid realities that prevent what you want. You choose to ignore them. I expect that if you do this alot of things in life that you will be a very unhappy person.

If a company wants to keep his customers, it tries to make them happy. Have you seen a book about flowers and gardens in D&D? No. Why not? Because not many people would like it, and hence buy it. Customers would like to have access to a character generator with material from the books they buy. And yet, WotC doesn't want to allow character generators to use that material. Or even other material-producing companies. Wouldn't it be better if anotehr company could use feats from the books other than the Core three? Seriously, it wouldn't harm them very much if a NPC in a book from another company had the feat Blooded (from the FRCS) instead of Improved Initiative (I do not ask WotC to let another company reprint the feat and the description, just to let them use feats and PrC from their non-Core books). If a DM runs only official adventures, he will never get to use anything from the BoVD, for example. And yet, everybody thinks that's fine. Companies who produce other rpg have the same stance, but at least, they re-use their own material. WotC won't, because the consumer is supposed to only have the three Core rulebooks. So, if a DM who runs only official adventures has 4 players who take each a PrC, it means that all the PrC from all the splatbooks except 4 are money he threw out the window. I have troubles understanding how people can say WotC does the right thing, from a consumer's point of view.

When I buy a book, I don't ask myself whether it is well done from a lawyer's point of view. I ask myself whether it's well done from a player's point of view. And I often think that WotC does good books, but doesn't support its consumers very well.

 

[gariig]

I thought I would post an example (OT) of how not protecting your IP can be dangerous. Well, it's more about protecting your brand names, but works the same.

A few years ago there was this company that got the notion to make roller skates that had the four wheels in a row or better know as inline skates. So the company Roller Blades was born and made inline skates called roller blades. Years later the market becomes saturated with business and other companies started to make inline skates called "rollerblades" and the Rollerblade company didn't do anything about it. Now, Rollerblade is sitting in court trying to battle for it's Trademark on the Rollerblade name but they have a good chance to lose because the name "rollerblade" has been generalised to mean inline skates. Morale of the story is a company MUST MUST MUST protect IP/Trademarks from being used (even if it's a good/non-harming use like PCGen) because you could start a very bad precedent. Just a little tidbit of info for you.

Gariig

 

[Fast Learner]

While I agree that protecting your IP is essential, trademark protection works very differently from copyright protection. Trademarks must be protected to remain valid, while copyright remains valid no matter how many infringements are made.

 

[gariig]

While I agree that protecting your IP is essential, trademark protection works very differently from copyright protection. Trademarks must be protected to remain valid, while copyright remains valid no matter how many infringements are made.

You got me there.

Gariig

 

[Ranger REG]

If a company wants to keep his customers, it tries to make them happy. Have you seen a book about flowers and gardens in D&D? No. Why not? Because not many people would like it, and hence buy it. Customers would like to have access to a character generator with material from the books they buy. And yet, WotC doesn't want to allow character generators to use that material.

Doesn't mean you can manually input it in the generator yourself for your own personal use.

Or even other material-producing companies. Wouldn't it be better if anotehr company could use feats from the books other than the Core three? Seriously, it wouldn't harm them very much if a NPC in a book from another company had the feat Blooded (from the FRCS) instead of Improved Initiative (I do not ask WotC to let another company reprint the feat and the description, just to let them use feats and PrC from their non-Core books).

While it may be nice to some customers, other customers will find it a hassle to get the FRCS to understand what the hell is a Blooded feat, such customers are not FR fans and gamers. So no matter what you do, you will find criticism.

If a DM runs only official adventures, he will never get to use anything from the BoVD, for example. And yet, everybody thinks that's fine. Companies who produce other rpg have the same stance, but at least, they re-use their own material. WotC won't, because the consumer is supposed to only have the three Core rulebooks. So, if a DM who runs only official adventures has 4 players who take each a PrC, it means that all the PrC from all the splatbooks except 4 are money he threw out the window. I have troubles understanding how people can say WotC does the right thing, from a consumer's point of view.

Then that is something you should discuss with said DM who prefers to run only official adventures. Perhaps you should task a different DM to run their games differently.

For now, I don't mind if an adventures stick the baseline rules. That way, if I have a supplement like BoVD I can decide if I want to incorporate it, while another group 10 miles away are using the same adventure but incorporating The Silver Marches.

The result: that same adventure is being purchased, regardless of different uses.

When I buy a book, I don't ask myself whether it is well done from a lawyer's point of view. I ask myself whether it's well done from a player's point of view. And I often think that WotC does good books, but doesn't support its consumers very well.

Well, it helps to know what support is lacking and then determine if the majority of the fan base agrees with you, as long as they can still retain legal copyright and trademark.

Forgive me if I have high expectation of D&D consumers that knows how to be creative enough to incorporate nonessential supplements into their games.

 

[herald]

If a company wants to keep his customers, it tries to make them happy. Have you seen a book about flowers and gardens in D&D? No. Why not? Because not many people would like it, and hence buy it. .

This has nothing to do with the conversation, therefore I have no rebutal.

Customers would like to have access to a character generator with material from the books they buy. And yet, WotC doesn't want to allow character generators to use that material. Or even other material-producing companies. Wouldn't it be better if anotehr company could use feats from the books other than the Core three? .

No, it would be bad,very bad. It would prove that WOTC is giving perfered treatment to software makers than people who use the OGL/D20 licences. At that point, the D20 Brand would be diluted and open up lawsuits than nobody needs.

Seriously, it wouldn't harm them very much if a NPC in a book from another company had the feat Blooded (from the FRCS) instead of Improved Initiative (I do not ask WotC to let another company reprint the feat and the description, just to let them use feats and PrC from their non-Core books). If a DM runs only official adventures, he will never get to use anything from the BoVD, for example. And yet, everybody thinks that's fine. Companies who produce other rpg have the same stance, but at least, they re-use their own material. WotC won't, because the consumer is supposed to only have the three Core rulebooks. So, if a DM who runs only official adventures has 4 players who take each a PrC, it means that all the PrC from all the splatbooks except 4 are money he threw out the window. I have troubles understanding how people can say WotC does the right thing, from a consumer's point of view.

The last part of your statement is so confusing I don't know where to start. The fact is that a being a DM and running a D&D game is totally differant that making and distributing software.

Any DM is free to use any any book he wants in his game, I myself have used "Heart of Nightfang Spire" with characters using information from "Oriental Adventures, Sword and Fist, Song and Silence, Masters of the Wild, and Tome and Blood". As a DM, I'm free to modify any game I want with information from BOVD, (And I am, updating Die, Vecna Die with it right now). I'm Also getting to run a Dragonstar game and I'm thinking of getting the new book from perpitrated press to flesh out the firearms section.

So what about about companies who want to use materials that have not been released to the SRD?

Simple.

I would suggest that they contact WOTC to see if they could use the information in thier books.

No I can just guess what your about to say poilbrun. Your going to say, I bet that they wouldn't do that in a million years.

Well take a look at "Tome of Horrors". Its a book that was created by the fine folks over at the Creature Catalog, in conjuction with Necromancer Games. WOTC worked with them to make sure monsters were not duplicated and allowed them to update monsters from 2e and 1e games.

 

[AustEvergreen]

clarity

This is not about trademark infringement or protection or maintaining wotc's copyright. It is about customer service. I feel harmed by wotc actions. They've given me an incentive not to purchase their product. I'm not buying until things change. Period. If wotc wants my business they'll have to 'loosen up' a bit and let the third party software makers have permission to use material from their supplements that aren't part of the srd. While I'm just one person and my one man boycott won't by itself count for much I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way. And just possibly this will get noticed by management at wotc if other consumers feel strongly enough to act in a similar manner. "Hey, do you know why X-mass sales were down yet?" "Oh, yes. It seems a significant number of customer's were somewhat upset. Perhaps you should read some of these comments......". Well, we can hope anyway. I, at least would like to think some of this is getting back to wotc for their cogitation, now. I am also still inviting (beyond much hope of reply) an official comment within this thread by anyone from management at wotc.

Just so it's been said I don't think wotc are evil, just engaged in annoying business practices.

Why are you defending wizards? Is this just "I believe it's right!"? So, I take it non of you other's like herald, gariig and fast learner are not in the least bit upset about what's been done. No harm to me, so no foul here at all? Or is the 'harm' to you not rellevant? I'd like to know.