Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4926371" data-attributes="member: 80487">Mallus, the practical fact is that the rule is simply &quot;might makes right&quot; and the only &quot;person&quot; really enfranchised is a legal fiction. Yesterday's highfalutin' designer is today's ex-employee with no ownership of his or her work.The new folks have not &quot;paid their money same as me&quot;. The premise of their privilege is that instead the money I pay goes into their pockets (by way of the corporation that now owns the work of others as it owns theirs).That is as it is, and proper enough as far as it goes; Gygax and Arneson sold their legal ownership long ago and Dungeons &amp; Dragons® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast.By the same token, each of us is a poop producer; when we were very small, that was our primary product. It does not follow that we must regard ourselves as only that.That is not all there is. There is no reason that human beings cannot go further. It is fact no more incumbent on us to call whatever WotC sells &quot;real&quot; D&amp;D than it is incumbent on WotC to adhere to any convention regarding the name's referent.Of course, it is a matter of historical record what was published in 1974-76 and 1977-79, what took hobby gaming by storm and created a new field. In that regard, the scales of judgment are rather heavily weighted -- so that it would be foolish to claim that those classic books are not D&amp;D! They made the name upon which TSR and WotC have counted for sales of later products.If one's assumption is that all that matters is superficial appearances, then of course the marketing issue involves no more than the right &quot;spin&quot; on whatever course of action is chosen. That is misleading. All one controls is one's own deeds. Wheedle all you like, and people will still see through the Emperor's New Clothes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4926371, member: 80487"] Mallus, the practical fact is that the rule is simply "might makes right" and the only "person" really enfranchised is a legal fiction. Yesterday's highfalutin' designer is today's ex-employee with no ownership of his or her work. The new folks have not "paid their money same as me". The premise of their privilege is that instead the money I pay goes into their pockets (by way of the corporation that now owns the work of others as it owns theirs). That is as it is, and proper enough as far as it goes; Gygax and Arneson sold their legal ownership long ago and [i]Dungeons & Dragons[/i]® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast. By the same token, each of us is a poop producer; when we were very small, that was our primary product. It does not follow that we must regard ourselves as [i]only[/i] that. That is [i]not[/i] all there is. There is no reason that human beings cannot go further. It is fact no more incumbent on us to call whatever WotC sells "real" D&D than it is incumbent on WotC to adhere to any convention regarding the name's referent. Of course, it is a matter of historical record what was published in 1974-76 and 1977-79, what took hobby gaming by storm and created a new field. In that regard, the scales of judgment are rather heavily weighted -- so that it would be foolish to claim that [i]those[/i] classic books are not D&D! They [i]made[/i] the name upon which TSR and WotC have counted for sales of later products. If one's assumption is that all that matters is superficial appearances, then of course the marketing issue involves no more than the right "spin" on whatever course of action is chosen. That is misleading. All one controls is one's own deeds. Wheedle all you like, and people will still see through the Emperor's New Clothes. [/QUOTE]

Verification