Pathfinder 1E Paizo no longer publishing Dungeon and Dragon

[Mistwell]

Yes, it is obviously good business sense to have a clause that keeps your former customer, which is what a licensee is, from saying anything about your dealings that you didn't approve of first.

No person, or company, in their right mind, unless desperate, would sign such an agreement.

It is a standard clause. I have personally drafted it over two dozen times. Nobody has ever blinked twice about it. That is how most mutual press releases are done. In fact, it's usually one of the principal purposes of a mutual press release: everyone speaks with the same voice.

WotC wouldn't have added the clause, nor would Paizo, or anyone with any contract experience, as it removes control over a needed component of severing a relationship - The Announcement.

I've been drafting contracts, as a professional attorney, since 1995. It's my principal focus in law. It's a standard clause. I am genuinely surprised it is not present in this case.

 

[Thurbane]

I went back and checked - first issue I bought (after a while reading other peoples copies) was the then current issue # 105 (Jan 86) - after which I went out and got the back issues to about #81...

 

[Grimstaff]

Well I guess 24 hours isn't too bad a turnaround time for WotC:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070420a

There's a lot of heartfelt stuff in there from some guys who have a pretty deep, meaningful relationship with the magazines and D&D. I appreciate the effort to communicate about the situation.

Damage Control! Damage Control!

Anybody else feel like announcing Dragon/Dungeon are going to be electronic only is somewhat similar to announcing that Santa Claus will be replaced by a Satanic Bunny Monster?

http://www.photosforyourspace.com/Gallery/owned/agpoker13-owned.JPG

Now, does anyone really want that?

 

[James Jacobs]

Actually that raises an interesting question.

If you wouldn't mind telling us Erik, who own's the rights for various ideas of the articles and comics and all.
1. Those that submitted and were published is that conisdered between Paizo and the Submitter or does WOTC now control that part of Paizo's interest.
2. Things that Paizo introduced into the magazines, are they all WOTC's now or Paizo's?
3. Things like Order of the Stick, is that contract with Paizo or WOTC now?

I understand if you can't get specific, just general answers is fine.

For the most part, anything that appears in Dragon or Dungeon is WotC's. The comics are, I believe, the only exception; the rights to them remain with their creators. But all the game material belongs to Wizards of the Coast.

 

[Alzrius]

A quick reminder: everyone who wants the exclusive web material for Dragon and Dungeon on Paizo's website should probably get them and back them up before the end of September. I have a feeling that once that rolls around, those supplements will be gone forever (a lot of them, such as the $2 Tu'narath web supplement, are already gone).

 

[Friadoc]

It is a standard clause. I have personally drafted it over two dozen times. Nobody has ever blinked twice about it. That is how most mutual press releases are done. In fact, it's usually one of the principal purposes of a mutual press release: everyone speaks with the same voice.

I've been drafting contracts, as a professional attorney, since 1995. It's my principal focus in law. It's a standard clause. I am genuinely surprised it is not present in this case.

I guess I'm glad I only do contract work, then, and never a mutual business dealing, as I'd never sign a contract with that clause in it.

While I cannot blame any company for wanting it, the idea that announcing that a business deal is over has to be done mutually and approved by the other party seems like giving over too much control.

It is not like you can get away with lying in the press release about why things disolved, at least without expecting the normal lawsuits that can follow slanderous and libelous statements.

I.E. KLJGKJG does not like rapers of sheep, so IOUYOIY has decided not to renew our business partnership.

Obviously, due to the implication, someone, whether or not they are the rapers of sheep, could potentially sue.

All that said, I'm not doubting your experience, it doesn't surprise me that such a clause is so common today, I just thought it'd be a throw-away clause that people put in so that they can trade on it for other points or clauses.

Sort of like how thinks get added to Bills and such in DC, so that they can be used to kill a Bill or traded off, so that it has a chance of passing and becoming law.

 

[TheYeti1775]

For the most part, anything that appears in Dragon or Dungeon is WotC's. The comics are, I believe, the only exception; the rights to them remain with their creators. But all the game material belongs to Wizards of the Coast.

Thanks for the quick answer

Any chance you can address the question about what products might disappear from your website come the END? Things such as your downloadable PDF's for sale and all? I know several on here would probably prefer to give you the money for them before if they can't get them over time afterwards.

 

[Steel_Wind]

It is a standard clause. I am genuinely surprised it is not present in this case.

I've done lots of licensing deals for clients as a lawyer since 1995 as well (and I've signed them as a licensee too)- including those involving WotC and Lucas.

It's not standard Mistwell. I readily admit that they are not unusual - but de rigeur?

No. Not in my experience. The happy speak-with-one-voice starts at the beginning of the relationship.

At the end? It frequently goes very differently At the conclusion of a contract, commercial sense and preserving a business relationship is what rules parties' conduct (or the lack of consideration for same) - not a contract.

 

[Thurbane]

I'm sorry but we have no evidence to assign blame to ANYONE here.

Well, yes. WotC made a decision that negatively impacts my chosen hobby. I BLAME them for that. Simple, really.

You assuming motives, like "abuse" and "grudge", are just plain old speculation with no evidence at all to back them.

I don't assume either - just WotC trademarked indifference to their consumer base.

I understand that companies exist primarily to make a profit, but you can certainly still make profit and keep your consumer base "in the loop" and try to placate their anxieties as much as possible.

Speaking as someone who was worked in various corporate enterprises for almost 20 years, keeping your consumer base happy is a vital part of any business, right up there with profit margins. In fact, the two are inexorably linked.

POd consumers don't buy (as much). It's a simple fact of business.

 

[Thurbane]

I'll tell you where I think WOTC screwed up.

When I draft an agreement to temporarily extend a license, and I know the license conclusion will be controversial enough to warrant press releases, I insist on a clause that both parties remain silent about the matter except for mutually approved press releases.

That was obviously not done here, as Paizo has been all over this board with non-press-release PR.

That was a mistake by WOTC.

Oh yes, they should have gagged Paizo...that would have made things much better...