| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 06:20:36
According To Margaret Weiss he is! Post #24
Question is, what does this bode for the Realms? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 20:19:39
It is in their best interest (unfortunately) to NEVER provide such a policy, because by granting ANY permission, they open Pandora's box.
So long as NO policy exists, they can pick-and-choose their battles, which is the best option for them, since they certainly don't want to have to attack every fansite (thats some truly horrific PR right there), nor do they want to eliminate their options in cases where they need to curtail behavior.
BTW, this is also they best case scenario for us (sadly), because so long as there is no official policy, they can simply ignore us. The VERY weak link in any form of litigation is implied fault - the existence of something immediately makes you responsible for it's maintenance (be it a fence, structure, or fansite policy). They can only afford to "look the other way" so long as No policy exists.
As much as I would like for Candlekeep to get some form of official 'okay', I would have to say they would be stupid to do so (even if everyone here gets mad at me for saying that; the law is the law). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 15:20:07
I know I've converted or re-invented a pretty large chunk of Forgotten Realms materail from 3E to 4E and I've yet to hear a peep from them. I even went and posted it on their own sites, still....no word. Now, I admit that they have the legality to take anything I've created on their site and use it for their own good without paying me a dime, but I've yet to see that NOR would I be upset if such a thing were to occur.
As Wooly mentioned, they've left fan sites alone 95% of the time, and the one site I know they *shut down* was Ema's character builder site. That site was doing nothing wrong under the OGL/SRD (from what I know) until 4E came out and she basically allowed a player to print out all the powers and spells in full mechanical and flavor description. |
| arry |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 11:32:58
Which unfortunatly means never.
(If WotC clarifies the situation from now until the day I die, [I'm 54] I will eat a huge crow pie; but I don't think it will happen.) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 11:23:34
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Until we know the state of the legal relationship Candlekeep now has with respect to producing fan-based material for Wizards' IP, I'm afraid the likelihood of future Compendiums is still tied up in the vague legalese of Hasbro's current fan-site policies.
How is Candlekeep's relationship with WoTC any different to Canonfire, Dragonsfoot and the hundreds of blogs out there that are producing D&D material for free under the OGL/GSL?
They don't seem to be suffering from the legal aspect of the fan site policy and are producing excellent work for all editions of the game.
I think the fact that we've got thousands of pages of Ed-lore -- freely available here -- and compiled from over the last 8 years worth of the Lady Hooded One's presence at Candlekeep, kind of places this site in a somewhat unique position with regard to the legal state of Wizards' IP license of the FORGOTTEN REALMS product line.
So far as I know, the other sites you've mentioned don't have regular contributions made from either the creator or creators of the settings they promote.
Add to that, the other collected and compiled replies from both freelance and official Realms authors/designers -- folk like Eric Boyd, Steven Schend, and Elaine Cunningham, along with the more recent lot of contributors, such as Erik Scott de Bie, Jaleigh Johnson, and Paul Kemp -- also makes Candlekeep's status among other well-established fan-sites, hard to define with respect to Wizards' possession of the product license.
quote:
I am disappointed that after 3-4 years after the release of 4E Candlekeep is still sitting on its hands and refusing to publish because of the GSL fansite policy that everyone else seems quite happy to publish for.
I take a slight offence to this, since it implies that we -- as the staff of Candlekeep -- are happily sitting around while denying fans of the Compendium access to our quality publications.
I can tell you right now, that no one is more frustrated with the ill-defined state of Candlekeep's relationship with re: to Wizards' fan-site policies, than myself, Wooly, Alaundo, and the rest of the regularly contributing scribes. We all very much want to see new Compendiums compiled and produced and made fit for reader consumption.
But at the same time, if we were to simply throw caution to the wind and start producing these fan-based publications again, and all without a clear legal mandate from Wizards -- then we run the very real and serious risk of having the holders of the IP enacting legal measures that could mean the end of this site and it's collected years of quality Realmslore -- both from the fans and the authors/designers. Imagine a Candlekeep with no more Ed-lore made available through our regular communiqués with the Lady Hooded One? It's a frightening prospect... isn't it? And it's not something I'm prepared to risk losing simply on the basis of not knowing exactly what we can and cannot do with the IP.
So, please, I ask that you consider just how precarious this situation has become. To agitate the situation further is just, as I see it, a pure slap in the face to Wizards'... and solid grounds for them to shut us down without a blink of an eye.
quote:
If 4E material is the issue then why not just publish for previous editions under the OGL? Am sure folks are clever enough to convert across to 4E if needed?
Again, this comes back to the fact that we simply don't know whether that's even possible any more.
Back when the OGL was the standard, it was easy for Candlekeep to produce material because we knew what we could work with when it came to 3e Realmslore. But with the state of the vague dictates of the GSL and the 4e Realmslore, we're not sure whether that retro-actively works for the pre-4e material now as well.
So, again, it's simply easier -- both legally and respectfully -- to sit and wait until Wizards' decides how best we can act.
|
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 10:28:18
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Until we know the state of the legal relationship Candlekeep now has with respect to producing fan-based material for Wizards' IP, I'm afraid the likelihood of future Compendiums is still tied up in the vague legalese of Hasbro's current fan-site policies.
How is Candlekeep's relationship with WoTC any different to Canonfire, Dragonsfoot and the hundreds of blogs out there that are producing D&D material for free under the OGL/GSL?
They don't seem to be suffering from the legal aspect of the fan site policy and are producing excellent work for all editions of the game.
I am disappointed that after 3-4 years after the release of 4E Candlekeep is still sitting on its hands and refusing to publish because of the GSL fansite policy that everyone else seems quite happy to publish for.
Am sorry for the scribes here that are missing out on some excellent juicy Realmslore 'just in case' an IP person at WoTC might get the hump.
If 4E material is the issue then why not just publish for previous editions under the OGL? Am sure folks are clever enough to convert across to 4E if needed?
Cheers
Damian |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 07:39:13
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Does that mean that Candlekeep will be offering up more compendiums then? I think we need to see some more excellent work from the scribes here.
It would be nice if WotC clarified things.
There are so many gaps waiting to be filled in for the post-Spellplague Realms. As well, linking the pre-Plague Realms to the post-Spellplague Realms. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 04:53:21
Quite. I don't know of any websites that have gone as far as we did, in the past, with the Compendiums. Not saying that I think we did anything at all that violates their IP, but I do know of other (non-WotC-inspired) fansites that were taken offline because the holder of the IP didn't want anything unofficial out there.
We're definitely on WotC's radar, and until they finally come out and say, either way, what's allowable, it's best not to tempt fate. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 01:24:37
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heck, they've even left fansites alone, except for one or two, and I feel their actions in those cases were fully justified.
Does that mean that Candlekeep will be offering up more compendiums then? I think we need to see some more excellent work from the scribes here.
Cheers
Damian
Until we know the state of the legal relationship Candlekeep now has with respect to producing fan-based material for Wizards' IP, I'm afraid the likelihood of future Compendiums is still tied up in the vague legalese of Hasbro's current fan-site policies.
|
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 23:45:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heck, they've even left fansites alone, except for one or two, and I feel their actions in those cases were fully justified.
Does that mean that Candlekeep will be offering up more compendiums then? I think we need to see some more excellent work from the scribes here.
Cheers
Damian |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 23:28:02
What Markus said. As far as competition has been concerned, WotC hasn't done anything untoward that I know of. Heck, they've even left fansites alone, except for one or two, and I feel their actions in those cases were fully justified.
But still... WotC explicitly went out of their way to give themselves as much power in the GSL as they possibly could. It's actually similar to something they did on their forums, when they added the rule that if you posted it on their site, it was theirs and they could do what they want with it. It doesn't matter if they never did it, it's the fact that they gave themselves that option...
To use an analogy: Say someone is holding a loaded gun, pointed straight ahead. It doesn't matter if they have no reason at all to shoot you -- you're still not going to willingly stand in front of them. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 19:07:53
The bottom line was that the original GSL was a noose a company put around their necks, and WotC - A COMPETITOR - would hold the lever that dropped the bottom out from under you.
In a world of 'marshmellows & unicorns' the GSL should never have been a problem. In a world with corporations (and corporate lawyers), giving your competitors any sort of control over your endeavors is suicide.
How long would the "warm & Fuzzy" feeling has lasted over at Wizbro, when Paizo started taking a bigger share of their pie? And would Paizo have ever gotten a chance to own that piece, if they had signed the GSL?
*meh* - this is all old news, from the edition war. We need something new to complain about.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Apr 2012 : 16:59:26
Yea, I guess the GSL 1.0 did sound pretty harsh on paper but what about in actual practice? I mean, a publishing company would have to produce some pretty offensive or questionable material for WotC to say "Nuh uh, no more of that please!" and do the things they said in the contract. So as long as publishers kept things fairly appropriate and didn't try to push the envelope then I think they would've made some decent cash out of it.
I guess I alwasy thought of it like an Officer holding a firearm. Yes, he has the quick potental to kill someone with that, but things have to get extreme before such procedures actually take place. Often enought times, it'd never come to that. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 17:35:42
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But lets be reminded that one does NOT need to be apart of or participate in the GSL to make aspects of a 4E game. I believe it was Matt James products Soldiers of Fortune that was for 4E but NOT apart of the GSL. The main thing is, if you want to specifically reference certain rules aspects of 4E inside the actual product, you need to be apart of the GSL. However, if you come up with new rules, new names for monsters, new names for powers, and all that and just reference the rules required in 4E's books, then that's perfectly fine.
Also true. Still, WotC making an agreement that said "if you want our sanction, you're agreeing that we can give you the shaft" was something that did not earn them any friends, and drove more than a few companies away. This is especially true when compared to the OGL, which was all about benefitting 3rd party companies, instead of opening them up to get screwed. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 17:26:51
I think Diffan is using some excellent logic, and agree with his assessments.
I've felt 5e D&D was designed for quite some time - before they even announced it - and now they are just using playtests and polls to tweak it (or skew things to look like they are doing just "what the fans wanted", which wouldn't be beyond a corporation). I feel they are far along, and everyone is happy with how it is turning out.
For Monte to have left at this stage in the game, it probably had more to do with the all-inclusiveness of the proposed plan, and Hasbro wanting to retain control by making the settings propriety. In other words, they don't want people to be able to pick-and-choose what products they use from WotC, like using pathfinder with 5eFR.
Propriety almost never works (I'm still amazed Apple bounced-back from oblivion). It didn't work for 3dFX, it didn't work for Radio Shack (they were in a position to control the home computer market, the idiots!), and it didn't work for any number of other companies that "refused to play nice with others". Human beings want choices, not limitations. All a matter of opinion, of course.
Once again, excellent observations, Diffan.
Has anyone else noticed the new commercials for Pepsi-Next, and find the timing hilariously coincidental/funny? 
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 10:54:07
But lets be reminded that one does NOT need to be apart of or participate in the GSL to make aspects of a 4E game. I believe it was Matt James products Soldiers of Fortune that was for 4E but NOT apart of the GSL. The main thing is, if you want to specifically reference certain rules aspects of 4E inside the actual product, you need to be apart of the GSL. However, if you come up with new rules, new names for monsters, new names for powers, and all that and just reference the rules required in 4E's books, then that's perfectly fine. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 05:39:22
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Speaking of licensing and such, there never was a 4e 3rd party license, was there? I know, in relation to 'fan sites', that never materialized.
I believe it was called the GSL, and it was nowhere near as generous as the OGL was. Among other things, it did actually contain a proviso that if you signed up, you could no longer make material for prior rulesets (or maybe it was stated as "If you do the GSL, you agree to opt out of the OGL"). It also stated that WotC could revoke your license, at any time, without warning or cause, and that it was up to you to check with them and see whether or not they'd done this to you. Also, if they did yank your license, you were obligated to take a hit on any stock you had on hand when it happened. And you couldn't sue them, either.
It was pretty harsh, and was very thoroughly attacked by a lot of 3rd party groups, who saw no benefit to signing it.
I believe the harsher components of the GSL were later modified to be more palatable for 3rd party companies. The damage was done as a lot of the companies experienced in 3e/d20 3rd party publishing switched to Pathfinder or other systems. Some followed the GSL of course, others signed back on afterwards, but the momentum was lost. Fortunately for WotC, it's a huge company compared to everyone else and can carry on by itself, but a lot of the 3PPs are unofficial cheerleaders and ambassadors for Pathfinder or other systems. It never hurts to have more people supporting you.
True.
I'm inclined to think that the incredibly self-serving terms of GSL 1.0 are part of the reason Paizo is now experiencing such strong support. WotC had a golden opportunity, and utterly dropped the ball... |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 05:20:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Speaking of licensing and such, there never was a 4e 3rd party license, was there? I know, in relation to 'fan sites', that never materialized.
I believe it was called the GSL, and it was nowhere near as generous as the OGL was. Among other things, it did actually contain a proviso that if you signed up, you could no longer make material for prior rulesets (or maybe it was stated as "If you do the GSL, you agree to opt out of the OGL"). It also stated that WotC could revoke your license, at any time, without warning or cause, and that it was up to you to check with them and see whether or not they'd done this to you. Also, if they did yank your license, you were obligated to take a hit on any stock you had on hand when it happened. And you couldn't sue them, either.
It was pretty harsh, and was very thoroughly attacked by a lot of 3rd party groups, who saw no benefit to signing it.
I believe the harsher components of the GSL were later modified to be more palatable for 3rd party companies. The damage was done as a lot of the companies experienced in 3e/d20 3rd party publishing switched to Pathfinder or other systems. Some followed the GSL of course, others signed back on afterwards, but the momentum was lost. Fortunately for WotC, it's a huge company compared to everyone else and can carry on by itself, but a lot of the 3PPs are unofficial cheerleaders and ambassadors for Pathfinder or other systems. It never hurts to have more people supporting you. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 05:05:16
quote:
Originally posted by Rils
My favorite part is all the people who hate 4e and are getting excited about Heinsoo's 13th Age. Take a look at the 4e core books, guess who's name is the first one on the list of authors? You got it, Rob Heinsoo... :)
Nothing against 4E rules, but from the hints of the 13th Age rules, it's looking to be something both different and similar to D&D. Interested in seeing how that turns out. It could be crap, it could be great.
Also note the other name of the 13th Age design duo, Jonathan Tweet. Which books was his name on again. Again, note D&D is just part of his design resume. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 04:27:50
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Speaking of licensing and such, there never was a 4e 3rd party license, was there? I know, in relation to 'fan sites', that never materialized.
I believe it was called the GSL, and it was nowhere near as generous as the OGL was. Among other things, it did actually contain a proviso that if you signed up, you could no longer make material for prior rulesets (or maybe it was stated as "If you do the GSL, you agree to opt out of the OGL"). It also stated that WotC could revoke your license, at any time, without warning or cause, and that it was up to you to check with them and see whether or not they'd done this to you. Also, if they did yank your license, you were obligated to take a hit on any stock you had on hand when it happened. And you couldn't sue them, either.
It was pretty harsh, and was very thoroughly attacked by a lot of 3rd party groups, who saw no benefit to signing it. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 27 Apr 2012 : 02:52:41
-Speaking of licensing and such, there never was a 4e 3rd party license, was there? I know, in relation to 'fan sites', that never materialized. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 22:25:42
From what I've read, the concernes were with WotC and possibly Mr. Mearls but not the other devs. To me this implies that he was perfectly fine with how they were progressing on that aspect and thus, the rules are still heavily influenced by Mr. Cooke. As I've said it could be how they're considering the licensing part or the release date of the playtest or even contractual issues that have nothing to do with the product. He's been respectful of WotC in this manner ane I respect that about him. Hopefully we'll get a great game despite this set back. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 21:41:12
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
For example, the cleric described in Mikes April 23 Legend & Lore column. In the article Mike created a cleric of Apollo. At least the cleric class was the starting point. He then used optional rules to modify the character. The end result was, to me, an elven ranger.
-How did that happen? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 20:34:02
I haven't read through this scroll yet, but it looks like everyone is saying much the same thing.
There really is NO positive way to spin this - its a PR nightmare.  |
| Bakra |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 16:57:42
This bit of news combined with other things diminishes my interest. They needed Montes’ guidance on the new rules. Especially when it came to staying focus on the 5e core rules.
For example, the cleric described in Mikes April 23 Legend & Lore column. In the article Mike created a cleric of Apollo. At least the cleric class was the starting point. He then used optional rules to modify the character. The end result was, to me, an elven ranger. They haven’t even established base rules for the cleric and they are already using optional rules.
Monte could have helped them stay the course.
|
| Rils |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 16:52:10
My favorite part is all the people who hate 4e and are getting excited about Heinsoo's 13th Age. Take a look at the 4e core books, guess who's name is the first one on the list of authors? You got it, Rob Heinsoo... :)
Monte leaving is by no means the nerdrage "death of 5e" that people are making it out to be. Looking at his old blog posts and Design/Development columns, it seems like he had some different ideas about the direction of the game than they ended up going. Creative differences are just fine. However, he didn't say he was leaving for creative differences, he made it sound more like it was differences with the corporation. That's his choice, I wish him the best of luck, and meanwhile I am eagerly awaiting the public playtest which is going to be released May 24!! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 04:51:59
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And if it is an Open Content product, what's Paizos take in all of this? There's really NOTHING stopping them from producing plug-in products for D&D:Next IF they feel it's worth it and IF their fans would like to try something new? I mean, they could feesable use the D&D:Next rules as a starter into for their setting and then introduce their own producs Pathfinder and D&D:Next compatable-Golarion like aspects, reaping loads of rewards.
Unless WotC updates the 4E caveat of "if you use this license to make stuff for 4E, you can never again make anything for any prior edition." |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Apr 2012 : 04:35:49
As someone on another forum noted, looks like they released some info on when the new playtest is going to be. And this happens the same day as Monte decides to call it quits? Here's my guess, it could be about the release and he doesn't think the system is ready for full-player feedback and they're pushing forward anyways (possibly due to low numbers in the last few quarters) to show the fans that they're really interested in our imput.
My other guess is that they've been talking about what to do with the expectations of the new OGL/GSL problem. As Monte has worked and created a few 3PPs (I could be mistaken), I have this hunch that he probably wants to go back to the way it was, a GLS that allows 3PP to support and (by that same token) compete with WotC by using their own rules against them. I'm sure WotC doesn't want to re-open that awesome consumer liscensing agreement espically if WotC wants to change direction in a decade or so (and re-start the whole 3E to 4E fiasco again). So my bet is that they're saying NO to a OGL-style liscense.
If D&D:Next is supposed to be SUPER adaptable to any sort of gaming groups likes or dislikes, it's understandable that add-on/plug-in play/removeable applications would be easy and low-cost to create, develop, and sell. Couple that with a OGL and you'd really only need to buy the first core set until someone created an SRD site for D&D:Next. Then you could go with whatever group you enjoy products from more (*cough* Paizo *cough*). My point being, while the OGL was a great invention and gave the people one specific form of D&D that's very customizable and adaptable, it puts WotC in a situaion that any deviation from those design goals just makes it worse for them in the long run.
And if it is an Open Content product, what's Paizos take in all of this? There's really NOTHING stopping them from producing plug-in products for D&D:Next IF they feel it's worth it and IF their fans would like to try something new? I mean, they could feesable use the D&D:Next rules as a starter into for their setting and then introduce their own producs Pathfinder and D&D:Next compatable-Golarion like aspects, reaping loads of rewards. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 23:04:17
Cook's out?
Damn.
This news diminishes my interest in 5th Edition D&D.
For the sake of the game (and thus the Realms) I hope the rest of the D&D Next team hits one out of the park, but I think that's less likely to happen with Monte out of the picture. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 22:44:55
This is negative press for Hasbro, WotC, and 5E, even for the people who don't like Monte's design style.
I'm looking forward to Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet's 13th Age. From what's been revealed, it incorporates setting into the rules with the PCs aligning themselves to powerful or influential figures and entities of the world, archetypal NPCs or maybe deities like "The Lich King", "The Dragon Emperor", "The Elf Queen", or "The Dwarf Lord". PCs will gain advantages from these alignments, but also hold obligations and responsibilities to those personages.
This may turn out to be a suitable system to adapt which innately encapsulate (an under-represented in the supported publications) themes of the Realms, factions and political/cultural/religious counterbalances. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 21:39:55
That's kind of what I'm thinking too Wooly. I'm just hoping 5E retains some of the things we've heard about and its design doesn't take an about-face because Hasbro has a Lorraine Williams type in charge of its D&D division. And I hear you on Pathfinder, they put out some great stuff. |
|
|
