TheRPGSite

http://www.examiner.com/x-7705-Phoenix-RPG-Examiner~y2009m8d6-Wizard-of-the-Coast-releases-fan-site-toolkit-controversy?cid=exrss-Phoenix-RPG-Examiner

http://www.wizards.com/fankit/fantoolkitdnd.html


Another nail in the coffin?

:banghead:

Seems like that would scare people from using their toolkit... and potentially from putting up D&D specific content of any type... whatever it is it doesn't sound friendly.

Back to the old T$R policy approach huh?

They even used the word "Module", apparently, which leads me to wonder if they didn't literally cut and paste from an old TSR form.

RPGpundit

The insidious paragraph.

Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License

Quote from: RPGPundit;318822They even used the word "Module", apparently, which leads me to wonder if they didn't literally cut and paste from an old TSR form.

Or maybe Lorraine Williams' eviltwin is running WotC these days.  :D

I can just picture the WoTC folks as they hunker down for their Monday morning meeting. Set jaws, fear in the eyes, everyone knowing that this shit is another nail in the coffin but unable to break out of the spiral...

It sure reads like the old TSR one... wedded to GSLing the whole content. I've not done any D&D content besides old edition character sheets; even those are not on my site currently. ow they probably won't

The old TSR one was not enforced. Wizards is more likely to, I think.

Quote from: aramis;318828It sure reads like the old TSR one... wedded to GSLing the whole content.

The old TSR one was not enforced. Wizards is more likely to, I think.

Now that's a great way to do business:  sue your own customers!!!  :rant:

Haven't we all heard this before?  We all know how well that worked with the record companies.

So that's it then?  Wizards is TSR now?  

Does that mean we can ignore them as irrelevant again, just like I did through the entire 1990s?

Quote from: J Arcane;318834So that's it then?  Wizards is TSR now?  

And Paizo is the new WotC...

A comparison between the WotC, Paizo, and White Wolf fan site policies.

http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/wizards-fan-site-policy-what-its-good-for/

Okay, I promise not to produce anything compatible with or useful for D&D4e, and not to do any free work promoting their game line.

I'll just play other stuff instead. Wouldn't want to soil their intellectual property. Gotta have respect, man.

:p

Wonder if this fansite policy has an ulterior motive behind it, which nobody has caught on yet.

Maybe it is something like a covert first strike against OGL based retroclones?

Wonder if it is not just a coincidence, that it was posted around the same time that Pathfinder was released.

Pathfinder is OGL... and the OGL didn't have a termination clause worth beans.

   13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of
becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it
enforceable.

If they go after the retroclones, then they have the obligation to prove non-compliance with the OGL... And until they show that non-compliance, it's gonna be rough. Especially since the OGL and SRD are well documented; Wizards withdrawing the SRD doesn't remove the prior releases of it, either.

But the real question is, is open licensing valid at all?
It's never been tried in court that I've heard of. But IANAL. Now, DSK has mentioned that it hasn't been tried to his knowledge a few weeks back... and he is an IP lawyer.

The OGL might not survive a lawsuit.

Quote from: aramisBut the real question is, is open licensing valid at all?
It's never been tried in court that I've heard of. But IANAL. Now, DSK has mentioned that it hasn't been tried to his knowledge a few weeks back... and he is an IP lawyer.

The OGL might not survive a lawsuit.

It would survive the lawsuit and deal tremendous and horrible damage not just to WotC, but a shitload of other (and sometimes much larger) IP-holders. If the OGL goes on trial, by proxy so do a lot of other parties, some of whom would have very deep pockets to make sure open source doesn't get squashed.

Not going to happen.

Quote from: ggroy;318838A comparison between the WotC, Paizo, and White Wolf fan site policies.

http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/wizards-fan-site-policy-what-its-good-for/

See Steve Jackson Games for a saner approach-

http://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html

Quote from: J Arcane;318834So that's it then?  Wizards is TSR now?  

Does that mean we can ignore them as irrelevant again, just like I did through the entire 1990s?

Yep, been ignoring them since last year.

Quote from: ggroy;318823The insidious paragraph.

Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License

Edit: Hmmm, though going to read the GSL, which I have not done in a long time, it says it excludes websites. So it does in fact say what you think it says.

So you can release a 4e adventure as a free PDF under the GSL, but not a website.

D-U-M-B.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318839Okay, I promise not to produce anything compatible with or useful for D&D4e, and not to do any free work promoting their game line.

I'll just play other stuff instead. Wouldn't want to soil their intellectual property. Gotta have respect, man.

:p

This seems to be the most appropriate response to the latest WoTC idiocy.

Quote from: aramis;318848Especially since the OGL and SRD are well documented; Wizards withdrawing the SRD doesn't remove the prior releases of it, either.

The SRD is not withdrawn only the d20 trademark license.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srdarchive

Quote from: mhensley;318859See Steve Jackson Games for a saner approach-
 
http://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html

Hey, it's also clearly written, with definitions of terms for lay people and explicit coverage of the most common cases.  That's so unusual for a company policy.

Another deconstruction of the fan site policy (or license).

http://d7.pipemaze.com/blog/2009/08/07/wizards-fan-site-kit-is-not-a-fan-site-policy/

I've only now realized, since its the GSL that forbids putting 4e material on a website of any kind, that this has actually been their policy all along.

This seems really shortsighted to me.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;318875I've only now realized, since its the GSL that forbids putting 4e material on a website of any kind, that this has actually been their policy all along.

Or does it only apply to sites that use WotC logos and promo material?


EDIT:

Quote from: ggroy;318874Another deconstruction of the fan site policy (or license).

http://d7.pipemaze.com/blog/2009/08/07/wizards-fan-site-kit-is-not-a-fan-site-policy/

Ah, I see.  So I can still open a 4E slander website, I just can't use the logo.

Quote from: J Arcane;318834So that's it then?  Wizards is TSR now?  

Does that mean we can ignore them as irrelevant again, just like I did through the entire 1990s?

Essentially yes.

Don't make me laugh, guys. Irrelevant? You wish.

They are discussed on this board more by the very people who profess to dislike the new edition of d&d than those who do like it.

hahaha...back when wizards pulled the OOP pdfs I said they'd be sitting there, smoking gun in one hand, bloody hole in one foot grunting "Don't laugh, righty, you're next", and they've pulled the trigger again.

never ceases to amuse

Quote from: Hairfoot;318898Or does it only apply to sites that use WotC logos and promo material?

No, it's not the fan site license that forbids websites.

It's the GSL, which is what would have to allow any use of Wizards material, which specifically lists websites as a type of product you can't make under the GSL.

As I read the license, the GSL only seems to apply to print books and PDFs.

Do I think it would be enforced? No, but it's dumb that it's there in the first place.

Here's section 3 of the GSL:

Quote3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5
(“Licensed Products”)

Now when you go to the other section it refers to, 5.5, you have this:

Quote5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).

So as I read this, websites have been verbotten from the beginning, we're just now noticing.

I am still waiting for a single person here, other than Hairfoot and RPGObjects_chuck, to actually read this new fansite license and figure out that it doesn't actually mean what a single person (other than those two guys) in this thread thinks it means.

Here is a hint - if you do not use the art and such that is included in the package, it does not apply to you.  Period.  It is not, in fact, a generalized fansite license or policy.  It's only specific to stuff in the package.  It's a deal they are offering, which you are free to take or leave: here is this artwork and stuff you can use, but you have to agree to this license.  That's it.  If you're not using the package, then you are left with the GSL (or prior licenses) and intellectual property law rights, just like before.

OK, with that in mind, please do continue your end of the world sky is falling uninformed rants and speculations.

Uninformed armchair quarterbacking is the ultimate national activity of choice.  ;)

Just ask any bartender about all the (drunken) monologues they have to put up with every time they work.  :rant:

Quote from: Mistwell;318945I am still waiting for a single person here, other than Hairfoot and RPGObjects_chuck, to actually read this new fansite license and figure out that it doesn't actually mean what a single person (other than those two guys) in this thread thinks it means.

Here is a hint - if you do not use the art and such that is included in the package, it does not apply to you.  Period.  It is not, in fact, a generalized fansite license or policy.  It's only specific to stuff in the package.  It's a deal they are offering, which you are free to take or leave: here is this artwork and stuff you can use, but you have to agree to this license.  That's it.  If you're not using the package, then you are left with the GSL (or prior licenses) and intellectual property law rights, just like before.

OK, with that in mind, please do continue your end of the world sky is falling uninformed rants and speculations.

Everything you say is true, but it seems that the most common gut reaction folks are having, that Wizards doesn't want folks posting free adventures on their website, is true, just not for the reason they think it is.

Because *my* first take on reading the fan site license was "ok, no biggee, it doesn't cover game materials, they're leaving that to the GSL, I can post powers and characters and adventures to my heart's content".

Except then you go to the GSL and it very clearly says "no websites".

And btw, these sorts of issues are why the GSL has more or less been fucked since day one.

They tried to paint 4e products into such a tiny corner, so they could say it was "open" while disallowing things they saw as potential competition, that you have ridiculous tortured logic throughout the license.

For example, I can make a book but not a magazine?

I can make a PDF but not a website?

And what if I want to put my fiction anthology (not allowed) or my magazine (not allowed) in a PDF?

Well they helpfully tell you that means the whole product is not allowed. So no e-zines for 4e either.

WTF?

Everytime I read that license it's like hitting hit right in the face with a nerf bat that has "DO NOT USE" in huge red letters on the front of it.

Quote from: Mistwell;318945OK, with that in mind, please do continue your end of the world sky is falling uninformed rants and speculations.

Armageddon is awaiting us!  The world is set on fire !!!

Revelations of doom.  :devil:

The return of ....

:rotfl:

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;318965Everything you say is true, but it seems that the most common gut reaction folks are having, that Wizards doesn't want folks posting free adventures on their website, is true, just not for the reason they think it is.

Because *my* first take on reading the fan site license was "ok, no biggee, it doesn't cover game materials, they're leaving that to the GSL, I can post powers and characters and adventures to my heart's content".

Except then you go to the GSL and it very clearly says "no websites".

Yeah, no website.  But, not no downloadable content.  They are referring to you making a pretty website using all their intellectual property to make it look like D&D.  You can still write an adventure or other content, have it available for download, and as long as it complies with the GSL you are good to go.

I read it... it is a means for WOTC to trick you into a license that forfeits your copyright.

Quote from: aramis;318983I read it... it is a means for WOTC to trick you into a license that forfeits your copyright.

Just like EBITDA in accounting.  It really means:

Earnings Before I Trick Dumb Auditor

;)

Quote from: ggroy;318986Just like EBITDA in accounting.  It really means:

Earnings Before I Trick Dumb Auditor

;)

Hmmm...I'd say tricking the auditor is easier if you do it before you get to EBITDA. The ITDA portions are fairly easy to audit.

Quote from: aramis;318983I read it... it is a means for WOTC to trick you into a license that forfeits your copyright.

The assumption that YOUR fansite content is so valuable that they created this elaborate ruse of a full set of fansite content just to steal yours is laughable.

If they REALLY REALLY wanted your stuff, they would just take it.  You're a fansite.  Lets be honest, you don't have the funds to sue Hasbro, and you would probably be flattered if they did like your stuff so much that they bothered to publish it.

You sound like all those idiots during the setting contest who said they would not enter the contest because their setting was "far more valuable" than getting the job with WOTC if they won.  And look at how many of those "far more valuable" settings actually were ever published, much less made more than Keith Baker did with Eberron.

Quote from: Mistwell;319003The assumption that YOUR fansite content is so valuable that they created this elaborate ruse of a full set of fansite content just to steal yours is laughable.

If they REALLY REALLY wanted your stuff, they would just take it.  You're a fansite.  Lets be honest, you don't have the funds to sue Hasbro, and you would probably be flattered if they did like your stuff so much that they bothered to publish it.

You sound like all those idiots during the setting contest who said they would not enter the contest because their setting was "far more valuable" than getting the job with WOTC if they won.  And look at how many of those "far more valuable" settings actually were ever published, much less made more than Keith Baker did with Eberron.

Some people have an overinflated opinion of their own abilities, whether it is their own rpg setting, adventures, computer coding skills, musical abilities, acting abilities, etc ...  This is especially the case for people who are narcissistic.  Virtually nothing can be done to reason with such individuals to bring back down to "reality", short of death.

Quote from: Mistwell;319003The assumption that YOUR fansite content is so valuable that they created this elaborate ruse of a full set of fansite content just to steal yours is laughable.

If they REALLY REALLY wanted your stuff, they would just take it.  You're a fansite.  Lets be honest, you don't have the funds to sue Hasbro, and you would probably be flattered if they did like your stuff so much that they bothered to publish it.

You sound like all those idiots during the setting contest who said they would not enter the contest because their setting was "far more valuable" than getting the job with WOTC if they won.  And look at how many of those "far more valuable" settings actually were ever published, much less made more than Keith Baker did with Eberron.

Big shot wargamers laughed at Gygax and Arneson for coming up with that weird game they put together in the basement, you know. That doesn't make D&D any less of a revolution in hindsight.

The notion somehow that all fan sites everywhere suck and present no content of interest whatsoever that nobody, ever, would want to protect, strikes me as very shortsighted, honestly. You never know what might happen, especially when the stuff on your fansite is experimental.

As for protecting the IP you produce on your own, any individual has this right, no matter how much the particular materials may suck or not according to me, you or anybody else. Quality of the IP is not relevant to the law. What matters is whether the person wants to defend this IP or surrender it to another entity.

You're just coming off as Mister Cynic to me here, Mistwell. But hey, believe what you will. :)

Faustian bargains galore.   ;)

I don't think this is in any sense "the end of the world", whatever the "world" is taken to be - the world itself, roleplaying, D&D, D&D4e, or whatever.

I don't think my various settings are terribly valuable.

I just think that setting yourself up as the legal foe of your biggest fans is a dumb thing to do, business-wise. TSR did it, and what happened to them? Palladium did it for a bit, and it doesn't seem to have greatly increased their market share, old Siembieda still has to ask for handouts from his customers.

It just ain't smart.

Doesn't mean you have to go all the way to open source freeware with everything. Those guys don't make money, either - not in rpgs, anyway. But between the two extremes there's a sensible middle ground where your fans can be their fannish selves, people can produce more or less good quality stuff for your system, and you can make decent money selling your own stuff.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318839Okay, I promise not to produce anything compatible with or useful for D&D4e, and not to do any free work promoting their game line.

I'll just play other stuff instead. Wouldn't want to soil their intellectual property. Gotta have respect, man.

:p

Amen, brother.

Though I'll be honest, much as I love Savage Worlds, I've shied away from posting fan-stuff there because I'm afraid of overstepping my bounds on their fan license.

In all fairness, Kevin Simbieda also had a thief in the shop...

And Kevin only recently came up with a vaguely reasonable web policy...

He still doesn't allow adaptation to/from his systems as of May '09 (last I checked).

Lots of bad web policies exist.

Yes, well, being able to say you now have the same draconian web-policies as the most batshit game designer in the history of the hobby USED to have, without having any of his talent, is not exactly a laudable situation to find one's self in.

RPGPundit

The thing is that Palladium has always struggled along. If just one doofus or nasty person can almost wreck your company, it's on the edge already.

Are the harsh IP policies part of the reason for things being on the edge? I don't claim to know. But I don't see how they'd help.

Companies and people seem to do best when they're more interested in producing new stuff than protecting old stuff.

Quote from: One Horse Town;318909Don't make me laugh, guys. Irrelevant? You wish.

They are discussed on this board more by the very people who profess to dislike the new edition of d&d than those who do like it.

You know, this time, I really meant it.

I am so fucking tired of D&D at this point, I just don't want to have anything to do with it.  I'm starting to miss the old days on RPGnet, when everyone seemed as if they were blissfully unaware of D&D at all except perhaps as some old game no one played anymore.  Fantasy land though it may've been, at least there was a little more variety in that world in those days, before the dark times, before Exalted and 4e.  

I'm tired of playing it, I'm tired of hearing about it, tired of the edition wars, the 4e zealots, the pretentious OSR wonks, of 3e groups full of fucking retards who don't even understand the game they're playing, the 3e "players" online who spend more time minmaxing than actually playing the characters they make, the constant slagging off of Pathfinder every time it comes up, the stupid forum refugees from this or that forum that didn't approve of their particular brand of D&D thought, the armchair stock analysts picking apart every little move they make, and overall the constant and unending stream of completely unimaginative slop that dribbles from the mouths of people who don't even seem to be aware half the time that there are indeed other RPGs out here, other ways to play besides "Enter dungeon, kill orc, take loot" over and fucking over again.

I'm seriously tired of it.  I meant what I said:  Can we finally go back to the way it was in the 90s when no one fucking gave a shit?  When you could talk about RPGs without it devolving into nothing but D&D and how certain people like to run it this way and that's the only way ever to run it and all else is folly.  When there were no "TSR fanboys" because even the people who played D&D hated their guts for the way they treated their fans?  When the old edition grognards kept to their little groups offline and didn't see fit to invade every forum to natter on about how everything in modern game design is rubbish and we're all fucking cocks for liking it?  

I want to once again look out into my internets and see the infinite variety of countless creative people creating all manner of strange new worlds and fun new system toys to play with.  I'm sick of this whole "D&D is the hobby" nonsense, it wasn't true when I got started, there's no reason I see why it has to be true now, unless you really just need a bunch of big numbers to make your penis feel large when you play a game.

That's the "Old School Renaissance" I'd like to see.  Real creativity, real variety, real intellectual curiosity, real adventuring spirit, not just "Hey, let's play/talk/bitch about D&D, AGAIN."

Hey, I wrote GAMERS so I'm trying.

I even wrote up a systemless modern espionage adventure for David R, an adventure you'd have a hard time succeeding with if you wouldn't take an "old school" approach where player smarts were more important than character skills.

Over at Citadel of Chaos Stormy is trying to make the old school thing about more than just D&D.

People are trying, you know. You just have to go looking.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319061Hey, I wrote GAMERS so I'm trying.

I even wrote up a systemless modern espionage adventure for David R, an adventure you'd have a hard time succeeding with if you wouldn't take an "old school" approach where player smarts were more important than character skills.

Over at Citadel of Chaos Stormy is trying to make the old school thing about more than just D&D.

People are trying, you know. You just have to go looking.

I'm really hoping this D6 thing takes off.  I know a lot of people are gunshy about it because of Eric's flakiness, but I'd love to see an explosion of fun bending of that system.  Honestly one of the reasons I've been considering going D6 for the my project is just to have the opportunity to help kickstart the whole thing.  

But I'm also finding myself torn, because while I love D6 a lot, I've already got half a system basically sitting there on the design blog, with really only combat, monsters, and "dark corruption" to add to it before it's ready to go playtest.  

Either way, with my health the way it's been, I'm starting to feel a lot like I need to get this out of me once and for all and into the world for all to share, before I may not have the opportunity anymore.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319061Over at Citadel of Chaos Stormy is trying to make the old school thing about more than just D&D.

People are trying, you know. You just have to go looking.

Ah, but J Arcane isn't interested in actually looking for the discussions he's pining over; he just wants everyone here to change or leave so that no-one disagrees with his pronouncements.

Keep it up, folks.  Before long he"ll fuck off to another forum, where, to the ironic entertainment of all, some self-righteous whiner will tell him to stop wrecking the pristine boards they've been oozing all over since before it got popular.

Go ahead, write and publish - whatever your health. Get your stuff out there so people can enjoy it and tear it apart viciously - and yes it'll be the same people doing both, that's gamers for you :D

Quote from: Benoist;319015Big shot wargamers laughed at Gygax and Arneson for coming up with that weird game they put together in the basement, you know. That doesn't make D&D any less of a revolution in hindsight.

The notion somehow that all fan sites everywhere suck and present no content of interest whatsoever that nobody, ever, would want to protect, strikes me as very shortsighted, honestly. You never know what might happen, especially when the stuff on your fansite is experimental.

As for protecting the IP you produce on your own, any individual has this right, no matter how much the particular materials may suck or not according to me, you or anybody else. Quality of the IP is not relevant to the law. What matters is whether the person wants to defend this IP or surrender it to another entity.

You're just coming off as Mister Cynic to me here, Mistwell. But hey, believe what you will. :)

So you think the entire fansite package was created as a ruse on the off chance WOTC wants to steal the next D&D? Really, you honestly think that is what they are thinking? Because that is the claim I am responding to.  Not that some fansite content is good - but that this package is all created with the secret agenda of stealing fansite content.

Hey, I am happy to talk about Monsters and Other Childish Things, or Mouse Guard.  Both are great RPGs that I don't get to talk about often enough.

If you want to talk mouse guard, Burning Wheel HQ has several ongoing discussions.

Quote from: J Arcane;319059You know, this time, I really meant it.

I am so fucking tired of D&D at this point, I just don't want to have anything to do with it.  I'm starting to miss the old days on RPGnet, when everyone seemed as if they were blissfully unaware of D&D at all except perhaps as some old game no one played anymore.  Fantasy land though it may've been, at least there was a little more variety in that world in those days, before the dark times, before Exalted and 4e.

This will be the Captain Obvious post, but you can discuss any game you want to here, on TheRPGHaven, RPGNet (unless you are banned there), Story Games, The Citadel of Chaos or wherever. You can also stay out of D&D-related threads - I don't go into Exalted threads because Exalted doesn't interest me in the slightest, so no annoyance. It is so easy anybody can do it.

He's not demanding to be part of interesting discussions, he's demanding that others start them so he can be entertained by them.

The strident demand for passive entertainment is not an unusual one in the West today. "Get off your lazy arse and do it yourself!" is the most right and proper response, but also misses the point - they just want to be passively entertained.

We get the same thing in the threads about how roleplaying is dying. People get all sooky and snarky when you said, "so, invite some non-gamers to your group."
"No, you don't understand. Someone should do something!"
"Someone else, you mean?"
"Waaaahh! You don't understand my suffering! I must have everything I want without any effort!"

It's infantile, but what can you do.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319126The strident demand for passive entertainment is not an unusual one in the West today. "Get off your lazy arse and do it yourself!" is the most right and proper response, but also misses the point - they just want to be passively entertained.

Yup. On the other hand, this is our best and brightest hope for traditional tabletop roleplaying games: they are and will remain a good outlet for people looking for a social creative hobby. In my estimation, the people who consume RPGs overwhelmingly passively will be lost to the hobby in one decade to superior forms of passive fun, and there is nothing that can or should be done against that.

Complaining and bitching is the #2 popular pastime in this society.  ;)

Quote from: J Arcane;319059That's the "Old School Renaissance" I'd like to see.  Real creativity, real variety, real intellectual curiosity, real adventuring spirit, not just "Hey, let's play/talk/bitch about D&D, AGAIN."

Dream on, you crazy dreamer.

Or, that was one serious "back in my day" post.

Or, so the internet should be what you want it to be?

Or, what does that have to do with D&D being "irrelevant"?

However you choose to respond, it was quite a post.

Quote from: J Arcane;319059You know, this time, I really meant it.

I am so fucking tired of D&D at this point, I just don't want to have anything to do with it.  I'm starting to miss the old days on RPGnet, when everyone seemed as if they were blissfully unaware of D&D at all except perhaps as some old game no one played anymore.  Fantasy land though it may've been, at least there was a little more variety in that world in those days, before the dark times, before Exalted and 4e.  

I'm tired of playing it, I'm tired of hearing about it, tired of the edition wars, the 4e zealots, the pretentious OSR wonks, of 3e groups full of fucking retards who don't even understand the game they're playing, the 3e "players" online who spend more time minmaxing than actually playing the characters they make, the constant slagging off of Pathfinder every time it comes up, the stupid forum refugees from this or that forum that didn't approve of their particular brand of D&D thought, the armchair stock analysts picking apart every little move they make, and overall the constant and unending stream of completely unimaginative slop that dribbles from the mouths of people who don't even seem to be aware half the time that there are indeed other RPGs out here, other ways to play besides "Enter dungeon, kill orc, take loot" over and fucking over again.

I'm seriously tired of it.  I meant what I said:  Can we finally go back to the way it was in the 90s when no one fucking gave a shit?  When you could talk about RPGs without it devolving into nothing but D&D and how certain people like to run it this way and that's the only way ever to run it and all else is folly.  When there were no "TSR fanboys" because even the people who played D&D hated their guts for the way they treated their fans?  When the old edition grognards kept to their little groups offline and didn't see fit to invade every forum to natter on about how everything in modern game design is rubbish and we're all fucking cocks for liking it?  

I want to once again look out into my internets and see the infinite variety of countless creative people creating all manner of strange new worlds and fun new system toys to play with.  I'm sick of this whole "D&D is the hobby" nonsense, it wasn't true when I got started, there's no reason I see why it has to be true now, unless you really just need a bunch of big numbers to make your penis feel large when you play a game.

That's the "Old School Renaissance" I'd like to see.  Real creativity, real variety, real intellectual curiosity, real adventuring spirit, not just "Hey, let's play/talk/bitch about D&D, AGAIN."

All of that was lost mainly because the diversity of games and game discussion was sucked into the black hole that was the Forge. By people who hated D&D.

So if you really want to create this kind of thing again, where there is great diversity in gaming, you have to love D&D, not hate it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;319198All of that was lost mainly because the diversity of games and game discussion was sucked into the black hole that was the Forge. By people who hated D&D.

So if you really want to create this kind of thing again, where there is great diversity in gaming, you have to love D&D, not hate it.

RPGPundit

Yeaaahh, you aren't really familiar with the time period I speak of at all, are you?  IIRC you have claimed you'd quit gaming at that point anyway.  

Thanks to the TSR you know and hate from the 2e days, hate of D&D lead to a lot of other games, and well before the Forge had anything to do with anything.

Quote from: J Arcane;319206Thanks to the TSR you know and hate from the 2e days, hate of D&D lead to a lot of other games, and well before the Forge had anything to do with anything.

But J, don't you understand, the Forge is responsible for everything you hate about gaming, everything you ever hated about gaming, and everything you ever will hate about gaming.

It's like the Force. Or Elvis. It's everywhere. It's everywhen.

Quote from: J Arcane;319059Can we finally go back to the way it was in the 90s when no one fucking gave a shit?

No, we can't.

Remember, the first bucket of cold water is free. The next one's gonna cost ya.

Quote from: The Shaman;319218But J, don't you understand, the Forge is responsible for everything you hate about gaming, everything you ever hated about gaming, and everything you ever will hate about gaming.

It's like the Force. Or Elvis. It's everywhere. It's everywhen.

Heh.  I'm not very fond of where the Forge have taken the sentiment, but on the whole "I'm bored with D&D, let's play something else" has lead to as much good as bad, in my book.

Shit, we wouldn't even have games that weren't D&D at all, especially not fantasy games, if someone hadn't said that at some point.

So you want to go back to when gaming was in absolute ruins?
Well, given WoTC's recent decisions, you might just get your wish.

I don't see how that connects to "I wish people would stop talking about D&D", though...

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;319222. . .

• n the whole "I'm bored with D&D, let's play something else" has lead to as much good as bad, in my book.

Shit, we wouldn't even have games that weren't D&D at all, especially not fantasy games, if someone hadn't said that at some point.

You don't have to convince me.

I play D&D once a year with some folks from Dragonsfoot. The rest of the time I'm scrambling to come up with players for the games I really like. My tastes run to a small niche within our already niche pastime. The stranglehold of D&D specifically, and fantasy generally, on our hobby is a persistent annoyance to me.

But railing about it gets me nowhere. I try to inject other games and other genres into the conversation where I can. Sometimes I get sparks, and that's the first step to lighting a fire.

Quote from: RPGPundit;319233So you want to go back to when gaming was in absolute ruins?

When was Gaming ever dead or in ruin?

Over the years, if I've had a group I've always been able to have a game. About half the time it was AD&D(until WOTC got ahold of it) but during the 80's and all through the '90s there were all kinds of varied RPGs out, during that time I GMed or Played many, many games, Twilight 2K, Traveller, Merc, Toon, TMNT, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Palladium, Pendragon, Ringworld, Star Trek, Battletech/Mechwarrior, Star Wars(d6), Paranoia, Rolemaster and/or MERP, Amber, Theatrix,.. The list goes on and on for me, the only glut of "No Game" for me was when WOTC came out with 3.0 and suddenly it was hard to find AD&D players. For me AD&D was the "Gateway Game", people came into the hobby by playing AD&D and then I was able to introduce them to other games. There was a couple of times, right after I moved to a new city that I didn't have a local group, but within a year or so, I've always been able to build one. The one I have now was already a group when I moved here(Memphis, TN) and I inherited when the GM got suddenly got married and moved to the 'Nooga(it's ALL Topher's fault).

So, I'm really at a loss when people say, "Yea back when Gaming was Dead..." Gaming will always be around as long as there's people willing to belly up to a table and roll some dice(or not if your playing Diceless). That's really why I'm usually the GM, that way I can be sure to have a game. Plus the fact that the Wife is a gamer and now the Kid is starting to play...

Quote from: greylond;319259When was Gaming ever dead or in ruin?

Mate, roleplaying has never died. However, roleplaying has been dying since about 1978. It was dying of a number of causes, in rough chronological order: people playing games other than D&D, computer games, pretentious gaming, webpages with free content, computer games again, online games, more free content, people not playing games other than D&D, illegal filesharing, and...

Roleplaying has been dying almost as long as it's lived.

I was asking the Pundit about his comment above of, "Back when gaming was in Ruins"... I'd like to know when exactly that was...

Quote from: greylond;319330I was asking the Pundit about his comment above of, "Back when gaming was in Ruins"... I'd like to know when exactly that was...

Me too, especially since he put it as "absolute" ruins. When was the hobby in absolute ruins?
Maybe he's thinking of the second half of the 1990's, when TSR was about to die?

Quote from: greylond;319330I was asking the Pundit about his comment above of, "Back when gaming was in Ruins"... I'd like to know when exactly that was...

According to Pundit, 2e and White Wolf killed gaming in the early 90s, because that's when he quit gaming because he didn't like them.

Ironically, he didn't like 3e either, but that saved all gaming as we know it and is why we should worship at it's feet as the whole of the gaming hobby.

He's a conflicted man.

If RPGs are really dying, I wonder what the latest rumors are implying.

Rumor has it that at Gencon next week, WotC will be selling the 4E PHB1 for $5 with the purchase of any other WotC D&D rulebook.

Is this a prelude to a 4.5E D&D?

Or are they left with so much D&D inventory collecting dust in a WotC warehouse, that is moving at a snail's pace?  (This only a year after 4E was first released).  Is this their way of "liquidating" all this junk inventory?

Quote from: ggroy;319341If RPGs are really dying, I wonder what the latest rumors are implying.

Rumor has it that at Gencon next week, WotC will be selling the 4E PHB1 for $5 with the purchase of any other WotC D&D rulebook.

Is this a prelude to a 4.5E D&D?

Or are they left with so much D&D inventory collecting dust in a WotC warehouse, that is moving at a snail's pace?  (This only a year after 4E was first released).  Is this their way of "liquidating" all this junk inventory?

Anecdotal evidence in my experience is worth about as much as they can be bent to support a poster's personal theories.

My Barnes and Noble for instance, seems to havve ceased stocking new 4e books entirely, which of course I must interpret to mean that 4e is a dismal failure, because I don't like it.

Of course, it could just as easily mean that the stockboy in charge of the SF/F department doesn't like 4e either, and so prefers to spend the stores money on the other stuff they have like MongTrav and Dark Heresy.  Or that they're selling out so ballistically fast they can't keep it on the shelves, and so they've either given up, or they're still selling at a shelf life of about 30 minutes.

It's all in point of view.  Corporations don't like to release sales numbers unless they have to for tax purposes, or if they think the numbers are good enough that honesty is the best PR.  The former doesn't apply because Wizards is a speck in the Hasbro eye and hardly worth mentioning in revenue reports, and the latter coems and goes on the whim of who's in the press office that day.

Quote from: J Arcane;319335According to Pundit, 2e and White Wolf killed gaming in the early 90s, because that's when he quit gaming because he didn't like them.

Yea, well, he's plain wrong cause I knew lots of gamers then, playing every kind of game on the market. Heck, most of the groups I knew back then were Full Tables. And the Game Stores that I hung out in were making money left and right, and not just on CCGs either. One store in Richmond, VA(One Eyed Jaques) is still open and at that time was doing a lot of business. 2 Game nights a week with the owner having to push gamers out the door at 4am(on Friday Nights). And Richmond is a college town with a very active night life but yet many people came to play games instead of hang out at clubs.

Quote from: greylond;319353Yea, well, he's plain wrong cause I knew lots of gamers then, playing every kind of game on the market.

Yes, but it wasn't true gaming :)

Quote from: greylond;319353Yea, well, he's plain wrong cause I knew lots of gamers then, playing every kind of game on the market. Heck, most of the groups I knew back then were Full Tables. And the Game Stores that I hung out in were making money left and right, and not just on CCGs either. One store in Richmond, VA(One Eyed Jaques) is still open and at that time was doing a lot of business. 2 Game nights a week with the owner having to push gamers out the door at 4am(on Friday Nights). And Richmond is a college town with a very active night life but yet many people came to play games instead of hang out at clubs.

You don't have to tell me.  I got started in the 90s.  Back when SWd6 was at it's peak, Palladium was a powerhouse for no reason I could determine, White Wolf was everywhere, even getting it's own video game deals and TV show.  Even badwrongfun 2e seemed to do relatively alright, but I wasn't interested in it then, and while a few of my circle had played it and we even made one attempt once of getting a game going, it was overall basically irrelevant to what we were doing.  Shit, Earthdawn got as much attention in my circle as D&D 2e did.

Quote from: ggroy;319341If RPGs are really dying, I wonder what the latest rumors are implying.

Rumor has it that at Gencon next week, WotC will be selling the 4E PHB1 for $5 with the purchase of any other WotC D&D rulebook.

Is this a prelude to a 4.5E D&D?

Or are they left with so much D&D inventory collecting dust in a WotC warehouse, that is moving at a snail's pace?  (This only a year after 4E was first released).  Is this their way of "liquidating" all this junk inventory?

I'd say wait and see if this is anything but a rumor before speculating.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319357Yes, but it wasn't true gaming :)

Yea, right...

Pundit, care to comment?

And it just occured to me, Amber DRPG published in 1991, Shadow Knight: 1993. 1993 was the year I ran my Amber DRPG game for several months... ;)

Quote from: J Arcane;319335According to Pundit, 2e and White Wolf killed gaming in the early 90s, because that's when he quit gaming because he didn't like them.

Ironically, he didn't like 3e either, but that saved all gaming as we know it and is why we should worship at it's feet as the whole of the gaming hobby.

He's a conflicted man.

There you go again, J Arcane.
I quit gaming for about 6 months just before WoTC released 3e, that's the only period in my post-12-year-old life that I ever wasn't gaming at least once a week.
That is the period I would say gaming was at its absolute valley.

Also, I didn't dislike 3e. I didn't adore it, I don't think its the best version of D&D, and its failings got worse and worse as time went by and the system bloated, but I didn't hate it. I even ran 3 or 4 campaigns with it.

RPGPundit

That's why I was wanting you to respond to my question, what did you mean "When gaming was in ruins"?

Quote from: J Arcane;319345My Barnes and Noble for instance, seems to havve ceased stocking new 4e books entirely, which of course I must interpret to mean that 4e is a dismal failure, because I don't like it.

Of course, it could just as easily mean that the stockboy in charge of the SF/F department doesn't like 4e either, and so prefers to spend the stores money on the other stuff they have like MongTrav and Dark Heresy.  Or that they're selling out so ballistically fast they can't keep it on the shelves, and so they've either given up, or they're still selling at a shelf life of about 30 minutes.

Of the independent bookstores in town (the few remaining), they don't even carry any D&D books anymore.  A year ago a few of them carried the core 4E D&D books.

For the big box bookstores, I've noticed it is highly dependent on whether there is a gamer type person working at a particular store and whether they actually give a damn.  At stores which have a semi-random smattering of highly specialized splatbooks in stock, these places typically don't have any gamer types working there or the gamer type person working there largely doesn't give a damn.  At places where there is a gamer type person working there who actually gives a damn, they will normally have the core books in stock (ie. PHB, DMG, MM, and maybe even PHB2, MM2, etc ...).

Quote from: J Arcane;319059*snip*

Yet, here you are, posting a big rant about D&D in a thread about D&D.

You could just STOP yourself, ya know?

The only one with the power to prevent your aggravation is YOU.

Quote from: greylond;319447That's why I was wanting you to respond to my question, what did you mean "When gaming was in ruins"?

I just did. The period in the last year or two before 3e was released. The late 90s in other words.
The rot started in the early 90s, but gaming as a whole managed to keep going strong for quite a few years before it started to collapse under the weight of mismanagement and Swine-hood.

RPGPundit

Again, I disagree with you. Basing your idea that "Gaming was in Ruins" on your personal preferences/what you experienced with your own gaming group is, IMO, flawed. There was lots of gaming going on, a lot of it I didn't like personally, but that didn't mean that it didn't exist. Sure TSR was sucking at that point but there was plenty of games on the market and a lot of gaming going on across North America. Outside of North Amercia I really can't say, but "In Ruins"? Nope, you're wrong...

Quote from: RPGPundit;319491I just did. The period in the last year or two before 3e was released. The late 90s in other words.
The rot started in the early 90s, but gaming as a whole managed to keep going strong for quite a few years before it started to collapse under the weight of mismanagement and Swine-hood.

RPGPundit

Non WW Games released in the 90s:

Cyberpunk 2020
Rifts
Amber Diceless
Mutant Chronicles
Deadlands
Castle Falkenstein
Witchcraft
Fading Suns
Legend of the Five Rings
Unknown Armies
7th Sea
All Flesh Must Be Eaten

Ars Magica, Shadowrun, Star Wars d6, Pendragon and DC Heroes all had new editions in the 90's as well.

Yes, gaming was rotting in the 90s - and all these games helped contribute to it, eh?  
On this, you are so full of shit it's unbelievable.  Gaming YOU DIDN'T LIKE was happening in the 90's, but the hobby kept on chugging along.  All of these games were great in their own right, and helped diversify and increase the hobby with new gamers, who would eventually branch out into other areas of gaming.

You hate White Wolf, but it's the 2000 era that has seen the explosion of "story games" you hate so much, not the 90's.  And calling White Wolf "story games" shows how desperately you don't understand those games.

WW's games are not "storygames", they're "Story-based gaming", which is a different term; it refers to a basically now-defunct ideology so it might explain why it isn't familiar to you. Ideologically, the only thing they have in common is pretentiousness and a hatred for D&D. In everything else proponents of these respective ideologies are as likely to despise each other as they are to despise the average GURPS player.

As for your "diversity list", how many of those games were released between 1997 and the release of 3e? The list becomes considerably less impressive.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were less people actively involved in the gaming hobby just before 3e was released than there are even now. Its undoubtable that 3e and D20 brought (at least) tens of thousands of people (back, mostly) into the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;319491I just did. The period in the last year or two before 3e was released. The late 90s in other words.
The rot started in the early 90s, but gaming as a whole managed to keep going strong for quite a few years before it started to collapse under the weight of mismanagement and Swine-hood.

RPGPundit

Quote from: greylond;319503Again, I disagree with you. Basing your idea that "Gaming was in Ruins" on your personal preferences/what you experienced with your own gaming group is, IMO, flawed. There was lots of gaming going on, a lot of it I didn't like personally, but that didn't mean that it didn't exist. Sure TSR was sucking at that point but there was plenty of games on the market and a lot of gaming going on across North America. Outside of North Amercia I really can't say, but "In Ruins"? Nope, you're wrong...

I was experiencing a glut of players in '97-'99; I had two groups of 7+, no overlaps save me, and a 3rd of 4-7 of those 14+... I miss those days. They got crimped a bit in '00... due to my firstborn.

Quote from: RPGPundit;319629WW's games are not "storygames", they're "Story-based gaming", which is a different term; it refers to a basically now-defunct ideology so it might explain why it isn't familiar to you. Ideologically, the only thing they have in common is pretentiousness and a hatred for D&D. In everything else proponents of these respective ideologies are as likely to despise each other as they are to despise the average GURPS player.

As for your "diversity list", how many of those games were released between 1997 and the release of 3e? The list becomes considerably less impressive.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were less people actively involved in the gaming hobby just before 3e was released than there are even now. Its undoubtable that 3e and D20 brought (at least) tens of thousands of people (back, mostly) into the hobby.

RPGPundit

Why was it such a bad thing to try and wring more "role playing" out of players?

I too found the "D&D is stupid" thing glaring after a while, but most of this was purged during 2ed and Revised.  Current WoD is less concerned with what others are doing, and more concerned with doing their thing.  They are firmly entrenched as #2, with no real prospect of moving up to #1, and noone under them really in a position to unseat then as #2 for very long.

I always thought of it as like - you have a new company and you come out with a new product that is similar to the Big One in your industry.  You have to make sure your potential customers know exactly how you differ from his, and then try to attract the disenfranchised and pissed off former customers.

Honestly, White Wolfs strategy and growth cycle is not unlike theRPGsite.

1)  Form in the shadow of a big huge juggernaut in the same industry.
2)  Immediately set about running the big one into the ground by accentuating differences in approach and attracting the pissed off former user base by shitting on said big guy.
3)  Over time, eventually grow big enough and attract enough users that continually shitting on the big one just comes off badly, potentially turns away potential cross-platform users, and just ends up looking pissy and unprofessional, so you ditch it and go your own way, occasionally sniping at a few things across the bow.  Beyond that, theres more than enough original and interesting things to do that you don't want to keep bringing them up in every conversation.  Makes you seem like a one-note pony.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319457Yet, here you are, posting a big rant about D&D in a thread about D&D.

You could just STOP yourself, ya know?

The only one with the power to prevent your aggravation is YOU.

Strong words coming from a man who dumped some incoherent missive about beer as his way of resetting the OSR thread back to square one.  

Clearly you've been away from here too long again, and I've been away from RPGnet too long, because you've forgotten who the hell you're speaking to.  When have I ever been known to keep my mouth shut if something is bothering me?

Nothing changes in this world if you sit quietly in a corner and mutter to yourself.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319696I too found the "D&D is stupid" thing glaring after a while, but most of this was purged during 2ed and Revised.  Current WoD is less concerned with what others are doing, and more concerned with doing their thing.  They are firmly entrenched as #2, with no real prospect of moving up to #1, and noone under them really in a position to unseat then as #2 for very long.

Actually, I'd very much doubt that at this point, WW is still number 2 in the industry. Paizo has probably overshadowed them.

QuoteHonestly, White Wolfs strategy and growth cycle is not unlike theRPGsite.

1)  Form in the shadow of a big huge juggernaut in the same industry.
2)  Immediately set about running the big one into the ground by accentuating differences in approach and attracting the pissed off former user base by shitting on said big guy.
3)  Over time, eventually grow big enough and attract enough users that continually shitting on the big one just comes off badly, potentially turns away potential cross-platform users, and just ends up looking pissy and unprofessional, so you ditch it and go your own way, occasionally sniping at a few things across the bow.  Beyond that, theres more than enough original and interesting things to do that you don't want to keep bringing them up in every conversation.  Makes you seem like a one-note pony.

This site was NEVER just an anti-rpg.net site.

Nor is this site's objections to rpg.net's moderation policies some kind of marketing ploy.

RPGPundit

If Paizo isn't already #2, I'm betting they will be shortly after Gen Con.

Quote from: J Arcane;319726Strong words coming from a man who dumped some incoherent missive about beer as his way of resetting the OSR thread back to square one.  

Clearly you've been away from here too long again, and I've been away from RPGnet too long, because you've forgotten who the hell you're speaking to.  When have I ever been known to keep my mouth shut if something is bothering me?

Nothing changes in this world if you sit quietly in a corner and mutter to yourself.

Yeah, that was a mistake.  But I've made up for it.

It was only incoherent if you don't like beer.

If a thread, or type of thread bugs you, why the hell bother?  BBR threads in Tengency bug me for the most part, so I don't bother posting to them.  Nothing changes on the internet no matter what you do.  I hate the fucking cartoon because it gets used as a snarky way to shut down discussion/argument someone doesn't like, though I love xkcd in general, however "Something is WRONG on the internet" is still a decent cautionary tale.

The internet will not change.  You will.  What you say is true, in the REAL WORLD.  Sitting by while bad shit goes down you have it in your power to stop,or at least mitigate, is almost as bad as being the one doing it yourself.  

On the internet, you will bang your head against the Internet Hate Machine, and all you will get in return are bruises on your head and time wasted you can't get back.

Quote from: RPGPundit;319783This site was NEVER just an anti-rpg.net site.

No.  It wasn't before you took over.  After that, it was for a while.  Eventually, it stopped being that.  And the site has been better for it since.

QuoteNor is this site's objections to rpg.net's moderation policies some kind of marketing ploy.

RPGPundit

Maybe not intentionally.  But it certainly served to attract a huge subset of the "pissed off former rpg.net banned assholes" for a while (and thats not saying ALL the banned guys from rpg.net are assholes.  Only the assholes are assholes).

Of course, it couldn't be a "marketing ploy" - you don't make any money.  But it sure did increase traffic.

Nor was White Wolf's.  It was legitimete anger at how the RPG industry was dominated by one type of game and pretty much one genre, and trying to break out of that.  In doing so, they spewed vitriol on the big juggernaut of the industry.  It happens.  Check up linux/Mac/open source boards and you'll see LOADS of Microsoft hatred (course, there is actual reason for that, for the very direct harm MS have done - TSR didn't destroy anyone's bookshelves with poorly edited and playtested material, or caused someone's game notes to become corrupted when they tried to use houserules to play D&D).  Any "underdog" will have a subset of the fan base that hates on the big guys.  Check Toronto Maple Leafs fans who hate Montreal, or Boston Red Sox fans (until they won the series) and Yankees.  Some hate the Yankees more than they cheer for their team.  Ditto Leafs fans.  Some seem to EXIST just to spew bile of Les Habs.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319897Yeah, that was a mistake.  But I've made up for it.

It was only incoherent if you don't like beer.

I like beer.  It was still incoherent.  The only thing I got out of it was "I didn't read the thread" and "I hate PBR".  

I posted what I said because I meant it, because it was in line with the topic and previous responses as well as others of recent note.  

I think D&D gets far too much weight anymore as it is, without these stupid fucking ENWorld twats insisting on making the board all about them.  

If I'm the lone voice who doesn't want "ENWorld-lite", then so be it, I'm used to that sort of thing, after all, I'm in the US and I believe in universal health care, which apparently makes me a grandma killer.  I'm not so weak a man as to surrender my opinions just because I'm too lazy and thin-skinned to take the flak for them.

I've done some towards creating threads of my own and posting to non-D&D threads, but the fact remains that thanks to the recent flock of sheep, there's a pretty healthy weight of topics towards all things D&D and little else, not least of which because of this sort of armchair analysis from people like the OP.  

I do honestly believe the D20 thing was a fucking mistake, that we let a corporation co-opt our entire hobby for their own ends and pollute the peripheral market with a lot of uncreative rehashes, and that in general, it seems to me like the more weight we give to D&D in the discourse, the less genuinely creative and innovative stuff seems to come along outside of cults like Borgstromancy and the Forge.  

If Wizards is indeed becoming the new TSR, it's about time we fucking treated them like it, and got on with the gaming and made it our own again.

Well, no I hadn't read the thread.  56 pages along at that point.  Even as a teacher in the summer, I don't have that kind of time.  Shouldn't have bothered, and listened to my better judgement against jumping feet first into a huge thread when I hadn't been part of it.  Hard to tell here, as the little pages bar down at the bottom goes to like 3 and then gives you the "jump to last post" button, so it can be hard to tell at first blush how massive a thread is after you jump into the first page.

Other than the ENworld stuff, I disagree.  I think having that universal mechanic helped a lot of people get their foot in the gaming door by making the barrioer to entry easier, since you didn't have to come up with a whole set of mechanics to start.  I think it really helped give the industry a kick in the pants, and while most of it was shite, it gave people an entry point, and easy way of jumping into the hobby, in a way that hasn't existed before.  It wasn't all good, certainly, and there were indeed downsides to d20, but I think it wasn't a BAD thing, overall.  Now that D&D has pretty much moved past it, people are picking through the bones of 3ed for the GOOD ideas, and discarding the rest.  I've seen some really neat takes on D&D that involve incorporating aspects of all editions to make an Uber-D&D that really looks compelling.

But theres other games, yes.  I myself am starting to suffer D&D burnout as that's all the majority of my group wants to play.

Quote from: J Arcane;319905If I'm the lone voice who doesn't want "ENWorld-lite", then so be it,

*cough*

Quote from: One Horse Town;319923*cough*

Well, I was speaking hypothetically there.  I appreciate that you and I are of two minds about the recent trends.  ;)

Quote from: J Arcane;319905If Wizards is indeed becoming the new TSR, it's about time we fucking treated them like it, and got on with the gaming and made it our own again.

If Wizards of the Coast suffers the same fate as TSR, their Hasbro overlords may possibly cancel the D&D product line and shelve the intellectual property, or outright sell it to another company who has the cash.  (Who knows?  It could be an MMO company buying D&D.  White Wolf was bought up by an MMO company a few yars ago).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319061Hey, I wrote GAMERS so I'm trying.

I even wrote up a systemless modern espionage adventure for David R, an adventure you'd have a hard time succeeding with if you wouldn't take an "old school" approach where player smarts were more important than character skills.

Over at Citadel of Chaos Stormy is trying to make the old school thing about more than just D&D.

People are trying, you know. You just have to go looking.

Thanks for the push, Kyle!

For J Arcane:  If you have d6 stuff you want to talk about or write, stop on over.  d6 Open has its pedigree in Paranoia, Ghostbusters and WEG Star Wars, vintage games all.

Quote from: J Arcane;319905If Wizards is indeed becoming the new TSR, it's about time we fucking treated them like it, and got on with the gaming and made it our own again.

Wait, wait.  We need a crowd for this.

Gather round, folks!  Are you prepared for the greatest, the best, the most bald, blatant and self-defeating act of hypocrisy in the history of roleplaying games?

I present to you... J ARCANE!  Yes, ladies and gents - the J Arcane who spits venom at the OSR for its variety, independance, and wild creativity!  The J Arcane who champions whatever bland, steaming pile of shit currently has the D&D logo floating in it!

Watch him in his greatest performance yet - TELLING OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD MAKE THE GAME THEIR OWN!

Holy Jesus thrice-damned fucking Christ.  I've seen it all now.
Posted in Mobile Mode

See this is the trouble who just see someone as being against their pet thing.  They wind up saying things that make no sense, because they ignore or twist any other context to a person's actions or words and wind up seeing "hypocrisy" everywhere because it's easier than believing the other person might have a point about something.

Quote from: ggroy;319341If RPGs are really dying, I wonder what the latest rumors are implying.

Rumor has it that at Gencon next week, WotC will be selling the 4E PHB1 for $5 with the purchase of any other WotC D&D rulebook.

Is this a prelude to a 4.5E D&D?

Or are they left with so much D&D inventory collecting dust in a WotC warehouse, that is moving at a snail's pace?  (This only a year after 4E was first released).  Is this their way of "liquidating" all this junk inventory?

As I spelled out in detail at EnWorld, it actually makes them MORE money doing it that way than selling retail.  It's an experiment that, if it works out for them (and I bet it does), you will see every year in some fashion.

In short, selling one book at full price directly and the other for $5 nets them more money than selling them through a retail outlet, where they loose 60% of retail value to the third parties and discounting.

It does not have to have anything to do with inventory, or future plans, or anything other than a desire to make money and generate some buzz.

But of course, any news from WOTC of any sort will be spun as bad news.  Because they are the big dog.  And everyone drags down the big dog.

I like dogs. I like big dogs too. I just think WotC has stupidity issues in its management department.

Quote from: Mistwell;319988But of course, any news from WOTC of any sort will be spun as bad news.  Because they are the big dog.  And everyone drags down the big dog.

Of course, that is the only reason someone would dare besmirch the greatest gaming company in the history of the world.  It can't be that some people have reasonable concerns that the latest news about fan sites closely mimics TSR's actions from the 80s.  No, that isn't possible, because WotC can do no wrong.  People are just misreading the wide-openness of the GSL and Fan Site Policy Kit as restrictive.  Likely, they are flat out lying about it to 'drag down the big dog'.

Quote from: StormBringer;319993Of course, that is the only reason someone would dare besmirch the greatest gaming company in the history of the world.

When I use the world "only", you can attack me for using the word "only".

When I don't, and you pretend I said it when I didn't, I call you an asshole.

Asshole.

QuoteIt can't be that some people have reasonable concerns that the latest news about fan sites closely mimics TSR's actions from the 80s.  No, that isn't possible, because WotC can do no wrong.

When I say WOTC can do no wrong, you can attack me for saying WOTC can do no wrong.  

When I don't, and you pretend I said it when I didn't, I call you an asshole.

Asshole.

QuotePeople are just misreading the wide-openness of the GSL and Fan Site Policy Kit as restrictive.  Likely, they are flat out lying about it to 'drag down the big dog'.

The topic I was responding to was not the fansite policy.  It was the $5 PHB along with a full priced supplement book at GenCon.  That is the "any news" I was replying to, in context.

You've taken it out of context (and you had to actually physically do that - there is no excuse here, you actually cut out the context from your partial quote so that when you applied your new one it was not apparent to a casual reader) , applied an entirely new context to it, and then bashed me for something I did not say or imply.

Asshole.

SOME news from WOTC is bash-worthy.  However, "any" news is not.  Some people seem to react by bashing WOTC whatever the news might be.  They find a way to spin ANYTHING as bad, even if it is neutral or good.  They speculate that the secret meaning behind any news is an implication that WOTC is seeing poor sales or hates gamers or whatever.  That is what I am objecting to.

More tin foil hats!!!!!   ;)

Quote from: Mistwell;319994The topic I was responding to was not the fansite policy.  It was the $5 PHB along with a full priced supplement book at GenCon.  That is the "any news" I was replying to, in context.

Interesting, but you don't get to re-define 'any' to mean 'this specific instance that has no other grammatic markers whatsoever'.  It means 'up to and including every other similar instance, severally or collectively'.  What you probably meant to say was "This is just another example where...", or "Here is another case of..."

QuoteYou've taken it out of context (and you had to actually physically do that - there is no excuse here, you actually cut out the context from your partial quote so that when you applied your new one it was not apparent to a casual reader) , applied an entirely new context to it, and then bashed me for something I did not say or imply.

Believe it or don't, words have meaning.  'Any' doesn't get to apply to a specific instance just because you were caught being a whiny douchebag.

The context you are referring to, just for clarity, is riddled with bad math.  Assume a $40 book. It goes into the distribution channel at $16-$20, and their cost would be something like $8-$10 from the printer, but probably much less, around $5.  They can sell it directly for $40, however, at GenCon for a $30-$35 profit.  The PHB is a rider for $5.  So, $45 for both books that cost them $10-$20 total from the printer results in a $25-$35 profit where they would have normally made $60 selling them directly.

Since they are positioning the PHB as a loss leader anyway, why bother with the $5 bit?  The margins on the sale of the other book to seal the deal are enough to cover the costs anyway, why not just give them away?  For one thing, if I understand correctly, promos like that aren't counted towards 'sales'.  One interpretation is that they are using a bit of accounting and marketing chicanery to boost sales numbers.  I am sure there are other interpretations that are more charitable.

It's almost as if you find some way to spin WotC announcements into the most positive interpretation possible and utterly reject any negative viewpoints, no matter how slight.

QuoteSOME news from WOTC is bash-worthy.  However, "any" news is not.  Some people seem to react by bashing WOTC whatever the news might be.  They find a way to spin ANYTHING as bad, even if it is neutral or good.  They speculate that the secret meaning behind any news is an implication that WOTC is seeing poor sales or hates gamers or whatever.  That is what I am objecting to.

You are objecting to having your words read correctly when you want to pretend they meant something else.  You are backpedalling faster than Lance Armstrong can pedal normally.  You were making a blanket statement that even the slightest negativity towards 4e or WotC aggravates the sand in your vagina to intolerable levels.

When you can find these people that always decry WotC, you can attack those people for always decrying WotC.  

When you can't, and you pretend these people exist when they don't, you get to be labelled a douchebag.

Douchebag.

Quote from: StormBringer;319993Of course, that is the only reason someone would dare besmirch the greatest gaming company in the history of the world.  It can't be that some people have reasonable concerns that the latest news about fan sites closely mimics TSR's actions from the 80s.  No, that isn't possible, because WotC can do no wrong.  People are just misreading the wide-openness of the GSL and Fan Site Policy Kit as restrictive.  Likely, they are flat out lying about it to 'drag down the big dog'.

No, it's because its not a "fan site policy" its a policy if you want to use their fan site kit with provided graphics and such.

If you don't, you don't fall under the policy, and can keep doing what you are doing.  If you do, you play by the rules, since they are providing you with images and official logos to put on your website.

It's pretty simple, pretty benign, but of course the Internets have their collective panties in a bunch about it because a few people who didn't understand/read it correctly were the first ones to jump on it and spread the misinformation before others could explain it more clearly, but by then Pandora was free from her box.

Mass hysteria.

Delusions and madness of crowds.

More witch burnings!!!!  :D

"Cats and dogs living together..."

Quote from: StormBringer;320003Since they are positioning the PHB as a loss leader anyway, why bother with the $5 bit?  The margins on the sale of the other book to seal the deal are enough to cover the costs anyway, why not just give them away?

Since we don't have their actual numbers, why even ask? Maybe $5 was as low as they decided they could go and still make it worthwhile?

Quote from: StormBringer;320003For one thing, if I understand correctly, promos like that aren't counted towards 'sales'.  One interpretation is that they are using a bit of accounting and marketing chicanery to boost sales numbers.  I am sure there are other interpretations that are more charitable.

Boost what sales numbers? The sales numbers they never release to the public? Or the internal numbers, where far more information than the number of units sold is available for decision-making purposes?

I agree wholeheartedly that this seems like a brain-dead decision that will only serve to piss people off.

But...

How many fansites are going be be affected by this? How many people out there are publishing their own content and putting it on the web for free? My guess is there are less than 100 websites out there that have stuff that would be affected.

And as silly as the whole policy sounds, how many people out there are going to stop buying the books because of this policy? Most of us here decrying the stupidity of the decision probably aren't buying the books anyway and this decision isn't going to affect us in any way.

So yeah, this is ridiculous and only serves to besmirch WotC but will it really have any major effect on their bottom line or those who play the game. My vote is no.

Quote from: Fifth Element;320034Since we don't have their actual numbers, why even ask? Maybe $5 was as low as they decided they could go and still make it worthwhile?

Why yes, the numbers are impossible to imagine!  It could be they are buying 500 books for two Mexican pesos, or each book could be worth billions of dollars.  Since we don't have 'their actual numbers', there is no possible way to narrow it down any further!

You will note that I estimated the costs based on common publishing figures, and then presented a range of likely dollar values.  Even if you don't have someone from the financial department on hand, general values can be estimated for a whole host of products available to consumers.

QuoteBoost what sales numbers? The sales numbers they never release to the public? Or the internal numbers, where far more information than the number of units sold is available for decision-making purposes?

I have grave doubts that there is a higher priority than sales numbers for decisions they make.  Likely, some middle management drone with aspirations of accountanthood is pushing some numbers they think will impress upper management because the bosses won't look too closely at the details behind the numbers.  Assuming they pay much attention to the numbers at all aside from a quick mention at a quarterly progress meeting.

You speak of some theoretical wealth of information regarding product lines as though it all has equal weight in decisions.  I'll guarantee the artwork, page count, authour, and a variety of other parameters have nothing to do with whether or not a product is dropped or continued.  If stapling a sandwich bag loaded with dog shit to the front cover had no effect on sales, you can damn well bet they would continue to staple bags of dog shit to the covers.

Quote from: greylond;320033"Cats and dogs living together..."

One of my favorite movies of all time. :D

The cost of Hasbro building a moon size "death star" to shoot and destroy anybody they don't like.  ;)

Quote from: GoOrange;320038How many fansites are going be be affected by this? How many people out there are publishing their own content and putting it on the web for free? My guess is there are less than 100 websites out there that have stuff that would be affected.

Conversely, how many websites out there have all kinds of OGL material today?  Not many in the first year of 3.0, naturally, while people were getting a feel for the licensing.  Since then, however, immense volume of material that is available far exceeds anything WotC could have produced.  All of it at no cost to them, and most of it pointing directly back to D&D.  The few oddments that aren't D&D still point to it indirectly, as they are d20 products.

In effect, WotC is saying 'we aren't having any of that nonsense like the way the OGL boosted 3.x for ten years through the efforts of fan creations'.  It's not only bad business, it's rather insulting to the fans who enjoy the product so much, they are willing to spend their free time creating products so other people can enjoy it as much as they do.

Quote from: ggroy;320045The cost of Hasbro building a moon size "death star" to shoot and destroy anybody they don't like.  ;)

That's no moon...

Quote from: Fifth Element;320034Boost what sales numbers? The sales numbers they never release to the public? Or the internal numbers, where far more information than the number of units sold is available for decision-making purposes?

Yea, like Not just number of units sold. In the book publishing business the IMPORTANT Stat is "Sell Through". As in "How Many Books did you Sell/How Many Did you Print"?

A book can be called a "Best Seller" based only on number of units sold but still be a total Flop for the Publisher based on how many DIDN'T Sell and they've got stuck with. Then you've got the whole Game Company stats of how much money did you spend to develop said game, i.e. total salaries of ALL the people working on it, plus all the usual Publishing costs. The thing about Gaming Books vs Regular Books, Regular Books typically only have one or two authors, where a Game Book might have a lot more "Game Designers" writing it and you have to pay their salaries every month that they spend on it. So the Sell Through is a lot more important to the Game Company, who has to base Price Point on how many do they think they can Sell, factored in with how much time did their employees spent creating it. So, yea D&D(whatever version) might be the "Best Selling" RPG but they have to look at how much they are actually bringing in...

That sort of info NOBODY ever publishes... at least until they go bankrupt... ;)

As greylond mentions, lots of overhead... but also remember: most paperback novels have a single non-custom cover illo; most games have custom art on cover and throughout

Quote from: StormBringer;320042You will note that I estimated the costs based on common publishing figures, and then presented a range of likely dollar values.  Even if you don't have someone from the financial department on hand, general values can be estimated for a whole host of products available to consumers.

Yes, but you criticized them for selling at $5 rather than $0. We don't have their numbers, and that $5 difference may be critical to the decision. Since they're not just giving them away, there's some reason to infer that it does make a difference to them.

Quote from: StormBringer;320042I have grave doubts that there is a higher priority than sales numbers for decisions they make.

I have grave doubts that profit is not the most important factor in their decision-making.

And what do you mean by "sales numbers"? Do you mean "units sold"? Or are you referring to "sales in dollars", which is what "sales" means by default in the accounting world?

Quote from: StormBringer;320042If stapling a sandwich bag loaded with dog shit to the front cover had no effect on sales, you can damn well bet they would continue to staple bags of dog shit to the covers.

Does the sandwich bag of dog shit cost them anything? If it does, and has no effect on sales (positive or negative), they will discontinue the practice. Why spend money on something (say, the wages paid to someone to collect the shit, but it in a bag and staple it to the cover) if it doesn't boost sales?

Profit is king in business, not sales.

Quote from: Fifth Element;320145Profit is king in business, not sales.

Uhhhh...  How do you generate profit without sales?

Profit = sales.  I mean, this is such a fundamental concept, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around your disassociation of them.

Quote from: StormBringer;320149Uhhhh...  How do you generate profit without sales?

One obvious way of generating profit without sales:  winning lawsuits with huge settlements.

Other methods include extracting cash by intimidation, threats, blackmail, etc ...

Quote from: StormBringer;320149Uhhhh...  How do you generate profit without sales?

Profit = sales.  I mean, this is such a fundamental concept, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around your disassociation of them.

Sales drive profits, sure. But higher sales do not, by themselves, guarantee higher profits. There's far more to the equation than that. If you only pay attention to sales numbers you will quickly go out of business.

Don't make me pull out my resume, because I will. But I'm trying to make an argument rather than appealing to authority.

There's one obvious scenario where profit does not equal sales:  total gross revenue coming in from all sales is less than the costs.  (Profit = gross revenue - costs).  In this scenario, profit is negative in the red.

Quote from: Fifth Element;320155Sales drive profits, sure. But higher sales do not, by themselves, guarantee higher profits. There's far more to the equation than that. If you only pay attention to sales numbers you will quickly go out of business.

Don't make me pull out my resume, because I will. But I'm trying to make an argument rather than appealing to authority.

Oh God, not the resume!  Whatever shall we do against the might of your community college MBA!?  The Internets will never withstand such power!  WE're doomed, doomed I say!

Quote from: J Arcane;320184Oh God, not the resume!  Whatever shall we do against the might of your community college MBA!?  The Internets will never withstand such power!  WE're doomed, doomed I say!

I warned you, don't make me do it! Don't make me pull out my designation! No one wants to see that!

Quote from: Fifth Element;320155Sales drive profits, sure. But higher sales do not, by themselves, guarantee higher profits. There's far more to the equation than that. If you only pay attention to sales numbers you will quickly go out of business.

Don't make me pull out my resume, because I will. But I'm trying to make an argument rather than appealing to authority.

Yes, naturally, it is assumed that sales drive profits if you are selling units at a profit.

However, if you have a manager that skims your line items without delving too deeply into the numbers, they will likely assume you are reporting higher sales to reflect a higher profit.  Especially if you can hide the fact that you had to slash the price to generate sales on other product lines in the fine print.  Double points if you use your head and cover losses from the marketing budget.

And let's face it, I would be greatly surprised if WotC got more than five or ten minutes at a Hasbro quarterly meeting; just enough time to briefly mention new products in the pipeline, their projected numbers, and the sales volume on current products.  It would be highly unlikely that Hasbro execs are going to take 45mins to an hour during a meeting to pore over WotCs books or accounts receivables.  So, WotC says 'PHB sales are up 35% this quarter', Hasbro pats them on the head, and moves on to discuss the cost of plastic in developing countries or whatever.

Hence, $5 PHBs will almost certainly drive sales of the other books, and with the increased profits from selling them directly, the 'loss' of profit on PHBs will be well covered.  Additionally, they get to report record sales numbers for the PHB where it might otherwise be flat or flagging.

Quote from: StormBringer;320189However, if you have a manager that skims your line items without delving too deeply into the numbers, they will likely assume you are reporting higher sales to reflect a higher profit.  Especially if you can hide the fact that you had to slash the price to generate sales on other product lines in the fine print.

Yes, if we can assume WotC managers are incompetent, this is valid. But even you say "if" you have a manager like this. We don't know if they do have a manager like this.

Quote from: StormBringer;320189And let's face it, I would be greatly surprised if WotC got more than five or ten minutes at a Hasbro quarterly meeting; just enough time to briefly mention new products in the pipeline, their projected numbers, and the sales volume on current products.

I expect this is true, but Hasbro isn't the only level of management in the corporate group. WotC has its own managers, its own executives, ones whose entire responsibility is to make sure WotC is profitable. They don't just skim the numbers and say "Hey! PHB unit sales are up 35% this quarter".

Quote from: StormBringer;320189Hence, $5 PHBs will almost certainly drive sales of the other books, and with the increased profits from selling them directly, the 'loss' of profit on PHBs will be well covered.  Additionally, they get to report record sales numbers for the PHB where it might otherwise be flat or flagging.

Obviously that's what they're hoping, they're using it as a loss leader. There's no secret there. But the default "sales" number in business is the sales in dollars, not sales in units. Why? Because you can't compare your sales in units to your expenses to determine how profitable you are. You need sales in dollars to do that.

Quote from: Fifth Element;320202Yes, if we can assume WotC managers are incompetent, this is valid. But even you say "if" you have a manager like this. We don't know if they do have a manager like this.

No, I assume they are standard managers with a multi-billion dollar international industry to run.  I don't know who you generally work with, but most mid-level executives and up don't deal with things like actual sales numbers from small divisions in that size of company.  That is what the junior executives and managers of those divisions are for.

And of course, the division managers will find ways to present good numbers, as will the junior executives, all the way up the chain.

QuoteI expect this is true, but Hasbro isn't the only level of management in the corporate group. WotC has its own managers, its own executives, ones whose entire responsibility is to make sure WotC is profitable. They don't just skim the numbers and say "Hey! PHB unit sales are up 35% this quarter".

There is a level of executives that look closely at the numbers, but that level of executives are typically running the division, and certainly aren't going to make themselves or their division look bad.  They will kill a product line, start a new one, whatever; if they promised better numbers to the junior exec in charge of overseeing their division, however, you can be sure they will deliver better numbers and kill the product line later, if necessary.

QuoteObviously that's what they're hoping, they're using it as a loss leader. There's no secret there. But the default "sales" number in business is the sales in dollars, not sales in units. Why? Because you can't compare your sales in units to your expenses to determine how profitable you are. You need sales in dollars to do that.

Which is precisely why I was saying they can't just give the PHB books away.  You can't count promo give aways as sales, and someone internal to the company would notice that quickly enough, even using the marketing budget to cover the costs.

It could very well be that Hasbro has no idea what they are doing, and don't really care, as long as the sales numbers are in line with projections.  WotC may have simply decided that they can have a bit easier time of it selling the PHB for $5 instead of giving it away, and the psychological difference in price is negligible or non-existant.

Either way, it has the appearance of WotC trying to boost the sales numbers for the PHB, or perhaps the D&D line in general.  As you mention, that isn't public knowledge, or publicly available, so the only customers for that kind of data would have to be the internal folks.  The question is, which internal folks?  If they are getting pressure from Hasbro, it can be somewhat safely assumed that sales aren't meeting projections.  If the pressure is from WotC folks, they may just be shining things up a bit for the next meeting, which would indicate there is no real problem with sales, but they can always look better, and here is a golden opportunity to polish the numbers.

Quote from: StormBringer;320003Interesting, but you don't get to re-define 'any' to mean 'this specific instance that has no other grammatic markers whatsoever'.  It means 'up to and including every other similar instance, severally or collectively'.  What you probably meant to say was "This is just another example where...", or "Here is another case of..."

Any does not mean all.  You seem to be confused about the two.  If I say "I don't see any applies this color green" I do not mean all the other apples are the same color.  "Any" does not in any way mean up to and including every other instance is grouped the same way.

Plus, if you felt that is what I meant, it still does not make sense to choose a different context than the one you were responding to.  If your argument was valid, it would have been valid for the context I was giving as much as for some other context you decided to make up.  The truth is, you knew damn well your argument was not valid for the context given, so you decided to change it to try and slip your point by.  It was a pretty chicken shit move.

QuoteBelieve it or don't, words have meaning.  'Any' doesn't get to apply to a specific instance just because you were caught being a whiny douchebag.

Again, you misused the word any.  Any does not mean all.  Much like "A" means one of many, not all.  Not my fault you fucked up.

QuoteThe context you are referring to, just for clarity, is riddled with bad math.

Oh, so you DID see the context, and admit you took it out of context.  Nice.  Go fuck yourself.  An honest mistake I could understand...but you were just being a dick to be a dick apparently.

QuoteAssume a $40 book. It goes into the distribution channel at $16-$20, and their cost would be something like $8-$10 from the printer, but probably much less, around $5.

Leave cost to the company out of it.  Cost would remain a constant regardless of the source of the sale, so it's not relevant and just adds needless complexity.

QuoteThey can sell it directly for $40, however, at GenCon for a $30-$35 profit.  The PHB is a rider for $5.  So, $45 for both books that cost them $10-$20 total from the printer results in a $25-$35 profit where they would have normally made $60 selling them directly.

Which demonstrates my earlier comment, you have confused profit with revenue and screwed your own example up.  Leave profit out, use the same numbers across the board, and you will find exactly what I said is accurate.  Indeed I got a response at EnWorld from a Big Box Retailer confirming my numbers as almost exactly correct.

QuoteIt's almost as if you find some way to spin WotC announcements into the most positive interpretation possible and utterly reject any negative viewpoints, no matter how slight.

I don't.  I bash WOTC fairly often.  I just don't see THIS as bashworthy.  You don't know my posting habits very well, so it's understandable.  But don't pretend you do.

QuoteYou are objecting to having your words read correctly when you want to pretend they meant something else.  You are backpedalling faster than Lance Armstrong can pedal normally.  You were making a blanket statement that even the slightest negativity towards 4e or WotC aggravates the sand in your vagina to intolerable levels.

No, I was not.  You just don't know what the word any meant in context, and tried to lie to folks by applying a new context.  I mean, why not just apply the context of WOTC eating babies, if you felt "any" meant "anything you can possibly think of" rather than the context I gave?

QuoteWhen you can find these people that always decry WotC, you can attack those people for always decrying WotC.  

If I wanted to name names I would.  I think many of us could name plenty of names that fit that profile. My point was not to pick on people, just to demonstrate the issue and try to persuade people to maybe not make everything a negative, but instead try and find a couple of things that were at least neutral news from WOTC.

QuoteWhen you can't, and you pretend these people exist when they don't, you get to be labelled a douchebag.

Are you in all honesty claiming nobody here tries to spin every bit of news from WOTC as a negative? Really?

Quote from: StormBringer;320223Which is precisely why I was saying they can't just give the PHB books away.  You can't count promo give aways as sales, and someone internal to the company would notice that quickly enough, even using the marketing budget to cover the costs.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if they sold them for $0.01, they could "count" that as a sale, but if they give them away, they can't? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote from: StormBringer;320223Either way, it has the appearance of WotC trying to boost the sales numbers for the PHB, or perhaps the D&D line in general.

You could see it that way. Seems more likely to me to be a sale, a promotion tied to Gencon. Retailers have sales all the time for a variety of reasons. You can infer that it means they're trying to inflate sales numbers. But you seem to only be considering unit-sales-driven reasons for the $5 PHBs. There are many reasons why they could be doing this. They could be clearing old inventory, they could be trying to get some goodwill from the customer base, they could be experimenting to see the effect on their profit. It doesn't have to be about units sold.

Quote from: Mistwell;320240Any does not mean all.  You seem to be confused about the two.  If I say "I don't see any applies this color green" I do not mean all the other apples are the same color.  "Any" does not in any way mean up to and including every other instance is grouped the same way.

an⋅y (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/any)

1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like.      
2. whatever or whichever it may be: cheap at any price.      
3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter?      
4. every; all: Any schoolboy would know that. Read any books you find on the subject.
     5. (following a negative) at all: She can't endure any criticism.

Quote from: StormBringer;320254an⋅y (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/any)

1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick out any six you like.      
2. whatever or whichever it may be: cheap at any price.      
3. in whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter?      
4. every; all: Any schoolboy would know that. Read any books you find on the subject.
     5. (following a negative) at all: She can't endure any criticism.

OK, so you found a fourth definition that means "all", I was mistaken when I said it could never mean that.  Sorry about that.

But, in the context of my use of the word, you knew up front I didn't mean "all" by it, but meant "one or more without specification", the first definition.  And I gave you one to discuss to make that very clear.  You still have not even tried to explain why you took it out of context and put a new one in to begin with, one which it was pretty darn clear I was not talking about because I had not commented on it.

Face it, you thought you were being cute by being a smart ass and taking my comment out of context.  And rather be an adult about it and just say "fine, you didn't mean that, sorry for trying to put words in your mouth", you're trying to play linguistic game to weasel out of taking that adult position.  Just man up already, this game you're playing is silly.

Quote from: Mistwell;320288Face it, you thought you were being cute by being a smart ass and taking my comment out of context.  And rather be an adult about it and just say "fine, you didn't mean that, sorry for trying to put words in your mouth", you're trying to play linguistic game to weasel out of taking that adult position.  Just man up already, this game you're playing is silly.

No, champ, the real point is, all those definitions point to 'up to and including every instance'.  You have spent several posts strenuously trying to make it sound like you were referring to a single instance, when just about everything you have written provides this context you keep rattling on about; namely, you lose your shit when someone says something negative about WotC or 4e.  When I pointed out that what you said didn't correlate with your explanation, you continued to lose your shit.

Physician, heal thyself:  "Sorry, I have been reading too many threads where all people do is bad-mouth WotC and their products and it irritates me.  I will concentrate more on posting threads about what I like about 4e"

In other words, if you are going to continue being a whiny douche, demands for others to 'man up' are going to fall violently flat.

Quote from: StormBringer;320049Conversely, how many websites out there have all kinds of OGL material today?  Not many in the first year of 3.0, naturally, while people were getting a feel for the licensing.  Since then, however, immense volume of material that is available far exceeds anything WotC could have produced.  All of it at no cost to them, and most of it pointing directly back to D&D.  The few oddments that aren't D&D still point to it indirectly, as they are d20 products.

In effect, WotC is saying 'we aren't having any of that nonsense like the way the OGL boosted 3.x for ten years through the efforts of fan creations'.  It's not only bad business, it's rather insulting to the fans who enjoy the product so much, they are willing to spend their free time creating products so other people can enjoy it as much as they do.

Right, but this decision really only affects:

A) People working in HTML. If you are working in print or PDF you fall under the GSL, which has WAY FEWER restrictions.

B) People who take WOTC's art and trademarked material for their web work.

That is what makes this different from TSR and why the sky is not falling.

If you work in HTML (and are unable or unwilling to port those materials to free PDFs for some reason) AND if you take Wizards' offered art assets, THEN this applies to you.

This is not a "we have trademarked Armor Class, if you say it anywhere on the web we will send you a C&D" moment.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;320371A) People working in HTML. If you are working in print or PDF you fall under the GSL, which has WAY FEWER restrictions.

Section 3 of the GSL specifically mentions pdfs by name:

Quote3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee's publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 ("Licensed Products").

Emphasis mine.

By all appearances, the rest of the GSL grants you permission to...  write a novel, maybe?  I didn't read over all the restrictions just now, but it is pretty limiting.  For example:

Quote5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of
example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character;
(c) use the terms "Core Rules" or "Core Rulebook" or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a
Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way
of example only, a magazine or book compilation).

(c), (d) and (e) are pretty standard, but (f)?  Since the Citadel Monthly isn't a Licensed Product, I will not be able to accept submissions for 4e material (not that it is a danger, it's a vintage games magazine after all).

It appears there are a few rather subtle intertwined loopholes and switchbacks to where WotC can pull your license over almost any pdf, unless you are extremely careful about how you present it.

Quote from: StormBringer;320302No, champ, the real point is, all those definitions point to 'up to and including every instance'.

No, they do not, and I already responded to that point.  Which, you again, cut out of your response.

The remainder of your reply is useless given that fact.  

And I can see you're not going to be adult about it.  So, here, how's this: I meant lets talk about the context I gave, regardless of how you took it.  If that was not clear at the time, it is clear now.  M'kay?

Quote from: StormBringer;320377Section 3 of the GSL specifically mentions pdfs by name:

Quote3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 (“Licensed Products”).

Yes, it mentions them as a product that is permissable under the license.

You need to read it more carefully. That section is discussing what is allowed, and mentioning PDFs by name.  

They disallow websites, magazines and character generators.

But they explicitly allow books and PDFs.

So this new website policy still allows PDFs, they are covered under the GSL, and allowed.

It just doesn't change that you can't offer game materials on a website (unless its in PDF form).

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;320405Yes, it mentions them as a product that is permissable under the license.

You need to read it more carefully. That section is discussing what is allowed, and mentioning PDFs by name.  

They disallow websites, magazines and character generators.

But they explicitly allow books and PDFs.

So this new website policy still allows PDFs, they are covered under the GSL, and allowed.

It just doesn't change that you can't offer game materials on a website (unless its in PDF form).

Ah, I see the disconnect, I wasn't saying they don't allow pdfs.  I was referring to your statement that the GSL is more permissive.  Certainly, more permissive than the Web Site Kit, but not terribly permissive in and of itself.  The content of the pdf is still pretty limited, but I agree that you can put the pdf on your website.

Quote from: StormBringer;320439Ah, I see the disconnect, I wasn't saying they don't allow pdfs.  I was referring to your statement that the GSL is more permissive.  Certainly, more permissive than the Web Site Kit, but not terribly permissive in and of itself.  The content of the pdf is still pretty limited, but I agree that you can put the pdf on your website.

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to argue that the GSL is great.

In fact I think it's pretty terrible and draws a lot of really weird lines in its attempts to paint open development of 4e into a very limited corner.

I mean, I can make a book but not a magazine? Really?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;320449Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to argue that the GSL is great.

In fact I think it's pretty terrible and draws a lot of really weird lines in its attempts to paint open development of 4e into a very limited corner.

I mean, I can make a book but not a magazine? Really?

Definitely.  It seems to read that you can make a book, but you can't include any of it in a magazine, unless the magazine exclusively contains Licensed Material, I guess...?   So, no mixing with general content, or no mixing with OGL, or something?  

It brings the term 'Byzantine' to dizzying new heights.

This, the PDFs being pulled and the subscription approach are all part of the approach of other large media companies. Players/ consumers can have a community but it has to be the company's community.

It's a bit like Sony's Free Realms model, where you don't have to have a full subscription but classes, items and quests are limited until you do. The last thing they want is for players to build your own items, classes, areas or quests, because it competes with their content. Sims 3 is mainly the same.