Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 09:39:55 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 09:11:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 07:18:28 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 11, 2023, 06:06:06 PM
Re: Beholders

The distinction here is that WotC doesn't have a trademark on beholders, they only remove them from the SRD. So you can't use beholders if you license DnD content via the OGL (old or new), but beholders as general idea are free use.

They still own copyright over the unique D&D IP, and the beholder is likely to be regarded as a unique fictional creation. If one doesn't use the OGL and creates a monster that is exactly like the beholder, then it potentially could be sued as copyright infringement.

Just changing the name is not necessarily sufficient, as shown by H.R. Pufnstuf vs McDonaldland. McDonald's changed the names of the characters, but there was so much copying of everything else that it was still held as infringement.

Again, just copying one incidental monster might be allowed under "Fair Use", but a full retro-clone almost certainly could be sued for including distinctive elements like these.

Are you following the conversation? In no way did I imply you can steal beholders off the page. I said the "general idea" (i.e. a floating/flying eyeball creature) is no more copyrightable than zombies, goblins, or dragons.

Sorry. I was following up from reply #21, where migo said that beholders and mind flayers "could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change". Replying to that was coloring my slant. Just changing the name is far off.

I agree that copyright doesn't cover any floating eye creature - and I explained that explicitly in my reply #32, using the example of the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China.

Wasn't that based on the D&D monster?

Quote from: jhkim on January 11, 2023, 09:39:55 PM
Sorry. I was following up from reply #21, where migo said that beholders and mind flayers "could easily be integrated, possibly just with a name change". Replying to that was coloring my slant. Just changing the name is far off.

I agree that copyright doesn't cover any floating eye creature - and I explained that explicitly in my reply #32, using the example of the flying eye guardian from Big Trouble in Little China.

It alright. Sorry for snapping at you. It's just been one of those days for me.

Greetings!

Provided by Tenkar's Tavern (Erik Tenkar)--here is the official statement by Frog God Games. They, too, are joining the resistance against WOTC!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.

The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.

I think I've asked this question previously. They've hired former Microsoft and former Amazon people. How much did it cost them to do so? You don't just leave those places when you are at a high enough level in the food chain without them trying to retain you if you're actually worth whatever more WotC had to offer them to leave. Either WotC is throwing good money after bad, or these guys were already dead weight at their former companies.  Is WotC *really* going to be successful at digital this time when every other time has been a complete disaster?

Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.

The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.

The board almost certainly thought that OGL publishers were such small potatoes that mashing them would go completely unnoticed. They were just one more loose end to tidy up before going all-out lifestyle brand.

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 12, 2023, 06:31:25 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.

The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.

I think I've asked this question previously. They've hired former Microsoft and former Amazon people. How much did it cost them to do so? You don't just leave those places when you are at a high enough level in the food chain without them trying to retain you if you're actually worth whatever more WotC had to offer them to leave. Either WotC is throwing good money after bad, or these guys were already dead weight at their former companies.  Is WotC *really* going to be successful at digital this time when every other time has been a complete disaster?

Not sure one way or the other, but based on this article from when she was hired on at WotC it seems her title at XBox changed pretty regularly...

"In 2018, Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Business Expansion" at Xbox. It was a job about finding new ways to lure people to Xbox.

"By 2019, and staying in this role for only 10 months, Williams took that title to the Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer division. Well, Mixer. Little wonder that a new role within Microsoft was forthcoming.

"In 2020, and until this week [when she joined WotC], Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team".

Prior to 2018, she worked for Amazon for 11 years; advancing from Finance Director at Fulfilment to its General Manager and the to VP at FBA Business and Operations in that time.

Read of that what you will.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 12, 2023, 06:57:57 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 12, 2023, 06:31:25 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on January 11, 2023, 10:28:40 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 11, 2023, 09:48:35 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 11, 2023, 08:08:18 PM
From the start, I've been of the opinion that the OSR community is vastly overestimating their popularity. They're all small potatoes and off Hasbro's radar. This is about Critical Role, Paizo, and similar outfits. They're trying to prevent another Pathfinder fiasco if their new marketing strategy flops like 4E did.

If they are small potatoes the market segment wouldn't be worth WotC going after and risking a reputation hit that could screw their lifestyle push.

The whole tabletop RPG business is peanuts to Hasbro, even the best 3PP like Paizo are rounding errors to them. They've said the future of D&D is digital (which is why they hired a former Xbox and Amazon exec to head WOTC). They are after bigger game. They want to lockdown complete control of the IP so they can exploit it without any potential competition, which is what they worry about.

I think I've asked this question previously. They've hired former Microsoft and former Amazon people. How much did it cost them to do so? You don't just leave those places when you are at a high enough level in the food chain without them trying to retain you if you're actually worth whatever more WotC had to offer them to leave. Either WotC is throwing good money after bad, or these guys were already dead weight at their former companies.  Is WotC *really* going to be successful at digital this time when every other time has been a complete disaster?

Not sure one way or the other, but based on this article from when she was hired on at WotC it seems her title at XBox changed pretty regularly...

"In 2018, Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Business Expansion" at Xbox. It was a job about finding new ways to lure people to Xbox.

"By 2019, and staying in this role for only 10 months, Williams took that title to the Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer division. Well, Mixer. Little wonder that a new role within Microsoft was forthcoming.

"In 2020, and until this week [when she joined WotC], Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team".

Prior to 2018, she worked for Amazon for 11 years; advancing from Finance Director at Fulfilment to its General Manager and the to VP at FBA Business and Operations in that time.

Read of that what you will.

Yep - because an empty suit with economics and business degrees is going to turn around a company that has always fucked up digital anything...

When they bought DDB (if I were the guys being shown the $146M they paid, I'd sell too), anyone they brought over to WotC to continue working it had no vested interest in its continued success. Fast forward to now - how many of them are still there and prefer it to when they were Fandom?

You can't just throw money at every problem - and that's what Williams and Cocks have been doing. Hammer, meet nail.

For any/all of you with skin this game and can "fight" for a new Open License, please for the love of all the Gods above fight to remove ANY/ALL morality clauses when they show up.

this platform needs to exist for any/all content creators regardless of how morally divergent their ideas are and to have a foundation build upon openess for all to play on the Jungle Gym of RPG's.  Let the market decide if the content is vialbe or not and not a nebulous entity or can play Moral Cop on any works.  Providing a "safe space" for all parties ranging from F.A.T.A.L to Thirst Sword Lesbians to the Book of Erotic Fantasy to LOTFP and all in between is the path forward and we as consumers will benefit from such a truly Open Gaming Platform.

Anything that has the *ist, *phobe, anti-moniker is dead in the water to me. I would NEVER publish anything where someone can yank my product for Wrong Think.

I'll second that.  One of the ugly things about the 1.1 is that it will allow WotC woke skulls to specifically target anyone on their shit list that uses 1.0 with termination letters.  Have no doubt that they would be giddy as school girls if they had that kind of veto power.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 12, 2023, 06:57:57 AM
Not sure one way or the other, but based on this article from when she was hired on at WotC it seems her title at XBox changed pretty regularly...

"In 2018, Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Business Expansion" at Xbox. It was a job about finding new ways to lure people to Xbox.

"By 2019, and staying in this role for only 10 months, Williams took that title to the Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer division. Well, Mixer. Little wonder that a new role within Microsoft was forthcoming.

"In 2020, and until this week [when she joined WotC], Cynthia Williams was the General Manager and Vice President of "Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team".

Haha! Those don't sound like actual divisions of the company, they sound like little commitees designed to explore certain unexplored avenues of the industry. She was "General Manager" and/or "Vice President" of each of those *ahem* departments, changing position each year. That tells me the number of people in them was likely small, and her title was more of formality than anything else. She probably had a small amount of purchasing power, so they gave her a lofty-sounding title to seem more important.

What happened to the "Gaming Business Expansion" division when she went to "Xbox Business Engineering & Mixer"? I'd bet you it was folded up and the resources merely transfered to her new position.

Microsoft is large enough and bureaucratic enough that they can afford to hire these small teams to work in temporary positions, exploring different ways to make profit, then just move them onto some other project when things don't look promising. Her title of VP is about as relevant as if she were called Queen of Shit Mountain.

Her time at Amazon, however, looks to have been more prestigious, possibly even earning the title of VP. I'm cynical enough to think that M$ just gave her the "VP" title to placate her. So she can go home and tell her friends, "Oh I used to Vice President of blah blah blah, but now I'm VP of honk honk."