| Korvaa |
Xzaral wrote:noretoc wrote:No, the difference being that WotC gave permission to copy DnD, but not some of those monsters.Sean K Reynolds wrote:Does anyone think it's ironic, this is being argued by a guy who works and supports a company that copied Dungeons and Dragons?
I'm not talking about copyright law. I'm talking about copying.
Exactly. As I said above: It's like having a neighbor who says you can borrow any of the tools in his garage, at any time, no need to ask... and you borrow his car without asking.
(Oh, and in case you didn't know, I helped create 3E D&D. There are spells in the PH that I wrote. There are monsters in the Monster Manual that I wrote. I worked at TSR before the Wizards of the Coast buyout. I playtested 3E in Monte Cook's home playtest. I discussed the positives and negatives of the OGL with Ryan Dancey. I'm not some kid fresh off the bus who's walked up and nabbed D&D for my own purposes. I've been working in the tabletop RPG industry since 2nd edition AD&D, and playing since basic D&D. So go ahead and make jokes about "copying" D&D; it's my D&D that I'm "copying." Sheesh! Whippersnappers!)
Not really, it's like you just kept his tools after he said you could borrow them and start slinging them at garage sales.
It's amazing how much cognitive dissonance you can can pack into one paragraph. It's plagiarism to copy beholders and call them beholders, but if you copy beholders and remove a couple eyestalks and call them reapers, it's absolutely acceptable.