|
Edit: I guess that is the greatest irony of the statement made to the effect of "D&D3 is unfun because of this and that. So we (the same exact people who made it unfun) are making fun D&D4."
Well this guy wrote for Mongoose maybe (haven't checked) but also for AEG and for Fantasy Flight.
However, that doesn't mean in any way that we have to love D&D 4e even if we love these books.
Edit: I guess that is the greatest irony of the statement made to the effect of "D&D3 is unfun because of this and that. So we (the same exact people who made it unfun) are making fun D&D4."Well this guy wrote for Mongoose maybe (haven't checked) but also for AEG and for Fantasy Flight.
However, that doesn't mean in any way that we have to love D&D 4e even if we love these books.
Doesn't mean the reverse either. If you hated all those books it doesn't necessarily equate with hating 4e. I just thought it was humorous. Ironic, that is.
|
I know a lot of people think that the more restrictive 4th edition OGL is intended to prevent products like M&M and Spycraft. This may or may not be the case, I actually believe it isn't. What I do believe is the case is that Hasbro wants to stop products like the "Pocket Player's Guide" from being published. The PPG, by Mongoose, was essentially a pocket sized version of the PHB by an alternate publisher. It was essentially a cut and paste product. Spycraft, M&M, and True20 weren't and they will still be legal products as the current OGL never expires.
|
|
I think my position is strengthened by this quote:
"The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows “copy and paste” publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition."
|
|
Okay...this part of the Q&A was disheartening, though the existing OGL would still allow for these products:
"The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL."
But it was immediately followed by this:
"Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before."
So I think even Hasbro might be a little confused as to what they are actually saying in their new OGL.
So I think even Hasbro might be a little confused as to what they are actually saying in their new OGL.
Hasbro isn't confused at all. This OGL will require the use of the Player's Handbook. Future versions of the OGL may not.
Soooo...
The 4th Edition OPEN Gaming License...isn't?
There's a shocker.
It can be yours...for the low low price of $5,000!!!!! (Provided you write what we allow you to write.)
{Vomit guy - that was your cue}
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Funny. Two out of three of those are written by ... Mike Mearls! (Good, and Evil.)
LMAO All these books people are complaining about and the guy that did them is doing D&D4.Well, I didn't know the author's name, I am just saying the product itself was unbalanced an not well presented. I will say maybe more powerful characters is a goal of 4e and so the balance dynamics might be different. That isn't to say that I trust the author of the Feats book (yeesh), but I do still trust WotC and we'll see what comes out.
Plus, those books were 6-8 years ago. Maybe Mearls - or whomever else - got better? I know my ideas about game design six years ago were...well...yeesh.
|
|
Fortunately, they're still possible, just not with the 4.x mechanics.That they are. That's the main thing that's different now than when 3E was released: it's now possible to continue to freely and legally support v.3.5 (or 3E or D20 Modern) in a way you couldn't do with 2E or 1E (OSRIC to the contrary). I suspect the 3E community will remain much more "alive" than other out-of-print D&D for this reason and it's possible, though highly unlikely, that someone might find a way to make some money off the foot-draggers and wrong-thinkers who stay behind with the "unfun" 3E.
Wrong-thinkers? Interesting that 44% of the people (currently the largest percentage) according to this Paizo Poll are wrong thinkers.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
He says 'wrongthinkers' sarcastically. Someone made the unfortunate statement that if your game has 'x', it probably isn't a very fun game.
While that is a thoroughly retarded generalization, I did get their point about occupational skills. But the sarcastic response is warranted, since the currnet skills system is fantastic.If no one wants to see a change,it might be because people are afraid of change, and like to use excuses to assail the big dog from the safety of the smaller dog's yard.
Then again, it might be because they love the current system and don't think WotC should fix what ain't broke.
I'm still choosing to be optimistic (still hate calling featurespowers, but we'll see), but I do sure like the current skill system.
|
The biggest thing to take to heart is What Monte Cook said, how much will something that is offered for sale in August be playtested. The only ones that have an advantage here are the ones that managed to hire a freelancer who is a playtester to write your book like Necromancer Games has, and even then it's going out on a big limb since the rules will still be changing till April
(and that is cause I am assuming that is when you have to have your books at the printer in time for a release in June)
Once again I say, being experts in 3E does not translate as being experts in 4E. It's not that since I am a great rugby player that I suddenly am a great american football player.
{Vomit guy - that was your cue}
Vomit Guy is dead, may he rest in pea soup.
someone wrote: " I don't believe for a second that having a $5000 entrance fee will mean that 4e support products will be of better quality"
Of course it will. Cooperating companies with a love of the game (say, oh, Necro and Paizo) will publish careful content that is exciting and protects the balance and spirit of the game. Lesser game companies will have to pay $5k for the privilege of writing boring books with bad presentation and broken mechanics.
Note that wizards will still produce books, and they don't have to pay themselves the 5000 (and get to publishe even earlier than everyone else.). ;P
Hey - I love AEG. Spycraft, 7th Sea, L5R. Awesome and I hope there's a way for each of those lines to resurge.
Legend of the Five Rings is done with d20. They made a 3rd edition of their own rules (and they rock!)
Imagine an even less choosy company publishing a book that is less balanced and professional than Feats.
As I said: wizards will do 4e books...
Economics: You get what you pay for.
I think even Economics 101 states that you don't always get what you pay for
Unless you're a pirate. Then you just make things more expensive for everyone.
Not for themselves. Or other pirates.
And even with customers, it's a gross exaggeration if you ask me. I doubt that the actual losses due to virtual theft is nearly as high as they say. It's just the scapegoat.
The PPG, by Mongoose, was essentially a pocket sized version of the PHB by an alternate publisher.
Minus certain things like flavour text, basics of character generation, and certain names, of course.
Funny. Two out of three of those are written by ... Mike Mearls! (Good, and Evil.)So you're saying 4e has done with alignment because Mike Mearls can't handle it?
He's not dead, just extremely sleepy. Maybe he'll come back one day, when certain people realize that, yes, sometimes vomiting IS funny.{Vomit guy - that was your cue}Vomit Guy is dead, may he rest in pea soup.Maybe stranger eons are closer than we think.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Unless you're a pirate. Then you just make things more expensive for everyone.Not for themselves. Or other pirates.
And even with customers, it's a gross exaggeration if you ask me. I doubt that the actual losses due to virtual theft is nearly as high as they say. It's just the scapegoat.
I wonder what happened to admiring companies that took risks and shouldered industries. I guess now it serves them right if they get stolen from.
I wonder what happened to admiring companies that took risks and shouldered industries. I guess now it serves them right if they get stolen from.
I can play this game too!
So, two wrongs make a right? It's OK for them to falsify and exaggerate losses because, hey, they're taking losses?
Now that we're on the subject...
Digital "theft" is not a black and white arena, my friend. Sure, on one hand, you can say "you didn't pay for that, it's theft."
Fine, dandy.
But, counting 100% of virtual theft as a lost sale is dishonest. Look at the music industry. The RIAA is going after kids in their early teens (or their parents), claiming Little Bobby's MP3 collection represents tens of thousands of dollars of lost sales. If Little Bobby is an average 13-year-old, he was likely never in a position to purchase that music legitimately in the first place.
Theft? Sure. Lost sale? Not in the slightest.
If the purchase would have never been made, then the theft isn't a loss. Is it still theft? Sure, fine.
There's a benefit to digital piracy, though, and that's the try-before-you-buy aspect. I personally have bought countless CDs because I've been able to download MP3s in an unrestricted environment, decided I liked the music, and purchased the CD. I've purchased software in the same manner.
Finally, what about books that aren't in print anymore, and aren't readily available?
I've got a ton of old Battletech stuff on my bookshelf, and with the exception of some stuff on eBay, the print stuff just isn't out there in any force. If I can't buy a print copy of something I'm missing, but want to read the old stuff, am I still "stealing" when I download a copy of that book that's been out of print for 15 years?
If I steal a tangible object that is for sale, I directly affect someone's profit/loss. If I obtain a virtual copy of an object that is not available, I don't.
If Little Bobby is 13, he was never in a position to purchase that music legitimately in the first place.I going to form a ninja clan of 13 year old shoplifters.
Hohohoho!
(I've edited my post slightly, for clarification.)
|
I wonder what happened to admiring companies that took risks and shouldered industries. I guess now it serves them right if they get stolen from.I can play this game too!
So, two wrongs make a right? It's OK for them to falsify and exaggerate losses because, hey, they're taking losses?
Now that we're on the subject...
Digital "theft" is not a black and white arena, my friend. Sure, on one hand, you can say "you didn't pay for that, it's theft."
Fine, dandy.
But, counting 100% of virtual theft as a lost sale is dishonest. Look at the music industry. The RIAA is going after kids in their early teens (or their parents), claiming Little Bobby's MP3 collection represents tens of thousands of dollars of lost sales. If Little Bobby is 13, he was never in a position to purchase that music legitimately in the first place.
Theft? Sure. Lost sale? Not in the slightest.
If the purchase would have never been made, then the theft isn't a loss. Is it still theft? Sure, fine.
There's a benefit to digital piracy, though, and that's the try-before-you-buy aspect. I personally have bought countless CDs because I've been able to download MP3s in an unrestricted environment, decided I liked the music, and purchased the CD. I've purchased software in the same manner.
Finally, what about books that aren't in print anymore, and aren't readily available?
I've got a ton of old Battletech stuff, and with the exception of some stuff on eBay, the print stuff just isn't out there in any force. If I can't buy a print copy, but want to read the old stuff, am I still "stealing" when I download a copy of that book that's been out of print for 15 years?
If I steal a tangible object that is for sale, I directly affect someone's profit/loss. If I obtain a virtual copy of an object that is not available, I don't.
Stealing is stealing no matter how much you rationalize it. Using a trial version of software to test software is OK, downloading a pirated full-version of Campaign Cartographer to "test it" isn't.
Sure lil' Bobby's MP3 player doesn't demonstrate an accurate accounting of lost sales because Bobby has no real income, but how many people did Bobby point towards the site he got his music? How many times did he send some of his stuff to other kids in school to listen to and add to their MP3 players? Now you might argue that Lil' Bobby wouldn't do that but why not? It's against his principles? He just stole a music download, so I would question his moral standing in the matter.People feel that they should have anything they want and it is leading to an overall sense of entitlement in the general populous.
Certain things are Black and White, it's the people of grey moral character who try to blur the lines.
|
|
I snuck into my neighbor's house and took his shotgun so I could "try it out" for the weekend.
Theft? Sure.
Loss of sale? Not in the slightest.
And the theft actually served a purpose. Without me trying it out for a weekend I wouldn't have thought to buy a Mossberg (it was a really good shotgun).
When the police showed up they still clubbed me and took me down to the station. I go to court in 2 weeks, I'm printing up this thread and showing it to the judge.
|
|
Soooo...
The 4th Edition OPEN Gaming License...isn't?
There's a shocker.
It is definitely open. Open source does not mean that it is free. The open source movement is about allowing others to use your intellectual property in the production of their own products without having to give over a share of the profits. Open source and creative commons licenses often contain clauses that restrict the use of IP - there is nothing odd about that.
Open source and creative commons licenses often contain clauses that restrict the use of IP - there is nothing odd about that.
This is true, but I suspect that what many people are reacting to is the realization that the new "OGL" is in fact a version of the old D20 STL, albeit without either that name or the D20 logo attached. Likewise, we don't yet know how much of the D&D IP WotC plans to restrict this go round. My guess is quite a lot.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I wonder what happened to admiring companies that took risks and shouldered industries. I guess now it serves them right if they get stolen from.I can play this game too!
So, two wrongs make a right? It's OK for them to falsify and exaggerate losses because, hey, they're taking losses?
Well, I see the old switcheroo is still popular.
Your first point is unsupported. You want to assail WotC for exaggerating losses, but that's an assumption. Unless you have the secret video tape of WotC lawyers padding the effect of piracy.
But you know you can't support that position with no facts, so the rest of your post becomes about faux lost sales and music and unsupported product.
Whatever. I'm not on some pointless crusade to stop piracy. Can't be done. There's not enough integrity among gamers to maintain that position without somehow being thought of as the bad guy. But I won't rationalize the act and play some 'down with corporations' card. As if we have some sort of Constitutional right to RPG books and music that shouldn't be hampered by concepts such as people getting paid what they're worth and people paying for what they have.
I make $32k a year supporting my family. Sometimes I have to choose not to buy a book until later. I suppose since that's not really a sale, it would be ok to teach my kids that the company that wrote, marketed and illustrated the book aren't entitled to whatever price they ask for it. I'll just accuse them of having enough money already (whatever that means), and claim that since we can't afford the book anyway,we might as well steal it.
Oh, come to think of it. I guess all stealing is a nonsale. I'm getting my ski mask and headed to the bank.
|
|
Edit: I guess that is the greatest irony of the statement made to the effect of "D&D3 is unfun because of this and that. So we (the same exact people who made it unfun) are making fun D&D4."Well this guy wrote for Mongoose maybe (haven't checked) but also for AEG and for Fantasy Flight.
However, that doesn't mean in any way that we have to love D&D 4e even if we love these books.
Strange enough, some of my favorite books for 3.X rules (Darkness&Dread, The Seafarer's Handbook, Cityworks by FantasyFlight, The Book of Iron Might and Iron Heroes by Malhavoc Press) are from this same author.
Stealing is stealing no matter how much you rationalize it.
I see the Javert faction has weighed in.
Most people would say stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is different than stealing a loaf of bread because you don't like the shopkeeper. There's a also a difference between downloading a copy of a book because you can't find it still in print, and downloading a copy of a book because you don't want to pay $15 for it.
The law treats these things the same because, well, it's the law. The people who implement the law--police, prosecutors, and judges--generally treat these things differently.
Claiming two acts are morally equivalent because they're legally equivalent is not usually a sign of a sharp intellect.
Oh, come to think of it. I guess all stealing is a nonsale. I'm getting my ski mask and headed to the bank.
You're completely missing his basic point.
If you want to sell me a physical copy of a book, you need to produce it. Every copy you make means you have to cut down more trees, pulp more paper, manufacture more ink, and run a copy off the presses. If I steal a copy and throw it in a convenient furnace I gain nothing, and it's actually cost you money. You'll need to spend money to make an additional copy. Worse, you lose the use of the original copy. If it was the only one you had, you're out of luck.
For digital copies of a book, it essentially costs you nothing to make another copy. If I steal an electronic copy and immediately delete it, I gain nothing, but you lose nothing either. You'll probably never even know I did it.
There are very different acts, with very different implications. The law might treat them as exactly the same but, as Dickens pointed out, the law is an ass.
|
|
For digital copies of a book, it essentially costs you nothing to make another copy. If I steal an electronic copy and immediately delete it, I gain nothing, but you lose nothing either. You'll probably never even know I did it.
Except that you now have a copy of something that you won't be paying for which means that the people or person who wrote, edited, printed, and illustrated the book have all lost that copy as a source of revenue. Then you tell your friends about it. Snowball. If 1,000 people or 10,000 download a book instead of buy it that can put a real strain on a business trying to make some money on a book.
Rationalize all you want. You are still doing a wrongful and ignorant act and possibly hurting a company and it's employees.Dickens may have been a great writer but that doesn't make him a voice of morality. If people had made tons of illegal copies of his works and he died penniless, he would have changed his thoughts on the law.
|
|
Open source and creative commons licenses often contain clauses that restrict the use of IP - there is nothing odd about that.This is true, but I suspect that what many people are reacting to is the realization that the new "OGL" is in fact a version of the old D20 STL, albeit without either that name or the D20 logo attached. Likewise, we don't yet know how much of the D&D IP WotC plans to restrict this go round. My guess is quite a lot.
I get that sense too. Can you blame them? They gave away a whole lot of IP with 3E. Too much to keep the business model viable IMHO.
Stealing is stealing no matter how much you rationalize it. Using a trial version of software to test software is OK, downloading a pirated full-version of Campaign Cartographer to "test it" isn't.
In your mind, perhaps. I don't know about you, but I don't buy software that I can't test first. If the developer doesn't release an unrestricted trial version, and I can't test it in another manner, it doesn't get purchased.
That said, would the developer of Campaign Cartographer rather I *NOT* purchase a copy? I'm not the one distributing the pirated software, you know...
Sure lil' Bobby's MP3 player doesn't demonstrate an accurate accounting of lost sales because Bobby has no real income, but how many people did Bobby point towards the site he got his music? How many times did he send some of his stuff to other kids in school to listen to and add to their MP3 players? Now you might argue that Lil' Bobby wouldn't do that but why not? It's against his principles? He just stole a music download, so I would question his moral standing in the matter.
This smacks of the same logic of suing firearms manufacturers because criminals killed someone with a gun...
People feel that they should have anything they want and it is leading to an overall sense of entitlement in the general populous.
Not really. People, in general, like the idea of trying before they buy. If you couldn't test drive a car, would you buy it? The software industry and anyone wishing to do business in the new digital market needs to get with the program.
Certain things are Black and White, it's the people of grey moral character who try to blur the lines.
There's no black and white. Everything (and everyone) is grey.
ETA: Quote tags apparently don't work quite right (or I'm using them wrong...)
ETA, again: Fixed it.
It is definitely open. Open source does not mean that it is free. The open source movement is about allowing others to use your intellectual property in the production of their own products without having to give over a share of the profits. Open source and creative commons licenses often contain clauses that restrict the use of IP - there is nothing odd about that.
The Open Source Movement is about unrestricted access and use, without someone curtailing what can and can't be done with it.
If you want to restrict how someone uses something, don't call it "Open", because it's not.
Well, I see the old switcheroo is still popular.
Hey, I just continued your game. :\
Your first point is unsupported. You want to assail WotC for exaggerating losses, but that's an assumption. Unless you have the secret video tape of WotC lawyers padding the effect of piracy.
But you know you can't support that position with no facts, so the rest of your post becomes about faux lost sales and music and unsupported product.
And just like I can't support my position with facts, WotC (or anyone else) can't support their position that digital "theft" = lost sales. It's all anecdotal.
Whatever. I'm not on some pointless crusade to stop piracy. Can't be done. There's not enough integrity among gamers to maintain that position without somehow being thought of as the bad guy. But I won't rationalize the act and play some 'down with corporations' card. As if we have some sort of Constitutional right to RPG books and music that shouldn't be hampered by concepts such as people getting paid what they're worth and people paying for what they have.
So, can you do me a favor, and point out where I said I'm anti-corporate, or encouraging outright theft of IP? I own at least 75 print-versions of WotC books. Do I need to take a picture of my bookshelf?
I make $32k a year supporting my family. Sometimes I have to choose not to buy a book until later. I suppose since that's not really a sale, it would be ok to teach my kids that the company that wrote, marketed and illustrated the book aren't entitled to whatever price they ask for it. I'll just accuse them of having enough money already (whatever that means), and claim that since we can't afford the book anyway,we might as well steal it.
That's not what I said, and, may I compliment you on your beautiful strawman. How long did it take you to build it?
If you want to go back and actually read what I wrote, and address that, cool. If you want to twist my words, well, feel free.
Oh, come to think of it. I guess all stealing is a nonsale. I'm getting my ski mask and headed to the bank.
Is straw on sale somewhere, and I never got notified?
In my "Little Billy" analogy, I didn't say that what he did was right - I said that what he did didn't constitute a lost-sale, as he wasn't in the position to purchase the physical merchandise in the first place.
There's a big difference between the "theft" of virtual material and the theft of tangible material. If I snag a pirated copy of something to evaluate, decide I don't want it, and then chuck it, there's nothing lost, nothing gained, by either myself or the IP-owner. If I travel to the store, listen to the demo CD, and don't buy it, I've accomplished the exact same thing.
Shoplifting a physical CD is much different. Equating it to the digital evaluation I just described is ludicrous.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I wonder what happened to admiring companies that took risks and shouldered industries. I guess now it serves them right if they get stolen from.
Very nice attempt, but misguided. The whole term "virtual theft" is. After all, nothing is removed from the posession of anyone.
I am all in favor if buying products, even virtual ones, but "theft" just does not cut it. There is no damage inflicted on the owner (as in "the car is gone"). All they may claim is "i sold one car less than i otherwise would have" - and even that claim is dubious. Sure, i'd like a ferrari as much as the next guy. Doesn't mean i would pony up the cash for one in a million years.
Usually, the choice does not boil down to "copy or buy", but rather to "copy or just carry on living without it".
Doesn't make it right, of course, but it does put "damages" quoted by officials (especially in the music / film industries) into perspective.
For digital copies of a book, it essentially costs you nothing to make another copy. If I steal an electronic copy and immediately delete it, I gain nothing, but you lose nothing either. You'll probably never even know I did it.
Except that you now have a copy of something that you won't be paying for which means that the people or person who wrote, edited, printed, and illustrated the book have all lost that copy as a source of revenue.
Uhhhh, no? Maybe I need to re-read what CNB wrote, but I'm pretty sure he said that he deleted it. Let me check. OK, yup, he did. Let me go make that part bold. OK, done.
Then you tell your friends about it. Snowball. If 1,000 people or 10,000 download a book instead of buy it that can put a real strain on a business trying to make some money on a book.
Rationalize all you want. You are still doing a wrongful and ignorant act and possibly hurting a company and it's employees.
You're rationalizing your opinion on this matter. How do you know what he's going to do? If 1,000 people, or 10,000 people, or 100,000 people download the book, you don't know one bit how many of those represent a lost sale. Conversely, you don't know how many of them represent a sale that otherwise wouldn't have happened, since they didn't know about the book or it's contents prior to said download.
I myself am living proof that the free and unrestricted access to music equates to MORE sales for the music industry. I regularly download stuff from artists that have been recommended to me, and then go out and buy their CD. If I don't buy their CD, I chuck the download.
Additionally, I got my hands on several PDFs for the old RPG "Morrow Project". Due solely to my ability to download these PDFs and evaluate them, I'm now in the process of purchasing (and already have purchased) original print versions of this great game. There's rumor that there's a new version going to be seeing print soon, and, again, due solely to my "evil black sin" of downloading the PDFs, I'm going to buy the new version, when/if it his the stands.
But, you know, piracy = theft, loss of sales, and is a bad thing could never help a publisher, only harm it.
Dickens may have been a great writer but that doesn't make him a voice of morality. If people had made tons of illegal copies of his works and he died penniless, he would have changed his thoughts on the law.
Likewise, your posts here don't make you a voice of morality. Who are you to dictate my morals?
Edit: I guess that is the greatest irony of the statement made to the effect of "D&D3 is unfun because of this and that. So we (the same exact people who made it unfun) are making fun D&D4."Well this guy wrote for Mongoose maybe (haven't checked) but also for AEG and for Fantasy Flight.
However, that doesn't mean in any way that we have to love D&D 4e even if we love these books.Strange enough, some of my favorite books for 3.X rules (Darkness&Dread, The Seafarer's Handbook, Cityworks by FantasyFlight, The Book of Iron Might and Iron Heroes by Malhavoc Press) are from this same author.
One of my all-time, favorite books for D&D3.x was the Aerial Adventure Guide (by Guess Who). I just don't like the 'shell game' statements of "D&D4 is going to be better then D&D3 because D&D3 sucks" and the company, people, and propagandists behind the claim are the ones that made D&D3 what it is (whether you agree with their new assessment or not).
Like, 'Grappling in D&D3 sucks' (or power attack or whatever). Well, these guys between them only wrote a bajillion books for D&D3. They didn't figure out a way to fix grappling? They did all of a sudden? Or better yet, they've playtested another way (a newer, cooler, better way to grapple) and didn't want to put it in a current game. "This way rawks, but I'm only going to put it out for the next edition instead of fixing the mess now."And I need to buy their books (any version) now, why?
Can you blame them? They gave away a whole lot of IP with 3E. Too much to keep the business model viable IMHO.
As far as what they're doing with the OGL, it makes sense IMO. I might not like EVERYTHING about it, but if the nOGL is as I think it will be, I feel they made good, solid decisions. (Content is an entirely different story.)
|
|
There's no black and white. Everything (and everyone) is grey.
That sounds suspiciously like the nonsensical statement that "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes."
I can think of a lot of things that seem pretty black and white to me. Rape and cold blooded murder being pretty obvious.
Some of us think that theft is a pretty black and white issue as well. YMMV of course.
Personally, I would like to think that if I was starving, hungry, naked and cold I would have the decency to ask for help before I just up and decided to steal something that belonged to someone else. Likewise, if I don't have money to buy that book I want, I would like to think I have the patience and decency to either save up for it or, if I am feeling impatient, go to the local library.
|
|
Only problem there is: Libraries rarely carry game books.
It has been my experience that librarys, especially if they know you, are willing to look into ordering books for you. That is if they can't find another library in the area that carries the book. Actually there are several game books available in the library system I am in now.
Of course the waiting list is really long for many of them.
And if libraries don't work, amazon used books are usually pretty cheap.
|
|
Likewise, if I don't have money to buy that book I want, I would like to think I have the patience and decency to either save up for it or, if I am feeling impatient, go to the local library.
Only problem there is: Libraries rarely carry game books.
Of course, the REASON is they get stolen far too often (though, at least allegedly, many of those are stolen by fanatics trying to "protect the children from the great evil")
The library where I work carries D&D books - at least the core, plus a bunch of others. Since the Librarian who looks after ordering for that collection doesn't know anything about D&D I suspect he waits for requests from those who use the books for what to buy.