Tentacles & Eyeballs

[pres man]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I removed a comment about Gygax. It's insulting, and it's not relevant to the discussion about this kickstarter.

Really?

Fred Ohm wrote:

I think that TSR being sued for the hobbits, the balrogs and cthulhu mythos in the early books was not deserved.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I am pretty sure there was no lawsuit about TSR was using the names "hobbit" and "balrog," it probably was just a sternly-worded letter.

Hmm, sounds familiar. Isn't that exactly what happened to this kickstarter?

[Sean K Reynolds]

pres man wrote:

Hmm, sounds familiar. Isn't that exactly what happened to this kickstarter?

I was refuting his comment that TSR got sued over hobbits and balrogs. They were not. Therefore, bringing it up (and then up again) is irrelevant to this discussion. Regardless of what Gygax did, it doesn't justify what Andrew did.

If you post about it again, I'll remove it again. Understand? Pointing fingers at Gygax doesn't make things better for anyone.

[Sean K Reynolds]

nemmokokok wrote:

Man, remember when the OGL supported the main game of DnD, and didn't add competition to it? I remember that, some people seem to have forgotten though...

Remember when WotC radically changed what the "main game of DnD" was, so that older materials weren't compatible with the rules everyone was using?

[Marc Radle]

I would suggest that if Andrew really feels what he is doing in fine, he should contact Wizards of the Coast himself, direct them to this Kickstarter and ask them if they feel any of his sculpts are blatent copies of thier material. If he honestly maintains he is doing nothing wrong, I wonder if he would have the courage to actually check with Wizards and confirm it?

For that matter, what would happen if someone else pointed Wizards to his Kickstarter?

[TriOmegaZero]

That already happened, Marc.

[nemmokokok]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

nemmokokok wrote:

Man, remember when the OGL supported the main game of DnD, and didn't add competition to it? I remember that, some people seem to have forgotten though...

Remember when WotC radically changed what the "main game of DnD" was, so that older materials weren't compatible with the rules everyone was using?

You mean 3rd edition?

That still doesn't really answer my question even if you meant 4th edition, considering that you said the reason the OGL was good was because people still needed to buy WOTC products to play games and also it allowed people to make niche products WOTC wouldn't bother with, it's a win-win!

Funnily enough, Pathfinder is neither of those things, it just explicitly copies the both the concepts of DnD 3.5 and the design model. I don't really care if "you helped make it" either, so did a lot of people and you don't see them making slightly different copies of DnD.

[Marc Radle]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

That already happened, Marc.

It did? Did i miss something in the thread?

[Sean K Reynolds]

nemmokokok wrote:

You mean 3rd edition?

No, I mean AD&D vs. D&D. ;)

Marc Radle wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

That already happened, Marc.

It did? Did i miss something in the thread?

It is mentioned here.

[Korvaa]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Xzaral wrote:

noretoc wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'm not talking about copyright law. I'm talking about copying.

Does anyone think it's ironic, this is being argued by a guy who works and supports a company that copied Dungeons and Dragons?

No, the difference being that WotC gave permission to copy DnD, but not some of those monsters.

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.

[Sean K Reynolds]

I didn't realize that "you're a hypocrite" is a valid rebuttal to "this other guy is copying someone's work."

Even if I am a hypocrite, even if Paizo is a hypocrite, Andrew was still copying WotC monsters that they specifically asked nobody to copy.

[Marc Radle]

And apparently Wizards agreed, judging from the link Sean posted a little up thread

[pres man]

Yes, and just like others have in similar situations, the person involved is adjusting the items to be acceptable. Hell this isn't something limited to gaming. There was a story a little while back about a book cover looking too much like a Jack Daniels bottle.

This has happened to lots of respectable people, even some pioneers in certain fields, no reason to paint someone in a negative light because of it.