Erotic Adventures, "Third party sexy adventure rules for 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons," now on Kickstarter!


5th Edition (And Beyond)

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Sissyl wrote:

Someone tries to make a game about erotic fantasy, and the same things happen. People complain about the maturity of it, people say it shouldn't be done, people claim it is bad, often while their arguments clearly show they haven't even read it. Every such product is immediately likened to FATAL. The reviews go overboard with calling it "creepy". "Why would you play that game with your friends when you can have an orgy with them?" "It's not necessary!" "All that can be handwaved!" And so on. The misery never ends.

It is an American culture thing, and it bores me.

Local protest event postponed or something?

Cause....unless the litigation nonsense up there is double entendre, no one's complained about that (I personally am against such products but I fill my pie hole with pie).


We had two complaints about it in the thread above.

Pie is good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

Someone tries to make a game about erotic fantasy, and the same things happen. People complain about the maturity of it, people say it shouldn't be done, people claim it is bad, often while their arguments clearly show they haven't even read it. Every such product is immediately likened to FATAL. The reviews go overboard with calling it "creepy". "Why would you play that game with your friends when you can have an orgy with them?" "It's not necessary!" "All that can be handwaved!" And so on. The misery never ends.

It is an American culture thing, and it bores me.

So long as the product is clear on what it is and does, I don't see the problem.

Erotic fantasy has a long history, steamy romance novels have sold well for ages (read mostly by women). Reading such a book doesn't mean you would prefer having sex.

We have been tromping around the countryside murdering stuff in our imagination since the seventies. Isn't it about time we accepted relationships and principles for dealing with them as well as killing people? Why is it not a sensible approach to say that "Combat is not necessary! If you want that, you can just handwave it! And if you want to play a game about murdering people with your friends, why wouldn't you go on a killing-spree with them instead?"

My suggestion is simply to live and let live. If you don't like a product, don't buy it.

Very well said, Sissyl!

(Though I'd note that this is no way unique to American culture.)

Dark Archive

Sissyl wrote:

Someone tries to make a game about erotic fantasy, and the same things happen. People complain about the maturity of it, people say it shouldn't be done, people claim it is bad, often while their arguments clearly show they haven't even read it. Every such product is immediately likened to FATAL. The reviews go overboard with calling it "creepy". "Why would you play that game with your friends when you can have an orgy with them?" "It's not necessary!" "All that can be handwaved!" And so on. The misery never ends.

It is an American culture thing, and it bores me.

So long as the product is clear on what it is and does, I don't see the problem.

Erotic fantasy has a long history, steamy romance novels have sold well for ages (read mostly by women). Reading such a book doesn't mean you would prefer having sex.

We have been tromping around the countryside murdering stuff in our imagination since the seventies. Isn't it about time we accepted relationships and principles for dealing with them as well as killing people? Why is it not a sensible approach to say that "Combat is not necessary! If you want that, you can just handwave it! And if you want to play a game about murdering people with your friends, why wouldn't you go on a killing-spree with them instead?"

My suggestion is simply to live and let live. If you don't like a product, don't buy it.

But don't you know that sex is the MOST IMPORTANT AND SACRED THING EVER! Even if nobody is being hurt, you must treat sex with the utmost respect! Having fun with sex and being silly or juvenile is strictly not allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, I got so tired of "What's New, with Phil and Dixie" in Dragon Magazine always being about sex

wait...what?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
We had two complaints about it in the thread above.

I don't see them.


Possibly not. If it isn't, it's spread from America. About the best example was an episode of The Doctors that made it a huge deal that they would have a section on sex later in the show. This turned out to be statistics about how often men and women had UTIs.

I find it kind of telling that the only generally positively reviewed such product is Love and sex in the Ninth World for Numenera. In that, it is stated that, more or less, people have sex. Meh.


Then keep looking, TOZ. Or don't.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are a lot of RPGs out there that turn sexuality up to eleven. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a great example. Oh, and it's a D&D retroclone, too.

The issue is that for D&D and PF, United States is something like ... 70 to 80% of the market, which means these games will always be geared towards US audience first and foremost.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's worth mentioning that Wizards requiring the creator of this Kickstarter to cease using terms like Dungeons and Dragons etc and to publish under the OGL (which, it sounds like the creator did not, in fact, realize she had to do) has nothing to do with sex. It is strictly about copyrights and correct, legal usage of Wizard's IP ... precicely what most of the folks in this thread were correctly saying from the beginning.

Sex in RPGs is certainly a topic worth discussing, but what happened has nothing to do with the sexual nature of the Kickstarter ...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
There are a lot of RPGs out there that turn sexuality up to eleven. Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a great example. Oh, and it's a D&D retroclone, too.

If you think that LotFP's take on sexuality turns it "up to eleven," well, then I'd say that your dial needs recalibrating (well, except for "FFS," but that was sort of the point).

Marc Radle wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Wizards requiring the creator of this Kickstarter to cease using terms like Dungeons and Dragons etc and to publish under the OGL (which, it sounds like the creator did not, in fact, realize she had to do) has nothing to do with sex. It is strictly about copyrights and correct, legal usage of Wizard's IP.

To be clear, Wizards of the Coast does not require that anyone not use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" when advertising compatibility, nor is anyone required to publish anything under the Open Game License...as this thread has already made explicitly clear.

That the author chose to do so is entirely her prerogative, but she's mistaken to think that she was under any legal compulsion to do so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Then keep looking, TOZ. Or don't.

Is it this? Because I can't see that as a complaint. There's very little discussion about the actual product and more about the legal hurdles.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
That the author chose to do so is entirely her prerogative, but she's mistaken to think that she was under any legal compulsion to do so.

... I'd say wanting to avoid getting the everloving f+~# sued out of falls under "legal compulsion".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
That the author chose to do so is entirely her prerogative, but she's mistaken to think that she was under any legal compulsion to do so.
... I'd say wanting to avoid getting the everloving f&&# sued out of falls under "legal compulsion".

I've outlined previously how it's entirely within the boundaries of fair use to indicate compatibility with another trademark without permission, and that others have already done so specifically with regard to Dungeons & Dragons, without using any sort of licensing agreement.

Given that, can you cite a specific reason for your claim that doing so here would result litigation being filed against the author?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The author was mistaken on several points, such as saying that the term "Dungeons and Dragons" is "copyrighted". It is a trademark -- which basically means that the way you can get in trouble with using the term is if you use it for trade -- in other words, to sell something.

If the term "Dungeons and Dragons" could actually be copyrighted, the Paizo moderators would have to ban pretty much all discussion of the game from these boards to keep them and us out of legal trouble -- they certainly would not want to have to look at each post to determine whether its mention of "Dungeons and Dragons" constituted "fair use".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:

To be clear, Wizards of the Coast does not require that anyone not use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" when advertising compatibility, nor is anyone required to publish anything under the Open Game License...as this thread has already made explicitly clear.

That the author chose to do so is entirely her prerogative, but she's mistaken to think that she was under any legal compulsion to do so.

No, it kinda DOES mean exactly that. You keep asserting otherwise, despite most other people in this thread saying you are not correct.

Make no mistake, she was in all likelihood contacted by WoTC lawyers who spelled out the law as it applies to their IP, copyright, and/or trademarked material to her, and she apparently, wisely opted to comply. No matter how many times you try to insist otherwise, it doesn't make it so or change the actual facts.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
No, it kinda DOES mean exactly that.

No, it really doesn't.

Quote:
You keep asserting otherwise, despite most other people in this thread saying you are not correct.

I'm also able to point to corroboration that supports the assertions that I've previously made, whereas the people who hold otherwise have been unable to do so. If there's a specific example I've posted that you think is incorrect - or likewise have a specific example that you think disproves what I've been saying - I invite you to mention it here.

Quote:
Make no mistake, she was contacted by WoTC lawyers who spelled out the law as it applies to their IP and copyrighted material to her, and she apparently, wisely, opted to comply.

Unless you're actually claiming to have been part of such a communication, then you're making up a scenario and trying to spin it as fact, which is a rather difficult claim to make since what you're saying flies in the face of how the legalities underlying this situation actually work.

Quote:
No matter how many time you try to say otherwise, this is the actual way it it

Except for all of the evidence pointing to the contrary, and your lack of proof otherwise (save for positively asserting something you don't actually know to be true).

Silver Crusade

What proof are you wanting? The OGL allows you to do [stuff] as long as you abide by certain things, you're not gonna find anything that says "you're not allowed to do this or we will sue you".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
What proof are you wanting? The OGL allows you to do [stuff] as long as you abide by certain things, you're not gonna find anything that says "you're not allowed to do this or we will sue you".

Marc Radle spoke about "Wizards requiring the creator of this Kickstarter to cease using terms like Dungeons and Dragons etc and to publish under the OGL (which, it sounds like the creator did not, in fact, realize she had to do)," which is incorrect.

You can use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" with regards to indicating compatibility (if you're not using the OGL). Likewise, you do not "have to" use the OGL when publishing a compatible product. I've demonstrated examples with regards to these, and yet Marc has continued to say that's not so, so I'm wondering what examples he has that back up his claim.


captain yesterday wrote:
But then we won't know what benefits an extra penis will bring!

Believe me, it's more trouble than it's worth.

Silver Crusade

Alzrius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
What proof are you wanting? The OGL allows you to do [stuff] as long as you abide by certain things, you're not gonna find anything that says "you're not allowed to do this or we will sue you".

Marc Radle spoke about "Wizards requiring the creator of this Kickstarter to cease using terms like Dungeons and Dragons etc and to publish under the OGL (which, it sounds like the creator did not, in fact, realize she had to do)," which is incorrect.

You can use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" with regards to indicating compatibility (if you're not using the OGL). Likewise, you do not "have to" use the OGL when publishing a compatible product. I've demonstrated examples with regards to these, and yet Marc has continued to say that's not so, so I'm wondering what examples he has that back up his claim.

I don't think there are any because no one has been dumb enough to try and piss off WotC/Hasbro.

Yes you can say your product is DnD compatible and no you don't have to use the OGL. But you do if you don't want to get sued.


Hmmm, so is it?

"The law doesn't say you cannot do it, only what the consequences of doing it without permission will be."

Grand Lodge

I don't think most people here are claiming that it's illegal to say it's D&D compatible, but rather that you're likely to get taken to court over doing so even though it's not.

It's very common in the US for companies to be overzealous with protecting their Trademarks and if you're not careful you'll end up spending a lot of your free time in court and having to pay costly legal fees.

For a good example of this, see Bethesda freaking out over minecraft creator Mojang using the term "Scrolls" for a future game because they owned the trademark for "Elder Scrolls".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
I don't think there are any because no one has been dumb enough to try and piss off WotC/Hasbro.

Again, I've linked - multiple times now - to games that do exactly that. Take another look at Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E and Socialism: The Game, both of which directly claim compatibility with Hasbro games without any sort of license.

Quote:
Yes you can say your product is DnD compatible and no you don't have to use the OGL. But you do if you don't want to get sued.

See above. You might be sued for engaging in perfectly legal activity, but that doesn't somehow mean that what you were doing was in any way breaking the law.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I don't think most people here are claiming that it's illegal to say it's D&D compatible, but rather that you're likely to get taken to court over doing so even though it's not.

It's very common in the US for companies to be overzealous with protecting their Trademarks and if you're not careful you'll end up spending a lot of your free time in court and having to pay costly legal fees.

For a good example of this, see Bethesda freaking out over minecraft creator Mojang using the term "Scrolls" for a future game because they owned the trademark for "Elder Scrolls".

So how do you explain those other games I linked to that openly claim compatibility with Hasbro games without any sort of licensing agreement, and the complete lack of lawsuits having been brought against them?

Grand Lodge

Alzrius wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I don't think most people here are claiming that it's illegal to say it's D&D compatible, but rather that you're likely to get taken to court over doing so even though it's not.

It's very common in the US for companies to be overzealous with protecting their Trademarks and if you're not careful you'll end up spending a lot of your free time in court and having to pay costly legal fees.

For a good example of this, see Bethesda freaking out over minecraft creator Mojang using the term "Scrolls" for a future game because they owned the trademark for "Elder Scrolls".

So how do you explain those other games I linked to that openly claim compatibility with Hasbro games without any sort of licensing agreement, and the complete lack of lawsuits having been brought against them?

??? I don't have to? If you take a brief look you can find plenty examples of overzealous companies taking people to court over using their trademark where it turns out they did nothing wrong.

Maybe Wizards/Hasbro doesn't tend to do that. That's great. Good for them. That still doesn't change the fact that it's a very common occurrence in the US and that you should generally try to avoid it when possible.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

Hmmm, so is it?

"The law doesn't say you cannot do it, only what the consequences of doing it without permission will be."

In this case, those consequences are nothing; that tends to be the case with regards to perfectly legal activities.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
??? I don't have to? If you take a brief look you can find plenty examples of overzealous companies taking people to court over using their trademark where it turns out they did nothing wrong.

Absolutely. But it's important to remember that this isn't a truism, and that there are plenty of other examples of people not being sued for engaging in entirely legal activities.

Quote:
Maybe Wizards/Hasbro doesn't tend to do that. That still doesn't change the fact that it's a very common occurrence in the US and that you should generally try to avoid it when possible.

Again, that's not in dispute; indeed, that's what makes the OGL such a wonderful thing. But it's important to recognize that just because someone has chosen to take a different route doesn't mean that the conclusion is foregone, nor that any such suit is warranted if it is brought against them.

Silver Crusade

I actually tried to look into the Socialism, and their creator, Diogenes Games, and... they've kinda disappeared, no one has heard anything from them and there is quite a few unhappy backers on the KS page for it.

Silver Crusade

Alzrius wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
??? I don't have to? If you take a brief look you can find plenty examples of overzealous companies taking people to court over using their trademark where it turns out they did nothing wrong.

Absolutely. But it's important to remember that this isn't a truism, and that there are plenty of other examples of people not being sued for engaging in entirely legal activities.

Quote:
Maybe Wizards/Hasbro doesn't tend to do that. That still doesn't change the fact that it's a very common occurrence in the US and that you should generally try to avoid it when possible.
Again, that's not in dispute; indeed, that's what makes the OGL such a wonderful thing. But it's important to recognize that just because someone has chosen to take a different route doesn't mean that the conclusion is foregone, nor that any such suit is warranted if it is brought against them.

That doesn't mean you should push your luck either.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
I actually tried to look into the Socialism, and their creator, Diogenes Games, and... they've kinda disappeared, no one has heard anything from them and there is quite a few unhappy backers on the KS page for it.

Looking at the comments page for their Kickstarter shows a mixture of backers who've received the game, some who received it damaged, and some who haven't received it so far. That's a shame to hear; hopefully everyone will get what they paid for.

That said, there's no evidence there - or anywhere else that I found - of them being subject to any adverse legal activity.

Likewise, Kenzerco is doing just fine.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
That doesn't mean you should push your luck either.

It's certainly true that just because a particular activity is legal doesn't mean that it might not be risky. But if someone does wish to go that route, it doesn't mean that they're at fault if someone else brings a baseless lawsuit against them; that's called "blaming the victim."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Kenzerco apparently had a licensing agreement with Wizards of the Coast for Kingdoms of Kalamar since the 3E days. You don't need to follow the OGL if you have a specific separate agreement with whoever owns the rights to whatever material you are using -- you need to follow the terms of that specific separate license.


I'm so confused by the continued hubris here

Dungeons & Dragons is clearly trademarked

using it to sell your product without the expressed permission of Hasbro, is, in fact, a violation of trademark law

Why do you continue to insist the opposite?

yes, there are examples of people who have done so, and who, so far, have not suffered any obvious consequences from doing so

But, Seriously, dude

Dungeons & Dragons is clearly trademarked

using it to sell your product without the expressed permission of Hasbro, is, in fact, a violation of trademark law


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Kenzerco apparently had a licensing agreement with Wizards of the Coast for Kingdoms of Kalamar since the 3E days.

Which doesn't cover the pre-3E version of KoK that they posted, nor the 4E edition, as I've already noted before:

David S. Kenzer wrote:

Correct, we no longer have an agreement with Wizards. Why? Is there some "magic" restriction in IP law that restricts people from making new creative material that doesn't use any TMs, patents or copyrights of another company?

Oh, perhaps it's the magical FUD rule that you're referring to?

By-the-by, KoK first appeared in 1994 and we had no formal relationship with TSR.

Quote:
You don't need to follow the OGL if you have a specific separate agreement with whoever owns the rights to whatever material you are using -- you need to follow the terms of that specific separate license.

That's true, but does not apply with regards to the aforementioned Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
I'm so confused by the continued hubris here

I'm confused that you're confused. Did you read the thread up until now?

Quote:
Dungeons & Dragons is clearly trademarked

True.

Quote:
using it to sell your product without the expressed permission of Hasbro, is, in fact, a violation of trademark law

False. As has already been noted, you can indicate compatibility without permission, as a fair use exception to federal trademark law.

Quote:
Why do you continue to insist the opposite?

Because that's what's accurate.

Quote:
yes, there are examples of people who have done so, and who, so far, have not suffered any obvious consequences from doing so

Because they haven't broken any laws in doing so.

Quote:

But, Seriously, dude

Dungeons & Dragons is clearly trademarked

True; see above.

Quote:
using it to [u]sell your product[/u] without the expressed permission of Hasbro, is, in fact, a violation of trademark law

As noted above, this is not the case. Hence Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Attaching game mechanics to sex just does nothing for me.

If that's your thing, have a blast!

I'll pass.


Fair use - with Trademark Laws, allows you to refer to the trademark, when speaking of the trademark owners product
as in

"We love that other company's product and we were inspired to come up with something of our own"

Using it as a way to sell your product

as in the case of

"Hey, buy my thing, it is compatible with that other thing that is really popular"

is a violation of Trademark law

and that is why...

oh, well, never mind, you know, if the hubris thing went over your head, then, meh I'm done

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
That doesn't mean you should push your luck either.
It's certainly true that just because a particular activity is legal doesn't mean that it might not be risky. But if someone does wish to go that route, it doesn't mean that they're at fault if someone else brings a baseless lawsuit against them; that's called "blaming the victim."

It is not baseless and it not "blaming the victim".

Silver Crusade

Alzrius wrote:
Because they haven't broken any laws in doing so.

Breaking laws doesn't get you sued, it get's you arrested. You can not break any laws and still get sued.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
It is not baseless and it not "blaming the victim".

If you admit that the lawsuit is being brought despite the product in question not having violated any laws, then it is indeed baseless. Likewise, insinuating that the person being sued somehow deserved it because they could have done something else, even though they did nothing wrong, is indeed blaming the victim.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Because they haven't broken any laws in doing so.
Breaking laws doesn't get you sued, it get's you arrested. You can not break any laws and still get sued.

With regards to trademarks (i.e. the topic under discussion), this is indeed a question of whether or not any laws (that is, trademark laws) have been broken. Hence, an instance of being successfully sued on that issue alone, when you haven't violated any trademark laws, is an instance of the laws not working in the way they're intended.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

Fair use - with Trademark Laws, allows you to refer to the trademark, when speaking of the trademark owners product

as in

"We love that other company's product and we were inspired to come up with something of our own"

No, that's not a trademark issue at all. At best, it's a copyright issue, but even that isn't likely (hence a previous poster correctly noting that you can say "I love Dungeons & Dragons" on Paizo's forums without them having to prepare a fair use defense).

Quote:

Using it as a way to sell your product

as in the case of

"Hey, buy my thing, it is compatible with that other thing that is really popular"

is a violation of Trademark law

I've already conclusively demonstrated it's not. I'm a little curious as to how you look at the unimpeachable evidence of that, in the form of Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E, and David S. Kenzer saying it was made without a license, and still maintain this point of yours.

Quote:

and that is why...

oh, well, never mind, you know, if the hubris thing went over your head, then, meh I'm done

It's not hubris to point out that the actual law is different from what you're wrongfully asserting it is. You have yet to define how the stated evidence, which completely undercuts your point, squares with what you're saying.


I'm sure all the publicity will greatly help its sales! It does sound a little immature, and it hits the tens of thousands, it may overwhelm the creator

I imagine they could have got away with using D&D, had the topic been more 'family friendly'. Plenty of KS do.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
It is not baseless and it not "blaming the victim".
If you admit that the lawsuit is being brought despite the product in question not having violated any laws, then it is indeed baseless.

I think at this point it's pretty clear that you simply might not understand legal matters and the law like you clearly feel you do (despite your own addition that you are not a lawyer)

There are countless ways you can do something that is not illegal, but still get sued and lose. That's what contract law is all about. If you sign an NDA and then break it, you did not (necessarily) break a law, but you absolutely can be sued and will most likely lose. That's just one example ...

The simple truth is this. Wizards of the Coast owns the tradmark to terms like Dungeons and Dragons, Beholder, Mind Flayer etc. If you use these terms in your product, or in the advertising/promotional material to sell that product without having express permission from Wizards, you are in violation of the terms of those trademarks and Wizards can legally act against you, such as issuing a Cease and Desist or activating suing you.

Pretty much everyone else in this thread, including at least one actual lawyer, has said as much. Most other Third Party companies (many with actual lawyers on the payroll) specifically avoid doing this becasue they don't want to infringe of these trademarks / IP and get sued. The few Third Party companies that DO specifically use Wizards trademarked terms / IP are in almost all cases doing so becasue they have a specific agreement/license with Wizards for that product to do so. No matter how many times you keep shouting the contrary, it doesn't change anything.

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. The person who created the Kickstarter in question was pretty clearly contacted by Wizards of the Coast and told she may not use their tradmarks and she correctly chose to remove the necessary terms to avoid legal action. All this continued insisting that you know better than everyone else is counter-productive at this point.

In fact, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread ...

Silver Crusade

Did some more digging and while KoK was not made under the GSL that may have been due to WotC not wanting to go after Kenzer again due to the earlier settlement with Kenzer revolving around the KatDT strips.

Grand Lodge

I'll disagree with your assertion that its "victim blaming" to blame an entity for not taking the cautious legal route.

You should take the legally cautious route when you're already taking a significant amount of public funding. In fact, I'd argue that you have an obligation to your backers to do so. Not doing so is reckless and your backers have every right to be upset at you.

Of course, you're free to disagree.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And will.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Seriously?

Yes.

Quote:
I think at this point it's pretty clear that you simply might not understand legal matters and the law like you clearly feel you do (despite your own addition that you are not a lawyer)

You say this, but have yet to even respond to the examples I posted before, nor offer any of your own. Hence, I'll say again that you are not required to write D&D-compatible products under the OGL, for instance.

Quote:
There are countless ways you can do something that is not illegal, but still get sued and lose. That's what contract law is all about. If you sign an NDA and then break it, you did not (necessarily) break a law, but you absolutely can be sued and will most likely lose. That's just one example ...

The matter under discussion is with regards to trademark law. Attempting to move the goalposts to other issues that are actionable without violating laws is disingenuous. Unless you're asserting that there's an NDA with regards to this particular book, then your assertion is inapplicable.

Quote:
The simple truth is this. Wizards of the Coast owns the tradmark to terms like Dungeons and Dragons, Beholder, Mind Flayer etc. If you se these terms in your product, or in the advertising/promotional material to sell that product without having express permission from Wizards, you are in violation of the law and Wizards can legally act against you, such as issuing a Cease and Desist or activating suing you.

The legal fact of the matter is that this is not true, insofar as using the term "Dungeons & Dragons" to indicate compatibility with your product. Hence why Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E did so, and had David S. Kenzer flat-out admit that the product was not produced under license. Given that, how do you reconcile this inarguable fact with what you've written here?

Quote:
Pretty much everyone else in this thread, including at least one actual lawyer, has said as much.

Are you under the impression that if enough people say something wrong enough times, it becomes right? Likewise, I've openly quoted a lawyer who specializes in American intellectual property law (unlike a Polish lawyer who specializes in human rights, international, and constitutional law) saying that my interpretation is correct. If you say that I'm ignoring that, how do you reconcile your ignoring what David S. Kenzer said?

Heck, he wasn't even the only lawyer in that thread who agreed with the point I'm raising:

mythmere wrote:

He's right. He may not be entirely safe from a lawsuit being filed (no one is), but I think he'd win such a lawsuit, and possibly on summary judgment if he gets the right jurisdiction. And the way these things work, he'd be likely to be the one picking the jurisdiction. The research I did for OSRIC (and like Mr. Kenzer, I'm an attorney) is in line with Mr. Kenzer's. OSRIC turned on different issues, and some of the points Ryan Dancey has made about Kalamar are technically valid points, but from my knowledge of trademark/copyright law the bottom line is that Kenzer wins on this. Or should, based on existing law, anyway.

Assuming there's not a huge mistake made in the actual writing of the material, of course, but I doubt that sort of mistake has been made.

Kudos to Kenzer. If a lawsuit is filed against you (which I doubt), I'm sure there will be amicus briefs filed in your support.

Matt Finch
(Attorney and Initial Author of OSRIC)

Quote:
No matter how many times you keep shouting the contrary, it doesn't change anything.

Leaving aside the mischaracterization of my pointing to the existing examples of my being right as "shouting," I don't need to change anything. My point is correct; yours is not.

Quote:
Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. The person who created the Kickstarter in question was pretty clearly contacted by Wizards of the Coast and told she may not use their tradmarked IP and she correctly chose to remove the necessary terms to avoid legal action.

You're continuing to push the flight of fancy that was the author being contacted by WotC, despite having no knowledge of any such contact occurring. Given that Gorbacz said he'd attempted to contact her, that's more likely what happened.

Quote:
All this continued insisting that you know better than everyone else is counter-productive at this point.

And yet you refuse to actually look at the evidence I've posted, which clearly showcases that my interpretation is correct, all the while posting none of your own.

Quote:
In fact, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread ...

That's a shame. I wanted to hear you explain how KoK 4E could openly claim compatibility with Dungeons & Dragons and not have a license, while still saying that anything which did so was a trademark violation.

51 to 100 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 5th Edition (And Beyond) / Erotic Adventures, "Third party sexy adventure rules for 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons," now on Kickstarter! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.