True, using the MgT SRD one can create and market a whole new "Travelleresque" game. This was a real boon to the game. I'm working on a home brew game for my non-Traveller players right now using it. 3D6 stats, D20 (5% increment) skill/task resolution, etc.
software for character generation
- Thread starter Tauther
- Start date
True, using the MgT SRD one can create and market a whole new "Travelleresque" game. This was a real boon to the game. I'm working on a home brew game for my non-Traveller players right now using it. 3D6 stats, D20 (5% increment) skill/task resolution, etc.
CodexofRome
SOC-3
Traveller Software
Any game company that does anything to restrict the development and distribution of free software designed to be game utilities isn't doing themselves any favor. RPGs can be complicated beasts requiring lots of work on the part of GMs. Offering ways to make that an easier task means more GMs running those RPGs. No one is going to actually get away with playing the RPG by having free utilities - The game isn't in GM utility software, it's in the books which most GMs are already going to have in their collection. Even including specific terminology (names of skills, careers, benefits, etc) isn't going to take any money out of a publisher's pocket. I still need the book to explain the details.
Any game company that does anything to restrict the development and distribution of free software designed to be game utilities isn't doing themselves any favor. RPGs can be complicated beasts requiring lots of work on the part of GMs. Offering ways to make that an easier task means more GMs running those RPGs. No one is going to actually get away with playing the RPG by having free utilities - The game isn't in GM utility software, it's in the books which most GMs are already going to have in their collection. Even including specific terminology (names of skills, careers, benefits, etc) isn't going to take any money out of a publisher's pocket. I still need the book to explain the details.
LiamKerrington
SOC-12
Hi there,
it is very interesting to see the legal part of this discussion along with the other interesting parts of this discussion.
One core-question that needs to be raised is, if someone produces a software or application (I don't know why I use two different words for basically the same thing, sorry ...) for free or with the intent to earn something with or through it. Imagine someone programming something, putting it on his website and giving free download-access to the program. Won't be too much of an issue, you might think. But what, if the same website is connected with ads or commercials to some degree? The software itself might be for free, but still the programer makes (little) money per download because this particular website has a hit. And that would make it a profit-based action which might, no: will ask for some legal reaction. Reason: You may have bought the game, you may have earned some rights based on fair-use like making small programs supporting your game and even sharing such programs with friends at least, but you have not bought the right or received a license to start earning money, which is the sole right of Mongoose (or whoever ...).
Another core-question would be licensing: The guy(s) having programmed the tool for the game automatically establish/es copyright for the program - the coding on the one site, the images displayed on the screen etc.; as soon as they share or sell the software they automatically give away licenses for their product - the license to use it and maybe even to have an output like printed document, pdf- or XML-document or whatever. But they also give others access to information they took from the original game-material. Since the original game was not about programming the game into an application, the inclusion or implementation of game-content may be considered "fair use" or a derivative right of the buyer and thus the programmer. So no challenge here, I think.
But what, if the program becomes very successfull, because thousands if not hundreds of thousands of downloads are achieved, and the licensor or the licensee decide to create a program of their own with the intent to earn money as well (that's by the way the core idea of Hero Labs by Lonewolf ...). Here things may become very complicated, because especially with considering trademark-law or the rights based on licenses or even the original copyrights rooting in the original game-products you all of a sudden have a competition between the probably free software by fans and a new (supposed to be) professional product. I don't choose sides over here, but I see good arguments on both sides and would not want to have to decide in favor of either:
- Naturally the gamers never had the intention to interfere with the interests of the involved company/ies; also they just made their gaming experience a lot better with their tool; (here by the way the first core-question I raised above gets involved as well ...)
- but as much fun as a company might have doing a product, the main interest is earning money by selling stuff, so the economical interests of a company supersedes anything else; and based on the rights they own or they may receive through special legal constructs like copyrights and licenses, trademark, and sh*t there is imho no reason to believe that they should be limited in the ways to exploit their rights as much as possible;
but who here has more rights or is more powerful in this given situation - especially with the fans having offered a solution (long) before the company thought of?
As a side-note: It may be not so good for a company to sue fans; but since Aramis mentioned two companies, I'd like to throw in Wizards of the Coast as well who was very eager to force people with their own, private websites to reduce their personal D&D content, because WotC wanted to be the primary and probably only website offering game-content for this particular game-series. Before WotC went all aggro on D&D-fans the interwebs was full of individual websites talking about official D&D products as well as offering personal campaigns, adventures, items, characters, other sh*t and stuff for the game ... Still D&D is a powerful game in the market, and WotC is stronger then ever. So: is bad reputation really bad for a company? If there is any bad reputation, it has all vanished in the past and has deceased of being meaningful today ...
Anyway ... Just two cents tossed into this discussion.
Liam
it is very interesting to see the legal part of this discussion along with the other interesting parts of this discussion.
One core-question that needs to be raised is, if someone produces a software or application (I don't know why I use two different words for basically the same thing, sorry ...) for free or with the intent to earn something with or through it. Imagine someone programming something, putting it on his website and giving free download-access to the program. Won't be too much of an issue, you might think. But what, if the same website is connected with ads or commercials to some degree? The software itself might be for free, but still the programer makes (little) money per download because this particular website has a hit. And that would make it a profit-based action which might, no: will ask for some legal reaction. Reason: You may have bought the game, you may have earned some rights based on fair-use like making small programs supporting your game and even sharing such programs with friends at least, but you have not bought the right or received a license to start earning money, which is the sole right of Mongoose (or whoever ...).
Another core-question would be licensing: The guy(s) having programmed the tool for the game automatically establish/es copyright for the program - the coding on the one site, the images displayed on the screen etc.; as soon as they share or sell the software they automatically give away licenses for their product - the license to use it and maybe even to have an output like printed document, pdf- or XML-document or whatever. But they also give others access to information they took from the original game-material. Since the original game was not about programming the game into an application, the inclusion or implementation of game-content may be considered "fair use" or a derivative right of the buyer and thus the programmer. So no challenge here, I think.
But what, if the program becomes very successfull, because thousands if not hundreds of thousands of downloads are achieved, and the licensor or the licensee decide to create a program of their own with the intent to earn money as well (that's by the way the core idea of Hero Labs by Lonewolf ...). Here things may become very complicated, because especially with considering trademark-law or the rights based on licenses or even the original copyrights rooting in the original game-products you all of a sudden have a competition between the probably free software by fans and a new (supposed to be) professional product. I don't choose sides over here, but I see good arguments on both sides and would not want to have to decide in favor of either:
- Naturally the gamers never had the intention to interfere with the interests of the involved company/ies; also they just made their gaming experience a lot better with their tool; (here by the way the first core-question I raised above gets involved as well ...)
- but as much fun as a company might have doing a product, the main interest is earning money by selling stuff, so the economical interests of a company supersedes anything else; and based on the rights they own or they may receive through special legal constructs like copyrights and licenses, trademark, and sh*t there is imho no reason to believe that they should be limited in the ways to exploit their rights as much as possible;
but who here has more rights or is more powerful in this given situation - especially with the fans having offered a solution (long) before the company thought of?
As a side-note: It may be not so good for a company to sue fans; but since Aramis mentioned two companies, I'd like to throw in Wizards of the Coast as well who was very eager to force people with their own, private websites to reduce their personal D&D content, because WotC wanted to be the primary and probably only website offering game-content for this particular game-series. Before WotC went all aggro on D&D-fans the interwebs was full of individual websites talking about official D&D products as well as offering personal campaigns, adventures, items, characters, other sh*t and stuff for the game ... Still D&D is a powerful game in the market, and WotC is stronger then ever. So: is bad reputation really bad for a company? If there is any bad reputation, it has all vanished in the past and has deceased of being meaningful today ...
Anyway ... Just two cents tossed into this discussion.
Liam
Last edited:
Liam: TSR was doing similar before the WOTC buyout... but in the pre-"public internet" days, the only form of takedown notice that was commonly issued was a lawsuit, and then, you were usually suing some small-fry BBS.... and they, in order to not be liable, would usually turn over what little they knew of the uploading individual. Pirate BBS's scrubbed uploads of user uploading and time of upload so they couldn't track it.
Incorrect. Since WotC went all psycho, Paizo has surpassed D&D sales with its Pathfinder game. WotC is WEAKER (in the RPG field) than it has ever been. Combo of the disastrous 4.x & trying to screw over fans.
LiamKerrington
SOC-12
Hi there,
I tend to disagree in terms of "combo". The screwing of fans took place when D&D 3.0 was on the plate; D&D 3.5 was very successfull; and with the declaration that D&D 3.5 would be stopped, Paizo's Pathfinder was able to flourish. And flourish they did considering the epic fail of D&D 4E (which imho is one of the worst products of the D&D franchise up until now; no clue what D&D 5 will be).
But that's not the point of this discussion, right?
Best wishes!
Liam
I tend to disagree in terms of "combo". The screwing of fans took place when D&D 3.0 was on the plate; D&D 3.5 was very successfull; and with the declaration that D&D 3.5 would be stopped, Paizo's Pathfinder was able to flourish. And flourish they did considering the epic fail of D&D 4E (which imho is one of the worst products of the D&D franchise up until now; no clue what D&D 5 will be).
But that's not the point of this discussion, right?
Best wishes!
Liam
I didn't same it happened at the same time. It was cumulative effect.
YOU brought up the subject. So, don't complain when someone comments on it.
LiamKerrington
SOC-12
I didn't same it happened at the same time. It was cumulative effect.
YOU brought up the subject. So, don't complain when someone comments on it.
It's cool.
Similar threads
