-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
DnD Next/5e/Playtest
- Thread starter Fuzzy
- Start date
There are a number of threads regarding this. As far as I know, no one has started because nothing is set in concrete. Playtest material isn't finished product. The changes between final beta packets and hardcover books could be big enough that data file construction could be very difficult to change to fix, sometimes it is easier to start from scratch than to retool datafiles.
It exists, based on final playtest. It cannot be released due to licence stuff. And cannot really means cannot in this case, so it's existence is more a theoretical thing right now
Last edited:
It exists, based on final playtest. It cannot be released due to licence stuff. And cannot really means cannot in this case, so it's existence is more a theoretical thing right now
Part of the problem with Next is that to get the data you had to sign a non disclosure agreement. Putting the data into a framework with intent to share it would violate that NDL. Considering there was no official license to do 4e, it's not likely that a 5e data set could be shared. Also, if you've been paying attention to the blogs on wizards.com, they've made extensive changes between the final packet and what they're going to release for 5e. The play test packets in no way represented final product (you'd have no incentive to buy the books if the play test material was finalized). Skills got a post play test overhaul big time.
MagicSN, please consider this. It should not be a violation of copyright if you release the data files for your 5th edition work WITHOUT any of the actual information from the Player's Handbook. Just like how, with 4th edition, you can download the data files without sourcebook info, and you need a D&DI subscription to get the info, why can you not share your modified data files that contain the mechanics of 5th edition and allow individuals to add their own entries manually?
Because it depends on what the books actually say. I encountered something in one of the Deathwatch books that forbids storing any of the game data in a database of any kind (or even having such a database). Because of this little disclaimer I found in one of the books, I am not sharing my Deathwatch data (unless I see a license come out saying otherwise from Fantasy Flight or GW).
Keep in mind that before 3e came out, there was vry little of the open source mechanics thing. At the time, only 1/2 of the WOTC group thought it was a good thing. For the hobby it was certainly a good thing. For the company? That's questionable. So it wouldn't surprise me if there is never any portion of 5 that is open source, and freely usable. Some other game systems are that way too. If it were my data files I would be very cautious about releasing them without checking if a license exists. Just my own two cents on the issue.
Legally, I think they would lose any suit in this regard, regardless of what they try to tell you, because a software package is different and transformative enough, with unique contribution from the developer, as to constitute a substantially different product, especially if there is no profit involved. It is not a reproduction. Consider that one can read aloud a copyrighted book and record it and that is not a violation of copyright for the above reasons. How much more so a computer program that does not actually store any verbatim information from the printed books. But I can understand not wanting to deal with a company harassing and threatening you.
Plus, you have to think about who you're dealing with. Hasbro has My Little Pony AND the Transformers, and you don't want them teaming them up to come after you...
Hasbro has the money to financially destroy anyone they go after. So does Games Workshop. These are not small companies we're talking about, you have to remember that many small scale companies would be effectively destroyed by legal costs fighting such a thing... apply that a single person... I'm not going to be that guy. I don't have millions of dollars sitting in the bank I can just throw at such a thing.
As far as reading aloud and recording... you still have to be careful with that. Most written works only allow it for the purpose of reviews. It can still get you in trouble with a large enough publisher to effectively destroy your finances. In many cases, you can't review a book or copy anything without consent of the author or publisher. You are not a multimillion dollar corporate entity with a large legal team to defend you... I'm not willing to take those risks, I've seen how GW works over the years.
Last edited:
Also, while we might not make any direct money of the sales, but any work that is based off of someones work especially software, generally needs licenses.
There are a lot of completely valid arguments to be made that:
1. If we (meaning the community) provided a popular enough D&D Next datafiles, and anyone signed up for HeroLab to just get those data files (purchasing the authoring kit so they could use them), and they didnt previously have the authoring kit, that is money in the hands of someone for your own works, unlicensed.
2. I dont know if you remember back in the day, but PCGen had tons of datafiles for all sorts of 3.5 products. This was before Pathfinder even existed. Not sure if it was before HeroLab. You didnt even have to pay for them. WOTC shut them down hard when they were trying to develop their own "MasterTools" (which was a joke). (Ironically, i think some of the PCGen people did work later on for WOTC, but thats another story).
3. None of us, as far as I know, are copyright lawyers, and IP gets even more complicated, as I'm sure many of us remember the T$R days.
All these points are more just about debate: Do i think WOTC would sue anyone for Copyright infringement for doing datafiles and putting them out there? doubtful. might they demand they be taken down? possible, depending on popularity.
There are a lot of completely valid arguments to be made that:
1. If we (meaning the community) provided a popular enough D&D Next datafiles, and anyone signed up for HeroLab to just get those data files (purchasing the authoring kit so they could use them), and they didnt previously have the authoring kit, that is money in the hands of someone for your own works, unlicensed.
2. I dont know if you remember back in the day, but PCGen had tons of datafiles for all sorts of 3.5 products. This was before Pathfinder even existed. Not sure if it was before HeroLab. You didnt even have to pay for them. WOTC shut them down hard when they were trying to develop their own "MasterTools" (which was a joke). (Ironically, i think some of the PCGen people did work later on for WOTC, but thats another story).
3. None of us, as far as I know, are copyright lawyers, and IP gets even more complicated, as I'm sure many of us remember the T$R days.
All these points are more just about debate: Do i think WOTC would sue anyone for Copyright infringement for doing datafiles and putting them out there? doubtful. might they demand they be taken down? possible, depending on popularity.
Last edited:
Yeah this could get you in big trouble. Depends what you do with the recording. (and im not talkin about giving away vs selling). Yes, technically you could read it aloud and record it, but once you distribute it (and that means to anyone) it likely goes beyond "fair use", and "fair use" has very little to do with profits.
Fair use has severe limitations. There is a very thin line between fair use and plagiarism. Once you cross that line you can get into serious legal trouble. There are reasons that you don't see much modern literature used in English classes, if you look at the approved listing of reading materials you will find most of the authors chosen are not currently living authors. They do this for a reason...
Makes sense. That was definitely my point. The only way to be sure if you can use it or not, is ask. In fact most copyright sites/attorneys suggest this. And it goes beyind just printed. A little bit beyond the scope of this discussion, obviously, but I could tell you horror stories what documentary filmakers go through trying to just show clips of things or use music in their documentaries, unless you happen to be someone with gobs of money like Ken Burns. Its another one of those "unless you have a ton of money for lawyers, you just dont risk it".
I also know the other side of things. I know both artists and authors who have been personally screwed.