Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Role Playing (Games) Patents

White Wolf Applying License to Indie Games 86

Posted by Zonk from the goes-over-like-a-lead-balloon dept.
Enigma23 writes "White Wolf, Inc. has decided to enforce a licensing system upon those who run their games in their World of Darkness. Here is the full text of the license. The Licensing process will force those who have not already joined the Camarilla, White Wolf's official fan club, to pay a yearly $20 fee. They're not going to go after games that don't charge money for the event, but the wording is such that they can legally sue those who don't comply even if they only charge enough money to cover costs. The practical upshot is that technically the WW Stormtroopers could raid your house merely if everyone chips in a few quid for pizza. This is evidently doubly so if anyone in your gaming group is under the age of 18, which is against the membership policy of The Camarilla. There is a further discussion on RPG.net about the various issues involved." The BoingBoing discussion is interesting, as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White Wolf Applying License to Indie Games More

White Wolf Applying License to Indie Games

Comments Filter:
  • Well then, I'd say pay the fee or move on to something else. Simple, eh?
  • That's not enforcable, and here's why. Of course, IANAL, so take it with a grain of salt, but this is what I believe things are like. The basic point is that there is no such thing as an EULA or something similar that could be used to dicate terms like this (or any terms really) to the reader/user/customer/consumer. The reason for that is that while, as far as I understand, the purchase of a piece of software is being interpreted as buying the right to use it, so to speak, not as buying anything tangible,
    • The reason for that is that while, as far as I understand, the purchase of a piece of software is being interpreted as buying the right to use it, so to speak, not as buying anything tangible, a book is different: you actually buy the physical book, and there is no license agreement between you and the author or publisher: the only contract is between you and the seller of the book.

      No. There's no actual reason to have EULAs. They're totally useless in that they offer no real advantage to developers, over
    • IANAL Not exactly,when you buy software you are buying a license to use it, but you are still (usually) getting the cd it is distributed on. same with a book. You may be buying the book, but you are purchasing the right to possess a copy of the author's work, distributed on paper. the paper itself is yours. the words on the paper are the copyright holders. you've essentially paid for a user license. anyone can read the Whitewolf books, subject to copyright law, without paying their crummy fee. If however, y
      • I think you really don't understand this. I blame licenses. They confuse the hell out of people, and they're pointless.

        Look: You cannot own a creative work. No one can. You can, OTOH, own a copy (i.e. a tangible object in which that work is present, such as a book) or a copyright, which is a right pertaining to the work, but is distinct from the work itself.

        When you buy a book, you own the book. No one owns the story. Due to your lawful possession of the book, you can read the story. It isn't necessary to
      • You may be buying the book, but you are purchasing the right to possess a copy of the author's work, distributed on paper. the paper itself is yours. the words on the paper are the copyright holders. you've essentially paid for a user license.

        IANAL either, but I have actually read USC17, and you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

        Copyright law concerns itself with one, and only one, thing: making copies. There is absolutely no such thing in US copyright law as a "user license".

        You are correct in that a pe
        • I have actually read USC17 ...

          Copyright law concerns itself with one, and only one, thing: making copies.

          Really? So did I just imagine 17 USC 106(2)-(6), 602, 905, 1101, 1201, 1202, and 1308?

          That's refreshing to know.

          Or maybe you should read Title 17 again, for real this time.

        • Copyright law concerns itself with one, and only one, thing: making copies. There is absolutely no such thing in US copyright law as a "user license".

          Tell that to anybody who has had a run-in with ASSCR^W ASCAP. You do seem to allude to this though.

          but I think WW is going to have a very hard time making [a public performance] argument against any LARP group that isn't specifically using scripts/modules produced by WW.

          True, a gameplay system itself isn't copyrightable, but does WW own patents?

        • "any LARP group "

          Q. Which games fall under this license?
          A. All White Wolf roleplaying games (traditional tabletop or live-action) regardless of setting. This includes all World of Darkness games, Exalted, Trinity, Scarred Lands and most anything else published by White Wolf, Arthaus Publishing or Sword & Sorcery Studios.
      • You own a copy. Copyright law limits your rights to an extent, but the limits are explicit, and generally only cover copying, broadcasting and public performance. You do have the right to read it, sell it and copy small portions of it for certain purposes, read it out loud to friends, lend it, and unless they make you agree to another contract, they can't limit your rights as a purchaser.

        Computer software is a little vague in that in order to use a copy you typically have to make another copy on your h

  • This seems pretty silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @07:53PM (#13017881) Homepage
    It's a dismal failure as a trademark license, given that 1) gamers are likely only engaging in nominative uses, which are perfectly legal and desirable anyway, and 2) there doesn't seem to be a quality control and auditing system, which actually jeopardizes WW's rights. They seem to be engaging in naked licensing, which is pretty bad.

    In the copyright realm, it's also pretty lousy. You can't copyright game rules (you need a patent for that), so all they can stand on is the setting. Merely playing the game doesn't involve reproduction, distribution, preparing derivative works, or actionable public display. You could argue public performance based on the setting, but I think it'd be insulated by fair use, if not estoppel.

    Personally, I'd ignore the hell out of them. Of course, the d20 license is stupid too -- if you're careful, it's perfectly legal to make unauthorized modules and such for the commercial market.
    • Of course, the d20 license is stupid too -- if you're careful, it's perfectly legal to make unauthorized modules and such for the commercial market.

      Yes, but it's harder. And you don't get the ability to copy at-will from certain of their rulebooks, and you don't get the feel-good sensation of contriuting to copyleft.

      And, to be pendatic, you're confusing the d20 System Trademark license with the OGL. The latter is the copyleft-inspired free-to-all one; the former is the one that lets you use the "d20 Sy
      • Yes, but it's harder.

        It's not significantly harder.

        And you don't get the ability to copy at-will from certain of their rulebooks

        But you can copy their rules, and given the merger doctrine, you can probably closely approach their expression, at a minimum.

        you don't get the feel-good sensation of contriuting to copyleft.

        Sure you can -- you can still just GPL the text, or whatever.

        And, to be pendatic, you're confusing the d20 System Trademark license with the OGL. The latter is the copyleft-inspired
        • Sure you can -- you can still just GPL the text, or whatever.

          GPL'ing a roleplaying game text has about as much utility as GPLing a contribution to the Mach kernel. Sure, you get to look down your nose at impure licenses, but you'll never see your work used anywhere else.

          They're both pretty useless, IMO.

          I didn't point out the other big, huge reason why the OGL makes sense. It's a "get out of court free" card. If hasbro wanted to, they could smack around a little guy in 1999 who tried to follow the l
          • It's a "get out of court free" card.

            Meh. Pen and pencil games aren't a huge profit sector. If you want to make money, there are better ways to do it. And I still wouldn't worry too much about attempted retribution, especially given 17 USC 505.

            But the more small uncopyrightable things you add together, the more copyrightable your creation becomes.

            Oh? Going for a compilation? I wouldn't be very confident about that. The gaming industry just isn't that creative. At the high level, where we are with compi
            • Meh. Pen and pencil games aren't a huge profit sector.

              Yes, exactly. All the more reason not to even chance it.

              Those are unrelated to what we're talking about, though.

              IIRC, a federal judge found not too long ago that a five-note chord that was unconciously inseted into a song was copyrightable infringement. It's exactly what we're talking about--the courtroom is not a certain place, and being able to stay far away from it is a worthwhile thing, the benefits of the OGL notwithstanding.

              The objective m
              • I wouldn't put my money on any court saying that they're not distinct.

                I didn't say that they don't have to lack distinctions. I said that compilations of rules in rpgs are without originality, generally. It's like phone books: the arrangement of names in alphabetical order by surname isn't original, and thus is unprotectable. A very creatively designed rpg might be able to avoid this, but I doubt it.

                Plus, there's still the point that copyright cannot apply to a system, method, process, etc. The method o
                • It's like phone books: the arrangement of names in alphabetical order by surname isn't original, and thus is unprotectable. A very creatively designed rpg might be able to avoid this, but I doubt it.

                  There's no cleverness requirement for copyrightability, AFAIK. There's a fair torrent of original ideas in RPGs these days--and, if the systems were ever copyrightable, then the long length of copyright and the lack of a duty to police mean that they're still enforceable.

                  D&D, Storyteller, and GURPS may a
                  • There's no cleverness requirement for copyrightability, AFAIK.

                    There is a constitutional originality requirement, which requires that copyrighted material possesses a modicum of creativity and that it originates with the author.

                    Compilations of uncopyrightable material can only be copyrighted themselves where they meet the requirements for a copyrightable work. This means that the selection and arrangement of rules must be at least slightly creative and that it must have stemmed from the author.

                    This is di
                    • No, you just have to come up with all-new descriptions. They cannot have a monopoly over the idea of an elf or a magician.

                      No, they can't. But they can have a copyright on a specific elf. Or a specific kind of elf. Or a specific, original, and named elven characteristic.

                      And, again, "writing it all over again" is the sort of work that just wastes time, when all you want is "D&D but with superheroes." (Not to mention the rather common sentiment that the OGL is a "good thing".)

                      That said...

                      Second,
                    • No, they can't. But they can have a copyright on a specific elf. Or a specific kind of elf. Or a specific, original, and named elven characteristic.

                      A character, yes. A kind of elf, that's dubious (see e.g. the Hobbit / Halfling thing). A mere characteristic, that's unlikely. Again, you're ignoring the idea/expression dichotomy.

              • IIRC, a federal judge found not too long ago that a five-note chord that was unconciously inseted into a song was copyrightable infringement.

                Get the full story here [slashdot.org].


    • Kangarooski?

      I dunno if anyone has ever said this - but thanks. Being a lawyer, admitting here in the unwashed masses and giving some real legal insight is darn helpfull. So, thank you for being you.

      Sera

  • ...although I'd love to see them try to enforce this.

    Been thinking of starting a campaign at the Friendly Local Gaming Store. Looks like D&D 3.5 it is, then.

  • Is this like some kind of stupid plague? (Score:3, Funny)

    by failrate ( 583914 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:08PM (#13017976) Homepage
    So, someone at White Wolf cottoned on to all of the patent and IP lawsuits going around and decided they wanted a piece of the pie. So, like I'm guessing some form of stupidity plague is pandemic in corporate offices (must be that nasty office air), like an airborne form of BSE. Otherwise, their legal department must be just an ordinary bunch of idiots.
  • Seriously, this is insane. Let's sell our products to the customer base, and then sue them for making use of said products. Brilliant /sarcasm.

  • First Sale Doctrine (Score:5, Informative)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:54PM (#13018173) Homepage
    They might want to look at Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus [wikipedia.org], a Supreme Court decision that said that a copyright owner can't impose arbitrary restrictions on the purchaser under the guise of a license.
    • Kudos for referencing Bobbs-Merrill. But that's not what it says.

      The Court said that copyright holders can't impose arbitrary restrictions on distribution (in the case it was a requirement that used copies be sold for a high minimum price) by virtue of their copyright.

      However, the Court did leave open the possibility that there could be a contract to that effect, and numerous courts have later found that EULAs and other licenses are perfectly enforceable.

  • I said it before and I'll say it again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit ( 891734 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @09:11PM (#13018238) Homepage Journal
    From the article: "In brief, White Wolf is requesting that those who wish to charge players to play White Wolf games (beyond standard fees at a convention) obtain a license to do so from us. We request this both in order to ensure we can provide a consistent level of support and play experience to those fans looking to play our games and in order to protect our rights in terms of trademark and so forth.

    "Q. All I charge my players is a share of the fee the facility where we play charges us. Do I still need this license?

    "A. Yes. Even though you aren't making a profit, you are still collecting and disbursing money -- money earned through the use of White Wolf games and settings."

    I said it before and I'll say it again: We need to seriously fix the problems caused by the notions of "Intellectual Property" soon or it will destroy our society faster than we think. Sure something like this is unenforceable and would be laughed out of court, but not until after having financially destroyed some poor gamers.

    And sooner or later some idiot judge (it seems like there are no other kinds these days) is going to side against common sense and start giving corporations the power to actually force their customers to do things like this.

    I know some people out there are going to somehow take this as a pro-piracy rant, or switch into "IP makes the world go round" mode, but this kind of crap has gone way, way too far for far too long. Intellectual Property laws have to be seriously reworked. If we keep going the way we've been going for the past few decades. We're going to self destruct as not only a nation, but as a society.

    • I do not charge a fee to play WW games. I charge a fee for our regular "Local Gaming Group" to cover admin costs for venue, newsletter, and assorted sundries.
      Occaisonally, we play WW games. Not every week.
      Do I need a licence? How often Do I need a Licence?What If i apply for a licence and then don;t play? What if we we'ren't going to play WW, but then do? Can I retroactively apply for a licecnce?

      Alternatively, can I ignore this ruling altogether?
    • Say it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true. This might be a bad move in terms of alienating WW's customer base, but it is NOT wrong in the sense of unethical or immoral.

      YOU want to create things and give them away for free, do it be happy and enjoy your choice. Just don't bitch because the rest of us want to feed our kids without having to be a factory worker or someone's peon. We work to create our IP and just because it's easier for you to steal it than it is to steal a physical object d
    • This will be very interesting to see how they enforce this during GenCon (or other cons for that manner). A small admissions fee is charged for each gaming event to cover the room, electricity, etc. I doubt all the groups running the WW gaming events have licenses. So is White Wolf going to shut down these games if they don't have licenses?

      I want to see WW enforcers come in with flamethrowers torching character sheets and kicking us out of the rooms. It would be the highlight of GenCon.
  • Actaully, it's not for every game, just every game that charges to pay, for bigger LARPs its pretty common to chip in $1 to cover the costs of the people running the game.

  • Cataclysms of dubious utility, requiring you to throw out all your old books, and buy new ones? Check!

    Sueing anyone who even mentions your games name in a sentence? Check!

    Sooo.... how long before Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast buys the miserable company and puts them out of our misery. Do they have to go bankrupt first? [wikipedia.org]

    Did Lorraine Williams, aka "the bitch," take them over? [bbc.co.uk]

    If anyone is looking for an alternative, the founders of Gothic Horror Rolplaying are still kicking! Chaosium, Inc. [chaosium.com]

  • Cross posting: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Friday July 08, 2005 @10:47PM (#13018617)
    This is what I posted over there... interested in seeing if it stays:

    There are only four things that White Wolf can hang this license: Patent, Copyright, Contract Law and Trademarks.

    Note... I'm not a lawyer, but I make a living off of software which means I have to deal with all of these issues all the time. That said, this isn't legal advice (if you plan on taking a legal action may I suggest you talk to your lawyer instead of using random Internet posts as your basis).

    Patent: If White Wolf had a patent on the rule system they have total control over the use of the same. A quick search of the patent databases show that they own nothing of the sort, so we can discount this as a "patent license".

    Copyright: Copyright covers a very limited (but powerful) set of controls. The long and short of it is that a copyright protects *replication* of a work. If a group were to recite the rulebook and fictional pieces therein, White Wolf would be within their rights to stop this from happening. However, as people in the board game industry painfully know, people *playing* your rules do not trigger copyright. (A similar thing happens in software: technically running software requires copying it into RAM... because this is required as a "fundamental step" to using the copyrighted materials this replication is permitted by law). Only patent can control game *rules* as ideas.

    TSR attempted this type of control, claiming that being compatible with or working with a given rule set made something a derived work back in the bad old days. They failed miserably, except at intimidation (you can't *afford* to fight this). To exert this kind of control would be akin to writing a text book on a subject and then saying "using this knowledge is forbidden unless licensed" (assuming the knowledge was not covered by a patent, which is independent). Copyright does not give this sort of control.

    In particular, the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._ Straus [wikipedia.org] is interesting because it shows that copyright law does *not* allow any restrictions (beyond replication) after the "first sale" of a work. The software industry has been angry for years about reselling "used" console games and rentals of the same (it cuts into profits *big-time*), but every lawsuit brought on the matter has fallen on the side of "no further restrictions beyond the first sale". The companies have tried the "you don't own this, you just license it" thing in the past will no effect... because of the doctrine of first sale. (Note, this limitation doesn't apply to big corporations who buy software in bulk: they actually sign a contract.)

    Contract: That brings us to contract law. When you bought the book, you didn't sign anything, so any claims based on contract law are nonsense. Even printing a contract in the book won't work... only if you *negotiated* a contract *as equals* (i.e., you have the ability to reject terms and negotiate) and then signed the contract would the contract be binding. "Click wrap" licenses in software are on some pretty shoddy legal basis themselves and have been successfully avoided in quite a few lawsuits and this "retrofitting" of a contract onto a book is absurd to contemplate in terms of contract law.

    Trademark: So that leaves us with trademark law. This seems to be what prompted the whole nonsense. Note the comment about "rights in terms of trademark and so forth"... trademark is the *only* framework that requires protection of rights to be proactive, so you can just delete "and so forth". (People who use the term "Intellectual Property" are talking about patent, copyright and trademark... there is nothing actually called "Intellectual Property" in law). However, if this is a trademark license then the whole issue can be safely bypassed by not *using* the trademarks in question. You can run a "Modern era live RPG featuring vampires"... even with White Wolf systems as the core
    • And here's where the trademark infringment is most likely to occur... the names of the race / clan / tribe / class / tradition / association / etc of the characters in the World of Darkness universe are all registered trademarks. So by saying a character is an "X", where "X" is a praticular character type that denotes specific abilities and/or limitations... such declarations of type cannot be made without violating their trademarks.
      • no, trademarks only apply to commerce, trademark law cannot be enforced like copyright or patent law, only company names and products either sold or given away for free can be targeted by trademark law. so you couldn't sell a product or service named after a character in the book but you can use the names and races for just about anything that is not labelling or advertisement.

        • Re:Cross posting: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cei ( 107343 )
          But isn't the point of this that they're cracking down on people charging to play games? By doing so, they're creating a service that incorporates use of the trademark, aren't they? I know, probably a stretch. Just trying to pre-guess what angle they're using.
          • Yes... but trademark does not distinguish between for profit and not for profit uses. If they're going to require licensing in some cases, they really need to require licensing in all cases- even when no money changes hands.
            • You're half right. Trademark does not distinguish between for-profit commercial use and non-profit commercial use. (For example, the Red Cross still has to get permission to use another company's trademark. Likewise, a DM who only takes up money for the pizza makes no money, but still engages in commerce.)

              But the purpose of trademark is to ensure that no unscrupulous person makes money off your company's good name. (This is why your trademark application includes a specific description of the goods and
              • I acknowledge that- I wasn't clear. I was assuming "commercial use" under trademark law, for-profit or not-for-profit, which is what I think WW is arguing. I agree, though. It's their license. They don't have to charge anything. Holy cow, a free license? Whoever heard of such a thing on Slashdot. ;)

      • How does the fact that they've adopted terms from folklore affect this? An obvious example would be the use of the word "Nosferatu", which most certainly pre-dates WhiteWolf in the entertainment industry.

    • The long and short of it is that a copyright protects *replication* of a work.

      It covers more than that. See, e.g. 17 USC 106. If anything, they're looking at public performance, not reproduction.

      (A similar thing happens in software: technically running software requires copying it into RAM... because this is required as a "fundamental step" to using the copyrighted materials this replication is permitted by law).

      You shouldn't rely so much on 17 USC 117. It only applies when you own a copy of the softw
      • Could you publicly announce what law firm you work for so I can avoid ever accidently employing you?

        "Again, you don't grasp the situation. Clickwraps are generally upheld, adhesive contracts are virtually always upheld, equal bargaining positions as a necessity for formation is absurd on its face, and agreement doesn't require a signature. You need to get yourself educated."

        My lawyer laughed... and she doesn't find much amusing. Only the seventh and eighth circuits subscribe to your views and not even ful
        • Only the seventh and eighth circuits subscribe to your views and not even fully themselves.

          There has also been agreement in NY and CA districts, and possibly more, though I'd want to hit the books. Additionally, that's under the regular UCC Art. 2. I'm not talking about 2B (and only 4 states have anti-UCITA legislation, so they're not a big factor anyway), though that does bring up enforceability in VA and MD, and then we might start seeing some choice of law clauses.

          you see "adhesive contracts" and lac

          • Re:Cross posting: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Godeke ( 32895 ) *
            I think we are more in agreement than I initially thought, although my expression of some of the concepts isn't up to par with someone who plies the trade, so to speak.

            In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one. There have been cases of enforcement, but more because (at least in the cases I have seen) the EULA wasn't the critical aspect of enforcement of rights: copyright law as a whole was the key. In
            • In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one.

              I don't see the purpose of them at all. Copyright law is more than generous to software developers, but still has enough in it that users can get by. If you're doing custom development, you need real contracts anyway, and the software hardly needs more.

              I do still see the fact that used and rental software are available as a red flag that EULAs are not the s

              • Re:Cross posting: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Godeke ( 32895 ) *
                I think that brings me up to speed on the issue. As a last question: this change has been published on a website. Owners of the books who don't frequent the web would seem to be enjoying the original rights (the implied right to actually play the game as published, even if no actual license was included in the book). Since the books are sold at retail, it would appear that "the cat is out of the bag" as far as attempting to append a license to the product.

                They can wrap future books in packaging that requir
                • Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement pe

  • Defiance (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    After hearing about WW new policy, I will be starting a new WoD LARP. Only non-Cam-members allowed and the fee is $300US per night. This will mainly cover the costs for:

    1) booze
    2) bribes to local law
    3) a pack of glow-in-the-dark condoms with the WW logo on them
    4) an underage goth of the appropriate sex to pleasure you or take your place in a game that you didn't want to play anyway.(They won't be paid, they're doing it for the angst)

  • Easy Solution: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09, 2005 @02:04AM (#13019355)
    "The practical upshot is that technically the WW Stormtroopers could raid your house merely if everyone chips in a few quid for pizza."


    "We don't need to pay you royalty fees."


    WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "We don't need to collect their royalty fees."


    "These aren't the sourcebooks you're looking for."


    WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "These aren't the sourcebooks we're looking for."


    "We can go about our roleplaying."


    WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "You can go about your roleplaying."


    "Move along."


    WHITE WOLF STORMTROOPER: "Move along. Move along."


    RPGer: "I thought we were dead."


    "The Kindred hold many powers over assholes and the weak-minded."

  • Is this licence going to be printed in the front of each rule book/suppliemnt?
    If I buy a rulebook without this licence in it, and they come after me for fees, where do I stand?
    Can a company distribute a product with no restrictions noted in it, and then come after me for not abiding by a licence I never agreed to, never saw and was not even aware of?
    • As one smart slashdotter noted above, they can spell their license out on the front cover, but it will not make it legally binding. When you are buying a book in the game store, that is all you are doing -- buying a book. The cover may say "By buying this book you agree to pay $20 per year to play" or "Top Secret, Burn Before Reading", but this cannot have any legal consequences for you. From what little I understood, the only sure way to enforce this license would be to have you sign a contract at the POS.
  • Haven't looked at their stuff recently, but I remember that WW games used to focus somewhat on a coming apocalypse. Something tells me there are going to be a lot of cataclymic world-destroying final sessions of ongoing campaigns the night before this goes into effect. They *may* be within their rights to do this (debateable) but I can't imagine it's going to help sales any.
  • ...that no one else came to the conclusion that this is a way for WW to milk more money out of the masses that do LARP and other WW tabletop games at conventions. Think about it. Say you've got ten WW sessions going every day for three days at SuperUberMegaCon. That's 30 sessions. Figure a minimum of five unique people per session (and I'm lowballing here because we know there are more than 5 people in any LARP) and you're looking at WW pulling a quick three grand for doing nothing more than having thei
    • If you read it, Cons are excluded.

      It's the death-knell for monthly non-camarilla games that need to rent a space to have room to play.

      Though what defines a con is up for discussion.
      • Convention games are excluded if they don't charge anything in addition to the convention fee.

        So convention based TT games are exempt.

        Convention based TT charity games (which usually charge $2-$5+ extra for the charity) are not exempt.

        Most convention LARPs, which charge a fee for their game on top of the convention entry fee, are not exempt.
        • I stand corrected. I was not aware that convention based games charged extra.
          • Yeah, many of the indy-con based LARPS have to, to cover printing costs, props, and sometimes (but not always) a fee to the convention for space.

            It usually isn't a large fee, but I have seen convention games, usually for charity, which were targetted towards 'high-end' or experienced players, where $5 got you into the game, and each additional dollar got you 10 additional XP on your character.

            I've seen people drop $50 on one of these games to play the uber-godlike vampire with all the cool powers.

            Of cour
  • Having been a Cam member for almost six years ... it's not our fault. We had nothing to do with the decision. I personally don't like it, think it's a major mistake, and hope they just drop it. I also realize they're not likely to do that. I won't quit, but I very well might not renew if things don't get resolved.
  • You know, Whitewolf has time and time again shown that they are not in the least bit concerned about bending their EXTREMELY loyal and fanatic fanbase over and raping them for all they're worth.

    LARP has become a huge hit with the WW crowd, and part of the reason is because it is dirt cheap.

    WW recently fucked up by introducing the new Vampire setting which the vast majority of players HATE, and now this? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the big LARP groups like One World by Night (OWBN) drop WW like a ba

  • They've made a clarification to address some concerns.

    http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=19702 &highlight=&sid=0a53b7694d3e1fadb446865c5f388f84/ [white-wolf.com]

    "I understand that Storytellers regularly incur expenses during games (tabletop, LARP or what have you), and I understand the desire to recoup some of these expenses. I also realize that most of the people who have been charging for play in their games are doing so simply for that reason. We also have no intention of stopping a Storyteller fro

  • Here's a big finger for White Wolf and their bullshit posturing. There is no legal basis for the enforcement on these "rules", not to mention that they've phrased it as a request.

    The only relevant law in this case is Copyright. By using their legal monopolgy, a Copyright owner can force you to agree to the terms of a license in order to use their products (or simply not sell you the product), BUT:

    1. That only applies when the license is agreed up-front, as part of the contract of sale;

    2. That does no

  • I love the fact that this was posted by White Wolf's Director of Marketing. I'm sure he was trying to figure out how to get more people to sign up for fan club membership, and, oh hey, there you go -- tell people that they have to. That will work great.

    It's also great that they try to tell you that they're doing this in order to "maintain" a "consistent quality of product." Oh right. And yet, "Camarilla membership does not mean Camarilla oversight or management." But, you know, as long as White

    • Re:Ha! (Score:1)

      by mink ( 266117 )
      "It's also great that they try to tell you that they're doing this in order to "maintain" a "consistent quality of product." Oh right. And yet, "Camarilla membership does not mean Camarilla oversight or management." But, you know, as long as White Wolf has more of your money, I'm sure your gaming experience will be better."

      Considering the attitudes and behavior of Camarilla in the games (computer, books, etc) it it at all a surprise?

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close