Played some VTES with Paradox

BenPeal wrote:

It's that last bit that's tricky with respect to whether it triggers a lawsuit from Wizards, and that is a probable deal-breaker for potential publishers. If we can't find a publisher for that concept, then we really need to look at making a new, non-V:TES-compatible game.

I guess that would make many players, including me, very sad. I cannot imagine myself plunging into another CCG, since VtES remains the only one I play regularly and truly care for.

I would probably stay with the status quo and just wish all the luck and perseverance to those courageous enough to enter the new WoD-themed CCG era.

Somehow the contact-Richard-Garfield idea gives me some hope...

BenPeal wrote:

Trust me, I've been thinking about it for months now. The thing is, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure most people here are completely opposed to the idea of a reboot of the game, particularly one that is incompatible with V:TES.

To be completely honest with you all, my personal preference is to relaunch V:TES as follows:
- overhauled rules so that things finally make proper mechanical sense
- a smaller card base that we can re-expand into over time
- in line with Paradox's One World of Darkness vision and direction
- new icons, card backs, and whatever else is needed to cut out Wizards entirely
- remains compatible with existing V:TES

It's that last bit that's tricky with respect to whether it triggers a lawsuit from Wizards, and that is a probable deal-breaker for potential publishers. If we can't find a publisher for that concept, then we really need to look at making a new, non-V:TES-compatible game.

You could take a careful step forward and attempt to get a few existing cards (staple cards or cards you want to errata) into a PDF set whilst trying to involve WotC. See how the interaction with WotC goes on that and refrain immediately from adding them to the set when WotC gets agitated. You might spark some interest from WotC or at least know where they stand.

Otherwise proceed with PDF sets whilst creating a new WoD card game letting go of "rebooting vtes" and include WoD in it's entirety. Something that can live side by side with Vtes, is equivalent but entirely different so that people can alternate between card games without feeling they are playing an inferior or superior version of Vtes.

Ashur wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

So it appears at this stage that anyone who wants WotC's consent for a revamp/republish/continuation is probably out of luck - unless you can find someone reasonably senior at Hasbro/WotC who'd be willing to take the project on and is likely to stick around for, say, the next three to five years.

I don´t really get this thing, how do you mean? I´m sure nobody thinks WotC should be an active part in this. We just want them to promise not to sue anyone.

I'd imagine that OBS would have suggested a "We do all the work - no, literally, all the work, you don't have to do anything, ever - you give us a license to use any IP you might have remaining, we give you some money" arrangement during negotations. That license would be the promise not to sue anyone.

Big companies can get extremely anal about your usage of their intellectual property, however small and insignificant it might look to you, and often like being able to veto anything they want. Shareholders, for example, may ask why you're giving away intellectual property rather than monetizing it. There can be perfectly good reasons for "giving things away" - to wit, the Open Gaming License in D&D 3/3.5 - but you (or your accountants, or your lawyers, or your auditors) might care not to have that discussion.

Additionally, if no-one at WotC / Hasbro has any interest in V:TES, when they want to check that you're staying within the terms of the agreement, it's hard for them to check because they don't understand the game.

There are then still potentially interesting questions like "I want to reprint Mariana Gilbert(*) - who owns the art rights to her?" which could eat up expensive lawyer time.

(*) Mariana and Dan didn't make the Tenth Anniversary tins, but it could beany card not reprinted by WW, where either we know someone apparently signed off letting WW use that art or WW used some new art. Using new art for reprints of existing vampires is kinda annoying, though.

With OBS not interested in getting VTES back to print anymore, are there anyone out there who knows something about serious companies/ people who are actively trying to ressurect vtes? Or it's more a "lets see if Paradox will come up with something" situation?

BenPeal wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Perhaps the PoD idea with OneBookself.com should be presented to them?

I already spoke with Steve Wieck of OBS about it back in...I think it was early December, but I'd have to check my emails. The trouble for OBS with respect to V:TES is that OBS presently has a very significant arrangement with Wizards to publish D&D, including all of the new open license material offered by Wizards.

Ah,
I never meant they should ignore/bypass Wizards!

I thought that with the new owner of the IP, who has also expressed interest to specifically do something about VTES (and one likely to have some serious lawyering force with them), that there would be a way better chance of getting WotC seriously talking about the deal with OBS PoD.

First - we need to hear Paradox position on the subject.

If it'll be indecisive, than I think VEKN has to take responsibility in its hands, because nobody else will.

Not directly, obviously, having even vague, but possible, threat of lawsuit, but by establishing some Ltd. entity, which then will be main "face" of all card printing operations. It must have minimal assets so the loses, if everything'll go downhill, will be minimal.

I can try to do something like it in Russia (let them try to sue us here, lol), but I think logistics and administrative cost of shipping cards to main play "zones" will be too high. Somewhere in France, Germany, Netherlands or Sweden?

Obviously we have to change all WotC IP like icons, logos and maybe even card backs and name of the game.