BOEF no longer D20! Now it's OGL!

[Dr. Harry]

Alright, I'll throw my 2 cents into the ring.

I think the change in the lisence is hokey. Like many others have stated before WotC looks very hypocritical with this move after putting out BoVD. It's a shame that Valar had to be the first burned by this, but it was bound to happen sooner or later from the sounds of it.

How is this hypocritical? If there are consequences, WotC and D&D are the ones that lose out, so if anyone is going to test the line, it should be those whose IP's value is being (to whatever degree) is being put at risk.

 

[d4]

it gives the appearance of hypocrisy because it seems as if WOTC is saying, "We don't want D&D associated with this stuff PERIOD." however, D&D is already associated with some of the things that go against their "community standards" via the BoVD.

i admit that your interpretation of the license is probably far closer to WOTC's line of thinking than what i just listed above. however, i can also see that many, many people are going to interpret the new license in the above manner, thus WOTC's appearance of hypocrisy in their eyes.

[edit]
here's a question. suppose WOTC releases another "mature audiences" book which violates the community standards they have set for 3rd party publishers. they are free to do so, as you said, because it is their risk to damage their own brand image. however, what if the book sells well, does not raise any controversy, and does not hurt the brand image? are they then going to modify the license to allow 3rd party publishers to also publish things that go as far as WOTC's new book, since it has been proven that to do so will not hurt WOTC's bottom line? somehow, i doubt it. this is another way in which WOTC can appear to be hypocritical.

 

[WanderingMonster]

I think that the very fact that the book is called "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" should be enough of an indicator to parents that this is an "adult" role playing supplement and that they should not purchase it for their minor. And adults can make the choice themselves, without a "community standard" making the choice for them.

Well the title isn't a rock-solid indicator of content. It could actually be misleading depending on specific design choices, such as a sufficiently florid title font; it might look like Fhe Boor of Enofic Tanfasq. Of course parents might not buy a book with that title for other reasons.

 

[Pevishan]

All i have too say about the whole D20 license change, too rule out mature material, is....This is coming from the company that released and defended the BOVD! hmmm interesting too me, thats all.

And especially since Monte had to tell a strong "No" to increasing how vile the BoVD would be.

 

[Dr. Harry]

here's a question. suppose WOTC releases another "mature audiences" book which violates the community standards they have set for 3rd party publishers. they are free to do so, as you said, because it is their risk to damage their own brand image. however, what if the book sells well, does not raise any controversy, and does not hurt the brand image? are they then going to modify the license to allow 3rd party publishers to also publish things that go as far as WOTC's new book, since it has been proven that to do so will not hurt WOTC's bottom line? somehow, i doubt it. this is another way in which WOTC can appear to be hypocritical.

That is a good question, and the scenario is interesting enough to consider, keeping in mind that judging reactions would be entirely guesswork ...

I would guess that if any adjustment were to be made, it would be a recognition and fuller explanation of what the community standards are seen to be, something which would be helpful in any event.

I do not think that even in this case that WotC would change the policy, but I think that whether WotC would react to a 3rd party book would be if the 3rd party book overlapped the type & form of D&D book that WotC still produces. (I.e., a module or campaign guide would be less likely to trigger a reaction that a rule book of character options.

What I would consider hypocritical would be manipulating the timing of a license change to increase the harm done to any or all 3rd party publishers. I considered this the strongest grounds with which to criticize WotC until it came out that Valar were the ones attempting to manipulate the timing of the license change. I consider WotC's actions of releasing the change before it would have actually forced the destruction of material as an act of generosity.

Oh, and just a couple other things to the thread in general:

Because my last post was in response to Kanegrundar, it might be read (as I don't think that my response was as well-written as it should have been) as containing some disagreement with, or misunderstanding of, the points that Kanegrundar was trying to make. I apologize if that happened. I explicitly agree with Kanegrundar's second paragraph.

Also,

And especially since Monte had to tell a strong "No" to increasing how vile the BoVD would be.

I had not heard this. Given that Anthony Valterra was brand manager at the time BoVD was produced, this is not too surprising.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

[begin idle speculation]Valar is a small company, without a ton of start-up money. They would have been dead in the water if they had to pull all their books with the D20 license after they went to the printer. WotC knew what Valtarra and company were planning to publish, and his view of the "community standards" that were in the works while he was there. Isn't it possible that by putting out the changes to the d20 STL before the BoEF went to print, that someone at Wizards did Valar a huge favor? Rather than the timing of the license change being a spiteful act to "get" one company, which is how many people seem to view it, maybe someone at Wizards actually saved Valar from the legal action that they would have been forced to take? If they were really out to get him, they would have let the book get printed and THEN go after him, when he was the most vulnerable. Or not. [end idle speculation]

Don't be so sure that the release of the new D20 STL license or the pulling of Valar's license is a favor. Typically, a game book can often spend 4-6 weeks in "at the printer" status, the period of time between the moment the package with the manuscript enters the mailbox and the day shipments start going out to fill distributor orders. With BoEF originally slated for release sometime next month, it could have "gone to the printers" as early as mid-august. WotC knows enough that an october release date means that at this point, a small publisher would likely have received the books from the printer and would be in the process of picking orders for shipment to distributors. With the license pulled now, Valar would have to destroy all the books and eat the financial loses for printing and production, while eliminating the risk of any distributors or retailers refusing to destroy copies in their possession (WotC really has no power to force any distributors, retailers, or consumers to destroy the products they have already received from Valar). The only thing going for Valar is the fact that they probably don't use the "the month's releases come out in the first week of the month" rule that TSR has followed three days shy of forever.

Personally, I think Valar wasn't getting any favors in the timing, but was instead meant to be an example to the industry. But then again, I also enjoy conspiracy theories, so who knows?

 

[Ranger REG]

Please do not blame Anthony for something he worked hard to prevent before his departure from WOTC.

I still respect the guy. He's one of the old guards, including Ryan Dancey who proposed and drafted the original Open Game License and d20 System Trademark License.

The BOEF will go on, yes as OGL, but it will remain the same book otherwise.

I hope they will add the missing rules that were not needed under the d20STL. It's better to make it a standalone product without citing or referring to "company's player's handbook" often.

 

[Ranger REG]

With the license pulled now, Valar would have to destroy all the books and eat the financial loses for printing and production, while eliminating the risk of any distributors or retailers refusing to destroy copies in their possession (WotC really has no power to force any distributors, retailers, or consumers to destroy the products they have already received from Valar). The only thing going for Valar is the fact that they probably don't use the "the month's releases come out in the first week of the month" rule that TSR has followed three days shy of forever.

According to ICv2 web site ("Valar Explains d20 Revocation"), they're in the process of destroying what they have in their warehouse and are asking local retailers and distributor to destroy their product or have them return for destruction. I'm sure they could work out some kind of refund/reimbursement for the returned products.

While WotC cannot legally force distributors and retailers, they leave that up to the publisher to do the work. After all, it is Valar's problem, not the distributors'.

Personally, I think Valar wasn't getting any favors in the timing, but was instead meant to be an example to the industry. But then again, I also enjoy conspiracy theories, so who knows?

Well, there is no such thing as a bad publicity.