"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Jehosephat]

*sigh* Re-read the post I was replying too, please. "One book" does not transform D&D into Hustler, the RPG. There is plenty to pick apart in my posts without taking bits of them out of context.

- Anubis/Tiama'at

That is twice you have put words into my mouth. Will you PLEASE STOP. I never contended that one book does what you suggest.

 

[Xeriar]

This is kind of murkey. On several levels.

If WotC is willing to do this for one book for a certain specific reason, what keeps them from doing the same if another book, for whatever reason, becomes so overwhelmingly successful that they see it cut into their sales?

In that sense, it makes d20 look unstable. Far-fetched, sure, but this issue has come up twice.

The other issue is the legally murkey waters surrounding this. Saying nothing of estape and other legal mumbo-jumbo, it creates a grey line of arbitrary enforcement.

In addition, it gives the appearance that WotC has oversight over a great multitude of products, and that if something slips by for a few years, it has their approval.

Not taking sides yet, but... It just looks ugly and reactionary.

 

[Harlock]

There is an important legal principle in First Amendment law, that is that the argument that "Well, this law COULD apply to a lot of things, but we're only going to use if for really nasty stuff!" is bunk. In short, the assumption that an overbroad law is acceptable because, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we won't use it everywhere we can, is bogus.

Now, the 1A doesn't apply here, since this is a private contract, but that principle, as applied by those who judge the moral/ethical (as opposed to legal) standing of these changes, certainly does.

"We COULD screw mongoose...but we won't! Honest injun!" is bullcrap. And even if the person saying it meant it, it doesn't mean the next administration would abide by it. If the only justification you have for a grossly overbroad clause is "I'm sure they'll only use it against the bad guys!", then, you have no justification.

Does WOTC have the legal right to make this change? Sure.

Is the change moral, ethical, or supportable by anyone with any sense of decency or fair play?

No.

It's a direct attack on an ex-employee, and it strikes (as Ryan Dancey and others have noted) directly at the heart of one of the main benefits of using the D20 STL. It opens any and all D20 products to arbitrary and unjustified legal assault by WOTC at any point in the future, without any option to mediate or correct the breach. It is ridiculous, and the long term effect will be devastating to the D20 -- but not necessarily the OGL -- community.

WOTC screwed up, big time. If they are smart, they will pull back and rengineer this clause to be far less open ended. If they are NOT smart, expect to see OGL products outpacing STL products pretty quickly. Using the STL has simply become unsafe for *any* published, regardless of "adult" content, simply because of the subjectivity and overbroadness of this clause.

I agree with most of what you said. I do take exception with the part about "Is the change moral, ethical, or supportable by anyone with any sense of decency or fair play? No."

I think my sense of morality, ethics, decency and fair-play are fine. In fact, I think the ethics part is a question that should be directed at Anthony Valterra. Is it ethical to have inside information about a license and then use and exploit that information for profit at the cost of possibly hurting the other people benefitting from said license? Sure, if not hime, someone else would have but that's not an excuse. It was him, not osmeone else and he did have the inside track as to what was and what was not intended by the d20STL since he was the one calling the shots on it. And, I agree that WotC has screwed up by being overly vague and too open-ended. I aso agree that it's a much simpler decision to go with d20STL or OGL since if it were me, I'd like to avoid the legalese and potential for recall and just go the OGL route. "Compatible with Revised Third Edition Fantasy Roleplaying" is enough for me.

 

[Lizard]

Quality Standards have been added to the d20 System License because (rest deleted).

Sorry. Doesn't wash. 100% pure boilerplate which in no way explains, justifies, or excuses the sudden transition from a license which I reglarly defended against detractors who saw dark corporate conspiracies in every corner to a license which makes all of those conspiracies seem far more plausible. WOTC has given itself the arbitrary power to basically destroy any D20 publisher at whim. Speculation that such power will only be used "for niceness, instead of evil" is not sufficient.

At *best*, the clause needs a time limit on review and a mechanism by which a publisher can compel WOTC to review and provide a 'thumbs up/thumbs down' on any product prior to release and in a timely (<1 month, I'd say) manner. Otherwise, this clause is nothing but a time bomb, waiting to go off whenever any person -- for let us not forget, this entire fiasco is about revenge on one man -- annoys anyone at WOTC and/or Hasbro.

("Hey, that Lizard guy mouthed off to me online! Let's find some companies he's worked for and...heh heh...'review' their books for 'Standards'." )

 

[Simplicity]

No, not even in spirit, since censorship is restraint by a government body. [snip]

What I think you mean to say is that you think the US Constitution gives you the right to all the smut you can eat, and you hate to see private companies prohibit the pornification of their property because you like a world where nobody even privately says they think smut is undesirable.

Just a note... Might want to check your definitions there. Censorship doesn't require government involvement. dictionary.com says...

Censor: A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

Censorship: The act, process, or practice of censoring.

As for the right to smut, are you saying that I should NOT have
a right to "all the smut can eat?" Why not? How would I be harming society by eating smut?

And how am I supposed to corrupt our nation's youth without lots and lots of smut? I'll have to go back to getting them to worship devils with my Player's Handbook. Thanks a lot, WotC.

 

[Lizard]

Is it ethical to have inside information about a license and then use and exploit that information for profit at the cost of possibly hurting the other people benefitting from said license? .

What inside information? Seriously.

The full text of the OGL/STL has been publically available since May of 2000. The issue of "what about D20 Nazi:The Aryan or The Complete Pedophiles Handbook D20" was bandied about long, long, ago, and Ryan Dancey explained what was then WOTCs public policy as "We don't care. We won't be in the position of censoring books; that exposes us to liability." These were public statements, not backroom discussions.

If you know of other 'inside info' Valterra relied on, please, let me know, and I'll consider it and possibly change my mind. As far as my current knowledge goes, though, he didn't act on any info not available to anyone active in the D20 development community.

Prove me wrong.

 

[kbrennan]

As far as my current knowledge goes, though, he didn't act on any info not available to anyone active in the D20 development community.

Prove me wrong.

The only thing I can think of was the stunt with the press release. Everything else Valar did simply exploited loopholes in the license that I remember being discussed on the OGL lists some time before all this happened.

I don't think the sky is falling, and I imagine that most publishers will continue to use the d20 logo...but I do think this is a mistake on WotC's part, and I think it will force a lot of people to think carefully about using the d20 logo. While WotC has previously amended the license to prevent competition in certain areas (when they disallowed miniatures), that change was posted to the lists months before it was made. This is the first time a major change has been made without warning.

The SRD changes don't really count; publishers have been pretty free to use material removed from the SRD if a product was well underway (we were allowed to include some non-OGC material in Mindshadows, for example. I don't get the sense that a similar courtesy will be allowed to Valar.

 

[der_kluge]

Sometimes I think when WoTC created the whole d20 thing, that what they had in mind was that people would write up a bunch of modules for them, so that they wouldn't have to. I would imagine that even WoTC is quite surprised by the influx of really, really good crunchy rule books and campaign settings that have popped even since the inception of d20.

And as much as I think BoEF is a complete waste of money, and glossy paper, I think Valar has a right to publish it. I think WoTC is way out of line with this decision. I also agree with Psion (and Orcus, if you've been following his posts on the OGF lists), that we all need to be focusing our anger towards AV, not towards WoTC.

 

[Harlock]

What inside information? Seriously.
If you know of other 'inside info' Valterra relied on, please, let me know, and I'll consider it and possibly change my mind. As far as my current knowledge goes, though, he didn't act on any info not available to anyone active in the D20 development community.

Prove me wrong.

Well, I don't have tangible proof and never claimed to. What I do have is a brain that functions (admittedly sometimes over-actively which you can judge for yourself from my line of logic.) I do know Valterra is not a lawyer. I know he was a big cheese at WotC and that he would be in a position to know exactly how far he could push the d20STL without getting into legal trouble since he was pretty darn familiar with it. And, he did it. Yes, it is a public license, but AV was in a unique position to exploit it having and intimate inside knowledge of WotC and its operations, and I feel that's what he did. Again, no proof, just an instinct based on what I have seen, his reaction to the hype and his consistency in pushing the envelope for what appears to me, very little other than to "thumb his nose at WotC" to borrow the common phrase being bandied about in this thread. Also, as mentioned before he is really daring WotC to take action by claiming things like press releases are not advertising and making the Dungeons and Dragons name so prominent on his book. How would you expect WotC to react? They own D&D. They have every right to protect that IP. They own the d20STL and did a quick fix on it that I have said already is short-sighted and just wrong. There are, surely, muh better solutions to this but I have a feeling this isn't even close to being over. Egos are now involved on both sides. And, again, what sucks is that people are being dragged into it by way of using the d20STL rather than being mere spectators. WotC should stick to the high road and just come out and retract some of the more vague and ominous parts of version 5.0. Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.

 

[Crothian]

And as much as I think BoEF is a complete waste of money, and glossy paper, I think Valar has a right to publish it. I think WoTC is way out of line with this decision. I also agree with Psion (and Orcus, if you've been following his posts on the OGF lists), that we all need to be focusing our anger towards AV, not towards WoTC.

You say Valar has a right to publish it and the Wizards is way out of line, yet you still think we should be mad at AV?

I'm just curious if this will have any real effect on what we see. It seems to me that 90% of the companies out there at least have nothing to worry about with this.