"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[bbarrington]

No Nipples???

No nipples? So does this mean my character, Eric the Barbaric, the bare-chested Barbarian Cleric, has to wear pasties???

 

[Cergorach]

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.

Why? When you make rules you make sure that there aren't any loopholes. AV is just working withn the presented rules framework. WotC is also within it's rights to change the license, and it did so, but in an unreasonable fashion. WotC could even go so far to say that anything that's better than their own product isn't allowed anymore.

As for the 'spirit' of the license, that's so much 'krap'. Rules are there to be worked within, not within a different perceived rules set. You release a rules set to a potential 5 billion users, there are bound to be people that don't perceive the 'spirit' of the license the same way as some here. These people are not wrong, they don't deserve anger, they are within their rights to have a different oppinion than you.

WotC, or at least some elements, did release the Book of Vile Darkness. Then a few months later WotC says happily we don't want such 'krap' in a license that we control. That's called hypocracy. I can also see that BoVD was developed by elements at WotC that are now gone, but i can't imagine that the higher elements would suddenly have such a big change of heart...

Now i highly doubt that WotC will change it's license for the better (such as the ridiculous revocation responsibilities in case of breach), and i predict that a lot of the more established companies will drop the D20 logo like a rock (not even Mongoose can afford to recall a product and destroy it).

 

[Aaron L]

Now, I'm not getting freaked out about all this. I'll just say that it's a step in the wrong direction. A teeny, tiny, kobold size step, but even the longest journeys begin with small steps.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Hrm. I'm of mixed opinions on the whole matter.

On one hand, I think a move like this on the part of WotC is bad mojo. The policy is open-ended and rather dangerous and just puts a bad flavor on the d20 community as a whole.

Honestly? I think there is a market for "adult" fantasy products. If done properly. I think D&D should have some "adult" products. When I say "adult" I mean more in the vein of Conan the Barbarian and other gritty heroes of yore. Including a little constructive wenching.

What does D&D NOT need? Sex feats, a "maintaining sex" skill, etc etc. I stopped off by the BoEF Valar site and, frankly, didn't really like what I saw too much. In one line they talk about aproaching "adult" material in an "adult" way and being as corporate and professional as they can be. Then a link away they talk about the staffs', ahem, "bedroom aids" and penchants for roleplaying "at the table and in the bedroom". And (though I can see good reasons for it) you have to "sign up" to see the "previews" from the book. On the whole, the tone and content reminded me of a porn site.

Then again, that business model is one of the few purely online forms of commerce that is turning a profit, and a huge one. Nookie -sells-.

Still other things I find problematic. The big "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front ... the flaunting nature of that just isn't cool.

If Valar wanted to be taken seriously, they'd have produced an "adult" product that sold itself on more than pornographic humor. Had there been a grim "violent" setting book, a dark-world setting, or something like that using their photo-art (even with nude or provocative models) I would have taken them seriously. Honestly? I might have even bought something like that. A serious 18+ setting book, fully fleshed out, with hot models and burly guys with swords hacking apart insane cultists.

So, honestly, I think Valar ruined it for everybody. They came by and took a leak in the swimming pool because they could, and now a lifeguard is on duty making sure nobody is running or jumping or playing water-chicken. Had they been more intent on making an "adult" adult product and downplaying the D20 (instead of trying to embarass WotC by putting "Dungeons And Dragons" as big as they could on the front) maybe WotC wouldn't have had a problem with it. Even if they had, I think if Valar were a serious company, they'd realize that a good product would sell on its own merits under OGL and not force WotC to take this sort of step just to keep one product from being made.

--fje

 

[Mercule]

And it's not one book. They've done it twice so far. The first time was the removal of monsters from the "gentleman's agreement" SRD. Remember the gentleman's agreement?

Is this what you _really_ think? Because it's pretty much backward from the reality of the "gentleman's agreement".

The "gentleman's agreement" was a good faith act on the part of WotC. They certainly didn't have to put out any portion of the SRD before final review. Instead, they decided that they really wanted 3rd party designers to be able to get the ball rolling. So they went ahead and published their "draft" version, knowing full-well that the exact contents might change upon review.

They didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Right from the outset, they said that not everything in there may make the final cut. When it did come down to, though, they let outside projects in motion continue. Seems pretty gentlemanly to me.

In fact, most of what WotC has done regarding D&D seems quite gentlemanly. Of course, they are a corporation and are motivated by profit. Of course, when it comes right down to it, they do things for their own best interest, not ours, not the hobby's. Still, they've been cooler about it than TSR ever was since Gary was at the helm.

IMHO, this change to the d20 license is rather heavy-handed and ungentlemanly. The fact of the matter is that the can of worms has been openned. Even if they remove the clause now, there is nothing to keep them from including again if something else rubs them wrong, or if they simply cease to care about being "gentlemanly". I've already stated, in a previous post, what I think the solution to that event is.

That all said, I tend to agree with some others that AV and Valar are very much in the wrong. I find the idea of the BoEF to be somewhat repugnant, and really have no interest in owning it. It's one of those things that the only reason I'd even flip through it is because I'm open-minded enough to realize that I might have the wrong idea. I can _fully_ understand why WotC would want to distance themselves from it. I'm not sure if I agree with even the spirit of how they chose to do so, though. They should have just tacked on a required disclaimer rather than open themselves up by reviewing everything.

The part that I find most objectionable, though, is the huge font the book uses for "Dungeons and Dragons". I was completely unaware of this before reading this thread, and haven't actually seen it. I cannot imagine a legitimate reason for making the font that large though. To avoid personal slurs, I'll just say that I really don't hold AV in very high regards at this point. Regardless of how much of a generally nice guy he may be, or how good he is in business, I refuse to take him serious in the gaming arena any more.

Either the font trick or releasing the BoEF as his "establishing" freelance project are enough to knock him down to a minor player in my book. Both of them are enough for me to completely discount him.

It's been said that enmity is better than apathy -- at least they're still thinking about you with enmity. Well, I really can't say that I have anything more than apathy for his projects anymore. I just hope that he doesn't do something else abominably stupid -- something that really does have a serious backlash.

 

[Felon]

Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand. If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.

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.

I think it's a bit puerile to villainize anyone in this matter.

True, WotC's wasn't mean-spirited in its actions. It just wasn't very smart, for all of the reasons that Ryan Dancey covered so eloquently. Now that they've made themselves a liable party, they have to have someone on their payroll to scrutinize every single D20 product that comes down the pike. If they're actually willing to get litigious in order to force one guy to destroy his products and cost him thousands, then that guy's lawyers can dump a bunch of Mongoose books in front of the judge that WotC didn't consigned to the pyre and the judge is likely going to ask WotC to explain where they draw the line.

And Valar? He's no villain either. He wanted to publish an adult-oriented fantasy product. I'm an adult, as are my fellow gamers, and many of us cut our teeth on "sallacious" sword-n'-sorcery fantasy a la Heavy Metal and Gor, and the lurid pulp fantasy of fellows like Fritz Leiber. Maybe it's something we can use, maybe not. I have yet to see anyone provide a calm, rational, intelligent explanation of what's so terribly wrong with that. And no, "I don't want to see boobies in D20 games" is not a rational, intelligent explanation of why other adults shouldn't be free to see them.

I tell ya, it is quite depressing to hear how many folks react like something pure and innocent is being ruined here, like the idea of treating fantasy as if it could possibly be something other than PG-rated kiddie fare full of talking cats, squeak-clean heroes, and kenders is an anathema. It's like going to Vegas and watching all the rugrats running around. Some folks don't know what they missed out on in decades past.

 

[Baastet]

One question...

All censorshp issues and hypocrisy issues aside...

I have one question/conjecture. I am wondering how much of this has to do with the recent crackdown by the Justice Department on "Public Decency" issues? Was it even a factor or is WoTC just acting in a retailiatory way to a former employee who decided to "get back" at his former employer?

Well actually I have a second and third question too... How much is this going to affect the prices of books? All the new hoops that publishers have to jump through to meet WoTC's standard have to eventually efect our pocketbooks (In any other business it does so what's different about this one.)

Third what does WotC consider a "real-world" religoin? The Church of the Jedi is recongized as a religoin, so is Wicca. Where do they draw the line? Or are they only talking about christian based religions?

This is an uninformed opinion and please response since I would really like to understand. ^_^

Baastet a.k.a Da Kitty Goddess
(edited for typos and clarificaiton)

 

[der_kluge]

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.

Well, yes! I mean, I'm really torn with this one. One the one hand, I do resent AV for what he's done, since he's obviously spoiled the fun for everyone involved, but I'm also opposed to what WoTC is trying to do. In the end, though, I would prefer that WoTC not try to stop AV from publishing his book. I don't think it's necessary.

But like you said, it's likely that this won't really affect anyone, so it seems kind of heavy-handed to implement rules just because of one book, that likely wouldn't have done very well anyway. Well, that was yesterday. BoEF's sales potential probably just went through the roof today.

 

[Hill Giant]

The cycle begins again

I didn't want to believe it, but all signs point to WOTC/Hasbro becoming the next TSR.

Hopefully, when WOTC starts losing money, there will be another small company with a big idea to bail them out. (Going on previous gaming cycles expect the next big thing around 2013.)

(On the other hand, I had to agree to maintain similar standards when I signed up for this message board...)

 

[ACValterra]

Wizards has consistently shown good will and a sense of fair play, and any perception to the contrary is due solely to anti-corporate, anti-Hasbro paranoid delusions.

Wulf

Wulf is absolutley correct. When I was in charge of the d20/OGL license and the D&D brand we were very liberal and very forgiving. In the three years we never asked a single company to destroy product. Numerous times people came to us saying that they had created a product and only after it was done realized that they had inadvertently used material that was not part of the SRD. In every case we gave them permission. We allowed numerous companies to license material that we were not planning on reissuing to make small sub sets of fans happy. And we bent over backwards to make the d20 network an easy place for companies to be creative.

I doubt that anyone - even those d20 publishers who are saying things about me that are in violation of the new WotC Quality Standards (what is it with all the potty references, peeing the pool, taking a dump??) would bad mouth my administration of the license itself during my tenure.

Of course I am no longer there. In fact of the original team that put out the d20/OGL license (Ryan Dancey, Keith Strohm, Cindi Rice, Jim Butler, David Wise, Doug Steves and myself) the only ones left are...
Oh I guess no ones left.

AV