Ranger REG said:
Sorry, I don't buy it.
As for violating the spirit of the law, I never considered D&D a "clean" game for children, especially when Wizards' key target demographic are college-age group, and earlier editions of AD&D have questionable artwork, like a topless mermaid. The idea for d20/OGL is for publishers to make whatever niche products that Wizards can't publish to fill in the gap in the d20 gaming community.
I'm not strictly referring to the subject matter of the BoEF. I'm referring to
everything I have seen done with regard to the BoEF. I'm referring to their "press release" sprinkled liberally with "Dungeons & Dragons (TM)" (among other trademarks). I'm referring to Valar's response to the hue and cry among publishers that they violated point seven of the Open Game License with the line, "well, technically, a press release isn't considered
marketing so it's okay." I'm referring to them doing the small font size/large font size trick with the "
This book requires the use of the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS Player's Handbook" (or whatever the exact phrase is).
All of these "twists" of the spirit of the license had long been discussed on the OGF-L boards among publishers. Everyone knew the loopholes were in there (well, perhaps not the "press release != marketing" try), but it was pretty much concluded that it would be exceedingly bad form to try to exploit them and that doing so would draw the wrath of WotC and provoke changes in the license. In other words, the publishing community at large knew exactly where to kick the sleeping giant to wake it up and put it in a bad mood... and everyone agreed it was a bad idea to do so because doing so would damage everyone. In fact, I remember one of my own posts on the board to someone who wouldn't stop harping on the possibility... to the effect of, "look, everyone here has dismissed this idea as a bad business decision and one that will draw the ire of the entire community except you - why are you so worried about it unless you are pondering an attempt at it yourself?"
Anthony Valterra, as the person in charge of enforcing of the license, probably had more opportunity to become familiar with the ins and outs of it - and knew
exactly where to kick the sleeping giant. When he and WotC parted ways, he immediately proceeded to go out and kick the giant in exactly the ways that everyone else had been speciously avoiding. He shouldn't be surprised that everyone's upset with him - since everyone else had already said to themselves, "well, we
could kick the giant, but doing so would be eminently foolish and would result in severe collateral damage to others."
To use another metaphor, everyone made sure to light their fires well away from the puddle of gasoline in the middle of the parking lot. Then Valar walked in and deliberately dropped not a match, but several burning torches right into the middle of it.
Yes, WotC's reaction is overkill. However, it was a reaction that was in fact foreseen by most of the publishing community, who were quite careful not to try to trigger it. That the person who used to hold the hammer is the one who made (to the appearance of an uninformed outsider) a deliberate, and calculated attempt to simultaneously kick the sleeping giant in the eyes, nose, mouth, and groin makes it all the more unpalatable.
I may consider Disney as a label that is too clean to be on any PG-13 rated films or worse, but D&D or in this case, d20 logo?
As for the letter of the law and exploiting loopholes, up until version 5.0, there is nothing there with regards to the acceptable quality of the content, just the rules mechanics and game defined terms. Wizards should have just stick with that.
I have always considered D&D and d20 as a PG-13 rated logo... because the game is played by adolescents (perhaps not predominantly so, but as I recall from a poll I ran here a few years ago, the VAST majority of ENWorlders who responded were under 18 when they were introduced to the game - meaning that in my eyes, the game needs to be suitable for the age of first introduction - teens, hence, PG-13). That's my own opinion, and I know others disagree... and have every right to. I simply contend that the game really cannot be "D&D" without some PG-13 elements - but CAN be "D&D" without R elements - those same elements that made, for instance, the Lord of the Rings PG-13 - but you'll note that the movies did not suffer (IMO) for lack of inclusion of R-rated material (if someone would like to suggest R-rated material that would have appreciably improved the movies, I think that's a discussion for another thread) - but taking out the PG-13 elements ("epic violence") would in fact, have killed the story. There's no doubt that "dark and gritty D&D" could probably be R, but "D&D" as I know it can probably be done in PG-13 with little loss of quality.
But I'm digressing here. I agree that WotC *should* have stuck to keeping "quality control" out of things. However, by doing so, they would have to allow the person who was busy slapping at every loophole he could find to publish with impunity. I think there was some ego involved on BOTH sides. AV could have published the BoEF without trying to exploit - and loudly so - every loophole in the license. For that, HE bears some of the weight of blame. If he simply wanted to publish the BoEF, he did not need to resort to trying to drag the D&D (note: NOT d20) name into it every chance he got (in the press release, using the font trick, etc.). Again, I can't tell you AV's intentions, as I have no camera inside his head, but from the outside, it looks like he has been involved in some sort of ego assuagement as he has gone
far out of his way in trying to link his product to D&D (and NOT so much d20). Then I think some ego assaugement came into play at WotC - so they changed the d20 license in the only way they could to really make a hard slap at him - by adding the content clause.
Yes, WotC's reaction was overkill. But it's the same way my reaction of grabbing and repeatedly punching my younger brother was overkill when I was ten and he was eight and he had just finished bad-mouthing, teasing, and provoking me for three hours. Yes, my action was probably overkill, but it was not unprovoked nor inexplicable.
Would it have been different if it wasn't Valterrra and the BoEF? It could have been just another publisher using the d20 ruleset to make an adult-themed RPG with a d20 logo attached to it. Even I myself predicted that someday, someone is going to make such an RPG.
Mongoose's Nymphology provoked no such reaction from WotC. Why not? Because it was not taking every opportunity it could, and using every loophole it could find to say, "this is a D&D product!" (again, NOT a d20 Product).
I think it would have been different if AV and Valar had not tried to drag "D&D" through the mud again and again. If AV had just been like every other publisher and said, "I'm releasing a d20 book. It will deal with X" (and in his case X was sex in RPGs), I think WotC would have ignored it.
I felt from the beginning, that AV was not saying, "I'm releasing a d20 book that deals with Sex In RPGs." I saw AV saying, "I'm releasing a d20 book which is compatible with
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and which by the way
IS ALL ABOUT SEX and did I mention it can be used with
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS because we need
MORE SEX RULES for
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and as a d20 product, this
SET OF SEX RULES is compatible with the rules used in
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS."
I think if AV had chosen the former, then we'd be all right - but he chose the latter course, despite the general consensus that even doing something like "I'm releasing a d20 book which is compatible with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONSand which by the way IS ALL ABOUT PRESTIGE CLASSES and did I mention it can be used with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS because we need MORE PRESTIGE CLASS RULES for DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and as a d20 product, this SET OF PRESTIGE CLASS RULES is compatible with the rules used in DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS." The inclusion of "SEX" instead of "PRESTIGE CLASSES" certainly offended WotC/Hasbro's corporate sensibilities even more than would have "PRESTIGE CLASSES," but I have to think even "PRESTIGE CLASSES" would have drawn WotC's corporate ire when used in such a manner. Again, this is MY outsider perception of the situation, and YMMV.
If what you're saying that you do not agree with Wizards' action in alleged response to the Valterra/BoEF incident, then I concur.
I do not agree with Wizards' action in alleged response to the Valterra incident. I more strongly disagree with Valterra's actions to expressly tie his product to D&D rather than d20, which I think was unprofessional, regardless of whether he was pushing a PrC book or a Sex in RPGs book and which I feel prompted the heavy-handed response.
That I find the BoEF distasteful is another matter entirely. I'm on record as saying I wish Valar had not decided to publish it. That doesn't mean I won't defend their RIGHT to publish such a thing, or the right of others to read it. It does mean I wish they had focused their creative energies on something I might have found useful (such as, say, Mass Combat Rules). I don't care what AV is publishing. I do care that his apparently deliberate attempts to say, "DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" and "VALAR'S SEX PROJECT" in the same sentence as many times as possible have prompted WotC to lay the smackdown on everyone. I would NOT have such ire directed at AV had he deliberately attempted to say "d20" and "VALAR'S SEX PROJECT" as many times as possible. WotC's response might have been the same, but I suspect not... I suspect this was in (apparently egotistical) response to AV's (apparently egotistical) dragging of the D&D brand name into the mud and they are hitting him the only way they can - through the d20 license. See the fine grain of difference?
--The Sigil
