[UPDATED] DM's Guild No Longer Allows Creator Logos On Product Covers

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

​

It should be noted that creators can still put their own logo inside their products. The DMs Guild terms have been updated to reflect this.

Can I use the D&D logo on my DMs Guild title?

The only logo you can use in your title is the DMs Guild logo [found here]

Custom logos and other variations of existing logos are not allowed


​

The policy change, seen in the image above, was (oddly) announced in a private DM's Guild Fan Club Facebook group owned by David Russell. Fortunately EN World member MerricB screenshot some of the replies to questions.

("CCC" means "Con Created Content")
​

The policy will be applied for new products, but will not be enforced retroactively on existing products

DMs Guild is a popular way for fans to sell PDF content in exchange for a 50% royalty on sales of their product, along with an exclusivity agreement, and allows access to settings such as the Forgotten Realms. It's a model which has inspired a number of other publisher-led fan stores from companies like Monte Cook Games, Chaosium, even my own little EN Publishing.

Generally speaking, at a quick glance, most covers don't have much by way of personal branding - sometimes a small logo, or a line name like the Power Score RPG PDF shown below. One of the items below has D&D Beyond branding on it, and it would be interesting to see if the policy applies to that product. However, it does seem like this will make it more difficult for small companies or groups using different authors to build a following on the site; individual authors, on the other hand, should find it easier.

Last year, WotC announced a new policy where they promote a group of ten or so DMs Guild authors; these were called the "DMs Guild Adepts", who they give special attention to in marketing, podcasts, and so on, along with their own special gold branding logo. This was initially promoted as a way of sorting quality product from the thousands of items on the store.

OBS' Jason Bolte commented on the reasons for the change:

"There are a number of reasons for the change, and it’s something we’ve discussed internally for a while now. One impetus is to be consistent across all of our community creation platforms. Another reason is to have clearer rules that we can enforce given our existing resources.

The DMs Guild logo we provide is intended to satisfy a lot of the messaging that others logos would normally do. First, it signifies that the product is a member of the wonderful community that is the DMs Guild. Second, it signals that the product is for the Dungeons & Dragons game. We have provided it to this amazing group specifically for those reasons.

The problem comes with the other branding, which often trends toward copyright infringement or trademark violations. Variations on the Dungeons & Dragons logo, the D&D branding, other DMs Guild logos, etc are common on new titles coming into the site. As we see more and more permutations, the lines get fuzzier and grayer, and it’s difficult for us to keep up and enforce. And since we’re dealing with intellectual property, branding, and trademarks in a retail setting, there are a number of reasons for us to find clear and enforceable rules for creators both old and new.

So those are some of the many reasons a for the change in policy. We are always evaluating the site and watching its evolution, and we will continue to update our policies as the site grows and the community it makes more and more excellent content."

I've added some more information from the private Facebook group, since this information will be useful to anybody who uses the DMs Guild. Answers below are from OBS employees Jason Bolte and Matt McElroy.

• Can a text brand be included? "...yes, text is still fine, as long it does not approach branded text." (I'm not sure what that means).
• Is the logo mandatory? "We’re still heavily encouraging that people use that logo. It’s not mandatory at this time, but we will evaluate that policy as well"
• Does this only apply to community created content, or to Con-Created Content? "It only applies to community created content"
• Are the red "D&D sashes" OK? "I’d say they’re ok as long as they’re not used as branding. Namely, don’t try to emulate or make a spinoff of WotC logos. If you use the sashes as a byline, that should be fine (Written by xxx).... In my estimation, as long as the red sash is not used in a stylistic manner to promote a brand, it is fine. Once you start using it as a brand, then there are issues. If you don’t know if you’re using it correctly, then ask!"
• Is this actually new? "There has never been a time were D&D logos have been allowed on the covers. The only logo that was allowed before today is the same one that was only allowed previously. What we’re attempting to make more clear is that logos like “Bob’s Gaming Company” are not allowed on covers."
• Followup to above: "Basically the rules for community content have always been there. I was just bad at enforcing them and the FAQ wasn’t helpful, it actually made things more confusing. Adventurers League is not part of the community content program and has its own templates, rules and administration."
• About Fantasy Grounds. "FG logo is allowed on FG titles, we’re going to add a section to the FAQ linking to the FG section of the FAQ and clarifying that."

Florian Emmerich asked about the product depicted below. OBS' Jason Bolte confirmed that "If you’re asking about the P. B. Publishing Presents part, then yes, that would be would qualify as what we don’t want on the cover".

[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

So, without knowing the full details, I get that. I'm sure WotC will try not to enable another Paizo in the same way, and I know that they're a lot more careful with licensing these days. But do you really think this latest move was because they felt like they needed to do more to hold the 3PP community back? I guess that's the part that has me confused, because I don't see how the recent (pre logo-removal) arrangement was really enabling any big competitors, or even had the potential to do so.

Keep in mind that the "no 3pp brands on covers" was supposed to be in effect from the beginning.

The fact that it wasn't is an oversight on the operations side of DMsGuide, not on the part of WotC's intentions re: brand control.

 

[Von Ether]

Oh, for sure. Whatever your choice of outlet, you have to work to build customers. There's no getting round that, whatever you do.

For me, crowdfunding is *so* useful. Patreon and Kickstarter have both been very good to us.

I guess every CCP has it's pros and cons. Over in Cypher land, we haven't had this logo issue, yet, but we've already been told that any Kickstarter has to go through a separate licence agreement. (I haven't read the DMGu, but I am sure it has a similar policy.

I understand it's not that expensive, but I'm sure someone is salivating over the hope they can use Kickstarter to fund a CCP product and be out next to nothing. Most likely someone who has neither done a Kickstarter or even a CCP PDF.

 

[Wallraven]

From there, consider if the answers would have been the same -- if Paizo would even be the same company -- if they hadn't been able to release Pathfinder product with their own branding on the covers, especially given they would already be limited by the venue through which the product could be release through (one entirely branded towards their strongest market competition.)

Hmmmmmm ... now I wonder if any of that has any relevancy to my point about building brand loyalty for 3pp and how it affects the established audiences they've built behind those brands when they can't display those brands on the key visual for selling their 5e product ...

Would a spinoff system like Pathfinder be allowed in DMsG? No.
Would a world setting for D&D, like Pathfinder was originally, be allowed in DMsG? No.

These things are what the OGL is for. Where you can use your own logos to your heart's content (but not the D&D logos).

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Would a spinoff system like Pathfinder be allowed in DMsG? No.
Would a world setting for D&D, like Pathfinder was originally, be allowed in DMsG? No.

These things are what the OGL is for. Where you can use your own logos to your heart's content (but not the D&D logos).

I can't figure out what your point is here because you've essentially just reworded and restated my own point.

 

[Wallraven]

I can't figure out what your point is here because you've essentially just reworded and restated my own point.

You seemed to be saying that "the next Paizo" is being deprived of their opportunity by being denied the right to use logos/branding on DMsG.
I'm saying, "the next Pathfinder" shouldn't be on DMsG in the first place.

 

[prosfilaes]

Kickstarter is great if you have an audience already and a well known name. If people know you and are willing to give you money on a promise of future content.
If you don't have that reputation, then Kickstarter will not be better. Because people aren't going to spend money on that gamble.

Except they do all the time. It's not simple, but I think you're far underestimating the number of people who are willing to toss a few bucks at a professional looking Kickstarter that's offering something believable.

Only 11.6% of creators on the DMsGuild have a product that has the Copper Seller medal. Which equates with $50 sales. 88.4% of books on the DMsGuild have sold fewer than 50 copies. And only 2% have sold over 500 copies, which is roughly 300 books. Most people are not well known enough to warrant people giving money to immediately receive their work, let alone in six months.

From the numbers @M.T. Black gives, his book has sold <2000 copies. Which is far fewer than the 2,454 of even a small Kickstarter like Touch of Class. Is it realistic that he would have sold more copies by stripping out Elminster and not giving it to people immediately?

You also could take those numbers and point out that only 2% of the books on the Dungeon Masters Guild sell even a quarter of what a small Kickstarter can. More realistically, the average DMG book is not and could not be Kickstarter fodder. The Elminster's Guide to Magic is. I probably wouldn't have bought it as a Kickstarter, but I never go to the DMG. If I played 5E, then I would have bought it on Kickstarter in a heartbeat, though I'd also probably at least look at the DMG. It would require a bit of Kickstarter polishing, but I can easily see it selling 2,500 copies on Kickstarter.

To Kickstart or to not Kickstart is a hard question, but looking at the Elminster's Guide to Magic page on DMG, I'd say the question is more the work M.T. Black & co. are willing to do and where they are going with it. I'm somewhat sad there never will be a hardback printed edition, because assuming the content is what it promises, it's one of the 3rd party books that could certainly sit beside the WotC books. It could have been a Kickstarter success.

if 400 fewer people had noticed the book because it was mixed it with all the other RPGs and/or didn't manage to crack the sales chart

What about if more people had noticed it because MT Black Enterprises had sent out an email to all the people who had bought their books in the past, like publishers on DTRPG can do and I'm guessing publishers on DMG can't? And that's the type of thing that can compound if you continue making good products.

I can also compare sales to my DriveThru product, which is only silver despite being on that site for two years longer than anything on the Guild.

If you kept them all on DriveThruRPG, then those new products would help drive sells of your old products.

After all, 5e and the OGL was around for eighteen months before the Guild but very few people took the plunge to self publishing on DriveThru or Kickstarter.

https://geek-related.com/2016/01/12/dd-5e-now-under-open-gaming-license/ says 5E OGL and the DMG came out at the same time. You could use the OGL with 5E before then, but ... you can also just forget the OGL and declare yourself to be compatible with D&D or any other system, and if you have a few million to spend on lawyers, there is a legal case to be made there. The Primal Order tried that, and it was very messy, and Palladium doesn't have nearly the lawyers Hasbro has. I think what held a lot of people back was the principle of don't poke the bear, not the fact they didn't have the DMG.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

You seemed to be saying that "the next Paizo" is being deprived of their opportunity by being denied the right to use logos/branding on DMsG.
I'm saying, "the next Pathfinder" shouldn't be on DMsG in the first place.

I'm saying they are denying the hypothetical next Paizo the ability to get a boost towards success off of the DnD brand.

Do you think, for example, Paizo would have succeeded to overtake DnD in market shares if they had released OGL magazines instead of had the strength of the Dragon and Dungeon WotC brands backing them? Plus access to the established market that WotC (from TSR) brought to their doorstep with those same brands?

 

[Mistwell]

I'm saying they are denying the hypothetical next Paizo the ability to get a boost towards success off of the DnD brand.

Do you think, for example, Paizo would have succeeded to overtake DnD in market shares if they had released OGL magazines instead of had the strength of the Dragon and Dungeon WotC brands backing them? Plus access to the established market that WotC (from TSR) brought to their doorstep with those same brands?

WOTC has directly licensed out their IP to several third party companies under 5e, like they did with Paizo, allowing them to use both the WOTC and their own company logos on the cover. Any of those companies could become the next Paizo. Your point has nothing to do with DMs Guild. The next Paizo was never going to come from DMs Guild with or without their own logo on the cover (though perhaps some good individual authors will be found there for a next Paizo to hire later). If there is a next Paizo, it will likely come from the same path - hardcopy officially sanctioned published D&D books carried in all retail stores and on Amazon and Barnes and Noble and promoted by WOTC with their marketing efforts combined with the efforts of the third party in question. Only these days it will probably have videos of the game being played which become widely popular, on YouTube or elsewhere.

You're looking for reasons to deride this decision but most of your reasons are exaggerated stretches which don't really make the point you're trying to make. I can understand (vaguely) not liking this decision, but exaggerating the impact is having the opposite effect to the one you intended. It's not persuasive.

 

[RogueAgnt]

Yeah, the red sash thing is weird. It's very clearly branding for the D&D brand. The official D&D covers don't have a massive amount of trade dress, but those red sashes are an integral part of it. IMO, it makes products look official; I know that when I've seen things with that on them out of context, I've had to look twice.

The funny thing is, they ripped off the sash from R. Talsorian Games, it appears frequently in the Cyberpunk book covers that predate 5th Ed by a LONG shot.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

WOTC has directly licensed out their IP to several third party companies under 5e, like they did with Paizo, allowing them to use both the WOTC and their own company logos on the cover. Any of those companies could become the next Paizo.

For a licensing fee.

The companies that found the most success under the OGL got to do so without paying WotC a dime.

Maybe you have to be a small press publisher to understand just how important a difference that makes, though.

Your point has nothing to do with DMs Guild. The next Paizo was never going to come from DMs Guild with or without their own logo on the cover (though perhaps some good individual authors will be found there for a next Paizo to hire later).

You're certain of that, eh?

Because people thought nothing big or lasting was going to come out of the d20 glut after the bubble burst, but the opposite was true.

If there is a next Paizo, it will likely come from the same path - hardcopy officially sanctioned published D&D books carried in all retail stores and on Amazon and Barnes and Noble and promoted by WOTC with their marketing efforts combined with the efforts of the third party in question. Only these days it will probably have videos of the game being played which become widely popular, on YouTube or elsewhere.

Sure. Because that's the only path open to them for using the DnD brand. The important distinction being that once they ride that initial DnD brand booster, unlike Paizo they'll truly have to push off into their own waters because the market and brand that helped birth them will still be around whereas d20, as a unifying brand, died off and no longer stood as a market identity for collective brand competition.

You're looking for reasons to deride this decision but most of your reasons are exaggerated stretches which don't really make the point you're trying to make. I can understand (vaguely) not liking this decision, but exaggerating the impact is having the opposite effect to the one you intended. It's not persuasive.

I think you're confusing the above with "I don't agree with your point, Steven" -- because one customer has actually popped in to make a complaint along the lines I've been explaining re: what a publisher's brand can communicate about quality. They certainly won't be an outlier in that opinion considering they've expressed the normal relationship every customer has with branding perception.

But you mistake my participation here for trying to persuade you of anything. I'm merely talking about the situation because it covers aspects of both my jobs -- a game publisher and a marketing professional. There were plenty of reasons I hadn't moved Misfit Studios into 5e yet, but I was still keeping an eye on it. With this in place, there's absolutely no reason to now. And I've no real reason to convince you of the power and value of branding if you choose not to simply as a mental exercise. Because, no matter how many 5e publishers are currently talking about how unhappy they are about this, you clearly know better, right?