WotC Responds!!!

[am181d]

Um... I may be behind the times, but isn't Anthony still in charge of the d20 License stuff at WotC? ("No, Anthony, you can't publish that." "You're completely right, Anthony. I apologize.")

I'm assuming that he talked to other people on staff before he announced the book.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he helped draft the "we want nothing to do with this" press release...

 

[KDLadage]

Not yet... still waiting...


{Just waiting for the inevitable comparison to FATAL}

 

[Ranger REG]

Would they all be cheerleading if product XYZ was D20 Pornmaster: the role playing game of kiddie porn producers I wonder. According to the stated principles of many of the cheerleaders, I can't see why not.

This is now a legal minefield.

 

[Bulletproof]

Not yet... still waiting...


{Just waiting for the inevitable comparison to FATAL}

Someone already made the comparison in the other thread. Something like "at least it's not as bad as FATAL".

 

[Angcuru]

This is now a legal minefield. *in reference to kiddie-porn post*

EricNoah is SO going to shut down this thread now. Good discussion while it lasted. *sigh*

 

[mkarol]

They stated what they find inappropriate, in the context of a product that requires their own Core Rules. I fail to see the problem in that.

They stated "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game."

That is more than just a wash off for something that is 'not to their taste.' That is a virulent response! That is strong language! That is "We know what is right, and this is not right!" speech. And _that_ is what i was criticizing. If you make an "OPEN" game license, you should not turn around and say "Well, when we meant open, we didn’t mean _that_ open!"

 

[mkarol]

You don't have to use/buy it if you don't like it. (Although we'll call you ignorant and intolerant if you say in advance that you won't use it on principle.)"

And what is wrong with saying "just don't buy it?" And i have never attacked anyone or called them names for choosing what to buy or read or what not. But when they imply that they know what i should buy or read or what not, then I get concerned.

Would they all be cheerleading if product XYZ was D20 Pornmaster: the role playing game of kiddie porn producers I wonder. According to the stated principles of many of the cheerleaders, I can't see why not.

Why must every discussion of 'mature' or 'sex' or 'vile' include a devolution to the obviously ridiculous "if you allow this, then you must allow kiddie porn." Its called consent people; when you have people consent to do things, then let them. Kids can not consent, so leave them out of it.

 

[Piratecat]

Kiddy porn has no place in this discussion. Stay on topic, folks.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

The initial press release somewhat implied that many of the images in this book will be very much of the soft-porn variety.

Given this and the fact that WotC has almost certainly not seen an advance copy yet, then their pre-emptive repudiation is just good business sense. It's easier to re-associate yourself after this than to disassociate if the book stirs up too much controversy.

Also, I think it's the apparent soft-porn nature of the product (not its subject matter per se) that WotC claims they object to. BoVD is patently not pornographic - AV's upcoming publication sounds very much like it is. WotC produces a product with teenagers making up a huge slice of the market. With the possibility of a teenage available product being (even erroneously) with a pornographic product, the maths is pretty simple to do.

Just my 2c (at the risk of being a sado-masochistic necrophiliac with a penchant for beastiality).

 

[Kai Lord]

They stated "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game."

That is more than just a wash off for something that is 'not to their taste.' That is a virulent response! That is strong language! That is "We know what is right, and this is not right!" speech.

Actually, no, it was their "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate" speech.

And _that_ is what i was criticizing. If you make an "OPEN" game license, you should not turn around and say "Well, when we meant open, we didn’t mean _that_ open!"

"Open" also means "open for criticism", which is exactly what WOTC did. How ironic that you believe that third party companies should have a louder voice in d20 content than the company that created and owns the trademark.