Avalanche Press stops using d20 license

[Psion]

Actually the problem is not likely thier art which seems to meet the new standards but rather thier content wich covers real world historical issues like slavery and religion both of which are now verboten.

Um, isn't that a wee bit of a misreading? Having a book about slavery and religion is not the same thing as promoting a religion or racism.

 

[Psion]

And every one of us discussing this issue online or in their FLGS knows exactly what companies are producing something they can use with their Dungeons & Dragons books, d20 logo or not. It's not the death sentence people make it out to be.

Um, it's a popular perception that people down at the local FLGS are all as enlightened as people on the boards. That is often not the case. My players almost NEVER visit the boards, and probably don't know this is even going on if I didn't tell them.

 

[jaerdaph]

My players almost NEVER visit the boards, and probably don't know this is even going on if I didn't tell them.

So in effect what you're saying is, it really doesn't matter to Joe Gamer at all and only to publishers.

Seriously though, guys, I do see your point, but I also feel that the whole issue is being blown way out of proportion.

 

[Geoffrey]

Good for Avalanche. I hope they are only the first of a veritable avalanche of publishers ditching the d20 label and going with the OGL.

 

[trancejeremy]

It's not their art, because while it's sleazy, it doesn't violate the guidelines, and it only appears on the covers. The inside art tends to be either clip art or the like.

It's because they do historical supplements, which are impossible to do under the new PC standards in the d20 STL.

 

[trancejeremy]

Um, isn't that a wee bit of a misreading? Having a book about slavery and religion is not the same thing as promoting a religion or racism.

It's not the promotion clause that would cause them trouble, but

"Current, real-world religions and religious groups and/or practices will not be portrayed in any way that promotes disrespect for these religions or their participants. "

"Disrespect" is pretty vague, but any historical depiction of any religion will be almost certainly disrespectful - just about every one has had it's bad moments.

 

[Psion]

"Disrespect" is pretty vague, but any historical depiction of any religion will be almost certainly disrespectful - just about every one has had it's bad moments.

I really don't agree. Do you think Testament is a "faithful: (I hesitate to say "realistic") portrayal of the major faiths of the era? Testament does a darn good job of not setting up one faith as superior, and I think it would be unchallenged under this clause. For that matter, I don't have all of Avalanche's historical books, but none of the ones I do have do I think "promote disrespect" towards any particular people.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I really don't agree. Do you think Testament is a "faithful: (I hesitate to say "realistic") portrayal of the major faiths of the era? Testament does a darn good job of not setting up one faith as superior, and I think it would be unchallenged under this clause. For that matter, I don't have all of Avalanche's historical books, but none of the ones I do have do I think "promote disrespect" towards any particular people.

Well Avalanche apparently doesn't want to take the chance that WotC will disagree with you on that point. As far as I can tell the covers are 100% since no matter how scantily clad and ridiculously posed their models are they don't show any "naughty" parts. That pretty much leaves the content as a source of fear, and of the clauses the religion clause seams the most likely to allow for possible differences in interpretation when it comes to their books.

 

[Psion]

Well Avalanche apparently doesn't want to take the chance that WotC will disagree with you on that point. As far as I can tell the covers are 100% since no matter how scantily clad and ridiculously posed their models are they don't show any "naughty" parts. That pretty much leaves the content as a source of fear, and of the clauses the religion clause seams the most likely to allow for possible differences in interpretation when it comes to their books.

Certainly. I can understand why a lot of publishers who feel they might skirth the boundaries would be dubious.

That said, this is Avalanche we are talking about here. The same company that pulled review material from ENworld for supposedly bad reviews; a quick look at the reviews showed no such tendency. The only "bias" ENWorld had was a few posters like Arcady who wouldn't give their covers a rest.

That being the case, it doesn't surprise me that they were the first to bolt.

 

[Cergorach]

I really don't want to bad mouth Avalanch, but lets face it, a lot of their products weren't up to spec (i don't see that many good reviews on their material). Personally it would be more of a statement if one of the bigger 'corps' would banish the D20 Logo...