"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Henry]

...all three-dozen or so WOTC d20 books that i own, from the Player's Handbook to d20 Modern to the Fiend Folio to Dieties & Demigods to the Star Wars Arms & Equipment Guide all have the d20 logo on the back cover.

i'd imagine the BoVD does as well.

You are correct in this. Even though they have the logo, they don't have to abide by constraints of the license, because they are exempt as licensor. Strange, but true.

 

[Red Spire Press]

Ugh. I can't imagine more diestressing Monday morning news. As a new publisher with a release in the pipe, this certainly affects us. A large portion of our content is on the dark and gritty side - demons aren't exactly the epitome of deceny.

Now while there's nothing sexual in nature in Dark Legacies, there is, as an example, a prominent piece of artwork that contains nudity, all very tasteful with zero cheesecake factor mindyou. This is just one example of a piece that might be in violation of this new policy. Not to mention a system of critical hits and damage that could be considered "gorey text".

You can keep going with this until you suddenly find that 50% of d20 products on the market are in violation. Then what happens?

Anyway, now is the point where tough decisions need to be made, mainly whether to bare your soul to WOTC and ask for exemptions at risk of calling even more attention to your product and any possible "violations of decency", or tone things down to a bareable level and cross your fingers (don't tell my lawyer I said that).

Blah...

 

[d4]

i hesitate to call WOTC hypocrites over the BoVD simply because it seems that book was published under the aegis and instigation of Valterra himself while he was at WOTC.

however, if WOTC wants to avoid even the appearance of hypocrisy, they should voluntarily pull the BoVD themselves for noncompliance with the license they are forcing other publishers to work under. yes, i realize their own products are not bound by the same restrictions they place on 3rd party publishers. but when has "Do as I say, not as I do." ever been a respectable position to take?

as it stands now, with BoVD a WOTC product and the appearance of this new clause in the d20 license, it appears WOTC is saying something very much like, "Torture and demon worship? Sure, that's great!! Sex? No, that's bad!!"

is that really the image they want to project?

 

[Brisk-sg]

actually, i believe you are wrong. i don't own the BoVD, so i can't vouch for that, but all three-dozen or so WOTC d20 books that i own, from the Player's Handbook to d20 Modern to the Fiend Folio to Dieties & Demigods to the Star Wars Arms & Equipment Guide all have the d20 logo on the back cover.

i'd imagine the BoVD does as well.

You are correct in this. Even though they have the logo, they don't have to abide by constraints of the license, because they are exempt as licensor. Strange, but true.

I stand corrected.

 

[Voadam]

You guys are worried that WOTC will use the new rules against people like Mongoose. That's bunk. They will only use the new rules against people like Valar. Period.

Kudos, WOTC!

Huzzah!

Except that now many many mongoose books ARE in violation of the license as are many other d20 books. For instance, Bastion Press' Torn Asunder is designed to provide more graphic critical hits and has picture of maiming and grievous wounds so I think that is probably in violation as well. This means to be legally secure as a business they need to get special permission from WotC for books that are out there or else risk an expensive recall requirement.

Unless this changes I expect to see a lot of movement to OGL nond20 logo games with some other indication of compatibility.

It is too bad, the d20 logo was originally a good device for indicating d20 rule compatibility with most going only OGL only for full complete RPG systems. Now it will mean d20 rule compatibility and only sanitized content with, I think, a lot more non branded items.

 

[Harlock]

People are acting as if Anthony V is writing the BoEF all by himself. He's head of the new company - It's two other people writing the book.

Even so, if it wasn't Valar Project, it would be someone else. The license is going to be pushed in all directions, at some point. It is this caving to pressure that I dislike WotC's stance in. I forsee the d20 trademark becoming a hallmark for "G" rated fantasy, similar to what TSR was known for in the early 1990's, while publishers who show even the slightest bit of edginess or impropriety taking the OGL route.

I also get the feeling of thankfulness that Ryan Dancey and colleagues fought for the OGL being un-pullable, because I have the strong belief that current management would likely have added these prohibitions to it as well, if they could have.

Agreed on all points. I single out Valterra simply because he seems to be the head of the Company in question and knows good and well what the d20 logo entails and chose to push the envelope, as it were, from the get go. First with the initial press release, then the enlarged DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS portion of the PHB clause. I know it was bound to happen some time, but I can still be disheartened that the gloves are off, can't I? I diagree with how Valar has handled this and the way WotC has reacted. Everyone is within the letter of the law but isn't this biting the hand that feeds you by testing WotC? Meh, still have the OGL I suppose and obviously other publishers have made it without being D&D branded, even before the OGl and D20STL, it just sucks that some products I like not related to the Valar/WotC debaucle are now afected by the wording of the new license.

 

[spacecrime.com]

They can force you, your distributors, and your retailers to destroy all existing copies that violate the licence.

That's not quite accurate. They can force you (the publisher) to tell distributors and retailers to destroy existing copies that violate the license. The distributors and retailers are under no legal obligation to do any such thing.

As far as I can tell, the only reason that clause exists is to give WotC some leverage if a publisher decides to get cute and sell an offending book to a sister company (thereby getting it officially off the publisher's books). Even then, I don't think it does much more than give an attack lawyer something to be a nuisance with.

 

[Psion]

It's a little thing called free market capitalism, maybe you heard of it.

And this releives WotC of their right and responsibility to protect the image associated with their tradmark how?

Now that the "won't someone think about the children" crowd are in epilectic fits, let explain how other games also violate the clause - real world religion (no more Testament or Rapture d20), nothing political (Afghanistan d20), depictions of historical facts like slavery and the like are also verboten.

It appears to be you that is the only one in epileptic fits, since Testament (frex) does not violate the statement in any way, if you read it.

 

[thundershot]

I have a question (if it was already answered, I must have skimmed past it by accident).

What IS the difference between using the d20 licence and just using the OGL? Is it just the d20 logo and no character creation rules? If that's the case, why can't companies just put out exactly what they've been putting out only without the logo? 95% of d20 companies want their books to be compatable with D&D or d20m, but do they really need the d20 logo to utilize that? I think not... but I'm not sure...


Chris

 

[buzz]

Myself, I beleive the right to censor content begins and ends with my judgement as a consumer - not the vested interests of another, competiting, corporation.

You do realize that this change doesn't allow WotC to censor anything; it simply lets them prohibit a publisher from using the d20 logo *if they choose to exercise their right to do so.* They've been able to do this in the past based on the other tenets of the d20 license; now there's simply the moral issue thrown in.