"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Psion]

TWhen is the last time you saw the D20 logo on a WoTC product? I don't think I have ever seen it on a WoTC release.

On the last one I purchased. All D&D and d20 modern products have the d20 logo on them, albeit not as prominently displayed as you will find as on products released under the d20 STL.

Which, I reemphasize, is still irrelevant, since WotC's products are in no way bound by the terms of the d20 STL since they weren't released under them. They own the trademark. They can use it any way they like.

Also, while it might be hypocrosy due to BoVD being released last year, I have not seen any hint at WoTC releasing comparibly products in the future. BoVD was released while D&D was under Anthony Valterra, who is publishing the likely target of this change to the d20 license.

Thank you for mentioning that, I was about to point that out.

Even if WotC were to publish another such product, I still don't think that the BoVD is even comparable in image to BoEM.

Further, if you read Monte's account of the book's development, they carefully scrutinized every aspect of it to ensure they didn't cross the line. I doubt that WotC desires to expend that much effort to scrutinize the products of others at their own expense, so it would not shock or surprise me if they abided with a simpler and more conservative standard.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

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.

Many of the comments seen (including the quoted "shame" comment I was responding to) seek to do more than remove a logo from books of a questionable nature. My comment should be read in that context.

 

[Psion]

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?

Primarily, yes. There are also other trademark and trade dress issues and prohibited rules areas (like redefining key terms), but that's the core of it.

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...

They sure can. The issue is that the d20 logo is a point of marketing recognition that some publishers are loath to do without. But you can do it. Many publishers already have (see Mutants & Masterminds, Everquest, Arcana Unearhed.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.

If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.

Despite everything I've said against the BoEF in past, if that book comes out in some OGL or other format now...

I will buy it.

Then you reward those who are clearly responsible for this terrible change in the license.

I personally think the BoEF is a silly product, and wouldn't buy it, but neither have I protested its publication or suggested that it be stopped.

But now... I am incredibly frustrated with Anthony Valterra. He is in a unique position to know the difference between following the letter of the license and the spirit, and by putting DUNGEONS & DRAGONS in huge type on his book of erotica, he clearly went way, way beyond the spirit of the license.

He should know better. But rather than use his unique experience and knowledge to stay within the spirit of the license, he has consistently used it to exploit loopholes in the various licenses and cross the line of decency-- no, I'm not talking about the BoEf, I am talking about decency and professional courtesy to WOTC and his fellow 3rd party publishers.

He has caused a huge headache for all of the other 3rd party publishers who appreciate the license and abide by the spirit of its intent-- and he has done it solely to push his own personal agenda, whether that agenda is profit or (more likely) simply to thumb his nose at Wizards.

In the end, Valar will simply remove the d20 logo from their product, and they'll be fine-- there's enough buzz over the book (especially now) that they don't need it. Not, mind you, that I expect most folks buying the book to care whether it is or was d20 compatible-- it's not as if that logo was going to make or break a sale. Anthony NEVER needed the d20 logo.

I hold Valar and Anthony Valterra personally responsible for forcing this change. They've screwed the entire 3rd party publishing community.

I hope somehow, some good comes of this. A little piece of me hopes that AV-- because of his unique experience-- has ulterior, benevolent motives that are somehow beyond my scrutiny.


Wulf

 

[thundershot]

Thanks

I wonder if it would be possible to have a universal "logo" for the publishers to use to promote their own compatability with each other. Unless that's against the licence as well... The three examples you state do indeed change some of the core d20 mechanics, while still being mostly compatable with modification.

Dammit, I just want my gaming books, and I hate thinking that my favorite publishers might be hassled over something as minute as a nipple...



Thanks again
Chris

 

[buzz]

Hmmm....this sounds like one of those news pieces that rankle everyone at first, and then fade to nothingness after a while.

Amen.

I'm not nuts about the change, but it seems pretty obvious that it's a specific response to Valar. That is, WotC obviously wants the *option* to block products like the BoEF from associating itself too closely with trademarks that are their bread and butter. It's quite possible that this or the possibile publication of FATAL or RAHOWA d20 would be the only cases in which they would exercise their rights (which would not stop their publication, only their use of certain trademarks).

Thoughtful comments of our august moderator aside (re: what will future management do with this new language in the license?), I think claims that WotC is going to use these new rights to stop publication of products with obvious merit like Testament, Afghanistan d20, or any of the other chicken-little examples that have been given are totally ridiculous. As Dancey himself said, exercising these new rights is potentially very costly, so I can't see WotC wasting the money on anything but the most grevious examples. E.g., Harriet Tubman d20: no, Nazi Hardcore Necrophilia Illustrated d20: yes.

And nothing is written in stone. They changed the license. If it starts to adversely affect their business (a longshot), they'll change it again.

 

[KDLadage]

KDLadage,

I just wonder how often WotC is actually going to use these new clauses in the d20 license to come down on people. I do agree with you that folks may just start using their own logos to denote compatibility with d20.

As has been pointed out in this thread, even if I trusted the current incarnation of the management of the WotC division, and even if I trusted the management of Hasbro -- that would still be the management today. This is a pandora's box, once open -- it is going to remain open. Because even if the lid is closed on this thing, we all now know it can be re-opened at any time WotC does not like another publication.

Consider: the TOTAL WAR series from Mongoose deals in real-world locations and real world issues placed in a fantastic setting (fantastic here meaning sci-fi/fictional). The real world elements make it rather interesting to me... but what if someone is offended? What is WotC to do?

Consider: we have a few publishers of content for the d20 system that have, for lack of a batter term, T&A all over their covers. Mostly, this has been overlooked, without any real problems noted by anyone. If Anthony Valtera is stopped in the publication of his book -- will he begin pointing fingers claiming he is being singled out? Would he have a case (from a legal standpoint)? Who else will be drug under the water with him? Please note that I know virtually nothing of Mr. Valtera, and so I am not saying he would do this -- I am asking if this is a probable/possible scenario.

Consider: Once this fiasco is over, and someone wants to complain about a product in the market -- however benign -- and the see the Dungeons and Dragons name on it (as required), will they go to WotC? Since WotC at this point cannot simply deny any involvement, what will their position be? Will they be willing to endure a court case for a competitor? Or will they shut the product down, and avoid the legal costs? Please note that I know virtually nothing of the legal department of WotC, and so I am not saying they would do this -- I am asking if this is a probable/possible scenario.

Consider: There are a lot of very vague elements to this addition to the d20 STL. What else is gratuitous? What else does not meet the community standard? How is it a community standard, if WotC dictates, determines and interprets that standard alone? Who remains outside of the reach of the arm of WotC should they simply not like what you are doing?

Sure -- these are improbable, perhaps. But if it were your $10,000 investment in a book to be published, would you risk it?

I wouldn't. Not under these conditions.

Agreed.

Frankly, I am glad that they have taken action against this execrable product. The people at Valar need to discover a sense of shame.

I was never int he market for the BoEF. It was no better than FATAL for me. I did not want to buy it, and still do not. But that was my choice. That was my choice as a consumer.

If WotC had a problem with the size of the term DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS on the cover, I can see changing the font size requirements...

If WotC had a problem with the content, I could see placing a requirement to add a disclaimer indicating that WotC had nothing to do with any d20 3rd-party product out there.

This, however, is a rather Machiavellian response to one book that has a lot (and I mean a LOT) of implications for the rest of the d20 publishers out there.

 

[buzz]

Many of the comments seen (including the quoted "shame" comment I was responding to) seek to do more than remove a logo from books of a questionable nature. My comment should be read in that context.

Understood. Just saying, it still basically comes down to your decision to buy the product or not. WotC can't do any of the censoring, other than prohibiting use of a trademark or two.

 

[The Sigil]

Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.

If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.

Bingo! Thank you, Alan! I can't believe it took so long for someone to point out the obvious.

From my observation (as a publisher), WotC has only made "nasty changes" to the d20STL when someone starts trying to push the boundaries. The first major change I can recall was the prohibition of using the words, "Core Rulebook" on the cover of a work - done because certain publishers were producing hardbacks that looked very much like the PHB, DMG, et al, and slapping "Core Rulebook" on the front - obviously hoping to get a few more sales from customers who saw the phrase and thought it was a WotC book.

They also changed the license from "you MAY use the 'requires the PHB' phrase" to the "you MUST use the 'requires the PHB' phrase." I can see why they wanted to do that - it's a free advert and most people were doing it anyway.

Now, Valar comes along and in their very first press release plays fast and loose with the OGL's advertising clause, claiming that "press releases aren't advertising." As Valar continues to beat the marketing drum, WotC realizes that this may not be a fringe product after all - though the firestorm of controversy tells them that this is not necessarily a product they want associated with their trademarks - and they react to someone pushing the boundaries of taste by drawing a clear line in the sand (female nipples, et al) and also pointing out that they may club someone if that someone even gets close to the line (sole discretion).

Why? Because, as Psion said, Valar is peeing in the pool.

Now granted, I'm not a fan of WotC and their "selective enforcement" policy... but basically, every time the license has changed, it's been in response to someone taking the letter of the license and running as far as they think they can from the spirit of it.

Me, I'd much rather see them crack down on the "Clear Designation of OGC" clause in the OGL, or maybe even releasing another version of the OGL that clears a lot of the ambiguity in the current version (such as the whole PI brouhaha on the opengamingfoundation's ogf-l list)... but I know that probably won't happen.

But the capricious changes to the d20STL have made me, as a publisher, decide to sidestep the whole issue. I will be revising my current electronic d20 offerings as soon as possible to be OGL only and will not be releasing under the d20STL again... because it makes my life simpler. I can release my products and stop worrying about what boneheaded stunt some other publisher may decide to pull that will cause yet ANOTHER change in the d20STL.

However, I'll take this a step further. A lot of people have been talking about boycotting WotC and deliberately buying the BoEF. While I was not planning on even looking at the BoEF, I would suggest that had I been thinking of buying the BoEF, I would NOT do so now... because my thoughts on the matter are, "thanks, Valar, for being stubborn fools and peeing in the pool and making my life more difficult" (the "thanks" is with heavy sarcasm, in case you can't tell). This isn't an issue of WotC trying to quash someone's freedom of speech so much as it is someone being obnoxious.

The best analogy I can draw is that of someone "trying to exercise their freedom of expression" by playing a trumpet as loudly as they can in my ear wherever I go, then getting offended when I tell them to stop, claiming I'm impinging on their "right to freedom of artistic expression." You're not being musical, you're being a donkey's rear end and trying to annoy the heck out of me - you know it, and I know it, and hiding behind "freedom of expression" because you're using a musical instrument - or any other creative medium (such as, say, text and photographs) is a weak play at best.

So even if Valar puts out the greatest thing since sliced bread, they're not getting any of my business either.

It's one of my gripes to fellow publishers... while I know you want to 'push the envelope' (and that is to be commended), there's a big difference between wanting to push the envelope and trying to push things as far as humanly possible. Remember, if you're hellbent on pushing the envelope as far as you can at a single point and you push too hard in a single direction, you're liable to break through it and that makes problems for everyone.

--The Sigil

 

[haiiro]

On the other hand, let them shoot themselves in the butts like TSR did because of crap like this.

I'm not sure how this would help anyone. WotC revitalized the entire RPG industry, and even after several years and numerous organizational changes (like the layoffs) they continue to produce quality products.

Why would having WotC go the way of TSR improve anything?