"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[The Sigil]

{Edit} Nevermind.

--The Sigil

 

[KDLadage]

I see this new clause as aimed against Valar's BoEF.

OK. Wizards has a new gun and it is aimed at Valar's BoEF. Who will it be aimed at next?

Sure other companies might publish artwork with some nudity, but given the time and money, it's unlikely that WotC will take action against them.

Unlikely? Care to invest some $10,000 in geting your new hard-cover book to market, knowing that it is unlikely that Wizards of the Coast will tell you to yank them all, at your expense, and eat the original costs of publication?

How many small press companies do you think could afford that?

I think AV really played fast and loose with the rules with the whole BoEF. Given the fact that "Dungeons & Dragons" is displayed prominently in the title, and that AV is a former WotC employee, Wizards is probably afraid that this will drum up too much controversy.

They had a hundred tools they could have used; and a million directions they could have taken those tools to correct this situation. This was a poor choice of tool and direction.

Besides AV probably didn't help himself in the press release where he stated that he was involved in a S&M society and had founded an occultic "church".

This is America. He can be into all the S&M he wants; he can form any church he wants (after all, if L. Ron Hubbard can, why can't he?). This has NOTHING to do with it at all.

He put the Dungeons and Dragons logo too large -- fine, the 10-12 pt font limitation should cover that one. He made a lot of noise with the Press Release -- fine, put in a clause that states that Press Releases are to be considered advertizing for all purposes of the d20 STL. He made a book about a topic that WotC has covered, and wants to cover it in a way WotC does not like -- morality clauses are NOT the way to go here.

I'm not really in favor of the latest restrictions in the clause,

I am very happy to hear that.

but I really doubt WotC will take any action against most d20 companies,

Hmmm.... you REALLY DOUBT that they will take actions against MOST COMPANIES. That is not making me feel any more comfortable.

Mongoose? Some nipples showing (nothing as bad as the MM2 cover); some real-world situations. Might skirt the boundries a bit.

Testament? Real world religions shown in a way that makes them more right than others. Might skirt the boundaries a bit.

Slavery? I have three races in UMBRAGIA that have been enslaved for centuries. They are, therefor, shown to be inferior in many instances. Will I have UMBRAGIA shut down? I don't know. But those are fantasy races! you say. OK... suppose I want to make a d20 Modern game about Agrarian America (that period from Colonization to the Civil War). I would have to include the enslavement of Africans and the treatment of Native Americans is I were to do this product justice. Would this not show a particular race as being portrayed as inferior? how about a World War II game that does not show how the Germans considered the Jews as inferior? However wrong these people were in history, they believed these things, and if you are going to roleplay in that era, these things are going to crop up. Is this wrong? Should we ban it? Then we may as well ban THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN for having a few words in it we don't like (however authentic to the period they happen to have been). Wait -- they have tried that on several occations.

How about the Dragon Magazine hobbit issue with the gratuitous violence and gore? This was while WotC ran the show! Will Piazo be forced to get Wizards' approval for all future DUNGEON and DRAGON magazine publications? How about other RPG mags, like SIGNS AND PORTENTS from Mongoose? They might want to if they want to avoid hving the hammer come down o their own house organ -- lest an out-of-work former d20 publisher beings up a lawsuit showing that the rules are ambiguous and unevenly applied.

unless some other company tries to publish RAHOWA d20.

Or anything else that the suits at WotC and Hasbro do not like the sound or look of.

 

[Jehosephat]

Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.

How many d20 compatible releases are coming out this month? Take a minute to look at the context here. One book about bringing issues of sexuality into the game - a completely OPTIONAL book, remember. I seriously doubt all material from now on will be sexually explicit in nature. Please show some rationality.

I never said that all books would be this way, so please do not put words in my mouth. But you can bet there will be others. In other words (paraphrasing Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes) where there's one there's another and another and another. As a consumer I get the final say with my dollars, so what anyone publishes is no sweat of my behind. And if the book sells good, you know there's gonna be imitations. There always is, in every aspect of life. Not just RPG's.

IMO before this happened a certain sector of the D&D corpus was heading in the direction of soft core porn. And I feel like it is certainly within their legal right to dictate what images are associated with the game.

Such books are still allowed to be published and in fact will likely to continue to be published. The cover information may change but the offending image will still be there, they will still be sold in the same section as other d20 materials, etc. If you are seriously in a pro-censorship mood Hasbro's changes don't help you at all.

Not in a pro censorship mood, but something needs to be done. I am a firm believer in maturity lables for gaming products that warrant such designation. Like it or not we live in a society of warning lables. Movies and TV shows have them, computer games have them, toys have them to tell when items have small parts that can harm little children. Some magazines have them. Even the FDA requires certain warnings on foodstuffs. So IMO restrictions are not entirely a bad thing as they inform people of what they are getting. Plus, I feel like the employees at chain book stores need all the help they can get. Take, for example, books published under WW's World of Darkness Black Dog line. In my local store those ended up unwrapped and on the shelf right next to the Monsterous Manual and the Complete Handbook of Elves. Most likely they got unwrapped by customers. But still, the store has a certain responsibility to its clientele who don't want that stuff and the ones that do. Likewise, all the bookstores in my area have not taken ANY efforts to keep the BoVD out of the hands of anyone. They appear on the shelf the same as everything else, with store clerks having not a clue. I am not pro censorship my friend, in fact far from it. If you or anyone else wants these books for yourselves or your children, knock yourselves out. I have no right to tell you what to read. I realize that my opinion may not be the most popular, but it is just that my opinion. And my opinion is that I don't like surprises when it comes to things like this.

The envelope would just get pushed more and more. What is unfortunate, is that Wizards themselves started this whole mess with publication of the BOVD.

Miore correctly this began with making the d20 system open content. Books of this nature are naturally forseeable exploitations. Before TSR fell there was a net book on this very topic. The world did not end.

Yes I am familiar with this book, but in fairness, it didn't have two of the major gaming magazines pimping it either. That came, again my interpretation of events, when Dungeon and Dragon magazines had their sealed section issues.

Likewise, fans of the game also apprear to be miffed about this whole thing and I see a schism on the horizon.

This is a problem. But only when mixed in with other schisms over things like the 3.5 revision. Wizards used the network model of marketing to their advantage, but they are also the primary offenders when it comes to fragmenting that network. Again, the responsibility lies with Wizards. This could be fixed this afternoon by releasing a new version of the licence, removing the content control claims and amending the section on proper logo and compatibility information. BoEF will simply remove the logo and the book will see increased exposure due to all the scandal talk. Wizards took a non-issue, something that would have been quickly lost in the sea of d20 releases and singled it out.

I don't see 3.5 as a problem, I got my books and have not looked back since. Just like the BoVD and BoEF, no one is being forced to by them. I personally think that everyone should get them, because they are that good. And I have certainly spent more RPG money on stuff that I was less happy about. But people do what you want to do. I am happy with my set. As you say, WotC could fix this by this afternoon, but I don't think they will. They wouldn't have released that statement in the first place. And they had to know of the backlash it would cause. The whole thing may very well be a non-issue, but I still say whether it hurts them or not they have that right. Of course it will get released w/o the logo, and I am sure that it will get increased exposure. I mean it could end up becoming a whole RPG before all is said and done. It's funny though, people argued the same thing when the PMRC was doing its thing. And rock stars all over the country said put the warning lables on, we will just sell more. Yet they still fought it, seems kind of fishy to me. I thought the whole idea was to put your creation in the hands of as many as possible. Apparently, there is still a fear that labels will hurt sales. As I say, I appreciate the help knowing what I am getting before I buy it. And if someone wants to deny me knowing that kind of stuff before I spend money on the basis that I might not buy it. Money that I have WORKED for, no one GAVE it to me, then I don't trust that person to do business with anyway.

 

[Kichwas]

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

No.

I take a stand for the principle of Free Expression. Just as I did when I swore my oath of enlistment in the military. When I swore to defend the constution. I meant that oath, not just in the legal sense, but in defending the spirit of that document.

They may not be doing actual censorship here by the legal definition, but they are doing it in spirit, and trying to put it into practice. To me, that's about the greatest moral wrong you can do.

I will buy the book to take a stand -FOR- the right of people to express their ideas freely, and the just belief that no one should stand in the way of that for any reason.

That to me, is what being American is supposed to be about. Defending even the scoundrels, because that is where liberty starts and ends.

 

[Berandor]

I just sent the following letter to WotC:

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I would like to express my severe dissatisfaction in your recent changes to the d20 System Trademark Guide 5.0, specifically the quality standards. While I can only guess at your reasons for this addition – the upcoming “Book of Erotic Fantasy” as well as the current political and societal climate seem to factor in heavily – I am nevertheless dismayed at this development.
Being neither a lawyer nor an American citizen, I can not comment whether or not this addition will harm your company in a legal sense, or make it more vulnerable to such harm, I can and will, however, comment on my own feelings regarding the narrowing range of acceptable products assiciated with d20, D&D, and Wizards of the Coast (and, by extension, Hasbro).
I am an adult role-playing gamer. In fact, I am twenty-five years old and have gamed for seven years now. Having long since crossed the mark of legal adulthood, I want to decide for myself what kind of product I want to buy, or consider to buy. I also want to decide what content to include in my role-playing experience – even if it involves nude men or women, excessive violence or bathroom activity.
Now, you don’t have to cater to my tastes. In fact, should you decide not to cater to my tastes, I would still accept this fact as your decision.
Your above-mentioned changes, however, take the free decision away from publishers. I feel that by invoking deliberate and vague standards you want to intimidate and pressurize publishers to cater to your tastes. As I can’t force you to publish material I consider tastefully, you should not be able to, either. In a country that prides itself on its free speech and press, and that exists as free enterprise, your move smacks of cencorship.
I concur that perhaps a bad light might fall onto your company for books published under the d20 license that you had no influence over. Instead of an addition to the guidelines that forces retroactive compliance and may cause in severe damage to the industry, I feel you would have been better served by the mere inclusion of a legal disclaimer.
In order to portray my severe disappointment and anger at this change, I have decided to:

* inform myself on Hasbro and not buy any product or service from Hasbro or any of its divisions and subsidiaries, including Wizards of the Coast
* inform my family, friends and acquaintances, as well as my local game shop, abut the change and my reaction to it and try to convince them to boycott these products, as well
* buy the Book of Erotic Fantasy as soon as it is available

A former long-time customer of yours.

Now, I perhaps AV or the BoEF was responsible for this; but I don't think singling him out now is right. Scantily-clad figures and excessive violence have long been a staple for Fantasy depictions and games. As has been said, even Third Edition already has its share of sexual or extremely violent content (and, in the case of the nipple clamps of exquisite pain even both ).

So Valar has conducted itself like an ass. So you don't like the product. Then don't give them money by buying it. That's all it takes. Just like you buy D&D product and not (for example) GURPS, because you don't like it.

Yes, AV has stretched the mark. Perhaps he intended to coerce WoTC into something like this. Perhaps he is already mentallly counting dollar bills. Or, he could just be someone who liked the game system, thought that most product's approach was not aimed at the right demography, and chose to try himself at publishing a d20 book about sex. At the same time as another company decides to publish a d20 book about maiming - perhaps "Torn Asunder" is the reason for these changes?
Perhaps WotC has barely tolerated Mongoose and grown more and more restless, until now?
In don't know.

All I can say is that wizard's reaction shows a perspective on free enterprise that seems to shared by many of today's "global players", namely an utter disregard for its competitors as well as for its consumers, the latter being reduced to automatons trained to buy whatever product sports their trademark. The new license, if applied (now or in the future) can harm more than just AV, might even force small publishers out of business - and not because of inferior product.

As an author myself, I want to write about what I want to write about. If the public doesn't like what I write, fine. But if someone wants to dictate me what to write, I get pricky.

 

[Aaron2]

Weakening the logo

All I can see this change accomplishing is weakening the already dubious d20 logo. For me, the logo is completely meaningless. I get all my product info from friends or the internet. Neither talks about the logo. I know of the names of companies that product d20 product so I know which products are d20 already. Plus, the d20 logo isn't even that good of a measure of D&D compatability; just look at Spycraft. So, I can't really rely on the logo for any information of substance. Finally, with AU doing so well sans the logo, it appears that others agree with me.

The big d20 3rd party guys ditching the logo will do more to change WotC's mind than any possible boycott.


Aaron

 

[Babba G'nush]

Whose community decency standards?

Are we talking about the standards in LA or Utah? Or is it the US community; is this not an international company and an international game??? So should we not conform to how some Middle East communities depict women, absolutely no skin showing at all, or should we portray them like some European communities where wandering around topless is OK? Ok maybe it?s the DnD or gaming community we should be conforming too, then we can decide what we want to buy.

Also I read a lot of people saying they won?t go after publishers like Mongoose for their material or after new publications unless it pushes the boundaries what is written and what is ?meant?. I am no lawyer but if they don?t go after all of these publications does that not leave the door open for the ones they do go after to sue them on the grounds that they are being singled out? So is it not in WotC?s best interest to enforce the new license agreement?

 

[TheAndy tm]

Why Quality Standards

Quality Standards have been added to the d20 System License because we want to enhance the value of the d20 Logo for all publishers in addition to maintaining it as a symbol of rules compatibility. Furthermore, products bearing the d20 Logo are associated with, refer to, and reflect upon the quality of our own d20 System games and brands. By ensuring that d20 products adhere to certain standards we improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand, for us and for everyone who uses it.

These standards are not specific to the d20 System License. All our other licensees are held to similar or tighter standards. However, users of the d20 license are not subject to the same review process faced by direct licensees and the implementation of these standards does not change that.

I'll be addressing questions in this thread on our boards. I encourage you to stop by.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense.

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.

 

[Geoffrey]

I agree with everything KDLadage has said in his excellent posts in this thread.

I suggest publishers stop using the d20 license and go with the OGL instead.

KDLadage, your Umbragia deserves to be its own, self-contained, stand-alone product. Umbragia is even better than Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.

Let WOTC and d20 go to the devil.