"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[DanMcS]

Wizards has consistently shown good will and a sense of fair play, and any perception to the contrary is due solely to anti-corporate, anti-Hasbro paranoid delusions.

They changed the whole license to target one book. That's anything but fair. It's mean-spirited, and worse, it's unpredictable. AV was following the rules, so they changed them on him.

 

[kingpaul]

And it's not one book. They've done it twice so far. The first time was the removal of monsters from the "gentleman's agreement" SRD.

The second time is this decency standards nonsense. What will be next?

What about the named spells/equipment and miniatures? You forgot them.

 

[Simplicity]

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.

Thanks for coming by, Andy. But this statement is just B.S. and it avoids the entire issue. If WotC wanted to improve the "quality" of
d20 products, they could require standard statblocks, grammatical and spelling checks. This addition to the license isn't about improving quality, it's about enforcing morality and it's about CYA.

"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." Well, obviously not for people who want to publish mature products. Obviously not for those who want grim settings. WotC stores have entire sections devoted to mature BOARD games. I
don't see anyone rushing to pull those games off the shelves.

This change will alienate a large number of D&D players. D&D is not
a children's game. It hasn't been a children's game for a long time. I
may be wrong, but I believe the latest statistic put most D&D players over 20 years of age.

There are other ways to protect the d20 brand. For instance, the creation of a "d20 Mature" license. Censorship is not a business WotC should be getting into.

 

[DanMcS]

What about the named spells/equipment and miniatures? You forgot them.

See? The world is definitely doomed.

 

[Harlock]

WOTC have managed to sour me on their products as well because I deplore them making rules that are so vague that they can use them to block competetion for nearly any reason.

Ah, yes, now I see your point. WotC, obviously, is doing this to block competition. I mean D&D is their IP, it's their brand name, it's their game and they created a license to let other people create game material using their rules and make games material compatible with their system. Yes, they certainly are blocking competition for nearly any reason by doing that I tell ya.

I see that as opening the situation up to anti-competetive and highly unethical practices.

See above. Anti-competitive in what manner? By allowing gamers like you and me to actually write and publish gaming material for their game and sell it entirely on our own without even charging us to use their base rules or license? Unethical how? By putting out a license that has stated all along that the terms of that license could change at any time but still providing an OGL to allow you to do what you want with their base rule set (the SRD) without using the more guarded license? If anything the d20STL and OGL have opened numerous doors and I am willing to bet that most of the folks that are publishing books for D&D under either license would agree.

 

[spacecrime.com]

Besides, if you want to do Hustler: the RPG, you'd want to go OGL anyway so you can put in character creation rules.

(Eric's grandma probably wouldn't appreciate my description of how to roll dice, so I'll just leave that out for now. )

 

[Umbran]

I don't think the sky's falling quite yet, thanks. I personally don't know the rationale behind this new provision...

Well, I'd think that was obvious....

What this means is that people who are putting out something they feel might be close to the line will probably choose the better part of valor...

Oh, no, you've got it slightly wrong, and the error is linked to the rationale...

What this means is that people who are putting out something they feel might be close to the line will probably choose the better part of VALAR...

Sorry, but I failed my Will save, and couldnot resist.

At least WotC didn't say that puns were on the list of forbidden content.

 

[trancejeremy]

They changed the whole license to target one book. That's anything but fair. It's mean-spirited, and worse, it's unpredictable. AV was following the rules, so they changed them on him.

AV started it - he deliberately used several loopholes that went against the spirit of the license (and I think he did in fact violate some of the license rules, like using Dungeons and Dragons in a press release).

In essense, he was thumbing his nose at WOTC, deliberately trying to provoke them.

I wouldn't be surprised if WOTC simply pulls the plug on the d20 license because of this business.

There are many, many, many books that use the d20 STL and OGL improperly. WOTC could have cracked down on all of them. Instead, the only ones they've actually gone after were some by Fast Forward, which were probably the worst examples.

 

[heirodule]

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.

No, not even in spirit, since censorship is restraint by a government body. WOTC are the owners of the D20 license. Licenses are NOT about untrammeled free expression: that's why they are legal documents which spell out what you are and are not allowed to do legally.

Thinking that just because somebody says I legally permit you to do X with MY PROPERTY, and then later says, I forbid you from doing Y with MY PROPERTY, does not mean you free expression has been trammeled on, since you were expressing yourself with the permission of the property owner.

What I think you mean to say is that you think the US Constitution gives you the right to all the smut you can eat, and you hate to see private companies prohibit the pornification of their property because you like a world where nobody even privately says they think smut is undesirable.

 

[Lizard]

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!

There is an important legal principle in First Amendment law, that is that the argument that "Well, this law COULD apply to a lot of things, but we're only going to use if for really nasty stuff!" is bunk. In short, the assumption that an overbroad law is acceptable because, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we won't use it everywhere we can, is bogus.

Now, the 1A doesn't apply here, since this is a private contract, but that principle, as applied by those who judge the moral/ethical (as opposed to legal) standing of these changes, certainly does.

"We COULD screw mongoose...but we won't! Honest injun!" is bullcrap. And even if the person saying it meant it, it doesn't mean the next administration would abide by it. If the only justification you have for a grossly overbroad clause is "I'm sure they'll only use it against the bad guys!", then, you have no justification.

Does WOTC have the legal right to make this change? Sure.

Is the change moral, ethical, or supportable by anyone with any sense of decency or fair play?

No.

It's a direct attack on an ex-employee, and it strikes (as Ryan Dancey and others have noted) directly at the heart of one of the main benefits of using the D20 STL. It opens any and all D20 products to arbitrary and unjustified legal assault by WOTC at any point in the future, without any option to mediate or correct the breach. It is ridiculous, and the long term effect will be devastating to the D20 -- but not necessarily the OGL -- community.

WOTC screwed up, big time. If they are smart, they will pull back and rengineer this clause to be far less open ended. If they are NOT smart, expect to see OGL products outpacing STL products pretty quickly. Using the STL has simply become unsafe for *any* published, regardless of "adult" content, simply because of the subjectivity and overbroadness of this clause.