"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[linnorm]

No this image is ok. Here is the text:

"Sexual Themes - Sexual situations—including abuse and pornography—may not appear graphically in art or text."

None of that on the image of Isis. She is not abusing the child nor are her "naughty bits" being expositioned in shuch a way as to cause arousal.

"When depicting the human form—or creatures possessing humaniform features—gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable."

The nudity of Isis is not gratuitous. That is she is not naked just to show a naked woman. I do not belive this to be a list but a clarification of what is "gratuitous." If that was the case the end of the sentance would be "...are not acceptable."

"While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be salacious in nature."

In this depiction isis is not being sexual or sensual.

So I think your goddess was safe. Gratuitous would be if the child was wide eyed and giving the "thumbs up."

Aaron.

I disagree on the 'safety' of the image. It states that "the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity" are considered gratuitous. There is no qualifier to this except that WotC may or may not enforce it at thier discretion. However, if they don't it shows that they do not enforce the terms of the license equally.

On a different point, I don't find this all that damaging. As has been pointed out, the OGL is an acceptable replacement license. At one point I was considering doing this myself. Unfortunatly, WotC withdrew a few of the main elements of my campaign from the SRD, thus ending my ability to publish my setting.

 

[KingOfChaos]

Good for Wizards of the Coast! This industry (perhaps more than many others) has to police itself. If it takes a "heavy" like WOTC, then that is okay with me. I think the d20 system license requirements will continue to be good for the hobby. Somebody has to protect the game.

No offense meant, but can you not think for yourself? Do you really want someone telling you what you can and cannot read or use in your games? I sure as hell don't.

 

[Cyberhawk]

Horror d20 R.I.P.

With these new decency guidelines I have to wonder how many horror games will continue to be published with d20 and will instead go to OGL?

Of all the genres (besides erotic/adult) horror is the one that pushes the envelope the most, becuase it's goal is to scare and disturb you to some level. In order to scare a well-read and probably jaded audience (rpg fans) you have to push a bit to get a reaction.

And like it or not gore and nudity are often used to get that reaction. Not everyone does it, nor does everyone need to do it. But it is there and it is a valid tool. Under this license you would be seriously risking your product if you published something thematically like World of Darkness or Call of Cthulhu as a 3rd party d20 game (not counting the licensed CoC d20..which is a seperate license IIRC) .

Anyways, just some thoughts (inspired in part by the previous post about the comic code...it's one big change was to kill off the horror comic).

 

[thundershot]

Yes, exactly (and as that customer service email was signed "Darrin", I'll betchum it's from Oathbound's own Darrin Drader) -- he's just saying what the lawyers told him to say.

Um....

NO

Darrin's a freelance writer (and a very good one at that, since I've enjoyed all his books thus far), not a customer service rep for WotC. Unless there's something that he's not telling us...



Chris

 

[jester47]

I disagree on the 'safety' of the image. It states that "the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity" are considered gratuitous. There is no qualifier to this except that WotC may or may not enforce it at thier discretion. However, if they don't it shows that they do not enforce the terms of the license equally.

On a different point, I don't find this all that damaging. As has been pointed out, the OGL is an acceptable replacement license. At one point I was considering doing this myself. Unfortunatly, WotC withdrew a few of the main elements of my campaign from the SRD, thus ending my ability to publish my setting.

Thats what I was saying- the way I am parsing the sentance is in the following manner:

When depicting the human form [qualifier for F/SF genre] Gratuitous nudity [examples] is not acceptable.

But interpretation is half the fun!!!!

Aaron.

 

[Faraer]

improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand

The 'quality' of the brand is something other than the quality of products. If companies comply with these requirements and keep publishing under the d20 license, the books will become worse. This programme reinforces the showing of pretty violence and death without consequences, secondary worlds of which sexuality is a cordoned-off and not an integral part, and fetishization of unclothed bodies. The subgenre of D&D fantasy will move further into meaning-stripped, artistically null, politically irresponsible fantasyland hell.

The original Comics Code was a combination of political censorship and psychologically damaged people perpetuating their psychoses. At least we don't get the clause of the TSR Code of Ethics that forbade showing law-enforcement officials in a bad light.

 

[jaldaen]

No offense meant, but can you not think for yourself? Do you really want someone telling you what you can and cannot read or use in your games? I sure as hell don't.

Actually WotC cannot tell you or AV what you can read or use in your games... they can't (the OGL can be used to publish whatever you want), but what they can do is say they don't want their trademarks d20 or "Dungeons and Dragons" (which *must* appear on the cover of d20 books, at least last I checked ;-) associated with it... and are well within their rights. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with it.

 

[DaveMage]

Um....

NO

Darrin's a freelance writer (and a very good one at that, since I've enjoyed all his books thus far), not a customer service rep for WotC. Unless there's something that he's not telling us...

Chris

Actually, he's both.

He posted a thread in "General" a while back asking for feedback on WotC customer service.

 

[Faraer]

improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand

The 'quality' of the brand is quite different from the quality of products, then. If companies comply with these requirements and keep publishing under the d20 license, the books will become worse. This programme reinforces the showing of pretty violence and death without consequences, secondary worlds of which sexuality is a cordoned-off and not an integral part, and fetishization of unclothed bodies. The subgenre of D&D fantasy will move further into meaning-stripped, artistically null, politically irresponsible fantasyland hell.

The original Comics Code was a combination of political censorship and psychologically damaged people perpetuating their psychoses. At least we don't get the clause of the TSR Code of Ethics that forbade showing law-enforcement officials in a bad light.

 

[linnorm]

Thats what I was saying- the way I am parsing the sentance is in the following manner:

When depicting the human form [qualifier for F/SF genre] Gratuitous nudity [examples] is not acceptable.

But interpretation is half the fun!!!!

Aaron.

Sorry, apparently I wan't clear on what I was disagreeing with. I don't dispute your interpretation as quoted above, but as "bare female nipples" are one of the examples there are many products that are most certainly not safe from being tagged as violators of the license. The majority (or at least the ones I've seen) of Mongoose's products serve as a good example.