"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Ratenef]

Thanks for the FF clairification. I didn't have the book in front of me at the time and the only imagery I had of it was green and red 'indistinct patterns' (guess my memory isn't all that picture perfect).

Now, you guys are all up in arms about these bare nipples?!

First, are they nipples and not teats (of like an animal such as a goat or pig)?

Second, if they are nipples, are they female?

If you guys are saying that WotC are breaking their own rules by these pictures, then you are truly BLOWING EVERYTHING OUT OF PROPORTION!

I'd hate to see you guys take a Rorshach test.

 

[The Sigil]

from what i've seen, the BoEF does not fulfill any legal definition of pornography as i know it. perhaps Anthony can give us a better indication of this.

so can we please stop with the porno references?

just because you think certain things are icky doesn't give you the right to call it pornography or "perversion."

And just because you think certain things AREN'T icky doesn't give you the right to demand that it NOT be called pornography or perversion.

These things are in the eye of the beholder and deciding whether or not something is pornographic is in fact a subjective call. You are as wrong and as close-minded for calling him to abandon the "porno" call as you think he is for using it.

As an example, in the USA, magazines like Stuff or Maxim or even the SI Swimsuit Issue are not *quite* considered pornographic by most - though they toe the line. In the US, it seems the "accepted" definition of pictorial pornography is "bared female nipples" and "genitalia, including pubic hair." In Europe, you can remove "bared female nipples" and in some cases "pubic hair" (at least that was my experience). Of course, the standards are relaxed a bit with, say, pictures of newborn children or other such things - seeing a female baby in the nude with nipples uncovered and a strategically placed towel is a lot different from seeing a full-grown female in the nude with nipples uncovered and a strategically placed towel, no? The only difference between the two is age, and I doubt you'll get hauled in on a kiddie porn charge for showing the picture of your two-week old daughter. But what is the age where it changes? Can you tell me? Where is the line?

Is see-through clothing pornographic? Is a midriff porn? Is the back of a woman's neck porn? It depends on what your particular value system is - there's not a hard and fast (no pun intended) definition.

However, in certain households in the US - or in other countries in the world, Stuff and Maxim and the SI Swimsuit Issue WOULD be considered pornographic, and perhaps justifiably so. Whose definition is right? Nobody's. Everybody's.

You fall into the trap of, "my view is rational and correct, his view is too close-mindedly conservative, and her view is way out there in left field liberal."

If he continues to call it porn and the vast majority disagrees, eventually the claim will be dismissed as "silly" - but if the majority agrees that even if it's not porn, it certainly toes the line closely and can be considered such, I think it's a valid designation. Bottom line - some of Valar's stuff skirts closely enough to the line that I think it's not out of line for someone to call it "pornography" even if I don't happen to think it quite crosses over (whether or not I actually think that is not important).

--The Sigil

 

[seankreynolds]

However, even with this WotC is still nowhere near as bad as T$R was back in the Bad Old Days. With OGL games, even non-d20, there are things that the Evil Empire of Gaming would have never allowed. Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG, they also tried to assert trademark over "Spell", "Orc" and a myriad of other generic fantasy terms, and prevent any other game from using them. (I've been told that over and over, it's either true, or one heck of a gaming Urban Legend).

I don't recally trying to (C) or (TM) "orc" or "spell" but the Nazi(TM) is technically true, but not TSR's fault. As Jim Butler pointed out (hi, Jim! Wassup?) that was placed there at LucasFilm's insistance, IIRC, and actually referred to the _image_ of that Nazi (a drawing), which _is_ trademarkable.

Back on topic, don't be too hard on Andy Smith and anyone from Customer Service. I'm pretty sure that they have been told what they can and can't say, and if they do say things that they've been told not to say, they'll probably be fired. I'll point you back to 1997 and a certain "problem with the printers that's delaying our products" statement posted by yours truly on the TSR site, when the actual problem was that TSR had no money to pay the printers. Everyone at TSR knew the truth, but nobody could say anything. So Andy and the custserv guys probably know or suspect more than what they're saying but aren't at liberty to say. It's understandable. Don't take it out on them. Direct your (polite) comments at WotC legal, and if that gets you nowhere than at the head of WotC (who is some Hasbro guy whose name I don't remember).

And if you really have a serious issue with the new license, don't publish books with the d20 logo.

Can anyone point me at actual _images_ of these indicating-compatible-but-not-the-d20-logo logos? I'd like to see them.

 

[20sides]

bardstephenfox wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not like the "sole discretion" clause. This clause gives WotC the authority to demand that a publisher yank a product off the market and destroy stock ... without any mitigation/discussion/etc. It does not matter if WotC doesn't intend to enforce it this way. They have dictated that they can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because they have begun to reserve that right, you must assume that they will use it whenever they deem it necessary.

The economy is in shambles right now, and everyone's hurting. I can not see them being benevolent and not using this to capture market share. Maybe WoTC is not intent on using this, but Hasbro has taken a beating over the last two years and it would not surprise me to see this used as a tool to raise their market share or introduce further restrictions to weed out competition.

 

[Dr. Harry]

As a reminder, I do still worry about a "d20 diaspora" encouraged by fear of some publishers to use the license. I am just trying to defuse some of these more emotive claims.

I am also concerned about this, and think that it might be best if WotC picked some books already extant and specifically said *this book does not cross the line*. That would allow publishers to work with more confidence. As someone else commented, a small fee to cover the cost of obtaining a "imprimature" from WotC might be a worthwhile investment.

 

[seankreynolds]

Edit: Double post. Actual post is below.

 

[buzz]

Maybe WoTC is not intent on using this, but Hasbro has taken a beating over the last two years and it would not surprise me to see this used as a tool to raise their market share or introduce further restrictions to weed out competition.

I have a hard time seeing WotC spending the time, effort, and money enforcing the new d20STL to any extent that would "weed out competition," for the same economic reasons you cite. No to mention the fact that WotC, effectively, *has no competition* in the d20 arena, and thus have nothing to gain. Seriously, WotC sells more cpoies of a "flop" than their nearest competitor does with a runaway bestseller. And I can't imagine them giving a rat's ptootie about some PDF publisher who, at best, will sell maybe 150 copies of a questionable product.

And what good reason could WotC have for getting rid of companies whose products drive sales of the PHB?

This is all chicken little hysteria.

 

[seankreynolds]

As an example, in the USA, magazines like Stuff or Maxim or even the SI Swimsuit Issue are not *quite* considered pornographic by most - though they toe the line.

I'll have to disagree with you there. If those are toeing the line of pornography, then so is the National Geographic Swimsuit issue they released this summer, or any National Geographic issue that contains people in the nude, or the X-Men Summer Swimsuit issue that Marvel released a few years ago.

In the US, it seems the "accepted" definition of pictorial pornography is "bared female nipples" and "genitalia, including pubic hair."

Not so, because that would include National Geographic, the Kama Sutra, and The Joy of Sex. None of those are porn, else Waldenbooks stores across the country would be being raided by the police for selling porn (Waldenbooks sells all three of the above, as well as magazines such as Playboy and others which contain nudity and would be porn by your definition but not by the common or legal definition).

Dictionary.com defines the word pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

The law.com dictionary defines it as "pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse." (See also their definition of obscene, "a highly subjective reference to material or acts which display or describe sexual activity in a manner appealing only to 'prurient interest,' with no legitimate artistic, literary or scientific purpose.")

Please use legal definitions of words rather than your own definitions. Don't "pull a Jaros," as it were (Steve Jaros is this guy on rec.games.frp.dnd who used to get into arguments with other posters and fall back on his defense of "the dictionary doesn't define what words mean, people do, so don't use the dictionary definition of words against me when I say something"). Unless we're using a common definition of our words, we can't have a rational argument.

 

[jgbrowning]

Because it is compatible with D&D and it does cover sex? And as I stated above I believed and still do that a press release does not constitute marketing. And finally I have said it was crappy press release that I regret.

[/b]

My point is that, regardless of what speach is or is not marketing, the end result is marketing and compatiblity. This is a letter of the license vrs. spirit of the license debate.

The license demands that I put that text on my book. The purpose of that text is to let the world know that this product requires you to have, and be conversant, with D&D. In the original license that text was optional. The assumption on our part was that everyone would put the text as prominantly as they could on their products. When people didn't use the text it became mandatory. We wanted people to promote D&D on their products. That is what I did. From the very beginning Ryan Dancey said - eventually there will be a d20 product that covers sex or the Klu Klux Klan - our defense is that we have no oversite or control over content of products. That has obviously changed.

I'm not sure how putting out d20 material, that you knew WotC was changing the liscense explicitly prevent, is promotional of D&D. It could be argued that it is, but with your foreknowldge of the change, you most definitely knew that your promotion/association of D&D is not the type of promotion they wanted.

I think there is an underlying assumption I am mising in this. Why wouldn't I do everything I could to get this product out and into the hands of the consumer? And why is that "thumbing my nose". I care about this product.

It's "thumbing the nose" because the care you're showing here is only to your product, not WotC's trademark. However misplaced their decision is, and I think it is a terrible terrible decision, I respect their rights to use their property as they see fit. And even when it is legal to do something, that respect prevents certain things from being done. WotC did not want some material your book covers under the d20 license, and you knew this, but you hoped to squeek your book by before they legally forbid you.

I think its a great product that is useful and will sell well. I want as many consumers as possible to look through it and decide for themselves cause I think alot of them will buy it. I'm a business man. I didn't do this product out of spite or revenge I did it because I beleive in it and its a product I've wanted to do since I was in college. I just had the realization last March that it was "now or never".
AV

I don't think I stated my point sufficiently. Your responses have all been reasonable, but the point I was trying to make was this: You knew the license was going to change, and then you did everything you could under the existing license with the knowledge that what you were doing (ie. associating D&D with elements WotC doesn't want them associated with) is counter to what WotC wants for their trademark.

What you did is completely legally defensible, but I don't like the fact that, with your prior knowledge, you deliberately made a product which falls into a category of "things WotC doesn't like enough to change the license to prohibit them." You tried to deliberately use WotC trademark to increase your personal benefits even when you knew that what you were doing was not what they wanted.

It's not illegal. I just find it questionable behavior and I'm wondering if such behavior will result in further restrictions in the license.

joe b.

 

[TiQuinn]

Alright, so it sounds like there are a few notable OGL products out there, but the vast majority are d20. And it sounds like a shaky proposition to get your stuff into stores without the d20STL. In that case, I definitely hope that a more viable alternative appears for people who want to create mature products that would not be allowed under d20STL. I still think this is much ado about nothing right now, and hopefully that will remain the case. This has always been in the power of WotC to change or even revoke the d20 license so I really don't see much changing here...more the fear that things could change for the worse. From my standpoint, that's ALWAYS been a possibility.