"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Dr. Harry]

So, one more isn't going to hurt is it. In the 7 pages of replies I read I didn't notice a form letter so my apologies for those who had to suffer through seeing one more.

No, my question is "Why were you surprised?". You skipped 2/3 of the replies (at least as it appears in my setup); it was not that I think you should apologize for posting the WotC form letter, but if you wish to apologize for your own ...

Because I'm special. Or maybe, just maybe they could see what affect it is having on the community (not just publishers). The fact that it annoyed even normal gamers is a testament to why it is such a bad idea. As a consumer damn right I'm involved. I'm glad they at least took the time to answer actual publishers.

Did you really think that you were the only one to have written to them? Hey, if you wish to post such strongly worded (read as: extreme) posts, then *read the whole thread*. Really. I'll wait.



Okay?

Oh, and while I think that things could have been done better and I do not wish to dismiss those with more reasonable complaints (ones not involving calling the poor schmuck who had to read through your letter a "communist pig" and accusing WotC of trying to burn your books or control your television by protecting the value of something they own), it has been my observation that anything, including late afternoon and evening thunderstorms will annnoy a good section of "normal" gamers, and even trigger some to scream about communist plots and censorship.

Yes, sometimes overreacting is good.

Nope, I don't buy this. Maybe some things need determined reactions, but I do not think that there is a justification for casting off all reason and restraint.

Agreed, but it does seem a lot like a child bringing a basket ball to a court, getting a large group to play and stating that if you don't like the changes he's making to the rules they all started playing under, they can go home.

No, but the child has every right to take his ball and go home. Do you suggest that having the basketball (D&D) and allowing others to play with it (d20STL) gives them the right to slash it, damage it, or hit the child (WotC) in the face with it?

Do you think Spawn would have been published if the Comic Code were still strictly enforced? No.

Again, nobody is stopping anyone from publishing. A more apt comparison would be to demand that you should be able to publish whatever the smeg you want in a comic book, and then print a "Marvel" or "DC" trademark on the label. Is Time/Warner censoring you by not allowing you to do that?

Hmm, over the top? Yes. Measured and self-censored yes.

Calling someone a "communist pig" is measured and self-censored?

Censorship is not immaterial for anyone. If they don't want it linked to or associated with them have a disclaimer - that's what they're for isn't it.

If they don't want it linked or associated with them, then require product that doesn't meet their standards to use OGL, not d20. WotC is not censoring anything. Please read the text after the word "immaterial".

They made no differentiation that I could see, so why should I.

In order to construct a reasoned response?

The meaning is quite clear. I have made this suggestion before in this thread, and while I am not a lawyer, this reasoning was endorsed by Clark Peterson, who *is* a lawyer, and has a *real* stake in this, that stake being Necromancer Games. The WotC material is quite clear.

Dude, you totally missed my point. Disney and other companies have so censored or rewritten so many stories that they can no longer be recognized ... release it under some other policy, but don't even think of saying it's compatible with D&D 3.5.

Well, I could say "You made no differentiation that I could see, so why should I?", but let's not slip over to the dark side.

You may not like how Disney changed the storylines to the movies the studio has done, as compared to the original versions, and I do not criticize that, per se (Tolkien himself greatly disliked Disney for that reason). Still, that does not make your point. Disney may have softened - severely, in some cases - the storyline in order to reach a mass audience, but Disney was phenominally successful in reaching that audience. A letter that has the effect of suggesting "Gosh, WotC, you don't want to do what Disney does" would likely trigger a quick peek at the Disney empire, and the response, "Uh, yes we do."

I must confess that I still miss the relevance of the Sailor Moon reference.

Again, WotC protecting WotC's interest through what is WotC's physical property takes nothing out of your hands. What this disallows is putting "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front of your product, if it crosses the line.

It would have been nice to receive anything but a form letter because it would have shown it is at least being read rather than autodeleted or autoresponded to. ... This is something that Wizards obviously does not show by using these form letters.

What this indicates is the level of response that Wizards got. This has gone to darn near 500 posts on ENWorld, and we are but one of the gaming bulletin boards.

In this case I did expect a short answer (not a short form letter answer) because I have received answers on several other topics - even if they were only related to D&D, compliments or complaints.

I have also received responses from various parts of WotC to inquiries. I conclude that the reason for the form letter in this case is:

1) The sheer volume of mail

2) The genuine surprise (as attested to by third parties whose judgment I trust on this matter; see rest of thread) on the part of WotC to the reaction to the announcement, and

3) The tone of your email; see my last post.

There are genuine concerns about impleementation and meaning of the changes in the d20STL; I fail to see how your email addresses any of them. Please see my last post.

Peace,

Harry Leckenby

 

[shadow]

Since arnwyn, and Shadow below his post, care nothing for the quality of their writing, I feel safe in putting them on my ignore list. They have nothing to say, and they say it badly.

I seldom feel the need to get into arguments over messageboards. However for various reasons, which I will not discuss here, mythusmage's posts hit me on a very personal level.

First and foremost, contrary to mythusmage's ramblings, I do, indeed, care about the quality of my writing. However, with various reports and papers I have to write, a post on an internet messageboard is very low on my priority list of things to worry about.

Second, I want to know why mythusmage feels qualified to judge everyone's posts for correct grammar, stylistic elements, punctuation, and so forth. Of course, I also want to know why he feels the need to critique every one's posting. This is an internet messageboard, not a scholarly journal! Hell, even the worst post isn't half as bad as most of what is seen on a typical internet chat room.

If mythusmage is really so concerned about proper writing then I would like to see him to give a complete sentence by sentence critique of my original post, which he so eloquently criticized. While he's playing the role of the English teacher, he should also critique everyone else's posts. (Perhaps Morris should appoint him as the official ENWorld language cop!)

A disordered post is a sign of a disordered mind. My thanks to you two for confirming that.

This is quite a personal attack. Now, not only my writing, but also my mental capacities are being criticized. Mythusmage is really taking this to a personal level!

 

[Arnwyn]

Mythusmage is really taking this to a personal level!

My response is a big "meh". The guy seemed like an oversensitive nutjob who easily jumped to conclusions, so I don't think it's such a bad thing being on the ignore list of somebody like that.

Ends the thread with a big shebang, though!

 

[patrickmallette]

You skipped 2/3 of the replies...

So, I didn't feel like answering every minutia.

Did you really think that you were the only one to have written to them?

I don't recall saying I was the only one to write in.

No, but the child has every right to take his ball and go home.

I guess a kid with a ball does have that right, but should he be doing it just because he's not winning as much as he wants. It's not very sportsmanlike to change the rules (like where the out of bounds line is - like this new quality clause) just because it gives him a temporary advantage (don't want anyone else making monster manuals with the occasional nipple now do we?).

Regarding the Marvel/DC analogy, it would be better suited if Marvel made an open world license where others could write/sell stories of Spiderman and then change the rules so that Spiderman could never be depicted in a bed with Mary Jane. I was not suggesting companies were plastering the Wizards trademark on their products. They are publishing to an "open" license and using a trademark that is not Wizards main identifying logo.

I must confess that I still miss the relevance of the Sailor Moon reference.

The company that obtained rights to display it took an artist's expression and bastardized it for their market. Perhaps a better example would have been the statue of David with his willy hanging out being covered up by a bunch of prudes so no one else could view the statue as it was meant to be viewed (a real world example here). Would you like being an artist only to have your artwork, your life's blood being altered or reworked by someone else. I think Michelangelo would be pretty miffed seeing his statue garbed and hiding the full details of his work and expression just to be displayed in a particular country.

What this disallows is putting "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front of your product, if it crosses the line.

Yes exactly, a line that they can and have just shown they are willing to redraw. This week it is real world religions, and explicit sexuality. Fine. But what will it be next year? Will they change it so that even a fictitious married couple could not be shown in bed together? Maybe not, but they could just like the Flintstones couldn't be drawn in the same bed even though that show was for adults originally.

Just hypothesize for a moment that the Midnight campaign setting becomes more popular than the Forgotten Realms, Wizards could change their rules to prevent any evil person from being depicted in the role as the leader of a nation or continent. Poof, there goes that campaign setting from the d20 product list. If the publisher is lucky they might still be accepted and popular under the OGL, but things don't always work that way. So, Wizards current ruckus could just be an escape route to prevent a company from publishing an adult title for a mature or at least adult audience; and tomorrow they could just as easily use it as a dirty underhanded maneuver in an attempt to regain market share.

There are genuine concerns about implementation and meaning of the changes in the d20STL; I fail to see how your email addresses any of them.

A change to an "open" license like this to close a loophole that would make it unenforceable is one thing. A change in a license to stifle creativity and expression is quite another, as is making changes in an attempt to regain market share because there are many high quality competing products (Sword and Sorcery). While wizards does not seem to be making a change for this last reason (yet), after seeing what they were willing to change in this latest version of the license I can easily see them employing that tactic at the first sign of a Q4 loss.

That is my point and those are my concerns. I'm sorry if you disagree or still don't see it, but at least one other person has understood my message. To that person, I thank you and I am looking forward to learning more about the FGA.

It was nice chatting with you Harry. It would have been nicer to have the same conversation with you in person.