"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Celtavian]

re

What an incredibly foolish move on the part of WotC. Why would they want that kind of responsibility? I have no idea.

This is a fantasy game. By its very nature, it will push the envelope of good taste when the litmus test is "community standards". What does the term "community standards" mean? This is just unbelievable. Most fantasy artists wouldn't be within "community standards".

If I don't like the content of a book, then I don't buy it. All this pressure has to be coming from Hasbro, since they are a family toy company. They probably didn't even like the release of the Book of Vile Darkness.

Just unbelievable. I hope they regain their senses and remove this clause.

 

[KingOfChaos]

WoTC is sounding more and more like Palladium..and that's not good, folks.

Next thing you know, they'll tell us we can't use the word 'the' in our books. Maybe even start sending cease and desist letters to fan website owners again.

 

[Samnell]

Hey, it's just like the Fifties all over again! Way to go WOTC! Go get them dirty birdies before they poop all over my happy place.

 

[Kichwas]

This is also being discussed on the WotC boards in two places I know of so far:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96058
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95927

And there's a discussion on the valro project's boards also.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the WotC resolution is just aimed at protecting the age low-end of their market, that is they are trying to avoid complications or criticism on their D&D products if other companies publish material which is possibly not very suitable for children. Obviously, they can keep full control on their own publications, but they are probably afraid that 3rd party material may still raise questions against the whole D&D series.

Frankly, I don't care about their decision. I like seeing good art in D&D books, but I don't think that elven boobies make the art better, neither I feel the need to see more boobies in general, since there are already quite as many as I want on TV , and if I just need to see elven ones... I ask my elvish-looking finnish girlfriend to... well...

 

[mythusmage]

Here's an alternative to what Wizards has done.

"(Insert company name here) is solely responsible for (insert product name here) and its contents. No other company bears any responsibility for (insert product name here) and its contents." (This notice is free for use by any RPG publisher who wishes to use it. Simply replace '(insert company name here)' with the name of your company and '(insert product name here)' with the name of the product this notice is to appear in. The notice should appear on or near the credits page, and in a clear, legible type. But if you really must put it on the back cover, I'm not going to complain.)

That should work better than what WotC is doing at keeping them from getting sued for a third party's product.

 

[mythusmage]

Oh, before I forget. Is Wizards talking about red-footed boobies or blue-footed boobies. Naked red-footed boobies might be okay, but you may have to 'Photoshop' some clothes on any blue-footed boobies in your game art.

 

[alaric]

That should work better than what WotC is doing at keeping them from getting sued for a third party's product.

Personally i think this has more to do with bad PR from mothers that want a good reason to hate D&D "Look D&D is really about porn!". If that's the case i don't really have a problem with Wizards reserving the right to dicate which 3rd party books get a sticker saying "Intended for adults" or somesuch. If you don't want kids to access certain stuff, whatever, go ahead, but blocking book sales because you disagree with the content is wrong.

 

[Ranger REG]

It may be, but WotC is the license holder. This means that they can publish anything they feel like publishing, and still slap an d20 logo on it. If they wanted to, they could publish the "D&D Iconic Character Nude Coloring Book."

BoVD also hints more than it shows.

More importantly, Wizards of the Coast is the trademark OWNER. They can do whatever they like with their own trademarks. The license is for the third-party Client (who are not owner of the trademark but would like to use Wizards' trademark). Besides, Wizards of the Coast, the License Holder, cannot be Client to their own License.

 

[GameWyrd]

There's a comment about public opinion above this post in the thread. That inspired me to go check on the Valar opinion poll I was running in one issue of Echoes from the Wyrd. I thought I'd a) quickly set up an opinion poll about this issue in this week's Echo and b) share the current Valar results here.

It'll be interesting to see how the two polls compare. GameWyrd.com's user base is different from ENWorld's, perhaps broader, younger and not %100 D&Ders.

The poll:
--

This is a great idea, a real change and real excitement.
(30 votes : %11.11)
This is a good idea, gamers who want the book can buy it and benefit but gamers who don’t want the book can leave it on the shelf.
(74 votes : %27.41)
The book doesn’t bother me and it’s too early to judge it decisively.
(33 votes : %12.22)
The book doesn’t bother me; I just don’t need 1d20 and a prestige class to be erotic.
(38 votes : %14.07)
This is a poor idea, a gimmick at best.
(66 votes : %24.44)
This is a bad idea and yet more ammunition for the anti-RPG press.
(25 votes : %9.26)
This is a terrible idea, an example of an RPG that could actually corrupt the innocent.
(4 votes : %1.48)