"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[wingsandsword]

What does this mean?

The death of the "d20 License." The tougher termination clause, combined with the easily abusable "sole discretion" of WotC to pull any product with the d20 trademark means that no company in their right mind will produce "d20" branded materials. Too much risk. What happens when they use their "sole discretion" to demand the pulling of a popular competition book that they think is taking sales away from their own book?

Also notice the clause about it not being able to "promote" any real world religion. No Christian themed d20 RPG's like Testament or Rapture anymore then I guess, since they promote Judeo-Christian ideology. No books for d20 Modern trying to make a more "authentic" depiction of witchcraft or any real-world priesthood.

It isn't the end of open gaming. They can't put that genie back in the bottle. But the "d20" era of open gaming is approaching twilight. Open gaming materials compatible with D&D will be around, they are too big a market to ignore, but no company in it's right mind will use the "d20" name now.

What lead to this? I would personally imagine some clueless pointy-haired boss at Hasbro who hears incidental buzz of the "Book of Erotic Fantasy", wonders why WotC was allowing it to be produced by a family toy company like Hasbro/WotC. WotC explained that they didn't have editorial control over 3rd party "d20" products, so their corporate masters demanded they institute such controls. A brainless stuffed suit who knows jack squat about gaming and not much about the law probably demanded it.

The Everquest RPG was a fine example of a non "d20" branded game that uses the "3rd Edition" system. It will probably be a model of future "3rd Edition Compatible" games like what Everquest calls itself (since there is no restriction on that term, and if WotC tries to sue now, it's been in use for well over a year now, so the principle of Estoppel means it will be very hard to enforce a copyright over "3rd Edition"). At least if WotC goes belly up or loses their mind, thanks to open gaming (if not d20) the game will live on, even after it's inventors have gone mad.

In the end WotC loses. They look like total jerks to the gaming public. They open themselves to liability by having to review every d20 product or be liable for almost anything. 3rd Party publishers don't want to risk losing money on a product WotC chooses to destroy. Non "d20" books that can publish experience tables and be truly self contained also don't generate sales for WotC core RPG's. No need to buy the Player's Handbook (or d20 Modern) anymore for new gamers.

To a lesser degree, the gaming public loses, since "d20" is no longer a universal sign of a compatible game system. It leads to just more confusion in the gaming world.

Who wins? Valar and the Book of Erotic Fantasy. They just drop the "d20" name and logo from it, and they get loads of free publicity and buzz about their "banned" gaming book.

(I am not a lawyer. I am only moderately educated in legal principles. This is an informed laymans opinion.)

 

[Michael Morris]

If nothing else, send this to them:

I agree with and join Ryan Dancy in beseeching you to reconsider the changes to the d20 license. His original letter concerning this topic is quoted below:

From: ogf-d20-l-admin@opengamingfoundation.org on behalf of Ryan S. Dancey [ryand@organizedplay.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:03 PM
To: ogf-d20-l@opengamingfoundation.org
Subject: [Ogf-d20-l] Ryan Dancey Comments on Changes to D20 System Trademark License

I'm pretty unhappy with the decision to alter the d20 System Trademark License to include post-publication content limitations.

In my opinion, the current version of the d20 STL is not a license I would be comfortable using in a commercial work unless I was able to secure a release from Wizards prior to publication exempting me from the content clauses. The potential for abuse (accidential or intentional) of the new clauses renders the "safe harbor" established by the D20 System Trademark License moot.

By altering the risk equation that must be considered by each party to the D20 System Trademark License in such a manner, in my opinion, it may now be more risky for a publisher to publish with the D20STL than without it. Thus the changes severely undermine the value proposition of the license as a whole.

Prior to these changes Wizards of the Coast was insulated from the contents of 3rd party d20 products through its inability to assert a review or approval right over such contents. By insisting on such a right, Wizards of the Coast has just made themselves liable for defamation, slander, trade secret, copyright, patent, and trademark litigation which would otherwise have been limited to the original publisher.

In addition, they've put themselves into a terrible PR position. Prior to these changes, Wizards of the Coast could refuse public comment on the contents of any product using the D20STL, claiming no prior knowledge nor approval responsibility for distasteful work. Now they will be forced to explain either a) why they support a work containing distasteful content, or b) when they'll be forcing the publisher to institute a recall of that work.

The net result of this change will be more work for Wizards of the Coast (with no related revenue), more danger of a public communications nightmare, less D20-logoed product, and an increase in the effort devoted to creating (and the value of) a publisher-sponsored D20 trademark replacement not controlled by Wizards of the Coast .

All those problems have been incurred to gain the ability to stop one product from commercial distribution to a limited audience. And in the end, Wizards of the Coast probably won't stop the release of that product. All they'll stop is the publisher's use of the words "Dungeons & Dragons" and a logo the size of a postage stamp.

Essentially, Wizards gets nothing for this change but heartache.

This is what happens when emotion gets in front of rational business management. And, in my opinion, it is an extremely unfortunate choice.

I hope you'll join me in asking Wizards of the Coast to reconsider its stance on this matter and retract this change to the d20 System Trademark License.

Ryan S. Dancey
Founder, Open Gaming Foundation

This article may be copied and republished provided the entire contents remain intact.

 

[pogre]

I'm not sure I agree WOTC has opened themselves up to liability. They have just increased their ability to police product bearing the d20 tag. I am absolutely sure they ran this through legal before changing it.

No disclaimer here - I am a lawyer

I'm curious what Clark and Mistwell think... Speaking in hypotheticals only of course.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What does this mean?

The death of the "d20 License." *snip*

I don't think the sky's falling quite yet, thanks. I personally don't know the rationale behind this new provision, and I don't think it's a good idea. But it does not spell the end of the D20 License in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, it includes the term "sole discretion." It also includes guidelines, and any termination that doesn't follow those guidelines can be successfully challenged. Further, I seriously doubt WotC is looking for a reason to crack down, since they've always been very quick to give people permission to go above and beyond the limits of OGC, when asked politely.

This new provision does open the door to potential abuse, sure. But a deliberate crackdown is not only out of character, it would require further modification of the license. And if they were to start cracking down on companies for suspicious reasons, word of that would get out pretty quick too. This is not the end as we know it; it's a bump in the road, an aggravation for some people, and--in my personal, admittedly not-fully-informed opinion--not a good idea. But it's not a disaster by any stretch of the imagination.

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, and go OGL rather than D20. For the vast majority of products, which don't come anywhere near that line, it's going to be business as normal. The fact is, even in a worst-case scenario, WotC has no reason to nix most products, since none of the D20 companies have either the distribution or name recognition to serve as actual competition. I agree with Ryan Dancy that the wording of the provision is potentially abusive, but I really don't believe there's any risk involved for the vast majority of companies or products.

I'm all for discussion, and I'm all for letting WotC know--politely--that we disagree with this. But let's try to keep it in perspective; a situation like this is the last place where histrionics are going to help.

 

[Michael Morris]

My personal fear is this - you can't trademark or copyright ideas or principles. All you can do is copyright the expressions of ideas. Now WotC doesn't have to do this.

Why is this important, to me at least? Art of Magic is heavily inspired by Magic: The Gathering and a stated goal of the book is to transfer the feel of the color pie to d20. We've been careful to stay well within legality - so much so that if WotC's sharks (er, lawyers) file a case, it will be dismissed without a hearing. But now, WotC doesn't even have to file a suit. They can claim it doesn't meet "quality standards" and shut it down.

My day just got worse...

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I'm not a lawyer nor am I publisher but this seems to be dire news...

What's the diffrenace for the typical RPG player in this and is this true:

On a positive note: All they are doing now is driving more and more people to print their books using just the Open Gaming License, in which people don't need the WotC PHB to D&D, and that is something we all should cheer about. I think that's positive anyways.

Is above true?

 

[Gamethyme]

Well, I certainly hope someone informs WotC of an obvious violator and has the Book of Vile Darkness pulled from shelves. Such hypocracy!!

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.

 

[frankthedm]

It does remind me of TSR's old, silly "Code of Conduct" for their products; a sort of "Disney World" set of ethics for their writers to follow.

That abyss blasted peice of Otyugh chow caused irreparable damage to far too many worlds. It was not surprising the revison to Darksun had a mad rush to free the slaves.

 

[The Blue Elf]

Whats next a Parental Advisory,RPG game rating system on explicit content Rated-E for everyone type deal?

 

[Michael Morris]

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.

Actually, they are in violation of the license in the role of licensee. HOWEVER, as the licensor they have to file any related lawsuits - they can't be filed on their behalf. And I don't imagine WotC suing themselves

IANAL. Talk to Orcus if you want a lawyer.