"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[TiQuinn]

Hmmm....this sounds like one of those news pieces that rankle everyone at first, and then fade to nothingness after a while.

 

[mythusmage]

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.

The first thread appears to have been deleted for some reason.

 

[Henrix]

The first thread appears to have been deleted for some reason.

No, it hasn't been banned, but you need to be logged in with a membership that shows that you are over 17, as it is in their 'mature' section of the boards.

 

[Katowice]

If there's a job at WOTC to review products for this sort of thing, where do I apply?

So, I was reading all of this stuff, and I had to laugh at this:

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

While the actual definition of salacious is "bawdy" or "appealing to or stimulating sexual desire", some synonyms include spicy, exciting, scandalous, and even interesting. Just be sure the sex stuff in your works isn't interesting, and you'll be okay. Got it?

That "...bare female nipples...." thing is just too funny. Who wrote this (or suggested it be added to the license)? Certainly not a lawyer, one hopes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Violence and Gore – Descriptions of combat are acceptable in a Covered Product. However art or text depicting excessively graphic violence or gore is not acceptable.
.

What, like the hobbit standing over a defeated foe who'se brain was bubbling out of a smashed skull in their "hobbit" edition of Dragon (and while it was still under *their* control)?

fx: shakes head

 

[Felon]

No bathroom activity? Darn, so much for Anthony's follow-up, "The Book of Scatological Fantasy"

 

[Maraxle]

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

Actually, no they're not. They don't publish under the license, so they can't violate it. They can slap the logo on anything they want without using the license since they own the logo.

 

[Vaxalon]

So does this applyt to product already on the shelf?

About 80% of my mongoose books have bare female nipples in them somewhere or another...

I assume they can only prevent reprints of that material at the most, and stop future product from using the same style of art at the least.

No. Read the licence and the guide.

They can force you, your distributors, and your retailers to destroy all existing copies that violate the licence.

 

[techno]

I support WotC's decision. I believe it is their right to not have pornography (such as the BoEF) associated with their trademark. Do you really think that WotC will be able to say that BoEF isn't associated with D&D and have people actually believe that? No way. Hasbro's corporate image IS at stake here and they have a right to take action to defend it.

 

[poilbrun]

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.

Couldn't one file a lawsuit against WotC instead of a publisher for a book to which they object? After all, the publisher is responsible, but WotC is also responsible since they let the book go through even though it had objectionable content (from the point of view of the one filing the lawsuit, of course)?