"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Mercule]

It's Letter writing time folks!!

Or not. INAL, but it's my understanding that if you can use the entirety of the SRD, plus character generation and advancement rules, under the OGL. Really, the only advantage of the d20 logo over the OGL is brand recognition.

All we need is for some reasonably well-known, well respected and stable person/group/company to publish a substitute SRD with a d20-type liscense that would become the new brand ID. Three that come to mind are our very own ENWorld, Sword & Sorcery Studios (WWGS), and Malhavoc. With no offense to either of the others, I think S&S is the best bet, mainly because they actually have printing presses and a brick-and-mortar business. Instead of using the d20 liscense, we all start looking for the "SS20" (someone, please, come up with a better name) logo. Besides that, the name "Swords & Sorcery" is almost as iconic (because of the genre, not their own longevity) as "Dungeons & Dragons". I certainly wouldn't feel bad about pulling out my "S&S" Player's Handbook.

Now, it should be noted that, although I haven't read it and fully acknowledge that I may be completely mistaken in my impressions, I'm not really a big fan of the concept of the BoEF. I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it and can't really blame WotC for trying to find a way to distance themselves from it. My main beef with the relicense is that, as Mr. Dancey says, it opens up d20 publishers to far too great a risk of liability to and oversight from WotC. I'd much rather have the BoEF or even the "d20 Book of Pornographic Fantasy" than have the d20 license hamstring the way it now is.

 

[davewoodrum]

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.

The prejudice section can actually prevent one from making, say, an adventure or setting in which real-world prejudice is taken into account—like conflicts in India between Muslims and Hindus. So, if you want a Tom Clancy type scenario, just rename the religions, I suppose. Or use Church of the Sub-Genius! Or Neo-Nazis, because its okay to hate them ... everyone knows they're evil. Ooops, Sum of All Fears beat you to it. We all know that the movie worked out fine, even though it changed the villains from the Islamic radicals presented in the book. Or did it?

Technically, the prejudice section also prevents you from writing a supplement or game that focuses on Wicca or Christianity. For example, writing a game wherein the "good" characters are all Christian is right out. That's a shame, because a well-designed RPG can be a great learning tool in a religious context.

Apparently prejudice among fantasy religions, groups, races, and such is kosher.

Hmm... Greek, Norse, Roman, Celtic, Eygptian, etc. etc. mythologies ARE real world religions....

Have you prayed to Zeus today?

 

[Harlock]

WotC has no business playing morality police with the D20 license

Now this is a very amusing comment. The D20STL is their business, it is their license and they can make it read however they like. I am with Psion on this one. Valterra knew good and well what he was doing because he used to enforce the d20 license. He decided to turn this into a (and forgive me Grandma is this is unacceptable) pissing contest. I agree with WotC's right to protect their logo and license as they see fit. I do disagree with the most recent additions to the license, especially considering the retroactive feel of it all. I am a Scarred Lands addict and frankly there are a lot of bared female nipples scattered throughout various works and I'd hate to see S&SS be forced to yank a lot of stuff that passed muster before into the shredder. On the other hand, I for one, would not mind one bit if I never saw another nipple in a Scarred Lands book again. I am conservative in my morals but I don't think there is not a use for a BoEF either. And, I agree that Valar has every right to publish said book, but WotC doesn't have to let them use their license.

I hope Anthony Vaterra is happy. Way to stand up for your principles and cause more trouble than an indy publication is worth.

 

[Grazzt]

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.

Technically WotC can publish anything they want anyway. They dont play by the OGL or d20 rules.

As for the BoVD, its not a d20 product so it doesnt fall under the d20 or OGL licenses at all. Its a WotC product...all IP, etc. Different rules.

 

[TiQuinn]

KDLadage,

I just wonder how often WotC is actually going to use these new clauses in the d20 license to come down on people. I do agree with you that folks may just start using their own logos to denote compatibility with d20.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand. If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.

Agreed.

Frankly, I am glad that they have taken action against this execrable product. The people at Valar need to discover a sense of shame.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Agreed.
Frankly, I am glad that they have taken action against this execrable product. The people at Valar need to discover a sense of shame.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Myself, I beleive the right to censor content begins and ends with my judgement as a consumer - not the vested interests of another, competiting, corporation. If *I* feel that the BoEF is not for me *I* make that decision and opt not to buy it, not for Wizards to block its publication.

- Ma'at

 

[d4]

I just thought I would point out that BoVD doesn't use the D20 Logo. It uses the Dungeons & Dragons Logo. When is the last time you saw the D20 logo on a WoTC product? I don't think I have ever seen it on a WoTC release.

actually, i believe you are wrong. i don't own the BoVD, so i can't vouch for that, but all three-dozen or so WOTC d20 books that i own, from the Player's Handbook to d20 Modern to the Fiend Folio to Dieties & Demigods to the Star Wars Arms & Equipment Guide all have the d20 logo on the back cover.

i'd imagine the BoVD does as well.

 

[thundershot]

*sigh*

While the sexual material isn't a huge draw for me (though I am buying BOEF just out of curiosity), I despise the concept that the artists are now being censored in their drawings. As a 28 year old married man, I LIKE having the occaisional nipple shot in my gaming books. I enjoy art like that... I don't like tasteless PORN, however... I guess I'm just against censorship. I hate the idea of someone drawing something decent (like most of the Mongoose books, and even WOTC's newer books) and then getting it edited or removed just because it has a nipple...

Hopefully removing the d20 logo on covers won't alter the content of the books. I don't want anything to change for my d20 books, and want everything nice and compatable...


Chris

 

[Henry]

I hope Anthony Vaterra is happy. Way to stand up for your principles and cause more trouble than an indy publication is worth.

People are acting as if Anthony V is writing the BoEF all by himself. He's head of the new company - It's two other people writing the book.

Even so, if it wasn't Valar Project, it would be someone else. The license is going to be pushed in all directions, at some point. It is this caving to pressure that I dislike WotC's stance in. I forsee the d20 trademark becoming a hallmark for "G" rated fantasy, similar to what TSR was known for in the early 1990's, while publishers who show even the slightest bit of edginess or impropriety taking the OGL route.

I also get the feeling of thankfulness that Ryan Dancey and colleagues fought for the OGL being un-pullable, because I have the strong belief that current management would likely have added these prohibitions to it as well, if they could have.