"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Jehosephat]

Maybe they will release a sanitized version of the BoVD. They could call it the Book of Not So Nice Darkness. Seriously though, they have from the get go said that the Book of Erotic Fantasy is inappropriate. Frankly, IMO, I think they are right on this one. I have no interest in seeing the game turn into Dungeons & Dominatrices. IMO before this happened a certain sector of the D&D corpus was heading in the direction of soft core porn. And I feel like it is certainly within their legal right to dictate what images are associated with the game. If the BoEF got published in its planned form, what would be next? The envelope would just get pushed more and more. What is unfortunate, is that Wizards themselves started this whole mess with publication of the BOVD. I think it will create a backlash of some sort from publishers as they already appear to be looking at other options. Likewise, fans of the game also apprear to be miffed about this whole thing and I see a schism on the horizon. It's enough to make me want to shelf my RPG's in favor of Axis & Allies, between this and the White Wolf saga. Because while I said I don't want the game to come to be known as Dungeons & Dominatrices, I also don't want it to come to be known as Litigations and Lawyers. I dunno, this morning I am pretty ticked of at the industry all the way around. Just my two coppers.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Me, I'd much rather see them crack down on the "Clear Designation of OGC" clause in the OGL...

[snip]

The best analogy I can draw is that of someone "trying to exercise their freedom of expression" by playing a trumpet as loudly as they can in my ear wherever I go...

So even if Valar puts out the greatest thing since sliced bread, they're not getting any of my business either.

--The Sigil

I love "the Sidge."

 

[Robbert Raets]

Perhaps we can amend this deficiency ourselves; set up a review board that can give an 'official' ENWorld Stamp of Compatibility for d20-products.

 

[The Sigil]

But now... I am incredibly frustrated with Anthony Valterra. He is in a unique position to know the difference between following the letter of the license and the spirit, and by putting DUNGEONS & DRAGONS in huge type on his book of erotica, he clearly went way, way beyond the spirit of the license.

He should know better. But rather than use his unique experience and knowledge to stay within the spirit of the license, he has consistently used it to exploit loopholes in the various licenses and cross the line of decency-- no, I'm not talking about the BoEf, I am talking about decency and professional courtesy to WOTC and his fellow 3rd party publishers.

He has caused a huge headache for all of the other 3rd party publishers who appreciate the license and abide by the spirit of its intent-- and he has done it solely to push his own personal agenda, whether that agenda is profit or (more likely) simply to thumb his nose at Wizards.
{snip}
I hold Valar and Anthony Valterra personally responsible for forcing this change. They've screwed the entire 3rd party publishing community.

I hope somehow, some good comes of this. A little piece of me hopes that AV-- because of his unique experience-- has ulterior, benevolent motives that are somehow beyond my scrutiny.

Amen, brother.

--The Sigil

 

[thundershot]

Perhaps we can amend this deficiency ourselves; set up a review board that can give an 'official' ENWorld Stamp of Compatibility for d20-products.

HA! That's exactly what I was thinking (after making my post and then pondering while in the shower). I was even going to get out photoshop after work and make an example logo...


Whee! Off to work. Hopefully something comes of this...

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Maybe they will release a sanitized version of the BoVD. They could call it the Book of Not So Nice Darkness. Seriously though, they have from the get go said that the Book of Erotic Fantasy is inappropriate. Frankly, IMO, I think they are right on this one. I have no interest in seeing the game turn into Dungeons & Dominatrices.

Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.

How many d20 compatible releases are coming out this month? Take a minute to look at the context here. One book about bringing issues of sexuality into the game - a completely OPTIONAL book, remember. I seriously doubt all material from now on will be sexually explicit in nature. Please show some rationality.

IMO before this happened a certain sector of the D&D corpus was heading in the direction of soft core porn. And I feel like it is certainly within their legal right to dictate what images are associated with the game.

Such books are still allowed to be published and in fact will likely to continue to be published. The cover information may change but the offending image will still be there, they will still be sold in the same section as other d20 materials, etc. If you are seriously in a pro-censorship mood Hasbro's changes don't help you at all.

The envelope would just get pushed more and more. What is unfortunate, is that Wizards themselves started this whole mess with publication of the BOVD.

Miore correctly this began with making the d20 system open content. Books of this nature are naturally forseeable exploitations. Before TSR fell there was a net book on this very topic. The world did not end.

Likewise, fans of the game also apprear to be miffed about this whole thing and I see a schism on the horizon.

This is a problem. But only when mixed in with other schisms over things like the 3.5 revision. Wizards used the network model of marketing to their advantage, but they are also the primary offenders when it comes to fragmenting that network. Again, the responsibility lies with Wizards. This could be fixed this afternoon by releasing a new version of the licence, removing the content control claims and amending the section on proper logo and compatibility information. BoEF will simply remove the logo and the book will see increased exposure due to all the scandal talk. Wizards took a non-issue, something that would have been quickly lost in the sea of d20 releases and singled it out.

 

[Beazel]

Stupid

WotC, be businessmen, not religious fanatics. Retract this change to the d20 System Trademark License.

--Bob

 

[Robbert Raets]

HA! That's exactly what I was thinking (after making my post and then pondering while in the shower). I was even going to get out photoshop after work and make an example logo...


Whee! Off to work. Hopefully something comes of this...

I'm game. Certainly if you consider the opportunity to be a proof-reader on this one....

 

[The Sigil]

Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.

How many d20 compatible releases are coming out this month? Take a minute to look at the context here. One book about bringing issues of sexuality into the game - a completely OPTIONAL book, remember. I seriously doubt all material from now on will be sexually explicit in nature. Please show some rationality.

Herein lies precisely the problem. Valar, by virtue of trying to exploit every possible loophole in both the d20STL and Open Gaming License - from the very first press release the company made, mind you - to play by the letter of the law while intentionally and grossly violating the spirt of the law as much as possible, has created the problem. And now every other third-party publisher has to suffer for it. Assume there are 30 d20 releases this month. Because that one book has been used to poleaxe the licenses, all thirty books will suffer repercussions.

I'm not pro-censorship outside of the realm of me as a parent censoring what my underage children see, hear, and read (and of course, personal "censorship" in deciding what I see, hear, read, and write). But this has not been about censorship. This appears from the outside to be a peeing contest, started by Valar in general and AV in particular. Now, I hope those appearances are deceiving. But even if I agree on some of the points Valar has raised, I can't back them because of the offensive way in which they've raised them (not in terms of the BoEF, but in the way they've carefully and deliberately orchestrated an attack on the spirit of the licenses). The problem for me is not the BoEF itself - the problem for me personally is that Valar has urinated in the pool that all the other d20 publishers are swimming in and has caused a lot of collateral damage for them by doing so.

This isn't about me trying to censor Valar. The BoEF itself will of course have no direct impact on my works - it has no direct impact on me, so I am completely uninterested. BUT Valar's actions in using the BoEF as a tool in their attack of the licenses *have* directly impacted me as a third party publisher, and believe me, I'm NOT happy about that.

--The Sigil

 

[shadow]

I see this new clause as aimed against Valar's BoEF. Sure other companies might publish artwork with some nudity, but given the time and money, it's unlikely that WotC will take action against them.

I think AV really played fast and loose with the rules with the whole BoEF. Given the fact that "Dungeons & Dragons" is displayed prominently in the title, and that AV is a former WotC employee, Wizards is probably afraid that this will drum up too much controversy.

Besides AV probably didn't help himself in the press release where he stated that he was involved in a S&M society and had founded an occultic "church".

I'm not really in favor of the latest restrictions in the clause, but I really doubt WotC will take any action against most d20 companies, unless some other company tries to publish RAHOWA d20.