"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Remathilis]

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense.

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense.

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm of the mind that WOTC is drastically over-reacting to a situation caused in part by someone else deliberately trying to goad them into over-reacting.

I won't buy BoEF simply because I never planned to do so. I have no interest and likewise no need for the material.

WOTC have managed to sour me on their products as well because I deplore them making rules that are so vague that they can use them to block competetion for nearly any reason. I see that as opening the situation up to anti-competetive and highly unethical practices.

 

[Psion]

They may not be doing actual censorship here by the legal definition, but they are doing it in spirit, and trying to put it into practice. To me, that's about the greatest moral wrong you can do.

That seems to me a distortion in order to be offended. I know somebody said this once, but it obviously bears repeating. WotC can't prevent anyone from publishing anything. But they can -- and have every legal and ethical right to -- prevent people from using THEIR good name/trademarks/ip from promoting somthing that is harmful to their image.

 

[DanMcS]

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.

You're aiming the blame at the wrong set of lawyers. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Hasbro can't allow something open and loosely affiliated with them to exist, because corporations are by necessity control freaks. What they can't control scares them. I'm honestly amazed that the OGL was ever allowed to exist. Maybe they didn't believe it would ever matter, and now that it's a bigger chunk of the gaming market, they're taking notice and trying to take control.

It's not as though this was unheralded. They released the "gentleman's agreement" SRD, then went through and removed chunks of it for the final release and made publishers negotiate side agreements with them.

AV is doing the entire publishing community a favor. This is a reminder that d20 publishers are basing their entire business on the good will and sense of fair play of a legal entity which embraces no such concepts.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

AV is doing the entire publishing community a favor. This is a reminder that d20 publishers are basing their entire business on the good will and sense of fair play of a legal entity which embraces no such concepts.

Wizards has consistently shown good will and a sense of fair play, and any perception to the contrary is due solely to anti-corporate, anti-Hasbro paranoid delusions.

Wulf

 

[Mouseferatu]

This is cut-and-paste from something Andy's just said over on the WotC boards:

I'd like to start off by pointing out that the majority of the d20 licensed products on the market easily fall within these guidelines. We're talking about the far end of the spectrum here.

The d20 System(tm) Guide lists three categories, violence/gore, sexual themes, and prejudice. These apply to both the artwork and text or the product.

Violence & Gore - Most d20 games involve things, like combat and the undead, which can get messy. Gratutiousness is the key here. Fighter Bob can be hacking down orcs left and right, even knocking heads off (check out the cover of Complete Warrior). Fighter Bob shouldn't be shown evicerating the orcs in complete biological detail with organs flying about. Same for the undead: they can be a little bit messy (most of them are decomposing after all), but avoid closeups of their rotting vicera.

Sexual Themes - There are 2 parts to this one.
While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be salacious in nature.
Essentially this means that you can still have chainmail bikinis, but the product can't be focused on them. You're not prohibited from having sexuality in a product, it just cannot be the theme and cannot be salacious. So a discussion of elven sexual customs is ok, so long as a) it's not the whole book and b) it isn't elf erotica.
[for humans and human-like creatures] gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable
Pretty straight forward, no sex or naked people (or things close to people). The main complaint I'm seeing is about showing nipples. I know that doesn't offend a lot of you, but we have to draw a line somewhere for what is and isn't nudity.

Prejudice - We don't want the d20 System Logo to appear on a product that discriminates against a particular real world group/religion or endorses a particular real world group/religion. This doesn't prevent you from having real groups in a product, but you cannot present one as better/worse than another.

__________________
Andy Smith
OGL/d20 Guy
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Okay, agree or disagree, it does at least look as though they have a specific set of guidelines (or at least rules of thumb) they're going by. I really don't think, as I said earlier, that we're going to be seeing WotC pulling products for "sinister" reasons.

I'm still not especially happy with this change, but I honestly don't think it's the disaster some people are heralding it as.

 

[DanMcS]

Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.

You know what? The one book doesn't really matter. It's the principle: every time Hasbro/Wizards sees something they don't like, instead of saying "fair is fair, this guy is playing by the rules as we set them", they change the rules.

And it's not one book. They've done it twice so far. The first time was the removal of monsters from the "gentleman's agreement" SRD. Remember the gentleman's agreement? Feel free to use all these things, we just haven't gotten around to completely aproving them yet, but they'll all be in there, trust us. Oh yeah, if we change our minds, you don't really have any recourse, but we're all going to be "gentlemen" about it so it will be fine. Really.

The second time is this decency standards nonsense. What will be next?

So yeah, it's "one book", until the whims of change sweep over Hasbro legal and they rewrite the rules again. Why should anyone subject themselves to that?

 

[Psion]

Good call Wulf. Yup, when people were freaked out about the ommision of some creatures from the final SRD, they were rather giving when it came time to ensure that publishers could continue to publish their products based on them. It seems to me as if WotC has been above the board, and insinuations to the contrary seem laughable to me.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

You know what? The one book doesn't really matter. It's the principle: every time Hasbro/Wizards sees something they don't like, instead of saying "fair is fair, this guy is playing by the rules as we set them", they change the rules.

*sigh* Re-read the post I was replying too, please. "One book" does not transform D&D into Hustler, the RPG. There is plenty to pick apart in my posts without taking bits of them out of context.

- Anubis/Tiama'at