"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

I really don't like this turn by WotC. It smells suspiciously like a pointy-haired boss at Hasbro getting too invasive, and while AV may have been technically within his rights, he should have known he would have been pushing it and drawing their ire with his little font trick (was he really going to do that?).

However, even with this WotC is still nowhere near as bad as T$R was back in the Bad Old Days. With OGL games, even non-d20, there are things that the Evil Empire of Gaming would have never allowed. Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG, they also tried to assert trademark over "Spell", "Orc" and a myriad of other generic fantasy terms, and prevent any other game from using them. (I've been told that over and over, it's either true, or one heck of a gaming Urban Legend).

Sex themed rules have a place within third-party support of D&D. When I first came to college, and I wanted to learn how to play, I typed in "D&D" into a search engine (Fall of '96, and I don't remember which engine), and the first thing that popped up was the "D&D Net Book of Sex". That was one heck of an interesting introduction to D&D! I've played in campaigns that had carnal activities, and sometimes they were slightly juvenile, and other times they were relatively tasteful. Never were they graphic or obscene (the GM at least had the good taste to hint and imply rather than give graphic details.)

The worst thing I can think of is that WotC repeals the d20 STL totally. Well, OGL games like Everquest have shown that you can make a fine, self contained game using the same system as "Third Edition" (not gonna call it by it's die type for this). That genie is out of the bottle and they legally couldn't repeal the SRD's (I am not a lawyer, but I've heard that said many times).

It just reduces brand recognition for less d20 branded product, and means WotC has less of it's Player's Handbooks sold.

Oh, e-mail campaigns are easily ignored. If you want their attention, phone them. Or much better, mail. Good old fashioned "snail mail" gets attention, especially from Pointy-Haired Corporate types. It's harder to ignore baskets and baskets of mail filling up a mail room than a pile of electronic messages.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Simplicity said:
Well, it certainly sounds like him (though he's not posting under the
usual Zulkir handle), and it's not like he said anything all that contentious. I've certainly never heard of WotC demanding any
company destroy product.

I didn't think he was being contentious much either, I simply was worried it may have been a weak troll. In fact, I hope I am wrong and just have been jaded too much by existence and it really is Anthony just perusing and wanting to give his side. I'm curious to say the least, but before I or anyone else invested much time in getting into the debate with the fellow, I wanted confirmation. And yes, I am paranoid, what of it? ;)

TheRaven said:
There goes the call of cuthulhu d20 supplement about a fanatic christian order that fights against the terrors. Bye bye Arcana Unearthed d20 demon ritual book. It was nice to meet you star wars d20 laser sabre dismemberment rules. Maybe most of the D20 players see no use in such products and it is their right to do so and not buying it but in the same manner other people should have the right to buy it and publishers should be able to create them.

Publishers can create those things but they need to use the OGL. WotC isn't stifling anyone's creativity with the new d20STL, they are simply stifling their use of their trademarked license.
 


KDLadage said:
This is akin to saying (albiet, this is an extreme example of what I am trying to say, in order to make my point): Suppose the "war on terror" were to expand such that the illegal search and seasure laws were revoked (sure, far fetched -- but not as far off as one might think given the current climate). Would this bother you? Would it still bother you if Uncle Sam said that it would only use this new legal power to deal with terrorists and bad guys? After all, 90% of us have nothing to worry about, right? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem inviting the Police Officer into your house.

Hijack Time! You phrase this all as a what-if... You do realize that the government has already repealled illegal search and seizure for terrorists? Illegal search and seizure laws all depend on how you define illegal.

What used to constitute an illegal search (a search conducted without a warrant) is now available to the US government for use on terrorists through the use of FISA 'warrants'. The Justice Department goes to a secret court, gets a secret warrant without providing probable cause (note that the application for a FISA warrant has NEVER been denied), and then can conduct a search without even informing the person who owns the property. But they can "only" do this if national security is involved.

What used to constitute illegal seizure (seizure of property outside of fees and illegal items) is now available to the US government for use on terrorists, organized crime, drug dealers, and pornographers (yes, you read the last one right) through the RICO act. The act lets the government seize not just illegal material like drugs, guns, etc. But also lets them take the house, boat, car, warehouse, factory, etc. of whatever individual or organization the government deems part of a "corrupt organization" (that's the CO in RICO). Selling the property obtained in this manner has become quite a cashcow for our government.

I think I saw an article on CNN today about the current administration seeking to expand the laws of the war on terror to the war on drugs. I'm sure they would be all too happy to begin a war on indecency as well.

I'll shut up about this now, because I know politics are not the purpose of these boards, but the what-if scenario just threw me a bit...
 

ACValterra said:
In the three years we never asked a single company to destroy product. Numerous times people came to us saying that they had created a product and only after it was done realized that they had inadvertently used material that was not part of the SRD. In every case we gave them permission. We allowed numerous companies to license material that we were not planning on reissuing to make small sub sets of fans happy. And we bent over backwards to make the d20 network an easy place for companies to be creative.

AV

Just to clarify this statement, Fast Forward Entertainment had to destroy several products for d20/OGL violations earlier this year. Was this done after you left? And do you know who made the decision to force them to destroy their products?
 

Melkor said:
A post over at the WoTC D20 boards links a number of published WoTC pictures that seem to go against the new D20 STL:

Your links are all broken by the ...s in them. Be sure you don't leave
out the "Century Worm" or whatever that thing is. If that's not displaying genitalia, I don't know what is...
 

Simplicity said:
I think I saw an article on CNN today about the current administration seeking to expand the laws of the war on terror to the war on drugs. I'm sure they would be all too happy to begin a war on indecency as well.
Actually they already are. Ashcroft is pushing the presecution of the Pubic Decency Act. It was passed awhile ago but hasn't been actually enforced for awhile now. But they are charging a pornographer with breech of Publc Decency and being tried in a criminal court for it.


Baastet
 
Last edited:

Simplicity said:
Your links are all broken by the ...s in them. Be sure you don't leave
out the "Century Worm" or whatever that thing is. If that's not displaying genitalia, I don't know what is...

I just edited my post and linked to the WoTC page with the original post. It's pretty far down, but links several images.
 

I'm not sure if anyone else had any luck with emailing and such, but I did get a response. (This is pretty much my first chance to read in here all-day and there is about 120 new posts so if this is common news I apologize now.)

My Email Note: Theirs a small edit as I removed my last name.

From: Adam [mailto:ftn4life@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE VERSION 5.0


Yes,

I was wondering if you could explain to me the need and why the change in the above accord. I know you have the rights to make changes but in the "sprit" of the OGL this seems like it's all the makings of the start of censorship. I mean shouldn't the costumer make the decision on rather or not said product is right for his campaign?

I've been a costumer with you since 1st edition when I was 8 or 9. I did
the demon worshiper scare with your company in the early to mid 80's and now as an adult and in the US Navy it seems like your company is apposed to the very fabric of the rights I defend everyday and now I'm left wondering if loyalty is ever a two way street.

Very Respectfully,
Adam


WoTC Response Note: No Edit

From: Wizards Customer Service <custserv@wizards.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:24:16 -0700
To: ftn4life@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE VERSION 5.0

Quality Standards have been added to the d20 System License because we want to enhance the value of the d20 Logo for all publishers in addition to maintaining it as a symbol of rules compatibility. Furthermore, products bearing the d20 Logo are associated with, refer to, and reflect upon the quality of our own d20 System games and brands. By ensuring that d20 products adhere to certain standards we improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand, for us and for everyone who uses it.

These standards are not specific to the d20 System License. All our other licensees are held to similar or tighter standards. However, users of the d20 license are not subject to the same review process faced by direct licensees and the implementation of these standards does not change that.

**Please quote this e-mail in any reply.**
******************************************************************
Darrin
Wizards of the Coast - Customer Service
Website: http://www.wizards.com
Game Support Phone: 1-800-324-6496
Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 7 PM PST
Corporate Phone: (425) 226-6500
******************************************************************
 

TheRaven said:
Who do you adress with "we"? Maybe the majority of the community but does this give you the right to decide for everyone. Maybe there are mature people who want books like that and why should anyone prohibit them to buy it, let alone write it.

Well it's fine to believe that what one company does doesn't in any way effect the community, that's not how it works.

Perhaps you'll enjoy 190 pages of Everything Sexual, but that 190 pages WILL prevent any other products dealing with that sort of material from being published. Will somebody be able to make a conan-style or Heavy Metal style game setting and release it under D20? Nope. Will somebody be able to release the D20 Cthulhu product now? Nope. Is that MY fault for believing that the BoEF was a BAD idea? Not in the least.

Yes, the BoEF would have possibly failed. On the other hand, the BoEF could have prospered. A thousand thousand gamers could have picked it up and ten thousand parents could have seen "DUNGEONS AND DRAGON ... Book of Erotic Fantasy" and been upset. Do -I- step to the tune of ten thousand parents? No. Does HASBRO? Yes. They have an image. Maybe it's unfortunate in your eyes, but sometimes we have to consider the realities of the situation. Hasbro and it's underling Wizards Of The Coast doesn't want a thousand parents seeing the first thing on a book about RPing porno the words "Dungeons And Dragons". It's important to them.

In a situation like this, you don't rock the frickin' boat just to be rocking the boat, which is what Valar and the BoEF is definately trying to do. Using "Dungeons and Dragons" in press releases, using the name on the book.

Here, I'll come out and say: I'm not a marketing expert, I haven't done any market research into whether a sex-theme sex-rule book would sell better than a full setting that involved some of the rules in a fleshed out format.

BUT, I know -I-, personally, would have bought an adult setting book of violence and nudity. Would something more tame have been passed by WotC? Would something not flaunting the D&D name have been passed by WotC? Maybe not. But it probably would have been easier for the upper-ups at Hasbro to not notice something less flagrant. And if they hadn't had something like this shoved under their nose, maybe that hypothetical CoC product might have been made. Maybe some expansions for my hypothetical setting would have been made. Maybe a "Harlots and Harridans" expansion would have been released for that setting, 100+ page book on VDs and sex-themed skills and feats and classes. Maybe I wouldn't have bought it, but at least we'd not be in the position we're in now.

--fje
 

Remove ads

Top