"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[d4]

Well, much as I had to tell felon, it is WotC's call, not yours, as to which image they find more objectionable for their trademark.

of course you are correct, Psion.

however, i find it quite disappointing that WOTC has apparently chosen to say that sex is more objectionable than torture and demon worship.

the whole "Violence good / Sex bad" attitude that seems to pervade modern American society quite frankly sickens me. i freely admit this is only my opinion based on what i see around me.

 

[BryonD]

Is there any chance we can quit with the knee-jerk extreme over reactions with regard to freedom of speech?

We are talking about requirements for a license. Doesn't the very defintion of the word "license" trump any connection to "free" speech? Obviously it does.

I agree that to some extent WotC has been pushed into this. But I agree more that this particular reaction is ill-conceived, overblown and ultimately counter-productive. So in no way am I defending WotC's choice of action.

But freedom of speech is vastly more important to me than anything to do with gaming.

When people start trying to lump ideas under free speech that simply do not belong there, all they do is provide leverage to the real opponents of true free speech. (And no, I don't think a thread at ENworld is going to lead to anything. But it is a very sesitive issue to me.)

Anyway, the comics authority code told Swamp Thing they would not give them there stamp. The writers didn't scream censorship. They just published without the stamp. Exactly the same option applies here.

WotC saying you can not put THEIR logo on your product for whatever reason they dream up, regardless of how smart or dumb (and this is dumb) is totally their perogative. It is not censorship. It is less censorship than it will be whenever this thread gets locked. And that still won't be slightly an encroachment against freedom of speech.

 

[Najo]

Revised D20 STL

Two problems with the current license -

1) It doens't allow companies to use tasteful nudity or excessive violence in the same manner as the D&D books do. This forces the third party products to go from R or PG13 to PG.

2) The liscense gives WOTC sole descretion as to determine what is not appropiate material (in art or text). This technical means that WOTC needs no reason other than "we find your book objectionable' to say 'destroy your inventory'.

Publishers don't want to take that risk. They need to provide another license that has a very small fee (i.e. just covering operational costs) that allows a publisher to get approval from WOTC to use mature content responsibly and makes the approved 3rd party product exempt from the sole descretion clause.

 

[LuciusT]

She is Isis, and the baby is Pharoh.

This is a real world depiction of a real world Goddess(*), and WoTC wants to say it is not allowed? Now we have religious descrimination to go with the sex discrimination.

(*) Yes I am aware that there are not nearly as many Isis worshipers now as there was 20 or 30 centuries ago, but that is irrelevant.

There are still a few of us. Still, if you prefer to a more "modern" depiction, call the lady Mary and the baby Jesus. The thematic elements are the same.

IMO, WotC is wrong. There decision is absurd and as other have pointed out, typical of a deranged American cultural that finds violence perfectly acceptable but sex to be totally reprehensible. I am disappointed.

I am not, however, surprised and as others have said, WotC is well within their rights. They will suffer the consquences of their actions.

 

[afstanton]

I posted this at WotC, thought I'd post here, too:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andy Smith
We feel that Urban Arcan is within the guidelines. Maybe just within them. Like I said, this isn't something you can write quantitative guidelines for, hence the vagueness.



A) We don't use the d20 License because we own the trademark.
B) Ignoring that, the nymph's nipples are covered. The standards specify bare nipples.
C) Ignoring that, the MM3.5 was published before the license revision. Were it a d20 licensed product it would just have to be changed with the next printing. It would not be recalled
D) Assuming the MM 3.5 had been published after the license was changed I'd probably send the publisher a letter that said "hey, you made a minor license violation, don't do it again". It would not be recalled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BoVD was written before I came here, so I can't honestly comment as to whether the policy now is the same as it was then.
I would suggest a more holistic approach if you wanted to look at our products for examples, though Urban Arcana seems to be shaping up to be a decent guideline for our limits (I wonder how often I'm going to type "the roach thrall is just within the boundries" tonight?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Andy, with regards to pieces C) and D) from the first quote and the sentence on the BoVD in the second quote:

It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. The old version of the license protected people from retroactive product destruction, but the new version does not. If a 3rd party had published those books and not WotC, WotC would be well within their legal rights to order those texts destroyed. Not fixed in the next printing, but destroyed. At WotC's "sole discretion."

That's one of the major issues here. I realize that you are asserting that WotC wouldn't do that, but that's irrelevant as well. The fact is that WotC has announced that they have the capability to order destruction of product that was previously acceptable. The safe harbor has been eliminated.

With a risk like that, why would any 3rd party publisher want to invest the time and money to release a product under the d20 license? It's one thing to say that WotC would never do that, but what if WotC decides that a product is interfering with a proposed product line? Would WotC invoke the d20 and destroy it? No need to answer - the first version of the d20 logo usage guide made no mention of miniature rules, did it?

What if someone creates a fantastic product that threatens d20 Future? Will that be destroyed as well?

Aaron

 

[jester47]

Quite a lot has already been said, some it valid.

A point that has not yet been made, the policy as written is discriminatory. It is saying that females, by their very nature, are purile in a way that males are not. Am I the only one that has a problem with this?

As another flaw in WoTC's reasoning, consider this image:

A woman, sitting. It is obvious that she is completely topless. A nipple is visible. The other nipple is not visible because something is in the way. She is holding a baby to the obscured breast to suckle.

(Now, by all that is right and holy, this should make it legit all by itself, but America has some pretty sick and twisted attitudes about breast feeding...)

She is seated on a throne (Still doen't change things as far as the d20 license goes...) She is Isis, and the baby is Pharoh. This is a real world depiction of a real world Goddess(*), and WoTC wants to say it is not allowed? Now we have religious descrimination to go with the sex discrimination.

(*) Yes I am aware that there are not nearly as many Isis worshipers now as there was 20 or 30 centuries ago, but that is irrelevant.

WoTC needs to withdraw this change immediately.

No this image is ok. Here is the text:

"Sexual Themes - Sexual situations—including abuse and pornography—may not appear graphically in art or text."

None of that on the image of Isis. She is not abusing the child nor are her "naughty bits" being expositioned in shuch a way as to cause arousal.

"When depicting the human form—or creatures possessing humaniform features—gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable."

The nudity of Isis is not gratuitous. That is she is not naked just to show a naked woman. I do not belive this to be a list but a clarification of what is "gratuitous." If that was the case the end of the sentance would be "...are not acceptable."

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

In this depiction isis is not being sexual or sensual.

So I think your goddess was safe. Gratuitous would be if the child was wide eyed and giving the "thumbs up."

Aaron.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

When was the Book of Erotic Fantasy announced, anyhow? Andy Smith did mention this tidbit on the WotC boards:

This change has been in the works for arcane legal reasons for over a year.

Has it really been a full year since the BoEF was announced? I wouldn't have thought so. Likewise, if it hasn't been a year yet for that, then it wouldn't have been a year yet since Anthony Valterra left WotC, so as business manager, he shoulda known about this standards of decency bit, right?

Now, if it has really been a year (and where does that time go?), then that's one thing.

If it hasn't been a year, then it stands to reason that this change cannot have been precipitated by the BoEF, however. Exacerbated and/or accelerated perhaps, but not precipitated.

Edit: Okay, so I looks me on the Valar Project website, and their initial craptastical press release about peering up Arwen's skirts is dated April 28, and was posted on their site May 1, 2003. As I recall, Anthony Valterra left WotC at right about that time, so he left (assuming that Andy Smith is correct above) after the legal department had been working on the standards of decency for 8 months.

Therefore, I fail to see how this can be blamed on him. Unless, of course, Andy's either wrong or lying. I'd rather not think he was lying, but people do it, blast them.

 

[scourger]

Good for OWTC!

Good for Wizards of the Coast! This industry (perhaps more than many others) has to police itself. If it takes a "heavy" like WOTC, then that is okay with me. I think the d20 system license requirements will continue to be good for the hobby. Somebody has to protect the game.

 

[DanMcS]

Therefore, I fail to see how this can be blamed on him. Unless, of course, Andy's either wrong or lying. I'd rather not think he was lying, but people do it, blast them.

This is Andy the intern wizards talked about, right? He's just saying what the lawyers told him to say. That's why he posted nearly the same boilerplate on the wizards messageboard as someone else got back from the wizards customer service email.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

This is Andy the intern wizards talked about, right? He's just saying what the lawyers told him to say. That's why he posted nearly the same boilerplate on the wizards messageboard as someone else got back from the wizards customer service email.

Yes, exactly (and as that customer service email was signed "Darrin", I'll betchum it's from Oathbound's own Darrin Drader) -- he's just saying what the lawyers told him to say.

In that case, if the lawyers are being truthtelling sorts, then this standards of decency bit predates the BoEF announcement by eight months.

If the lawyers are being deceitful sorts (but we all know lawyers do not lie), then Andy's wrong (and participating in their deceit, though most likely unwittingly) and WotC's official Q&A fellow on their boards is spreading laywer-lies about the causation behind the d20 STL change -- which will only further erode customer confidence (even though everyone expects laywers and corporations to lie anyhow)

So that's what I wanna know: Which is it?