"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Psion]

Of course, I don't find Anthony's statement exactly encouraging news. Before, I suspected that the reason that this license was so problematic was that it was rushed out in response to their cover blurb font schenanigan.

But now that we know that probably isn't the case, that means that this license is probably the finished product and less likely to see a change. Which is unfortunate, since it seems that in its current state, it is causing a lot of paranoia.

On the bright side, it means that they didn't do it just to target one company.

 

[DaveStebbins]

It amazes me to see how many people are b%$#$ing and moaning about WOTC doing what it wants/needs to do with their own license/Logo/whatever. <snip>

It is WOTC's RIGHT to do whatever they will with THEIR license (for good or ill) <snip>

Common sense if you ask me...This is not about "the man" bringing any one down. This is about a business doing darn well whatever they please with their own property.

What I don't like about the change is two-fold. The d20 mark is a mark of compatability, always has been. By adding the content restrictions, Wizards is broadening the definition of the mark, opening themselves to more responsibility and risk. They certainly have the right to do this, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

For the second part of my objection, I will blatantly quote what someone posted on the subject in a different venue, because he says it better than I could.

Up until now, WOTC has been, as noted, extremely accomodating, going beyond the letter of the contract in many ways, working with publishers in violation rather than heavy-handedly enforcing the terms any time the opportunity arose. This behavior helped quell a lot of the paranoia, at least among anyone capable of judging fairly -- in other words, given the chance to use violations of the license to harm competition, WOTC instead did all it could to help bring the books into line, instead. The release of the 3.5 SRD, the opening of other WOTC material, and so on, all are very positive moves that deserve praise and acknowledgement. This is why this particular move, rapidly slammed into the license with no forewarning and, unless I missed it in one of my periodic mail glitchs, not even an official "Heads up!" from WOTC on this or other lists, comes as a bit of a shock, and seems, to some, to signal a rapid degeneration in WOTC/3rd party relationships.

I think these two things are why many people are worried.
-Dave

 

[Veander]

Interesting, Anthony. I had this thought in the back of my mind the last day or so since this information came out. The thought was exactly what you indicated. WotC did this long before anyone had produced BoEF. I didn't have the energy to look into it, but it's interesting I thought about it.

Anyone think the real reason is related to the smutty (though I like them hehe hehe hehe) Avalanche covers?

I already sent an email to WotC to say my peace. Hasbro is going to keep testing what the companyt hat owns DnD can do before losing it's players. They can only push so far in my case, but I wonder if it never matters; people will simply follow like a bunch of sheeps no matter the abuses to the industry. Just hypothesizing.

V

 

[The Sigil]

Everyone who has been saying Anthony Valterra ruined it for all of us can now please eat their words. They were assuming this order:

1) Anthony (pool pee-er) Valterra announces BoeF because he is a Machivellian money grubber.
2) WotC in a panic changes the license to try and stop the product.

Thus BoeF is responsible for the change.

It is now obvious that this is the order:

1) WotC (internally) decides that the license must be changed about fall of last year.
2) Anthony opposes the change for 6 months and then realizing the battle is lost leaves WotC to do the product that **he really believes in** and has wanted to do since he cludged a courtesan class in his college D&D game.
3) In his attempt to move fast he writes his own press release (a move he has desperately regreted ever since)
4) He then whips his poor creatives in an attempt to beat the license change.
5) Even though badly abused they turn out absolutely brilliant work.

I won't delete my previous posts - once words are out, you can't call them back, and I want everything I have said to remain out there for folks to see. My feeling is that everyone should see everything I say so that they don't get an "edited" version of me to somehow look "nicer." They can see me warts and all.

My apologies to you, Anthony, for thinking that your work precipitated the change in policy. I'm still not thrilled with what I've heard of the product itself, but then, I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sex in RPGs in general - perhaps because I still don't have a good Mass Combat offering and would rather have seen you do that instead. Seriously, though, I may not like the subject matter you have chosen and do not feel it necessary nor desirable for an RPG book, I will defend your right to publish such things... though I myself won't be buying them.

I'm still of mixed opinion as to your repeated references to "Dungeons & Dragons" rather than "D20" as detailed above but will let that go for now. I am not the type that wants to hold grudges... nor am I good at doing so anyway.

Oh, and by the way all those who *know* what the BoeF is going to be like you might check out some of the reviews of the preview. Maybe its not what you think it is. Don't judge it by the idiot press release. I fired that moron.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=JoeGKushner&product=BoEFP

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Llabak&product=BoEFP&

http://www.computingondemand.com/articles/The Valar Project/page1.shtml

*Shrugs* The reviews have done little to change my mind as to what the project is - not to mention the computingondemand review seems to be more of a review of how nice everybody at Valar is rather than of the BoEF itself. My opinion of the BoEF? It's a somewhat explicit guide (textually and visually) to adding a dose of sexuality to RPGs that probably falls pictorially between Maxim (which I have no use for) and Playboy (which I have even less use for). But then, I'm apparently not the target audience - the curtain falls over sex in my games as soon as the bedroom door closes. I have as much use for this book as I have for a Psionics supplement - since Psionics have no place in my game (wrong flavor for me), no matter how well-done the book, I won't buy it because I simply won't use it.

I will refrain from making any more negative comments about how you've "peed in the pool" etc. and hope you accept my apology.

I seem to be one of the conservative curmudgeons around here anyway (dropping my Dragon subscription due to their decision to include the S-bomb and F-bomb and with a specific statement saying they did not intend to make it a policy to actively avoid such in the foreseeable future, for example), "Darn kids! Get off my lawn!" so our views of what should and shouldn't be in a game probably won't mesh well anyway LOL. But those are of course, differences in opinion, not fact, and I can recognize them as such.

BTW, crow tastes like chicken, in case anyone is wondering.

--The Sigil

 

[smetzger]

AV, You mentioned that it was a mistake for you to write your own press release. That makes it sound like you did _not_ intend to claim your project was compatable with D&D. Yet, shortly after people pointed out that this was a direct violation of the d20 STL, you something to the effect of "No, its not a violation because its not an advertisement. While I was in charge of the d20 license I never said you couldn't claim compatability of D&D in a press release."

Since then you have gone on to do the increased font trick. Which is not in the spirit of the d20 license.

Now, you are saying that you tried to jump the gun on the d20 license change. However, since the inseption of the d20 license publishers have had to retroactively adhere to the d20 license even _after_ a product ws published. So, your trying to jump the gun doesn't wash with me because even if your product had been out a year before these changes you would still need to comply. You were in charge of this at WOTC, you knew this.

So, maybe your pissing in the pool didn't cause this. But that doesn't change the fact that you did piss in the pool.

 

[TiQuinn]

Folks,

It is now obvious that this is the order:

1) WotC (internally) decides that the license must be changed about fall of last year.
2) Anthony opposes the change for 6 months and then realizing the battle is lost leaves WotC to do the product that **he really believes in** and has wanted to do since he cludged a courtesan class in his college D&D game.
3) In his attempt to move fast he writes his own press release (a move he has desperately regreted ever since)
4) He then whips his poor creatives in an attempt to beat the license change.
5) Even though badly abused they turn out absolutely brilliant work.

Why release it as a d20 product when you know that a license change is coming about and might conflict with your product? Isn't the license change retroactive? Why not go OGL?

 

[TheRaven]

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.

That argument you use left and right is a tad flawed. Why in the nine hells should a small publisher create stuff using the OGL if he can use the D20 and target a much bigger customer range that in turn gives him a tiny bit of financial security. You know, books with the official D20 logo sell way better than books that don't seem to be made for D&D/D20. A lot of customers browse through the wares looking at the cover and this first impression most often decides if they take a closer look or not. If someone wants to buy D&D/D20 material, then it's likely he'll ditch a book without the D20 logo without further inspection.

Knowing that. what do you think will happen. The small publisher gives a rats ass about the logo and just uses OGL or is it more likely, that he'll censores his book to get that logo? That's what I'm talking about. The new licence is an attack on creativity.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Everyone who has been saying Anthony Valterra ruined it for all of us can now please eat their words.

Anthony, I don't believe you are so obtuse that you don't understand that it's not about the content of BoEF. The worst I've had to say about the BoEF is that I think it's goofy and I don't have a need for it.

You have run roughshod over the d20 STL-- and more specifically, over WOTC's goodwill.

So if the changes have been in the works for over a year and you knew this was a sore spot with WOTC, why did you feel the need to stick your finger in WOTC's eye with the enormous DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS typeface on the cover?

I don't think it helps your reputation any to admit that you knew a year in advance just how badly you were going to piss them off and you did it anyway.

I am still hoping to be somehow pleasantly surprised by your motives-- you are banking on an awful lot of reserve goodwill from your tenure at the helm there-- but I have to admit it's slipping.

Wulf

 

[Harlock]

That argument you use left and right is a tad flawed. Why in the nine hells should a small publisher create stuff using the OGL if he can use the D20 and target a much bigger customer range that in turn gives him a tiny bit of financial security. You know, books with the official D20 logo sell way better than books that don't seem to be made for D&D/D20. A lot of customers browse through the wares looking at the cover and this first impression most often decides if they take a closer look or not. If someone wants to buy D&D/D20 material, then it's likely he'll ditch a book without the D20 logo without further inspection.

Knowing that. what do you think will happen. The small publisher gives a rats ass about the logo and just uses OGL or is it more likely, that he'll censores his book to get that logo? That's what I'm talking about. The new licence is an attack on creativity.

It's an attack on creativity? The publisher chooses to go OGL or d20. Look at that statement again. Now, how is that attacking? If the bottom line is so important to him then by all means, sell out. What I have found is that depsite claims to the contrary, many OGL books do just fine on their own and word spreads more every day. My point is twofold really: You can write whatever the hell you want that is compatible with D&D under the OGL and WotC can do whatever it wants with the d20 Logo. Preiod. End of story. Griping isn't solving anything. Was WoTC heavy-handed? You betcha, I've said that many times before on this matter. You argument is a straw man. Nothing is preventing anyone from creativity in writing D&D compaitble material. Compared to 4 years ago when NO ONE could write D&D material except a select few, things are infinitely better. I really believe an OGL product can outsell a D20 product, or even a comparable "official"WotC D&D branded product if it is a superior product.

 

[smetzger]

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

Actually from the d20 guide...

Prejudice - Covered Products can not depict existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities as a group inferior to any other group. Current, real-world religions and religious groups and/or practices will not be portrayed in any way that promotes disrespect for these religions or their participants. A Covered Product can not endorse or promote any specific religion or religious practice.

Demon Worship is a modern day religion. Ever heard of Satanism? Even if you discount Satanism as a real world religion that is truly practiced, one cannot ignore the many references in the Bible to Demons, Devils, Sorcery, Spells, Witchcraft, and Divinations which are all presented as things of the devil and to be avoided. So, if any publication glorifies these things by making them seem kewl, than it is in fact promoting them. Which is prejudice against Christianity.

Thank You,
Scott Metzger