"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Sirius_Black]

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.

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

--The Sigil

Maybe some D20 company can combine the two, do a mass combat system combined with a mature product focused on sex.....okay, that just went to a scary visual place ....my apologies.

As for the crow line Sigil, you were mature enough to post an apology...I've seen more than few cases where others would not do so when proven wrong. So, kudos to you. Good luck on your mass combat search, maybe Fields of Blood will be it.....if that ever sees the light of day.

 

[Jim Butler]

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).

This is way off topic, but I just wanted to point out that the trademark on "Nazi" referred to the image of the Nazi, and it was a trademark owned by Lucas, not TSR.

But you're right in that TSR was much worse in protecting its IP then Wizards ever was. Sean Reynolds and I fought long, bitter battles within TSR to make things better, but the situation didn't totally reverse until after WotC bought us...

 

[Ratenef]

Okay I am really confused with the whole idea of nipples and the MMII, FF and BoVD covers. As far as my copies go the cover of the MMII (ver 3) is just an ugly book cover, the FF is just some swirling colours, and the BoVD is a skull on a bloody black background.

So what exactly are you guys all talking about nipples and book covers.

Now inside the books there are some 'naughty bits'.

Please explain this for me.

Thanks,

 

[Harlock]

Yip AV, I owe you an apology on a couple of counts as well. One I made in advance in case the name change really was you, but anyway, sorry for the pestering, just seen too many trolls to not have the BS detector go off in error once in a while. Thanks for fighting for keeping the d20STL the way it was. Still, like Wulf of BadAxe I feel you pushed a little too hard. Granted the 5.0 version of the d20STL doesn't appear to have been a direct response to that (well, maybe the font thing?) so you are mostly off the hook. Now everyone can move on to the next big EN World/d20 controversy whih should be striking right about... wait for it... NOW!

 

[Jim Butler]

While I agree with Ryan that the direction the D20 STL is going is the wrong one, this change by WotC doesn't really come as a shock to me. It appears that someone inside WotC has decided that they should defend all of their trademarks to the same levels, and that means applying their own internal Standard of Quality to the d20 STL.

The big question right now is whether WotC tries to use this change as a sledge hammer to crush all d20 companies, or uses it selectively to quash products that it doesn't want to see in the marketplace and that it feels are harmful to its trademark. That undoubtedly bodes ill for Anthony's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but the extent to which it is to be used is an unknown at this point.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Which leads me to a question: Can anyone name some products which are compatible with d20 but are part of the OGL...not the d20STL? Arcana Unearthed and Everquest (I think) spring to mind, but I'm not sure what else?

Anything done by Dream Pod 9, BESM d20 (Guardians of Order). DP9 has it's own non-d20 brand d20 brand (if you follow my meaning, a nice logo that communicates the intent of the d20 brand logo without being restricted to the d20STL).

I think this is the best way to go - to develop a strong non-Wizards controlled, truely open-sourced "brand" for 'd20 compatible' games.

- Ma'at

 

[Veander]

Does anyone have factual information or a statistical analysis of how having the d20 logo on your book garners more profit? I know I have bought a few products due to reviews of friends and Mortality/EnWorld/etc. reviews and afterward discovered there wasn't a d20 logo. I think Everquest stuff is an example for me. Could it not be that great products just HAPPEN to have the logo? I would have bought Book of the Righteous if there wasn't a d20 logo. In fact, I would have bought all the books I have regardless of the d20. Granted I read a lot about the books before I buy, but still...


Sincerely,

V

 

[DaveStebbins]

I think this is the best way to go - to develop a strong non-Wizards controlled, truely open-sourced "brand" for 'd20 compatible' games.

Then head over to the Free Gaming Association website at http://pgs.freegamingassociation.org/ and help them finalize their Prometheus and Open Die projects. Looks like worthy cause, though I'm not associated with them and haven't offered to help them myself.

-Dave
<edit - two spelling errors in a single word; gaaa!>

 

[Dr. Harry]

For small publishers, it's even worse than that. Many distributors won't carry their stuff without the d20 logo. That's not a problem for big publishers with enough name recognition, but if a distributor decides not to carry your stuuf, the customers in the gaming stores won't even know it exists because they'll never see it. That's what the d20 trademark does. If a distributor sees it, he knows it will be displayed with D&D and have a wider audience and more sales, so he's more likely to carry it.

What this post seems to admit is that the d20 logo carries a great deal of weight; when a distributor sees it, that distributor associates the product with D&D, and is confident that the consumer will associate the product with D&D.

And yet it is somehow unreasonable for WotC to also assume that d20 products will be associated with D&D, and seek to protect their IP?

It is for this reason that it is not sensible to attack WotC's "hypocricy" for releasing material that falls outside of the new d20 STL themselves. If WotC releases a product that crosses the line sufficiently to result in financial harm to the company, at least it is WotC taking the risk. After all, a small company built around one shock product could produce a profit for themselves while they do great damage to the D&D brand - but what the heck, that not their problem!

 

[BSF]

OK, I finally think I will throw some more wood onto this fire.

Let me state a few things from the get-go. (Not trying to sound preachy, but it may come across that way. Apologies in advance if anyone gets a little ruffled. Oh, before anyone gets too jumpy, also keep in mind that this is In My Opinion. I'm just not going to dance around saying , It think this, I think that. )

Most of my issues have to do with business decisions.

WotC is within their rights to change the D20STL. Nobody has to like it, but you do have to abide by it if you are going to use the d20 logo.

The decency clause does not bother me. While I am an advocate for free speech, this is a gaming license we are talking about. WotC is part of Hasbro. Hasbro has shareholders. They have an obligation to those shareholders to protect brand identity and make money. WotC should be doing everything they can to protect their image.

With that out of the way, I will throw my gripe in.

I do not like the "sole discretion" clause. This clause gives WotC the authority to demand that a publisher yank a product off the market and destroy stock ... without any mitigation/discussion/etc. It does not matter if WotC doesn't intend to enforce it this way. They have dictated that they can.

From the standpoint of a business, seeking to publish new product, this clause stinks! No business/legal advisor in their right mind is going to encourage you to open yourself up to this license. It doesn't matter if WotC ever enforces policy in this manner, the risk is too great that they will. This could kill a new publisher that just started getting their first product out the door. Wham! WotC says you have to destroy everything that has the D20 logo on it because they excercised their sole discretion. Sure, you can take them to court, except that all of your capital is tied up in that first shipment that you can't sell. From the perspective of a small publisher, it no longer makes sense to use the D20STL.

Except, that you want that logo recognition! Especially if you have helped build up the recognition of the D20 logo with prior products.

So, you end up with a quandry. Do you trust that WotC will never enforce the license in the manner that they have specified? Ignoring the strong business sense that others will be throwing at you to not risk your business on the whim of another company. Or, do you drop the D20 logo and go the OGL route? Running the risk that stores will stop carrying your product since it isn't D20 compatible.

For all of the publishers that are not comfortable accepting the business risk, I fully understand. I acknowledge that it will probably be more difficult to get your products into more stores, and thereby into the hands of more customers. It is unfortunate that the entire gaming community is not aware of the differences between licensed DnD, D20, and OGL products. It is also unfortunate that much of this discussion probably won't educate those that aren't already involved.

As a DM/Player/Consumer, I will be happy to continue to look at your products to see if they meet my needs. I will contnue to recommend your products. The loss of the D20 logo does not mean that I will stop buying material that I find useful. Whenever possible, I will continue to try to educate other gamers as to the wide variety of DnD compatible product out there.

That's probably a small consolation for you. But, I wanted to get that out there.

For those publishers that accept the risk and continue to use the D20STL, I certainly hope for the best for you. WotC will probably use the criteria that they have outlined. If there is objectional material by their sole discretion, they will probably just insist that you fix it in the next print run. You are either taking a chance, or showing faith and trust. I can respect either viewpoint. I will also continue to look at your products and if they meet my needs, I will buy them. As above, I will continue to try to educate other gamers on the non-WotC market of gaming material. Additionally, if WotC does decide to crackdown on you, for some reason, please post! As a consumer, I would like to hear of it and let WotC know my thoughts on the matter.

This is not the end of the world. But, it is a warning shot to the 3rd Party publishers that use the D20STL. It may cause some changes in the marketplace. I hope that those changes do not force anybody to close up shop. But, these changes just might. With luck, the next revision of the D20STL will be a little less vague and create a "safe harbor" and this whole thing will eventually blow over.