"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Dr. Harry]

Oh, to be clear, I agree with Ryan Dancey's position that this is not the best way to address this problem.

 

[Fast Learner]

Okay I am really confused with the whole idea of nipples and the MMII, FF and BoVD covers. ...the FF is just some swirling colours...

Do you have a different Fiend Folio than everyone else? Swirling colors? For a reminder, here's the cover. The pierced nipple in question is right below the "io" in "Folio". Where do you see "swirling colors"?

(PS: I'm not pointing this out as an example of anything or taking a stance, but am answering this specific question.)

 

[shadow]

Yeah, I'm disappointed with the changes to the license. Although WotC is in every right to do it, it seems to violate the spirit of the original license.

However, for everyone screaming doom and gloom: CHILL OUT! This is not the end of d20, or D&D. Just because you can't have your d20 sex book, or d20 book of racism and hate doesn't mean that the whole system is dying. And of course the whole idea of the new changes making D&D some "kiddy" or "Disney" game is absurd. Even during the late days of TSR, some very grim and gritty settings were released. Think of Ravenloft (a land enfused with evil) or Dark Sun (a dying planet where characters struggle to keep alive). Those settings were released during the time that TSR had their controversial code of conduct, yet neither of the settings were "kiddy" or "Disney" IMHO.

Anyway, if you want to have porno, or loads of sexual perversion in your home brew, there is nothing stopping you from it. I doubt that WotC is going to show up during your games and make you stop playing.

 

[jgbrowning]

Folks,

So, yes, it is me. I'm trying to standardize my name to ACValterra. I used Zulkir when I was with WotC. I use ACValterra on the boards on our site (www.valarproject.com).

Okay - a few things that I can now say. First as a former employee of WotC I am constrained in some of the things I can reveal for legal reasons. But as soon as WotC says it publically I am obviously freed up. WotC has now confessed that these changes have been in the works for a year. A YEAR FOLKS!!!!! BoeF was announced last MARCH!!! Do the math!

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.

[/b]

If you knew these license changes were going to happen. What is the motivation for your doing several different things...

1. Putting out a press release indicating compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons and SEX.
2. Putting the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in a prominant place on your book.
3. Putting out a product that you knew was going to be dissallowed according to the license.

In other words, why did you push the envelope so hard and fast when you knew what was going to happen? I understand the frustration you must have felt watching something you believe it get the shaft. I don't understand why, once the battle was lost, you didn't respond gracefully. Why you pretty much did everything possible under the liscense to manipulate it for your product's benefit. I can only believe these things, given your knowledge both of the license change, the OGL movement, and of WotC internal information are a deliberate "thumbing of the nose" at WotC for their decision concerning the license changes. I'm worried that this behavior may lead to even more extreme "clamping down" on the license in the future.

joe b.

 

[DaveStebbins]

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?

I guess it's a case of plausible denial. Before now, they could say the mark denoted game rule compatability only and that there were far too many products for them to be able to exercise editorial control of content. Now, they've extended the mark to include content, so they don't have that out.

The example I've seen lately is that once you post a "beware of dog" sign, you can be sure the opposition attorney will say something like "So you KNEW your dog was dangerous long before he bit little Timmy!?"

People who don't like D&D will associate it with all sorts of unrelated things, with or without reason (remember the early '80s?). I'm not sure that the extra risk and liability is worth it.

-Dave

 

[Psion]

Does anyone have factual information or a statistical analysis of how having the d20 logo on your book garners more profit?

Probably not. I will point out this though... word has it that distributors and retailers are no longer automatically picking up stuff just because of the d20 logo. There was enough material in the great d20 glut that much of it sat on the shelves, and distributors are much more skeptical about accepting unfamiliar d20 publishers. So the d20 logo isn't quite the boon it once was.

Once you get the product on the shelf, I think it is still a boon, as it still makes for a key for d20 fans to buy products that they unambiguously know are associated with the d20 system. Though some recognition for OGL products is beginning to spread, it is still in its infancy, and I think that such an avenue is less reliable in getting less informed customers the products in a market where there are many less than informed clerks...

 

[ACValterra]

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."

Oh that was intentional. It might have been in error. The question is - what can you say in a press release that is not marketing? At the time I wrote it I was relying on a Nike court case that was being adjudicated that said that Nike could not be sued for false advertising for a press release they put out saying they did not use sweatshop labor. Once again - I was functioning in a vacuum as I had no one who would really know whether that argument would hold water that I could turn to. In hindsight that press release wouldn't look a thing like it did. But hindsight is 20/20.

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

Says who? Who is the arbiter of the spirit of the d20 license? How about Ryan Dancey? If anyone can say what the spirit of the d20 license is - it would be Ryan Dancey. I showed that cover to him before we released it and asked what he thought of what we did with the required use text. He not only did not have a problem with it he praised it. While I was in charge of the license if I had seen a company do that I would *not* have come after them and would have quietly cheered them. What did tick me off was when companies would use the smallest font possible and hide the text on the back. But that was during my administration. Obviously things have changed.

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.

Anyone who publishes in the d20 field will tell you that 90% of your sales come in the first 2-3 months. Very few products ever see reprint. I was hoping that at least the first run of BoeF would be d20. That is probably not going to happen.
And yes - it is worth trying this hard to get that logo. The d20 logo is a clear indication of compatibility and distributors will lower their orders if you are *only* OGL. So saying you can "just go OGL" is correct but for many companies it will make the diffeence between a viable margin and non-viable margin. At least that is currently true. As Ryan has pointed out it is possible that game manufacturers could band together and create an alternate network/logo.

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.

I did not piss in the pool! My swimming trucks were already floruscent purple!! Seriously - I made many errors in my rush to get this product out and you can hold me acountable for all kinds of things - even things that will never be public. You can blame me for BoVD (though it was Monte's brilliant idea I just supported it).
But I really do believe in this product - and for those who are interested in adding elements of romance, love, seduction, birth, marriage etc. etc. I think this product will do wonders.

AV
www.valarproject.com

 

[Psion]

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.

From what I have heard, I would not be at all surprised if we didn't see another product with pictures with as much violent content and nudity and the BoVD, or even the Urban Arcana or MM 3.5. From statements by Andy @ WotC and Anthony here, this move does not seem to be isolated to the d20 STL, but a more general move to exercise standards associated with WotC. I am guessing you will see these revisions affect WotC product as well, so I think the hipocrisy claim will be moot.

As a reminder, I do still worry about a "d20 diaspora" encouraged by fear of some publishers to use the license. I am just trying to defuse some of these more emotive claims.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

It is very easy for me, as a small publisher and a regular visitor here at ENworld, to remember this most important fact of this business:

You guys aren't my customers.

I mean, ultimately you are, but more importantly, my customers are the distributors and retailers. You can vow to support me all you want (and believe me, it is appreciated) but if the distributor won't carry my products, you're never even going to have the option of supporting me, or any of the many fine smaller d20 publishers.

So remember: Talking to your friends is great, but hounding your local game store is even better.

Someone else just above mentioned that the d20 logo isn't that important-- that their purchases are made based on reviews and word of mouth here at ENworld. As much as I wish it were otherwise, this is a very small niche of extremely informed gamers, and a tiny portion of the "market" that a publisher must consider.


Wulf

 

[jgbrowning]

It is very easy for me, as a small publisher and a regular visitor here at ENworld, to remember this most important fact of this business:

You guys aren't my customers.

I mean, ultimately you are, but more importantly, my customers are the distributors and retailers. You can vow to support me all you want (and believe me, it is appreciated) but if the distributor won't carry my products, you're never even going to have the option of supporting me, or any of the many fine smaller d20 publishers.

So remember: Talking to your friends is great, but hounding your local game store is even better.

Wulf

Thanks for the post Wulf. It's unfortunate that the people who use our books aren't really our customers. I know that were it not for EN World and people here liking MMS:WE so much and telling other people about it I wouldn't have been able to get distribution. The distributors simply weren't interested, and that shows a disconnection between producer and end user that I wish wasn't there.

It's the main reason why I like PDF. If my book sucks or is good, I'd rather have the people who play the game, not run the stores, make that decision.

joe b.