"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Felon]

one would be equally wrong to blanketly dismiss the opinions of fellow ENWorlder Felon, simply because the word felon has negative connotations. i doubt our esteemed colleague actually fits the legal definition of a felon, and therefore to dismiss his opinion would be wrong.

Thanks for the kind words.

Yeah, I was a bit stymied by Sig's comment myself. You didn't try to "force" anything on anyone from where I'm sitting. You said "can we please stop with the porno references". That's not a demand, that's a request.

 

[Psion]

I think PDF publishers are the last people who need to worry about the changes. They get a "Stop that" letter, what are going to do? Pulp the 'trons? No, they just strip off the d20 logo, having benefitted from the logo while it had it, and put it back up for sale as an OGL-only product.

 

[The Sigil]

i most certainly was not.
i said that as far as i can tell, the book does not match the legal definition of pornography as i understand it.
{snip}
dismissing the book as pornographic, a word that does indeed have a legal definition, when said book may not actually fit that definition is wrong, IMO.

To restate, here is the full definition from law.com"

pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse. The printing, publication, sale and distribution of "hard core" pornography is either a felony or misdemeanor in most states. Since determining what is pornography and what is "soft core" and "hard core" are subjective questions to judges, juries and law enforcement officials, it is difficult to define, since the law cases cannot print examples for the courts to follow (emphasis mine)

Let me explain why I think the BoEF could certainly fall under this legal definition.

Fact: Material that contains pictures and/or writings of sexual activity may be considered pornographic based on a subjective definition.

Fact: The BoEF does contain pictures and/or writings of sexual activity. We've been told as much about the text, and some of the pictures that have been released do show such things. I think this is not in dispute.

Fact: By the transitive property, the BoEF may be considered pornographic... based on a "subjective definition" by the "right people" at the "right time" in the "right place" (or wrong people at the wrong time in the wrong place, depending on your viewpoint).

Because "subjective definition" is in play, the BoEF may in fact be considered pornographic. And I would suggest that if you showed the BoEF off in, say, the Bible Belt, you'd have a greater chance of having it ruled "pornographic" than in, by contrast, Cal-Berkeley.

Again, I'm not saying it IS pornographic, but clearly, it does legally fall under an area where it could be considered such. Whether or not it IS found to be pornographic likely depends upon whom you ask, where you ask them, and what time of day it is, and whether or not the person you ask is a judge, jury member, or law enforcement official. That's all I'm saying.

--The Sigil

 

[Mercule]

I'm still not at all happy about the new "sole discretion" and "destruction" clauses. I don't see whether it matters that they remove them, though. The cat's out and the ex post facto nature of the d20 STL means that it could be re-added and levied against anyone they pleased at any time.

The question is, "Do publishers continue to use the d20 STL and hope things work fine, or do they start to invest in another logo?"

Here's an idea: Is it possible to "double brand" a product? That is, could a new product (eg. The Slayer's Guide to Wombats - SGtW) be marked with both the d20 logo and the Prometheus logo someone mentioned?

Carrying the d20 logo would retain the current brand recognition, while adding the Prometheus logo would build recognition there, too. So long as WotC plays nice with the d20 STL, publishers can continue to rely on the consumer goodwill toward that brand. But, if WotC suddenly (or not so suddenly) gets draconic about things, the d20 logo can be dropped with the hope that there is enough equity in the Prometheus logo to retain market penetration.

Note: I'm not necessarily endorsing the Prometheus license. It's just an example that I happen to remember. Whatever it is, a significant portion of publishers would have to agree to use it, or it's worthless.

 

[Felon]

What you did is completely legally defensible, but I don't like the fact that, with your prior knowledge, you deliberately made a product which falls into a category of "things WotC doesn't like enough to change the license to prohibit them." You tried to deliberately use WotC trademark to increase your personal benefits even when you knew that what you were doing was not what they wanted.

As I read this, I have to wonder who "they" is? If you're suggesting that he's obligated to humbly bow to the wishes of whoever's calling the shots at WotC at any given time, then you're basically just saying that he wasn't being a good "company man", saluting the cause regardless of how strongly he disagreed with the shift in policy. Even at that, you're not being terribly fair; he did stop working for them after all.

Once again, let's remind ourselves of how progressively "they" is becoming an amorphous bureaucratic entity, because the people who actually poured their creative energies into the D20 license have been deemed irrelevant to the success of the game and subsequently cast off. Small wonder people don't respect the faceless blob who grumbles "Deeziners n writerz not importand..Z'all bout marketink...BLORCH!"

 

[BSF]

one would be equally wrong to blanketly dismiss the opinions of fellow ENWorlder Felon, simply because the word felon has negative connotations. i doubt our esteemed colleague actually fits the legal definition of a felon, and therefore to dismiss his opinion would be wrong.

Esteemed Colleague? Hey, cool! What can I do to be considered an Esteemed Colleague? That sounds a heck of a lot cooler than a gaming geek or a computer geek.

 

[jmucchiello]

I think PDF publishers are the last people who need to worry about the changes. They get a "Stop that" letter, what are going to do? Pulp the 'trons? No, they just strip off the d20 logo, having benefitted from the logo while it had it, and put it back up for sale as an OGL-only product.

Actually, as a PDF publisher, I am far more annoyed at the font size issues. I have 15-20 PDFs I have to track down and change the font size on "Requires the D&D PHB, 3rd Ed" from 9-point to 10-point. And my trademark owner text from 8-point to 10-point. Highly annoying.

 

[Psion]

I'll have to disagree with you there. If those are toeing the line of pornography, then so is the National Geographic Swimsuit issue they released this summer, or any National Geographic issue that contains people in the nude, or the X-Men Summer Swimsuit issue that Marvel released a few years ago.

Agreed. I'd call those "soft porn".

 

[20sides]

Once again, let's remind ourselves of how progressively "they" is becoming an amorphous bureaucratic entity, because the people who actually poured their creative energies into the D20 license have been deemed irrelevant to the success of the game and subsequently cast off.

Hasbro is calling the shots.. I expect them to do some juvenile stuff with this. They don't give two squirts about this game, they see it as just another thing to run into the ground and cast off when it loses too much money, just like Revlon.

 

[Psion]

Wanna lay some money on that? Check out Book of Exalted Deeds in October.

I'll be sure to. What are the odds that the contents have been morphed since you left (much like the contents of BoVD morphed after monte turned in the manuscript.)?