"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Psion]

Now, you guys are all up in arms about these bare nipples?!

No, the guys who are up in arms about people being up in arms about nipples were up in arms with it.

As a card carrying member of the "guys who were up in arms about nipples" brigade, I can tell you our official comment was "eh."

 

[Harlock]

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.

Wow, Revlon, the makeup people, owned D&D?

Oh come on, a little levity now and again is necessary lest we take ourselves too seriously and someone starts asking you to define the word, "is"...

 

[Felon]

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.

For starters...agree with everything I say

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

I call'em cheesecake. Harmless, fun cheesecake. But hey, so much for labels.

 

[d4]

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.

fair enough.

however, when something may or may not fit under one label or another, calling it by the more negative label is IMO bad form. especially when one doesn't even have full information on it yet.

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted what I said. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Valterra knew of the coming change, knew what was going to be changed, and knew the reason behind the change. No matter how much he disaggreed with the change, and in this I think we agree, the change is stupid, I find his use of another's trademark to promote a work that the owner of the trademark doesn't want promoted, and who is taking explicit legal recourse to prevent such material, questionable.

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!"

No matter what they are, or become, the trademark is theirs. The only reason why anyone else can use it is that it promotes their products. The entire purpose of the trademark is to sell more players handbooks. Mr. Valterra's deliberate use of their trademark in a manner in which they were in the steps of preventing, and of which he had full knowledge of, shows a lack of respect to WotC.

Basically, he wanted to get his book of sexual material out and make additional profit off using another's trademark with the foreknowledge that the owners of the trademark were trying explictly to prevent such sexual materials being put out under their trademark. No matter what you call it, that's a lack of respect, and it lets me know that Mr. Valterra is willing to be disrespectful of WotC to increase profitablity, for there is no other reason to include the d20 system logo except to increase profitability. That is the purpose of the logo.

Everyone knew he was pushing the d20 license into areas that were potentially unwanted by WotC when he announced his product. Now we know he was doing exactly what they didn't want, and unlike other publishers working on/releasing sexual material, he had explict information that what he was doing was not what WotC wanted for their trademark.

And please don't take my criticism of Mr. Valterra as a personal shot. I admire him for what he has done for the d20 license and his efforts to try and stop the idiocy that they're doing now. I don't admire him for his actions after losing that fight and his creation/promotion of his new product. But that is his business, and I expect him to do what he thinks best for his own interest.

joe b.

 

[seankreynolds]

{Now, Sean, you weren't REALLY trying to twist a definition by omitting portions that were potentialy harmful to your argument to suit your own purposes and pulling a Jaros by making the word mean what you wanted it to mean there, were you?
Bad Sean! No cookie!}

Actually, I just don't like big long quotes. Also, the quote didn't define what the differences between "hard core" and "soft core" were, or even clarify that the listed definition applied to one or the other, so I was trying to avoid confusing the issue any more than it already was.

 

[ES2]

Next thing you know, they'll copywrite the words "Player's Handbook" so no one else can use those words.

 

[Psion]

I'm still not at all happy about the new "sole discretion" and "destruction" clauses.

I hope that the discussion between d4, Sean Reynolds, Sigil, and Dr. Henry in this thread illuminates why the former is necessary. WotC problably doesn't have the time or money for lawyers fees to debate someone else's definition of porn.

 

[Psion]

Actually, I just don't like big long quotes. Also, the quote didn't define what the differences between "hard core" and "soft core" were, or even clarify that the listed definition applied to one or the other, so I was trying to avoid confusing the issue any more than it already was.

Be that as it may, if seems awful, um, unfair to slam someone for using a subjective definition and then supporting it by quoting a definition and then ommitting the part that admits that the definition is subjective.

 

[mythusmage]

Getting Serious Here

Disallowing gratuitous displays I can understand, but what about situations where showing certain subjects is entirely appropriate.

Say a d20 publisher gets permission to do an adaptation of Harry Turtledove's Darkness series (Harry's fantasy take on World War II, and a damn good read). One of the kingdoms in the books is called Zuwayzi, a polity in the tropical north. The Zuwayzi are a dark skinned race physically adapted to local conditions who go about nude. Their soldiers even fight nude.

Now, the hypothetical publisher could 'arrange' things so Zuwayzi genitalia are covered, but wouldn't that be a form of cheating? A denial of an essential fact of Zuwayzi culture?

I can understand when the display is for salacious or prurient purposes, but not when it's a simple depiction of a person or persons dressed (or undressed) according to cultural norms. For a real world example consider Pharonic Egypt, where public nudity was accepted, and children went skyclad as a matter of course.

The problem I see here is the possibility somebody might complain about an 'inappropriate' display. Frankly, that sort of person cannot be satisfied, for he will find something to complain about in any D&D or d20 product. Don't worry about that sort, be concerned with potential customers. My advice is to treat subjects in a mature fashion, honestly. If your setting book is about a tribe of tropical rainforest dwelling goblins who go about bare skinned, then show them bare skinned in the illoes. But be grown-up about it.