"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Simplicity]

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.

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.

I've got two problems with your argument...

(1) In paragraph 3, you refer to AV attempting to "make additional profit off using another's trademark". How much money do you think the BoEF is going to make? It's not like the guys at Valar are going to be rolling in dough when this comes out. People make D&D books because they enjoy what they're doing, not because it's going to make them rich. Having a get rich quick scheme for something that isn't going to make you rich seems pretty stupid to me.

(2) Your treatment of WotC and Valar is shows contradictory logic. On the one hand, you argue that WotC holds the trademark, so it's not about free speech and the ethics of the situation doesn't matter. WotC can do whatever they like with their trademark legally, so whatever they do is fine. On the other hand, you argue that even though Valar is operating legally within the bounds of the old license, their knowledge that future licenses wouldn't allow what they're doing should ethically prevent them from releasing the BoEF. Huh? If WotC isn't going to act ethically, why should Valar? If WotC is going to fall back to the law to support their position, then why can't Valar?

 

[Fast Learner]

I haven't read the entire thread, and I don't plan to at this point, so my reply may be redundant.

It's so much a matter of being redundant: it's a matter of being ill-informed (and therefor wrong). You are ignorant of the actual situation, precisely because you didn't read the thread. Or the reproduction of ACV's post on the front page of this site.

 

[jgbrowning]

I've got two problems with your argument...

(1) In paragraph 3, you refer to AV attempting to "make additional profit off using another's trademark". How much money do you think the BoEF is going to make? It's not like the guys at Valar are going to be rolling in dough when this comes out. People make D&D books because they enjoy what they're doing, not because it's going to make them rich. Having a get rich quick scheme for something that isn't going to make you rich seems pretty stupid to me.

Of course they're not going to be rolling in the dough. I know for certain if the main goal of all the d20 publishers was to make money, they would have chosen another business. We all do this because we love the fact that we can do what we like doing and make some money off of it. A few, very lucky people have gotten rich, but generally getting rich is, as you said a stupid thing to hope for.

(2) Your treatment of WotC and Valar is shows contradictory logic. On the one hand, you argue that WotC holds the trademark, so it's not about free speech and the ethics of the situation doesn't matter. WotC can do whatever they like with their trademark legally, so whatever they do is fine. On the other hand, you argue that even though Valar is operating legally within the bounds of the old license, their knowledge that future licenses wouldn't allow what they're doing should ethically prevent them from releasing the BoEF. Huh? If WotC isn't going to act ethically, why should Valar? If WotC is going to fall back to the law to support their position, then why can't Valar?

Firstly, I never said whatever WotC does is fine, so please don't try to straw man me. I think that if someone does me wrong, I don't have the right to do wrong to them. I think WotC is being massively, terribly, stupid with this change, and I bet my booties that Mr. Valterra tried his damndest to stop them from being idiots.

For me operating legally doesn't mean operating ethically, nor vice versa. If someone is unethical to me, I'm not going to be unethical back. I kinda view it like the OGL concept: everyone comes out ahead if people co-operate.

The main reason why I'm as upset as I am, is that I would have preffered that the BoEF was the thing that caused WotC to be idiots as opposed to it being something that had been planned for a long time. I also wish that Mr. Valterra had slated the BoEF as an OGL product from the get-go, knowing what I know now. I still have a very high opinion of him, I'm just saddened at what I perceive as a possible tit-for-tat relationship. Bluntly, using someone's trademark the way they don't want it to be used is rude. Conversely, what WotC is doing is rude. Rude and stupid in the long run.

I'm surprised that WotC didn't escalate the issue and force Mr. Valterra to pulp his books after they were out. They could have been meaner. Thankfully, it didn't come to that. Unfortunately, I feel this adversarial relationship may make it more difficult for the rest of us to publish. Sometimes you just feel the need to say, "Play nice."

joe b.

 

[20sides]

This is precisely my concern. What if WoTC decided stuff like Pit of Loch Durnan was too far? Or if they just had an axe to grind (SSS anyone?)

Admittedly, it sounds like the BoEF was intentionally designed to piss off the lawyers because someone had a rocket in their pocket towards WoTC. However, to change the d20 liscence like this and leave other publishers high and dry asking questions, wondering if they are next is poor sportsmanship.

WoTC should have let the crybaby publish his book and let it get buried in the detritus of time, instead he just got free publicity and independent content creators just got hammered.

 

[jgbrowning]

WoTC should have let the crybaby publish his book and let it get buried in the detritus of time, instead he just got free publicity and independent content creators just got hammered.

We don't really need name-calling. I don't like what he did and why he did it, but its understandable why he would want to get back at WotC. They're being very stupid and hurting something I'm sure he and others put a lot of care into. Name calling doesn't help make the discussion fruitful.

joe b.

 

[Mercule]

Absolutely. This is what many people on the ogf-d20 list have been recommending, and I agree with them. Others are recommending against something that will fractionalize the publishers.

Thanks for the info, Dave.

The fractionalization is exactly why I said that there would have to be something resembling a consensus on what the second label would be. This problem would only be exasperated if WWGS started using the "SS20" imprint, Mongoose started using the "Interlock" logo, and Malhavoc used the "Prometheus" license (to randomly pick and (mis)associate three).

As the "informed", Internet-savvy gamer in my group, I might figure it all out, but no one else would. Least of all distributors/retailers.

But, how do we reach that consensus? The most bullet-proof license seems the right way to go, but most of us aren't laywers. Also, who are the key players to bring on board? I suspect that without Mongoose, FFG, and/or SSS (the biggest three outside of WotC, AFAIK) there wouldn't be enough momentum to float it.

 

[20sides]

Youre right about the name calling..

The sentiment I currently feel towards the guy for thinking only of himself and his silly vendetta gets me a little steamed.

He caused the community to lose as a whole, beyond what little has occured here.

WoTC has remembered it has all the power in the d20 license, but will it remember it has a responsibility to use that power wisely?

 

[woodelf]

Anyway, now is the point where tough decisions need to be made, mainly whether to bare your soul to WOTC and ask for exemptions at risk of calling even more attention to your product and any possible "violations of decency", or tone things down to a bareable level and cross your fingers (don't tell my lawyer I said that).

Blah...

Um, aren't you missing a 3rd possibility: drop the logo, and maybe add a euphamistic reference to indicate D&D compatibility?

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

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

...
V

Heh - Funny you mention this, as Avalanche just announced they will no longer use the d20 logo for future products:

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=10060&mode=thread&order=0

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, this is rather silly, but:

I wonder how much of the creation of, and the flack surrounding, BoEF is Mr. V. enjoying the sight of everyone rushing around in a total swivet?

Goodness knows I have met more than a few pagans who enjoy going out to 'freak the 'danes'.

The Auld Grump, add me to the ist who thinks this will all end up being pretty minor...