"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[woodelf]

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense.

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.

That'd be even worse. Narrowly-drawn standards? Bad. Narrowly-drawn standards for some people but not others? Horrible. I can perhaps play by the rules, despite not liking them, if they are consistent and clearly-defined. I'm not interested in even trying if i know that they won't be consistent. If this turned out to be a tactic just to squash the BoEF, i'm done looking at Hasbro products, much less buying them.

 

[woodelf]

But that doesn't seem to be what "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" is about. It seems to be a "crunch" book more about pointless erotica than a coherent "lurid fantasy" product. Do we need 190 pages of sex-themed skills, sex-themed feats, sex-themed classes, sex-themed class abilities tied to sex-themed skills, sex-themed gods, sex-themed spells?

Do we need 190pp of detailed evisceration (Torn Asunder--ok, i don't actually know the pagecount)? Do we need 250pp of violent skills, violent feats, violent classes, violent class abilites tied to violent skills, violent gods, and violent spells (the D&D3.5E PH)? I'm having a little trouble seeing how sex is so much worse than casual violence.

 

[woodelf]

Suppose the "war on terror" were to expand such that the illegal search and seasure laws were revoked (sure, far fetched -- but not as far off as one might think given the current climate). Would this bother you? Would it still bother you if Uncle Sam said that it would only use this new legal power to deal with terrorists and bad guys? After all, 90% of us have nothing to worry about, right? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem inviting the Police Officer into your house.

Um, they already have. Ok, strictly speaking, you still have to have a warrant for a search--you just don't have to have a reason to get a warrant any more, provided it involves "terrorism". But since you don't have to have a reason, it's gonna be a bit hard to assure that terrorism really was involved. And you don't have to let anybody know, pre- or post, that you conducted the search. And don't forget that "terrorists"--even domestic citizens cited solely with some crime that is not explicitly terrorism in nature--can be declared "enemy combatants" at the gov't's whim, and thus denied the rights to a speedy trial, know your accused, know the crime you're charged with, and a few other things (i forget the whole spiel).

But, it's ok, they'll only use this power against terrorists. The rest of us are safe. Unless we happen to have a Muslim name.

 

[The Sigil]

Um, they already have. Ok, strictly speaking, you still have to have a warrant for a search--you just don't have to have a reason to get a warrant any more, provided it involves "terrorism". But since you don't have to have a reason, it's gonna be a bit hard to assure that terrorism really was involved. And you don't have to let anybody know, pre- or post, that you conducted the search. And don't forget that "terrorists"--even domestic citizens cited solely with some crime that is not explicitly terrorism in nature--can be declared "enemy combatants" at the gov't's whim, and thus denied the rights to a speedy trial, know your accused, know the crime you're charged with, and a few other things (i forget the whole spiel).

But, it's ok, they'll only use this power against terrorists. The rest of us are safe. Unless we happen to have a Muslim name.

You're bringing politics into this now - which will lead to a quick closure of this thread if it continues.

I think this thread has mostly died down, but no need to lock it to further discussion.

--The Sigil

 

[Psion]

Agreed. However, the standards as written in the D20System Guide would flag several (most?) WotC products. I have trouble accepting the "we have to protect our good name" argument when they want to prevent stuff they themselves have done.

I agree. They should abide by their own standards, or otherwise it doesn't meet the stated goals.

If AV is correct, the BoED won't meet those guidelines either. Of course, it is entirely possible (as Ralts has suggested) that while the policy was in the works, it was expedited specifically becase of the BoEF and their original intent was to meet these goals company-wide somewhere down the line.

 

[woodelf]

"When depicting the human form—or creatures possessing humaniform features—gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable."

The nudity of Isis is not gratuitous. That is she is not naked just to show a naked woman. I do not belive this to be a list but a clarification of what is "gratuitous." If that was the case the end of the sentance would be "...are not acceptable."

I would *not* rely on grammatical precision when determining what the licenses from WotC actually say. The WotC OGL, D20STL, and D20 System Guide are full of atrocious, ambiguous grammar. Heck, there are bits that quite clearly say one thing, but the FAQ says it says another. As near as i can tell, the folks behind these things at WotC couldn't use a semicolon properly if their lives depended on it, and just barely understand the concepts of parallel construction and noun-verb number agreement.

 

[Dr. Harry]

So what is WotC's actual concern here? The 1980s controversies caused big sales boosts.

I would contend that the controversies provided more good publicity than bad publicity in the 1980's because even a cursory examination proved that the charges were not true, and that the charges were so over the top that fewer people even took them seriously. (Demon worship, enhanced suicidal tendencies, mind control ...) The controversy generated interest in the primarily teenage, primarily male audience that will adopt anything the freaks out the last generation. (This is the only explanation I have for the brief popularity of Marilyn Manson.) Getting teenagers to "rebel" in an uttery harmless way was actually a massive public service Gary Gygax and TSR provided, when you come to think of it ...

Agreed. However, the standards as written in the D20System Guide would flag several (most?) WotC products. I have trouble accepting the "we have to protect our good name" argument when they want to prevent stuff they themselves have done.

The difference here is the WotC is the entity taking the risk to damaging the public image of D&D, which they own. I do not think it is ethical to risk doing harm to someone else's property to make a buck yourself.

I'm having a little trouble seeing how sex is so much worse than casual violence.

The difference is primarily because western culture views sex as a private activity, and violence as a public activity. Consider the threads discussing what is the proper/LG/*G/*E/whatever way to approach violence in games. This is not considered surprising due to the "social" nature of violence. The same threads discussing sexual situations in games, I contend, would be much more problematic.


And regarding the "war on terror":

It is not reasonable to compare anyone invovled in these debates with terrorists.

It is not reasonable to compare anyone invovled in these debates with the Ashcroft "Justice" department.

It is, however, an excellent way to get this thread closed and flount ENWorld's rules to discuss how to flount WotC's.

Harry

 

[DaveMage]

The difference is primarily because western culture views sex as a private activity, and violence as a public activity. Consider the threads discussing what is the proper/LG/*G/*E/whatever way to approach violence in games. This is not considered surprising due to the "social" nature of violence. The same threads discussing sexual situations in games, I contend, would be much more problematic.

Harry

Regarding the whole sex and/or violence in D&D argument, I think the violence in my life should be fantasy, while the sex should be real.

 

[MThibault]

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

This would work. The Everquest end-run seems to have gone unchallenged, as has S&SS's "Compatible with the World's Most Popular Fantasy Role Playing Game". Both of which are probably more readily understandable to a new player than the d20 logo.

I'm wondering if it would be wise for the d20 industry as a whole to do this, though. If they are to worry about waking the sleeping giant (which is what someone, somewhere did, apparently) then they probably shouldn't find an alternative that is too effective. If that happens, when 4th edition comes out the SRD4.0 might be released through a single license that combines the STL and the OGL.

WotC can't recind the OGL, but when they come out with a new version of the rules the can remove the safe harbor of the stand-alone OGL from any new and essential developments. If control is a priority for the management, then a popular and and simple method of sidestepping that control (by not needing the d20STL) would force them to either rethink their priorities (doubtful) or change the rules of the game.

Cheers

M.S. Thibault

 

[woodelf]

Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG,

Will that legend never die? Ok, for the record:
--It was a trademark not on the word "Nazi", but on the specific image of a nazi soldier, which was a still from one of the Indiana Jones movies.
--TSR didn't claim the trademark, Lucasfilm did. TSR was just including the "tm" for Lucasfilm.

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).

Dunno about "spell, "orc", etc., though there were vague claims over the years that implied "armor class," "hit points", & similar terms might be trademarks. Mind you, AFAIK those claims were never made explicit, probably in large part because of their indefensibility, but were rather part of a veiled threat to pursue anyone making overly-compatible products, by saying that "many" of their game terms were trademarks, but that explicitly listing them was risky because they might forget to list some. This was before the WotC strategy of asserting that an RPG has sufficient creative merit for it to be copyrighted, and for that copyright to extend to the rules within.