"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Scorpio]

(Maybe if I put these predictions in verse like Nostradomus...)

When Mars makes it closest pass of the Earth
A new license will be born 15 days after
Clashes of mind over motes of electricity
Heralding a new day in icosahedral laughter.

(Nyahh.)

Joe, that is frickin' hilarious...

 

[afstanton]

What follows is pure speculation, my guess as to what happened with absolutely no facts (or even juicy rumors) to back it up.

Ryan Dancey has gone on at length about the discussions and research which led to the release of the SRD, the OGL and the d20 STL. The process was well though out and thoroughly discussed with, and modified by, the lawyers prior to release.

My guess is that last year, Wizards was going over the results of further research when a disturbing trend was discovered. While the d20 logo and license was set up as a mark of compatability with D&D (and for reasons of legal protection, ONLY a mark of compatability), consumers were beginning to identify it closely with D&D. Consumers saw it not just as a mark of compatability, though, but also read expectations of content into the logo.

The lawyers said that if the consumers were seeing the logo as a mark of content in addition to a mark of compatability, then Wizards had darn well better treat it the same way. Lots of meetings and discussions and arguments followed. Many people wanted very much to keep the license content-free. In my make-believe scenario AV was probably heavily in this camp, knowing that well done mature products (and the BoVD was just the merest first baby-step) could extend the game in a good way. But, as always, the lawyers won.

Finally, after much further gnashing of teeth and many meetings, drafts, proposals, discussions, more meetings, approvals, rewrites and delays, the new version of the d20 STL and d20 Guide were born, quietly thrust into use without warning in the dark of night...

Oh, well. As I said, just some marginally on-topic wild guesses about what might have happened in one of the infinite universes. Feel free to return your discussions of what is and isn't porn...

-Dave

I'm going to take an alternate guess here: It's entirely possible that someone started looking at this and realized that the d20 logo is inherently more valuable than the Dungeons and Dragons logo. Perhaps they then said "Holy crap! We need to control this a bit more!"

More valuable? How? Well, true, WotC is indeed the 800 lb ogrillon in this arena, but what the small companies can do that WotC has trouble with is expanding into new areas. It's not unreasonable to think that a well established "small" company (small only compared to WotC, huge compared to most) such as SSS (only one example, there are a few others) could release a great game in a venue WotC hasn't touched yet. They could establish market share quickly and WotC might have real trouble catching up once they decide to enter that newly profitable territory.

The d20 logo lets consumers know that it will be easy for them to learn the rules, the major 3rd party name means that it's a quality product, and suddenly, Emeril BAM, WotC can't keep up in that segment of the market. That's how d20 is more valuable than "Dungeons and Dragons."

This has little to do with the morality clause. It has everything to do with the vague review process and past behavior. As was stated earlier, there was no mention of minatures in the first version of the d20 license or guide. Once WotC decided they didn't really care for competition in that area, it went in. There is literally nothing that stops them from doing it again. In a very real sense, they are eliminating competition here when it comes to gore/sex/prejudice. I doubt that WotC is planning "d20 Porn" - but they could, since they don't have to play by the same rules that 3rd party publishers do.

Aaron

 

[mythusmage]

A Heads up for Wizards

To hijack a line from the musical 1776

It's D&D, dammit, somebody's gonna get offended.

 

[Dr. Harry]

(Maybe if I put these predictions in verse like Nostradomus...)

When Mars makes it closest pass of the Earth
A new license will be born 15 days after
Clashes of mind over motes of electricity
Heralding a new day in icosahedral laughter.

(Nyahh.)

A good start, but far too coherent.. Screw with the syntax, include some misspelling (to make it look all 'mystical' and stuff) and make it vague enough to be used again. For example, I'd change 15 days to "two times plus 1", and "electricity to "fire".

Your Nostradamus-izing is off to an excellent start by following the master and making predictions about things that have already happened.

 

[jmucchiello]

A good start, but far too coherent.. Screw with the syntax, include some misspelling (to make it look all 'mystical' and stuff) and make it vague enough to be used again. For example, I'd change 15 days to "two times plus 1", and "electricity to "fire".

Well, don't forget. That verse was translated from the original Latin. And since I don't know Latin, I took a lot of liberties with the translation.

Your Nostradamus-izing is off to an excellent start by following the master and making predictions about things that have already happened.

In order to maximize prophets, one must demonstrate a 100% prediction ability.

 

[Voadam]

What follows is pure speculation, my guess as to what happened with absolutely no facts (or even juicy rumors) to back it up.


My guess is that last year, Wizards was going over the results of further research when a disturbing trend was discovered. While the d20 logo and license was set up as a mark of compatability with D&D (and for reasons of legal protection, ONLY a mark of compatability), consumers were beginning to identify it closely with D&D. Consumers saw it not just as a mark of compatability, though, but also read expectations of content into the logo.

The lawyers said that if the consumers were seeing the logo as a mark of content in addition to a mark of compatability, then Wizards had darn well better treat it the same way. Lots of meetings and discussions and arguments followed. Many people wanted very much to keep the license content-free. In my make-believe scenario AV was probably heavily in this camp, knowing that well done mature products (and the BoVD was just the merest first baby-step) could extend the game in a good way. But, as always, the lawyers won.

Finally, after much further gnashing of teeth and many meetings, drafts, proposals, discussions, more meetings, approvals, rewrites and delays, the new version of the d20 STL and d20 Guide were born, quietly thrust into use without warning in the dark of night...

Oh, well. As I said, just some marginally on-topic wild guesses about what might have happened in one of the infinite universes.
-Dave

I'm not sure I get your content vs compatibility notion.

d20 was always planned as a D&D support mechanism, WotC figured it was not profitable for them to make adventures but any 3rd party that did so would support the PH and the core books, D&D's main revenue sources. The idea was always that d20 adventures would be seen by consumers as D&D support material.

I think there was just a shift in corporate thinking that limiting 3rd party products that are marketed as compatible down to PG-13 levels would be better for the D&D core book market than allowing any content to be associated with d20 and D&D.

Any basis for that shift would be pure speculation at this point.

 

[Mercule]

A good start, but far too coherent..

Y'know, I'm surprised there isn't a translation engine out there to do this. Kinda like the one that turns a sentence into Redneck, or whatever.

 

[Wycen]

In order to maximize prophets, one must demonstrate a 100% prediction ability.

But I would change electricity/fire to ephemera or phlogiston.

 

[woodelf]

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

1: i guess i'll have to reread the guidelines--is *anything* "political," no matter how remotely related, off-limits?
2: if so, that's stupid.
3: except for my last sentence (the one about "You're safe...unless your name is Muslim"), i don't see what's "political" about what i said--i stated simple facts of the current laws. I could have brought up all sorts of much-more-polarized issues (like the track record of the secret court that approves terrorism-related warrants), but deliberately chose not to [and, notice how even now i have carefully said nothing *about* said court (such as what that track record is, or my opinion of what that means), save that it exists, which is indisputable fact], in order to not be inflammatory. So, limitations on politics notwithstanding, i thought i was playing it safe.
4: while i didn't intend to violate any usage guidelines, i'm not going to apologize for a simple statement of fact about how our gov't is currently operating.
5: i am, however, a teeny bit sorry for the Muslim name remark--though i intended it as much as a jest as political commentary. But then, most good jokes have relevence to the readers' context (even if what that relevence for a particular reader is can't reliably be predicted).

 

[woodelf]

Thats what I was saying- the way I am parsing the sentance is in the following manner:

When depicting the human form [qualifier for F/SF genre] Gratuitous nudity [examples] is not acceptable.

But interpretation is half the fun!!!!

Aaron.

Again, the grammar is sloppy at best, misleading at worst--your interpretation might be what they mean (based on the tense of the verb), or the other guy's (base on the conjunctions, grouping, and order). It needs an editor before we know for certain what it means.