"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Brown Jenkin]

I have problems understanding thier view because I am getting conflicting information about thier view. On one hand you say that the people you talked to say that they didn't think this was important and that they were surprised by the reaction. On the other I have Anthony who had direct involvement in the discussions telling us this was a contentious issue and that his leaving was in part due to it. Prehaps I am paroniod but even accounting for biases in AV's position I believe him more than I do boilerplate statements that are being put out by WotC employees who risk being fired if they go against corporate policy. While I believe that you have talked with some empoyees and that this is the impression they are giving you I just can't figue out how that squares with Anthony's statements to the contrary.

 

[20sides]

What concerns me is what happens whhen thier audit team gets lazy? A good example is in the current MMORPG industry where most games have CSRs that tend to be arbitrary and take the quickest resolution to a situation with no repercussions for misconduct.

As you noted in Mr. Peterson's document, there appears to be no time alloted for remedy of the situation. Which is deeply disturbing in light of the analysis that one infraction permanently terminates your ability to create future d20 products.

When I read the 5.0 license I picked up on some of that verbage, but it comes clearer through the lens that Clark has offered .

It is starting to feel that WoTC is feeling remorse at the creation of OGL and d20, and is starting to want to reaquire certain aspects of ownership.

BoEF or no, I think it was inevitable in this economy that they begin to reign in what they gave so freely when they were experiencing a boom.

I think I am done buying WOTC products for a while, at least until I see what happens with further revisions of the d20 license.

 

[KDLadage]

It is starting to feel that WoTC is feeling remorse at the creation of OGL and d20, and is starting to want to reaquire certain aspects of ownership.

I disagree. I think I am ready at this point to concede that this was a tempest in a teapot; that I got very upset and paranoid over nothing in particular with the exception of conjecture and assumptions... and try my hardest to forget the whole thing.

 

[Strutinan]

"Tempest in a tea pot"

Why not just dismiss all of this as "needless fretting", or "a case of the vapors", lol.

Seriously folks, if people care enough to drag this on for SO LONG, then this is obvioulsy not a dismissable problem! YOU might dismiss it, but for every person who actually cares about this situation it is msot deffinately NOT dismissable!

So far, we seem t have all settled into three camps, each of which I have some opinions on:

#1: "Something better". These folks have taken this to be the last straw in dealing with the d20 STL, or are afraid of how this version and future version will affect them. Now they ae looking for an aternate means of showing JUST RULES compatibility in the industry. So far the Free Gaming Association's "Prometheus" license and logo seem to be the fore-runner, and last I checked was already being adopted by many. And that includes me.

#2: "d20 System is Holy Writ". Sorry if this comes off as insulting, but every time I see these folks post about how "there is absolutely no problems" with the d20STL, or casually dismiss people's concerns over it, I want to puke. For some reason, these people take the extreemly egotistical view that just becasue THEY are OK so far, that EVERYBODY ELSE is somehow either incosequential, or without merrit for disagreeing with them. As you can no doubt tell, I find such an attitude deplorable. Not for the "no problems" part, but becasue of the way they disregard everybody WITH A PROBLEM!

#3: "Wait and See". These folks either have no problems with the outlined decency guidelines, or very little problem, and don't see any reason to "rock the boat". While I personally think this kind of passive attitude isn't too wise, I can't fault anybody for being cautious. Hopefully the future will turn out rosy, so that they do not have to worry. Personally though, I'm going to guard against a not-so-rosy future.

There we go. That is my summation and opinions on the whole mess. Feel fre eto disregard any or all of it, as you feel you need to. Just one last thing to point out:

This has fractured the industry. What was once a united group is now three (or two, depending on how you look at it). That is not good for ANYBODY'S standing in the market! In the end, either group #1 or group #2 will be proven right. If group #1 is proven correct, they will become the new foundation of the open gaming industry by default. If group #2 is proven correct, there will be a little product and market shuffling for groups #1 and #3.

In other words: less potential work PR and product wise down the road to prepare for the worst. If the best (WotC/Hasbro dropping the "Quality Standards" caluse and rendering the d20 STL inviolate) thing possible happens, all it entails is the addition of a logo and a page or so of text for one group. If the worst possible thing (everybody losing thier d20 product lines when the boot comes down via the d20STL) happens, then two whole groups will have to scramble to recall, destroy, redesign, and reprint all their former d20 books to the new industry standard logo: the one that group #1 had pioneered before the excrement hit the rotating blades.

At least, that is my summation of the possibe outcomes from all this.

 

[KDLadage]

"Tempest in a tea pot"

Why not just dismiss all of this as "needless fretting", or "a case of the vapors", lol.

OK. It was all a lot of needless fretting and a case of the vapors. Happy now?

Seriously folks, if people care enough to drag this on for SO LONG, then this is obvioulsy not a dismissable problem! YOU might dismiss it, but for every person who actually cares about this situation it is msot deffinately NOT dismissable!

I resent the implication that I do not care about this situation. I care deeply for the state of our hobby and this particular license. As a person that would love to someday make writing for RPGs his primary source of income, I care as much (if not more) than most people about this topic.

But I can admit when something was simply a matter of two parties not seeing things from each other's points of view.

So far, we seem t have all settled into three camps, each of which I have some opinions on:

OK. I am listening (reading?).

#1: "Something better". These folks have taken this to be the last straw in dealing with the d20 STL, or are afraid of how this version and future version will affect them. Now they ae looking for an aternate means of showing JUST RULES compatibility in the industry. So far the Free Gaming Association's "Prometheus" license and logo seem to be the fore-runner, and last I checked was already being adopted by many. And that includes me.

Define "many." For that matter, define "front-runner." In a field with so few players (and so short a race), I fail to see how any can be considered a front-runner. Until a major player in this game adopts an alternate logo, there is no "front runner" in my estimation.

#2: "d20 System is Holy Writ". Sorry if this comes off as insulting,

It does.

but every time I see these folks post about how "there is absolutely no problems" with the d20STL, or casually dismiss people's concerns over it, I want to puke.

Then you are far too sensitive. Because, although there are some areas that need further clarification and some tweeking of the language -- there is no problem with the d20 STL. I disagree with you -- this is allowed in a free society.

For some reason, these people take the extreemly egotistical view that just becasue THEY are OK so far, that EVERYBODY ELSE is somehow either incosequential, or without merrit for disagreeing with them.

Please cite references to such behavior. Also, please explain to me why someone at (say...) Sword & Sorcery Studios should care if you do not like the content restrictions portion of the d20 license that they are working to abide by, any more than they should care that the average readership of Pyramid Magazine does not like the system restrictions involved with the d20 license?

As you can no doubt tell, I find such an attitude deplorable. Not for the "no problems" part, but becasue of the way they disregard everybody WITH A PROBLEM!

But are you not doing the same thing in reverse? You are obviously upset with (and a bit dismissive of; and arrogantly seeing our possition as having no merit) at people like me because we do not share your view that things have such a huge problem involved with them.

I was upset with WotC. I am still a bit upset with the timing, and the wording. But I can see that they were not intended with malice; the minor problems involved were caused by the vantage point from which they view the situation, not sime sinister plot. In that light, I have no trouble giving them a few months to look at the reactions, figure out the best course of action and iron out the wrinkles in their plan.

In other words, this is a tempest in a teapot.

#3: "Wait and See". These folks either have no problems with the outlined decency guidelines, or very little problem, and don't see any reason to "rock the boat". While I personally think this kind of passive attitude isn't too wise, I can't fault anybody for being cautious. Hopefully the future will turn out rosy, so that they do not have to worry. Personally though, I'm going to guard against a not-so-rosy future.

So what you are saying is that, you would rather cause waves in the pool based on your perception that WotC might cause waves in the future... and you are willing to justify this because of the fact that WotC is.... what? Going to rock the boat for you if you don't?

I don't get it.

So far, all they have done (and yes, I was upset, and read far too much into this at first too) is make the d20 license mor elike all other licenses they issue. Unifying things for ease of legal understanding. What, exactly, have they done wrong?

There we go. That is my summation and opinions on the whole mess. Feel fre eto disregard any or all of it, as you feel you need to. Just one last thing to point out:

This has fractured the industry. What was once a united group is now three (or two, depending on how you look at it). That is not good for ANYBODY'S standing in the market! In the end, either group #1 or group #2 will be proven right. If group #1 is proven correct, they will become the new foundation of the open gaming industry by default. If group #2 is proven correct, there will be a little product and market shuffling for groups #1 and #3.

This is dubious logic at best; over the course of this post you have used a multitude of falacies in your argument, such a: a red herring, two (or more) straw men, an appeal to indignation (repeatedly), a slippery slope, and have managed to board a bandwagon that, as far as I can tell, does not exist. Not to mention several exagerations, some factualy dubious statements, and a multitude of falacies I am sure I missed (I only took two college level logic courses, sorry).

In other words: less potential work PR and product wise down the road to prepare for the worst. If the best (WotC/Hasbro dropping the "Quality Standards" caluse and rendering the d20 STL inviolate) thing possible happens, all it entails is the addition of a logo and a page or so of text for one group. If the worst possible thing (everybody losing thier d20 product lines when the boot comes down via the d20STL) happens, then two whole groups will have to scramble to recall, destroy, redesign, and reprint all their former d20 books to the new industry standard logo: the one that group #1 had pioneered before the excrement hit the rotating blades.

Nope... this road has a lot of cracks, major potholes, leads to nowhere in particular, and appears to be illusionary at best. I fail to see why I should drive down it.

At least, that is my summation of the possibe outcomes from all this.

OK.

 

[Voadam]

So far, all they have done (and yes, I was upset, and read far too much into this at first too) is make the d20 license mor elike all other licenses they issue. Unifying things for ease of legal understanding.

Not all their other D&D licenses. Hackmaster is licensed to use the D&D rules but is based on gratuitous graphic violence and potty humor as major elements of the game.

 

[KDLadage]

Not all their other D&D licenses. Hackmaster is licensed to use the D&D rules but is based on gratuitous graphic violence and potty humor as major elements of the game.

This is a Red Herring. Let me explain:


Which Wizards of the Coast trademark did they license in making Hackmaster?

It wasn't the "d20 system logo." It wasn't the name "Dungeons & Dragons." Since you cannot copyright game rules...

What we have left here is the fact that Hackmaster is written, designed, drawn, and marketed as a PARODY. This, my friends, is a whole other kettle of fish...

 

[shadow]

This is just my theory, but I think the changes have more to do with D&D licensed products than the game itself. Wizards has been talking a lot about "brand recognition", and how the D&D game is widely recognized (although poorly understood) by the general public. Hence, owning the D&D game is owning a product with a lot of potential market.
Now, the although RPGs don't sell all that well to the general public, licensing the "brand" out to different companies has the potential to make quite a profit. Hasn't Wizards been talking somewhat about this? Remember Scourge of the Worlds ? Or what about the D&D based MMORPG computer game? I think that this is WotC's (or more likely Hasbro's) first attempt to see how well they could market D&D based products to the general public. It's a way of getting their feet wet so to speak. I wouldn't doubt that WotC is looking to license the D&D name out for some big projects. The afforementioned MMORPG is probably the first.
However, I think that Hasbro is worried about their image. If D&D based products are going to be widespread, it could negatively affect them if D&D has a bad name. Although d20 products aren't published or endoresed by WotC, the general public might not make such a distinction. (Especially if the book says "requires the use of Dungeons & Dragons PHB to play".)
Although one could argue that controversy could increase sales, Hasbro which owns WotC has an image to maintain. As essentially a toy company, Hasbro probably wants to look "kid friendly" to the public. It wouldn't do their reputation very good if the public "knew" that one of their subsidiaries was publishing a game full of "violence, racism, and sex". This happened to Disney a few years ago when their subsidiary, Miramax, made the movie Priest. Although as a big company, Disney wasn't hurt to much financially, they were boycotted by the Southern Baptist churches and earned them the censure of many Christians.
Moreover, unlike the "D&D causes demon worship" rumor of the 80's, issues of pornography, violence, and racism touch a lot more people than conservative Christians. Racism is especially a touchy topic. If a supremacist group published a book like RAHOWA d20, D&D's name may get associated with hate and racism.
Of course having D&D associated with gratuitous violence, sex, or racism would really hurt WotC (hence Hasbro's) chance of licening the D&D name out to other companies. Also it would soil Hasbro's reputation of being a "kid friendly company".
I don't agree with WotC current policy. To me the spirit of the OGL has always been one of being able to publish what you would like. IMHO, it would probably have been better if WotC simply added a clause saying something to the affect of "Wizards of the Coast does not endorse or condone any content in this book". (Of course that probably wouldn't stop criticism since few critics bother to read the material they are criticizing.) Hopefully WotC will listen to the complaint and remedy everything in the next version of the license.

 

[Voadam]

This is a Red Herring. Let me explain:


Which Wizards of the Coast trademark did they license in making Hackmaster?

It wasn't the "d20 system logo." It wasn't the name "Dungeons & Dragons." Since you cannot copyright game rules...

What we have left here is the fact that Hackmaster is written, designed, drawn, and marketed as a PARODY. This, my friends, is a whole other kettle of fish...

It is a license to use old D&D material including IP. They are not relying upon the legality of parody to produce hackmaster, but have a license agreement for it.

I am not privy to the terms of that license but that is my understanding from statements by the Kenzer people. Their D&D logo Kalamar stuff does go through a review and WotC approval process, however. That is also based on statements they have made.

 

[KDLadage]

It is a license to use old D&D material including IP.

If that is the case, then I am wrong and will gleefully admit as much.

It was my understanding that the entire thing fell under parody; however, this would not be the first time I was mistaken.