"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Bagpuss]

I'ld thought I'ld have a look at some of my favourite D20 products that I've bought in light of the new "Quality Standards" so just looking at my Scarred Lands hardback for a start.

The Divine & the Defeated - Idra's Avatar (being the Goddess of sex, passionate love, physical affection, prostitutes and secrets) is illustrated with a bare niddle. Poraphia, a mermaid type Herald is showing bare niddle, an illustration on page 190 appears to an orgy (although not particularly graphic it certainly has a number of naked forms including two bare breasted women). There is also a Harpy bare nipples again.

Ghelspad Campaign Setting: Page 18, illustration of six dwarves impaled on rocks some in obvious signs of agony. Page 46 bare female nipples. Page 168 Shelzar the Pleasure City, (haven't they got a sourcebook for this place planned? That could be interesting.) discription includes illustration of sexual acts and bare female nipples.

Relics and Rituals - Possible excessive violence/gore, page 62, and 213.

Creature Collection I - Female Nipples page 102, 103, 104, 136.

Creature Collection II - Female Nipples page 45, 46, 47 (urgh!), 73.

Is there anything to stop Wizards (if they wanted) requesting Sword and Sorcery Studios recalling and pulping all copies of these books?

As far as I can see there isn't, and that's just the first five books I've picked off my shelves. There is not a thing in any of those books that offends my "standards of decency" or I would guess the communities. But its not the community that gets to decide.

In determining whether a product complies with community standards of decency, Wizards of the Coast uses, but is not limited to the following. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to determine, in its sole discretion, whether a product complies with community standards of decency.

I've omitted the list of Violence, Sexual stuff and Prejudice stuff as it is irrelevant anyway. They clearly say they aren't limited to it so they could decide mentioning soft-cheeses is against the standards of decency if they liked and pull your product for that, as far as I can see. Not saying the would, but they could.

 

[The Blue Elf]

I've omitted the list of Violence, Sexual stuff and Prejudice stuff as it is irrelevant anyway. They clearly say they aren't limited to it so they could decide mentioning soft-cheeses is against the standards of decency if they liked and pull your product for that, as far as I can see. Not saying the would, but they could.

So does Forgotten Realms, it has content of Violence and Prejudice, but does that stop Wizard from publishing the books?

Hell no!

 

[Bagpuss]

So does Forgotten Realms, it has content of Violence and Prejudice, but does that stop Wizard from publishing the books?

Hell no!

That point doesn't really matter since WotC don't publish under the D20 license, so they don't have to maintain the 'community standards of decency' in their own products they just have to decide what they are and police them on our behalf.

 

[Voadam]

Is there anything to stop Wizards (if they wanted) requesting Sword and Sorcery Studios recalling and pulping all copies of these books?

SSS is not publishing those books now so the past publication does not violate the current license. They just can't reprint without modification if they want to put the d20 trademark on the reprints.

If SSS did a reprint or new product that violated the 5.0 license then under the terms of the license WotC could ask for a pulping of all of SSS's d20 books past and present, including ones that did not violate the new license.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

SSS is not publishing those books now so the past publication does not violate the current license. They just can't reprint without modification if they want to put the d20 trademark on the reprints.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but there is nothing in the current license to protect prior published works. By using the license, you agree that WOTC has the right to update the license, and you are required to comply in all respects to the terms of the new license, which includes the destruction of ALL materials bearing the d20 logo, should the license terminate for any reason.

If WOTC decided tomorrow to pull the d20 license across the board, every publisher would be left with a pile of pulp.

The only provision in the license protecting prior publications deals with updates to the d20 logo itself. (The license allows you to keep existing stock if the logo changes, but you must update at the earliest opportunity.)

Wulf

 

[Bagpuss]

Yeah as far as I'm aware legal protection wise companies publishing under the D20 logo never had any protection if WotC decided to pull their license which even under the old one they could choose to do.

Just now we have guidelines on when they are likely to consider pulling the license on a company.

My only problem is I doubt there is anyone here that thinks any of the SSS products I've mentioned are outside the communities sense of decency (most of the illustrations are no worse than some you see in WotC products, but with the new guidelines your less likely to see products that take any risks. Personally I'ld be disappointed if a product like "Shelzar, the Pleasure City" didn't contain a single naked female nipple or illustration of a sexual nature (kissing is a 'sexual activity'), its not what I call a pleasure city if the only pleasures they can discribe or illustrate are chocolate ice cream or cream cakes.

Where as in the past an Arabian Nights type adventure might have dancing girls and action in a harem, is a publisher likely to take that risk if it could mean he has to pulp his whole stock?

I'm not so worried about Wizards censoring a product like "Shelzar: City of Sins" more the fact the publisher will now be over cautious and self censor prefectly exceptable products, cut prefectly good illustrations for the sake of a nipple showing in context or not.

 

[mythusmage]

This is a Rant, This is Only a Rant

Now, the although RPGs don't sell all that well to the general public…

I was reading a thread on editing before coming here, and so I may be a tad hypersensitive, but this (along with myriad other mistakes in this post alone) grated on my sensibilities.

What is with the proliferation of "although"? It's not a bad word. In the right place it's a very good word. The above is not the right place. There is a better word, "though". As in, "Now though RPGs don't sell all that well to the general public…". See, a sentence that is easier to read, easier to comprehend, and you've saved a comma for later use.

And while I'm on this rant, could you (second person plural) please start proofreading your posts before you post them. (I'm sure you know who you are.) Atrocious grammar and phrasing does your argument no good. Hell, I've stopped reading badly composed postings. I've got better things to do than try to figure out what a poster was trying to say. And, no, I will not make allowance for those for whom English is a second language. Were Hebrew my native tongue I'd make the same demand of those for whom it is a second language. Clarity of writing indicates clarity of thought and adds impact to your argument.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[patrickmallette]

Didn't I deserve a better response from TSR er Wizards than this? I thought they had grown up a bit and ditched the restrictive policies of TSR. I thought wrong. Anyway, I will talk with my money - instead of buying 3.5 (2nd printing) when it comes out, I'll just keep playing Exalted or 3.0.

--------------------------
Quality Standards have been added to the d20 System License because we want to enhance the value of the d20 Logo for all publishers in addition to maintaining it as a symbol of rules compatibility. Furthermore, products bearing the d20 Logo are associated with, refer to, and reflect upon the quality of our own d20 System games and brands. By ensuring that d20 products adhere to certain standards we improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand, for us and for everyone who uses it.

These standards are not specific to the d20 System License. All our other licensees are held to similar or tighter standards. However, users of the d20 license are not subject to the same review process faced by direct licensees and the implementation of these standards does not change that.

**Please quote this e-mail in any reply.**
******************************************************************
Darrin
Wizards of the Coast - Customer Service
Website: http://www.wizards.com
Game Support Phone: 1-800-324-6496
Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 7 PM PST
Corporate Phone: (425) 226-6500
******************************************************************





-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Mallette [mailtoatrickmallette@rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 7:52 PM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: d20 License Change

Hi, I have a problem with the quality standard clause in the d20 System Trademark Guide version 4.0. First I would like to give you a few facts about who I am:
I am not a professional game developer.
I have been a gamer since I was 8 years old (23 years and counting).
I am a mature, responsible adult with three children and another one on the way.
My children are growing up as part time gamers.
I teach my children what is right and what is wrong.
I will determine what they can and cannot view.
I teach them to be accepting of others.
I teach them where to draw the line in controlling their behavior.

I read an opinion piece on EnWorld.com on Monday, September 08, 2003 that caused me to investigate this issue for myself. I completely disagree with what you are asking the developers to do with their work and your desire to censor their work.

With regards to violence and gore, I have seen far worse images that haunt me to this day provided on the news daily without any warnings about their nature. Static images of fantasy violence and gore do not bother me what so ever. It might be better to suggest companies provide a warning of their graphic nature on the book and to state that any mature content is theirs and theirs alone and in no way suggests that Wizards or Hasbro in no way supports or condones graphic violence and the like. Let the consumer (ME) decide for myself. If I do not like materials such as that I will not buy them, nor would I buy them for my children until they are mature enough. It is rash, overwhelming clauses and limitations like this that make watching episodes of Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner today impossible due to the amount of violent material they cut; they lack the continuity they once possessed. It was also measures like this that led to the demise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles; a boy got lost in some sewers emulating them so they were taken off the air rather than forcing the mother to teach the child what he sees on the television is not always real.

Sexual themes are entirely as despicable as the prude making the ruling on what is and what is not indecent or pornographic. My children realize what a penis is, what breasts are as they should from my teachings. I don't need to make up words such as pecker to describe a penis - it's a medical term get over it. My daughter knows what her vagina is so that if she has problems with it she can tell us, rather than leaving us guessing whether she means her but or her who who dilly. They are being taught to laugh and get over any silliness at seeing such things when they are flashed in movies or on more liberal French stations. They have their purpose, "get used to it you'll see a lot more and a lot worse when you're older." With respect to sexuality I personally do not want my children growing up in a box thinking that their bodies and any sexual act is taboo. They have their time and place, which is at the moment a long way off. It is something that people do with each other to recreate or to have fun. Sure I don't want to see pictures of a demon raping a woman and I certainly don't want my children seeing that so I and I alone will censor the material I buy. I don't need things precensored, I'm quite capable of performing that myself.

Prejudice is a part of life unfortunately and some people really are inferior. A quadriplegic cannot lift as much weight as I can, just like I cannot lift as much as a professional bodybuilder. I am more intelligent and thus more capable than a mentally handicapped person, but there are just as many more people more intelligent and capable than I am. These can often be tools or adventure hooks that make an effective part of the story. Sure no one wants to see an Al Queda d20 RPG where you go yank hunting, which is exactly what boycotts and controlled spending are all about. If you think a product is over the top, don't buy it and when the product dies a sad pathetic death with next to no sales that company will learn. If enough of these products fail guess what? The industry learns and stops catering to a marginal group of psychopaths or those companies go under.

You are not a valid censor for myself or my family so please stop turning off my television for me, stop burning books before I make up my own mind, get out of my bedroom, stop telling my children they will go blind when they play with themselves, stop telling me everyone is equal you communist pig because I know that you think you are more equal than I am and that is why you think you and your company deserve the right to censor everyone else.

PLEASE go back to doing what you do best and make some damn good modules, make some excellent reference books, spend more time fleshing out campaign settings, and less time worrying if I'll get offended at the sight of a triple breasted Marilith.

P.S. During the entire second edition when you changed the names of demons and devils to Tanar'ri and Baatezu my group and many others still called them demons and devils. We were mature enough to know they aren't real. It was a great relief to think that the gaming industry had grown up finally when White-Wolf produced their Vampire books, and when D&D 3.0++ had come out and restored the names of things such as demons and devils. Please grow up and stop catering to religious zealots that have nothing else better to do than waste your time and make our gaming experience less enjoyable by forcing us to play in a Disney sponsored hell. If you don't understand that comment watch any Disney movie - they're all the same underneath - and then watch a real Japanese animae show or movie like Akira (or Sailor moon, but without her body being covered in sparkles when she transforms).

I may only be speaking for myself, but I purchased several hundreds of dollars worth of d20 products, specifically D&D 3.0. I am going to purchase D&D 3.5 basically everything that is currently out there around Christmas. My eldest son would like his own copy of the core rules to read as his home reading exercise. I am also planning on getting a copy of the core books for him. When I play with my gaming group (ages 21-45) we often have mature topics involved to add flavor to the storyline and hardships to the characters - overall making for a much more rewarding gaming session. Please don't make me show my displeasure with your company in a financial method, but if you do I will of course keep using my D&D 3.0 books despite their flaws or perhaps go back to Vampire the Masquerade or White-Wolf's games. I would much rather take out my displeasure on companies making low quality products (far too may examples to list here).

Thank you.

Patrick Mallette



Quote taken from d20 System Trademark Guide version 4.0 to which I am referring in my letter:

Quality Standards

In determining whether a product complies with community standards of decency, Wizards of the Coast uses, but is not limited to the following. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to determine, in its sole discretion, whether a product complies with community standards of decency.

Violence and Gore - Descriptions of combat are acceptable in a Covered Product. However art or text depicting excessively graphic violence or gore is not acceptable.

Sexual Themes - Sexual situations-including abuse and pornography-may not appear graphically in art or text. 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. While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be salacious in nature.

Prejudice - Covered Products can not depict existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities as a group inferior to any other group. Current, real-world religions and religious groups and/or practices will not be portrayed in any way that promotes disrespect for these religions or their participants. A Covered Product can not endorse or promote any specific religion or religious practice.

Quote taken from THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE VERSION 5.0 to which I am referring in my letter:
4. Quality Standards
The nature of all material You use or distribute that incorporates the Licensed Articles must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as well as community standards of decency, as further described in the d20 System Guide. You must use Your best efforts to preserve the high standard and goodwill of the Licensed Trademarks. In order to assure the foregoing standard and quality requirements, Wizards of the Coast shall have the right, upon notice to You, to review and inspect all material released by You that uses the Licensed Articles. You shall fully cooperate with Wizards of the Coast to facilitate such review and inspection, including timely provision of copies of all such materials to Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License immediately upon attempted notice to you if it deems, in its sole discretion, that your use of the Licensed Articles does not meet the above standards.

 

[Bagpuss]

patrickmallette I believe what you got was the standard response letter to most enquiries on this subject, which means they have probably either had a lot or complaints/enquiries or it's been handed down from on high, to brush people off as they have no intention of changing their policy.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Didn't I deserve a better response from TSR er Wizards than this? I thought they had grown up a bit and ditched the restrictive policies of TSR. I thought wrong. Anyway, I will talk with my money - instead of buying 3.5 (2nd printing) when it comes out, I'll just keep playing Exalted or 3.0.

Your post is the 478th on this topic, on this thread. A number of people have already reported and transcribed the response that you received. This response is a *form letter*. Many, many people have emailed WotC with questions about their new policy; their choices were to have the legal department (which might just have more pressing duties than answering email) respond, an employee whose job it is to answer email respond (in which case the employee would not have been privy to the details and rationale of the decision), or, what the heck, the president of WotC - or maybe the president of Hasbro, heck, respond.

Why do think you merit a special response when nobody else was able to receive one? Let's (briefly) examine the letter:

-> You identify yourself as not a game designer, therefore you are not in the group that would be professionally concerned with the change in policy. Note that people involved with active d20 publishing have received individual responses.

-> WotC is repeatedly accused of trying to "censor" others. Overreacting will not improve your chances to trigger the response of, "Hey everyone! Let's quit working for a while and answer this email!" Nobody is being censored. Anyone can publish whatever they want within the laws of their locale, but there is no inherent "right" that is being violated to use someone else's IP in their effort (i.e., Wotc's d20). Let's take a look at part of your letter:

You are not a valid censor for myself or my family so please stop turning off my television for me, stop burning books before I make up my own mind, get out of my bedroom, stop telling my children they will go blind when they play with themselves, stop telling me everyone is equal you communist pig because I know that you think you are more equal than I am and that is why you think you and your company deserve the right to censor everyone else.

Where, pray tell, does any of this happen? Does this not seem just a wee bit over the top? Oh yes, and calling the WotC reader a "communist pig" is going to strongly demonstrate that you are a mature, rational indiviual who should be taken seriously.

-> What you allow your children to do/see is immaterial, unless you are making the position that you, not WotC, should control what WotC's intellectual property should be linked to.

-> Your letter fails to differentiate between what could be called "positionally inferior" (a quadripeligiac cannot lift as much as I can), and *intrinisically inferior*, which would be something like, "Quadripeligiacs are worth less as human beings because the cannot lift as much as I can". The difference is quite large. That your letter shows such a fundamental misunderstanding about such a central point will also not improve the chances of this letter generating an individual response.

-> Why would WotC care that you don't like Disney, or that you feel that seeing Sailor Moon's naked, animated body improves the viewing experience? I may digress, but much of the letter I am responding to consists of digressions

In short,

Didn't I deserve a better response from TSR er Wizards than this?

No. Why would you think you did?