[UPDATED] DM's Guild No Longer Allows Creator Logos On Product Covers

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

​

It should be noted that creators can still put their own logo inside their products. The DMs Guild terms have been updated to reflect this.

Can I use the D&D logo on my DMs Guild title?

The only logo you can use in your title is the DMs Guild logo [found here]

Custom logos and other variations of existing logos are not allowed


​

The policy change, seen in the image above, was (oddly) announced in a private DM's Guild Fan Club Facebook group owned by David Russell. Fortunately EN World member MerricB screenshot some of the replies to questions.

("CCC" means "Con Created Content")
​

The policy will be applied for new products, but will not be enforced retroactively on existing products

DMs Guild is a popular way for fans to sell PDF content in exchange for a 50% royalty on sales of their product, along with an exclusivity agreement, and allows access to settings such as the Forgotten Realms. It's a model which has inspired a number of other publisher-led fan stores from companies like Monte Cook Games, Chaosium, even my own little EN Publishing.

Generally speaking, at a quick glance, most covers don't have much by way of personal branding - sometimes a small logo, or a line name like the Power Score RPG PDF shown below. One of the items below has D&D Beyond branding on it, and it would be interesting to see if the policy applies to that product. However, it does seem like this will make it more difficult for small companies or groups using different authors to build a following on the site; individual authors, on the other hand, should find it easier.

Last year, WotC announced a new policy where they promote a group of ten or so DMs Guild authors; these were called the "DMs Guild Adepts", who they give special attention to in marketing, podcasts, and so on, along with their own special gold branding logo. This was initially promoted as a way of sorting quality product from the thousands of items on the store.

OBS' Jason Bolte commented on the reasons for the change:

"There are a number of reasons for the change, and it’s something we’ve discussed internally for a while now. One impetus is to be consistent across all of our community creation platforms. Another reason is to have clearer rules that we can enforce given our existing resources.

The DMs Guild logo we provide is intended to satisfy a lot of the messaging that others logos would normally do. First, it signifies that the product is a member of the wonderful community that is the DMs Guild. Second, it signals that the product is for the Dungeons & Dragons game. We have provided it to this amazing group specifically for those reasons.

The problem comes with the other branding, which often trends toward copyright infringement or trademark violations. Variations on the Dungeons & Dragons logo, the D&D branding, other DMs Guild logos, etc are common on new titles coming into the site. As we see more and more permutations, the lines get fuzzier and grayer, and it’s difficult for us to keep up and enforce. And since we’re dealing with intellectual property, branding, and trademarks in a retail setting, there are a number of reasons for us to find clear and enforceable rules for creators both old and new.

So those are some of the many reasons a for the change in policy. We are always evaluating the site and watching its evolution, and we will continue to update our policies as the site grows and the community it makes more and more excellent content."

I've added some more information from the private Facebook group, since this information will be useful to anybody who uses the DMs Guild. Answers below are from OBS employees Jason Bolte and Matt McElroy.

• Can a text brand be included? "...yes, text is still fine, as long it does not approach branded text." (I'm not sure what that means).
• Is the logo mandatory? "We’re still heavily encouraging that people use that logo. It’s not mandatory at this time, but we will evaluate that policy as well"
• Does this only apply to community created content, or to Con-Created Content? "It only applies to community created content"
• Are the red "D&D sashes" OK? "I’d say they’re ok as long as they’re not used as branding. Namely, don’t try to emulate or make a spinoff of WotC logos. If you use the sashes as a byline, that should be fine (Written by xxx).... In my estimation, as long as the red sash is not used in a stylistic manner to promote a brand, it is fine. Once you start using it as a brand, then there are issues. If you don’t know if you’re using it correctly, then ask!"
• Is this actually new? "There has never been a time were D&D logos have been allowed on the covers. The only logo that was allowed before today is the same one that was only allowed previously. What we’re attempting to make more clear is that logos like “Bob’s Gaming Company” are not allowed on covers."
• Followup to above: "Basically the rules for community content have always been there. I was just bad at enforcing them and the FAQ wasn’t helpful, it actually made things more confusing. Adventurers League is not part of the community content program and has its own templates, rules and administration."
• About Fantasy Grounds. "FG logo is allowed on FG titles, we’re going to add a section to the FAQ linking to the FG section of the FAQ and clarifying that."

Florian Emmerich asked about the product depicted below. OBS' Jason Bolte confirmed that "If you’re asking about the P. B. Publishing Presents part, then yes, that would be would qualify as what we don’t want on the cover".

[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]​

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

And considering I just got some bad news, I'm entirely bowing out of the rest of this thread.

 

[Mistwell]

For a licensing fee.

The companies that found the most success under the OGL got to do so without paying WotC a dime.

Maybe you have to be a small press publisher to understand just how important a difference that makes, though.

No for a percentage. Which is what Paizo did with WOTC as well. Dungeon and Dragon were not done under the OGL. And as an attorney who has represented small press for nearly 20 years, I feel I do know the differences pretty well.

You're certain of that, eh?

Because people thought nothing big or lasting was going to come out of the d20 glut after the bubble burst, but the opposite was true.

I didn't say anything about the d20 glut. I am however saying DMs Guild is not, and never has been, the likely source of "the next Paizo" regardless of this issue. The OGL remains a good source for that potential. Licensing directly remains a good source for it. An outside company with an established reputation in another bigger field stands a decent chance. But DMs Guild? It's just not built that way and anyone with serious success there gets grabbed up by other companies (including WOTC). That was always the point - not the companies, but the individuals, get noticed there.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If you think WotC isn't concerned with the "Next Pathfinder" coming along, you've not been paying attention to the market since Pathfinder was released.

Of course WotC is concerned about Pathfinder. It took massive bites out of WotC's core market, to the point where DnD was no longer the big seller in the market it had dominated for 30 years. You don't think that's a problem they keep an eye on?
/snip

Anymore though? I mean, Pathfinder is a tiny fraction of the size of 5e D&D by any metric. If you look at things like Fantasy Grounds, Pathfinder is played about as often as 3e D&D with 5e being played more than every other game out there combined.

The fact that the RPG market has tripled in size since the release of 5e puts things in perspective, no? Do you really think that the explosive growth of the market over the last three years is because of Pathfinder? Before the release of 5e, the RPG market was estimated at about 15 million/year. Now it's over 40 million/year and, let's be honest, 99% of that 30 million dollar increase is 5e D&D.

What competition?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Because people thought nothing big or lasting was going to come out of the d20 glut after the bubble burst, but the opposite was true.
/snip

What big or lasting came out of the d20 glut? Paizo wasn't part of that point of time - they were still happily publishing DUngeon and Dragon in 2003-4. Of the other 3pp publishers that were around at the time, who's even seeing anything from them anymore? They came and went.

 

[Morrus]

What big or lasting came out of the d20 glut? Paizo wasn't part of that point of time - they were still happily publishing DUngeon and Dragon in 2003-4. Of the other 3pp publishers that were around at the time, who's even seeing anything from them anymore? They came and went.

I'm still here. #raiseshand

I'm may not be big, but I'm lasting. Like a bad stain.

Green Ronin is still very active. Monte Cook's big and lasting. Necromancer Games/Frog God. Mongoose. Open Design was renamed Kobold Press, and is very active.

Plenty of other companies which existed long before d20, dabbled in it, and still exist, but I won't count them. I don't think you could say they "came out of" d20.

 

[CapnZapp]

WOTC likes to present itself as a creative-run company, but you can feel the rooms full of lawyers and brand managers in every goddamned thing they do. I don't like being forced to think like a corporation to make sense of my hobby. They're great at game mechanics, but I miss the pre-Hasbro days a lot.

You should try Games Workshop someday! It should cleanse your palate

 

[CapnZapp]

The alternative to the DMsGuild isn't DriveThru or Kickstarter. It's people's fan blogs. It's Reddit. It's Pintrest. It's zero money.

Hear ye, hear ye!

 

[CapnZapp]

But isn't that the point? That the DMs Guild is meant to be a place for hobbyists to make a little bit of money for products they would have made anyway, but NOT a place for actual design businesses to peddle their wares?

I don't think the DMsG was created for hobbyists to make money.

At all.

I think the main purpose is to fend off criticism that D&D is a closed property. Its role is to corral fan material into a manageable funnel.

In short: instead of complaining you can't write about Elminster and/or writing about Elminster anyway; you're given an alternative where you have agreed to follow the rules, then you get to write about Elminster.

Without a DMsG, if you broke the rules, it was a huge chore to hunt you down. With a DMsG, it's easy to just boot you off the platform. Essentially, the carrot is there because otherwise there's nothing to threaten to take away.

The money is probably entirely coincidental.

 

[Jester David]

What big or lasting came out of the d20 glut? Paizo wasn't part of that point of time - they were still happily publishing DUngeon and Dragon in 2003-4. Of the other 3pp publishers that were around at the time, who's even seeing anything from them anymore? They came and went.

That would actually have been Pathfinder. The AP, which was released before the RPG, with the first issue coming out the same year 4e was announced. Kobold Press came out shortly before, mostly doing small stuff until it began Kobold Quarterly in 2007. But it was really its ability to support Pathfinder that kept the company going.

But most d20 publishers have withered away. Many were really just studios of other smaller companies. Some, like Green Ronin or Monte Cook, switched to proprietary game systems as much as d20.

 

[Jester David]

I didn't say anything about the d20 glut. I am however saying DMs Guild is not, and never has been, the likely source of "the next Paizo" regardless of this issue. The OGL remains a good source for that potential. Licensing directly remains a good source for it. An outside company with an established reputation in another bigger field stands a decent chance. But DMs Guild? It's just not built that way and anyone with serious success there gets grabbed up by other companies (including WOTC). That was always the point - not the companies, but the individuals, get noticed there.

Paizo was such an anomaly.
The core staff of writers from Paizo came from WotC, being pulled from the magazines when Paizo took over those departments. And then they built up a dedicated audience and really hooked people with the Adventure Path idea.
Then they launched their own AP when the magazines returned in house.

But had WotC been more transparent and worked with them for 4e, they might have opted to switch to that game system. A simple deal could have been struck: they get early access to the rules if they promise to convert to 4e. Heck, even had the GSL been more open and less scary that might have encouraged people to sign up.
To say nothing of 4e being unpopular. Pathfinder sold well, but it sold nowhere near the numbers of 3e (or 4e at launch). For every person who switched to Pathfinder, another likely just stayed with 3e or left gaming altogether.

Making another Paizo is unlikely. Heck, even making another Monte Cook games or Kobold Press is unlikely, as those are built around a former designer. Which already kinda exist with Sasquatch Games and Schwab Entertainment. But none are nearly as big.
To really create another Paizo, WotC has to launch 6e and do a bad job of it...