D&D 4E Who has rights to BoEF, and are they in on the 4e OGL

[Tewligan]

Images of "Two gamers fatbeards 1 cup" are threatening to invade my head and I'm losing SAN already.

FIFY

 

[Ranger REG]

There is a reason people like Jack Thompson and Pat Pulling are able to keep turning up.

Yeah, it's not a crime for being stupid and ignorant. Not yet, anyway.

Look, I can understand if WotC wants to protect the image of Dungeons & Dragons, but the d20 System brand is more generic than specific. This label is on the same level as the so-called "DVD" logo -- the same lettering that the "HD-DVD" logo is now sporting. I doubt that Sony would object to having porn being made using their Blu-Ray format, which is the same format that Disney is now making their films on.

So, is Bill Gate going to suddenly decide to set up a community standards for Windows OS platform? I might jump to Apple if that happens (and you all know how much I hate All Things Apple).

 

[jeffh]

D&D as a game is not dependent on potentially objectionable content for its appeal. I did not get into D&D because I thought it would be a cool way to rebel against my mom. Young gamers may only make up 1% of the market place, but they also make up 100% of new consumers. Making the game inaccessible to people who have idiots for parents is not a good thing.

Heck, my mother was one of the first people I tried to recruit as a player. I succeeded, too, though it took a couple of years.

 

[Campbell]

I'm afraid that I'm not seeing the Community Standards portion of the new OGL as part of an effort to sanitize D&D, at least when you look at the material Wizards are putting out for 4e. Including Tieflings as a core option, including Warlocks as a core option, promoting Asmodeus to godhood, making angels the servants of all gods instead of exemplars of righteousness, and moving elves and probably dwarves over to more morally ambiguous societies are not the actions of a company that is trying to Disney-fie D&D. The only evidence I can see of Wizards pacifying a troublesome influence is possibly modifying half-orcs to make them more female friendly. If anything I see the Community Standards clause as an attempt to cover Wizards' collective asses so if they come under fire for a 3rd party product they have legal recourse to take action over the offending product. Right or wrong, it seems like a PR weapon.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's never really tried to appeal to the whole 7-10 crowd wholeheartedly, but it has always held a special interest for the 12-22 crowd. Which, given most 12-13 year old's semi-obsession with body parts, doesn't discount the topless appeal.

Actually, I was obsessed with [female] body parts around 9.

Granted, D&D is not one where I would stash in my underwear drawer with the rest of the nudie magazines I collected. Not even my World Book Encyclopedia -- the ones my parents ordered for me -- that have questionable pictures.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm afraid that I'm not seeing the Community Standards portion of the new OGL as part of an effort to sanitize D&D, at least when you look at the material Wizards are putting out for 4e. Including Tieflings as a core option, including Warlocks as a core option, promoting Asmodeus to godhood, making angels the servants of all gods instead of exemplars of righteousness, and moving elves and probably dwarves over to more morally ambiguous societies are not the actions of a company that is trying to Disney-fie D&D. The only evidence I can see of Wizards pacifying a troublesome influence is possibly modifying half-orcs to make them more female friendly. If anything I see the Community Standards clause as an attempt to cover Wizards' collective asses so if they come under fire for a 3rd party product they have legal recourse to take action over the offending product. Right or wrong, it seems like a PR weapon.

We already knew that. It still doesn't sit right with me. That's why I still believe the OGL should be separate from the Trademark Usage License.

Maybe the creator of the "DVD" logo (i.e., JVC) should also do that, even if it means to single out the adult entertainment film industry, in case some overzealous parents find porn DVD stashed in their children's underwear drawer (or other hidden places).

 

[The Little Raven]

That's why I still believe the OGL should be separate from the Trademark Usage License.

I know if I were the number one RPG company in the world, I'd want a little power over products that could impact my brand name, especially when their profits depend on the use of my brand.

 

[Ranger REG]

I know if I were the number one RPG company in the world, I'd want a little power over products that could impact my brand name, especially when their profits depend on the use of my brand.

They're going for more than just a little power.

They might as well start a review committee.

 

[The Little Raven]

They're going for more than just a little power.

They might as well start a review committee.

Well, if you don't like it, you could always start your own RPG company and release your own OGL without community standards. Or see if you can convince some other big company to do the same... though I think starting your own company would be more likely, since I don't see many big companies releasing their systems under any kind of OGL.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, if you don't like it, you could always start your own RPG company and release your own OGL without community standards. Or see if you can convince some other big company to do the same... though I think starting your own company would be more likely, since I don't see many big companies releasing their systems under any kind of OGL.

No, just small print press publishers like Gold Rush Games, who released their Action! System ruleset under the current OGL v1.0a.