WotC Responds!!!

[d20Dwarf]

Eric,

You forgot option 3, which is that he has special permission to use the trademarks in his products, which raises all sorts of other questions, especially in light of WotC's denouncement of the product.

This is just an option, mind you, not fact.

 

[kenjib]

I really don't think this will be an issue. What percentage of gamers are really interested in improving the sexuality of the D&D RPG. I think this will almost strictly be internet sales.

I personally just don't get the book. I don't want to bring sex into my games which are usually filled with other men.

Oh yeah, everyone will "buy it for the articles." Sure. Right. I don't think the book will flop miserably like some, because I expect that the majority of the people that buy it will never intend to use it in an RPG context or, if they do, will use at most 5% of it.

 

[kenjib]

Why does everything have to go back to kinky stuff.

Erotica has alot more to it that just Kink.

It has more to do with intamacy than wips and chains.

Did you read the same press release that I did? If the book is not about fetish, then I will be even more upset at Valar because, in that case, it would appear to me that the press release would have been intentionally designed to garner attention by upsetting people in a calculated manner. I have a personal thing against bad advertising and this would be just about the worst thing Valar could do as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. I don't think WotC itself will fire AV on it's own accord, but I do have to wonder about Hasbro. They have an entirely different agenda from WotC's. If Hasbro doesn't like his religious beliefs and thinks it may damage their reputation, then they don't need to state that as their reason for firing him. They can look for various other reasons, probably including a simple headcount reduction justification.

 

[Bulletproof]

However, what I'm saying is that since he specifically says "compatible with D&D" in his marketing materials (that press release which is also on the Valar website), I'm taking that to mean one of two things.

*If this product is to be OGL-only, then the D&D reference in his marketing materials is a huge no-no. How AV could possibly make this mistake is beyond me, and thus to me this is a highly unlikely scenario.

Yep.

* If the product is to be D20-branded, then the D&D reference would be less of a no-no.

This is where I think you are incorrect. d20 products are also OGL products, that's why d20 publishers have to waste a page on the OGL license.

("You may also use the text described in the "Mandatory Trademark Use" section in your marketing materials, provided that you also include the appropriate trademark ownership statement provided in that section as well." -- this, as I read it, means you can add a phrase like "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” in your marketing material.) Now, he didn't specifically say it that way, so he could be playing a little fast-and-loose with this, but to me this is the more likely scenario.

Yes, this seems to be a possible loophole, except for one thing: d20 products are also OGL products. AFAIK, the d20 license can't modify the OGL. It can only add to it with more restrictions. This is why I think you're incorrect when you say that the d20 license is less restrictive regarding trademarks.

I could certainly be wrong, and I'd love to see what someone like Ryan Dancey or Clark Peterson would say about all this.

But either way there's something unorthodox going on viz the D&D trademark usage, at least as far as I can see.

Agreed. Even if he's exploiting a loophole, and is perfectly within his legal rights, that doesn't make it right. d20 publishers have been advised time and again not to try to exploit loopholes. The general consensus is that it makes you look bad, WOTC will modify the license so that you have to stop doing it, and it doesn't follow the spirit of a license that has made your business possible.

 

[EricNoah]

Eric,

You forgot option 3, which is that he has special permission to use the trademarks in his products, which raises all sorts of other questions, especially in light of WotC's denouncement of the product.

This is just an option, mind you, not fact.

Yeah, and to me so remote a possibility that I didn't include it here (though I think I've mentioned it in earlier posts. Who knows, between all of these threads I can't keep my own thoughts straight!)

 

[EricNoah]

AFAIK, the d20 license can't modify the OGL. It can only add to it with more restrictions. This is why I think you're incorrect when you say that the d20 license is less restrictive regarding trademarks.

I could certainly be wrong, and I'd love to see what someone like Ryan Dancey or Clark Peterson would say about all this.
[/B]

The d20 license isn't less restrictive; it's at least as restrictive, but in different ways.

If you put that d20 logo on your product, you are agreeing to be bound to a more restrictive agreement. You agree not to do certain things with your product (you can't include character generation or how to apply experience to characters). You are required to do certain things (you must use one of those Mandatory Trademark Use phrases on your product). And then you are allowed to do some optional things (you apparently can use one of those Mandatory Trademark use phrases in your marketing, with certain restrictions).

 

[maddman75]

Oh yeah, everyone will "buy it for the articles." Sure. Right. I don't think the book will flop miserably like some, because I expect that the majority of the people that buy it will never intend to use it in an RPG context or, if they do, will use at most 5% of it.

Heh - and this proves what? That its a typical RPG book? Heck, if people only bought what they were actually going to use in their games the whole industry would collapse.

 

[Azlan]

And I'm not against any company taking a moral stand on issues that involve their products or licenses. Not that D&D as developed by WOTC is G-rated in everything it depicts, but good for them for at least having a line to cross. I would applaud them if they decided to enforce that others do the same in future, after all it is their legal right.

Yeah. Right.

Editors and marketers of WotC:

"Violence: We are so far past that line, it's unreal."

"Sadism and masochism: We can cross that line. (Heh. These role-players: they really like dishing out violence and taking it.)"

"Torture: We can cross that line, too. (As long as the player characters are doing all the torturing to the villains, and not visa-versa.)"

"Necrophilia: We can cross that line, as long as we tuck it away deep in the rules. (That is, we won't get into the explicit details of necrophilia. But having sex with dead people is a necessary component in the casting of some cool spells and the creation of some neat magic objects.)"

"Black magic and demonology: But, of course! (It's all make-believe, after all. No offense to you genuine witches and Satanists, out there. As for you fundamentalist Christians: Who in the RPG industry still cares about you, nowadays?)"

"Pictures of scantily-clad or outright naked babes in the rulebooks: You betcha! It helps sell the products."

"Overt, obvious eroticism: No way! (We have to draw a line somewhere!)"



Feh. We Americans are so uptight and double-standard when it comes to sexuality. It sometimes makes me wish I lived in, er, France. (No, just kidding!)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

"Pictures of scantily-clad or outright naked babes in the rulebooks: You betcha! It helps sell the products."

If you would prefer pictures of scanilty clad or outright naked NON-babes I am sure we can scrounge up Roseanne Barr for you.

Woudlnt want you to feel left out.

 

[Azlan]

At the Gaming Report website, someone posted the following in response to WotC's press release...

"Sounds a little hypocritical to me. They find it 'disgusting' but yet they market The Book of Vile Darkness that has necrophilia, rape, torture and other unsavory elements in it.

"I'd rather have a book of tasteful erotica rather than a lengthy discussion of how shagging a undead corpse gives a character advantages."

To me, that pretty much sums up my feelings on WotC's hypocritical press release.

Earlier in this post, here on this website, someone made a similar comparison between the Book of Vile Darkness and the forthcoming Book of Erotic Fantasy; and then someone else responded to that, saying the Book of Vile Darkness has a lot of useful things that can actually benefit a role-playing campaign, whereas the forthcoming Book of Erotic Fantasy will not (i.e. it will only serve to titillate buyers and to embarrass the role-playing industry).

But, to me, even if that last statement is true, it's beside the point.