WotC Responds!!!

[Cedric]

I will likely never buy this product. I have no moral objection to it, I just don't think it would be of value to my gaming experiences, likewise, I'll never own the BOVD.

However, I have to say that the reaction of the gaming community is a bit suprising. This is an industry that has fought so hard to gain acceptance and legitimacy in a world where very vocal groups oppose it's very existance.

The people of the community, players and publishers alike, have fought hard for this acceptance. Some people may consider this a sad example of acceptance, but you can now purchase core D&D books from Wal-Mart. The flagship line of the "Good Ole Boy" department stores carries Dungeons and Dragons.

So what happens when someone within the ranks of the gaming community wants to publish a product that blurs the lines of what had historically been considered proper in the gaming world?

Gamers the world over unite to turn into the very people that the community as a whole has fought for almost thirty years. Perhaps before you condemn a new product, you should stop to look in the mirror. Do you see yourself looking back? Or do you see the very people this industry has silenced by marching forward into the 21st century and claiming legitimacy in a world that would reject them?

Cedric

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

Really, this is not true. While it is legal for AV to publish this, it should still be grounds for dismissal.

Clearly AV has put himself in a conflict of interest. Contrary to what another poster said, it does NOT matter if AV does work for this company on his own time.

An executive for Coke cannot moonlight for Pepsi. The reason is, it is not possible for AV to work for the other company without using the knowledge WotC provides him. He will use his knowledge of market studies, design, and industry contacts developed at WotC in developing a product for a competing company.

WOTC has already come out and said the OGL can be used even by its own employees to publish material on their own time. so if they terminated him it would be a contradiction to their current stance and also be hypocrtical since other employees have published as well.

"While the OGL license allows anyone, even our employees, to produce products that are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards does not approve or control the theme of any third-party D20 product. "

What WOTC could and should do is tell Anthony quite sternly that he is never to mention his position at WOTC when working on his side work.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Gamers the world over unite to turn into the very people that the community as a whole has fought for almost thirty years. Perhaps before you condemn a new product, you should stop to look in the mirror. Do you see yourself looking back? Or do you see the very people this industry has silenced by marching forward into the 21st century and claiming legitimacy in a world that would reject them?

Well, no, I see a small handful of people overreacting. There are just as many people who are supportive of the effort who've posted here.

EDIT to add: Good and very vaild point, though. Go Cedric.

 

[herald]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

Really, this is not true. While it is legal for AV to publish this, it should still be grounds for dismissal.

Clearly AV has put himself in a conflict of interest. Contrary to what another poster said, it does NOT matter if AV does work for this company on his own time.

An executive for Coke cannot moonlight for Pepsi. The reason is, it is not possible for AV to work for the other company without using the knowledge WotC provides him. He will use his knowledge of market studies, design, and industry contacts developed at WotC in developing a product for a competing company.

WotC truly is foolish if they allow this to continue.

Imagine the marketing manager of McDonald's opening up his own hamburger stand then uses his affiliation with McDonald's to get more attention for his stand. The argument "he's doing it on his own time" does not hold water.

So I guess that Chris Pramas will need to look into clearing out his desk too since he works directly for WOTC and Green Ronin at the same time?

The whole point of having an OGL was the fact that any business it does drives up interest for D20 Games and hence D&D. Firing AV over this would be sooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Bulletproof]

WotC's response was that they had nothing to do with this product, they put as much distance as they could between them and this book. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that this book will bear the d20 logo.

I think you are incorrect about how the d20 license works. D20 books have to follow the rules for the OGL as well.

And on top of that, the d20 license explicity forbids using these trademarks, and makes no mention of the option of getting permission from WOTC, so it's even more strict.

Here's the text from the d20 license trademark guide:

Trademark Use in Marketing:

Permission is granted to use the d20 System Logo for the purposes of marketing a Covered Product.

When doing so, the marketing content must include, at a reasonable font, size and color, the following text:

'd20 System' and the d20 System logo are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used with permission.

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.

Permission is granted to translate this text into a non-English language, provided that the English text is also included, and that the translated text is identified as non-official.

Mandatory Trademark Use:

You must include, visibly and in a readable size, on the cover or back cover (or title page of works without covers) of the Covered Product, one or more of the following text blocks:

"Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”

or

“Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R), Third Edition Core Books, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”

or

“Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R), Third Edition Core Books, and the Psionics Handbook, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”

or

“Requires the use of the d20 Modern(tm) Roleplaying Game, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”

or

“Requires the use of a Roleplaying Game Core Book published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”

Elsewhere in the work you must include the following legal text in a reasonably legible font, point size, and color:

"Dungeons & Dragons(R) and Wizards of the Coast(R) are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used with permission."

or

“d20 Modern(tm) is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and is used with permission.
Wizards of the Coast(R) is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and is used with permission.”

or

“d20 Modern(tm) is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and is used with permission.
Dungeons & Dragons(R) and Wizards of the Coast(R) are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used with permission.”

If you do not use "Dungeons & Dragons" or “d20 Modern” anywhere in the work, you may instead use the following legal text:

"Wizards of the Coast(R) is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and is used with permission."

Permission is granted to translate this text into a non-English language, provided that the English text is also included, and that the translated text is identified as non-official.

Restricted Trademark Use:

Except as described in the sections titled "Trademark Use in Marketing" and "Mandatory Trademark Use", you may not use the Dungeons & Dragons, d20 Modern, or Wizards of the Coast trademarks in advertising or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product.

The press release specifies that it uses the OGL, but does not say anything about d20, so it does seem to be OGL only. According to the OGL FAQ:

Q: Why can't I indicate compatibility with a Trademark or a Registered Trademark?

A: The Open Game License expands the control a Trademark owner has over your ability to use that Trademark beyond the restrictions normally allowed by trademark law. The explicit reason this clause is included in the Open Game License is to stop people from saying that their Open Game Content is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, or any other Wizards of the Coast game, without getting permission from Wizards of the Coast first. Of course, the clause is generic, so you can't indicate compatibility with any other company's trademarks either unless you get their permission first.

The only reasonable conclusions I can reach are that:

1. Someone in authority at WOTC approved it, then the company changed its mind.
2. A.V. used the trademarks inappropriately, and perhaps gave himself permission.
3. A.V. just made an honest mistake in using the OGL. (A stupid mistake for someone in his position)
4. There may be a loophole in the OGL that a press release is not really an advertisement, and A.V. is abusing it.
5. It could be someone else at Valar besides A.V. who did it. (but he's the boss, apparantly, so it's his fault).

However, I'm no expert on either license, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable can post on the subject. Or interested people can got to http://www.wizards.com/D20 and use the documents there to judge for themselves.

I'm not trying slam A.V. by the way, I have great respect for his accomplishments in the industry. But unless I'm mistaken about the license stuff, I think he has some explaining to do.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

So I guess that Chris Pramas will need to look into clearing out his desk too since he works directly for WOTC and Green Ronin at the same time?

You mean Chris Pramas that hasn't been working for WotC for a long time.

Sheesh, folks. If you are going to make this kind of case, at least point out someone who is making d20 stuff who actually IS still working at WotC (like Bruce Cordell.)

 

[herald]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

You mean Chris Pramas that hasn't been working for WotC for a long time.

Sheesh, folks. If you are going to make this kind of case, at least point out someone who is making d20 stuff who actually IS still working at WotC (like Bruce Cordell.)

By bad.

 

[carpedavid]

With regard to those claiming that the book shouldn't be produced or published, I simply refer you to the quote by Oscar Wilde:

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written."

Since, in this case, the book is also a product, I would add "useful or not useful" to the criteria. If the book is useful, and can contribute to my campaign, then I'll buy it. If not, I won't.

It is for the sake of utility that I don't own the BoVD - it didn't provide me with what I was looking for from it (which was tips on creating well thought out evil-doers).

-Dave

 

[SemperJase]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

(like Bruce Cordell.)

Better example. The difference is that Bruce Cordell is a writer, not a manager. I'm also not sure about Mr. Cordell's current employment status. Is he a regular employee of WotC, or does he write under contract.

Example, Monte Cook recently wrote BovD for WotC, however that was contract work. He was able to continue his work for his own company ethically because of his contractual status with WotC.

It would seem the same would not apply to AV. In addition, his status as a business manager is much different from that of a writer and would likely have a different employment contract.
I still cannot see why WotC would want a decision maker working for another company.

 

[EricNoah]

I'm not trying slam A.V. by the way, I have great respect for his accomplishments in the industry. But unless I'm mistaken about the license stuff, I think he has some explaining to do.

Definitely, that's been my point all along. We agree.

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.

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

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