# "Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide



## MythosaAkira (Sep 7, 2003)

Haven't noticed this until it was mentioned on one of the lists recently; I'm assuming this is new:

From the *d20 System Trademark Guide Version 4.0*:

*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.

_and under_ *Mandatory Requirements*
All Covered Products must comply with Quality Standards as described above and in the d20 System License.


From the *d20 System Trademark License Version 5.0*:

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.


A bit of a change from previous versions of the licenses.


----------



## Mark (Sep 7, 2003)

From the d20 System Trademark Guide Version 4.0 said:
			
		

> sole discretion




Key...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 7, 2003)

Interesting...

You don't suppose this could _possibly_ have been partly inspired by a certain book published by a certain former employee of theirs, do you?


----------



## Mark (Sep 7, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Interesting...
> 
> You don't suppose this could _possibly_ have been partly inspired by a certain book published by a certain former employee of theirs, do you?




When did you work for WotC?  Besides, I didn't think you could see the nipples on the cover of _Shadows Under Thessalaine_...


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 7, 2003)

Kind of ironic, as probably the best selling versions of AD&D/D&D featured topless women...

And gore. That famous Paladin in Hell pic has a Paladin chopping up a devil.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 7, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken, you can always use an earlier version of the license, correct?  Oh, this is for the d20 license?  Okay, so you can still have nipples and racism in Open Gaming License-marked products, but you cannot have those things if you want to put d20 on the cover.  Check.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 7, 2003)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, you can always use an earlier version of the license, correct?  Oh, this is for the d20 license?  Okay, so you can still have nipples and racism in Open Gaming License-marked products, but you cannot have those things if you want to put d20 on the cover.  Check.



Well, I certainly hope someone informs WotC of an obvious violator and has the Book of Vile Darkness pulled from shelves. Such hypocracy!!


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 7, 2003)

Yep...pure bull actually.  They release the BoVD, then try and make it where other companies can't release similar products.  I'll have to contact my lawyer about this and see if there is anything I can do to get around it.


----------



## MythosaAkira (Sep 7, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Well, I certainly hope someone informs WotC of an obvious violator and has the Book of Vile Darkness pulled from shelves. Such hypocracy!!




Not to mention this "Monster Manual v3.5" thing I've seen...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 7, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> When did you work for WotC?  Besides, I didn't think you could see the nipples on the cover of _Shadows Under Thessalaine_...




lol

You just made my day, Mark. I didn't think anyone even _remembered Shadows Under Thessalaine_. 

On a slightly different topic...

WotC may seem a tad hypocritical, forbidding such things when they've done it themselves in the BoVD and (borderline) in the MM 3.5. But the thing is, their logic may just be as follows:

It may not be that they object to _all_ such material. They may just be concerned that other people may overdo it, and thus want to keep any associated "adult" material in their own hands. Remember, D&D books aren't bound by the D20 License.

I'm not saying whether it's good or bad; just that it's their playground and they absolutely have the right to set whatever rules they want.


----------



## Monster Manuel (Sep 7, 2003)

There goes my Year. I guess 'Nipples and Nookie' will have to be put out under the OGL.


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 7, 2003)

Maybe WOTC/Hasbro just wants to corner the d20 porn market?  Maybe they're going to buy up Penthouse...

Think about it - when they were going to get into minis, what did they do? They changed the d20 STL to prohibit minis. This could be the same thing...


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 7, 2003)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Maybe WOTC/Hasbro just wants to corner the d20 porn market?  Maybe they're going to buy up Penthouse...
> 
> Think about it - when they were going to get into minis, what did they do? They changed the d20 STL to prohibit minis. This could be the same thing...



Hot elf porn. These "girls" are under 100 years old!! Shaved Dwarven Women!! Now with d20 stats.

With apologies to Eric's Grandma.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 7, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Hot elf porn. These "girls" are under 100 years old!! Shaved Dwarven Women!! Now with d20 stats.
> 
> With apologies to Eric's Grandma.




ROFL!  

joe b.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 7, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> Yep...pure bull actually.  They release the BoVD, then try and make it where other companies can't release similar products.  I'll have to contact my lawyer about this and see if there is anything I can do to get around it.





Easy Shawn, just don't publish using their license. 

For years no publisher had to worry about urles like this created by other publishers. Now, if you want to focus on such themes, you have to do so outside of the d20 license.

The goal in this change is to get rid of the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS that appears in LARGE print on the cover of the Book of Erotic Fantasy. As long as the book is published under the d20 license, Valar Project -HAS- to state that it

requires the use of the 
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS
Player's Handbook, Third Edition, 
published by Wizards of the Coast

which they do QUITE prominently on the cover. By pulling the d20 license support, Valar can no longer publish the BOEF under the d20 license (but can do so under the OGL), and thus cannot include this discalimer at the top of the product.


----------



## MEG Hal (Sep 7, 2003)

This part is scary, also from the new d20 license:

5.  Termination for Breach

In the event that You fail to comply with the terms of this License or the d20 System Guide, You will be considered to be in breach of this License.  Wizards of the Coast will attempt to notify you in writing by sending a letter to the address listed on the most recent Confirmation Card on file, if any. You will have 30 days from the date of the notice (the "cure period") to cure the breach to the satisfaction of Wizards of the Coast.  If no Confirmation Card is on file, you will be considered to be in breach of this License immediately.  If, at the end of the cure period, the breach is not cured, Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License without further written notice to You.



6.   Effects of Termination

Upon termination, You shall immediately stop all use of the Licensed Articles and will destroy any inventory or marketing material in Your possession bearing the d20 System trademark logos.  You will remove any use of the d20 System trademark logos from your advertising, web site, letterhead, or any other use.  You must instruct any company or individual that You are or become aware of who is in possession of any materials distributed by You bearing the d20 System trademark logos to destroy those materials.  You will solely bear any costs related to carrying out this term of the License.

7.  Penalty for Failure to Comply with Termination Instructions

If You fail to comply with the Effects of Termination, Wizards of the Coast may, at its option, pursue litigation, for which You shall be responsible for all legal costs, against You to the full extent of the law for breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, damages and any other remedy available.


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 7, 2003)

HellHound said:
			
		

> The goal in this change is to get rid of the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS that appears in LARGE print on the cover of the Book of Erotic Fantasy. As long as the book is published under the d20 license, Valar Project -HAS- to state that it
> 
> requires the use of the
> DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS
> ...



There's another change to the license that says that you can't put that statement in a font size larger than 12 point or smaller than 10 point...


----------



## MythosaAkira (Sep 7, 2003)

MEG Hal said:
			
		

> This part is scary, also from the new d20 license:
> 
> 5.  Termination for Breach
> etc.




How is this different from earlier licenses? I'm looking at version 3 right now, and items 6 and 7 are exactly the same. 4 and 5 in version 3 have been merged into 5 in the latest d20 license, but otherwise it says the same thing.


----------



## MEG Hal (Sep 8, 2003)

MythosaAkira said:
			
		

> How is this different from earlier licenses? I'm looking at version 3 right now, and items 6 and 7 are exactly the same. 4 and 5 in version 3 have been merged into 5 in the latest d20 license, but otherwise it says the same thing.





Add in the morality clause and that it may be retroactive...many a book may be pulled depending on what they feel is against the new clause, I guess I was not clear to take issue 1 add this in it and you have the potential for some bad mojo   

Sorry, does that clarify my thinking?


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 8, 2003)

MEG Hal said:
			
		

> This part is scary, also from the new d20 license:
> ....
> 7.  Penalty for Failure to Comply with Termination Instructions
> 
> If You fail to comply with the Effects of Termination, Wizards of the Coast may, at its option, pursue litigation, for which You shall be responsible for all legal costs, against You to the full extent of the law for breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, damages and any other remedy available.




Interesting. This may well be against public policy in many jurisdictions. I'm not advocating that anyone test it though. Nor am I a lawyer. Most GL policies don't cover these sorts of allegations, so it will be expensive to defend even if you _don't_ have to pay WotC if they allege a problem.


----------



## Henrix (Sep 8, 2003)

I'll just repost Ryan Dancey's comment from the ogf-d20 list, as reposted here in this tread on RPG.net (just as I did in the other thread on the Generla forum):




> I'm pretty unhappy with the decision to alter the d20 System Trademark License to include post-publication content limitations.
> 
> In my opinion, the current version of the d20 STL is not a license I would be comfortable using in a commercial work unless I was able to secure a release from Wizards prior to publication exempting me from the content clauses. The potential for abuse (accidential or intentional) of the new clauses renders the "safe harbor" established by the D20 System Trademark License moot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> Yep...pure [American apple pie] actually. They release the BoVD, then try and make it where other companies can't release similar products. I'll have to contact my lawyer about this and see if there is anything I can do to get around it.



You mean to tell me that the _BoVD_ is porn material? Wow. I have to go pick it up right away. But you better not be lying, if it is in the form of a mature "_Oprah-Lifetime_" approach about the problems of sex and violence that is associated with evil.



Honestly, I'm much more concerned about how Wizards is going to enforced those clauses, and if they fail to do so, the degree of liability if a third-party _d20_ product is connected to a wrongful death lawsuit of a grieving mother whose son is murdered or committed suicide because of that product (hypothetically).

It would have been a lot easier if they enforce a Disclaimer stating that Wizards is in no way endorsing nor promoting products by third-party publishers using their trademarked logo.


----------



## MythosaAkira (Sep 8, 2003)

MEG Hal said:
			
		

> Add in the morality clause and that it may be retroactive...many a book may be pulled depending on what they feel is against the new clause, I guess I was not clear to take issue 1 add this in it and you have the potential for some bad mojo
> 
> Sorry, does that clarify my thinking?




I hadn't considered the idea it could be retroactive; is that possible? I.e.; does it matter when your product was published, it must adhere to whatever is the current license?

<insert standard "IANAL" disclaimer here>

Hmm...from the Guide:

"These instructions supercede any previous instructions for the use of the Licensed Articles and determine the way in which they are to be utilized."

...and from the License:

"9.  Changes to Terms of the License
Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or revisions to this License without prior notice.  You will conform in all respects to the updated or revised terms of this License.  Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number."

OK, I see your point far more clearly now


----------



## Vaxalon (Sep 8, 2003)

HellHound said:
			
		

> The goal in this change is to get rid of the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS that appears in LARGE print on the cover of the Book of Erotic Fantasy. As long as the book is published under the d20 license, Valar Project -HAS- to state that it
> 
> requires the use of the
> DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS
> ...




If all they wanted to do was remove the LARGE PRINT "DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" from the cover, then the change regarding the print size would have been enough; they want to remove the BoEF, _and any products like it_, from D20 entirely, which is why they included the decency clause.

I agree with Ryan that they are opening themselves to legal liability with this.  I can't imagine that their legal department liked this.

Aaron, have you had a look at this?


----------



## Vaxalon (Sep 8, 2003)

*The decency clause is gone.*

They've already posted version FIVE of the licence:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20licensev5.rtf


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2003)

Am I alone in requesting for an "electronic town hall meeting" to discuss the change in the _d20_ Trademark License. It should give *Andy Smith* and the Wizards of the Coast Legal Team to instruct us as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Also to provide feedback by third parties who may be affected by the change.


----------



## ES2 (Sep 8, 2003)

As just a customer to most of you guys I think this change to the d20 license sucks rocks!!  Is WotC this afraid of one single book to totally risk screwing with the entire thing or what?  Talk about a bunch of crap.

I can remember purchasing a few books during the first year of d20 that had nude pictures of demon women, nipples showing beneath clothes, things like that, so I guess all these books will now have to be burned or whatever.

On a positive note: All they are doing now is driving more and more people to print their books using just the Open Gaming License, in which people don't need the WotC PHB to D&D, and that is something we all should cheer about.  I think that's positive anyways.

WotC needs to get their heads out of their you know whats.  On the other hand, let them shoot themselves in the butts like TSR did because of crap like this.


----------



## MythosaAkira (Sep 8, 2003)

*It's still in there*



			
				Vaxalon said:
			
		

> They've already posted version FIVE of the licence:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20licensev5.rtf




Version 5 is what I quoted in the first post of this thread.


----------



## Nathal (Sep 8, 2003)

ES2 said:
			
		

> WotC needs to get their heads out of their you know whats.  On the other hand, let them shoot themselves in the butts like TSR did because of crap like this.




It does remind me of TSR's old, silly "Code of Conduct" for their products; a sort of "Disney World" set of ethics for their writers to follow.  Next thing we'll see is the D20 license forbidding the word "demon" because it might offend mothers.  Sheesh.  Was TSR somehow resuscitated by _(un-grandma friendly epithet removed -Henry)_ Lorraine Williams, its IP bought back from Hasbro?  One has to wonder.


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 8, 2003)

It's Letter writing time folks!!

Start sending email to custserv@wizards.com EVERY DAY and let them know how you feel about this issue if you want it changed.  WotC will respond to customer complaints I hope.  In any case, sending email never hurt.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 8, 2003)

What does this mean?

The death of the "d20 License."  The tougher termination clause, combined with the easily abusable "sole discretion" of WotC to pull any product with the d20 trademark means that no company in their right mind will produce "d20" branded materials.  Too much risk.  What happens when they use their "sole discretion" to demand the pulling of a popular competition book that they think is taking sales away from their own book?

Also notice the clause about it not being able to "promote" any real world religion.  No Christian themed d20 RPG's like Testament or Rapture anymore then I guess, since they promote Judeo-Christian ideology.  No books for d20 Modern trying to make a more "authentic" depiction of witchcraft or any real-world priesthood.

It isn't the end of open gaming.  They can't put that genie back in the bottle.  But the "d20" era of open gaming is approaching twilight.  Open gaming materials compatible with D&D will be around, they are too big a market to ignore, but no company in it's right mind will use the "d20" name now.

What lead to this?  I would personally imagine some clueless pointy-haired boss at Hasbro who hears incidental buzz of the "Book of Erotic Fantasy", wonders why WotC was allowing it to be produced by a family toy company like Hasbro/WotC.  WotC explained that they didn't have editorial control over 3rd party "d20" products, so their corporate masters demanded they institute such controls.  A brainless stuffed suit who knows jack squat about gaming and not much about the law probably demanded it.

The Everquest RPG was a fine example of a non "d20" branded game that uses the "3rd Edition" system.  It will probably be a model of future "3rd Edition Compatible" games like what Everquest calls itself (since there is no restriction on that term, and if WotC tries to sue now, it's been in use for well over a year now, so the principle of Estoppel means it will be very hard to enforce a copyright over "3rd Edition").  At least if WotC goes belly up or loses their mind, thanks to open gaming (if not d20) the game will live on, even after it's inventors have gone mad.

In the end WotC loses.  They look like total jerks to the gaming public.  They open themselves to liability by having to review every d20 product or be liable for almost anything.  3rd Party publishers don't want to risk losing money on a product WotC chooses to destroy.  Non "d20" books that can publish experience tables and be truly self contained also don't generate sales for WotC core RPG's.  No need to buy the Player's Handbook (or d20 Modern) anymore for new gamers.

To a lesser degree, the gaming public loses, since "d20" is no longer a universal sign of a compatible game system.  It leads to just more confusion in the gaming world.

Who wins?  Valar and the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  They just drop the "d20" name and logo from it, and they get loads of free publicity and buzz about their "banned" gaming book.

(I am not a lawyer.  I am only moderately educated in legal principles.  This is an informed laymans opinion.)


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 8, 2003)

If nothing else, send this to them:



> I agree with and join Ryan Dancy in beseeching you to reconsider the changes to the d20 license.  His original letter concerning this topic is quoted below:
> 
> From: ogf-d20-l-admin@opengamingfoundation.org on behalf of Ryan S. Dancey [ryand@organizedplay.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:03 PM
> ...


----------



## pogre (Sep 8, 2003)

I'm not sure I agree WOTC has opened themselves up to liability. They have just increased their ability to police product bearing the d20 tag. I am absolutely sure they ran this through legal before changing it.

No disclaimer here - I am a lawyer  

I'm curious what Clark and Mistwell think... Speaking in hypotheticals only of course.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 8, 2003)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> What does this mean?
> 
> The death of the "d20 License."  *snip*




I don't think the sky's falling _quite_ yet, thanks. I personally don't know the rationale behind this new provision, and I don't think it's a good idea. But it does _not_ spell the end of the D20 License in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, it includes the term "sole discretion." It also includes guidelines, and any termination that doesn't follow those guidelines can be successfully challenged. Further, I seriously doubt WotC is looking for a reason to crack down, since they've always been very quick to give people permission to go above and beyond the limits of OGC, when asked politely.

This new provision does open the door to _potential_ abuse, sure. But a deliberate crackdown is not only out of character, it would require further modification of the license. And if they _were_ to start cracking down on companies for suspicious reasons, word of that would get out pretty quick too. This is not the end as we know it; it's a bump in the road, an aggravation for some people, and--in my personal, admittedly not-fully-informed opinion--not a good idea. But it's not a disaster by any stretch of the imagination.

What this means is that people who are putting out something they feel might be close to the line will probably choose the better part of valor, and go OGL rather than D20. For the _vast_ majority of products, which don't come anywhere near that line, it's going to be business as normal. The fact is, even in a worst-case scenario, WotC has no _reason_ to nix most products, since none of the D20 companies have either the distribution or name recognition to serve as actual competition. I agree with Ryan Dancy that the wording of the provision is potentially abusive, but I really don't believe there's any risk involved for the vast majority of companies or products.

I'm all for discussion, and I'm all for letting WotC know--politely--that we disagree with this. But let's try to keep it in perspective; a situation like this is the _last_ place where histrionics are going to help.


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 8, 2003)

My personal fear is this - you can't trademark or copyright ideas or principles.  All you can do is copyright the expressions of ideas.  Now WotC doesn't have to do this.

Why is this important, to me at least?  _Art of Magic_ is heavily inspired by _Magic: The Gathering_ and a stated goal of the book is to transfer the feel of the color pie to d20.  We've been careful to stay well within legality - so much so that if WotC's sharks (er, lawyers) file a case, it will be dismissed without a hearing.  But now, WotC doesn't even have to file a suit.  They can claim it doesn't meet "quality standards" and shut it down.

My day just got worse...


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Sep 8, 2003)

I'm not a lawyer nor am I publisher but this seems to be dire news...  

What's the diffrenace for the typical RPG player in this and is this true:


			
				ES2 said:
			
		

> On a positive note: All they are doing now is driving more and more people to print their books using just the Open Gaming License, in which people don't need the WotC PHB to D&D, and that is something we all should cheer about. I think that's positive anyways.




Is above true?


----------



## Gamethyme (Sep 8, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Well, I certainly hope someone informs WotC of an obvious violator and has the Book of Vile Darkness pulled from shelves. Such hypocracy!!




It may be, but WotC is the license holder.  This means that they can publish anything they feel like publishing, and still slap an d20 logo on it.  If they wanted to, they could publish the "D&D Iconic Character Nude Coloring Book."

BoVD also hints more than it shows.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 8, 2003)

Nathal said:
			
		

> It does remind me of TSR's old, silly "Code of Conduct" for their products; a sort of "Disney World" set of ethics for their writers to follow.




That abyss blasted peice of Otyugh chow caused irreparable damage to far too many worlds. It was not surprising the revison to Darksun had a mad rush to free the slaves.


----------



## The Blue Elf (Sep 8, 2003)

Whats next a Parental Advisory,RPG game rating system on explicit content Rated-E for everyone type deal?


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 8, 2003)

Gamethyme said:
			
		

> It may be, but WotC is the license holder.  This means that they can publish anything they feel like publishing, and still slap an d20 logo on it.  If they wanted to, they could publish the "D&D Iconic Character Nude Coloring Book."
> 
> BoVD also hints more than it shows.




Actually, they are in violation of the license in the role of licensee.  HOWEVER, as the licensor they have to file any related lawsuits - they can't be filed on their behalf.  And I don't imagine WotC suing themselves 

IANAL.  Talk to Orcus if you want a lawyer.


----------



## Khur (Sep 8, 2003)

So, I was reading all of this stuff, and I had to laugh at this:

"While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be _salacious_ in nature."

While the actual definition of salacious is "bawdy" or "appealing to or stimulating sexual desire", some synonyms include spicy, exciting, scandalous, and even _interesting_. Just be sure the sex stuff in your works isn't interesting, and you'll be okay. Got it?

That "...bare female nipples...." thing is just too funny. Who wrote this (or suggested it be added to the license)? Certainly not a lawyer, one hopes.

The prejudice section can actually prevent one from making, say, an adventure or setting in which real-world prejudice is taken into account—like conflicts in India between Muslims and Hindus. So, if you want a Tom Clancy type scenario, just rename the religions, I suppose. Or use Church of the Sub-Genius! Or Neo-Nazis, because its okay to hate them ... everyone knows they're evil. Ooops, _Sum of All Fears_ beat you to it. We all know that the movie worked out fine, even though it changed the villains from the Islamic radicals presented in the book. Or did it?

Technically, the prejudice section also prevents you from writing a supplement or game that focuses on Wicca or Christianity. For example, writing a game wherein the "good" characters are all Christian is right out. That's a shame, because a well-designed RPG can be a great learning tool in a religious context.

Apparently prejudice among fantasy religions, groups, races, and such is kosher.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 8, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> My personal fear is this - you can't trademark or copyright ideas or principles.  All you can do is copyright the expressions of ideas.  Now WotC doesn't have to do this.
> 
> Why is this important, to me at least?  _Art of Magic_ is heavily inspired by _Magic: The Gathering_ and a stated goal of the book is to transfer the feel of the color pie to d20.  We've been careful to stay well within legality - so much so that if WotC's sharks (er, lawyers) file a case, it will be dismissed without a hearing.  But now, WotC doesn't even have to file a suit.  They can claim it doesn't meet "quality standards" and shut it down.
> 
> My day just got worse...




Well, if it makes you feel any better...

It really isn't hard, as I understand it, to convert a pre-publication work from the D20 License to the OGL. I believe it's just a question of changing out logos and removing the "Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Player's Handbook" notation. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm fairly certain those are the only two main factors involved, and both of those can be worked around with a bit of creative thought.

Hopefully, you won't have to do it, but even in a worst-case scenario, your project isn't dead; it's just renamed a bit. 

(As always, IANAL.)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 8, 2003)

My suspicion is that they are taking aim at a few (or even 'one') publisher of D20 products, but phrased the license in such a way as to prevent that one (or 'few') publisher(s) from saying that they were being singled out. And to make it known that they could do something about it if similar things are done in the future.

Frankly, after the announcement of the BoEF I was expecting something like this. Again frankly, Valtera is very much like TSR's nightmare dreamchild come to life... [Pat Robertson]Hmm, into the occult, and does a book of D20 eroticism... Just what the 700 Club wanted![/Pat Robertson]

The changes to the D20 License may go away, but I don't expect them to, but I also don't expect to see them all that heavily enforced. Given that Texas just had a case about a comic book store getting into deep kimchee for selling an adult comic book to an adult, and that decision being upheld by the Supreme Court, I can't really blame WotC for being cautious. Let us be honest people, for good or ill the country is currently sliding toward conservatism. (Just to put in my 2 cps worth, I think that it is for 'ill', but that is only my opinion, I am a liberal.)

Like I said, I've been expecting this, sometimes the pessimists and paranoics are correct.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 8, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> ::snip::
> 
> Let us be honest people, for good or ill the country is currently sliding toward conservatism. (Just to put in my 2 cps worth, I think that it is for 'ill', but that is only my opinion, I am a liberal.)
> 
> ...




Take that polical stuff to Nutkinland!  Go Nuts!!


----------



## MrJamela (Sep 8, 2003)

I can do without nipples on my d20 books, but the part about prejudice is really scary.

What about games like Testament? Or Pinnacles Wierd War 2? 

Whatever. WOTC lost my business the moment they released 3.5 so soon after 3.0. Its obvious that the brains of this operation have left the building and the bean counters are now running the show. D&D was brought back to life by people like Ryan, Sean, Monte, etc. It won't survive indefinately without them. I for one remember TSR in the lonely years. 

Games are not widgets. What exactly is Hasbro afraid of? Waldenbooks is not carrying the Slayers Guide to Boobies. Any gamer walking into a real hobby store is not going to be more than perplexed (and perhaps mildly ashamed) by the more childish works. And they will rot on the stands. Or be modestly successful. 

You know where we're really heading with all this? RATINGS! Its time for a WOTC imposed rating system. Why not? They require its use, not necessarily its enforcement.

Hey Ryan, who is in charge of this beast now that you are long gone? Does anybody at WOTC really care what we think about these issues? 

Jaime


----------



## galaga88 (Sep 8, 2003)

So what does this mean for the Chaosium dual stat BRP/D20 Call of Cthulhu modules? Do they have a seperate license for those, or will they have to make some changes, considering how 'obscene' the sex or violence can be in some CoC modules?

Also, does this mean any future re-prints of Rappan Athuk 1 will require the removal of the Dung Monster?


----------



## ES2 (Sep 8, 2003)

MrJamela said:
			
		

> Hey Ryan, who is in charge of this beast now that you are long gone? Does anybody at WOTC really care what we think about these issues?
> 
> Jaime




I highly doubt it as long as the corporates of Hasbro are in charge who have no concept or real knowledge of gaming and the hobby we enjoy so much.  I could be wrong, but as long as money and public opinion are all they are looking at, this decision could just be a bump in the road, and it could lead to their downfall as we see them put out more products that are anti what the license they created dont' allow us to do.


----------



## Kichwas (Sep 8, 2003)

So does this applyt to product already on the shelf?

About 80% of my mongoose books have bare female nipples in them somewhere or another...

I assume they can only prevent reprints of that material at the most, and stop future product from using the same style of art at the least.

A shame really, because while I felt the BoEF was a foolish idea, I happen to believe in the ideals my country pretends to stand for:

Freedom of Speech and Religion.

While they can't stop what people say (you can just slide over to another license), I find their ethics deplorable in trying to stop that expression.

Also, they're just going way too far with the wording on that license. Somebody over there is forgetting that there is always a valid time and place for anything. Extreme solutions are never good, moderation is the key.


----------



## alaric (Sep 8, 2003)

If you feel really strongly about this then I urge you to talk in the language that companies listen in....money.  Don't send off an email saying you don't like this, and then go buy the latest WotC book.  If you want to make an impact on a company then don't buy their products, tell your friends not to buy their products, inform them why you aren't buying their products anymore.  While people may have gotten boycott crazy, it's still the surest way to get a company to change it's point of view on a topic.

I had thought that with BoVD we we're moving away from the PG rated TSR books.  Some campaigns deal with adult content (sex, slavery, racism, murder, torture, rape, etc) and blacklisting those products that deal with them isn't an acceptable solution IMO.  While you can say that WotC's intention is a very loose selective enforcement (i sure hope that was the intent, although who can tell what guys in suits and an overinflated sense of selfworth will do in any given meeting), that doesn't change the fact that people may not develop these kinds of material for fear of being targeted.  Personally I think community standards should be decided by the community, not WotC.  If a book is overly gorey, or too sexual themed, or filled with racism, or whatever, then people won't buy it, and by extension if a book is selling well then it apparenly wasn't too whatever for the community.  WotC has no business playing morality police with the D20 license, and furthermore has gone about this all wrong.  Would we have even heard of Book of Erotic Fantasy if WotC hadn't of made a big deal out of it?  Would anyone have   had the urge (or for that matter, does anyone really plan now) to buy a book like this?  They could have avoided the problem by letting it die quietly, but they want to take the moral high ground on something, and do so in draconian style, by retroactively altering contracts and attempt to destroy all copies of books that don't meet there image of decency.  [Some was bound to do it so I might as well say it now.  Book burning Nazies! ah...much better].  Ok less ranting, and more changing bad policy decisions.

alaric


----------



## Kichwas (Sep 8, 2003)

Despite everything I've said against the BoEF in past, if that book comes out in some OGL or other format now...

I will buy it.

I'll need to think on how I feel about a boycott of WotC though. I'm not sure it would impact Hasbro enough. You'd need a boycott of Hasbro, that reached beyond the gamer community -at which point you will hit a community that is more likely to side with WotC than with free expression and living up to being American.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 8, 2003)

*re*

What an incredibly foolish move on the part of WotC. Why would they want that kind of responsibility? I have no idea.

This is a fantasy game. By its very nature, it will push the envelope of good taste when the litmus test is "community standards". What does the term  "community standards" mean? This is just unbelievable. Most fantasy artists wouldn't be within "community standards".

If I don't like the content of a book, then I don't buy it. All this pressure has to be coming from Hasbro, since they are a family toy company. They probably didn't even like the release of the _Book of Vile Darkness_. 

Just unbelievable. I hope they regain their senses and remove this clause.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 8, 2003)

WoTC is sounding more and more like Palladium..and that's not good, folks.

Next thing you know, they'll tell us we can't use the word 'the' in our books.  Maybe even start sending cease and desist letters to fan website owners again.


----------



## Samnell (Sep 8, 2003)

Hey, it's just like the Fifties all over again! Way to go WOTC! Go get them dirty birdies before they poop all over my happy place.


----------



## Kichwas (Sep 8, 2003)

This is also being discussed on the WotC boards in two places I know of so far:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96058
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95927

And there's a discussion on the valro project's boards also.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 8, 2003)

I think the WotC resolution is just aimed at protecting the age low-end of their market, that is they are trying to avoid complications or criticism on their D&D products if other companies publish material which is possibly not very suitable for children. Obviously, they can keep full control on their own publications, but they are probably afraid that 3rd party material may still raise questions against the whole D&D series.

Frankly, I don't care about their decision. I like seeing good art in D&D books, but I don't think that elven boobies make the art better, neither I feel the need to see more boobies in general, since there are already quite as many as I want on TV   , and if I just need to see elven ones... I ask my elvish-looking finnish girlfriend to... well...


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 8, 2003)

Here's an alternative to what Wizards has done.

"(Insert company name here) is solely responsible for (insert product name here) and its contents. No other company bears any responsibility for (insert product name here) and its contents." (This notice is free for use by any RPG publisher who wishes to use it. Simply replace '(insert company name here)' with the name of your company and '(insert product name here)' with the name of the product this notice is to appear in. The notice should appear on or near the credits page, and in a clear, legible type. But if you really must put it on the back cover, I'm not going to complain.) 

That should work better than what WotC is doing at keeping them from getting sued for a third party's product.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 8, 2003)

Oh, before I forget. Is Wizards talking about red-footed boobies or blue-footed boobies. Naked red-footed boobies might be okay, but you may have to 'Photoshop' some clothes on any blue-footed boobies in your game art.


----------



## alaric (Sep 8, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> That should work better than what WotC is doing at keeping them from getting sued for a third party's product.




Personally i think this has more to do with bad PR from mothers that want a good reason to hate D&D "Look D&D is really about porn!".  If that's the case i don't really have a problem with Wizards reserving the right to dicate which 3rd party books get a sticker saying "Intended for adults" or somesuch.  If you don't want kids to access certain stuff, whatever, go ahead, but blocking book sales because you disagree with the content is wrong.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 8, 2003)

Gamethyme said:
			
		

> It may be, but WotC is the license holder. This means that they can publish anything they feel like publishing, and still slap an d20 logo on it. If they wanted to, they could publish the "D&D Iconic Character Nude Coloring Book."
> 
> BoVD also hints more than it shows.



More importantly, Wizards of the Coast is the trademark OWNER. They can do whatever they like with their own trademarks. The license is for the third-party Client (who are not owner of the trademark but would like to use Wizards' trademark). Besides, Wizards of the Coast, the License Holder, cannot be Client to their own License.


----------



## GameWyrd (Sep 8, 2003)

There's a comment about public opinion above this post in the thread. That inspired me to go check on the Valar opinion poll I was running in one issue of Echoes from the Wyrd. I thought I'd a) quickly set up an opinion poll about this issue in this week's Echo and b) share the current Valar results here. 

It'll be interesting to see how the two polls compare. GameWyrd.com's user base is different from ENWorld's, perhaps broader, younger and not %100 D&Ders.

The poll:
--

This is a great idea, a real change and real excitement. 
 (30 votes : %11.11) 
This is a good idea, gamers who want the book can buy it and benefit but gamers who don’t want the book can leave it on the shelf. 
 (74 votes : %27.41) 
The book doesn’t bother me and it’s too early to judge it decisively.  
 (33 votes : %12.22) 
The book doesn’t bother me; I just don’t need 1d20 and a prestige class to be erotic. 
 (38 votes : %14.07) 
This is a poor idea, a gimmick at best. 
 (66 votes : %24.44) 
This is a bad idea and yet more ammunition for the anti-RPG press. 
 (25 votes : %9.26) 
This is a terrible idea, an example of an RPG that could actually corrupt the innocent.  
 (4 votes : %1.48)


----------



## TiQuinn (Sep 8, 2003)

Hmmm....this sounds like one of those news pieces that rankle everyone at first, and then fade to nothingness after a while.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 8, 2003)

arcady said:
			
		

> This is also being discussed on the WotC boards in two places I know of so far:
> 
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96058
> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95927
> ...




The first thread appears to have been deleted for some reason.


----------



## Henrix (Sep 8, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> The first thread appears to have been deleted for some reason.




No, it hasn't been banned, but you need to be logged in with a membership that shows that you are over 17, as it is in their 'mature'  section of the boards.


----------



## Katowice (Sep 8, 2003)

If there's a job at WOTC to review products for this sort of thing, where do I apply?



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> So, I was reading all of this stuff, and I had to laugh at this:
> 
> "While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be _salacious_ in nature."
> 
> ...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 8, 2003)

MythosaAkira said:
			
		

> 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.
> .




What, like the hobbit standing over a defeated foe who'se brain was bubbling out of a smashed skull in their "hobbit" edition of Dragon (and while it was still under *their* control)?

fx: shakes head


----------



## Felon (Sep 8, 2003)

No bathroom activity? Darn, so much for Anthony's follow-up, "The Book of Scatological Fantasy"


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 8, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Actually, they are in violation of the license in the role of licensee.  HOWEVER, as the licensor they have to file any related lawsuits - they can't be filed on their behalf.  And I don't imagine WotC suing themselves



Actually, no they're not.  They don't publish under the license, so they can't violate it.  They can slap the logo on anything they want without using the license since they own the logo.


----------



## Vaxalon (Sep 8, 2003)

arcady said:
			
		

> So does this applyt to product already on the shelf?
> 
> About 80% of my mongoose books have bare female nipples in them somewhere or another...
> 
> I assume they can only prevent reprints of that material at the most, and stop future product from using the same style of art at the least.




No.  Read the licence and the guide.

They can force you, your distributors, and your retailers to destroy all existing copies that violate the licence.


----------



## techno (Sep 8, 2003)

I support WotC's decision. I believe it is their right to not have pornography (such as the BoEF) associated with their trademark. Do you really think that WotC will be able to say that BoEF isn't associated with D&D and have people actually believe that? No way. Hasbro's corporate image IS at stake here and they have a right to take action to defend it.


----------



## poilbrun (Sep 8, 2003)

pogre said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree WOTC has opened themselves up to liability. They have just increased their ability to police product bearing the d20 tag. I am absolutely sure they ran this through legal before changing it.
> 
> No disclaimer here - I am a lawyer
> 
> I'm curious what Clark and Mistwell think... Speaking in hypotheticals only of course.



 Couldn't one file a lawsuit against WotC instead of a publisher for a book to which they object? After all, the publisher is responsible, but WotC is also responsible since they let the book go through even though it had objectionable content (from the point of view of the one filing the lawsuit, of course)?


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

Maraxle said:
			
		

> Actually, no they're not.  They don't publish under the license, so they can't violate it.  They can slap the logo on anything they want without using the license since they own the logo.




Precisely. I'm surpsised that so few people don't understand this. Just like they aren't required to publish under the OGL either. Is it "fair"? No. Is it required to be? No. It's their trademark, if they want to spell out the terms by which people can use their product, that is within their rights, but it obligates them to nothing special.


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

> I believe it is their right to not have pornography (such as the BoEF) associated with their trademark. Do you really think that WotC will be able to say that BoEF isn't associated with D&D and have people actually believe that? No way. Hasbro's corporate image IS at stake here and they have a right to take action to defend it.




Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.

If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.


----------



## poilbrun (Sep 8, 2003)

techno said:
			
		

> I support WotC's decision. I believe it is their right to not have pornography (such as the BoEF) associated with their trademark. Do you really think that WotC will be able to say that BoEF isn't associated with D&D and have people actually believe that? No way. Hasbro's corporate image IS at stake here and they have a right to take action to defend it.



 But do you really think that removing the D20 logo from the back of the book and removing the Dungeons and Dragons title on the front page change the fact that everyone will now it is supposed to be used with D&D? Even without this, won't the book be put on the D20 shelf at your local game store?


----------



## poilbrun (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.
> 
> If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.



 I can assure you I'd really like to disagree with you... but I can only agree, unfortunately


----------



## Truth Seeker (Sep 8, 2003)

Wow...they finally did it....they got both the size fourteen boots to fit into their mouth.

That was a feat never thought to happen.....


----------



## NarlethDrider (Sep 8, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> .... Talk to Orcus if you want a lawyer.




The BoVD one or Tome of Horrors?  

Sorry for the lame attempt at humor, but I'm at work & not fully awake yet. Anywho, when I first read about this, it made me think of censorship---maybe a kneejerk reaction, but the first thing that came to mind. I can understand that why WoTC/Hasbro wouldn't want any 'morally questionable material' associated with it, Hasbro has a reputation to maintain----besides, now, maybe, WoTC can stop other companies from publishing stuff thats better than theirs  

now I'm gonna go get some more coffee & try & wake up---maybe it will cure some of my stupidity


----------



## Belen (Sep 8, 2003)

I agree with WOTC's decision.  I doubt that the issue would have come up if Valar had not decided to use the d20 license and D&D trademark so prominnently on their cover.  So what if Wizards does not want the "Dungeons and Dragons" trademark on the BOEF?  I doubt that they will pursue publishers like Mongoose.  The change was designed to stop fetish-oriented porn from carrying the Dungeons and Dragons name on the cover.

Big deal.  I happen to think the move it wonderful and I will fully support WOTC from this point on.

For me, it seemed that Valar and Tony Valterra were thumbing their nose at WOTC.  They were saying, "Yeah, we are going to print this material, and put your trademark on it in big letters.  Thanks for giving us the chance to make the extra money using your name."

The BOEF can still be printed under OGL.  I am glad that they cannot use the D&D logo.  This means that I will not have to explain that BOEF is not a part if DnD to lay people.  If the trademark is not on the cover is it much easier to dissassociate the porn from the game.

You guys are worried that WOTC will use the new rules against people like Mongoose.  That's bunk.  They will only use the new rules against people like Valar.  Period.

Kudos, WOTC!

Huzzah!


----------



## Robbert Raets (Sep 8, 2003)

MrJamela said:
			
		

> What exactly is Hasbro afraid of? Waldenbooks is not carrying the Slayers Guide to Boobies.




Actually.....
_The Slayer's Guide to Amazons_ had a centrehold.....


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Maraxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, I was one of the first to call them hypocrits and I'll stick to that characterization. I know they aren't bound by their own trademark license. I just think if they wanted to reduce the amount of bare female nipples associated with the d20 logo, they should avoid including them in their own books. If they don't want the d20 logo to be associated with risque material, they should not put their d20 logo on books like BoVD.

They didn't have to include the logo on their mature product line book. But they did. If BoVD did not have the d20 logo on it, I would have no reason to complain since they would have obviously shielded the logo from similar material in their own products.


----------



## Cergorach (Sep 8, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I agree with WOTC's decision.  I doubt that the issue would have come up if Valar had not decided to use the d20 license and D&D trademark so prominnently on their cover.  So what if Wizards does not want the "Dungeons and Dragons" trademark on the BOEF?  I doubt that they will pursue publishers like Mongoose.  The change was designed to stop fetish-oriented porn from carrying the Dungeons and Dragons name on the cover.
> 
> Big deal.  I happen to think the move it wonderful and I will fully support WOTC from this point on.
> 
> ...




This is so much crap! WotC turned in a new road themselves with the release of Book of Vile Darkness, releasing themselves books with content rated for adults they opened up a new market. D20 being the support label for D&D i find it strange that WotC reacts in this way, it is directly oposite on what they've done so...

Sorry fo r being not completely at the moment, but i'm not that healthy at this time (freaking flu)...


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You guys are worried that WOTC will use the new rules against people like Mongoose.  That's bunk.  They will only use the new rules against people like Valar.  Period.




Here's my concern: THe new rules are made with the existing people and situations in mind. Even if the current trademark license is made with the sincerest intentions and purposes in mind, leadership at WotC is VERY fluid (there's been a new manager of Tabletop every year now since 2001). Using a "very discretionary license," what's to stop them from pursuing an anti-competitive vendetta against any other d20 publisher, regardless of content?

Public opinion? It didn't stop them on this.

Stable leadership? As I noted above, stability is not a watchword for the management of Tabletop nor R&D.

In short, nothing.

I don't deny it's their license, and their right to change it, but I publically believe it's a VERY bad PR move on their part, and a serious step backward to the kind of policies that caused TSR to be deaf and cause their own demise through lack of customer acknowledgement. 

The thing about an RPG fanbase is that it's extremely fickle. Tick off your customers, and they'll go elsewhere, and survive on your previous products for years on end.

This license change not only causes them more administrative heartache for little return, but also destroys licensee goodwill, and undermines the still-nascent d20 license.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 8, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You guys are worried that WOTC will use the new rules against people like Mongoose.  That's bunk.  They will only use the new rules against people like Valar.



You may be right. Today. Can you guarentee this will be true tomorrow? Next week? Next year? How about when Hasbro has another corporate shuffle and a new Pointy Haired Boss oversees WotC and thinks they should be enforcing the d20 license more strictly because his son comes home with a d20 licensed product from Mongoose?


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 8, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Hmmm....this sounds like one of those news pieces that rankle everyone at first, and then fade to nothingness after a while.



I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that this will rankle everyone; and to a degree, I agree with you that there will come a day that this is not discussed any longer.

But I feel that it will not be discussed any longer because I feel that a group of d20 System Publishers will devise their own logo to identify games as being "the d20 system" and will stop using the d20 STL all together.

As the publisher of UMBRAGIA, I know that this is what I intend to do. I know, I know, this is not going to put a wrinkle in WotC's pants or anything... but I figure I am not alone. Many others will do the same.

WotC wants you to avoid having bare female nipples -- yet Monster Manual II has pierced nipples all over the freakin' cover.

WotC wants to ensure that your book is wholesome -- yet they publish the Book of Vile Darkness.

WotC wants to have the ability to pull any product off the shelf without cause, by simply citing a clause in a license that is written in such a way as to make any and every product that they do not like for any reason (up to and including "it takes too much market away from our competing product") without any real reprecussion -- who would publish under such conditions?

I want to eventually print and distribute UMBRAGIA... I will more than likely be using my own money to do it. I simply cannot afford to risk it under the license that WotC is providing me these days. And now that I know that they will resort to this sort of edits in a retroactive license -- I will not trust them. They may or may nor recind this stuff; they may or may not expand this stuff. I don't know. I do not have so much money laying about that I can afford to take risks like that.


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.




It's a little thing called free market capitalism, maybe you heard of it.  You make a product and if there is consumer demand you make money.  Obviously there is demand for things a bit off the beaten track than the standard fare you get from Hasbro/Wizards.

Now that the "won't someone think about the children" crowd are in epilectic fits, let explain how other games also violate the clause - real world religion (no more Testament or Rapture d20), nothing political (Afghanistan d20), depictions of historical facts like slavery and the like are also verboten.

There is also the problem that Hasbro has opened the door to any liability that may be associated with a product.  Did Billy claim he shot up his school because his character died?  Well, before this Hasbro could say "that's too bad, but he was using a third party product licencing our system.  We have no responsibility since we cannot control the content of 3rd party books."  The parents don't sue 3rd party books because it's a micropublisher, three undergrads working out of their dormrooms using a start-up business loan and their laptops - no deep pockets.  NOW, however, Hasbro is claiming control over these products - open door for frivolous lawsuits (on top of the quite legitimate ones from third party publishers who get dinged by this clause).  

Hasbro also has the onus to make clear what standards it is using when it exercises "sole discretion".  It also opens up all sorts of very nasty arguments over why killing imaginary people is okay, but enslaving imaginary people or having sex with imaginary people is bad.  While not by the strict definition hypocrites on this, their moral authority to censor is undermined by their "mature" line of books, including the ever-so-loving nipple clamps of exquisite pain (Book of Vile Darkness).


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 8, 2003)

techno said:
			
		

> I support WotC's decision. I believe it is their right to not have pornography (such as the BoEF) associated with their trademark. Do you really think that WotC will be able to say that BoEF isn't associated with D&D and have people actually believe that? No way. Hasbro's corporate image IS at stake here and they have a right to take action to defend it.




They can protect their trademark... but like Ryan Dancy stated -- they just opened a whole can of worms with this move. They had other options that would have been just as protective of the trademark without creating a quagmire of legal responcibility.

And provided real proof of the company's hypocracy.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 8, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Actually, they are in violation of the license in the role of licensee.  HOWEVER, as the licensor they have to file any related lawsuits - they can't be filed on their behalf.  And I don't imagine WotC suing themselves
> 
> IANAL.  Talk to Orcus if you want a lawyer.




IANAL either, but they don't need to use the d20 STL to use the d20 logo on their own products, so they wouldn't be violating it anyway.  (That is, they had rights to use the logo before they released the license, and they can use either the license or their preexisting right to use it.)


----------



## Michael Morris (Sep 8, 2003)

alaric said:
			
		

> If you feel really strongly about this then I urge you to talk in the language that companies listen in....money.  Don't send off an email saying you don't like this, and then go buy the latest WotC book.  If you want to make an impact on a company then don't buy their products, tell your friends not to buy their products, inform them why you aren't buying their products anymore.  While people may have gotten boycott crazy, it's still the surest way to get a company to change it's point of view on a topic.




A boycott won't work because 1) It takes to long to notice and 2) It requires the type of solidarity you won't get by just calling for it on a messageboard.

Email campaigns have worked on WotC on the past.  The Art director of MtG removed Rebecca Guay from future products until the dogs came to call - 10,000 emails later he relented and even published an apology.

Somebody at WotC made this decision.  We need to find out who and start filling up their mailbox.


----------



## Brisk-sg (Sep 8, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Actually, I was one of the first to call them hypocrits and I'll stick to that characterization. I know they aren't bound by their own trademark license. I just think if they wanted to reduce the amount of bare female nipples associated with the d20 logo, they should avoid including them in their own books. If they don't want the d20 logo to be associated with risque material, they should not put their d20 logo on books like BoVD.
> 
> They didn't have to include the logo on their mature product line book. But they did. If BoVD did not have the d20 logo on it, I would have no reason to complain since they would have obviously shielded the logo from similar material in their own products.




This is not in defense of the changes to the d20 license, but...

I just thought I would point out that BoVD doesn't use the D20 Logo.  It uses the Dungeons & Dragons Logo.  When is the last time you saw the D20 logo on a WoTC product?  I don't think I have ever seen it on a WoTC release.

Granted, I do not have the book in front of my right now to verify this.

Also, while it might be hypocrosy due to BoVD being released last year, I have not seen any hint at WoTC releasing comparibly products in the future.  BoVD was released while D&D was under Anthony Valterra, who is publishing the likely target of this change to the d20 license.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2003)

I believe the whole purpose behind the d20 license is to sell more Player's Handbooks.  

If companies begin to abandon the d20 license (and only publish OGL), then the free advertising for Player's Handbooks on products will decrease.

However, I don't think that will occur.  Many of the d20 publishers rely on that logo/trademark for sales, so if they go in a different direction, sales will likely fall.  Also, unless you want to reinvent the wheel, with using only the OGL you'd have to provide a source for character creation rules since you will not be allowed to show compatibility with the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook.

I do think WotC has the right to do what they're doing, but the results may be unfortunate for all concerned.

As a consumer, I'd prefer that WotC let 3rd party publishers do what they wish, but if WotC is concerned that the release of a product like BoEF will somehow hurt them (legally, morally, whatever), I guess they have the right to do what they feel is necessary since the company name "WotC" will appear on the cover of any book under D20.


----------



## heirodule (Sep 8, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Actually, I was one of the first to call them hypocrits and I'll stick to that characterization. I know they aren't bound by their own trademark license. I just think if they wanted to reduce the amount of bare female nipples associated with the d20 logo, they should avoid including them in their own books. If they don't want the d20 logo to be associated with risque material, they should not put their d20 logo on books like BoVD.




They can be forgiven for this apparent hypocricy, mainly because Valterra was the driving forced behind getting the "mature line" and the Book of Vile Darkness up and running anyway. Obviously WOTC and Valterra didn't see eye-to-eye on everything or he'd probably still be there. So he convinced them some nipples would sell well and not hurt their image. For all I know, Vile Darkness is their worst selling product (compared to cost to develop) and has given them the most headaches. So they've woken up from their binge and don't want Valterra thumbing his nose at them any more.

Valterra doing the "big-type" DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS requirement trick really is the icing on the cake. He worked at WOTC and should know that all the other publishers have had the decency to avoid making a requirement that's supposed to help WOTC into one that promotes himself.

What I'm suprised at is that WOTC never mooted these problems before the fact. "What if somebody takes this Player's Handbook statement and puts D&D in 40 point type?" "what if somebody makes a d20 Nazi porn book?"

Did Dancey think about these issues before? Did they come up in dicussions? Did he try to convince people it wouldn't ever happen? Or that it wouldn't matter if it did?

At least some WOTC people seem to dislike Valterra personally, based on my observation of disgusted eye-rolling on the part of some after Valterra chatted with them about something at origins and then took off.

Paul


----------



## Mercule (Sep 8, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> It's Letter writing time folks!!




Or not.  INAL, but it's my understanding that if you can use the entirety of the SRD, plus character generation and advancement rules, under the OGL.  Really, the only advantage of the d20 logo over the OGL is brand recognition.

All we need is for some reasonably well-known, well respected and stable person/group/company to publish a substitute SRD with a d20-type liscense that would become the new brand ID.  Three that come to mind are our very own ENWorld, Sword & Sorcery Studios (WWGS), and Malhavoc.  With no offense to either of the others, I think S&S is the best bet, mainly because they actually have printing presses and a brick-and-mortar business.  Instead of using the d20 liscense, we all start looking for the "SS20" (someone, please, come up with a better name) logo.  Besides that, the name "Swords & Sorcery" is almost as iconic (because of the genre, not their own longevity) as "Dungeons & Dragons".  I certainly wouldn't feel bad about pulling out my "S&S" Player's Handbook.

Now, it should be noted that, although I haven't read it and fully acknowledge that I may be completely mistaken in my impressions, I'm not really a big fan of the concept of the BoEF.  I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it and can't really blame WotC for trying to find a way to distance themselves from it.  My main beef with the relicense is that, as Mr. Dancey says, it opens up d20 publishers to far too great a risk of liability to and oversight from WotC.  I'd much rather have the BoEF or even the "d20 Book of Pornographic Fantasy" than have the d20 license hamstring the way it now is.


----------



## davewoodrum (Sep 8, 2003)

Khur said:
			
		

> So, I was reading all of this stuff, and I had to laugh at this:
> 
> "While sensuality and sexuality may appear in a Covered Product, it must not be the focus nor can it be _salacious_ in nature."
> 
> ...




Hmm... Greek, Norse, Roman, Celtic, Eygptian, etc. etc. mythologies ARE real world religions....

Have you prayed to Zeus today?


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

> WotC has no business playing morality police with the D20 license




Now this is a very amusing comment.  The D20STL _is_ their business, it is their license and they can make it read however they like.  I am with Psion on this one.  Valterra knew good and well what he was doing because he used to enforce the d20 license.  He decided to turn this into a (and forgive me Grandma is this is unacceptable) pissing contest.  I agree with WotC's right to protect their logo and license as they see fit.  I do disagree with the most recent additions to the license, especially considering the retroactive feel of it all.  I am a Scarred Lands addict and frankly there are a lot of bared female nipples scattered throughout various works and I'd hate to see S&SS be forced to yank a lot of stuff that passed muster before into the shredder.  On the other hand, I for one, would not mind one bit if I never saw another nipple in a Scarred Lands book again.  I am conservative in my morals but I don't think there is not a use for a BoEF either.  And, I agree that Valar has every right to publish said book, but WotC doesn't have to let them use their license.

I hope Anthony Vaterra is happy.  Way to stand up for your principles and cause more trouble than an indy publication is worth.


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 8, 2003)

Gamethyme said:
			
		

> It may be, but WotC is the license holder.  This means that they can publish anything they feel like publishing, and still slap an d20 logo on it.  If they wanted to, they could publish the "D&D Iconic Character Nude Coloring Book."
> 
> BoVD also hints more than it shows.




Technically WotC can publish anything they want anyway. They dont play by the OGL or d20 rules.

As for the BoVD, its not a d20 product so it doesnt fall under the d20 or OGL licenses at all. Its a WotC product...all IP, etc. Different rules.


----------



## TiQuinn (Sep 8, 2003)

KDLadage,

I just wonder how often WotC is actually going to use these new clauses in the d20 license to come down on people.  I do agree with you that folks may just start using their own logos to denote compatibility with d20.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand. If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.




Agreed.

Frankly, I am glad that they have taken action against this execrable product. The people at Valar need to discover a sense of shame.


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 8, 2003)

Derulbaskul said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> Frankly, I am glad that they have taken action against this execrable product. The people at Valar need to discover a sense of shame.




That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.  Myself, I beleive the right to censor content begins and ends with my judgement as a consumer - not the vested interests of another, competiting, corporation.  If *I* feel that the BoEF is not for me *I* make that decision and opt not to buy it, not for Wizards to block its publication.

- Ma'at


----------



## d4 (Sep 8, 2003)

Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> I just thought I would point out that BoVD doesn't use the D20 Logo.  It uses the Dungeons & Dragons Logo.  When is the last time you saw the D20 logo on a WoTC product?  I don't think I have ever seen it on a WoTC release.



actually, i believe you are wrong. i don't own the BoVD, so i can't vouch for that, but all three-dozen or so WOTC d20 books that i own, from the Player's Handbook to d20 Modern to the Fiend Folio to Dieties & Demigods to the Star Wars Arms & Equipment Guide _all_ have the d20 logo on the back cover.

i'd imagine the BoVD does as well.


----------



## thundershot (Sep 8, 2003)

*sigh*

While the sexual material isn't a huge draw for me (though I am buying BOEF just out of curiosity), I despise the concept that the artists are now being censored in their drawings. As a 28 year old married man, I LIKE having the occaisional nipple shot in my gaming books. I enjoy art like that... I don't like tasteless PORN, however... I guess I'm just against censorship. I hate the idea of someone drawing something decent (like most of the Mongoose books, and even WOTC's newer books) and then getting it edited or removed just because it has a nipple... 

Hopefully removing the d20 logo on covers won't alter the content of the books. I don't want anything to change for my d20 books, and want everything nice and compatable...


Chris


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2003)

Harlock said:
			
		

> I hope Anthony Vaterra is happy.  Way to stand up for your principles and cause more trouble than an indy publication is worth.




People are acting as if Anthony V is writing the BoEF all by himself. He's head of the new company - It's two other people writing the book.

Even so, if it wasn't Valar Project, it would be someone else. The license is going to be pushed in all directions, at some point. It is this caving to pressure that I dislike WotC's stance in. I forsee the d20 trademark becoming a hallmark for "G" rated fantasy, similar to what TSR was known for in the early 1990's, while publishers who show even the slightest bit of edginess or impropriety taking the OGL route.

I also get the feeling of thankfulness that Ryan Dancey and colleagues fought for the OGL being un-pullable, because I have the strong belief that current management would likely have added these prohibitions to it as well, if they could have.


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> ...all three-dozen or so WOTC d20 books that i own, from the Player's Handbook to d20 Modern to the Fiend Folio to Dieties & Demigods to the Star Wars Arms & Equipment Guide _all_ have the d20 logo on the back cover.
> 
> i'd imagine the BoVD does as well.




You are correct in this. Even though they have the logo, they don't have to abide by constraints of the license, because they are exempt as licensor. Strange, but true.


----------



## Red Spire Press (Sep 8, 2003)

Ugh. I can't imagine more diestressing Monday morning news. As a new publisher with a release in the pipe, this certainly affects us. A large portion of our content is on the dark and gritty side - demons aren't exactly the epitome of deceny. 

Now while there's nothing sexual in nature in Dark Legacies, there is, as an example, a prominent piece of artwork that contains nudity, all very tasteful with zero cheesecake factor mindyou. This is just one example of a piece that might be in violation of this new policy. Not to mention a system of critical hits and damage that could be considered "gorey text". 

You can keep going with this until you suddenly find that 50% of d20 products on the market are in violation. Then what happens?

Anyway, now is the point where tough decisions need to be made, mainly whether to bare your soul to WOTC and ask for exemptions at risk of calling even more attention to your product and any possible "violations of decency", or tone things down to a bareable level and cross your fingers (don't tell my lawyer I said that). 

Blah...


----------



## d4 (Sep 8, 2003)

i hesitate to call WOTC hypocrites over the BoVD simply because it seems that book was published under the aegis and instigation of Valterra himself while he was at WOTC.

_however,_ if WOTC wants to avoid even the appearance of hypocrisy, they should voluntarily pull the BoVD themselves for noncompliance with the license they are forcing other publishers to work under. yes, i realize their own products are not bound by the same restrictions they place on 3rd party publishers. but when has "Do as I say, not as I do." ever been a respectable position to take?

as it stands now, with BoVD a WOTC product and the appearance of this new clause in the d20 license, it appears WOTC is saying something very much like, "Torture and demon worship? Sure, that's great!! Sex? No, that's bad!!"

is that really the image they want to project?


----------



## Brisk-sg (Sep 8, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> actually, i believe you are wrong. i don't own the BoVD, so i can't vouch for that, but all three-dozen or so WOTC d20 books that i own, from the Player's Handbook to d20 Modern to the Fiend Folio to Dieties & Demigods to the Star Wars Arms & Equipment Guide _all_ have the d20 logo on the back cover.
> 
> i'd imagine the BoVD does as well.






			
				Henry said:
			
		

> You are correct in this. Even though they have the logo, they don't have to abide by constraints of the license, because they are exempt as licensor. Strange, but true.




I stand corrected.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 8, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You guys are worried that WOTC will use the new rules against people like Mongoose.  That's bunk.  They will only use the new rules against people like Valar.  Period.
> 
> Kudos, WOTC!
> 
> Huzzah!




Except that now many many mongoose books ARE in violation of the license as are many other d20 books. For instance, Bastion Press' Torn Asunder is designed to provide more graphic critical hits and has picture of maiming and grievous wounds so I think that is probably in violation as well. This means to be legally secure as a business they need to get special permission from WotC for books that are out there or else risk an expensive recall requirement.

Unless this changes I expect to see a lot of movement to OGL nond20 logo games with some other indication of compatibility. 

It is too bad, the d20 logo was originally a good device for indicating d20 rule compatibility with most going only OGL only for full complete RPG systems. Now it will mean d20 rule compatibility and only sanitized content with, I think, a lot more non branded items.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> People are acting as if Anthony V is writing the BoEF all by himself. He's head of the new company - It's two other people writing the book.
> 
> Even so, if it wasn't Valar Project, it would be someone else. The license is going to be pushed in all directions, at some point. It is this caving to pressure that I dislike WotC's stance in. I forsee the d20 trademark becoming a hallmark for "G" rated fantasy, similar to what TSR was known for in the early 1990's, while publishers who show even the slightest bit of edginess or impropriety taking the OGL route.
> 
> I also get the feeling of thankfulness that Ryan Dancey and colleagues fought for the OGL being un-pullable, because I have the strong belief that current management would likely have added these prohibitions to it as well, if they could have.




Agreed on all points.  I single out Valterra simply because he seems to be the head of the Company in question and knows good and well what the d20 logo entails and chose to push the envelope, as it were, from the get go.  First with the initial press release, then the enlarged DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS portion of the PHB clause.  I know it was bound to happen some time, but I can still be disheartened that the gloves are off, can't I?  I diagree with how Valar has handled this and the way WotC has reacted.  Everyone is within the letter of the law but isn't this biting the hand that feeds you by testing WotC?  Meh, still have the OGL I suppose and obviously other publishers have made it without being D&D branded, even before the OGl and D20STL, it just sucks that some products I like not related to the Valar/WotC debaucle are now afected by the wording of the new license.


----------



## spacecrime.com (Sep 8, 2003)

Vaxalon said:
			
		

> They can force you, your distributors, and your retailers to destroy all existing copies that violate the licence.




That's not quite accurate. They can force you (the publisher) to *tell* distributors and retailers to destroy existing copies that violate the license. The distributors and retailers are under no legal obligation to do any such thing.

As far as I can tell, the only reason that clause exists is to give WotC some leverage if a publisher decides to get cute and sell an offending book to a sister company (thereby getting it officially off the publisher's books). Even then, I don't think it does much more than give an attack lawyer something to be a nuisance with.


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

> It's a little thing called free market capitalism, maybe you heard of it.




And this releives WotC of their right and responsibility to protect the image associated with their tradmark how?



> Now that the "won't someone think about the children" crowd are in epilectic fits, let explain how other games also violate the clause - real world religion (no more Testament or Rapture d20), nothing political (Afghanistan d20), depictions of historical facts like slavery and the like are also verboten.




It appears to be you that is the only one in epileptic fits, since Testament (frex) does not violate the statement in any way, if you read it.


----------



## thundershot (Sep 8, 2003)

I have a question (if it was already answered, I must have skimmed past it by accident).

What IS the difference between using the d20 licence and just using the OGL? Is it just the d20 logo and no character creation rules? If that's the case, why can't companies just put out exactly what they've been putting out only without the logo? 95% of d20 companies want their books to be compatable with D&D or d20m, but do they really need the d20 logo to utilize that? I think not... but I'm not sure...


Chris


----------



## buzz (Sep 8, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> Myself, I beleive the right to censor content begins and ends with my judgement as a consumer - not the vested interests of another, competiting, corporation.



You do realize that this change doesn't allow WotC to censor anything; it simply lets them prohibit a publisher from using the d20 logo *if they choose to exercise their right to do so.* They've been able to do this in the past based on the other tenets of the d20 license; now there's simply the moral issue thrown in.


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> TWhen is the last time you saw the D20 logo on a WoTC product?  I don't think I have ever seen it on a WoTC release.




On the last one I purchased. All D&D and d20 modern products have the d20 logo on them, albeit not as prominently displayed as you will find as on products released under the d20 STL.

Which, I reemphasize, is still irrelevant, since WotC's products are in no way bound by the terms of the d20 STL since they weren't released under them. They own the trademark. They can use it any way they like.



> Also, while it might be hypocrosy due to BoVD being released last year, I have not seen any hint at WoTC releasing comparibly products in the future.  BoVD was released while D&D was under Anthony Valterra, who is publishing the likely target of this change to the d20 license.




Thank you for mentioning that, I was about to point that out.

Even if WotC were to publish another such product, I still don't think that the BoVD is even comparable in image to BoEM.

Further, if you read Monte's account of the book's development, they carefully scrutinized every aspect of it to ensure they didn't cross the line. I doubt that WotC desires to expend that much effort to scrutinize the products of others at their own expense, so it would not shock or surprise me if they abided with a simpler and more conservative standard.


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 8, 2003)

buzz said:
			
		

> You do realize that this change doesn't allow WotC to censor anything; it simply lets them prohibit a publisher from using the d20 logo *if they choose to exercise their right to do so.* They've been able to do this in the past based on the other tenets of the d20 license; now there's simply the moral issue thrown in.



Many of the comments seen (including the quoted "shame" comment I was responding to) seek to do more than remove a logo from books of a questionable nature.  My comment should be read in that context.


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

thundershot said:
			
		

> I have a question (if it was already answered, I must have skimmed past it by accident).
> 
> What IS the difference between using the d20 licence and just using the OGL? Is it just the d20 logo and no character creation rules?




Primarily, yes. There are also other trademark and trade dress issues and prohibited rules areas (like redefining key terms), but that's the core of it.



> If that's the case, why can't companies just put out exactly what they've been putting out only without the logo? 95% of d20 companies want their books to be compatable with D&D or d20m, but do they really need the d20 logo to utilize that? I think not... but I'm not sure...




They sure can. The issue is that the d20 logo is a point of marketing recognition that some publishers are loath to do without. But you can do it. Many publishers already have (see Mutants & Masterminds, Everquest, Arcana Unearhed.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.
> 
> If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.






			
				arcady said:
			
		

> Despite everything I've said against the BoEF in past, if that book comes out in some OGL or other format now...
> 
> I will buy it.




Then you reward those who are clearly responsible for this terrible change in the license.

I personally think the BoEF is a silly product, and wouldn't buy it, but neither have I protested its publication or suggested that it be stopped. 

But now... I am incredibly frustrated with Anthony Valterra. He is in a unique position to know the difference between following the letter of the license and the spirit, and by putting DUNGEONS & DRAGONS in huge type on his book of erotica, he clearly went way, way beyond the spirit of the license. 

He should know better. But rather than use his unique experience and knowledge to stay within the spirit of the license, he has consistently used it to exploit loopholes in the various licenses and cross the line of decency-- no, I'm not talking about the BoEf, I am talking about decency and professional courtesy to WOTC and his fellow 3rd party publishers.

He has caused a huge headache for all of the other 3rd party publishers who appreciate the license and abide by the spirit of its intent-- and he has done it solely to push his own personal agenda, whether that agenda is profit or (more likely) simply to thumb his nose at Wizards.

In the end, Valar will simply remove the d20 logo from their product, and they'll be fine-- there's enough buzz over the book (especially now) that they don't need it. Not, mind you, that I expect most folks buying the book to care whether it is or was d20 compatible-- it's not as if that logo was going to make or break a sale. Anthony NEVER needed the d20 logo.

I hold Valar and Anthony Valterra personally responsible for forcing this change. They've screwed the entire 3rd party publishing community.

I hope somehow, some good comes of this. A little piece of me hopes that AV-- because of his unique experience-- has ulterior, benevolent motives that are somehow beyond my scrutiny.


Wulf


----------



## thundershot (Sep 8, 2003)

Thanks

I wonder if it would be possible to have a universal "logo" for the publishers to use to promote their own compatability with each other. Unless that's against the licence as well... The three examples you state do indeed change some of the core d20 mechanics, while still being mostly compatable with modification.

Dammit, I just want my gaming books, and I hate thinking that my favorite publishers might be hassled over something as minute as a nipple...



Thanks again
Chris


----------



## buzz (Sep 8, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Hmmm....this sounds like one of those news pieces that rankle everyone at first, and then fade to nothingness after a while.



Amen.

I'm not nuts about the change, but it seems pretty obvious that it's a specific response to Valar. That is, WotC obviously wants the *option* to block products like the BoEF from associating itself too closely with trademarks that are their bread and butter. It's quite possible that this or the possibile publication of FATAL or RAHOWA d20 would be the only cases in which they would exercise their rights (which would not stop their publication, only their use of certain trademarks).

Thoughtful comments of our august moderator aside (re: what will future management do with this new language in the license?), I think claims that WotC is going to use these new rights to stop publication of products with obvious merit like Testament, Afghanistan d20, or any of the other chicken-little examples that have been given are totally ridiculous. As Dancey himself said, exercising these new rights is potentially very costly, so I can't see WotC wasting the money on anything but the most grevious examples. E.g., Harriet Tubman d20: no, Nazi Hardcore Necrophilia Illustrated d20: yes.

And nothing is written in stone. They changed the license. If it starts to adversely affect their business (a longshot), they'll change it again.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 8, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> KDLadage,
> 
> I just wonder how often WotC is actually going to use these new clauses in the d20 license to come down on people.  I do agree with you that folks may just start using their own logos to denote compatibility with d20.



As has been pointed out in this thread, even if I trusted the current incarnation of the management of the WotC division, and even if I trusted the management of Hasbro -- that would still be the management today. This is a pandora's box, once open -- it is going to remain open. Because even if the lid is closed on this thing, we all now know it can be re-opened at any time WotC does not like another publication.

Consider: the TOTAL WAR series from Mongoose deals in real-world locations and real world issues placed in a fantastic setting (fantastic here meaning sci-fi/fictional). The real world elements make it rather interesting to me... but what if someone is offended? What is WotC to do?

Consider: we have a few publishers of content for the d20 system that have, for lack of a batter term, T&A all over their covers. Mostly, this has been overlooked, without any real problems noted by anyone. If Anthony Valtera is stopped in the publication of his book -- will he begin pointing fingers claiming he is being singled out? Would he have a case (from a legal standpoint)? Who else will be drug under the water with him? Please note that I know virtually nothing of Mr. Valtera, and so I am not saying he would do this -- I am asking if this is a probable/possible scenario.

Consider: Once this fiasco is over, and someone wants to complain about a product in the market -- however benign -- and the see the Dungeons and Dragons name on it (as required), will they go to WotC? Since WotC at this point cannot simply deny any involvement, what will their position be? Will they be willing to endure a court case for a competitor? Or will they shut the product down, and avoid the legal costs? Please note that I know virtually nothing of the legal department of WotC, and so I am not saying they would do this -- I am asking if this is a probable/possible scenario.

Consider: There are a lot of very vague elements to this addition to the d20 STL. What else is gratuitous? What else does not meet the community standard? How is it a community standard, if WotC dictates, determines and interprets that standard alone? Who remains outside of the reach of the arm of WotC should they simply not like what you are doing?

Sure -- these are improbable, perhaps. But if it were your $10,000 investment in a book to be published, would you risk it?

I wouldn't. Not under these conditions.



			
				Derulbaskul said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Frankly, I am glad that they have taken action against this execrable product. The people at Valar need to discover a sense of shame.




I was never int he market for the BoEF. It was no better than FATAL for me. I did not want to buy it, and still do not. But that was my choice. That was my choice as a consumer.

If WotC had a problem with the size of the term DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS on the cover, I can see changing the font size requirements...

If WotC had a problem with the content, I could see placing a requirement to add a disclaimer indicating that WotC had nothing to do with any d20 3rd-party product out there.

This, however, is a rather Machiavellian response to one book that has a lot (and I mean a LOT) of implications for the rest of the d20 publishers out there.


----------



## buzz (Sep 8, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> Many of the comments seen (including the quoted "shame" comment I was responding to) seek to do more than remove a logo from books of a questionable nature.  My comment should be read in that context.



Understood. Just saying, it still basically comes down to your decision to buy the product or not. WotC can't do any of the censoring, other than prohibiting use of a trademark or two.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand.
> 
> If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.



Bingo!  Thank you, Alan!  I can't believe it took so long for someone to point out the obvious.

From my observation (as a publisher), WotC has only made "nasty changes" to the d20STL when someone starts trying to push the boundaries.  The first major change I can recall was the prohibition of using the words, "Core Rulebook" on the cover of a work - done because certain publishers were producing hardbacks that looked very much like the PHB, DMG, et al, and slapping "Core Rulebook" on the front - obviously hoping to get a few more sales from customers who saw the phrase and thought it was a WotC book.

They also changed the license from "you MAY use the 'requires the PHB' phrase" to the "you MUST use the 'requires the PHB' phrase."  I can see why they wanted to do that - it's a free advert and most people were doing it anyway.

Now, Valar comes along and in their very first press release plays fast and loose with the OGL's advertising clause, claiming that "press releases aren't advertising."  As Valar continues to beat the marketing drum, WotC realizes that this may not be a fringe product after all - though the firestorm of controversy tells them that this is not necessarily a product they want associated with their trademarks - and they react to someone pushing the boundaries of taste by drawing a clear line in the sand (female nipples, et al) and also pointing out that they may club someone if that someone even gets close to the line (sole discretion).

Why?  Because, as Psion said, Valar is peeing in the pool.

Now granted, I'm not a fan of WotC and their "selective enforcement" policy... but basically, every time the license has changed, it's been in response to someone taking the letter of the license and running as far as they think they can from the spirit of it.

Me, I'd much rather see them crack down on the "Clear Designation of OGC" clause in the OGL, or maybe even releasing another version of the OGL that clears a lot of the ambiguity in the current version (such as the whole PI brouhaha on the opengamingfoundation's ogf-l list)... but I know that probably won't happen.

But the capricious changes to the d20STL have made me, as a publisher, decide to sidestep the whole issue.  I will be revising my current electronic d20 offerings as soon as possible to be OGL only and will not be releasing under the d20STL again... because it makes my life simpler.  I can release my products and stop worrying about what boneheaded stunt some _other_ publisher may decide to pull that will cause yet ANOTHER change in the d20STL.

However, I'll take this a step further.  A lot of people have been talking about boycotting WotC and deliberately buying the BoEF.  While I was not planning on even looking at the BoEF, I would suggest that had I been thinking of buying the BoEF, I would NOT do so now... because my thoughts on the matter are, "thanks, Valar, for being stubborn fools and peeing in the pool and making my life more difficult" (the "thanks" is with heavy sarcasm, in case you can't tell).  This isn't an issue of WotC trying to quash someone's freedom of speech so much as it is someone being obnoxious.

The best analogy I can draw is that of someone "trying to exercise their freedom of expression" by playing a trumpet as loudly as they can in my ear wherever I go, then getting offended when I tell them to stop, claiming I'm impinging on their "right to freedom of artistic expression."  You're not being musical, you're being a donkey's rear end and trying to annoy the heck out of me - you know it, and I know it, and hiding behind "freedom of expression" because you're using a musical instrument - or any other creative medium (such as, say, text and photographs) is a weak play at best.

So even if Valar puts out the greatest thing since sliced bread, they're not getting any of my business either.

It's one of my gripes to fellow publishers... while I know you want to 'push the envelope' (and that is to be commended), there's a big difference between wanting to push the envelope and trying to push things as far as humanly possible.  Remember, if you're hellbent on pushing the envelope as far as you can at a single point and you push too hard in a single direction, you're liable to break through it and that makes problems for everyone.

--The Sigil


----------



## haiiro (Sep 8, 2003)

ES2 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, let them shoot themselves in the butts like TSR did because of crap like this.




I'm not sure how this would help anyone. WotC revitalized the entire RPG industry, and even after several years and numerous organizational changes (like the layoffs) they continue to produce quality products.

Why would having WotC go the way of TSR improve anything?


----------



## Jehosephat (Sep 8, 2003)

Maybe they will release a sanitized version of the BoVD.  They could call it the Book of Not So Nice Darkness.  Seriously though, they have from the get go said that the Book of Erotic Fantasy is inappropriate.  Frankly, IMO, I think they are right on this one.  I have no interest in seeing the game turn into Dungeons & Dominatrices. IMO before this happened a certain sector of the D&D corpus was heading in the direction of soft core porn.  And I feel like it is certainly within their legal right to dictate what images are associated with the game.  If the BoEF got published in its planned form, what would be next? The envelope would just get pushed more and more.  What is unfortunate, is that Wizards themselves started this whole mess with publication of the BOVD.  I think it will create a backlash of some sort from publishers as they already appear to be looking at other options.  Likewise, fans of the game also apprear to be miffed about this whole thing and I see a schism on the horizon.  It's enough to make me want to shelf my RPG's in favor of Axis & Allies, between this and the White Wolf saga.  Because while I said I don't want the game to come to be known as Dungeons & Dominatrices, I also don't want it to come to be known as Litigations and Lawyers.  I dunno, this morning I am pretty ticked of at the industry all the way around.  Just my two coppers.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 8, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Me, I'd much rather see them crack down on the "Clear Designation of OGC" clause in the OGL...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...




I love "the Sidge."


----------



## Robbert Raets (Sep 8, 2003)

Perhaps we can amend this deficiency ourselves; set up a review board that can give an 'official' _*ENWorld Stamp of Compatibility*_ for d20-products.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 8, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But now... I am incredibly frustrated with Anthony Valterra. He is in a unique position to know the difference between following the letter of the license and the spirit, and by putting DUNGEONS & DRAGONS in huge type on his book of erotica, he clearly went way, way beyond the spirit of the license.
> 
> He should know better. But rather than use his unique experience and knowledge to stay within the spirit of the license, he has consistently used it to exploit loopholes in the various licenses and cross the line of decency-- no, I'm not talking about the BoEf, I am talking about decency and professional courtesy to WOTC and his fellow 3rd party publishers.
> 
> ...



Amen, brother.

--The Sigil


----------



## thundershot (Sep 8, 2003)

Robbert Raets said:
			
		

> Perhaps we can amend this deficiency ourselves; set up a review board that can give an 'official' _*ENWorld Stamp of Compatibility*_ for d20-products.





HA! That's exactly what I was thinking (after making my post and then pondering while in the shower). I was even going to get out photoshop after work and make an example logo...


Whee! Off to work. Hopefully something comes of this...


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 8, 2003)

Jehosephat said:
			
		

> Maybe they will release a sanitized version of the BoVD.  They could call it the Book of Not So Nice Darkness.  Seriously though, they have from the get go said that the Book of Erotic Fantasy is inappropriate.  Frankly, IMO, I think they are right on this one.  I have no interest in seeing the game turn into Dungeons & Dominatrices.




Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.

How many d20 compatible releases are coming out this month?  Take a minute to look at the context here.  One book about bringing issues of sexuality into the game - a completely OPTIONAL book, remember.  I seriously doubt all material from now on will be sexually explicit in nature.  Please show some rationality.

* IMO before this happened a certain sector of the D&D corpus was heading in the direction of soft core porn.  And I feel like it is certainly within their legal right to dictate what images are associated with the game.*

Such books are still allowed to be published and in fact will likely to continue to be published.  The cover information may change but the offending image will still be there, they will still be sold in the same section as other d20 materials, etc.  If you are seriously in a pro-censorship mood Hasbro's changes don't help you at all.

* The envelope would just get pushed more and more.  What is unfortunate, is that Wizards themselves started this whole mess with publication of the BOVD.*

Miore correctly this began with making the d20 system open content.  Books of this nature are naturally forseeable exploitations.  Before TSR fell there was a net book on this very topic.  The world did not end.

*Likewise, fans of the game also apprear to be miffed about this whole thing and I see a schism on the horizon.*

This is a problem.  But only when mixed in with other schisms over things like the 3.5 revision.  Wizards used the network model of marketing to their advantage, but they are also the primary offenders when it comes to fragmenting that network.  Again, the responsibility lies with Wizards.  This could be fixed this afternoon by releasing a new version of the licence, removing the content control claims and amending the section on proper logo and compatibility information.  BoEF will simply remove the logo and the book will see increased exposure due to all the scandal talk.  Wizards took a non-issue, something that would have been quickly lost in the sea of d20 releases and singled it out.


----------



## Beazel (Sep 8, 2003)

*Stupid*

WotC, be businessmen, not religious fanatics. Retract this change to the d20 System Trademark License.

--Bob


----------



## Robbert Raets (Sep 8, 2003)

thundershot said:
			
		

> HA! That's exactly what I was thinking (after making my post and then pondering while in the shower). I was even going to get out photoshop after work and make an example logo...
> 
> 
> Whee! Off to work. Hopefully something comes of this...




I'm game. Certainly if you consider the opportunity to be a proof-reader on this one....


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 8, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.
> 
> How many d20 compatible releases are coming out this month?  Take a minute to look at the context here.  One book about bringing issues of sexuality into the game - a completely OPTIONAL book, remember.  I seriously doubt all material from now on will be sexually explicit in nature.  Please show some rationality.



Herein lies precisely the problem.  Valar, by virtue of trying to exploit every possible loophole in both the d20STL and Open Gaming License - _from the very first press release the company made_, mind you - to play by the letter of the law while intentionally and grossly violating the spirt of the law as much as possible, has created the problem.  And now every other third-party publisher has to suffer for it.  Assume there are 30 d20 releases this month.  Because that _one book_ has been used to poleaxe the licenses, _all thirty books_ will suffer repercussions.

I'm not pro-censorship outside of the realm of me as a parent censoring what my underage children see, hear, and read (and of course, personal "censorship" in deciding what *I* see, hear, read, and write).  But this has not been about censorship.  This appears from the outside to be a peeing contest, started by Valar in general and AV in particular.  Now, I hope those appearances are deceiving.  But even if I agree on some of the points Valar has raised, I can't back them because of the offensive way in which they've raised them (not in terms of the BoEF, but in the way they've carefully and deliberately orchestrated an attack on the spirit of the licenses).  The problem for me is not the BoEF itself - the problem for me personally is that Valar has urinated in the pool that all the other d20 publishers are swimming in and has caused a lot of collateral damage for them by doing so.  

This isn't about me trying to censor Valar.  The BoEF itself will of course have no direct impact on my works - it has no direct impact on me, so I am completely uninterested.  BUT Valar's *actions* in using the BoEF as a tool in their attack of the licenses *have* directly impacted me as a third party publisher, and believe me, I'm NOT happy about that.

--The Sigil


----------



## shadow (Sep 8, 2003)

I see this new clause as aimed against Valar's BoEF.  Sure other companies might publish artwork with some nudity, but given the time and money, it's unlikely that WotC will take action against them.  

I think AV really played fast and loose with the rules with the whole BoEF.  Given the fact that "Dungeons & Dragons" is displayed prominently in the title, and that AV is a former WotC employee, Wizards is probably afraid that this will drum up too much controversy.

Besides AV probably didn't help himself in the press release where he stated that he was involved in a S&M society and had founded an occultic "church".

I'm not really in favor of the latest restrictions in the clause, but I really doubt WotC will take any action against most d20 companies, unless some other company tries to publish RAHOWA d20.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 8, 2003)

"One rule for you, another for the peasants" is how this is looking to be.  I am pretty sure that WoTC will continue to put out material like the BoVD when they feel the need to shock the market for money, yet they're trying to keep us from publishing similar works.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want to publish 'poon d20' but I don't like the idea that someone at WoTC or Hasbro can just decide arbitrarily that they don't like my book and pull the plug on it saying 'this doesn't meet MY standards'.  If you notice, the system guide is very vague, basically giving WoTC complete control over content and artwork of EVERY company still willing to use the D20 license.  As a writer myself, I don't like this because not everyone is of the same opinion.  I don't like Steven King's books, but does that mean he shouldn't be able to continue writing them if he wants to?  

Sorry if I feel like I have a choke leash around my neck, slowly being tightened by an unseen and unknown master.  As a writer, I feel I have the right to spin what stories come to me without the fear of having someone I don't even know saying "This isn't right" and pissing on my work and creativity.  I am sure those of you who do not write could care less, but think of this:  WoTC is deciding what you can and cannot buy, just like they're telling us what we can and cannot write/draw.  I am pretty sure you guys don't need a chaperone telling you how to spend your money, just like I don't need a morality editor looking over my shoulder as I type.

As for Valar, let us not be a mob and create a scapegoat.  WoTC had nothing to do with the printing of the BoEF so they had no responsibility when it came to its content.  Someone at WotC got annoyed that Valar used their trademark to create a book about sex and wanted these rules enforced.  If there had been a lawsuit against WoTC over the content of BoEF, don't you think we would have heard about it on EN World?  There wasn't and most likely won't be, so while Valar maybe the catalyst for this change, its not entirely their fault.  They were dealing with their own creativity and artistic outlook for their book and WotC just didn't like it.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> "One rule for you, another for the peasants" is how this is looking to be.  I am pretty sure that WoTC will continue to put out material like the BoVD when they feel the need to shock the market for money, yet they're trying to keep us from publishing similar works.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want to publish 'poon d20' but I don't like the idea that someone at WoTC or Hasbro can just decide arbitrarily that they don't like my book and pull the plug on it saying 'this doesn't meet MY standards'.  If you notice, the system guide is very vague, basically giving WoTC complete control over content and artwork of EVERY company still willing to use the D20 license.  As a writer myself, I don't like this because not everyone is of the same opinion.  I don't like Steven King's books, but does that mean he shouldn't be able to continue writing them if he wants to?  Sorry if I feel like I have a choke leash around my neck, slowly being tightened by an unseen and unknown master.  As a writer, I feel I have the right to spin what stories come to me without the fear of having someone I don't even know saying "This isn't right" and pissing on my work and creativity.  I am sure those of you who do not write could care less, but think of this:  WoTC is deciding what you can and cannot buy, just like they're telling us what we can and cannot write/draw.  I am pretty sure you guys don't need a chaperone telling you how to spend your money, just like I don't need a morality editor looking over my shoulder as I type.




Shawn, that's a tad overboard, don'tcha think?  Three letters solve this problem for you.  O, G and L.  WotC isn't deciding anything for me.  All this changes is the d20STL.  The Steven King anology isn't even fair.  If King's _publisher_ decided it wanted to completely change to children's books, then _that_ is closer but still leaves King the option of changing to a new Publishing House.  It doesn't prevent him from writing, nor does a change in the d20STL change your ability to write, produce and publish D&D compatible material under the OGL.  Still, it sucks that the wording is so vague but after all, "If you notice, the system guide is very vague, basically giving WoTC complete control over content and artwork of EVERY company still willing to use the D20 license," is accurate to an extent.  D&D still belongs to WotC.  The d20STL is still their license.  Thank God for the OGL.  Meh, Scarred Lands d20 or Scarred Lands OGL, either way it's still the main setting I'll play.  Say, didn't that Monte fellow publish Arcana Unearthed as OGL with the follow-up releases all slated as d20?  May be a new business model...


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 8, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Herein lies precisely the problem.  Valar, by virtue of trying to exploit every possible loophole in both the d20STL and Open Gaming License - _from the very first press release the company made_, mind you - to play by the letter of the law while intentionally and grossly violating the spirt of the law as much as possible, has created the problem.




No.  The problem pre-existed the press release from Valar - they merely exploited it.  Responsibility for that problem's existance is Hasbro's, not Valar's.

*And now every other third-party publisher has to suffer for it.*

Only to the extent Hasbro wishes to punish them.  Remember - claiming content control was, and is, only one option among many to handle this problem.  Valar is not to blame if Hasbro chooses to use the wrong tool for the job.

*  Assume there are 30 d20 releases this month.  Because that one book has been used to poleaxe the licenses, all thirty books will suffer repercussions.*

Again, only if Hasbro continues down this road instead of backing up and making the proper changes to protect it's trademark.  A simple addition of a "we do not condone the content of this product" mandatory statement or changes to the logo and compatibility placement would help in this regard.

*I'm not pro-censorship outside of the realm of me as a parent censoring what my underage children see, hear, and read (and of course, personal "censorship" in deciding what I see, hear, read, and write).  But this has not been about censorship.*

It is.  If the book were about car racing or yet another book about prestige classes Hasbro would have had ZERO problem with a larger than normal statment of compatibility and logo.  It is the sexual theme of the book that has everyone in a tizzy.

*The problem for me is not the BoEF itself - the problem for me personally is that Valar has urinated in the pool that all the other d20 publishers are swimming in and has caused a lot of collateral damage for them by doing so.  *

I see a lot of people have urination fetishes (or traumatic childhood memories), judging from the frequency of this image.  

Valar has done nothing that hasn't already been done by others - sexual content book, I have a very similar "Encyclopaedia Arcane" done by a major 3rd party company on the exact same topic.  Nudie art and compatibility information?  Again, another company has been using Playboy softcore art on their products for years, no comment.  The urine, to return to the image of our youth, is already in the pool - the outrage is focusing on the only person ot pointout their own urine. A certain amount of the outrage, I believe, is mock anger hiding their own underwater emissions that went unreported and unnoticed by the lifeguard.

- Ma'at


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> "One rule for you, another for the peasants" is how this is looking to be.  I am pretty sure that WoTC will continue to put out material like the BoVD when they feel the need to shock the market for money




I'm not.

Consider who was in charge of the D&D brand when BoVD was published. I would be really surprised if WotC put out anything like BoVD in the near future.

That said, I really am not so sure BoVD goes against the new standards as stated.


----------



## BVB (Sep 8, 2003)

I figure the retroactive clause is just a sneaky way to manipulate the market and injure WotC's competitors, who were falsely led to believe they had a "safe harbor" for their product content. The ability to constantly shift the playing field like this is a powerful weapon. 

Next month, a new update to the guidelines: "If you've got an ugly elf in your d20 book, we can require that you pull it off the shelves. ... at great expense to your company. Bwah-hah-hah-hah!"


----------



## Robbert Raets (Sep 8, 2003)

The one thing I've never understood is the 'retroactiveness' of the (and really, any,) license.

If a government lowers the amount of alcohol you may have in your blood while operating a vehicle or heavy equipment today, you can't be sued for being above this limit on your way home last night, now can they?


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm not.
> 
> Consider who was in charge of the D&D brand when BoVD was published. I would be really surprised if WotC put out anything like BoVD in the near future.
> 
> That said, I really am not so sure BoVD goes against the new standards as stated.




You don't think a dwarf being ripped in half by a Kyton, with its intestine hanging out, isn't 'gratuitous violence'?  How about Belial in his thong underwear digging his claws into the rear-end of a succubus as she rubs herself against him?  That sounds an awful lot like gratuitous violence and maybe sexual situations in art, which the new licenses bans.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> That said, I really am not so sure BoVD goes against the new standards as stated.




BOVD has no "bare female nipples?????"  Or "art ... depicting excessively graphic violence?" Granted, the last one is so ambigious that one can imagine how many different interpretations will take place.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

BVB said:
			
		

> I figure the retroactive clause is just a sneaky way to manipulate the market and injure WotC's competitors, who were falsely led to believe they had a "safe harbor" for their product content. The ability to constantly shift the playing field like this is a powerful weapon.
> 
> Next month, a new update to the guidelines: "If you've got an ugly elf in your d20 book, we can require that you pull it off the shelves. ... at great expense to your company. Bwah-hah-hah-hah!"




Come now, WotC haven't proven to be total ogres at this point.  Look at the monsters that were part of the "gentleperson's agreement" that didn't make it into the SRD.  WotC didn't laugh maniacally as they forced Paradigm Concepts and Goodman Games to stop work on their mindflayer and beholder books respectively.  They in fact, after polite negotiations of a sort, let them go ahead and publish it, as far as my understanding of the matter goes.  Again, this "shift" in the playing field does not affect the OGL.  Sure it's a bummer to a lot of people, publishers, consumers and even WotC, I am sure, but it's not the end.  Given how WotC has been willing to give a little here and there when people were polite (as in the example of Paradigm cited above) I don't forsee there being any immediate problems with this version of the d20STL other than a targetting of BoEF and Valar.  

The problem comes in how they want to enforce this in the future as it is rather open-ended as it stands now.  If someone new for WotC/Hasbro came in and wanted to be mean and start elimnating competition by drumming up violations, then it's gone way too far.  The d20STL was too abuseable by publishers (obviously since they abused certain aspects of it) but now it opens itself to too much potential abuse by WotC.  Surely there is some happy medium which can be reached.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 8, 2003)

You don't think a dwarf being ripped in half by a Kyton, with its intestine hanging out, isn't 'gratuitous violence'?  How about Belial in his thong underwear digging his claws into the rear-end of a succubus as she rubs herself against him?  That sounds an awful lot like gratuitous violence and maybe sexual situations in art, which the new licenses bans.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 8, 2003)

{Edit} Nevermind.

--The Sigil


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 8, 2003)

shadow said:
			
		

> I see this new clause as aimed against Valar's BoEF.



OK. Wizards has a new gun and it is aimed at Valar's BoEF. Who will it be aimed at next?



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> Sure other companies might publish artwork with some nudity, but given the time and money, it's unlikely that WotC will take action against them.



Unlikely? Care to invest some $10,000 in geting your new hard-cover book to market, knowing that it is _unlikely_ that Wizards of the Coast will tell you to yank them all, at your expense, and eat the original costs of publication?

How many small press companies do you think could afford that?



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> I think AV really played fast and loose with the rules with the whole BoEF.  Given the fact that "Dungeons & Dragons" is displayed prominently in the title, and that AV is a former WotC employee, Wizards is probably afraid that this will drum up too much controversy.



They had a hundred tools they could have used; and a million directions they could have taken those tools to correct this situation. This was a poor choice of tool and direction.



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> Besides AV probably didn't help himself in the press release where he stated that he was involved in a S&M society and had founded an occultic "church".



This is America. He can be into all the S&M he wants; he can form any church he wants (after all, if L. Ron Hubbard can, why can't he?). This has NOTHING to do with it at all.

He put the Dungeons and Dragons logo too large -- fine, the 10-12 pt font limitation should cover that one. He made a lot of noise with the Press Release -- fine, put in a clause that states that Press Releases are to be considered advertizing for all purposes of the d20 STL. He made a book about a topic that WotC has covered, and wants to cover it in a way WotC does not like -- morality clauses are NOT the way to go here.



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> I'm not really in favor of the latest restrictions in the clause,



I am very happy to hear that.



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> but I really doubt WotC will take any action against most d20 companies,



Hmmm.... you *REALLY DOUBT* that they will take actions against *MOST COMPANIES*. That is not making me feel any more comfortable.

Mongoose? Some nipples showing (nothing as bad as the MM2 cover); some real-world situations. Might skirt the boundries a bit.

Testament? Real world religions shown in a way that makes them more right than others. Might skirt the boundaries a bit.

Slavery? I have three races in UMBRAGIA that have been enslaved for centuries. They are, therefor, shown to be inferior in many instances. Will I have UMBRAGIA shut down? I don't know. _But those are fantasy races!_ you say. OK... suppose I want to make a d20 Modern game about Agrarian America (that period from Colonization to the Civil War). I would have to include the enslavement of Africans and the treatment of Native Americans is I were to do this product justice. Would this not show a particular race as being portrayed as inferior? how about a World War II game that does not show how the Germans considered the Jews as inferior? However wrong these people were in history, they believed these things, and if you are going to roleplay in that era, these things are going to crop up. Is this wrong? Should we ban it? Then we may as well ban THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN for having a few words in it we don't like (however authentic to the period they happen to have been). Wait -- they have tried that on several occations.

How about the Dragon Magazine hobbit issue with the gratuitous violence and gore? This was while WotC ran the show! Will Piazo be forced to get Wizards' approval for all future DUNGEON and DRAGON magazine publications? How about other RPG mags, like SIGNS AND PORTENTS from Mongoose? They might want to if they want to avoid hving the hammer come down o their own house organ -- lest an out-of-work former d20 publisher beings up a lawsuit showing that the rules are ambiguous and unevenly applied.



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> unless some other company tries to publish RAHOWA d20.



Or anything else that the suits at WotC and Hasbro do not like the sound or look of.


----------



## Jehosephat (Sep 8, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.
> 
> How many d20 compatible releases are coming out this month?  Take a minute to look at the context here.  One book about bringing issues of sexuality into the game - a completely OPTIONAL book, remember.  I seriously doubt all material from now on will be sexually explicit in nature.  Please show some rationality.
> 
> ...




I don't see 3.5 as a problem, I got my books and have not looked back since.  Just like the BoVD and BoEF, no one is being forced to by them.  I personally think that everyone should get them, because they are that good.  And I have certainly spent more RPG money on stuff that I was less happy about.  But people do what you want to do.  I am happy with my set.   As you say, WotC could fix this by this afternoon, but I don't think they will.  They wouldn't have released that statement in the first place.  And they had to know of the backlash it would cause.  The whole thing may very well be a non-issue, but I still say whether it hurts them or not they have that right.  Of course it will get released w/o the logo, and I am sure that it will get increased exposure.  I mean it could end up becoming a whole RPG before all is said and done.  It's funny though, people argued the same thing when the PMRC was doing its thing.  And rock stars all over the country said put the warning lables on, we will just sell more.  Yet they still fought it, seems kind of fishy to me.  I thought the whole idea was to put your creation in the hands of as many as possible.  Apparently, there is still a fear that labels will hurt sales.  As I say, I appreciate the help knowing what I am getting before I buy it.  And if someone wants to deny me knowing that kind of stuff before I spend money on the basis that I might not buy it. Money that I have WORKED for, no one GAVE it to me, then I don't trust that person to do business with anyway.


----------



## Kichwas (Sep 8, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Then you reward those who are clearly responsible for this terrible change in the license.



No.

I take a stand for the principle of Free Expression. Just as I did when I swore my oath of enlistment in the military. When I swore to defend the constution. I meant that oath, not just in the legal sense, but in defending the spirit of that document.

They may not be doing actual censorship here by the legal definition, but they are doing it in spirit, and trying to put it into practice. To me, that's about the greatest moral wrong you can do.

I will buy the book to take a stand -FOR- the right of people to express their ideas freely, and the just belief that no one should stand in the way of that for any reason.

That to me, is what being American is supposed to be about. Defending even the scoundrels, because that is where liberty starts and ends.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 8, 2003)

I just sent the following letter to WotC:







> Dear Sirs and Madams,
> 
> I would like to express my severe dissatisfaction in your recent changes to the d20 System Trademark Guide 5.0, specifically the quality standards. While I can only guess at your reasons for this addition – the upcoming “Book of Erotic Fantasy” as well as the current political and societal climate seem to factor in heavily – I am nevertheless dismayed at this development.
> Being neither a lawyer nor an American citizen, I can not comment whether or not this addition will harm your company in a legal sense, or make it more vulnerable to such harm, I can and will, however, comment on my own feelings regarding the narrowing range of acceptable products assiciated with d20, D&D, and Wizards of the Coast (and, by extension, Hasbro).
> ...




Now, I perhaps AV or the BoEF was responsible for this; but I don't think singling him out now is right. Scantily-clad figures and excessive violence have long been a staple for Fantasy depictions and games. As has been said, even Third Edition already has its share of sexual or extremely violent content (and, in the case of the _nipple clamps of exquisite pain_ even both ).

So Valar has conducted itself like an ass. So you don't like the product. Then don't give them money by buying it. That's all it takes. Just like you buy D&D product and not (for example) GURPS, because you don't like it.

Yes, AV has stretched the mark. Perhaps he intended to coerce WoTC into something like this. Perhaps he is already mentallly counting dollar bills. Or, he could just be someone who liked the game system, thought that most product's approach was not aimed at the right demography, and chose to try himself at publishing a d20 book about sex. At the same time as another company decides to publish a d20 book about maiming - perhaps "Torn Asunder" is the reason for these changes?
Perhaps WotC has barely tolerated Mongoose and grown more and more restless, until now?
In don't know.

All I can say is that wizard's reaction shows a perspective on free enterprise that seems to shared by many of today's "global players", namely an utter disregard for its competitors as well as for its consumers, the latter being reduced to automatons trained to buy whatever product sports their trademark. The new license, if applied (now or in the future) can harm more than just AV, might even force small publishers out of business - and not because of inferior product.

As an author myself, I want to write about what I want to write about. If the public doesn't like what I write, fine. But if someone wants to dictate me what to write, I get pricky.


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 8, 2003)

*Weakening the logo*

All I can see this change accomplishing is weakening the already dubious d20 logo. For me, the logo is completely meaningless. I get all my product info from friends or the internet. Neither talks about the logo. I know of the names of companies that product d20 product so I know which products are d20 already. Plus, the d20 logo isn't even that good of a measure of D&D compatability; just look at Spycraft. So, I can't really rely on the logo for any information of substance. Finally, with AU doing so well sans the logo, it appears that others agree with me.  

The big d20 3rd party guys ditching the logo will do more to change WotC's mind than any possible boycott. 


Aaron


----------



## Babba G'nush (Sep 8, 2003)

Whose community decency standards?

Are we talking about the standards in LA or Utah? Or is it the US community; is this not an international company and an international game??? So should we not conform to how some Middle East communities depict women, absolutely no skin showing at all, or should we portray them like some European communities where wandering around topless is OK? Ok maybe it?s the DnD or gaming community we should be conforming too, then we can decide what we want to buy.

Also I read a lot of people saying they won?t go after publishers like Mongoose for their material or after new publications unless it pushes the boundaries what is written and what is ?meant?. I am no lawyer but if they don?t go after all of these publications does that not leave the door open for the ones they do go after to sue them on the grounds that they are being singled out? So is it not in WotC?s best interest to enforce the new license agreement?


----------



## TheAndy tm (Sep 8, 2003)

*Why Quality Standards*

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. 

I'll be addressing questions in this thread on our boards.  I encourage you to stop by.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2003)

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense. 

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.


----------



## Geoffrey (Sep 8, 2003)

I agree with everything KDLadage has said in his excellent posts in this thread.

I suggest publishers stop using the d20 license and go with the OGL instead.

KDLadage, your Umbragia deserves to be its own, self-contained, stand-alone product. Umbragia is even better than Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed.

Let WOTC and d20 go to the devil.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2003)

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense. 

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2003)

I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense. 

Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.


----------



## Tortoise (Sep 8, 2003)

I'm of the mind that WOTC is drastically over-reacting to a situation caused in part by someone else deliberately trying to goad them into over-reacting.

I won't buy BoEF simply because I never planned to do so. I have no interest and likewise no need for the material.

WOTC have managed to sour me on their products as well because I deplore them making rules that are so vague that they can use them to block competetion for nearly any reason. I see that as opening the situation up to anti-competetive and highly unethical practices.


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

> They may not be doing actual censorship here by the legal definition, but they are doing it in spirit, and trying to put it into practice. To me, that's about the greatest moral wrong you can do.




That seems to me a distortion in order to be offended. I know somebody said this once, but it obviously bears repeating. WotC can't prevent anyone from publishing anything. But they can -- and have every legal and ethical right to -- prevent people from using THEIR good name/trademarks/ip from promoting somthing that is harmful to their image.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 8, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I hold Valar and Anthony Valterra personally responsible for forcing this change. They've screwed the entire 3rd party publishing community.
> 
> I hope somehow, some good comes of this. A little piece of me hopes that AV-- because of his unique experience-- has ulterior, benevolent motives that are somehow beyond my scrutiny.




You're aiming the blame at the wrong set of lawyers.  It was only a matter of time before something like this happened.  Hasbro can't allow something open and loosely affiliated with them to exist, because corporations are by necessity control freaks.  What they can't control scares them.  I'm honestly amazed that the OGL was ever allowed to exist.  Maybe they didn't believe it would ever matter, and now that it's a bigger chunk of the gaming market, they're taking notice and trying to take control.

It's not as though this was unheralded.  They released the "gentleman's agreement" SRD, then went through and removed chunks of it for the final release and made publishers negotiate side agreements with them.

AV is doing the entire publishing community a favor.  This is a reminder that d20 publishers are basing their entire business on the good will and sense of fair play of a legal entity which embraces no such concepts.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 8, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> AV is doing the entire publishing community a favor.  This is a reminder that d20 publishers are basing their entire business on the good will and sense of fair play of a legal entity which embraces no such concepts.




Wizards has consistently shown good will and a sense of fair play, and any perception to the contrary is due solely to anti-corporate, anti-Hasbro paranoid delusions.

Wulf


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 8, 2003)

This is cut-and-paste from something Andy's just said over on the WotC boards:



> I'd like to start off by pointing out that the majority of the d20 licensed products on the market easily fall within these guidelines. We're talking about the far end of the spectrum here.
> 
> The d20 System(tm) Guide lists three categories, violence/gore, sexual themes, and prejudice. These apply to both the artwork and text or the product.
> 
> ...




Okay, agree or disagree, it does at least look as though they have a specific set of guidelines (or at least rules of thumb) they're going by. I really don't think, as I said earlier, that we're going to be seeing WotC pulling products for "sinister" reasons.

I'm still not especially happy with this change, but I honestly don't think it's the disaster some people are heralding it as.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 8, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> Everyone repeat after me - it's one book.




You know what?  The one book doesn't really matter.  It's the principle: every time Hasbro/Wizards sees something they don't like, instead of saying "fair is fair, this guy is playing by the rules as we set them", they change the rules.

And it's not one book.  They've done it twice so far.  The first time was the removal of monsters from the "gentleman's agreement" SRD.  Remember the gentleman's agreement?  Feel free to use all these things, we just haven't gotten around to completely aproving them yet, but they'll all be in there, trust us. Oh yeah, if we change our minds, you don't really have any recourse, but we're all going to be "gentlemen" about it so it will be fine.  Really.

The second time is this decency standards nonsense.  What will be next?

So yeah, it's "one book", until the whims of change sweep over Hasbro legal and they rewrite the rules again.  Why should anyone subject themselves to that?


----------



## Psion (Sep 8, 2003)

Good call Wulf. Yup, when people were freaked out about the ommision of some creatures from the final SRD, they were rather giving when it came time to ensure that publishers could continue to publish their products based on them. It seems to me as if WotC has been above the board, and insinuations to the contrary seem laughable to me.


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 8, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> You know what?  The one book doesn't really matter.  It's the principle: every time Hasbro/Wizards sees something they don't like, instead of saying "fair is fair, this guy is playing by the rules as we set them", they change the rules.




*sigh*  Re-read the post I was replying too, please.  "One book" does not transform D&D into Hustler, the RPG.  There is plenty to pick apart in my posts without taking bits of them out of context.

- Anubis/Tiama'at


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 8, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wizards has consistently shown good will and a sense of fair play, and any perception to the contrary is due solely to anti-corporate, anti-Hasbro paranoid delusions.




They changed the whole license to target one book.  That's anything but fair.  It's mean-spirited, and worse, it's unpredictable.  AV was following the rules, so they changed them on him.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 8, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> And it's not one book.  They've done it twice so far.  The first time was the removal of monsters from the "gentleman's agreement" SRD.
> 
> The second time is this decency standards nonsense.  What will be next?



What about the named spells/equipment and miniatures?  You forgot them.


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 8, 2003)

TheAndy tm said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> I'll be addressing questions in this thread on our boards.  I encourage you to stop by.




Thanks for coming by, Andy.  But this statement is just B.S. and it avoids the entire issue.  If WotC wanted to improve the "quality" of 
d20 products, they could require standard statblocks, grammatical and spelling checks.  This addition to the license isn't about improving quality,  it's about enforcing morality and it's about CYA.

"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."  Well, obviously not for people who want to publish mature products.  Obviously not for those who want grim settings.  WotC stores have entire sections devoted to mature BOARD games.  I
don't see anyone rushing to pull those games off the shelves.

This change will alienate a large number of D&D players.  D&D is not 
a children's game.  It hasn't been a children's game for a long time.  I
may be wrong, but I believe the latest statistic put most D&D players over 20 years of age.

There are other ways to protect the d20 brand.  For instance, the creation of a "d20 Mature" license.  Censorship is not a business WotC should be getting into.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 8, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> What about the named spells/equipment and miniatures?  You forgot them.




See?  The world is definitely doomed.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

Tortoise said:
			
		

> WOTC have managed to sour me on their products as well because I deplore them making rules that are so vague that they can use them to block competetion for nearly any reason.




Ah, yes, now I see your point.  WotC, obviously, is doing this to block competition.  I mean D&D is their IP, it's their brand name, it's their game and they created a license to let other people create game material using their rules and make games material compatible with their system.  Yes, they certainly are blocking competition for nearly any reason by doing that I tell ya.



> I see that as opening the situation up to anti-competetive and highly unethical practices.




See above.  Anti-competitive in what manner?  By allowing gamers like you and me to actually write and publish gaming material for their game and sell it entirely on our own without even charging us to use their base rules or license?  Unethical how?  By putting out a license that has stated all along that the terms of that license could change at any time but still providing an OGL to allow you to do what you want with their base rule set (the SRD) without using the more guarded license?  If anything the d20STL and OGL have opened numerous doors and I am willing to bet that most of the folks that are publishing books for D&D under either license would agree.


----------



## spacecrime.com (Sep 8, 2003)

Besides, if you want to do _Hustler: the RPG_, you'd want to go OGL anyway so you can put in character creation rules. 

(Eric's grandma probably wouldn't appreciate my description of how to roll dice, so I'll just leave that out for now. )


----------



## Umbran (Sep 8, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I don't think the sky's falling _quite_ yet, thanks. I personally don't know the rationale behind this new provision...




Well, I'd think that was obvious....



> What this means is that people who are putting out something they feel might be close to the line will probably choose the better part of valor...




Oh, no, you've got it slightly wrong, and the error is linked to the rationale...

What this means is that people who are putting out something they feel might be close to the line will probably choose the better part of _VALAR_... 

Sorry, but I failed my Will save, and couldnot resist.

At least WotC didn't say that puns were on the list of forbidden content.


----------



## trancejeremy (Sep 8, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> They changed the whole license to target one book.  That's anything but fair.  It's mean-spirited, and worse, it's unpredictable.  AV was following the rules, so they changed them on him.




AV started it - he deliberately used several loopholes that went against the spirit of the license (and I think he did in fact violate some of the license rules, like using Dungeons and Dragons in a press release).

In essense, he was thumbing his nose at WOTC, deliberately trying to provoke them.

I wouldn't be surprised if WOTC simply pulls the plug on the d20 license because of this business.

There are many, many, many books that use the d20 STL and OGL improperly. WOTC could have cracked down on all of them. Instead, the only ones they've actually gone after were some by Fast Forward, which were probably the worst examples.


----------



## heirodule (Sep 8, 2003)

arcady said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> I take a stand for the principle of Free Expression. Just as I did when I swore my oath of enlistment in the military. When I swore to defend the constution. I meant that oath, not just in the legal sense, but in defending the spirit of that document.
> 
> They may not be doing actual censorship here by the legal definition, but they are doing it in spirit, and trying to put it into practice. To me, that's about the greatest moral wrong you can do.




No, not even in spirit, since censorship is restraint by a government body. WOTC are the owners of the D20 *license*. Licenses are NOT about untrammeled free expression: that's why they are legal documents which spell out what you are and are not allowed to do legally.

Thinking that just because somebody says I legally permit you to do X with MY PROPERTY, and then later says, I forbid you from doing Y with MY PROPERTY, does not mean you free expression has been trammeled on, since you were expressing yourself with the permission of the property owner.

What I think you mean to say is that you think the US Constitution gives you the right to all the smut you can eat, and you hate to see private companies prohibit the pornification of their property because you like a world where nobody even privately says they think smut is undesirable.


----------



## Lizard (Sep 8, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You guys are worried that WOTC will use the new rules against people like Mongoose.  That's bunk.  They will only use the new rules against people like Valar.  Period.
> 
> Kudos, WOTC!
> 
> Huzzah!




There is an important legal principle in First Amendment law, that is that the argument that "Well, this law COULD apply to a lot of things, but we're only going to use if for really nasty stuff!" is bunk. In short, the assumption that an overbroad law is acceptable because, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we won't use it everywhere we can, is bogus.

Now, the 1A doesn't apply here, since this is a private contract, but that principle, as applied by those who judge the moral/ethical (as opposed to legal) standing of these changes, certainly does.

"We COULD screw mongoose...but we won't! Honest injun!" is bullcrap. And even if the person saying it meant it, it doesn't mean the next administration would abide by it. If the only justification you have for a grossly overbroad clause is "I'm sure they'll only use it against the bad guys!", then, you have no justification.

Does WOTC have the legal right to make this change? Sure.

Is the change moral, ethical, or supportable by anyone with any sense of decency or fair play?

No.

It's a direct attack on an ex-employee, and it strikes (as Ryan Dancey and others have noted) directly at the heart of one of the main benefits of using the D20 STL. It opens any and all D20 products to arbitrary and unjustified legal assault by WOTC at any point in the future, without any option to mediate or correct the breach. It is ridiculous, and the long term effect will be devastating to the D20 -- but not necessarily the OGL -- community.

WOTC screwed up, big time. If they are smart, they will pull back and rengineer this clause to be far less open ended. If they are NOT smart, expect to see OGL products outpacing STL products pretty quickly. Using the STL has simply become unsafe for *any* published, regardless of "adult" content, simply because of the subjectivity and overbroadness of this clause.


----------



## Jehosephat (Sep 8, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> *sigh*  Re-read the post I was replying too, please.  "One book" does not transform D&D into Hustler, the RPG.  There is plenty to pick apart in my posts without taking bits of them out of context.
> 
> - Anubis/Tiama'at





That is twice you have put words into my mouth. Will you PLEASE STOP.  I never contended that one book does what you suggest.


----------



## Xeriar (Sep 8, 2003)

This is kind of murkey.  On several levels.

If WotC is willing to do this for one book for a certain specific reason, what keeps them from doing the same if another book, for whatever reason, becomes so overwhelmingly successful that they see it cut into their sales?

In that sense, it makes d20 look unstable.  Far-fetched, sure, but this issue has come up twice.

The other issue is the legally murkey waters surrounding this.  Saying nothing of estape and other legal mumbo-jumbo, it creates a grey line of arbitrary enforcement.

In addition, it gives the appearance that WotC has oversight over a great multitude of products, and that if something slips by for a few years, it has their approval.

Not taking sides yet, but...  It just looks ugly and reactionary.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There is an important legal principle in First Amendment law, that is that the argument that "Well, this law COULD apply to a lot of things, but we're only going to use if for really nasty stuff!" is bunk. In short, the assumption that an overbroad law is acceptable because, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we won't use it everywhere we can, is bogus.
> 
> Now, the 1A doesn't apply here, since this is a private contract, but that principle, as applied by those who judge the moral/ethical (as opposed to legal) standing of these changes, certainly does.
> 
> ...




I agree with most of what you said.  I do take exception with the part about "Is the change moral, ethical, or supportable by anyone with any sense of decency or fair play?  No."

I think my sense of morality, ethics, decency and fair-play are fine.  In fact, I think the ethics part is a question that should be directed at Anthony Valterra.  Is it ethical to have inside information about a license and then use and exploit that information for profit at the cost of possibly hurting the other people benefitting from said license?  Sure, if not hime, someone else would have but that's not an excuse.  It was him, not osmeone else and he did have the inside track as to what was and what was not intended by the d20STL since he was the one calling the shots on it.  And, I agree that WotC has screwed up by being overly vague and too open-ended.  I aso agree that it's a much simpler decision to go with d20STL or OGL since if it were me, I'd like to avoid the legalese and potential for recall and just go the OGL route.  "Compatible with Revised Third Edition Fantasy Roleplaying" is enough for me.


----------



## Lizard (Sep 8, 2003)

TheAndy tm said:
			
		

> Quality Standards have been added to the d20 System License because (rest deleted).




Sorry. Doesn't wash. 100% pure boilerplate which in no way explains, justifies, or excuses the sudden transition from a license which I reglarly defended against detractors who saw dark corporate conspiracies in every corner to a license which makes all of those conspiracies seem far more plausible. WOTC has given itself the arbitrary power to basically destroy any D20 publisher at whim. Speculation that such power will only be used "for niceness, instead of evil" is not sufficient.

At *best*, the clause needs a time limit on review and a mechanism by which a publisher can compel WOTC to review and provide a 'thumbs up/thumbs down' on any product prior to release and in a timely (<1 month, I'd say) manner. Otherwise, this clause is nothing but a time bomb, waiting to go off whenever any person -- for let us not forget, this entire fiasco is about revenge on one man -- annoys anyone at WOTC and/or Hasbro.

("Hey, that Lizard guy mouthed off to me online! Let's find some companies he's worked for and...heh heh...'review' their books for 'Standards'." )


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 8, 2003)

heirodule said:
			
		

> No, not even in spirit, since censorship is restraint by a government body.  [snip]
> 
> What I think you mean to say is that you think the US Constitution gives you the right to all the smut you can eat, and you hate to see private companies prohibit the pornification of their property because you like a world where nobody even privately says they think smut is undesirable.




Just a note...  Might want to check your definitions there.  Censorship doesn't require government involvement.  dictionary.com says...  

Censor: A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

Censorship: The act, process, or practice of censoring. 

As for the right to smut, are you saying that I should NOT have 
a right to "all the smut _ can eat?"  Why not?  How would I be harming society by eating smut?

And how am I supposed to corrupt our nation's youth without lots and lots of smut?  I'll have to go back to getting them to worship devils with my Player's Handbook.  Thanks a lot, WotC._


----------



## Lizard (Sep 8, 2003)

Harlock said:
			
		

> Is it ethical to have inside information about a license and then use and exploit that information for profit at the cost of possibly hurting the other people benefitting from said license?  .




What inside information? Seriously. 

The full text of the OGL/STL has been publically available since May of 2000. The issue of "what about D20 Nazi:The Aryan or The Complete Pedophiles Handbook D20" was bandied about long, long, ago, and Ryan Dancey explained what was then WOTCs public policy as "We don't care. We won't be in the position of censoring books; that exposes us to liability." These were public statements, not backroom discussions.

If you know of other 'inside info' Valterra relied on, please, let me know, and I'll consider it and possibly change my mind. As far as my current knowledge goes, though, he didn't act on any info not available to anyone active in the D20 development community.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## kbrennan (Sep 8, 2003)

Lizard said:
			
		

> As far as my current knowledge goes, though, he didn't act on any info not available to anyone active in the D20 development community.
> 
> Prove me wrong.




The only thing I can think of was the stunt with the press release. Everything else Valar did simply exploited loopholes in the license that I remember being discussed on the OGL lists some time before all this happened. 

I don't think the sky is falling, and I imagine that most publishers will continue to use the d20 logo...but I do think this is a mistake on WotC's part, and I think it will force a lot of people to think carefully about using the d20 logo. While WotC has previously amended the license to prevent competition in certain areas (when they disallowed miniatures), that change was posted to the lists months before it was made. This is the first time a major change has been made without warning. 

The SRD changes don't really count; publishers have been pretty free to use material removed from the SRD if a product was well underway (we were allowed to include some non-OGC material in _Mindshadows_, for example. I don't get the sense that a similar courtesy will be allowed to Valar.


----------



## der_kluge (Sep 8, 2003)

Sometimes I think when WoTC created the whole d20 thing, that what they had in mind was that people would write up a bunch of modules for them, so that they wouldn't have to.  I would imagine that even WoTC is quite surprised by the influx of really, really good crunchy rule books and campaign settings that have popped even since the inception of d20.

And as much as I think BoEF is a complete waste of money, and glossy paper, I think Valar has a right to publish it.  I think WoTC is way out of line with this decision.  I also agree with Psion (and Orcus, if you've been following his posts on the OGF lists), that we all need to be focusing our anger towards AV, not towards WoTC.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 8, 2003)

Lizard said:
			
		

> What inside information? Seriously.
> If you know of other 'inside info' Valterra relied on, please, let me know, and I'll consider it and possibly change my mind. As far as my current knowledge goes, though, he didn't act on any info not available to anyone active in the D20 development community.
> 
> Prove me wrong.




Well, I don't have tangible proof and never claimed to.  What I do have is a brain that functions (admittedly sometimes over-actively which you can judge for yourself from my line of logic.)  I do know Valterra is not a lawyer.  I know he was a big cheese at WotC and that he would be in a position to know exactly how far he could push the d20STL without getting into legal trouble since he was pretty darn  familiar with it.  And, he did it.  Yes, it is a public license, but AV was in a unique position to exploit it having and intimate inside knowledge of WotC and its operations, and I feel that's what he did.  Again, no proof, just an instinct based on what I have seen, his reaction to the hype and his consistency in pushing the envelope for what appears to me, very little other than to "thumb his nose at WotC" to borrow the common phrase being bandied about in this thread.  Also, as mentioned before he is really daring WotC to take action by claiming things like press releases are not advertising and making the Dungeons and Dragons name so prominent on his book.  How would you expect WotC to react?  They own D&D.  They have every right to protect that IP.  They own the d20STL and did a quick fix on it that I have said already is short-sighted and just wrong.  There are, surely, muh better solutions to this but I have a feeling this isn't even close to being over.  Egos are now involved on both sides.  And, again, what sucks is that people are being dragged into it by way of using the d20STL rather than being mere spectators.  WotC _should_ stick to the high road and just come out and retract some of the more vague and ominous parts of version 5.0.  Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2003)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> And as much as I think BoEF is a complete waste of money, and glossy paper, I think Valar has a right to publish it.  I think WoTC is way out of line with this decision.  I also agree with Psion (and Orcus, if you've been following his posts on the OGF lists), that we all need to be focusing our anger towards AV, not towards WoTC.




You say Valar has a right to publish it and the Wizards is way out of line, yet you still think we should be mad at AV?  

I'm just curious if this will have any real effect on what we see.  It seems to me that 90% of the companies out there at least have nothing to worry about with this.


----------



## bbarrington (Sep 8, 2003)

*No Nipples???*

No nipples? So does this mean my character, Eric the Barbaric, the bare-chested Barbarian Cleric, has to wear pasties???


----------



## Cergorach (Sep 8, 2003)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> I also agree with Psion (and Orcus, if you've been following his posts on the OGF lists), that we all need to be focusing our anger towards AV, not towards WoTC.




Why? When you make rules you make sure that there aren't any loopholes. AV is just working withn the presented rules framework. WotC is also within it's rights to change the license, and it did so, but in an unreasonable fashion. WotC could even go so far to say that anything that's better than their own product isn't allowed anymore.

As for the 'spirit' of the license, that's so much 'krap'. Rules are there to be worked within, not within a different perceived rules set. You release a rules set to a potential 5 billion users, there are bound to be people that don't perceive the 'spirit' of the license the same way as some here. These people are not wrong, they don't deserve anger, they are within their rights to have a different oppinion than you.

WotC, or at least some elements, did release the Book of Vile Darkness. Then a few months later WotC says happily we don't want such 'krap' in a license that we control. That's called hypocracy. I can also see that BoVD was developed by elements at WotC that are now gone, but i can't imagine that the higher elements would suddenly have such a big change of heart...

Now i highly doubt that WotC will change it's license for the better (such as the ridiculous revocation responsibilities in case of breach), and i predict that a lot of the more established companies will drop the D20 logo like a rock (not even Mongoose can afford to recall a product and destroy it).


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 8, 2003)

Now, I'm not getting freaked out about all this.  I'll just say that it's a step in the wrong direction.  A teeny, tiny, kobold size step, but even the longest journeys begin with small steps.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 8, 2003)

Hrm.  I'm of mixed opinions on the whole matter.

On one hand, I think a move like this on the part of WotC is bad mojo.  The policy is open-ended and rather dangerous and just puts a bad flavor on the d20 community as a whole.  

Honestly?  I think there is a market for "adult" fantasy products.  If done properly.  I think D&D should have some "adult" products.  When I say "adult" I mean more in the vein of Conan the Barbarian and other gritty heroes of yore.  Including a little constructive wenching.

What does D&D NOT need?  Sex feats, a "maintaining sex" skill, etc etc.  I stopped off by the BoEF Valar site and, frankly, didn't really like what I saw too much.   In one line they talk about aproaching "adult" material in an "adult" way and being as corporate and professional as they can be.  Then a link away they talk about the staffs', ahem, "bedroom aids" and penchants for roleplaying "at the table and in the bedroom". And (though I can see good reasons for it) you have to "sign up" to see the "previews" from the book.  On the whole, the tone and content reminded me of a porn site.

Then again, that business model is one of the few purely online forms of commerce that is turning a profit, and a huge one.  Nookie -sells-.

Still other things I find problematic.  The big "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front ... the flaunting nature of that just isn't cool.  

If Valar wanted to be taken seriously, they'd have produced an "adult" product that sold itself on more than pornographic humor.  Had there been a grim "violent" setting book, a dark-world setting, or something like that using their photo-art (even with nude or provocative models) I would have taken them seriously.  Honestly?  I might have even bought something like that.  A serious 18+ setting book, fully fleshed out, with hot models and burly guys with swords hacking apart insane cultists.  

So, honestly, I think Valar ruined it for everybody.  They came by and took a leak in the swimming pool because they could, and now a lifeguard is on duty making sure nobody is running or jumping or playing water-chicken.  Had they been more intent on making an "adult" adult product and downplaying the D20 (instead of trying to embarass WotC by putting "Dungeons And Dragons" as big as they could on the front) maybe WotC wouldn't have had a problem with it.  Even if they had, I think if Valar were a serious company, they'd realize that a good product would sell on its own merits under OGL and not force WotC to take this sort of step just to keep one product from being made.

--fje


----------



## Mercule (Sep 8, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> And it's not one book. They've done it twice so far. The first time was the removal of monsters from the "gentleman's agreement" SRD. Remember the gentleman's agreement?




Is this what you _really_ think?  Because it's pretty much backward from the reality of the "gentleman's agreement".

The "gentleman's agreement" was a good faith act on the part of WotC.  They certainly didn't have to put out any portion of the SRD before final review.  Instead, they decided that they really wanted 3rd party designers to be able to get the ball rolling.  So they went ahead and published their "draft" version, knowing full-well that the exact contents might change upon review.

They didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes.  Right from the outset, they said that not everything in there may make the final cut.  When it did come down to, though, they let outside projects in motion continue.  Seems pretty gentlemanly to me.

In fact, most of what WotC has done regarding D&D seems quite gentlemanly.  Of course, they are a corporation and are motivated by profit.  Of course, when it comes right down to it, they do things for their own best interest, not ours, not the hobby's.  Still, they've been cooler about it than TSR ever was since Gary was at the helm.

IMHO, this change to the d20 license is rather heavy-handed and ungentlemanly.  The fact of the matter is that the can of worms has been openned.  Even if they remove the clause now, there is nothing to keep them from including again if something else rubs them wrong, or if they simply cease to care about being "gentlemanly".  I've already stated, in a previous post, what I think the solution to that event is.

That all said, I tend to agree with some others that AV and Valar are very much in the wrong.  I find the idea of the BoEF to be somewhat repugnant, and really have no interest in owning it.  It's one of those things that the only reason I'd even flip through it is because I'm open-minded enough to realize that I might have the wrong idea.  I can _fully_ understand why WotC would want to distance themselves from it.  I'm not sure if I agree with even the spirit of how they chose to do so, though.  They should have just tacked on a required disclaimer rather than open themselves up by reviewing everything.

The part that I find most objectionable, though, is the huge font the book uses for "Dungeons and Dragons".  I was completely unaware of this before reading this thread, and haven't actually seen it.  I cannot imagine a legitimate reason for making the font that large though.  To avoid personal slurs, I'll just say that I really don't hold AV in very high regards at this point.  Regardless of how much of a generally nice guy he may be, or how good he is in business, I refuse to take him serious in the gaming arena any more.

Either the font trick or releasing the BoEF as his "establishing" freelance project are enough to knock him down to a minor player in my book.  Both of them are enough for me to completely discount him.  

It's been said that enmity is better than apathy -- at least they're still thinking about you with enmity.  Well, I really can't say that I have anything more than apathy for his projects anymore.  I just hope that he doesn't do something else abominably stupid -- something that really does have a serious backlash.


----------



## Felon (Sep 8, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Precisely. They didn't do this because they are mean and nasty. They did this because they are protecting their image from a few profiteers who couldn't play nice and forced their hand. If you want to blame someone, thank Valar for urinating in the pool.





			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> I also agree with Psion (and Orcus, if you've been following his posts on the OGF lists), that we all need to be focusing our anger towards AV, not towards WoTC.




I think it's a bit puerile to villainize anyone in this matter. 

True, WotC's wasn't mean-spirited in its actions. It just wasn't very smart, for all of the reasons that Ryan Dancey covered so eloquently. Now that they've made themselves a liable party, they have to have someone on their payroll to scrutinize every single D20 product that comes down the pike. If they're actually willing to get litigious in order to force one guy to destroy his products and cost him thousands, then that guy's lawyers can dump a bunch of Mongoose books in front of the judge that WotC didn't consigned to the pyre and the judge is likely going to ask WotC to explain where they draw the line. 

And Valar? He's no villain either. He wanted to publish an adult-oriented fantasy product. I'm an adult, as are my fellow gamers, and many of us cut our teeth on "sallacious" sword-n'-sorcery fantasy a la Heavy Metal and Gor, and the lurid pulp fantasy of fellows like Fritz Leiber. Maybe it's something we can use, maybe not. I have yet to see anyone provide a calm, rational, intelligent explanation of what's so terribly wrong with that. And no, "I don't want to see boobies in D20 games" is not a rational, intelligent explanation of why other adults shouldn't be free to see them.

I tell ya, it is quite depressing to hear how many folks react like something pure and innocent is being ruined here, like the idea of treating fantasy as if it could possibly be something other than PG-rated kiddie fare full of talking cats, squeak-clean heroes, and kenders is an anathema. It's like going to Vegas and watching all the rugrats running around. Some folks don't know what they missed out on in decades past.


----------



## Baastet (Sep 8, 2003)

*One question...*

All censorshp issues and hypocrisy issues aside... 

I have one question/conjecture. I am wondering how much of this has to do with the recent crackdown by the Justice Department on "Public Decency" issues? Was it even a factor or is WoTC just acting in a retailiatory way to a former employee who decided to "get back" at his former employer? 

Well actually I have a second and third question too... How much is this going to affect the prices of books? All the new hoops that publishers have to jump through to meet WoTC's standard have to eventually efect our pocketbooks (In any other business it does so what's different about this one.)

Third what does WotC consider a "real-world" religoin? The Church of the Jedi is recongized as a religoin, so is Wicca. Where do they draw the line? Or are they only talking about christian based religions?

This is an uninformed opinion and please response since I would really like to understand. ^_^

Baastet a.k.a Da Kitty Goddess
(edited for typos and clarificaiton)


----------



## der_kluge (Sep 8, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You say Valar has a right to publish it and the Wizards is way out of line, yet you still think we should be mad at AV?
> 
> I'm just curious if this will have any real effect on what we see.  It seems to me that 90% of the companies out there at least have nothing to worry about with this.





Well, yes!  I mean, I'm really torn with this one.  One the one hand, I do resent AV for what he's done, since he's obviously spoiled the fun for everyone involved, but I'm also opposed to what WoTC is trying to do.  In the end, though, I would prefer that WoTC not try to stop AV from publishing his book.  I don't think it's necessary.

But like you said, it's likely that this won't really affect anyone, so it seems kind of heavy-handed to implement rules just because of one book, that likely wouldn't have done very well anyway.  Well, that was yesterday.  BoEF's sales potential probably just went through the roof today.


----------



## Hill Giant (Sep 8, 2003)

*The cycle begins again*

I didn't want to believe it, but all signs point to WOTC/Hasbro becoming the next TSR.

Hopefully, when WOTC starts losing money, there will be another small company with a big idea to bail them out. (Going on previous gaming cycles expect the next big thing around 2013.)

(On the other hand, I had to agree to maintain similar standards when I signed up for this message board...)


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 8, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wizards has consistently shown good will and a sense of fair play, and any perception to the contrary is due solely to anti-corporate, anti-Hasbro paranoid delusions.
> 
> Wulf




Wulf is absolutley correct. When I was in charge of the d20/OGL license and the D&D brand we were very liberal and very forgiving. In the three years we never asked a single company to destroy product. Numerous times people came to us saying that they had created a product and only after it was done realized that they had inadvertently used material that was not part of the SRD. In every case we gave them permission. We allowed numerous companies to license material that we were not planning on reissuing to make small sub sets of fans happy. And we bent over backwards to make the d20 network an easy place for companies to be creative.

I doubt that anyone - even those d20 publishers who are saying things about me that are in violation of the new WotC Quality Standards (what is it with all the potty references, peeing the pool, taking a dump??) would bad mouth my administration of the license itself during my tenure.

Of course I am no longer there. In fact of the original team that put out the d20/OGL license (Ryan Dancey, Keith Strohm, Cindi Rice, Jim Butler, David Wise, Doug Steves and myself) the only ones left are...
Oh I guess no ones left.

AV


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 8, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> And Valar? He's no villain either. He wanted to publish an adult-oriented fantasy product. I'm an adult, as are my fellow gamers, and many of us cut our teeth on lurid fantasy a la Heavy Metal, Gor, and the lurid pulp fantasy of fellows like Fritz Leiber. Maybe it's something we can use, maybe not. I have yet to see anyone provide a calm, rational, intelligent explanation of what's so terribly wrong with that.




I would agree with you on the later part of what I quoted.  Alot of us enjoy and even miss the lurid fantasy.  Hot busty babes in chainmail bikinis, slashing swords, some nookie.  

But that doesn't seem to be what "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" is about.  It seems to be a "crunch" book more about pointless erotica than a coherent "lurid fantasy" product.  Do we need 190 pages of sex-themed skills, sex-themed feats, sex-themed classes, sex-themed class abilities tied to sex-themed skills, sex-themed gods, sex-themed spells?  

I'd LIKE to see a well-produced RPG book with boobies.  I don't think, however, a book ABOUT boobies really enhances anything.  All it does is mean we won't be seeing boobies in any ACTUAL adult game content because they made it juvenile.  The product sounds like the completely juvenile "NET book of SEX" that circulated around online during the 2nd Ed AD&D days, but with pictures and a binding.   I'm more disappointed in AV for producing it and forcing WotC to slap everybody down than I am with WotC for doing it.

--fje


----------



## Harlock (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Wulf is absolutley correct. When I was in charge of the d20/OGL license and the D&D brand we were very liberal and very forgiving. In the three years we never asked a single company to destroy product. Numerous times people came to us saying that they had created a product and only after it was done realized that they had inadvertently used material that was not part of the SRD. In every case we gave them permission. We allowed numerous companies to license material that we were not planning on reissuing to make small sub sets of fans happy. And we bent over backwards to make the d20 network an easy place for companies to be creative.
> 
> I doubt that anyone - even those d20 publishers who are saying things about me that are in violation of the new WotC Quality Standards (what is it with all the potty references, peeing the pool, taking a dump??) would bad mouth my administration of the license itself during my tenure.
> 
> ...




I hate to be the jerk that gets scowled at if I am wrong, but does a mod mind checking the credentials on this fellow?  Thing is, I've seen AV post here before and so he should have registered before today and have more than this lone post.  Unless of course he simply forgot his password or something and just created a new account rather than waiting for the email with his password to arrive, in which case I gladly apologize.


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2003)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I would agree with you on the later part of what I quoted.  Alot of us enjoy and even miss the lurid fantasy.  Hot busty babes in chainmail bikinis, slashing swords, some nookie.  But that doesn't seem to be what "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" is about.  It seems to be a "crunch" book more about pointless erotica than a coherent "lurid fantasy" product.  Do we need 190 pages of sex-themed skills, sex-themed feats, sex-themed classes, sex-themed class abilities tied to sex-themed skills, sex-themed gods, sex-themed spells?




Well, IMO no. Sounds a bit ludicrous, in fact.

But that's just it. He can't *make* either of us buy it. If BoEF is something nobody wants, then its ultimate fate is ignominious failure. If it turns out to be something there's a demand for, then he's validated. 

So here's a crazy thought: let the consumers see the book and vote with their dollars. That's what was ultimately decided with TBoVD, and here we have a follow-up book in the "mature readers" line on its way. 

If a guy like AV truly had a vile agenda, then WotC certainly played into his hands. The winning play would've been to dismiss it.


----------



## azildurn (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Wulf is absolutley correct. When I was in charge of the d20/OGL license and the D&D brand we were very liberal and very forgiving. In the three years we never asked a single company to destroy product. Numerous times people came to us saying that they had created a product and only after it was done realized that they had inadvertently used material that was not part of the SRD. In every case we gave them permission. We allowed numerous companies to license material that we were not planning on reissuing to make small sub sets of fans happy. And we bent over backwards to make the d20 network an easy place for companies to be creative.
> 
> I doubt that anyone - even those d20 publishers who are saying things about me that are in violation of the new WotC Quality Standards (what is it with all the potty references, peeing the pool, taking a dump??) would bad mouth my administration of the license itself during my tenure.
> 
> ...




They may have shown good faith so far in the d20 arena but as a whole TSR and WotC have been money whores from the beginning and it's obvious that they still are.  They're afraid that their corporate image will be tarnished by stuff such as the BoEF and they're trying to censor everyone to stop that.    I personally have no use for the BoEF mainly because I think it's stupid, rather than offensive.  That said, it doesn't have Wizards thinks this is a good idea on the cover and they've made their position clear.  

They have not shown good faith over the last 15 years (combined TSR and WotC) and although the d20 movement was a step in the right direction in the long run they proved they couldn't actually work in good faith and have proven that they are about control of the content as well as the brand.  d20 was supposed to be some relinquishing of the control of the content while still protecting the brand but now they've decided that because the two have some minor overlap that's not good enough and they want all the control back.  It's not anti-corporate to suggest such either, it's simply one analysis of the facts of what they've done.


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 9, 2003)

Harlock said:
			
		

> I hate to be the jerk that gets scowled at if I am wrong, but does a mod mind checking the credentials on this fellow?  Thing is, I've seen AV post here before and so he should have registered before today and have more than this lone post.  Unless of course he simply forgot his password or something and just created a new account rather than waiting for the email with his password to arrive, in which case I gladly apologize.




Well, it certainly sounds like him (though he's not posting under the
usual Zulkir handle), and it's not like he said anything all that contentious.  I've certainly never heard of WotC demanding any
company destroy product.


----------



## TheRaven (Sep 9, 2003)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Do we need 190 pages of sex-themed skills, sex-themed feats, sex-themed classes, sex-themed class abilities tied to sex-themed skills, sex-themed gods, sex-themed spells?




Who do you adress with "we"? Maybe the majority of the community but does this give you the right to decide for everyone. Maybe there are mature people who want books like that and why should anyone prohibit them to buy it, let alone write it. Why should the mainstream gamer care about valar products or realms of evil products? If WotC follows such guidelines for their own, official D&D products, then that's perfectly fine but why should they enforce such a policy on the whole community. 

There goes the call of cuthulhu d20 supplement about a fanatic christian order that fights against the terrors. Bye bye Arcana Unearthed d20 demon ritual book. It was nice to meet you star wars d20 laser sabre dismemberment rules. Maybe most of the D20 players see no use in such products and it is their right to do so and not buying it but in the same manner other people should have the right to buy it and publishers should be able to create them.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 9, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You say Valar has a right to publish it and the Wizards is way out of line, yet you still think we should be mad at AV?
> 
> I'm just curious if this will have any real effect on what we see.  It seems to me that 90% of the companies out there at least have nothing to worry about with this.



Just because you believe that WotC has everyones best interest in heart does not make the actual wording of this any easier to read without getting a big headache.

This is akin to saying (albiet, this is an extreme example of what I am trying to say, in order to make my point): Suppose the "war on terror" were to expand such that the illegal search and seasure laws were revoked (sure, far fetched -- but not as far off as one might think given the current climate). Would this bother you? Would it still bother you if Uncle Sam said that it would only use this new legal power to deal with terrorists and bad guys? After all, 90% of us have nothing to worry about, right? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem inviting the Police Officer into your house.


----------



## azildurn (Sep 9, 2003)

Baastet said:
			
		

> All censorshp issues and hypocrisy issues aside...
> 
> I have one question/conjecture. I am wondering how much of this has to do with the recent crackdown by the Justice Department on "Public Decency" issues? Was it even a factor or is WoTC just acting in a retailiatory way to a former employee who decided to "get back" at his former employer?
> 
> ...





I'm sorry but kitty goddesses were worshiped in Egypt...please change your handle or face the wrath of the decency standards police. ;-)


----------



## azildurn (Sep 9, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> Just because you believe that WotC has everyones best interest in heart does not make the actual wording of this any easier to read without getting a big headache.
> 
> This is akin to saying (albiet, this is an extreme example of what I am trying to say, in order to make my point): Suppose the "war on terror" were to expand such that the illegal search and seasure laws were revoked (sure, far fetched -- but not as far off as one might think given the current climate). Would this bother you? Would it still bother you if Uncle Sam said that it would only use this new legal power to deal with terrorists and bad guys? After all, 90% of us have nothing to worry about, right? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem inviting the Police Officer into your house.




Actually 90% of companies do have something to fear.  They have the fact that tomorrow they may be the publisher that WotC targets for a totally different reason.  They shown a lack of good faith thus far what's to prevent them from deciding that because something is so popular they need to take it down then deciding that the norse pantheon is based on a real religion so the product can't be published.  It's a principle not how they practice it in one given circumstance that matters.


----------



## kreynolds (Sep 9, 2003)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Do we need 190 pages of sex-themed skills, sex-themed feats, sex-themed classes, sex-themed class abilities tied to sex-themed skills, sex-themed gods, sex-themed spells?




I do. Crap. That just blew your point right out of the water, didn't it? Sorry.


----------



## wingsandsword (Sep 9, 2003)

I really don't like this turn by WotC.  It smells suspiciously like a pointy-haired boss at Hasbro getting too invasive, and while AV may have been technically within his rights, he should have known he would have been pushing it and drawing their ire with his little font trick (was he really going to do that?).

However, even with this WotC is still nowhere near as bad as T$R was back in the Bad Old Days.  With OGL games, even non-d20, there are things that the Evil Empire of Gaming would have never allowed.  Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG, they also tried to assert trademark over "Spell", "Orc" and a myriad of other generic fantasy terms, and prevent any other game from using them.  (I've been told that over and over, it's either true, or one heck of a gaming Urban Legend).

Sex themed rules have a place within third-party support of D&D.  When I first came to college, and I wanted to learn how to play, I typed in "D&D" into a search engine (Fall of '96, and I don't remember which engine), and the first thing that popped up was the "D&D Net Book of Sex".  That was one heck of an interesting introduction to D&D!  I've played in campaigns that had carnal activities, and sometimes they were slightly juvenile, and other times they were relatively tasteful.  Never were they graphic or obscene (the GM at least had the good taste to hint and imply rather than give graphic details.)

The worst thing I can think of is that WotC repeals the d20 STL totally.  Well, OGL games like Everquest have shown that you can make a fine, self contained game using the same system as "Third Edition" (not gonna call it by it's die type for this).  That genie is out of the bottle and they legally couldn't repeal the SRD's (I am not a lawyer, but I've heard that said many times).

It just reduces brand recognition for less d20 branded product, and means WotC has less of it's Player's Handbooks sold.

Oh, e-mail campaigns are easily ignored.  If you want their attention, phone them.  Or much better, mail.  Good old fashioned "snail mail" gets attention, especially from Pointy-Haired Corporate types.  It's harder to ignore baskets and baskets of mail filling up a mail room than a pile of electronic messages.


----------



## Harlock (Sep 9, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Well, it certainly sounds like him (though he's not posting under the
> usual Zulkir handle), and it's not like he said anything all that contentious.  I've certainly never heard of WotC demanding any
> company destroy product.




I didn't think he was being contentious much either, I simply was worried it may have been a weak troll.  In fact, I hope I _am_ wrong and just have been jaded too much by existence and it really is Anthony just perusing and wanting to give his side.  I'm curious to say the least, but before I or anyone else invested much time in getting into the debate with the fellow, I wanted confirmation.  And yes, I am paranoid, what of it?   



			
				TheRaven said:
			
		

> There goes the call of cuthulhu d20 supplement about a fanatic christian order that fights against the terrors. Bye bye Arcana Unearthed d20 demon ritual book. It was nice to meet you star wars d20 laser sabre dismemberment rules. Maybe most of the D20 players see no use in such products and it is their right to do so and not buying it but in the same manner other people should have the right to buy it and publishers should be able to create them.




Publishers _can_ create those things but they need to use the OGL.  WotC isn't stifling anyone's creativity with the new d20STL, they are simply stifling their use of _their_ trademarked license.


----------



## Melkor (Sep 9, 2003)

A post over at the WoTC D20 boards links a number of published WoTC pictures that seem to go against the new D20 STL:

Here's the link (Same one Andy Smith linked earlier) - Scroll Down:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95927&perpage=30&pagenumber=2


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 9, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> This is akin to saying (albiet, this is an extreme example of what I am trying to say, in order to make my point): Suppose the "war on terror" were to expand such that the illegal search and seasure laws were revoked (sure, far fetched -- but not as far off as one might think given the current climate). Would this bother you? Would it still bother you if Uncle Sam said that it would only use this new legal power to deal with terrorists and bad guys? After all, 90% of us have nothing to worry about, right? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem inviting the Police Officer into your house.




Hijack Time!  You phrase this all as a what-if...  You do realize that the government has already repealled illegal search and seizure for terrorists?  Illegal search and seizure laws all depend on how you define illegal.  

What used to constitute an illegal search (a search conducted without a warrant) is now available to the US government for use on terrorists through the use of FISA 'warrants'.  The Justice Department goes to a secret court, gets a secret warrant without providing probable cause (note that the application for a FISA warrant has NEVER been denied), and then can conduct a search without even informing the person who owns the property.  But they can "only" do this if national security is involved.  

What used to constitute illegal seizure (seizure of property outside of fees and illegal items) is now available to the US government for use on terrorists, organized crime, drug dealers, and pornographers (yes, you read the last one right) through the RICO act.  The act lets the government seize not just illegal material like drugs, guns, etc.  But also lets them take the house, boat, car, warehouse, factory, etc. of whatever individual or organization the government deems part of a "corrupt organization" (that's the CO in RICO).  Selling the property obtained in this manner has become quite a cashcow for our government.

I think I saw an article on CNN today about the current administration seeking to expand the laws of the war on terror to the war on drugs.  I'm sure they would be all too happy to begin a war on indecency as well.

I'll shut up about this now, because I know politics are not the purpose of these boards, but the what-if scenario just threw me a bit...


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> In the three years we never asked a single company to destroy product. Numerous times people came to us saying that they had created a product and only after it was done realized that they had inadvertently used material that was not part of the SRD. In every case we gave them permission. We allowed numerous companies to license material that we were not planning on reissuing to make small sub sets of fans happy. And we bent over backwards to make the d20 network an easy place for companies to be creative.
> 
> AV




Just to clarify this statement, Fast Forward Entertainment had to destroy several products for d20/OGL violations earlier this year.  Was this done after you left?  And do you know who made the decision to force them to destroy their products?


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 9, 2003)

Melkor said:
			
		

> A post over at the WoTC D20 boards links a number of published WoTC pictures that seem to go against the new D20 STL:




Your links are all broken by the ...s in them.  Be sure you don't leave
out the "Century Worm" or whatever that thing is.  If that's not displaying genitalia, I don't know what is...


----------



## Baastet (Sep 9, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I think I saw an article on CNN today about the current administration seeking to expand the laws of the war on terror to the war on drugs. I'm sure they would be all too happy to begin a war on indecency as well.



Actually they already are. Ashcroft is pushing the presecution of the Pubic Decency Act. It was passed awhile ago but hasn't been actually enforced for awhile now. But they are charging a pornographer with breech of Publc Decency and being tried in a criminal court for it.


Baastet


----------



## Melkor (Sep 9, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Your links are all broken by the ...s in them.  Be sure you don't leave
> out the "Century Worm" or whatever that thing is.  If that's not displaying genitalia, I don't know what is...




I just edited my post and linked to the WoTC page with the original post. It's pretty far down, but links several images.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Sep 9, 2003)

I'm not sure if anyone else had any luck with emailing and such, but I did get a response.  (This is pretty much my first chance to read in here all-day and there is about 120 new posts so if this is common news I apologize now.)

*My Email*  Note: Theirs a small edit as I removed my last name.

From: Adam [mailto:ftn4life@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 10:44 PM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE VERSION 5.0


Yes,

I was wondering if you could explain to me the need and why the change in the above accord.  I know you have the rights to make changes but in the "sprit" of the OGL this seems like it's all the makings of the start of censorship.  I mean shouldn't the costumer make the decision on rather or not said product is right for his campaign?

I've been a costumer with you since 1st edition when I was 8 or 9.  I did
the demon worshiper scare with your company in the early to mid 80's and now as an adult and in the US Navy it seems like your company is apposed to the very fabric of the rights I defend everyday and now I'm left wondering if loyalty is ever a two way street. 

Very Respectfully,
Adam 


*WoTC Response* Note: No Edit

From: Wizards Customer Service <custserv@wizards.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:24:16 -0700 
To: ftn4life@earthlink.net 
Subject: RE: THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LICENSE VERSION 5.0 

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
******************************************************************


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 9, 2003)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> Who do you adress with "we"? Maybe the majority of the community but does this give you the right to decide for everyone. Maybe there are mature people who want books like that and why should anyone prohibit them to buy it, let alone write it.




Well it's fine to believe that what one company does doesn't in any way effect the community, that's not how it works.

Perhaps you'll enjoy 190 pages of Everything Sexual, but that 190 pages WILL prevent any other products dealing with that sort of material from being published.  Will somebody be able to make a conan-style or Heavy Metal style game setting and release it under D20?  Nope.  Will somebody be able to release the D20 Cthulhu product now?  Nope.  Is that MY fault for believing that the BoEF was a BAD idea?  Not in the least.

Yes, the BoEF would have possibly failed.  On the other hand, the BoEF could have prospered.  A thousand thousand gamers could have picked it up and ten thousand parents could have seen "DUNGEONS AND DRAGON ... Book of Erotic Fantasy" and been upset.  Do -I- step to the tune of ten thousand parents?  No.  Does HASBRO?  Yes.  They have an image.  Maybe it's unfortunate in your eyes, but sometimes we have to consider the realities of the situation.  Hasbro and it's underling Wizards Of The Coast doesn't want a thousand parents seeing the first thing on a book about RPing porno the words "Dungeons And Dragons".  It's important to them.

In a situation like this, you don't rock the frickin' boat just to be rocking the boat, which is what Valar and the BoEF is definately trying to do.  Using "Dungeons and Dragons" in press releases, using the name on the book.  

Here, I'll come out and say:  I'm not a marketing expert, I haven't done any market research into whether a sex-theme sex-rule book would sell better than a full setting that involved some of the rules in a fleshed out format.  

BUT, I know -I-, personally, would have bought an adult setting book of violence and nudity.  Would something more tame have been passed by WotC?  Would something not flaunting the D&D name have been passed by WotC?  Maybe not.  But it probably would have been easier for the upper-ups at Hasbro to not notice something less flagrant.  And if they hadn't had something like this shoved under their nose, maybe that hypothetical CoC product might have been made.  Maybe some expansions for my hypothetical setting would have been made.  Maybe a "Harlots and Harridans" expansion would have been released for that setting,  100+ page book on VDs and sex-themed skills and feats and classes.  Maybe I wouldn't have bought it, but at least we'd not be in the position we're in now.

--fje


----------



## isidorus (Sep 9, 2003)

> Berandor
> All I can say is that wizard's reaction shows a perspective on free enterprise that seems to shared by many of today's "global players", namely an utter disregard for its competitors as well as for its consumers, the latter being reduced to automatons trained to buy whatever product sports their trademark. The new license, if applied (now or in the future) can harm more than just AV, might even force small publishers out of business - and not because of inferior product.
> 
> As an author myself, I want to write about what I want to write about. If the public doesn't like what I write, fine. But if someone wants to dictate me what to write, I get pricky.




This almost says it all for me, I write and and design sometimes. No d20 since daemonforge, a long time ago. Now been writing for La and I have to say this license change makes me nervous.  The evil priest thing I am writing for La and was going to do d20  version would fall under this new license, what am I saying the descriptions in my homebrew would fall under it.

 Not going to  do it anymore and wonder how this cange helps them one bit. Defintely cannot trust corparations the bottom line profit is all that matters.

I wonder though and maybe someone can answer, how does this effect fan sites with the same kind of content?

I understand your ideas of protecting your trademark, but after reading all this, it is just hypocrisy and total disregard of freedom of speech.

I am wondering when you guys are going to go to congress and get yourself a law like the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). that way you can issue supenoas just like the RIAA.

Jeez and to think I was going to take money out of my savings to buy the new 3.5 corebooks; even though I am laid-off. Not anymore though.


----------



## d4 (Sep 9, 2003)

i find it a bit amazing that WOTC (through Andy) says that all those pictures fall well within the bounds of "decency" proposed in the new standards when one of them shows _an eviscerated, mauled *Santa Claus* with an exposed rib cage._


----------



## Harlock (Sep 9, 2003)

isidorus said:
			
		

> This almost says it all for me, I write and and design sometimes. No d20 since daemonforge, a long time ago. Now been writing for La and I have to say this license change makes me nervous.  The evil priest thing I am writing for La and was going to do d20  version would fall under this new license, what am I saying the descriptions in my homebrew would fall under it.
> 
> Not going to  do it anymore and wonder how this cange helps them one bit. Defintely cannot trust corparations the bottom line profit is all that matters.
> 
> ...




Another writer who says this means they cannot continue with Project X.  Is the OGL unusable for your project somehow?  You're one of several people who has come out and said this is a disregard for freedom of speech but really, is it?  Does freedom of speech extend to you using someone else's trademarks for your profit?  I don't think it does or else MAD magazine would not have to satirize TM titles.  Also, consider privately owned IRC servers where freedom of speech ends where the server owner says it does.  It is his server, his rules, and he has a right to allow anyone or ban anyone he wishes for any reason.  I'm sure this is apples and oranges, however, but still, can't you publish D&D compatible material under the OGL?


----------



## alaric (Sep 9, 2003)

> (Snipped from Mousferatu's quote)
> 
> [for humans and human-like creatures] gratuitous nudity, the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity is not acceptable
> 
> Pretty straight forward, no sex or naked people (or things close to people). The main complaint I'm seeing is about showing nipples. I know that doesn't offend a lot of you, but we have to draw a line somewhere for what is and isn't nudity.




That seems to make it pretty clear that Mongoose is currently in breach of  the 5.0 version of the license (or is that just a guideline and wizards can choose to hold them in breach or not?) because some (most? all?) of their books have a single topless image in them.  What does this mean for mongoose? Are their current selection of Quintessential books going to get pulled? republished without nipples? or is wizards just using this license for new books?


----------



## isidorus (Sep 9, 2003)

> Another writer who says this means they cannot continue with Project X. Is the OGL unusable for your project somehow? You're one of several people who has come out and said this is a disregard for freedom of speech but really, is it? Does freedom of speech extend to you using someone else's trademarks for your profit? I don't think it does or else MAD magazine would not have to satirize TM titles. Also, consider privately owned IRC servers where freedom of speech ends where the server owner says it does. It is his server, his rules, and he has a right to allow anyone or ban anyone he wishes for any reason. I'm sure this is apples and oranges, however, but still, can't you publish D&D compatible material under the OGL?




Yes I could, I agree about IRC been there alot and seen people thrown off. But I would never write under the d20 and right now do not think I will release under OGL. Maybe my freedom of speech thing went to far, but trademarks and licenses are a little different are not. I am not sure since I am not a lawyer. 

I think it is the tip of the iceberg though. I am wondering if they will invoke the DMCA for programs or websites if they do not like it.


----------



## Baastet (Sep 9, 2003)

*Ah Ha!*



			
				alaric said:
			
		

> That seems to make it pretty clear that Mongoose is currently in breach of the 5.0 version of the license (or is that just a guideline and wizards can choose to hold them in breach or not?) because some (most? all?) of their books have a single topless image in them. What does this mean for mongoose? Are their current selection of Quintessential books going to get pulled? republished without nipples? or is wizards just using this license for new books?




Must go..... run.....Must buy all nipple copies of books before they become nippleless!! 

Baastet


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Sep 9, 2003)

Baastet said:
			
		

> Must go..... run.....Must buy all nipple copies of books before they become nippleless!!
> 
> Baastet



sad but true their going to be collectors items in a few years like the old 1st edition Deities Demigods...


----------



## Largomad (Sep 9, 2003)

Whatever brought Wizards to act in this way, AV's book has recieved an unexpected boost in the game comunity making the need to advertise his product as "requires the use ..." pointless.

My 'sixth sense' hints that at the end BoEF will only benefit for this unexpected  controversy which is in fact very ironic 

Isn't it?

Just my two cents...


----------



## Largomad (Sep 9, 2003)

Edit: Duplicate post, sorry.


----------



## Wycen (Sep 9, 2003)

> I've certainly never heard of WotC demanding any books destroyed




Just this year they forced Fast Forward Entertainment to destroy several books for d20 license violations, (usually stemming from using the name Drawmij).


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2003)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Well it's fine to believe that what one company does doesn't in any way effect the community, that's not how it works.




That's how it works quite often. Products come and go without making a ripple. WotC sure are providing TBoEF with a lot of free publicity. If they see it as a threat, it's a threat that they've nurtured.



> Perhaps you'll enjoy 190 pages of Everything Sexual, but that 190 pages WILL prevent any other products dealing with that sort of material from being published.  Will somebody be able to make a conan-style or Heavy Metal style game setting and release it under D20?  Nope.  Will somebody be able to release the D20 Cthulhu product now?  Nope.  Is that MY fault for believing that the BoEF was a BAD idea?  Not in the least.




Was the policy change AV's idea? Not in the least. That was WotC's choice. There was no gun to their head.



> Yes, the BoEF would have possibly failed.  On the other hand, the BoEF could have prospered.  A thousand thousand gamers could have picked it up and ten thousand parents could have seen "DUNGEONS AND DRAGON ... Book of Erotic Fantasy" and been upset.




So what? You know those parents offended by TBoEF would probably be offended by d20 Heavy Metal and d20 Call of Cthulhu if they displayed excessive gore and/or sexuality, don't you? Console yourself with knowing that just because some mothers out there with too much time on their hands get offended does not spell doom for the corporation. The success of the Grand Theft Auto games makes that pretty clear. I don't see Rockstar Games filing for bankruptcy. 

For that matter, TSR's sales peaked during the (supposedly) negative publicity of the satanism scare of the eighties. TBoVD didn't make the headlines or send WotC's shareholders running to the water closet. 

WotC has to decide what kind of game they want D&D to be. By its very nature, it is not going to work as fare for young kiddies. You do not sit down with orcs and teach them how to share. You pull out your sword and take their lives violently. It's unpleasant business. 



> Hasbro and it's underling Wizards Of The Coast doesn't want a thousand parents seeing the first thing on a book about RPing porno the words "Dungeons And Dragons".  It's important to them.




Then come up with some ground rules for mature content products. Look, here's a "FOR MATURE READERS" logo you need to put on your products alongside the postage stamp logo. That still leaves the D20 system open for adult-oriented products, and it keeps WotC out of the business of scrutinizing every D20 product that comes down the pipeline.



> I know -I-, personally, would have bought an adult setting book of violence and nudity.  Would something more tame have been passed by WotC?  Would something not flaunting the D&D name have been passed by WotC?  Maybe not.  But it probably would have been easier for the upper-ups at Hasbro to not notice something less flagrant.  And if they hadn't had something like this shoved under their nose, maybe that hypothetical CoC product might have been made.  Maybe some expansions for my hypothetical setting would have been made.  Maybe a "Harlots and Harridans" expansion would have been released for that setting,  100+ page book on VDs and sex-themed skills and feats and classes.  Maybe I wouldn't have bought it, but at least we'd not be in the position we're in now.




In the end, WotC are culpable for their policy decisions. They are supposed to be professionals and they are supposed to act (and react) in a calm, rational, businesslike manner.


----------



## Wycen (Sep 9, 2003)

> I've certainly never heard of WotC demanding any books destroyed




Just this year they forced Fast Forward Entertainment to destroy several books for d20 license violations, (usually stemming from using the name Drawmij).


----------



## Largomad (Sep 9, 2003)

Edit: Triple post *sighs*...


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2003)

Deleted double post


----------



## Kichwas (Sep 9, 2003)

What's the Century Worm from?


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 9, 2003)

Wycen said:
			
		

> Just this year they forced Fast Forward Entertainment to destroy several books for d20 license violations, (usually stemming from using the name Drawmij).



It was my understanding that FFE did that on their own; WotC didn't tell them to do it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 9, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Herein lies precisely the problem. Valar, by virtue of trying to exploit every possible loophole in both the d20STL and Open Gaming License - _from the very first press release the company made_, mind you - to play by the letter of the law while intentionally and grossly violating the spirt of the law as much as possible, has created the problem. And now every other third-party publisher has to suffer for it. Assume there are 30 d20 releases this month. Because that _one book_ has been used to poleaxe the licenses, _all thirty books_ will suffer repercussions.



Sorry, I don't buy it.

As for violating the spirit of the law, I never considered _D&D_ a "clean" game for children, especially when Wizards' key target demographic are college-age group, and earlier editions of _AD&D_ have questionable artwork, like a topless mermaid. The idea for d20/OGL is for publishers to make whatever niche products that Wizards can't publish to fill in the gap in the d20 gaming community.

I may consider _Disney_ as a label that is too clean to be on any PG-13 rated films or worse, but _D&D_ or in this case, _d20_ logo?

As for the letter of the law and exploiting loopholes, up until version 5.0, there is nothing there with regards to the acceptable quality of the content, just the rules mechanics and game defined terms. Wizards should have just stick with that.




			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> I'm not pro-censorship outside of the realm of me as a parent censoring what my underage children see, hear, and read (and of course, personal "censorship" in deciding what *I* see, hear, read, and write). But this has not been about censorship. This appears from the outside to be a peeing contest, started by Valar in general and AV in particular. Now, I hope those appearances are deceiving. But even if I agree on some of the points Valar has raised, I can't back them because of the offensive way in which they've raised them (not in terms of the BoEF, but in the way they've carefully and deliberately orchestrated an attack on the spirit of the licenses). The problem for me is not the BoEF itself - the problem for me personally is that Valar has urinated in the pool that all the other d20 publishers are swimming in and has caused a lot of collateral damage for them by doing so.



Would it have been different if it wasn't Valterrra and the _BoEF_? It could have been just another publisher using the d20 ruleset to make an adult-themed RPG with a _d20_ logo attached to it. Even I myself predicted that someday, someone is going to make such an RPG.

Not becoming like Microsoft, they're becoming like Sony who limits videogames that can be played on their Playstation, such as _BMX-XXX._




			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> This isn't about me trying to censor Valar. The BoEF itself will of course have no direct impact on my works - it has no direct impact on me, so I am completely uninterested. BUT Valar's *actions* in using the BoEF as a tool in their attack of the licenses *have* directly impacted me as a third party publisher, and believe me, I'm NOT happy about that.



If what you're saying that you do not agree with Wizards' action in alleged response to the Valterra/_BoEF_ incident, then I concur.


----------



## elforcelf (Sep 9, 2003)

To Wulf and Psion,first Wulf you are a good friend so do not get mad about this post,Psion,well,Wulf you are a good friend.What are you two smoking?TSR alway has been a rules nazi company.I was able to tell this back in 80 went I started playing.To Wulf,talk to you later friend.elforcelf.


----------



## azildurn (Sep 9, 2003)

*a t-shirt for the occasion...*

Well personally I think it's self destructive for WotC to do what they're doing and it's silly that d20 is being treated this way. As I've stated in preveious posts WotC has basically shown that they can't operate in good faith with the gaming community. It is totally their right to do so but it is very bad form.

That said, I love satire, parody, subversion and smartass retorts so here is a link to my t-shirt for the occassion. 

http://www.cafeshops.com/snarlingfrog.7491945 

The picture that's censored was to be art from the new religion suplement for my d20 online stuff (www.dalhazrin.com) which indeed contains many of the things WotC is banning without being crude or over the top. Torment and gore are discusses as part of Hell, what can I say I wanted it to be a bad place. BTW, it was going to contain a maturity warning but that's moot now.

Note: Like all the useless crap I sell in the Snarling Frog Store this isn't a profit thing...cafepress.com gets all the money due to the fact that I don't mark anything up...well at least not t-shirts and junk with logos on it. Also the store wasn't set to launch for another 2 weeks so it's not complete but I couldn't pass up this chance to be obnoxious.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 9, 2003)

I don't like the WotC decision either.  It was, however, a situation that might have been avoided.

Yea, a "For Mature Readers" tag might be nice.  Maybe if Valar approached it differently, there could be.  

Felon:
"In the end, WotC are culpable for their policy decisions. They are supposed to be professionals and they are supposed to act (and react) in a calm, rational, businesslike manner."

Doesn't the same apply to Valar?  They're responsible for their policy decisions and are supposed to act in a businesslike manner.  Alot of things are calling their willingness to do so into question.  

In the end, yes, Valar and BoEF is getting big press, and WotC is a big part of that.  And, y'know, in the end I think it's going to die away.  There'll be more interest in this flagship product from Valar, we'll see how much money this mess gets them.  I have a feeling that, in a year or two, WotC and D&D will still be at the forefront of RP gaming and Valar will be a forgotten start-up.  That's usually how it goes, and sex-themed RP material is a nich market within a struggling nich market.

So yes, the saddest part of this is that, in the end, all we have is a flash-in-the-pan scandal centered around a doubly-nich product and all we, the public, get is further restrictions to the d20 community.

I'm just not comfortable with people putting this entirely in the lap of WotC.  

--fje


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

> So what? You know those parents offended by TBoEF would probably be offended by d20 Heavy Metal and d20 Call of Cthulhu if they displayed excessive gore and/or sexuality, don't you?




Not particularly, no.

That aside, it is WotC's call on what image they wish to project with their trademark, not yours. And I doubt they will be calling on you to fill the position anytime soon.


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 9, 2003)

Wycen said:
			
		

> Just this year they forced Fast Forward Entertainment to destroy several books for d20 license violations, (usually stemming from using the name Drawmij).




Yeah, but that wasn't while AV was there, right?

The Century Worm is an ... um... interesting creature from the Fiend Folio.  Here's a picture.







If that doesn't sum it up for you, let me just give some examples of text for this guy...

"... pulpy flesh topped by a menacing head partially covered by a hood of rough, dark brown skin ... [Squirming larvae] sometimes spill out of the worm's mouth, though they die within an hour for want of their parent's life-giving nutrient bile."

Though, personally, I like the description of how it attacks...
"...finishing off enemies with a satisfying gulp."


----------



## Pagan priest (Sep 9, 2003)

Quite a lot has already been said, some it valid.

First, let us put the "blame" for this where it belongs.  Valar and the BoEF most likely were the catalyst for this change, but the blame still must rest solely on the heads of those who performed the action, in this case WoTC.  Valar did not force a response, certainly not this particular response.  WoTC could have chosen any of a number of responses.

While WoTC has the right (legally) to change the d20 license in any way they choose, at any time they choose, what they have done here is bad.  As has been pointed out, this will have the efect of stifling creativity within the d20 license.  While some of that creativity may simply be chased to the OGL, it is also possible that it will go to other game systems entirely, leaving what has been my favorite game for 26 years that much poorer as a direct result.

A point that has not yet been made, the policy as written is discriminatory.  It is saying that females, by their very nature, are purile in a way that males are not.  Am I the only one that has a problem with this?

As another flaw in WoTC's reasoning, consider this image:

A woman, sitting.  It is obvious that she is completely topless.

(So far, this might be a no-no...)

A nipple is visible.

(Okay, now it is definately a no-no...)

The other nipple is not visible because something is in the way.

(Doesn't change anything yet.)

She is holding a baby to the obscured breast to suckle.

(Now, by all that is right and holy, this should make it legit all by itself, but America has some pretty sick and twisted attitudes about breast feeding...)

She is seated on a throne (not an euphemism, we won't go there)

(Still doen't change things as far as the d20 license goes...)

She is Isis, and the baby is Pharoh.

This is a real world depiction of a real world Goddess(*), and WoTC wants to say it is not allowed?  Now we have religious descrimination to go with the sex discrimination.

(*) Yes I am aware that there are not nearly as many Isis worshipers now as there was 20 or 30 centuries ago, but that is irrelevant.

WoTC needs to withdraw this change immediately.


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

> What are you two smoking?TSR alway has been a rules nazi company.




Um, what is _who_ smoking?

The company you refer to no longer exists. WotC is not TSR. And though I have seen wizards pull some lame brained things, I really must repeat my insistence that given their behavior, WotC has been above the board when it has come to OGL and SRD issues.

I was there for Rob Repp. I know TSR. And WotC is no TSR. The d20 STL and OGL are exactly the opposite of TSR's exhibited behavior.


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 9, 2003)

Harlock said:
			
		

> I hate to be the jerk that gets scowled at if I am wrong, but does a mod mind checking the credentials on this fellow?  Thing is, I've seen AV post here before and so he should have registered before today and have more than this lone post.  Unless of course he simply forgot his password or something and just created a new account rather than waiting for the email with his password to arrive, in which case I gladly apologize.




Yeah its me I'm trying to standardize to ACValterra (which I use on my own site). I used Zulkir when I was with WotC and felt I should change.
AV


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 9, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> From my observation (as a publisher), WotC has only made "nasty changes" to the d20STL when someone starts trying to push the boundaries.
> 
> Now granted, I'm not a fan of WotC and their "selective enforcement" policy... but basically, every time the license has changed, it's been in response to someone taking the letter of the license and running as far as they think they can from the spirit of it.



I disagree. Not _*every *_time. One of the first license changes came after a third party started producing (or announced intentions to produce) minatures which included d20 stats about each fig. I thought this was a semi-cool idea. Then WotC changed the license to forbid this because they were going to produce their own line of miniatures.

I don't believe that third party company (can't even remember the name) had crossed the line or intentionally tried to push the boundaries away from the spirit of the license. I certainly don't think they deserved to be steam-rollered the way they were.

I believe that some of the changes to the license were justified (like the copy-cat core rulebook thing). I believe the miniatures one was to prevent competition. I believe the quality one is just a punative tantrum.

-Dave


----------



## d4 (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> That aside, it is WotC's call on what image they wish to project with their trademark, not yours. And I doubt they will be calling on you to fill the position anytime soon.



and with pierced nipples on the cover of the Fiend Folio, several pictures of graphic gore and violence in _many_ WOTC books, and pretty much the whole of the BoVD, all we can surmise is that WOTC doesn't mind projecting this image -- they just seem reluctant to let anyone else in the d20 market project it.


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> and with pierced nipples on the cover of the Fiend Folio, several pictures of graphic gore and violence in _many_ WOTC books, and pretty much the whole of the BoVD, all we can surmise is that WOTC doesn't mind projecting this image -- they just seem reluctant to let anyone else in the d20 market project it.




And once again, for those who can't be bothered to read my past posts, it is apparent to me that different people were at the helm when those books were printed. 

Even if so, the BoVD is orders of magnitude less... um, _daring_ than BoEF, so this argument is a non-starter from multiple perspectives.


----------



## d4 (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> And once again, for those who can't be bothered to read my past posts, it is apparent to me that different people were at the helm when those books were printed.



i am aware of that. and as i have said in a past post on this thread, to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, WOTC needs to clean up their own act. pulling the BoVD from shelves would be a good start IMO.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Even if so, the BoVD is orders of magnitude less... um, _daring_ than BoEF, so this argument is a non-starter from multiple perspectives.



speak for yourself. myself, i am _much_ more offended by the BoVD than what i've seen of the BoEF.


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> speak for yourself. myself, i am _much_ more offended by the BoVD than what i've seen of the BoEF.




Well, much as I had to tell felon, it is WotC's call, not yours, as to which image they find more objectionable for their trademark.


----------



## d4 (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, much as I had to tell felon, it is WotC's call, not yours, as to which image they find more objectionable for their trademark.



of course you are correct, Psion.

however, i find it quite disappointing that WOTC has apparently chosen to say that sex is more objectionable than torture and demon worship.

the whole "Violence good / Sex bad" attitude that seems to pervade modern American society quite frankly sickens me. i freely admit this is only my opinion based on what i see around me.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 9, 2003)

Is there any chance we can quit with the knee-jerk extreme over reactions with regard to freedom of speech?

We are talking about requirements for a license.  Doesn't the very defintion of the word "license" trump any connection to "free" speech?  Obviously it does.

I agree that to some extent WotC has been pushed into this.  But I agree more that this particular reaction is ill-conceived, overblown and ultimately counter-productive.  So in no way am I defending WotC's choice of action.

But freedom of speech is vastly more important to me than anything to do with gaming.  

When people start trying to lump ideas under free speech that simply do not belong there, all they do is provide leverage to the real opponents of true free speech.  (And no, I don't think a thread at ENworld is going to lead to anything.  But it is a very sesitive issue to me.)

Anyway, the comics authority code told Swamp Thing they would not give them there stamp.  The writers didn't scream censorship.  They just published without the stamp.  Exactly the same option applies here.

WotC saying you can not put THEIR logo on your product for whatever reason they dream up, regardless of how smart or dumb (and this is dumb) is totally their perogative.  It is not censorship.  It is less censorship than it will be whenever this thread gets locked.  And that still won't be slightly an encroachment against freedom of speech.


----------



## Najo (Sep 9, 2003)

*Revised D20 STL*

Two problems with the current license -

1) It doens't allow companies to use tasteful nudity or excessive violence in the same manner as the D&D books do. This forces the third party products to go from R or PG13 to PG. 

2) The liscense gives WOTC sole descretion as to determine what is not appropiate material (in art or text). This technical means that WOTC needs no reason other than "we find your book objectionable' to say 'destroy your inventory'. 

Publishers don't want to take that risk. They need to provide another license that has a very small fee (i.e. just covering operational costs) that allows a publisher to get approval from WOTC to use mature content responsibly and makes the approved 3rd party product exempt from the sole descretion clause.


----------



## LuciusT (Sep 9, 2003)

Pagan priest said:
			
		

> She is Isis, and the baby is Pharoh.
> 
> This is a real world depiction of a real world Goddess(*), and WoTC wants to say it is not allowed?  Now we have religious descrimination to go with the sex discrimination.
> 
> (*) Yes I am aware that there are not nearly as many Isis worshipers now as there was 20 or 30 centuries ago, but that is irrelevant.




There are still a few of us.  Still, if you prefer to a more "modern" depiction, call the lady Mary and the baby Jesus. The thematic elements are the same. 

IMO, WotC is wrong. There decision is absurd and as other have pointed out, typical of a deranged American cultural that finds violence perfectly acceptable but sex to be totally reprehensible. I am disappointed.

I am not, however, surprised and as others have said, WotC is well within their rights. They will suffer the consquences of their actions.


----------



## afstanton (Sep 9, 2003)

I posted this at WotC, thought I'd post here, too:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andy Smith 
We feel that Urban Arcan is within the guidelines. Maybe just within them. Like I said, this isn't something you can write quantitative guidelines for, hence the vagueness.



A) We don't use the d20 License because we own the trademark.
B) Ignoring that, the nymph's nipples are covered. The standards specify bare nipples.
C) Ignoring that, the MM3.5 was published before the license revision. Were it a d20 licensed product it would just have to be changed with the next printing. It would not be recalled
D) Assuming the MM 3.5 had been published after the license was changed I'd probably send the publisher a letter that said "hey, you made a minor license violation, don't do it again". It would not be recalled. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BoVD was written before I came here, so I can't honestly comment as to whether the policy now is the same as it was then.
I would suggest a more holistic approach if you wanted to look at our products for examples, though Urban Arcana seems to be shaping up to be a decent guideline for our limits (I wonder how often I'm going to type "the roach thrall is just within the boundries" tonight?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Andy, with regards to pieces C) and D) from the first quote and the sentence on the BoVD in the second quote:

It doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. The old version of the license protected people from retroactive product destruction, but the new version does not. If a 3rd party had published those books and not WotC, WotC would be well within their legal rights to order those texts destroyed. Not fixed in the next printing, but destroyed. At WotC's "sole discretion."

That's one of the major issues here. I realize that you are asserting that WotC wouldn't do that, but that's irrelevant as well. The fact is that WotC has announced that they have the capability to order destruction of product that was previously acceptable. The safe harbor has been eliminated.

With a risk like that, why would any 3rd party publisher want to invest the time and money to release a product under the d20 license? It's one thing to say that WotC would never do that, but what if WotC decides that a product is interfering with a proposed product line? Would WotC invoke the d20 and destroy it? No need to answer - the first version of the d20 logo usage guide made no mention of miniature rules, did it?

What if someone creates a fantastic product that threatens d20 Future? Will that be destroyed as well?

Aaron


----------



## jester47 (Sep 9, 2003)

Pagan priest said:
			
		

> Quite a lot has already been said, some it valid.
> 
> A point that has not yet been made, the policy as written is discriminatory.  It is saying that females, by their very nature, are purile in a way that males are not.  Am I the only one that has a problem with this?
> 
> ...




No this image is ok.  Here is the text:

"Sexual Themes - Sexual situations—including abuse and pornography—may not appear graphically in art or text."  

None of that on the image of Isis.  She is not abusing the child nor are her "naughty bits" being expositioned in shuch a way as to cause arousal.

"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."

The nudity of Isis is not gratuitous.  That is she is not naked just to show a naked woman.  I do not belive this to be a list but a clarification of what is "gratuitous."  If that was the case the end of the sentance would be "...are 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."

In this depiction isis is not being sexual or sensual.  

So I think your goddess was safe.  Gratuitous would be if the child was wide eyed and giving the "thumbs up."

Aaron.


----------



## Skarp Hedin (Sep 9, 2003)

When was the Book of Erotic Fantasy announced, anyhow?  Andy Smith did mention this tidbit on the WotC boards:



> This change has been in the works for arcane legal reasons for over a year.




Has it really been a full year since the BoEF was announced?  I wouldn't have thought so.  Likewise, if it hasn't been a year yet for that, then it wouldn't have been a year yet since Anthony Valterra left WotC, so as business manager, he shoulda known about this standards of decency bit, right?

Now, if it has really been a year (and where does that time go?), then that's one thing.

If it hasn't been a year, then it stands to reason that this change cannot have been precipitated by the BoEF, however.  Exacerbated and/or accelerated perhaps, but not precipitated.

Edit:  Okay, so I looks me on the Valar Project website, and their initial craptastical press release about peering up Arwen's skirts is dated April 28, and was posted on their site May 1, 2003.  As I recall, Anthony Valterra left WotC at right about that time, so he left (assuming that Andy Smith is correct above) after the legal department had been working on the standards of decency for 8 months.

Therefore, I fail to see how this can be blamed on him.  Unless, of course, Andy's either wrong or lying.  I'd rather not think he was lying, but people do it, blast them.


----------



## scourger (Sep 9, 2003)

*Good for OWTC!*

Good for Wizards of the Coast!  This industry (perhaps more than many others) has to police itself.  If it takes a "heavy" like WOTC, then that is okay with me.  I think the d20 system license requirements will continue to be good for the hobby.  Somebody has to protect the game.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 9, 2003)

Skarp Hedin said:
			
		

> Therefore, I fail to see how this can be blamed on him.  Unless, of course, Andy's either wrong or lying.  I'd rather not think he was lying, but people do it, blast them.




This is Andy the intern wizards talked about, right?  He's just saying what the lawyers told him to say.  That's why he posted nearly the same boilerplate on the wizards messageboard as someone else got back from the wizards customer service email.


----------



## Skarp Hedin (Sep 9, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> This is Andy the intern wizards talked about, right?  He's just saying what the lawyers told him to say.  That's why he posted nearly the same boilerplate on the wizards messageboard as someone else got back from the wizards customer service email.




Yes, exactly (and as that customer service email was signed "Darrin", I'll betchum it's from Oathbound's own Darrin Drader) -- he's just saying what the lawyers told him to say.

In that case, if the lawyers are being truthtelling sorts, then this standards of decency bit predates the BoEF announcement by eight months.

If the lawyers are being deceitful sorts (but we all know lawyers do not lie), then Andy's wrong (and participating in their deceit, though most likely unwittingly) and WotC's official Q&A fellow on their boards is spreading laywer-lies about the causation behind the d20 STL change -- which will only further erode customer confidence (even though everyone expects laywers and corporations to lie anyhow)

So that's what I wanna know: Which is it?


----------



## linnorm (Sep 9, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> No this image is ok.  Here is the text:
> 
> "Sexual Themes - Sexual situations—including abuse and pornography—may not appear graphically in art or text."
> 
> ...




I disagree on the 'safety' of the image.  It states that "the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity" are considered gratuitous.  There is no qualifier to this except that WotC may or may not enforce it at thier discretion.  However, if they don't it shows that they do not enforce the terms of the license equally.

On a different point, I don't find this all that damaging.  As has been pointed out, the OGL is an acceptable replacement license.  At one point I was considering doing this myself.  Unfortunatly, WotC withdrew a few of the main elements of my campaign from the SRD, thus ending my ability to publish my setting.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 9, 2003)

scourger said:
			
		

> Good for Wizards of the Coast!  This industry (perhaps more than many others) has to police itself.  If it takes a "heavy" like WOTC, then that is okay with me.  I think the d20 system license requirements will continue to be good for the hobby.  Somebody has to protect the game.




No offense meant, but can you not think for yourself?  Do you really want someone telling you what you can and cannot read or use in your games?  I sure as hell don't.


----------



## Cyberhawk (Sep 9, 2003)

*Horror d20 R.I.P.*

With these new decency guidelines I have to wonder how many horror games will continue to be published with d20 and will instead go to OGL?  

Of all the genres (besides erotic/adult) horror is the one that pushes the envelope the most, becuase it's goal is to scare and disturb you to some level.  In order to scare a well-read and probably jaded audience (rpg fans) you have to push a bit to get a reaction.

And like it or not gore and nudity are often used to get that reaction.  Not everyone does it, nor does everyone need to do it.  But it is there and it is a valid tool.  Under this license you would be seriously risking your product if you published something thematically like World of Darkness or Call of Cthulhu as a 3rd party d20 game (not counting the licensed CoC d20..which is a seperate license IIRC) .

Anyways, just some thoughts (inspired in part by the previous post about the comic code...it's one big change was to kill off the horror comic).


----------



## thundershot (Sep 9, 2003)

Skarp Hedin said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly (and as that customer service email was signed "Darrin", I'll betchum it's from Oathbound's own Darrin Drader) -- he's just saying what the lawyers told him to say.




Um.... 

NO

Darrin's a freelance writer (and a very good one at that, since I've enjoyed all his books thus far), not a customer service rep for WotC. Unless there's something that he's not telling us... 



Chris


----------



## jester47 (Sep 9, 2003)

linnorm said:
			
		

> I disagree on the 'safety' of the image.  It states that "the depiction of genitalia, bare female nipples, and sexual or bathroom activity" are considered gratuitous.  There is no qualifier to this except that WotC may or may not enforce it at thier discretion.  However, if they don't it shows that they do not enforce the terms of the license equally.
> 
> On a different point, I don't find this all that damaging.  As has been pointed out, the OGL is an acceptable replacement license.  At one point I was considering doing this myself.  Unfortunatly, WotC withdrew a few of the main elements of my campaign from the SRD, thus ending my ability to publish my setting.




Thats what I was saying- the way I am parsing the sentance is in the following manner:

When depicting the human form [qualifier for F/SF genre] Gratuitous nudity [examples] is not acceptable.

But interpretation is half the fun!!!!

Aaron.


----------



## Faraer (Sep 9, 2003)

> improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand



The 'quality' of the brand is something other than the quality of products. If companies comply with these requirements and keep publishing under the d20 license, the books will become worse. This programme reinforces the showing of pretty violence and death without consequences, secondary worlds of which sexuality is a cordoned-off and not an integral part, and fetishization of unclothed bodies. The subgenre of D&D fantasy will move further into meaning-stripped, artistically null, politically irresponsible fantasyland hell.

The original Comics Code was a combination of political censorship and psychologically damaged people perpetuating their psychoses. At least we don't get the clause of the TSR Code of Ethics that forbade showing law-enforcement officials in a bad light.


----------



## jaldaen (Sep 9, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> No offense meant, but can you not think for yourself?  Do you really want someone telling you what you can and cannot read or use in your games?  I sure as hell don't.




Actually WotC cannot tell you or AV what you can read or use in your games... they can't (the OGL can be used to publish whatever you want), but what they can do is say they don't want their trademarks d20 or "Dungeons and Dragons" (which *must* appear on the cover of d20 books, at least last I checked ;-) associated with it... and are well within their rights. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with it.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 9, 2003)

thundershot said:
			
		

> Um....
> 
> NO
> 
> ...




Actually, he's both.

He posted a thread in "General" a while back asking for feedback on WotC customer service.


----------



## Faraer (Sep 9, 2003)

> improve and protect the quality of the d20 brand



The 'quality' of the brand is quite different from the quality of products, then. If companies comply with these requirements and keep publishing under the d20 license, the books will become worse. This programme reinforces the showing of pretty violence and death without consequences, secondary worlds of which sexuality is a cordoned-off and not an integral part, and fetishization of unclothed bodies. The subgenre of D&D fantasy will move further into meaning-stripped, artistically null, politically irresponsible fantasyland hell.

The original Comics Code was a combination of political censorship and psychologically damaged people perpetuating their psychoses. At least we don't get the clause of the TSR Code of Ethics that forbade showing law-enforcement officials in a bad light.


----------



## linnorm (Sep 9, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Thats what I was saying- the way I am parsing the sentance is in the following manner:
> 
> When depicting the human form [qualifier for F/SF genre] Gratuitous nudity [examples] is not acceptable.
> 
> ...




Sorry, apparently I wan't clear on what I was disagreeing with.      I don't dispute your interpretation as quoted above, but as "bare female nipples" are one of the examples there are many products that are most certainly *not* safe from being tagged as violators of the license.  The majority (or at least the ones I've seen) of Mongoose's products serve as a good example.


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 9, 2003)

Folks,

So, yes, it is me. I'm trying to standardize my name to ACValterra. I used Zulkir when I was with WotC. I use ACValterra on the boards on our site (www.valarproject.com).

Okay - a few things that I can now say. First as a former employee of WotC I am constrained in some of the things I can reveal for legal reasons. But as soon as WotC says it publically I am obviously freed up. WotC has now confessed that these changes have been in the works for a year. A YEAR FOLKS!!!!! BoeF was announced last MARCH!!! Do the math!

Everyone who has been saying Anthony Valterra ruined it for all of us can now please eat their words. They were assuming this order:

1) Anthony (pool pee-er) Valterra announces BoeF because he is a Machivellian money grubber.
2) WotC in a panic changes the license to try and stop the product.

Thus BoeF is responsible for the change.

It is now obvious that this is the order:

1) WotC (internally) decides that the license must be changed about fall of last year.
2) Anthony opposes the change for 6 months and then realizing the battle is lost leaves WotC to do the product that **he really believes in** and has wanted to do since he cludged a courtesan class in his college D&D game. 
3) In his attempt to move fast he writes his own press release (a move he has desperately regreted ever since)
4) He then whips his poor creatives in an attempt to beat the license change.
5) Even though badly abused they turn out absolutely brilliant work.

Oh, and by the way all those who *know* what the BoeF is going to be like you might check out some of the reviews of the preview. Maybe its not what you think it is. Don't judge it by the idiot press release. I fired that moron.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=JoeGKushner&product=BoEFP

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Llabak&product=BoEFP&

http://www.computingondemand.com/articles/The Valar Project/page1.shtml

AV


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

Well, Mr. Valterra. Though I am the one who will be eating them, in my defense, I suspected that it might be the case that your exodus from WotC was precipitated by a policy change, which is pretty good considering I had access to none of the facts. 

That said, I am surprised you are so open about this, seeings how your depature from WotC seems to be peppered with an NDA, judging by the character of your statements at the time.


----------



## Mark (Sep 9, 2003)

Thank you for posting those details, AV.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 9, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sorry, I don't buy it.
> 
> As for violating the spirit of the law, I never considered _D&D_ a "clean" game for children, especially when Wizards' key target demographic are college-age group, and earlier editions of _AD&D_ have questionable artwork, like a topless mermaid. The idea for d20/OGL is for publishers to make whatever niche products that Wizards can't publish to fill in the gap in the d20 gaming community.



I'm not strictly referring to the subject matter of the BoEF.  I'm referring to _everything_ I have seen done with regard to the BoEF.  I'm referring to their "press release" sprinkled liberally with "Dungeons & Dragons (TM)" (among other trademarks).  I'm referring to Valar's response to the hue and cry among publishers that they violated point seven of the Open Game License with the line, "well, technically, a press release isn't considered _marketing_ so it's okay."  I'm referring to them doing the small font size/large font size trick with the "This book requires the use of the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS Player's Handbook" (or whatever the exact phrase is).

All of these "twists" of the spirit of the license had long been discussed on the OGF-L boards among publishers.  Everyone knew the loopholes were in there (well, perhaps not the "press release != marketing" try), but it was pretty much concluded that it would be exceedingly bad form to try to exploit them and that doing so would draw the wrath of WotC and provoke changes in the license.  In other words, the publishing community at large knew exactly where to kick the sleeping giant to wake it up and put it in a bad mood... and everyone agreed it was a bad idea to do so because doing so would damage everyone.  In fact, I remember one of my own posts on the board to someone who wouldn't stop harping on the possibility... to the effect of, "look, everyone here has dismissed this idea as a bad business decision and one that will draw the ire of the entire community except you - why are you so worried about it unless you are pondering an attempt at it yourself?"

Anthony Valterra, as the person in charge of enforcing of the license, probably had more opportunity to become familiar with the ins and outs of it - and knew _exactly_ where to kick the sleeping giant.  When he and WotC parted ways, he immediately proceeded to go out and kick the giant in exactly the ways that everyone else had been speciously avoiding.  He shouldn't be surprised that everyone's upset with him - since everyone else had already said to themselves, "well, we _could_ kick the giant, but doing so would be eminently foolish and would result in severe collateral damage to others."

To use another metaphor, everyone made sure to light their fires well away from the puddle of gasoline in the middle of the parking lot.  Then Valar walked in and deliberately dropped not a match, but several burning torches right into the middle of it.

Yes, WotC's reaction is overkill.  However, it was a reaction that was in fact foreseen by most of the publishing community, who were quite careful not to try to trigger it.  That the person who used to hold the hammer is the one who made (to the appearance of an uninformed outsider) a deliberate, and calculated attempt to simultaneously kick the sleeping giant in the eyes, nose, mouth, and groin makes it all the more unpalatable.



> I may consider _Disney_ as a label that is too clean to be on any PG-13 rated films or worse, but _D&D_ or in this case, _d20_ logo?
> 
> As for the letter of the law and exploiting loopholes, up until version 5.0, there is nothing there with regards to the acceptable quality of the content, just the rules mechanics and game defined terms. Wizards should have just stick with that.



I have always considered D&D and d20 as a PG-13 rated logo... because the game is played by adolescents (perhaps not predominantly so, but as I recall from a poll I ran here a few years ago, the VAST majority of ENWorlders who responded were under 18 when they were introduced to the game - meaning that in my eyes, the game needs to be suitable for the age of first introduction - teens, hence, PG-13).  That's my own opinion, and I know others disagree... and have every right to.  I simply contend that the game really cannot be "D&D" without some PG-13 elements - but CAN be "D&D" without R elements - those same elements that made, for instance, the Lord of the Rings PG-13 - but you'll note that the movies did not suffer (IMO) for lack of inclusion of R-rated material (if someone would like to suggest R-rated material that would have appreciably improved the movies, I think that's a discussion for another thread) - but taking out the PG-13 elements ("epic violence") would in fact, have killed the story.  There's no doubt that "dark and gritty D&D" could probably be R, but "D&D" as I know it can probably be done in PG-13 with little loss of quality.

But I'm digressing here.  I agree that WotC *should* have stuck to keeping "quality control" out of things.  However, by doing so, they would have to allow the person who was busy slapping at every loophole he could find to publish with impunity.  I think there was some ego involved on BOTH sides.  AV could have published the BoEF without trying to exploit - and loudly so - every loophole in the license.  For that, HE bears some of the weight of blame.  If he simply wanted to publish the BoEF, he did not need to resort to trying to drag the D&D (note: NOT d20) name into it every chance he got (in the press release, using the font trick, etc.).  Again, I can't tell you AV's intentions, as I have no camera inside his head, but from the outside, it looks like he has been involved in some sort of ego assuagement as he has gone *far* out of his way in trying to link his product to D&D (and NOT so much d20).  Then I think some ego assaugement came into play at WotC - so they changed the d20 license in the only way they could to really make a hard slap at him - by adding the content clause.

Yes, WotC's reaction was overkill.  But it's the same way my reaction of grabbing and repeatedly punching my younger brother was overkill when I was ten and he was eight and he had just finished bad-mouthing, teasing, and provoking me for three hours.  Yes, my action was probably overkill, but it was not unprovoked nor inexplicable.



> Would it have been different if it wasn't Valterrra and the _BoEF_? It could have been just another publisher using the d20 ruleset to make an adult-themed RPG with a _d20_ logo attached to it. Even I myself predicted that someday, someone is going to make such an RPG.



Mongoose's Nymphology provoked no such reaction from WotC.  Why not?  Because it was not taking every opportunity it could, and using every loophole it could find to say, "this is a D&D product!"  (again, NOT a d20 Product).

I think it would have been different if AV and Valar had not tried to drag "D&D" through the mud again and again.  If AV had just been like every other publisher and said, "I'm releasing a d20 book.  It will deal with X" (and in his case X was sex in RPGs), I think WotC would have ignored it.  

I felt from the beginning, that AV was not saying, "I'm releasing a d20 book that deals with Sex In RPGs."  I saw AV saying, "I'm releasing a d20 book which is compatible with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and which by the way IS ALL ABOUT SEX and did I mention it can be used with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS because we need MORE SEX RULES for DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and as a d20 product, this SET OF SEX RULES is compatible with the rules used in DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS." 

I think if AV had chosen the former, then we'd be all right - but he chose the latter course, despite the general consensus that even doing something like "I'm releasing a d20 book which is compatible with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONSand which by the way IS ALL ABOUT PRESTIGE CLASSES and did I mention it can be used with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS because we need MORE PRESTIGE CLASS RULES for DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and as a d20 product, this SET OF PRESTIGE CLASS RULES is compatible with the rules used in DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS." The inclusion of "SEX" instead of "PRESTIGE CLASSES" certainly offended WotC/Hasbro's corporate sensibilities even more than would have "PRESTIGE CLASSES," but I have to think even "PRESTIGE CLASSES" would have drawn WotC's corporate ire when used in such a manner.  Again, this is MY outsider perception of the situation, and YMMV.



> If what you're saying that you do not agree with Wizards' action in alleged response to the Valterra/_BoEF_ incident, then I concur.



I do not agree with Wizards' action in alleged response to the Valterra incident.  I more strongly disagree with Valterra's actions to expressly tie his product to D&D rather than d20, which I think was unprofessional, regardless of whether he was pushing a PrC book or a Sex in RPGs book and which I feel prompted the heavy-handed response.

That I find the BoEF distasteful is another matter entirely.  I'm on record as saying I wish Valar had not decided to publish it.  That doesn't mean I won't defend their RIGHT to publish such a thing, or the right of others to read it.  It does mean I wish they had focused their creative energies on something I might have found useful (such as, say, Mass Combat Rules).  I don't care what AV is publishing.  I do care that his apparently deliberate attempts to say, "DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" and "VALAR'S SEX PROJECT" in the same sentence as many times as possible have prompted WotC to lay the smackdown on everyone.  I would NOT have such ire directed at AV had he deliberately attempted to say "d20" and "VALAR'S SEX PROJECT" as many times as possible.  WotC's response might have been the same, but I suspect not... I suspect this was in (apparently egotistical) response to AV's (apparently egotistical) dragging of the D&D brand name into the mud and they are hitting him the only way they can - through the d20 license.  See the fine grain of difference?

--The Sigil


----------



## Belen (Sep 9, 2003)

It is obvious that WOTC was trying to avoid books such as the BoEF with the change in their policy.  The fact that you used insider knowledge of the change to "beat" them to the punch was in poor form.  In fact, the change would not even have been noticed if the BoEF had not been an issue.

However, it is obvious that you are using the controversy to sell books.  And it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth now as if this was planned by Valar.

Sorry, AV, but I just cannot get behind you on the issue of your book.  If it was just fantasy sexual archetypes, and a discussion of family, love, romance and sex in a fantasy world, then I would be one of the first in line to buy your book.

However, I think you went a little overboard by adding the "real" photos and by including more modern sexual mores.  A PrC for a Dominatrix alone ended it for me, but I digress.

It is obvious that WOTC was trying to avoid books such as the BoEF with the change in their policy


----------



## JeffB (Sep 9, 2003)

KingOfChaos said:
			
		

> Do you really want someone telling you what you can and cannot read or use in your games?  I sure as hell don't.




But that is NOT what is happening. Nobody is telling anyone what they can and can’t use in your games or what you can or cannot read. WOTC is telling D20 publishers who use THEIR license, you can’t put our “seal of approval” on it. 

My 2 cents in general…

It amazes me to see how many people are b%$#$ing and moaning about WOTC doing what it wants/needs to do with their own license/Logo/whatever. 

AND people still don’t get the fact you can publish "looking up arwen’s skivvies" under the OGL. So they are STILL allowing you to use one of THEIR licenses to publish whatever you want AS LONG AS it doesn’t have any tie-in to D20/D&D Logos.

It is WOTC's RIGHT to do whatever they will with THEIR license (for good or ill) . Doesn’t have a thing to do w/ Free Speech or other such nonsense. If it wasn’t for WOTC ever bringing out the license in the first place, it’s likely none of the writers/publishers complaining on this thread about what WOTC has done with the license, would ever even been in this situation.  

As far as Hypocrisy goes, it matters not in the core of this whole scenario. IF WOTC feels it's OK to publish something like BoEF in the future then they can go right ahead. It's their rep/logo/brand on the line and they will be fully responsible for the consequences. What they don't want is to be linked to/reponsible for someone else's "stepping over the line"material where they have no way to protect themselves from it. 

Common sense if you ask me...This is not about "the man" bringing any one down. This is about a business doing darn well whatever they please with their own property.

Edited to take into account AV's comments about time of the decision to change the license.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 9, 2003)

Darn new boards..double post..deleted


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, Mr. Valterra. Though I am the one who will be eating them, in my defense, I suspected that it might be the case that your exodus from WotC was precipitated by a policy change, which is pretty good considering I had access to none of the facts. .




Good Catch! It was the lag time that threw most people. After a month or so and no announced changes everyone assumed that it wasn't a policy change. What most people don't realize is how slow changes occur in major corporations.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> That said, I am surprised you are so open about this, seeings how your depature from WotC seems to be peppered with an NDA, judging by the character of your statements at the time.




Boilerplate statements are almost always a dead give away that something is *not* being said.

AV


----------



## JeffB (Sep 9, 2003)

AGHHHHH..triple post


----------



## Baastet (Sep 9, 2003)

*Ow my eyes are bleeding*

Sigil
How is anyone suposed to read you bloomin post if thier eyes are bleeding in thier sockets because of that.... creative font sizing. Needless to say if you had anything important or vailidating or even interesting to say it would have been more effective without the Font bolding sarcasm. 

Baastet

(Now I have a major headache because I really did TRY to read through that . ugh)


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

Of course, I don't find Anthony's statement exactly encouraging news. Before, I suspected that the reason that this license was so problematic was that it was rushed out in response to their cover blurb font schenanigan.

But now that we know that probably isn't the case, that means that this license is probably the finished product and less likely to see a change. Which is unfortunate, since it seems that in its current state, it is causing a lot of paranoia.

On the bright side, it means that they didn't do it just to target one company.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 9, 2003)

JeffB said:
			
		

> It amazes me to see how many people are b%$#$ing and moaning about WOTC doing what it wants/needs to do with their own license/Logo/whatever. <snip>
> 
> It is WOTC's RIGHT to do whatever they will with THEIR license (for good or ill) <snip>
> 
> Common sense if you ask me...This is not about "the man" bringing any one down. This is about a business doing darn well whatever they please with their own property.




What I don't like about the change is two-fold. The d20 mark is a mark of compatability, always has been. By adding the content restrictions, Wizards is broadening the definition of the mark, opening themselves to more responsibility and risk. They certainly have the right to do this, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

For the second part of my objection, I will blatantly quote what someone posted on the subject in a different venue, because he says it better than I could. 

Up until now, WOTC has been, as noted, extremely accomodating, going beyond the letter of the contract in many ways, working with publishers in violation rather than heavy-handedly enforcing the terms any time the opportunity arose. This behavior helped quell a lot of the paranoia, at least among anyone capable of judging fairly -- in other words, given the chance to use violations of the license to harm competition, WOTC instead did all it could to help bring the books into line, instead. The release of the 3.5 SRD, the opening of other WOTC material, and so on, all are very positive moves that deserve praise and acknowledgement. This is why this particular move, rapidly slammed into the license with no forewarning and, unless I missed it in one of my periodic mail glitchs, not even an official "Heads up!" from WOTC on this or other lists, comes as a bit of a shock, and seems, to some, to signal a rapid degeneration in WOTC/3rd party relationships.

I think these two things are why many people are worried.
-Dave


----------



## Veander (Sep 9, 2003)

Interesting, Anthony.  I had this thought in the back of my mind the last day or so since this information came out.  The thought was exactly what you indicated.  WotC did this long before anyone had produced BoEF.   I didn't have the energy to look into it, but it's interesting I thought about it.   

Anyone think the real reason is related to the smutty (though I like them hehe hehe hehe) Avalanche covers? 

I already sent an email to WotC to say my peace.  Hasbro is going to keep testing what the companyt hat owns DnD can do before losing it's players.  They can only push so far in my case, but I wonder if it never matters; people will simply follow like a bunch of sheeps no matter the abuses to the industry.  Just hypothesizing.

V


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Everyone who has been saying Anthony Valterra ruined it for all of us can now please eat their words. They were assuming this order:
> 
> 1) Anthony (pool pee-er) Valterra announces BoeF because he is a Machivellian money grubber.
> 2) WotC in a panic changes the license to try and stop the product.
> ...



I won't delete my previous posts - once words are out, you can't call them back, and I want everything I have said to remain out there for folks to see.  My feeling is that everyone should see everything I say so that they don't get an "edited" version of me to somehow look "nicer."  They can see me warts and all.

My apologies to you, Anthony, for thinking that your work precipitated the change in policy.  I'm still not thrilled with what I've heard of the product itself, but then, I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sex in RPGs in general - perhaps because I still don't have a good Mass Combat offering and would rather have seen you do that instead.   Seriously, though, I may not like the subject matter you have chosen and do not feel it necessary nor desirable for an RPG book, I will defend your right to publish such things... though I myself won't be buying them.

I'm still of mixed opinion as to your repeated references to "Dungeons & Dragons" rather than "D20" as detailed above but will let that go for now.  I am not the type that wants to hold grudges... nor am I good at doing so anyway.



> Oh, and by the way all those who *know* what the BoeF is going to be like you might check out some of the reviews of the preview. Maybe its not what you think it is. Don't judge it by the idiot press release. I fired that moron.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=JoeGKushner&product=BoEFP
> 
> ...



*Shrugs* The reviews have done little to change my mind as to what the project is - not to mention the computingondemand review seems to be more of a review of how nice everybody at Valar is rather than of the BoEF itself.  My opinion of the BoEF?  It's a somewhat explicit guide (textually and visually) to adding a dose of sexuality to RPGs that probably falls pictorially between Maxim (which I have no use for) and Playboy (which I have even less use for).  But then, I'm apparently not the target audience - the curtain falls over sex in my games as soon as the bedroom door closes.  I have as much use for this book as I have for a Psionics supplement - since Psionics have no place in my game (wrong flavor for me), no matter how well-done the book, I won't buy it because I simply won't use it.

I will refrain from making any more negative comments about how you've "peed in the pool" etc. and hope you accept my apology.  

I seem to be one of the conservative curmudgeons around here anyway (dropping my Dragon subscription due to their decision to include the S-bomb and F-bomb and with a specific statement saying they did not intend to make it a policy to actively avoid such in the foreseeable future, for example), "Darn kids!  Get off my lawn!"  so our views of what should and shouldn't be in a game probably won't mesh well anyway LOL.  But those are of course, differences in opinion, not fact, and I can recognize them as such.  

BTW, crow tastes like chicken, in case anyone is wondering.   

--The Sigil


----------



## smetzger (Sep 9, 2003)

AV,  You mentioned that it was a mistake for you to write your own press release.  That makes it sound like you did _not_ intend to claim your project was compatable with D&D.  Yet, shortly after people pointed out that this was a direct violation of the d20 STL, you something to the effect of "No, its not a violation because its not an advertisement.  While I was in charge of the d20 license I never said you couldn't claim compatability of D&D in a press release."

Since then you have gone on to do the increased font trick.  Which is not in the spirit of the d20 license.

Now, you are saying that you tried to jump the gun on the d20 license change.  However, since the inseption of the d20 license publishers have had to retroactively adhere to the d20 license even _after_ a product ws published.  So, your trying to jump the gun doesn't wash with me because even if your product had been out a year before these changes you would still need to comply.  You were in charge of this at WOTC, you knew this.

So, maybe your pissing in the pool didn't cause this.  But that doesn't change the fact that you did piss in the pool.


----------



## TiQuinn (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> It is now obvious that this is the order:
> 
> ...




Why release it as a d20 product when you know that a license change is coming about and might conflict with your product?  Isn't the license change retroactive?  Why not go OGL?


----------



## TheRaven (Sep 9, 2003)

Harlock said:
			
		

> Publishers _can_ create those things but they need to use the OGL.  WotC isn't stifling anyone's creativity with the new d20STL, they are simply stifling their use of _their_ trademarked license.




That argument you use left and right is a tad flawed. Why in the nine hells should a small publisher create stuff using the OGL if he can use the D20 and target a much bigger customer range that in turn gives him a tiny bit of financial security. You know, books with the official D20 logo sell way better than books that don't seem to be made for D&D/D20. A lot of customers browse through the wares looking at the cover and this first impression most often decides if they take a closer look or not. If someone wants to buy D&D/D20 material, then it's likely he'll ditch a book without the D20 logo without further inspection.

Knowing that. what do you think will happen. The small publisher gives a rats ass about the logo and just uses OGL or is it more likely, that he'll censores his book to get that logo? That's what I'm talking about. The new licence is an attack on creativity.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Everyone who has been saying Anthony Valterra ruined it for all of us can now please eat their words.




Anthony, I don't believe you are so obtuse that you don't understand that it's not about the content of BoEF. The worst I've had to say about the BoEF is that I think it's goofy and I don't have a need for it.

You have run  roughshod over the d20 STL-- and more specifically, over WOTC's goodwill.

So if the changes have been in the works for over a year and you knew this was a sore spot with WOTC, why did you feel the need to stick your finger in WOTC's eye with the enormous DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS typeface on the cover?

I don't think it helps your reputation any to admit that you knew a year in advance just how badly you were going to piss them off and you did it anyway.

I am still hoping to be somehow pleasantly surprised by your motives-- you are banking on an awful lot of reserve goodwill from your tenure at the helm there-- but I have to admit it's slipping.

Wulf


----------



## Harlock (Sep 9, 2003)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> That argument you use left and right is a tad flawed. Why in the nine hells should a small publisher create stuff using the OGL if he can use the D20 and target a much bigger customer range that in turn gives him a tiny bit of financial security. You know, books with the official D20 logo sell way better than books that don't seem to be made for D&D/D20. A lot of customers browse through the wares looking at the cover and this first impression most often decides if they take a closer look or not. If someone wants to buy D&D/D20 material, then it's likely he'll ditch a book without the D20 logo without further inspection.
> 
> Knowing that. what do you think will happen. The small publisher gives a rats ass about the logo and just uses OGL or is it more likely, that he'll censores his book to get that logo? That's what I'm talking about. The new licence is an attack on creativity.




It's an attack on creativity?  The publisher chooses to go OGL or d20.  Look at that statement again.  Now, how is that attacking?  If the bottom line is so important to him then by all means, sell out.  What I have found is that depsite claims to the contrary, many OGL books do just fine on their own and word spreads more every day.  My point is twofold really:  You can write whatever the hell you want that is compatible with D&D under the OGL and WotC can do whatever it wants with the d20 Logo.  Preiod.  End of story.  Griping isn't solving anything.  Was WoTC heavy-handed?  You betcha, I've said that many times before on this matter.  You argument is a straw man.  Nothing is preventing anyone from creativity in writing D&D compaitble material.  Compared to 4 years ago when NO ONE could write D&D material except a select few, things are infinitely better.  I really believe an OGL product can outsell a D20 product, or even a comparable "official"WotC D&D branded product if it is a superior product.


----------



## smetzger (Sep 9, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> however, i find it quite disappointing that WOTC has apparently chosen to say that sex is more objectionable than torture and demon worship.




Actually from the d20 guide...


> 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.




Demon Worship is a modern day religion.  Ever heard of Satanism?  Even if you discount Satanism as a real world religion that is truly practiced, one cannot ignore the many references in the Bible to Demons, Devils, Sorcery, Spells, Witchcraft, and Divinations which are all presented as things of the devil and to be avoided.  So, if any publication glorifies these things by making them seem kewl, than it is in fact promoting them.  Which is prejudice against Christianity.

Thank You,
Scott Metzger


----------



## TiQuinn (Sep 9, 2003)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> That argument you use left and right is a tad flawed. Why in the nine hells should a small publisher create stuff using the OGL if he can use the D20 and target a much bigger customer range that in turn gives him a tiny bit of financial security. You know, books with the official D20 logo sell way better than books that don't seem to be made for D&D/D20.




That's fine, but a publisher is using WotC's license and their trademarks.  They aren't entitled to them.  It's not a god-given right that they can use them.  So, if a publisher doesn't want WotC to dictate quality standards to them (which is rapidly sounding like an imagined witch hunt more than anything else), they can use the OGL.



			
				TheRaven said:
			
		

> A lot of customers browse through the wares looking at the cover and this first impression most often decides if they take a closer look or not. If someone wants to buy D&D/D20 material, then it's likely he'll ditch a book without the D20 logo without further.




Which leads me to a question:  Can anyone name some products which are compatible with d20 but are part of the OGL...not the d20STL?  Arcana Unearthed and Everquest (I think) spring to mind, but I'm not sure what else?


----------



## heirodule (Sep 9, 2003)

Fiend Folio is a red herring.

I don't know whay peopel point to nipples on the Fiend Folio as an example of WOTC hypocricy. 

Its obvious they are male nipples.

Paul


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 9, 2003)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> That argument you use left and right is a tad flawed. Why in the nine hells should a small publisher create stuff using the OGL if he can use the D20 and target a much bigger customer range that in turn gives him a tiny bit of financial security. You know, books with the official D20 logo sell way better than books that don't seem to be made for D&D/D20. A lot of customers browse through the wares looking at the cover and this first impression most often decides if they take a closer look or not. If someone wants to buy D&D/D20 material, then it's likely he'll ditch a book without the D20 logo without further inspection.




For small publishers, it's even worse than that. Many distributors won't carry their stuff without the d20 logo. That's not a problem for big publishers with enough name recognition, but if a distributor decides not to carry your stuuf, the customers in the gaming stores won't even know it exists because they'll never see it. That's what the d20 trademark does. If a distributor sees it, he knows it will be displayed with D&D and have a wider audience and more sales, so he's more likely to carry it.

-Dave


----------



## Ratenef (Sep 9, 2003)

Please note that this was supposed to have been posted last night at midnight EST, but due to several PC issues is being posted now, 14 hours later. So please forgive me if I seem 'dated'.

(RANT) 

After having read this ENTIRE thread in one sitting.....took me about 2.5 hours, I have the following to add to this discussion.

Free Speech -- using this as a shield is just too damn easy. In a world of FREE speech there would be nothing taboo and children and impresionable minds would be subject to hate literature, child pornography, etc. Obviously we don't want this, so some sort of boundaries need to be made for society to prosper accordingly. WotC being the 'government' of this sub society is deeming what it considers those boundaries to be (i.e. gratuitious violence or sex, hate crimes and equality of religions). If WotC making this decision causes you such great grief, then stop buying ALL WotC (and possibly Hasbro) products and the problem will eventually vanish.

WotC the 'money whore' - Now correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they HQ'ed out of the US, the most capitalistic country in the world. As such they follow the rules of capitalism which basically states that  less than 100% market share is unacceptable. If this is a problem for you, then do not buy WotC products, but also don't complain if DnD stops to flourish because its greatest proponent dies.

WotC being unfair -- Now this I don't understand. They made a truly excellent update to a dated system (read ver 3 here) and then made a significant portion of it free for anyone to download. Just think, you don't need to buy ANY books to play 3rd edition DnD. Just go to Wizards website and download the entire SRD. One game good to go! Then they also created a system that allows other companies to use this core system to create their own games and also ride the coat tails of WotC marketing by using the d20 moniker. Yes WotC wins because they get money from the books necessary to use any rules you create or adapt, but such is capitalism (see note above). With all the 100s of d20 stuff out there (from the sublime to crap) I only know of a few instances where companies were asked to change their product to comply with the d20 OGL licensing rules. Then WotC updated their core rules in responce to 1000s of hours of playing by fans of the game and also made these rules completely downloadable. All you miss is the non OGL stuff and some pretty pictures. All you whiners who complain about the cost of the v3.5 books, you should have just downloaded the 'new' rules (costing about $5 in printouts). Does this sound like a company that is being truly unfair?

OGL - by WotC adopting the OGL model, they have created a gaming market that allows for products from several different companies to be all used to together. In the last hey day of gaming (early - mid 80's) due to the policies of TSR, every non TSR book you picked up had different rules for just about anything, making it quite difficult for the DM or player to easily adopt features of other campaigns or accesories. I can't thank them enough for this bold and ambitious (and successful) action.

Anthony Valterra -- A lot of comments are being made about Mr. Valterra and what he did or didn't do. I think we are being unecessarily unfair. Are we privy to this mans thoughts or motives? If not, then please ask him what his intentions were. If he fails to respond accordingly, then we can maybe assume some nefarious plot. Actually Mr. Valterra you have responded to the times you were in charge of the OGL stuff for WotC, but I have yet to hear a comment regarding your thoughts or feelings regarding what WotC has done and how this will affect your book, either for the good or bad. Could you please maybe respond to this question and maybe, if you feel inclined, respond to the comments concerning your 'nefarious scheme'? Thanks.

WotC -- as with Mr. Valterra above, we are making assumptions as to what WotC were thinking or why they did what they did. They have made some politically correct comments but I would appreciate an explanation as to what actions by the industry made these changes necessary. Also, were these actions truly in responce to a single book (BoEF) or to many, and examples?

Now, WotC was completely within their rights to do what they did and I applaude them for their actions. If you were afraid of their 'manhandling' the OGL, then you were well forwarned by the 'these rules can change at any time without previous notice' clause.

If we use all the stuff that WotC has published to date as a springboard for what is acceptable and what is not, then we can benchmark what is allowable and what isn't. If you are afraid that something you wish to publish isn't, then I think that WotC should be and would be able to take the time to verify this for you. Or, you can just go the pure OGL route and not have a d20 logo on your book.

Is what WotC is asking all that bad? 

NO gratuituos Violence 
NO gratuitous sex/pornography 
NO racism that could/does impact the modern world 
NO religionism that could/does impact the modern world 

These are things that I think are quite acceptable in a company that produces items for people 13+ (I started gaming when I was 10 and want my son to start at about 8). Albeit, a large portion of the game is played by adults (18+ years of age) but no exclusively. Also the product is sold in comic and book stores, which do not have age restrictions to enter, so we should be aware that any child that can read can and will pick up these books to peruse (I know my 6 year old son does).

So all Hasbro/WotC is doing is ensuring that their corporate policies are in effect as it would be with any of their other games (we don't see a Stripper G.I. Joe or a Vice Sqaud Lite Brite now do we?).

I am glad that WotC is making a stand with regards what its name gets directly associated with, for if it didn't I would really wonder about the moral directions of the company. And being a long time gamer and parent I do not think that the exclusion of these components will in any way negatively impact my game. If they did, I would just create my own set of guidelines that I would use in my games. If I choose to publish them I would have to consider the value of the d20 icon vs. publishing my exact material (which is truly a marketing vs. artistic integrity question).

Also everyone seems fixated on the Sex component of the new rules. The other three components (violence, race and religion) do not play an integral part in the new BoEF, do they? Are any of these restrictions going to cause any other books to stop production or distribution? If so what titles? And do we really want d20 books proliferating excessive violence (as if TV and Video games didn't already), or hate crimes or religious bigotry? I certainly don't and I hope you don't either.

Anyways thats my electrum piece rant. 

(/RANT)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 9, 2003)

Ever since my girl friend appeared in this years Girls of the Big 10, I've needed Playboy around....


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Fiend Folio is a red herring.
> 
> I don't know whay peopel point to nipples on the Fiend Folio as an example of WOTC hypocricy.
> 
> Its obvious they are male nipples.




Really? I thought they were elbows.


----------



## Belen (Sep 9, 2003)

AV,

I will go ahead and offer my own apology.  I do think it takes guts to produce something that you believe in, even if I do not agree with the content and how it has been presented to the public since the press release.

Kudos for fighting the policy change during your tenure with WOTC.

Again, I would have been behind your book had it been presented with less of an "erotic" mindset and more of the love and romance in a fantasy setting on mind...

Dave


----------



## Sirius_Black (Sep 9, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> However, I think you went a little overboard by adding the "real" photos and by including more modern sexual mores.  A PrC for a Dominatrix alone ended it for me, but I digress.




Did it end it for you with respect to Green Ronin's "Plot and Poison" book which has a class like that starting on page 66?


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2003)

Ratenef said:
			
		

> Also everyone seems fixated on the Sex component of the new rules. The other three components (violence, race and religion) do not play an integral part in the new BoEF, do they? Are any of these restrictions going to cause any other books to stop production or distribution? If so what titles? And do we really want d20 books proliferating excessive violence (as if TV and Video games didn't already), or hate crimes or religious bigotry? I certainly don't and I hope you don't either.
> 
> (/RANT)




Nebular Cross the future sci-fi pro-christian setting. See the press anouncement in this forum.

It might affect in the future mongoose books and maybe even the book of fiends (Any bared nipples in there?) as well as others.

Does a book on critical hits qualify as graphic violence? Bastion Press' torn asunder has grievous wounds in its art.


----------



## TheRaven (Sep 9, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> That's fine, but a publisher is using WotC's license and their trademarks.  They aren't entitled to them.  It's not a god-given right that they can use them.  So, if a publisher doesn't want WotC to dictate quality standards to them (which is rapidly sounding like an imagined witch hunt more than anything else), they can use the OGL.




As I said, small publisher can't afford to create OGL products. I am well aware, that the D20STL is a gift from WotC/Hasbro. However, such a change to the license, as I see it, can be the death of very small publishers, that produce d20 products for small groups of customers. Let's say I want to create a pdf only product with alternative rules for realistic location targeted fighting. This pdf features severed limbs, paladins hacking goblin in pieces and other, similar stuff.

Like DaveStebbins said, it is not an option for me to write under the OGL. I can't publish it using as a D20 product because of the license. Ok, I might reduce some pictures and tone it down but the license is so vague, that it is still endangered. Now, where is my "safe harbor"? Considering that, why should I even try to make such a thing?

Sad thing is, that it isn't even meant for mainstream or non adults but for a selected few who can use such materials. Increasing the quality of the brand? From my point of view it rather looks like killing the versatility range of d20.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Sep 9, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> My apologies to you, Anthony, for thinking that your work precipitated the change in policy.  I'm still not thrilled with what I've heard of the product itself, but then, I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sex in RPGs in general - perhaps because I still don't have a good Mass Combat offering and would rather have seen you do that instead.
> 
> BTW, crow tastes like chicken, in case anyone is wondering.
> 
> --The Sigil




Maybe some D20 company can combine the two, do a mass combat system combined with a mature product focused on sex.....okay, that just went to a scary visual place ....my apologies.   

As for the crow line Sigil, you were mature enough to post an apology...I've seen more than few cases where others would not do so when proven wrong.  So, kudos to you.  Good luck on your mass combat search, maybe Fields of Blood will be it.....if that ever sees the light of day.


----------



## Jim Butler (Sep 9, 2003)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> However, even with this WotC is still nowhere near as bad as T$R was back in the Bad Old Days.  With OGL games, even non-d20, there are things that the Evil Empire of Gaming would have never allowed.  Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG, they also tried to assert trademark over "Spell", "Orc" and a myriad of other generic fantasy terms, and prevent any other game from using them.  (I've been told that over and over, it's either true, or one heck of a gaming Urban Legend).




This is way off topic, but I just wanted to point out that the trademark on "Nazi" referred to the image of the Nazi, and it was a trademark owned by Lucas, not TSR.

But you're right in that TSR was much worse in protecting its IP then Wizards ever was. Sean Reynolds and I fought long, bitter battles within TSR to make things better, but the situation didn't totally reverse until after WotC bought us...


----------



## Ratenef (Sep 9, 2003)

Okay I am really confused with the whole idea of nipples and the MMII, FF and BoVD covers. As far as my copies go the cover of the MMII (ver 3) is just an ugly book cover, the FF is just some swirling colours, and the BoVD is a skull on a bloody black background.

So what exactly are you guys all talking about nipples and book covers.

Now inside the books there are some 'naughty bits'.

Please explain this for me.

Thanks,


----------



## Harlock (Sep 9, 2003)

Yip AV, I owe you an apology on a couple of counts as well.  One I made in advance in case the name change really was you, but anyway, sorry for the pestering, just seen too many trolls to not have the BS detector go off in error once in a while.  Thanks for fighting for keeping the d20STL the way it was.  Still, like Wulf of BadAxe I feel you pushed a little too hard.  Granted the 5.0 version of the d20STL doesn't appear to have been a direct response to that (well, maybe the font thing?) so you are mostly off the hook.  Now everyone can move on to the next big EN World/d20 controversy whih should be striking right about... wait for it... NOW!


----------



## Jim Butler (Sep 9, 2003)

While I agree with Ryan that the direction the D20 STL is going is the wrong one, this change by WotC doesn't really come as a shock to me. It appears that someone inside WotC has decided that they should defend all of their trademarks to the same levels, and that means applying their own internal Standard of Quality to the d20 STL.

The big question right now is whether WotC tries to use this change as a sledge hammer to crush all d20 companies, or uses it selectively to quash products that it doesn't want to see in the marketplace and that it feels are harmful to its trademark. That undoubtedly bodes ill for Anthony's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but the extent to which it is to be used is an unknown at this point.


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Sep 9, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Which leads me to a question:  Can anyone name some products which are compatible with d20 but are part of the OGL...not the d20STL?  Arcana Unearthed and Everquest (I think) spring to mind, but I'm not sure what else?




Anything done by Dream Pod 9, BESM d20 (Guardians of Order).  DP9 has it's own non-d20 brand d20 brand (if you follow my meaning, a nice logo that communicates the intent of the d20 brand logo without being restricted to the d20STL).

I think this is the best way to go - to develop a strong non-Wizards controlled, truely open-sourced "brand" for 'd20 compatible' games.

- Ma'at


----------



## Veander (Sep 9, 2003)

Does anyone have factual information or a statistical analysis of how having the d20 logo on your book garners more profit?  I know I have bought a few products due to reviews of friends and Mortality/EnWorld/etc. reviews and afterward discovered there wasn't a d20 logo.  I think Everquest stuff is an example for me.  Could it not be that great products just HAPPEN to have the logo?  I would have bought Book of the Righteous if there wasn't a d20 logo.  In fact, I would have bought all the books I have regardless of the d20.  Granted I read a lot about the books before I buy, but still...


Sincerely,

V


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 9, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> I think this is the best way to go - to develop a strong non-Wizards controlled, truely open-sourced "brand" for 'd20 compatible' games.



Then head over to the Free Gaming Association website at http://pgs.freegamingassociation.org/ and help them finalize their Prometheus and Open Die projects. Looks like worthy cause, though I'm not associated with them and haven't offered to help them myself.

-Dave
<edit - two spelling errors in a single word; gaaa!>


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 9, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> For small publishers, it's even worse than that. Many distributors won't carry their stuff without the d20 logo. That's not a problem for big publishers with enough name recognition, but if a distributor decides not to carry your stuuf, the customers in the gaming stores won't even know it exists because they'll never see it. That's what the d20 trademark does. If a distributor sees it, he knows it will be displayed with D&D and have a wider audience and more sales, so he's more likely to carry it.




What this post seems to admit is that the d20 logo carries a great deal of weight; when a distributor sees it, that distributor associates the product with D&D, and is confident that the consumer will associate the product with D&D.

And yet it is somehow unreasonable for WotC to also assume that d20 products will be associated with D&D, and seek to protect their IP?

It is for this reason that it is not sensible to attack WotC's "hypocricy" for releasing material that falls outside of the new d20 STL themselves.  If WotC releases a product that crosses the line sufficiently to result in financial harm to the company, at least it is WotC taking the risk.  After all, a small company built around one shock product could produce a profit for themselves while they do great damage to the D&D brand - but what the heck, that not their problem!


----------



## BSF (Sep 9, 2003)

OK, I finally think I will throw some more wood onto this fire.  

Let me state a few things from the get-go.  (Not trying to sound preachy, but it may come across that way.  Apologies in advance if anyone gets a little ruffled. Oh, before anyone gets too jumpy, also keep in mind that this is In My Opinion.  I'm just not going to dance around saying , It think this, I think that.  )

Most of my issues have to do with business decisions.

WotC is within their rights to change the D20STL.  Nobody has to like it, but you do have to abide by it if you are going to use the d20 logo.

The decency clause does not bother me.  While I am an advocate for free speech, this is a gaming license we are talking about.  WotC is part of Hasbro.  Hasbro has shareholders.  They have an obligation to those shareholders to protect brand identity and make money.  WotC should be doing everything they can to protect their image.  

With that out of the way, I will throw my gripe in.

I do *not* like the "sole discretion" clause.  This clause gives WotC the authority to demand that a publisher yank a product off the market and destroy stock ... without any mitigation/discussion/etc.  It does not matter if WotC doesn't intend to enforce it this way.  They have dictated that they can.  

From the standpoint of a business, seeking to publish new product, this clause stinks!  No business/legal advisor in their right mind is going to encourage you to open yourself up to this license.  It doesn't matter if WotC ever enforces policy in this manner, the risk is too great that they will.  This could kill a new publisher that just started getting their first product out the door.  Wham!  WotC says you have to destroy everything that has the D20 logo on it because they excercised their sole discretion.  Sure, you can take them to court, except that all of your capital is tied up in that first shipment that you can't sell.  From the perspective of a small publisher, it no longer makes sense to use the D20STL.  

Except, that you want that logo recognition!  Especially if you have helped build up the recognition of the D20 logo with prior products.  

So, you end up with a quandry.  Do you trust that WotC will *never* enforce the license in the manner that they have specified?  Ignoring the strong business sense that others will be throwing at you to not risk your business on the whim of another company.  Or, do you drop the D20 logo and go the OGL route?  Running the risk that stores will stop carrying your product since it isn't D20 compatible.

For all of the publishers that are not comfortable accepting the business risk, I fully understand.  I acknowledge that it will probably be more difficult to get your products into more stores, and thereby into the hands of more customers.  It is unfortunate that the entire gaming community is not aware of the differences between licensed DnD, D20, and OGL products.  It is also unfortunate that much of this discussion probably won't educate those that aren't already involved.

As a DM/Player/Consumer, I will be happy to continue to look at your products to see if they meet my needs.  I will contnue to recommend your products.  The loss of the D20 logo does not mean that *I* will stop buying material that I find useful.  Whenever possible, I will continue to try to educate other gamers as to the wide variety of DnD compatible product out there.  

That's probably a small consolation for you.  But, I wanted to get that out there.

For those publishers that accept the risk and continue to use the D20STL, I certainly hope for the best for you.  WotC will probably use the criteria that they have outlined.  If there is objectional material by their sole discretion, they will probably just insist that you fix it in the next print run.  You are either taking a chance, or showing faith and trust.  I can respect either viewpoint.  I will also continue to look at your products and if they meet my needs, I will buy them.  As above, I will continue to try to educate other gamers on the non-WotC market of gaming material.  Additionally, if WotC does decide to crackdown on you, for some reason, please post!  As a consumer, I would like to hear of it and let WotC know my thoughts on the matter.

This is not the end of the world.  But, it is a warning shot to the 3rd Party publishers that use the D20STL.  It may cause some changes in the marketplace.  I *hope* that those changes do not force anybody to close up shop.  But, these changes just might.  With luck, the next revision of the D20STL will be a little less vague and create a "safe harbor" and this whole thing will eventually blow over.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 9, 2003)

Oh, to be clear, I agree with Ryan Dancey's position that this is not the best way to address this problem.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 9, 2003)

Ratenef said:
			
		

> Okay I am really confused with the whole idea of nipples and the MMII, FF and BoVD covers. ...the FF is just some swirling colours...



Do you have a different Fiend Folio than everyone else? Swirling colors? For a reminder, here's the cover. The pierced nipple in question is right below the "io" in "Folio". Where do you see "swirling colors"?

(PS: I'm not pointing this out as an example of anything or taking a stance, but am answering this specific question.)


----------



## shadow (Sep 9, 2003)

Yeah, I'm disappointed with the changes to the license.  Although WotC is in every right to do it, it seems to violate the spirit of the original license.

However, for everyone screaming doom and gloom:  CHILL OUT!  This is not the end of d20, or D&D.  Just because you can't have your d20 sex book, or d20 book of racism and hate doesn't mean that the whole system is dying.  And of course the whole idea of the new changes making D&D some "kiddy" or "Disney" game is absurd.  Even during the late days of TSR, some very grim and gritty settings were released.  Think of Ravenloft (a land enfused with evil) or Dark Sun (a dying planet where characters struggle to keep alive).  Those settings were released during the time that TSR had their controversial code of conduct, yet neither of the settings were "kiddy" or "Disney" IMHO.

Anyway, if you want to have porno, or loads of sexual perversion in your home brew, there is nothing stopping you from it.  I doubt that WotC is going to show up during your games and make you stop playing.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> So, yes, it is me. I'm trying to standardize my name to ACValterra. I used Zulkir when I was with WotC. I use ACValterra on the boards on our site (www.valarproject.com).
> 
> ...



 [/b]

If you knew these license changes were going to happen. What is the motivation for your doing several different things...

1. Putting out a press release indicating compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons and SEX.
2. Putting the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in a prominant place on your book.
3. Putting out a product that you knew was going to be dissallowed according to the license.

In other words, why did you push the envelope so hard and fast when you knew what was going to happen? I understand the frustration you must have felt watching something you believe it get the shaft. I don't understand why, once the battle was lost, you didn't respond gracefully. Why you pretty much did everything possible under the liscense to manipulate it for your product's benefit. I can only believe these things, given your knowledge both of the license change, the OGL movement, and of WotC internal information are a deliberate "thumbing of the nose" at WotC for their decision concerning the license changes. I'm worried that this behavior may lead to even more extreme "clamping down" on the license in the future.

joe b.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 9, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> And yet it is somehow unreasonable for WotC to also assume that d20 products will be associated with D&D, and seek to protect their IP?



I guess it's a case of plausible denial. Before now, they could say the mark denoted game rule compatability only and that there were far too many products for them to be able to exercise editorial control of content. Now, they've extended the mark to include content, so they don't have that out.

The example I've seen lately is that once you post a "beware of dog" sign, you can be sure the opposition attorney will say something like "So you KNEW your dog was dangerous long before he bit little Timmy!?"

People who don't like D&D will associate it with all sorts of unrelated things, with or without reason (remember the early '80s?). I'm not sure that the extra risk and liability is worth it.

-Dave


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> Does anyone have factual information or a statistical analysis of how having the d20 logo on your book garners more profit?




Probably not. I will point out this though... word has it that distributors and retailers are no longer automatically picking up stuff just because of the d20 logo. There was enough material in the great d20 glut that much of it sat on the shelves, and distributors are much more skeptical about accepting unfamiliar d20 publishers. So the d20 logo isn't quite the boon it once was.

Once you get the product on the shelf, I think it is still a boon, as it still makes for a key for d20 fans to buy products that they unambiguously know are associated with the d20 system. Though some recognition for OGL products is beginning to spread, it is still in its infancy, and I think that such an avenue is less reliable in getting less informed customers the products in a market where there are many less than informed clerks...


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 9, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> AV,  You mentioned that it was a mistake for you to write your own press release.  That makes it sound like you did _not_ intend to claim your project was compatable with D&D.  Yet, shortly after people pointed out that this was a direct violation of the d20 STL, you something to the effect of "No, its not a violation because its not an advertisement.  While I was in charge of the d20 license I never said you couldn't claim compatability of D&D in a press release."




Oh that was intentional. It might have been in error. The question is - what can you say in a press release that is not marketing? At the time I wrote it I was relying on a Nike court case that was being adjudicated that said that Nike could not be sued for false advertising for a press release they put out saying they did not use sweatshop labor. Once again - I was functioning in a vacuum as I had no one who would really know whether that argument would hold water that I could turn to. In hindsight that press release wouldn't look a thing like it did. But hindsight is 20/20.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> Since then you have gone on to do the increased font trick.  Which is not in the spirit of the d20 license.




Says who? Who is the arbiter of the spirit of the d20 license? How about Ryan Dancey? If anyone can say what the spirit of the d20 license is - it would be Ryan Dancey. I showed that cover to him before we released it and asked what he thought of what we did with the required use text. He not only did not have a problem with it he praised it. While I was in charge of the license if I had seen a company do that I would *not* have come after them and would have quietly cheered them. What did  tick me off was when companies would use the smallest font possible and hide the text on the back. But that was during my administration. Obviously things have changed.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> Now, you are saying that you tried to jump the gun on the d20 license change.  However, since the inseption of the d20 license publishers have had to retroactively adhere to the d20 license even _after_ a product ws published.  So, your trying to jump the gun doesn't wash with me because even if your product had been out a year before these changes you would still need to comply.  You were in charge of this at WOTC, you knew this.




Anyone who publishes in the d20 field will tell you that 90% of your sales come in the first 2-3 months. Very few products ever see reprint. I was hoping that at least the first run of BoeF would be d20. That is probably not going to happen.
And yes - it is worth trying this hard to get that logo. The d20 logo is a clear indication of compatibility and distributors will lower their orders if you are *only* OGL. So saying you can "just go OGL" is correct but for many companies it will make the diffeence between a viable margin and non-viable margin. At least that is currently true. As Ryan has pointed out it is possible that game manufacturers could band together and create an alternate network/logo.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> So, maybe your pissing in the pool didn't cause this.  But that doesn't change the fact that you did piss in the pool.




I did not piss in the pool! My swimming trucks were already floruscent purple!! Seriously - I made many errors in my rush to get this product out and you can hold me acountable for all kinds of things - even things that will never be public. You can blame me for BoVD (though it was Monte's brilliant idea I just supported it). 
But I really do believe in this product - and for those who are interested in adding elements of romance, love, seduction, birth, marriage etc. etc. I think this product will do wonders.

AV
www.valarproject.com


----------



## Psion (Sep 9, 2003)

Dr. Henry said:
			
		

> It is for this reason that it is not sensible to attack WotC's "hypocricy" for releasing material that falls outside of the new d20 STL themselves.




From what I have heard, I would not be at all surprised if we didn't see another product with pictures with as much violent content and nudity and the BoVD, or even the Urban Arcana or MM 3.5. From statements by Andy @ WotC and Anthony here, this move does not seem to be isolated to the d20 STL, but a more general move to exercise standards associated with WotC. I am guessing you will see these revisions affect WotC product as well, so I think the hipocrisy claim will be moot.

As a reminder, I _do_ still worry about a "d20 diaspora" encouraged by fear of some publishers to use the license. I am just trying to defuse some of these more emotive claims.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 9, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> As a DM/Player/Consumer, I will be happy to continue to look at your products to see if they meet my needs.  I will contnue to recommend your products.  The loss of the D20 logo does not mean that *I* will stop buying material that I find useful.  Whenever possible, I will continue to try to educate other gamers as to the wide variety of DnD compatible product out there.




It is very easy for me, as a small publisher and a regular visitor here at ENworld, to remember this most important fact of this business:

You guys aren't my customers.

I mean, ultimately you are, but more importantly, my customers are the distributors and retailers. You can vow to support me all you want (and believe me, it is appreciated) but if the distributor won't carry my products, you're never even going to have the option of supporting me, or any of the many fine smaller d20 publishers.

So remember: Talking to your friends is great, but _hounding your local game store_ is even better.

Someone else just above mentioned that the d20 logo isn't that important-- that their purchases are made based on reviews and word of mouth here at ENworld. As much as I wish it were otherwise, this is a very small niche of extremely informed gamers, and a tiny portion of the "market" that a publisher must consider.


Wulf


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 9, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It is very easy for me, as a small publisher and a regular visitor here at ENworld, to remember this most important fact of this business:
> 
> You guys aren't my customers.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the post Wulf. It's unfortunate that the people who use our books aren't really our customers. I know that were it not for EN World and people here liking MMS:WE so much _and telling other people about it_ I wouldn't have been able to get distribution. The distributors simply weren't interested, and that shows a disconnection between producer and end user that I wish wasn't there.

It's the main reason why I like PDF. If my book sucks or is good, I'd rather have the people who play the game, not run the stores, make that decision.

joe b.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 9, 2003)

I have already decided to use the D20 STL on my 'tamer' products that I know fall within the accepted quality standards and just publishing under the OGL for the darker concepts.  Good thing is, some of the products will have the logo and some won't, but they'll be in the same series of products and should be recognized as such.


----------



## buzz (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> But I really do believe in this product - and for those who are interested in adding elements of romance, love, seduction, birth, marriage etc. etc.



...as well as pictures of hot chicks with knotted rope in their hindquarters .   

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## buzz (Sep 9, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> It does not matter if WotC doesn't intend to enforce it this way.  They have dictated that they can.



This is really the main point in all of this hubub: what is WotC actually going to *do* with these new rights?

BoEF will likely be the litmus test, seeing as it's probably going to be one of the most "provocative" RPG products the industry has yet seen. If WotC does little more than demand Valar take the D&D brand name off of future printings or tell them to go OGL, then I'm not too worried. Barring the publication of FATAL d20 or RAHOWA d20, noting else I've seen on the market comes even close to pushing as many buttons as BoEF, so the d20 industry will be safe.

Otherwise, well, then it could be a bad thing. Still, the worst I can see things getting is still light years better than life under TSR and 2e.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> That's fine, but a publisher is using WotC's license and their trademarks.  They aren't entitled to them.  It's not a god-given right that they can use them.  So, if a publisher doesn't want WotC to dictate quality standards to them (which is rapidly sounding like an imagined witch hunt more than anything else), they can use the OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> Which leads me to a question:  Can anyone name some products which are compatible with d20 but are part of the OGL...not the d20STL?  Arcana Unearthed and Everquest (I think) spring to mind, but I'm not sure what else?




Engel and Mutants and Masterminds I think, and I'm not sure about BESM d20 or their srd. M&M is a bit of a compatibility stretch with its damage saves, etc.


----------



## d4 (Sep 9, 2003)

shadow said:
			
		

> Anyway, if you want to have porno, or loads of sexual perversion in your home brew, there is nothing stopping you from it.  I doubt that WotC is going to show up during your games and make you stop playing.



from what i've seen, the BoEF does *not* fulfill any legal definition of pornography as i know it. perhaps Anthony can give us a better indication of this.

so can we _please_ stop with the porno references?   

just because you think certain things are icky doesn't give you the right to call it pornography or "perversion."


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 9, 2003)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> If you knew these license changes were going to happen. What is the motivation for your doing several different things...
> 
> 1. Putting out a press release indicating compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons and SEX.




Because it is compatible with D&D and it does cover sex? And as I stated above I believed and still do that a press release does not constitute marketing. And finally I have said it was crappy press release that I regret.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 2. Putting the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in a prominant place on your book.




The license demands that I put that text on my book. The purpose of that text is to let the world know that this product requires you to have, and be conversant, with D&D. In the original license that text was optional. The assumption on our part was that everyone would put the text as prominantly as they could on their products. When people didn't use the text it became mandatory. We wanted people to promote D&D on their products. That is what I did. From the very beginning Ryan Dancey said - eventually there will be a d20 product that covers sex or the Klu Klux Klan - our defense is that we have no oversite or control over content of products. That has obviously changed.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 3. Putting out a product that you knew was going to be dissallowed according to the license.




Well I was hoping to have it out *before* the license change.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> [/b]
> In other words, why did you push the envelope so hard and fast when you knew what was going to happen? I understand the frustration you must have felt watching something you believe it get the shaft. I don't understand why, once the battle was lost, you didn't respond gracefully. Why you pretty much did everything possible under the liscense to manipulate it for your product's benefit. I can only believe these things, given your knowledge both of the license change, the OGL movement, and of WotC internal information are a deliberate "thumbing of the nose" at WotC for their decision concerning the license changes. I'm worried that this behavior may lead to even more extreme "clamping down" on the license in the future.
> 
> joe b.




I think there is an underlying assumption I am mising in this. Why wouldn't I do everything I could to get this product out and into the hands of the consumer? And why is that "thumbing my nose". I care about this product. I think its a great product that is useful and will sell well. I want as many consumers as possible to look through it and decide for themselves cause I think alot of them will buy it. I'm a business man. I didn't do this product out of spite or revenge I did it because I beleive in it and its a product I've wanted to do since I was in college. I just had the realization last March that it was "now or never".
AV


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 9, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> I guess it's a case of plausible denial. Before now, they could say the mark denoted game rule compatability only and that there were far too many products for them to be able to exercise editorial control of content. Now, they've extended the mark to include content, so they don't have that out.
> 
> The example I've seen lately is that once you post a "beware of dog" sign, you can be sure the opposition attorney will say something like "So you KNEW your dog was dangerous long before he bit little Timmy!?"
> 
> ...




I agree that in a legal sense this position undermines any attempt at plausible deniability (and adds some level of risk to WotC), but that legal plausible denaibility would have been largely unimportant in the court of public relations in any event.

Consider the release of a product that with a treatment of a sensitive subject matter in such a way as to offend many people, and raise the topic to a wider audience than just gamers.  Under the last STL, WotC could only say "Sorry. The mark only denotes compatibility."  True, but not helpful from a PR sense.  After the STL, WotC can now say, "Why yes, that is offensive.  Here, see how responsible we are being by taking action ourselves." and forcing the product to ditch the d20.

The new STL does not (I think) indicate that WotC will be "going after" other companies in the general or the specific, but that if another game company publishes a product that draws a reaction, you're on your own...

It is understandable why the first assumptions linked this directly with the BoEF, and it turns out that it is true - just in the opposite sense.  It was not WotC trying to switch their policy to slap down Valar, it is Valar slapping at WotC by racing to finish a product (as d20) that uses the letter of the STL to flog the general working understanding of the STL, and intentionally racing to finish a product that AV has *known* would violate the new STL.

Yeah, I've been playing D&D since the early 80's, I was here for all of that mess, and it helped a lot when defending the game that the incindiary charges against it were untrue.


----------



## 20sides (Sep 9, 2003)

My main concern is where does the line get drawn for a company that routinely produces d20 products?

For example, if I were to submit something that WOTC didn't feel was representative of the d20 product guidelines to Mystic Eye for publishing, would it affect their status on their other d20 products?

If it does, I would say that this is an effort by WOTC to begin curbing material from independent writers/publishers and increase its own market share.


----------



## ACValterra (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> From what I have heard, I would not be at all surprised if we didn't see another product with pictures with as much violent content and nudity and the BoVD, or even the Urban Arcana or MM 3.5. From statements by Andy @ WotC and Anthony here, this move does not seem to be isolated to the d20 STL, but a more general move to exercise standards associated with WotC. I am guessing you will see these revisions affect WotC product as well, so I think the hipocrisy claim will be moot.




Wanna lay some money on that? Check out Book of Exalted Deeds in October.

AV


----------



## BSF (Sep 9, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It is very easy for me, as a small publisher and a regular visitor here at ENworld, to remember this most important fact of this business:
> 
> You guys aren't my customers.
> 
> ...




Wulf,
I appreciate your posting.  It was something that I had _meant_ to mention, but got lost in writing a response while at work.    

Also, I don't really have many good game stores around locally.  I mean, I have had to explain to some proprieters who/what Malhavoc Press is, that they are distributed by White Wolf and that they have products compatible with DnD.  

With people like that in the market, I am sometimes amazed that any of you can get shelf space!  

Back to the topic:  Yes, if you have a local game store, help educate them on the fine 3rd Party companies out there.  Educate your friends.  Educate the weird gaming geeks you see at your FLGS.  

OK, maybe we don't all need to be evangelists out there.  But, if you want to convince your FLGS to carry something, you have to show them that there is a business need to do it.  

Or, if they are DnD geeks as well, just show them how cool it is to post here and talk to the people that make this stuff!!


----------



## Ratenef (Sep 9, 2003)

Thanks for the FF clairification. I didn't have the book in front of me at the time and the only imagery I had of it was green and red 'indistinct patterns' (guess my memory isn't all that picture perfect).

Now, you guys are all up in arms about these bare nipples?!

First, are they nipples and not teats (of like an animal such as a goat or pig)?

Second, if they are nipples, are they female?

If you guys are saying that WotC are breaking their own rules by these pictures, then you are truly BLOWING EVERYTHING OUT OF PROPORTION!

I'd hate to see you guys take a Rorshach test.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 9, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> from what i've seen, the BoEF does *not* fulfill any legal definition of pornography as i know it. perhaps Anthony can give us a better indication of this.
> 
> so can we _please_ stop with the porno references?
> 
> just because you think certain things are icky doesn't give you the right to call it pornography or "perversion."



And just because you think certain things AREN'T icky doesn't give you the right to demand that it NOT be called pornography or perversion.

These things are in the eye of the beholder and deciding whether or not something is pornographic is in fact a subjective call.  You are as wrong and as close-minded for calling him to abandon the "porno" call as you think he is for using it.

As an example, in the USA, magazines like Stuff or Maxim or even the SI Swimsuit Issue are not *quite* considered pornographic by most - though they toe the line.  In the US, it seems the "accepted" definition of pictorial pornography is "bared female nipples" and "genitalia, including pubic hair."  In Europe, you can remove "bared female nipples" and in some cases "pubic hair" (at least that was my experience).  Of course, the standards are relaxed a bit with, say, pictures of newborn children or other such things - seeing a female baby in the nude with nipples uncovered and a strategically placed towel is a lot different from seeing a full-grown female in the nude with nipples uncovered and a strategically placed towel, no?  The only difference between the two is age, and I doubt you'll get hauled in on a kiddie porn charge for showing the picture of your two-week old daughter.  But what is the age where it changes?  Can you tell me?  Where is the line?

Is see-through clothing pornographic?  Is a midriff porn?  Is the back of a woman's neck porn?  It depends on what your particular value system is - there's not a hard and fast (no pun intended) definition.

However, in certain households in the US - or in other countries in the world, Stuff and Maxim and the SI Swimsuit Issue WOULD be considered pornographic, and perhaps justifiably so.  Whose definition is right?  Nobody's.  Everybody's.

You fall into the trap of, "my view is rational and correct, his view is too close-mindedly conservative, and her view is way out there in left field liberal." 

If he continues to call it porn and the vast majority disagrees, eventually the claim will be dismissed as "silly" - but if the majority agrees that even if it's not porn, it certainly toes the line closely and can be considered such, I think it's a valid designation.  Bottom line - some of Valar's stuff skirts closely enough to the line that I think it's not out of line for someone to call it "pornography" even if I don't happen to think it quite crosses over (whether or not I actually think that is not important).

--The Sigil


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 9, 2003)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> However, even with this WotC is still nowhere near as bad as T$R was back in the Bad Old Days.  With OGL games, even non-d20, there are things that the Evil Empire of Gaming would have never allowed.  Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG, they also tried to assert trademark over "Spell", "Orc" and a myriad of other generic fantasy terms, and prevent any other game from using them.  (I've been told that over and over, it's either true, or one heck of a gaming Urban Legend).




I don't recally trying to (C) or (TM) "orc" or "spell" but the Nazi(TM) is technically true, but not TSR's fault. As Jim Butler pointed out (hi, Jim! Wassup?) that was placed there at LucasFilm's insistance, IIRC, and actually referred to the _image_ of that Nazi (a drawing), which _is_ trademarkable.

Back on topic, don't be too hard on Andy Smith and anyone from Customer Service. I'm pretty sure that they have been told what they can and can't say, and if they do say things that they've been told not to say, they'll probably be fired. I'll point you back to 1997 and a certain "problem with the printers that's delaying our products" statement posted by yours truly on the TSR site, when the actual problem was that TSR had no money to pay the printers. Everyone at TSR knew the truth, but nobody could say anything. So Andy and the custserv guys probably know or suspect more than what they're saying but aren't at liberty to say. It's understandable. Don't take it out on them. Direct your (polite) comments at WotC legal, and if that gets you nowhere than at the head of WotC (who is some Hasbro guy whose name I don't remember).

And if you really have a serious issue with the new license, don't publish books with the d20 logo.

Can anyone point me at actual _images_ of these indicating-compatible-but-not-the-d20-logo logos? I'd like to see them.


----------



## 20sides (Sep 9, 2003)

bardstephenfox wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not like the "sole discretion" clause. This clause gives WotC the authority to demand that a publisher yank a product off the market and destroy stock ... without any mitigation/discussion/etc. It does not matter if WotC doesn't intend to enforce it this way. They have dictated that they can. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because they have begun to reserve that right, you must assume that they will use it whenever they deem it necessary.

The economy is in shambles right now, and everyone's hurting.  I can not see them being benevolent and not using this to capture market share.  Maybe WoTC is not intent on using this, but Hasbro has taken a beating over the last two years and it would not surprise me to see this used as a tool to raise their market share or introduce further restrictions to weed out competition.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> As a reminder, I _do_ still worry about a "d20 diaspora" encouraged by fear of some publishers to use the license. I am just trying to defuse some of these more emotive claims.




I am also concerned about this, and think that it might be best if WotC picked some books already extant and specifically said *this book does not cross the line*.  That would allow publishers to work with more confidence.  As someone else commented, a small fee to cover the cost of obtaining a "imprimature" from WotC might be a worthwhile investment.


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 9, 2003)

Edit: Double post. Actual post is below.


----------



## buzz (Sep 9, 2003)

20sides said:
			
		

> Maybe WoTC is not intent on using this, but Hasbro has taken a beating over the last two years and it would not surprise me to see this used as a tool to raise their market share or introduce further restrictions to weed out competition.



I have a hard time seeing WotC spending the time, effort, and money enforcing the new d20STL to any extent that would "weed out competition," for the same economic reasons you cite. No to mention the fact that WotC, effectively, *has no competition* in the d20 arena, and thus have nothing to gain. Seriously, WotC sells more cpoies of a "flop" than their nearest competitor does with a runaway bestseller. And I can't imagine them giving a rat's ptootie about some PDF publisher who, at best, will sell maybe 150 copies of a questionable product.

And what good reason could WotC have for getting rid of companies whose products drive sales of the PHB?

This is all chicken little hysteria.


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 9, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> As an example, in the USA, magazines like Stuff or Maxim or even the SI Swimsuit Issue are not *quite* considered pornographic by most - though they toe the line.




I'll have to disagree with you there. If those are toeing the line of pornography, then so is the National Geographic Swimsuit issue they released this summer, or any National Geographic issue that contains people in the nude, or the X-Men Summer Swimsuit issue that Marvel released a few years ago.



> In the US, it seems the "accepted" definition of pictorial pornography is "bared female nipples" and "genitalia, including pubic hair."




Not so, because that would include National Geographic, the Kama Sutra, and The Joy of Sex. None of those are porn, else Waldenbooks stores across the country would be being raided by the police for selling porn (Waldenbooks sells all three of the above, as well as magazines such as Playboy and others which contain nudity and would be porn by your definition but not by the common or legal definition).

Dictionary.com defines the word pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

The law.com dictionary defines it as "pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse." (See also their definition of obscene, "a highly subjective reference to material or acts which display or describe sexual activity in a manner appealing only to 'prurient interest,' with no legitimate artistic, literary or scientific purpose.")

Please use legal definitions of words rather than your own definitions. Don't "pull a Jaros," as it were (Steve Jaros is this guy on rec.games.frp.dnd who used to get into arguments with other posters and fall back on his defense of "the dictionary doesn't define what words mean, people do, so don't use the dictionary definition of words against me when I say something"). Unless we're using a common definition of our words, we can't have a rational argument.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 9, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Because it is compatible with D&D and it does cover sex? And as I stated above I believed and still do that a press release does not constitute marketing. And finally I have said it was crappy press release that I regret.



 [/b]

My point is that, regardless of what speach is or is not marketing, the end result is marketing and compatiblity. This is a letter of the license vrs. spirit of the license debate.



> The license demands that I put that text on my book. The purpose of that text is to let the world know that this product requires you to have, and be conversant, with D&D. In the original license that text was optional. The assumption on our part was that everyone would put the text as prominantly as they could on their products. When people didn't use the text it became mandatory. We wanted people to promote D&D on their products. That is what I did. From the very beginning Ryan Dancey said - eventually there will be a d20 product that covers sex or the Klu Klux Klan - our defense is that we have no oversite or control over content of products. That has obviously changed.




I'm not sure how putting out d20 material, that you knew WotC was changing the liscense explicitly prevent, is promotional of D&D. It could be argued that it is, but with your foreknowldge of the change, you most definitely knew that your promotion/association of D&D is not the type of promotion they wanted.



> I think there is an underlying assumption I am mising in this. Why wouldn't I do everything I could to get this product out and into the hands of the consumer? And why is that "thumbing my nose". I care about this product.




It's "thumbing the nose" because the care you're showing here is only to your product, not WotC's trademark. However misplaced their decision is, and I think it is a terrible terrible decision, I respect their rights to use their property as they see fit. And even when it is legal to do something, that respect prevents certain things from being done. WotC did not want some material your book covers under the d20 license, and you knew this, but you hoped to squeek your book by before they legally forbid you.



> I think its a great product that is useful and will sell well. I want as many consumers as possible to look through it and decide for themselves cause I think alot of them will buy it. I'm a business man. I didn't do this product out of spite or revenge I did it because I beleive in it and its a product I've wanted to do since I was in college. I just had the realization last March that it was "now or never".
> AV




I don't think I stated my point sufficiently. Your responses have all been reasonable, but the point I was trying to make was this: You knew the license was going to change, and then you did everything you could under the existing license with the knowledge that what you were doing (ie. associating D&D with elements WotC doesn't want them associated with) is counter to what WotC wants for their trademark.

What you did is completely legally defensible, but I don't like the fact that, with your prior knowledge, you deliberately made a product which falls into a category of "things WotC doesn't like enough to change the license to prohibit them." You tried to deliberately use WotC trademark to increase your personal benefits even when you knew that what you were doing was not what they wanted.

It's not illegal. I just find it questionable behavior and I'm wondering if such behavior will result in further restrictions in the license.

joe b.


----------



## TiQuinn (Sep 9, 2003)

Alright, so it sounds like there are a few notable OGL products out there, but the vast majority are d20.  And it sounds like a shaky proposition to get your stuff into stores without the d20STL.  In that case, I definitely hope that a more viable alternative appears for people who want to create mature products that would not be allowed under d20STL.  I still think this is much ado about nothing right now, and hopefully that will remain the case.  This has always been in the power of WotC to change or even revoke the d20 license so I really don't see much changing here...more the fear that things could change for the worse.  From my standpoint, that's ALWAYS been a possibility.


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> That aside, it is WotC's call on what image they wish to project with their trademark, not yours. And I doubt they will be calling on you to fill the position anytime soon.




So what? That had absolutely nothing to do with what I'd said. If you're just determined to be surly and a tad obtuse on this topic, you're succeeding. 

I think it's pretty clear that nobody is disputing what's within WotC's purview regarding their license. We're discussing the wisdom of how they exercise that purview. 

Be careful not allow heated emotions to impede calm, rational, civil behavior. Another good lesson for the boys at Hasbro.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 9, 2003)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Not so, because that would include National Geographic, the Kama Sutra, and The Joy of Sex. None of those are porn, else Waldenbooks stores across the country would be being raided by the police for selling porn (Waldenbooks sells all three of the above, as well as magazines such as Playboy and others which contain nudity and would be porn by your definition but not by the common or legal definition).
> 
> Dictionary.com defines the word pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
> 
> The law.com dictionary defines it as "pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse." (See also their definition of obscene, "a highly subjective reference to material or acts which display or describe sexual activity in a manner appealing only to 'prurient interest,' with no legitimate artistic, literary or scientific purpose.")




When speaking in terms of law, or of physical science, etc., it is of course quite important to use the narrowly defined definition of that word, but when the word also has a widely accepted general usage, it is important to note how it is being used.  Consider how the word "theory" has dramatically different meanings in science, law, and general useage.  Note how Playboy, and Maxim (and possibly the X-Men comic, and/or some but not all of your examples) fulfil the dictionary.com definition.  

I also notice that you did *not* include the full law.com definition.  

n. pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse. The printing, publication, sale and distribution of "hard core" pornography is either a felony or misdemeanor in most states. Since determining what is pornography and what is "soft core" and "hard core" are subjective questions to judges, juries and law enforcement officials, it is difficult to define, since the law cases cannot print examples for the courts to follow. - taken from law.com's legal dictionary

Note that this speaks to the definition of pornography in law and that it differentiates between "hard-core" (often illegal) and "soft-core" (not spoken of as illegal) pornography.  A wide range of material could be placed in the dictionary definition, and I do not think this harms Sigil's argument at all.


----------



## buzz (Sep 9, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> In that case, I definitely hope that a more viable alternative appears for people who want to create mature products that would not be allowed under d20STL.



I'm of the opinion that a truly mature product wouln't necessarily contradict any of the new guidelines anyway. But that's a debate for another thread...

Buzz, who is looking forward to the "Love & War" (or whatever it'll be called) supplement he heard Atlas is working on way more than the BoEF.


----------



## d4 (Sep 9, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> And just because you think certain things AREN'T icky doesn't give you the right to demand that it NOT be called pornography or perversion.
> 
> These things are in the eye of the beholder and deciding whether or not something is pornographic is in fact a subjective call.  You are as wrong and as close-minded for calling him to abandon the "porno" call as you think he is for using it.



you will note i said "the *legal* definition of pornography." there is still no indication that the BoEF matches that definition.

i don't care what his _personal_ definition of the word is.

[edit]thanks SKR, for illuminating my point better than i can.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 9, 2003)

> Dictionary.com defines the word pornography as: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
> 
> The law.com dictionary defines it as "pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse." (See also their definition of obscene, "a highly subjective reference to material or acts which display or describe sexual activity in a manner appealing only to 'prurient interest,' with no legitimate artistic, literary or scientific purpose.")



I think the Dictionary.com definition is better, since the law.com confines the definition to writings and pictures "of sexual activity" and I think a female in a provocative pose who is not actually engaging in "sexual activity" can still be considered "porn."

And I agree with you that the problem with an argument is that "he who defines the terms can easily win the argument" - I'm not going to try to continually pull out definitions of words from my backside.

So here is my definition of "pornography" - "obscene material."  That drags in the definition of obscene, which I agree with - "a highly subjective... etc."  For me, delineating a particular thing as "porn" is an exercise in subjective thinking... meaning it is impossible to tell someone that, "this is porn" or "this is most emphatically not porn" and somehow believe you are factually correct.

My point was not to discuss precisely what publications are and aren't pornography - my point was rather to say that "what constitutes obscene material" - usually abbreviatd to "pornography" or "porno" is a highly subjective subject by definition.  As such, it is impossible to think that a particular definition or list can be agreed upon by all as "obscene."  Specifically in the realm of nudity, et al, I think there is little doubt that showing of a given picture to 100 people and then asking them, "is this pornographic?" will not always elicit 100% agreement.



> Please use legal definitions of words rather than your own definitions. Don't "pull a Jaros," as it were (Steve Jaros is this guy on rec.games.frp.dnd who used to get into arguments with other posters and fall back on his defense of "the dictionary doesn't define what words mean, people do, so don't use the dictionary definition of words against me when I say something"). Unless we're using a common definition of our words, we can't have a rational argument.



True enough.  I'm not trying to "redefine" terms here - but I also don't want to take the time to comb through the dictionary to find the exact term for what I mean (which may not even exist).  The point of the exercise above is, "one man's pornography may be another man's art" and because judging obscenity is an exercise in subjectivity, it's just as wrongheaded and obnoxious to demand that the man who calls it "pornography" be forced to refer to it as "art" as it is to demand that the man who calls it "art" refer to it as "pornography."  Hopefully, subtle nuances of language aside, that point is clear.  In exercises of subjectivity there can by definition be no absolute answer as to what to call a particular work. 



			
				seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Not so, because that would include National Geographic, the Kama Sutra, and The Joy of Sex. None of those are porn, else Waldenbooks stores across the country would be being raided by the police for selling porn (Waldenbooks sells all three of the above, as well as magazines such as Playboy and others which contain nudity and would be porn by your definition but not by the common or legal definition).



By most common definitions I know, Playboy is considered "softcore pornography" (fits the dictionary.com definition if not the law.com definition).  Softcore pornography is STILL pornography, no?  If you were playing Family Feud and asked "name a pornographic magazine," odds are your top three answers would be "Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler."  That, to me, means Playboy meets the "common definition" of pornography (which I assume means "the definition most people would ascribe to" but maybe this is another trick to catch me in my words by turning nuances of meaning against me).

I won't get into the Joy of Sex or Kama Sutra thing - clearly, as I mentioned, drawing an absolute line in the sand is hard - which was my point in the first place?  If you can't show me the hard and fast line, don't be surprised if I say, "since this is an exercise in subjectivity with no lines - not objectivity with lines - I can label X as obscene," regardless of what the law says or not.

Not trying to pull a Jaros here, but please don't try to pull one yourself by trying to ensnare me with nuances of meaning of words taken from YOUR CHOICE of definitional sources either.   I have tried to be clear as to what I mean without consulting a dictionary, drawing instead from my own vocabulary to try to adequately express my thoughts.  If I have used words in a manner that is technically incorrect, it is from my own inability to perfectly translate my abstract thoughts into the medium of language and should in no way reflect as imperfections in the abstract thoughts being communicated.  And given that language is an imperfect method of communicating abstract thought, some leeway should be imparted on both sides to allow the abstract thought to be the issue, not minor technicalities in word choice - since language is a "lossy medium" for transferring thoughts (to use common computer parlance) from one person to another.

"Subjective judgements cannot by definition be considered absolutely right or absolutely wrong, ergo the subjective judgement to call a work 'pornographic' or not cannot be considered an absolutely true nor absolutely false characterization of the work. d4 was attempting to force his subjective judgement of 'not porn' on someone whose subjective judgement was 'porn' - and it's just as morally wrong to do so as the other way around."  Does that state my point in a manner in which you can agree on the meaning (even if you don't necessarily agree on the point)? 

EDIT: Thanks, Dr. Harry, for pointing out the full law.com definition - which does in fact cover my points.  

{joking}
Now, Sean, you weren't REALLY trying to twist a definition by omitting portions that were potentialy harmful to your argument to suit your own purposes and pulling a Jaros by making the word mean what you wanted it to mean there, were you? 
Bad Sean!  No cookie!
{/joking}

--The Sigil


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 9, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that wasn't while AV was there, right?
> 
> The Century Worm is an ... um... interesting creature from the Fiend Folio.  Here's a picture. (snip)




One thing's clear, they're not Jewish.


----------



## BSF (Sep 10, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Alright, so it sounds like there are a few notable OGL products out there, but the vast majority are d20.  And it sounds like a shaky proposition to get your stuff into stores without the d20STL.  In that case, I definitely hope that a more viable alternative appears for people who want to create mature products that would not be allowed under d20STL.  I still think this is much ado about nothing right now, and hopefully that will remain the case.  This has always been in the power of WotC to change or even revoke the d20 license so I really don't see much changing here...more the fear that things could change for the worse.  From my standpoint, that's ALWAYS been a possibility.




What you say is probably true.  That's why I describe this as a warning shot.  Aside from the Sole Discretion clause, the fact that it can be applied retroactively is somewhat spooky.  I'm not sure that possibility had occurred to everyone before.  I may be wrong.


----------



## d4 (Sep 10, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> d4 was attempting to force his subjective judgement of 'not porn' on someone whose subjective judgement was 'porn' - and it's just as morally wrong to do so as the other way around.



i most certainly was not.

i *never* said, "Because the book doesn't match my own personal definition of pornography, no one can call it that." i said that as far as i can tell, the book does not match the *legal* definition of pornography as i understand it.

for the record, i don't believe i've _ever_ stated on this thread what my own subjective definition of pornography was.

dismissing the book as pornographic, a word that does indeed have a legal definition, when said book may not actually fit that definition is wrong, IMO.

one would be equally wrong to blanketly dismiss the opinions of fellow ENWorlder Felon, simply because the word felon has negative connotations. i doubt our esteemed colleague actually fits the legal definition of a felon, and therefore to dismiss his opinion would be wrong.


----------



## Planesdragon (Sep 10, 2003)

Anubis the Doomseer said:
			
		

> I think this is the best way to go - to develop a strong non-Wizards controlled, truely open-sourced "brand" for 'd20 compatible' games.




If you're interested in this, please help the FGA with OpenDie, Prometheus, and whatever else catches on.

The only way to prevent fragmentation is to have one logo used by all and controlled by a neutral party.

To discuss Prometheus, join the FGA-Prometheus group at yahoogroups.com.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FGA-Prometheus/ 
FGA-Prometheus@yahoogroups.com


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I won't delete my previous posts - once words are out, you can't call them back, and I want everything I have said to remain out there for folks to see. My feeling is that everyone should see everything I say so that they don't get an "edited" version of me to somehow look "nicer." They can see me warts and all.




As usual in these sort of discussions, Sigil took the words out of my mouth.  I'll put down my pitchfork now.

I owe you an apology, too, Mr. Valterra.  You obviously aren't to blame for the new rules.  At worst, you're only the reason they were rushed, and that's far from a safe bet.

Likewise, you seem to have had the best of intensions with the fonts.  Since I haven't seen the cover, yet (I can barely find the core books in this town -- despite being in the second largest city in Iowa -- let alone a 'niche' product like BoEF).

I don't have the same passion for the material that you do -- lump me with those who don't think it should have been written -- but I certainly think you deserve the opportunity to do so.  Even if the book has nothing lurid in it, I don't think it would see any use in my game, so I'm unlikely to buy it.  But, if I see a copy of it, I'll thumb through it to (in)validate my concerns.

I'd also love to see a .gif of the cover and the notorious font issue.  That's the only way I'll ever be able to tell for sure whether you went "too far" (IMO).


----------



## Felon (Sep 10, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> one would be equally wrong to blanketly dismiss the opinions of fellow ENWorlder Felon, simply because the word felon has negative connotations. i doubt our esteemed colleague actually fits the legal definition of a felon, and therefore to dismiss his opinion would be wrong.




Thanks for the kind words.

Yeah, I was a bit stymied by Sig's comment myself. You didn't try to "force" anything on anyone from where I'm sitting. You said "can we please stop with the porno references". That's not a _demand_, that's a request.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

I think PDF publishers are the last people who need to worry about the changes. They get a "Stop that" letter, what are going to do? Pulp the 'trons? No, they just strip off the d20 logo, having benefitted from the logo while it had it, and put it back up for sale as an OGL-only product.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 10, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> i most certainly was not.
> i said that as far as i can tell, the book does not match the *legal* definition of pornography as i understand it.
> {snip}
> dismissing the book as pornographic, a word that does indeed have a legal definition, when said book may not actually fit that definition is wrong, IMO.



To restate, here is the full definition from law.com"


> pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse. The printing, publication, sale and distribution of "hard core" pornography is either a felony or misdemeanor in most states. *Since determining what is pornography* and what is "soft core" and "hard core" *are subjective* questions to judges, juries and law enforcement officials, it is difficult to define, since the law cases cannot print examples for the courts to follow (emphasis mine)



Let me explain why I think the BoEF _could_ certainly fall under this legal definition.

Fact: Material that contains pictures and/or writings of sexual activity *may* be considered pornographic based on a subjective definition.

Fact: The BoEF does contain pictures and/or writings of sexual activity.  We've been told as much about the text, and some of the pictures that have been released do show such things.  I think this is not in dispute.

Fact: By the transitive property, the BoEF *may* be considered pornographic... based on a "subjective definition" by the "right people" at the "right time" in the "right place" (or wrong people at the wrong time in the wrong place, depending on your viewpoint).

Because "subjective definition" is in play, the BoEF may in fact be considered pornographic.  And I would suggest that if you showed the BoEF off in, say, the Bible Belt, you'd have a greater chance of having it ruled "pornographic" than in, by contrast, Cal-Berkeley.

Again, I'm not saying it IS pornographic, but clearly, it does legally fall under an area where it could be considered such.  Whether or not it IS found to be pornographic likely depends upon whom you ask, where you ask them, and what time of day it is, and whether or not the person you ask is a judge, jury member, or law enforcement official.   That's all I'm saying.

--The Sigil


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2003)

I'm still not at all happy about the new "sole discretion" and "destruction" clauses. I don't see whether it matters that they remove them, though. The cat's out and the _ex post facto_ nature of the d20 STL means that it could be re-added and levied against anyone they pleased at any time.

The question is, "Do publishers continue to use the d20 STL and hope things work fine, or do they start to invest in another logo?"

Here's an idea: Is it possible to "double brand" a product? That is, could a new product (eg. The Slayer's Guide to Wombats - SGtW) be marked with both the d20 logo and the Prometheus logo someone mentioned?

Carrying the d20 logo would retain the current brand recognition, while adding the Prometheus logo would build recognition there, too. So long as WotC plays nice with the d20 STL, publishers can continue to rely on the consumer goodwill toward that brand. But, if WotC suddenly (or not so suddenly) gets draconic about things, the d20 logo can be dropped with the hope that there is enough equity in the Prometheus logo to retain market penetration.

Note: I'm not necessarily endorsing the Prometheus license. It's just an example that I happen to remember. Whatever it is, a significant portion of publishers would have to agree to use it, or it's worthless.


----------



## Felon (Sep 10, 2003)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> What you did is completely legally defensible, but I don't like the fact that, with your prior knowledge, you deliberately made a product which falls into a category of "things WotC doesn't like enough to change the license to prohibit them." You tried to deliberately use WotC trademark to increase your personal benefits even when you knew that what you were doing was not what they wanted.




As I read this, I have to wonder who "they" is? If you're suggesting that he's obligated to humbly bow to the wishes of whoever's calling the shots at WotC at any given time, then you're basically just saying that he wasn't being a good "company man", saluting the cause regardless of how strongly he disagreed with the shift in policy. Even at that, you're not being terribly fair; he did stop working for them after all. 

Once again, let's remind ourselves of how progressively "they" is becoming an amorphous bureaucratic entity, because the people who actually poured their creative energies into the D20 license have been deemed irrelevant to the success of the game and subsequently cast off. Small wonder people don't respect the faceless blob who grumbles "Deeziners n writerz not importand..Z'all bout marketink...BLORCH!"


----------



## BSF (Sep 10, 2003)

d4 said:
			
		

> one would be equally wrong to blanketly dismiss the opinions of fellow ENWorlder Felon, simply because the word felon has negative connotations. i doubt our esteemed colleague actually fits the legal definition of a felon, and therefore to dismiss his opinion would be wrong.





Esteemed Colleague?  Hey, cool!  What can I do to be considered an Esteemed Colleague?  That sounds a heck of a lot cooler than a gaming geek or a computer geek.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 10, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think PDF publishers are the last people who need to worry about the changes. They get a "Stop that" letter, what are going to do? Pulp the 'trons? No, they just strip off the d20 logo, having benefitted from the logo while it had it, and put it back up for sale as an OGL-only product.



Actually, as a PDF publisher, I am far more annoyed at the font size issues. I have 15-20 PDFs I have to track down and change the font size on "Requires the D&D PHB, 3rd Ed" from 9-point to 10-point. And my trademark owner text from 8-point to 10-point. Highly annoying.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

> I'll have to disagree with you there. If those are toeing the line of pornography, then so is the National Geographic Swimsuit issue they released this summer, or any National Geographic issue that contains people in the nude, or the X-Men Summer Swimsuit issue that Marvel released a few years ago.




Agreed. I'd call those "soft porn".


----------



## 20sides (Sep 10, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> Once again, let's remind ourselves of how progressively "they" is becoming an amorphous bureaucratic entity, because the people who actually poured their creative energies into the D20 license have been deemed irrelevant to the success of the game and subsequently cast off.




Hasbro is calling the shots.. I expect them to do some juvenile stuff with this.   They don't give two squirts about this game, they see it as just another thing to run into the ground and cast off when it loses too much money, just like Revlon.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

ACValterra said:
			
		

> Wanna lay some money on that? Check out Book of Exalted Deeds in October.




I'll be sure to. What are the odds that the contents have been morphed since you left (much like the contents of BoVD morphed after monte turned in the manuscript.)?


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

Ratenef said:
			
		

> Now, you guys are all up in arms about these bare nipples?!




No, the guys who are up in arms about people being up in arms about nipples were up in arms with it.

As a card carrying member of the "guys who were up in arms about nipples" brigade, I can tell you our official comment was "eh."


----------



## Harlock (Sep 10, 2003)

20sides said:
			
		

> Hasbro is calling the shots.. I expect them to do some juvenile stuff with this.   They don't give two squirts about this game, they see it as just another thing to run into the ground and cast off when it loses too much money, just like Revlon.




Wow, Revlon, the makeup people, owned D&D?   

Oh come on, a little levity now and again is necessary lest we take ourselves too seriously and someone starts asking you to define the word, "is"...


----------



## Felon (Sep 10, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Esteemed Colleague?  Hey, cool!  What can I do to be considered an Esteemed Colleague?  That sounds a heck of a lot cooler than a gaming geek or a computer geek.




For starters...agree with everything I say 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Agreed. I'd call those "soft porn".




I call'em cheesecake. Harmless, fun cheesecake. But hey, so much for labels.


----------



## d4 (Sep 10, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Again, I'm not saying it IS pornographic, but clearly, it does legally fall under an area where it could be considered such.  Whether or not it IS found to be pornographic likely depends upon whom you ask, where you ask them, and what time of day it is, and whether or not the person you ask is a judge, jury member, or law enforcement official.   That's all I'm saying.



fair enough.

however, when something may or may not fit under one label or another, calling it by the more negative label is IMO bad form. especially when one doesn't even have full information on it yet.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 10, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> As I read this, I have to wonder who "they" is? If you're suggesting that he's obligated to humbly bow to the wishes of whoever's calling the shots at WotC at any given time, then you're basically just saying that he wasn't being a good "company man", saluting the cause regardless of how strongly he disagreed with the shift in policy. Even at that, you're not being terribly fair; he did stop working for them after all.




I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted what I said. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Valterra knew of the coming change, knew what was going to be changed, and knew the reason behind the change. No matter how much he disaggreed with the change, and in this I think we agree, the change is stupid, I find his use of another's trademark to promote a work that the owner of the trademark doesn't want promoted, and who is taking explicit legal recourse to prevent such material, questionable.



> Once again, let's remind ourselves of how progressively "they" is becoming an amorphous bureaucratic entity, because the people who actually poured their creative energies into the D20 license have been deemed irrelevant to the success of the game and subsequently cast off. Small wonder people don't respect the faceless blob who grumbles "Deeziners n writerz not importand..Z'all bout marketink...BLORCH!"




No matter what they are, or become, the trademark is theirs. The only reason why anyone else can use it is that it promotes their products. The entire purpose of the trademark is to sell more players handbooks. Mr. Valterra's deliberate use of their trademark in a manner in which they were in the steps of preventing, and of which he had full knowledge of, shows a lack of respect to WotC.

Basically, he wanted to get his book of sexual material out and make additional profit off using another's trademark with the foreknowledge that the owners of the trademark were trying explictly to prevent such sexual materials being put out under their trademark. No matter what you call it, that's a lack of respect, and it lets me know that Mr. Valterra is willing to be disrespectful of WotC to increase profitablity, for there is no other reason to include the d20 system logo except to increase profitability. That is the purpose of the logo.

Everyone knew he was pushing the d20 license into areas that were potentially unwanted by WotC when he announced his product. Now we know he was doing exactly what they didn't want, and unlike other publishers working on/releasing sexual material, he had explict information that what he was doing was not what WotC wanted for their trademark.

And please don't take my criticism of Mr. Valterra as a personal shot. I admire him for what he has done for the d20 license and his efforts to try and stop the idiocy that they're doing now. I don't admire him for his actions after losing that fight and his creation/promotion of his new product. But that is his business, and I expect him to do what he thinks best for his own interest.

joe b.


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 10, 2003)

{Now, Sean, you weren't REALLY trying to twist a definition by omitting portions that were potentialy harmful to your argument to suit your own purposes and pulling a Jaros by making the word mean what you wanted it to mean there, were you? 
Bad Sean! No cookie!}

Actually, I just don't like big long quotes. Also, the quote didn't define what the differences between "hard core" and "soft core" were, or even clarify that the listed definition applied to one or the other, so I was trying to avoid confusing the issue any more than it already was.


----------



## ES2 (Sep 10, 2003)

Next thing you know, they'll copywrite the words "Player's Handbook" so no one else can use those words.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

> I'm still not at all happy about the new "sole discretion" and "destruction" clauses.




I hope that the discussion between d4, Sean Reynolds, Sigil, and Dr. Henry in this thread illuminates why the former is necessary. WotC problably doesn't have the time or money for lawyers fees to debate someone else's definition of porn.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> Actually, I just don't like big long quotes. Also, the quote didn't define what the differences between "hard core" and "soft core" were, or even clarify that the listed definition applied to one or the other, so I was trying to avoid confusing the issue any more than it already was.




Be that as it may, if seems awful, um, unfair to slam someone for using a subjective definition and then supporting it by quoting a definition and then ommitting the part that admits that the definition is subjective.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 10, 2003)

*Getting Serious Here*

Disallowing gratuitous displays I can understand, but what about situations where showing certain subjects is entirely appropriate.

Say a d20 publisher gets permission to do an adaptation of Harry Turtledove's _Darkness_ series (Harry's fantasy take on World War II, and a damn good read). One of the kingdoms in the books is called Zuwayzi, a polity in the tropical north. The Zuwayzi are a dark skinned race physically adapted to local conditions who go about nude. Their soldiers even fight nude.

Now, the hypothetical publisher could 'arrange' things so Zuwayzi genitalia are covered, but wouldn't that be a form of cheating? A denial of an essential fact of Zuwayzi culture?

I can understand when the display is for salacious or prurient purposes, but not when it's a simple depiction of a person or persons dressed (or undressed) according to cultural norms. For a real world example consider Pharonic Egypt, where public nudity was accepted, and children went skyclad as a matter of course.

The problem I see here is the possibility somebody might complain about an 'inappropriate' display. Frankly, that sort of person cannot be satisfied, for he will find something to complain about in any D&D or d20 product. Don't worry about that sort, be concerned with potential customers. My advice is to treat subjects in a mature fashion, honestly. If your setting book is about a tribe of tropical rainforest dwelling goblins who go about bare skinned, then show them bare skinned in the illoes. But be grown-up about it.


----------



## Felon (Sep 10, 2003)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> No matter what they are, or become, the trademark is theirs. The only reason why anyone else can use it is that it promotes their products.




Like I told Psi, that's indisputable...but this policy change makes some of us wonder if that's becoming regrettable. 



> And please don't take my criticism of Mr. Valterra as a personal shot. I admire him for what he has done for the d20 license and his efforts to try and stop the idiocy that they're doing now. I don't admire him for his actions after losing that fight and his creation/promotion of his new product. But that is his business, and I expect him to do what he thinks best for his own interest.




Fair enough. Btw, have I mentioned that MiaMS is the best book I've read in a loooong time?



			
				ES2 said:
			
		

> Next thing you know, they'll copywrite the words "Player's Handbook" so no one else can use those words.




Maybe AV's next book will have "Fair and Balanced" in a large font on the cover?


----------



## C. Baize (Sep 10, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Agreed. I'd call those "soft porn".




You have GOT to be kidding.... 

And I thought the UseNet showed me the dregs of illumination....


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

C. Baize said:
			
		

> You have GOT to be kidding....
> 
> And I thought the UseNet showed me the dregs of illumination....




Not in the least bit. But it's nice that you could stop by to insult my intelligence on the basis of my values.


----------



## shadow (Sep 10, 2003)

Geez! Go back and read my original post!  I never called the BoEF "pornography". (Although in my personal definition it may be, but I haven't seen it yet.)

What I said was that players were free to incorporate "porn" in their games if they wanted to.  I meant to imply that a ban on "pornography" (nipples, explicit sexuality, etc.) would not affect how people play the game.  You can still incorporate all the elements in your game even if their isn't a d20 adventure module that specifically calls for it.

Are we clear on that?


----------



## isidorus (Sep 10, 2003)

> Originally Posted by TiQuinn
> Alright, so it sounds like there are a few notable OGL products out there, but the vast majority are d20. And it sounds like a shaky proposition to get your stuff into stores without the d20STL. In that case, I definitely hope that a more viable alternative appears for people who want to create mature products that would not be allowed under d20STL. I still think this is much ado about nothing right now, and hopefully that will remain the case. This has always been in the power of WotC to change or even revoke the d20 license so I really don't see much changing here...more the fear that things could change for the worse. From my standpoint, that's ALWAYS been a possibility.




The way I see it if your not d20 or one of the bigger publishers getting it in the store is virtually nil. jeez I cannot get ICE(TM) products here or Garys Gygax's LA(TM) here. So it makes me wonder how many hard it will be for new publishers to get anything on the shelf. 

To bad this happen and I had a few months before I could get anything out myself. Being laid-off gives you plently of time.

Just to throw a non-topic note. I just cannot believe it I have Mod access at http://Slashdot.org for the second time in three weeks.


----------



## C. Baize (Sep 10, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Not in the least bit. But it's nice that you could stop by to insult my intelligence on the basis of my values.




Illumination and intelligence are not the same thing. 
You should know this.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 10, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Actually, as a PDF publisher, I am far more annoyed at the font size issues. I have 15-20 PDFs I have to track down and change the font size on "Requires the D&D PHB, 3rd Ed" from 9-point to 10-point. And my trademark owner text from 8-point to 10-point. Highly annoying.




[OT] Using your layout software of choice, create a single style sheet for your legal text. Then, at least, you don't have to track down each usage-- just open each file, change the style sheet, and you're done.

Wulf


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 10, 2003)

Another point here.

Thanks to The Internet -especially the World Wide Web- society is undergoing a big change. Children today see more nudity and even sex than at any time in the past, except for the time before we got so concerned about the possible damage the little dears might suffer should they see a stranger's 'equipment'. A good friend once told me he was more concerned with the people his then 15 year old son might meet in chat rooms than what the boy might see on certain sites. I doubt he's the only one out there.

(Then there's the comment his then 12 year old daughter made about the pictures her older brother liked to look for, "Yuck.")

My point? The time is coming, and sooner than you'd expect, when we will no longer consider certain subjects taboo. When nudity and even open sexual activity may very will be tolerated, and in some cases even accepted. We are more adaptable than some would think.

Yes, some activities will still be forbidden, but they will be those that cause harm to others. Rape for example, or child sexual abuse. But except for those who have a pathological condition something as innocuous as a naked third grade boy will raise no great row. By 2030 Wizards may have a clause in the d20 STL counseling for tasteful displays of genitalia and sexual activtiy in d20 branded products. And so giving their permission for elf erotica, but not elf porn.

Remember, before the wide spread adoption of interior walls in building architecture there was no real privacy in daily life.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 10, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Here's an idea: Is it possible to "double brand" a product? That is, could a new product (eg. The Slayer's Guide to Wombats - SGtW) be marked with both the d20 logo and the Prometheus logo someone mentioned?



Absolutely. This is what many people on the ogf-d20 list have been recommending, and I agree with them. Others are recommending against something that will fractionalize the publishers.

-Dave


----------



## tburdett (Sep 10, 2003)

I haven't read the entire thread, and I don't plan to at this point, so my reply may be redundant.

AV must be sweating bullets right now.  I am sure that there are many people who would love to see WotC send Valar a breach letter the day that the BoEF hits the shelves.  Follow that up with a 'my way or the highway' approach that gives Valar no room to manuever and wait 30 days for the cure period to end.  I guess your only hope is to sell as much product as possible in that 30 days and hope that it's enough to break even.

Whatever the outcome, this will certainly send a strong message to anyone else who is thinking about publishing a book that WotC sees as a threat to their image or sales figures.


----------



## Simplicity (Sep 10, 2003)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted what I said. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Valterra knew of the coming change, knew what was going to be changed, and knew the reason behind the change. No matter how much he disaggreed with the change, and in this I think we agree, the change is stupid, I find his use of another's trademark to promote a work that the owner of the trademark doesn't want promoted, and who is taking explicit legal recourse to prevent such material, questionable.
> 
> No matter what they are, or become, the trademark is theirs. The only reason why anyone else can use it is that it promotes their products. The entire purpose of the trademark is to sell more players handbooks. Mr. Valterra's deliberate use of their trademark in a manner in which they were in the steps of preventing, and of which he had full knowledge of, shows a lack of respect to WotC.
> 
> Basically, he wanted to get his book of sexual material out and make additional profit off using another's trademark with the foreknowledge that the owners of the trademark were trying explictly to prevent such sexual materials being put out under their trademark. No matter what you call it, that's a lack of respect, and it lets me know that Mr. Valterra is willing to be disrespectful of WotC to increase profitablity, for there is no other reason to include the d20 system logo except to increase profitability. That is the purpose of the logo.




I've got two problems with your argument...

(1) In paragraph 3, you refer to AV attempting to "make additional profit off using another's trademark".  How much money do you think the BoEF is going to make?  It's not like the guys at Valar are going to be rolling in dough when this comes out.  People make D&D books because they enjoy what they're doing, not because it's going to make them rich.  Having a get rich quick scheme for something that isn't going to make you rich seems pretty stupid to me.

(2) Your treatment of WotC and Valar is shows contradictory logic.  On the one hand, you argue that WotC holds the trademark, so it's not about free speech and the ethics of the situation doesn't matter.  WotC can do whatever they like with their trademark legally, so whatever they do is fine.  On the other hand, you argue that even though Valar is operating legally within the bounds of the old license, their knowledge that future licenses wouldn't allow what they're doing should ethically prevent them from releasing the BoEF.  Huh?  If WotC isn't going to act ethically, why should Valar?  If WotC is going to fall back to the law to support their position, then why can't Valar?


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 10, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> I haven't read the entire thread, and I don't plan to at this point, so my reply may be redundant.



It's so much a matter of being redundant: it's a matter of being ill-informed (and therefor wrong). You are ignorant of the actual situation, precisely because you didn't read the thread. Or the reproduction of ACV's post on the front page of this site.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 10, 2003)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I've got two problems with your argument...
> 
> (1) In paragraph 3, you refer to AV attempting to "make additional profit off using another's trademark".  How much money do you think the BoEF is going to make?  It's not like the guys at Valar are going to be rolling in dough when this comes out.  People make D&D books because they enjoy what they're doing, not because it's going to make them rich.  Having a get rich quick scheme for something that isn't going to make you rich seems pretty stupid to me.




Of course they're not going to be rolling in the dough.    I know for certain if the main goal of all the d20 publishers was to make money, they would have chosen another business. We all do this because we love the fact that we can do what we like doing and make some money off of it.  A few, very lucky people have gotten rich, but generally getting rich is, as you said a stupid thing to hope for.



> (2) Your treatment of WotC and Valar is shows contradictory logic.  On the one hand, you argue that WotC holds the trademark, so it's not about free speech and the ethics of the situation doesn't matter.  WotC can do whatever they like with their trademark legally, so whatever they do is fine.  On the other hand, you argue that even though Valar is operating legally within the bounds of the old license, their knowledge that future licenses wouldn't allow what they're doing should ethically prevent them from releasing the BoEF.  Huh?  If WotC isn't going to act ethically, why should Valar?  If WotC is going to fall back to the law to support their position, then why can't Valar?




Firstly, I never said whatever WotC does is fine, so please don't try to straw man me. I think that if someone does me wrong, I don't have the right to do wrong to them. I think WotC is being massively, terribly, stupid with this change, and I bet my booties that Mr. Valterra tried his damndest to stop them from being idiots.

For me operating legally doesn't mean operating ethically, nor vice versa. If someone is unethical to me, I'm not going to be unethical back. I kinda view it like the OGL concept: everyone comes out ahead if people co-operate.

The main reason why I'm as upset as I am, is that I would have preffered that the BoEF was the thing that caused WotC to be idiots as opposed to it being something that had been planned for a long time. I also wish that Mr. Valterra had slated the BoEF as an OGL product from the get-go, knowing what I know now. I still have a very high opinion of him, I'm just saddened at what I perceive as a possible tit-for-tat relationship. Bluntly, using someone's trademark the way they don't want it to be used is rude. Conversely, what WotC is doing is rude. Rude and stupid in the long run.

I'm surprised that WotC didn't escalate the issue and force Mr. Valterra to pulp his books after they were out. They could have been meaner. Thankfully, it didn't come to that. Unfortunately, I feel this adversarial relationship may make it more difficult for the rest of us to publish. Sometimes you just feel the need to say, "Play nice."

joe b.


----------



## 20sides (Sep 10, 2003)

This is precisely my concern.  What if WoTC decided stuff like Pit of Loch Durnan was too far?  Or if they just had an axe to grind (SSS anyone?)

Admittedly, it sounds like the BoEF was intentionally designed to piss off the lawyers because someone had a rocket in their pocket towards WoTC.  However, to change the d20 liscence like this and leave other publishers high and dry asking questions, wondering if they are next is poor sportsmanship.

WoTC should have let the crybaby publish his book and let it get buried in the detritus of time, instead he just got free publicity and independent content creators just got hammered.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 10, 2003)

20sides said:
			
		

> WoTC should have let the crybaby publish his book and let it get buried in the detritus of time, instead he just got free publicity and independent content creators just got hammered.




We don't really need name-calling. I don't like what he did and why he did it, but its understandable why he would want to get back at WotC. They're being very stupid and hurting something I'm sure he and others put a lot of care into. Name calling doesn't help make the discussion fruitful.

joe b.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Absolutely. This is what many people on the ogf-d20 list have been recommending, and I agree with them. Others are recommending against something that will fractionalize the publishers.




Thanks for the info, Dave.

The fractionalization is exactly why I said that there would have to be something resembling a consensus on what the second label would be.  This problem would only be exasperated if WWGS started using the "SS20" imprint, Mongoose started using the "Interlock" logo, and Malhavoc used the "Prometheus" license (to randomly pick and (mis)associate three).

As the "informed", Internet-savvy gamer in my group, I might figure it all out, but no one else would.  Least of all distributors/retailers.

But, how do we reach that consensus?  The most bullet-proof license seems the right way to go, but most of us aren't laywers.  Also, who are the key players to bring on board?  I suspect that without Mongoose, FFG, and/or SSS (the biggest three outside of WotC, AFAIK) there wouldn't be enough momentum to float it.


----------



## 20sides (Sep 10, 2003)

Youre right about the name calling..

The sentiment I currently feel towards the guy for thinking only of himself and his silly vendetta gets me a little steamed.  

He caused the community to lose as a whole, beyond what little has occured here.  

WoTC has remembered it has all the power in the d20 license, but will it remember it has a responsibility to use that power wisely?


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

Red Spire Press said:
			
		

> Anyway, now is the point where tough decisions need to be made, mainly whether to bare your soul to WOTC and ask for exemptions at risk of calling even more attention to your product and any possible "violations of decency", or tone things down to a bareable level and cross your fingers (don't tell my lawyer I said that).
> 
> Blah...




Um, aren't you missing a 3rd possibility: drop the logo, and maybe add a euphamistic reference to indicate D&D compatibility?


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Sep 10, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> ...
> Anyone think the real reason is related to the smutty (though I like them hehe hehe hehe) Avalanche covers?
> 
> ...
> V




Heh - Funny you mention this, as Avalanche just announced they will no longer use the d20 logo for future products:

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=10060&mode=thread&order=0


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 10, 2003)

Hmmm, this is rather silly, but:

I wonder how much of the creation of, and the flack surrounding, BoEF is Mr. V. enjoying the sight of everyone rushing around in a total swivet?   

Goodness knows I have met more than a few pagans who enjoy going out to 'freak the 'danes'.

The Auld Grump, add me to the ist who thinks this will all end up being pretty minor...


----------



## KingOfChaos (Sep 10, 2003)

Hmm..I wonder who will be next to drop the D20 STL?


----------



## Bob the Reaver (Sep 10, 2003)

Sorry to be so lame on the subject but..

Ive read pages 7 on and I was just wondering, can Wizards take the OGL away from us? And also what is included in the OGL. Can you refer to the core books in OGL products? Like a prestige class that requires spells found in the Players hand book. And is the D20 modern rules part of the OGL?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 10, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> Anyone think the real reason is related to the smutty (though I like them hehe hehe hehe) Avalanche covers?




I don't think so - Avalanche's 'Baywatch' style covers look to be in accordance with the new d20 standards requirements, they don't include 'bare female nipples' so that's alright...


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 10, 2003)

Bob the Reaver said:
			
		

> Ive read pages 7 on and I was just wondering, can Wizards take the OGL away from us? And also what is included in the OGL. Can you refer to the core books in OGL products? Like a prestige class that requires spells found in the Players hand book. And is the D20 modern rules part of the OGL?




In order: No; the SRDs; you can't refer to the books by name but can refer to anything in the SRD; and yes, the d20 modern SRD is OGLed.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 10, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> [OT] Using your layout software of choice, create a single style sheet for your legal text. Then, at least, you don't have to track down each usage-- just open each file, change the style sheet, and you're done.



Sort of already had that. Except I tagged both the required legal text and the entire text of the OGL with the same style. Since a 10-point OGL doesn't fit in my two-column single page, I have to go through each work separately and split the existing style into two styles, one for the OGL and one for the required paragraphs.

Then next time, if I'm fed up with d20 compliance, all I have to do is open each file and delete all paragraphs having the "required text" style, save and exit.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 10, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I don't think so - Avalanche's 'Baywatch' style covers look to be in accordance with the new d20 standards requirements, they don't include 'bare female nipples' so that's alright...



I'd guess that, cheesecake aside, Avalanche is more worried because their works include real-world situations like slavery, race relations and religious wars.

(Yeah, I know you knew that. I was just pointing it out in case someone came in late.)


----------



## Baastet (Sep 10, 2003)

*Av*

AV,

I decided after all this commotion to check out your site and see how truely "racy & naughty" your product will be.

I must say, I was expecting tasteless pictures of bouncing breasts and hustler-esqe imagery. I was pleasently surprised. I saw nothing on that site that was remotely tasteless. All was done with a high degree of aptitude of the artists and only increased the intrinsic beauty models. Some of the imagery, while racey was not much more than some posters I have seen in Walmart. 

I was impressed by the level of care you and your staff have taken in making an interesting book while tackleing a difficult and delicate subject. Bravo!  I for one will be buying your book and look forward to seeing it in it's entirety!

Baastet


----------



## TheRaven (Sep 10, 2003)

Question. Would that be legally ok ?


----------



## Wycen (Sep 10, 2003)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> Question. Would that be ok ?




That looks great.  

But visually I would bet somebody would complain it looks too much like the d20 trademark.


----------



## TheRaven (Sep 10, 2003)

Wycen said:
			
		

> But visually I would bet somebody would complain it looks too much like the d20 trademark.




Well, if their complain is a matter of perception and not law, then that's not my problem.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

> Illumination and intelligence are not the same thing.
> You should know this.




Fair enough. But is it one's definition of porn? You'll excuse me if I don't find your definition of illumination too... enlightened.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

20sides said:
			
		

> Admittedly, it sounds like the BoEF was intentionally designed to piss off the lawyers because someone had a rocket in their pocket towards WoTC. However, to change the d20 liscence like this and leave other publishers high and dry asking questions, wondering if they are next is poor sportsmanship.




Arrgh! Another case of someone not keeping up with the thread.

We already know that BoEF was not specifically targeted as this change was coming down the pipe before AV ever left WotC, according to his post. So if you want to engage in this line of thinking, you'll have to do it without the assumption that there is a precedent of a targeted company.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 10, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Arrgh! Another case of someone not keeping up with the thread.
> 
> We already know that BoEF was not specifically targeted as this change was coming down the pipe before AV ever left WotC, according to his post. So if you want to engage in this line of thinking, you'll have to do it without the assumption that there is a precedent of a targeted company.



  It's a little hard to keep up with this in a lot of ways.
  Personally, I think it WAS targeted at BoEF. Sure, it was already in the works, but I think Anthony Valterra forced WotC's hand. The lack of "legalese" in the STL changes, the rushed appearance and vauge statements in it.
  While the change may have been in the works, but BoEF may have just caused someone to fly off the handle and rush to block it. "WE HAVE TO STOP THIS SMUT FROM BEING PRINTED."
  But, like I said, with all the various threads, it can be difficult to keep up.


> Fair enough. But is it one's definition of porn? You'll excuse me if I don't find your definition of illumination too... enlightened.



(First of all, I'm not picking on Psion, before anyone crawls up my nether reasons)
  And that right there is the biggest problem with these "Quality Standards" right now. Who decides what is excessive. Who decides what is disgusting.
  Is a picture (adapted from a museam piece of an ancient fertility idol) of a pot-bellied woman in a lotus position with 8 bare breasts pornography, or out of context if you are placing/stating/describing the Kobold Goddess of Fertility? Why should it be forbidden? What about doing factual statements on Minoan dress/culture, where bare breasts are common? I'm not talking the "Big Book of Tetten!" but within taste and reason.
   Who decides what is excessive blood & gore? What if I use a picture I took during Desert Storm of the "Highway of Death" and convert it to a drawing with photoshop for a book on Modern Warfare. Dead bodies rotting in the sun, burnt out tanks and vehicles. Is it excessive? Who decides?

  Finally...
  Why wasn't there any warning? By dropping this bomb, making it retroactive, and providing no warning that it was going to happen, I'm out more money than I pay in rent. For some of you, that might not be a big deal, but I'm supporting 6 people off of minimum wage.
  Six months ago, I had not commissioned this artwork.
  Now, it's all useless.
  Wizards knew that this would happen, that some companies would get hit right in the slim pocketbook by losing artwork that they had commissioned and paid for.
  Why didn't we get at least some professional courtesy and told: "Hey, guys, in 6 months we're going to be banning icky pornographic female nipples and breasts in an effort to return to Victorian times. Oh, and your orcish war god better get rid of his package. No more looking like he's shoplifting a basketball under his loincloth." so a lot of us didn't end up wasting cold hard cash?

  But, that's just my $1.50, since 2 cents won't buy you a punch in the face.


----------



## reiella (Sep 10, 2003)

Unforunately, the OGL doesn't allow for you to claim compatiblity with another system/trademark/PI/yada...  And while the current EQ example of "100% compatible with 3rd edition fantasy role-playing rules" seems accepted, I'm unsure how the reaction / interpretation would fair in a court, and I'm fairly sure explicitly using 3.5 would be a bit too ... risky.


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

> (First of all, I'm not picking on Psion, before anyone crawls up my nether reasons)



Not at all Ralts. Your points are well taken. It is sort of tangential to what I was saying, because I was not debating definitions of porn, but defending myself against Hildulf's attempt to belittle me based on my definitions.


----------



## smetzger (Sep 10, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> Arrgh! Another case of someone not keeping up with the thread.
> 
> We already know that BoEF was not specifically targeted as this change was coming down the pipe before AV ever left WotC, according to his post. So if you want to engage in this line of thinking, you'll have to do it without the assumption that there is a precedent of a targeted company.




And you didn't read his comment.  He said AV had a problem with WOTC.  AV said he tried to get this out before the coming changes.  Thus it is a distinct possibility that things happened like this:

1) WOTC wants to include the "Decency" and "Prejudice" clauses and starts puching this through.
2) AV starts his own company and releases a product to spite WOTC that clearly violates the impending decency clause.
3) WOTC releases the changes.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 10, 2003)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> Question. Would that be legally ok ?




No.  In fact, this is pretty much exactly what trademark law is designed to prevent.  It's a logo that looks and feels like the d20 logo, and is intended to indicate compatability in the same way the d20 logo is, but avoids the license issue and will confuse customers and dilute the trademark.  This would get smacked down hard and fast.

If you didn't have the white field and the border just so, and removed the word compatible, then you'd be getting into a much grayer area.  They can't trademark "3.5", for instance.


----------



## Faraer (Sep 10, 2003)

So what is WotC's actual concern here? The 1980s controversies caused big sales boosts.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Okay, agree or disagree, it does at least look as though they have a specific set of guidelines (or at least rules of thumb) they're going by. I really don't think, as I said earlier, that we're going to be seeing WotC pulling products for "sinister" reasons.
> 
> I'm still not especially happy with this change, but I honestly don't think it's the disaster some people are heralding it as.




So why not put these specific guidelines into the Usage Guide?  Sure, Andy Smith says that's how things will be judged--but is he the one who actually gets to do the judging?  And what if he's laid off next Xmas--how will the next person interpret the vague standards of the Usage Guide?

Again, the disaster is *not* the particular standards being implemented.  It's that (1) they are vague, (2) they are not publicly defined, and (3) they almost can not help but be selectively enforced.  I'd be ok with them implementing any decency clause they want, provided that they (A) defined it clearly enough in the Guide so that no one would have any reasonable doubts about (non)compliance, and wouldn't need to go to WotC for a judgement call, (B) had some sort of time limits on their review process, and (C) they provided some explanation of a mechanism whereby they could actually keep track of the vast corpus of D20 products and thus enforce the standards evenly.  It's not the standards that are the problem--it's the uncertainty.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> That seems to me a distortion in order to be offended. I know somebody said this once, but it obviously bears repeating. WotC can't prevent anyone from publishing anything. But they can -- and have every legal and ethical right to -- prevent people from using THEIR good name/trademarks/ip from promoting somthing that is harmful to their image.




Agreed.  However, the standards as written in the D20System Guide would flag several (most?) WotC products.  I have trouble accepting the "we have to protect our good name" argument when they want to prevent stuff they themselves have done.  Now, if you go with the more generous standards that Andy Smith put forth, then it mostly eliminates the double standard--but i'm not very comfortable with a very strict standard and the powers that be saying "oh, don't worry, we won't actually *enforce* it to that level".


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I don't mean to say all things must pass, but I think the hasty terminology and optimial timing leads me to believe there will be one book under the gun, BoEF, and then a "concerned" WotC will lower some of its standards (or redifine them in a more specific legalese) to a point where Moongoose and other publishers will be fine, but another BoEF (FATAL d20?, Swords and Swashtkas?) will be unable to get the d20 Liscense.
> 
> Lighten up, this is a temporary solution that will be replaced with a more elegant and "refined" one.




That'd be even worse.  Narrowly-drawn standards? Bad.  Narrowly-drawn standards for some people but not others? Horrible.  I can perhaps play by the rules, despite not liking them, if they are consistent and clearly-defined.  I'm not interested in even trying if i know that they won't be consistent.  If this turned out to be a tactic just to squash the BoEF, i'm done looking at Hasbro products, much less buying them.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> But that doesn't seem to be what "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" is about.  It seems to be a "crunch" book more about pointless erotica than a coherent "lurid fantasy" product.  Do we need 190 pages of sex-themed skills, sex-themed feats, sex-themed classes, sex-themed class abilities tied to sex-themed skills, sex-themed gods, sex-themed spells?




Do we need 190pp of detailed evisceration (Torn Asunder--ok, i don't actually know the pagecount)?  Do we need 250pp of violent skills, violent feats, violent classes, violent class abilites tied to violent skills, violent gods, and violent spells (the D&D3.5E PH)?  I'm having a little trouble seeing how sex is so much worse than casual violence.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> Suppose the "war on terror" were to expand such that the illegal search and seasure laws were revoked (sure, far fetched -- but not as far off as one might think given the current climate). Would this bother you? Would it still bother you if Uncle Sam said that it would only use this new legal power to deal with terrorists and bad guys? After all, 90% of us have nothing to worry about, right? If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem inviting the Police Officer into your house.




Um, they already have.  Ok, strictly speaking, you still have to have a warrant for a search--you just don't have to have a _reason_ to get a warrant any more, provided it involves "terrorism".  But since you don't have to have a reason, it's gonna be a bit hard to assure that terrorism really was involved.  And you don't have to let anybody know, pre- or post, that you conducted the search.  And don't forget that "terrorists"--even domestic citizens cited solely with some crime that is not explicitly terrorism in nature--can be declared "enemy combatants" at the gov't's whim, and thus denied the rights to a speedy trial, know your accused, know the crime you're charged with, and a few other things (i forget the whole spiel).

But, it's ok, they'll only use this power against terrorists.  The rest of us are safe.  Unless we happen to have a Muslim name.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 10, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Um, they already have.  Ok, strictly speaking, you still have to have a warrant for a search--you just don't have to have a _reason_ to get a warrant any more, provided it involves "terrorism".  But since you don't have to have a reason, it's gonna be a bit hard to assure that terrorism really was involved.  And you don't have to let anybody know, pre- or post, that you conducted the search.  And don't forget that "terrorists"--even domestic citizens cited solely with some crime that is not explicitly terrorism in nature--can be declared "enemy combatants" at the gov't's whim, and thus denied the rights to a speedy trial, know your accused, know the crime you're charged with, and a few other things (i forget the whole spiel).
> 
> But, it's ok, they'll only use this power against terrorists.  The rest of us are safe.  Unless we happen to have a Muslim name.



You're bringing politics into this now - which will lead to a quick closure of this thread if it continues. 

I think this thread has mostly died down, but no need to lock it to further discussion.

--The Sigil


----------



## Psion (Sep 10, 2003)

> Agreed. However, the standards as written in the D20System Guide would flag several (most?) WotC products. I have trouble accepting the "we have to protect our good name" argument when they want to prevent stuff they themselves have done.




I agree. They should abide by their own standards, or otherwise it doesn't meet the stated goals.

If AV is correct, the BoED won't meet those guidelines either. Of course, it is entirely possible (as Ralts has suggested) that while the policy was in the works, it was expedited specifically becase of the BoEF and their original intent was to meet these goals company-wide somewhere down the line.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> "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."
> 
> The nudity of Isis is not gratuitous.  That is she is not naked just to show a naked woman.  I do not belive this to be a list but a clarification of what is "gratuitous."  If that was the case the end of the sentance would be "...are not acceptable."




I would *not* rely on grammatical precision when determining what the licenses from WotC actually say.  The WotC OGL, D20STL, and D20 System Guide are *full* of atrocious, ambiguous grammar.  Heck, there are bits that quite clearly say one thing, but the FAQ says it says another.  As near as i can tell, the folks behind these things at WotC couldn't use a semicolon properly if their lives depended on it, and just barely understand the concepts of parallel construction and noun-verb number agreement.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 10, 2003)

faraer said:
			
		

> So what is WotC's actual concern here? The 1980s controversies caused big sales boosts.




I would contend that the controversies provided more good publicity than bad publicity in the 1980's because even a cursory examination proved that the charges were not true, and that the charges were so over the top that fewer people even took them seriously.  (Demon worship, enhanced suicidal tendencies, mind control ...)  The controversy generated interest in the primarily teenage, primarily male audience that will adopt anything the freaks out the last generation.  (This is the only explanation I have for the brief popularity of Marilyn Manson.)  Getting teenagers to "rebel" in an uttery harmless way was actually a massive public service Gary Gygax and TSR provided, when you come to think of it ...



			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> Agreed.  However, the standards as written in the D20System Guide would flag several (most?) WotC products.  I have trouble accepting the "we have to protect our good name" argument when they want to prevent stuff they themselves have done.




The difference here is the WotC is the entity taking the risk to damaging the public image of D&D, which they own.  I do not think it is ethical to risk doing harm to someone else's property to make a buck yourself.



			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> I'm having a little trouble seeing how sex is so much worse than casual violence.




The difference is primarily because western culture views sex as a private activity, and violence as a public activity.  Consider the threads discussing what is the proper/LG/*G/*E/whatever way to approach violence in games.  This is not considered surprising due to the "social" nature of violence.  The same threads discussing sexual situations in games, I contend, would be much more problematic.


And regarding the "war on terror":

It is not reasonable to compare anyone invovled in these debates with terrorists.

It is not reasonable to compare anyone invovled in these debates with the Ashcroft "Justice" department.

It is, however, an excellent way to get this thread closed and flount ENWorld's rules to discuss how to flount WotC's.

Harry


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 10, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> The difference is primarily because western culture views sex as a private activity, and violence as a public activity.  Consider the threads discussing what is the proper/LG/*G/*E/whatever way to approach violence in games.  This is not considered surprising due to the "social" nature of violence.  The same threads discussing sexual situations in games, I contend, would be much more problematic.
> 
> Harry




Regarding the whole sex and/or violence in D&D argument, I think the violence in my life should be fantasy, while the sex should be real.


----------



## MThibault (Sep 10, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Um, aren't you missing a 3rd possibility: drop the logo, and maybe add a euphamistic reference to indicate D&D compatibility?




This would work.  The Everquest end-run seems to have gone unchallenged, as has S&SS's "Compatible with the World's Most Popular Fantasy Role Playing Game".  Both of which are probably more readily understandable to a new player than the d20 logo.

I'm wondering if it would be wise for the d20 industry as a whole to do this, though.  If they are to worry about waking the sleeping giant (which is what someone, somewhere did, apparently) then they probably shouldn't find an alternative that is too effective.  If that happens, when 4th edition comes out the SRD4.0 might be released through a single license that combines the STL and the OGL.

WotC can't recind the OGL, but when they come out with a new version of the rules the can remove the safe harbor of the stand-alone OGL from any new and essential developments.  If control is a priority for the management, then a popular and and simple method of sidestepping that control (by not needing the d20STL) would force them to either rethink their priorities (doubtful) or change the rules of the game.

Cheers

M.S. Thibault


----------



## woodelf (Sep 10, 2003)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Don't forget, they tried to trademark "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones RPG,




Will that legend *never* die?  Ok, for the record:
--It was a trademark not on the word "Nazi", but on the specific image of a nazi soldier, which was a still from one of the Indiana Jones movies.
--TSR didn't claim the trademark, Lucasfilm did.  TSR was just including the "tm" for Lucasfilm.



> they also tried to assert trademark over "Spell", "Orc" and a myriad of other generic fantasy terms, and prevent any other game from using them.  (I've been told that over and over, it's either true, or one heck of a gaming Urban Legend).




Dunno about "spell, "orc", etc., though there were vague claims over the years that implied "armor class," "hit points", & similar terms might be trademarks.  Mind you, AFAIK those claims were never made explicit, probably in large part because of their indefensibility, but were rather part of a veiled threat to pursue anyone making overly-compatible products, by saying that "many" of their game terms were trademarks, but that explicitly listing them was risky because they might forget to list some.  This was before the WotC strategy of asserting that an RPG has sufficient creative merit for it to be copyrighted, and for that copyright to extend to the rules within.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 10, 2003)

MThibault said:
			
		

> This would work.  The Everquest end-run seems to have gone unchallenged, as has S&SS's "Compatible with the World's Most Popular Fantasy Role Playing Game".  Both of which are probably more readily understandable to a new player than the d20 logo.
> 
> I'm wondering if it would be wise for the d20 industry as a whole to do this, though.  If they are to worry about waking the sleeping giant (which is what someone, somewhere did, apparently) then they probably shouldn't find an alternative that is too effective.  If that happens, when 4th edition comes out the SRD4.0 might be released through a single license that combines the STL and the OGL.



I would suspect that if you went this route, you would be well advise to come up with your own euphamism. If a bunch of different companies put out book all saying "compatible with the world's most popular fantasy role playing game", WotC's lawyers would be able to waltz into the trademark office and claim World's Most Popular RPG as a trademark in an instant. And they would receive it since all these competitors were using that very text to refer to D&D.

If 4.0 ed comes out with any kind of easily obtainable third party license and any for of OGL, I'll be shocked. I think the third party players are stuck with 3.5 from now on. 4.0 will not look like 3.5.


----------



## MThibault (Sep 10, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> WotC's lawyers would be able to waltz into the trademark office and claim World's Most Popular RPG as a trademark in an instant. And they would receive it since all these competitors were using that very text to refer to D&D.




Actually, they would be using it to refer to the SRD/OGL pool which includes Arcana Unearthed, etc.  Even though everyone would be hoping that the phrase would be associated with D&D, they would also be hoping that all those AU fans buy a copy as well.  

So what I would suggest would be that if you are going to try something like this, then designate whatever phrase you come up with as Open Content.

I am not a lawyer but I don't think that you can claim a phrase as a trademark if someone else holds the copyright to it.  And if your copyright is valid, then the Open Content designation will be valid under the OGL.  So the phrase will stay associated with the OGL, yet independent of the d20 License.  As far as I can tell (and who am I really, to know this stuff) you could have both the d20 logo and the Open Content compatiblity phrase on an OGL product.  That would tie the two together (the phrase and the logo) until such a time that WotC changed the d20STL to separate them.  Best case scenario would be that by that point the distributers and retailers would be trained to shelve the Phrased products beside the D&D stuff.

I'm not really trying to be devious and undermine the d20 license.  But for those who are looking for risk-management alternatives I'm just throwing out ideas.

Cheers


----------



## BSF (Sep 10, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> If 4.0 ed comes out with any kind of easily obtainable third party license and any for of OGL, I'll be shocked. I think the third party players are stuck with 3.5 from now on. 4.0 will not look like 3.5.




That may be.  But, it will severly limit my interest in the product if they do.  At this point, I own more 3rd party products than I do WotC stuff.  And that is not to say that I am stingy with the WotC stuff! 

While I expect my players to have a PHB, I do not expect them to have all the 3rd party material that I do.  I encourage them to pick up new things!  But, by and large, they do not have the same amount of "disposable income" that I do.  

Admittedly, I can only influence roughly a dozen people.  But, if 4.0 comes out and it doesn't include support for 3rd party publishers to enter the market, I will not advocate moving to it.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> But, if 4.0 comes out and it doesn't include support for 3rd party publishers to enter the market, I will not advocate moving to it.




I think that if 4E doesn't have some sort of STL/OGL behind it, what you'll see is someone else using the OGL to publish an alternate set of "Foundation" (Core) Rulebooks including character generation and advancement.  Most people who are currently trying to make a living from d20 works will follow suit.

I don't know if it'll be a successful industry shift, because WotC and D&D have the brand recognition.  Still, I imagine it would do at least as well as GURPS, if not the WoD.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 10, 2003)

Please pardon this post - I'm trying out an avatar

  Dr. Harry


----------



## DaveStebbins (Sep 11, 2003)

Faraer said:
			
		

> So what is WotC's actual concern here?



What follows is pure speculation, my guess as to what happened with absolutely no facts (or even juicy rumors) to back it up.

Ryan Dancey has gone on at length about the discussions and research which led to the release of the SRD, the OGL and the d20 STL. The process was well though out and thoroughly discussed with, and modified by, the lawyers prior to release.

My guess is that last year, Wizards was going over the results of further research when a disturbing trend was discovered. While the d20 logo and license was set up as a mark of compatability with D&D (and for reasons of legal protection, *ONLY* a mark of compatability), consumers were beginning to identify it closely with D&D. Consumers saw it not just as a mark of compatability, though, but also read expectations of content into the logo.

The lawyers said that if the consumers were seeing the logo as a mark of content in addition to a mark of compatability, then Wizards had darn well better treat it the same way. Lots of meetings and discussions and arguments followed. Many people wanted very much to keep the license content-free. In my make-believe scenario AV was probably heavily in this camp, knowing that well done mature products (and the BoVD was just the merest first baby-step) could extend the game in a good way. But, as always, the lawyers won. 

Finally, after much further gnashing of teeth and many meetings, drafts, proposals, discussions, more meetings, approvals, rewrites and delays, the new version of the d20 STL and d20 Guide were born, quietly thrust into use without warning in the dark of night...

Oh, well. As I said, just some marginally on-topic wild guesses about what might have happened in one of the infinite universes. Feel free to return your discussions of what is and isn't porn...

-Dave


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 11, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Again, the disaster is *not* the particular standards being implemented.  It's that (1) they are vague, (2) they are not publicly defined, and (3) they almost can not help but be selectively enforced.  I'd be ok with them implementing any decency clause they want, provided that they (A) defined it clearly enough in the Guide so that no one would have any reasonable doubts about (non)compliance, and wouldn't need to go to WotC for a judgement call, (B) had some sort of time limits on their review process, and (C) they provided some explanation of a mechanism whereby they could actually keep track of the vast corpus of D20 products and thus enforce the standards evenly.  It's not the standards that are the problem--it's the uncertainty.




I deal with a lot of lawyers in the course of my profession. I can assure you that they vastly prefer vague guidelines because it is far easier to enforce something that's not well defined. It is also more difficult to draft something clear and compellingly written that supports your position when you add more detail. 

As to your point 3, who's to say? It's possible that a WotC or Hasbro staff counsel lawyer is being told to start watching this exact issue more closely.

Dave Stebbins, I'd like to also say that I saw your post. Your insight into the corporate world is keen. That scenario is quite compelling. Though we may never know if it's true, of course.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 11, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Oh, well. As I said, just some marginally on-topic wild guesses about what might have happened in one of the infinite universes. Feel free to return your discussions of what is and isn't porn...




Well, let me establish myself as a zealot and say that your icon is porn because it shows so much skin.  I'd report it to the monitors, but as a dyed in the wool Luddite, I refuse to use any technology to communicate it to them.

Okay, now that I'm pretty sure that nothing dumber* can be said on the subject of porn, let me say that you have laid forth an interesting, and highly plausible, scenario.  We likely won't ever know, though.

Of course, anyone at WotC who believed for a second that the d20 license wouldn't become associated with the D&D brand, especially when part of the STL requires the words "Dungeons and Dragons" to be included on all d20 products, shouldn't hold any position more influential than janitor.  If they do, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell them.

* Just a formal statement that I'm not slamming anyone, just being a smart alleck.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 11, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Oh, well. As I said, just some marginally on-topic wild guesses about what might have happened in one of the infinite universes. Feel free to return your discussions of what is and isn't porn...
> 
> -Dave




One thing that may have caused this scenario of yours to happen would be complaints about product quality that don't have anything to do with WOTC product.  For example, a consumer buys a d20 book from a 3rd party Publisher, and hates it.  This consumer, knowing nothing about the d20 license, complains in a letter to WOTC, or to the WOTC customer service line.  This would be a problem.

If enough of that sort of thing happens, the suits will notice.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 11, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I think that if 4E doesn't have some sort of STL/OGL behind it, what you'll see is someone else using the OGL to publish an alternate set of "Foundation" (Core) Rulebooks including character generation and advancement.  Most people who are currently trying to make a living from d20 works will follow suit.
> 
> I don't know if it'll be a successful industry shift, because WotC and D&D have the brand recognition.  Still, I imagine it would do at least as well as GURPS, if not the WoD.



Don't you realize that's what they'd want you to do. Every third publisher or so will probably release "their PHB". Most will be tied to a setting: Kalamar, Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, etc. This fractures the old d20 market into dozens of small RPGs. Success of 4.0 is assured. It's the only one called Dungeons and Dragons.

(Maybe if I put these predictions in verse like Nostradomus...)

When Mars makes it closest pass of the Earth
A new license will be born 15 days after
Clashes of mind over motes of electricity
Heralding a new day in icosahedral laughter.

(Nyahh.)


----------



## Scorpio (Sep 11, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> (Maybe if I put these predictions in verse like Nostradomus...)
> 
> When Mars makes it closest pass of the Earth
> A new license will be born 15 days after
> ...




Joe, that is frickin' hilarious...


----------



## afstanton (Sep 11, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> What follows is pure speculation, my guess as to what happened with absolutely no facts (or even juicy rumors) to back it up.
> 
> Ryan Dancey has gone on at length about the discussions and research which led to the release of the SRD, the OGL and the d20 STL. The process was well though out and thoroughly discussed with, and modified by, the lawyers prior to release.
> 
> ...




I'm going to take an alternate guess here:  It's entirely possible that someone started looking at this and realized that the d20 logo is inherently more valuable than the Dungeons and Dragons logo.  Perhaps they then said "Holy crap!  We need to control this a bit more!"

More valuable?  How?  Well, true, WotC is indeed the 800 lb ogrillon in this arena, but what the small companies can do that WotC has trouble with is expanding into new areas.  It's not unreasonable to think that a well established "small" company (small only compared to WotC, huge compared to most) such as SSS (only one example, there are a few others) could release a great game in a venue WotC hasn't touched yet.  They could establish market share quickly and WotC might have real trouble catching up once they decide to enter that newly profitable territory.

The d20 logo lets consumers know that it will be easy for them to learn the rules, the major 3rd party name means that it's a quality product, and suddenly, Emeril BAM, WotC can't keep up in that segment of the market.  That's how d20 is more valuable than "Dungeons and Dragons."

This has little to do with the morality clause.  It has everything to do with the vague review process and past behavior.  As was stated earlier, there was no mention of minatures in the first version of the d20 license or guide.  Once WotC decided they didn't really care for competition in that area, it went in.  There is literally nothing that stops them from doing it again.  In a very real sense, they are eliminating competition here when it comes to gore/sex/prejudice.  I doubt that WotC is planning "d20 Porn" - but they could, since they don't have to play by the same rules that 3rd party publishers do.

Aaron


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 11, 2003)

*A Heads up for Wizards*

To hijack a line from the musical _1776_

It's D&D, dammit, somebody's _gonna_ get offended.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 11, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> (Maybe if I put these predictions in verse like Nostradomus...)
> 
> When Mars makes it closest pass of the Earth
> A new license will be born 15 days after
> ...




A good start, but far too coherent.. Screw with the syntax, include some misspelling (to make it look all 'mystical' and stuff) and make it vague enough to be used again.  For example, I'd change 15 days to "two times plus 1", and "electricity to "fire".

Your Nostradamus-izing is off to an excellent start by following the master and making predictions about things that have already happened.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 11, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> A good start, but far too coherent.. Screw with the syntax, include some misspelling (to make it look all 'mystical' and stuff) and make it vague enough to be used again.  For example, I'd change 15 days to "two times plus 1", and "electricity to "fire".



Well, don't forget. That verse was translated from the original Latin. And since I don't know Latin, I took a lot of liberties with the translation. 


> Your Nostradamus-izing is off to an excellent start by following the master and making predictions about things that have already happened.



In order to maximize prophets, one must demonstrate a 100% prediction ability.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 11, 2003)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> What follows is pure speculation, my guess as to what happened with absolutely no facts (or even juicy rumors) to back it up.
> 
> 
> My guess is that last year, Wizards was going over the results of further research when a disturbing trend was discovered. While the d20 logo and license was set up as a mark of compatability with D&D (and for reasons of legal protection, *ONLY* a mark of compatability), consumers were beginning to identify it closely with D&D. Consumers saw it not just as a mark of compatability, though, but also read expectations of content into the logo.
> ...




I'm not sure I get your content vs compatibility notion. 

d20 was always planned as a D&D support mechanism, WotC figured it was not profitable for them to make adventures but any 3rd party that did so would support the PH and the core books, D&D's main revenue sources. The idea was always that d20 adventures would be seen by consumers as D&D support material.

I think there was just a shift in corporate thinking that limiting 3rd party products that are marketed as compatible down to PG-13 levels would be better for the D&D core book market than allowing any content to be associated with d20 and D&D. 

Any basis for that shift would be pure speculation at this point.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 11, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> A good start, but far too coherent..




Y'know, I'm surprised there isn't a translation engine out there to do this.  Kinda like the one that turns a sentence into Redneck, or whatever.


----------



## Wycen (Sep 12, 2003)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> In order to maximize prophets, one must demonstrate a 100% prediction ability.




 

But I would change electricity/fire to ephemera or phlogiston.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 12, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> You're bringing politics into this now - which will lead to a quick closure of this thread if it continues.




1: i guess i'll have to reread the guidelines--is *anything* "political," no matter how remotely related, off-limits?
2: if so, that's stupid.
3: except for my last sentence (the one about "You're safe...unless your name is Muslim"), i don't see what's "political" about what i said--i stated simple facts of the current laws.  I could have brought up all sorts of much-more-polarized issues (like the track record of the secret court that approves terrorism-related warrants), but deliberately chose not to [and, notice how even now i have carefully said nothing *about* said court (such as what that track record is, or my opinion of what that means), save that it exists, which is indisputable fact], in order to not be inflammatory.  So, limitations on politics notwithstanding, i thought i was playing it safe.
4: while i didn't intend to violate any usage guidelines, i'm not going to apologize for a simple statement of fact about how our gov't is currently operating.
5: i am, however, a teeny bit sorry for the Muslim name remark--though i intended it as much as a jest as political commentary.  But then, most good jokes have relevence to the readers' context (even if what that relevence for a particular reader is can't reliably be predicted).


----------



## woodelf (Sep 12, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Thats what I was saying- the way I am parsing the sentance is in the following manner:
> 
> When depicting the human form [qualifier for F/SF genre] Gratuitous nudity [examples] is not acceptable.
> 
> ...




Again, the grammar is sloppy at best, misleading at worst--your interpretation might be what they mean (based on the tense of the verb), or the other guy's (base on the conjunctions, grouping, and order).  It needs an editor before we know for certain what it means.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 12, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> In order: No; the SRDs; you can't refer to the books by name but can refer to anything in the SRD; and yes, the d20 modern SRD is OGLed.




One mistake: if you're not using the D20STL, there is no explicit rule on using the titles of the WotC D&D books.  However, there is a clause forbidding using trademarks to indicate "compatibility or co-adaptability" [without permission].  Nonetheless, the only WotC book with a trademark in the title is Dungeon Master's Guide.  Therefore, if you're not using teh D20STL, you can freely refer to most of the WotC books (D&D and otherwise).


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 12, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> One mistake: if you're not using the D20STL, there is no explicit rule on using the titles of the WotC D&D books.  However, there is a clause forbidding using trademarks to indicate "compatibility or co-adaptability" [without permission].  Nonetheless, the only WotC book with a trademark in the title is Dungeon Master's Guide.  Therefore, if you're not using teh D20STL, you can freely refer to most of the WotC books (D&D and otherwise).




Trouble is, a check with Wizards' legal beagles will show that the book names are registered trademarks. The trademark sign with "Dungeon Master" in *Dungeon Master's Guide* is there to show that "Dungeon Master" is a trademark of WotC.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

I have sent Morrus a big pdf I created parsing through and discussing the various changes. Hopefully the document will be useful as a basis for discussing the various license changes. I emailed the document to Ryan as well. He reviewed a draft of it last night and will be posting it on his OGF site. I will also have a copy posted on the Legal page of our web site for those who may want to review it.

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

Here is the link to the document I created discussing and parsing the changes. 

I created this not as legal advice but rather as a starting point to discuss the changes.

I hope this helps educate people on the changes and helps any future discussion on the topic. I have sent a copy to Ryan. He reviewed a draft of this document yesterday with approval.

http://www.necromancergames.com/pdf/d20stlreview.pdf

Clark


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 12, 2003)

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Very interesting and informative...


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 12, 2003)

Mr. Peterson, I do have one question for you:

Given that there is no time limit (as you point out in your document), in your opinion, if I were to get WotCs approval for *d20 Book X*, and they were to tell me that the book was acceptable in regards to the decency clauses...

...can they then (for sake of argument let's say a year later) return to tell me that the material that they had approved the previous year, they no longer consider acceptable this year. In other words, can they (under the D20 STL v5.0 as you read it) retroactively recind their previous approval of a book?

Does the answer to this question change if the personnel at WotC have or have not changed during that year of delay between my getting the approval and them deciding that I am not, in fact, in compliance?


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 12, 2003)

I've been having trouble accessing the necromancer site lately - including trying to view this document.  Anyone having similar problems?


----------



## Henry (Sep 12, 2003)

Thank you for this, Clark. Reading the section of the analysis regarding real-world situations and religions, it's no wonder Avalanche has gone OGL only; there's no way they could run profitably in their chosen fields under the provisions of this license, IMO.

Coincidentally, the topics affected are EXACTLY the topics I am interested in - real-world reference material with historical foci. The closer to depiction of source material it is, the more likely it would violate the license.

Fortunately, I own a copy of Testament; unfortunately, how much more Mythic Vistas stuff I will own is now in question.


----------



## BSF (Sep 12, 2003)

Thank you for the review!

I had not caught on to the nature of the license being by publisher, not by product.  

Even more than previously, I can see where this may make some people uncomfortable to publish using the D20STL.


----------



## tensen (Sep 12, 2003)

It is possible under the new license to depict a beggar?

I mean, generally they had a handicap.  They probably are treated inferior to other people.

I guess this means we will have a truly fantasy city.  No beggars..  Heck, not even the Feudal society.  Because we can't depict the noblity as treating the peasants as inferior.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Here is the link to the document I created discussing and parsing the changes.
> 
> I created this not as legal advice but rather as a starting point to discuss the changes.
> 
> ...




Clark--

In reading your analysis of the Prejudice sections, it occurs to me that "Human" is a real world group. Thus, among all the races of D&D, they can never be enslaved or portrayed as inferior. 

First the extra feat and skill points, and now this! 

Wulf


----------



## tensen (Sep 12, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Clark--
> 
> In reading your analysis of the Prejudice sections, it occurs to me that "Human" is a real world group. Thus, among all the races of D&D, they can never be enslaved or portrayed as inferior.
> 
> ...




Yes, but note, they can't do the enslaving either.
But still, not being enslaved...  that is a really good bonus.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

I tried to stay away from opinion in the document, but if you want it here it is in all its "non-binding on WotC" glory:

1. if they give you prior approval of a work they cant rescind it later. The corporation acts through its agents. An authorized agent binds the company as if the company itself acted. They cant come to a new conclusion simply by changing staff.

2. Humans and enslavement. Thats rediculous. The humans in D&D are not an existing real world group. Wulf, I think you are just goofing around.

3. Beggars. Are you just trying to come up with goofy examples? Of course you can have beggars for goodness sake!

4. Just because you deal with a real world setting doesnt mean you will violate the license. So dont just reject using the license because you deal with those topics. You must, however, be more careful than others for whom the issue never would arise.

Clark


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I tried to stay away from opinion in the document, but if you want it here it is in all its "non-binding on WotC" glory:
> 
> 1. if they give you prior approval of a work they cant rescind it later. The corporation acts through its agents. An authorized agent binds the company as if the company itself acted. They cant come to a new conclusion simply by changing staff.




Thank you for your time (and skills).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> 2. Humans and enslavement. Thats rediculous. The humans in D&D are not an existing real world group. Wulf, I think you are just goofing around.




Of course! =)

Gee, a guy spends a couple days in lawyer mode and his sense of humor goes right out the window... 


Wulf


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 12, 2003)

I just read the front page letter from Mr. Peterson as well (1). Let me say that having you around, sir, is an absolute delight. Thanks for getting the straight dope.

(1) This is the letter in which he explains that this whole thing is a matter of WotC not seeing things from both sides of the fence, and a couple of simple misunderstandings.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 12, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> This is the letter in which he explains that this whole thing is a matter of WotC not seeing things from both sides of the fence.




Not to mention the significant number of publishers and fans who can't see this thing from WOTC's side of the fence... neh?

Wulf


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 12, 2003)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Of course! =)
> 
> Gee, a guy spends a couple days in lawyer mode and his sense of humor goes right out the window...
> 
> Wulf




I think I've seen/read more from Clark in the last week than in the last 3 years.  He's got to be exhausted!

Still, his thoughts are always a good read.  To Clark and folks like him, a big "thank you" from this gamer.  You make our hobby better by your efforts.


----------



## tensen (Sep 12, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> 3. Beggars. Are you just trying to come up with goofy examples? Of course you can have beggars for goodness sake!




Yes.  Yes, I was. However it is putting a possible real world handicap in possibly a wrong light.  The problem with it is...  I don't think there is a problem with displaying the beggar.. you don't think there is a problem with it.  But someone may at some point find a problem with it.  Should I create a product having to second guess some unknown person?  I hope they devote a good staff to the process, because I can't imagine 1 or 2 individuals being enough to cover all the d20 material that is coming out.


----------



## Conaill (Sep 12, 2003)

And just to stop the "can't portray beggars or human slaves" camp, let me just quote a paragraph out of Clark's document, which those people seem to have missed:


> *Depict  a group as  inferior* : The license does not restrict reference to groups that are or have been subject to prejudice. The prohibition is against  depicting  one such group as  inferior  to any other group, not against the concept of prejudice. This is an interesting provision. My reading is that discrimination and prejudice may be mentioned and included, simply not advocated. _What is prohibited is the depiction that, in truth, one of the listed existing real-word groups is in fact inferior to another group._ It appears that mentioning real world group racial slavery, so long as it is indicated to be wrong, is not a violation of the restriction of the license.



In other words, it should be fine to portray real-world groups (_including_ beggars and humans) as being _treated_ as inferior, as long as it is clear that your product does not depict those groups as _being_ inferior. I.e. a product including trade of african slaves should be ok, as long as the author doesn't justify to the reader why that slave trade is fine and dandy.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 12, 2003)

tensen said:
			
		

> It is possible under the new license to depict a beggar?
> 
> I mean, generally they had a handicap.  They probably are treated inferior to other people.
> 
> I guess this means we will have a truly fantasy city.  No beggars..  Heck, not even the Feudal society.  Because we can't depict the noblity as treating the peasants as inferior.




What a lot of people seem to be missing is that a product cannot portray a real world group as being *intrinsically* inferior, not as being in an inferior position of power.  To take a case from American history:

A d20 Modern campaign set in the antebellum South would show African-Americans in an inferior position of power, to wit: enslaved.  I don't see this violating the d20STL unless the game tried to say that African-Americans were enslaved because they are intrinsically inferior.

The first situation would be (tragically) historically realistic; the second would be racist.  

There is a difference.


----------



## Conaill (Sep 12, 2003)

And just because it makes for a fun discussion, here are some other "real-world groups" that cannot be depicted as inferior, or "bad" in any way:

- mercenaries
- assassins
- drug dealers
- pedophiles
- slave _traders_ (heh! )
- satan worshippers
- sniveling cowards

Somehow, I have a feeling WotC is not going to push for a literal interpretation of their license on those groups though.  On the other hand, I *do* expect not to see any depiction of evil witches in any upcoming d20 products...


----------



## TheRaven (Sep 12, 2003)

I do have a question about this:

_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._

What about if I create a d20 setting, dealing with the real world and christianity. Doesn't the quality standart mean, that I can't give game stats to real world gods. Let's say I do stats for the devil and for god. Giving the devil an evil alignment and giving god a good alignment would clearly "promote disrespect" for the devil. Writing, that that worshipers of the devil are evil and bad wouldn't be possible. On the other hand I couldn't write, that god is good.

What do I miss ?


----------



## Pramas (Sep 12, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> Fortunately, I own a copy of Testament; unfortunately, how much more Mythic Vistas stuff I will own is now in question.




Our plans for the Mythic Vistas line are moving ahead unimpeded. I'm a historian by training, so I have no doubts that we can create books that both compellingly present their subject and fall within the new guidelines. 

Skull & Bones is done printing (at last!) and will ship to distributors next Friday. We'll be announcing the next Mythic Vistas book shortly.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

TheRaven, you have taken this to a level of silly sophistry. That isnt what the license prohibits. The license doesnt say you cant give a religion an alignment. What you may run afoul of is the prohibition against promoting a specific religion. But it would probably be better to not "stat" real world relgions unless you are doing so in a historical context, like, say, a Biblical d20 setting where the people turn sticks to snakes and the apostles and prophets before them did "magic" and cast out demons. If you are attempting to recreate a historical setting you should be fine. Particularly if you are not actually trying to promote a religion and are not actually using your game as a platform to show that a group is in fact inferior. The license doesnt prevent you from depicting the realities of modern or ancient situations.

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Sep 12, 2003)

Dr. Henry, IMHO, is absolutely correct in his analysis above. 

Clark


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 12, 2003)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Skull & Bones is done printing (at last!) and will ship to distributors next Friday.




Huzzah!  It must be mine!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 13, 2003)

Sorry Clark but reading your home page quotes I am baffled by how you think WotC could possibly see this as a minor tweek. The trademark previously was content neutral and only showed rules complience. Whether I am a corporate hating paraniod or not, surely they can't have seen this as a minor tweek. Sure they might have somehow thought that the community wouldn't mind but accordiing to AV this change caused major divisions within the company and that AV at least made them aware of the scope of this change. According to AV at least WotC was fully aware of what they were doing and because of his statements I can't believe that this was unexpected.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 13, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Trouble is, a check with Wizards' legal beagles will show that the book names are registered trademarks. The trademark sign with "Dungeon Master" in *Dungeon Master's Guide* is there to show that "Dungeon Master" is a trademark of WotC.




Um, *no*, they *aren't*.  That was my whole point.  

In general, titles of single books generally can't be trademarked.  "Monster Manual" became trademarkable once there was a Monster Manual II, because the title of a series of books can be trademarked--though, IIRC, not the individual titles in that series.  So Monster Manual is likely trademarked.  Dungeon Master is a trademark, so Dungeon Master's Guide can be protected.  That's about it for WotC books.  And, don't forget, trademarks have to be claimed and protected.  So if they *do* want to trademark the titles of the books, they have to tell you, and stop you if you infringe. Just took a cursory look at most of the WotC rulebooks, and not a single one claims the book title as a trademark in the trademarks section.


----------



## Orcus (Sep 13, 2003)

Brown-

That is how they saw it. I am not saying they were right in seeing it that way. I am just telling you how they looked at it. I agree, they should have known better. Like I said, half of this firestorm they created themselves just by HOW they did things (not giving people a heads up, etc). I never said they were right for seeing it that way. I am just telling you the two points of view. To resolve a conflict you always need to understand the conflicting points of view, whether you agree with them or not. That is how you start consesus building that is key to accomplishing a resolution. I need to understand both sides (whether or not I agree with them).

Or, let me restate, that is how I was told they saw it. I may only be getting one view from several internal camps. But that view is apparently the controlling view right now.

Clark


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 13, 2003)

I have problems understanding thier view because I am getting conflicting information about thier view. On one hand you say that the people you talked to say that they didn't think this was important and that they were surprised by the reaction. On the other I have Anthony who had direct involvement in the discussions telling us this was a contentious issue and that his leaving was in part due to it. Prehaps I am paroniod but even accounting for biases in AV's position I believe him more than I do boilerplate statements that are being put out by WotC employees who risk being fired if they go against corporate policy. While I believe that you have talked with some empoyees and that this is the impression they are giving you I just can't figue out how that squares with Anthony's statements to the contrary.


----------



## 20sides (Sep 14, 2003)

What concerns me is what happens whhen thier audit team gets lazy?  A good example is in the current MMORPG industry where most games have CSRs that tend to be arbitrary and take the quickest resolution to a situation with no repercussions for misconduct.  

As you noted in Mr. Peterson's document, there appears to be no time alloted for remedy of the situation.  Which is deeply disturbing in light of the analysis that one infraction permanently terminates your ability to create future d20 products.

When I read the 5.0 license I picked up on some of that verbage, but it comes clearer through the lens that Clark has offered .

It is starting to feel that WoTC is feeling remorse at the creation of OGL and d20, and is starting to want to reaquire certain aspects of ownership.  

BoEF or no, I think it was inevitable in this economy that they begin to reign in what they gave so freely when they were experiencing a boom.

I think I am done buying WOTC products for a while, at least until I see what happens with further revisions of the d20 license.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 15, 2003)

20sides said:
			
		

> It is starting to feel that WoTC is feeling remorse at the creation of OGL and d20, and is starting to want to reaquire certain aspects of ownership.




I disagree. I think I am ready at this point to concede that this was a tempest in a teapot; that I got very upset and paranoid over nothing in particular with the exception of conjecture and assumptions... and try my hardest to forget the whole thing.


----------



## Strutinan (Sep 15, 2003)

"Tempest in a tea pot"  

Why not just dismiss all of this as "needless fretting", or "a case of the vapors", lol.

Seriously folks, if people care enough to drag this on for SO LONG, then this is obvioulsy not a dismissable problem!  YOU might dismiss it, but for every person who actually cares about this situation it is msot deffinately NOT dismissable!

So far, we seem t have all settled into three camps, each of which I have some opinions on:

#1: "Something better".  These folks have taken this to be the last straw in dealing with the d20 STL, or are afraid of how this version and future version will affect them.  Now they ae looking for an aternate means of showing JUST RULES compatibility in the industry.  So far the Free Gaming Association's "Prometheus" license and logo seem to be the fore-runner, and last I checked was already being adopted by many.  And that includes me.

#2: "d20 System is Holy Writ".  Sorry if this comes off as insulting, but every time I see these folks post about how "there is absolutely no problems" with the d20STL, or casually dismiss people's concerns over it, I want to puke.  For some reason, these people take the extreemly egotistical view that just becasue THEY are OK so far, that EVERYBODY ELSE is somehow either incosequential, or without merrit for disagreeing with them.  As you can no doubt tell, I find such an attitude deplorable.  Not for the  "no problems" part, but becasue of the way they disregard everybody WITH A PROBLEM!

#3: "Wait and See".  These folks either have no problems with the outlined decency guidelines, or very little problem, and don't see any reason to "rock the boat".  While I personally think this kind of passive attitude isn't too wise, I can't fault anybody for being cautious.  Hopefully the future will turn out rosy, so that they do not have to worry.  Personally though, I'm going to guard against a not-so-rosy future.

There we go.  That is my summation and opinions on the whole mess.  Feel fre eto disregard any or all of it, as you feel you need to.  Just one last thing to point out:

This *has* fractured the industry.  What was once a united group is now three (or two, depending on how you look at it).  That is not good for ANYBODY'S standing in the market!  In the end, either group #1 or group #2 will be proven right.  If group #1 is proven correct, they will become the new foundation of the open gaming industry by default.  If group #2 is proven correct, there will be a little product and market shuffling for groups #1 and #3.

In other words: less potential work PR and product wise down the road to prepare for the worst.  If the best (WotC/Hasbro dropping the "Quality Standards" caluse and rendering the d20 STL inviolate) thing possible happens, all it entails is the addition of a logo and a page or so of text for one group.  If the worst possible thing (everybody losing thier d20 product lines when the boot comes down via the d20STL) happens, then two whole groups will have to scramble to recall, destroy, redesign, and reprint all their former d20 books to the new industry standard logo: the one that group #1 had pioneered before the excrement hit the rotating blades.

At least, that is my summation of the possibe outcomes from all this.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 15, 2003)

Strutinan said:
			
		

> "Tempest in a tea pot"
> 
> Why not just dismiss all of this as "needless fretting", or "a case of the vapors", lol.



OK. It was all a lot of needless fretting and a case of the vapors. Happy now? 




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> Seriously folks, if people care enough to drag this on for SO LONG, then this is obvioulsy not a dismissable problem!  YOU might dismiss it, but for every person who actually cares about this situation it is msot deffinately NOT dismissable!



I resent the implication that I do not care about this situation. I care deeply for the state of our hobby and this particular license. As a person that would love to someday make writing for RPGs his primary source of income, I care as much (if not more) than most people about this topic.

But I can admit when something was simply a matter of two parties not seeing things from each other's points of view.




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> So far, we seem t have all settled into three camps, each of which I have some opinions on:



OK. I am listening (reading?).




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> #1: "Something better".  These folks have taken this to be the last straw in dealing with the d20 STL, or are afraid of how this version and future version will affect them.  Now they ae looking for an aternate means of showing JUST RULES compatibility in the industry.  So far the Free Gaming Association's "Prometheus" license and logo seem to be the fore-runner, and last I checked was already being adopted by many.  And that includes me.



Define "*many*." For that matter, define "*front-runner*." In a field with so few players (and so short a race), I fail to see how any can be considered a front-runner. Until a major player in this game adopts an alternate logo, there is no "front runner" in my estimation.




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> #2: "d20 System is Holy Writ".  Sorry if this comes off as insulting,



It does.




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> but every time I see these folks post about how "there is absolutely no problems" with the d20STL, or casually dismiss people's concerns over it, I want to puke.



Then you are far too sensitive. Because, although there are some areas that need further clarification and some tweeking of the language -- there is no problem with the d20 STL. I disagree with you -- this is allowed in a free society.




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> For some reason, these people take the extreemly egotistical view that just becasue THEY are OK so far, that EVERYBODY ELSE is somehow either incosequential, or without merrit for disagreeing with them.



Please cite references to such behavior. Also, please explain to me why someone at (say...) Sword & Sorcery Studios should care if you do not like the content restrictions portion of the d20 license that they are working to abide by, any more than they should care that the average readership of Pyramid Magazine does not like the system restrictions involved with the d20 license?



			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> As you can no doubt tell, I find such an attitude deplorable.  Not for the "no problems" part, but becasue of the way they disregard everybody WITH A PROBLEM!



But are you not doing the same thing in reverse? You are obviously upset with (and a bit dismissive of; and arrogantly seeing our possition as having no merit) at people like me because we *do not* share your view that things have such a huge problem involved with them.

I was upset with WotC. I am still a bit upset with the timing, and the wording. But I can see that they were not intended with malice; the minor problems involved were caused by the vantage point from which they view the situation, not sime sinister plot. In that light, I have no trouble giving them a few months to look at the reactions, figure out the best course of action and iron out the wrinkles in their plan.

In other words, this is a tempest in a teapot.






			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> #3: "Wait and See".  These folks either have no problems with the outlined decency guidelines, or very little problem, and don't see any reason to "rock the boat".  While I personally think this kind of passive attitude isn't too wise, I can't fault anybody for being cautious.  Hopefully the future will turn out rosy, so that they do not have to worry.  Personally though, I'm going to guard against a not-so-rosy future.



So what you are saying is that, you would rather cause waves in the pool based on your perception that WotC might cause waves in the future... and you are willing to justify this because of the fact that WotC is.... what? Going to rock the boat for you if you don't?

I don't get it.

So far, all they have done (and yes, I was upset, and read far too much into this at first too) is make the d20 license mor elike all other licenses they issue. Unifying things for ease of legal understanding. What, exactly, have they done wrong?




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> There we go.  That is my summation and opinions on the whole mess.  Feel fre eto disregard any or all of it, as you feel you need to.  Just one last thing to point out:
> 
> This *has* fractured the industry.  What was once a united group is now three (or two, depending on how you look at it).  That is not good for ANYBODY'S standing in the market!  In the end, either group #1 or group #2 will be proven right.  If group #1 is proven correct, they will become the new foundation of the open gaming industry by default.  If group #2 is proven correct, there will be a little product and market shuffling for groups #1 and #3.



This is dubious logic at best; over the course of this post you have used a multitude of falacies in your argument, such a: a red herring, two (or more) straw men, an appeal to indignation (repeatedly), a slippery slope, and have managed to board a bandwagon that, as far as I can tell, does not exist. Not to mention several exagerations, some factualy dubious statements, and a multitude of falacies I am sure I missed (I only took two college level logic courses, sorry).




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> In other words: less potential work PR and product wise down the road to prepare for the worst.  If the best (WotC/Hasbro dropping the "Quality Standards" caluse and rendering the d20 STL inviolate) thing possible happens, all it entails is the addition of a logo and a page or so of text for one group.  If the worst possible thing (everybody losing thier d20 product lines when the boot comes down via the d20STL) happens, then two whole groups will have to scramble to recall, destroy, redesign, and reprint all their former d20 books to the new industry standard logo: the one that group #1 had pioneered before the excrement hit the rotating blades.



Nope... this road has a lot of cracks, major potholes, leads to nowhere in particular, and appears to be illusionary at best. I fail to see why I should drive down it.




			
				Strutinan said:
			
		

> At least, that is my summation of the possibe outcomes from all this.



OK.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 15, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> So far, all they have done (and yes, I was upset, and read far too much into this at first too) is make the d20 license mor elike all other licenses they issue. Unifying things for ease of legal understanding.




Not all their other D&D licenses. Hackmaster is licensed to use the D&D rules but is based on gratuitous graphic violence and potty humor as major elements of the game.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 15, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Not all their other D&D licenses. Hackmaster is licensed to use the D&D rules but is based on gratuitous graphic violence and potty humor as major elements of the game.




This is a *Red Herring*. Let me explain:


Which Wizards of the Coast *trademark* did they license in making Hackmaster?

It wasn't the "d20 system logo." It wasn't the name "Dungeons & Dragons." Since you cannot copyright game rules...

What we have left here is the fact that Hackmaster is written, designed, drawn, and marketed as a *PARODY*. This, my friends, is a whole other kettle of fish...


----------



## shadow (Sep 15, 2003)

This is just my theory, but I think the changes have more to do with D&D licensed products than the game itself.  Wizards has been talking a lot about "brand recognition", and how the D&D game is widely recognized (although poorly understood) by the general public.  Hence, owning the D&D game is owning a product with a lot of potential market.  
  Now, the although RPGs don't sell all that well to the general public, licensing the "brand" out to different companies has the potential to make quite a profit.  Hasn't Wizards been talking somewhat about this?  Remember Scourge of the Worlds ?  Or what about the D&D based MMORPG computer game?  I think that this is WotC's (or more likely Hasbro's) first attempt to see how well they could market D&D based products to the general public.  It's a way of getting their feet wet so to speak.  I wouldn't doubt that WotC is looking to license the D&D name out for some big projects.  The afforementioned MMORPG is probably the first.
  However, I think that Hasbro is worried about their image.  If D&D based products are going to be widespread, it could negatively affect them if D&D has a bad name.  Although d20 products aren't published or endoresed by WotC, the general public might not make such a distinction. (Especially if the book says "requires the use of *Dungeons & Dragons* PHB to play".)  
  Although one could argue that controversy could increase sales, Hasbro which owns WotC has an image to maintain.  As essentially a toy company, Hasbro probably wants to look "kid friendly" to the public.  It wouldn't do their reputation very good if the public "knew" that one of their subsidiaries was publishing a game full of "violence, racism, and sex". This happened to Disney a few years ago when their subsidiary, Miramax, made the movie Priest.  Although as a big company, Disney wasn't hurt to much financially, they were boycotted by the Southern Baptist churches and earned them the censure of many Christians.  
  Moreover, unlike the "D&D causes demon worship" rumor of the 80's, issues of pornography, violence, and racism touch a lot more people than conservative Christians.  Racism is especially a touchy topic.  If a supremacist group published a book like RAHOWA d20, D&D's name may get associated with hate and racism.
  Of course having D&D associated with gratuitous violence, sex, or racism would really hurt WotC (hence Hasbro's) chance of licening the D&D name out to other companies.  Also it would soil Hasbro's reputation of being a "kid friendly company".
  I don't agree with WotC current policy.  To me the spirit of the OGL has always been one of being able to publish what you would like.  IMHO, it would probably have been better if WotC simply added a clause saying something to the affect of "Wizards of the Coast does not endorse or condone any content in this book". (Of course that probably wouldn't stop criticism since few critics bother to read the material they are criticizing.) Hopefully WotC will listen to the complaint and remedy everything in the next version of the license.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 15, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> This is a *Red Herring*. Let me explain:
> 
> 
> Which Wizards of the Coast *trademark* did they license in making Hackmaster?
> ...





It is a license to use old D&D material including IP. They are not relying upon the legality of parody to produce hackmaster, but have a license agreement for it. 

I am not privy to the terms of that license but that is my understanding from statements by the Kenzer people. Their D&D logo Kalamar stuff does go through a review and WotC approval process, however. That is also based on statements they have made.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 15, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> It is a license to use old D&D material including IP.



If that is the case, then I am wrong and will gleefully admit as much.

It was my understanding that the entire thing fell under parody; however, this would not be the first time I was mistaken.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 16, 2003)

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 (Sep 16, 2003)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 16, 2003)

The Blue Elf said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 16, 2003)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 16, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 16, 2003)

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 (Sep 17, 2003)

*This is a Rant, This is Only a Rant*



			
				shadow said:
			
		

> *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 (Sep 17, 2003)

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 (Sep 17, 2003)

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 (Sep 17, 2003)

patrickmallette said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 17, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> 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.




Edit: removed rather hostile-sounding response... probably not warranted.

In any case, the rant above, regarding a D&D internet messageboard, is laughable.


----------



## KDLadage (Sep 17, 2003)

Dr. Harry: one of my new heroes.


----------



## jaerdaph (Sep 17, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> Dr. Harry: one of my new heroes.




Mine too!


----------



## shadow (Sep 17, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> 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.




Thank you very much for your great critique of my apparently poor grasp of grammar.  Perhaps you should act as my personal proofreader and point out all the grammatical and punctuation errors that I made in my previous post.  God forbid that I ever make an error or typo!

Obviously since posting on a Dungeons & Dragons messageboard is as important as writing an academic paper, I need to take more time off my busy schedule to double check and triple check my post.  Perhaps while I'm at it, I could submit a rough draft to my English professor to have her review it for errors before posting.

By the way, how do you suggest that I do citations?  APA style or MLA style?


----------



## Scorpio (Sep 17, 2003)

This 'thread' is becoming ridiculous.


----------



## Monster Manuel (Sep 17, 2003)

Scorpio said:
			
		

> This 'thread' is becoming ridiculous.



I'm with you.


----------



## patrickmallette (Sep 18, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Your post is the 478th on this topic...



So, one more isn't going to hurt is it. In the 7 pages of replies I read I didn't notice a form letter so my apologies for those who had to suffer through seeing one more.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Why do think you merit a special response when nobody else was able to receive one? ... therefore you are not in the group that would be professionally concerned with the change in policy



Because I'm special.  Or maybe, just maybe they could see what affect it is having on the community (not just publishers). The fact that it annoyed even normal gamers is a testament to why it is such a bad idea. As a consumer damn right I'm involved. I'm glad they at least took the time to answer actual publishers.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Overreacting will not improve...



Yes, sometimes overreacting is good. The DMCA might have been better debated if a congressman had overreacted a little more pointing out the stupidity of certain parts of the legislation. In this case the "lawmakers" are wizards and the publishers are the "citizens" getting shafted by a bad change in the rules.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> there is no inherent "right" that is being violated to use someone else's IP in their effort...



Agreed, but it does seem a lot like a child bringing a basket ball to a court, getting a large group to play and stating that if you don't like the changes he's making to the rules they all started playing under, they can go home.  Yes, I understand that the license says it could change at any time blah blah blah, but I bet not too many thought it could potentially stiffly their creativity or expression. Do you think Spawn would have been published if the Comic Code were still strictly enforced? No. 



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> ..."communist pig" is going to strongly demonstrate that you are a mature, rational individual...



Hmm, over the top? Yes. Measured and self-censored yes. At least I'm not afraid to use my real name, nor was I in my communication to them. I have praised their work on 3.0 just as I have criticized their latest policy that I believe will affect the availability of products.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> 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.



Censorship is not immaterial for anyone. If they don't want it linked to or associated with them have a disclaimer - that's what they're for isn't it. That would also allow publishers to express their thoughts and creativity no matter how dark without spreading it to the license holders.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> ->  Your letter fails to differentiate between what could be called "positionally inferior" and *intrinsically inferior*... 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.



They made no differentiation that I could see, so why should I. Since they would also have the final say now in what is or is not inferior etc, I could easily envision a company making a competing product far superior to Wizards only to be told it had violated an aspect of this clause just to suppress a better product. When the movie studios sued Sony's for making the VCR had they a license similar to this we might not have VCRs or DVD players unless you purchased their potentially inferior and proprietary version.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Why would WotC care that you don't like Disney...



Dude, you totally missed my point. Disney and other companies have so censored or rewritten so many stories that they can no longer be recognized as many remember them from their childhood. The little mermaid for example dies in the original version, which made it a great tragedy - something truly memorable unlike Disney's version where everyone gets what they want and nothing bad ever happens again. (Until the sequel that strangely ends with everyone getting what they want...) This makes one movie just like every other movie with minor twists - nothing memorable or inspiring at all. Tell me how many modern Disney movies have an incompetent sidekick that's there just for laughs... Yup pretty much every one I've ever seen. This type of policy breads mediocrity plain and simple. As others have pointed out who would want to take the chance of doing something notable or risqué if by the time you're done someone external to your company can come along and say too bad it'll never see the light of day; release it under some other policy, but don't even think of saying it's compatible with D&D 3.5.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Why would you think you did?



It would have been nice to receive anything but a form letter because it would have shown it is at least being read rather than autodeleted or autoresponded to. You'll notice that I actually took the time to read your reply to my post. While we may disagree on the topic you now know I valued your feedback. This is something that Wizards obviously does not show by using these form letters. Was my letter just deleted, or did they say, "Wow this guy is really crazy/passionate about something that only indirectly involves him. Hey, here's another one and another. Maybe they have a point."

In this case I did expect a short answer (not a short form letter answer) because I have received answers on several other topics - even if they were only related to D&D, compliments or complaints.

Take care.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 18, 2003)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Edit: removed rather hostile-sounding response... probably not warranted.
> 
> In any case, the rant above, regarding a D&D internet messageboard, is laughable.




Since arnwyn, and Shadow below his post, care nothing for the quality of their writing, I feel safe in putting them on my ignore list. They have nothing to say, and they say it badly.

A disordered post is a sign of a disordered mind. My thanks to you two for confirming that.


----------



## woodelf (Sep 18, 2003)

shadow said:
			
		

> By the way, how do you suggest that I do citations?  APA style or MLA style?




Chicago Manual of Style--MLA makes my teeth itch, and APA is too distracting.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 18, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Since arnwyn, and Shadow below his post, care nothing for the quality of their writing, I feel safe in putting them on my ignore list. They have nothing to say, and they say it badly.




HA! Take that you punks! You just made mythusmage's ignore list! The fun and games are OVER! 



Thanks for keeping the rest of us posted.


----------



## Dr. Harry (Sep 18, 2003)

patrickmallette said:
			
		

> So, one more isn't going to hurt is it. In the 7 pages of replies I read I didn't notice a form letter so my apologies for those who had to suffer through seeing one more.




No, my question is "Why were you surprised?".  You skipped 2/3 of the replies (at least as it appears in my setup); it was not that I think you should apologize for posting the WotC form letter, but if you wish to apologize for your own ...



> Because I'm special.  Or maybe, just maybe they could see what affect it is having on the community (not just publishers). The fact that it annoyed even normal gamers is a testament to why it is such a bad idea. As a consumer damn right I'm involved. I'm glad they at least took the time to answer actual publishers.




Did you really think that you were the only one to have written to them?  Hey, if you wish to post such strongly worded (read as: extreme) posts, then *read the whole thread*.  Really.  I'll wait.



Okay?

Oh, and while I think that things could have been done better and I do not wish to dismiss those with more reasonable complaints (ones not involving calling the poor schmuck who had to read through your letter a "communist pig" and accusing WotC of trying to burn your books or control your television by protecting the value of something they own), it has been my observation that anything, including late afternoon and evening thunderstorms will annnoy a good section of "normal" gamers, and even trigger some to scream about communist plots and censorship.




> Yes, sometimes overreacting is good.




Nope, I don't buy this.  Maybe some things need determined reactions, but I do not think that there is a justification for casting off all reason and restraint.



> Agreed, but it does seem a lot like a child bringing a basket ball to a court, getting a large group to play and stating that if you don't like the changes he's making to the rules they all started playing under, they can go home.




No, but the child has every right to take his ball and go home.  Do you suggest that having the basketball (D&D) and allowing others to play with it (d20STL) gives them the right to slash it, damage it, or hit the child (WotC) in the face with it?  



> Do you think Spawn would have been published if the Comic Code were still strictly enforced? No.




Again, nobody is stopping anyone from publishing.  A more apt comparison would be to demand that you should be able to publish whatever the smeg you want in a comic book, and then print a "Marvel" or "DC" trademark on the label.  Is Time/Warner censoring you by not allowing you to do that?



> Hmm, over the top? Yes. Measured and self-censored yes.




Calling someone a "communist pig" is measured and self-censored?



> Censorship is not immaterial for anyone. If they don't want it linked to or associated with them have a disclaimer - that's what they're for isn't it.




If they don't want it linked or associated with them, then require product that doesn't meet their standards to use OGL, not d20.  WotC is not censoring anything.  Please read the text after the word "immaterial".



> They made no differentiation that I could see, so why should I.




In order to construct a reasoned response?

The meaning is quite clear.  I have made this suggestion before in this thread, and while I am not a lawyer, this reasoning was endorsed by Clark Peterson, who *is* a lawyer, and has a *real* stake in this, that stake being Necromancer Games.  The WotC material is quite clear.  



> Dude, you totally missed my point. Disney and other companies have so censored or rewritten so many stories that they can no longer be recognized ... release it under some other policy, but don't even think of saying it's compatible with D&D 3.5.




Well, I could say "You made no differentiation that I could see, so why should I?", but let's not slip over to the dark side. 

You may not like how Disney changed the storylines to the movies the studio has done, as compared to the original versions, and I do not criticize that, per se (Tolkien himself greatly disliked Disney for that reason).  Still, that does not make your point.  Disney may have softened - severely, in some cases - the storyline in order to reach a mass audience, but Disney was phenominally successful in reaching that audience.  A letter that has the effect of suggesting "Gosh, WotC, you don't want to do what Disney does" would likely trigger a quick peek at the Disney empire, and the response, "Uh, yes we do."

I must confess that I still miss the relevance of the Sailor Moon reference.

Again, WotC protecting WotC's interest through what is WotC's physical property takes nothing out of your hands.  What this disallows is putting "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front of your product, if it crosses the line.



> It would have been nice to receive anything but a form letter because it would have shown it is at least being read rather than autodeleted or autoresponded to. ... This is something that Wizards obviously does not show by using these form letters.




What this indicates is the level of response that Wizards got.  This has gone to darn near 500 posts on ENWorld, and we are but one of the gaming bulletin boards.



> In this case I did expect a short answer (not a short form letter answer) because I have received answers on several other topics - even if they were only related to D&D, compliments or complaints.




I have also received responses from various parts of WotC to inquiries.  I conclude that the reason for the form letter in this case is:

1) The sheer volume of mail

2) The genuine surprise (as attested to by third parties whose judgment I trust on this matter; see rest of thread) on the part of WotC to the reaction to the announcement, and

3) The tone of your email; see my last post.

There are genuine concerns about impleementation and meaning of the changes in the d20STL; I fail to see how your email addresses any of them.  Please see my last post.

Peace,

Harry Leckenby


----------



## shadow (Sep 18, 2003)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Since arnwyn, and Shadow below his post, care nothing for the quality of their writing, I feel safe in putting them on my ignore list. They have nothing to say, and they say it badly.




I seldom feel the need to get into arguments over messageboards.  However for various reasons, which I will not discuss here, mythusmage's posts hit me on a very personal level.

First and foremost, contrary to mythusmage's ramblings, I do, indeed, care about the quality of my writing.  However, with various reports and papers I have to write, a post on an internet messageboard is very low on my priority list of things to worry about.

Second, I want to know why mythusmage feels qualified to judge everyone's posts for correct grammar, stylistic elements, punctuation, and so forth.  Of course, I also want to know why he feels the need to critique every one's posting. This is an internet messageboard, not a scholarly journal!  Hell, even the worst post isn't half as bad as most of what is seen on a typical internet chat room.

If mythusmage is really so concerned about proper writing then I would like to see him to give a complete sentence by sentence critique of my original post, which he so eloquently criticized.  While he's playing the role of the English teacher, he should also critique everyone else's posts.  (Perhaps Morris should appoint him as the official ENWorld language cop!)



			
				mythumage said:
			
		

> A disordered post is a sign of a disordered mind. My thanks to you two for confirming that.




This is quite a personal attack.  Now, not only my writing, but also my mental capacities are being criticized.  Mythusmage is really taking this to a personal level!


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 18, 2003)

shadow said:
			
		

> Mythusmage is really taking this to a personal level!



My response is a big "meh". The guy seemed like an oversensitive nutjob who easily jumped to conclusions, so I don't think it's such a bad thing being on the ignore list of somebody like that.

Ends the thread with a big shebang, though!


----------



## patrickmallette (Sep 19, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> You skipped 2/3 of the replies...



So, I didn't feel like answering every minutia. 



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Did you really think that you were the only one to have written to them?



I don't recall saying I was the only one to write in.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> No, but the child has every right to take his ball and go home.



I guess a kid with a ball does have that right, but should he be doing it just because he's not winning as much as he wants. It's not very sportsmanlike to change the rules (like where the out of bounds line is - like this new quality clause) just because it gives him a temporary advantage (don't want anyone else making monster manuals with the occasional nipple now do we?). 

Regarding the Marvel/DC analogy, it would be better suited if Marvel made an open world license where others could write/sell stories of Spiderman and then change the rules so that Spiderman could never be depicted in a bed with Mary Jane. I was not suggesting companies were plastering the Wizards trademark on their products. They are publishing to an "open" license and using a trademark that is not Wizards main identifying logo.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I must confess that I still miss the relevance of the Sailor Moon reference.



The company that obtained rights to display it took an artist's expression and bastardized it for their market. Perhaps a better example would have been the statue of David with his willy hanging out being covered up by a bunch of prudes so no one else could view the statue as it was meant to be viewed (a real world example here). Would you like being an artist only to have your artwork, your life's blood being altered or reworked by someone else. I think Michelangelo would be pretty miffed seeing his statue garbed and hiding the full details of his work and expression just to be displayed in a particular country.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> What this disallows is putting "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front of your product, if it crosses the line.



Yes exactly, a line that they can and have just shown they are willing to redraw. This week it is real world religions, and explicit sexuality. Fine. But what will it be next year? Will they change it so that even a fictitious married couple could not be shown in bed together? Maybe not, but they could just like the Flintstones couldn't be drawn in the same bed even though that show was for adults originally.

Just hypothesize for a moment that the Midnight campaign setting becomes more popular than the Forgotten Realms, Wizards could change their rules to prevent any evil person from being depicted in the role as the leader of a nation or continent. Poof, there goes that campaign setting from the d20 product list. If the publisher is lucky they might still be accepted and popular under the OGL, but things don't always work that way. So, Wizards current ruckus could just be an escape route to prevent a company from publishing an adult title for a mature or at least adult audience; and tomorrow they could just as easily use it as a dirty underhanded maneuver in an attempt to regain market share.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> There are genuine concerns about implementation and meaning of the changes in the d20STL; I fail to see how your email addresses any of them.



A change to an "open" license like this to close a loophole that would make it unenforceable is one thing. A change in a license to stifle creativity and expression is quite another, as is making changes in an attempt to regain market share because there are many high quality competing products (Sword and Sorcery). While wizards does not seem to be making a change for this last reason (yet), after seeing what they were willing to change in this latest version of the license I can easily see them employing that tactic at the first sign of a Q4 loss.

That is my point and those are my concerns. I'm sorry if you disagree or still don't see it, but at least one other person has understood my message. To that person, I thank you and I am looking forward to learning more about the FGA.

It was nice chatting with you Harry. It would have been nicer to have the same conversation with you in person.


----------

