Slashdot Mirror
d20 License Revision Creates Controversy
travail_jgd writes "Wizards of the Coast, the makers of Dungeons and Dragons and the owners of the popular d20 license, have made some changes that are very unpopular in the RPG community. The new clauses allows WotC to censor d20-branded books with sexual, excessively violent, or other questionable content by revoking the book's d20 license: 'Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License immediately... if it deems, in its sole discretion, that your use of the Licensed Articles does not meet the above standards.' (The full listing can be found in a 12 KB RTF file.) Needless to say, people aren't happy. BTW, Wizard's own 'Book of Vile Darkness' violates most of the new rules." There are further details about this change, which only affects "any work carrying the d20 logo", over at GamingReport.com.
It should be noted that WotC caught some flack for the Book of Vile Darkness. They caught a ton of flack for the associated "Vile Content" section they put in Dragon. There were a bunch of letters to the tune of "I let my 8 year old kid read Dragon, now I'm not sure I should be letting him play D&D at all".
I don't think I agree with their new stance, but I do see where it's coming from.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Even though I very much like the d20 system/d&d 3e better than d&d 2e, I have to say that this is a bad move on their part as far as getting people to license the system.
If you do think about it though it's obvious that they're only trying to protect their own asses in case a lawsuit came up over the content of licensed games or something else like that. God knows people are trying hard enough with video games.
I can understand this to a degree, all WOTC needs is a bunch of furrys or similar sexual deviant fan-types to start publishing sexually explicit material and begin to erode away at the little bit of creditability that RPG gaming has gotten in recent years now that lawyers are busy chasing after video game companies.
Censorship equals bad, but it is their product, and If I want to make a bestiality RPG I can certainly publish it on my own if i so desire, I just can't expect WOTC to give me a thumbs up by bestowing their lable on it. I think WOTC has been more than fair and generous with the licensing (far better than TSR ever was) and getting bent over this is silly.
It seems like people should avoid using both licenses now.
/.ers, the l33t gamers all use the FGA's OpenDie and Prometheus logos.)
Dear god, no!
The OGL can't be meaningfully edited or changed without an act of SCOTUS; unless the GPL and the concept of copyleft itself are nullified, the OGL will stand forever.
The d20STL _only_ covers that "d20" logo that you see on the back of most RPG products now--it's an indicator of compatability with the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG.
A lot of publishers DO drop it--Mutants and Masterminds and the Everquest RPG are two notable products to do so. Heck, most of the big publishers could drop it right now, and they wouldn't even notice a dip in sales.
The d20 logo matters to the little guys who want distributors to carry their product, game stores to stock it next to D&D, and gamers to pick it up and use it in their D&D, d20-Modern, Everquest, etc. games.
There's essay upon essay about the network theories behind the d20 System, and why it's a valuable thing to put on a product that's created using the OGL and the SRD.
They're different licenses, and both give different value--but if you want to stop using one, stop using the d20STL.
(And, while I'm distributing clue to
When Valar first announced the Book of Vile Darkness, they broke a whole bunch of rules in their press relase. They used the "Dungeons & Dragons" trademark, and they outright claimed compatability with said trademark.
(The OGL prohibits using anyone else's trademark without permission, and claiming compatability with anyone without permission. The d20STL gives some very specific allowances to use the d20 logo, the "d20 System" trademark, and the Dungeons & Draogns trademarks. Oh, and the OGL considers "advertising" as part of the work... AV claimed that his Press Release wasn't advertising, which got the publishers in quite a tizzy.)
It'd have been bad enough if a different known name (like Steve Jackson games) had done it, and had done it for some mainstream product, but Valar's the company of Anthony Valterra--who, at the time, was WotC VP in charge of policing licensing adherence.
The interesting part is that most of the objections to WotC's new d20STL aren't objections to the concept of Quality Standards--it's how WotC changed the license, and how WotC kept unilateral power to order the pulping of product.