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.

Comments

Book of Vile Darkness

[MrResistor]

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.

Gaaa!

[Tyrdium]

d20 License Revision Creates Controversy

Don't scare me like that! I thought I was going to have to pay more for my d20s!

There is a reason

[kfx]

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.

Re:There is a reason

[swdunlop]

Won't change a thing. Second rate game publishing houses will continue to line up around the block to make their game the next D&D-alike, even if it means black-boxing a few less than decorous pieces of artwork.

The RPG market has been deluged with games using the d20 game system, and I couldn't be more disappointed with the fact; I really enjoyed alternates like Dream Pod 9's Silhouette, or even White Wolf's systems over D&D's strictly class-based straitjacketed templates. While 3E has more latitude than previous versions of the game, it's still a very rigid, boring system for me that plays more like an overblown wargame than a storytelling game.

Some Info -- OGL vs. STL

[Lazarus Short]

A quick clarification for those who aren't too familiar with the licensing situation:

There are two licenses involved here, the Open Gaming License (OGL) and the D20 System Trademark License (STL).

The OGL is the open-source style license under which the core rules of 3rd edition D&D were published. It's more or less GPL-like, in that it requires derivative works of OGL'ed content to be themselves released under the OGL (Though it allows publishers to designate non-game-mechanical sections of their work as non-open "Product Identity".)

To use material covered by the OGL, you're required to agree that you won't use anybody's trademarks without their permission, even as an indication of compatibility. In other words, you can't slap a big "Use this book with 3rd Ed. D&D" sticker on your product.

What you can do, however, is make use of the other license put out by WotC, the STL. This license allows you to use the d20 logo and the phrase "Dungeons and Dragons" in a very specific, limited manner. This is the license which has been updated to include the new content restrictions.

Re:Some Info -- OGL vs. STL

[Planesdragon]

It seems like people should avoid using both licenses now.

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 /.ers, the l33t gamers all use the FGA's OpenDie and Prometheus logos.)

Re:Some Info -- OGL vs. STL

[Planesdragon]

Well, if you're using the OGL, you cannot use trademarks in any way without permission. If you're using the d20, you can use the D&D trademark, but you have to live with worse restrictions.

You cannot use the d20STL without using the OGL; use of the OGL is one of the requirements for the d20STL.

If you're not using either license, you can say "Use this book with 3rd Ed. D&D" without restriction (provided it's clear that the owners of the D&D trademark do not endorse your product).

Theoretically, yes. And, theoretically, when they come and sic their lawyers on you, you might be able to get away. And, you might even be able to convince distributors to carry your product.

But I doubt you could make money off of it--especially when there's a lawyer-free alternative. Oh, and you couldn't reprint copyrightable parts of D&D verbatium.

moot point.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:moot point.

[MMaestro]

You get very little chance to be "evil" in a lot of RPGs. There have been very few (notable) games where you were a demon, a lizard monster or a drow (dark elf) where you role played as something out of the ordinary such as a mercenary or as a bandit. Think about it. Other than player made campaigns, when was the last time your job was to raid a castle to steal the royal treasure and escape or do something crazy and try and murder the king? What I would like to see (paper-and-pen or not) is a game where I can be an evil monster and the goal of the game is to fight a losing battle against the "good guys." After all, why is it that the game always ends "happily ever after?"

Re:moot point.

[tdelaney]

You will have plenty of opportunity to play evil characters in The Temple of Elemental Evil.

ToEE is the first computer game to use the D&D 3.5 rules. The module has been updated to 3.5 rules, but is otherwise a faithful implementation of the original module (i.e. you will be able to use the original module as a walkthrough if you wish). Troika have expanded the roles of several NPCs, etc - just as any good DM would have done - and have been in semi-regular contact with Gary Gygax to ensure that the game meets his vision for the module.

Most importantly, ToEE fully supports characters and parties of all alignments - to the point that parties of different alignments start the game in different ways ...

Oddly enough, BoVD is in compliance

[Planesdragon]

If one were to actually read the d20 Licence Guide (which I have--I was the one who posted the GamingReport.com article), you'd probably realize that the "covered but not quite graphic" coverage of the BoVD is well within the new d20 agreement.

The big controversy isn't that they want quality guidelines--it's that Valar Publishing, makers of the Book of Erotic Fantasy, broke the rules (really, really, REALLY broke the rules--which they really didn't have to do!), and the rules were changed stealthfully to this new "WotC can kill your product if we find it immoral" stance.

Every producer of d20 products, aside from Wizards of the Coast themselves, has expressed doubt and worry over what the new license changes might mean for them.

Re:Oddly enough, BoVD is in compliance

[Planesdragon]

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.

meh

[overbom]

Once I discovered West End Games' d6 systems (now called d6 legend and d6 classic, not that I currently understand the difference), I ditched D&D like a bad habit.

I don't really care how much better the 3rd ed. rules were better than the 2nd ed. rules. I had all that junk memorized, and it was tossed out like an old glove.

Skill incrementing systems are faster, easier and better than levelling systems. Systems where one doesn't need to use a table and just need to add numbers end up being faster, and it opens up my gaming groups to people that aren't prone to memorizing tables. And it puts the GM power in my hands, not the hands of some g**d**ned chart.

Even the Victory Point system for Fading Suns is better than the d20 systems. Heck, even Shadowrun's system is faster than d20 systems. While I'm at it, even Traveller lends itself better to faster-paced roleplaying than... okay, I'm done. /jesse ventura voice
There, I said it, it must be true.

Remember they're owned by Hasbro now!

[mabhatter654]

This means that there are large corprate heads that roll when the lawyers come calling....they smell blood in the water... Wizard's is a weierd company. Founded by Phd's and aerospace engineers as a "hobbie" project early on they ran into their own issues with TSR over licensing for their early D&D books. It's interesting to see where they protect their stuff and what they let out of the bag.

Mostly this looks like a Hasbro lawyer CYA thing. Like other posters said, the aren't after the niche stuff anymore with D&D. Every mall bookstore sells something because it's Hasbro at the top of the food chain. That means anything with the logo could reflect on not just Wizards, but Barbie, Fisher-Price...get the idea. There's not much room for controversy in the toy market.

Trademarks vs. SRD & OGL

[bildstorm]

First off, I'd like to say that I do understand WotC's attitude regarding the d20 trademark. It is essential that they maintain certain levels of deceny. As to whether or not they released the Book of Vile Darkness and to what level that goes, it was very clear that it was to be sold only to mature audience members (and some gaming stores would NOT sell it to anyone under 17), and they caught flack from long-time D&D-associated individuals.

Additionally, we have to consider that by putting the logo on a product, it is to associated it with D&D (or at least that's how most parents will see it). If you have a clear disclaimer on the cover, fine, but otherwise, you're lumping it in with the same people who make Pokemon cards. WotC's parent, Hasbro, might not like to see some company they have next to no control over coming out with a product filled with erotica that some parents will associated with those people who make Pokemon cards. I also see a lot of potential flack from owners of other brands (e.g. Star Wars) that have licensed those brands to WotC.

Can you still produce D&D compatible stuff without the d20 license? Yes! Matured and experience gamers will know what the SRD is. So call it SRD-fantasy compatible or SRD-modern compatible. Heck, get together and create a logo and have that logo owned by the Open Gaming Foundation for all I care. I won't buy stuff that's overly indecent, but if it's detailed, almost clinical in nature, and gives me rules to pick and choose for realism, I might buy it.

Having been published using the SRD, it's very, very important to not violate those things that WotC explicitly says no to and to avoid, for the most part where possible, things the SRD doesn't say yes to. Basically, create individually, and use the SRD and nothing else to look at, and you'll do well. Come up with something really unique and useful like Expeditious Retreat did and you'll be amazed at how quickly everyone likes your stuff.

"strictly class-based"

[metamatic]

D&D may be class-based, but D20 isn't necessarily.

For example, Call of Cthulhu d20 doesn't have classes.