Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Dungeon Master's Guild Terms of Service Updated - No Third Party Logos on Cover for You!

There are many logos belonging to third party publishers of DM's Guild products but only THIS can be on the product's cover as a logo. Branding for third parties? The horror!
Depending on what you read over on ENWorld, this is either an update to or a restatement of prior terms of service for the DM's Guild. Apparently the prior TOS weren't clearly written.

In any case, the only logo allowed on DM's Guild product covers going forward (prior are grandfathered in, which leads me to believe the prior terms weren't the clearest) is the one pictured above.

Which really sucks for those that have established (or are trying to establish) their brand on the DM's Guild.

Fantasy Grounds compatible products CAN have a FG logo, but that isn't actually in the TOS right now. Yeah, a bit of a cluster.

Yeah, I'm actually going to point you to the comments on ENWorld for this. There are some not so happy campers. The other Community Content Partners at OBS should take heed of changing terms in a way that discourages some from using their platforms to publish content.


  1. "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

  2. It’s like you’re speaking in code.

  3. OBS and WoTC are idiots for doing this. Hello Trade Dress anybody? Can be just as distinctive as a logo. For example who can't spot a classic Traveller book? And for Mongoose Traveller 1st edition, you knew that it had to be something Traveller due to how they did their trade dress. For that matter the cover to AD&D modules.

    They are going to playing a whack a mole on this until they mandate everybody use the same style of cover.

    1. Some further thoughts. The only way this can be a problem if for example I use Bat in the Attic Games logo on the cover and that leads people to content outside of the DM Guild.

      If that the situation I can live with a rule that a logo used in the DM's Guild can only appear in the DM's Guild.

  4. Trying to establish your own brand on the DM's Guild is probably like trying to establish your own brand of Coke or Pepsi. All these giant RPG companies wouldn't be giving gamers the tools to create content for them unless it directly benefited them first and foremost.

    1. Truth. Anyone fighting to get their "brand" noticed (and by that I mean anything that's not just their name/author name) should be on DriveThru and other selling channels. People there have more free reign (for a reason) and can really find a niche once they utilize that freedom (for a reason).

      Reminds me of this little company Kort'thalis or something, which makes stuff that's immediately noticeable for what it is and who put it out...


  5. Yeah ... dumb move.

    The WotC brand is already so big that it doesn't need this push. The DnD brand alone is still so massive, it's synonymous with role-playing to many people. All this is doing is making it more difficult for 3pp publishers to sell based on brand loyalty audiences. It also prevents WotC from enjoying the benefits of that same market segment through the potential royalty cut.

  6. They take 50% of the sale. They don't care what you think just keep making sales and giving them 50% for having their logo on your stuff.


Tenkar's Tavern is supported by various affiliate programs, including Amazon, RPGNow,
and Humble Bundle as well as Patreon. Your patronage is appreciated and helps keep the
lights on and the taps flowing. Your Humble Bartender, Tenkar

Blogs of Inspiration & Erudition