Has this been a problem from publishers? What products and what impact?
The only case I can recall of this happening was by WotC with the Hadozee in Spelljammer only four months ago.
Bit rich to claim to be the stewards of the game when the most high profile case of racist content is from the "stewards".
Just a psycological trick at the beginning of the post to make you think, 'ah, WotC, sorry yes, your intentions were just so good and it is just a big misunderstanding'. Totally nonsense, because: what shall be the definition of a disciminating and hateful product which uses the OGL? WotC, please provide examples on existing systems on the market.
They wouldn't want to set a predefined list because the definitions of what is hateful and what is acceptable are constantly changing in any culture and a company looking to maximize appeal will follow those trends.
Racism is evil and evil should be fought wherever we find it. Sweeping it under a rug or hiding it out of sight because it makes us uncomfortable. It is a disservice to the game, to each other and to the children we introduce to the game.
The thing these conversations ignore is pretty obvious--there is a difference between creating a product that includes themes of prejudice, discrimination, slavery, etc. and making a product that is racist.
Out of the Abyss deals with some themes of slavery--both drow and duergar are slavers and duergar racism toward derro features throughout the Gracklstrugh chapter. It, however, is not racist--it does not correlate the races in question directly to real-world races--they are fantasy creations built off fantasy tropes, rather divorced from reality. Compare to Ernest Gygax's attempt to steal Wizards' IP and use it in a racist way, specifically stating "races in [rip off game] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others." The former explores themes of racism but does so in a way that does not also put down people based on their real world race, creed, orientation, etc. The latter, however, is super full of things that actively promulgate stereotypes and racist messages.
That is the key distinction--and Wizards has been very consistent in saying they merely that they do not want products that are actively "hateful or discriminatory" to be made using their content. But the slippery slope of "if you give them this power, they will try to take your legitimate content respectfully dealing with these issues" certainly sounds scary--which is why it is a mainstay argument of folks advocating against tools that would undermine the promulgation of hate within the community.
That may be their intent, but the language seems to allow an opening for abuse. In the end I guess I don't really trust groups with power, or rather I don't trust all the members in that group or all of their actions. I think I'm probably willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, but I want people to remain vigilant against abuses of that privilege. Especially when the power imbalance gets to be as large as that of Hasbro vs independent content creator, Hasbro can simply drown them out with legal spending, it doesn't matter who is in the right.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
They did have a specific clause, assuming that part of the leak was correct - Section VII - H and Section VII - I.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
They did have a specific clause, assuming that part of the leak was correct - Section VII - H and Section VII - I.
And if their point was simply to avoid racism and monopolize dnd NFTs all they had to do was add in those two clauses to the existing OGL. We know they're gaslighting us because they added a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with locking in their dominant position in the market. Preventing all use of content on VTTs other than their own/roll20/FG, royalties, license to use people's content, de-authorizing the existing OGL, etc are all simple power/money grabs. I still hold out a sliver of hope that WotC will salvage this situation but it won't come through bad faith negotiations like we've seen so far. They needed to issue an apology, but instead they act like a random unlucky act occurred that happened to de-rail their totally altruistic goals. That's the sort of reaction that will make me play other systems.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
They did have a specific clause, assuming that part of the leak was correct - Section VII - H and Section VII - I.
And if their point was simply to avoid racism and monopolize dnd NFTs all they had to do was add in those two clauses to the existing OGL. We know they're gaslighting us because they added a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with locking in their dominant position in the market. Preventing all use of content on VTTs other than their own/roll20/FG, royalties, license to use people's content, de-authorizing the existing OGL, etc are all simple power/money grabs. I still hold out a sliver of hope that WotC will salvage this situation but it won't come through bad faith negotiations like we've seen so far. They needed to issue an apology, but instead they act like a random unlucky act occurred that happened to de-rail their totally altruistic goals. That's the sort of reaction that will make me play other systems.
They specifically said it wasn't just about fighting discrimination or NFTs, all the way back in December. And they did issue an apology, as well as letting us know it will be a while before we see the new version of the license. I'm genuinely not sure what you're looking for.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
They did have a specific clause, assuming that part of the leak was correct - Section VII - H and Section VII - I.
And if their point was simply to avoid racism and monopolize dnd NFTs all they had to do was add in those two clauses to the existing OGL. We know they're gaslighting us because they added a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with locking in their dominant position in the market. Preventing all use of content on VTTs other than their own/roll20/FG, royalties, license to use people's content, de-authorizing the existing OGL, etc are all simple power/money grabs. I still hold out a sliver of hope that WotC will salvage this situation but it won't come through bad faith negotiations like we've seen so far. They needed to issue an apology, but instead they act like a random unlucky act occurred that happened to de-rail their totally altruistic goals. That's the sort of reaction that will make me play other systems.
They specifically said it wasn't just about fighting discrimination or NFTs, all the way back in December. And they did issue an apology, as well as letting us know it will be a while before we see the new version of the license. I'm genuinely not sure what you're looking for.
An apology is where you accept responsibility and say you're sorry for doing something wrong. That's different than saying you were always doing right but simply rolled a one and are sorry about the community response. What I'm looking for is somewhere I can trust to curate my digital RPG collection over the long term. I've bought everything on the site because before the WotC buyout dndbeyond acted in a trustworthy fashion and did things that were in the consumer interest. I cancelled my subscription because how they are acting now makes me think they aren't being honest with us about their intentions and that I can't trust them to not jack up prices, alter my purchased content, or otherwise impose scummy stuff down the road. For now what I'd like to see is the actual terms of the new OGL so we can verify the vague promises they made in their announcement. If they get it right and make it irrevocable I'd like to keep using this site. We'll see. Either way WotC's actions have done a lot of damage.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
They did have a specific clause, assuming that part of the leak was correct - Section VII - H and Section VII - I.
And if their point was simply to avoid racism and monopolize dnd NFTs all they had to do was add in those two clauses to the existing OGL. We know they're gaslighting us because they added a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with locking in their dominant position in the market. Preventing all use of content on VTTs other than their own/roll20/FG, royalties, license to use people's content, de-authorizing the existing OGL, etc are all simple power/money grabs. I still hold out a sliver of hope that WotC will salvage this situation but it won't come through bad faith negotiations like we've seen so far. They needed to issue an apology, but instead they act like a random unlucky act occurred that happened to de-rail their totally altruistic goals. That's the sort of reaction that will make me play other systems.
They specifically said it wasn't just about fighting discrimination or NFTs, all the way back in December. And they did issue an apology, as well as letting us know it will be a while before we see the new version of the license. I'm genuinely not sure what you're looking for.
An apology is where you accept responsibility and say you're sorry for doing something wrong. That's different than saying you were always doing right but simply rolled a one and are sorry about the community response. What I'm looking for is somewhere I can trust to curate my digital RPG collection over the long term. I've bought everything on the site because before the WotC buyout dndbeyond acted in a trustworthy fashion and did things that were in the consumer interest. I cancelled my subscription because how they are acting now makes me think they aren't being honest with us about their intentions and that I can't trust them to not jack up prices, alter my purchased content, or otherwise impose scummy stuff down the road. For now what I'd like to see is the actual terms of the new OGL so we can verify the vague promises they made in their announcement. If they get it right and make it irrevocable I'd like to keep using this site. We'll see. Either way WotC's actions have done a lot of damage.
You'll see the new version when it's ready. The rest is just bluster.
You'll see the new version when it's ready. The rest is just bluster.
And they might see my money again if they fix it. I answered your question with an honest discussion of where I'm at on this issue and you dismiss it as bluster. That actually tracks with the general WotC strategy.
You'll see the new version when it's ready. The rest is just bluster.
And they might see my money again if they fix it. I answered your question with an honest discussion of where I'm at on this issue and you dismiss it as bluster. That actually tracks with the general WotC strategy.
You're asking for a bunch of unrealistic demands. Never raise prices? Never be allowed to change content after you've purchased it? Apologize for their apology? Maybe they should send you all their future books for free and mail you a unicorn while they're at it?
You'll see the new version when it's ready. The rest is just bluster.
And they might see my money again if they fix it. I answered your question with an honest discussion of where I'm at on this issue and you dismiss it as bluster. That actually tracks with the general WotC strategy.
You're asking for a bunch of unrealistic demands. Never raise prices? Never be allowed to change content after you've purchased it? Apologize for their apology? Maybe they should send you all their future books for free and mail you a unicorn while they're at it?
Ah, now you've moved from dismissal to complete misrepresentation. Good job trolling for WotC. I hope that brings you joy in life. I'm just happy the vast majority of the community has come together on this issue and WotC seems to be listening.
But yeah, a unicorn would be pretty cool. My kids would like that a lot.
Something that the WotC apologists keep forgetting is that if you make an OGL product and you use WotC's IP and trademarks, then you are by definition infringing upon the agreement with the OGL and the law. If someone wants to make Richard Spencer's Guide to the Great Replacement then they 100% can without even needing to put the OGL agreement in there. If you do something like use the dragon ampersand, the name "Dungeons & Dragons", named NPCs from established settings, unique D&D monsters (beholder), etc, then you aren't OGL compatible and must go through the DMsGuild. 3PPs can use "5e compatible" because "5e" is not only so simple and vague of a term that it can't be copyrighted or trademarked, but also because it is a term that WotC actively chose to not use ("5e" isn't even in the name of the game, it's just called "Dungeons & Dragons"). It is a community derived term. Using the OGL is literally not using WotC's IP.
WotC doesn't own the concept of saving throws, the 6 main ability scores, wizards, goblins, HP, AC, rolling a d20 to determine and outcome, or basically any of the concepts inside the SRD. The only reason to use the OGL is if you want to use direct, copy-pasted text from the SRD. WotC would be committing copyright misuse if they tried to take down an OGL compliant 3PP, and the 3rd-party could reasonable take them to court over it.
It is dangerous to go to bat for WotC and let them have the power to take something down just because they deem it unseemly to their brand, even if it isn't at all connected to their brand. Mutants & Masterminds uses the OGL for its 3.X-based system. I'd hardly call a superhero RPG "using WotC's IP" when the basis of its creation is "the creator was sending their partially finished manuscript for their setting out to publishers and Green Ronin said they'd publish it as long as he made a game to go along with it." just because it uses a d20 roll. Giving WotC the leeway to take down content because they just say it's racist is two steps away from them taking down a rival company and and getting away with monopolizing the industry even more. Setting the precedent is dangerous and we shouldn't presume WotC would only ever use this power for good, because as we can see they are perfectly willing to burn this community down and throw their weight around to bully smaller publishers and creators. A company's only duty is to their shareholders, and WotC isn't a PBC. As a minority myself I don't want to give a random corporation the sole right to decide what counts as offensive to me or not.
WotC isn't your friend, they are a corporation. WotC doesn't care about diversity, bigotry, or inclusivity. They care about their PR and their bottom line. If appealing to bigots was more profitable then they would do so. It just so happens that looking as if you're "on the right side of history" is more conducive to the current zeitgeist than not, and WotC suits know that using tolerance as an excuse will get them more leeway from those that aren't paying attention to the minute by minute updates. Don't fall for it. Don't let them appropriate social justice as shield for their shit business practices, because that is what they're trying to do.
Yeah, the "apology" is most definitely not an apology 🫤
I love the D&D developers, and I truly believe that the majority of WotC employees are community-oriented. But this statement, whoever wrote it, is just really a bad look.
Hoping that the OGL rewrite will be true to the stated intentions. But until it is, I've sadly cancelled my DDB subscription that I had kept active all the way since 2017.
They wouldn't want to set a predefined list because the definitions of what is hateful and what is acceptable are constantly changing in any culture and a company looking to maximize appeal will follow those trends.
That may be their intent, but the language seems to allow an opening for abuse. In the end I guess I don't really trust groups with power, or rather I don't trust all the members in that group or all of their actions. I think I'm probably willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, but I want people to remain vigilant against abuses of that privilege. Especially when the power imbalance gets to be as large as that of Hasbro vs independent content creator, Hasbro can simply drown them out with legal spending, it doesn't matter who is in the right.
IMO it's a red herring.
I fully support the desire to censor hateful or discriminatory material–I make the same efforts in my own company's publishing. But all WotC would need to do is include a clause specifically prohibiting such objectionable content, and/or specifying their right to revoke the license in such cases. There is a simple and efficient way to do that, and the OGL 1.1 verbiage was like using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail in, in that respect.
DM - Storm King's Thunder PbP | Yet Another Storm King's Thunder PbP
Current: Eogard Duramastar, Human Twilight Cleric/Star Druid | Eiren Lathrana, Shadar-Kai Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger | Arugula, Rabbitfolk Armorer
Survivor: CrispyDM's Saltmarsh as Syltra | SarcasticFury's Strahd as Hadrian Frozenspark | Forge of Fury as The DM
They did have a specific clause, assuming that part of the leak was correct - Section VII - H and Section VII - I.
And if their point was simply to avoid racism and monopolize dnd NFTs all they had to do was add in those two clauses to the existing OGL. We know they're gaslighting us because they added a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with locking in their dominant position in the market. Preventing all use of content on VTTs other than their own/roll20/FG, royalties, license to use people's content, de-authorizing the existing OGL, etc are all simple power/money grabs. I still hold out a sliver of hope that WotC will salvage this situation but it won't come through bad faith negotiations like we've seen so far. They needed to issue an apology, but instead they act like a random unlucky act occurred that happened to de-rail their totally altruistic goals. That's the sort of reaction that will make me play other systems.
They specifically said it wasn't just about fighting discrimination or NFTs, all the way back in December. And they did issue an apology, as well as letting us know it will be a while before we see the new version of the license. I'm genuinely not sure what you're looking for.
An apology is where you accept responsibility and say you're sorry for doing something wrong. That's different than saying you were always doing right but simply rolled a one and are sorry about the community response. What I'm looking for is somewhere I can trust to curate my digital RPG collection over the long term. I've bought everything on the site because before the WotC buyout dndbeyond acted in a trustworthy fashion and did things that were in the consumer interest. I cancelled my subscription because how they are acting now makes me think they aren't being honest with us about their intentions and that I can't trust them to not jack up prices, alter my purchased content, or otherwise impose scummy stuff down the road. For now what I'd like to see is the actual terms of the new OGL so we can verify the vague promises they made in their announcement. If they get it right and make it irrevocable I'd like to keep using this site. We'll see. Either way WotC's actions have done a lot of damage.
You'll see the new version when it's ready. The rest is just bluster.
And they might see my money again if they fix it. I answered your question with an honest discussion of where I'm at on this issue and you dismiss it as bluster. That actually tracks with the general WotC strategy.
You're asking for a bunch of unrealistic demands. Never raise prices? Never be allowed to change content after you've purchased it? Apologize for their apology? Maybe they should send you all their future books for free and mail you a unicorn while they're at it?
Ah, now you've moved from dismissal to complete misrepresentation. Good job trolling for WotC. I hope that brings you joy in life. I'm just happy the vast majority of the community has come together on this issue and WotC seems to be listening.
But yeah, a unicorn would be pretty cool. My kids would like that a lot.
Something that the WotC apologists keep forgetting is that if you make an OGL product and you use WotC's IP and trademarks, then you are by definition infringing upon the agreement with the OGL and the law. If someone wants to make Richard Spencer's Guide to the Great Replacement then they 100% can without even needing to put the OGL agreement in there. If you do something like use the dragon ampersand, the name "Dungeons & Dragons", named NPCs from established settings, unique D&D monsters (beholder), etc, then you aren't OGL compatible and must go through the DMsGuild. 3PPs can use "5e compatible" because "5e" is not only so simple and vague of a term that it can't be copyrighted or trademarked, but also because it is a term that WotC actively chose to not use ("5e" isn't even in the name of the game, it's just called "Dungeons & Dragons"). It is a community derived term. Using the OGL is literally not using WotC's IP.
WotC doesn't own the concept of saving throws, the 6 main ability scores, wizards, goblins, HP, AC, rolling a d20 to determine and outcome, or basically any of the concepts inside the SRD. The only reason to use the OGL is if you want to use direct, copy-pasted text from the SRD. WotC would be committing copyright misuse if they tried to take down an OGL compliant 3PP, and the 3rd-party could reasonable take them to court over it.
It is dangerous to go to bat for WotC and let them have the power to take something down just because they deem it unseemly to their brand, even if it isn't at all connected to their brand. Mutants & Masterminds uses the OGL for its 3.X-based system. I'd hardly call a superhero RPG "using WotC's IP" when the basis of its creation is "the creator was sending their partially finished manuscript for their setting out to publishers and Green Ronin said they'd publish it as long as he made a game to go along with it." just because it uses a d20 roll. Giving WotC the leeway to take down content because they just say it's racist is two steps away from them taking down a rival company and and getting away with monopolizing the industry even more. Setting the precedent is dangerous and we shouldn't presume WotC would only ever use this power for good, because as we can see they are perfectly willing to burn this community down and throw their weight around to bully smaller publishers and creators. A company's only duty is to their shareholders, and WotC isn't a PBC. As a minority myself I don't want to give a random corporation the sole right to decide what counts as offensive to me or not.
WotC isn't your friend, they are a corporation. WotC doesn't care about diversity, bigotry, or inclusivity. They care about their PR and their bottom line. If appealing to bigots was more profitable then they would do so. It just so happens that looking as if you're "on the right side of history" is more conducive to the current zeitgeist than not, and WotC suits know that using tolerance as an excuse will get them more leeway from those that aren't paying attention to the minute by minute updates. Don't fall for it. Don't let them appropriate social justice as shield for their shit business practices, because that is what they're trying to do.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Yeah, the "apology" is most definitely not an apology 🫤
I love the D&D developers, and I truly believe that the majority of WotC employees are community-oriented. But this statement, whoever wrote it, is just really a bad look.
Hoping that the OGL rewrite will be true to the stated intentions. But until it is, I've sadly cancelled my DDB subscription that I had kept active all the way since 2017.
DM - Storm King's Thunder PbP | Yet Another Storm King's Thunder PbP
Current: Eogard Duramastar, Human Twilight Cleric/Star Druid | Eiren Lathrana, Shadar-Kai Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger | Arugula, Rabbitfolk Armorer
Survivor: CrispyDM's Saltmarsh as Syltra | SarcasticFury's Strahd as Hadrian Frozenspark | Forge of Fury as The DM