Honestly, that to me is the least problematic element of both this and the 1.1 OGL. Yes, WotC theoretically could invent an excuse why a random work is racist and then strip the license from someone over it, but let's be realistic here. The only incentive they would have to do that to someone who wasn't bigoted is if they were a highly successful project and WotC didn't like the competition, but getting rid of them like that would be a TERRIBLE idea, they'd be reopening the current can of worms.
The problem with the "You must include a notice disassociating us from this product" thing is that Wizards cannot disassociate themselves from a product. It is not possible for Wizards to avoids being blamed if "A D&D Book" has hateful content, no matter who or what made that book. No. Matter. Who. Or. What. The Public will blame Wizards, and Wizards will be forced to deal with it. They know this, that every third-party book is a direct challenge to their reputation.
6f is overbroad and needs adjusting. But there's cause and justification for Wizards to have a way to take a strong stance against hateful content. I don't think we're getting away from that.
They can get away from it by having the license be from someone else. These are are "D&D Books" because the product has the Creator Product & on it. If it is an ORC book then there is no connection to WotC. Plus the ORC licence can have a morality clause in it as well. In its case the decision to terminate would be with a non profit or a law firm. It removes a profit motive to abuse the termination clause.
So I just read the new OGL draft and filled out the survey. Seen many good points made on the forums and would like to invite discussion on 6(f). In short my worry is this is a very subjective and contentious topic that can be (ab)used in any way to ban anything you want. And that's not something we want in a game that is based around story telling and roleplaying.
For reference, this is the current wording of 6(f):
No Hateful Content or Conduct.You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
This is the little essay I wrote for WotC, would welcome some feedback:
Let me preface this by saying this is a massive step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. This actually reads like an OGL, whereas the OGL1.1 draft read more like one of the infernal contracts I offer my players when they wanted to sell their soul to Asmodeus.
Main worry is with section 6 (f). I understand the reasoning for including a section dealing with such content. However, the vagueness of this description means that it can be applied to virtually any content. Particularly the words "harmful" and "obscene" are deeply subjective. Consider that there are people that consider(ed) D&D "harmful" (e.g. some religions consider "magic" heretical and therefor D&D harmful/obscene).
As it stands the wording of this paragraph is also illogical. It is state that WotC has the sole right to determine "what content or conduct is hateful". However the summary of types of content that are not allowed (harmful, obscene, etc.) does not actually include "hateful". It actually should not include hateful regardless. Since, like other examples given, it is a rather subjective term that means different things to different people.
It should be noted that not allowing people to contest is not the right way to go about this, perhaps this can be replaced with a different way to contest (i.e. not through the legal system, but as a procedure between WotC and creators).
Another major concern with this is the limitations this puts on creative thinking and storytelling. Take the example of writing a module that deals with slavery. We write a scenario that takes place in a kingdom that has legalized slavery, and it's pretty racists (elves are treated like slaves f.g.), this presents interesting roleplaying and storytelling. Will the players be the Good aligned heroes that fight the powers that be to better the position of the elves? Or are they a bunch of Lawful Evil pricks that set up their own slave trading emporium? Exploring characters that can be radically different from the player's real world morality is core to roleplaying. It is also part of what makes (TT)RPG something that is actually good for the development of people's minds and grants them greater understanding - precisely because you can play out scenario's that you cannot (or mostly: really do not want to) explore in the real world. So restricting this is could actually be considered "harmful" (so there's the logic applied to the OGL1.2 itself).
Like I said I can understand the company WotC not wanting to be associated with certain kinds of content. You could replace the current 6.f with a paragraph that reads "If you include content in Your Licensed Works that is we consider harmful, hateful, discriminatory, obscene, or harassing, we can require you to include a notice that states we explicitly disassociate ourselves from this content. We reserve the right to specify the exact wording of this notice on a case-by-case basis. We have the sole right to decide what conduct falls in this category, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action." This way the company interests are secured (failure to comply would result in action under 9.b.ii) and creative freedom is safeguarded. Note that I did not include "illegal" in the summary, since illegal conduct is already covered by 6.e (you could update this to specify conduct AND content). I also did not specify "conduct", which brings me to my next point:
What do you mean by "conduct" as it pertains to section 6.f? As I understand it the OGL relates specifically to "content". The preamble states that "streaming, fan art, cosplay, and other fan content" is covered by the Fan Content Policy, so any actual "conduct" would be covered by this document not the OGL.
EDIT: included the relevant OGL text for reference.
I'm trans, I'm illegal in over half of the world, I am illegal or soon to be in half of the USA. I'm outlawed in Russia, China, Suadi Arabia and a host of other wealthy and powerful countries. The UK has prevented Scotland from protecting me (my birth nationality). WotC can easily decide I'm forbidden content. I don't trust they can protect rights, nor make a reasonable call on what is or is not moral. See Spelljammer last year.
But, as a trans person, who would you want to be the arbiters of what is hateful and should be excluded from using the license? Because any third party would be subject to the same human failings, you obviously don’t want government weighing in based on your examples. Is your solution then to allow anything to be published, even those things that may discriminate against you, attack you or belittle you as a person? Or is it something else? I would think you would want something to protect the game from becoming an unsafe place for trans, gay, black, female, or other groups who encounter that kind of prejudice
Just being in a state that has laws against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation would suffice. Just saying, that the contract has to follow the laws of Washington state is enough protection. Which is the current state of things, WotC can shut down discrimination contained in rule books published under the current OGL license, and SRD. And they have even sued someone over it. (Currently on going, WotC will win the suit, it's actually a very strong case.) What is a problem with the inclusion seen in the OGL 1.2 is it's a clause to without justification pull a license from someone. No burden of proof on WotC, and it's worded so loosely that any illegal activity mentioned in the book is enough to get it pulled. Include any thieves, jaywalkers, or evil villains, and next thing you know you have a letter from WotC pulling your license. Or like I said before, any queer content and the book gets sold in any Republican state ie Florida, and you can be guilty of a crime for just having the inclusion of a Transgender Character. Or heavens forbid, a gay married couple, "think of the children."
"think of the Children" is used to justify more hate and discrimination than any other phrase in history.
Does anyone have a link to the ORC license and what it does?
Edit: everything I have found talks about what it will be I can't find the license itself to see what the contents are.
I don’t think it has actually been written yet…I think Paizos announcement indicated it was in development
I think I heard they were hoping to have it by mid-February, early March, but I may be wrong. And of course they may adjust the timeline. Until then, though, it’s basically Schrödinger’s license — it’s whatever someone wants it to be. And whatever someone else doesn’t want it to be, simultaneously.
Hasbro/Wizards isn't giving up much of anything. I am stunned anyone is buying into their Morality (Hateful) Clause. It gives them an easy out if they choose to abuse it with little recourse from anyone to defend themselves. I am at a loss for why anyone reads their rationalizations without placing them in context. They want less competition. They want 5e to wither away and get everyone on board for 6e (In light of current events, One D&D now has a rather ominous monopolistic tone to me) which will align with the VTT they are desperate for everyone to subscribe to. They don't want to repeat the 4E experience with a more restrictive OGL where they lost huge market share with a game very few wanted. They don't want a third party competing against their new edition with a version of 5E. After all, that's how Pathfinder ending up outselling them for a bit.
Once upon a time, they claimed they would never try to get rid of the original OGL. So, no, I question their motives about trying to be the Morality Police of gaming. I also question their pretense they need it for their own protection. Frankly, they open themselves up for potential criticism for NOT doing anything about this or that 3rd Party product they do authorize that someone decides is objectional. After all, they would have OK'd it with this provision. This is about loading up ammo to control independent businesses (well, semi-independent).
Let's remember "under-monetized" is a fancy of way of saying they aren't charging you enough for you to play the game. They want to increase your costs. This is about money and they believe control will bring them money (which history says otherwise but, hey, corporate suits are often too narcissistic to accept that past lessons may apply to them. After all, they are exceptional, at least in their minds.). This "hateful content" is about control with a smokescreen of false virtue and fake martyrdom.
So I just read the new OGL draft and filled out the survey. Seen many good points made on the forums and would like to invite discussion on 6(f). In short my worry is this is a very subjective and contentious topic that can be (ab)used in any way to ban anything you want. And that's not something we want in a game that is based around story telling and roleplaying.
For reference, this is the current wording of 6(f):
No Hateful Content or Conduct.You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
This is the little essay I wrote for WotC, would welcome some feedback:
Let me preface this by saying this is a massive step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. This actually reads like an OGL, whereas the OGL1.1 draft read more like one of the infernal contracts I offer my players when they wanted to sell their soul to Asmodeus.
Main worry is with section 6 (f). I understand the reasoning for including a section dealing with such content. However, the vagueness of this description means that it can be applied to virtually any content. Particularly the words "harmful" and "obscene" are deeply subjective. Consider that there are people that consider(ed) D&D "harmful" (e.g. some religions consider "magic" heretical and therefor D&D harmful/obscene).
As it stands the wording of this paragraph is also illogical. It is state that WotC has the sole right to determine "what content or conduct is hateful". However the summary of types of content that are not allowed (harmful, obscene, etc.) does not actually include "hateful". It actually should not include hateful regardless. Since, like other examples given, it is a rather subjective term that means different things to different people.
It should be noted that not allowing people to contest is not the right way to go about this, perhaps this can be replaced with a different way to contest (i.e. not through the legal system, but as a procedure between WotC and creators).
Another major concern with this is the limitations this puts on creative thinking and storytelling. Take the example of writing a module that deals with slavery. We write a scenario that takes place in a kingdom that has legalized slavery, and it's pretty racists (elves are treated like slaves f.g.), this presents interesting roleplaying and storytelling. Will the players be the Good aligned heroes that fight the powers that be to better the position of the elves? Or are they a bunch of Lawful Evil pricks that set up their own slave trading emporium? Exploring characters that can be radically different from the player's real world morality is core to roleplaying. It is also part of what makes (TT)RPG something that is actually good for the development of people's minds and grants them greater understanding - precisely because you can play out scenario's that you cannot (or mostly: really do not want to) explore in the real world. So restricting this is could actually be considered "harmful" (so there's the logic applied to the OGL1.2 itself).
Like I said I can understand the company WotC not wanting to be associated with certain kinds of content. You could replace the current 6.f with a paragraph that reads "If you include content in Your Licensed Works that is we consider harmful, hateful, discriminatory, obscene, or harassing, we can require you to include a notice that states we explicitly disassociate ourselves from this content. We reserve the right to specify the exact wording of this notice on a case-by-case basis. We have the sole right to decide what conduct falls in this category, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action." This way the company interests are secured (failure to comply would result in action under 9.b.ii) and creative freedom is safeguarded. Note that I did not include "illegal" in the summary, since illegal conduct is already covered by 6.e (you could update this to specify conduct AND content). I also did not specify "conduct", which brings me to my next point:
What do you mean by "conduct" as it pertains to section 6.f? As I understand it the OGL relates specifically to "content". The preamble states that "streaming, fan art, cosplay, and other fan content" is covered by the Fan Content Policy, so any actual "conduct" would be covered by this document not the OGL.
EDIT: included the relevant OGL text for reference.
I'm trans, I'm illegal in over half of the world, I am illegal or soon to be in half of the USA. I'm outlawed in Russia, China, Suadi Arabia and a host of other wealthy and powerful countries. The UK has prevented Scotland from protecting me (my birth nationality). WotC can easily decide I'm forbidden content. I don't trust they can protect rights, nor make a reasonable call on what is or is not moral. See Spelljammer last year.
But, as a trans person, who would you want to be the arbiters of what is hateful and should be excluded from using the license? Because any third party would be subject to the same human failings, you obviously don’t want government weighing in based on your examples. Is your solution then to allow anything to be published, even those things that may discriminate against you, attack you or belittle you as a person? Or is it something else? I would think you would want something to protect the game from becoming an unsafe place for trans, gay, black, female, or other groups who encounter that kind of prejudice
I don't know about the OP, but as a trans disabled woman, I will say in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT want anything like this in the license. If you want to know why, look at the Hays Code and the Comic Code Authority. Look at the way banks and social media platforms treat people who do *legal* sex work like running an onlyfans account, or offering services as a dominatrix. Morality policing like this *aways*, without fail, ends up being weaponized against marginalized people. The moment some stockholder screams because little Timmy read about two gay farmers in Storm King's Thunder, some executive at Wizards will ban all queer content from WotC products *and* start revoking the licenses of any company that includes any queer content. Clauses like this are a horrible, horrible idea. So no, I do not want this is any OGL, because we've been here before, and we've seen how it ends. EVERY FREAKING TIME.
Honestly, the morality clause is just going to chill any content that might have meaningful message. For example, if you include elements of slavery in an adventure? What if you are fighting against slavery traders? No publisher is going to risk having anything that could remotely be interrupted by WotC as violating their morality clause. Even if that adventure has a meaningful or positive message to share about these sensitive subjects.
I think the type of content that should be played at the table is a contract between three people: the author, the players and the DM. If everyone is fine with what's happening, nobody has any need or right to stick their nose into it. I think the happy medium ground position, is requiring a disclaimer if your content contains anything that someone might find sensitive. Something like a rating system could be useful for people want to avoid such topics, and fulfill the goal of protecting people who aren't interested in having any of these sensitive topics at their table.
Regardless, we don't need a morality police in our community.
Honestly, that to me is the least problematic element of both this and the 1.1 OGL. Yes, WotC theoretically could invent an excuse why a random work is racist and then strip the license from someone over it, but let's be realistic here. The only incentive they would have to do that to someone who wasn't bigoted is if they were a highly successful project and WotC didn't like the competition, but getting rid of them like that would be a TERRIBLE idea, they'd be reopening the current can of worms.
Really? That's the only reason? You can't imagine WotC using claims of 'hateful content' or 'obscene content to shut down a content creator who has publically criticizes them? You can't imagine them, say, deciding to go after Ginny Di in retaliation for her post urging people to unsub from DnD Beyond by claiming her anual Cheesecake Calender is obcene? You can't imagine them going after some creater who gave their latest release a bad review on youtube, using the excuse that his material is obscene because he dropped an F-Bomb in a recent video?
Honestly, that to me is the least problematic element of both this and the 1.1 OGL. Yes, WotC theoretically could invent an excuse why a random work is racist and then strip the license from someone over it, but let's be realistic here. The only incentive they would have to do that to someone who wasn't bigoted is if they were a highly successful project and WotC didn't like the competition, but getting rid of them like that would be a TERRIBLE idea, they'd be reopening the current can of worms.
Really? That's the only reason? You can't imagine WotC using claims of 'hateful content' or 'obscene content to shut down a content creator who has publically criticizes them? You can't imagine them, say, deciding to go after Ginny Di in retaliation for her post urging people to unsub from DnD Beyond by claiming her anual Cheesecake Calender is obcene? You can't imagine them going after some creater who gave their latest release a bad review on youtube, using the excuse that his material is obscene because he dropped an F-Bomb in a recent video?
Granted the article is talking about how you say something but we all know that the posted word does not easily translate and can often be taken totally wrong. Do you want WotC being the source of all final verdicts?
So I just read the new OGL draft and filled out the survey. Seen many good points made on the forums and would like to invite discussion on 6(f). In short my worry is this is a very subjective and contentious topic that can be (ab)used in any way to ban anything you want. And that's not something we want in a game that is based around story telling and roleplaying.
For reference, this is the current wording of 6(f):
No Hateful Content or Conduct.You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
This is the little essay I wrote for WotC, would welcome some feedback:
Let me preface this by saying this is a massive step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. This actually reads like an OGL, whereas the OGL1.1 draft read more like one of the infernal contracts I offer my players when they wanted to sell their soul to Asmodeus.
Main worry is with section 6 (f). I understand the reasoning for including a section dealing with such content. However, the vagueness of this description means that it can be applied to virtually any content. Particularly the words "harmful" and "obscene" are deeply subjective. Consider that there are people that consider(ed) D&D "harmful" (e.g. some religions consider "magic" heretical and therefor D&D harmful/obscene).
As it stands the wording of this paragraph is also illogical. It is state that WotC has the sole right to determine "what content or conduct is hateful". However the summary of types of content that are not allowed (harmful, obscene, etc.) does not actually include "hateful". It actually should not include hateful regardless. Since, like other examples given, it is a rather subjective term that means different things to different people.
It should be noted that not allowing people to contest is not the right way to go about this, perhaps this can be replaced with a different way to contest (i.e. not through the legal system, but as a procedure between WotC and creators).
Another major concern with this is the limitations this puts on creative thinking and storytelling. Take the example of writing a module that deals with slavery. We write a scenario that takes place in a kingdom that has legalized slavery, and it's pretty racists (elves are treated like slaves f.g.), this presents interesting roleplaying and storytelling. Will the players be the Good aligned heroes that fight the powers that be to better the position of the elves? Or are they a bunch of Lawful Evil pricks that set up their own slave trading emporium? Exploring characters that can be radically different from the player's real world morality is core to roleplaying. It is also part of what makes (TT)RPG something that is actually good for the development of people's minds and grants them greater understanding - precisely because you can play out scenario's that you cannot (or mostly: really do not want to) explore in the real world. So restricting this is could actually be considered "harmful" (so there's the logic applied to the OGL1.2 itself).
Like I said I can understand the company WotC not wanting to be associated with certain kinds of content. You could replace the current 6.f with a paragraph that reads "If you include content in Your Licensed Works that is we consider harmful, hateful, discriminatory, obscene, or harassing, we can require you to include a notice that states we explicitly disassociate ourselves from this content. We reserve the right to specify the exact wording of this notice on a case-by-case basis. We have the sole right to decide what conduct falls in this category, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action." This way the company interests are secured (failure to comply would result in action under 9.b.ii) and creative freedom is safeguarded. Note that I did not include "illegal" in the summary, since illegal conduct is already covered by 6.e (you could update this to specify conduct AND content). I also did not specify "conduct", which brings me to my next point:
What do you mean by "conduct" as it pertains to section 6.f? As I understand it the OGL relates specifically to "content". The preamble states that "streaming, fan art, cosplay, and other fan content" is covered by the Fan Content Policy, so any actual "conduct" would be covered by this document not the OGL.
EDIT: included the relevant OGL text for reference.
I'm trans, I'm illegal in over half of the world, I am illegal or soon to be in half of the USA. I'm outlawed in Russia, China, Suadi Arabia and a host of other wealthy and powerful countries. The UK has prevented Scotland from protecting me (my birth nationality). WotC can easily decide I'm forbidden content. I don't trust they can protect rights, nor make a reasonable call on what is or is not moral. See Spelljammer last year.
Yup, people are talking about potentionaly problematic 3PP content and saying that WotC need to protect themselves (which i think is nonsense anyway), but are missing this little gem "or engage in conduct that is...".
Exactly as you've said, You are considered Obscene in half of the world. Does that mean no OGL for you?
There are two major issues with this clause from my perspective.
1. The term 'harmful' is highly subjective and not well defined in law. For interest, the UK government attempted to include a similar term in their Online Safety Bill, which has caused a lot of delay and resistance to the bill passing through Parliament. Any terms used should have existing definitions in law, or be defined.
2. WotC being the sole arbiter of what is harmful etc. is ridiculous. At the bare minimum, the interpretation should be determined via reference to existing legal definitions, or by an independent court or body if required/contested.
That clause is basically strong-arming anyone generating content into making bland, inoffensive material in perpetuity.
Do you have ANY examples of anything from WotC displaying prejudice against anyone trans? They are cleaning up wording in their products to eliminate prejudices.
Half the world may consider such aspects of reality obscene, but WotC seems clearly in the other half.
No need to have a history of it, half the World has decided to make us a target of hate. It's only a matter of time before someone gets a position of power at WotC and starts targeting the LGBT. Sadly it's also just a matter of time before a large percentage of us will be forced underground because THE USA will actively attack us because the Republicans are still gaining power. So no, I really do not want that poison pill, because in 2 years time they will be hunting people like me.
The problem with the "You must include a notice disassociating us from this product" thing is that Wizards cannot disassociate themselves from a product. It is not possible for Wizards to avoids being blamed if "A D&D Book" has hateful content, no matter who or what made that book. No. Matter. Who. Or. What. The Public will blame Wizards, and Wizards will be forced to deal with it. They know this, that every third-party book is a direct challenge to their reputation.
6f is overbroad and needs adjusting. But there's cause and justification for Wizards to have a way to take a strong stance against hateful content. I don't think we're getting away from that.
While I totally agree with you. Hateful content should receive its due backlash and failing as a product. You keep saying wizards would be blamed and I don’t see how you think that. Name a SINGLE time this has happened that wasn’t wizards own work? Because I can’t. I know I wouldn’t blame wizards. It’s not their work. the people who are buying third party know full well it’s not wizards work. Who exactly would blame wizards and when has this ever happened?
You're missing the point. I've used gorhicsharks message because it nicely sums the problem. The idea that Wotc should be an arbiter of your personal conduct (and again i am talking about "or engage in" part), even when the material you release is totally "safe" is complete madness.
Do you have ANY examples of anything from WotC displaying prejudice against anyone trans? They are cleaning up wording in their products to eliminate prejudices.
Half the world may consider such aspects of reality obscene, but WotC seems clearly in the other half.
No need to have a history of it, half the World has decided to make us a target of hate. It's only a matter of time before someone gets a position of power at WotC and starts targeting the LGBT. Sadly it's also just a matter of time before a large percentage of us will be forced underground because THE USA will actively attack us because the Republicans are still gaining power. So no, I really do not want that poison pill, because in 2 years time they will be hunting people like me.
Yes, of course. So all elimination of *existing* anti-LBGT+ legislation in the world is somehow anti-LBGT+, since the elimination of such proves they could use the same power to enact new anti-LBGT+ legislation?
Pardon?
You do know that they could go full anti-LBGT+ now, right? Please cite anything in the current agreements that would prohibit WotC from doing so.
Did you read your words? Are you aware of what is happening in the USA and UK in the last 30 days?
Yes, Bigoted Legislation aimed at the Transgender community is being enacted in the USA and UK, and many other nations which use to protect the LGBTQAI+. Supreme Cort Justices have been heard and have been quoted as to wanting to repeal protections to that we do have, ie Marriage Equality.
If I was to visit Florida, and drove by a High School I could be arrested because I'm Trans. In West Virginia just stepping in that state I'm at risk.
Being a Minority in the USA right now is illegal, and many people in this nation have determined were are a Moral issue. So just my existence makes me invalid to sign on to the new OGL as written. Will WotC hunt the LGBTQAI+ if those words stay? Not at the moment, but if a Republican becomes President with the Republicans having a Majority in the House, and The Extreme Right Wing nature of the Supreme Court. How long do you think they will take to put up anti-LGBT legislation? Just look at the new for your answer.
My thoughts: It's a barrier and signaling that has been common with big corporate c-suite types to use to mask real motives and hide behind. When you see stuff like this, there is always a catch involving something that is bad for the fans, the property, employees, etc. And if you critique it, the "isms/ist/phobes" follow.
And when it comes to the morality of a table top role playing game, it's should be left up to the table and creatives to decide within the scope of their own game and work, not a corporation who has shown to be neither trustworthy of any power to decide nor people who crusade self righteousness that do it only for the ego imposing on a community as a whole.
This is nothing but an attempt to use real hardships as a barrier and a weapon kill anything they can't control.
So I just read the new OGL draft and filled out the survey. Seen many good points made on the forums and would like to invite discussion on 6(f). In short my worry is this is a very subjective and contentious topic that can be (ab)used in any way to ban anything you want. And that's not something we want in a game that is based around story telling and roleplaying.
For reference, this is the current wording of 6(f):
No Hateful Content or Conduct.You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
This is the little essay I wrote for WotC, would welcome some feedback:
Let me preface this by saying this is a massive step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. This actually reads like an OGL, whereas the OGL1.1 draft read more like one of the infernal contracts I offer my players when they wanted to sell their soul to Asmodeus.
Main worry is with section 6 (f). I understand the reasoning for including a section dealing with such content. However, the vagueness of this description means that it can be applied to virtually any content. Particularly the words "harmful" and "obscene" are deeply subjective. Consider that there are people that consider(ed) D&D "harmful" (e.g. some religions consider "magic" heretical and therefor D&D harmful/obscene).
As it stands the wording of this paragraph is also illogical. It is state that WotC has the sole right to determine "what content or conduct is hateful". However the summary of types of content that are not allowed (harmful, obscene, etc.) does not actually include "hateful". It actually should not include hateful regardless. Since, like other examples given, it is a rather subjective term that means different things to different people.
It should be noted that not allowing people to contest is not the right way to go about this, perhaps this can be replaced with a different way to contest (i.e. not through the legal system, but as a procedure between WotC and creators).
Another major concern with this is the limitations this puts on creative thinking and storytelling. Take the example of writing a module that deals with slavery. We write a scenario that takes place in a kingdom that has legalized slavery, and it's pretty racists (elves are treated like slaves f.g.), this presents interesting roleplaying and storytelling. Will the players be the Good aligned heroes that fight the powers that be to better the position of the elves? Or are they a bunch of Lawful Evil pricks that set up their own slave trading emporium? Exploring characters that can be radically different from the player's real world morality is core to roleplaying. It is also part of what makes (TT)RPG something that is actually good for the development of people's minds and grants them greater understanding - precisely because you can play out scenario's that you cannot (or mostly: really do not want to) explore in the real world. So restricting this is could actually be considered "harmful" (so there's the logic applied to the OGL1.2 itself).
Like I said I can understand the company WotC not wanting to be associated with certain kinds of content. You could replace the current 6.f with a paragraph that reads "If you include content in Your Licensed Works that is we consider harmful, hateful, discriminatory, obscene, or harassing, we can require you to include a notice that states we explicitly disassociate ourselves from this content. We reserve the right to specify the exact wording of this notice on a case-by-case basis. We have the sole right to decide what conduct falls in this category, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action." This way the company interests are secured (failure to comply would result in action under 9.b.ii) and creative freedom is safeguarded. Note that I did not include "illegal" in the summary, since illegal conduct is already covered by 6.e (you could update this to specify conduct AND content). I also did not specify "conduct", which brings me to my next point:
What do you mean by "conduct" as it pertains to section 6.f? As I understand it the OGL relates specifically to "content". The preamble states that "streaming, fan art, cosplay, and other fan content" is covered by the Fan Content Policy, so any actual "conduct" would be covered by this document not the OGL.
EDIT: included the relevant OGL text for reference.
My issue has and always will be that I think what is "offensive", "Harmful" or "Hateful" is a matter of opinion and you cannot expect to be able to enforce rules that attempt to alleviate what offends people. Any such attempt can only result in the infringement of someone else's offense/rights. For example, conservative Christians find homosexuality grossly offensive and hateful, should they have the right to ban homosexual content in D&D?
The only moral thing to do is to create rules for yourself, and abide by your own rules, not try to create rules for others to follow. The OGL is trying to control content created by 3rd parties using their own moral compass and when we talk about 3rd parties in this context we are talking about the D&D community itself which I believe has every right to govern themselves. We don't need big brother stepping in and telling us what is offensive, harmful or hateful.. I can decide that on my own thank you very much.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, that to me is the least problematic element of both this and the 1.1 OGL. Yes, WotC theoretically could invent an excuse why a random work is racist and then strip the license from someone over it, but let's be realistic here. The only incentive they would have to do that to someone who wasn't bigoted is if they were a highly successful project and WotC didn't like the competition, but getting rid of them like that would be a TERRIBLE idea, they'd be reopening the current can of worms.
They can get away from it by having the license be from someone else. These are are "D&D Books" because the product has the Creator Product & on it. If it is an ORC book then there is no connection to WotC. Plus the ORC licence can have a morality clause in it as well. In its case the decision to terminate would be with a non profit or a law firm. It removes a profit motive to abuse the termination clause.
Does anyone have a link to the ORC license and what it does?
Edit: everything I have found talks about what it will be I can't find the license itself to see what the contents are.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Just being in a state that has laws against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation would suffice. Just saying, that the contract has to follow the laws of Washington state is enough protection. Which is the current state of things, WotC can shut down discrimination contained in rule books published under the current OGL license, and SRD. And they have even sued someone over it. (Currently on going, WotC will win the suit, it's actually a very strong case.) What is a problem with the inclusion seen in the OGL 1.2 is it's a clause to without justification pull a license from someone. No burden of proof on WotC, and it's worded so loosely that any illegal activity mentioned in the book is enough to get it pulled. Include any thieves, jaywalkers, or evil villains, and next thing you know you have a letter from WotC pulling your license. Or like I said before, any queer content and the book gets sold in any Republican state ie Florida, and you can be guilty of a crime for just having the inclusion of a Transgender Character. Or heavens forbid, a gay married couple, "think of the children."
"think of the Children" is used to justify more hate and discrimination than any other phrase in history.
I don’t think it has actually been written yet…I think Paizos announcement indicated it was in development
Oh, ok. I am old and not very good at finding things on the internet.
Thanks
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think I heard they were hoping to have it by mid-February, early March, but I may be wrong. And of course they may adjust the timeline.
Until then, though, it’s basically Schrödinger’s license — it’s whatever someone wants it to be. And whatever someone else doesn’t want it to be, simultaneously.
Hasbro/Wizards isn't giving up much of anything. I am stunned anyone is buying into their Morality (Hateful) Clause. It gives them an easy out if they choose to abuse it with little recourse from anyone to defend themselves. I am at a loss for why anyone reads their rationalizations without placing them in context. They want less competition. They want 5e to wither away and get everyone on board for 6e (In light of current events, One D&D now has a rather ominous monopolistic tone to me) which will align with the VTT they are desperate for everyone to subscribe to. They don't want to repeat the 4E experience with a more restrictive OGL where they lost huge market share with a game very few wanted. They don't want a third party competing against their new edition with a version of 5E. After all, that's how Pathfinder ending up outselling them for a bit.
Once upon a time, they claimed they would never try to get rid of the original OGL. So, no, I question their motives about trying to be the Morality Police of gaming. I also question their pretense they need it for their own protection. Frankly, they open themselves up for potential criticism for NOT doing anything about this or that 3rd Party product they do authorize that someone decides is objectional. After all, they would have OK'd it with this provision. This is about loading up ammo to control independent businesses (well, semi-independent).
Let's remember "under-monetized" is a fancy of way of saying they aren't charging you enough for you to play the game. They want to increase your costs. This is about money and they believe control will bring them money (which history says otherwise but, hey, corporate suits are often too narcissistic to accept that past lessons may apply to them. After all, they are exceptional, at least in their minds.). This "hateful content" is about control with a smokescreen of false virtue and fake martyrdom.
I don't know about the OP, but as a trans disabled woman, I will say in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT want anything like this in the license. If you want to know why, look at the Hays Code and the Comic Code Authority. Look at the way banks and social media platforms treat people who do *legal* sex work like running an onlyfans account, or offering services as a dominatrix. Morality policing like this *aways*, without fail, ends up being weaponized against marginalized people. The moment some stockholder screams because little Timmy read about two gay farmers in Storm King's Thunder, some executive at Wizards will ban all queer content from WotC products *and* start revoking the licenses of any company that includes any queer content. Clauses like this are a horrible, horrible idea. So no, I do not want this is any OGL, because we've been here before, and we've seen how it ends. EVERY FREAKING TIME.
Honestly, the morality clause is just going to chill any content that might have meaningful message. For example, if you include elements of slavery in an adventure? What if you are fighting against slavery traders? No publisher is going to risk having anything that could remotely be interrupted by WotC as violating their morality clause. Even if that adventure has a meaningful or positive message to share about these sensitive subjects.
I think the type of content that should be played at the table is a contract between three people: the author, the players and the DM. If everyone is fine with what's happening, nobody has any need or right to stick their nose into it. I think the happy medium ground position, is requiring a disclaimer if your content contains anything that someone might find sensitive. Something like a rating system could be useful for people want to avoid such topics, and fulfill the goal of protecting people who aren't interested in having any of these sensitive topics at their table.
Regardless, we don't need a morality police in our community.
Really? That's the only reason? You can't imagine WotC using claims of 'hateful content' or 'obscene content to shut down a content creator who has publically criticizes them? You can't imagine them, say, deciding to go after Ginny Di in retaliation for her post urging people to unsub from DnD Beyond by claiming her anual Cheesecake Calender is obcene? You can't imagine them going after some creater who gave their latest release a bad review on youtube, using the excuse that his material is obscene because he dropped an F-Bomb in a recent video?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2023/01/13/stop-saying-aloha-out-of-context/10990192002/
Granted the article is talking about how you say something but we all know that the posted word does not easily translate and can often be taken totally wrong.
Do you want WotC being the source of all final verdicts?
Yup, people are talking about potentionaly problematic 3PP content and saying that WotC need to protect themselves (which i think is nonsense anyway), but are missing this little gem "or engage in conduct that is...".
Exactly as you've said, You are considered Obscene in half of the world. Does that mean no OGL for you?
There are two major issues with this clause from my perspective.
1. The term 'harmful' is highly subjective and not well defined in law. For interest, the UK government attempted to include a similar term in their Online Safety Bill, which has caused a lot of delay and resistance to the bill passing through Parliament. Any terms used should have existing definitions in law, or be defined.
2. WotC being the sole arbiter of what is harmful etc. is ridiculous. At the bare minimum, the interpretation should be determined via reference to existing legal definitions, or by an independent court or body if required/contested.
That clause is basically strong-arming anyone generating content into making bland, inoffensive material in perpetuity.
No need to have a history of it, half the World has decided to make us a target of hate. It's only a matter of time before someone gets a position of power at WotC and starts targeting the LGBT. Sadly it's also just a matter of time before a large percentage of us will be forced underground because THE USA will actively attack us because the Republicans are still gaining power. So no, I really do not want that poison pill, because in 2 years time they will be hunting people like me.
While I totally agree with you. Hateful content should receive its due backlash and failing as a product. You keep saying wizards would be blamed and I don’t see how you think that. Name a SINGLE time this has happened that wasn’t wizards own work? Because I can’t. I know I wouldn’t blame wizards. It’s not their work. the people who are buying third party know full well it’s not wizards work. Who exactly would blame wizards and when has this ever happened?
You're missing the point. I've used gorhicsharks message because it nicely sums the problem. The idea that Wotc should be an arbiter of your personal conduct (and again i am talking about "or engage in" part), even when the material you release is totally "safe" is complete madness.
Did you read your words? Are you aware of what is happening in the USA and UK in the last 30 days?
Yes, Bigoted Legislation aimed at the Transgender community is being enacted in the USA and UK, and many other nations which use to protect the LGBTQAI+. Supreme Cort Justices have been heard and have been quoted as to wanting to repeal protections to that we do have, ie Marriage Equality.
If I was to visit Florida, and drove by a High School I could be arrested because I'm Trans. In West Virginia just stepping in that state I'm at risk.
Being a Minority in the USA right now is illegal, and many people in this nation have determined were are a Moral issue. So just my existence makes me invalid to sign on to the new OGL as written. Will WotC hunt the LGBTQAI+ if those words stay? Not at the moment, but if a Republican becomes President with the Republicans having a Majority in the House, and The Extreme Right Wing nature of the Supreme Court. How long do you think they will take to put up anti-LGBT legislation? Just look at the new for your answer.
My thoughts: It's a barrier and signaling that has been common with big corporate c-suite types to use to mask real motives and hide behind. When you see stuff like this, there is always a catch involving something that is bad for the fans, the property, employees, etc. And if you critique it, the "isms/ist/phobes" follow.
And when it comes to the morality of a table top role playing game, it's should be left up to the table and creatives to decide within the scope of their own game and work, not a corporation who has shown to be neither trustworthy of any power to decide nor people who crusade self righteousness that do it only for the ego imposing on a community as a whole.
This is nothing but an attempt to use real hardships as a barrier and a weapon kill anything they can't control.
Edits: For clarity and clean up of my point.
My issue has and always will be that I think what is "offensive", "Harmful" or "Hateful" is a matter of opinion and you cannot expect to be able to enforce rules that attempt to alleviate what offends people. Any such attempt can only result in the infringement of someone else's offense/rights. For example, conservative Christians find homosexuality grossly offensive and hateful, should they have the right to ban homosexual content in D&D?
The only moral thing to do is to create rules for yourself, and abide by your own rules, not try to create rules for others to follow. The OGL is trying to control content created by 3rd parties using their own moral compass and when we talk about 3rd parties in this context we are talking about the D&D community itself which I believe has every right to govern themselves. We don't need big brother stepping in and telling us what is offensive, harmful or hateful.. I can decide that on my own thank you very much.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!