No, what I'm saying is, they can legally block people from using language that associates their product with DnD. They did this back in the 00's for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. They could also, rather than revoking someone's license, make the ability to use the Creator Badges contingent on meeting their morality standards. Then people could chose whether or not they wanted to jump through WotC/Hasbro's hoops to protect poor litle Timmy's ever so sentative eyes.
So, you're suggesting some sort of graduated types of licenses? I guess, but that still leaves us with them making a judgeement call on whether or not someone gets the badge. eventually, a person needs to make the decision.
And the BoEF is an example of what they're trying to avoid. That's the whack-a-mole I was talking about. Though, I'd also agree it's the kind of thing that makes a good example of the problems of subjectivity. It's not offensive in the sense of containing or promoting bigotry. I remember reading it over back then, I didn't find it offensive, just kind of silly. But I'm sure there were others who were clutching their pearls over it. It's just something the management at the time didn't like. But I don't think their dislike was out of trying to shut down a competitor, they just didn't want their brand affiliated with such a product. That said, I do agree with those who say we should get some examples of the kind of content they consider unacceptable. one of those "including but not limited to" type of lists.
Also, as Golaryn and others have noted, this isn't really theoretical. If Ernie Gygax had been smart enough to publish his nonsense under OGL 1.0, It would be much harder for WotC to stop him doing it. They realized how lucky they are that he didn't, and are hoping to avoid that in the future.
I think the kind of graduated tiers they had back with the D20 badge back in the day would be the best solution. Effectively, giving themselves the option to formally disassociate themselves from a product by blocking use of the creator badges gives them the ass coverage they want with regards to hateful content, without them being able to bankrupt a 3pp by revoking their license because they hired a contractor to write a chapter, and that contractor happens to run an OnlyFans account, or because the cover artist is a trans woman who got put on a sex offender registry for the high crime of peeing in a public ladies room. Either scenero which is entirely possible under the 1.2 OGL as it stands.
It's naïve? How about using nuanced thinking. Every corporation wants growth true. However, they need to take into account what is the most judicious approach to achieve growth. Now, start looking at it from a consumer's perspective rather than this strange Helsinki Syndrome thing with WoTC. The consumer should decide what a fair price for goods and services are and should resist actions by a large business to reduce competition and manipulate access in an attempt to increase profits. What is in a consumer's interest is what they see as a fair price for goods and services. It is not in a consumer's interest for WoTC to try to be the only game in town. It's in the interest of consumers to promote an open competitive environment. Ultimately, when WoTC has somewhat embraced that, they too have made more money. I am not worried about WoTC. If they can't come up with a way to protect themselves without these ridiculous shenanigans then I will take my gaming elsewhere. I think you have a misplaced attachment.
What makes you think Wizards will be the only game? It never, ever has been. There are now, and always have been, a number of different games. Wizards gets to say who uses their stuff. But if you don't want toto play by their rules, you can just go make content for a different game. Or invent your own game. Heck, they're putting the basic mechanics under creative commons (not that they could really copyrightthose anyway.). So, use the d20 system and make you own game. What about not letting other people use their property is anti-consumer? I can't just put anything I want onto Apple's App store. They get to review it and decide if they like it.
Also, its Stockholm Syndrome.
LOL - I've had Helsinki planted in my head ever since I heard it used in a movie. Good catch.
Why do you seize on the stuff that matters the least. Wizards, of course, won't be the only game in town BUT they are clearly bent on a path that will be less fun for me. I will either have to learn a new system OR just run an older edition. I would prefer Wizards to continue present policies and just focus on making higher quality products so I will be more tempted to spend my money with them. So, please stop with a distraction of "there are other systems anyway" or "make your own game." And I don't want any game company in TTRPG to go down this path of focusing on manipulating the market to pull more money out of consumers instead of just building a better game.
I highly doubt "morality clauses" are more useful than harmful. But I am certain that one that has one corporation as the unchecked authority about it with no external appeal including the exclusion of a legal appeal is giving that corporation total control to silence whatever and whomever they want. That might or might not be fine for a small business amongst hundreds of equal alternatives, but it is not okay for anything having or approaching monopoly power. I will never get why people in the U.S. think this power is okay to be held by corporations (until they "deplatform" one of theirs, so you don't), but that the state cannot be trusted with anything even if there is a way of legal appeal.
=> there should not be any morality clause and if there is one certainly not waiving any external appeals.
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.
Honest question here, @Yurie1453, what do you consider to be "hateful content'?
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.
Honest question here, @Yurie1453, what do you consider to be "hateful content'?
I'm not Yurei, but I don't see how that's relevant.
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.
Honest question here, @Yurie1453, what do you consider to be "hateful content'?
I'm not Yurei, but I don't see how that's relevant.
How can we define whether WOTC, or anyone, is "taking a strong stance against hateful content" when we don't know or can agree on what "hateful content" is? And, if "we can't get away from" companies like WOTC wanting or demanding ways to take that "strong stance", in order to discuss "hateful content", shouldn't we understand what it is first?
Do you have no such standards at your own table? Is there no line whatsoever that players at your table could cross that would be too far for you?
And keep in mind, we are talking about formal publications here, not WotC censorship of any given gaming table, but questioning this 'all censorship is bad' line.
Interesting statement here: "not WotC censorship of any given gaming table." Question, if DnD becomes an entirely digital experience, what part of "any given gaming table" is not in the domain of WotC and their policing of hateful content?
At my own table, I play with people who have similar standards to me so many things go unspoken. If it makes them uncomfortable it would probably also make me uncomfortable. That being said, two things. One, DnD is make believe. In the end, the ability to "leave it all on the table" is paramount to any individuals feelings. And two, if the idea of the adventure path or campaign is to directly make people feel uncomfortable for the purposes of forcing their characters to role play that sense of "wrongness" then that is simply the point, and good storytelling.
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.
Honest question here, @Yurie1453, what do you consider to be "hateful content'?
I'm not Yurei, but I don't see how that's relevant.
How can we define whether WOTC, or anyone, is "taking a strong stance against hateful content" when we don't know or can agree on what "hateful content" is? And, if "we can't get away from" companies like WOTC wanting or demanding ways to take that "strong stance", in order to discuss "hateful content", shouldn't we understand what it is first?
Maybe it would help to rephrase, then. "6f is overbroad and needs adjusting. But there's cause and justification for Wizards to have a way to take as strong a stance as they have against hateful content. I don't think we're getting away from that."
There's actually no need for us to define whether anyone is taking a strong stance against hateful content. Not as a community, anyway. You can decide for yourself, and I can decide for myself, and we needn't agree.
The important thing, when we're talking about whether this draft language is acceptable, isn't what kinds of content will be targeted, exactly. And it's certainly not the curated list of what D&D Beyond user Yurei1453 personally finds distasteful. It's the ambiguity and the instability of the document. Ambiguity: Not knowing means you have to play it extremely safe. Safer than Wizards plays it themselves. Instability: A product takes time to create, especially when crowdfunding and/or physical publishing is involved. Projects whose production takes longer than the amount of time between OGL updates, are not viable. Except for Wizards themselves.
It's an unnecessarily unfair deal. It can be made more equitable. That's all.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
JK Rowling has displayed "hateful conduct" (in this case: being the 'wrong' kind of feminist)
No, people have advocated not giving money to JKR because she's a huge bigot and promotes hatred against certain women. There's nothing feminist about that. The fact that she gets the money by exploiting fan created content has nothing to do with the fact that JKR is a huge bigot.
I'm fine with WOTC having final say on what is hateful etc when it comes to protecting their IP.
I do think there should be a review system in place where you can plead your case, but beyond that, I'm ok. I just don't see WOTC as the BBEG. Sure, they want money, but that's it. If they realise that the best way to make bucketloads of cash is to embrace the community environment that D&D creatives have become, then that's what they'll do. And honestly, I think that thanks to the reaction of the community in the wake of the leaked OGL, they are starting to understand that.
I'm fine with WOTC having final say on what is hateful etc when it comes to protecting their IP.
I do think there should be a review system in place where you can plead your case, but beyond that, I'm ok. I just don't see WOTC as the BBEG. Sure, they want money, but that's it. If they realise that the best way to make bucketloads of cash is to embrace the community environment that D&D creatives have become, then that's what they'll do. And honestly, I think that thanks to the reaction of the community in the wake of the leaked OGL, they are starting to understand that.
Sorry hun, that bridge was burned with the OGL 1.1. And the boat sailed with their so called apology for it.
They said "hateful content" but they didn't elaborate. That's not an explanation. It's as good as "reasons". I know about TSR, but they didn't put the link between "hateful content" and the TSR stunt. But I'm making the link myself, I speculate. They just don't give us real reasons. They should just be more specific. They want empathy? They should explain. They want us to adhere? They should explain. All they use are words to say they want more control. So that's all I hear: WotC wants more control.
I'm fine with WOTC having final say on what is hateful etc when it comes to protecting their IP.
I do think there should be a review system in place where you can plead your case, but beyond that, I'm ok. I just don't see WOTC as the BBEG. Sure, they want money, but that's it. If they realise that the best way to make bucketloads of cash is to embrace the community environment that D&D creatives have become, then that's what they'll do. And honestly, I think that thanks to the reaction of the community in the wake of the leaked OGL, they are starting to understand that.
Sorry hun, that bridge was burned with the OGL 1.1. And the boat sailed with their so called apology for it.
Yeah, I get that a lot of people feel that way. I don't, but I understand where it's coming from.
I'm fine with WOTC having final say on what is hateful etc when it comes to protecting their IP.
I do think there should be a review system in place where you can plead your case, but beyond that, I'm ok. I just don't see WOTC as the BBEG. Sure, they want money, but that's it. If they realise that the best way to make bucketloads of cash is to embrace the community environment that D&D creatives have become, then that's what they'll do. And honestly, I think that thanks to the reaction of the community in the wake of the leaked OGL, they are starting to understand that.
Sorry hun, that bridge was burned with the OGL 1.1. And the boat sailed with their so called apology for it.
Yeah, I get that a lot of people feel that way. I don't, but I understand where it's coming from.
"Hi! Yeah we've lied to you repeatedly, but honest we want what best for the community, but can also define that better than hte community itself! Honest! For sure, 100%, trust us more than the masses that make up the community. It will be fine we promise!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the kind of graduated tiers they had back with the D20 badge back in the day would be the best solution. Effectively, giving themselves the option to formally disassociate themselves from a product by blocking use of the creator badges gives them the ass coverage they want with regards to hateful content, without them being able to bankrupt a 3pp by revoking their license because they hired a contractor to write a chapter, and that contractor happens to run an OnlyFans account, or because the cover artist is a trans woman who got put on a sex offender registry for the high crime of peeing in a public ladies room. Either scenero which is entirely possible under the 1.2 OGL as it stands.
LOL - I've had Helsinki planted in my head ever since I heard it used in a movie. Good catch.
Why do you seize on the stuff that matters the least. Wizards, of course, won't be the only game in town BUT they are clearly bent on a path that will be less fun for me. I will either have to learn a new system OR just run an older edition. I would prefer Wizards to continue present policies and just focus on making higher quality products so I will be more tempted to spend my money with them. So, please stop with a distraction of "there are other systems anyway" or "make your own game." And I don't want any game company in TTRPG to go down this path of focusing on manipulating the market to pull more money out of consumers instead of just building a better game.
I highly doubt "morality clauses" are more useful than harmful. But I am certain that one that has one corporation as the unchecked authority about it with no external appeal including the exclusion of a legal appeal is giving that corporation total control to silence whatever and whomever they want. That might or might not be fine for a small business amongst hundreds of equal alternatives, but it is not okay for anything having or approaching monopoly power. I will never get why people in the U.S. think this power is okay to be held by corporations (until they "deplatform" one of theirs, so you don't), but that the state cannot be trusted with anything even if there is a way of legal appeal.
=> there should not be any morality clause and if there is one certainly not waiving any external appeals.
Honest question here, @Yurie1453, what do you consider to be "hateful content'?
I'm not Yurei, but I don't see how that's relevant.
How can we define whether WOTC, or anyone, is "taking a strong stance against hateful content" when we don't know or can agree on what "hateful content" is? And, if "we can't get away from" companies like WOTC wanting or demanding ways to take that "strong stance", in order to discuss "hateful content", shouldn't we understand what it is first?
Interesting statement here: "not WotC censorship of any given gaming table." Question, if DnD becomes an entirely digital experience, what part of "any given gaming table" is not in the domain of WotC and their policing of hateful content?
At my own table, I play with people who have similar standards to me so many things go unspoken. If it makes them uncomfortable it would probably also make me uncomfortable. That being said, two things. One, DnD is make believe. In the end, the ability to "leave it all on the table" is paramount to any individuals feelings. And two, if the idea of the adventure path or campaign is to directly make people feel uncomfortable for the purposes of forcing their characters to role play that sense of "wrongness" then that is simply the point, and good storytelling.
Maybe it would help to rephrase, then. "6f is overbroad and needs adjusting. But there's cause and justification for Wizards to have a way to take as strong a stance as they have against hateful content. I don't think we're getting away from that."
There's actually no need for us to define whether anyone is taking a strong stance against hateful content. Not as a community, anyway. You can decide for yourself, and I can decide for myself, and we needn't agree.
The important thing, when we're talking about whether this draft language is acceptable, isn't what kinds of content will be targeted, exactly. And it's certainly not the curated list of what D&D Beyond user Yurei1453 personally finds distasteful. It's the ambiguity and the instability of the document. Ambiguity: Not knowing means you have to play it extremely safe. Safer than Wizards plays it themselves. Instability: A product takes time to create, especially when crowdfunding and/or physical publishing is involved. Projects whose production takes longer than the amount of time between OGL updates, are not viable. Except for Wizards themselves.
It's an unnecessarily unfair deal. It can be made more equitable. That's all.
From what?
Wizard hasn't said anything except "we have to deauthorize OGL 1.0(a)", we don't even know why in their words: only speculation.
It's not speculation. It's putting what we know and patterns together to arrive at a conclusion.
That's what speculation is.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They've literally said why.
No, people have advocated not giving money to JKR because she's a huge bigot and promotes hatred against certain women. There's nothing feminist about that. The fact that she gets the money by exploiting fan created content has nothing to do with the fact that JKR is a huge bigot.
I'm fine with WOTC having final say on what is hateful etc when it comes to protecting their IP.
I do think there should be a review system in place where you can plead your case, but beyond that, I'm ok. I just don't see WOTC as the BBEG. Sure, they want money, but that's it. If they realise that the best way to make bucketloads of cash is to embrace the community environment that D&D creatives have become, then that's what they'll do. And honestly, I think that thanks to the reaction of the community in the wake of the leaked OGL, they are starting to understand that.
Hateful content bad! But also: Morality Police bad (See Iran)!
Yeah the community does this already. So, "**** off!"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sorry hun, that bridge was burned with the OGL 1.1. And the boat sailed with their so called apology for it.
They said "hateful content" but they didn't elaborate. That's not an explanation. It's as good as "reasons". I know about TSR, but they didn't put the link between "hateful content" and the TSR stunt. But I'm making the link myself, I speculate. They just don't give us real reasons. They should just be more specific. They want empathy? They should explain. They want us to adhere? They should explain. All they use are words to say they want more control. So that's all I hear: WotC wants more control.
Yeah, I get that a lot of people feel that way. I don't, but I understand where it's coming from.
"Hi! Yeah we've lied to you repeatedly, but honest we want what best for the community, but can also define that better than hte community itself! Honest! For sure, 100%, trust us more than the masses that make up the community. It will be fine we promise!"