The new announcement that Wizards of the Coast is going to roll with Open Game License 1.0 as is honestly disappoints me. The reason for this is that 1.0 has no clause that prevents hate, racism, and bigoted works from being released under the License. 1.0 effectively provides bigots with a shield, because they are publishing under an official legal permission that grants them the right to do what they want with a lot of D&D content.
Unfortunately, we are in a world where there is a sizable number of people who would seek to exploit this. Ernest Gygax (son of Gary Gygax) is locked in a legal battle with Wizards of the Coast over making a blatantly bigoted game that used several of Wizards' trademarks. Fortunately, this case did not involve an exploitation of the Open Game License, but it did show a number of scary things.
The first thing it showed is that there are people who would use our game to spread hate. This is quite a disturbing realization, but it is unfortunately one that we have to take into account when discussing the subject. The second thing this case showed is how big of a problem situations like this can be. It generated a lot of bad publicity towards D&D in general and has taken a large amount of money and time - that could be spent making official D&D books - away from Wizards.
It may be this court case that made Wizards realize their Open Game License had ridiculously insufficient protections against hate, or it may have been something else. Regardless, they publicly announced that they were going to update the License to add several clauses, one of them would be made to prevent harm, bigotry, and discriminatory ideology from making it into third-party works.
However, many members of the community decided that they wanted to keep Open Game License 1.0, and that they would not accept any change to it. Admittedly, not liking certain clauses that were present in some of the drafts of the License seems fair. However, because of peoples' stubborn insistence to not modify 1.0 at all, bigots like Ernest Gygax will be protected when they seek to spread their harmful ways.
As the Star Frontiers Lawsuit (discussed above) shows, there are people who think that D&D should be utilized as a way of spreading hate and that it doesn't matter that human beings will be harmed by this. Ernest and others like him may not have realized before that they have a legal shield in the form of the Open Game License before, but Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced that their License has a loophole by publicly stating their intentions to fix it.
At this point in time, it seems naive to think that no one would take advantage of this loophole, especially since there are already those who have gone out of there way to make exclusionary and discriminatory games with Wizards' trademarks and intellectual property.
Admittedly, the way the anti-hate policy was implemented into the various drafts of the Open Game Licenses weren't perfect; It was done as a morality clause, and there were other terms that were arguably more problematic in the same contracts as it. That being said, there are numerous other ways to stop harmful content that aren't morality clauses, and it's ridiculous that a lot of people were using their objection over implementation of the anti-hate clause as a way of arguing that there should be no clause to prevent problematic content.
Also, at a minimum, we the community should have allowed a clause to prevent harmful and discriminatory third-party work, even if some of us didn't want any other changes to Open Game License 1.0. It was depressing to see a number of people that vehemently argued against any change to the OGL, regardless of what it was and how much it helped other members of our community.
Because some of us refused to allow any clause to protect others, people will suffer and be hurt by this. We the community are responsible for the harm that our rigidity indirectly caused others. What we said about the changes to the Open Game License influenced Wizards' decision on this, and they listened to us and our concerns.
For some us, the change to the Open Game License is a cause for celebration and joy. However, other members of the community will be hurt by our voices and will suffer because of it. If the D&D third-party publishing industry becomes a minefield for hate and discrimination, then we will be directly responsible and others will suffer because of it. I have seen people say they are happy about this, but I dare wonder how happy a lack of an anti-hate clause if for the people that will be directly impacted by it.
Not only that, but hateful works published under this Open Game License will likely remain legally protected forever, since it's extremely unlikely that Wizards of the Coast will revoke content published under previous Licenses.
P.S. I have seen some people argue that you could already make D&D products without the Open Game License and all of this is irrelevant because game mechanics aren't copyrightable, only the "expression" of them. However, a lawyer clarifies HERE that this isn't fully correct, and that the distinction between these two isn't clearly defined in roleplaying games. At a minimum, Wizards would be able to sue and try to stop hateful content if they had a clause to stop bigotry in the Open Game License.
TL;DR: Open Game License 1.0 needs to be modified, even if to only add some sort of clause to prevent hate and stop third-party publishers from creating harmful, discriminatory works. D&D players banded together to stop Open Game License 1.0 from being deauthorized, and their will be no way to prevent harmful third-party content in the years to come thanks to this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The discussion of this topic is already happening in the OGL to be left Untouched thread, and both sides of the argument have already been laid out.
We are never going to agree on this, especially as long as some users see it as a Black & White dichotomy rather than a nuanced issue with multiple sides. It's not as simple as those in favour of clause are virtuous and pure, and those against are evil bigots and racists. It's an unfair distinction to both sides.
I believe in creating a safe place to game, but many of us disagree fundamentally on what constitutes Hatred. Some users insist that anything that offends at least one person is enough to be considered hurtful, hateful, and in need of change, and that is the problem. Not everything is as clear cut as that.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The discussion of this topic is already happening in the OGL to be left Untouched thread, and both sides of the argument have already been laid out.
We are never going to agree on this, especially as long as some users see it as a Black & White dichotomy rather than a nuanced issue with multiple sides. It's not as simple as those in favour of clause are virtuous and pure, and those against are evil bigots and racists. It's an unfair distinction to both sides.
When did I make that distinction? This thread was made in order to present a more rational and civil discussion of what is going on; Grievances from other discussions on a similar topic are not really relevant to this one.
I believe in creating a safe place to game, but any of us disagree fundamentally on what constitutes Hatred. Some users insist that anything that offends at least one person is enough to be considered hurtful, hateful, and in need of change, and that is the problem. Not everything is as clear cut as that.
I think you are right that everything depends on the situation and content involved. That being said, I think you are greatly exaggerating how difficult it would be to decide what is hateful and what isn't. In general, you should listen when someone says something hurts them, even if you don't fully understand why at first. That being said, there will obviously be measures in place to ensure that random people can't abuse this clause to censor others' works.
Also, it isn't like being told you need to change something in your work is the end of the world. Wizards explicitly gives you a 30 day warning period to change elements of your published content that violate the Open Game License. Even if the measures set in place to ensure this clause is not abused don't work, then worst comes to worst, you'll probably just need to make some minor changes to one thing you released.
Again, there would hopefully be measures in place to listen to everyone's experiences and make them feel safe and protected, while remembering the fact that different scenarios are different and that hate can show up in all shapes and sizes and that every situation isn't always clear as day. That being said, I think it's important to eliminate hate and protect those who have long been harmed. People like Ernest Gygax should not be legally protected when they try to harm others.
I think you are right that everything depends on the situation and content involved. That being said, I think you are greatly exaggerating how difficult it would be to decide what is hateful and what isn't. In general, you should listen when someone says something hurts them, even if you don't fully understand why at first. That being said, there will obviously be measures in place to ensure that random people can't abuse this clause to censor others' works.
Also, it isn't like being told you need to change something in your work is the end of the world. Wizards explicitly gives you a 30 day warning period to change elements of your published content that violate the Open Game License. Even if the measures set in place to ensure this clause is not abused don't work, then worst comes to worst, you'll probably just need to make some minor changes to one thing you released.
Again, there would hopefully be measures in place to listen to everyone's experiences and make them feel safe and protected, while remembering the fact that different scenarios are different and that hate can show up in all shapes and sizes and that every situation isn't always clear as day. That being said, I think it's important to eliminate hate and protect those who have long been harmed. People like Ernest Gygax should not be legally protected when they try to harm others.
I agree that Ernst Gygax and the guys he was working with, like Dinehart (sp?) should not be allowed to profit from what they are doing, but this proposed clause wouldn't change that. If they had added the clause, people like Gygax would just publish anyway without the OGL. The fact they've published what they have, using the old TSR logo and IP, proves that they don't care.
The truly bad actors won't play by the rules, no matter what they are.
And as for having work contested, I don't care how much time is given to fix it, there are some topics where we will never have total agreement, and if the bar being set is that it hurts even one person, then almost everything is going to be hurtful to someone. We would need a MUCH better system, fool proof, that can't be abused.
I asked in the other thread... If I wanted to publish a book where an evil god creates an evil sentient species, is that allowed under this clause? Because that's a question that would need to be answered. It's such a basic plot/story/world idea that many people don't consider to be racist or harmful. Who gets to decide? What if someone wants to publish an adventure where the heroes rescue people from slavery? There are some in the community who would say that adventure shouldn't be allowed because it has slavery in it, no matter the nuance.
The answer is always "Just be aware that something might hurt someone" and that's not a practical or useful answer. Some people want a method to control the "bad" things, but seem unwilling to debate the merits of any one thing actually being "bad". The Pro-Clause side seems hesitant to commit to what constitutes "bad".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I agree that Ernst Gygax and the guys he was working with, like Dinehart (sp?) should not be allowed to profit from what they are doing, but this proposed clause wouldn't change that. If they had added the clause, people like Gygax would just publish anyway without the OGL. The fact they've published what they have, using the old TSR logo and IP, proves that they don't care.
The truly bad actors won't play by the rules, no matter what they are.
[snip]
As I explained above, you can't "not play by the rules" if the rules are the law. The argument that game mechanics aren't copyrightable and people can make whatever they want without the OGL is flawed, to say the least. As a lawyer on EnWorld says in this post, a lot of the discussion about "game mechanics" versus the "expression" of them, and there are no clear laws for them, especially for roleplaying games, where there doesn't appear to be a legal case that settles how this works.
Admittedly, I Am Not A Lawyer, but this backs up what I too found in my research: The way this is treated in court cases is inconsistent, and the line between "game mechanics" and "expressions" appears to be incredibly blurry. I wasn't able to find a case that really set much of a precedent for how this would work with roleplaying games or anything as complex legally as making unauthorized D&D third party content. At a minimum, Wizards of the Coast would have a strong case to make in order to stop people from making bigoted third-party content without the Open Game License.
And as for having work contested, I don't care how much time is given to fix it, there are some topics where we will never have total agreement, and if the bar being set is that it hurts even one person, then almost everything is going to be hurtful to someone. We would need a MUCH better system, fool proof, that can't be abused.
I asked in the other thread... If I wanted to publish a book where an evil god creates an evil sentient species, is that allowed under this clause? Because that's a question that would need to be answered. It's such a basic plot/story/world idea that many people don't consider to be racist or harmful. Who gets to decide? What if someone wants to publish an adventure where the heroes rescue people from slavery? There are some in the community who would say that adventure shouldn't be allowed because it has slavery in it, no matter the nuance.
The answer is always "Just be aware that something might hurt someone" and that's not a practical or useful answer. Some people want a method to control the "bad" things, but seem unwilling to debate the merits of any one thing actually being "bad". The Pro-Clause side seems hesitant to commit to what constitutes "bad".
Of course the clause for this isn't going to say "if one person is hurt by this, it automatically is removed." That kind of feels like a strawman argument.
In general, I doubt that an anti-hate clause would prevent from incorporating subjects like enslavement into your campaigns, as you long didn't include them in a problematic way. However, I would probably say it makes sense to provide a trigger warning, because some people don't want to read about or play with things that might hurt them, even if they are taken seriously.
You keep asking questions about how potentially hateful content will be judged, and we "seem hesitant to commit" because we don't know yet. An anti-hate clause would have to undergo a lot of testing, a lot of feedback, and even if it were included in a later modification, there are a billion ways that it could be written and implemented. Also it's hard for one person to provide answers on how to craft a perfectly balanced system for this, because this is a clause a lot of people would have to work together to properly make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Yeah...definently needs one, most other companies have it to protect themselves, though they have either more clear defined rules on what they consider bad, or they just use more definite legal meanings, from what i understand
but that dont really matter it does need the clause and itd be only fair and in line with what other companies do
As I explained above, you can't "not play by the rules" if the rules are the law.
My point is that there are bad actors, like Gygax and Dineheart, who will create this content regardless of the rules. They don't care what the rules are, they will create the content and wait to see if they are challenged. If they do get in trouble, they'll do their best to stonewall, and slink off to their next con. I have been following the NUTSR story from the beginning, and have come to realize that whether or not they truly believe they have the right to use the TSR branding, they don't care. They are con men (yes, racist, misogynistic con men).
So, while I would agree to finding a way to help guide content to be safe, I don't believe the clause, as it was, would do much to stop the kind of people who would create that content. I mean, we're talking about the sort of people who likely would have (or did) go to storm the capitol on Jan 6. It's disheartening to think about, but I don't know how you dissuade these people when they aren't afraid of the consequences.
Of course the clause for this isn't going to say "if one person is hurt by this, it automatically is removed." That kind of feels like a strawman argument.
Except there are people in these forums who have said that very thing to me; that if it hurts even one person, then we shouldn't allow it, so no, it's not a strawman argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
As I explained above, you can't "not play by the rules" if the rules are the law.
My point is that there are bad actors, like Gygax and Dineheart, who will create this content regardless of the rules. They don't care what the rules are, they will create the content and wait to see if they are challenged.
Of course the clause for this isn't going to say "if one person is hurt by this, it automatically is removed." That kind of feels like a strawman argument.
Except there are people in these forums who have said that very thing to me; that if it hurts even one person, then we shouldn't allow it, so no, it's not a strawman argument.
1. the point isnt that people arent going to create it, its to be able to divorce themself from any such content, so if some media catches it they arent just left making a statement without anything official backing it, with it, theyll be able to point to the ogl and say "yeah but following the rules of this guideline they are wrong and we will be telling them to stop"
2. and no offense but you can find people on any part of this forum saying anything, it very much is a strawman argument
Okay, so what would a realistic, useful method look like for protecting the community, the brand, and content creators look like? If we're going to argue that sort of clause is required, then we should at least try to come up with some useful ideas.
I think at a minimum there should/could be a set of guidelines for any content creator to follow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Okay, so what would a realistic, useful method look like for protecting the community, the brand, and content creators look like? If we're going to argue that sort of clause is required, then we should at least try to come up with some useful ideas.
I think at a minimum there should/could be a set of guidelines for any content creator to follow.
Ironically, any attempt to do something like this, even with numerous examples, numerous rules, and even anindependent appeals board to judge rejections, will make it less likely that certain content will ever be published under any OGL with that kind of clause. This includes things that may be considered by many, including myself, as racist, sexist homophobic etc but also things that include things like body horror, sexual themes, and LGBTQ content. The reason for this is obvious: merely by including a 'moral clause' you change the risk/reward calculation tremendously for these 3PPs.
Now people will vehemently insist that this will never happen or be extremely unlikely. I don't necessarily agree with that but regardless what you or I think, we're not the ones putting hundreds of hours and emotional investments, not to mention our livings, at stake. It's every 3PP who has to look at a morals clause and wonder how much they're willing to risk. So merely by having a clause like this, no matter how well intentioned, you will eliminate a lot of this content by default without ever having to actually invoke the clause.
Maybe I'm wrong but just imagine a certain segment of the media that has a certain take on everything from M&M advertising mascots to XBox power savings options picking up on an OGL product called, for instance, "Thirsty Sword Lesbians." Now imagine you were the 3PP ready to publish that and you're trying to calculate the risk of releasing it under an OGL with this cause. I would think we would agree that 3PP will be nervous about it at best and probably just not publish it (at least under OGL) at worst.
... So the system is working as designed and no OGL morality clause is needed. If some producer manages to get past DTRPG's or DM'sGuild's own censors, wotc will sue that producer into oblivion.
You are specifically and explicitly seeking a system where neither Wizards nor any other company is allowed to seek any form of legal redress, ever, for any reason at all, against someone who chooses to release loathesome material. You have openly stated that it is better for that loathesome material to be freely available on The Market for anyone who wishes to purchase it, with no checks or restrictions, even when that material is actively doing serious damage to a brand that not only Wizards but all the third-party creators people are ostensibly trying to protect rely on. Because anyone at all having any way at all to contest that sort of material - at all - means Censorship Is Everywhere and no gaming materials are safe.
Beyond the hypocrisy of claiming it's perfectly okay for DriveThru and DM's Guild to have systems in place to block loathesome material but Wizards having any such systems is SHEER PUREST EVIL, do not act like you support people opposing the spread of hate, exclusionism, and loathesome content. You do not.
How many threads have to be opened to discuss this? Oh, and for E. Gygax, lo and behold, wotc has sued him from producing his material. It was NOT over trademarks, as wotc has foolishly allowed the trademark for Star Frontiers to lapse, and the company being sued picked it up. No, that company is being sued over brand infringement and brand denigration.
This is wrong on a LOT of different levels.
1. Wizards let the registration on the marks lapse; they still very likely have a common law trademark. Registration is not necessary for a trademark to be legally protected--anyone who has ever bought a product and seen a ™ symbol (non-registered, common law trademark symbol) and a ® (registered trademark symbol) knows this aspect of the law. All that you need to establish a trademark is having a mark that you use in commerce. Wizards clearly has the marks as they purchased them (the actual mechanism for purchasing a trademark is a bit different than "you buy the trademark", but that is not germane to the conversation/not something any non-lawyer really cares about) from the original TSR and has continued to use them in commerce since then--they, after all, license out old TSR and Star Frontier products still for sale, directly showing the marks are still used in commerce.
2. Wizards did sue under trademark. It is clearly stated in their counterclaim.
3. The underlying case is Racist-TSR suing to ask Wizards to prove that they have a trademark, so all parties involved know this is a trademark case.
4. The tarnishing of the brand is an important part of a trademark lawsuit--you want to be able to show that the bad actor not only tried to use your trademark, but they used it in a way that hurt the goodwill behind your trademark.
All of this is pretty clearly laid out in not only the court documents but also the articles discussing them.
Having corrected the really bad faux legal analysis, I agree with the overall nature of the thread.
Here is the thing--the fact it does not stop racists from being racist is entirely irrelevant. This is not about stopping racists--as anyone who has posted on these forums knows, that element of the community is not going away anytime soon.
This is about protecting Wizards, who has every right to be able to keep their text--their speech--from being used in a racist manner. It is about protecting players because they would know "if something claims it is for 6e but decided not to use the license, then maybe I should be suspicious of this product." It is about making the lives of bigots harder--these licenses mean you get a bit of a head start, as you can use Wizards' IP to form the basis of your work, rather than try to build everything up from scratch.
All of those are valid concerns that the community should have embraced--especially since we had an opportunity to make something better for everyone together. Instead, we apparently collectively decided to just accept the Wild West and the accept the uncertainty of how 6e might be licensed, rather than utilize this chance to make something that could work moving forward into the next edition.
Because the SRD is already in Creative Commons, I'm not sure that WotC could write any kind of meaningful clause even if it wanted to. Perhaps OneDND will go out under a different license from 1.0a -- but touching anything to do with the license risks far too much in public perception at this point, which is a shame.
A clearly written anti-hate clause with an arbiter made of some not-for-profit devoted to inclusivity would have been positive for the company and the community. If WotC had initially approached prominent creators and the community at large with the question of how to update the OGL for the concerns of 2023, maybe we could have gotten such a clause.
That's part of the loss of this whole situation. Any changes that might have been beneficial are now difficult or impossible to make, and the company needs to hold fast to the course it has now set in order to regain any confidence from its customers.
This stance of yours that anyone should be allowed to publish anything, nobody should ever be litigated or 'censored', and "The Market" will sort it out hurts third-party creators. When bad actors release loathesome material associated with the D&D brand, it harms that brand. That harm doesn't just affect Wizards, it also affects all the third-party creators who depend on the strength of the D&D brand to market their own products. The people you're desperate to protect from Wizards' evil horrible attempts to keep their brand clean don't want that shit associated with D&D.
This stance of yours that anyone should be allowed to publish anything, nobody should ever be litigated or 'censored', and "The Market" will sort it out hurts third-party creators. When bad actors release loathesome material associated with the D&D brand, it harms that brand. That harm doesn't just affect Wizards, it also affects all the third-party creators who depend on the strength of the D&D brand to market their own products. The people you're desperate to protect from Wizards' evil horrible attempts to keep their brand clean don't want that shit associated with D&D.
Why do you?
Telling someone to “STU”, especially when you intented the F, is a very toxic and immature way to have a conversation.
The people you're desperate to protect from Wizards' evil horrible attempts to keep their brand clean don't want that shit associated with D&D.
Why do you?
This is disingenuous. You're assuming that there can be no other possible reason beyond siding with the bad guys if you don't side with good guys. The way you phrase it is unfair to STU. It's like asking someone "Sir, have you stopped hitting your wife yet?" When they have never done so.
The point was that a method exists for WotC to deal with Gygax and NUTSR, so maybe you need to find a different example to defend.
Besides, WotC clearly ISN'T worried about having these products associated with them, or they don't believe such products WILL be associated with them, because they left the OGL (so far) without any such clause. A company as big as Hasbro doesn't leave themselves open to such a risk unless they don't believe it's a risk or whoever made this final decision is not very bright.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The point was that a method exists for WotC to deal with Gygax and NUTSR, so maybe you need to find a different example to defend.
Besides, WotC clearly ISN'T worried about having these products associated with them, or they don't believe such products WILL be associated with them, because they left the OGL (so far) without any such clause. A company was big as Hasbro doesn't leave themselves open to such a risk unless they don't believe it's a risk or whoever made this final decision is not very bright.
This is a disingenuous argument. Wizards only had a legal recourse because Gygax did things that were specifically not covered by OSR--violating Wizards' trademark.
Gygax's stated goal was reclaiming his and his father's games from Wizards' non-racist approach and adding back in the racism he believes belongs there. He, fortunately, was pretty dumb and did so in a way that got him sued. But he could have taken every single thing from OSR 1.0 and written Gygax's Guide to Adding Racism to the Popular TTRPG I Helped Make, been super careful not to include anything copyrighted or trademarked, and accomplished his goal in a way that would have gotten quite a lot of press and made Wizards look bad when headlines read "Wizards powerless to stop their own property being used by disgruntled bigot."
That is why folks are concerned--Gygax is dumb; the next person might not be. I don't want to see bigots getting a leg up because they're using the content Wizards gave freely--that sort of defeats the whole purpose and makes the game worse for everyone (except the game's worst elements).
As for why they abandoned it? A bunch of people whined and Wizards decided the risk of 5e content being used by bigots was outweighed by the loss of revenue, bad press, and other financial woes fighting for better language would involve. That doesn't mean they think it is the morally right decision--just that it was the financially sound one in light of the massive group of people fighting tooth and nail to protect a poorly written legal document.
The new announcement that Wizards of the Coast is going to roll with Open Game License 1.0 as is honestly disappoints me. The reason for this is that 1.0 has no clause that prevents hate, racism, and bigoted works from being released under the License. 1.0 effectively provides bigots with a shield, because they are publishing under an official legal permission that grants them the right to do what they want with a lot of D&D content.
Unfortunately, we are in a world where there is a sizable number of people who would seek to exploit this. Ernest Gygax (son of Gary Gygax) is locked in a legal battle with Wizards of the Coast over making a blatantly bigoted game that used several of Wizards' trademarks. Fortunately, this case did not involve an exploitation of the Open Game License, but it did show a number of scary things.
The first thing it showed is that there are people who would use our game to spread hate. This is quite a disturbing realization, but it is unfortunately one that we have to take into account when discussing the subject. The second thing this case showed is how big of a problem situations like this can be. It generated a lot of bad publicity towards D&D in general and has taken a large amount of money and time - that could be spent making official D&D books - away from Wizards.
It may be this court case that made Wizards realize their Open Game License had ridiculously insufficient protections against hate, or it may have been something else. Regardless, they publicly announced that they were going to update the License to add several clauses, one of them would be made to prevent harm, bigotry, and discriminatory ideology from making it into third-party works.
However, many members of the community decided that they wanted to keep Open Game License 1.0, and that they would not accept any change to it. Admittedly, not liking certain clauses that were present in some of the drafts of the License seems fair. However, because of peoples' stubborn insistence to not modify 1.0 at all, bigots like Ernest Gygax will be protected when they seek to spread their harmful ways.
As the Star Frontiers Lawsuit (discussed above) shows, there are people who think that D&D should be utilized as a way of spreading hate and that it doesn't matter that human beings will be harmed by this. Ernest and others like him may not have realized before that they have a legal shield in the form of the Open Game License before, but Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced that their License has a loophole by publicly stating their intentions to fix it.
At this point in time, it seems naive to think that no one would take advantage of this loophole, especially since there are already those who have gone out of there way to make exclusionary and discriminatory games with Wizards' trademarks and intellectual property.
Admittedly, the way the anti-hate policy was implemented into the various drafts of the Open Game Licenses weren't perfect; It was done as a morality clause, and there were other terms that were arguably more problematic in the same contracts as it. That being said, there are numerous other ways to stop harmful content that aren't morality clauses, and it's ridiculous that a lot of people were using their objection over implementation of the anti-hate clause as a way of arguing that there should be no clause to prevent problematic content.
Also, at a minimum, we the community should have allowed a clause to prevent harmful and discriminatory third-party work, even if some of us didn't want any other changes to Open Game License 1.0. It was depressing to see a number of people that vehemently argued against any change to the OGL, regardless of what it was and how much it helped other members of our community.
Because some of us refused to allow any clause to protect others, people will suffer and be hurt by this. We the community are responsible for the harm that our rigidity indirectly caused others. What we said about the changes to the Open Game License influenced Wizards' decision on this, and they listened to us and our concerns.
For some us, the change to the Open Game License is a cause for celebration and joy. However, other members of the community will be hurt by our voices and will suffer because of it. If the D&D third-party publishing industry becomes a minefield for hate and discrimination, then we will be directly responsible and others will suffer because of it. I have seen people say they are happy about this, but I dare wonder how happy a lack of an anti-hate clause if for the people that will be directly impacted by it.
Not only that, but hateful works published under this Open Game License will likely remain legally protected forever, since it's extremely unlikely that Wizards of the Coast will revoke content published under previous Licenses.
P.S. I have seen some people argue that you could already make D&D products without the Open Game License and all of this is irrelevant because game mechanics aren't copyrightable, only the "expression" of them. However, a lawyer clarifies HERE that this isn't fully correct, and that the distinction between these two isn't clearly defined in roleplaying games. At a minimum, Wizards would be able to sue and try to stop hateful content if they had a clause to stop bigotry in the Open Game License.
TL;DR: Open Game License 1.0 needs to be modified, even if to only add some sort of clause to prevent hate and stop third-party publishers from creating harmful, discriminatory works. D&D players banded together to stop Open Game License 1.0 from being deauthorized, and their will be no way to prevent harmful third-party content in the years to come thanks to this.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The discussion of this topic is already happening in the OGL to be left Untouched thread, and both sides of the argument have already been laid out.
We are never going to agree on this, especially as long as some users see it as a Black & White dichotomy rather than a nuanced issue with multiple sides. It's not as simple as those in favour of clause are virtuous and pure, and those against are evil bigots and racists. It's an unfair distinction to both sides.
I believe in creating a safe place to game, but many of us disagree fundamentally on what constitutes Hatred. Some users insist that anything that offends at least one person is enough to be considered hurtful, hateful, and in need of change, and that is the problem. Not everything is as clear cut as that.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
When did I make that distinction? This thread was made in order to present a more rational and civil discussion of what is going on; Grievances from other discussions on a similar topic are not really relevant to this one.
I think you are right that everything depends on the situation and content involved. That being said, I think you are greatly exaggerating how difficult it would be to decide what is hateful and what isn't. In general, you should listen when someone says something hurts them, even if you don't fully understand why at first. That being said, there will obviously be measures in place to ensure that random people can't abuse this clause to censor others' works.
Also, it isn't like being told you need to change something in your work is the end of the world. Wizards explicitly gives you a 30 day warning period to change elements of your published content that violate the Open Game License. Even if the measures set in place to ensure this clause is not abused don't work, then worst comes to worst, you'll probably just need to make some minor changes to one thing you released.
Again, there would hopefully be measures in place to listen to everyone's experiences and make them feel safe and protected, while remembering the fact that different scenarios are different and that hate can show up in all shapes and sizes and that every situation isn't always clear as day. That being said, I think it's important to eliminate hate and protect those who have long been harmed. People like Ernest Gygax should not be legally protected when they try to harm others.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I agree that Ernst Gygax and the guys he was working with, like Dinehart (sp?) should not be allowed to profit from what they are doing, but this proposed clause wouldn't change that. If they had added the clause, people like Gygax would just publish anyway without the OGL. The fact they've published what they have, using the old TSR logo and IP, proves that they don't care.
The truly bad actors won't play by the rules, no matter what they are.
And as for having work contested, I don't care how much time is given to fix it, there are some topics where we will never have total agreement, and if the bar being set is that it hurts even one person, then almost everything is going to be hurtful to someone. We would need a MUCH better system, fool proof, that can't be abused.
I asked in the other thread... If I wanted to publish a book where an evil god creates an evil sentient species, is that allowed under this clause? Because that's a question that would need to be answered. It's such a basic plot/story/world idea that many people don't consider to be racist or harmful. Who gets to decide? What if someone wants to publish an adventure where the heroes rescue people from slavery? There are some in the community who would say that adventure shouldn't be allowed because it has slavery in it, no matter the nuance.
The answer is always "Just be aware that something might hurt someone" and that's not a practical or useful answer. Some people want a method to control the "bad" things, but seem unwilling to debate the merits of any one thing actually being "bad". The Pro-Clause side seems hesitant to commit to what constitutes "bad".
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
As I explained above, you can't "not play by the rules" if the rules are the law. The argument that game mechanics aren't copyrightable and people can make whatever they want without the OGL is flawed, to say the least. As a lawyer on EnWorld says in this post, a lot of the discussion about "game mechanics" versus the "expression" of them, and there are no clear laws for them, especially for roleplaying games, where there doesn't appear to be a legal case that settles how this works.
Admittedly, I Am Not A Lawyer, but this backs up what I too found in my research: The way this is treated in court cases is inconsistent, and the line between "game mechanics" and "expressions" appears to be incredibly blurry. I wasn't able to find a case that really set much of a precedent for how this would work with roleplaying games or anything as complex legally as making unauthorized D&D third party content. At a minimum, Wizards of the Coast would have a strong case to make in order to stop people from making bigoted third-party content without the Open Game License.
Of course the clause for this isn't going to say "if one person is hurt by this, it automatically is removed." That kind of feels like a strawman argument.
In general, I doubt that an anti-hate clause would prevent from incorporating subjects like enslavement into your campaigns, as you long didn't include them in a problematic way. However, I would probably say it makes sense to provide a trigger warning, because some people don't want to read about or play with things that might hurt them, even if they are taken seriously.
You keep asking questions about how potentially hateful content will be judged, and we "seem hesitant to commit" because we don't know yet. An anti-hate clause would have to undergo a lot of testing, a lot of feedback, and even if it were included in a later modification, there are a billion ways that it could be written and implemented. Also it's hard for one person to provide answers on how to craft a perfectly balanced system for this, because this is a clause a lot of people would have to work together to properly make.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Yeah...definently needs one, most other companies have it to protect themselves, though they have either more clear defined rules on what they consider bad, or they just use more definite legal meanings, from what i understand
but that dont really matter it does need the clause and itd be only fair and in line with what other companies do
My point is that there are bad actors, like Gygax and Dineheart, who will create this content regardless of the rules. They don't care what the rules are, they will create the content and wait to see if they are challenged. If they do get in trouble, they'll do their best to stonewall, and slink off to their next con. I have been following the NUTSR story from the beginning, and have come to realize that whether or not they truly believe they have the right to use the TSR branding, they don't care. They are con men (yes, racist, misogynistic con men).
So, while I would agree to finding a way to help guide content to be safe, I don't believe the clause, as it was, would do much to stop the kind of people who would create that content. I mean, we're talking about the sort of people who likely would have (or did) go to storm the capitol on Jan 6. It's disheartening to think about, but I don't know how you dissuade these people when they aren't afraid of the consequences.
Except there are people in these forums who have said that very thing to me; that if it hurts even one person, then we shouldn't allow it, so no, it's not a strawman argument.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
1. the point isnt that people arent going to create it, its to be able to divorce themself from any such content, so if some media catches it they arent just left making a statement without anything official backing it, with it, theyll be able to point to the ogl and say "yeah but following the rules of this guideline they are wrong and we will be telling them to stop"
2. and no offense but you can find people on any part of this forum saying anything, it very much is a strawman argument
Okay, so what would a realistic, useful method look like for protecting the community, the brand, and content creators look like? If we're going to argue that sort of clause is required, then we should at least try to come up with some useful ideas.
I think at a minimum there should/could be a set of guidelines for any content creator to follow.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Ironically, any attempt to do something like this, even with numerous examples, numerous rules, and even anindependent appeals board to judge rejections, will make it less likely that certain content will ever be published under any OGL with that kind of clause. This includes things that may be considered by many, including myself, as racist, sexist homophobic etc but also things that include things like body horror, sexual themes, and LGBTQ content. The reason for this is obvious: merely by including a 'moral clause' you change the risk/reward calculation tremendously for these 3PPs.
Now people will vehemently insist that this will never happen or be extremely unlikely. I don't necessarily agree with that but regardless what you or I think, we're not the ones putting hundreds of hours and emotional investments, not to mention our livings, at stake. It's every 3PP who has to look at a morals clause and wonder how much they're willing to risk. So merely by having a clause like this, no matter how well intentioned, you will eliminate a lot of this content by default without ever having to actually invoke the clause.
Maybe I'm wrong but just imagine a certain segment of the media that has a certain take on everything from M&M advertising mascots to XBox power savings options picking up on an OGL product called, for instance, "Thirsty Sword Lesbians." Now imagine you were the 3PP ready to publish that and you're trying to calculate the risk of releasing it under an OGL with this cause. I would think we would agree that 3PP will be nervous about it at best and probably just not publish it (at least under OGL) at worst.
You are specifically and explicitly seeking a system where neither Wizards nor any other company is allowed to seek any form of legal redress, ever, for any reason at all, against someone who chooses to release loathesome material. You have openly stated that it is better for that loathesome material to be freely available on The Market for anyone who wishes to purchase it, with no checks or restrictions, even when that material is actively doing serious damage to a brand that not only Wizards but all the third-party creators people are ostensibly trying to protect rely on. Because anyone at all having any way at all to contest that sort of material - at all - means Censorship Is Everywhere and no gaming materials are safe.
Beyond the hypocrisy of claiming it's perfectly okay for DriveThru and DM's Guild to have systems in place to block loathesome material but Wizards having any such systems is SHEER PUREST EVIL, do not act like you support people opposing the spread of hate, exclusionism, and loathesome content. You do not.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is wrong on a LOT of different levels.
1. Wizards let the registration on the marks lapse; they still very likely have a common law trademark. Registration is not necessary for a trademark to be legally protected--anyone who has ever bought a product and seen a ™ symbol (non-registered, common law trademark symbol) and a ® (registered trademark symbol) knows this aspect of the law. All that you need to establish a trademark is having a mark that you use in commerce. Wizards clearly has the marks as they purchased them (the actual mechanism for purchasing a trademark is a bit different than "you buy the trademark", but that is not germane to the conversation/not something any non-lawyer really cares about) from the original TSR and has continued to use them in commerce since then--they, after all, license out old TSR and Star Frontier products still for sale, directly showing the marks are still used in commerce.
2. Wizards did sue under trademark. It is clearly stated in their counterclaim.
3. The underlying case is Racist-TSR suing to ask Wizards to prove that they have a trademark, so all parties involved know this is a trademark case.
4. The tarnishing of the brand is an important part of a trademark lawsuit--you want to be able to show that the bad actor not only tried to use your trademark, but they used it in a way that hurt the goodwill behind your trademark.
All of this is pretty clearly laid out in not only the court documents but also the articles discussing them.
Having corrected the really bad faux legal analysis, I agree with the overall nature of the thread.
Here is the thing--the fact it does not stop racists from being racist is entirely irrelevant. This is not about stopping racists--as anyone who has posted on these forums knows, that element of the community is not going away anytime soon.
This is about protecting Wizards, who has every right to be able to keep their text--their speech--from being used in a racist manner. It is about protecting players because they would know "if something claims it is for 6e but decided not to use the license, then maybe I should be suspicious of this product." It is about making the lives of bigots harder--these licenses mean you get a bit of a head start, as you can use Wizards' IP to form the basis of your work, rather than try to build everything up from scratch.
All of those are valid concerns that the community should have embraced--especially since we had an opportunity to make something better for everyone together. Instead, we apparently collectively decided to just accept the Wild West and the accept the uncertainty of how 6e might be licensed, rather than utilize this chance to make something that could work moving forward into the next edition.
Because the SRD is already in Creative Commons, I'm not sure that WotC could write any kind of meaningful clause even if it wanted to. Perhaps OneDND will go out under a different license from 1.0a -- but touching anything to do with the license risks far too much in public perception at this point, which is a shame.
A clearly written anti-hate clause with an arbiter made of some not-for-profit devoted to inclusivity would have been positive for the company and the community. If WotC had initially approached prominent creators and the community at large with the question of how to update the OGL for the concerns of 2023, maybe we could have gotten such a clause.
That's part of the loss of this whole situation. Any changes that might have been beneficial are now difficult or impossible to make, and the company needs to hold fast to the course it has now set in order to regain any confidence from its customers.
STU. Dude.
This stance of yours that anyone should be allowed to publish anything, nobody should ever be litigated or 'censored', and "The Market" will sort it out hurts third-party creators. When bad actors release loathesome material associated with the D&D brand, it harms that brand. That harm doesn't just affect Wizards, it also affects all the third-party creators who depend on the strength of the D&D brand to market their own products. The people you're desperate to protect from Wizards' evil horrible attempts to keep their brand clean don't want that shit associated with D&D.
Why do you?
Please do not contact or message me.
Telling someone to “STU”, especially when you intented the F, is a very toxic and immature way to have a conversation.
Guy, "STU" is his name. Short Term User. If I wanted to tell him to shut up, I'd do it with complete words.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is disingenuous. You're assuming that there can be no other possible reason beyond siding with the bad guys if you don't side with good guys. The way you phrase it is unfair to STU. It's like asking someone "Sir, have you stopped hitting your wife yet?" When they have never done so.
The point was that a method exists for WotC to deal with Gygax and NUTSR, so maybe you need to find a different example to defend.
Besides, WotC clearly ISN'T worried about having these products associated with them, or they don't believe such products WILL be associated with them, because they left the OGL (so far) without any such clause. A company as big as Hasbro doesn't leave themselves open to such a risk unless they don't believe it's a risk or whoever made this final decision is not very bright.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
This is a disingenuous argument. Wizards only had a legal recourse because Gygax did things that were specifically not covered by OSR--violating Wizards' trademark.
Gygax's stated goal was reclaiming his and his father's games from Wizards' non-racist approach and adding back in the racism he believes belongs there. He, fortunately, was pretty dumb and did so in a way that got him sued. But he could have taken every single thing from OSR 1.0 and written Gygax's Guide to Adding Racism to the Popular TTRPG I Helped Make, been super careful not to include anything copyrighted or trademarked, and accomplished his goal in a way that would have gotten quite a lot of press and made Wizards look bad when headlines read "Wizards powerless to stop their own property being used by disgruntled bigot."
That is why folks are concerned--Gygax is dumb; the next person might not be. I don't want to see bigots getting a leg up because they're using the content Wizards gave freely--that sort of defeats the whole purpose and makes the game worse for everyone (except the game's worst elements).
As for why they abandoned it? A bunch of people whined and Wizards decided the risk of 5e content being used by bigots was outweighed by the loss of revenue, bad press, and other financial woes fighting for better language would involve. That doesn't mean they think it is the morally right decision--just that it was the financially sound one in light of the massive group of people fighting tooth and nail to protect a poorly written legal document.
Yeah, no. If YOU want to take responsibility for the harm others cause, go right ahead.
I am NOT responsible for any of it (indirectly or otherwise).