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.
Addressing your last part first. Conduct and content are separate. Content relates to things you might make to publish under the OGL, it doesn't include fan content, which is separate and as you said, covered under the fan content policy. Conduct relates to your personal conduct as a human/citizen. While not confirmed, the most likely reason for the "conduct" rule is to allow WotC to sever a relationship with a creator whose actions would reflect poorly on them, so if said creator goes on a Kanye-like rant about nazis, or is credibly accused of sexual harrassment, etc, then Wizards can cut ties without any hassle.
Regarding your example. There is a difference between racism as a story element and racist elements in a story. Racism is the concept of prejudice against another due to race. That is a common conflict in the real world and in games, and WotC is not likely to act on that. Racist elements are things like presenting a race as stupid, brutish, and uncivilized, saying they are universally evil, and depicting them with facial and body characteristics that resemble real-world folks who might have real-world historic (but certainly unfounded) stereotypes of being stupid, brutish, and uncivilized.
What i'm describing is until recently, something WotC was accused of themselves in their depictions of Orcs. They have since made strides to remove that stereotyping from the game, and now are wanting those who license game IP to do the same.
I will say one thing, I guess I must be the only person in the world that never associated the whole Orcs/African thing... It honestly never crossed my mind once in 41 years of playing the game... Honestly, if I were to put an ethnicity to them, it would be Nordic (Viking) or maybe Mongolian (Atilla the Hun), given the savagery, war mongering and raiding... not that I even considered that until the other association was brought up... Probably to be honest, you go back far enough, and any human civilization was probably a barbaric, war mongering savage society (some would say we still are...)
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.
I will say one thing, I guess I must be the only person in the world that never associated the whole Orcs/African thing... It honestly never crossed my mind once in 41 years of playing the game... Honestly, if I were to put an ethnicity to them, it would be Nordic (Viking) or maybe Mongolian (Atilla the Hun), given the savagery, war mongering and raiding... not that I even considered that until the other association was brought up... Probably to be honest, you go back far enough, and any human civilization was probably a barbaric, war mongering savage society (some would say we still are...)
Yeah, they seemed like a mismash of multiple cultures that were very mobile and raided/pillaged frequently like the Huns and some Native American tribes.
Of course as presented in the MM they are supposed to be antagonists who do horrible things, and they even had an exception in the fluff for an orc leader that was moving towards a more peaceful culture so they weren't all evil all the time.
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
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.
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 have to agree here. Someone is going to be in charge of this policy. If it's not WotC, then we're basically just leaving it up to the rest of the world on the honor system.
And actually, Spelljammer is a good example or why WotC might not be a bad choice. Yes, they screwed up, but then they realized their mistake, apologized for it and corrected it. And did so really quickly. Without something like 6f, a 3pp could print the same sort of thing, or worse, and there would be no recourse. They could just keep on printing it. Sure, the community might say stop, but that doesn't mean they would have to. They might even be doing it on purpose. Unfortunately, I'm sure there's a market for that kind of content.
And I know people say there really hasn't been an example of this in the past 20 years, so why do we need it now. Well, now is when they are updating the license, so now is the time to make changes like this. And because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Its why we put sprinkler systems into buildings even if they've never caught on fire before. Its always better to prevent a fire than to have to try to put it out.
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 have to agree here. Someone is going to be in charge of this policy. If it's not WotC, then we're basically just leaving it up to the rest of the world on the honor system.
And actually, Spelljammer is a good example or why WotC might not be a bad choice. Yes, they screwed up, but then they realized their mistake, apologized for it and corrected it. And did so really quickly. Without something like 6f, a 3pp could print the same sort of thing, or worse, and there would be no recourse. They could just keep on printing it. Sure, the community might say stop, but that doesn't mean they would have to. They might even be doing it on purpose. Unfortunately, I'm sure there's a market for that kind of content.
And I know people say there really hasn't been an example of this in the past 20 years, so why do we need it now. Well, now is when they are updating the license, so now is the time to make changes like this. And because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Its why we put sprinkler systems into buildings even if they've never caught on fire before. Its always better to prevent a fire than to have to try to put it out.
I think most of us agree that there needs to be something here to protect Wizards (there are some who will disagree with some legitimacy and some who will disagree to be contrary) but for me, at least, it comes down to the way it is written. I just believe it is written to open to interpretation and not enough controls to differentiate between story telling and the behavior they are trying to keep from happening.
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:
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.
This is a very fair point. They need to make it clear what they deem hurtful and hateful in a way that cannot be changed and that decision needs to be made with advice from a named third party.
I do believe the intent is sincere on this point if for no other reason than protecting their corporate image, but the wording has been left open to abuse down the line.
Explaining their criteria not only shows those they intend to protect, but also makes it clear what to avoid so someone can avoid tripping over a topic by mistake.
As a side note, I think what the Tories did by blocking the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland was repugnant. This is so far removed from the same party that legalised gay marriage a decade ago it's terrifying.
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 have to agree here. Someone is going to be in charge of this policy. If it's not WotC, then we're basically just leaving it up to the rest of the world on the honor system.
And actually, Spelljammer is a good example or why WotC might not be a bad choice. Yes, they screwed up, but then they realized their mistake, apologized for it and corrected it. And did so really quickly. Without something like 6f, a 3pp could print the same sort of thing, or worse, and there would be no recourse. They could just keep on printing it. Sure, the community might say stop, but that doesn't mean they would have to. They might even be doing it on purpose. Unfortunately, I'm sure there's a market for that kind of content.
And I know people say there really hasn't been an example of this in the past 20 years, so why do we need it now. Well, now is when they are updating the license, so now is the time to make changes like this. And because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Its why we put sprinkler systems into buildings even if they've never caught on fire before. Its always better to prevent a fire than to have to try to put it out.
I think most of us agree that there needs to be something here to protect Wizards (there are some who will disagree with some legitimacy and some who will disagree to be contrary) but for me, at least, it comes down to the way it is written. I just believe it is written to open to interpretation and not enough controls to differentiate between story telling and the behavior they are trying to keep from happening.
Yes. I didn't mean to imply that the version as written is perfect. But some kind of something is reasonable.
I'm also of the opinion that 6f needs some clarification. Having some sort of definitions or guidelines about what is deemed harmful, having a petition process, maybe having a neutral party arbitration. The goal of making a more inclusive game is welcome, I'm just worried about the potential for abuse.
If a creator published a world where an evil god created a humanoid species to create harm and destruction, could that be interpreted as harmful content? Having a humanoid race that was created to be wicked? Or possibly a humanoid species that was cursed to have some kind of negative trait? Or how about in another 20 years when the sentience of robots is in contention, and a 3PP depicts robots as servants or being mistreated?
The current wording seems to allow WotC, even if that isn't their intention, to deem lots of things harmful that the majority of people might not just to enforce their will.
It's intended to be somewhat ambiguous. I know that some of the stuff we find offensive today was considered normal and beyond consideration when I was at school. I'm by no means "woke", but.at the very least some of that is a good thing. How we spoke about each other...was not cool. However, we'd never have even thought back then to include it. If you want an irrevocable licence or anything even close to it, it's got to be designed to last a long time, and that means allowing scope for some human judgement.
Is it about control? No kidding, Sherlock - it's a licence. That's pretty much the entire point of a licence, to give control.
Is it about greed? In around about way, yes - but while I wish our economic system wasn't based around greed and harnessing it to motivate work, it is and so we have to accept the profit motive as being real and unavoidable. Greed is why WotC exists. It's why we have D&D.
Now, I do think that clause needs to be reined in. It's too subject to the fiery fury of the mob - and we've seen how that can be - and needs to be fairer. I'm not sure how to achieve that though, while maintaining the ability of WotC to react to and cleanse their brand of problematic material - and it is a redline for them that they will not back down on. They may be willing to accept a tighter leash on it, but that clause, in principle, is remaining.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"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." OGL 1.2 Draft
versus
"You agree to use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our intellectual property. You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." PRD
I'm a much bigger fan of the second clause, and wish that Hasbro would go with terms like this. I will not support any license that allows Hasbro to have "sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful" in light of their recent behavior.
My two biggest concerns (other that WotC's total lack of trustworthiness at this point) are:
Terms like " harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" exist on a spectrum. While we can all agree that certain content falls under one of these categories and has no place in the hobby, I am worried about concepts (like "Race" and "Racist Orcs") that don't have universal agreement. Hasbro has come out against both of these, which I respect as being within their rights as a publisher. It's not right however that Habro forces these view onto others who may see things differently.
As raised by a number of other posters, what happens if Hasbro leadership, in their role as sole arbitrator, changes their political views to something extreme and far afield of the general public? Or worse, they use this clause as a trojan horse to limit competitors.
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.
Exactly my point, they should not have that power. They should state their values and disassociate from publishers that do not share their values...but not control 3rd party content like that.
It's intended to be somewhat ambiguous. I know that some of the stuff we find offensive today was considered normal and beyond consideration when I was at school. I'm by no means "woke", but.at the very least some of that is a good thing. How we spoke about each other...was not cool. However, we'd never have even thought back then to include it. If you want an irrevocable licence or anything even close to it, it's got to be designed to last a long time, and that means allowing scope for some human judgement.
Is it about control? No kidding, Sherlock - it's a licence. That's pretty much the entire point of a licence, to give control.
Is it about greed? In around about way, yes - but while I wish our economic system wasn't based around greed and harnessing it to motivate work, it is and so we have to accept the profit motive as being real and unavoidable. Greed is why WotC exists. It's why we have D&D.
Now, I do think that clause needs to be reined in. It's too subject to the fiery fury of the mob - and we've seen how that can be - and needs to be fairer. I'm not sure how to achieve that though, while maintaining the ability of WotC to react to and cleanse their brand of problematic material - and it is a redline for them that they will not back down on. They may be willing to accept a tighter leash on it, but that clause, in principle, is remaining.
Yes I fully agree with the greed / profit motive but I think in this case their approach is woefully short-sighted. The public (meaning us) is waay more intelligent than they give us credit for, cleansing their brand really only needs to be limited to their own published content, we can differentiate between their content and OGL content just fine. Maybe they should tone down the creator badging and stuff for general OGL content? Make a crystal clear distinction between their work and 'other' work, make 3rd parties include a more explicit disassociation from WotC and save the logo's and all that for content they exert finer control over (like DMsguild).
From a business perspective I think erring on the side of neutrality is also more "safe", the phrase is "go woke, go broke" for a reason...
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.
I think you're underestimating the public, or projecting a small portion of the public unto the larger public really. This idea comes from media bias I think. Not to sound like a broken record, but see the Hogwarts Legacy case: the media headlines read "people a boycotting HL because of association with bigotry"....meanwhile it's top of the charts in pre-sales. Have a little more faith in humanity :) I also think that WotC's reputation is a lot more robust than you or they think honestly. Unrelated note: sorry I yelled at you in that other thread, glad to see a more nuanced, reasonable argument here :)
I'm fine with the clause itself, or at least the reasoning behind it. But I think some of the power can be shifted from WotC to the licensees.
As I've said elsewhere, waiving your right to sue, and WotC having sole discretion to terminate instantly, is too powerful. They should consider the following:
'1) Making the standard "general public" to determine obscenity.
2) Remove the suit waiver. Make it arbitration if you need to, but don't make it nothing.
3) Build in a "remediate in 30 days before removal" clause.
"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." OGL 1.2 Draft
versus
"You agree to use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our intellectual property. You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." PRD
I'm a much bigger fan of the second clause, and wish that Hasbro would go with terms like this. I will not support any license that allows Hasbro to have "sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful" in light of their recent behavior.
My two biggest concerns (other that WotC's total lack of trustworthiness at this point) are:
Terms like " harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" exist on a spectrum. While we can all agree that certain content falls under one of these categories and has no place in the hobby, I am worried about concepts (like "Race" and "Racist Orcs") that don't have universal agreement. Hasbro has come out against both of these, which I respect as being within their rights as a publisher. It's not right however that Habro forces these view onto others who may see things differently.
As raised by a number of other posters, what happens if Hasbro leadership, in their role as sole arbitrator, changes their political views to something extreme and far afield of the general public? Or worse, they use this clause as a trojan horse to limit competitors.
Fully agreed on your concerns. The Piazo clause is far superior indeed, altho it has it's potential issues as well (which I'll discuss below).
I'm fine with the clause itself, or at least the reasoning behind it. But I think some of the power can be shifted from WotC to the licensees.
As I've said elsewhere, waiving your right to sue, and WotC having sole discretion to terminate instantly, is too powerful. They should consider the following:
'1) Making the standard "general public" to determine obscenity.
2) Remove the suit waiver. Make it arbitration if you need to, but don't make it nothing.
3) Build in a "remediate in 30 days before removal" clause.
Or some combination of the above.
2 and 3 definitely, think both would be essential. As for 1) I like the idea but I see one glaring issue with it: what standards has the general public? How often do you hear, read, see articles, op-ed, etc proclaiming the public is "outraged" about what is essentially a non-issue literally everyone you know in real life? Like I said, I like the idea, but I fear in practice it does not actually curb the power level much if at all. What it does do is suggest better intentions....but intentions can change...
Loving the ideas and discussion in this topic btw guys.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want.
"But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!"
So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells. Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it.
Or, if your exciting new content absolutely has to reprint how to create a generic 5e fighter for some godforsaken reason, use the OGL. It's your choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
2 and 3 definitely, think both would be essential. As for 1) I like the idea but I see one glaring issue with it: what standards has the general public? How often do you hear, read, see articles, op-ed, etc proclaiming the public is "outraged" about what is essentially a non-issue literally everyone you know in real life? Like I said, I like the idea, but I fear in practice it does not actually curb the power level much if at all. What it does do is suggest better intentions....but intentions can change...
Loving the ideas and discussion in this topic btw guys.
So for (1) I didn't pull "general public" out of thin air, it's the language from Paizo's Pathfinder Compatibility License. IANAL, but there appears to be case law / precedent that refers to a "general public" standard, so it's not like the term would have no possible definition. It should fit well enough that it would no longer be up to WotC's sole discretion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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):
This is the little essay I wrote for WotC, would welcome some feedback:
EDIT: included the relevant OGL text for reference.
Addressing your last part first. Conduct and content are separate. Content relates to things you might make to publish under the OGL, it doesn't include fan content, which is separate and as you said, covered under the fan content policy. Conduct relates to your personal conduct as a human/citizen. While not confirmed, the most likely reason for the "conduct" rule is to allow WotC to sever a relationship with a creator whose actions would reflect poorly on them, so if said creator goes on a Kanye-like rant about nazis, or is credibly accused of sexual harrassment, etc, then Wizards can cut ties without any hassle.
Regarding your example. There is a difference between racism as a story element and racist elements in a story. Racism is the concept of prejudice against another due to race. That is a common conflict in the real world and in games, and WotC is not likely to act on that. Racist elements are things like presenting a race as stupid, brutish, and uncivilized, saying they are universally evil, and depicting them with facial and body characteristics that resemble real-world folks who might have real-world historic (but certainly unfounded) stereotypes of being stupid, brutish, and uncivilized.
What i'm describing is until recently, something WotC was accused of themselves in their depictions of Orcs. They have since made strides to remove that stereotyping from the game, and now are wanting those who license game IP to do the same.
I will say one thing, I guess I must be the only person in the world that never associated the whole Orcs/African thing... It honestly never crossed my mind once in 41 years of playing the game... Honestly, if I were to put an ethnicity to them, it would be Nordic (Viking) or maybe Mongolian (Atilla the Hun), given the savagery, war mongering and raiding... not that I even considered that until the other association was brought up... Probably to be honest, you go back far enough, and any human civilization was probably a barbaric, war mongering savage society (some would say we still are...)
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.
Yeah, they seemed like a mismash of multiple cultures that were very mobile and raided/pillaged frequently like the Huns and some Native American tribes.
Of course as presented in the MM they are supposed to be antagonists who do horrible things, and they even had an exception in the fluff for an orc leader that was moving towards a more peaceful culture so they weren't all evil all the time.
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
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have to agree here. Someone is going to be in charge of this policy. If it's not WotC, then we're basically just leaving it up to the rest of the world on the honor system.
And actually, Spelljammer is a good example or why WotC might not be a bad choice. Yes, they screwed up, but then they realized their mistake, apologized for it and corrected it. And did so really quickly. Without something like 6f, a 3pp could print the same sort of thing, or worse, and there would be no recourse. They could just keep on printing it. Sure, the community might say stop, but that doesn't mean they would have to. They might even be doing it on purpose. Unfortunately, I'm sure there's a market for that kind of content.
And I know people say there really hasn't been an example of this in the past 20 years, so why do we need it now. Well, now is when they are updating the license, so now is the time to make changes like this. And because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Its why we put sprinkler systems into buildings even if they've never caught on fire before. Its always better to prevent a fire than to have to try to put it out.
I think most of us agree that there needs to be something here to protect Wizards (there are some who will disagree with some legitimacy and some who will disagree to be contrary) but for me, at least, it comes down to the way it is written. I just believe it is written to open to interpretation and not enough controls to differentiate between story telling and the behavior they are trying to keep from happening.
This is a very fair point. They need to make it clear what they deem hurtful and hateful in a way that cannot be changed and that decision needs to be made with advice from a named third party.
I do believe the intent is sincere on this point if for no other reason than protecting their corporate image, but the wording has been left open to abuse down the line.
Explaining their criteria not only shows those they intend to protect, but also makes it clear what to avoid so someone can avoid tripping over a topic by mistake.
As a side note, I think what the Tories did by blocking the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland was repugnant. This is so far removed from the same party that legalised gay marriage a decade ago it's terrifying.
Yes. I didn't mean to imply that the version as written is perfect. But some kind of something is reasonable.
I'm also of the opinion that 6f needs some clarification. Having some sort of definitions or guidelines about what is deemed harmful, having a petition process, maybe having a neutral party arbitration. The goal of making a more inclusive game is welcome, I'm just worried about the potential for abuse.
If a creator published a world where an evil god created a humanoid species to create harm and destruction, could that be interpreted as harmful content? Having a humanoid race that was created to be wicked? Or possibly a humanoid species that was cursed to have some kind of negative trait? Or how about in another 20 years when the sentience of robots is in contention, and a 3PP depicts robots as servants or being mistreated?
The current wording seems to allow WotC, even if that isn't their intention, to deem lots of things harmful that the majority of people might not just to enforce their will.
Thoughts on OGL1.2 6(f) "Hateful content" (opinions wanted)
Ok... Intentionally ambiguously worded overreach tool designed for control and greed, cloaked in the veneer of social justice.
Nauseating.
It's intended to be somewhat ambiguous. I know that some of the stuff we find offensive today was considered normal and beyond consideration when I was at school. I'm by no means "woke", but.at the very least some of that is a good thing. How we spoke about each other...was not cool. However, we'd never have even thought back then to include it. If you want an irrevocable licence or anything even close to it, it's got to be designed to last a long time, and that means allowing scope for some human judgement.
Is it about control? No kidding, Sherlock - it's a licence. That's pretty much the entire point of a licence, to give control.
Is it about greed? In around about way, yes - but while I wish our economic system wasn't based around greed and harnessing it to motivate work, it is and so we have to accept the profit motive as being real and unavoidable. Greed is why WotC exists. It's why we have D&D.
Now, I do think that clause needs to be reined in. It's too subject to the fiery fury of the mob - and we've seen how that can be - and needs to be fairer. I'm not sure how to achieve that though, while maintaining the ability of WotC to react to and cleanse their brand of problematic material - and it is a redline for them that they will not back down on. They may be willing to accept a tighter leash on it, but that clause, in principle, is remaining.
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.
Compare these two clauses:
"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." OGL 1.2 Draft
versus
"You agree to use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our intellectual property. You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." PRD
I'm a much bigger fan of the second clause, and wish that Hasbro would go with terms like this. I will not support any license that allows Hasbro to have "sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful" in light of their recent behavior.
My two biggest concerns (other that WotC's total lack of trustworthiness at this point) are:
Exactly my point, they should not have that power. They should state their values and disassociate from publishers that do not share their values...but not control 3rd party content like that.
Yes I fully agree with the greed / profit motive but I think in this case their approach is woefully short-sighted. The public (meaning us) is waay more intelligent than they give us credit for, cleansing their brand really only needs to be limited to their own published content, we can differentiate between their content and OGL content just fine. Maybe they should tone down the creator badging and stuff for general OGL content? Make a crystal clear distinction between their work and 'other' work, make 3rd parties include a more explicit disassociation from WotC and save the logo's and all that for content they exert finer control over (like DMsguild).
From a business perspective I think erring on the side of neutrality is also more "safe", the phrase is "go woke, go broke" for a reason...
I think you're underestimating the public, or projecting a small portion of the public unto the larger public really. This idea comes from media bias I think. Not to sound like a broken record, but see the Hogwarts Legacy case: the media headlines read "people a boycotting HL because of association with bigotry"....meanwhile it's top of the charts in pre-sales. Have a little more faith in humanity :) I also think that WotC's reputation is a lot more robust than you or they think honestly. Unrelated note: sorry I yelled at you in that other thread, glad to see a more nuanced, reasonable argument here :)
I'm fine with the clause itself, or at least the reasoning behind it. But I think some of the power can be shifted from WotC to the licensees.
As I've said elsewhere, waiving your right to sue, and WotC having sole discretion to terminate instantly, is too powerful. They should consider the following:
'1) Making the standard "general public" to determine obscenity.
2) Remove the suit waiver. Make it arbitration if you need to, but don't make it nothing.
3) Build in a "remediate in 30 days before removal" clause.
Or some combination of the above.
Fully agreed on your concerns. The Piazo clause is far superior indeed, altho it has it's potential issues as well (which I'll discuss below).
2 and 3 definitely, think both would be essential. As for 1) I like the idea but I see one glaring issue with it: what standards has the general public? How often do you hear, read, see articles, op-ed, etc proclaiming the public is "outraged" about what is essentially a non-issue literally everyone you know in real life? Like I said, I like the idea, but I fear in practice it does not actually curb the power level much if at all. What it does do is suggest better intentions....but intentions can change...
Loving the ideas and discussion in this topic btw guys.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
So for (1) I didn't pull "general public" out of thin air, it's the language from Paizo's Pathfinder Compatibility License. IANAL, but there appears to be case law / precedent that refers to a "general public" standard, so it's not like the term would have no possible definition. It should fit well enough that it would no longer be up to WotC's sole discretion.