I mean, RAHOWA, FATAL, and White Wolf’s World of Darkness: Gypsies all exist, so we know racist RPGs exist. What does that have to do with the OGL though? Suddenly WotC decides they need to do something to combat a problem that really doesn’t appear to exist. The inclusion justification has about as much weight as Putin’s claims he’s liberating parts of the Ukraine from a Nazi government.
Suddenly WotC decides they need to do something to combat a problem before it exists. Good idea I say.
You win. Despite taking a long rest to regain all my hit points, you have whittled me down to zero hit points again, and I’ve failed my third death save in a row because my goddamn cleric thinks he’s too good to heal when he could be dealing damage.
Some people think that is good tactics. I do not, but it is suggested by powergamers.
It is evidence that one company is making a performatively racist RPG using content that is not using the WotC OGL, and in fact if they were to attempt to use the license would be an implicit admission that WotC is the legitimate inheritor to TSR. So, again, not germane to any issue in question in law or fact.
A large number of publishers have released various commercial content, community, and Creative Commons licenses. The OGL is a specific license associated with Wizards of the Coast (again, to promote their own brand) but is hardly a unique concept within the gaming community.
A problem that doesn’t exist, and even if it did, the supposed response affects far more content creators that are intentionally inclusive than any expectation of hypothetical offenders. The ‘new’ OGL might as well be subtitled: “We need breathing room!”
You need to stop with this disingenuous misattribution which is unambiguously skirting trolling behavior. I am not “against” fighting racism; I am against using the shield of a supposed ‘fight vs racism’ that is really about monopolizing a market of third party content creators that was developed specifically to advance Wizards of the Coast properties.
Stranger
I think this disagreement is solveable with two premises:
- WOTC doesn’t have a 20 wisdom; and
- WOTC isn’t a unified entity.
First: a move to keep the OGL from racists can be done for preventative or performative reasons. There are people at WOTC who consider D&D their baby, and who really really hate the idea of seeing “Star Frontiers: Now D&D compatible!” Whether that’s a realistic worry isn’t the question; the question is whether it’s plausible that someone at WOTC has that worry, realistic or otherwise, and whether they might want to prevent it.
Sure, an OGL revision might not prevent it, for various copyright reasons; but it can also be performative. They might want to indicate to the public that they don’t like this idea, and the OGL revision can indicate that.
Second point: WOTC ain’t unified. It’s possible that the antiracist creatives want the OGL revision for performative or preventative reasons, and ALSO that the bean-counters want it as cover for their monetization schemes.
Folks keep casting it as an either-or, and assuming that WOTC’s plan was well-considered and would have been effective at what it wanted to accomplish. I think it’s a both-and, and that WOTC is a hot disorganized mess of competing factions.
So you prefer handling this kind of thing after the first incident, rather than pre-empting the possibility?
I like that WoTC is being pro-active about this.
Even if it’s a smokescreen for their actual “monetization” motive, it’s a smokescreen that has an effect I want.
Because I don’t actually buy much WoTC product outside core stuff, or use DnDBeyond much, so they were never getting any micropurchases from me. But I care very much about the ideological content of what is produced.
My understanding is that the OGL doesn’t work that way - you need to produce a new one and abandon the old one, it can’t just be amended.
How can they have these kind of anti-hate provisions without that ability? What if the hate content is only discovered after some time?
Let me start by saying I agree that it is too broad. I am not defending the new OGL as a thing itself.
But that doesn’t make having any anti-hate part to it, specifically, bad.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
You can’t even point out that minstrel apes look mighty racist on this very board without getting serious pushback.
There is no “as a whole” there, there are about equal amounts of the woke and the willing vs reactionary groggies (and outright racist, omniphobic bigots). When the ratio is more swung around to the side of Good, you can make this self-policing case convincingly. Right now, self-policing only works sometimes, and after a fight.
You can’t say the sky is blue on this very board without getting serious pushback. Don’t mistake volume for numbers.
There were at least 5 posters giving pushback on that one, out of what, a dozen to a score posters? It wasn’t one lone loud voice. So while not 50/50 on that issue, not an “as a whole” consensus either. And that one was glaringly obvious, I can see way more pushback on something like trans inclusion or sexism (I know this because I know the pushback one gets when one dares suggest chainmail bikinis maybe weren’t the epitome of fantasy art…)
Seriously, you get pushback on that? Okay, then…
I confess i don’t understand the issue, despite having browsed this thread. When the discussion was about better monetizing the game i understood it. But i don’t see how it’s possible to police “using a fantasy role playing game to play out your fantasies”, even if some of those fantasies are nasty.
This new OGL (and the previously floated draft) is not coming from “antiracst creatives”, and in fact it is pretty clear that the creative teams at Wizards of the Coast were not informed about the specific provisions of the revised license and likely were not even made aware of the 1.1 draft at all. This license is a management-driven decision clearly intended to feed Hasbro’s intent to maximize revenue from their customer base.
No, it doesn’t. This OGL in no way prevents anyone from producing and distributing bigoted, offensive, or intentionally hateful content. The very most it allows WotC to do is to attempt to force someone using their license to do so to cease & desist from referencing their license or explicitly using licensed content, and even that is pretty questionable if they aren’t literally using trademarked terms or copyright material explicitly provided by the license. Just because someone produces something offensive or hateful doesn’t mean you can sue to have a court prevent publication (unless they are actually inciting violence or run afoul of ‘hate speech’ laws), because the United States has this thing called the First Amendment that protects freedom of expression, even offensive expression.
What this license does do is give WotC unilateral and incontestable ability to shut down any licensee at any time by arbitrarily classifying some aspect of their product or service as “harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing”. Which…is fine going forward into their OneDnD or whatever future systems provided under this license. It sucks for all of the content producers whose work has buoyed WotC and Dungeons & Dragons up to this point, but at least creators utilizing licensed material and trademarks in their work know what they are getting into going forward, and ultimately it looks like who this will hurt the most is WotC, while current D&D players have the option of shifting to any number of relatively similar game systems or explore other genres within TTRPGs. What is not fine WotC is trying to retroactively impose their new license upon work previously published or in-process or pretending as if they are forced to do this because of the imminent threat that someone is going to publish Mein Kampf: The Roleplaying Game under the OGL, particularly given their own history of producing content that others find offensive and discriminatory.
Stranger
Okay, this is a “unified faction” theory that completely disagrees with what I said–but rather than offering any evidence that I’m incorrect with my both-and speculation, you’re just baldly asserting that it’s either-or.
If all you want to do is to point out that I’ve no evidence that WOTC isn’t 100% unified, okay, sure; it’s theoretically possible that they’re Borglike in their lockstep decisionmaking behind the beancounters. But it’d still be great to have some evidence to support what you’re saying, as it seems to run counter to every organization I’ve ever been a part of, from anarchist collectives to Fortune 500 companies.
nm
Stranger
I mean, I literally teach reading comprehension to gifted kids, but okay; I’ll let others handle this.
Cooling down instead, will reopen in 10 minutes.
This topic was automatically opened after 10 minutes.
He was arguing that the Hadozee depiction wasn’t racist. Which I think shines a light on a bigger issue than whether or not I can use the OGL to make Super-Hitler: The RPG. I could instead make a good faith product using the OGL and have WotC decide that my Raksasha or Jackalwere NPC is racist and thus shut me down with no recourse since it also says that I may not contest their decision. Or DrDeth could include the Hadozee that he thought were perfectly acceptable and get struck. Not because his material was crowdsourced over at Stormfront but because his line between what’s fantasy world-building and what’s real-life allegory is placed a little differently than someone else’s.
If I was a content creator, that would seem worrying to me. And I don’t feel like the answer is as simple as “Well, just be super-not-racist, duh” in a world where people legitimately debate whether saying “brown bagging it” is racist or not.
(And this assumes good faith on the part of WotC, never mind someone worried that Hasbro could wield this as a cudgel to take out a competing product without recourse)
To be clear, D&D players don’t have to change anything. They can keep doing what they have been doing all along.
Yes, it does. It does mean people producing hateful content can at least not get to say they’re a licensed D&D product. That is the effect I want.
They also have a (recent) history of listening and acting when such is pointed out to them. I’m willing to give them a lot of slack precisely because of that recent corporate culture shift.