This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wizards of the Coast, who own Dungeons and Dragons, have been in the news lately because their OGL 1.1 was leaked. The OGL was an open source-like license, originally from 2000, which allowed people to create D&D-related works and which was supposed to not be revocable, as confirmed by its drafters. WOTC is trying to revoke it by using a clause referring to "authorized" versions of the license and claiming to have de-authorized the earlier license. The new replacement license requires giving 25% of your revenue to WOTC, makes you send a copy of your content to WOTC which they can then publish for free, and they can revoke it at any time making all your products instantly unsalable.
After backlash from fans, WOTC officially released a 1.2 license instead, which has similar problems, but worded a bit more subtly.
The culture war element comes from this clause:
I hope the problems with this are obvious to everyone here. I absolutely don't want a world where people with the wrong political beliefs can be barred from producing game materials. But every objection I've seen to this clause by fans has been a twenty Stalins objection: WOTC has produced discriminatory material in the past and can't be trusted to do this properly. There have been calls to have WOTC outsource this to an independent tribunal. Just, take it out because even people with unpopular opinions should be able to put them in games? No, nobody believes that.
(Links are trivial to google, but it's hard to find a site that has everything correct all at the same time, and is up to date as well, and also engages in trustworthy journalism in general. This EFF post at least covers part of the initial controversy, though you'll have to follow links to see what's in the license.)
Again as with Twitter, I think WOTC have the absolute right to decide who uses their IP via license and contract agreements, if they want to stop everyone left wing, right wing or whatever then that is up to them (and their bottom line). Note you can put whatever opinions you want in games or have them, you just can't do so with their license and IP and that should be their choice to control (or not).
I think that people with whatever opinions should be able to make games, but I also think WOTC has the right to decide who can do that for their licenses specifically.
And then people have an absolute right to not buy/use their products or go to a competitor if they don't like their stance.
But then I haven't liked a DnD product since 3.5 so it's no skin off my nose to avoid buying their stuff, as I haven't for years. Pathfinder 1E is a good substitute for 3.5 and Pathfinder 2E is excellent in my opinion and splits off further from DnD mechanics at least somewhat. Though not sure that helps you from a non-woke direction as I think Paizo are perceived as more woke than WOTC.
The main issue is that WotC has almost certainly been piggybacking off the efforts of independent creators popularizing DnD and making it, lack of a better term, 'hip' and accessible for audiences who otherwise wouldn't consider tabletop role playing games at all. All this while there was minimal (to my knowledge) marketing by WotC itself.
Many of these creators probably wouldn't have bothered making DnD content if they had to agree to the 25% 'tax' up front (yes, it only kicks in after a certain amount of revenue, but you still have to do the accounting). They'd either have gone with a different game that didn't require that, or just not produced it at all.
I, personally, find it unreasonable to just unilaterally switch up the agreement, which was explicit in this case, on the people who have put in the actual effort to popularize your game, and who have accumulated a LOT more goodwill (whatever that's worth) than the company has.
It's not even clear what everyone is getting in exchange for paying this money forward. Will it be used to increase the quality of the product? Will they put some of that back into marketing? Or is it literally just establishing an additional revenue stream in the face of a tightening economy?
You sell people the books, they play the game with their friends, using their imagination to 'render' the world and characters, they add homebrew rules, they make up their stories using the basic materials you provided, they make content related to their game and publish it for other interested parties, and none of this really inflicts any additional costs on WotC.
This transaction really should not require WotC to do anything other than put out new materials semi-periodically.
Note I have no issues with WotC enforcing copyright on their books or characters, or restricting creators from using the brand name in their content, I'm just amazed at the lengths they're going to throw out the previous license in a clear money grab and burn through so much goodwill when there are ample competitors around who will gladly snatch their marketshare.
Absolutely, just because I think WOTC should be able to do x, doesn't mean I think they are right to do so. I don't think they should be able to retrospectively change contracts/licenses. That's a separate issue for which I will not defend them. My only point is that it isn't in and of itself bad for a company to be able to enforce standards on who gets to use or license their stuff, given it will have impacts on them. If a Trad Right Winger wants to create a game company and decide that they don't want to license it to someone who campaigns for abortion to be legal that should entirely be their decision.
Like I said I left WOTC behind a long time ago so I am not specifically defending them.
Right, not accusing you of taking their side. My point is mostly that they really shouldn't be able to accept all the lovely benefits that came with having an extremely open license, then turn around YEARS after implementing said license and try to impose heavy restrictions because they're suddenly worried about possible costs of said license might hit them as well, to the detriment of the very people who produced those benefits.
To me it strikes me less as them really needing to 'enforce standards' and more about them needing some excuse, any excuse to start charging money to those who have struck it rich off DnD content.
It might have been somewhat more acceptable if they had clearly articulated how this money was going to benefit the product or the players or anything. But that would mean they might be called on that later.
In short, they're seeking to heavily bind their creators hands even after those hands have made the product more popular, whilst leaving their own hands free to collect money, change the terms of the agreement further, change the product itself in the future, and, apparently, to tell creators to screw off if they cross some arbitrary lines.
It's asymetrical in the extreme.
You're right, but I have the suspicion that an abortion campaigner will self-select against buying from a Trad right-winger anyway so that's likely a moot point.
Oh yeah the standards change is just the side show. The important point from their point of view is the monetization change. I suspect the standards change is just so they can cut loose anyone they think is a PR problem once they have a financial link to them through the monetization program where they don't have the plausible deniability they had before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link