Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Oramac]

Stuff like torture could exist as long as it's not gratuitous - mentioning the torture is fine. Describing it in detail is not.

This. The description in [insert setting/adventure here] should make mention of whatever Evil Thing the Bad Guys are doing, and leave it up to each individual table to determine the level of detail they want to go into. My particular table actually quite enjoys anime level descriptions of blood and gore, but not all tables will.

This pretty much dovetails with my post above about the problem not being the system, but the people not properly and clearly setting goals, expectations, and limits before play begins.

[Segev]

If you cannot even discuss a topic while portraying it as being evil, then you are guaranteeing people will not know to avoid it in the future. "Those who do not learn from history" and all that.

[Brookshw]

If you cannot even discuss a topic while portraying it as being evil, then you are guaranteeing people will not know to avoid it in the future. "Those who do not learn from history" and all that.

Frankly this kinda high horse stuff seems just as bad/absurd as WoTC being cautious about their content. I can get why they are apprehensive even if I don't agree, there are plenty of kids who play this game and parents may not know the content of books they buy for them (or other adults who might buy them as gifts), and sticking "adult content" stickers on stuff is going to raise eyebrows, probably. But I don't get people thinking that 'certain concepts are bad' is a connection people won't make if you don't talk about them, people get murder is bad, I don't think there's any level of rocket science required to also get that murder on the scale of genocide is also bad, same with slavery.

[skyth]

I don't think there's any level of rocket science required to also get that murder on the scale of genocide is also bad, same with slavery.

History shows that there are people that disagree with that notion - And people that disagree with that notion are still around.

[Brookshw]

History shows that there are people that disagree with that notion - And people that disagree with that notion are still around.

Bet you one grimdarkloon that those people have heard the things are bad and are the way they are anyway.

[NichG]

It's not the 'hearing that the things are bad'. It's being able to understand and express why those things are bad, in a way that makes sense to you and holds even when under other pressures of expediency or hierarchies of import. As well as to understand when the same underlying issues take on new forms that aren't precisely like the old ones.

It might be accepted 'slavery is bad', but how about when someone has made someone else so dependent on them that they have no choice but to 'willingly' do what they say? If you have had a chance to develop a structure of thought about not just 'slavery is bad' but why slavery is bad, what slavery does to a society, to its people, etc, then you can think about stuff like 'wage slavery'. If you're just parroting moral lessons and there's a taboo around actually discussing the why of those things or exploring their consequences, you'll end up with something very brittle to just changing the apparent form of the thing.

Murder is bad, sure. How about soldiers killing 'the enemy'? What is a just war, an unjust war, and where should the lines be? How about when the nature of war changes?

[Brookshw]

snip

And you're proposing a game played by children is the place for that

[skyth]

And you're proposing a game played by children is the place for that

I don't see a problem with it. Critical thought is something that RPG's install in people as well and is generally seen as a good thing :)

Plus, most 'children' that play are teens. I'm an outlier in that I started playing earlier than that (Around 9 or 10). You don't want explicit content, but introduction to the ideas isn't a bad thing.

[NichG]

And you're proposing a game played by children is the place for that

Absolutely. Fiction in general is a wonderful place for that because the direct consequences to real people are very sharply bounded.

If we really want to go down this road to the very young - those who haven't yet developed the mental capacity to realize that other people are people like them for example - then probably D&D shouldn't include any form of violence at all, or any form of people causing harm to others by action or inaction or systemic structure. If 'you're killing these orcs because they're threatening this village' is on the table, then we're already into spaces where the development of a moral sense should be taking place.

I'm not even sure I'd say that anyone incapable of moral reasoning should be DM-ing at all, regardless of the game. Because a DM does need to consider the needs of others at the table at a minimum.

[Brookshw]

I don't see a problem with it. Critical thought is something that RPG's install in people as well and is generally seen as a good thing :)

Plus, most 'children' that play are teens. I'm an outlier in that I started playing earlier than that (Around 9 or 10). You don't want explicit content, but introduction to the ideas isn't a bad thing.

/Shrug, there's a time and place for everything, and even though I'd like to see a DS relaunch, I completely understand why WoTC thinks this in neither. And I definitely reject moral authority assertions that people need to have exposure to understand these concepts are bad, people in general deserve a bit more credit than that.

Edit: not sure about the kid age thing, my kids started at 4, and my players kids game with us starting at around 8. No idea what the average starting age is.

[Psyren]

I don't see a problem with it. Critical thought is something that RPG's install in people as well and is generally seen as a good thing :)

Plus, most 'children' that play are teens. I'm an outlier in that I started playing earlier than that (Around 9 or 10). You don't want explicit content, but introduction to the ideas isn't a bad thing.

Absolutely. Fiction in general is a wonderful place for that because the direct consequences to real people are very sharply bounded.

If we really want to go down this road to the very young - those who haven't yet developed the mental capacity to realize that other people are people like them for example - then probably D&D shouldn't include any form of violence at all, or any form of people causing harm to others by action or inaction or systemic structure. If 'you're killing these orcs because they're threatening this village' is on the table, then we're already into spaces where the development of a moral sense should be taking place.

I'm not even sure I'd say that anyone incapable of moral reasoning should be DM-ing at all, regardless of the game. Because a DM does need to consider the needs of others at the table at a minimum.

Once they put it out there in an official capacity, they have no control over what groups (including age groups) try to use it or are exposed to it. It's really not that outlandish as decisions go.

Wouldn't that run smack into WotC owned IP?

That just means you can't use the OGL or CC for it. There is a third, completely legal option - DM's Guild.

[skyth]

Once they put it out there in an official capacity, they have no control over what groups (including age groups) try to use it or are exposed to it. It's really not that outlandish as decisions go.

And I still don't see what the issue is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That just means you can't use the OGL or CC for it. There is a third, completely legal option - DM's Guild.

DM's Guild is restricted to
a) setting neutral stuff
b) stuff using published WotC settings.

It's explicitly not allowed to make your own setting (especially not a version of what they own) on DM's Guild. At most you can add towns and NPCs to existing, already-published-for-5e settings, but you can't use any setting they haven't already published for 5e.

[NichG]

Once they put it out there in an official capacity, they have no control over what groups (including age groups) try to use it or are exposed to it. It's really not that outlandish as decisions go.

What I'm saying is, if you think that anything in D&D is appropriate for a given age group, I would argue so is something like Dark Sun. If on the other hand you think Dark Sun isn't appropriate for a given age group, you shouldn't be asking people in that age group to DM at all, much less expect them to be able to properly deal with things like 'the orcs are the bad guys so its okay to kill them'. I'd put the line on that age group as being roughly the age at which you'd start encountering things like Aesop's fables, so ~6 years old and up.

[Psyren]

And I still don't see what the issue is.

I got that.

DM's Guild is restricted to
a) setting neutral stuff
b) stuff using published WotC settings.

It's explicitly not allowed to make your own setting (especially not a version of what they own) on DM's Guild. At most you can add towns and NPCs to existing, already-published-for-5e settings, but you can't use any setting they haven't already published for 5e.

There's both Al-Qadim and Greyhawk 5e stuff on DM's Guild, and I don't remember them publishing any of that this edition.

[catagent101]

You cannot publish Dark Sun stuff using DMs Guild.

[Brookshw]

What I'm saying is, if you think that anything in D&D is appropriate for a given age group, I would argue so is something like Dark Sun. If on the other hand you think Dark Sun isn't appropriate for a given age group, you shouldn't be asking people in that age group to DM at all, much less expect them to be able to properly deal with things like 'the orcs are the bad guys so its okay to kill them'. I'd put the line on that age group as being roughly the age at which you'd start encountering things like Aesop's fables, so ~6 years old and up.

Hmmm...

"Hey kids, lets play a game where we protect villagers, stop marauding monsters, and slay an evil dragon"

"Hey kids, lets play a game where most of the races were killed because they were unclean and couldn't be allowed to exist as a blight upon the world, where people are kept as slaves and regularly worked to death in horrible conditions, not to mention bred like animals to produce a new race that will predominantly be forced to fight to death for the amusement of the crowd, where the race that primarily lives in the only jungle is a bunch of cannibals, where homeless bands of wanderers mostly want to steal your stuff and will leave you to die if you can't keep up, and tens of thousands are sacrificed annually so their life force can be used by an uber tyrant. And all of this is generally "okay" wherever you go in the setting.

I mean....not really the same thing. I know which one I'd run for my kids. For a game with adults, hey, do what you want, I like Darksun, but can respect WoTC's concern and don't think its appropriate for all audiences. (not to mention, WoTC isn't the only company out there that filters what content it wants to make available, e.g., LEGO won't put out kits for modern tanks, attack helicopters or jets, etc.)

Also, the original argument is that we needed to keep genocide and slavery front and center so we don't forget about them, if someone has the moral development to recognize some of the nuance and complicated issues you've proposed, then I certainly don't see how they also need some kind of lesson that genocide and slavery are bad. Admittedly, that wasn't your argument, but the two positions aren't particularly cohesive.

[NichG]

Hmmm...

"Hey kids, lets play a game where we protect villagers, stop marauding monsters, and slay an evil dragon"

"Hey kids, lets play a game where most of the races were killed because they were unclean and couldn't be allowed to exist as a blight upon the world, where people are kept as slaves and regularly worked to death in horrible conditions, not to mention bred like animals to produce a new race that will predominantly be forced to fight to death for the amusement of the crowd, where the race that primarily lives in the only jungle is a bunch of cannibals, where homeless bands of wanderers mostly want to steal your stuff and will leave you to die if you can't keep up, and tens of thousands are sacrificed annually so their life force can be used by an uber tyrant. And all of this is generally "okay" wherever you go in the setting.

I mean....not really the same thing. I know which one I'd run for my kids. For a game with adults, hey, do what you want, I like Darksun, but can respect WoTC's concern and don't think its appropriate for all audiences. (not to mention, WoTC isn't the only company out there that filters what content it wants to make available, e.g., LEGO won't put out kits for modern tanks, attack helicopters or jets, etc.)

Also, the original argument is that we needed to keep genocide and slavery front and center so we don't forget about them, if someone has the moral development to recognize some of the nuance and complicated issues you've proposed, then I certainly don't see how they also need some kind of lesson that genocide and slavery are bad. Admittedly, that wasn't your argument, but the two positions aren't particularly cohesive.

I mean, I find the idea that teaching 6 year olds its okay to kill something sentient as long as its a bad guy is fine, but teaching them that a nation built around killing people just because of their race is a really terrible place to live is 'too mature' sort of grotesque.

[Brookshw]

I mean, I find the idea that teaching 6 year olds its okay to kill something sentient as long as its a bad guy is fine, but teaching them that a nation built around killing people just because of their race is a really terrible place to live is 'too mature' sort of grotesque.

Leaving aside the issues of self defense and justice which can accompany the former, I don't see how the latter is something that needs to, or should be, taught in a game, and can respect WoTC's concern about doing so[1]. And I certainly reject some purported moral authority or imperative that kids need to be taught such things in this context (also, since it came up, that creative and critical thinking needs to be supported by using this context, when there are countless others available). First and foremost, its a game, not a lecture hall. Not sure there's much else to discuss on this point.

[1] And they at least started drafting it at one point, way too many DS monsters ended up in SJ for it to be anything other than trying to salvage work they had already done imo, and I hear that DDB will refuse certain custom backgrounds from being shared that get close to DS backgrounds (I think the example I heard was something about a water merchant).

[NichG]

Leaving aside the issues of self defense and justice which can accompany the former, I don't see how the latter is something that needs to, or should be, taught in a game, and can respect WoTC's concern about doing so[1]. And I certainly reject some purported moral authority or imperative that kids need to be taught such things in this context (also, since it came up, that creative and critical thinking needs to be supported by using this context, when there are countless others available). First and foremost, its a game, not a lecture hall. Not sure there's much else to discuss on this point.

I mean, from my perspective, you should have both. The players can experience what it's like to be the righteous hero and the DM gets the experience being the persecuted criminal, then flip it around, then flip it some more, and people will develop their own empathy and moral sense by actively engaging in a large variety of scenarios in which they take on different roles. Let people play mul slaves in Dark Sun, then play templars, then play revolutionaries, then play the sorceror kings themselves.

But if you start saying 'we have to worry about what this game is teaching', then it looks really bad if the stuff you worry about is depicting genocide as bad but at the same time you say that a game where the players are encouraged to commit genocide against 'always evil' races slide as just fine, go ahead and have it!

My objection here is to the hypocrisy of that stance.

[Brookshw]

I mean, from my perspective, you should have both. The players can experience what it's like to be the righteous hero and the DM gets the experience being the persecuted criminal, then flip it around, then flip it some more, and people will develop their own empathy and moral sense by actively engaging in a large variety of scenarios in which they take on different roles. Let people play mul slaves in Dark Sun, then play templars, then play revolutionaries, then play the sorceror kings themselves.

But if you start saying 'we have to worry about what this game is teaching', then it looks really bad if the stuff you worry about is depicting genocide as bad but at the same time you say that a game where the players are encouraged to commit genocide against 'always evil' races slide as just fine, go ahead and have it!

My objection here is to the hypocrisy of that stance.

If someone was advocating that the game should encourage genocide against always evil races, sure, but it's moved away from that, and no one's taken that position.

[NichG]

If someone was advocating that the game should encourage genocide against always evil races, sure, but it's moved away from that, and no one's taken that position.

But people are advocating that the game shouldn't depict for example an unequivocably evil force committing genocide because it would be 'problematic'. And they're not objecting to the game as default having the players play characters who indiscriminately slaughter things which the game labels 'evil'. I think you can't take the former position and not object to the latter issue without being hypocritical. It amounts to saying that talking about genocide is worse than committing it.

[MoiMagnus]

But people are advocating that the game shouldn't depict for example an unequivocably evil force committing genocide because it would be 'problematic'. And they're not objecting to the game as default having the players play characters who indiscriminately slaughter things which the game labels 'evil'. I think you can't take the former position and not object to the latter issue without being hypocritical. It amounts to saying that talking about genocide is worse than committing it.

Or it amount to saying that institutionalized acts are worse than individual acts, especially when those individuals acts are crafted to be always in a situation where they're morally correct by an author-like figure (the GM) while institutionalised acts are expected to be wide spread and ranging circumstances of every kind.

[Vahnavoi]

D&D isn't just for kids nor played just by kids, so the idea that some material is problematic because you wouldn't give it to kids is nonsense. This is a problem solved by the existing practice of putting an age group rating on a product.

More, the people who have strong opinions about having genocide or slavery in games? They aren't kids. They aren't talking for kids and vast majority of time they have no empirical basis for arguments about how the material would even affect kids. 95% of the discussion revolves around moral dislike adult players have for some topics. Watching you people talk is like watching those parents who seriously debate about telling their school-aged children where meat comes from, from the viewpoint of someone who was 4 when first taken to watch how game is butchered. It's ridiculous.

[Brookshw]

But people are advocating that the game shouldn't depict for example an unequivocably evil force committing genocide because it would be 'problematic'. And they're not objecting to the game as default having the players play characters who indiscriminately slaughter things which the game labels 'evil'. I think you can't take the former position and not object to the latter issue without being hypocritical. It amounts to saying that talking about genocide is worse than committing it.

Not sure about "indiscriminately", I can't think of any instances where PCs are intended or expected to be the aggressors. Even bog standard dungeon dives treat the monsters as hostile to the players. Also, we're kinda throwing darts at what it is that's "problematic", WoTC didn't specify so I mentioned a number of potential issues that I could understand them being concerned with (not to mention people's lived/associated experiences which seems to be their current approach to what content to revise/edit).

D&D isn't just for kids nor played by kids, so the idea that some material is problematic because you wouldn't give it to kids is nonsense. This is a problem solved by the existing practice of putting an age group rating on a product.

/Shrug, its a game "for everyone". They could put a rating system in place, last time we had something like that was BoVD. Of course, if they do start age rating it, I think parents/people who do buy it for kids are going to have some pause if they're unfamiliar with it, and it can develop a stigma which WoTC would probably prefer to avoid. I have a friends who manages a toy store, gets people in all the time who know nothing about D&D or TTRPGs looking to buy something for a kids birthday or whatever, and who know nothing about what it is they're seeking to purchase.

More, the people who have strong opinions about having genocide or slavery in games? They aren't kids. They aren't talking for kids and vast majority of time they have no empirical basis for arguments about how the material would even affect kids. 95% of the discussion revolves around moral dislike adult players have for some topics. Watching you people talk is like watching those parents who seriously debate about telling their school-aged children where meat comes from, from the viewpoint of someone who was 4 when first taken to watch how game is butchered. It's ridiculous.

If there's a segment of the audience who is going to be turned off by that content and not purchase it, isn't that all the more reason for WoTC to instead spend its resources on content which would be more broadly consumed?

[Keltest]

/Shrug, its a game "for everyone". They could put a rating system in place, last time we had something like that was BoVD. Of course, if they do start age rating it, I think parents/people who do buy it for kids are going to have some pause if they're unfamiliar with it, and it can develop a stigma which WoTC would probably prefer to avoid. I have a friends who manages a toy store, gets people in all the time who know nothing about D&D or TTRPGs looking to buy something for a kids birthday or whatever, and who know nothing about what it is they're seeking to purchase.

Shouldn't your toy store friends be doing the responsible thing then and helping those people who don't know what theyre getting understand what it is? It seems really unfair to blame the product for the ignorance and apathy of people who are distributing things without knowing what they are.

[skyth]

Having lived through the Satanic Panic of the 80's, the whole 'think of the children' argument seems a bit bunk to me...

[Brookshw]

Shouldn't your toy store friends be doing the responsible thing then and helping those people who don't know what theyre getting understand what it is? It seems really unfair to blame the product for the ignorance and apathy of people who are distributing things without knowing what they are.

The point was to highlight the ignorance of the consumer, not like they can ask questions when they shop on Amazon (ib4, I guess they can scroll reviews?).

[Vahnavoi]

/Shrug, its a game "for everyone". They could put a rating system in place, last time we had something like that was BoVD. Of course, if they do start age rating it, I think parents/people who do buy it for kids are going to have some pause if they're unfamiliar with it, and it can develop a stigma which WoTC would probably prefer to avoid. I have a friends who manages a toy store, gets people in all the time who know nothing about D&D or TTRPGs looking to buy something for a kids birthday or whatever, and who know nothing about what it is they're seeking to purchase.

Browse back to the post where I explained how well this worked for TSR back in the day.

Long story short:

TSR made a conscious decision to market D&D to kids, which involved creating a Code of Ethics for content creators. It included quite a few clauses to mollify angry parents and other moral guardians.

It was a short-term success, in the sense that it did get D&D to toystores. In the longer term, it allowed competitors, such as White Wolf with Vampire, to rise to prominence by effectively stealing older audiences away from TSR. Overall, it was a mixed blessing: D&D was really big for a while, but the focus on kid-friendly content created the image that D&D and tabletop roleplaying games in general are "for kids".

TSR actually realized they were losing customers and tried to rectify this by making more philosophical stuff, like Planescape. The specific IP under discussion, Dark Sun, computer versions included, was published while the Code of Ethics was in place. It's been remarked by people who worked with TSR at the time that had the Code been enforced, things like Planescape and Dark Sun couldn't have been made. So the company concerned with making D&D "kid-friendly" hypocritically ended up making and selling not-kid-friendly content, because doing otherwise would've been leaving money on the table.

If there's a segment of the audience who is going to be turned off by that content and not purchase it, isn't that all the more reason for WoTC to instead spend its resources on content which would be more broadly consumed?

If WotC is going to treat D&D like a platform, they ought to work like a platform. For comparison, it's possible to get ultra violence and porn games for Nintendo Switch, because even Nintendo can grok that not all their customers are children. Age ratings, content warnings and parental controls exist to let people curate their experience. Point being, nobody forces anybody to play everything D&D ever published. Yes, some people will be turned away from "problematic" content, but others would be drawn in by the same. Making all products for the same target audience runs into another problem TSR also experienced: self-competition. There isn't an endless market for escapist fantasy rated "for all audiences". Focusing all resources on that will eventually hit diminishing returns, at which point it makes more sense to spread out. At which point having a strong public image as "company that makes kid games for kids" will be a hindrance more than a boon.

If WotC marketing can't grok this, they can't corporate right. They are literally walking in the same trap TSR did.

[KorvinStarmast]

You cannot publish Dark Sun stuff using DMs Guild.

One of many reasons that DMs Guild never got money from me. (DTRPG has, though). Also, the UI the one time I was thinking of getting something Grod made was simply not user friendly, so I put them on my "nope" list.

D&D isn't just for kids nor played just by kids, so the idea that some material is problematic because you wouldn't give it to kids is nonsense. This is a problem solved by the existing practice of putting an age group rating on a product.

The box on the Holmes basic (Armed archer, wizard, dragon) says "The original adult fantasy role playing game for 3 or more players"
When Basic (Moldvay) came out, it had "The original fantasy role playing game for 3 or more adults ages 10 and up" on the cover. {checking} When I played basic (25th anniversary release, black box) with my kids it said "Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Game" on top; down below "The Adventure begins now" is there.
I would not have cut my kids loose to play by themselves. My son was 10, my daughter 13. I was DM. Their friends or cousins who played with us were in roughly that age range. I tuned the game to the audience. . My wife only played a few times with us, but it just wasn't her cup of tea.

More, the people who have strong opinions about having genocide or slavery in games? They aren't kids. They aren't talking for kids and vast majority of time they have no empirical basis for arguments about how the material would even affect kids. 95% of the discussion revolves around moral dislike adult players have for some topics. Watching you people talk is like watching those parents who seriously debate about telling their school-aged children where meat comes from, from the viewpoint of someone who was 4 when first taken to watch how game is butchered. It's ridiculous.

Concur.

Having lived through the Satanic Panic of the 80's, the whole 'think of the children' argument seems a bit bunk to me...

My wife still feels roughly that way, in terms of she somewhat buys into the Satanic Panic PoV (in a mild way) still, to this day.
Which sucks. I would love if she'd play with our group.