The GSL in Common Language

[Voadam]

11.2. Everything that seems like it can be permanencied, is.

This one is all the restrictions apply even after WotC terminates the license.

Your ability to use or sell existing stuff you made under the GSL is not on this list.

 

[Cadfan]

Yes and...?

I said WotC are being cowardly, not "risk averse". Risk averse would be generally avoiding such subject matter. Cowardly is presenting it and then saying "If they're not up to 20th century ideals of liberty, justice and social equality, freedoms which our own society doesn't remotely meet, then they're evil and MUST be portrayed as such".

This is the actual rule. NOTE- edits are finished.

7. Quality and Content Standards.

The nature and quality of all Licensed Products will conform to the quality standards set by Wizards, as may be provided from time to time. At a minimum, the Licensed Products will conform to community standards of decency and appropriateness as determined by Wizards in its discretion. Without limiting the foregoing, no Licensed Products will depict in any text, graphical or other manner:

(a) excessively graphic violence or gore;

(b) sexual situations, sexual abuse, pornography, gratuitous nudity of human or humanoid forms, genitalia, or sexual activity; or

(c) existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups or practices, political preferences, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities, as a group inferior to any other group or in a way that promotes disrespect for those groups or practices, or that endorses those groups or practices over another.

Without limiting the foregoing, Licensed Products will not contain any content that is unlawful, defamatory, harassing, threatening, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable or that would infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party or constitute, encourage, or provide instructions for a criminal offense.

There are really five issues in this.

"Community standards" is a nod towards pornography regulations. If it wasn't in there, the law would impose it anyways, at least in the United States. Don't expect it to change anything.

The final paragraph about unlawful material is another nod towards laws that already exist and already bind 3rd party publishers.

"Excessive graphic violence or gore" doesn't seem like it will be a problem. Anyone know of any 3e 3rd party materials that they think would have violated this?

"Sexual situations," etc, leaves open non gratuitous nudity. I'm not surprised this is in there if they're letting people use their logo. WOTC has every right to target an audience, and they want the audience they target to be inclusive of kids. This means having a brand that is seen as kid friendly.

"Existing real world minorities," etc. This one is big, and the most interesting. First, there's a list of issues, then there's a list of rules for how you treat those issues. The rules are, in short, for any given X, do not demean X with comparison to Y, and don't promote disrespect for X in the abstract.

I don't expect this will actually be an issue. It COULD be an issue, but I doubt anyone is going to make it into one.

The way it could end up as an issue is if someone wanted to do a campaign setting with a nation of people who have roughly modern conservative views about, say, homosexuality. They would need to not endorse those views, while also not endorsing the idea that those views are wrong. I'm thinking of Blue Rose, which is a "romantic fantasy" genre game. That means it has its own built in politics, and "people who don't like homosexuality" go firmly in the "definitely not the good guys but we'll ally with them against monsters that want to eat our faces off" category.

The other way this could come up is if someone tried to make a modern game set in the real world, I guess. If your spy themed game is based around the cold war, there's a lot of casual nationalism and racism that can easily arise in your books. That could be a problem.

But most issues in that category simply aren't going to come up, mostly because they don't exist in your typical fantasy setting. Real world minorities, nationalities, and religions? Generally not applicable.

So, I dunno. I doubt these things will come up unless someone goes out of their way to publish a book of Mature Fantasy of some kind.

 

[el-remmen]

Without limiting the foregoing, no Licensed Products will depict in any text, graphical or other manner:
(a) excessively graphic violence or gore;

So if I could not write/publish an adventure with a demon lord's lair decorated with an undulating curtain of pulsing human entrails hanging from the still living torsos of their owners hanging from hooks over the the proscenium, and gurgling out a layer of slick black excrement that makes the environment a slippery one?

Because that is just the kind of scene I look for in adventures and write myself. . . luckily, I long ago gave up any ambition to write stuff for D&D.

 

[Imperialus]

"Existing real world minorities," etc. This one is big, and the most interesting. First, there's a list of issues, then there's a list of rules for how you treat those issues. The rules are, in short, for any given X, do not demean X with comparison to Y, and don't promote disrespect for X in the abstract.

I don't expect this will actually be an issue. It COULD be an issue, but I doubt anyone is going to make it into one.

No intention of being a publisher but what if say I wrote a campaign setting where one of the races... I dunno say Eldran, were inspired by the Diaspora Jews of medieval Europe? Would it be a BAD THING if Eldran communities were described as being treated as Jews were during the Middle Ages?

What if I explained the reason why Dwarven women so rarely show up in fantasy literature as being that they lead very cloistered lives, very much under the control of the clan patriarchs and are rarely permitted to leave their homes, much less socialize with other races?

 

[Voadam]

The Quality standards were in the later revisions of the d20 STL as well. They were a partial reason Avalanche Press gave for stopping their d20 line of historical fantasy D&D products. They felt that doing a book on the crusades or whatever would not be allowed because it dealt with clashes of real world religions and not everybody always comes out looking like good guys.

 

[Voadam]

"Excessive graphic violence or gore" doesn't seem like it will be a problem. Anyone know of any 3e 3rd party materials that they think would have violated this?

I was surprised that a piece of art near the beginning of the Slayer's Guide to Demons was not self censored by Mongoose to comply with this.

 

[webrunner]

4.1. You can use everything we list in the SRD, but you can't redefine any terms in said SRD. You can add more stuff relating to those terms, though. We can update the SRD whenever we want. It's up to you to make sure you're in compliance.

I think this is wrong: You can reference everything in the SRD. You can't actually use it- although you can say "see the players handbook under 'fighter powers' for 'tide of iron'", and you can print the statblock of a kobold wyrmpriest lich, but you can't print the statblock of a kobold wyrmpriest. As for Beholders, you have to pretend they don't exist.

 

[Cadfan]

No intention of being a publisher but what if say I wrote a campaign setting where one of the races... I dunno say Eldran, were inspired by the Diaspora Jews of medieval Europe? Would it be a BAD THING if Eldran communities were described as being treated as Jews were during the Middle Ages?

Well, the first question would be this- are you describing the treatment of the Eladrin, or are you just declaring "The Eladrin are treated much like Diaspora Jews in medieval Europe."? The first one would probably never even be noticed. The second? People would notice, but I've got no idea how that would shake down. It would probably depend on how you treated the subject matter.

What if I explained the reason why Dwarven women so rarely show up in fantasy literature as being that they lead very cloistered lives, very much under the control of the clan patriarchs and are rarely permitted to leave their homes, much less socialize with other races?

That's the place where I think the rules could create conflicts if enforced strictly and literally, although I doubt those conflicts will actually happen. Because treating that like a normal, acceptable way of life (perhaps one in which dwarf PCs, which you'd be encouraged to play as males, might participate) could be interpreted as demeaning to women, and treating that like a sexist, unacceptable way of life could be interpreted as demeaning to patriarchical groups or religions. But I doubt that would actually be a problem in practice, simply because patriarchical groups or religions don't read RPGs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"Excessive graphic violence or gore" doesn't seem like it will be a problem. Anyone know of any 3e 3rd party materials that they think would have violated this?

I dunno, I wonder about Paizo Pathfinder ones, they were pretty violent and scary. The Paizo "Classic Monsters Revisited" also raised my hair slightly, yet in both cases, I totally loved it.

"Sexual situations," etc, leaves open non gratuitous nudity. I'm not surprised this is in there if they're letting people use their logo. WOTC has every right to target an audience, and they want the audience they target to be inclusive of kids. This means having a brand that is seen as kid friendly.

This annoys me a little I have to admit. I can see why they've done it, but at the same time, meh. I'd really like to read an adventure where everyone wasn't some kind of asexual robot.

"Existing real world minorities," etc. This one is big, and the most interesting. First, there's a list of issues, then there's a list of rules for how you treat those issues. The rules are, in short, for any given X, do not demean X with comparison to Y, and don't promote disrespect for X in the abstract.

This is a bit better than I thought it was, so extra thanks for quoting it for my lazy ass. In the 4E books, it's clear that an attitude has been copped towards any kind of even SLIGHTLY realistic portrayal of medieval-ish society being anything but "evil", so I was foolishly assuming it was the exact same deal. Slightly off-topic but I think it that given the assumptions portrayed in the alignment bits of the PHB, the world design stuff in the DMG, and some of the monster stuff, previously LN societies would now typically be "evil" in 4E (because it's rare that an LN society doesn't promote some kind of "social injustice")...

 

[Rechan]

This annoys me a little I have to admit. I can see why they've done it, but at the same time, meh. I'd really like to read an adventure where everyone wasn't some kind of asexual robot.

Be aware, I don't think they're referring to a picture with naked breasts (Like the 1e MM), or saying "Hey, these people? They have sex!"

In Paizo's Curse of the Crimson Throne, the Queen has a relationship with her female bodyguard. In Rise of the Runelords, there are two men who have a relationship, which is the town's "Worse kept secret". In that same series, an NPC farm girl tries to seduce a PC (literally dropping her top and pushing him towards a cot in the basement; her father meanwhile is seconds from opening the door).

I don't think this is against the "community standards".