WotC WotC (Mistakenly) Issues DMCA Takedown Against Baldur's Gate-themed Stardew Valley Mod

Wizards of the Coast recently issued a DMCA takedown notice against Baldur's Village, a popular fan-created Stardew Valley mod which was based on Baldur's Gate 3.

Created by a modding team called Nexus Mods, the mod featured BG3 characters such as Astarion and Shadowheart, 20+ NPCs, and various locations and events. The mod, which has had over 4,000 downloads, took over a year to make, according to the team, and garnered praise from Swen Vincke, the CEO of Larion, the company which made Baldur's Gate 3, who also posted about the situation on Twitter:

“Free quality fan mods highlighting your characters in other game genres are proof your work resonates and a unique form of word of mouth. Imho they shouldn’t be treated like commercial ventures that infringe on your property. Protecting your IP can be tricky, but I do hope this gets settled. There are good ways of dealing with this.”

The mod went into "moderation review" on March 29th. However, it seems this was a 'mistake'--WotC has since issued a statement:

"The Baldur's Village DMCA takedown was issued mistakenly—we are sorry about that. We are in the process of fixing that now so fans and the Stardew community can continue to enjoy this great mod!"

So, the mod is back again! To use it you need the have the Stardew Modding API, the Content Patcher, and the Portraiture mod.

This isn't the first time WotC has 'erroneously' issued takedown notices against fans. In August 2024, the company took action against various YouTubers who were previewing the then-upcoming 2024 D&D Player's Handbook. A few days later, after some public outcry, WotC reversed its decision.

 

[billd91]

If someone wants to thumb their nose at WotC for their actions... that's fine. But if they aren't spending equal amounts of time looking into the actions of all the other companies they deal with... then I don't see any moral high ground that they think they are standing on.

Just because there's no completely ethical consumption in this corporate capitalist world doesn't mean I have to tolerate everybody's crappy behavior.

 

[Umbran]

So . . . semantics then. Okay.

In my own life, when I make a deliberate choice . . . and it goes as expected but with unforeseen consequences that go badly for me . . . I consider that a mistake. And if possible, I'll try to correct for it.

I'm glad we're focusing on the important things, like the meaning of the word "mistake".

Well, yes, it kind of is.

WotC has had several incidents in recent memory in which they have failed to look particularly well-meaning. There is a point in which their failure to take that to heart stops looking like a "mistake" and more like a willful choice in spite of the harm to their reputation.

Being an inconsiderate wretch once may be a mistake. After three or four times, it is less a mistake, and more a personality trait.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just because there's no completely ethical consumption in this corporate capitalist world doesn't mean I have to tolerate everybody's crappy behavior.

Of course not. But that's no different than me who doesn't care about a company's crappy behavior.

Everyone can decide for themselves. But the only reason we've been on this tangent in the first place is because someone questioned me about it and then a new person keeps asking or commenting on it. Makes me wonder if they've actually started with the beginning of this thread to see how I got to this point that they choose to respond to.

 

[Burnside]

I love when this gets brought up.
The Pinkertons of today are not the armed militia that was used to bust unions with brute force.

People use this reference to make it sound like they sent the Hells Angels to rough up some card collector in his mom’s basement.

The modern Pinkertons are a 3rd party security firm that uses average fat balding dudes to interact outside of customer service channels.

The account of the Pinkertons incident by the people it happened to seemed at least extreme enough that the guy's wife was reduced to tears by it: Magic publishers sent Pinkerton agents to a YouTuber’s house to retrieve leaked cards

 

[Dire Bare]

Well, yes, it kind of is.

WotC has had several incidents in recent memory in which they have failed to look particularly well-meaning. There is a point in which their failure to take that to heart stops looking like a "mistake" and more like a willful choice in spite of the harm to their reputation.

Being an inconsiderate wretch once may be a mistake. After three or four times, it is less a mistake, and more a personality trait.

I would agree that WotC/Hasbro is . . . ah . . . a less than a well-managed company. They've had several large screw-ups, and a host of smaller ones over the past few years.

But with most of these mistakes, they have corrected for them. Yeah, they seem to keep making more, but they also work to fix what they fail. The mistakes also don't seem to be malicious or paint WotC as a bad actor . . . IMO at least.

I do think there is a pattern to the mistakes, from my point of view . . . but it isn't malicious or anti-consumer, but rather a pattern of moderate executive incompetence. IMO, of course.

Would my enjoyment of D&D and confidence in purchasing WotC's products increase if they demonstrated better management? Heck yeah! I would really like to see that . . .

However, WotC's mistakes over the past few years, the pattern I see in them, hasn't yet risen to the level that makes me uncomfortable enough to stop purchasing new D&D products. Especially, because I have really enjoyed most of the D&D products that WotC has produced over the years!

This most recent goof, both itself and as the latest screw-up, does not really bother me in the slightest. And it's more than a little irritating when others imply (or outright state) that somehow my opinion makes me an ignorant consumer, or an uncaring one (not a complaint aimed at @Umbran, but others in this thread).

Again, I'm cool with others not feeling the way I do about this. If you've had enough of WotC's long line of errors, or if this error is just too much for you, or if you see darker motives behind these mistakes . . . great! I have trouble accepting some of the more extreme claims, but I'm not going to say they are wrong to feel that way.

But for me, I'm still comfortable being a WotC customer and fan of official D&D. Will that change someday? Maybe. And I am a consumer that strives to pay attention to the companies making and selling the stuff that I need and want, and I have decided to no longer patronize some of those companies for various reasons.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As I said earlier, some things you can't avoid because they're necessities. For instance, I am disabled, can't drive, and am basically house-bound. So yeah, I have to buy from Amazon because they deliver and have a very cheap price for Prime for people with disabilities. And I do shop carefully to avoid buying products from there that are made by dodgy or unethical companies.

But gaming books are not a necessity, and there are literally of thousands of options out there, including 5e compatible books from other companies if you didn't feel like trying a different system.

And that's a perfectly acceptable way of choosing to live your life. I choose to live my life differently. I choose to not divide the things I use in my life between those that are acceptable to come from crappy companies because they are "necessities", and things that are not acceptable to come from crappy companies because they aren't. I don't care. It is a distinguishing factor that is so tenuous in its moral judgement in my opinion that I find it not worth the time to spend nitpicking their placement. If I'm going to make the moral decision to not purchase from unethical companies... then I will go all-in on it. Otherwise... a half-measure to me seems utterly pointless.

 

[Dire Bare]

And that's a perfectly acceptable way of choosing to live your life. I choose to live my life differently. I choose to not divide the things I use in my life between those that are acceptable to come from crappy companies because they are "necessities", and things that are not acceptable to come from crappy companies because they aren't. I don't care. It is a distinguishing factor that is so tenuous in its moral judgement in my opinion that I find it not worth the time to spend nitpicking their placement. If I'm going to make the moral decision to not purchase from unethical companies... then I will go all-in on it. Otherwise... a half-measure to me seems utterly pointless.

Being an informed and ethical consumer, as you point out, is hard. Our capitalist and corporate society is complicated and there is a lot of not-good stuff going on in almost every industry. Not to mention the plague of misinformation on social media.

I respect folks who strive to be informed and to make ethical purchases of goods and services. Especially because it is hard. I try not to judge when the lines other folks draw are different from the ones I do.

I really struggle to respect folks who DO judge others for not making the same decisions when it comes to which companies to support and which to avoid or boycott entirely. That moral high ground is often, IMO, extremely hypocritical and self-righteous.

 

[Umbran]

I would agree that WotC/Hasbro is . . . ah . . . a less than a well-managed company. They've had several large screw-ups, and a host of smaller ones over the past few years.

But with most of these mistakes, they have corrected for them. Yeah, they seem to keep making more, but they also work to fix what they fail. The mistakes also don't seem to be malicious or paint WotC as a bad actor . . . IMO at least.

I do think there is a pattern to the mistakes, from my point of view . . . but it isn't malicious or anti-consumer, but rather a pattern of moderate executive incompetence. IMO, of course.

On the scale of bad actors in the world, probably not. And the point was not to suggest WotC was villainous, or something.

The point is that there comes a point where "mistake" no longer accurately describes what is going on. Basically, not all actions with bad outcomes are "mistakes". If you are aware of the negative outcome, and accept it as a cost of doing business, that's not a mistake, that's a choice.

 

[Dire Bare]

On the scale of bad actors in the world, probably not. And the point was not to suggest WotC was villainous, or something.

The point is that there comes a point where "mistake" no longer accurately describes what is going on. Basically, not all actions with bad outcomes are "mistakes". If you are aware of the negative outcome, and accept it as a cost of doing business, that's not a mistake, that's a choice.

Sure, yeah.

And WotC's choices and mistakes have not crossed my personal threshold yet.

It came close for me during the OGL crisis, and if WotC had not acted to correct for that, I probably would have stopped being their customer at that point. But they did fix the problem, which was initially a very intentional choice, and actually improved the situation. So I continue being a WotC customer, for now at least.

 

[Burnside]

Sure, yeah.

And WotC's choices and mistakes have not crossed my personal threshold yet.

It came close for me during the OGL crisis, and if WotC had not acted to correct for that, I probably would have stopped being their customer at that point. But they did fix the problem, which was initially a very intentional choice, and actually improved the situation. So I continue being a WotC customer, for now at least.

This is how I feel about them. If they hadn't reversed course on the OGL, they'd have lost me. But they did.

In the grand scheme of corporations doing evil things, Hasbro doesn't even move the evil needle.

They sure do find a way to shoot themselves in the foot every six months, though.