Bedrockgames
Legend
I think you could solve that by not allowing someone like Varg to put content on the platform. You can have edgy content available but draw the line at someone like Varg
DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'
- Thread starter Waller
- Start date
I think you could solve that by not allowing someone like Varg to put content on the platform. You can have edgy content available but draw the line at someone like Varg
Bedrockgames
Legend
I look at it two ways: in terms of what I need to know as a publishers which is one thing, and concern over free expression in the hobby, which is another. For the former, I just think the language makes me uneasy about what I am actually allowed to do. And I don't have enough clarity on how this has been enforced and how it will be enforced. I am also concerned that with the existing language, any change behind the scenes could suddenly make the standards enforced more strictly (so if you have a number of products up that aren't even edgy---none of mine are particularly edgy IMO---but deal in the kinds of themes you see in genre literature or movies, or even certain myths and fairytales). I have sent queries over matters like this in the past and received solid information in return.
On the free expression, I think its important for everyone to weigh in and give their view. I don't expect everyone to hold my position. I worry about the language (and have when it has come up in the past) because I think the ideal state for the hobby on a platform like this (where again people will disagree, not trying to relitigate, but IMO OBS is very powerful and important in terms of what books get made) to allow for the most wide range of content possible. I especially worry that things with nuance, irony, etc could get swept up in these guidelines, and I worry that different people will have very different takes on what constitutes a violation (i.e. the whole are orcs racist thing). That said, whatever the terms are, I am a publisher and have to abide by them (which again is why I always make a point of giving my opinion when the subject comes up). Here I would echo a point in my previous paragraph to about worrying where this goes in the future.
Jahydin
Hero
Does this carry over to the fictional works too or are you strictly talking about IRL?
Like say, The Witcher setting where there is cruel, racial (human, dwarf, elf) prejudice. Would you want that removed?
Jahydin
Hero
I see what you mean, but I think their goal isn't so much a line, but a large fuzzy "might get banned" gradient so the content doesn't even approach Vargs, lol.
Jahydin
Hero
@Bedrockgames
I think your concerns are valid. Only time will tell though.
In the mean time, you can see what content is already being offered (especially if a best seller) and get an idea of what's allowed. Just knowing you can be as politically vocal as Pundit or create as depraved content as Raggi means you're probably going to be safe uploading there.
I think your concerns are valid. Only time will tell though.
In the mean time, you can see what content is already being offered (especially if a best seller) and get an idea of what's allowed. Just knowing you can be as politically vocal as Pundit or create as depraved content as Raggi means you're probably going to be safe uploading there.
Gradine
Final Form (she/they)
Absolutely not. Fiction can be great way to explore the ways in which we can confront the very real evils that plague us in the real world, including all matter of prejudice and hatred.
On the other hand, I would draw the line at fiction (or any other work) that glorifies and/or promotes these evils. Such works are not so much valueless as they are value-negative, and there is a moral, if clearly not a legal, imperative to prevent the spread of such an odious ideology. This is especially true for those who maintain and manage platforms for the spread of shared human creativity.
If you have the power to prevent the spread of bigoted propaganda on your platform, and you refuse to use that power, then that is an abject moral failure.
Jahydin
Hero
Oh, cool. Understandable.
I don't think I'm quite as critical though. I'm thinking of my time as a kid role-playing The Coalition from Rifts (military faction obsessed with the destruction of all non-humans). What started off as fun being a "fascist-bro" stomping clearly evil monsters became quite the learning experience once more "grey" situations arose (I think we had to clear out a sewer of D-Bees who more or less was just trying to survive), which led to us breaking away and attempting to thwart them "form the inside".
How do you feel about material like that in a game?
Picture to get an idea of how the character classes were portrayed in the art:
Crusadius
Adventurer
I think your misconstruing the intention of the policy.
RaHoWa and its ilk are likely games that would fall under its auspices.
Bacon Bits
Hero
That's part of the issue. The policy doesn't voice the intent. Many rules and policies don't do that. Intent usually doesn't survive implementation. Over time, as leadership changes or it's politics do, how will the policy be used as a written rule independent of the intent behind it?
In other words, we're all happy to see Venger gone. What happens when it's Evil Hat's Thirsty Sword Lesbians? It's naive to expect DTRPG to always have progressive moderation. What happens when they turn into Facebook? It's not like they've had much competition sweeping in to capture their market. It's worth thinking about or recognizing that it may happen.
Crusadius
Adventurer
When DTRPG stop having progressive moderation, do you think they’ll stick to whatever guidelines they’ve set up for themselves?
And note that one of the “complaints” is that its progressive moderation causes problems for some people.
DrunkonDuty
he/him
Changes in corporate leadership can lead to a changes in corporate policy. In fact, they frequently do. It's how the new management justifies its existence.
There's no point saying "sometime in the future this thing that is being managed in a reasonable way may be managed in an unreasonable way."
There's no point saying "sometime in the future this thing that is being managed in a reasonable way may be managed in an unreasonable way."
DrunkonDuty
he/him
Also, what Crusadius said.
Bacon Bits
Hero
They don't need to change them when all they need to do is rely on the ambiguity of the term "disparaging". The point of linking the Facebook story is to point out that they haven't changed their content policies or moderation policies, either. They just selectively enforce it, so they still appear to be reasonable.
What happens when Hasbro buys DTRPG? Or Amazon buys it? Or Elon Musk? Or Tencent?
What happens when DTRPG decides they want 80% of the sale price? Can I complain about that on Twitter? What if I want to complain about the DMs Guild restrictions, or talk about how they negatively affect the market or my business. Can I do that?
The point is that a lot of people see stuff like this and say, "I am not alarmed by this policy because I agree the outcome is desirable in this example." That is letting ends justify means. It's worthwhile to question the means. Did DTRPG need to make this policy change just to throw Venger and his ilk off the platform? I don't think so given the already existing content guidelines. So what is the goal? To just warn some people they won't be welcome? Well, we should consider how that might be used to manipulate things.
It's a bit like telling every customer that comes in your store that you've got a bat under the counter and you're not afraid to use it on unruly customers. Okay? That seems like something you don't need to explicitly point out.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
I think the policy in question is to address situations such as a publisher of a product called "Tournament of Rapists" and other publishers in their circle of friends throwing tantrums (accusing DriveThru of violating the constitutional right to free speech) when said product was removed from sale on DriveThru. And, of course, DriveThru was violating nothing of the sort. And, no, this is not a hypothetical situation.
Crusadius
Adventurer
It's like having a sign on the store door that says "unruly customers will be ejected" and some people are getting upset over such a sign.
Gradine
Final Form (she/they)
Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice? Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized? I'm only slightly more familiar with Warhammer 40k, but the idea there is that the Imperium is pretty explicitly bad, but also generally the least awful option available. There's a hint of parody there too (CIAPHAS CAIN, f'rex).
I realize I may have sounded rather extreme earlier but frankly I set that bar pretty low. WH40k would easily clear it. Trash like Racial Holy War doesn't. That WoD product from a few years back, the one with all the Nazi dogwhistles? That's about where the line is.
Davies
Legend
This is a definite no. There are much more heroic factions than the Coalition.
This not so definite, but still no.
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
For the record, they haven't kicked Venger off. Nor have they kicked off LotFP, despite Raggi's dramatics.
As Morrus pointed out, Kickstarter is actually a much larger share of the general RPG sales market; DTRPG hasn't, in reality, captured a majority share of the market. While they do have a large share of the POD and PDF sales market, the idea that they don't have competition is simply mistaken. Itch.io, Lulu, Amazon, and individual company stores like Paizo's and Steve Jackson Games' are also substantial, and could definitely pick up greater market share if DTRPG/OBS were to become more restrictive and less easy to work with.
Facebook is huge, but let's also not forget that Twitter still exists. And that before Facebook, MySpace seemed unchallengable.
No, the Coalition is pretty much the only explicitly fascist faction, and while they are available option for playing PCs, they're more commonly used as antagonists. And yeah, they lampshade/push the parodic level of the Coalition a bit, what with the Maximum Skulls All the Time aesthetic, although I don't think as much so as GW traditionally did. I don't think Palladium had the same trademark British sense of irony. They played it a bit more straight.
Last edited:
Jahydin
Hero
@Gradine
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, thanks.
I think Rifts came to mind as an example because when they ported it over to Savage Worlds I was bummed playing the Coalition was no longer an option. I guess despite the hundreds of other class options, they felt it was something they didn't feel comfortable with.
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, thanks.
I think Rifts came to mind as an example because when they ported it over to Savage Worlds I was bummed playing the Coalition was no longer an option. I guess despite the hundreds of other class options, they felt it was something they didn't feel comfortable with.
