DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'

[Bedrockgames]

You waffle a great deal.

Not sure where you are getting this. I don't believe I am waffling at all. I was speaking very generally in casual language, the intent of my words was misunderstood, so I clarified. When I said "You can't make an overtly political RPG" I think it is obvious I didn't mean that OBS is going to reach out and stop you if you make one and publish it elsewhere. But that you can't make one and have it go up on OBS (which I think because of OBS's position in the market, if this rule were strictly enforced, would mean very few overtly political RPGs would be made). Of course there is the question of how strictly this rule is itself enforced. Which it doesn't seem to be. Personally I think a rule against overtly political RPGs is probably not a good rule (especially with the whole one report gets a book automatically taken down for two weeks thing).

I think with the guidelines in questions there is a lot of room to debate what the terms actually mean because some of them of the language is very broad and there appears to be a gulf between the exact wording of the guidelines and the way the guidelines have been enforced.

 

[aramis erak]

this is what I meant: that their guidelines say you can’t put up an overtly political RPG on drivethru without their express written permission. Obviously you can make whatever game you want abd sell elsewhere but in terms of what the policy says regarding their site, it appears to preclude overtly political rpgs. Now note what I stated after that: they don’t seem to be enforcing this rule literally, so I tend to think Morrus’ interpretation is correct: it’s just oddly worded or unclear. Still clarity of language if that is the case would be good I think so publishers know

The interesting part is that it implies you CAN get permission.

And Wizards has gotten said permission... the A series modules (Consolidated version: Against the Slave Lords) from AD&D are available via DTRPG.
Triple Ace has, too, with Ubiquity Guide to Elite Nazi Units.
I can't even see the produt page of Scorched Urf Studios' Black Tentacle: Chastity & Depravity. (Nor do I want to.)
Jim Lot dba LotFP has a lot of adult and questionable art on DTRPG.

Griefers like Venger are apparently unwilling to play ball and agree to content warnings &/or restricted listing, preferring to stir the excrement stew.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The interesting part is that it implies you CAN get permission.

And Wizards has gotten said permission... the A series modules (Consolidated version: Against the Slave Lords) from AD&D are available via DTRPG.
Triple Ace has, too, with Ubiquity Guide to Elite Nazi Units.
I can't even see the produt page of Scorched Urf Studios' Black Tentacle: Chastity & Depravity. (Nor do I want to.)
Jim Lot dba LotFP has a lot of adult and questionable art on DTRPG.

Griefers like Venger are apparently unwilling to play ball and agree to content warnings &/or restricted listing, preferring to stir the excrement stew.

I don't believe the content warnings of the Wizards products has to do with the guidelines (I believe those arose out of a series of discussions around content in their older material online and that WOTC voluntarily put up the content warning in response to fans online: possible I am wrong here but that is my memory)). Being available doesn't mean permission was given. It just means it hasn't been taken down due to a report or due to OBS enforcing that element of the guidelines. I suppose it is possible companies have put in requests and received permission. But what you are seeing in most of these discussions is confusion among publishers around how narrowly these guidelines are enforced (this is why some people have suggested OBS providing a list of products that have been taken down). As written it would seem to mean to put such products up, you would need permission. But as Morrus and others have pointed to, the language doesn't really seem to match what their intentions are with the guidelines and lots of publishers have put up content that hasn't been taken down that might, if you strictly and literally applied the guidelines.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can't even see the produt page of Scorched Urf Studios' Black Tentacle: Chastity & Depravity. (Nor do I want to.)
Jim Lot dba LotFP has a lot of adult and questionable art on DTRPG.

Griefers like Venger are apparently unwilling to play ball and agree to content warnings &/or restricted listing, preferring to stir the excrement stew.

Restricted listing is a whole other matter. That is a judgement call on the part of the publisher, and a pretty gray area. If you don't restrict something that ought to be for adult content, it can come down and have to be put on the restricted list. But that ins't really what this discussion concerning the guidelines is about.

With the adult stuff they have pretty clear advice to help companies navigate that (because sometimes you put something out that isn't adult but maybe deals with more mature themes and you are on the fence about it).

This is their guidelines on the adult filter:

Caveat: "Adult" Setting​

Because the OneBookShelf sites attract customers of a wide variety of ages and backgrounds, not all products will be suitable for all customers at all times. Customers may be shopping from computers in public areas, or the customers themselves may be young people. In these (and possibly other) cases, certain products with mature themes are inappropriate.

OneBookShelf has provided an "Adult" filter which will block that material from the view of any customers who do not opt-in for mature content. Publishers have the responsibility to mark their products as "Adult" when appropriate, using the check box near the bottom of the product entry/editing form.

One issue that has arisen with regard to graphics on product covers is the depiction of the human form, and what is within the boundaries of good taste. Opinions vary from person to person and from region to region in the world. In order to be clear, OneBookShelf will use the following 'universal' standard:

On any product cover or other graphic that might be seen on the front page of the sites, any human figure (or semi-human or humanoid figure, in the case of fantasy or science fiction products) will be covered at least to the extent of the Miss Universe or Mr. Universe candidates in the linked photos. If necessary, the coverage maybe by text or some other graphical element. This does not apply to graphics which appear solely on product description pages or in a product preview. However, any product which does not include that amount of coverage throughout its presentation on OneBookShelf sites should be protected by the "Adult" label, so that customers who wish can opt out of even inadvertent viewing of the material.

Any product which does not meet the 'universal' standard mentioned above, for all material on OneBookShelf sites (including cover, product preview, and any other graphics that may appear in the product description) should be designated as an Adult product.

In addition, products are generally considered mature (and should use the Adult setting) if they include nudity, graphic sexual material, depictions of gore, or crude language. Obviously this is an area in which publishers must use their judgment. Keep in mind that the purpose of the Adult designation is to benefit customers, not restrict the choices of publishers. Allowing customers to filter content - or not, as they choose - provides a better shopping environment. That in turn encourages repeat shoppers and more purchases - everyone's ultimate goal.

Regardless of whether or not a product uses the Adult designation, the product description should be clear what customers are going to receive. Customers should not be surprised by a product's content after they make a purchase.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't believe the content warnings of the Wizards products has to do with the guidelines (I believe those arose out of a series of discussions around content in their older material online and that WOTC voluntarily put up the content warning in response to fans online: possible I am wrong here but that is my memory)). Being available doesn't mean permission was given. It just means it hasn't been taken down due to a report or due to OBS enforcing that element of the guidelines. I suppose it is possible companies have put in requests and received permission. But what you are seeing in most of these discussions is confusion among publishers around how narrowly these guidelines are enforced (this is why some people have suggested OBS providing a list of products that have been taken down). As written it would seem to mean to put such products up, you would need permission. But as Morrus and others have pointed to, the language doesn't really seem to match what their intentions are with the guidelines and lots of publishers have put up content that hasn't been taken down that might, if you strictly and literally applied the guidelines.

It reads more as "Get permission, then upload" and the complaints are things not labeled suitably being taken down. I'm aware a lot of older items are kept with a warning - OBS has to have the exception for wizards lest wizards decide to become competition. But if they provide an exception route for Wizards, they need to for others. And Jim Lot's stuff definitely falls into the "posted after the warning policy went live"...

 

[Bedrockgames]

It reads more as "Get permission, then upload" and the complaints are things not labeled suitably being taken down. I'm aware a lot of older items are kept with a warning - OBS has to have the exception for wizards lest wizards decide to become competition. But if they provide an exception route for Wizards, they need to for others. And Jim Lot's stuff definitely falls into the "posted after the warning policy went live"...

My point was I don't think many companies are asking permission. I don't have a window into WoTC and OBS's interactions, so maybe they've been getting permission or been granted exceptions, but that isn't my impression. I think most companies have just had a pretty relaxed take on the guidelines. Just based on discussions I've seen online, most publishers seem to think that the guidelines aren't strictly precluding stuff like this from being put up on OBS, that it is more written broadly so it can be applied to extreme cases. Again that portion of the guidelines has been around for a bit, but this discussion has resurrected some of the earlier concerns about it, and I think the stauncher stance in the two new guidelines they issued, made some folks, myself included, wonder if these other parts of the guidelines would be more rigidly enforced.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also, this probably has already been posted here, but this is the OBS clarification on the new guidelines (which provides more clear context in terms of when different guidelines were put into effect):

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm aware a lot of older items are kept with a warning -

This warning had nothing to do with OBS was my point. There was controversy when some of these older products were put up, and WOTC was responding to fans who expressed concern about the content (there were a bunch of discussions about that here when this happened).

 

[aramis erak]

This warning had nothing to do with OBS was my point. There was controversy when some of these older products were put up, and WOTC was responding to fans who expressed concern about the content (there were a bunch of discussions about that here when this happened).

It's on OBS. It's not just WotC/TSR. It also isn't just the "times were differet when written" either one.

I'm pretty certain that if Venger were to, hat in hand, language kept civil, ask for permission for his politicalized game material, get it put up with a "The views expressed in this product are not endorsed by OBS" warning. Now if it includes rape, violence towards children, etc, that's less likely to fly... but some fo the Pugmire material is very politically challenging... The included adventure in Monarchies of Mau is very much drawn from the Black/White sociopolitical drama playing out over the last 5 years... and no warning on DTRPG that I recall. It was quite a shocker to my players...

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's on OBS. It's not just WotC/TSR. It also isn't just the "times were differet when written" either one.

I understand it is up on OBS, but I meant that I don't believe they asked permission to put it up because of anything that might have been in the guidelines. Again, I could be wrong here. I don't know what discussions went on between them. But from the outside that statement appeared to go up following concerns about legacy products that were a part of a larger conversation on forums, twitter and facebook. Again my contention here could be incorrect. I am just not aware of anyone who has asked permission to put up content that was 'overly political' for example, because, I think most companies have read that guideline as being intended for extreme political views. There are a lot of RPGs on Drivethru that have poltical messages for example. If any of them have contacted OBS for permission, I would certainly be interested in knowing that. I just am not under the impression that many people are doing so.

I might not be following what you are saying so I apologize if I am missing something. I am only aware of the statement that WOTC put on their legacy products which was the blanket statement covering the concerns some fans had about the older content. Did they put another statement up on the products as well?