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

[Jd Smith1]

It was posted earlier in this thread:

That doesn't mention being or not being a dick at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OBS and DTRPG are the same company. OBS owns all of the DriveThru brands (RPG, Comics, Cards, Fiction) as well as DMsGuild and StorytellerVault.

They're big, though if you're not writing for D&D or Storyteller there are plenty of other places to sell your games through that have content guidelines that are less restrictive than OBS's sites (and even their content guidelines basically boil down to a prohibition on child sexual assault material, sexual assault material, and hate speech. They're already pretty loose as far as retailers go, it's just that there are some who say they have no restrictions at all - though I'd bet that the child sexual assault material ban is pretty universal whether it's in a posted policy or not).

These policies guidelines are not new I believe (I don't know when they were added). The new guidelines are the ones about publishers and marketing (those just maybe make these guideline more relevant to publishers). But the guidelines are not strictly about sexual assault or child sexual assault. It is also about "overt political agendas" and "depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children" (a hag eating a child would seem to fall under a criminal act of violence against a child for example, though I suspect that isn't the spirit of the wording). There is also rules against racist, homophobic and discriminatory content (as well as repugnant views). I think if they are talking about not having racist screeds, few publishers are even interested in that to begin with. But it could be more of an issue if that were to encompass having an NPC who holds racist views (just like you might have a racist character in a novel where the message of the novel is not racist itself). And given that we've had a lot of threads over things like 'are orcs racist' there is that too. I think though they aren't intending these things as I have never seen them enforce these policies in this way. I do think the change in posture towards publishers in the recent guidelines though reminded people that how these guidelines get enforced could change if attitudes or people behind the scenes at OBS change.

Here is the actual section from the guidelines:

Neither your Work, description, nor any promotional material, including blog posts or press releases, may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material without the express written permission of OneBookShelf.

Illegal and Infringing content is not allowed. It is the content creator’s responsibility to ensure that their content does not violate laws, or copyright, trademark, privacy, or other rights.

 

[Alzrius]

That's a completely different argument than the one you made about speech should not have consequences. OBS isn't close to a monopoly. They are by no means the only way to sell or deliver content on the internet.

They're self-evidently not a monopoly, but I do think that they have monopoly power, which isn't the same thing. You don't need to control 100% of a particular market in order to have the ability to regulate (even if only partially) who has access to that particular market.

Now, I don't have any hard-and-fast numbers on this, so I can certainly understand skepticism. But every time I've talked to publishers, they've indicated that DriveThruRPG is by far the largest player where online storefronts for downloadable RPG products are concerned (though, as noted in that link, Kickstarter is by far the larger generator of money, but they aren't a storefront per se in terms of being able to browse a set of wares and buy them at will). Being kicked off of their storefront makes it incredibly difficult for many, if not most, publishers to reach potential customers, and as such I'm of the belief that it is germane to this discussion.

I know that I'm not responding to a lot of additional points that you made, but that's because I feel that the above goes to the heart of this particular area of concern. A business entity does not need to control 100% of a market in order to have the impact, or at least the near-impact, of a monopoly. Strictly speaking, anyone can always set up their own venue and sell their goods that way, but if that's all we consider, then there are no monopolies at all, which is a distinction that doesn't help insofar as practical applications goes.

In this regime, it becomes important for the company to be able to protect itself from attack, especially attacks where they both have to bear the brunt of the attack AND continue to provide the attacker the benefits of their attack. These clauses are reactions to a predatory scheme where a poster intentionally created controversy about OBS in order to drive more sales to his products on OBS. That's it. These are pretty measured responses to that -- they don't say no criticism is allowed (which they could do).

I think there's a point worth considering here wherein we should question how much a single-person operation, with a limited audience and little money (at least compared to DTRPG) has the ability to "attack" a much larger entity insofar as using "derogatory" language goes (particularly since that particular term, which DTRPG does use in their new conduct guidelines, is ill-defined). I question how much that can be rightfully characterized as "predation" given the sheer disparity in the power dynamics involved.

The argument you're making is one of a slippery slope and one that has a personal moral assignment that doesn't consider other moral assignments or the fundamental rights of the company to choose who they associate with.

To be clear, I am considering the rights of the company. I just believe that in this case, the rights of the individual(s) who are adversely affected by these new guidelines should win out in the event of a conflict.

I feel like I just saw a unicorn. Amazed, wonderous, but clearly a figment of my imagination?

Just watch out for the magic unicorn mayonnaise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No private entity is required to give you free speech. Only the Government

Corporate censorship is a long accepted issue for anyone who is interested in free speech. There are I think a few things that happen in these discussions. There is the first amendment, which is its own thing. There is the broader principle of free expression in the arts. And then there are gray areas (not in this case but in cases where say a corporation has enough power over a person's life they can effectively infringe on their constitutional rights).

 

[Jd Smith1]

No private entity is required to give you free speech. Only the Government

And since the Net is largely ungoverned, complaining about rights is utterly moot.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think there is a good argument to be made they are effecting a defacto monopoly. For most publishers, you have to be on their site to have any relevance. And its where the vast majority of PDF sales (increasingly print sales) for RPGs take place. They are very much close to the RPG amazon (yes there is Ebay, there are other online sales platforms but amazon has such an enormous influence because they are so important it actually can shape what gets made). I think with OBS it is similar.

I don't do print stuff on OBS, but I do rely on my PDF sales there (and I don't even have an exclusive agreement with OBS for that, so I can and have put PDFs up elsewhere: they make pretty much next to zero dollars anywhere else----so I don't even bother anymore). Also OBS acquired several sales sites. Before RPGnow and Drivethru were separate things.

But I think a lot of this is quibbling over terms. The fact is they are extremely important for publishers. Most publishers won't survive coming off OBS. And you do make a good point about advertising, but I think it is more than that: OBS basically creates the perception for most people of what is available in the RPG world. I don't have my print books on OBS for instance. They are available elsewhere, but I hear from so many customers (including recently from someone who was a very longstanding fan) who have no idea we also sell print books (because they assume if a company has PDFs but no print books on OBS, they must not make print books). I think OBS is arguably the landing page for most RPG consumers. A day on their new releases page gets you more awareness than paid advertising. That is a good arrangement in many ways. And they've managed their power responsibly and with restraint in the past. But I do think the new guidelines are a little concerning if you are publisher

The relevant question is why. It's not because the sales service, but rather the advertising one. And that's only because the structure of paying for the advertising is convenient and relatively inexpensive compared to other options. You don't have a monopoly because you have a big megaphone to advertise with. OBS/DTRPG is not using their megaphone to silence competitors or your products not on their site, they're using it to promote their customers. This is not what a monopoly looks like.

Neither is the ease and lower cost of using their sales service. Taking advantage of economies of scale to offer a service at a good price is also not a monopoly. OBS is not engaged in any of the classic monopolistic behaviors, they are just the big fish in the small pond.

Otherwise, we really need to go after WotC for their monopoly on the RPG market, and how they won't let me put whatever I want into D&D or on DM's Guild. They're silencing me with their monopoly.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Corporate censorship is a long accepted issue for anyone who is interested in free speech. There are I think a few things that happen in these discussions. There is the first amendment, which is its own thing. There is the broader principle of free expression in the arts. And then there are gray areas (not in this case but in cases where say a corporation has enough power over a person's life they can effectively infringe on their constitutional rights).

I am a strong support of free speech, but I never got this memo.

I don't see it as an issue at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am a strong support of free speech, but I never got this memo.

I don't see it as an issue at all.

I heard it all the time growing up around the free speech movement: Corporate censorship - Wikipedia

 

[Ovinomancer]

They're self-evidently not a monopoly, but I do think that they have monopoly power, which isn't the same thing. You don't need to control 100% of a particular market in order to have the ability to regulate (even if only partially) who has access to that particular market.

Now, I don't have any hard-and-fast numbers on this, so I can certainly understand skepticism. But every time I've talked to publishers, they've indicated that DriveThruRPG is by far the largest player where online storefronts for downloadable RPG products are concerned (though, as noted in that link, Kickstarter is by far the larger generator of money, but they aren't a storefront per se in terms of being able to browse a set of wares and buy them at will). Being kicked off of their storefront makes it incredibly difficult for many, if not most, publishers to reach potential customers, and as such I'm of the belief that it is germane to this discussion.

I know that I'm not responding to a lot of additional points that you made, but that's because I feel that the above goes to the heart of this particular area of concern. A business entity does not need to control 100% of a market in order to have the impact, or at least the near-impact, of a monopoly. Strictly speaking, anyone can always set up their own venue and sell their goods that way, but if that's all we consider, then there are no monopolies at all, which is a distinction that doesn't help insofar as practical applications goes.

I think there's a point worth considering here wherein we should question how much a single-person operation, with a limited audience and little money (at least compared to DTRPG) has the ability to "attack" a much larger entity insofar as using "derogatory" language goes (particularly since that particular term, which DTRPG does use in their new conduct guidelines, is ill-defined). I question how much that can be rightfully characterized as "predation" given the sheer disparity in the power dynamics involved.

To be clear, I am considering the rights of the company. I just believe that in this case, the rights of the individual(s) who are adversely affected by these new guidelines should win out in the event of a conflict.

Just watch out for the magic unicorn mayonnaise.

You're hung up on monopolies. I live in a town with only one farmer's market. If I want fresh local produce, that's my option. Local farmers can set up their own tables and stand there an man them and sell to people that drive to their farms (and some do, we have some fairly famous farms where this is their business), but for most farmers, especially small ones, selling to the market is the best way to do it -- they don't want to run their own stores at their own farms. Is this also a monopoly, or 'monopoly powers'? (I don't know what this means, really, except, "a monopoly but we can't call it a monopoly.") Should the farmer's market be expected to sell any farmer's products even if that farmer is badmouthing the market to other farmers and customers, or they say things that the market doesn't want to be associated with?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Otherwise, we really need to go after WotC for their monopoly on the RPG market, and how they won't let me put whatever I want into D&D or on DM's Guild. They're silencing me with their monopoly.

But there are other viable alternatives to WOTC (so much so that it almost looked like Pathfinder had the potential to come out on top prior to 5E). But I can at least think of several large RPG companies making money. There aren't really that many viable alternatives to OBS (maybe there will be soon, perhaps Itch.io becomes more signifiant for example). Yes you can sell your PDFs elsewhere, but they have a very dominant position in the market place. What they say is going to have massive influence on what gets made. I used this example elsewhere but I think it is a good way of showing what i am talking about. If they said tomorrow in their guidelines: no kobolds in any product. You wouldn't see any kobolds except in the few companies that operate without using OBS. Now that might also trigger a justified backlash and they might back down from it if big companies are upset. But I definitely think it's fair to say that their guidelines are likely to have an impact on the content people are willing to make.