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

[Ovinomancer]

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

Yup, totally a thing. What's the alternative? Bonus points if it's anything but the government telling people or corporations what they have to say or who they have to associate with.

 

[Alzrius]

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?

Well, I don't believe it's a hangup, but rather an accurate description of a salient point that should be considered with regard to what DriveThruRPG is doing here.

As for a farmer's market, while I don't think that hypotheticals are necessarily conducive to the conversation (which I really want to remain respectful, since I think this is a valuable exchange of viewpoints), I'm not sure how much power a single farmer's market actually has to exclude someone, or at least to do so in a way that has meaningful impact on their economic viability; I mean, can't they set up a stall twenty feet away on days the market is active? That's not the same as being kicked off of DriveThruRPG.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yup, totally a thing. What's the alternative? Bonus points if it's anything but the government telling people or corporations what they have to say or who they have to associate with.

It is one of the reasons why these conversations are best done with people not getting overly emotional, and weighing each others opinion without ridicule or assuming bad motives: because as you point to it is a gray area where companies have a legitimate right to not host products or content they find objectionable, while at the same time balancing that out with how much power corporations have over consumers, workers and people who use their platforms. I think there isn't a legal remedy to this issue, it needs to be a cultural remedy where we value free expression enough that corporations are encouraged to keep that line where it benefits free expression in the arts as much as possible. It is also why when you have guidelines like this issued, people should freely weigh in.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

There are other viable alternative to OBS. That a business might be so marginal that it cannot survive in the market without using a service like OBS is not a marker of monopolistic power. That's a mark that OBS enables marginal businesses. One is not entitled to have a marginal business by requiring other businesses to enable it no matter what.

 

[Jd Smith1]

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

And yet you made a blanket statement.

In other words, its only an issue to some supporters of free speech.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There are other viable alternative to OBS. That a business might be so marginal that it cannot survive in the market without using a service like OBS is not a marker of monopolistic power. That's a mark that OBS enables marginal businesses. One is not entitled to have a marginal business by requiring other businesses to enable it no matter what.

We probably won't agree on this point, which is fine. There is a subjective assessment here. Again, I would argue most RPG companies (that is small to mid-sized companies) can't operate successfully without being on OBS. Just my point of view, but I am not seeing real viable alternatives to OBS as a publisher myself. There are alternatives but they aren't viable alternatives. They are mainly going to work out for larger companies, companies with unique levels of reach due to other factors, but your average small to mid-size RPG company is not going to have an easy time outside OBS. And the reason that matters is their content is going to be impacted by whatever policies OBS sets. Which means if you are an RPG consumer, this is very much a question of what kind of RPG content landscape do you want (and I can't answer that for you, everyone is going to have a different view). Personally I would like for publishers to be comfortable with the same degree of creative expression as you have in movies or novels. Because I want to see people making stuff like that. And myself, I don't make anything particularly objectionable. But I occasionally want to throw in serious themes or something shocking in the way you would find in some horror movies. Some of those guidelines do make me second guess many choices I make.

But if you think there are viable alternatives, and they don't have an outsized impact on things, fair enough, I think it is best to just agree to disagree on that point since we are probably unlikely to arrive at a new understanding from anything you or I say.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It is one of the reasons why these conversations are best done with people not getting overly emotional, and weighing each others opinion without ridicule or assuming bad motives: because as you point to it is a gray area where companies have a legitimate right to not host products or content they find objectionable, while at the same time balancing that out with how much power corporations have over consumers, workers and people who use their platforms. I think there isn't a legal remedy to this issue, it needs to be a cultural remedy where we value free expression enough that corporations are encouraged to keep that line where it benefits free expression in the arts as much as possible. It is also why when you have guidelines like this issued, people should freely weigh in.

I think it would be a lot easier and better if people did not go around seeking reasons to be offended.

There's a great deal of intolerance being practiced in the name of tolerance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I don't believe it's a hangup, but rather an accurate description of a salient point that should be considered with regard to what DriveThruRPG is doing here.

As for a farmer's market, while I don't think that hypotheticals are necessarily conducive to the conversation (which I really want to remain respectful, since I think this is a valuable exchange of viewpoints), I'm not sure how much power a single farmer's market actually has to exclude someone, or at least to do so in a way that has meaningful impact on their economic viability; I mean, can't they set up a stall twenty feet away on days the market is active? That's not the same as being kicked off of DriveThruRPG.

Sure, they can set up such a stall, so long as they get the permit from the town to do so, buy and transport the stall themselves, and spend their labor time manning the stall. All of these costs are rolled into the percentage that the market takes. Also, people coming to the market would have to notice the stall, walk to it, and find it's selling products at a price and desirability that encourages them to do so. So fewer chances to make a sale.

Dismissing this toy example as not wanting to engage in hypotheticals is odd, because this is the exact same situations for OBS/DTRPG, I just filed off the numbers and repainted it. If dealing with this hypothetical is harder, that should provide pause for why you believe what you believe about OBS/DTRPG. As I said to @Bedrockgames, OBS/DTRPG enable a huge number of marginal products that could not survive without their service. They've increased the total market. You don't get to say that since OBS/DTRPG has enabled your otherwise unviable product that they have to support you because... monopoly? That's not how that works. A product not being viable without the affordable services and advertising of OBS/DTRPG is not an argument that OBS/DTRPG has a duty to continue to support your product regardless of your behavior.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And yet you made a blanket statement.

In other words, its only an issue to some supporters of free speech.

I am not sure what your objection to what I said is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We probably won't agree on this point, which is fine. There is a subjective assessment here. Again, I would argue most RPG companies (that is small to mid-sized companies) can't operate successfully without being on OBS. Just my point of view, but I am not seeing real viable alternatives to OBS as a publisher myself. There are alternatives but they aren't viable alternatives. They are mainly going to work out for larger companies, companies with unique levels of reach due to other factors, but your average small to mid-size RPG company is not going to have an easy time outside OBS. And the reason that matters is their content is going to be impacted by whatever policies OBS sets. Which means if you are an RPG consumer, this is very much a question of what kind of RPG content landscape do you want (and I can't answer that for you, everyone is going to have a different view). Personally I would like for publishers to be comfortable with the same degree of creative expression as you have in movies or novels. Because I want to see people making stuff like that. And myself, I don't make anything particularly objectionable. But I occasionally want to throw in serious themes or something shocking in the way you would find in some horror movies. Some of those guidelines do make me second guess many choices I make.

But if you think there are viable alternatives, and they don't have an outsized impact on things, fair enough, I think it is best to just agree to disagree on that point since we are probably unlikely to arrive at a new understanding from anything you or I say.

Yes. OBS/DTRPG being the way that a marginal business stays afloat does not create a duty on the part of OBS/DTRPG to always support that marginal business. There is no right to remain in business.