Clarification Query: "adult" content definition?

[jemstone]

Apologies if this has been asked before. I ran a search on the forum and was unable to find the answer.

The Compatibility License states:

Quote:

You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.

If I'm correct, this qualifies as such things as:

Intentionally salacious content
Gratuitous nudity and/or sexuality
Discussions of items pornographic or prurient in nature

This would explain why an item such as Sisters Of Rapture cannot use the compatibility license.

Would the prohibition extend to a genre (cyberpunk/science-fiction) source book that dealt with topics such as:

Drugs
Crime
Prostitution
Politics
Profanity (used sparingly and in context to the inline fiction)
Mentions of sexuality/gender

And other such genre-specific items.

Would these items qualify as restricted, thus removing compatibility license eligibility?

The Pathfinder comics and several published sourcebooks deal with similar topics (especially in terms of gender/sexuality of their characters), and have had coverage of similar items.

If the intent of the mentions of these topics is to deal with them in the context of the supplemental material, matter-of-factly where possible, would these constitute prohibited material?

Thanks in advance for any input/insight.

[Vic Wertz]

jemstone wrote:

Would the prohibition extend to a genre (cyberpunk/science-fiction) source book that dealt with topics such as:

Drugs
Crime
Prostitution
Politics
Profanity (used sparingly and in context to the inline fiction)
Mentions of sexuality/gender

And other such genre-specific items.

Would these items qualify as restricted, thus removing compatibility license eligibility?

If it is reasonable to believe that the general public would classify that treatment as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, then it applies. If you are in doubt, consider surveying the general public (or, perhaps better yet, just avoid any topics you think may cross that line).

We're not going to provide an itemized list of things you can and can't say, as any such list would be easily abusable. (Further, the wording we have provided has the benefit of automatically shifting as cultural mores change over time.)

jemstone wrote:

The Pathfinder comics and several published sourcebooks deal with similar topics (especially in terms of gender/sexuality of their characters), and have had coverage of similar items.

Note that these products are not published under the Compatibility License, so should not be used as a benchmark for it (though we believe that our products are generally suitable for an audience roughly age 13 and up).

[jemstone]

Thank you, Mr. Wertz, I appreciate your input rather a lot. :)

I bring these items up because numerous games in the genre are targeted at the 13-up crowd, but often come with numerous disclaimers and preambles that put themselves on a "you must be this hardcore to go on this ride" type of space, and I don't believe that's appropriate. Not just for the project I'm currently working on, but at all. I further note that many games in the genre believe these disclaimers are "enough" to qualify as their due diligence, and damn the fallout. That's not what we're looking to do.

Dealing with items such as these in a matter-of-fact and objective manner, I would think, would be more than appropriate for the 13-up crowd. This is especially true in terms of things like gender/sexuality, topics that are pertinent in the current cultural stage.

At no point would any of the topics be glorified or endorsed, but rather acknowledged and discussed in context.

I do have one counterpoint to your statement, here:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Note that these products are not published under the Compatibility License, so should not be used as a benchmark for it (though we believe that our products are generally suitable for an audience roughly age 13 and up).

The topics I'm referring to are the same topics that are dealt with by Paizo's own Iconic Shaman, Shardra Geltl. This is a Paizo-created Iconic and deals with the topic of gender identity in a very similar manner to what we're looking at doing.

Would this be an acceptable item for compatibility, or would it classify as a no-go?

I hope this helps provide more information, and thank you again. :)

[Vic Wertz]

We're not going to say "this category is safe," "that category is not." Another benefit of the approach we're using is that does allow the possibility that sensitive subjects can be dealt with in a non-offensive way. All I can do is ask: If you gave your text to a bunch of random people representative of the general public, do you think many of them would say it's "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors?

[Jesse Heinig]

Interesting considering that Rise of the Runelords encourages the players to make magic weapons with sex toys built into them! :D

[jemstone]

Vic Wertz wrote:

We're not going to say "this category is safe," "that category is not." Another benefit of the approach we're using is that does allow the possibility that sensitive subjects can be dealt with in a non-offensive way. All I can do is ask: If you gave your text to a bunch of random people representative of the general public, do you think many of them would say it's "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors?

This is very pertinent, thank you.

Among the general gamer-type populace, I'm certain the response would be different than the general non-gamer populace, but as I am old enough to remember the D&D hysteria of the 80's, I know it's not the gamer crowds we have to worry about.

I'll visit this with my production partner and we will discuss the compatibility license option further.

The goal is to provide a solid and genre-faithful text, without inviting salacious or prurient material. I feel we can do that responsibly, but it might require some sacrifices on either or both sides of the equation. We shall see.

Thank you again sir.