What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Hussar]

I suppose the operative question then, one which I at least cannot answer, is: does publishing a campaign setting obligate Wizards to include it in organized play?

It certainly has in the past. Every year, the AL season follows whatever the big adventure/setting of that year. Considering how much of a marketing push AL is for promoting D&D, it would probably be a bad idea NOT to do that.

And, again, why worry about hypotheticals? The fact is, WotC ties every year's AL series to the big release. I guess the counter question would be, why release something that won't be included in that year's Adventure League season? What's the upside here? Why wouldn't it be included?

Oh, right, because including a setting with slavery pushes people away from the hobby.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Cancel Folks

Mod Note:

Don’t use charged rhetoric in this forum.

 

[Maxperson]

You haven't heard that awful stereotype? It used to be a very common one.

Nope. Never have heard that one.

So what game have you been playing?

D&D.

Um, by saying that removing slavery is like removing the force? Unless you are claiming that you actually meant "hey, you can do both of these things just fine, no problems."

No. You don't get to invent fiction about me and then accuse me of engaging in your invented fiction. I never said or implied that your argument fails. I simply answered your question.

Tell me, is the Forgotten Realms no longer the Forgotten Realms now that they've removed the Wall of the Faithless?

It's an integral part of the Realms. It still exists in my game as a result.

And you still haven't said why it's fundamental. Why it's so important to the setting, other than that "it was always there."

The same as the force. It's fundamental also because it was "always there." These settings were designed with these aspects being important to them.

Because if that's your argument, so what? Just because something was there from the beginning doesn't mean it's good, useful, or necessary to keep around.

So remove it from your Dark Sun. Nobody would be requiring you to keep or use it.

Since that was there either because (a) Lucas didn't understand what a parsec was and/or assumed his audience didn't understand it either, (b) to show Han Solo was an idiot, hence Obi-Wan's eye roll, or (c) to set up some extremely obscure worldbuilding re: hyperdrives that was never used again within the original trilogy--I can't remember if it was used in the prequels or sequels; I only remember it from the d6 Star Wars RPG--this argument has nothing to do with anything regarding the force.

Go watch Solo. It was explained in a way that made perfect sense.

 

[Maxperson]

No. The argument -- which isn't mine, remember! -- is that WotC is concerned that people will perceive the inclusion of slavery in Dark Sun as supporting slavery. [EDIT: And I'll add that supporting slavery doesn't mean supporting slavery in real life but rather supporting the practice of slavery by PCs.]

Maybe that means that WotC thinks people are dumb. Maybe that means WotC is dumb. Maybe WotC thinks DS fans are too dumb to accept a DS reboot without slavery included.

Maybe dumb doesn't factor into it. Maybe WotC thinks that people will be put off by the inclusion of slavery for good and valid reasons.

If that's what they mean, then perhaps someone should tell them that as of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, they're still "supporting" the practice of slavery by PCs since they're still printing stuff about slavery.

 

[Maxperson]

Remember the Errata in Volo's with the Fire Giants? The implication that Players would engage in offering other beings in trade (aka Slave Trade) was removed.

Thats not even a settling, that was a piece of fluff around a single monster.

So yes, Wizards is unwilling to look like, or entertain the idea, that they would even suggest a Player, engages in anything like slavery.

Simply including it in the game makes it a possibility that PCs will engage with it as slavers, and they are still including it in the game.

 

[haakon1]

Do you scrub your world of slavery and other historical crimes?

No. But it’s a home campaign version of Greyhawk, so I only need to care about what I and my players think. Publishers have more worries.

I actually have three different multiyear campaigns in my Greyhawk, with three different groups. All of the groups were multi racial and multi gender.

In my version of “Shackled City Adventure Path”, I added slavery to the background of the region - with plantations and pirates it felt like it was denying the real Caribbean not to mention it. I actually replaced a hill tribe that were helping a “baddie” faction with Maroons - escaped slaves living in the wilderness and starting a slave revolt. The PC’s fought them at first, then allied with them for mutual benefit, and the campaign ended due to COVID before we saw if the PC’s joined the revolution. I was thinking they might - ready to sandbox that, or do the adventure as written. The players thought it was interesting to be protectors of Cauldron, and realize quickly they weren’t sure Cauldron deserved protection, but also not everyone there is evil, so hmm?

In my family campaign, with a 13 year old niece and 15 year old nephew, I edit away from any controversial topics.

 

[Maxperson]

There have been people on other Dark Sun threads who have literally said that you don't need a psionic system or even psionic archetypes for Dark Sun, because you can just reskin sorcerers. And yet it's slavery that's the thing the setting can't do without.

It's the same few people putting forth that argument that also put it forth in psionics threads. It gets rejected by the vast majority there, too. Sorcerer doesn't work to as a psion.

I mean, what does that say about the setting? "Ravenloft is the horror setting, Dragonlance is the epic fantasy setting, Forgotten Realms is the high magic setting, Eberron is the techmagic-and-politics setting, Dark Sun is the slavery setting."

That ain't a good look.

You know what else ain't a good look? Intentionally misrepresenting the other side in order to win the internet. Nobody, literally nobody, is arguing that Dark Sun is the slavery setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. But it’s a home campaign version of Greyhawk, so I only need to care about what I and my players think. Publishers have more worries.

I actually have three different multiyear campaigns in my Greyhawk, with three different groups. All of the groups were multi racial and multi gender.

In my version of “Shackled City Adventure Path”, I added slavery to the background of the region - with plantations and pirates it felt like it was denying the real Caribbean not to mention it. I actually replaced a hill tribe that were helping a “baddie” faction with Maroons - escaped slaves living in the wilderness and starting a slave revolt. The PC’s fought them at first, then allied with them for mutual benefit, and the campaign ended due to COVID before we saw if the PC’s joined the revolution. I was thinking they might - ready to sandbox that, or do the adventure as written. The players thought it was interesting to be protectors of Cauldron, and realize quickly they weren’t sure Cauldron deserved protection, but also not everyone there is evil, so hmm?

In my family campaign, with a 13 year old niece and 15 year old nephew, I edit away from any controversial topics.

Yes, because that sort of editing uncomfortable topics should be done at the table level.

 

[Maxperson]

2. If I don't like it, don't play it.

This response I feel far more strongly about though. Basically, I'm being told that not every aspect of the hobby is "for" everyone. That is something I strongly disagree with. I might not like something, it might not be to my taste, fair enough. But, being told to essentially "Shut up or there's the door" for not wanting to play pretend slavery in a public venue is much more of a problem than WotC not publishing a book.

Because, that's what "If you don't like it don't play it" means. It means, "If you don't like it, too bad, shut up or there's the door". It's the exact opposite of being inclusive. "Oh, you don't like it, well, I guess you're not welcome at these tables" is NEVER a message I would ever want to see in a public facing venue like Adventurers League.

The hobby has been that way since day 1. Not everyone is comfortable running or playing in evil campaigns or even with an evil PC. The solution has never been to remove evil from the player options and has always been to just not play it. The same thing with slavery(drow, mind flayers, etc.), murder and more.

It's incredibly anti-inclusive. It's basically telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that their opinion is not even a consideration.

It's actually the opposite of being anti-inclusive. It's even more inclusive because the game then includes everyone. Those who want to play that setting and those who don't, not just the ones who don't. People would get the option to play whatever aspects of the game/setting they want to play and not play those aspects that they don't, rather than others deciding that an option that they don't find distasteful to roleplay isn't there for them.

I am only speaking about public play with strangers. I am not making ANY commentary on private, home games. My concern is ONLY about public gaming. Please do not respond to me about your home games, or offer counter examples that are not DIRECTLY CONCERNED with public gaming.

Public play doesn't change anything. Even if they had a Dark Sun season, AL DMs can run anything they like. They aren't forced to just run those games and you would still be able to find games that weren't Dark Sun.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Remember the Errata in Volo's with the Fire Giants? The implication that Players would engage in offering other beings in trade (aka Slave Trade) was removed.

Thats not even a settling, that was a piece of fluff around a single monster.

The PCs plan to acquire the Conch of Teleportation from the Fire Giant fortress in SKT.
That, pretending to be slavers offering slaves, would be an awesome plan to use to bypass the initial guard at the fortress.