Well, it seems to me something that happened yesterday is still history, even if it's impacting what is currently happening. BUT, are you implying that current events can't be used for entertainment? Because how many TV shows do this? Shows like Madam Secretary and Saturday Night Live. I really don't think you want to say that real life can not be unilaterally used for entertainment. I think you will want to put some "reasonableness" around such a statement and not imply it is na absolute.
There's a huge gulf between satirising a politician on a weekly comedy show and exploiting the actual torture and murder of people's family members for a fictional story about magical immortal beings. Not the least being that politicians
know they're signing up to be targets of comedy. Public figures accept that by being in the spotlight they can be targets of satire and parody.
For example, the survivors of the Parkland Shooting who have become advocates are public figures and commentary of them and their statements is fair game. Because they
chose to be in the public eye.
The survivors who did not become advocates are different and should not be the target of parody of humour. And using their pain and trauma to sell a narrative is exploitative. Having a Vampire the Masquerade book attribute that massacre as the actions of a frenzied vampire and the shooting as a coverup would be in extreme poor taste.
Would you want the torture and murder of a loved one included in an RPG book as part of a fictitious narrative?
I often tend to see things this way as well. Until I realize the absurdities of applying such a statement to reasonable situations. I mean, What if I am offended and ostracized when someone's forum name starts with the letter J? Should such forum names be banned? Of course not.
What's your point? That because some imaginary people might theoretically be outraged by an absurd trigger that all triggers are therefore equally absurd and we shouldn't bother?
Sorry, no.
That's not how society works. You don't get to say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe a magical bearded man on a cloud made the entire world in six days. I don't believe the fairy tale that the entire world was flooded 4000 years ago. Those stories are beyond ridiculous and laughable. But that doesn't mean I go around taking the Lord's name in vain in front of my Christian relatives, no matter how ludicrous their beliefs. Because that'd be a dick move.
It doesn't harm me not to say something that will offend them. Because there's an infinite other things I could say instead.
A general audience? I don't think so. WoD products are designed for a very small segment of the population. I don't know the details of that population, but they certainly are not designed for a conservative Christian grandmother of age 70. They are not even designed for every gamer or even every roleplayer. I don't think they are designed for me (never been interested in the genre). They are tailored to a small market of a small (but growing) market.
Clearly, I meant a general
tabletop gamer audience. But you could even go as narrow as "general Vampire the Masquerade audience".
The product should do its best to appeal to the entire length and breadth of the community and everyone who plays Vampire or has ever played Vampire. Ideally speaking. It should find a happy middle ground between the expectations of the fans.
The narrower the audience it appeals to (and the more of the audience it ostracises) the less the product will sell.
Now, the last part, about the books needing to be bought and read, absolutely. And it seems like in this case the publisher decided that parts of the book(s) targeted a part of the population they were not interested in, or more importantly, that parts of the books alienated a large part of the existing customer base. And that the current editors had made mistakes significant enough to prove to be a business liability and not a good steward for the product.
Good for them. But its really just a business decision influenced by the growing awareness and power of social marketing, for and against a product.
This isn't some new phenomena. Companies have had to retract products based on negative feedback for years. Heck, look at the
Palace of the Silver Princess recall from 1980.
The current climate isn't anything new. It's just the latest uptick in an age old cycle as each generation is forced to reevaluate their BS and inappropriate behaviour.