D&D General Companies Cut Ties With Judges Guild After Owner's Racist Posts

Several game publishers, including Bat in the Attic, have said that they will no longer do business with Judges Guild after its owner posted a number of racist and anti-semitic statements. They don't need to be repeated here; but there are several examples.

Judges Guild has been around since 1976, producing products compatible with Dungeons & Dragons; the current owner, Bob Bledsaw II, is the son of its co-founder, Bob Bledsaw, and has run the company since 2008. The company is well known for 1976's City State of the Invincible Overlord, amongst other classics. Bat in the Attic and Frog God Games both license Judges' Guild properties.

Rob Conley of Bat in the Attic stated yesterday that the company would no longer do business with Judges Guild, or its properties. "Sunday evening, I called Robert Bledsaw II and discussed the issue. I notified him that I will no longer be doing future Judges’ Guild projects and will only continue to sell what I have currently listed. I stated that I will be calling the other Judges Guild licensee and inform them of the situation and of my decision."

Frog God Games, which has been working with Judges Guild for nearly 20 years, followed suit. "Recently the owner of Judges Guild made a series of racist and anti-semitic posts on Facebook. We will not reproduce them here; they are shown on Rob Conley's Bat in the Attic blog, and we are convinced of their authenticity. Rob wrote his post because, as a licensee of Judges Guild property, he felt he needed to state clearly that he would not be doing business with Judges Guild in the future. We have also licensed property from Judges Guild in the past, and we are seconding Rob's example by cutting off all future business with Judges Guild. The posts made on Facebook were completely unacceptable."

UPDATE — DriveThruRPG has severed ties. “The Judges Guild publisher account has been closed and they are no longer available on DriveThruRPG.”

A few years ago, Judges Guild ran a Kickstarter to bring back City State of the Invincible Overlord, with nearly a thousand backers raising $85K. The Kickstarter has not yet been fulfilled. The latest update was in October 2019.

 

[FrogReaver]

I know plenty of straight white cis male people who'd be appalled by Bob Bledsaw's behavior, so yeah I think we're good.

Not related to my post at all.

well yeah, that's what usually happens when someone does something objectionable. it's like people's opinions and the opinions of the DTRPG are in alignment or something O:

Yea but keep in mind, there was once a time when a woman "not knowing her place" was objectionable. - The point being that a majority finding something objectionable doesn't make it objectively so.

 

[Aaron L]

Probably.

You know how when someone has a problem, in an attempt to commiserate, lots of people say, 'I know how you feel,"? That's not generally a helpful approach.

Demonstrative, but true, example: Person A is talking about how they have PTSD from parental abuse. Person B chimes in, "Yeah, I know how you feel. My parents are abusive too." Turns out that Person B's "abuse" is "won't let me smoke in the house." Thinking these are equivalent shows that Person B really doesn't know much, but also makes person A feel like their problem is being minimized - That's what you think of this? I'm here in misery, and you think that's the same as having to go outside to smoke?

Whether it is intended to or not, the effect is often to belittle. So, not a great strategy.

Moreover, and often more importantly, saying, "I know how you feel," makes the discussion about you, and your history, and not about the person with the problem.

Maybe "I can sympathize" would be better?

 

[FrogReaver]

Probably.

You know how when someone has a problem, in an attempt to commiserate, lots of people say, 'I know how you feel,"? That's not generally a helpful approach.

Demonstrative, but true, example: Person A is talking about how they have PTSD from parental abuse. Person B chimes in, "Yeah, I know how you feel. My parents are abusive too." Turns out that Person B's "abuse" is "won't let me smoke in the house." Thinking these are equivalent shows that Person B really doesn't know much, but also makes person A feel like their problem is being minimized - That's what you think of this? I'm here in misery, and you think that's the same as having to go outside to smoke?

Whether it is intended to or not, the effect is often to belittle. So, not a great strategy.

Moreover, and often more importantly, saying, "I know how you feel," makes the discussion about you, and your history, and not about the person with the problem.

It's almost as if words don't have precise meanings and can be used many different ways by many different people...

You know what I've never seen, I've never seen a person B not say "oh wow that's terrible, i'm sorry" when person A elaborates on the details of their parental abuse.

IMO. It's not minimization, it's not belittlement - except to those who are looking for offense - Instead it's the imprecise meaning of words and needing more communication to understand each other.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

@Sabathius42

BMW made a lot of Nazi warplanes, but we divorce the product from the individuals who once worked there.

SOME have, but I can guarantee you there are people who don’t buy from companies that supplied the war machine of the Axis powers- I’ve met them. Some go so far as to not buy anything from those countries if they can avoid it.

In fact, that was one of the conditions on the money my paternal Grandfather attached to the money he gave me towards my first car.

 

[Panda-s1]

Not related to my post at all.



Yea but keep in mind, there was once a time when a woman "not knowing her place" was objectionable. - The point being that a majority finding something objectionable doesn't make it objectively so.

man, can't do something because a minority says so, can't do something because the majority says so. the normal response to all this is "whoa Bob Bledsaw did some horrible stuff and should face the consequences for his actions" instead of worrying he might have theoretically faced consequences because some people got too upset about it.

even Rob Conley himself didn't want to make his public post because of "mob mentality", but he still decided to 'cause he felt it was the right thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

man, can't do something because a minority says so, can't do something because the majority says so. the normal response to all this is "whoa Bob Bledsaw did some horrible stuff and should face the consequences for his actions" instead of worrying he might have theoretically faced consequences because some people got too upset about it.

even Rob Conley himself didn't want to make his public post because of "mob mentality", but he still decided to 'cause he felt it was the right thing.

Weird how you've prejudged my position about Bob Bledsaw without ever actually hearing it. It's almost like you are stereotyping me or something...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You‘re acting like there’s no difference in the justice or morality in the two cases, and frankly drawing that kind of moral equivalence is out of place. There’s a pretty big moral gap between shunning racists bordering on Nazis and persecuting a game company out of misdirected grief.

I think he’s trying to make a point about the methodology used, not the motivating morality. He’s asking whether this particular means by which a group of people may use confronting another group- namely, a hounding protest in an effort to damage them socially, economically or both- is justifiable or not.

Personally, I see it as a tool, no more, no less, used for moral, amoral, and immoral purposes alike. And like any tool, sometimes it works, and sometimes it’s completely wrong for the task.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think he’s trying to make a point about the methodology used, not the motivating morality. He’s asking whether this particular means by which a group of people may use confronting another group- namely, a hounding protest in an effort to damage them socially, economically or both- is justifiable or not.

Personally, I see it as a tool, no more, no less, used for moral, amoral, and immoral purposes alike. And like any tool, sometimes it works, and sometimes it’s completely wrong for the task.

But you do agree that certain tools have a high bar in order to justify their use?

 

[Panda-s1]

Why? That was from Judges Guild pre B2 and B3. B1 owned and ran it, prior to his death in 2008, and should not be tainted by what his son and grandson do. To quote someone on RPG.net who knew/worked with Bob Senior

"No, Bob Sr. wasn't like that at all. We only discussed race, religion, and politics about theWilderlands Campaign setting. He was from that generation that lived right after WWII so he knew the holocaust was true. In 2001 he took a wargamers tour with Bill Owen to France and Germany, and toured all the WWII sites including Normandy Beach and the Ardennes to pay his respects, and of course gather firsthand knowledge of battlefields."

Older JG products should not be tarred by those that inherited the company, in my opinion

okay I hate to be That Guy™ (except when I do, like right now), but I went through the comments of the original blog post I found this unfortunate gem:

I don't Bob Bledsaw Sr. too well, or Judges Guild, but I figured given his age he wasn't perfect, and well it turns out that's the case. maybe he wasn't anywhere near as bad as his son and grandson, but he probably didn't help much either.

EDIT: tagging @darjr since yours was the post I was actually trying to find.

 

[Aaron L]

I agree that is some horrible things to say, but maybe through wise discussion he can be shown the errors in his opinions and become wiser for it.

That's a wonderful sentiment, and an idea that a lot of people cling to... but the cold hard reality is that the vast, vast majority of the time it just doesn't work that way. Like 99.9% of the time. In real life most people by far don't change their opinions very much after they reach adulthood, and it isn't simply a matter of intelligence, either; in fact, the more intelligent a person is the more they will use their smarts to rationalize their pre-existing beliefs, rather than change them. This is all the worse with people who are already prone to buying into conspiracy theories, as is the case with this guy (claiming that a certain small human group secretly controls the entire world media from behind the scenes.) Conspiracy theory-mongers are wrapped up in an awful combination of arrogance, confirmation bias, and circular logic, so that anything you present to them as evidence against their beliefs they will simply turn around and use as evidence in favor of their beliefs:

(Person A: "There's simply no evidence that any of this secret stuff you've claimed has ever happened." Person B: "See, I was right! That just shows you how good they are at covering their tracks!")

No one like that is ever going to come into the light through being exposed to the truth by other people. It's a very sad thing, but he's basically a lost cause at this point. The only way he'll ever change is if he realizes his delusions on his own and alters his own mind. And since he's already well into adulthood something like would be as rare as finding an uncut diamond in a block of processed cheese.