D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[dave2008]

Okay I think I see the confusion.

...(snip)...
Question: So not all Asians?
Response: No, but they have been brought up to grin and bear it.
Question: So their opinions on this matter are false or disinegenous?

I'm not the one who is implying the opinion of the Asians who are not offended is false or disingeneous, the responders are by claiming that Asians have been brought up to grin and bear it. It is painting the non-offenders as disingeneous with their answers when questioned if the material offends them. It further implies that the Asian Community has the same opinion - even if it is not expressed. That is hardly what I'd call respectful.

I hope I'm making mysef clear.

Got it - I didn't have the full context, thanks!

 

[dave2008]

Was clear to me from the beginning.

It was not to me, but I didn't have the full context and that is on me.

 

[dave2008]

I don't jump through hoops. How about just assuming the questions were asked respectfully?



Ask @dave2008 He's the one that said those words

Not quite. I was trying to give a hypothetical response to a questions which I didn't have the complete context wherein I made a comment a long those lines. That is not the same as me stating, as myself, all "opinions matter."

 

[PsyzhranV2]

When you're sharing the table with a known White supremacist, that may be an indication that you might need to rethink your position.

 

[Immeril]

When you're sharing the table with a known White supremacist, that may be an indication that you might need to rethink your position.

You have clearly never heard of an argumentum ad Hitlerum.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Do we really need to defend Oriental Adventures? I mean, aside from the fact none of us really control WotC's decision.

Those who really enjoyed it back in the bad already have it... what, exactly, would be lost by not selling it anymore? Does every literary works needs to be available all the time for purchase? Beyond preserving the existing physical copies, is there a need to 'protect' OA by allowing to be still be sold? What is the value being defended here when someone opposes taking it down?

Regardless if you think the complaint is genuine or simply a move to grab attention (the former, and call me naive if you want, I am more inclined to believe).

To build on this idea:

Right now, I can go to Amazon and get copies of (books, films)...
A. Mein Kampf.
B. The Communist Manifesto.
C. The Mask of Fu Manchu.
D. Triumph of the Will.
E. The various Gor books.
F. The Birth of a Nation

etc. Now, perhaps you might go through this list and say, "Sure, maybe those are horribly racist. Maybe that's some vile stuff. But that's important! It shouldn't be banned." I might raise my eyebrow at the importance of the Gor books, but whatever. Let's interrogate that belief.

Imagine someone wrote a book. No one really liked it. No one thought it was very important. It was about some subject that everyone "knew" was wrong- you know, like slaughtering whales. Why not just get rid of it?

Well, there goes Moby Dick. But wait, that's important, you say. Everyone knows it. But people didn't realize that at the time. Famously, Moby Dick was re-discovered (relevant again) in the 20s; there are numerous critical reasons to explain this, but imagine if we had the same backlash towards whaling in the 1870s that we do today.

But wait wait, who cares about gaming? It's just a game book. First, look where you are! Second, we have seen this attitude, over and over again, doom important texts to be forever lost.

"It's just TV. Who cares?" And this is why we've lost so much classic TV forever, including formative Doctor Who episodes and almost all of the first season of the Avengers.

"They are just comic books- you know, for kids."

"No one cares about cartoons."

Deciding what is, and isn't, important is never appropriate in these contexts. Is Jerry Lewis a buffoon or an auteur? Is Showgirls trash, or a camp masterpiece, or both? Is this early core hardcover rulebook just a stupid gamebook, or a historical relic that provide a glimpse of the bridge between 1e and 2e?

Who knows? More importantly, who gets to decide? I'm not comfortable letting other people make that decision.

 

[Undrave]

To build on this idea:

Right now, I can go to Amazon and get copies of (books, films)...
A. Mein Kampf.
B. The Communist Manifesto.
C. The Mask of Fu Manchu.
D. Triumph of the Will.
E. The various Gor books.
F. The Birth of a Nation

etc. Now, perhaps you might go through this list and say, "Sure, maybe those are horribly racist. Maybe that's some vile stuff. But that's important! It shouldn't be banned." I might raise my eyebrow at the importance of the Gor books, but whatever. Let's interrogate that belief.

Imagine someone wrote a book. No one really liked it. No one thought it was very important. It was about some subject that everyone "knew" was wrong- you know, like slaughtering whales. Why not just get rid of it?

Well, there goes Moby Dick. But wait, that's important, you say. Everyone knows it. But people didn't realize that at the time. Famously, Moby Dick was re-discovered (relevant again) in the 20s; there are numerous critical reasons to explain this, but imagine if we had the same backlash towards whaling in the 1870s that we do today.

But wait wait, who cares about gaming? It's just a game book. First, look where you are! Second, we have seen this attitude, over and over again, doom important texts to be forever lost.

"It's just TV. Who cares?" And this is why we've lost so much classic TV forever, including formative Doctor Who episodes and almost all of the first season of the Avengers.

"They are just comic books- you know, for kids."

"No one cares about cartoons."

Deciding what is, and isn't, important is never appropriate in these contexts. Is Jerry Lewis a buffoon or an auteur? Is Showgirls trash, or a camp masterpiece, or both? Is this early core hardcover rulebook just a stupid gamebook, or a historical relic that provide a glimpse of the bridge between 1e and 2e?

Who knows? More importantly, who gets to decide? I'm not comfortable letting other people make that decision.

I'm not saying we should burn the OA books that already exist, or that archival copies shouldn't exist. I'm just wondering if there's that much demand for them RIGHT NOW that would be hurt but just yanking them from an online distribution system.

 

[Voadam]

Those who really enjoyed it back in the bad already have it... what, exactly, would be lost by not selling it anymore? Does every literary works needs to be available all the time for purchase? Beyond preserving the existing physical copies, is there a need to 'protect' OA by allowing to be still be sold? What is the value being defended here when someone opposes taking it down?

Legal access for someone who does not have it but is interested in buying it (Such as an OSR fan who wants an AD&D martial arts system or a better monk class).

Also this is specifically because of its content a request to deny access for every future person interested in it, not because the print run is uneconomical or any other content neutral reason.

What would be gained? People who were interested in buying it would not be able to and they would not be exposed to its contents from such a sale.

 

[Immeril]

I'm not saying we should burn the OA books that already exist, or that archival copies shouldn't exist. I'm just wondering if there's that much demand for them RIGHT NOW that would be hurt but just yanking them from an online distribution system.

You're saying that book burning isn't the same as removing a book from an online distribution system. That's where you're wrong. By doing so you are limiting the public's access to a book, deciding what we can and can not read.

 

[Undrave]

You're saying that book burning isn't the same as removing a book from an online distribution system. That's where you're wrong. By doing so you are limiting the public's access to a book, deciding what we can and can not read.

Legal access for someone who does not have it but is interested in buying it (Such as an OSR fan who wants an AD&D martial arts system or a better monk class).

Also this is specifically because of its content a request to deny access for every future person interested in it, not because the print run is uneconomical or any other content neutral reason.

What would be gained? People who were interested in buying it would not be able to and they would not be exposed to its contents from such a sale.

Books go out of print all the bloody time, it happens. Are you OWED a certain author's work? Are we OWED access to this product by a large corporation?

We can lament that a corporation won't sell us the product we want, but are we in any sort of morally superior position just because the corporation won't sell it to us? Are we OWED game mechanics? You can argue that the game, or the landscape of literature, is poorer without that particular works, but is it really our place to demand it?

For exemple, I'm a Transformers collector. Certain late wave toys NEVER make it to Canadian shelf (mostly due to retailers). Certain toys never make it out of Japan. Certain toys even get outright cancelled, and some never happen (where's my Titans Return Minerva, Takara?). I'm sad about it, and I'll complain, but I know it's just my selfish desire.

And, maybe that's just me, I'd rather not argue from a place of selfish desire when it comes to issues of racisms.