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

[Umbran]

And therein is both the rub and the personal assumption! So why "should" people have access to this book?

Yep, exactly. There's the entitlement, right there. Why are people entitled to the work?

 

[Bedrockgames]

And therein is both the rub and the personal assumption! So why "should" people have access to this book?

Censorship isn't just about letting people speak, it is also about allowing people to listen or see things. Just to use government censorship as an example, if the government steps in and takes The Satanic Versus off bookshelves because it is deemed offensive, we wouldn't simply cry 'censorship' because Salman Rushdie was stopped from expressing himself in words, we would cry 'censorship' because we are not allowed access to his words. I think there is a good argument to be made that the more important side of this is access. People get censored, not because folks don't want them to say what is on their mind, but because they don't want their ideas spreading to other people.

In the case of OA why should they not have access? It is currently available, WOTC is happy to publish it. Why should everyone suddenly not have access, because others have decided it is too immoral for them to see?

As I said before, this is a fairly minor thing. The world won't end if people don't have access to OA, but this kind of thing happens in bits here and there, and before you know it, a number of things are getting taken down on similar claims. Does anyone really believe that if OA is deemed too offensive to be sold on DrivethruRPG, other books that are popular will not be? It is a matter of principle for a lot of people.

 

[Voadam]

As a general proposition, people having access to books they want is a good thing, people being denied access to books they want is a negative thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yep, exactly. There's the entitlement, right there. Why are people entitled to the work?

Why are you entitled to read speeches by Martin Luther King Jr? Why are you entitled to read Fahrenheit 451 or Portnoy's Complaint? I think it boils down to people want to have the right to evaluate for themselves if they should be able to read this material or not. And when the material is being threatened because someone objects to it on moral grounds, that makes this even more important. I don't see it as having a sense of entitlement, to not want small groups of people to pressure companies to take down media we value.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Or entitled to it for cheap, considering the complaint that the original printing are going up in price on eBay while the Pdf is only 5$...

I said 'affordable' not 'cheap'. The issue was there were reports of OA skyrocketing in price on Amazon. Having it affordable, means people with less means will have access to it (and I think that is important because not everyone in this hobby can afford 200 dollar books).

 

[Aldarc]

Censorship isn't just about letting people speak, it is also about allowing people to listen or see things. Just to use government censorship as an example, if the government steps in and takes The Satanic Versus off bookshelves because it is deemed offensive, we wouldn't simply cry 'censorship' because Salman Rushdie was stopped from expressing himself in words, we would cry 'censorship' because we are not allowed access to his words. I think there is a good argument to be made that the more important side of this is access. People get censored, not because folks don't want them to say what is on their mind, but because they don't want their ideas spreading to other people.

You are falsely equating government censorship with corporate self-censorship, but starting with this false equivalence is certainly a good way to frame the OA situation in a negative light.

In the case of OA why should they not have access? It is currently available, WOTC is happy to publish it. Why should everyone suddenly not have access, because others have decided it is too immoral for them to see?

You said that they should have access to it. Why should they? How are people entitled to purchase it from WotC?

Why are you entitled to read speeches by Martin Luther King Jr? Why are you entitled to read Fahrenheit 451 or Portnoy's Complaint?

I'm starting think that it boils down to you feeling more entitled to hyperbolic false equivalences more than anything else. Would you mind explaining how Oriental Adventures is comparable to these works in anyway? Or are you honestly saying in full earnest that a corporation choosing to remove publication of a game supplement for an unsupported edition is the moral equivalent of censorship in Fahrenheit 451? It's an argument almost on the level of preschool being a prison where the brainwashing of infants transpires.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are falsely equating government censorship with corporate self-censorship, but starting with this false equivalence is certainly a good way to frame the OA situation in a negative light.

I have clearly made that distinction multiple times in this thread. I brought in government censorship specially as an example to illustrate that censorship isn't simply about stopping people from speaking, but also preventing people from accessing material too.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You said that they should have access to it. Why should they? How are people entitled to purchase it from WotC?

I think I provided you with my reasons. But you haven't told me why they should not have access to it. If my reasons are insufficient for you, I am happy to see if I can put together a better thought out defense of access here, but I feel like I gave a solid reason that at least attempted to answer your question

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm starting think that it boils down to you feeling more entitled to hyperbolic false equivalences more than anything else. Would you mind explaining how Oriental Adventures is comparable to these works in anyway? Or are you honestly saying in full earnest that a corporation choosing to remove publication of a game supplement for an unsupported edition is the moral equivalent of censorship in Fahrenheit 451? It's an argument almost on the level of preschool being a prison where the brainwashing of infants transpires.

This isn't about these media being identical, its about the issue of access. If someone is entitled to access to Farhenheit 451, why would they be less entitled to access to their favorite detective story, or a game book? When it comes to censorship, I think if you are only willing to protect great works, then you run into big problems (largely because categorizing something as not being a great work is an easy way to get it removed). And then we are left with the problem of who gets to decide what works are great. Just like we are left with the problem of determining who gets to decide which RPG books are too immoral to be on OBS

I don't know Aldarc, you don't have to agree with me if you don't want to. None of us are entitled to having others agree with our opinions. But I do feel like I cordially laid out my reasons for what I believe, and I don't think they were arguments close to equating preschools as brainwashing prisons. Nor do I think they were hyperbolic. I think you have to bring in more significant examples because eventually the line of reasoning that leads to OA being taken down, gets applied to other works too.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

So... you are effectively arguing that WotC has a moral obligation to control its speech... in the way you want them to. This seems in general form exactly the same as those saying they need to take it down. You both are trying to press an obligation on WotC. It is just that one is for up, the other is down.



I think it is a long, long stretch to call a supplement for a luxury entertainment game 30 years gone, "an important work."



Never since the creation of the printing press has a publisher had an obligation to keep works in print. Yes, it is a bummer - but it is not the publisher's job to save you from all bummers.

And, quite frankly, this flies in the face of that whole "freedom of expression for the creator" stuff. This "moral consideration" has been brought up several times in these discussions, in different forms. What it really amounts to is a statement that the public is entitled to the work (on some moral grounds), once published. That you have a right to someone's speech, even if they don't want to speak!

Needless to say, as a moral argument, that makes little sense.

When they removed the book of racist, I believed it was good. When they removed the book of liberals I did not care about cause I'm not liberal. When they removed my book, nobody was left to defend me.

Tons of words to circle around the true point. Censorship.