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

[Imaculata]

That doesn't make them right. It doesn't mean the game wouldn't be better if we included the things that upset them.

I'm not religious myself, but I can totally understand how the inclusion of demons (especially named after those from real world religion), removes the blur between fantasy and reality for some religious folks, and drives them away from the game.

I've never been fond of demons in D&D. 3E re-added them, but now renamed. And I think that was the right way to go. They decided to appease D&D players eager to fight demons, while removing that troublesome real world connection.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not religious myself, but I can totally understand how the inclusion of demons (especially named after those from real world religion), removes the blur between fantasy and reality for some religious folks, and drives them away from the game.

I can too. I have seen it first hand. That doesn't make them right. It doesn't mean their views should be used an excuse to deprive people of that content or disable creators from including it. Growing up with the satanic panic as a thing, I just don't think appeasing this mentality is healthy for art or for society.

 

[Bedrockgames]

, while removing that troublesome real world connection.

The real world connections is what made them menacing and compelling.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The market will decide between a handful of bitter white guys who think they're defending Western culture, and a potential audience of billions.

If there are enough bitter white guys, I'm sure somebody will Kickstart some retro products for them.

This is an unfair characterization of what posters like me are saying. You can frame it that way, but it is very disingenuous. Not the argument I am making at all.

 

[Imaculata]

Including lucifer on covers has also helped lots of artists sell millions. I don't heeding the most vocal religious critiques of art is necessarily good for sales, and it certainly isn't good for art.

Yes, but we are not designing the cover to a heavy metal album here.

It doesn't mean their views should be used an excuse to deprive people of that content or disable creators from including it. Growing up with the satanic panic as a thing, I just don't think appeasing this mentality is healthy for art or for society.

Well, lets switch this argument back to the topic at hand. What if the element under discussion was not of a religious, but cultural and possibly racial nature? What if people are offended by the way their culture is depicted in a D&D book, and ask for change? Why would you not want to do this?

I reject this notion that the artistic view needs to be compromised in order to appease the masses. Is there not a way to make changes according to modern sensibilities, while also not damaging the original artistic vision?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, lets switch this argument back to the topic at hand. What if the element under discussion was not of a religious, but cultural and possibly racial nature? What if people are offended by the way their culture is depicted in a D&D book, and ask for change? Why would you not want to do this?

I reject this notion that the artistic view needs to be compromised in order to appease the masses.

I don't think D&D should be cultural insensitive. I do think people are going to disagree over WHAT is culturally insensitive. And a lot of this discussion revolves around whether a person being offended automatically means their offense is warranted. The argument is about where that bar ought to be, and I think the bar has moved much too far in the direction of accepting every critique as valid. If we are at the point where multiple sensitivity readers need to be hired in order to make sure a book doesn't offend anyone before its release, I think we've gone much too far in the direction of empowering the offended.

There is also the original subject which wasn't about the content of D&D books going forward, but whether older books with content that people today may find offensive, should still remain on sale. I think taking away or changing such existing books would be a form of censorship

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, but we are not designing the cover to a heavy metal album here.

We aren't. My point is it isn't necessarily bad for sales. Controversy like that can generate sales too. I don't think designers should chase controversy, but your argument is based on commercial appeal.

 

[Imaculata]

and I think the bar has moved much too far in the direction of accepting every critique as valid. If we are at the point where multiple sensitivity readers need to be hired in order to make sure a book doesn't offend anyone before its release, I think we've gone much too far in the direction of empowering the offended.

It is not unheard of to have multiple editors check a book before release. I don't think this is all that different from standard procedure. Besides, especially when gross errors have been made in the past, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to make double sure this mistake is not made again. If that means hiring multiple sensitivity readers, so be it. If a new OA were to be released today, I sincerely hope they have multiple readers of different ethnic backgrounds check it before release.

Could you provide an example of a case where this bar moved too far in your view? Was a specific critique a step too far?

There is also the original subject which wasn't about the content of D&D books going forward, but whether older books with content that people today may find offensive, should still remain on sale. I think taking away or changing such existing books would be a form of censorship

I would agree. I see little value in retroactively making changes to these books, and I am against the idea of making books completely inaccessible because their contents are questionable. That goes for ANY book.

And a lot of this discussion revolves around whether a person being offended automatically means their offense is warranted.

If a person states that something is offensive to them, I tend to take their word for it. If they are part of my target audience, then I will certainly consider making changes accordingly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is not unheard of to have multiple editors check a book before release. I don't think this is all that different from standard procedure. Besides, especially when gross errors have been made in the past, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to make double sure this mistake is not made again. If that means hiring multiple sensitivity readers, so be it. If a new OA were to be released today, I sincerely hope they have multiple readers of different ethnic backgrounds check it before release.

Editing for quality and editing to eliminate errors, is very different from adding layers of editing for cultural sensitivity. It is even different from say hiring a consultant for accuracy or historical details (I have no problem with doing this). But bringing in advisors to make it so no one is offended? I think that has a number of problems. One, is it will impact the quality of content. You are going to lose personality and flavor in this pursuit (because there are all kinds of things people could potentially be offended by). Two, it really creates a huge barrier to entry. We are normalizing a procedure that will require a panel before you 'speak' as a designer. Maybe that is easy for big companies like WOTC to pull off. That is not easy for smaller companies and for independent designers. And it isn't a particularly good way to communicate.

Could you provide an example of a case where this bar moved too far in your view? Was a specific critique a step too far?

No, I already told you I am not going to call out other designers. I think it is very easy to come up with examples. People know what kind of thing I am talking about. We've seen it time and again.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Bedrockgames]

If a person states that something is offensive to them, I tend to take their word for it. If they are part of my target audience, then I will certainly consider making changes accordingly.

I take their word that they are offended (in most cases). I don't conclude automatically that they ought to be offended though. I don't give up my responsibility to have my own thoughts and ideas, just because someone else is bothered by something.