What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Irlo]

That is my point. But most RPGs like D&D are set in a world roughly 500 years ago.

D&D-like games set in an historically accurate 16th century are rare to non-existant. People might think of D&D as set in the past because of the assumed technology level, but we don't have to assume that history and social and family structures mirror our world at the time.

Some trappings require bad things though. You can hardly have Rome without slaves or vikings/pirates without plundering.

In D&D fantasy worlds, we have what we decide to have in them. I can imagine a Rome-like dwarven empire that abhors slavery (an abomination in the eyes of the Merchant Gods) or a Viking civilization that defends coastal settlements from squid-folk incursions rather than plundering those coastal settlements.

We bring in a lot of baggage (sometimes intentionally, sometime unthinkingly) when we import trappings into a fictional fantasy world. The intent I think is to evoke a sense of the world, but doing that without analysis and intention can lead to some cringe-worthy worldbuilding. I'm not being judgemental here. I'm as guilty as anyone -- well, guilty isn't the right word. It's not a crime. Let's say that I've done it -- I've tossed in a pastiche of tropes into game settings without really thinking about whether it's what I really meant to include.

Justifying the inclusion of a particular aspect of the real-world past into a fantasy or alternate history setting solely on the grounds that such a thing exists/existed in our history is a bit lazy (which I am sometimes) or perhaps a difficult-to-avoid shortcut.

I have a high regard for folks who can research and set games in an historically accurate past. I don't think I'd want to play in those games, but I admire the ability to evoke that past.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Some trappings require bad things though. You can hardly have Rome without slaves or vikings/pirates without plundering.

Would you really play in an historically accurate Rome? Would you obey your Pater Familias absolutely in all things as required un Roman Law?
Rome was a very structured society and most groups I have ever been in would not have the knowledge of the time or the interest to play an historically accurate Rome.
Though I have always though that the game "Republic of Rome" would an awesome plot generator for a Roman Republic era rpg.
If people are playing in a historically accurate Rome and they are behaving like actual people from the time, well fair play, I tip my hat them.
However, most attempts I have ever see it is closer to Ank Morpork with sets and costuming from Quo Vadis.

 

[Mesero]

D&D-like games set in an historically accurate 16th century are rare to non-existant. People might think of D&D as set in the past because of the assumed technology level, but we don't have to assume that history and social and family structures mirror our world at the time.

In D&D fantasy worlds, we have what we decide to have in them. I can imagine a Rome-like dwarven empire that abhors slavery (an abomination in the eyes of the Merchant Gods) or a Viking civilization that defends coastal settlements from squid-folk incursions rather than plundering those coastal settlements.

We bring in a lot of baggage (sometimes intentionally, sometime unthinkingly) when we import trappings into a fictional fantasy world. The intent I think is to evoke a sense of the world, but doing that without analysis and intention can lead to some cringe-worthy worldbuilding. I'm not being judgemental here. I'm as guilty as anyone -- well, guilty isn't the right word. It's not a crime. Let's say that I've done it -- I've tossed in a pastiche of tropes into game settings without really thinking about whether it's what I really meant to include.

Justifying the inclusion of a particular aspect of the real-world past into a fantasy or alternate history setting solely on the grounds that such a thing exists/existed in our history is a bit lazy (which I am sometimes) or perhaps a difficult-to-avoid shortcut.

I have a high regard for folks who can research and set games in an historically accurate past. I don't think I'd want to play in those games, but I admire the ability to evoke that past.

Rome was build on the back of slaves and conquest. I can't really see how you can have a imperial rome without those aspects unless your idea of rome is people wearing togas.
Especially today as portraying cultures accurately is such a hot topic.

And viking culture was defined by going outwards to explore, trade, work and raid. Them now defending their lands changes everyrhing, including having iconic things like longships.

How many people have run a pirate game without you ever stealing something?
Yes you can technically have something like that abomination Pirates of the Carribean, but I refuse to call that pirates.

 

[MGibster]

Would you really play in an historically accurate Rome? Would you obey your Pater Familias absolutely in all things as required un Roman Law?

Yeah, it's called role playing. Though I'm sure not every family member obeyed their Pater Familias as required by law. If I can play a vampire who preys on innocent people, a samurai who doens't treat servants like people, or a vigilante who performs extrajudicial executions then why not a Roman?

Rome was a very structured society and most groups I have ever been in would not have the knowledge of the time or the interest to play an historically accurate Rome.

I'm hard pressed to think of a society that isn't structured. Generally speaking, when it comes to historical games, I don't think we require most players to have their master's degree. We're not looking for perfection here. But you're right, a lot of people really aren't interested in stepping outside their comfort zone. Which is completely okay. I think one of the reasons D&D remains so popular is because you don't have to step outside your comfort zone.

 

[SteveC]

So who, exactly is proposing we eliminate controversial content? This thread appears to be about the content of home games, leaving aside the argument about Yasuke.
I am not aware of anyone that has advocated that we not tackle topics that some may find controversial. I can see why a publisher would not want to publish stuff that may cause controversy but that does not impose limitations at the level of individual groups.
Nor am I seeing anyone advocate that it is legitimate to run with something that is upsetting to another at the table, but if a group wants to explore in an area that many would be uncomfortable with but that is known in advance and all are giving consent who is stopping you? You do not need permission from anyone else other than the participants.

I am kind of surprised to hear this question asked. There has been a movement to remove controversial content from games for a long time. It has been openly discussed since the days of the Internet starting and probably was before that, but it was a much more local discussion. Game companies have only started to pay attention to this in the last five or ten years. Wizards just discussed their sensitivity or cultural readers going over everything they produce in terms of art or story last year for example. Other game companies have been doing so for longer. I know someone who does this work as a side job and has commented about it being a growing thing that is very powerful.

The issues of colonialism, racism, and cultural appropriation in rpgs have been hot button issues for years. I remember that the Pathfinder Adventure Path "Agents of Everwatch" came under some attacks for being about players playing police and showing them as the good guys.

I think the reason for this thread comes from the discussion over the GAZ supplement and for the admission by Wizards that they won't be doing something with Dark Sun. I'd say the primary concern people have is about that last one. Dark Sun is an apocalyptic world with slavery and creatures that are cannibals, and cultures with primitive tropes. I can see why WotC wouldn't want the headache that would come from making new products for it or adapting it for 5E/6E.

At the same time, I think there's something lost there. Frankly, I know there is. I have a lot of fond memories of playing in a Dark Sun game and completing the video games that came out for it too. I think that's the point. I am sure there are a small number of people who would be extremely upset if Wizards did something with Dark Sun, and those voices would be picked up and amplified by the online media interested in clicks, and they would have another controversy that they just don't need.

Me? I'd like that chance to smash some slavers and lead a revolution against the Dragon Kings once again.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah, it's called role playing. Though I'm sure not every family member obeyed their Pater Familias as required by law. If I can play a vampire who preys on innocent people, a samurai who doens't treat servants like people, or a vigilante who performs extrajudicial executions then why not a Roman?

Of course it is called role playing but I remain somewhat sceptical of "historically accurate" roleplaying.

I'm hard pressed to think of a society that isn't structured. Generally speaking, when it comes to historical games, I don't think we require most players to have their master's degree. We're not looking for perfection here. But you're right, a lot of people really aren't interested in stepping outside their comfort zone. Which is completely okay. I think one of the reasons D&D remains so popular is because you don't have to step outside your comfort zone.

Which is why some much of D&D occurs over the civilised border. It is why most fantasy states in any D&D setting cannot control their own borders or even secure the interior. They use roving bands of armed assassins to do the job that should be done by the local constabulary/militia. These so called bands of adventures are not answerable to any authority. It would not be tolerated by any nation or kingdom that could enforce its laws.
Again I will not make the definitive claim that it has never been done but I am curious if there is any adventure, module or published fantasy setting were the PC were answerable to some higher authority?
Of the top of my head the only cases where the PC were part of a larger structure that I can think of are; Paranoia (for comedy) and I think Chill where the PC were supposed to be members of a SHIELD like agency.

 

[Umbran]

View attachment 276918

Are most of our games studying history, or merely aping history for unearned emotional beats?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am kind of surprised to hear this question asked. There has been a movement to remove controversial content from games for a long time. It has been openly discussed since the days of the Internet starting and probably was before that, but it was a much more local discussion. Game companies have only started to pay attention to this in the last five or ten years. Wizards just discussed their sensitivity or cultural readers going over everything they produce in terms of art or story last year for example. Other game companies have been doing so for longer. I know someone who does this work as a side job and has commented about it being a growing thing that is very powerful.

The issues of colonialism, racism, and cultural appropriation in rpgs have been hot button issues for years. I remember that the Pathfinder Adventure Path "Agents of Everwatch" came under some attacks for being about players playing police and showing them as the good guys.

I think the reason for this thread comes from the discussion over the GAZ supplement and for the admission by Wizards that they won't be doing something with Dark Sun. I'd say the primary concern people have is about that last one. Dark Sun is an apocalyptic world with slavery and creatures that are cannibals, and cultures with primitive tropes. I can see why WotC wouldn't want the headache that would come from making new products for it or adapting it for 5E/6E.

At the same time, I think there's something lost there. Frankly, I know there is. I have a lot of fond memories of playing in a Dark Sun game and completing the video games that came out for it too. I think that's the point. I am sure there are a small number of people who would be extremely upset if Wizards did something with Dark Sun, and those voices would be picked up and amplified by the online media interested in clicks, and they would have another controversy that they just don't need.

Me? I'd like that chance to smash some slavers and lead a revolution against the Dragon Kings once again.

Well yes, removal of controversial content from published material, mostly as a risk response to not having to endure the consequences of getting it wrong.
Even there I have not really heard anyone really advocating for a complete ban on such material, only that it be, not gratuitous and handled sensitively.
However, the OP of this thread seems to be about removing all such material from private games and I was wondering where this was coming from. Hence my question.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Are most of our games studying history, or merely aping history for unearned emotional beats?

In my experience they are not studying history but not really aping history. The real source material is more likely to be a novel (series), movie or TV show. More "I, Claudius" or "Name of the Rose"

 

[Burt Baccara]

Considered what is all seen as problematic according to the dark sun threads it certainly seems to be marketed for a younger audience today then it was in the past

That is not the reason given by WotC, it is that the audience is more diverse, thus greater care is needed.