What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

Status
Not open for further replies.
The term "opportunity cost" applies. Reworking the setting does not come for free, so if you do this, you lose ability to do whatever else you might have done with those resources.
That is a fair point.

And reworking the setting also has the potential to re-introduce the original setting to the new generation as well. I'm sure there will be a handful of people who purchase the updated setting, think "hmm, I wonder what the original was like?", and purchase some legacy PDFs. Probably not very many people, I admit. But some.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


When one core argument is, "But this is real history!" but what is happening is an interpretation of a novel from 1980? Maybe being a bit direct is called for.
That sounds very simplistic and frankly black and white.
Just because someone doesn't study history and will get everything right doesnt mean there is no use in even getting the basics right or implement things which can be found out through a quick search.
 

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.
Well, D&D assumes a LOT of history is the same. The "16th century" has no guns, electricity, steam power, and so on. But even on the social side, there is nothing you can say is unique to "the 16th century" that does not happen somewhere in the world today in 2023.

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.
True, but then you can also imagine the negative side too, right?
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.
One of my greatest hits: A group of African American collage students wanted to play in an anti slavery game. They could not find a DM to tough that with a ten foot pole. Until they came to me. So I made up an African like kingdom (aka Wakanda, but the comic one as this was well before the marvel movie) that was mining all sorts of stuff. Then, the mines encountered the drow. The players were all human nobles, and the game started out with a very "the drow come in peace" and just "want to share the mines". The drow kept up the cover for a bit, then just out right enslaved the humans when their guard was down. So the game was save the kingdom and defeat the drow. This game was also played in the Mall, and often attracted lots of viewers.

Only if you squint hard enough. Most rpgs are set in a ren Faire version of the past. We cannot help bringing modern sensibilities into our games. I do not have an issue with that because this is something we are doing for fun. Maybe there are paragons of method acting in rpgs out there but I have never met them. Most tables I have played at people spent more time on Monty Python references than deep rp.
We who? I can "help" not to bring in the "popular modern" stuff into my games. I find an adventure to save an enslaved dwarven town much more intresting then an adventure to "save the whales".
 

And reworking the setting also has the potential to re-introduce the original setting to the new generation as well.

So, in movies and TV, everyone's always, "Why is it always sequels and remakes? Can't you be creative and make something new?!?" But for settings, for some reason, we have to "reintroduce to a new generation."
 

So, in movies and TV, everyone's always, "Why is it always sequels and remakes? Can't you be creative and make something new?!?" But for settings, for some reason, we have to "reintroduce to a new generation."
I don't think it's unreasonable to say "hey, there was this cool setting under B/X, 1E, 2E, 3E ... I'd like to play that using the current rules."

Yes, you could take the old material and do the work yourself. The problem is that work, family, and life itself get in the way. That's why I'm willing to pay for a conversion.

I love seeing things that are new as well, but WotC doesn't exactly have a stellar track record of producing new products either. The recent setting books have been pretty much one and done. So again, if you're not going to produce new settings, and the old one's are problematic, what does that leave someone who doesn't have the time I did in college, or even when ENWorld was new?
 

We who? I can "help" not to bring in the "popular modern" stuff into my games. I find an adventure to save an enslaved dwarven town much more intresting then an adventure to "save the whales".
IMO whether it's interesting or not is determined by what happens along the way... not the tagline.
 

One of my greatest hits: A group of African American collage students wanted to play in an anti slavery game. They could not find a DM to tough that with a ten foot pole. Until they came to me. So I made up an African like kingdom (aka Wakanda, but the comic one as this was well before the marvel movie) that was mining all sorts of stuff. Then, the mines encountered the drow. The players were all human nobles, and the game started out with a very "the drow come in peace" and just "want to share the mines". The drow kept up the cover for a bit, then just out right enslaved the humans when their guard was down. So the game was save the kingdom and defeat the drow. This game was also played in the Mall, and often attracted lots of viewers.

None of them were willing to DM? Also why an African kingdom?
 

My point is what he accomplished isn't diminished because he wasn't a slave. Again I feel this, and the way some posters have been hyper-focused on slavery granting worth to his accomplishments ties back into slavery, through media, having been somehow intrinsically linked to black people... even though slavery outside of antebellum affected numerous peoples.
I agree that it isn’t diminished. The intrinsic value of his achievement is what it is.

If he were definitively found to have once been a slave, though, it adds to his accomplishment. That one could rise from the lowest echelons of a society and still make a permanent mark on history is a laudable achievement in and of itself, separate from but intertwined with his becoming a samurai.

Think of it this way: representation matters. There’s all kinds of studies that show this. Seeing others who have overcome the same or similar obstacles in life matters- it gives you hope that you can do likewise. And the sad truth is that slavery still exists today, worldwide, across religious and ethnic demographics. It’s just not “open and notorious.”

A less incendiary example: there’s lots of great guitarists in music history, and Django Reinhardt is one of them. His contributions to jazz, gypsy jazz, bebop and traditional Romani music are epic in scope, and would be sufficient to immortalize him. But he did what he did with a damaged fingering hand- only the index and middle functioned after his hand was damaged in a fire. He merely invented new techniques to circumvent his injuries.

Decades later, though, his story of finding a way to play guitar despite a terrible injury inspired Tony Iommi to keep playing and rethink his techniques and gear after he was injured, losing some fingertips at work, just as Black Sabbath were starting to get major attention. The history of metal and other entertainment would have been different had he given up.

And he didn’t give up because a Belgian jazz guitarist didn’t either.
 

That sounds very simplistic and frankly black and white.
Just because someone doesn't study history and will get everything right doesnt mean there is no use in even getting the basics right or implement things which can be found out through a quick search.

I am responding to a "If you do not study history..." meme in this thread. So, do you want to claim that a quick search is "study"? If not, I am not sure this stands as a counter to my point.

It is okay to take elements from history for your game. I find no problem with that. But don't put it on the pedestal of, "studying history".
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top