What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Micah Sweet]

I don't find the consumer to be the highest priority for consideration on the matter.

Maybe not, but companies usually base their products on what they think consumers will buy, so you can't count them out.

 

[Umbran]

Of course. But if you can't publish games with bad things in them because those bad things happened in the real world too, you're restricting the tools we have available for creativity.

There's a pretty wide space between "it doesn't mater" and "you can't publish using these topics at all".

You might find exploring that nuance more constructive.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe not, but companies usually base their products on what they think consumers will buy, so you can't count them out.

Count them out... of what?

But if you can't publish games with bad things in them because those bad things happened in the real world too

This seems overly generalized...

, you're restricting the tools we have available for creativity.

On the other hand, some of the most beautiful art ever made is based on restriction. Shakespeare's sonnets? Highly restricted poetic form. The Mona Lisa? Restricted to looking like a particular person.

Indeed, most of literature in the English language does not directly use slavery in its story. Authors don't seem to have been all that hampered by that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Count them out... of what?



This seems overly generalized...



On the other hand, some of the most beautiful art ever made is based on restriction. Shakespeare's sonnets? Highly restricted poetic form. The Mona Lisa? Restricted to looking like a particular person.

Indeed, most of literature in the English language does not directly use slavery in its story. Authors don't seem to have been all that hampered by that.

No one has to use every tool all the time (and of course they probably shouldn't). But if I can't use a tool because the entire weight of the internet will fall on me if I dare, that's a problem. In this case, there are games and stories where the kind of content discussed in this thread is appropriate, maybe even necessary depending on the product.

 

[mythago]

But if I can't use a tool because the entire weight of the internet will fall on me if I dare, that's a problem. In this case, there are games and stories where the kind of content discussed in this thread is appropriate, maybe even necessary depending on the product.

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your argument here: you are claiming that people who want to publish games or supplements that include real-world horrors (like slavery) cannot do so because "the entire weight of the internet" will fall on them? If I publish an RPG supplement that is Sparta With The Serial Numbers Filed Off, everyone from Twitter to Kotaku will drag me for it, and knowing that means nobody would dare to publish that supplement?

Because really, I think what you mean is "some people on the internet will not like your supplement and will rag on you". You know, the thing that happens with a wide range of TTRPG games and supplements for a myriad of reasons, ranging from being "too woke" to having bad graphic design.

 

[Umbran]

But if I can't use a tool because the entire weight of the internet will fall on me if I dare, that's a problem.

Are you actually planning to publish something soon? Is this a practical concern for your business plans, or merely a theoretical complaint?

In this case, there are games and stories where the kind of content discussed in this thread is appropriate, maybe even necessary depending on the product.

"Necessary" is an odd word when talking about products for a hobby entertainment.

I mean, raging misogyny is "necessary" for F.A.T.A.L., and raging misogyny is a real thing in the world, but to be honest, there's nothing "necessary" about the product.

 

[Hussar]

Here’s perhaps a more concrete example.

One of the leaders in Ghosts of Saltmarsh is a smuggler who, in addition to other things, is a slave trafficker.

Now the npc is evil. No question there.

However, nothing in any of the adventures actually reference this fact. It never comes up. It is raised as a potential source of blackmail by the Scarlet Brotheehood spies to destabilize Saltmarsh, but that’s it.

Removing that would change nothing about the entire module. There are lots of things the Britherhood could blackmail the npc about besides the slavery aspect.

So would removing it actually count as “losing something “?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here’s perhaps a more concrete example.

One of the leaders in Ghosts of Saltmarsh is a smuggler who, in addition to other things, is a slave trafficker.

Now the npc is evil. No question there.

However, nothing in any of the adventures actually reference this fact. It never comes up. It is raised as a potential source of blackmail by the Scarlet Brotheehood spies to destabilize Saltmarsh, but that’s it.

Removing that would change nothing about the entire module. There are lots of things the Britherhood could blackmail the npc about besides the slavery aspect.

So would removing it actually count as “losing something “?

If a person I was playing with had an issue with slavery being referenced in our game, and I was running GoS, of course I'd remove it. But I see no reason to take it out of the book, and have no issue with it being there in the first place. If anything, having it there gives a concrete example of just evil that NPC is.

 

[Hussar]

If a person I was playing with had an issue with slavery being referenced in our game, and I was running GoS, of course I'd remove it. But I see no reason to take it out of the book, and have no issue with it being there in the first place. If anything, having it there gives a concrete example of just evil that NPC is.

But, that's my point.

Is it needed? There's a bunch of ways that this NPC is shown to be evil. Since the existence of slavery is pretty much entirely ignored by the entire product, outside of this NPC, why have it? It's not really adding anything. It's not actually doing anything. You could very well have the NPC eating puppies for all the difference it would make.

Now, you know, because you've been told MANY, MANY times, that including slavery could be an issue in your product. Not that it will, but, it could be. You're publishing the work. Do you simply ignore the complaints, publishing the work anyway, knowing that this issue is not acutally being dealt with in any meaningful way in your work, but, rather, is simply a prurient detail without any actual impact on the product?

To me, that's rather the heart of the problem. That companies simply put out these kinds of products without any real thought behind them - oh, I need to make sure that this NPC is bad, so, let's make him a slave trafficker. Isn't there some level of responsibility on the part of the product creator to actually address this sort of thing? Maybe we make the NPC a pedophile or abuses his spouse or any number of other horrible things. No more details. Just that the NPC does one or more of these things. It's not mentioned anywhere else in the adventure, not tied to anything in the adventure, just a detail. Is it adding anything?

I don't think so.

 

[Gradine]