I find this gets lost in these discussions quite a bit. No one is actually stopping anyone else from doing anything. They do not have that power. The only RPG publisher that has been 'stopped' from publishing something in recent memory is NuTSR, and that has to do with whether they have the rights to the material in question, not whether what they want to put out might offend anyone. In the rest of the cases, it is people choosing whether or not to buy products based on whether they would find them appealing (sharing that information with those around them, including the publishers), and publishers deciding what to produce based on what products they believe will find a market. That is the systems of the free market and free market of ideas working as intended and those of us with liberty- and free speech and personal responsibility ideals should be cherishing that it is happening.Nobody is stopping you from publishing whatever you like. If the market does not support your product - for whatever reason - it's not the market's problem, it's yours. If you receive lots of criticism of your product, one reason might be that lots of people have taken offense at it.
...
It seems to me that this nebulous "we" to which you refer is really about big publishers like WotC and Paizo not including slavery in their products. No-one is stopping you from including it in your games. No-one is stopping you from incorporating material from third-party publishers which describe it. No-one is stopping you from publishing a product which includes it.
How? If the people who would be interested in your product know it exists (perhaps because of the signal-boost of someone who isn't interested making that clear) and can purchase the product, you are not being hurt. People saying they do not like what you say or do or produce is not you being picked on and is not you being censored.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.
who gets to veto what.
You can't be banning something
In this context, I think "we should be allowed" is a fairly reasonable phrasing.
Art isn't only allowed to
These terms (veto, banning, allowed) are part of this issue. Unless someone is actually preventing you from doing something (which is not the same as them declining to purchase a product they are under no obligation to buy), no one is being disallowed from doing something, nor is anything being vetoed or banned. There is no entity in gaming (an inherently optional and buy-in based endeavor) who has that power.Please tell me you don't mean it when you effectively tell me a publisher must meet a certain threshold for some "value" or they shouldn't publish works containing any bad stuff.
In this context, I think "we should be allowed" is a fairly reasonable phrasing.
You, however, changed the subject.
You said "if you want to publish such stuff, you need to do a really good job of it, so that the value of its inclusion clearly outweighs the issues"
To which my reply is: no, I obviously don't. Art isn't only allowed to be published if it is "valuable" to some external evaluation agency. Every single time that path was taken it ended very badly indeed, as even a cursory glance in any history book will tell you...
A much better approach would be to say: if you Umbran feel a particular piece of artistic expression, such as a novel, or a movie, or a roleplaying adventure, is nasty, horrific, denigratory or just plain uninteresting, then don't buy it or play it. Simple as that.
Nowhere did I say it was "unreasonable". I asked what it meant, specifically. What does it look like if you are "not allowed"? What is the fear here? There seem to be no commitment to what this is actually about.
No. Lacking an answer to what it means to be "allowed", I moved forward with an assumed one that seemed common enough in similar discussions to be a reasonable guess.
Yes. Since there is no legal impediment to publishing such, I moved along with "allowed" being about the criticism or pushback - you are "allowed" if the public doesn't give you a lot of criticism or pushback on the work.
And then, I believe my assertion holds - if you don't want pushback, it needs to be pretty darned good stuff. This should not be controversial.
Again, this is why I asked what "allow" meant. What do you expect to happen if you are "allowed" or "not allowed"? Because, this right here reads like you mean an actual legal impediment, of which there is exactly none at this time in the US, at least.
And by "you" I really mean "publishers". As far as I am aware, this is a theoretical argument for you, personally.
You realize that criticism is as much expression as artwork is, right? So, if you are allowed to publish it (for whatever meaning of the word), others should be allowed to criticize it. A position that is, in effect, "I get to talk, but if you don't like it you should not consume it and shut up," is not an option.
Entitled is another good word.Some people seem to think that every TTRPG book book should be written specifically for them, rather for any of the wealth of possible readers with a whole world of possible tastes and interests who aren't them. Selfish might be the right word, IDK.
It is very interesting from a sociological standpoint how the current cultural norm has so many echoes of the puritanical right in their practices and tactics. I know I am digressing from the discussion, but I actually kind of find it fascinating.I think what the poster is talking about is something that is a legitimate issue, but like you point out there is a fine balance because ideally we are both allowing freedom of expression by creatives and freedom of people to criticize. But there has been a cultural shift, though I think that shift is waning, where the kind of criticism we often get around these issues, rather than being simply "I don't like it" or "This is bad and here's why" has sounded more like some of the censorious voices from the religious right and the parents movements in the 80s, where it has led to calls for products to be taken down, creators to be ostracized, for people who mention said product positively to be labeled as bad. I think it is pretty obvious there has been this kind of a shift, and that it has made many creators feel more restricted. One can argue that is a good thing. Personally I think we have become too puritanical (as the point about allergens kind of reveals) where the critical voices tend to frame thing more as a moral outrage issue, the attacks against creators who mistep tend to be pretty severe (and can affect their personal life, their business prospects outside the hobby and even their family life). I am not saying everyone is doing that, but there is a cultural norm now, especially online, where people often interpret things in the worst possible light, and assume a lot based on something being present in the game or in the movie. I'm fine with people being critical, but I get what this poster is talking about
Selfish might be the right word, IDK.
Entitled is another good word.
My understanding is that trigger warnings, in terms of helping people avoid reminders of trauma, are at best superfluous and at worst actually increase anxiety and negative emotional associations. Or at least, that's what I've gathered from reading up on several recent studies investigating them:I wonder about the use of content warnings. They're already on some products, and could allow people to avoid things they find upsetting. don't like, I guess.
Conclusions: One potential explanation for the consistent finding in the literature that trigger warnings fail to ameliorate negative emotional reactions is that these warnings may not help people bring coping strategies to mind. Although, further empirical work is necessary to fully substantiate this potential interpretation.
Conclusions: Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.
Our findings suggest that warning messages may prolong the negative characteristics associated with memories over time, rather than prepare people to recall a negative experience.
Furthermore, we did not find any indication that trigger warning messages help people to pause and emotionally prepare themselves to view negative content. Our results contribute to the growing body of literature demonstrating that warnings seem trivially effective in achieving their purported goals.
It is very interesting from a sociological standpoint how the current cultural norm (some call it Cancel Culture) has so many echoes of the puritanical right in their practices and tactics. I know I am digressing from the discussion, but I actually kind of find it fascinating.
It wasn't that long ago when the puritanical right was mocked for their attempts to ban and censor books, where people told them, "If you don't like it, don't buy it/read it/listen to it/watch it."