What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[MGibster]

I suppose at some point the question becomes: If WotC does not want to publish material for IPs that are too controversial to reform then why not just sell them? If they are in fact a dollar maximizing endeavour and they are sitting on material they will never develop again then why hold onto it rather than spin it out into a new 3rd party publisher that can do what they don't want to?

WotC has little to gain by selling the IP and potentially a lot to lose. Imagine if they sold it and someone else turned it into a big hit. Better to just sit on it and keep the possibility of doing something with it open. In 10-15 years, the audience might not think the content is too problematic.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Because it's a really, really ugly color. It's the Pantone 448 C of the visible spectrum.

So is violent death, but that is a staple of the vast majority of RPGs.

Discrimination against who, exactly? Against people who are pro-slavery in RPGs? Against people who are pro-slavery in real life?

Against victims of slavery, past and present.

 

[Jd Smith1]

WotC has little to gain by selling the IP and potentially a lot to lose. Imagine if they sold it and someone else turned it into a big hit. Better to just sit on it and keep the possibility of doing something with it open. In 10-15 years, the audience might not think the content is too problematic.

I hope you are wrong, but you're probably not.

Settings like Dark Sun have so much potential.

 

[Lanefan]

I think Africa gets most of its RPG exposure by way of Ancient and Roman Egypt which has had a lot of references throughout D&D history.

Good point. Perhaps poorly, I tend to think of Egypt as part of the Middle East* in such things, rather than Africa. I was thinking central and south Africa.

* - similar I suppose to how someone might talk of North America but really only be thinking of the USA and Canada, lumping Mexico in with Central America even though it's part of NA.

@Scribe - I too thought of Black Panther but the jury's still out on whether it's a blip or part of a swelling "Africa is cool" vibe.

 

[Scribe]

@Scribe - I too thought of Black Panther but the jury's still out on whether it's a blip or part of a swelling "Africa is cool" vibe.

I thought it was really good. I didnt go to the follow up, but yeah.

It's for sure an underserved region, and the Egypt standing apart bit, I get as well. It certainly feels like anything outside of Egypt, never got much play at all in common media that I was exposed to in Canada.

 

[MGibster]

Good point. Perhaps poorly, I tend to think of Egypt as part of the Middle East* in such things, rather than Africa. I was thinking central and south Africa.

I don't know about other countries, but I barely learned anything about sub-Sahara Africa until I was an undergraduate. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but my World History survey course gave me a nice broad overview where I was a bit surprised to learn some of the people there were far more sophisticated than I had been lead to believe.

 

[bloodtide]

I think Africa gets most of its RPG exposure by way of Ancient and Roman Egypt which has had a lot of references throughout D&D history.

There is certainly a lot of untapped interesting potential to be found in central and south Africa, for sure.

Dragon Magazine back in the 90s did put out some Fantasy Africa stuff.

There was a d20 3PP one that had a couple books? Namrye or something like that...

 

[Faolyn]

So is violent death, but that is a staple of the vast majority of RPGs.

Which is usually done in self-defense or in defense of others, or to defeat evil beings.

Unless your games primarily have people murdering innocents in cold blood, or torturing unarmed foes, this is a really bad analogy.

Against victims of slavery, past and present.

So... we have to include slavery because if we don't, it discriminates against people who were enslaved? A D&D game without slavery somehow discriminates against present day Black people?

Seriously? Do you actually think this is a legitimate argument?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Because murder is equal opportunity?

Technically (and historically) so is slavery. The US experience of slavery is not sum total of history.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I cannot depend my view on the logic on what you personally choose to accept as a "good" reply.

Interestingly, though, I did just give a reply to the point, but in speaking to someone else. To wit, while murder and slavery are both bad, from a standpoint of US history and current culture they are not really equivalent. In effect, Paizo and WotC have stepped back from apples, and you are saying, "But oranges!"

Again when a new parameter is being used by one party to shut x down its only logical to have that parameter explored by the opposing debating party.
Being specific, if NOW concern must be given to in game victims of x, it begs the question why victims of y and z are not an issue. I'm not saying x = y = z. That's what you're interpreting from that line of questioning.
That's all I have to say on this.