What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Minion X]

A lot of the stuff that is being aired in this thread isn't really anything new. Racism and whatnot has always been a sensitive topic, but I feel that the preferred solution until relatively recently was to avoid racism by not including black people, which also applied to fantasy literature and roleplaying games. I think there are more black people in Robert E. Howard's stories about Conan and Solomon Kane than there are in the combined literary fantasy output of the 80s and 90s (not counting drow). Since that is no longer a solution, I don't find it surprising that companies like Wizards of the Coast are instead avoiding controversy by simply avoiding controversial topics.
I also wonder if the reason for this change in policy is less due to a demographic shift in the consumer base than with an ideological shift in a largely demographically similar consumer base.

 

[JAMUMU]

If one disagrees with the direction? Its unnecessary and a negative.

Thats all this reeeeeeeeeeeeally boils down to, and its highly unlikely anyone will shift.

We could take a 30000 foot view on a number of these things, and see the shift taking place, but people seemingly dont like to do that either.

This is Albania...

 

[Faolyn]

Slavery has never stemmed from a "need", so this is some misguided stuff, dude.

Tell that to the people who insist that games are poorer for not having it. It certainly sounds like they need to have slavery in their games. Tell that to the people who insist that you can't have Dark Sun without slavery, despite every other thing that sets that world apart.

This is a very weak argument AND as a bonus profoundly misunderstands why companies avoid slavery.

I didn't claim it was their only motivation. And saying that "by that logic" they should get rid of other things is a completely useless statement, because we're not talking about those other things; we're talking about slavery.

It's also notable that this is solely a TTRPG thing, other media absolutely is not following that rule and never will, I would suggest (one possible exception being YA novels, but that's because that's a bizarre environment with its own rules and conflicts). So there's always going to be a kind of messed-up deal where you can watch heroic characters kill slavers and the like on screen, but the game you run an hour later, it's inappropriate for you to feature that.

Because RPGs are different from other forms of media because it's not really a form of media. It's a game, not something you passively watch, read, or listen to. It's something you actually do. And maybe companies like WotC don't want to put out rules so the people who play their game can play as a slaver.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to push back the idea that something shouldn't be included just because some people don't like it. I don't have to "get it" for that.


And I haven't seen a lot of people argue that games shouldn't deal with those subjects. I'm not against criticism.

@Justice and Rule seems to have hit the answer here better perhaps that I could. I'd just ad that the whole "people don't like it" is incredibly reductionist and frankly insulting. It's like saying that Jews "just don't like" the Nazis. Not wanting to include fantasy Auschwitz in mainstream RPG's probably shouldn't be reduced to "people don't like it". There are really, REALLY good reasons not to do it.

Same goes for including slavery as an institution in a setting. Again, we have to recognize that the hobby (as in playing D&D as a hobby) as well as fantasy as a genre has been INCREDIBLY tone deaf for a very long time. Pretty much until after 2000, and really, even 2010. 20th century fantasy was often outright hostile to anyone who isn't a white dude. And, even when it wasn't outright hostile, it was still pretty unwelcoming - look at the reaction to including black halflings in Ring of Power on Amazon. In the 2020's, the color of a halfling was actually an issue. Hell, just this year, the color of The Little Mermaid is an issue.

So, no, it's not just "because some people don't like it". These things have real impact on real people who actually WANT to be part of the hobby.

Let me get personal for a second. My children are mixed heritage. Lovecraft pretty much specifically calls my children monsters that should be killed. Now, I do not want to remove the Far Realms from D&D. I have zero problem with the Far Realms and think it's a fantastic idea. Tentacled monstrocities? Gimme more of that. But, I do think that Lovecraft's name should be removed from the 5e PHB's list of inspirational reading. I don't feel that it's a good idea to tell new gamers, and people who are new to the genre, "Hey, you should read this guy to get you in the right frame of mind to play some D&D." There are tons of other authors out there that are just as influential as Lovecraft on the genre and on D&D who aren't raging bigots. We don't include Bill Cosby in lists of inspirational comedians, nor do we include Jimmy Saville on lists of musical inspirations.

So, would you say that I'm being unreasonable here? That I'm only saying this because I "don't like it"? I certainly don't think so. I certainly would not tell my children, "Hey, you want to play D&D? Here's Shadows over Innsmouth. Yeah, I know that it's a thinly veiled allegory directly aimed at you, but, hey, you should read it because, well, not liking it isn't a good enough reason."

 

[Scribe]

This is Albania...

I'm afraid I dont get the reference.

 

[Hussar]

A lot of the stuff that is being aired in this thread isn't really anything new. Racism and whatnot has always been a sensitive topic, but I feel that the preferred solution until relatively recently was to avoid racism by not including black people, which also applied to fantasy literature and roleplaying games. I think there are more black people in Robert E. Howard's stories about Conan and Solomon Kane than there are in the combined literary fantasy output of the 80s and 90s (not counting drow). Since that is no longer a solution, I don't find it surprising that companies like Wizards of the Coast are instead avoiding controversy by simply avoiding controversial topics.
I also wonder if the reason for this change in policy is less due to a demographic shift in the consumer base than with an ideological shift in a largely demographically similar consumer base.

That is absolutely not true. Not even remotely true.

Although, I do kinda agree with your time frame perhaps. The 80's and 90's weren't exactly covering the genre in glory. But, post 2000? Yeah, that's when you start seeing MASSIVE shifts. The whole Steampunk (and associated "punk" genres) really play into this. But, even in the 90's, you have Wild Wild West (terrible movie though it is) where the protagonist is black instead of white.

But, let's be honest here, when REH includes people who aren't white (never minding pretty much every other genre author of the time) they're generally not presented in the most culturally sensitive way, to say the least.

 

[MGibster]

So, would you say that I'm being unreasonable here? That I'm only saying this because I "don't like it"? I certainly don't think so. I certainly would not tell my children, "Hey, you want to play D&D? Here's Shadows over Innsmouth. Yeah, I know that it's a thinly veiled allegory directly aimed at you, but, hey, you should read it because, well, not liking it isn't a good enough reason."

I do think expecting Lovecraft's name to be stricken from a list of influential horror or fantasy writers is unreasonable. And while I won't care to watch a Cosby show these days, it would be silly for him not to be included on any list of influential comedians of the 20th century.

 

[Alzrius]

It feels to me like the groundwork would have to be pretty obvious and someone would almost have to be going out of their way looking for it in order for it to be clearly needed unless it was set up as a clear analogue to someplace in the realm world that had it.

Noticing it before all the technological, religious, gender, biology, physics things that are probably missing feels odd in the same way to me.

Well, as I noted, the bulk of the groundwork is part-and-parcel of the trappings of a pseudo-medieval culture, i.e. scarcity, social Darwinism, an anemic civil infrastructure, persistent threats to the lives/prosperity of the bulk of the populace, and one or more out-groups with whom there's a history of strife (being it racial, a belligerent neighboring kingdom, a large criminal element, etc.). After that, all you really need is strong institutional backing (which can take virtually any form, from economic to governmental to religious), and enough people of a Lawful Evil mindset, and at that point the contextual justification for slavery has essentially written itself.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On violence. I was raised to be a pacifist, still largely have strong pacifist leanings (wasn't allowed any kind of military toys or figures as a kid, never had a toy gun, and the only weapon I have ever learned to use was a recurve bow for an archery class). I think you can believe in non-violence but enjoy violence in media. MEdia violence is a different thing. Some people might see it as glamorizing it, I see it more as turning it into poetry and functioning as a form of emotional catharsis. I love violent movies like Scarface, Excalibur, Lady Snowblood, A Better Tomorrow, and Conan. I like that kind of violence in my games too. I can't stand real world violence, unless it is something like a sport with rules and regulations to protect people from injury.

Also violence is something that is around us. I live in a somewhat bad neighborhood. So it is going to makes its way into my campaigns and my game design just by being something that happens in the environment around me (it is hard for example to hear that a worker was shot at a DriveThru around the corner from your house and not have that enter into your creative work in some way).

 

[Justice and Rule]

Thing is, the criticism has, seemingly, lead to the removal of slavery from PF, and as a potential (among others) road block to Dark Sun being done again.

So its not that its criticism, but that its having an impact on how the settings, games, media, are being presented and where one sits on either side of the issue, that is either a good thing, or a bad thing, and its not likely difficult to slot folks into a position either way.

So, its not the criticism, but the effectiveness of that criticism on, lets call it changing, the products.

If one agrees with the direction? Job done.
If one disagrees with the direction? Its unnecessary and a negative.

Thats all this reeeeeeeeeeeeally boils down to, and its highly unlikely anyone will shift.

We could take a 30000 foot view on a number of these things, and see the shift taking place, but people seemingly dont like to do that either.

Yes, criticism has led to Paizo moving away from using slavery in their works. But what do you want, people to critique something and then say "But also, don't change anything"? The nature of criticism is to argue for a position, whether it be for change or status quo. Their argument was convincing, the argument for keeping it in was less so.

I think the problem with arguing for continuing to use slavery is largely because that argument is not making a good case for including such things, and rather plays into the critiques of the thing in the first place. The arguments about being heroes or history really don't counter the critiques of them being used poorly, and really just play right into that. Once we get there, it's about stifling creators... but no one has any actual evidence of people being stifled. People know people who might have made a thing but didn't, but that doesn't actually tell us anything about the quality of ideas there: maybe their thing would have been offensive. Maybe it wouldn't. It can be very easy to misfire and just miss things if you aren't part of a group who knows what such things look like: I know from my own experience that it can be easy to miss things that have little to no impact to you but have a lot of impact on others.

The other half is that the evidence that it's being used pretty poorly is rather overwhelming. When it's a trivial detail in your setting, barely a part of it, that kind of bakes the cake, don't it? And that's really what we see in most of Wizards's content. It's not something that is really talked about or seen, but just sort of there as a setting note.