LOL. Try harder.
That's how the game is balanced as a simple matter of fact. Denying it just makes you look you're being facetious.
Strange, then, how when I play balanced encounters cleverly, they can become quite dangerous. The PCs typically win, but it's not a roflstomp, or however you put it.
It's not semantics to point out that "removing content" and "not updating a setting to 5e and the original content is still easily available" are two very,
very different things.
That's a completely different and unrelated argument to the ones you've been making previously. So now it's an age thing? Slavery is okay but only for "grown-ups"? I mean, that's actually a more coherent argument than your previous ones, because kids are more likely to have confused ideas about slavery, especially in the US where it appears teaching on the subject is being increasingly curtailed.
You mean you haven't been paying attention to the last 20+ posts I've made on this subject?
This is just confirmation bias, and you don't you even claim factual experience of it, just "stories" (or are you claiming factual experience?). If you seek out horror stories, you will find horror stories. If you go to the subreddit for horror stories, you will find a ton of horror stories - some true, some exaggerated or "from a certain point of view", some clearly made-up. Even then, virtually none involve slavery - the vast majority involving bullying or creepy sex stuff, in or out of game.
I've already talked about terrible people in games I've played, and you yourself mentioned you had such a player in your own game. Do you honestly need me to go into the details? Because fortunately for me, that was over 20 years ago so the details are a big foggy.
This is the direct equivalent of someone who is very concerned about crime telling us how incredibly dangerous the world is and how you could be murdered at any moment and so on, and then citing some sort of "Crime Stories" subreddit as a factual source on which to base this.
Well, you could also cite the actual news for how incredibly dangerous certain places are. So this is a very poor analogy.
And people on this thread have talked about having slavery in their games. Many people have even said that slavery is
necessary for games to be realistic and for settings like Dark Sun to even exist in the first place.
Are even following my position the discussion?
My position is that the people who are into this kind of thing, are into regardless of the setting. You can have a setting which never mentions slavery, just completely ignores the issue entirely, and people like the creep I described? They'll make up slavery to put it in the game, and then they'll justify it with "realism" or whatever.
Sure. And my position, which I've stated several times (again, it's like you haven't even read anything I've written on this) is that companies like WotC don't want to lend legitimacy to the subject.
It's like when a bigoted person gets into public office, and suddenly bigots feel like they are free to be loudly bigoted in public rather than keeping relatively quiet. That has happened again and again in the real world.
If WotC makes a setting where slavery is part of normal, everyday life and where the PCs can easily become slaves (e.g., Dark Sun) rather than some shocking evil to be destroyed (e.g., most adventures that involve slavery), then it's likely they believe that it would send a message that slavery is OK in this world and therefore OK for the PCs to become slavers.
Also, lots of people on this thread have said they include slavery for realism persons, so... are they awful creeps as well? Are the people on this thread who have said that Dark Sun
must have slavery in order to remain Dark Sun creeps as well? If the answer is yes, then why get upset that WotC is "removing content" by not updating the setting? Why would you want WotC to sell games for creeps? If the answer is no, then why claim that people wouldn't want to have or be slavers in their game? After all, the game itself had its first adventure with the PCs as slaves.
Creeps are creeps are creeps are creeps.
Normal people don't just randomly decide to play slavers because slavery technically exists in the setting.
Do you think most D&D players are violent thieves in real world? Or do most people decide that murderhoboing their way across the world is OK only within the confines of the game? Are most gamers abnormal, because they roll up a character and immediately start killing things?
Because in my experience, most people play what the game is about. If the game is heavily skewed towards combat, then they play characters who are skewed towards combat. If the game is about something else, they play characters who are specced for that something else. And if the game includes slavery, then even "normal" people may decide to go that way as well. (And don't forget, there are plenty of gamers who aren't your definition of "normal.") And whether that would happen a lot or only rarely, WotC as well as some other companies have decided that they don't want to include that possibility.
