What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Faolyn]

So they're being brave by  not including things they used to include? And what creativity are you expecting from WotC?

I'd say sensible rather than brave.

And I'd imagine the type of creativity that comes when you're not stuck with the past. VGR was very creative. You just didn't like it because it wasn't the same as it always was. Radiant Citadel was creative because it didn't stick with the standard Medieval Europe milieu. Heck, having an angel-furry PC species for the One playtest was creative, although it seems that people didn't like them.

You can't complain that they're not creative and also get upset every time they change something, because change is creativity, and continuing to do the same thing is non-creative.

 

[Faolyn]

A viewpoint which is apparently no longer acceptable.

Considering actual bigots in the real world, right now, think that nazis and slavery are both good, many of them are violent, and some of them are in positions of political power--no, it's not acceptable.

 

[Faolyn]

It's odd to me that there's so much concern for what people might do in a game. If you create a sandbox for people to play in, some of them aren't going to play the way you think they should.

It's not a sandbox that you created for your home game, though. It's a sandbox being created by a major company that has to both appeal to a lot of people and has to work to make sure those products aren't unintentionally hateful and harmful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Considering actual bigots in the real world, right now, think that nazis and slavery are both good, many of them are violent, and some of them are in positions of political power--no, it's not acceptable.

Does that mean that, since the DM plays all the NPCs, we have a serious problem with being able to play at all? What does this shift have to say regarding TV and film, where various monstrous people are regularly portrayed by actual human beings? I just don't see how this works, at all.

 

[MGibster]

It's not a sandbox that you created for your home game, though. It's a sandbox being created by a major company that has to both appeal to a lot of people and has to work to make sure those products aren't unintentionally hateful and harmful.

Look, no matter whether we're talking Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, or Spelljammer, it's always up to you to decide how you're going to play it. If you wanted to run a campaign where you characters were part of the Red Wizards of Thay, engaging in slavery, working with demons, and not returning overdue library books, it's an option. So the argument that slavery is a problem because some people might play slavers strikes me as a ludicrous concern. People might have their characters engage in all sorts of unsavory acts while playing D&D. It's always been an option and it'll always be an option.

 

[Bagpuss]

Considering actual bigots in the real world, right now, think that nazis and slavery are both good, many of them are violent, and some of them are in positions of political power--no, it's not acceptable.

Trying to understand what view or thing you don't think is acceptable? That people that play bad characters, or play the bad guy in a game aren't automatically actually bad people? Or that World War II war games, and boardgames like Spartacus are not acceptable.

Because either implies to me you don't understand the difference between fiction and reality, or that playing a role doesn't mean actually becoming the role.

 

[Faolyn]

Trying to understand what view or thing you don't think is acceptable? That people that play bad characters, or play the bad guy in a game aren't automatically actually bad people? Or that World War II war games, and boardgames like Spartacus are not acceptable.

Because either implies to me you don't understand the difference between fiction and reality, or that playing a role doesn't mean actually becoming the role.

Look, no matter whether we're talking Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, or Spelljammer, it's always up to you to decide how you're going to play it. If you wanted to run a campaign where you characters were part of the Red Wizards of Thay, engaging in slavery, working with demons, and not returning overdue library books, it's an option. So the argument that slavery is a problem because some people might play slavers strikes me as a ludicrous concern. People might have their characters engage in all sorts of unsavory acts while playing D&D. It's always been an option and it'll always be an option.

This isn't about people who can or cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality, nor is it about people deciding how they're going to play a particular setting.

It's about a company choosing to not produce material that supports something they (and the people who make up most of their customer base) find unacceptable.

Does that mean that, since the DM plays all the NPCs, we have a serious problem with being able to play at all? What does this shift have to say regarding TV and film, where various monstrous people are regularly portrayed by actual human beings? I just don't see how this works, at all.

There is a big difference between a TV show/movie and a game. This choice is being made by a company, or a select few companies, not by the entire entertainment industry. It's ridiculous to assume that the entire entertainment industry is going to think the exact same thing about everything, or that everything in the entire entertainment industry is geared to the exact same crowd.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This isn't about people who can or cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality, nor is it about people deciding how they're going to play a particular setting.

It's about a company choosing to not produce material that supports something they (and the people who make up most of their customer base) find unacceptable.


There is a big difference between a TV show/movie and a game. This choice is being made by a company, or a select few companies, not by the entire entertainment industry. It's ridiculous to assume that the entire entertainment industry is going to think the exact same thing about everything, or that everything in the entire entertainment industry is geared to the exact same crowd.

There's an awful lot of overlap between major segments of those customer bases, and I don't know if everyone agrees about the fundamental huge difference you see between RPGs and other forms of media. Besides, your argument should apply just as strongly to the rest of the entertainment industry.

 

[Blue Orange]

I mean, it's ultimately about whatever Hasbro decides doesn't threaten its bottom line. It's publicly traded and doesn't want to annoy people who can make trouble for it on Twitter or Instagram. Most (certainly not all) fans of D&D lean left, so that's who they care about--let's not assign any virtue to what a profit-seeking enterprise is doing. The big difference, I think, is that the D&D fanbase is much smaller and more particular than, say, the MCU fanbase. And from what I can tell, this is now unacceptable to a large enough portion of the fanbase Hasbro won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Like the decision to get rid of assassins and half-orcs and change the demons and devils to tanar'ri and baatezu long ago, it's a business decision, and neither you nor I is going to change their minds. You get something like the OGL that unites everyone, you can change stuff. But Dark Sun? That's a fragment of a fragment. And nobody's business model really depends on it, unlike the OGL situation where a lot of indie companies were going to go under. Besides, you can always have whatever themes you want in your home game--nothing to stop you from downloading the A0-4 series and playing them if you like, or making your own version. So I don't think we're going to see a big demand for bringing this stuff back.

Is something lost? Yeah, I agree, something is. The fantasy world (IMHO) feels even more saccharine to me when we strip out all the real nastiness of history. One of the things about the past is that life was a lot cheaper--people died younger, and would have ten kids to get three to survive to adulthood. And, honestly, I hate to let Nazis spoil my fun. I don't see why I have to stop doing something just because some 4chan troll likes it or takes it the wrong way. Yeah, I like to listen to synthwave, I know some fascists like it, f*** 'em. I mean, on a more serious note, look at all the stupid hoops Norse neopagans have to jump through to reassure everyone they're not Nazis.

But one of the things about getting older is you stop believing in progress. The present isn't always going to be the best time period. Sometimes things move in the wrong direction. Sometimes you have to look back in time to find what you really want. If you really feel passionately about it, you can advocate for your point of view (like you're doing) and maybe make content the way you want if you're creatively inclined (and some people just don't have that talent, I probably don't). But it won't be 'official D&D'.

 

[Maxperson]

But you can speak from experience. My experience is one creep, out of dozens or more than a hundred people I've played with, was a creep, of a generalized kind. Those people exist regardless of what's in RPGs. From the same subreddit people post stories of creeps being creeps is absolutely the most innocuous possible RPGs.

My experience, having played with hundreds of players and a few dozen DMs over the last 39 years mirrors this. I've maybe encountered one person who relished in this kind of thing, and that was so long ago that it's sort of vague recollection of it happening, so it may not have.