What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Then they're not balanced properly, or you're managing to make them unbalanced which is a feat, but not in a good way.

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?

I think you need to take this up with @Justice and Rule because he's discussed this at some length and why your point here doesn't work.

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.

Yes, and as I've said I believe you're naive and unrealistic in this view, and you've made no argument to the contrary beyond appealing to the authority of a reddit specifically for RPG horror stories. You even say the last time you experienced any seriously bad behaviour in an RPG was over 20 years ago.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I brought Templars up didn't I so assume I'm aware... and they weren't obscure if you were playing Dark Sun they were a class in the first boxed set as well as a theme in the 4e version.

That didn't answer my question, did it?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Would you give a concrete example of how you have a moderate challenge be dangerous?

 

[Maxperson]

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

They still include it. Mordenkaine's Monsters of the Multiverse has slavery in it, and it's the recent book said by WotC to be made along 5.5e guidelines. It's the poster child for how they are doing things going forward.

 

[Faolyn]

Would you give a concrete example of how you have a moderate challenge be dangerous?

Use of terrain, long-range attacks, cover, moving around, etc.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No.

It is concern about the fact that for much of the history of the hobby, people who don’t conform to a very narrow interpretation of history have been made to feel unwelcome in the hobby as evidenced by the fact that up until about five years or so ago, there were virtually no women in the hobby as well as very nearly no inclusion of anything that wasn’t 100% geared for white males.

 

[Hussar]

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

Absolutely yes. It is brave to stand up and take a moral stance on the face of repeated criticism and losing customers.

 

[Faolyn]

Then they're not balanced properly, or you're managing to make them unbalanced which is a feat, but not in a good way.

Or maybe you just have no idea how I run my games.

I think you need to take this up with @Justice and Rule because he's discussed this at some length and why your point here doesn't work.

Why do my points need to be identical to theirs? If Justice and Rule have an issue with what I am saying, they can tell me themselves.

Yes, and as I've said I believe you're naive and unrealistic in this view, and you've made no argument to the contrary beyond appealing to the authority of a reddit specifically for RPG horror stories. You even say the last time you experienced any seriously bad behaviour in an RPG was over 20 years ago.

Other people in this thread have brought it up, including both enslaving NPCs and the possibility of even enslaving PCs. And you specifically mentioned a player in your game who was into slavery and rape.

My examples are from college because I've been playing with my group for a very long time (I have played with one of the other members since about '97, for instance), and anyone who enters the group has been someone a current member has known from elsewhere. We don't game in stores or get randos from online. Thus, we don't have wildcards and all of our players have been decent people, and most of the times when we've lost players, it's been due to scheduling issues, not behavior.

But all you have said is "nobody in my group would ever enslave anyone else (except that one guy), therefore, nobody in any group would." Which... I don't get how you don't understand how ridiculous that is.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

There's an awful lot of overlap between gamers and people who eat Thai food. That doesn't mean they're connected. (Man, I want some drunken noodles right now.)

And I'm sure that most people can tell the difference between an RPG and a movie. For instance, one passively watches a movie and actively plays in an RPG. Movies are scripted while RPGs are not and sometimes go completely off the rails because of player weirdness or a die roll.

 

[Umbran]

LOL. Try harder.

Semantics.

This is just confirmation bias

Are even following my position the discussion?

Mod Note:
Well, would you want to read the writing of someone who talked to you like this?

Maybe, if you don't respect the other person's positions this much, just don't engage?