What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Bedrockgames]

I personally doubt it's as machiavellian as that. It's more like he made a casual comment re: Dark Sun and we're the ones who are more concerned about, in part because some of us (like me) thought Dark Sun was both fixable (by removing and replacing slavery, Muls, etc) and inevitable. That said I do think the not choosing Dark Sun was about more than slavery - which could be removed - I think two of the "controversial issues" that got it canned was that it's about man-made climate change and massive societal inequalities, which are RL issues - and could not be removed.

It is pure speculation and intuition on my part. I could certainly be incorrect. I also think you could very well be right about the climate change element. I was basing this on the way they used these issues to justify the OGL thing. It is equally possible this was just an off the cuff remark about dark sun (but I could see it being talking points they want him to go back to in the wake of the OGL issue (which was catastrophic for them PR wise when it happened)

 

[Bagpuss]

If you're waiting for the time when prospective players are at the table to thrown a bone to inclusivity concerns, you're already too late.

To true, if you go to a convention and nobody at any of the tables looks remotely like you, it takes some real courage to be the one to sit down. Unfortunately someone has to take that first step you can't exactly drag people to sit down at your table.

Looking through a rulebook and none of the art looks like you, can have a similar effect. Thankfully that's easier to fix which WotC has done with D&D since 3rd Ed onwards.

 

[Imaro]

But they also used those issues to justify changing the OGL (I think because they understand it can distract people from other things—-I.e. they needed a clause under the guise that they wanted to stop people from making offensive content). I am sure there are people on creative side who believe in this, but I am a lot more skeptical of the cooperate side

The fact that this is cited as both reason for changing the OGL as well as why they don't want to produce certain products would seem to indicate there really are those at WotC who are trying to create a brand that doesn't touch on certain problematic, from their perspective, elements in gaming. I think for the corporate side it's as simple as that. They don't want to be GoT 2.0 they want to be a family friendly, good time brand and some things just don't fit into that model. Think of the Disney brand of movies... there's some things that aren't going to ever be branded as a Disney movie (note... not Marvel or Star Wars which in turn have their own limitations).

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fact that this is cited as both reason for changing the OGL as well as why they don't want to produce certain products would seem to indicate there really are those at WotC who are trying to create a brand that doesn't touch on certain problematic, from their perspective, elements in gaming. I think for the corporate side it's as simple as that. They don't want to be GoT 2.0 they want to be a family friendly, good time brand and some things just don't fit into that model. Think of the Disney brand of movies... there's some things that aren't going to ever be branded as a Disney movie (note... not Marvel or Star Wars which in turn have their own limitations).

And yet we have things like the Netflix shows, which are now under the Disney brand and available for viewing on Disney +.

 

[Bagpuss]

I personally doubt it's as machiavellian as that.

Agreed, I think if WotC have shown anything over the last few months it is that they aren't smart enough as a corporation, to do anything like that.

It's more like he made a casual comment re: Dark Sun and we're the ones who are more concerned about, in part because some of us (like me) thought Dark Sun was both fixable (by removing and replacing slavery, Muls, etc) and inevitable. That said I do think the not choosing Dark Sun was about more than slavery - which could be removed - I think two of the "controversial issues" that got it canned was that it's about man-made climate change and massive societal inequalities, which are RL issues - and could not be removed.

Really I thought that's just the sort of topical things that an RPG should be dealing with especially in the current climate (pun intended), I just disagree about how easy or desirable it is to remove other controversial issues. Personally I'd rather they don't publish Dark Sun that try an neuter it, for modern sensibilities, so kind of happy WotC decided not to touch it.

Can't we just have something new?

 

[Scribe]

There's a whole section of Twitter and TikTok which is just sort of disgusted by anyone who is in any way horny or thirsty, and I don't think it's an accident that virtually all those people who are disgusted are aged 18-26. But they exist, and they're LOUD. They even have a name for themselves "New adults" or "Majors"

Wha....?

I really cannot process what passes for popular culture anymore. Is this the gen z version of straight edge?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wha....?

I really cannot process what passes for popular culture anymore. Is this the gen z version of straight edge?

Yes.

Essentially that is what it is, only more fuelled by age and insecurity (imho) than the excesses of the previous generation. So we can't pretend our generation didn't have its own similar stuff!

 

[Thourne]

To true, if you go to a convention and nobody at any of the tables looks remotely like you, it takes some real courage to be the one to sit down. Unfortunately someone has to take that first step you can't exactly drag people to sit down at your table.

Looking through a rulebook and none of the art looks like you, can have a similar effect. Thankfully that's easier to fix which WotC has done with D&D since 3rd Ed onwards.

You can approach and engage with people milling about though.
A simple, "Hello were you looking for a table?" can go a long way

 

[Scribe]

Yes.

Essentially that is what it is, only more fuelled by age and insecurity (imho) than the excesses of the previous generation. So we can't pretend our generation didn't have its own similar stuff!

Makes total sense in that light, I'm thinking they just arrived a bit early, but I can see that as a reaction to social media/online access to well things we had to go looking for in magazine form.

 

[Thourne]

And yet we have things like the Netflix shows, which are now under the Disney brand and available for viewing on Disney +.

And all they did was add a rating/advisory.