What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Thourne]

I tend to play with people I know most of the time, but there are games that I know they don't enjoy.

When I go to conventions I run mainly Call of Cthulhu with significant descriptions on death and mutilations, or even odd games like Monsterhearts which features sexual and queer content. But the con I go most frequently to is in a University and each group gets their own tutorial room so you don't have people wandering by.

That is different in a nice way. Closest I've ever seen to private areas is the mass was spread across 3 rooms of many tables per room.

*speaking of conventions specifically.

 

[Thourne]

So any fictional world that doesn't have slavery is dismissive of people in the real world that managed to achieve remarkable things despite having been enslaved...and you speak for all the enslaved... how again??

Not what they said mate.

They said, "Excising slavery from a setting purely on the basis that it is bad, and claiming that it is a lazy/cheap tool to use when building a world is dismissive of people in the real world that managed to achieve remarkable things despite having been enslaved."

Which by my reading is: Removing slavery from a setting that was created with slavery, on the assertion that it was a cheap/lazy tool to use when it was created is dismissive of people in the real world because they managed to overcome not only everything else that stood in their way but also the incredible burden of slavery.
I think it is all part of the everyone loves the underdog thing. When you remove the slavery part of the story you diminish what they overcame, not what their potential was.

But hey, I could be reading it wrong. Hopefully they chime in.

 

[Imaro]

Not what they said mate.

They said, "Excising slavery from a setting purely on the basis that it is bad, and claiming that it is a lazy/cheap tool to use when building a world is dismissive of people in the real world that managed to achieve remarkable things despite having been enslaved."

Which by my reading is: Removing slavery from a setting that was created with slavery, on the assertion that it was a cheap/lazy tool to use when it was created is dismissive of people in the real world because they managed to overcome not only everything else that stood in their way but also the incredible burden of slavery.
I think it is all part of the everyone loves the underdog thing. When you remove the slavery part of the story you diminish what they overcame, not what their potential was.

But hey, I could be reading it wrong. Hopefully they chime in.

I don't see anything in that statement to indicate removal from a setting where slavery already exists, and it even references building a setting.... It instead judges the motives for not including slavery in a setting by invoking what would be dismissive or not to the enslaved... as if the poster knows what they would or wouldn't find dismissive.

 

[Faolyn]

Not what they said mate.

They said, "Excising slavery from a setting purely on the basis that it is bad, and claiming that it is a lazy/cheap tool to use when building a world is dismissive of people in the real world that managed to achieve remarkable things despite having been enslaved."

Which by my reading is: Removing slavery from a setting that was created with slavery, on the assertion that it was a cheap/lazy tool to use when it was created is dismissive of people in the real world because they managed to overcome not only everything else that stood in their way but also the incredible burden of slavery.
I think it is all part of the everyone loves the underdog thing. When you remove the slavery part of the story you diminish what they overcame, not what their potential was.

But hey, I could be reading it wrong. Hopefully they chime in.

If there's no slavery in a fictional setting, then you're not diminishing what your character overcame. You're simply not including that one thing. There's still many other obstacles that can be overcome and many other ways your character can be an underdog. Nasty rivals or superiors, bullies, abusive parental figures, being orphaned or or an outcast, being born to a poor family or low part of society, being framed for a crime, having accidentally committed a crime, being part of a rebellion, and so on. These are just what came to be with about thirty seconds of thought.

 

[Imaro]

If there's no slavery in a fictional setting, then you're not diminishing what your character overcame. You're simply not including that one thing. There's still many other obstacles that can be overcome and many other ways your character can be an underdog. Nasty rivals or superiors, bullies, abusive parental figures, being orphaned or or an outcast, being born to a poor family or low part of society, being framed for a crime, having accidentally committed a crime, being part of a rebellion, and so on. These are just what came to be with about thirty seconds of thought.

But...but the only plausible way to have a black samurai character in a fantasy world full of magic, goblins and dragons... is slavery.

 

[Thourne]

I don't see anything in that statement to indicate removal from a setting where slavery already exists, and it even references building a setting.... It instead judges the motives for not including slavery in a setting by invoking what would be dismissive or not to the enslaved... as if the poster knows what they would or wouldn't find dismissive.

Excising - to remove something

 

[Imaro]

Excising

You can also remove things from a setting being built before it's released or finished... again not seeing it. And given the other problematic statements in that post, I'm really not willing to extend him/her/them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Thourne]

If there's no slavery in a fictional setting, then you're not diminishing what your character overcame. You're simply not including that one thing. There's still many other obstacles that can be overcome and many other ways your character can be an underdog. Nasty rivals or superiors, bullies, abusive parental figures, being orphaned or or an outcast, being born to a poor family or low part of society, being framed for a crime, having accidentally committed a crime, being part of a rebellion, and so on. These are just what came to be with about thirty seconds of thought.

They appear to be specifically discussing removing it from a setting in which it exists, thus Excising. I believe they are specifically referring to Dark Sun and the fact that it was created with it.

You can also remove things from a setting being built before it's released or finished... again not seeing it. And given the other problematic statements in that post, I'm really not willing to extend him/her/them the benefit of the doubt.

Then you didn't remove it. You choose not to include it.

 

[Imaro]

They appear to be specifically discussing removing it from a setting in which it exists, thus Excising. I believe they are specifically referring to Dark Sun and the fact that it was created with it.

Then you didn't remove it. You choose not to include it.

Not going to play semantic games, it can be used either way. If he was speaking to Dark Sun why not just say that?
1. I excised x from the novel before publishing it.
2. While creating the campaign world I decided to excise the slave nation from the setting before play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not going to play semantic games, it can be used either way. I excised x from the novel before publishing it.

That's not semantics. That's editing prior to being published.