What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[MGibster]

I wonder if the "Walking Dead" kickstarter from Free League will have controversial material.
The show was filled with all sorts of people being bad to each other.

The series includes sexual assault, forced labor, racial epithets, and eating disorders. So it's probably safe.

 

[Thourne]

The series includes sexual assault, forced labor, racial epithets, and eating disorders. So it's probably safe.

Never watched it but was it's previous working title "Game of Zombies"?

 

[gamerprinter]

The subject in this discussion seems to apply to officially published product by wotc overall.
In fact I seem to remember some posters saying this sort of thing is better handled by 3pp.
That said if the guidelines did apply to you (not sure how they could ), no you wouldn't be wrong.

Well I'm close to publishing Arcane Armada, a collection of custom Spelljammer ships, deck plans, binary Wildspace system and it's inhabitants as 3PP, to be sold at the DM's Guild. It does use D&D Spelljammer IP. Anything in that product is likely subject to Controversial Content Rules. I've even adjusted one ship that was a designed as a military slaver, that I've redressed as a prison barge instead, though the ship design didn't change in of itself. I am being careful with any potential Controversial Content issues that could come up, so I'm trying to avoid them...

 

[MGibster]

Never watched it but was it's previous working title "Game of Zombies"?

The sexual assault in the series was low key, the best example I can think of is a guy named Negan who had a harem of "wives" he was extorting for sex. In one case we see him threatening to withhold medication from one of his wife's parents if she doesn't stay with him, but he makes it clear it's her "choice." The irony is that Negan would execute any of his men if they sexually assaulted someone because he didn't want to live in a world where that was a thing. We never see it onscreen, but there are a few episodes where it's mentioned that it happens, mostly in the earlier seasons, but it's easily something you can leave out of the RPG without missing it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You don't need the force to do the Kessel Run, either.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's not semantics. It actually matters which word you use. You excise something that exists. Once Dark Sun was released slavery existed in that setting as a fundamental part of it. Removal of slavery from Dark Sun is excising it. Before Dark Sun is released, since it doesn't exist yet as a setting, removal of slavery would have simply been making a change not excising it.

 

[Thourne]

The sexual assault in the series was low key, the best example I can think of is a guy named Negan who had a harem of "wives" he was extorting for sex. In one case we see him threatening to withhold medication from one of his wife's parents if she doesn't stay with him, but he makes it clear it's her "choice." The irony is that Negan would execute any of his men if they sexually assaulted someone because he didn't want to live in a world where that was a thing. We never see it onscreen, but there are a few episodes where it's mentioned that it happens, mostly in the earlier seasons, but it's easily something you can leave out of the RPG without missing it.

Thx for the explaination. Negan was Mr Winchester with a baseball bat? Couple friends chat about it from time to time so I overhear some stuff. Just never bothered to pay much attention when they did. Not much of a zombie fan overall.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The sexual assault in the series was low key, the best example I can think of is a guy named Negan who had a harem of "wives" he was extorting for sex. In one case we see him threatening to withhold medication from one of his wife's parents if she doesn't stay with him, but he makes it clear it's her "choice." The irony is that Negan would execute any of his men if they sexually assaulted someone because he didn't want to live in a world where that was a thing. We never see it onscreen, but there are a few episodes where it's mentioned that it happens, mostly in the earlier seasons, but it's easily something you can leave out of the RPG without missing it.

Been a long time but I believe the Governor rapes Michonne in the comics. Pretty sure they didn't go there in the show. There have definitely been attempted sexual assaults in the show from what I remember though.

 

[Imaro]

It's not semantics. It actually matters which word you use. You excise something that exists. Once Dark Sun was released slavery existed in that setting as a fundamental part of it. Removal of slavery from Dark Sun is excising it. Before Dark Sun is released, since it doesn't exist yet as a setting, removal of slavery would have simply been making a change not excising it.

And in common conversation it's used either way. If it was that important for him/her/they to clarify then they would have came back and clarified. So either my interpretation is correct or they just don't care enough to clarify... the question is why do you 3 care enough to keep bringing it up when there's no way for any of you to know how it was meant either.

 

[Thourne]

And in common conversation it's used either way. If it was that important for him/her/they to clarify then they would have came back and clarified. So either my interpretation is correct or they just don't care enough to clarify... the question is why do you 3 care enough to keep bringing it up when there's no way for any of you to know how it was meant either.

I'd like to be having this discussion based on the actual intent of the individuals involved rather than assumption.
That simple really.
Also, fairly certain I brought up that I disagreed with your interpretation once. Further engagement was due to disagreement with your follow ups. Not really the same thing.


Edit: Let me just add this. I keep returning to this thread because I genuinely want to hear what the individuals involved think to inform myself. It gets much more difficult to do that when the conversation is in bad faith or hostile. I am not trying to "win" anything, whatever that would mean or look like.