What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Faolyn]

It really does matter when you're asserting something is common. There's a huge difference between lived experience and "SOME GUY ON A WEBSITE SAID!" and you are going with the latter.

I did say I heard from people in real life. Including you. Are you just some guy on a website? Maybe you're making everything up!

Yeah and that's a ridiculous phrase in a situation where you can just kick bad players out of a group. It doesn't make any sense.

If you can kick the bad players out of the group. Not everyone has that ability, mentally or physically (metaphorically physically; I don't necessarily mean boot to the behind here).

That phrase is applicable to organisations, for example, where bad people can't be kicked out - we all know the major one. It certainly isn't applicable to groups - if it was, Faolyn, it would apply to YOU, just said you had to kick out a guy who was covering weird racism, with evil Orcs stuff. Are you saying you're a bad apple? I presume not.

OK, I guess you're not actually reading what I wrote, because I said it was someone else in my group who kicked someone out of their other group. Someone they'd apparently gamed with for a long time. From what they told me, this guy wasn't a real problem in-game until trying to justify orcs being evil because of their biology, and that, I believe, didn't come up until WotC either removed alignments from orc monster blocks or removed the Int penalty from the PC race info (can't remember which).

As I was saying, you don't have to pay much attention - these people signal - and it's not just conventional social media - it's stuff like Steam and things. Yeah if you invite a total stranger into your group and do zero research into them and don't hang out with them first they might cause a problem for what, one session before you kick them out? I think you can probably handle that.

Some of these people signal. Others are perfectly normal except in game.

For many people, it starts out with tiny instances and builds up rather than the 0-to-60 you seem to think it must always be. Guy does something gross to your character? Well, nobody else seems to have a problem with the them, they haven't done anything like that before, maybe you're just taking things too personally. After all, it's just a game. And if you put up a fuss, are the other players going to side with you or with them? And if they side with them, are you going to lose all your friends?

What you're saying is very close to the type of victim blaming that goes on with people who are abused. "Why didn't you just leave?"

Why? Because it's more complicated than that.

And yes, the above example is one that happened to me. And I'd known the guy and gamed with him for years beforehand, without any so-called "signals" that I could see, either in-game or in real life. Maybe it's still my fault because I'm not telepathic?

Sure, so you don't play with those people. Someone with an attitude like that isn't going to be discouraged from it by, say, WotC changing what is in D&D settings - nor are they going to run a game that's more friendly or inclusive because WotC did.

The point isn't to force people to run a friendly or more inclusive game. The point is for WotC to not give their tacit approval to unfriendy, un-inclusive behaviors, and they do that by not adding things that legitimize bigotry. They're choosing to not add fuel to that fire.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We are talking about slavery not indentured servitude or serfdom... aren't we?



My fault... I was moreso trying to show some inconsistency in the arguments for. But you are correct it's not your argument.




No that's not what I was saying... I mean calling it actual slavery but then having it be a milquetoast version. I consider indentured servitude and serfdom different and honestly feel the same way that you do... it would allow thew same types of stories without as much baggage.



They gloss over slavery, discrimination, etc... it is given a brief mention and left up to the players to decide how to engage with it.



On the other hand Deadlands handles it in a mindbogglingly inept way, both trying to make it non-existent while their narrative path to doing so is... troubling to say the least... this is what they say about it...

"In this alternate version of late 19th century America, racism and sexism have largely faded from the social landscape. It is true that racism and sexism still exist, but they are mostly individual characteristics of villains, scoundrels and misguided heroes." Furthermore, in Deadlands lore, there were many Black Confederates, which partially explains the vanishing of racism in this alternate world. "



It was a FATE setting (1800's?) think Penny Dreadful meets Justice League Dark. In it racism and sexism exist (and that's all they really say on the matter) but the PC's get to be part of a gentleman's club that are above the societies racism and sexism.


I pretty much agree with everything you say here. I play them but I tend to look specifically for games created/written by black people that address it- as opposed to modify/dismiss it... Harlem Unbound, Haunted West (may be slightly earlier than the 1800's), etc.

Is there a better way to handle issues like slavery and racism in an RPG meant to evoke real world history (whether or not the setting is actually a version of the real world) than the way CoC handles it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I believe the argument was that WotC doesn’t want to be perceived as supporting slavery and that they (WotC) think including slavery in Dark Sun could be perceived that way.

Yeah, so it's fear of the mob. I suggested this upthread.

 

[Imaro]

Is there a better way to handle issues like slavery and racism in an RPG meant to evoke real world history (whether or not the setting is actually a version of the real world) than the way CoC handles it?

I actually think this is a good way to handle it... because even if it's a historical rpg... it's still fantasy. My concern is when slavery is a main feature of the setting itself... and there's no way you can just let tables decide how to handle it and have it be a low key background element... instead you have to expound on it and "accuracy" is only one of many competing concerns.

 

[Irlo]

Yeah, so it's fear of the mob. I suggested this upthread.

To be clear, I’m not stating this as my opinion — just clarifying what the upthread arguments were.

Call it fear of the mob (if we make the worst interpretation) or empathy for the sensibilities of their customers (if we view it more positively).

Frankly, I think WotC has as much to “fear” from DS fans who would be upset by changes to the lore as they do from those put off by depictions of slavery and forced procreation of a slave-race.

 

[Thourne]

To be clear, I’m not stating this as my opinion — just clarifying what the upthread arguments were.

Call it fear of the mob (if we make the worst interpretation) or empathy for the sensibilities of their customers (if we view it more positively).

Frankly, I think WotC has as much to “fear” from DS fans who would be upset by changes to the lore as they do from those put off by depictions of slavery and forced procreation of a slave-race.

Very valid considering the very fans of the setting would be the most likely purchasers.

 

[MGibster]

I did say I heard from people in real life. Including you. Are you just some guy on a website? Maybe you're making everything up!

I'm not sure any of you are real. The only thing I can be sure of is that I'm real. And between you, me, and all these imaginary people, sometimes I'm not so sure I'm real.

In all seriousness, it's hard to figure out how common our personal experiences are.

If you can kick the bad players out of the group. Not everyone has that ability, mentally or physically (metaphorically physically; I don't necessarily mean boot to the behind here).

This is more indicative of deeper social problems that are only tangently related to what's in the game.

For many people, it starts out with tiny instances and builds up rather than the 0-to-60 you seem to think it must always be. Guy does something gross to your character? Well, nobody else seems to have a problem with the them, they haven't done anything like that before, maybe you're just taking things too personally. After all, it's just a game. And if you put up a fuss, are the other players going to side with you or with them? And if they side with them, are you going to lose all your friends?

I've been there. I had a player who started out okay, but the more I gamed with him the shorter my tolerance became until I finally booted him out of my game. I played with this guy off and on for a number of years before giving him the boot.

What you're saying is very close to the type of victim blaming that goes on with people who are abused. "Why didn't you just leave?"

You're comparing gaming to an abusive relationship. If you're gaming with toxic people and you can't leave, I promise you the problem isn't the content of whatever game you're playing it's with the people you're playing with. And, yes, I asked myself why I didn't kick my problem player out of the game sooner. I didn't want to hurt his feelings, I didn't want to rock the boat, that's just George being George, etc., etc.

 

[Faolyn]

You're comparing gaming to an abusive relationship. If you're gaming with toxic people and you can't leave, I promise you the problem isn't the content of whatever game you're playing it's with the people you're playing with. And, yes, I asked myself why I didn't kick my problem player out of the game sooner. I didn't want to hurt his feelings, I didn't want to rock the boat, that's just George being George, etc., etc.

You possibly missed my point.

The people are toxic. The game doesn't have to include information that would help to bolster that toxicity.

Dark Sun has slavery. Some people here are saying that slavery is needed for that setting to work, that it falls apart and wouldn't be Dark Sun without the slavery. Let's say that's true. No slavery = Not Dark Sun.

So you get a player that wants to buy and sell slaves, or turn captured enemies into slaves. Maybe this player is a bigoted person in real life. Maybe they have a fetish. Maybe they just get really into whatever setting they're playing in and want to roleplay accurately. Maybe they don't care because the slaves are just NPCs who probably don't even have names and it's no different in the long run than killing them and taking their stuff. The motive doesn't matter at the moment.

You, as the DM, don't really want to get into slavery. You like everything else about Dark Sun but not that. What do you say to this PC, then? "No, I don't want that in my game"? But it's literally part of the game and is treated no differently than than buying and selling steeds or weapons, according to the game itself. Or at least is treated no differently than buying poison (which D&D traditionally has decided is an evil act, yet poison has probably always had a gold piece value.)

If you, the DM, choose to make a big deal about it, you're messing with this setting that "has" to have slaves in it, and you're messing with the player's ability to play their character. If you remove slavery from the game because you don't like it, then you are, according to many people, playing something other than Dark Sun.

This isn't like having a toxic player who wants to, say, rape an NPC or even a PC, because no D&D settings have rape as an integral part of them. Probably no games whatsoever have rape as a central part--except for FATAL, of course. Probably any game that does have rape in it has it as a relatively minor part that could be very easily removed without changing the game at all. (If there are any non-FATAL games that have rape as an integral part, let me know so I can definitely avoid them.)

But Dark Sun wouldn't be Dark Sun without slavery in it. Which means it's not rando toxic players that would be messing everything up; it's the game itself.

 

[Thourne]

You possibly missed my point.

The people are toxic. The game doesn't have to include information that would help to bolster that toxicity.

Dark Sun has slavery. Some people here are saying that slavery is needed for that setting to work, that it falls apart and wouldn't be Dark Sun without the slavery. Let's say that's true. No slavery = Not Dark Sun.

So you get a player that wants to buy and sell slaves, or turn captured enemies into slaves. Maybe this player is a bigoted person in real life. Maybe they have a fetish. Maybe they just get really into whatever setting they're playing in and want to roleplay accurately. Maybe they don't care because the slaves are just NPCs who probably don't even have names and it's no different in the long run than killing them and taking their stuff. The motive doesn't matter at the moment.

You, as the DM, don't really want to get into slavery. You like everything else about Dark Sun but not that. What do you say to this PC, then? "No, I don't want that in my game"? But it's literally part of the game and is treated no differently than than buying and selling steeds or weapons, according to the game itself. Or at least is treated no differently than buying poison (which D&D traditionally has decided is an evil act, yet poison has probably always had a gold piece value.)

If you, the DM, choose to make a big deal about it, you're messing with this setting that "has" to have slaves in it, and you're messing with the player's ability to play their character. If you remove slavery from the game because you don't like it, then you are, according to many people, playing something other than Dark Sun.

This isn't like having a toxic player who wants to, say, rape an NPC or even a PC, because no D&D settings have rape as an integral part of them. Probably no games whatsoever have rape as a central part--except for FATAL, of course. Probably any game that does have rape in it has it as a relatively minor part that could be very easily removed without changing the game at all. (If there are any non-FATAL games that have rape as an integral part, let me know so I can definitely avoid them.)

But Dark Sun wouldn't be Dark Sun without slavery in it. Which means it's not rando toxic players that would be messing everything up; it's the game itself.

While deciding what to play, I'd inform them that if we play DS that there is slavery in the setting but there will be no permission for player characters to participate in that system. No taking slaves, no buying slaves, no taking hostages and selling them into slavery. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. It exists for flavor and for possible story hooks that may bring the PCs into conflict with those who condone and practice it.

Edit: Short Version - Something existing in a setting is not the same as saying PCs can use it.

 

[Autumnal]

Just a brief mention of real-world stakes: in 2022, a county superintendent of schools in Iowa would not commit to whether it was okay or not for a teacher to say “Slavery is wrong.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/06/slavery-was-wrong-5-other-things-educators-wont-teach-anymore/

In Florida, textbooks are not permitted to mention Rosa Parks’ race.

Notes on the DeOrban regime - Lawyers, Guns & Money

Getting textbooks approved in Florida now requires whitening and lobotomizing: The nitty-gritty process of reviewing and approving school textbooks has typically been an administrative affair, drawing the attention of education experts, publishing executives and state bureaucrats. But in...

www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com

This kind of thing is the direct legacy of slavery in the US, and very much bears on the lives of children and adults today. Just to show the non-theoretical nature of the concerns: more and more, the history and consequences of slavery are being wrapped up in official lies.

This isn’t to say that particular choices about gaming must follow, even though I believe some do follow more sensibly than alternatives. Just to say that, yeah, it really is a live issue here in the 2020s.