D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

[Bedrockgames]

Here's the thing. Do I wish they could do an updated Dark Sun setting?

Yes.

Do I understand why they aren't doing it?

Yes.

But the most important thing is that anyone, right now, can go and get the Dark Sun material on DriveThruRPG. If you want it, it's there. We have more access, to more stuff, than we ever have. And what I hate is when people start caterwauling about disclaimers that the put on the legacy content.

Because right now, we have more access to more older material than anyone at any other point in time! If you like Dark Sun, get the classic material and run it! Do you know why? Think about all the changes that they would have to do in order to make a new Dark Sun. That's just going to be an impossible tight-rope walk between the needs of the present and the demands of the setting's fans. They will inevitably anger the blood of one side, and most likely anger both sides.

Continue to be happy that if you want the old stuff, you can get it. And remember that the game, now, isn't for the olds; the majority of 5e players started with 5e.

The fact that they wouldn't remake Dark Sun now, and that we all understand why, even though I think most of us understand the point of a setting like that isn't to promote anything bad, shows that there has been a chilling impact on creative fields in the past ten years or so. Is that government censorship and a first amendment violation? No. But it does mean people don't feel like they can create as freely as they did before. Yes the Dark Sun is still available. They wouldn't be able to make it again without running into issues. Smaller publishers can possibly do it, because they don't have to worry about as many things as a large one like WOTC. I tend to agree with Tarantino, we are living through the 80s part two (doesn't mean everything is bad but there are more constraints the culture is imposing on itself creatively)

 

[Iosue]

Some good perspective there! Caldwell did freelance work for TSR for years before he got hired on as staff, bear in mind. His first cheesecake Dragon Magazine cover was Dragon Spell, issue #53, Sept 1981. Followed by 58 and 72, at a glance.

Indeed, indeed. But with his official hiring in 1985, he became far more prolific and had his work on some major novel and product covers. I wanted to say that the D&D line was free of cheesecake for the whole of its life, but Caldwell doing the Gazeteers pretty much ended that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The fact that they wouldn't remake Dark Sun now, and that we all understand why, even though I think most of us understand the point of a setting like that isn't to promote anything bad, shows that there has been a chilling impact on creative fields in the past ten years or so. Is that government censorship and a first amendment violation? No. But it does mean people don't feel like they can create as freely as they did before. Yes the Dark Sun is still available. They wouldn't be able to make it again without running into issues. Smaller publishers can possibly do it, because they don't have to worry about as many things as a large one like WOTC. I tend to agree with Tarantino, we are living through the 80s part two (doesn't mean everything is bad but there are more constraints the culture is imposing on itself creatively)

I don't disagree with you that it feels like a lot of people have given up on the principle of free speech (or, at best, say they are for it while looking to suppress the speech they don't like).

While I am concerned about that, I also think that a lot of people don't fully understand how much speech was chilled in the past.* Moreover, corporations gonna corporate; if you're looking to them to be the vanguard of free speech, I got news for you. Principles don't make the stock price go up. Lukewarm support for popular things? That does, or at least it avoids having the stock go down.


*People seem to forget that the amount and variety of speech we have today dwarfs what was in the past. The ability to even talk about issues like LGBTQI+ rights was often silenced not just by official state action, but coercion from social pressure and corporations. That's just one of many examples. So yes, I am worried, but I also think it is important to remember that the past wasn't great, either.

 

[mamba]

The fact that they wouldn't remake Dark Sun now, and that we all understand why, even though I think most of us understand the point of a setting like that isn't to promote anything bad, shows that there has been a chilling impact on creative fields in the past ten years or so. Is that government censorship and a first amendment violation? No. But it does mean people don't feel like they can create as freely as they did before.

And that is mostly a good thing. That WotC no longer wants to touch certain subjects does not mean no one would touch a Dark Sun like setting. I also do not think that the issue DS has that prevent WotC from revisiting it have anything to do with shifts we had the last 10 years

 

[Clint_L]

That may be ridiculous, but the most ridiculous part is the "armor" that is so form fitting over her exaggeratedly ample bosom that the nipples can be seen, all of which is over completely bare legs.

IMO, she became iconic because of the over-the-top ridiculousness of her outfit. That said, there's no misogyny or degradation going on, as she is represented as capable, as you say. It's the worst picture in Moldvay Basic (from a female representation POV), but for all that, it's not so bad.

It’s pure T&A. Let’s be real. She’s essentially topless. And pantsless. With go-go boots.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It’s pure T&A. Let’s be real. She’s essentially topless. And pantsless. With go-go boots.

That's right. Morgan became iconic because, well, you said it.

And Aleena became iconic because she framed Bargle.

#JUSTICE4BARGLE

 

[Clint_L]

The fact that they wouldn't remake Dark Sun now, and that we all understand why, even though I think most of us understand the point of a setting like that isn't to promote anything bad, shows that there has been a chilling impact on creative fields in the past ten years or so. Is that government censorship and a first amendment violation? No. But it does mean people don't feel like they can create as freely as they did before.

Does it? Are you factoring the stuff that people can create and get published now that they couldn't 30 years ago? Like a blockbuster action film with an almost all Back cast? Or a TV show unapologetically featuring gay characters?

There's a lot of people with a lot more freedom to create than they had in the past. Ask Oscar Wilde about how much freedom he had to create. So, yeah, the dominant group might have to check themselves a bit. Is that such a bad trade-off?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't disagree with you that it feels like a lot of people have given up on the principle of free speech (or, at best, say they are for it while looking to suppress the speech they don't like).

Unfortunately most people are hypocritical when it comes to this. I suppose that is human nature. I still believe in the free speech movement so I don't want to put limits on speech I dislike (I am happy to criticize an idea I think is bad though)

While I am concerned about that, I also think that a lot of people don't fully understand how much speech was chilled in the past.* Moreover, corporations gonna corporate; if you're looking to them to be the vanguard of free speech, I got news for you. Principles don't make the stock price go up. Lukewarm support for popular things? That does, or at least it avoids having the stock go down.

One of the reasons I am concerned about it, is because of how speech has been chilled in the past (some I remember in my life, some of it I have read about or heard about from others happening before my time).

And I agree corporations don't care about speech, they also don't care about people. That isn't what they do. We can still try to promote a culture of more openness around speech and expression. Corporations are never going to be great stewards of public virtue.

*People seem to forget that the amount and variety of speech we have today dwarfs what was in the past. The ability to even talk about issues like LGBTQI+ rights was often silenced not just by official state action, but coercion from social pressure and corporations. That's just one of many examples. So yes, I am worried, but I also think it is important to remember that the past wasn't great, either.

And this is why only focusing on government control of speech misses that there can be other powerful institutions and forces that shape what people feel they can and can't say. What happened with speech and free expression around this issue, is why I never support anything related to boycotts or public pressure. I feel like over the course of my life, at least in the arts, it felt like a gradual opening up of expression and freedom to create, but that we slowly started to reverse course sometime after 2010 (often with reasons that were benevolent but ultimately resulted in there being less creative freedom rather than than more). Again though to quote Tarantino, now we are largely doing it to ourselves. You don't need government censorship or even corporate censorship when people are policing one another. However to be clear, I am not at all saying that is in any way the same thing as having state control of speech and expression (all you have to do is look at states where the government has strict control of what people say to know there is a major difference there).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Does it? Are you factoring the stuff that people can create and get published now that they couldn't 30 years ago? Like a blockbuster action film with an almost all Back cast? Or a TV show unapologetically featuring gay characters?

Progress on this front hasn't always been a straight line but I think it is a good thing that you can have successful all black movies.I do think it is worth not forgetting though that there were lots of progressive shows in this respect in the 70s, 80s and 90s. But I think you can have shows featuring more types of people, while also not stifling creative expression. Also in many ways the 80s and early 90s had more black shows that were culturally meaningful than the 2000s or 2010s even. So it hasn't been a straight line of progress.You had the Cosby Show, Eddie Murphy was the biggest star on earth, Living Color came out I think in 89, and then you had Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Then, at least from where I was standing, it felt like things regressed a bit. Progress unfortunately hasn't been a straight line. But I will agree, there has been tremendous progress overall (especially if you go back further in time to the 50s or 30s).

There's a lot of people with a lot more freedom to create than they had in the past. Ask Oscar Wilde about how much freedom he had to create. So, yeah, the dominant group might have to check themselves a bit. Is that such a bad trade-off?

I think you are creating a false choice here. You are making it sound like one has to be against gay people having the right to express themselves if you re for open expression in the arts. Which I don't think is the case. I don't see why wanting artists to be free would mean we would have to return to the kind of legal and social restrictions that Oscar Wilde and other gay people had to endure in the 1800s

Also why does it need to be about any group having to check themselves? This is to my point about the general chill on speech in the past ten years or so. What I want is for everyone to be free to express themselves creatively (and I think you can do that and not make it a zero sum game of this group versus that group)

 

[Older Beholder]

I don't agree with the idea that art is more restrained nowdays.
Just to pick TV as an example...

Always Sunny
South Park
Family Guy

are all still running.