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

[Dire Bare]

I always find it funny that "free speech" advocates are often so interested in promoting a single kind of speech all the while ignoring the thousands of other areas of speech where we are far, far freer than we ever were. Oh, noes. We can't have a setting that features slavery as a central element, but, heaven forbid that we have two men living together in a module. Fifty years and we have exactly one matriarchy in the Monster Manual and it's a bad caricature of feminism. But, yeah, we've got all this free speech in the past that we don't have now.

Good grief. People talked about the progressive TV shows of the 80's? You mean things like Dif'rent Strokes? Yup, we got Fresh Prince, but, imagine trying, even today, to make a show where two white orphans are adopted by a single black parent. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry, but on what planet did we have more free speech during the 80's and 90's than we do now?

Well, when I look back at the 70s, 80s, and 90s through my rose-colored goggles . . . and short-term memory . . .

 

[Gradine]

To say nothing of the absolutely chilling effect on speech that open, unopposed bigotry has on the marginalized.

But then anyone who calls themselves a "free speech absolutist" are very clear about which kinds of speech they want to be free and which kinds of speech they have no problem being suppressed.

 

[Clint_L]

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

No, I am saying that the statement that we have less creative freedom today is false. Or it's only true from an entitled point of view.

Way more people have way more creative freedom than they did thirty, forty, fifty years ago. People of colour, women, LGBTQ+ folks and many others have gone from almost zero creative freedom to, well, not even close to parity, but a lot more than they had.

Most folks have always had to censor themselves. You think people of colour could express themselves freely wherever they wanted for basically all of American history? They've always had to check themselves. So have women. LGBTQ+ folks couldn't even legally exist for most of that time, let alone enjoy creative freedom. But now that we are asking guys that look like me to be a little mindful too, it's a disaster?

I mean, poor, poor Quentin Tarantino. That guy has really had to struggle, hasn't he? He's really seen his career limited. The golden age that he is hearkening back to is one where basically zero PoC or women could get a big budget to make a major movie, so where was their creative freedom in Hollywood? But he gets a bit of pushback on choosing to write scripts where he has his own character dropping N-bombs like candy (which was cringey and criticized by lots of folks back in 1994, let alone today), and it's the death knell of artistic freedom. I guess he'll just have to take solace in his piles of money, choice of A-list actors, and freedom to make basically any movie he wants when he wants. The humanity.

Also why does it need to be about any group having to check themselves?

Because that's what you do when you are mindful of other contexts. Someone once said that "with great power comes great responsibility."

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)

I do NOT agree that there has been a "general chill" on speech. I think that a group of people (straight white men) have lost just a little bit of their cultural hegemony and are acting like having 90% control rather than 99% control is the end of their world. I think that a lot of them were perfectly happy when it was them with the power to "cancel" whoever they wanted, and they don't like that now they also are being asked to show some consideration.

 

[Staffan]

It's certainly looking more like those "ethical & inclusion standards" are more in line with those laughable zero tolerance programs concerned more over a ctrl-f word matching standard that would take issue with Indiana jones giving so much screentime to the bad guy nazis that he thwarts.

So, who is imposing these standards? It's not anyone outside the corp. You're basically arguing that Wizards shouldn't be allowed to decide themselves what to publish or not.

@Micah Sweet going to tag rather than quote you on this... Going from a post about how the harmfully high standards prevents a setting to bringing up the not at all mentioned disclaimer is how a harmful standard maintains itself without actually needing to provide anything that could in turn be criticized for excess. I'm not concerned about the disclaimer at all, trouble with the old darksun stuff & 5e is one of tone☆.

The trouble is that Dark Sun is a setting that has slavery as a core component, much more than any other published setting. There's also one PC race that's the result of forced breeding (and which often results in lethal pregnancies), plus there's the whole ancient genocide thing. These are things some people find traumatic to read about, so they'd rather not. Wizards would like to sell to these people, so they don't want to include that sort of thing in things they publish.

And at the same time, removing those things from Dark Sun would remove a large part of what makes the setting what it is, and make old fans angry. I mean, there aren't all that many of us these days I bet, but still.

So they can either make old fans angry with a cleaned-up version, or make new fans angry with an "authentic" version, or they can decide not to touch the thing with a 10-foot pole and spend development resources elsewhere. I really can't fault them for taking option C.

Oh, and it doesn't help Dark Sun's case that psionics is an important part of the setting and that they still haven't gotten their act together on proper psionics rules, instead hiding them in other classes.

I think the only reason Dark Sun hasn’t gotten a makeover is due to popularity. Ravenloft was problematic as hell but Strahd and horror in general sells books, so Ravenloft got done.

Ravenloft is also a more fluid setting, since it consists of multiple different domains that don't have much in common other than "horror". It's easy to remove parts of Ravenloft without making it not-Ravenloft.

I think the content warning is a bit silly, but it doesn't bother me in the least.

It's a disclaimer, not a content warning. It's not meant to tell you to stay away, it's meant to tell you that the stuff you're about to read can have some stinky stuff in it and that the current stewards of the game would not do that kind of thing today.

 

[PvtTommyAtkins]

The reason I make sure to do such meticulous research is so I can screw it up for the entertainment of others!

@Sacrosanct
I apologize if my sarcasm was unclear, but I always lead with the point that this debate (and many other cyclical debates) doesn’t end. Doesn’t matter what I (or others) write, either as thread starters or as replies.

Anyway, the other thread (which I linked to) is more concentrated on issues of the art of D&D, and this short essay, while touching on the same general issue, is about a different topic.

It’s important to not just recognize the problem, but also to recognize the seeds of inclusivity that were planted and that we continue to water today.

I like that you take the time to point out some of the nuance. While a topic that will never die sure, it doesn't mean just ignore it- and I think that you bring up a very salient point of that it did make headway. I mean how does the progress of D&D in regards to sexism compare to society outside of D&D.

 

[Ancalagon]

I didn't say it was solved. But you can't change the behavior of people in the past.

What good would it be to bring up your great great grandmother who owned slaves or whatever? No. It would only make you feel bad.

See, this is a serious error in thinking.

Our today is based on the decisions of yesterday. To understand racism, sexism and other evils, we have to understand their roots, their outlook, their expression. Because otherwise it is easy to miss the impact the decisions of yesterday are having today.

Edit: You did say the problem was solved. You said "why bring up a problem from 50 years ago that was solved 25 years ago" or something to that effect (I'm going to re-edit this if I got it wrong).

edit part deux: the exact quote is "How does bringing up 50 year old problems that have been resolved 25 years ago help?"

So yes, you did claimed it was solved. You're moving the goal post.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There is plenty of "problematic" material in Curse of Strahd including genocide, drug abuse, human trafficking, child abuse, the murder of children, and Strahd himself does not have a very enlightened attitude when it comes to romantic relationships.

Sounds like a regular news cycle these days....I must say WotC is doing Odin's work given the demand for disclaimers

 

[GrimCo]

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Heard that one before. In principle, i agree. Problem is, what is evil and good falls under morality and ethics and those are subjective.

Nobody is asking you to give it your all and die on some hill - just clap back if some meathead starts spewing some sexist, homophobic, or racist garbage at your table or in a conversation you're in. Is it too much to expect even that from you?

We were talking about public spaces. Not our home games. When it comes to home games, i don't tolerate that kind of behavior towards fellow players at the table. Be nice and respectful or GTFO. When it comes to in game content, my games are usually 18+ and contain all kinds of sensitive subjects and themes, including worst of what humanity has done over the centuries. I allow pretty horrible characters in game, and they commit horrible acts. But that is strictly in game, in character and aimed at characters or NPCS. Then again, i play with long time friends who are mature adults and know where is proverbial line in the sand. I don't expect any company, least of all WOTC, to release that kind of material. It's niche, it has highly offensive and possibly triggering potential and it's not kid/family friendly. When it comes to products aimed at mainstream audience, like D&D is, it should be inclusive and non offensive to everybody.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The trouble is that Dark Sun is a setting that has slavery as a core component, much more than any other published setting.

Historical fiction exists. Spartacus (2010-2013).
Historical non-fiction exists too.

There's also one PC race that's the result of forced breeding (and which often results in lethal pregnancies),

Handmaid's Tale (2017-2025). Species.

plus there's the whole ancient genocide thing.

No comment.

These are things some people find traumatic to read about, so they'd rather not. Wizards would like to sell to these people, so they don't want to include that sort of thing in things they publish.

Dark settings exist and usually (not always), PCs play the role of heroes and liberators. We just saw a decent handful of posts by posters in this thread requiring actual activism IRL but somehow activism in fantasy is just too traumatic to read about. Seriously?

EDIT: I'm not advocating for a current Dark Sun setting book. I never played in it and never owned any Dark Sun material. WotC can do what they want - and I agree with others that having the old stuff available is great. I just find many of the justifications for DS's themes apparently being too problematic are invalid given all other the media (entertainment, news, religion) that we consume.
Somehow the message got muddled somewhere and the perception became that WotC was catering for Montessori.

 

[Hussar]

See, the biggest problem with the notion of there being some sort of "chilling effect" on creativity is there is absolutely zero evidence of it.

If I go over to DM's Guild and select 5e D&D as a criteria, I get 40 THOUSAND products. That's 4 THOUSAND products a year. And that's only DM's Guild. That doesn't include things like Patreon or Kickstarter.

So, where's the evidence that creativity is being chilled or curtailed? One would think if creativity was being limited, then we would see a drop in the number of publications - after all, less creativity means less books doesn't it? Yet, despite that, we have more 5e material that all other editions COMBINED.

And, again, that's limiting us to 5e directly. Never minding things like En World's A5e or the bajillion other D&D adjacent games.

So, hrm... during the more "open" times of the 80's and 90's, the hobby was restricted to a very narrow demographic. Since the release of 5e and the more "restrictive" policies, we've seen an absolute explosion in the hobby in terms of demographics and publications.

Where is the evidence of this "chilling" effect? The claim has been made over and over again that we must allow all voices and all ideas and never limit free speech or it will result in a lack of creativity in the hobby. Well, we've limed the voices, limited certain topics, and there has been no reduction in creativity in the hobby and, in fact, the complete opposite has occurred with more people contributing more ideas more often in the hobby.

So, I'll be over here trying to read through the freaking MOUNTAIN of creative stuff I picked up on Humble Bundle a while ago. Which represents less than a fraction of a percent of the total stuff out there. If this is what "chilled" creativity looks like, well, sign me up.