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

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I'm heartily opposed to the chilling effects in response to laws and political action by groups in power, I disagree that there's a "Chilling Effect" to interpersonal relationships and choices of speech.

...

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not that way for most people. But if it isn't? Then I pity most people.

I apologize if I wasn't clear in explaining... as I said, loved your post, I was adding context.

First, there is certainly a "chilling effect" in the law. And I think it's not some "idea," but it is an actuality. If people (including, to channel Soylent Green .... COMPANIES! THEY ARE MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!) think there is some non-zero chance that their speech might get them arrested or otherwise fined, harassed, or fired by the government, most people will be deterred from taking a chance. Most people and almost all companies. That's why if you look back at the 20th Century evolution of the protection of speech, you keep seeing individuals who were willing, when no one else was, to stand up to the government. Because most people won't.

It's not the same in terms of personal relations and social pressure. But most people I know (exception ... DEREK!!!!!) do self-censor. All. The. Time. Sometimes we have specific names for it (code switching). However, if you can think of any time .... any time ... you did not write or say something because you thought about the consequences - that's it.

Please note- I am not saying that this is bad! As you correctly note, a lot of self-censorship is for the best reasons- because we are showing respect. Because we don't want to offend. Because someone asked us. Or it's for practical reasons- because we don't want to lose our job. Because we want to sell our book. Because we don't want the bard to know that it is I, Snarf, Slayer of Bards! And sometimes, it's for self-preservation.... I mean, I think you might recognize that a lot of people in the LGBTQI+ community have been forced to self-censor for self-preservation in both speech and expressive conduct.

That said, I don't know your particulars. If you're Lenny Brucing your life, more power to you! Me, naw. Although I promise that one day I will write an appellate brief that only consists of emojis and dank memes.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the real reason is that Dark Sun sucks.

I feel about Dark Sun the way Snarf does about bards, but far more. In fact, the loathing of the setting is so much that I had to guzzle a good bit of my eggnog stash just to get the motivation to return to this comment section.

WotC knows it’s the worst setting ever devised and is simply using its “problematic” content as a clever ruse to avoid rereleasing that waterless, metal-scarce, psionic, munchkin power fantasy dreck. I mean, it’s basically just cornball edgelord garbage.

Anyway, having to discuss Dark Sun is truly a risk to my liver.

Seriously, if for whatever reasons you want to play in a setting that just sucks, go ride the Dragonlance choo-choo or run Terrible Trouble at Tragidoor. There is no reason to inflict Athas upon yourself.

Also, lots of people run games with well done & complex themes and topics. Many well into the NC-17 spectrum. I run my own games at that level with my friends who are cool with it. And there is plenty of media out there is even farther into stuff that is beyond where my games go, so it isn’t as if you can’t find inspiration in published content, it’s just that Hasbro isn’t going there, because it makes stuff for kids.

That's not making the case that you seem to think it's making. If that's the case then there's no need for wotc to do more than repeat it instead of using it as an excuse to reinforce the merit of wotc's current "inclusivity review" as they did while calling darksun problematic in the earlier linked & quoted interview. There's also the fact that darksun was raised as an example of how citing folks with fantasies to defend a high bar for censorship cuts both ways and that going the other way has examples of folks at wotc actually having a hand on the wheel. We can't really look at 5e books other than spelljammer to guess what content may have been influenced by self censorship from authors or top down finger wagging as a whole. With darksun however we have an example of a revision changing the name athaspace to doom space and the interview quote deeming it being "problematic" as the hurdle it faces.

 

[Steampunkette]

I have to be honest here, it is fair if you want to review things I have said in the past, but I am not coming through things posters I disagree with here have said elsewhere or in the past to get a 'gotcha'. And I find this tactic a little discomforting. Needless to say that was my thought on a topic in one moment in time, almost ten years ago.

It is a little weird, isn't it? Looking back on your past self. God knows I -hate- looking back at my past self. Everyone thinks back to who they were 5 years ago and cringes.

Didn't really "Comb" though. Just looked up Bedrock Games to see what kind of content you make out of curiosity. Stumbled upon your Youtube account in the process, went to see how long you'd been posting podcasts out of curiosity, and bam. There you were. With a video title that fit the situation right at the top of my browser window when I hit the bottom of the list.

Mostly I thought it was amusing that it linked so well with the situation we find ourselves in.

And that is how I felt about the state of things in 2016. I think the hobby was in a much better state in 2016 than it is today in respect to these things. Also at that time I didn't understand how bad things were getting, and hadn't really experienced the personal brunt of this stuff. Once that happens to you, it does change your perspective a lot. But am not trying to engage in a flame war. That said, I probably could spend my time more wisely and work on writing rather than make the same points again and again in a thread like this

See, this makes me curious about what it was that happened to you that changed your perspective so drastically. Must've been something big. Massive backlash to one of your products? Or podcasts?

Maybe a Facebook post or something that got a ton of negative reviews?

I am taking as many points as I can, and I am focusing on on the ones I think matter most (but there are litanies of points here so I am just not going to be able to cover everything). And there are points that are just not worth getting into as well because they are detours

Ohhh, I see. So the point that writers and artists are commissioned to do a job and doing those commissions to the specifications they are given is a job, not "Censorship" is a detour in a discussion about how artists and writers are "Being Censored" was a detour...

But making a post about the importance of free speech was not.

I am happy to go back and review the post if you link it. I wasn't trying to cherry pick though. I was being focused about what I respond to in peoples post. But if I got the post wrong I can review it and see if I have more thoughts.

Oh, it's super simple.

As a creative, I work for companies to produce work to their specs. If they want a background or a set of feats or a starship I produce that content. If they need it in 2,000 words, I use 2,000 words to encapsulate the content. And then I get paid. And then I move on with my life.

I am not "Censored" by this work. When the job calls for me to create a transgender woman NPC wizard to be the leader of an enclave of wizards and warlocks whose goals are destroying the evil prince, I am not being "Censored" when I create a transgender woman NPC wizard to be the leader of the enclave.

And when I'm done writing those things for money, I'm not censored when I go on and produce my own content in Paranormal Power or Martial Artistry under my own imprint.

And when EN Publishing extends to me the license to use their "Powered By" logo on my work so long as my work meets their standards, they would not be censoring me by refusing to allow me to use their logo if it does not meet their standards. And I am still free to produce that content without that support.

In short: Your argument about the "Censorship" of creatives in D&D is REALLY inventing new ways to contort and deform the word censorship to meet a specific rhetorical goal with a loaded term, rather than anything reflecting reality.

A Carpenter who is hired to build a table and 4 chairs is not being "Censored" if what he really wants to make is a toboggan and an armoire. He's just doing a job.

I don't feel like I am cherry picking. But there are a lot of posts so I may be missing things

You cut out like 80% of what I was saying to address a single sentence with a whole post, my guy. That's not just "Missing things" that's the definition of cherry picking.

I just responded to this point. The reason I didn't weigh in on that right away is it is a big topic, and there is a lot to carefully consider. I have other thoughts on its as well so I may post more on it

There's really not a lot to consider, there. It's a simple fact.

If you're commissioned to produce X work and you produce X work you are not being censored just because you weren't commissioned to produce Y work.

And if you are commissioned to produce X work and you produce Y work you are not being censored when the client refuses to pay for Y when they asked for X.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is a little weird, isn't it? Looking back on your past self. God knows I -hate- looking back at my past self. Everyone thinks back to who they were 5 years ago and cringes.

No I don't find it weird at all. I do go back to old podcasts and videos I did all the time (partly so I can remember things I was working on). I just find it a little intrusive to go into my youtube channel and post it here to make a point

Didn't really "Comb" though. Just looked up Bedrock Games to see what kind of content you make out of curiosity. Stumbled upon your Youtube account in the process, went to see how long you'd been posting podcasts out of curiosity, and bam. There you were. With a video title that fit the situation right at the top of my browser window when I hit the bottom of the list.

But can you understand how it might come across that way? Again if you found the channel and listened with interest, that is great. And I am fine with that video.

Mostly I thought it was amusing that it linked so well with the situation we find ourselves in.

Sure, but again, that was my thought in one moment in time, years ago, before I experienced a lot of the negatives that I am talking about today. People change their thoughts on these things. I definitely have changed many of my views on this since 2016

See, this makes me curious about what it was that happened to you that changed your perspective so drastically. Must've been something big. Massive backlash to one of your products? Or podcasts? Maybe a Facebook post or something that got a ton of negative reviews?

I don't want to get into it. I've addressed some of it in other posts here before. But I am working on a project right now and trying to focus on that without getting into the negativity I experienced. But for clarity I haven't had any issues with my podcasts (those are usually just me and sometimes a group of friends, talking about movies or games). But I have had a few run ins with these issues over the years

 

[Bedrockgames]

You cut out like 80% of what I was saying to address a single sentence with a whole post, my guy. That's not just "Missing things" that's the definition of cherry picking.

No, cherry picking is selecting only facts that fit your argument, and ignoring ones that don't. That is what I meant by cherry picking in the video.

Also when responding to a poster, sometimes you can't take on every single point. For a variety of reasons. I don't think it is a cherry picking issue if someone gives you a ten point post but you only feel 2 points are worth responding to

There's really not a lot to consider, there. It's a simple fact.

If you're commissioned to produce X work and you produce X work you are not being censored just because you weren't commissioned to produce Y work.

And if you are commissioned to produce X work and you produce Y work you are not being censored when the client refuses to pay for Y when they asked for X.

Scroll back and you will see I addressed many of the points you raised in another response to you

 

[soviet]

I think the tide might be turning on some of those. Warhammer 40k, the setting that inspired grimdark, is walking back on a lot of what made their setting grimdark to begin with. They're doing this because they want their IP to be more family friendly and have a broader appeal of course.

What? This isn't true

 

[Azzy]

I think you can criticize something and also understand there are going to be differences of opinion surrounding intent and harm.

When it comes to "intent and harm"—that's not something that those who aren't harm have a valid opinion of. And if one's opinion is that it's alright to oppress, denigrate, and/or scapegoat marginalized people, then they aren't worthwhile people.

 

[Steampunkette]

I apologize if I wasn't clear in explaining... as I said, loved your post, I was adding context.

First, there is certainly a "chilling effect" in the law. And I think it's not some "idea," but it is an actuality. If people (including, to channel Soylent Green .... COMPANIES! THEY ARE MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!) think there is some non-zero chance that their speech might get them arrested or otherwise fined, harassed, or fired by the government, most people will be deterred from taking a chance. Most people and almost all companies. That's why if you look back at the 20th Century evolution of the protection of speech, you keep seeing individuals who were willing, when no one else was, to stand up to the government. Because most people won't.

It's not the same in terms of personal relations and social pressure. But most people I know (exception ... DEREK!!!!!) do self-censor. All. The. Time. Sometimes we have specific names for it (code switching). However, if you can think of any time .... any time ... you did not write or say something because you thought about the consequences - that's it.

Please note- I am not saying that this is bad! As you correctly note, a lot of self-censorship is for the best reasons- because we are showing respect. Because we don't want to offend. Because someone asked us. Or it's for practical reasons- because we don't want to lose our job. Because we want to sell our book. Because we don't want the bard to know that it is I, Snarf, Slayer of Bards! And sometimes, it's for self-preservation.... I mean, I think you might recognize that a lot of people in the LGBTQI+ community have been forced to self-censor for self-preservation in both speech and expressive conduct.

That said, I don't know your particulars. If you're Lenny Brucing your life, more power to you! Me, naw. Although I promise that one day I will write an appellate brief that only consists of emojis and dank memes.

OH! Yeah. I "self-censor" for safety!

I've never revealed that I'm transgender, for example, to my husband's deeply evangelical family. We've been married for over 16 years and I don't feel -remotely- safe enough to be open around them!

Or, honestly, most of the people who live in the part of the state that I live in.

But, you see, I do that out of respect for -me-. And it's less "Censorship" of speech and more not gifting people with a fuller understanding of the depths of my identity.

Also nah, I'm no Lenny Bruce. I grew up in a family with a Drill Sergeant father and his best friend was a Naval NCO whose rank I can't remember. Army-Navy games were the WORST.

I did wind up with the unique ability to provide some of the most -colorful- invectives in the locker room, though, as a kid and teenager. Which probably helped me survive as well as I did since people would gawk at the utter filth that I could spew at a moment's notice and spend the rest of their time in the locker room giggling about it. Kept the physical violence to a minimum...

Though that minimum was -not- 0. So thankfully my father was a Drill Sergeant and taught his kids how to protect themselves!

 

[Bedrockgames]

When it comes to "intent and harm"—that's not something that those who aren't harm have a valid opinion of. And if one's opinion is that it's alright to oppress, denigrate, and/or scapegoat marginalized people, then they aren't worthwhile people.

I think everyone gets to weigh in on whether something is actually harmful or not. And no I am not saying it is alright to oppress or denigrate. I do think people people have developed a heightened sense of when those things are occurring in media though and they aren't always accurate, so we are going to have disagreements over what content is a problem or not, and what to do about it

 

[Azzy]

I think everyone gets to weigh in on whether something is actually harmful or not.

People without a lived experience of being a marginalized person speak from utter ignorance and as such, do not have any clue about what they're talking about.