D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's just bizarre.

I'd rather you burned the darn thing if the alternative is forcing the authors to re-write it so it was more to your liking. (Okay, publishers rather than authors in this case.)

Then again ....

"Wizards of the Coast is proud to announce D&D 6e. Based on the feedback of our many fans, we have decided to update AD&D (also referred to as 1e) by re-releasing every single book, module, and accessory in a more appropriate and expansive manner, with updated and additional material."

I won't complain.

 

[Panda-s1]

My issue isn't with the critique. I have said many times that I watched the youtube channel, and I think the conversation they are having is healthy. My issue is with the call he made for WOTC to take down OA. Which, is one person deciding for others what they should have access to.

I didn't realize Kwan was a figure of authority at WotC who could dictate which books are to be sold.

 

[Immeril]

Then again ....

"Wizards of the Coast is proud to announce D&D 6e. Based on the feedback of our many fans, we have decided to update AD&D (also referred to as 1e) be re-releasing every single book, module, and accessory in a more appropriate and expansive manner, with updated and additional material."

I won't complain.

It depends. A re-release of 1e books (with updates) under a 6e banner wouldn't be the same as selling an altered book while claiming that it is the 1e edition.

EDIT: I think a good example would be the Original Adventures Reincarnated by Goodman Games. Although these editions include a commentary, I'm not sure if they actually alter problematic content (or if the adventures that have been updated contained any to begin with).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It depends. A re-release of 1e books (with updates) under a 6e banner wouldn't be the same as selling an altered book while claiming that it is the 1e edition.

.... I just want to go back to the old saving throws. I may hold free speech as my guiding principle, but sometimes you have to make a sacrifice.

And that sacrifice is for Rod/Staff/Wand.

 

[Aldarc]

My issue is with the call he made for WOTC to take down OA. Which, is one person deciding for others what they should have access to.

It’s his prerogative to do so but he is not deciding anything for others any more than your advocation for it to remain available is you deciding for others.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I didn't realize Kwan was a figure of authority at WotC who could dictate which books are to be sold.

"I didn't realize Patricia Pulling was a figure of authority who could dictate which books are to be sold."

"I didn't realize the PMRC was a figure of authority who could dictate what music is to be sold."

"I didn't realize American Family Association was a figure of authority who could dictate what benefits companies give to same-sex partners, and could dictate that media products not 'promote the homosexual agenda'."

Etc. The wonderful and scary thing about the principles of free speech is that it allows people to advocate for harmful things, even curtailing free speech.

Which is why we must be vigilant. If you cannot protect speech you do not agree with, do not expect the speech you like to be protected. And if you can't stand up for the "mere games" like D&D and 1e, then all the effort people went into in the 80s defending it against the likes of Patricia Pulling was for nothing. Don't think that these attitudes will stay the same, either.

"I was with it once! And then they changed what it was! And now what I'm with isn't it and what's it seems weird and scary to me! And it'll happen to you!"

 

[Bedrockgames]

It’s his prerogative to do so but he is not deciding anything for others any more than your advocation for it to remain available is you deciding for others.

which is him trying to have it removed. If the pressure he is putting on them works, then that is him deciding for others. Again, I don’t object to the critiques being made. I object to the call for the book to be removed from sale (which I don’t see how you can’t characterize as anything but a censorious request). That is very different from someone saying the book should remain for sake so that other people can decide if they want to buy it or not. His position is he wants it taken down, which will mean people who want to buy it can’t. My position is it should remain for sale, which will mean no one has to buy it, but people can if they want to. One of these positions takes away options from people, the other does not. My position is not deciding anything for people who don’t want to buy the book

 

[Aldarc]

I doubt we will see eye to eye on this, Bedrockgames, because I foresee us going around in circles about whether he is deciding anything or not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I didn't realize Kwan was a figure of authority at WotC who could dictate which books are to be sold.

That isn't what I am saying. I am saying that the request to take it down from sale, is a request that others not be allowed to buy it, and in my opinion, crosses the line from criticism, to censorship. He has every right to ask them to take it down, but people who disagree with that kind of request have a right to label it censorious. These kinds of pressure tactics do have an impact. So while a given person on twitter doesn't have authority to take books down, they can use the medium to put pressure on WOTC to take down content (which is exactly what is happening here).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I doubt we will see eye to eye on this, Bedrockgames, because I foresee us going around in circles about whether he is deciding anything or not.

That is fair, we don't have to agree. I appreciate getting firm pushback when someone disagrees with me. And don't feel like I'm entitled to you agreeing with me.