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

[Aldarc]

When talking about cultural hodge-podge settings, such as European hodge-podge settings, not all such settings are equally hodge-podge in terms of the consistency of their ingredients. Some are more finely meshed and some still have lumps, clumps, and chunks of their base ingredients. Some settings are fairly transparent that "Fictional Country A" is inspired by "Historical Cultural X" (think Midgard). But some settings, like Eberron, typically do a better job of making a setting that while European-esque, the countries don't so easily map to particular European cultures. Maybe Thrane is supposed to be Papal States Italy, but it's a stretch. That's one reason why I think we need to be careful about saying (or exaggerating) that hodge-podge settings don't or can't work, because they can, but a substantial part of that entails how cultures are mixed in hodge-podge settings.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't get to say why someone else doesn't want particular illustrations or images or descriptions. EVERY culture draws the line somewhere. Things that are perfectly acceptable in one culture (completely open bathrooms with no doors in public schools) and totally unacceptable in another. This how what it means to be sensitive to other cultures. You don't sit back on your pedestal and proclaim that all and sundry MUST ACCEPT whatever you spew forth. Instead, you accept that other cultures have differing norms to your culture and act accordingly. You can raise the flag of "censorship" all you like, but, all it shows is hypocrisy at the end of the day.

I am not. I am saying that our artists shouldn't have to embrace the taboos of all other cultures in their work. And no, people don't have to accept whatever a writer, artist, composer or designer comes up with. At the same time, I don't think we should being accepting a worldview, the one you are expressing, that begins by ALWAYS siding with those who are offended by something. I don't think that is healthy for art or creative works, or a society that values free expression.

 

[Imaculata]

I don't think that is healthy for art or creative works, or a society that values free expression.

But we are not talking about creating a society that values free expression. We are talking about creating a commercial product that needs to sell, preferably in as many countries as possible.

And with that goal in mind, why would you not consider the sensibilities of your entire target audience?

Do we not put bras on all our harpies and mermaids? Or strategically cover up their naughty bits with locks of hair? Why do you think we do that? It's not because we are in favor of censorship, or want to limit free expression.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't get to say why someone else doesn't want particular illustrations or images or descriptions. EVERY culture draws the line somewhere.

We do get to have opinions on whether that line is reasonable, immoral, or untrue in some way. We are allowed to retain our worldview, and we are allowed not to adopt the taboos of other people if we disagree with them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But we are not talking about creating a society that values free expression. We are talking about creating a commercial product that needs to sell, preferably in as many countries as possible.

And with that goal in mind, why would you not consider the sensibilities of your entire target audience?

Of course. But Hussar was staking a position that we must ALWAYS embrace the sensibilities of any potential market for a product. I am making the argument the more we embrace the sensibilities of other markets, the more pablum things become. As an example, most block busters are made for global audiences now. I haven't been able to watch and enjoy something like the Marvel movies for ages for that reason, I would much rather watch films, and see films made, that are not stretching to appeal to such a wide global audience. No problem with global movies being made. But when it becomes 'the way things are done' then you start limiting creative visions a lot. Profit does matter, but so does creative vision (even in a gaming product).

Do we not put bras on all our harpies and mermaids? Or strategically cover up their naughty bits with locks of hair? Why do you think we do that? It's not because we are in favor of censorship, or want to limit free expression.

I have seen a number of posters makes he case for censorship and limits on free expression. And this whole thread, as well as all the others on this topic, centers on whether or not a book published in the mid-80s should exist in its current form, be removed from the sales page, or have its content changed to reflect modern sensibilities (which mean censoring the content).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do we not put bras on all our harpies and mermaids? Or strategically cover up their naughty bits with locks of hair? Why do you think we do that? It's not because we are in favor of censorship, or want to limit free expression.

This is a form of self censorship, one we have just grown very accustomed to. I am not saying books should be filled with nudity. But if you look at some of the content of the old 1E books, which had content that offended more religious people for example (demons and such), and then look at the result when those rough edges were filed down, I would say we lost some personality and flavor, by censoring the content to appeal to a broader American audience, and avoid controversy. When D&D came out it wasn't family friendly content. It was written for adults. Obviously it wasn't pornographic, but it had rough edges. I think we are generally better off with the rough edges, and I think the game did become more pablum as it tried to avoid controversy and broader its appeal across geography and age ranges.

 

[Bedrockgames]

We are talking about creating a commercial product that needs to sell, preferably in as many countries as possible.

How far are you willing to take the idea that content should be changed or avoided to make sure sales are as high as possible? Would you be okay with WOTC factoring in the concerns of the religious or political right, so they don't lose those sales? Would you be okay with them heeding the will of oppressive countries in terms of content that happen to buy D&D books?

Yes it is a commercial product, but it is also a creative work. And we have to consider: there are many more games than D&D. Perhaps D&D, being the biggest game, simply has to adhere to these commercial concerns. Should smaller publishers who want to say something different or interesting? We can choose to be more bold, include rougher edges, we don't have to choose to embrace all markets of a game.

 

[Imaculata]

Would you be okay with WOTC factoring in the concerns of the religious or political right, so they don't lose those sales?

Are they the target audience? No?

Then that argument doesn't hold much water does it?

And yet, D&D toned down the amount of satanic imagery, in order to improve the image of the game, and to give those groups less ammunition. And I think the game is better for it.

Would you be okay with them heeding the will of oppressive countries in terms of content that happen to buy D&D books?

Are they the target audience? See above.

Yes it is a commercial product, but it is also a creative work. And we have to consider: there are many more games than D&D. Perhaps D&D, being the biggest game, simply has to adhere to these commercial concerns. Should smaller publishers who want to say something different or interesting? We can choose to be more bold, include rougher edges, we don't have to choose to embrace all markets of a game.

I think that is for every publisher to decide for themselves. As mentioned above, D&D made the choice to rename a lot of the demons and devils and to remove a lot of satanic imagery. And I think they made the right call.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think there are different competing priorities here: 1) Growing the hobby, 2) being inclusive, 3) creating an artistic vision. I don't think anyone wants to exclude anyone from the hobby, yet some hold an artistic vision as a higher priority.

Let's look at a (doctored) example:

Personally, I like this piece of art from Eldritch Wizardry. It isn't particular appropriate for young children, but I think the nudity adds to the horror: the corruption of the ideal woman, beautiful to behold, insanely intelligent, seductive in her wiles, yet capable of flaying a man to bits if he fall for her charms. The 5e version loses something. It is no longer the embodiment of the femme fatale, but merely a monster to fight. It is her swords, not her sexuality, that she wields first as a weapon.

 

[CubicsRube]

I think the best thing we can do, is to look at the original goal of Oriental Adventures (To add Asian fantasy into the mix), and to do a better job at it. Changing the book that is already out, is a wasted effort, and would be nearly impossible without completely rewriting it.

Release a new book that does a better job, for 5e. Include all that folklore from other Asian countries that was left out of OA, and also change the name to something that isn't offensive. Instead of filling it with mostly Japanese tropes, fill it with folklore from all over Asia: Thailand, the Philipines, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, New Guinea, Malaysia, Cambodia, India, Mongolia, Korea and a little bit of Japan. And of course get a good team of Asian writers to work on it.

I'd seriously love a series of books that did that.