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

[Bedrockgames]

We don't have to worry about whether they speak for the majority. We can consider, even if they are in the minority, that maybe we should take their concerns into account anyway.

I don't think anyone is suggesting don't take them into account. They are saying you should still weigh them and not abdicate using your own judgement. Especially if you are hearing conflicting views from the group in question. The last thing we should do is create a rhetorical lever, where a complaint always yields a result. Eventually people do start abusing that kind of situation. I can easily envision a situation where it just because an easy way to win edition wars for example, to get mechanics or content out of the game you simply don't like.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sorry, dude. Not taking a stance is itself a stance.

I can't support his kind of thinking. This is very much 'you are with us or against us', and makes no room for neutrality, or even just realizing you are not well positioned to express a stance on something. There is a lot more nuance to life than this.

It also overlooks the harm that can come when we start expecting powerful, money making institutions to take stances on political issues. You are opening a pandoras box, because these stances will not always go your way. And these are powerful companies.

 

[seebs]

Insofar as our culture has some kind of shared norms about morality, I think it's good for companies to be encouraged to uphold societal values at all sometimes, and in particular, to be willing to say "no, this is too bad and we won't touch it". Corporations exist because we as a society hope they will be beneficial to our society. They aren't an immutable truth handed down from on high; they're part of our social contract.

I don't think corporations should be a source of morality. I think they should at least sometimes take stances that reflect morality other than profit-no-matter-who-gets-hurt.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Insofar as our culture has some kind of shared norms about morality, I think it's good for companies to be encouraged to uphold societal values at all sometimes, and in particular, to be willing to say "no, this is too bad and we won't touch it". Corporations exist because we as a society hope they will be beneficial to our society. They aren't an immutable truth handed down from on high; they're part of our social contract.

But the problem is social value and norms are not always positive. Some can even be oppressive. And if you empower companies to help the broader society enforce social norms, that can be bad when the profit motive, leads them in other directions or when society adopts bad morality (and societies adopt bad morality all the time). I don't like the idea that we are going to start using powerful companies to help promote conformity, even if it is for something that seems laudable at the time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think corporations should be a source of morality. I think they should at least sometimes take stances that reflect morality other than profit-no-matter-who-gets-hurt.

The problem is, they are so powerful, they will become either sources of morality or enforcers of morality and social norms. Especially in the current environment where there is this synergy between the companies and the customers (who reward them by buying their products when they take the 'correct' moral stands). I think this naturally leads us down a road where companies will be doing things like per formatively firing people who have transgressed norms in some way, because they know that will play well for them on social media and enhance their sales. I don't see these developments as positive. There are a lot of echoes in these developments of much more sinister things in our history.

 

[Wishbone]

I can't support his kind of thinking. This is very much 'you are with us or against us', and makes no room for neutrality, or even just realizing you are not well positioned to express a stance on something. There is a lot more nuance to life than this.

It also overlooks the harm that can come when we start expecting powerful, money making institutions to take stances on political issues. You are opening a pandoras box, because these stances will not always go your way. And these are powerful companies.

Opening a Pandora's Box seems like an inelegant metaphor since as you've admitted this isn't a new problem. We can look to fields like CSR, industrial labor relations, the history of corporations, social impact assessment, and sociology to broaden our own understanding as well as mitigate our own areas of ignorance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Opening a Pandora's Box seems like an inelegant metaphor since as you've admitted this isn't a new problem. We can look to fields like CSR, industrial labor relations, the history of corporations, social impact assessment, and sociology to broaden our own understanding as well as mitigate our own areas of ignorance.

It isn't a new problem, but it social media and the growth of the internet brings us into new territory with that problem. Again, I am very wary of handing power like this to institutions, particularly money making ones that are really only driven by the concerns of the free market. And I think there are plenty of historical reasons to pause here. I don't want companies firing employees for example because of social media storms, or doing things like enforcing political points of view among their workers. I think corporations already have far too much power over our lives. And you can dismiss my pandoras box concern, you can bring up these fields. I think it is becoming self evident that this isn't necessarily going to produce a better world for anyone.

 

[BookTenTiger]

But the problem is social value and norms are not always positive. Some can even be oppressive. And if you empower companies to help the broader society enforce social norms, that can be bad when the profit motive, leads them in other directions or when society adopts bad morality (and societies adopt bad morality all the time). I don't like the idea that we are going to start using powerful companies to help promote conformity, even if it is for something that seems laudable at the time.

Empower companies??? That's such a weird way to put it. What about "companies have an obligation to..."

The idea of WotC adding an introduction to OA and suddenly having incredible amounts of moral power over the masses is... a large logical leap.

 

[Wishbone]

It isn't a new problem, but it social media and the growth of the internet brings us into new territory with that problem. Again, I am very wary of handing power like this to institutions, particularly money making ones that are really only driven by the concerns of the free market. And I think there are plenty of historical reasons to pause here. I don't want companies firing employees for example because of social media storms, or doing things like enforcing political points of view among their workers. I think corporations already have far too much power over our lives. And you can dismiss my pandoras box concern, you can bring up these fields. I think it is becoming self evident that this isn't necessarily going to produce a better world for anyone.

I'm not intending to dismiss your concerns I'm introducing the fields to point out that rather than worrying over a problem there are fields that explore potential implementable solutions that approach these problems from different angles and worked (or not worked) in the past. Claiming a problem is self-evident while calling for inaction seems like a weak position to stake out as things change around us. We can't exactly shove things back into Pandora's Box.

Empower companies??? That's such a weird way to put it. What about "companies have an obligation to..."

The idea of WotC adding an introduction to OA and suddenly having incredible amounts of moral power over the masses is... a large logical leap.

The introduction of B Corps and Benefit Corporations as models would suggest there is an appetite for an approach of companies taking social impact into account beyond just serving their bottom line.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Empower companies??? That's such a weird way to put it. What about "companies have an obligation to..."

The idea of WotC adding an introduction to OA and suddenly having incredible amounts of moral power over the masses is... a large logical leap.

I think when you turn companies into these kinds of moral agents, you are going to have both. And you have even had posters comment that companies should play a role in helping promote social norms.

And I am not saying them adding an introduction is the same as these other things. I do think by creating this moral expectation from companies it is only a short step to expecting them to use their power to help enforce that morality. I am wary in general of the kind of relationship people appear to be pushing for here between customers and corporations. Maybe being a product of the 80s and 90s, I am just very cynical about corporations in this respect. I think at best, they use it to manipulate and increase sales, at worst they can become an oppressive force. Corporations wield considerably power in our political system. I would be very careful asking them to don this robe