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

[Snarf Zagyg]

1. I have read Chuck's book several times now. Yeah, a lot of our default assumptions about what we think we know as objective facts could be wrong. This is not a similar issue, though; I can't tell @Panda-s1 that he's wrong about how OA's depictions of Asian culture make him feel. Chuck was asking about "Is there something new to learn about gravity?" or "Is this really the year 2020?" not "Are East Asians objectively offended by a book written about their culture in fantasy terms with virtually no one form Asian descent contributing?"

I don't think you are really engaging with the book, then, or, at least, not with it in quite the same way. That's all I've got. Perhaps you read the edition that was all about "Maybe we don't know, unless we really, really, really know." Of course, I only pointed it out as a shortcut to the actual philosophical underpinnings.... AFAICT, Chuck Klosterman, as awesome as pop culture writer as he is, generally isn't taught in most Phil101 courses.

I don't think people would ever phrase something, "Is X objectively offended," because, almost by definition, offense is not something that is objective. That's something we both can agree on, right? There is no "offense thermometer" or "offense level of measurement," because offense is entirely subjective.

What offends one person will not necessarily offend another, regardless of ethnicity or shared history or culture.

So I appreciate that you wrote back in response, but I don't think further conversation is helpful if that is what you took from what I said.

2. People are asking WotC to remove the book from wherever they are selling it. If WotC is making money off it, it seems to be in contrast to their statement that they are trying to do better by their widening customer base. The book can go into a museum of "The history of RPGs" or something, but frankly, looking at the credits and the way it was put together, WotC might just be too embarrassed to keep selling it in 2020.

As I've now re-stated approximately one million times (I did say approximately), this has nothing to do with SELLING IT and it's quite tiring that this has to keep getting pointed out. Mr. Kwan, in followup tweets, has indicated that he does not want it available, at all, even free.

So I'm not going to go there again.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Especially if fixing the 'minor problem' is super easy, there is no excuse not to fix it as quickly as possible.

No, I strongly disagree. I think WotC will need to develop a comprehensive policy before they start to do anything at all.

If WotC adds a disclaimer or removes a PDF previously published on the DriveThruRPG site for one work, it's going to invite re-evaluation and criticism of everything else published on DriveThruRPG, not to mention the works currently in print. That's not necessarily bad or wrong, but unless WotC creates a policy for determining when and how to handle a removal or disclaimer for content, they'll be playing whack-a-mole with complaints and disclaimers and removals. Instead of the disclaimers and removals being handled equitably, there will be accusations of WotC ignoring certain groups or favoring certain complaints, etc. From a PR perspective, that's potentially catastrophic. The last thing WotC wants is a year of people finding problematic content they're selling and then having their customers fight each other over every book. It would make gamergate look like a tea party.

It's probably best for WotC's PR if WotC establishes a policy for how to handle everything and then re-evaluates everything on DriveThruRPG and everything in their current printing catalog (probably including other brands and fiction novels, though you might be able to do those separately) before they make any change at all. Then they announce it all at once and deal with all the flak all at once. You set your rules in stone, describe everything that failed your criteria, and then let your customers complain about you instead of argue with each other on Twitter. I think that's actually the only sane way a company can handle this. Unfortunately, that's an enormous task even if you bring in outside consultants to evaluate everything.

 

[Sadras]

No, I strongly disagree. I think WotC will need to develop a comprehensive policy before they start to do anything at all.

If WotC adds a disclaimer or removes a PDF previously published on the DriveThruRPG site for one work, it's going to invite re-evaluation and criticism of everything else published on DriveThruRPG, not to mention the works currently in print. That's not necessarily bad or wrong, but unless WotC creates a policy for determining when and how to handle a removal or disclaimer for content, they'll be playing whack-a-mole with complaints and disclaimers and removals. Instead of the disclaimers and removals being handled equitably, there will be accusations of WotC ignoring certain groups or favoring certain complaints, etc. From a PR perspective, that's potentially catastrophic. The last thing WotC wants is a year of people finding problematic content they're selling and then having their customers fight each other over every book. It would make gamergate look like a tea party.

It's probably best for WotC's PR if WotC establishes a policy for how to handle everything and then re-evaluates everything on DriveThruRPG and everything in their current printing catalog (probably including other brands and fiction novels, though you might be able to do those separately) before they make any change at all. Then they announce it all at once and deal with all the flak all at once. You set your rules in stone, describe everything that failed your criteria, and then let your customers complain about you instead of argue with each other on Twitter. I think that's actually the only sane way a company can handle this. Unfortunately, that's an enormous task even if you bring in outside consultants to evaluate everything.

Yeah, in one of the other threads I said they should just have a general disclaimer for everything up until 2019.
Done.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, in one of the other threads I said they should just have a general disclaimer for everything up until 2019.
Done.

It really should be moving forward; after all, whatever we are doing now will probably have issues in 5 years because that is the nature of things.

Either that, or we can use Eric V's Offense-o-meter, measure the objective level of offense of every product and then rate it. Like how hot sauce has a Scoville Scale.

"Oh, that 1e product registers at 150 Dice, while that 5e product is only 34 Dice. Much better!"

(Dice named after the terrible comedian who only gave offense, Andrew Dice Clay, and because it works great with TTRPGs).

 

[J-H]

I don't want to get pulled into another discussion on OA and the current culture war... but a quick comment on #1:

I live in a rural area near a small town of about 3,500, serving as the hub for a greater area of about 15,000 people. "Where are you from?" is a legit conversation topic that will come up in the first 5 minutes of conversations with anybody new, at church, at a game, or anywhere else. It doesn't matter what your skin color is. We have a solid mix of "grew up here," "moved here to escape the big city," and "grew up here, moved away for 20 years, moved back." No social repercussions or anything. It's just small talk and part of getting to know someone. We've found at least 3 people who used to live in the same suburb we moved from 3 years ago.

 

[Undrave]

No, I strongly disagree. I think WotC will need to develop a comprehensive policy before they start to do anything at all.

It's probably best for WotC's PR if WotC establishes a policy for how to handle everything and then re-evaluates everything on DriveThruRPG and everything in their current printing catalog (probably including other brands and fiction novels, though you might be able to do those separately) before they make any change at all. Then they announce it all at once and deal with all the flak all at once. You set your rules in stone, describe everything that failed your criteria, and then let your customers complain about you instead of argue with each other on Twitter. I think that's actually the only sane way a company can handle this. Unfortunately, that's an enormous task even if you bring in outside consultants to evaluate everything.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Good point!

 

[Undrave]

@Snarf Zagyg so should a company, once it decides to print something, ALWAYS keep it in print and in circulation? Shouldn't freedom of speech include the right to NOT say something just as much as saying it?

Or maybe you don't think that listening to readers and making a decision made on feedback counts and that WotC can only remove it if they MAGICALLY reach that decision out of the blue with no external pressure? Including financial?

No one is holding a gun at WotC's head and forcing them to do one or the other, nor commit to one or the other forever. They're expressing their opinion, voicing their concern, airing their own feelings, and asking WotC to make a decision. Whatever they do, it's their own decision to make, not ours. It's perfectly fine if you don't agree with it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg so should a company, once it decides to print something, ALWAYS keep it in print and in circulation? Shouldn't freedom of speech include the right to NOT say something just as much as saying it?

Or maybe you don't think that listening to readers and making a decision made on feedback counts and that WotC can only remove it if they MAGICALLY reach that decision out of the blue with no external pressure? Including financial?

No one is holding a gun at WotC's head and forcing them to do one or the other, nor commit to one or the other forever. They're expressing their opinion, voicing their concern, airing their own feelings, and asking WotC to make a decision. Whatever they do, it's their own decision to make, not ours. It's perfectly fine if you don't agree with it.

So, two points.

First, I will continue to stand by what I will always say. When you have a principle (such as promoting free expression) it is worth the BS. Because if you don't support the unpopular speech, you don't have a leg to stand on when they come for your speech.

What does that mean? Last night I was able to watch the 2016 original cast performance of Hamilton on Disney+ with a number of friends. This should have been a moment of sheer joy; obviously, it wasn't quite as powerful as it was live, but I was not fortunate enough to see the original cast live.

But just think what an amazing time we live in. The largest entertainment conglomerate in the Unites States was broadcasting a Broadway musical (!!) made by a Latinx performer of Puerto Rican descent that re-imagined key aspects of our national history and placed POCs in the major representational roles, including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Moreover, it merged American history, hip hop culture, and even shout-out to traditional Broadway standards into a seemless whole.

And yet, today we have the Twitterati arguing over the offense caused by Hamilton, and how Hamilton (a musical that runs less than three hours) distorts history. I can't even.

If you can't stand up for the rights of performers and artists to make art, if you instead are more concerned about your right to take things off the shelves by claiming offense, then you are correct.

There is nothing to see here. I have seen this play out before, and I don't like where it ends. The question isn't- will this power be used responsibly; because this power will always end up being abused. Corporations will never stand up for their artists, will never stand up for speech, and will always go to the lowest common denominator. This does not make the culture richer, but poorer, and I will not be a part of that.

Second, this evidences a massive misunderstanding of copyright law. I am putting that charitably; perhaps you understand it perfectly well, and this is your desired outcome. People keep saying this is about the sale of the product, but it isn't for media and art subject to copyright. For the two millionth time, this has nothing to do with the sale of the product. And it's truly obnoxious to keep conflating the issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Snarf Zagyg so should a company, once it decides to print something, ALWAYS keep it in print and in circulation? Shouldn't freedom of speech include the right to NOT say something just as much as saying it?

They don't have to. No one is saying this is a 1st amendment violation. They are saying it is a free speech and free expression issue and that calls to take down a work that is still being published are a form of censorship. Just think through other potential scenarios. What if an angry religious group demanded Dungeons and Dragons be removed from shelves or stripped of any supernatural content because they felt it promoted satanism? Something quite like that happened in the 80s, and I would label the calls by such people for the content to be removed as a demands for censoring content, and limiting peoples access to it. I think it is similar here because the request is for WOTC to completely stop publishing it on moral grounds, so that people can no longer buy it from them. That just leaves whatever books are still in circulation, or pirated copies (which as many have pointed out, are illegal). Or take it outside of roleplaying and use my example about the Godfather. If a group of Irish activists protested the depiction of McCluskey, or if Italian American activists demanded Random House stop publishing it (or stores stop selling it) because it stereotypes italians as gangsters, I think those would be calls for censorship. And whatever we call it, the result, if the publisher submitted to the pressure, would be a great work of literature could become difficult to impossible to buy (as available copies in circulation went down, you'd see prices go up, so people could, at the very least, no longer have access to this work at an affordable price). And these kinds of pressure campaigns can swing in any direction if you have enough people behind them. In some instances it may be over concerns you agree with, but there will be times people will use these campaigns to take down things like LBGT content, or content that is critical of the current president. You see that sort of thing with platforms like ClearChannel and Walmart.

I agree with the ACLU's definition of censorship, because I think it is one that reflects the realities of what these kinds of pressure campaigns can do:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional."

I am not saying people can't be offended by OA. Like I said early in the thread, discussions about the content are good to have. It is helpful for us to talk about what the content means, provided we are listening to everyone. But when you move from that, to trying to take other peoples ability to buy the book away, then I think you are imposing your morality on others, and you are engaging in a form of censorship.

 

[Umbran]

So, two points.

You don't seem to have answered or addressed the questions: Should a company, once it decides to print something, ALWAYS keep it in print and in circulation? Shouldn't freedom of speech include the right to NOT say something just as much as saying it?

And yet, today we have the Twitterati arguing over the offense caused by Hamilton, and how Hamilton (a musical that runs less than three hours) distorts history. I can't even.

Lin-Manuel Miranda admits that there's a lot of valid criticism in that. So, if the author doesn't feel a need to defend it, maybe you don't need to?