NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8030989" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Yes, just like it's possible to think that other issues are more important and that it's okay to have that opinion.Just because I might disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I'm dismissing you. This isn't Twitter.No, but I do get to decide for me, and I get to express my opinion, too. I don't see why me expressing my opinion means your opinion is less valid, or why I should back off just because you find the material more objectionable than I do. I don't agree with you. That doesn't mean you have to shut up or that I'm not hearing what your opinion is or that I don't understand why you feel as you do. I just don't find your reasoning convincing.I'm all for putting a content warning on the work. They can put one on the Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms FR boxed set and the OA1-OA7 modules, if the material they contain is offensive, too. Or the 3e Oriental Adventures, if that's still objectionable, although I don't think that's for sale on DriveThruRPG (because of the Rokugan content?).Regardless of the content, however, what I object to is banning the content outright, or demanding it be re-edited without the original author's consent or input. I don't believe that the content of Oriental Adventures is so toxic, so caustic, so destructive to the culture of the game and survival of the hobby that it cannot be allowed for new players to even entertain the ideas presented in the book. To me, that's what removal from DTRPG represents, especially because the OA materials are very difficult to find in print. Banning means these ideas are so offensive or that the player base is so poorly educated that even with a content warning they cannot be trusted to read the book at all. That's a very high bar, and I know it's not a criteria that others are going to share, but that's how I feel nonetheless. I find the argument to ban or remove the work far more offensive than the stereotypes.If I look at the criticisms in the original post:I agree, this is very annoying. Doesn't seem related to OA.This sounds like awful behavior. I honestly am not sure exactly what slang is being referred to, however. I try to use the terms in the book for everything. I hope those aren't offensive? I don't think I even want to know what the slang terms are.5e is the first edition in a long time that hasn't had widespread translation outside of English. It's surprising given the online popularity and explosive growth the edition has enjoyed.I mean, this seems to be asking for a 5e Asian Adventures. Although, I don't really want my TTRPG to be more like a CRPG, western or JRPG.Frankly, though, I think a localized version of #3 and #4 with localized Asian art would sell like gangbusters in the Asian market.I agree this is common. More common than it ought to be. However, if we take out the part where everybody is white, it's kind of how fantasy and sci-fi works. Take different parts of the real world, switch things around in a different order, and then remove human cultures and add in alien or fantasy ancestries. It is a little disappointing how the humans are always white. However, part of the point is to remove the historical context. Paladins are removed from the court of Charlemagne, Clerics are removed from Christian imperial theocracy, Druids and Bards are removed from Celtic cultures, Monks are removed from Buddhist monasteries, Barbarians are removed from North America, Scandanvia, Germany, etc. I understand what you're saying; if you remove so much of a Samurai's or Ninja's culture that it becomes unrecognizable, you should probably call them some other kind of Fighter or Rogue. The culture is an essential component of the class, but fantasy's nature muddies the whole argument.All I'm saying is that this one is more complex and nuanced than the rest.Consider a word like "chivalry" which we often see in descriptions for Paladins. It's almost always used in the later meaning, courtly manners or sometimes courtly romance. However, the original meaning was the same root as cavalry. It meant you could use a horse as a warrior. Do we need to have that much historical context to discuss the Paladin? How about the fact that Paladins were the honor guard for Charlemagne, and their name basically means "palace knight" or "palace retainer" and also "from Palatine Hill" which is where the Roman Empire was born (hence why the Holy Roman Emperor chose that name, to evoke the fallen empire). Is this really relevant to the form that Paladins take? You see how the historical context doesn't always mean a lot.Or Rangers. They were original foresters who got a charter from the local lord to be a magistrate of the forest. They were basically... forest cops. That's why we call them park rangers and forest rangers. However, by the time we got to North America, rangers are frontiersmen like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone who worked as solders, scouts, guides, etc. in the Revolutionary War and American Indian Wars. Again, does this historical context help understand what the ranger character class is? We can see where it comes from, but it doesn't really inform it a whole lot more than what's already present except to probably introduce bias against the class since rangers were instrumental in colonialism.I get what's being said if we're talking about making an Asian-themed setting, but I don't know where the line is between creating classes inspired by history, but separated from it, and creating character classes that require historical context.No, I'm disagreeing that they're actually as important, as toxic, or as destructive to the hobby as some claim. That is my part of the discussion. Disagreement is not dismissal. I think that's self-evident. I also think that if nobody can criticize someone's position or argument, then it looks like you're saying the position is so indefensible that it can't stand up to any criticism at all. If this argument is so meritorious, then surely it can endure a little disagreement and a little criticism and still prevail.Because I think it distracts from those other issues. Because there's a limited amount of time and energy and attention in the world, and I think it's better spent on other problems. The same reason that anybody says, "I don't think that's the most important issue right now," about any topic anywhere ever. I think it's an issue which is easy to dismiss as an unimportant issue because it's about a product that isn't important -- and I think it's a not-close argument that Oriental Adventures is unimportant to the modern game -- and it adds to the pile of more serious issues. I think that by adding less important issues to the pile right now that it will be easier for actual opponents of progress in the hobby will find it easier to make convincing arguments that dismiss all the problems we have. Or it will be easier for WotC to quickly do something about OA, and then ignore the wider, systemic issues that will continue to directly harm the hobby now and in the future guaranteed. I don't want to give WotC an easy-out or an easy win when we all know the big problems are anything but easy. I want the current pressure to get WotC to fix the hard problems. We're not building an overwhelming case that they'll have to respond to one item at a time, we're building a house of cards. They'll pick the easiest one, and then let the rest of them fall where they lay.Think about how often you give someone a list of points in an argument, and the responses pick the weakest point, cite one strong argument against that weak point, and then ignore the rest of the issues as though they were addressed. Your whole argument would've been stronger if you'd just left out that weak point. This is why it's important to stay focused on what's actually central to the issue instead of getting bogged down in myriad issues that in and of themselves don't really address the ongoing systemic problems.Nobody who worked on Oriental Adventures is still working at WotC. Many of it's authors and contributors have moved on from TTRPGs or retired or died. The book is quite old. The profit from the sales of the book will not go to the people who originally created the work. Those people are no longer around to hear and learn from that criticism anymore. Nobody at WotC is going to step forward and issue errata or a revision correcting the work. They're going to throw the whole thing away and start over, just like they did with the Samurai in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. This isn't an ongoing problem because it's basically a dead product (though I imagine right now it's selling quite well, relatively speaking).Then we agree and you shouldn't be upset that I expressed my opinion. There's no reason I shouldn't join the consensus or express why I think banning is outright wrong, is there?</blockquote>

Verification