Big Changes At White Wolf Following Controversy

Following an online backlash regarding the content of their recent publications, White Wolf Publishing has just announced some big changes, including the suspension of the Vampire 5th Edition Camarilla and Anarch books, and a restructuring of management.

White Wolf's Shams Jorjani made the following announcement about an hour ago:

"Hello everyone,

My name is Shams Jorjani, VP of Business Development at Paradox Interactive and interim manager at White Wolf Publishing. I wanted to inform you of some changes that will be implemented at White Wolf, starting immediately.

Sales and printing of the V5 Camarilla and Anarch books will be temporarily suspended. The section on Chechnya will be removed in both the print and PDF versions of the Camarilla book. We anticipate that this will require about three weeks. This means shipping will be delayed; if you have pre-ordered a copy of Camarilla or Anarchs, further information will follow via e-mail.

In practical terms, White Wolf will no longer function as a separate entity. The White Wolf team will be restructured and integrated directly into Paradox Interactive, and I will be temporarily managing things during this process. We are recruiting new leadership to guide White Wolf both creatively and commercially into the future, a process that has been ongoing since September.

Going forward, White Wolf will focus on brand management. This means White Wolf will develop the guiding principles for its vision of the World of Darkness, and give licensees the tools they need to create new, excellent products in this story world. White Wolf will no longer develop and publish these products internally. This has always been the intended goal for White Wolf as a company, and it is now time to enact it.

The World of Darkness has always been about horror, and horror is about exploring the darkest parts of our society, our culture, and ourselves. Horror should not be afraid to explore difficult or sensitive topics, but it should never do so without understanding who those topics are about and what it means to them. Real evil does exist in the world, and we can’t ever excuse its real perpetrators or cheapen the suffering of its real victims.

In the Chechnya chapter of the V5 Camarilla book, we lost sight of this. The result was a chapter that dealt with a real-world, ongoing tragedy in a crude and disrespectful way. We should have identified this either during the creative process or in editing. This did not happen, and for this we apologize.

We ask for your patience while we implement these changes. In the meantime, let’s keep talking. I’m available for any and all thoughts, comments and feedback, on shams.jorjani@paradoxinteractive.com."

White Wolf is currently own by Paradox Interactive, who acquired the World of Darkness rights in 2015 from previous owner CCP (who you might know from Eve Online) whose plans for a WoD MMO failed to bear fruit.

The recent Camarilla and Anarch books have met widespread criticism. The former, Camarilla, includes a section which appears to trivialise current real-life events in Chechnya, where the LGBTQ community is being persecuted, tortured, and murdered and uses that current tragedy as a backdrop for the setting. This comes after the company was forced to deny links to neo-Nazi ideology. White Wolf recently announced that "White Wolf is currently undergoing some significant transitions up to and including a change in leadership. The team needs a short time to understand what this means, so we ask for your patience as we figure out our next steps" and this appears to be the result of that decision.

 

[Umbran]

This is a tricky issue to answer, because White Wolf was founded on the principle of creating roleplaying games as art. The initial appeal of the games were that they were provocative, and throughout their rise as a company they wrote copious essays and defences on the notion of art vs commercialism and freedom of expression.

With respect - since the company publishing these "provocative" things can no longer publish them if they don't make money, the idea that they are not concerned with commercialism was naive - either on their part for thinking it, or on ours for believing it.

The problem in the interim of nearly 30 years, however, is that White Wolf has been successful, become a corporation and indeed, been sold off a couple of times. It's maybe naive to hold onto notions of artistic expressions.

You miss what is probably the larger issue at hand - White Wolf first published a WoD game in 1991. Internet Explorer was released in 1995.

Their initial popularity came in a time before what most folks today think of as "the internet", and the heightened communication that has developed with it. In the past, it was easier to avoid the negative consequences of being "provocative" than it is today, because word gets around to people who care more quickly, and their voices are more easily heard.

 

[Jester David]

This thought is kind of funny since most of the original White Wolf staff, according to Lisa Stevens, were die-hard D&D gamers in addition to being the "young turks" of White Wolf. She said (in more than one of her "Auntie Lisa's Story Hour" seminars) that one of their crowning moments was when they were threatened by a couple of people from TSR after winning an award (Origins 1991, I think?) It just goes to show how cannibalistic the industry used to be compared to now. Everyone seems to be on board nowadays with the "rising tide floats all boats" theory.

I love the Auntie Lisa Story Hour seminars.
Okay... once you've one or two you've pretty much heard them all as the first 45 minutes of the hour long seminar are largely the same. But still very enjoyable.

 

[Gradine]

If we look at the issue in a more general sense, I think it becomes clearer. It really boils down to this:

Are we or should we as customers/readers/viewers/gamers guaranteed some level of freedom from offense by the art we consume?

Sure, there are commercial considerations at playy here, and they have been a factor. But separate of that....separate of the business folk sitting in a conference room looking at spreadsheets...should art be banned/removed/restricted/altered based on its content?

If a work of art offends one person, is that enough for it to be removed? If not, then how many people must be offended?

And is there not some level of personal ownership that should be considered? If I find naughty language offensive, does that mean that films with naughty language should be banned? Or edited for content? Orshould it be on me to avoid films that I find offensive?

Should I be deciding this for myself or should others decide for me?

I'm still half of a thread behind, so forgive me if I'm repeating something here, but everyone does realize that this is capitalism working as intended, right? Boycotts and social pressure leading to a change or withdrawal of a product is the very definition of people voting with their wallets. No government entity has stepped in or directly interfered in the process, so there's no actual "censorship" involved (I see that you haven't used that phrase yourself, but others in this thread certainly have). Seriously, this is exactly the sort of thing Ron/Rand Paul (I forget which) described when he/they advocated to get rid of anti-discrimination laws; companies that act in bad faith will face market pressure to change, and eventually they will face enough that it becomes a smart business decision to actually change. Boom. Capitalism.

I do also think that there needs to be some level of differentiation between "art" and "popular entertainment"; I'll be the first to admit that that line can be fuzzy at times and is ultimately arbitrary, but I don't think anyone here would quibble about which of those categories, say, V:tM or War and Peace respectively belong in. I think, at least in this context, it boils down to authorial intent. I think it can be argued that there is an appropriate time and place for art that it is deliberately shocking or offensive to the senses. Popular entertainment is not, I would argue quite strenuously, the place for such material. Nor is it the place for material that, whether intentionally or otherwise, reinforces oppressive narratives. Especially not present atrocities.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gradine]

Good luck with that. I mean, really! First, defining what is and isn't "art" is a fool's errand (not that you shouldn't try). The differences between found art, folk art, fine art, pop art, etc..... one person's great art is another person's trash.

Sometimes quite literally, if you enjoy the Tate Modern.

But to further cabin "popular entertainment" off from "art?' Hoo boy ... you might want to have a word with the French New Wave, Cahiers du Cinema, and the boundaries between pulp/genre and "art." (and the sometimes artificial distinctions).

I'm not saying this isn't a great conversation to have, I'm just saying that it tends to be reductive and facile, unless you end up at the unsatisfying, Potter-esque, "I know it when I see it."

Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person who wants to come off as an art snob. But I think it's worthwhile to at least distinguish between people who are consciously making art versus people who are consciously making popular entertainment. Not because these are mutually exclusive (they're not), but because the two tend to pose very different answers to the authorial question "what message am I sending with this?". In the case of popular entertainment, that answer usually tends to be "none, hopefully." I don't think anyone at WW set out with the intent to trivialize the LGBTQ+ genocide in Chechnya. That they did was therefore not only unintentional but also, presumably (at least hopefully), something the authors didn't want to do in the first place.

While the intent in this case isn't irrelevant when it comes to measuring the actual impact of the action, it is relevant when discussing the supposed excuse of "do not censor my art!" While the line between art and pop culture is always going to be fuzzy (see also: Shakespeare), the line between "we didn't mean to imply this horrible thing" and "yes, argue over my provocative works, my puppets!" is much, much more clear.

Hmmm.... well, there are those that argue for that. And others (most of the 20th century on, since the New Critics and their earlier precursors, like the Russian formalists) would argue against it.

I've got my own opinions regarding the "Death of the Author" et. al., but they are both off-topic and too political for this message board

 

[billd91]

I do also think that there needs to be some level of differentiation between "art" and "popular entertainment"; I'll be the first to admit that that line can be fuzzy at times and is ultimately arbitrary, but I don't think anyone here would quibble about which of those categories, say, V:tM or War and Peace respectively belong in. I think, at least in this context, it boils down to authorial intent. I think it can be argued that there is an appropriate time and place for art that it is deliberately shocking or offensive to the senses. Popular entertainment is not, I would argue quite strenuously, the place for such material. Nor is it the place for material that, whether intentionally or otherwise, reinforces oppressive narratives. Especially not present atrocities.

I'm not sure I agree with all that. I think there's definitely a way to try to target a market to become successful popular entertainment, but it's definitely possible to deliberately shock while also producing something for that same market. The Onion, Deadpool, and South Park definitely fit that mold and succeed to certain degrees with their controversial humor, as did the miniseries Roots and the movies Logan and Schindler's List but with serious subject matter. In fact, I'd be happier if more truths and ideas were pursued in as shocking a manner as is necessary to move people and put out as popular entertainment.

But I would agree that making light of atrocities or giving a fictive cause to real and ongoing atrocity is bad judgment. (I do like allegorical parallels, though.)

 

[Gradine]

I'm not sure I agree with all that. I think there's definitely a way to try to target a market to become successful popular entertainment, but it's definitely possible to deliberately shock while also producing something for that same market. The Onion, Deadpool, and South Park definitely fit that mold and succeed to certain degrees with their controversial humor, as did the miniseries Roots and the movies Logan and Schindler's List but with serious subject matter. In fact, I'd be happier if more truths and ideas were pursued in as shocking a manner as is necessary to move people and put out as popular entertainment.

Indeed, this is why I state that I don't believe the two concepts are at all mutually exclusive. I honestly tend to find fiction without some actual point or meaning to it be completely dull, personally.

But I would agree that making light of atrocities or giving a fictive cause to real and ongoing atrocity is bad judgment. (I do like allegorical parallels, though.)

Also agreed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TrippyHippy]

With respect - since the company publishing these "provocative" things can no longer publish them if they don't make money, the idea that they are not concerned with commercialism was naive - either on their part for thinking it, or on ours for believing it.

You miss what is probably the larger issue at hand - White Wolf first published a WoD game in 1991. Internet Explorer was released in 1995.

Their initial popularity came in a time before what most folks today think of as "the internet", and the heightened communication that has developed with it. In the past, it was easier to avoid the negative consequences of being "provocative" than it is today, because word gets around to people who care more quickly, and their voices are more easily heard.

I did actually mention the influence of the internet on this situation, either here or in some other thread. The only point of disagreement I may possibly have with this statement is whether its a good thing. I'd also note that other movements, a lot more provocative than White Wolf ever were, have managed to thrive on the darker corners of the internet in recent times. It's weird times we live in.

 

[Rygar]

With respect - since the company publishing these "provocative" things can no longer publish them if they don't make money, the idea that they are not concerned with commercialism was naive - either on their part for thinking it, or on ours for believing it.



You miss what is probably the larger issue at hand - White Wolf first published a WoD game in 1991. Internet Explorer was released in 1995.

Their initial popularity came in a time before what most folks today think of as "the internet", and the heightened communication that has developed with it. In the past, it was easier to avoid the negative consequences of being "provocative" than it is today, because word gets around to people who care more quickly, and their voices are more easily heard.

I think we need to be *very* careful and *very* analytical here. I think it's critical to differentiate between word of mouth amongst the customer base, the potential customer base, individuals who have no interest in being a customer, and political activists who will not become a customer and spend their time scouring the internet for things to protest.

It's something business in general is struggling with figuring out how to assess, no one really seems to know how to guage things yet. Especially with the added complexity of bot networks, astroturfing, and other shennagins.

So if we want to discuss this topic, I think we need to do a lot of research. Internet and Word of Mouth are very complex topics today.