Bring back the Comic Code!

[SemperJase]

Even to WotC's own market research, D&D only makes up 70% of the Roleplaying market. That is, 30% of the market does tabletop roleplaying but refuses to play D&D.

Thank you for proving my point. Very few companies dominate 70% of their industry market share. D&D did it with the comic code. The problems prior to the WotC buyout were mis-management problems, not sales. Even then, they were selling more than any other company.

And they did it up until this year without "mature" content.

To sacrifice your dominate position to regain a minority market is foolish.

 

[Xeriar]

Editing is not censorship. Removing profanity is not censorship. And limiting the range of expression about a given concept is not censorship as long as the creator can still express that idea.

Err umm, that's the definition of censorship in our society, for we generally consider the supression of ideas an anethma.

 

[Zappo]

Editing is not censorship. Removing profanity is not censorship. And limiting the range of expression about a given concept is not censorship as long as the creator can still express that idea.

Yep, it is. I hate dictionary wars, so please don't force me to go there. The question isn't whether it is censorship or not, it's whether it is good censorship or bad censorship. IMO, 99% of censorship is bad, the remaining 1% is the case when a publication is simply moved so that people who don't want to see it can do so (like placing pr0n during late night). That, and maybe "some" application during wartime. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, all the way.

 

[Zappo]

To sacrifice your dominate position to regain a minority market is foolish.

How many people will quit D&D because of the "mature content"?

G'night.

 

[Chun-tzu]

And limiting the range of expression about a given concept is not censorship as long as the creator can still express that idea.

In many cases, I've seen artists use "adult" material not because they needed it to transmit their message, but rather to shock. And if one is just going for shock value, than not much of a statement is being made.

I agree with your second point. I don't with the first.

There are a great many stories that you would not be able to tell without mature content. Some of these stories are crap, but some of them are quite good. But the very key to a quality story is in the craftsmanship, in how the writer expresses the idea. And often, this will conflict with things like the Code.

I agree, there's a difference between editing and censorship. But the CCA is definitely censorship.

 

[Xeriar]

Thank you for proving my point. Very few companies dominate 70% of their industry market share. D&D did it with the comic code. The problems prior to the WotC buyout were mis-management problems, not sales. Even then, they were selling more than any other company.

And they did it up until this year without "mature" content.

To sacrifice your dominate position to regain a minority market is foolish.

Err, my statistics have to do with now, after WotC litterally reinvigorated their market. TSR was looking BLEAK during the 'comic book code' era. At the point when WotC bought TSR, the number was down to 30-40%. Nothing like it's former glory, for certain.

Granted, it wasn't the only thing that killed them, but saying that that proves your point ignores a few other factors - mainly that these numbers aren't exclusive - White Wolf alone reaches a full half of the gaming market, over a million people. That's not a niche market...

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Err umm, that's the definition of censorship in our society, for we generally consider the supression of ideas an anethma.

Not really.

EDIT 1: That's the definition of censorship in our society, for we generally consider the suppression of ideas an anathema.

EDIT 2: Sir, it is my contention that you are misinformed about the aforementioned definition of “censorship”. Suppression of ideas is taboo in our culture.

EDIT 3: Bollocks, you gorilla-loving son of a vomit bag! You are so utterly stupid that you got the definition of the word wrong. Don't you know that freedom of expression is what it's all about, you puke?

Range of expression rarely curtiails the ability of the artist to convey a message. Sure, if you go to the Museum of Modern Art you'll find lots of artists who tell you differently. But if you then take a trip to the National Art Gallery (which is free!) you'll find the same ideas (executed with greater skill, but that is strictly my opinion).

Does it curtial at all? Yes. As often as is usually stated? No.

And I'd sincerly like to see an RPG product that needed "adult" material to be fully actualized. In the spirit of good faith, I will exceed my gaming budget by US$40 this month if someone can suggest a purchase to me that would show me otherwise.

edit: others have agreed with Xeriar, while I was composing this. But I think this post covers other concerns addressed. If not, please let me know and I'll respond to a specific point.

 

[Mistwell]

This would seem to prove the point. The code did not prevent these writers from doing good work. The fact that the writer does not remember or consider their post code work to be classic also says something about the lack of need for the graphic violence.

Miller and Claremont are better known for their non-code work, actually. Miller is best known for Batman: Year One. Claremont is best known for his series of books written with Geroge Lucas (continuing in the Willow movie setting). You just know them for their early comic work, because that is the era you recall the best. However, as far as wider recognition, it was their non-code work that they are now known for.

Byrne is still remembered for his X-men work, despite his attempts to regain interest in his Next Men comics. Most of his problem is personal, however, and not related to the code.

It isn't about graphic violence. There was plenty of graphic violence under the old code. Sex, however, was banned (you know, because seeing a naked woman is a worse sin than seeing a person ripping another person from groin to neck with adamantine claws). "Adult" subject matters were also banned. But violence? That's the area comics were forced into the most.

 

[Tsyr]

Um... actualy, those are censorship, of a form, BG.

Sure, the kernal of thought is still there, but not as the author desired.

For example, the word Anathema... not a common word in our society, and normaly with fairly strong connotations... perhaps the author was intent on that specific word. You changed his work, even in subtle ways, in your edits. And Edit 3 was censoring in a way I've seen our local newspaper use alot... "dumb down" censorship*.

* Our local newspaper interviewed me one time regarding my opinion of the school I was attending (A semi-private school that the public didn't much like), along with several other students there... When they printed my response, they had actualy edited several words out of my response, making me sound half illterate (My original words were something like "At the public highschool, I had been recieving an exceedingly poor education", and in the paper they changed it to " A really bad education."

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Tsyr,

Sure, I admit that only the first edit was true editing (spelling and grammar). But the other two were simply to illustrate a point: had Xeriar been told to be exceptionally polite or exceptionally impolite he still could have conveyed the same idea. A "code" would not have prevented him from saying what he wanted to say.

We do that every time we post here: don't make Eric's grandma cry. I don't think that has truly hindered any of us.