D&D 5E Dark Sun, problematic content, and 5E…

[Argyle King]

It may be a bit clumsy, but (to address concerns about someone buying a book not knowing what is in it) is there any reason why an rpg book could not have some sort of disclaimer like what is found on "mature" video games or R-rated movies?

I would think that combined with a brief synopsis of the book on the back of the cover would give some idea about the contents.

Maybe it's because I'm getting older and I'm not with the times, but it's weird to me that things which were previously normal parts of a book (like a functional index, a little blurb about the book on the back, and etc) no longer seem to be used.

In regards to approaching such a setting, I think the first step would be acknowledging that not everyone is a hero. Which isn't me saying that the setting should encourage bad behavior; instead, I'm saying that such a setting should be more informed by the flawed heroes of a Spaghetti western and the moral ambiguity found in trying to survive a world like Fallout than 4-color Supers and contemporary D&D's views toward alignment.

A few pages back, there was some discussion about a home-group being able to add something to a setting versus a home-group being able to remove something. A home-group always has the ability to change their home game. Both adding and removing things are possible.

Though, I would lean toward saying that (from a coherent world-building perspective) whether or not something like slavery is common will echo throughout the rest of the setting in a lot of ways. For a published product (whether rpg, movie, or novel,) choices about what does or doesn't exist will influence the rest of the product. Often, changing one detail of a world or a society means broader changes beyond that one detail.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I need an explanation about the reason because a distopian regimen with slavery could be offensive for certain people but not before. Maybe those people really believe they are doing the right actions, but they don't help at all.

And I ask if there is coherence between vampire invaders wearing morrion* (and any body doesn't understand it could be an offense), but in the case of vampire invaders with turbants then it would be offensive. We are creating new taboos, but I still allow other things.

* Morrion = that helmt used by Spanish conquerors.

 

[Bagpuss]

Q: Is problematic content acceptable in a work if it's presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought?

Problematic content should be acceptable even if it isn't presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought.

RPG can be a safe space to explore difficult and problematic societal and personal issues, that's why you can have RPGs like Vampire:tM where characters exploit humans to survive, or Twilight 2000 dealing with nuclear warfare, Don't Rest Your Head or A Penny for My Thoughts dealing with mental issues. Shadowrun that deals with racism, using metahumans as a proxy.

Not only should RPGs have problematic content presented as evil it should have problematic content where their are still contentious issues where it isn't so clear cut what is good or evil, or where players are sometimes in put in the position of picking the lesser of two evils, or making choices that don't have an ideal solution.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There's a very good and sound argument to be made, however, that the concept should be expanded such that it deals with anyone's power over anyone else's speech.

In other words, it doesn't (and shouldn't) make a difference whether it's a government, a corporation (who are IMO by far the worst offenders these days), or an individual person trying to shut down the speech of another; it's equally as bad in all cases and ought to be treated as such.

I actually do understand this, but the eternal problem is going to be how you regulate that. It does make a difference how a corporation chooses to regulate their platform versus a government because, by its nature, a corporate platform is a private one. Can you force someone to publish a work, to put your opinion on their website? This is where public pressure comes into play to try and regulate platforms in a way that the government simply can't.

Suffice to say that I definitely agree in part, but fixing that problem is ultimately very difficult.

It certainly does read as saying something can't be made, as in, there is no value and thus no one should want to and thus it shouldn't be allowed.

Like, what else is the point of the argument? Are you really trying to say "make whatever you want, but know that it has consequences" and not, as it has seemed across the entire thread, "no, don't even make that in the first place"?

Has it? For Wizards, it may be simply because on this topic they aren't exactly the most trustworthy and on their platform it may be the most risky. Being such a big audience, they have the most variance in how people play, and doing public games like Adventure League can be more difficult because you don't know who you get.

Which people? I certainly think it's possible. In fact, given the amount of money they have to throw at the problem, I think they're some of the best-equipped people to do it and actually give it due care.

I mean, maybe. There seems to have been a culture problem at Wizards in regards to some of these issues where certain people weren't even having their stuff read over by sensitivity writers (though thankfully that is no longer the case). I really wish there was a way of establishing a more adult brand of D&D adventure/setting, but I just don't know how Wizards would actually do that. They'd probably be better off trying to subcontract out instead.

...which, again, sounds like "no, don't even make that in the first place." That is the very "chilling effect" being discussed.

And it's not like I disagree with you on the responsibility thing. I've said it repeatedly, from the very beginning.

But much of that is not a "chilling effect" as much as very contextual and situational "Your position in the industry, your audience, and your style of writing makes it very difficult for this to succeed" sort of way. Again, I've mentioned Delta Green as a game that has incredibly serious topics in some of their scenarios, but their audience and style of game is more curated so that they can better address these issues when they create scenarios... which, really, the word "scenario" is probably a good example of the differences here. You can control a lot more things in a "scenario" than a "setting" because you can control how the subject is set up, how people are meant to interact/engage with it, and have greater control as to what you are actually doing. Compare this to a setting, which is by its very nature meant to be more of a toolbox and uncontrolled, where you give the players elements but you can't firmly define how your audience will interact with these things.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've always hated the blanket term "problematic" because it's too vague, but I hate even more that it's part of my vocabulary. It's okay for fiction to examine problematic things, and it's okay for role playing games to cover anything a work of fiction might cover.

I agree rather than "problematic" content can I just say I'm all for outright offensive, disturbing, contentious, horrific and unsettling content to be in RPGs. I'm fine with players being characters in flawed, corrupt societies without the power to change them, having to deal with unsavoury, morally dubious characters without just being able to kill them, being forced into situations where they have to make difficult and perhaps morally questionable and disturbing decisions.

If you don't like it don't play it/buy it, but don't try and stop other people wanting to engage with such material. Not every game has to be suitable for every player.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe there is a solution, DS being unlocked in DMGuild but only for 3PPs with enough trust. And publishing a sourcebook about post-apocaliptic settings with some elements from DS and Gamma World, and a couple of pages about the city-states and the sorcerer-kings of the Athasian tablelands. Then you could publish about crunch in DMGuild, but the lore about the metaplot of Athas only for allowed profesional publishers.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I really wish there was a way of establishing a more adult brand of D&D adventure/setting, but I just don't know how Wizards would actually do that. They'd probably be better off trying to subcontract out instead.

That is a cool idea that could work.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That is a cool idea that could work.

It'd be interesting. It's something I wish they would do with more of their settings, but it's just not how things work sadly.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Given all the recent OGL controversies and suchlike, I have to ask: can you, legally? 'Cause if yes, that has some very interesting implications elsewhere that I'd be rather keen to follow up on.

I highly doubt Dark Sun as a setting is public domain yet, but I've no idea if that IP was included under the new CC umbrella.

I'm sure that exists otherwise how is the Mystaran community doing it for 20+ years ?

 

[Irlo]

Whose expression is being curtailed? Everyone's. You can't, as an individual, enforce your specific set of opinions on the rest of the world. You can state your opinion, and if you feel strongly enough, attempt to convince others that your opinion is right. But that is where your freedom ends.

For example, the recent case of someone wanting to retcon/editorialise a published work that is problematic. It was then, it is problematic now. The solution, though, is not to erase it (or take steps that are tantamount to erasing it). The solution is to let your voice be heard. Do not try to redact or edit history.

Your other statement is a bit muddy though. Elaborate please.

I am rethinking the benefit in continuing this conversation, but I'll sum up to try to clarify. I'm going by memory. I don't want to expend the time and energy re-reading and quoting portions of this thread, so here are the broad-strokes (as I see them, and I could have faulty memory or have different interpretations of what was said -- I'm not trying to put words into people's mouths):

Hussar, I think, was saying that a Dark Sun 5E Adventurer's League session would be a really bad look for WotC -- that is, the themes and portions of the setting conflict with the sensibilities of the audience. WotC has said they won't publish DS 5E because they can't be true to the setting AND meet their own responsibilities to their players.

You then indicated that Hussar was trying to curtail freedom of expression.

I was confused by your statement, because I saw no attempt to limit freedom of expression. It's not that WotC shouldn't be allowed to publish anything they want to publish. None of us has the power to stop them, so what is allowed isn't even a factor here. It is, as they've said, not possible for them to publish DS without compromising the interests of at least some of their players -- the size of which group must be significant to WotC or they wouldn't mention it.

I know that you have opinions in contrast to my about what you consider infringements of rights of expression, and we won't resolve those differences.

Thanks for the conversation.