WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Snarf Zagyg]

But isn't also calling for something also an act of free speech in itself? While calling for removal can be seen as extreme, the act itself seems to be free speech, as they're articulating their own opinions.

Pretty sure I covered that! As I wrote, demanding that things that offend you not be said - that's freedom of expression. It's also censorship, but it's still an expression.

People can advocate for censorship. It's still censorship.

 

[Ash Mantle]

Pretty sure I covered that! As I wrote, demanding that things that offend you not be said - that's freedom of expression. It's also censorship, but it's still an expression.

People can advocate for censorship. It's still censorship.

Removing it outright might seem too far, but Kwan et al should absolutely have the right to say their piece and advocate what they'd like based on their discussion points.

 

[Sadras]

Removing it outright might seem too far, but Kwan et al should absolutely have the right to say their piece and advocate what they'd like based on their discussion points.

Literally no one is disputing his right to say anything - some of us just do not agree with the justifications which support his opinion

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Removing it outright might seem too far, but Kwan et al should absolutely have the right to say their piece and advocate what they'd like based on their discussion points.

Of course. As I wrote, if I can defend the right of Fred Phelps to speak (speech which is truly abhorrent and abominable), I can defend the right of Mr. Kwan to speak.

What is frightening to me is the sheer number of people who do not see the similarities.

 

[Ash Mantle]

Of course. As I wrote, if I can defend the right of Fred Phelps to speak (speech which is truly abhorrent and abominable), I can defend the right of Mr. Kwan to speak.

What is frightening to me is the sheer number of people who do not see the similarities.

I think perspective in this is key, and I don't think the comparison is fitting, one is completely extremist, Kwan at least seems to want to do something appropriate for players and DMs.

 

[Cadence]

and before you ask, the same year OA came out a Japanese publisher released the first Japanese language D&D set. given how much correspondence goes into translating and publishing a foreign edition of something it's not a stretch to say they just asked the Japanese publisher if they could find a playtest group for an upcoming book.

Does anyone here know how much trouble and effort were put into doing game translations in 1985 in general? Anyone have a copy of the Japanese edition to check the credits? I can imagine TSR licensing a publisher who then used a few writing-skilled bilingual players they knew to do the translation. I have the impression that's how it worked for some other companies' games in Germany over a decade later in the mid-90s when usenet and e-mail were finally things (except it might have been folks they found on usenet instead of already knowing). I could also imagine TSR or the Japanese publisher involving a bunch of trained professional translators... but how were TSRs finances then and was it expected to be a huge seller? However it's done, even today, WotC gets a few very odd translations through on MtG cards.

As far as correspondence, does anyone remember what the price of long distance calls was back then? A NYT article from 1982 gives $2.53 for the first minute to Japan and 95 cents per minute after ($6.85/$2.52 todays $), but I think that's only for the 1/2 of American phones that could connect without going through an operator. The operator-made calls look like they could cost 4x as much. I certainly remember even domestic long distance being a thing we thought about before doing when I was young and we didn't get on the phone and chat forever long-distance like we do now. If off the phone, how long was the typical airmail time between the US and Japan in 1985?

Like the using good references, some of these basic mechanical things weren't nearly as easy back then. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't make the book useful today, but it does feel very relevant for judging the effort put into it by the authors.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think perspective in this is key, and I'm not sure the comparisons are fitting, one is completely extremist, Kwan at least seems to want to do something appropriate for players and DMs.

I am so tired of this trope.

"You see, let me explain this to you. Your speech, the speech you like? That's not the good speech. We have very valid reasons to censor it! I mean, think of the (insert reason here). On the other hand, this is completely different than that other speech, which is fine and appropriate."

It's always, always, always said to be with the best of intentions. What, do you think Fred Phelps was the villain in his own story? Or do you think Fred Phelps was doing what he thought was appropriate?

Even today, there are many places (even entire countries!) that tend to align much more closely to his point of view. (Which is quite scary, but a different issue entirely).

So I never appreciate people telling me that someone else gets to decide what is, and isn't appropriate.

So you are correct- perspective is key. And in my decades, my perspective has always been that when someone says, "Trust me, we are going to get rid of speech because we (not you) think it's appropriate" I will react with all the vim and vigor I can muster against it.

 

[MGibster]

I think one of the points is that those who see Kwan et al's call for the removal of OA as censorship, that they themselves can appear in their discussion points to censure Kwan et al's access to free speech.

To censure someone is to express disapproval. Using the reasonable person standard, nobody believes expressing disapproval is tantamount to removing access to free speech.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of course. As I wrote, if I can defend the right of Fred Phelps to speak (speech which is truly abhorrent and abominable), I can defend the right of Mr. Kwan to speak.

What is frightening to me is the sheer number of people who do not see the similarities.

That's because the late Fred Phelps was, among other things, advocating that it was good and just that gay people were tortured. That's both what hell means (eternal torture meted out as justice) and what conversion therapy is.

When someone suggests physically driving to Zeb Cook's home, kidnapping him and burning him alive (although that's more mild than the eternal fires of hell) or for Zeb Cook to be tried and literally executed (as Fred Phelps suggested for gay people) then there will be something approaching equivalence. That or throwing a party literally outside Zeb Cook's funeral saying that he's dead and now being tortured. Conversion therapy advocates on the other hand are advocating something more akin to people advocating subjecting Zeb Cook to electroshock therapy until he can't see a D&D statblock without flinching.

Until then the similarities are like the similarities between a supersoaker and an AK-47. I mean sure they are both gun shaped and used to shoot people and I don't particularly want to be shot by either. But to call them remotely in the same league is risible.

 

[Chaosmancer]

'Creature type' is my replacement term for 'race'.

Ah, considering we use the term "creature type" already though, that might be a confusing substitute.

Also, it brings back up my point that in saying that "When the enemies are the same creature types as the PCs " you would be referring to, say a party of humans and elves meeting humans and elves, but Dwarves would be a different "creature type" (using your term) and yet, they would be approached differently than say, Orcs.

And, even if you would like to reference the fact that Orcs aren't core, they would still be approached differently than say, Goliaths (who can be just as violent and raid-y). And, if you would like to point out that Goliaths, while in the same book, are not in the "monster " section, then I'd like to point you to Lizardfolk which are in the same section as Goliaths, but also have a history of being monstrous enemies.


No matter how you slice it, Orcs are reacted to because they are orcs, not becuase of their categorization. But, they are also PC options just like a lot of other PC options that we have been given in 5e.

I hope not. I am so tired of this. This has been incredibly disheartening for me. I never thought that there were so many people in this hobby that reflexively and uncritically were against the freedom of expression.

This has been difficult, because I understand at a basic level that they mean well. TTRPGs today are so much more tolerant, diverse, and welcoming than they ever were. The idea that D&D 5e is including LGBTQ characters in the books, in addition to including diverse races and genders?

So amazing. So wonderful. If you are a gamer familiar with the dawn of the game, it's almost impossible to imagine, and yet we are here. That's not to say that this is the end! Things will always change.

But the reason we are here, now, is because voices weren't stifled. Because people did speak up, at real risk to themselves. Because, eventually, we were able to break through the barriers of the guardians who told us what was "good" speech and "bad" speech.

It just reminds me of the patronizing I used to get. Eh, I think I'm going to take Todd's advice in the other thread and let it go. There's a warning on the product, it's done.

There is a part of me that gets worried though about people using the defense of "free speech" and "art" to defend things. Especially in a manner that seems so... sweeping and apathetic. And by that I mean, defending it and making no calls to do better in the future.

I was never for the banning of the book, but I was for an agreement that the content was bad and that the company needed to acknowledge that and the fact that they were still profiting from it. But, the very idea of asking them to do better in the future was met with resistance because I was infringing on art, freedom of expression and creativity.

I'm going to go out on a limb here with an admission that I read porn. Quite a bit of it. Some of it is trashy and simple and not really worth my time. Other works are ugly, horrible and disgusting and I wish I had never seen them. And still other works are beautiful and a bit transformative of my thoughts and feelings on certain subjects, because they were handled in such a compelling and interesting way for me to consider new thoughts in new ways.

And under certain sections of subject matter, I've read all three. It was not the content, but the handling of the content which elevated the work.

So, this idea that I can't tell an artist or a company "this isn't right, you aren't handling this subject matter well, please do better" because I am then going to open the doors to the death of art... I don't get it. Criticism has never killed art. Calls to improve ourselves should not be met with hostility and responses of inaction. Yes, some people will never be satisfied, but using that as an excuse to dig in our heels and never try and move forward... it seems to be the wrong approach to me.

I am so tired of this trope.

"You see, let me explain this to you. Your speech, the speech you like? That's not the good speech. We have very valid reasons to censor it! I mean, think of the (insert reason here). On the other hand, this is completely different than that other speech, which is fine and appropriate."

It's always, always, always said to be with the best of intentions. What, do you think Fred Phelps was the villain in his own story? Or do you think Fred Phelps was doing what he thought was appropriate?

Even today, there are many places (even entire countries!) that tend to align much more closely to his point of view. (Which is quite scary, but a different issue entirely).

So I never appreciate people telling me that someone else gets to decide what is, and isn't appropriate.

So you are correct- perspective is key. And in my decades, my perspective has always been that when someone says, "Trust me, we are going to get rid of speech because we (not you) think it's appropriate" I will react with all the vim and vigor I can muster against it.

Of course he isn't the villain of his own story, of course he thinks what he said is correct. That doesn't mean that comparing the two people and their actions is anywhere close to the same thing.

I have no idea who this Fred Phelps guy is, but by the torture and burning comment I think I can take a good stab here at an analogy.

Comparing the two people as saying things you disagree with, in this manner, is similiar to comparing Al Capone to a man accused of jaywalking and littering. Heck, to a person accused of stealing a nice car, taking it for a joy ride, then parking in the persons driveway.

One is a brutal mobster who is likely responsible for a lot of death and terror. The other person committed a crime that is really more of an inconvenience than anything else. Both broke the law. Both went to jail. But saying they are the same sort of criminal really misses the point hard.