Again that was an error but the point I was trying to make was there has been a transition from the earlier days of the internet, where there was a lot more of a positive exchange to what we have now, which is frequently very hostile, cruel and accusatory. And that bleeds into these discussions unfortunately.
Sure people may be sick of things they keep seeing in media and I think it's fine for people to criticize. But I think we've gone into overdrive where that is the primary focus, and it has become such a primary focus, we are losing sight of other things, and we are always seeing it, even when a lot of people think it isn't there.
I don't think you have demonstrated these are flaws. Just because I a master painter can paint a masterpiece without the color red, that doesn't mean paintings with red in them are flawed. And there may be very good reasons to use red. Yes you don't need individual elements to make compelling worlds but the more real world elements a setting lacks, I think the less compelling it can be.
Is it the primary focus? I've talked to a lot of people about One DnD, and other than on these forums, in threads where people start decrying the changes, do I ever really talk about the changes to orc Lore. Usually I discuss the mechanics. It becomes a primary focus here, because of those who hate the changes, not those nit-picking over every release.
And, really? Are we going to compare racism to the color red? That is strike one for the anology. Strike two, when was the last time you sat down with a group of friends and all painted the same canvass together? This is another thing you keep refusing to recognize. There is a reason we keep saying "it is different for movies, it is different for books" it is because there isn't a single artist in a DnD game, there is a team working together. And if the team agrees to use racism, that's fine, but we don't want it to be handed to them as a default ingredient.
In terms of the world being a terrible place. This is an adventure game. You need conflict. Many campaigns will need evil in order for them to thrive (or at least antagonists). A lot of this stuff is just an easy way to make antagonistic elements in a setting. Again it isn't required to be good.
"An easy way". You know, an easy way to make money is to break into the homes of your elderly neighbors and steal it. And to live, you need money. That's an unfair example, because a game with racism in it isn't a crime, but you get my point. "this is an easy way to make conflict" does not mean it is a good way, or the best way. It is just... easy. And many, many, many games and stories have created conflicts without needing to rely on it.
Does the game need conflict? Yes.
Does the game need evil? Meh, evil is fine for it
Does the game need racism baked into the setting to create conflict? No. It doesn't.
It isn't always a fallacy because slippery slopes happen. History is riddled with them. And I would say in this particular issue, we've seen it play out from the early days of "Its okay to like problematic things" to the present moment where its so important to avoid problematic things teams of sensitivity readers get hired to vet products. I would argue that this has been a slippery slope. And I think we can discern more ahead if we aren't careful.
By that logic micro-biology and anti-biotics were a slippery slope too. We went from "it is okay to live in sewage" to "we need to be careful about our medicines creating super-bacteria because we have almost succeeded in wiping out this disease"
Oh, how about the slippery slope of human right? It used to be you could murder a peasant because they didn't run away from you fast enough, now you get called out for making people work in hot rooms without breaks for hours on end for little pay.
Yeah, it used to be okay to like problematic things. Now it is less okay. That sounds about right to me.
And my issue is the bar has just been lowered too far on this front in my opinion. If we were talking about people making racist RPGs, sure that is fair. But we are talking about whether half elves are okay, whether going into dungeons and killing goblins is okay (and some people reading that as a colonialist trope and/or as a racist one). We are also doing a lot of mistaking content for the message (i.e. the game has racial bigotry between elves and dwarves, therefore it is racist or unwelcoming).
Yes, we are DISCUSSING whether or not calling someone a half-breed is okay. Heck, don't you ever wonder why they are never refered to as "half-humans"? They are, that would be an accurate statement... but somehow do you think that wouldn't make it in the game?
And yes, we are arguing if, in DnD, going into the homes of goblins and slaughtering them is okay. But we aren't discussing whether or not going into crypts and killing zombies is okay. And there is a reason that DnD Goblins are being discussed, but other things aren't.
Meanwhile, any lowering of the bar seems to be too much for some people, and so it gets rather difficult to have these discussions while we are accused of being nothing but a mindless mob destroying free expression.
we are losing our ability to have functional half elves and half orcs.
Nope, they are functional
We are losing our ability to have evil humanoid threats in the game as antagonists.
No we aren't, this is a strawman
We are losing our ability to have games where people write about soothing outside their own culture.
No we aren't.
We are losing the ability to handle complex and weighty topics like slavery and racism.
Did we ever have it? Again, TSR released a game where you fought on the side of the Conquistadors, conquering the native people, and had a pre-written main character whose life-long dream was owning land and slaves to farm it for him. In 1991. Is that demonstrating an ability to competently handle the complex and weighty topic of slavery and racism?
it feels like it has having a chilling effect on our ability to not just publish games in ways that are gameable and fun, but to even play them (because that can be a risk too now in this day and age)
Critical Role
Dungeon Daddies
Drakenheim
Dimension 20
SuperQuest Saga
Heart of Elynthi
High Rollers
Acquisitions Incorporated
Zmajeva Garaža
Force Grey
Black Dice Society
Rivals of Waterdeep
Realmsmith
Oh, maybe I should talk about the games and game products people have made, and not just the games people are playing (which you claim to be a risk in this day and age)
Mage Hand Press
Ghost Fire Gaming
Eldritch: The Book of Madness
Sandy Petersen’s Cthulhu Mythos for 5e
Kobold Press
MCDM
Frog God Games
Crucible7
The Adventurer’s Guide to Theria
Good-Man Games
Seems we have a lot of people publishing, a lot of games that are gameable, and a lot of games being played. So... where is this evidence?
To be clear here, I am not against Shrek or against people commenting on a trope.
Weird, I never mentioned Shrek at all.
I do think this does at times become like a cultural purification or cleansing. And it definitely has a puritanical streak I would say. Because we are just deciding these tropes are bad and people shouldn't use them. To me that is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Again here I am talking generally about the movement not individuals posting here
So other than vague assurances that these tropes aren't actually bad, what do you expect us to do? Do you expect me to see someone put out a game where the heroic colonizers kill the evil native people and not comment? Should I comment my support for the artist being so brave to stand up and publish their artistic vision?
I remember those days too. I lived in a very religious area of the country for five years when that was happening and D&D wasn't allowed. Heavy metal wasn't allowed. Even Willow of all things wasn't allowed. I am not saying things haven't been worse coming at gamers from the outside, but this is the worst internal movement of criticism I have seen in a long time within the hobby.
Or, instead of "internal movement of criticism" we could say... "examination of old ideas"? Because I'd agree we are certainly examining old ideas more critically than we did 20 years ago.
And I think the cruelty is especially visible in places like twitter where most of the cancelations tended to happen.
Cancelations you won't actually tell us about, because you don't want people targetted.
