Chaosmancer, I explained clearly why on this front and there are basically two very good reasons and a third less good reason: 1) its s obvious and something people know about if they have spent any time in gaming spaces 2) the only way to do this is bring in specific examples from real companies and designers who have already been dragged through the mud 3) my point wasn't limited to people being dragged through the mud for making content that people object to on the grounds we've been talking about here (though that sort of thing certainly happens) but more broadly about how this is intersecting with a culture of increased ostracism and attack on social media in the hobby. I even alluded to my own personal experience with it, which very nearly resulted in me hanging myself. Now this is also something of a side issue from the main topic. So i was content if people didn't think 1 was as obvious as I thought, or if they weren't satisfied with 2, because the focus of discussion was a much more specific issue. I think plenty of people in this thread understand the kinds of incidents I am referring to and also can sense that they have become more prevalent, intense and cruel. If you don't agree, that is fair. But I have given my reasons for not wanting to list off specific examples of this happening in the hobby.
Bedrock, I'll go with your numbers.
1) IF it were obvious, we wouldn't need to ask. It is just that simple.
2) No, actually it isn't. We've asked about the ideas. You don't need to say who had the idea to tell us what the idea was.
And frankly, what you keep saying is "This content is being unfairly attacked, but I can't tell you what it is or you would attack it." Now, you know a bit about human psychology, I don't believe I would attack something unfairly. But you seem convinced I would attack it. Which indicates to me, with a lack of any other evidence, that the content is actually objectionable. You can't insist there is innocent content being harmed, but then tell us that for its protection you can't tell us the content in question. That alludes to it either not existing, or not being actually innocent. Not that I don't want to believe you, but there is no evidence to support you other than "if you know, you know." and clearly if we are asking about it, we don't know.
3) Frankly, I haven't seen this increased cruelty and hostility aimed at people. Sure, there are hateful messages occassionally, but they are the same normal type of hate I've seen for years. Nothing uniquely new or bad.
And this means that all I've seen are instances of... legitimate criticism or normal hatred. Nothing that causes me to think we need some sort of intercession because things are getting out of hand.
I know you didn't. I was just making the point that I am not against movies that want to explore flipping and deconstructing tropes like the damsel in distress (which is what you mentioned) or the evil ogre (orc). I like that kind of thing in movies when it is done well. But making it the only thing we do, also gets dull. Sometimes you need evil ogres, sometimes it is okay for a woman character to be vulnerable or even rescued. It just all depends on what the work is trying to do and the needs of the story.
That is an interesting phrase you know. "The needs of the story". After all, I wasn't talking about a character like Leia, who needs to be resuced. Leia is actually fine. But the entire existence of the "sexy lamp test" is because there are media products that have female "leads" who could be replaced with a sexy lamp. They are objects. So if the story needs an object, why not use an object? If it needs a character, why not make them a character, give them agency, and decisions that affect the story? It isn't about the "need" because the need is covered by an object, it is about quality. Leia assists in her own rescue and becomes part of the team, but you don't need the characters to fight to have agency.
I know this was directed at another poster, but to be clear, I don't think most people are making this argument. I certainly am not. If the whole game was just about racial animosity that wouldn't be particularly great in my opinion. It should just be one type of conflict that exists among many types of conflict.
But the person I was responding to DID make that argument.
Game of thrones is a good example though because that is a hard type of campaign for many to pull off. I am fine with it. I can easily see a long term campaign structured that way. But I also get that lots of people just want to make a map, populate it with orc tribes and dungeons and let the players at it. Or that some people enjoy the ribbing between the elf and dwarf character, or like the idea of half elves occupying this space of being caught between two worlds (which honestly I think is a lot more about culture than race-----the people I have known who have had this experience, it has usually been more around culture than skin tone).
Why not populate it with deserters and bandits and dungeons and let the plaers have at it? Why does it have to be orcs? Why do they have to be tribes? There are plenty of vicious people in Westeros, but not a single Orc. Why must we act like only orcs can possibly be used as disposable bad guys?
Also since we are talking about game of thrones. It may not have had a reliance on racism as a source of conflict (I haven't read the books though and my understanding is the show got something crucial wrong about slavery that gave the wrong impression about it possibly being racial). But for the sake of argument, let's say it has nothing racial in it at all. It still has a lot of stuff people in this thread would likely object to being in a roleplaying game. It is almost the big example that used to come up in problematic trope discussions. I don't even object to that stuff being in a movie, show or book (and I think Martin seems like a pretty empathetic and broad minded person from what I have seen of him in interviews), but even I had several "I think this show is a bit too dark for me" moments, where I wasn't sure I wanted to continue watching after certain things happened (again not saying they were wrong to do those things, but definitely GoT is not an example of avoiding the kinds of things we are talking about)
But it does involve avoiding Racism, the thing we are talking about. Sexual content is a whole other bag of worms, and we (the community) mostly agree that sexual content shouldn't be in the core game that we sell to 13 year olds, and should be a table by table decision. In fact, we don't even have much if any sexual content to take out of the game, let alone enough to make people upset we are taking it out.
d20diaries.com
