Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8490862" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think I explained it, but I will again since you asked. I would caveat this by saying that just as you found it unfortunate to receive pushback someplace else for your accurate observations, you probably should realize that many people are unlikely to be blunt with you about your proposed remedies here because this place has a different policy.1. Most legacy products have serious issues. Whether it's the obvious errors of commission (such as the ones you pointed out here), or the inevitable errors of omission (the absence of representation), they will have the problematic issues because they are products of their time. Trying to determine how much "better" or "worse" a particular product is becomes a fool's errand in many ways, simply because most of the products either reflect or do not reflect particular issues that went mostly unobserved at the time; and, as I noted before, these issues are particularly apparent with humor. 2. Nearly costless does not mean costless. While I don't know what WoTC's deal is with DTRPG, I assume they negotiated something less than the standard 30% sole source. Probably a good deal less. Still, they have operating costs associated with their legacy products, and have to give up a cut of the proceeds. Let's say it's 80% pure profit. That means that, assuming it never goes on sale, every single copy of GAZ10 sold would provide $8 of pure profit. Pretty good so far, huh?3. Okay then, but how many copies do you think they sell? Honestly? I think 10 copies a month is generous, but I'd be happy to be corrected. So let's say it's 50 copies (that's 600 copies a year, which I would be SHOCKED BY). That would make it quite the outlier! And it would provide ... $400 of pure profit per month, and $4800 per year. Which, again ... really generous (IMO).*4. Here's the thing, though. You're specifically asking for this to apply to all legacy products. All of them. You are well within your rights to ask for that! But that's where you and I will disagree. I think you are correct in your analysis, but I also think that these are historical (legacy) products, and as such a disclaimer is sufficient. Otherwise, this quickly ends up being not cost effective, given that there are so many legacy products, and so many issues. And what you believe is fearmongering, I think is a rational belief that most corporations don't want to deal with products that cause a lot of controversy, and little profit.5. Then there's the issue of the charitable selection. You concentrated on the slurs toward American Indians and suggested (IIRC) a Lakota charity. Great! But they weren't the only ones that were insulted, were they? There are insults towards Asians, towards women, towards black Americans... there's a lot that didn't age well. So this, too, becomes yet another issue of covering the corporate behind- when everyone gets insulted, you just end up with a charitable donation to some pabulum charity, like the United Way (ugh). 6. Now, here's the rub. Maybe you think that this specific product is so offensive it has to be dealt with- obviously, the peanuts generated by it don't really matter, and it's almost tokenism at that point, right? But there's so many products, from the ones that people keep calling attention to (GAZ10, Oriental Adventures and its progeny, Ravenloft, etc. etc. etc) to all the issues in all the books (like the casual misogyny that I mentioned above). Any review would find these issues.So in the end, what do you think a rational company would do? Enter into an endless cycle of publicly apologizing and making amends and paying money to charities for products that don't even make them much money, or just pulling the whole thing? ...that's not fearmongering. That's capitalism. Ferengi-style, "oh, maybe we do have some anti-Semitic tropes" capitalism. Again, I will reiterate that I appreciated the research and work you did in the OP. But people can disagree with you on the proper course of action. Just because you correctly understood that something from the past was problematic, doesn't mean people have to agree with your proposed solutions. *These figures are hard to come by, of course. I'm basing it off of what has been reported by other people and extrapolating. I'd love to see some real figures!</blockquote>

Verification