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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8502878" data-attributes="member: 6778210">You had said you were "mixed" on a disclaimer. I was wondering what you meant by that, because being "mixed" would mean you say good things and bad things and I was wondering what the bad things were. As it stands, we've kind of gotten to that, so we can actually have a discussion.I'm going to guess you see nothing wrong with putting nothing and moving on? I'll edit this if you end up editing it.And I see the usefulness, because I think it's actually very helpful in a product so very attached to its past. Like,  you talk about driving while only seeing 5 feet ahead of you, but doing this sort of reexamination to me is useful to help direct where you want to go and what you want to use in the future. D&D is very much a product in love with its past, and I think not only does the modern company need to take a look at it, but it needs to show its audience that it has as well. And it can help future-proof your eventual nostalgia bait so that you don't have to explain why you put in the bad Universal monster movie Romani stereotypes into your modern game.I think apologies are important for accepting that something happened, that it's there and they recognize it. I think it also helps bring closure to the people who were hurt.Now apologies can be a way of getting out of things, but at the same time that's just as true for someone who doesn't apologize. In fact, I'd say more so. Apologies are shown through action, which is why I think the other parts of the OP's suggestion are needed.I mean, this is why I like talking in specifics? I feel like we can agree that Orcs of Thar is problematic? If you want to talk about something else, then obviously the understanding can/will be different. But again, this is why specifics help: when I say it's okay to like problematic stuff as long as you recognize it's problematic, it's worth noting that both sides have recognized it as problematic.I mean, I think Snarf was a good example of dispassionate advocate against action on this topic?</blockquote>

Verification