RPG Writer Zak S Accused Of Abusive Behaviour

RPG writer Zak S (aka Zak Smith, Zak Sabbath) has been accused by multiple women of abusive behaviour in a public Facebook post by his ex-partner, and two other women.

Photo from Wikipedia​

Zak Smith appeared in the video series I Hit It With My Axe, and is known for the Playing D&D With Porn Stars blog. He has also written several RPG books, most recently for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, consulted on the D&D 5th Edition Player's Handbook, has won multiple ENnies, and recently worked for White Wolf. As yet, he hasn't made any public response to the accusations.

Since then, another ex-partner of Zak Smith, Vivka Grey, has publicly come forward with a further account of his conduct.

This isn't the first time that Zak Smith has been accused of inappropriate behaviour (language warning in that link). The Facebook post, which was posted overnight, has been shared widely on social media, and takes the form of an open letter (linked above; it makes for unpleasant reading, so please be aware of that if you choose to read it).

The industry has been reacting to the news. Amongst many others:

• DriveThruRPG has stated that it will sell no future works by Zak Smith.
• Veteran author Ken Hite has announced that he will not work with or share credits with Zak Smith again.
• The Gauntlet blog and podcast will no longer cover Zak S or his publications, or attend conventions that he is permitted at.
• WotC's Mike Mearls has noted that they have not engaged with Zak S since he worked for them as a consultant on 5E, although a previous statement from him in 2014 takes a different stance. However, D&D Beyond has now removed all the consultant credits (not just Zak S) from its online version of the book.
• UPDATE - WotC has now made a longer statement and will be removing Zak S from the credits of future printings of the Player's Handbook.
• Gen Con has tweeted a brief statement which says it has investigated, but the results are confidential. It has bene stated by various industry insiders that Zak S has, in fact, been banned from Gen Con, but the convention isn't saying so publicly.

I believe Mandy, Jennifer, Hannah, and Vivka. It must be terrifying to come forward like this. They have been put through horrible ordeals. I will not cover Zak’s work on this site, in my podcast, or elsewhere, and will not provide him with any kind of platform.

 

[monsmord]

The word at the fulcrum of this awards back-and-forth has become "merit:" "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward."

Like a lot of words, "merit," "good," and "worthy" are subjective. Yunru argues "merit" is a value independent of authorship, others disagree. Neither can be inherently right or wrong. But the dependent clause there is the kicker, especially "reward."

I'm reminded of Pete Rose (an older-generation major league baseball player, for those of a certain age or not of a certain country). Some feel his outstanding record warrants his inclusion in the Basebell Hall of Fame, others feel his behavior off the field (namely betting on baseball - while a player and manager) sullied the good name of the sport and he should remain disqualified. Depends on where your values lie, and what sort of message one wants to send. The Hall of Fame concluded that Rose's behavior was contrary to the spirit of the game, and for this he was not eligible for the rewards of membership. He'll continue to hold his records until they're broken, and no one disputes his expertise or accomplishments, but he will not be found in Cooperstown (unless he's visiting) because, as determined by the Hall of Fame, accomplishment is not the sole determiner when celebrating the best baseball has to offer. Had his gambling been limited to horses or poker, it wouldn't have been an issue; but betting on the sport (and on his team) while contributing to the sport is at best problematic, and at worst cheating: hence the ban.

It has been well documented for the past several years that Zak S has engaged in prolonged campaigns of bullying and harassment of gamers, content creators, and industry professionals, both personally and through directed proxies. He has even impersonated at least one industry professional online in an effort to discredit them. Even if you choose to ignore the many claims against him of misogyny, racism, homophobia, and transphobia, even if you dismiss the credible statements of victims of his personal non-gaming abuse and harassment... the fact that he has and continues to undermine the diversity and creative stable of the industry, and to sully the image of our hobby as an inclusive, welcoming community, should be enough to convince you that he should not be rewarded for his behavior, not by us. It's a black mark on the industry that we continue to say, "It doesn't matter how you treat my fellow gamers or publishers, or how negatively you impact the creative potential of others in my hobby, just write something I like and it'll be okay."

The gaming hobby and industry benefits, as most things do, from diversity, inclusion, and choice. We won't all agree on, well, pretty much anything, evidenced here. But all should be welcome - and safe - across demographics. To make that possible, the gaming community and content providers must abide by the Popper Paradox: to be tolerant, it must be intolerant of intolerance. Zak S and people like him are cancerous: turning off existing and potential gamers, rattling creators, limiting diversity, and generating divisiveness not because of any artistry, but because of his actions and choices IRL. The recent statement by The Gauntlet is a decisive and - to the point that gaming should be welcoming and safe - positive step in this direction.

The ENnies have an opportunity to say with force that behaviors contrary to the spirit of gaming can be neither rewarded nor encouraged, that part of being the "best" of anything in gaming is in improving and growing the hobby for all current and future gamers, that -isms and -phobias and harassment and bullying aren't virtues to celebrate or ignore, and will not be sanctioned or rewarded. We can encourage creative excellence AND discourage abhorrent behaviors; these are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Jester David]

Do you have any other imaginary things that Zak S might have done that we should be aware of? Imagine if Zak S was orange and was the President of the USA? Well we would definitely have to strip him of his Ennie awards then.

Yes, they were “imaginary”. They were hypothetical examples raised in an attempt to get past a potential logical block that many people have regarding sexual assault accusations to get to the crux of the issue: that if someone behaves negatively, they should lose social standing and boons awarded to them.
That being an “award wining gaming writer” includes some behavioral expectations. That to be able to claim the increases sales and prestige of listing the ENnies among your accolades, you need to refrain from performing societally unacceptable acts. That you need to meet a minimum requirement of “non a-hole” to qualify to win the award, with the bar set at the fairly low “don’t assault people.”

Because while the two examples I gave were hypothetical and thus imaginary, the three complaints raised in the news article and the many, many other examples of his poor behaviour online are NOT imaginary.

To do otherwise and let him keep the award is to knowingly and willingly allow a rapists to continue profit from the prestige of having said award. To not speak up and remain silent is to condone his actions, emboldens him and those like him.
It tells people that the industry is tolerant and accepting of abusers.

 

[Shasarak]

You are two are both presenting strawman arguments, though I cannot say for certain whether you are intentionally or unintentionally misreading me. I would certainly like to believe the latter so I will give you another chance to contextualize my statement. But here is a hint: Nixon's POTUS status is not the point.

So if Nixons POTUS status is not the point, what is your point?

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Yeah.

It would just be CRAZY if both the president and Zak S were held up to the standard of not sexually and otherwise assaulting and abusing women.

Imagine living in such a topsy-turvy world.

I would kindly request that you refrain from putting words into my mouth and then arguing against the strawman, thank you very much.

At no point did I suggest Zak Smith, if(!) he had been sexually harrassing/abusing anyone, should not be legally held accountable for it. And I would kindly ask you to refrain from making any statements that even could be read as implying such.
What I am saying is that determining the truth of such accusations usually involves a fairly elaborate process commonly called "trial" which is beyond the scope of my means and interest. And I suspect it's beyond at least beyond the means of anyone else in here as well.

My only interest here is the public reaction, specifically by anyone who lacks complete information and comes down on either side of the fence. It is both inappropriate and unbecoming.

 

[Yunru]

Yes, they were “imaginary”. They were hypothetical examples raised in an attempt to get past a potential logical block that many people have regarding sexual assault accusations to get to the crux of the issue: that if someone behaves negatively, they should lose social standing and boons awarded to them.
That being an “award wining gaming writer” includes some behavioral expectations. That to be able to claim the increases sales and prestige of listing the ENnies among your accolades, you need to refrain from performing societally unacceptable acts. That you need to meet a minimum requirement of “non a-hole” to qualify to win the award, with the bar set at the fairly low “don’t assault people.”

Because while the two examples I gave were hypothetical and thus imaginary, the three complaints raised in the news article and the many, many other examples of his poor behaviour online are NOT imaginary.

To do otherwise and let him keep the award is to knowingly and willingly allow a rapists to continue profit from the prestige of having said award. To not speak up and remain silent is to condone his actions, emboldens him and those like him.
It tells people that the industry is tolerant and accepting of abusers.

It is a false dictomy to say that a lck of active denail is a sign of tacit approval, and a sign of arguing in bad faith.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I would kindly request that you refrain from putting words into my mouth and then arguing against the strawman, thank you very much.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was taking your statement regarding standards people should be held to and extending it's logic into the point at hand.

Funny how the scenario was appropriate to both parties, no?

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

You are two are both presenting strawman arguments, though I cannot say for certain whether you are intentionally or unintentionally misreading me. I would certainly like to believe the latter so I will give you another chance to contextualize my statement. But here is a hint: Nixon's POTUS status is not the point.

You're right. The main point in all of this is that absent of clear evidence, it's impossible to come down on either side.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think public-vote awards should be rescinded, no matter how scuzzy the person. If Vox Day or Varg Vikernes wins an ENnie, it should stand IMO. It says nothing about their moral character.

As for the OP, I feel sorry for Mandy, and I expect she had good reasons for posting when she did. I appreciate that she feels bad about having facilitated the abuse of others. I don't plan to buy any more of Zak's stuff.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

It is a false dictomy to say that a lck of active denail is a sign of tacit approval, and a sign of arguing in bad faith.

Nope.

Not at all.

Not remotely.

Because the party that Jester David is talking about is the party responsible for handing out the award in the first place, not you, I, or anyone else. What they say (or don't say) has a very specific, relevant context.

And any reasonable person would not have even bothered arguing otherwise because this fact should be obvious to people who, you know, interact with other people.

 

[S'mon]

You're right. The main point in all of this is that absent of clear evidence, it's impossible to come down on either side.

Well you have three people making a claim. They could all be lying due to some unrelated and unknown matter, but probably they're not. You don't have to apply criminal court standards of beyond
reasonable doubt in forming an opinion whether something is probably true.