TSR Running list of potential problematic issues in TSR era DnD

[Sacrosanct]

How is this going to generate actual good things happening, versus the destruction or censorship of old material?

I'm actually not a fan of the cheesecake/beefcake for religious and modesty reasons.... but if you want to cancel beefcake and cheesecake, you will have to go back a few hundred years to some of the best artists of all history and start putting clothes on their work. Artists like to show muscles and curves as a way of displaying their mastery of their art, or something like that. It's certainly harder to draw a barbarian (either gender) with 20d6 individual muscles on display than it is a person in featureless plate armor.

No one is destroying or censoring older artwork. This is from a go forward perspective.
Also, as an artist myself over the past 40 years, it is not significantly harder to draw anatomy than armor. Both are as low detailed as you want, and both can be very complex if you want. It’s preference. No artist I know insists on drawing anatomy as a way to display their mastery unless their specialty as an artist is anatomy. What an odd thing to say.

 

[teitan]

Running lists like this is just looking for trouble. It's the equivalent of book burning really. Things should be taken with the time in which they occurred and accepted instead of looking for issues with them. Instead focus on not using those elements in your own material than looking at the past and calling what was then innocuous and, like in D&D, harmless, and calling it problematic. It invites accusations of racism, sexism etc. where in the time these terms had a different meaning. Looking for it and pointing it out is an entirely negative approach to progress.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Running lists like this is just looking for trouble. It's the equivalent of book burning really. Things should be taken with the time in which they occurred and accepted instead of looking for issues with them. Instead focus on not using those elements in your own material than looking at the past and calling what was then innocuous and, like in D&D, harmless, and calling it problematic. It invites accusations of racism, sexism etc. where in the time these terms had a different meaning. Looking for it and pointing it out is an entirely negative approach to progress.

Again, no one is burning books. Stop with the hyperbole please. I had two rules I asked. Apparently that was too much to ask....

you could have just ignored this thread...

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Running lists like this is just looking for trouble. It's the equivalent of book burning really. Things should be taken with the time in which they occurred and accepted instead of looking for issues with them. Instead focus on not using those elements in your own material than looking at the past and calling what was then innocuous and, like in D&D, harmless, and calling it problematic. It invites accusations of racism, sexism etc. where in the time these terms had a different meaning. Looking for it and pointing it out is an entirely negative approach to progress.

Innocuous to whom exactly?

Also I'm pretty sure that the meanings of racism and sexism to the people affected by them have remained fairly consistent.

This is like the people who defend HP Lovecraft's virulent racism by saying he was a product of his time. NO, even for his time he was a virulent racist. Because there were other people at that time who knew that it was vile and wrong. D&D had problematic parts. To ignore it because it seemed harmless to a particular demographic is to diminish the effects that it may have had on other demographics. It's like the people who insist that systematic racism isnt a real problem when they are the least likely to be affected by systematic racism. Instead of diminishing it maybe try and show some empathy. Or at the bare minimum not show up to kick sand in the eyes of people who actually want to discuss this.

 

[MGibster]

When you look at the harlot table out of context it seems silly. But if you're creating a table of random encounters in an urban area I don't think it's unreasonable to include prostitutes. Open up Marvel's Savage Sword of Conan issue #1 and our titular hero encounters harlots within the first 1-2 pages (brazen strumpets or saucy tarts as I recall). When you place the harlot table in it's proper context, random encounters of people you might find in a city, it doesn't seem out of place or unreasonable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

When you look at the harlot table out of context it seems silly. But if you're creating a table of random encounters in an urban area I don't think it's unreasonable to include prostitutes. Open up Marvel's Savage Sword of Conan issue #1 and our titular hero encounters harlots within the first 1-2 pages (brazen strumpets or saucy tarts as I recall). When you place the harlot table in it's proper context, random encounters of people you might find in a city, it doesn't seem out of place or unreasonable.

Two things. First, it WAS silly even at the time, and quickly realized as such almost immediately and thus removed later. Largely because while yes, one could encounter a sex worker in a city, it was unusually robust for an entry, and the implication that sex workers are largely liars and thieves is problematic.

Secondly, the point of this thread was explicitly NOT to judge the game through the eyes of 1979 gamers, but to identify which things of the game back then would be problematic to include in games going forward.

All these posts defending how things were back then completely miss the point. No offense, and not directed at you specifically.

 

[MGibster]

This is like the people who defend HP Lovecraft's virulent racism by saying he was a product of his time. NO, even for his time he was a virulent racist. Because there were other people at that time who knew that it was vile and wrong.

And there were a great many who would have agreed with Lovecraft. During his lifetime, lynchings were a common occurrence, the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan had millions of members and was a mainstream organization, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act of 1915 just one in a many of a series of laws designed to keep Asians (Chinese mostly) out of the United States, and there was a strong nativist undercurrent as many Americans didn't want southern or eastern European immigrants. I don't say any of this to defend Lovecraft's beliefs, they were abhorrent, but such abhorrent beliefs were not uncommon in the United States in the early 20th century. (And of course there were plenty of Americans who actively worked against those abhorrent ideals held by their fellow countrymen.)

To ignore it because it seemed harmless to a particular demographic is to diminish the effects that it may have had on other demographics. It's like the people who insist that systematic racism isnt a real problem when they are the least likely to be affected by systematic racism. Instead of diminishing it maybe try and show some empathy.

I don't think it needs to be ignored. But is there a point to this besides pointing and feeling good about how much better we are today? There's probably an interesting discussion to be had about why these things were acceptable in the 70s and early 80s when they're not now.

 

[Zardnaar]

Two things. First, it WAS silly even at the time, and quickly realized as such almost immediately and thus removed later. Largely because while yes, one could encounter a sex worker in a city, it was unusually robust for an entry, and the implication that sex workers are largely liars and thieves is problematic.

Secondly, the point of this thread was explicitly NOT to judge the game through the eyes of 1979 gamers, but to identify which things of the game back then would be problematic to include in games going forward.

All these posts defending how things were back then completely miss the point. No offense, and not directed at you specifically.

What's the point then virtue signaling? Most of this stuff got purged years ago and isn't included in modern OSR games either.

Hell most OSR games are based off B/X and OD&D.

Also it was a product of its time. Not defending it but that's why it was printed that way.

Go read a housewife book from the 60's. Product of its time.

 

[MGibster]

Two things. First, it WAS silly even at the time, and quickly realized as such almost immediately and thus removed later. Largely because while yes, one could encounter a sex worker in a city, it was unusually robust for an entry, and the implication that sex workers are largely liars and thieves is problematic.

Where did you get the impression that it said they were largely liars and thieves? There's a 30% they might have useful information, 15% chance they might lie about having useful information, and a 20% chance they might be working with a thief. Math isn't my strongest subject but they're 80% likely not be thieves and 85% likely not to be liars.

Secondly, the point of this thread was explicitly NOT to judge the game through the eyes of 1979 gamers, but to identify which things of the game back then would be problematic to include in games going forward.

Are we really worried someone is going to bring the harlot table back?

 

[Sacrosanct]

What's the point then virtue signaling? Most of this stuff got purged years ago and isn't included in modern OSR games either.

Hell most OSR games are based off B/X and OD&D.

Also it was a product of its time. Not defending it but that's why it was printed that way.

Go read a housewife book from the 60's. Product of its time.

Reread my first post. There you will find the point. And it’s not virtual signaling.