What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[billd91]

Um, no. When engaging for play, I discuss the possibilities for a game with every player before even finalizing the sessions. I do not include anything anyone is uncomfortable with, let alone offended by.
None of this means I would like publishers to shy away from content. I simply don't use it where inappropriate.

If you're waiting for the time when prospective players are at the table to thrown a bone to inclusivity concerns, you're already too late. This is about people who bounce off the hobby because people in it make it unapproachable by the content they prominently include or the stridency with which they defend said content and display they have a deaf ear to anybody else's experiences and point of view.

WotC, at least, is coming around to their position in the hobby with respect to problematic content in Dark Sun. They're trying to open the gates wider and draw in more people rather than chill the inclusive approach with a product so rife with hot button issues.

 

[Bagpuss]

Are gamers calling it "icky"? That's what I'm concerned with and that's what was brought up as a counterpoint to the slavery discussion is it happening in actual games...

As I mentioned earlier plenty of folks on this board in the past have expressed not wanting to see any expression of sexuality in RP gaming. So yes it is "icky" for some people, doesn't mean they feel they are being kicked out the hobby.

Again are these concerns that are happening with gamers in games or are we now ok with citing the hypothetical as opposed to calling for real instances?

Yes there are people that don't think games like Thirsty Sword Lesbians should be part of the hobby, and I oppose that view as much as I oppose the idea that Dark Sun needs the slavery removed from it to be a suitable setting. It's about the principle of not deciding what content other people get to consume and enjoy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are gamers calling it "icky"? That's what I'm concerned with and that's what was brought up as a counterpoint to the slavery discussion is it happening in actual games...

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Again are these concerns that are happening with gamers in games or are we now ok with citing the hypothetical as opposed to calling for real instances?

Again, yes. Non-theoretical. It ranges from snippy prudish-ness to outright censorious attitudes to even a few people claiming it's somehow bigoted against Ace people to have games which include sexuality (like Apocalypse World, for example). That last one is, I would suggest, a hell of a red herring because most asexual people would I think strenuously disagree - but there are people out there with that viewpoint (and some of them claim to be Ace, and I can't really critique/explore whether that's an accurate self-description).

I would make a point of difference between people who are simply uncomfortable with sexuality in specific games they're actually playing, and would prefer to X-card it or rule it out in Session 0, because those people don't tend to be objecting to games including sexual elements per se, just it's something at the table. These people are objecting more to games even including sexual elements - including games they're not playing.

EDIT - I'd say the "objecting to games merely existing" thing is basically what @billd91 seems to be suggesting is cool, because he's saying it's not good enough to X-card or session 0 out topics.

I think it's a pretty dangerous game on their part because many of them identify as LGBTQ+ and unfortunately their rhetoric accidentally aligns pretty well with certain current right-wing attempts to label the mere admission of the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals as "sexual" and "inappropriate".

This is about people who bounce off the hobby because people in it make it unapproachable by the content they prominently include or the stridency with which they defend said content and display they have a deaf ear to anybody else's experiences and point of view.

This seems deeply lacking in self-awareness lol. Especially in the context of your earlier comments re: empathy and so on.

 

[Thourne]

If you're waiting for the time when prospective players are at the table to thrown a bone to inclusivity concerns, you're already too late. This is about people who bounce off the hobby because people in it make it unapproachable by the content they prominently include or the stridency with which they defend said content and display they have a deaf ear to anybody else's experiences and point of view.

WotC, at least, is coming around to their position in the hobby with respect to problematic content in Dark Sun. They're trying to open the gates wider and draw in more people rather than chill the inclusive approach with a product so rife with hot button issues.

By "engaging for play" i am talking about when speaking to potential new players and not my regulars. Onboarding as it were. So no I am not waiting to talk to my table. I am seeing what someone wants at one and going from there. I hope that clarifies.

 

[Bedrockgames]

WotC, at least, is coming around to their position in the hobby with respect to problematic content in Dark Sun. They're trying to open the gates wider and draw in more people rather than chill the inclusive approach with a product so rife with hot button issues.

I think there is a sizeable chance they are talking about these issues to distract from the OGL fiasco, because they know it creates a dynamic where people will defend them as a company (let’s recall just how unpopular they were but a month ago)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think there is a sizeable chance they are talking about these issues to distract from the OGL fiasco, because they know it creates a dynamic where people will defend them as a company (let’s recall just how unpopular they were but a month ago)

I personally doubt it's as machiavellian as that. It's more like he made a casual comment re: Dark Sun and we're the ones who are more concerned about, in part because some of us (like me) thought Dark Sun was both fixable (by removing and replacing slavery, Muls, etc) and inevitable. That said I do think the not choosing Dark Sun was about more than slavery - which could be removed - I think two of the "controversial issues" that got it canned was that it's about man-made climate change and massive societal inequalities, which are RL issues - and could not be removed.

 

[Imaro]

I think there is a sizeable chance they are talking about these issues to distract from the OGL fiasco, because they know it creates a dynamic where people will defend them as a company (let’s recall just how unpopular they were but a month ago)

They've been headed in this direction since before the OGL issues...

 

[Bedrockgames]

They've been headed in this direction since before the OGL issues...

But they also used those issues to justify changing the OGL (I think because they understand it can distract people from other things—-I.e. they needed a clause under the guise that they wanted to stop people from making offensive content). I am sure there are people on creative side who believe in this, but I am a lot more skeptical of the cooperate side

 

[AnotherGuy]

That said I do think the not choosing Dark Sun was about more than slavery - which could be removed - I think two of the "controversial issues" that got it canned was that it's about man-made climate change and massive societal inequalities, which are RL issues - and could not be removed.

That sounds so absurd, especially when we're "celebrating" celebrities with awards, fashion and Keep Up with them and their scandals and exploits whether it be flying to Epstein's island, jet-setting to Davos or rocketing out to space but we worried about in-game societal inequality.

I don't mean you're incorrect in your assumption only in that if it is true, it's mind-boggling to me.

 

[MGibster]

I personally doubt it's as machiavellian as that. It's more like he made a casual comment re: Dark Sun and we're the ones who are more concerned about, in part because some of us (like me) thought Dark Sun was both fixable (by removing and replacing slavery, Muls, etc) and inevitable.

I'm with you on this one. WotC is making a rational decision based on current market conditions.