What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Bedrockgames]

No, the question to me is a basic one. If a book is released that I take issue with. Singular book, Dark Sun, with all its problematic history and content, as is, does that mean people are being excluded from the entire hobby, or do they skip the book just as I have skipped on most things post Tashas?

I mean the answer should be obvious. No.

I think the argument that such content is exclusionary is being vastly overplayed here. People like all sorts of things. Sometimes people are fascinated by the historical wrongs they family suffered and seek it in media. People are also smart enough to understand the distinction between things like American style race based slavery and ancient world slavery. This attitude that they can’t handle it, is I think a little paternalistic

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't believe that a story element being considered by some "overused" is sufficient reason to claim it should no longer be in published products, particularly ones in which it has already existed.

There are plenty of reasons already given as to why those elements are harmful, that it is overused is just the topper.

Again, make a new story with the elements you want and without the elements you don't. An actual,  new setting.

Again, if it doesn't have any use in the current setting, why not change it? This is such a bad argument. Making new settings is nice, but generally costly and not going to happen with major game publishers. I'm fairly sure we all know this, and thus saying "Just make a new setting!" is basically an attempt to keep a bad status quo. It's much easier to change what we have, especially when we aren't using it anyways.

 

[Scribe]

Making new settings is nice, but generally costly and not going to happen with major game publishers.

I just can't accept this. If Wizard's is so bad at their job with the financial backing they have that they cannot make new settings, then they need to rebuild.

Riding on the work of the past is certainly a thing these days, but its simply ruining IP's left and right.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are plenty of reasons already given as to why those elements are harmful, that it is overused is just the topper.



Again, if it doesn't have any use in the current setting, why not change it? This is such a bad argument. Making new settings is nice, but generally costly and not going to happen with major game publishers. I'm fairly sure we all know this, and thus saying "Just make a new setting!" is basically an attempt to keep a bad status quo. It's much easier to change what we have, especially when we aren't using it anyways.

Because it  does have a use. Many posters have said so, you just don't agree.

just because major game publishers like WotC are afraid of creating new game settings on their own doesn't mean it's not a better idea for exploring places where controversial subjects don't exist. That's on them and their stockholders.

There's nothing bad faith about my argument. Its just not one you accept. And that's fine. People are still allowed to have different opinions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just can't accept this. If Wizard's is so bad at their job with the financial backing they have that they cannot make new settings, then they need to rebuild.

Riding on the work of the past is certainly a thing these days, but its simply ruining IP's left and right.

Yup. Its all fear. They would be better off scrapping all of it and making a new game with a new setting.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think the argument that such content is exclusionary is being vastly overplayed here. People like all sorts of things. Sometimes people are fascinated by the historical wrongs they family suffered and seek it in media. People are also smart enough to understand the distinction between things like American style race based slavery and ancient world slavery. This attitude that they can’t handle it, is I think a little paternalistic

On the other side, people who care about these things often don't like seeing them used gratuitously. Imagine saying the same sort of stuff for a topic like "rape". Acting like "it's a little paternalistic" misses that one of the people in this thread is literally a minority asking this.

I just can't accept this. If Wizard's is so bad at their job, with the financial backing they have, that they cannot make new settings, then they need to rebuild.

Riding on the work of the past is certainly a thing these days, but its simply ruining IP's left and right.

They aren't going to make new settings because it is a costly risk. That's not even a values judgment but a pretty easy business decision. It'd be nicer to have a bunch of different settings, but part of the problem we already have is that they have a bunch of settings and don't know what the hell to do with them.

If all were right with the world then we'd see them contract settings out to smaller publishers, grow the brand through such things and see which ones catch on so that they can use them on their own. But businesses are better at hording nowadays than using what they have.

Because it  does have a use. Many posters have said so, you just don't agree.

just because major game publishers like WotC are afraid of creating new game settings on their own doesn't mean it's not a better idea for exploring places where controversial subjects don't exist. That's on them and their stockholders.

There's nothing bad faith about my argument. Its just not one you accept. And that's fine. People are still allowed to have different opinions.

No, it's bad faith just like saying that adhering to the purity of the setting requires not changing slavery in the Realms. Fiction gets changed all the time, things get added, removed, etc... it's how things evolve over time. Acting like we need to create a new setting rather than remove a few thing for which the only reason keeping them was adherence to the previous fiction comes off incredibly disingenuous.

 

[Scribe]

They aren't going to make new settings because it is a costly risk. That's not even a values judgment but a pretty easy business decision. It'd be nicer to have a bunch of different settings, but part of the problem we already have is that they have a bunch of settings and don't know what the hell to do with them.

Again, this just points to Wizards (or Hasbro) failure of vision. Their profits are vast. Yes there's going to be a contraction coming, but honestly what are they paid for?

Radiant Citadel is a thing. Clearly they are willing to put some effort into new content.

I mean its all just whatever at this point I guess, but my point remains. A 'controversial' book is no more showing the door to the entire hobby, than the multiple tepid works Wizards has put out, is showing me the door to the hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it's bad faith just like saying that adhering to the purity of the setting requires not changing slavery in the Realms. Fiction gets changed all the time, things get added, removed, etc... it's how things evolve over time. Acting like we need to create a new setting rather than remove a few thing for which the only reason keeping them was adherence to the previous fiction comes off incredibly disingenuous.

I'm sorry you think so.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Again, this just points to Wizards (or Hasbro) failure of vision. Their profits are vast. Yes there's going to be a contraction coming, but honestly what are they paid for?

Radiant Citadel is a thing. Clearly they are willing to put some effort into new content.

I mean its all just whatever at this point I guess, but my point remains. A 'controversial' book is no more showing the door to the entire hobby, than the multiple tepid works Wizards has put out, is showing me the door to the hobby.

Dude, you literally said you didn't buy it because of the advertisements and colors. We have people quoting other people's tweet memes in the other thread about how "saccharine" it is. I don't like it, but it's hard to argue against it, too.

 

[Scribe]

Dude, you literally said you didn't buy it because of the advertisements and colors. We have people quoting other people's tweet memes in the other thread about how "saccharine" it is. I don't like it, but it's hard to argue against it, too.

Exactly though. Personal choice. I am not being excluded from the hobby. I'm choosing to put my dollar's and time elsewhere.

Personal choice.