What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Micah Sweet]

If we replace the somewhat derogatory-sounding "Disney-fication" with "recognition that some of the presentation was off-putting to parts of the market we want in the game," we get a better picture of what's going on.

To be fair, your version is leaning hard in the other direction.

 

[Maxperson]

Look, we can go around and around about this all you like.

The fact is, when D&D stopped, or at least greatly reduced, the use of gratuitous sexualized art - the Caldwells, the Parkinsons', the Elmore's, stuff like that, and started leaning more heavily into more diverse representations, we see a growth in the demographics of gamers. From the late 90's, we have about 20% of D&D gamers being female. Now, we've got around 40%, and, also a heck of a lot larger number of gamers as well, meaning that not only has the diversity grown by nearly double, but, the straight up numbers must have been even more.

THIS is what happens when we reduce the amount of gratuitous inclusion of controversial elements. When we stop just putting in slavery cos we need a reason for bad guys to be bad in need of killing, and actually make slavery the subject, or when we stop putting images of half naked women on the cover of the DMG,

To me, the equation is simple. Which is more important, people or tropes? Is it more important to keep some trope in the game or is it more important to make the game feel more welcoming to more people? To me, I'm always going to come down on the side of more people. If that means I have to give up on some setting or some trope, it's worth it. No setting or theme or trope or art or anything else is ever worth making people not feel welcome in the hobby.

I don't think you can really attribute the growth of the number of women playing the game to the reduction of picture sexiness. Correlation does not imply causation. In addition to the removal/reduction of sexy pictures we also have D&D entering the main stream in multiple ways. Critical role, D&D appearing in TV shows, movies, a growing number of tables worldwide and a simplicity of the rules as a non-exhaustive list.

Did the removal/reduction of those pieces of D&D art help? Maybe. And maybe not. Perhaps it's the other factors that have increased diversity.

Now I'm not arguing for the return of chainmail bikinis. I happen to like more realistic artwork better, but I don't think it's correct to state as a matter of fact that the removal of that artwork is the reason that diversity increased. Similarly, it's also not correct to point at the removal of pictures and increase in diversity as a reason to remove slavery. Before you can do that you need to first prove that the removal of the sexy pictures is the reason for at a minimum a significant amount of the diversity increase.

 

[Kariotis]

Causation, no. But definitely a connection. As mentioned earlier, there were plenty of women who were really turned off by the depiction of women in these books and actively chose not to play the games because of that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Causation, no. But definitely a connection.

I'm pretty sure that's what correlation does not equal causation"  means.

 

[Kariotis]

I'm pretty sure that's what correlation does not equal causation"  means.

Not quite. It's part of it. The point I was making was that for quite some people it was a causation. For others it was more generally connected to their dislike of TTRPGs, or played no part at all.

 

[Bagpuss]

Similarly, it's also not correct to point at the removal of pictures and increase in diversity as a reason to remove slavery. Before you can do that you need to first prove that the removal of the sexy pictures is the reason for at a minimum a significant amount of the diversity increase.

Nah, I think that's too big an ask. You aren't going to be able to prove that, and there are some valid reasons for generally not featuring slavery.

I'm all for it not being part of a core setting like Forgotten Realms, even okay for companies like Paizo deciding not to have it as a plot device anymore. Or WotC deciding not to release Dark Sun because of it, I'd rather than than them release a sanitised Dark Sun, and I can appreciate WotC want to generally aim at causing least offense.

 

[Voadam]

I am not that familiar with the 5e SCAG for the Forgotten Realms. Is slavery not mentioned?

It was a fairly big issue in 1e Forgotten Realms with Thay, Mulhorand, Unther, and the rest of The South; Drow; Zhentarim slave trading; and minor mentions about Northmen slaving in the Moonshaes and also in different areas pirates and orcs and Zhentarim and a resurgence in slavers in the Moonsea all mentioned in the 1e Campaign Setting boxed set.

 

[Maxperson]

Causation, no. But definitely a connection. As mentioned earlier, there were plenty of women who were really turned off by the depiction of women in these books and actively chose not to play the games because of that.

Sure. And I've gamed with a number of women going back to 1e who liked them. Not all of them, but more than a few. Can you show that more women disliked those pictures than liked them, and if so that it was a significantly greater number?

 

[Umbran]

I think that misses the wider discussion ongoing now for years

I think the wider discussion ongoing now for years generally misses this highly relevant point. So at least there is symmetry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not that familiar with the 5e SCAG for the Forgotten Realms. Is slavery not mentioned?

It was a fairly big issue in 1e Forgotten Realms with Thay, Mulhorand, Unther, and the rest of The South; Drow; Zhentarim slave trading; and minor mentions about Northmen slaving in the Moonshaes and also in different areas pirates and orcs and Zhentarim and a resurgence in slavers in the Moonsea all mentioned in the 1e Campaign Setting boxed set.

The SCAG is pre-Tasha's. Whole new world since then at WotC, and the past is being swept away.