What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Is the assumption then that you are publishing for an audience in which there is bound to be  someone who is allergic?

No, it's recognizing the common "allergens" that have been a part of what you're writing and doing your best to avoid them. No one demands perfection. We are suggesting thought and care to avoid harming vulnerable groups.

 

[Hussar]

It comes up significantly less often than giant spiders, and you don't hear arachnophobes claiming they aren't welcome, or that spiders shouldn't appear in any RPG product. If you have a arachnophobe at your table as a GM you just make modifications, or don't pick a scenario where they feature heavily, you don't try and get them removed from every product because they are still a useful and important story element for most people.

So you feel that the issue of slavery is comparable to arachnophobia?

You might want to rethink that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Answering the thread's question - I think eliminating something like slavery within a game that draws its inspiration from a period of humanity's history where slavery existed, would likely influence our storytelling and world-building to lose an aspect of gravitas and authenticity. That is how I feel.

The question then becomes, how far does one go with controversial content to capture that gravitas and authenticity?

I'm not yet confident with my answer for the above question so I'm just putting it out there.

 

[Bagpuss]

So you feel that the issue of slavery is comparable to arachnophobia?

You might want to rethink that.

They aren't comparable as a societal ill, no. But in that it is something that a person objects to in an RPG, they are.

If someone is suffers from severe arachnophobia I think we can agree mention of them can cause harm in the form of panic attacks, and other physical reactions. The percentage of people that have actually been in slavery so are likely to get PTS from or other real harm from it being mentioned in an RPG is significantly less I think you will find.

The actions you can take as a GM to mitigated that harm is also comparable.

 

[Kaodi]

To go back to a comment I made in another thread about Dark Sun: What makes something into Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Erotic Fantasy material; unmentionable? Like the events that turned Last Wall into the Gravelands seem to be acceptable material but in real world terms that was a straight up extermination-type genocide of a recognizable nation, a real world crime of the highest order. Objective badness does not seem to be a sufficient condition for what must be avoided, nor does it seem to be a reliable guide to what is triggering.

 

[Cadence]

Answering the thread's question - I think eliminating something like slavery within a game that draws its inspiration from a period of humanity's history where slavery existed, would likely influence our storytelling and world-building to lose an aspect of gravitas and authenticity. That is how I feel.

The question then becomes, how far does one go with controversial content to capture that gravitas and authenticity?

I'm now curious about what things were big IRL that feel like they don't get highlighted in games: huge numbers of differing regional languages and dialects, seemingly random disease outbreaks with no cure that wiped out huge percents of the populations large and small (plague, smallpox, typhoid), significantly fewer rights for non-land owners, significantly fewer rights for non-citizens, significantly fewer rights for women, long recovery times and massive death rates from injuries, forced religious devotion at some level, etc...

Is it because modern gaming culture as a whole has decided they weren't fun? Is it that those aren't viewed by many as the exciting narrative parts of history classes? Is it that magic exists in the games and not IRL?

 

[Justice and Rule]

They aren't comparable as a societal ill, no. But in that it is something that a person objects to in an RPG, they are.

Yeah, but the point is that because they are not comparable as societal ills, they carry very different weights. The comparison falls apart because people don't treat slavery the same way they do someone's individual phobia because the phobia is, by its nature, often individualized to the person while something like slavery has had long-reaching effects on our society and certain groups of people in particular. It's an "Apples and iPods" sort of comparison.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm now curious about what things were big IRL that feel like they don't get highlighted in games: huge numbers of differing regional languages and dialects, seemingly random disease outbreaks with no cure that wiped out huge percents of the populations large and small (plague, smallpox, typhoid), significantly fewer rights for non-land owners, significantly fewer rights for non-citizens, significantly fewer rights for women, long recovery times and massive death rates from injuries, forced religious devotion at some level, etc...

Is it because modern gaming culture as a whole has decided they weren't fun? Is it that those aren't viewed by many as the exciting narrative parts of history classes? Is it that magic exists in the games and not IRL?

You raise a valid point and it is likely a combination of factors, like the ones you've listed, and not one factor alone.
Speaking for myself

• I'd love for languages & dialects to matter - particularly within the social pillar. And you can see that within Pandius where various Mystaran-fans contribute articles on linguistics and the evolvement of languages within that setting.
• I'd love for plagues to matter - and not be handwaved so easily with a paladin's class feature or a cleric's spell
• I'd love for famine to matter - and not be handwaved so easily with a few druidic spells
• Long recovery times exist - and I'm guessing many have changed Rest and Recovery within their D&D games
• Forced religion devotion is an interesting one, I've only slightly dabbled with this - but there could be some great stories one could create out of something like this. D&D has its fair share of cultists and zealots, so an aspect of that has been covered.
• Women's rights - dealing with this issue, to me, seems unfun within the context of D&D. Although we do have Drow societies which flips this and yet that seems fun to me.
• Fewer rights for common folk, non-land owners - we (big We) don't focus on this, although overthrowing despots and bad rulers is a trope within D&D. I know I'm going back to Mystara again, but that is my go-to setting - in the Duchy of Karameikos you have the Thyatian - Traladaran issue (colonialism essentially if you're not familiar). The ideas for adventurers to play characters within the underground Traladaran movement to overthrow or cause chaos within the Duchy are very enjoyable. Particularly because the Thyatian-born Duke is also painted as a good guy by the setting. So adventurers are good, as is the one they want to overthrow, Duke Stefan, who is desperately trying to keep it all together and gain independence from Thyatis, but has bad elements within his camp and jealous enemies within Thyatis who could be funding the underground Traladaran operation. This to me is gold.

Good list!

EDIT: Here is a few more - The influence and power of political and trade guilds, coinage, conscription, taxation.
You will see fan-written articles on all these things and more at the Pandius.

 

[MGibster]

It can mean any of those, so why not err on the side of caution.

I want to be clear here, I'm not talking about what's going on at an individual table. I'm thinking of books produced for a mass market. And for those who produce such books, it's not their responsibility to ensure every reader is safely ensconced in their zone of comfort. And if someone is prone to being triggered, it's their responsibility to figure out how to best deal with whatever it is that triggers them because none of us can depend on the whole world to cater to our wants and desires. I used to game with someone with a fairly severe case of arachnophobia and when I found out I just didn't use spiders. It doesn't follow though that any game product with spiders shouldn't exist because it might trigger someone.

It's like with allergens. Some people who are allergic to a food may eat it and get a stomach ache for an hour or two, while others may go into anaphylactic shock and possibly die. If you're making food for someone who's allergic, you avoid the allergen altogether; you don't add it because hey, it may just make them uncomfortable.

If I'm making food for someone I know is allergic to something I'm going to avoid those allergens. But despite the fact that people with severe allergies to shellfish and peanuts are out there, I can still go to a restaurant and order some Thai peanut shrimp.

 

[MGibster]

So by telling me “don’t like it, don’t buy it” you’re basically telling me I’m not welcome in the hobby.

Not every game is for everybody. Thirsty Sword Lesbians looks like a fantastic game, but I have no interest in it. I am not the target audience and that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of games that aren't for me. And quite frankly, if "the hobby" is D&D, then that's a big, big problem. There are other games. Try one of those.

 

[Fenris-77]

Some people seem to think that every TTRPG book book should be written specifically for them, rather for any of the wealth of possible readers with a whole world of possible tastes and interests who aren't them. Selfish might be the right word, IDK.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Nobody is stopping you from publishing whatever you like. If the market does not support your product - for whatever reason - it's not the market's problem, it's yours. If you receive lots of criticism of your product, one reason might be that lots of people have taken offense at it.
...
It seems to me that this nebulous "we" to which you refer is really about big publishers like WotC and Paizo not including slavery in their products. No-one is stopping you from including it in your games. No-one is stopping you from incorporating material from third-party publishers which describe it. No-one is stopping you from publishing a product which includes it.

I find this gets lost in these discussions quite a bit. No one is actually stopping anyone else from doing anything. They do not have that power. The only RPG publisher that has been 'stopped' from publishing something in recent memory is NuTSR, and that has to do with whether they have the rights to the material in question, not whether what they want to put out might offend anyone. In the rest of the cases, it is people choosing whether or not to buy products based on whether they would find them appealing (sharing that information with those around them, including the publishers), and publishers deciding what to produce based on what products they believe will find a market. That is the systems of the free market and free market of ideas working as intended and those of us with liberty- and free speech and personal responsibility ideals should be cherishing that it is happening.

No one has to use every tool all the time (and of course they probably shouldn't). But if I can't use a tool because the entire weight of the internet will fall on me if I dare, that's a problem.

How? If the people who would be interested in your product know it exists (perhaps because of the signal-boost of someone who isn't interested making that clear) and can purchase the product, you are not being hurt. People saying they do not like what you say or do or produce is not you being picked on and is not you being censored.

who gets to veto what.

You can't be banning something

In this context, I think "we should be allowed" is a fairly reasonable phrasing.

Art isn't only allowed to

Please tell me you don't mean it when you effectively tell me a publisher must meet a certain threshold for some "value" or they shouldn't publish works containing any bad stuff.

These terms (veto, banning, allowed) are part of this issue. Unless someone is actually preventing you from doing something (which is not the same as them declining to purchase a product they are under no obligation to buy), no one is being disallowed from doing something, nor is anything being vetoed or banned. There is no entity in gaming (an inherently optional and buy-in based endeavor) who has that power.

The term 'should(/n't)' in these discussions is a minefield, because people are going to use it to mean everything from 'I wish someone would ensure/prevent this from happening' to 'I am opining that this is highly advisable/inadvisable.' Without further clarity, it's effectively meaningless.

 

[Umbran]

In this context, I think "we should be allowed" is a fairly reasonable phrasing.

Nowhere did I say it was "unreasonable". I asked what it meant, specifically. What does it look like if you are "not allowed"? What is the fear here? There seem to be no commitment to what this is actually about.

You, however, changed the subject.

No. Lacking an answer to what it means to be "allowed", I moved forward with an assumed one that seemed common enough in similar discussions to be a reasonable guess.

You said "if you want to publish such stuff, you need to do a really good job of it, so that the value of its inclusion clearly outweighs the issues"

Yes. Since there is no legal impediment to publishing such, I moved along with "allowed" being about the criticism or pushback - you are "allowed" if the public doesn't give you a lot of criticism or pushback on the work.

And then, I believe my assertion holds - if you don't want pushback, it needs to be pretty darned good stuff. This should not be controversial.

To which my reply is: no, I obviously don't. Art isn't only allowed to be published if it is "valuable" to some external evaluation agency. Every single time that path was taken it ended very badly indeed, as even a cursory glance in any history book will tell you...

Again, this is why I asked what "allow" meant. What do you expect to happen if you are "allowed" or "not allowed"? Because, this right here reads like you mean an actual legal impediment, of which there is exactly none at this time in the US, at least.

And by "you" I really mean "publishers". As far as I am aware, this is a theoretical argument for you, personally.

A much better approach would be to say: if you Umbran feel a particular piece of artistic expression, such as a novel, or a movie, or a roleplaying adventure, is nasty, horrific, denigratory or just plain uninteresting, then don't buy it or play it. Simple as that.

You realize that criticism is as much expression as artwork is, right? So, if you are allowed to publish it (for whatever meaning of the word), others should be allowed to criticize it. A position that is, in effect, "I get to talk, but if you don't like it you should not consume it and shut up," is not an option.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nowhere did I say it was "unreasonable". I asked what it meant, specifically. What does it look like if you are "not allowed"? What is the fear here? There seem to be no commitment to what this is actually about.



No. Lacking an answer to what it means to be "allowed", I moved forward with an assumed one that seemed common enough in similar discussions to be a reasonable guess.



Yes. Since there is no legal impediment to publishing such, I moved along with "allowed" being about the criticism or pushback - you are "allowed" if the public doesn't give you a lot of criticism or pushback on the work.

And then, I believe my assertion holds - if you don't want pushback, it needs to be pretty darned good stuff. This should not be controversial.




Again, this is why I asked what "allow" meant. What do you expect to happen if you are "allowed" or "not allowed"? Because, this right here reads like you mean an actual legal impediment, of which there is exactly none at this time in the US, at least.

And by "you" I really mean "publishers". As far as I am aware, this is a theoretical argument for you, personally.



You realize that criticism is as much expression as artwork is, right? So, if you are allowed to publish it (for whatever meaning of the word), others should be allowed to criticize it. A position that is, in effect, "I get to talk, but if you don't like it you should not consume it and shut up," is not an option.

I think what the poster is talking about is something that is a legitimate issue, but like you point out there is a fine balance because ideally we are both allowing freedom of expression by creatives and freedom of people to criticize. But there has been a cultural shift, though I think that shift is waning, where the kind of criticism we often get around these issues, rather than being simply "I don't like it" or "This is bad and here's why" has sounded more like some of the censorious voices from the religious right and the parents movements in the 80s, where it has led to calls for products to be taken down, creators to be ostracized, for people who mention said product positively to be labeled as bad. I think it is pretty obvious there has been this kind of a shift, and that it has made many creators feel more restricted. One can argue that is a good thing. Personally I think we have become too puritanical (as the point about allergens kind of reveals) where the critical voices tend to frame thing more as a moral outrage issue, the attacks against creators who mistep tend to be pretty severe (and can affect their personal life, their business prospects outside the hobby and even their family life). I am not saying everyone is doing that, but there is a cultural norm now, especially online, where people often interpret things in the worst possible light, and assume a lot based on something being present in the game or in the movie. I'm fine with people being critical, but I get what this poster is talking about

 

[Raunalyn]

Some people seem to think that every TTRPG book book should be written specifically for them, rather for any of the wealth of possible readers with a whole world of possible tastes and interests who aren't them. Selfish might be the right word, IDK.

Entitled is another good word.

 

[Blue Orange]

I wonder about the use of content warnings. They're already on some products, and could allow people to avoid things they find upsetting. If Hasbro, being a publicly-traded megacompany, wants to avoid anything dangerous, independent publishers could step in. As we remember from the 90s and 'Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics', they're not even necessarily bad for sales. What has changed? Looks like social media allows coordinated attacks on things people don't like, I guess.

 

[Raunalyn]

I think what the poster is talking about is something that is a legitimate issue, but like you point out there is a fine balance because ideally we are both allowing freedom of expression by creatives and freedom of people to criticize. But there has been a cultural shift, though I think that shift is waning, where the kind of criticism we often get around these issues, rather than being simply "I don't like it" or "This is bad and here's why" has sounded more like some of the censorious voices from the religious right and the parents movements in the 80s, where it has led to calls for products to be taken down, creators to be ostracized, for people who mention said product positively to be labeled as bad. I think it is pretty obvious there has been this kind of a shift, and that it has made many creators feel more restricted. One can argue that is a good thing. Personally I think we have become too puritanical (as the point about allergens kind of reveals) where the critical voices tend to frame thing more as a moral outrage issue, the attacks against creators who mistep tend to be pretty severe (and can affect their personal life, their business prospects outside the hobby and even their family life). I am not saying everyone is doing that, but there is a cultural norm now, especially online, where people often interpret things in the worst possible light, and assume a lot based on something being present in the game or in the movie. I'm fine with people being critical, but I get what this poster is talking about

It is very interesting from a sociological standpoint how the current cultural norm has so many echoes of the puritanical right in their practices and tactics. I know I am digressing from the discussion, but I actually kind of find it fascinating.

It wasn't that long ago when the puritanical right was mocked for their attempts to ban and censor books, where people told them, "If you don't like it, don't buy it/read it/listen to it/watch it."

Edited to closer adhere to the rules and policies.

 

[Umbran]

Selfish might be the right word, IDK.

Entitled is another good word.

Please ask yourselves - do you folks really want to get into this mode of discussion, in which we ascribe negative traits to folks who disagree?

 

[Alzrius]

I wonder about the use of content warnings. They're already on some products, and could allow people to avoid things they find upsetting. don't like, I guess.

My understanding is that trigger warnings, in terms of helping people avoid reminders of trauma, are at best superfluous and at worst actually increase anxiety and negative emotional associations. Or at least, that's what I've gathered from reading up on several recent studies investigating them:

Unprepared: Thinking of a trigger warning does not prompt preparation for trauma-related content - PubMed

One potential explanation for the consistent finding in the literature that trigger warnings fail to ameliorate negative emotional reactions is that these warnings may not help people bring coping strategies to mind. Although, further empirical work is necessary to fully substantiate this...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions: One potential explanation for the consistent finding in the literature that trigger warnings fail to ameliorate negative emotional reactions is that these warnings may not help people bring coping strategies to mind. Although, further empirical work is necessary to fully substantiate this potential interpretation.

Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead - PubMed

Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions: Trigger warnings may inadvertently undermine some aspects of emotional resilience. Further research is needed on the generalizability of our findings, especially to collegiate populations and to those with trauma histories.

Danger! Negative memories ahead: the effect of warnings on reactions to and recall of negative memories - PubMed

A trigger warning is an alert that upcoming material containing distressing themes might "trigger" the details and emotion associated with a <i>negative memory</i> to come to mind. Warnings supposedly prevent or minimise this distress. But, do warnings really have this effect? To simulate the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Our findings suggest that warning messages may prolong the negative characteristics associated with memories over time, rather than prepare people to recall a negative experience.

Something Distressing This Way Comes: The Effects of Trigger Warnings on Avoidance Behaviors in an Analogue Trauma Task - PubMed

Avoidance is one of the purported benefits and harms of trigger warnings-alerts that upcoming content may contain traumatic themes. Yet, previous research has focused primarily on emotional responses. Here, we used a trauma analogue design to assess people's avoidance behavior in response to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Furthermore, we did not find any indication that trigger warning messages help people to pause and emotionally prepare themselves to view negative content. Our results contribute to the growing body of literature demonstrating that warnings seem trivially effective in achieving their purported goals.

 

[Umbran]

It is very interesting from a sociological standpoint how the current cultural norm (some call it Cancel Culture) has so many echoes of the puritanical right in their practices and tactics. I know I am digressing from the discussion, but I actually kind of find it fascinating.

It wasn't that long ago when the puritanical right was mocked for their attempts to ban and censor books, where people told them, "If you don't like it, don't buy it/read it/listen to it/watch it."

I'd recommend folks go to the terms and rules (linked at the bottom of every page) and review our inclusivity policy, and our no-politics and no-religion rules before going down this road.