What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Bedrockgames]

Corporate entities do not have emotions like individual people do. To ascribe things like "fear" to them is misleading.

They are not "frightened" away. They are not quaking in their boots. They are not feeling anxiety, the increased heart rate, the rush of adrenaline, flight or fight, or anything like that. They are not in an emotional state over this. Larger entities are far more calculating about it. They simply see it as more profitable, for them, in their position, to not use some tropes in their works.

I don’t think the poster was speaking of the companies but of the designers and people whose names go on the cover of the books, who talk about the games in question publicly online. I am sure many have felt those things when gauging online reaction to something they want to make, abd even more sure those who have had their name dragged through the mud publicly have felt those things (who hasn’t felt a twinge if that just opening their notifications on Twitter or Facebook at times: for people putting their creative work out in public, when the stakes have raised so significantly, those are very real reactions. I am not high profile but I have opened social media and physically felt like i was having a heart attack some days. This stuff has a real impact on people who are just trying to make games in a very niche industry (often people doing it out of live as a side gig or even as a hobby. People whose livlihoods completely depend on it, probably have much stronger reactions

 

[billd91]

It seems to me that we're talking about slavery as an issue because of the recent Dark Sun kerfuffle. It is certainly not the only issue that people find problematic: virtually any feature of history that people find problematic has a group that wants to remove it from gaming.

I think it's less about removing it from gaming completely and more like not having to constantly encounter it all the time - because, in the case of slavery, it is pretty ubiquitous in fantasy settings. It may be one thing for it to come up occasionally or be an issue for a particular location or culture, but it tends to be way beyond that.

Can't we just get rid of this one bad thing? Of course we can, but we all know that slavery is one of many horrible things that exist in fantasy. This whole discussion makes me want to ask "why is murder okay to have in fantasy, when it affects so many people in the real world?" The answer is simple: you have things like murder in a fantasy game as something bad happening that you have to stop or somehow make right. That's the same answer for any controversial bad thing in an RPG: it's something bad guys do and we can make it better in the game world.

There are differences between violence in general, including murder, and violent institutions that have affected certain groups more than others in recent history like slavery. It isn't just a coincidence that slavery is getting heightened scrutiny at the time that publishers in the hobby are deliberately working to improve the hobby's inclusivity. When your goal is attracting a more diverse population of players, it makes sense to reevaluate elements that have traditionally hurt some of those populations including slavery, sexism, racism, sexual violence, cisgendered and heterosexual norms, and so on.

 

[Umbran]

As I've brought up elsewhere around other issues, opt-in (where something's not included but can be added) generally gets far less uptake than opt-out (where something's included but can be removed); mostly due to people simply taking the path of least effort/resistance.

If folks spent the creative energy and time used arguing about it here to add it to their own games at home, they'd already be done.

If someone cares so little about the topic that they are following the path of least resistance, then maybe it is a good thing some material isn't on that path. Maybe it is better if folks need to seek out, think carefully about, and incorporate with deliberation, rather than it be casually present without that same deliberate drive.

As an artistic choice, not enabling slapdash approaches to, say, slavery, seems a pretty solid one.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t think the poster was speaking of...

I think the poster can speak for themselves, if they wish, and I would personally not want to carry on a discussion by assumed proxy.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don’t think the poster was speaking of the companies but of the designers and people whose names go on the cover of the books, who talk about the games in question publicly online.

I know of at least one designer that has decided against revising an RPG they published and were considering a 2nd Edition because it is historical and thus has all sorts of stuff that would be seen as "problematic" content.

 

[Umbran]

Exactly my point. Why was the need to discuss the treatment of the victims of slavery within game, meanwhile we don't demand the same thing from the game when sons, fathers and husbands are lost within a devastating war leaving behind a gutted society and destitute & torn apart families?

The logical fallacy here is "tu quoque", specifically the "whataboutism" variant.

You cherrypicked one issue, but once you've introduced this logic, it comes down to, "If you aren't going to address all issues, you can't address any."

Or, in other words, you are making perfect the enemy of good, and we may not selectively pick our battles.

We should not bite on this bit of bait.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think the poster can speak for themselves, if they wish, and I would personally not want to carry on a discussion by assumed proxy.

Nice way to avoid the issue.

Most RPGs aren't published and written by big corporate entities. The Micah didn't mention companies Micah said "frightening away high profile creators". Most RPGs have one or many two names as writer, someone easily identifiable as responsible for the content. It's them that get frightened.

As I've mentioned above I know one that has decided not to try and get interest for their game with a new edition due to the current atmosphere and content. It isn't even that contentious to most people, but being historical there are certain accepted tropes in the setting regards men and women's roles in society, one issue. Involves historical wars, an other issue. Race is most likely a third. Plus probably a number of more minor things people could get upset about. Even though the setting has been and is popular with books, films and TV, it's not one they feel is worth the hassle they might face for using it for an RPG. I don't want to go into any more detail as I don't want to drag their name into the discussion.

Still I am glad we still get things like Regency Cthulhu published, so hope is not lost. Chaosium are use to dealing with historical settings though and dealing with a contentious source material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the poster can speak for themselves, if they wish, and I would personally not want to carry on a discussion by assumed proxy.

@Bedrockgames is correct. I was speaking of the people who work and create for their companies and the ones who make the publishing decisions. They explained my issue at least as well as I could.

 

[Umbran]

Please don't try to put the words "you aren't allowed to criticize it" in my mouth.

I just explicitly said that since I didn't have an answer to "what does it mean to be 'allowed'?", I chose one answer, and moved ahead with that. I am specifically and explicitly speaking to what I have seen as a commonly expressed complaint, speaking to other people's arguments, because yours isn't clear enough to address.

So, I am not putting words in your mouth. I've moved on from you.

 

[Irlo]

Still I am glad we still get things like Regency Cthulhu published, so hope is not lost. Chaosium are use to dealing with historical settings though and dealing with a contentious source material.

Is Chaosium weathering a storm of controvery? Are the creators being maligned?

 

[Umbran]

Nice way to avoid the issue.

Please, this is not helpful. None of us are required to respond to any and all statements.

Someone inserted themselves into the middle of an exchange. I didn't find that a great move in this instance, and chose not to engage with it, and thought it'd be helpful if I said why.

 

[Bagpuss]

Is Chaosium weathering a storm of controvery? Are the creators being maligned?

No which is why I am hopeful. If you check online you can see people cautious of their products looking for problematic content, and then others worried that they are "too woke" for including female NPC or sample characters, so they are certainly a target of both sides of people just looking for something to complain about.

However on the other hand you have WotC doing stuff like, actively sanitising the Dragonlance setting, rewriting the history of Lord Soth for example. Now he doesn't murder his wife and child, or leave his second wife and infant child to die in a fire, and this is the villain. They changed his history from hiding the murder of his wife and child waiting the appropriate six months of mourning before marrying his second wife. To his wife dying of natural causes, him getting married days later so got kicked out the knightly order for disrespecting his ex-wife, rather than later being found guilty of murdering his wife and exiled then.

He fails to prevent the Cataclysm and gets cursed for that, rather than cursed by the second wife falsely suspected of cheating after he leaves her and their infant child to burn to death, because the Cataclysm comes about as he abandons his quest because he believes the lies about his wife. The main villain of the setting goes from being a double wife and child murder, to disrespecting a corpse as his crime.

We all know infanticide is wrong, we all no wife beating and murder is wrong, having the evil villain of your fiction commit such acts doesn't condone it. D&D and Dragonlance in the 1980's was still aimed at the same demographic, if anything it was aimed at a younger audience, I know I was part of it. So I doubt it is to protect the children. Why do you think they sanitised it?

 

[Alzrius]

No which is why I am hopeful.

However on the other hand you have WotC doing stuff like, actively sanitising the Dragonlance setting, rewriting the history of Lord Soth for example. Now he doesn't murder his wife and child, or leave his second wife and infant child to die in a fire, and this is the villain. They changed his history from hiding the murder of his wife and child waiting the appropriate six months of mourning before marrying his second wife. To his wife dying of natural causes, him getting married days later so got kicked out the knightly order for disrespecting his ex-wife, rather than later being found guilty of murdering his wife and exiled then.

He fails to prevent the Cataclysm and gets cursed for that, rather than cursed by the second wife falsely suspected of cheating after he leaves her and their infant child to burn to death, because the Cataclysm comes about as he abandons his quest because he believes the lies about his wife. The main villain of the setting goes from being a double wife and child murder, to disrespecting a corpse as his crime.

We all know infanticide is wrong, we all no wife beating and murder is wrong, having the evil villain of your fiction commit such acts doesn't condone it. D&D and Dragonlance in the 1980's was still aimed at the same demographic, if anything it was aimed at a younger audience, I know I was part of it. So I doubt it is to protect the children. Why do you think they sanitised it?

I had no idea the new Dragonlance book did that. What an absolute disgrace.

 

[Irlo]

No which is why I am hopeful.

Good to hear. The only Chaosium-related uproar I was aware of the NFT thing a while back.

However on the other hand you have WotC doing stuff like, actively sanitising the Dragonlance setting rewriting the history of Lord Soth for example, so he doesn't murder his wife and child, or leave his second wife and infant child to die in a fire, and this is the villain. They changed his history from hiding the murder of his wife and child waiting the appropriate six months of mourning before marrying his second wife. To his wife dying of natural causes, him getting married days later so got kicked out the order for disrespecting his ex-wife, rather than later being found guilty of murdering his wife. He fails to prevent the Cataclysm and gets cursed for that, rather than curse by the second wife falsely suspected of cheating after he leave her and their infant child to burn to death. The main villain of the setting goes from being a double wife and child murder, to disrespecting a corpse as his crime.

We all know infanticide is wrong, we all no wife beating is wrong, having the evil villain of your fiction commit such acts doesn't condone it. D&D and Dragonlance in the 1980's was still aimed at the same demographic, if anything it was aimed at a younger audience, I know I was part of it. So I doubt it is to protect the children. Why do you think they sanitised it?

I can only speculate, as I haven't followed any of WotC's statements about DL and I'm not familiar with the setting. I seriously doubt they made changes because the high-profile creators were afraid of character assassination on-line, but obviously others would lean toward that explanation. (I would also speculate that the creators will be subjected to as much or more online abuse because they made changes as they would have if they had not.)

 

[SteveC]

I had no idea the new Dragonlance book did that. What an absolute disgrace.

Lord Soth was just misunderstood! Back in the day, when Gen Con was in Milwaukee, there was this guy who did Cosplay as Lord Soth. It was terrifying. There was no doubt he was a bad guy.

 

[MGibster]

It's really unfortunate that a discussion about RPGs in general has turned into a discussion about D&D. Don't get me wrong, I like D&D, but it's not the only RPG out there, and so far as problematic or triggering elements are concerned, there's more than just slavery. It is not healthy for our hobby to revolve around a single game and for our thoughts to turn towards it and it alone. To quote Profirio Diaz, "Poor RPGs. So far from God, so close to D&D." In my first post in this thread, I said that context is important to me, and I stand by that. I might find something appropriate in one context and wildly inappropriate in another.

 

[billd91]

No which is why I am hopeful. If you check online you can see people cautious of their products looking for problematic content, and then others worried that they are "too woke" for including female NPC or sample characters, so they are certainly a target of both sides of people just looking for something to complain about.

However on the other hand you have WotC doing stuff like, actively sanitising the Dragonlance setting, rewriting the history of Lord Soth for example. Now he doesn't murder his wife and child, or leave his second wife and infant child to die in a fire, and this is the villain. They changed his history from hiding the murder of his wife and child waiting the appropriate six months of mourning before marrying his second wife. To his wife dying of natural causes, him getting married days later so got kicked out the knightly order for disrespecting his ex-wife, rather than later being found guilty of murdering his wife and exiled then.

He fails to prevent the Cataclysm and gets cursed for that, rather than cursed by the second wife falsely suspected of cheating after he leaves her and their infant child to burn to death, because the Cataclysm comes about as he abandons his quest because he believes the lies about his wife. The main villain of the setting goes from being a double wife and child murder, to disrespecting a corpse as his crime.

We all know infanticide is wrong, we all no wife beating and murder is wrong, having the evil villain of your fiction commit such acts doesn't condone it. D&D and Dragonlance in the 1980's was still aimed at the same demographic, if anything it was aimed at a younger audience, I know I was part of it. So I doubt it is to protect the children. Why do you think they sanitised it?

Maybe because they didn't sanitize it as much as you think they did. He fails to prevent the Cataclysm because he goes to murder Isolde, who does curse him with her dying breath. As to the question of his prior wife's death, I don't think a revision is entirely unwelcome. After all, if he had murdered his first wife and child, the gods would have really been making a reach offering him redemption. I think the story works more easily if his initial transgression isn't quite so extreme.

 

[billd91]

Good to hear. The only Chaosium-related uproar I was aware of the NFT thing a while back.

Plus, Chaosium has been putting out some interesting and thoughtfully done materials like Harlem Unbound. So it's not like they aren't doing good work to open the hobby to more diversity.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I know of at least one designer that has decided against revising an RPG they published and were considering a 2nd Edition because it is historical and thus has all sorts of stuff that would be seen as "problematic" content.

Okay, that's an interesting test case. What do they fear will happen if they do go ahead, how reasonable is the fear, and if they did do we think there would have been a reasonable way to do so? We can turn them into a hypothetical designer instead if you don't have that information.

 

[Umbran]

Can't we just get rid of this one bad thing? Of course we can, but we all know that slavery is one of many horrible things that exist in fantasy.

I see this going the other way. A couple of major sources in the space (WotC and Paizo) have chosen to step away from this one bad thing. The following discussion seems to have reacted as if the slippery slope is a confirmed reality, and has blown out to, "OMG, we can't have any bad things! Censorship! Art!"

There is an implicit assertion in this that stepping away from the topic to please an audience is somehow different from stepping in to the topic to please an audience.

If we expect some creators to be "allowed" to address the topic, we must also expect creators to be "allowed" not to address it, and their making that choice shouldn't be a big a deal.

This whole discussion makes me want to ask "why is murder okay to have in fantasy, when it affects so many people in the real world?" The answer is simple: you have things like murder in a fantasy game as something bad happening that you have to stop or somehow make right.

So, I find that to be a partial answer, and a minority part, at that. There are several other points that inform the issue, and the result is that while murder and slavery are both bad, culturally speaking they really aren't nearly equivalent.

If folks cannot get that central point, that not all bad things have the same cultural meanings, this conversation isn't going to go very far.