What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Bedrockgames]

If you go back a good stretch (I am going from memory here), I believe "A Mighty Fortress" (2nd ed AD&D, I think, and based on Western Europe) had all the languages and the barriers to communication were down right hilarious and troubling. The first sessions initial meet in an Inn segment, ended up lasting three full sessions with multiple arguments and two fights breaking out. This all because in several cases only 1 person could translate for one to two other persons and this was repeated over a 10 player/character group. It was all kinds of mistranslation and misunderstanding. We still laugh about it now, all these decades later...and also will still never do that again, lol

This can get tricky to pull off, and it is often handy to have things like Common to navigate around it in settings, but I am a fan of more complicated linguistics in a campaign. When I world build one of the things I use to chart out the develop of cultures over time is areas by language group (if I know people who spoke language X were in area A on the map in 500 Not-BCE then migrated to area C on the Map in 45 not-CE, that not only helps paint a picture in my head of cultural change over time but it leaves an imprint on the map in terms of place names that suggests the history you create to the players (i.e. they can see this town in area A sounds a bit like some of the places they've been in area C). Also in terms of communication, I find it interesting if people need to work through tranlsators. This isn't for every campaign or every game. But I do like it.

I had A Might Fortress but I can't really recall the language stuff from it. Do remember liking that supplement. Would be interested if anyone can post some info.

 

[Scribe]

Now that the market has shifted

Has it though?

I have...doubts, but we both know there is no answer to this, so enjoy the theme parks.

 

[Faolyn]

You get villains who are truly bad guys. No one is going to be on their side. There's a surprisingly short list of groups you can put on that list at the moment.

OK, and?

I mean, if you want black-and-white morality, then OK, I can see how that's a good thing. But it's not that hard to have bad guys who aren't dyed-in-the-wool evil. One of my DMs is really good at making bad guys who are so smarmy that everyone wants to kill them.

 

[Thourne]

This can get tricky to pull off, and it is often handy to have things like Common to navigate around it in settings, but I am a fan of more complicated linguistics in a campaign. When I world build one of the things I use to chart out the develop of cultures over time is areas by language group (if I know people who spoke language X were in area A on the map in 500 Not-BCE then migrated to area C on the Map in 45 not-CE, that not only helps paint a picture in my head of cultural change over time but it leaves an imprint on the map in terms of place names that suggests the history you create to the players (i.e. they can see this town in area A sounds a bit like some of the places they've been in area C). Also in terms of communication, I find it interesting if people need to work through tranlsators. This isn't for every campaign or every game. But I do like it.

I had A Might Fortress but I can't really recall the language stuff from it. Do remember liking that supplement. Would be interested if anyone can post some info.

I just had to go dig it out of the basement closet.
It was the Country/Region of origin tables I was thinking of. They span from pages 48-50. They were used to determine country, region, religion and of course native language.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you go back a good stretch (I am going from memory here), I believe "A Mighty Fortress" (2nd ed AD&D, I think, and based on Western Europe) had all the languages and the barriers to communication were down right hilarious and troubling. The first sessions initial meet in an Inn segment, ended up lasting three full sessions with multiple arguments and two fights breaking out. This all because in several cases only 1 person could translate for one to two other persons and this was repeated over a 10 player/character group. It was all kinds of mistranslation and misunderstanding. We still laugh about it now, all these decades later...and also will still never do that again, lol

Sounds fun to me, but I like languages.

 

[billd91]

Or simply more delicate.

Yeah, the rending of garments over the downplaying of slavery in RPG material is pretty over the top.

 

[Bagpuss]

So, you're saying that you can't imagine telling stories that don't involve the red crayon? Harold wouldn't be happy.

No I'm saying because I can do drawings without red crayons is no reason to throw away my red crayon, I might want to use it later. And I am certainly not throwing it away just because you hate red.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah, the rending of garments over the downplaying of slavery in RPG material is pretty over the top.

Almost as much as the indignation of the people who can't bear to see it referenced in a fantasy elf game.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Yeah hard disagree on this attempt to shut down this line of questioning with the so often used "whataboutism" technique when no good reply seems to exist. This exact technique was actually addressed within a Meta forum funny enough.

What I listed was something primary within a game of D&D - not something odd or rare. If you (general you) introduce yet another parameter within the discussion of why x should be removed - you open yourself for others to use such parameter too. That's just how honest debate works. From what I've seen here whataboutism is often used counter difficult rebuttals.
We can agree to disagree.

 

[SteveC]

OK, and?

I mean, if you want black-and-white morality, then OK, I can see how that's a good thing. But it's not that hard to have bad guys who aren't dyed-in-the-wool evil. One of my DMs is really good at making bad guys who are so smarmy that everyone wants to kill them.

And what else does it have to be? You asked what you get, I answered. In many, many adventures for many game systems you need bad guys. Many of those want bad guys who aren't sympathetic. There are not that many groups that you can do this with these days. If that's not what you want, it wouldn't be something you're looking for. I think that's about all there really is to say on the issue.

 

[mythago]

Has it though?

I have...doubts, but we both know there is no answer to this, so enjoy the theme parks.

Beyond being snarky, I'm not sure what point you though you were making here.

Big TTRPG publishers are putting out what you call 'disney-fied' games because they think that's what will sell. I presume they are competent enough to look at their own sales and marketing data to see what they should be targeting. Regardless, if they are as stupid as you suggest, they will certainly notice eventually if their happy new supplement's sales are in the basement, or if an indie competitor's World of Joe Abercrombie, But, Like, Even Grimmer's campaign setting is flying off the shelves and spawning a horde of imitators.

 

[Scribe]

Beyond being snarky, I'm not sure what point you though you were making here.

Big TTRPG publishers are putting out what you call 'disney-fied' games because they think that's what will sell. I presume they are competent enough to look at their own sales and marketing data to see what they should be targeting. Regardless, if they are as stupid as you suggest, they will certainly notice eventually if their happy new supplement's sales are in the basement, or if an indie competitor's World of Joe Abercrombie, But, Like, Even Grimmer's campaign setting is flying off the shelves and spawning a horde of imitators.

I'm not saying they are stupid at all. Where am I saying they are stupid?

I am 100% saying they are making (for several years now) a softer, gentler, kid friend game, and art style, and seeking to avoid controversy at all costs.

Thats not the same as saying they are stupid.

(Well ok, their OGL fiasco was really stupid, but thats not what we are discussing.)

They are making their product softer. They feel this is the best path to $$$. We agree? Great.

 

[Faolyn]

Has it though?

Well, yeah. I mean, in the 80s and 90s when a game featuring Big-Breasted Witch Queens plastered was sold, it was assumed that everyone who bought it was a straight guy. The writers didn't take lesbians, gay men, or asexual people into account, or even straight men (or lesbians) who weren't into big boobs. But hey, we all exist and we play. So the market has shifted to include us.

 

[Alzrius]

Beyond being snarky, I'm not sure what point you though you were making here.

You're going to comment about other people for being snarky? Really?

 

[AnotherGuy]

That can be explored, though! That's totally something people do, and they can get critiqued on it!

And you find in the instance of slavery they cannot explore and be critiqued on?

No, you're just being obtuse. Your entire argument is "Where does it end?", when we can just say "Well, it ends here for the moment".

Sadly you may have me mixed up with someone else. That is NOT my argument. Given that you are unaware of what I said I put it to you that you likely don't have an issue with anything I've said.

 

[Gubber Bittencourt]

For those who are sensitive to the subject of slavery in RPGs, how do you see the way it is approached in dragonlance?

 

[Scribe]

Well, yeah. I mean, in the 80s and 90s when a game featuring Big-Breasted Witch Queens plastered was sold, it was assumed that everyone who bought it was a straight guy. The writers didn't take lesbians, gay men, or asexual people into account, or even straight men (or lesbians) who weren't into big boobs. But hey, we all exist and we play. So the market has shifted to include us.

As with many of our past discussions, its not that there is a shift, its that there is the removal of what there was before, instead of it being 'in addition'.

Which is fine, but I somehow doubt that lesbians, or gay men, are a monolith who are all in favour of the safe and gentle approach being taken these days, and its just seemingly the older white straight guys who are into things now 'unacceptable'?

I mean, thats SURELY what we will find with some quick google/twitter searches right?

lol

 

[Alzrius]

I hadn't heard about the changes to Soth, but what you say makes sense. Having murdered his wife and child (and IIRC, the child was murdered for being ugly and/or disabled) and the gods being all, "OK, here's a chance for redemption," it turns the wife and child into mere plot devices.

They are mere plot devices; that's as true in the new version of Soth's story as it was in the old.

 

[mythago]

I'm not saying they are stupid at all. Where am I saying they are stupid?

I am 100% saying they are making (for several years now) a softer, gentler, kid friend game, and art style, and seeking to avoid controversy at all costs.

Well, sorta. I do agree with you that they are trying to make a more broadly-acceptable game and to expand their market, including getting younger players. I don't think they are "seeking to avoid controversy at all costs" (a thing that is truly impossible in the TTRPG hobby anyway) - they've courted plenty of controversy with the changes they've made. They're betting that the people who are honked off at the changes are less important to their financial success than the ones who are neutral or positive as to those changes.

They are making their product softer. They feel this is the best path to $$$. We agree? Great.

We do agree! And look, I get how it's frustrating to realize that a game company is moving away from a style or content or rules set that you prefer; but these are TTRPGs, and we have complete freedom to run our games the way we want. Plus, given the low barrier to entry, it's easier than ever for like minded gamers to put out a product that you like better. To use the theme park metaphor, you can tell Disney you think their park is boring, but the world is full of X-Treme Haunted Houses and Grim Pirate Adventure indie parks where you can spend all your time instead.

 

[Scribe]

Well, sorta. I do agree with you that they are trying to make a more broadly-acceptable game and to expand their market, including getting younger players. I don't think they are "seeking to avoid controversy at all costs" (a thing that is truly impossible in the TTRPG hobby anyway) - they've courted plenty of controversy with the changes they've made. They're betting that the people who are honked off at the changes are less important to their financial success than the ones who are neutral or positive as to those changes.



We do agree! And look, I get how it's frustrating to realize that a game company is moving away from a style or content or rules set that you prefer; but these are TTRPGs, and we have complete freedom to run our games the way we want. Plus, given the low barrier to entry, it's easier than ever for like minded gamers to put out a product that you like better. To use the theme park metaphor, you can tell Disney you think their park is boring, but the world is full of X-Treme Haunted Houses and Grim Pirate Adventure indie parks where you can spend all your time instead.

Absolutely! So we are on the same page, and I dont know when we diverged really.