What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Imaro]

It may very well be fair to the setting, and verisimilitude is important to me.

But only so much verisimilitude... right? Or again are you arguing for slavery with all of it's realistic elements in a setting?

 

[Alzrius]

And I explained to you that you're inference of what I meant, as opposed to what I actually said was mistaken.

And I likewise explained how what you meant was not accurately transmitted in what you actually wrote. If you're not suggesting that advertising and marketing are unnecessary so long as someone can find you via Google, then there's no real need to mention Google at all, is there?

But... but... freedom of speech. More seriously they have the right as long as it isn't slander, libel, or something similar to espouse their opinion about a product... You're basically arguing that it's ok for this creator to make what he wants but what is said about it must be controlled... What??

I'm not surprised that you're confused, here. A lot of people mistake discussions about "rights" (i.e. what you're legally allowed to do) with discussions about ethics and morals (which are technically different, but for simplicity we'll treat them as the same thing here), i.e. what's virtuous to do.

You have the legal right to try and drive someone else out of business, or at least make it harder for them to reach potential customers, via convincing distributors to cut ties with them, maligning them in journalistic outfits, publicly accusing them of moral corruption, etc. But just because you have the legal right to be an awful person doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, nor that anyone else should pretend otherwise when calling out how what you're doing is reprehensible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But only so much verisimilitude... right? Or again are you arguing for slavery with all of it's realistic elements in a setting?

The amount of slavery depicted in the original Dark Sun material was acceptable to me.

 

[mythago]

Previously in this thread I have stated that you shouldn't remove the red crayon from the box, because it limits possibilities in storytelling.

Man, crayons are such a terrible analogy, but let's go with it again for a sec.

You get a set of Official D&D Crayons from WOTC. Turns out they no longer sell Burnt Umber because it was an unpopular color and a majority of people bought other crayon sets with colors they liked more. But you liked that color; the tree on that leaf outside your house is exactly the shade of Burnt Umber and you wanted to draw it. Good news though, WOTC has replaced Burnt Umber with Shimmery Gelatin so you can now draw a perfect gelatinous cube. And better news, the art supply store is full of crayons sold under the Open Drawing License, some of which contain Burnt Umber. You can also buy the dyes pretty cheap off Amazon if you want to mix your own crayons and don't quite like the premade versions.

Stories are not a zero-sum game.

 

[Umbran]

Replace either with the demons or undead you mentioned, and I still wouldn't have a problem.

Fine. Play what you want, how you want. At your table, your tastes may be primary. Have fun.

I'm trying to have a discussion of broader concerns than what individuals here like or don't like.

 

[Imaro]

And I likewise explained how what you meant was not accurately transmitted in what you actually wrote. If you're not suggesting that advertising and marketing are unnecessary so long as someone can find you via Google, then there's no real need to mention Google at all, is there?

Yes there is...it's a tool that can HELP you find what you need through the internet. you can pretend it doesn't exist to strengthen your argument but in the real world it's a factor. It's like you're claiming the ONLY way to become aware of something is through being fed marketing and advertisements passively.

I'm not surprised that you're confused, here. A lot of people mistake discussions about "rights" (i.e. what you're legally allowed to do) with discussions about ethics and morals (which are technically different, but for simplicity we'll treat them as the same thing here), i.e. what's virtuous to do.

You have the legal right to try and drive someone else out of business, or at least make it harder for them to reach potential customers, via convincing distributors to cut ties with them, maligning them in journalistic outfits, publicly accusing them of various moral failings, etc. But just because you have the legal right to be an awful person doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, nor that anyone else should pretend otherwise when calling out how what you're doing is reprehensible.

My confusion arises because it's hard for me to grasp why you believe that your morals are some kind of objective truth. Someone having different values than you doesn't translate to them being an "awful" person... especially in the realm of capitalism and business.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Man, crayons are such a terrible analogy, but let's go with it again for a sec.

You get a set of Official D&D Crayons from WOTC. Turns out they no longer sell Burnt Umber because it was an unpopular color and a majority of people bought other crayon sets with colors they liked more. But you liked that color; the tree on that leaf outside your house is exactly the shade of Burnt Umber and you wanted to draw it. Good news though, WOTC has replaced Burnt Umber with Shimmery Gelatin so you can now draw a perfect gelatinous cube. And better news, the art supply store is full of crayons sold under the Open Drawing License, some of which contain Burnt Umber. You can also buy the dyes pretty cheap off Amazon if you want to mix your own crayons and don't quite like the premade versions.

Stories are not a zero-sum game.

Are people actively protesting the existence of Burnt Unber and want everyone to stop selling it, to the point where those who might want to offer it are too concerned about social stigma to do so, and in fact that same fear is why WotC decided to stop selling Burnt Umber?

 

[Imaro]

The amount of slavery depicted in the original Dark Sun material was acceptable to me.

So there is an "amount" of minimizing of slavery you will accept... you just want some slavery in your game though??

I'm trying to understand this... if your reason for wanting slavery is verisimilitude then don't you want it to be as realistic as possible... and if not how do you decide what is the line for acceptable vs not acceptable?

 

[cranberry]

The more bland, boring, vanilla and sanitized WoTC's products become, the better it will be for 3rd party creators, IMO.

It will be interesting to watch market trends over the next few years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fine. Play what you want, how you want. At your table, your tastes may be primary. Have fun.

I'm trying to have a discussion of broader concerns than what individuals here like or don't like.

And the horde of genocidal demons or undead are a broader concern that big companies shouldn't offer for sale in a product, despite their being clearly depicted as genocidal demons or undead? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Imaro]

Are people actively protesting the existence of Burnt Unber and want everyone to stop selling it, to the point where those who might want to offer it are too concerned about social stigma to do so, and in fact that same fear is why WotC decided to stop selling Burnt Umber?

They're not concerned with social stigma... they're concerned with bottom lines. If there were enough people who wanted it and would actually buy it vs those who don't or don't care or who would hold it against WotC... they would publish it. What this really feels like is an argument of market preferences and being on the loosing side.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So there is an "amount" of minimizing of slavery you will accept... you just want some slavery in your game though??

I'm trying to understand this... if your reason for wanting slavery is verisimilitude then don't you want it to be as realistic as possible... and if not how do you decide what is the line for acceptable vs not acceptable?

Do we go into the full implications of every aspect of everything included in a game product?

Dark Sun has and still has its fans, to keep using that example. Are you saying that those people shouldn't like the setting as originally depicted?

 

[Faolyn]

So we are back in the camp of genocide is OK sometimes but slavery never is?

Does the genocide involve rounding people up based on their ethnicity or religion or something like that and then murdering them, like in the real world? Or is it just demons killing everyone in sight because the demons are made of pure evil, like not in the real world?

 

[Alzrius]

Yes there is...it's a tool that can HELP you find what you need through the internet. you can pretend it doesn't exist to strengthen your argument but in the real world it's a factor. It's like you're claiming the ONLY way to become aware of something is through being fed marketing and advertisements passively.

No one is pretending it doesn't exist; given that you just complained about your argument being misrepresented, I'm surprised that you're misrepresenting mine now. The issue is that Google in no way ameliorates the difficulties of a small publisher reaching potential customers when a vocal minority has taken it upon themselves to try and make that as difficult as possible for said publisher. That EN World has an entire forum dedicated to promotions and press releases makes that clear enough. That Google exists is clearly a minor (at most) part of any company's strategy of raising awareness, since it's obvious that you have to actively make people aware of your product rather than hope they stumble across you the way they would on a Google search.

My confusion arises because it's hard for me to grasp why you believe that your morals are some kind of objective truth. Someone having different values than you doesn't translate to them being an "awful" person... especially in the realm of capitalism and business.

I was under the impression that vilifying someone for making, selling, and enjoying a piece of fiction that you don't like was a self-evidently bad thing to do; clearly, you disagree. Likewise, capitalism and business are by their very nature amoral practices, but that's not the same for someone trying to inflict economic harm on someone else because doing so satisfies their own sense of righteous indignation.

 

[Imaro]

The more bland, boring, vanilla and sanitized WoTC's products become, the better it will be for 3rd party creators, IMO.

It will be interesting to watch market trends over the next few years.

Yep because they've really been outpacing WotC during their run with 5e... Wait no, the game is selling better than it has in years with no sign of slowing down. The thing is you need that base so you can then choose your particular add-ons. The market for a purely grimdark, or a sword and slavery, or even romantic fantasy game is going to be magnitudes narrower than a more vanilla, kitchen sink game... especially one that you can customize in those ways if you want to through either official sourcebooks or 3PP sourcebooks...

 

[Micah Sweet]

They're not concerned with social stigma... they're concerned with bottom lines. If there were enough people who wanted it and would actually buy it vs those who don't or don't care or who would hold it against WotC... they would publish it. What this really feels like is an argument of market preferences and being on the loosing side.

See to me, the main reasons to hold anything against a company are bad business practices, anti-inclusiveness, and bad product. Making a product you don't like shouldn't be held against the company, instead it is a reason to not buy that product.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Slavery is a major (some could argue THE Major) component of Dark Sun society...not a one time throwaway plot device. No one is arguing slavery can't be mentioned or exist in D&D but a one liner or reference a group can choose to use vs. your entire world being based around it aren't the same thing...

They literally are. See changes to Mind Flayers and Yuwn-Ti among others.

 

[Faolyn]

There are multiple justifications, but with regard to the context of presenting it from a standpoint of world-building, the justification is verisimilitude. Simply put, there's a point where all of the underlying factors that should result in institutionalized slavery are present, and so its not being there becomes noticeable enough that it impinges on suspension of disbelief.

So you are also making your players get STDs, PTSD, and infected wounds, right? You're making sure they suffer lasting scars after every battle, and melting their faces off when a dragon breathes fire or acid on them? (I had a player once who refused to take any spells that inflict acid damage because she had seen photos of women who'd suffered from having acid thrown on them. Even after we assured her that it was magic and didn't leave lasting disfigurements.)

If you're not including things like that, then you don't actually care about verisimilitude. What you care about is things that provide fun plot points for the game.

 

[Alzrius]

They literally are. See changes to Mind Flayers and Yuwn-Ti among others.

For anyone looking for more on this topic, here's an article that compiles the lore that was cut:

Dungeons & Dragons: Wizards of the Coast Removes Problematic Lore

WotC excises problematic content from D&D books.

screenrant.com

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you are also making your players get STDs, PTSD, and infected wounds, right? You're making sure they suffer lasting scars after every battle, and melting their faces off when a dragon breathes fire or acid on them? (I had a player once who refused to take any spells that inflict acid damage because she had seen photos of women who'd suffered from having acid thrown on them. Even after we assured her that it was magic and didn't leave lasting disfigurements.)

If you're not including things like that, then you don't actually care about verisimilitude. What you care about is things that provide fun plot points for the game.

So it's all or nothing? Simulation as a playstyle doesn't exist?