What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Scribe]

Yeah I can't be too down on straight edge because my brother and my sister were both adjacent to it (though never fully into it and both grew out of it - they drink more than I do now!), and I kind of understand why, and I certainly have a crumb of sympathy for these kids, even if they also make me want to roll my eyes.

Its for sure a thing, even in small city canada. My son and his girlfriend have taken a hard turn away from excess, along with much of their friend group, as a reactionary turn against modern online 'life'.

We just did it better/first in the 80's/90's as with most things.

Maybe the generation can save itself after all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No it's the difference between MtG and D&D. They are both separate brands even though they are owned by the Disney corporation.

Again, your point? They are still Disney-owned products, available on a clearly-branded Disney streaming service.

 

[Blue Orange]

Its for sure a thing, even in small city canada. My son and his girlfriend have taken a hard turn away from excess, along with much of their friend group, as a reactionary turn against modern online 'life'.

We just did it better/first in the 80's/90's as with most things.

Maybe the generation can save itself after all.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun./Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time./There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow. --Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

"And the parting on the left/Is now parting on the right/And the beards have all grown longer overnight/I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution/Smile and grin at the change all around/Pick up my guitar and play/Just like yesterday/Then I'll get on my knees and pray/We don't get fooled again"--The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again

“Life was such a wheel that no man could stand upon it for long. And it always, at the end, came round to the same place again.” --Stephen King, The Stand

 

[Raunalyn]

The claim @Hussar appears to be making (and they haven't clarified on this) is that if there was certain "controversial content" in D&D, then that would count as "kicking Hussar out of the hobby", because Hussar would be unable to play D&D (presumably even in settings which didn't have that content?). It's a confusing argument, I admit, but it's what they appear to be claiming.

I happen to know for a fact that this particular individual considers Dark Sun one of his favorite settings, so the hyperbole is quite strange.

 

[Thourne]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun./Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time./There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow. --Ecclesiastes 1:9-11

"And the parting on the left/Is now parting on the right/And the beards have all grown longer overnight/I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution/Smile and grin at the change all around/Pick up my guitar and play/Just like yesterday/Then I'll get on my knees and pray/We don't get fooled again"--The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again

“Life was such a wheel that no man could stand upon it for long. And it always, at the end, came round to the same place again.” --Stephen King, The Stand

Counter point: Robots

 

[Imaro]

I think it had more to do with D&D being 'under monetized' and looking for an argument that would persuade the most gamers that revoking the OGL wasn't a bad thing, so they could over monetize

Yes but then why curtail a project you could monetize and position yourself in a situation where other products for monetization may be off the table because of the stance you took?

 

[Imaro]

Again, your point? They are still Disney-owned products, available on a clearly-branded Disney streaming service.

THE BRAND... the branding is separate... When my 4 year old son wants to see a Disney movie he isn't talking about or considering Infinity War or The Last Jedi. That's what branding is about creating an association. You can own numerous things and brand them differently.

EDIT: The Disney brand is not The Marvel brand is not the Star Wars Brand... Even though the Disney corporation owns all 3...I'm not sure how to explain this in any simpler terms.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes but then why curtail a project you could monetize and position yourself in a situation where other products for monetization may be off the table because of the stance you took?

That is a fair point. I am saying on the OGL front the reason they invoked these issues was that. On the Dark Sun thing I was just speculating it may have been a talking point WOTC gave to him, thinking it would deflect attention from the OGL issues (which were still being discussed when he started giving these interviews, and the interviews appeared intended to do damage control). But like I said, it could have just been his honest off the cuff remark about Dark Sun.

Another possibility is he said that to start conversation around Dark Sun so they could gauge whether these issues would present a problem for it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

EDIT: The Disney brand is not The Marvel brand is not the Star Wars Brand... Even though the Disney corporation owns all 3...I'm not sure how to explain this in any simpler terms.

Yeah this is valid and I wonder if, longer-term, D&D maybe will need to like separate out at least a couple of brands, maybe more. Right now, and it's understandable, WotC seem to be heading Disney-ward (I don't offer this as a criticism or snark), and trying to make D&D into a very safe and fairly broad brand (Disney has its own issues with inclusivity, esp. towards LGBTQ+ people, which actually is linked to this but probably another separate sub-discussion). I think in the short term that's reasonable, but I think in the longer term, they may want their Star Wars and Marvel equivalents, which are both quite a bit edgier than the Disney brand, in their own ways. They've got an absolute wealth of ways they could do that, from separating out an "Advanced" D&D again (probably not) to making a setting-specific thing, to introducing some kind of new branding or whatever. Sorry may be getting ahead of us here.

 

[Thourne]

Yeah this is valid and I wonder if, longer-term, D&D maybe will need to like separate out at least a couple of brands, maybe more. Right now, and it's understandable, WotC seem to be heading Disney-ward (I don't offer this as a criticism or snark), and trying to make D&D into a very safe and fairly broad brand (Disney has its own issues with inclusivity, esp. towards LGBTQ+ people, which actually is linked to this but probably another separate sub-discussion). I think in the short term that's reasonable, but I think in the longer term, they may want their Star Wars and Marvel equivalents, which are both quite a bit edgier than the Disney brand, in their own ways. They've got an absolute wealth of ways they could do that, from separating out an "Advanced" D&D again (probably not) to making a setting-specific thing, to introducing some kind of new branding or whatever. Sorry may be getting ahead of us here.

I think in the long run it would be a smart choice to have separate properties(by which I mean settings) sorted into different, for lack of a better term, Ratings based on content.
This one is for kids and I mean truely Kid friendly(the wee ones), this ones is for YA/tweens/teens, this one is for adults, etc.
Clearly packaged marked and explained. You know what your getting thanks to the label sort of stuff. Disclaimers in plain sight for whatever they feel needs one.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah this is valid and I wonder if, longer-term, D&D maybe will need to like separate out at least a couple of brands, maybe more. Right now, and it's understandable, WotC seem to be heading Disney-ward (I don't offer this as a criticism or snark), and trying to make D&D into a very safe and fairly broad brand (Disney has its own issues with inclusivity, esp. towards LGBTQ+ people, which actually is linked to this but probably another separate sub-discussion). I think in the short term that's reasonable, but I think in the longer term, they may want their Star Wars and Marvel equivalents, which are both quite a bit edgier than the Disney brand, in their own ways. They've got an absolute wealth of ways they could do that, from separating out an "Advanced" D&D again (probably not) to making a setting-specific thing, to introducing some kind of new branding or whatever. Sorry may be getting ahead of us here.

A really simple way to do this, though I doubt they will, is maybe use MtG and create a dedicated roleplaying game around it that deals with more mature themes. I think this would probably be prudent because MtG makes so much on the card side that if the rpg made less because it was a more niche product the brand itself could handle it. The only real issue I see is that they tied it to D&D already, of course the rpg itself could be compatible with the new version of D&D so that materials could be used between the two but keep the branding of each sperate

 

[Thourne]

A really simple way to do this, though I doubt they will, is maybe use MtG and create a dedicated roleplaying game around it that deals with more mature themes. I think this would probably be prudent because MtG makes so much on the card side that if the rpg made less because it was a more niche product the brand itself could handle it. The only real issue I see is that they tied it to D&D already, of course the rpg itself could be compatible with the new version of D&D so that materials could be used between the two but keep the branding of each sperate

Not saying it is a bad idea, I just think that creating a new system wouldn't work.
As a setting sure.
Take the lesson MMORPGs had to learn the hard way, you do a "BLAH BLAH II" you split the player base more than you draw in new blood.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Here is the deal, eliminating controversial content is performative in many ways. Does it actually help end systemic racism or help people? Actual harmful content, yes, remove it.

If this data is correct, WotC might want to deal with the astounding lack of diversity in the company:

• 28% of Wizards of the Coast employees are women, while 72% are men.
• The most common ethnicity at Wizards of the Coast is White (68%).
• 11% of Wizards of the Coast employees are Hispanic or Latino.
• 11% of Wizards of the Coast employees are Asian.

78% men seems insanely bad.

And here are the leadership, a little dated, but come on.

One more, just to be clear. This is the photo of Wizards of the Coast employees that the company put on their LinkedIn to represent their employee population.

So, let's stop the performative nonsense and do the hard work needed to break down systemic racism and gender inequality.

 

[Thourne]

Here is the deal, eliminating controversial content is performative in many ways. Does it actually help end systemic racism or help people?

If this data is correct, WotC might want to deal with the astounding lack of diversity in the company:

• 28% of Wizards of the Coast employees are women, while 72% are men.
• The most common ethnicity at Wizards of the Coast is White (68%).
• 11% of Wizards of the Coast employees are Hispanic or Latino.
• 11% of Wizards of the Coast employees are Asian.

78% men seems insanely bad.

And here are the leadership, a little dated, but come on.

One more, just to be clear. This is the photo of Wizards of the Coast employees that the company put on their LinkedIn to represent their employee population.

So, let's stop the performative nonsense and do the hard work needed to break down systemic racism and gender inequality.

Yah, the gender disparity is quite noticeable. 72% male is noticeably lopsided.
Diversity at the top would likely help. It usually does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is the deal, eliminating controversial content is performative in many ways. Does it actually help end systemic racism or help people? Actual harmful content, yes, remove it.

If this data is correct, WotC might want to deal with the astounding lack of diversity in the company:

• 28% of Wizards of the Coast employees are women, while 72% are men.
• The most common ethnicity at Wizards of the Coast is White (68%).
• 11% of Wizards of the Coast employees are Hispanic or Latino.
• 11% of Wizards of the Coast employees are Asian.

78% men seems insanely bad.

And here are the leadership, a little dated, but come on.

One more, just to be clear. This is the photo of Wizards of the Coast employees that the company put on their LinkedIn to represent their employee population.

So, let's stop the performative nonsense and do the hard work needed to break down systemic racism and gender inequality.

What's the answer to that though? Fire a bunch of men? Do a massive hiring surge to even things out? Do you think either of those options would go over well?

 

[Faolyn]

I'm curious- how do you feel about games like Axis and Allies and, more specifically, the players who enjoy running the Germans?

One: I've never played it. My family didn't play those kinds of games where I was a kid (although I did play TSR's Dungeon board game), and I don't think any of my friends are interested in playing in them now.

Two: Board games aren't RPGs. Most people aren't playing those sort of games in order to role-play their meeple or even give them any personality. They're playing them so that their side will win. While it's possible, even likely, that there are people who play the Axis side because they are pro-Axis powers, I imagine the vast majority of people are just playing it as a strategic board game that happens to take place during WWII. The actual game itself could take place in any other part of history (there's an Axis & Allies WWI) or include fantastic elements (there's apparently an offshoot game, Axis & Allies & Zombies) and it wouldn't really matter.

 

[Thourne]

What's the answer to that though? Fire a bunch of men? Do a massive hiring surge to even things out? Do you think either of those options would go over well?

Mostly, keep it in mind and give an equitable shot to what is missing when filling open positions or creating new ones.

 

[Faolyn]

It's insensitive and makes light of rape, but it's not homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear, so homophobia is an irrational fear of gay people. The DM saying that a PC wakes up with a sore butt is not enough to say that the DM has a fear of gay people.

Phobia means fear or hatred. And in psychology, that means it's a type of anxiety, and people often make jokes about what causes them anxiety, as a way to control that anxiety.

And I don't think that McGibster feared or hated gay people back then or now. I think they were following societal trends that made that sort of joke--you can't trust gay men around you because they will have sex with you no matter what--"acceptable".

Since that sort of joke isn't OK now (either as a gay joke or as a rape joke), it's considered to be bad, or at least in poor taste, for writers to include the lead-ups for those sort of jokes. If people want to make those jokes on their own, you can't stop them, but it doesn't mean it's OK for other people to do the set-up (dog whistles) for those jokes.

You can't declare an argument "fails" just because you disagree with it.

But you can claim my argument failed because you disagreed with it?

And you can in fact make Star Wars(the story) without the force. Luke is just a farm boy turned hero who becomes an ace pilot and destroys the death star. It wouldn't be Star Wars as we know it, but it would still be the same basic story. Just like Dark Sun without slavery could still tell the same basic stories, but would not be Dark Sun as we know it.

So you're saying that one could very easily make a Dark Sun game without any sort of slavery in it and it would still be Dark Sun?

 

[Burt Baccara]

What's the answer to that though? Fire a bunch of men? Do a massive hiring surge to even things out? Do you think either of those options would go over well?

Usually, it is about outreach to grow a pipeline of women, and training interviewers to avoid bias. Then it takes time. The stats show the average employee stays 3.8 years, so turnover how and not being asshats when hiring is how you get there.

 

[Thourne]

Usually, it is about outreach to grow a pipeline of women, and training interviewers to avoid bias. Then it takes time. The stats show the average employee stays 3.8 years, so turnover how and not being asshats when hiring is how you get there.

I can't remember the term for it, but blind reviews of the qualifications comes into it. Strip them of all personal identifying information in the early phases. You do not need to know their gender, race, etc to review their skills. Then once you have a small stack of talent you want to proceed with things open up.
You need to assure a mix of qualified persons gets into the stack in the first place though. At no point should an unqualified person even be in the mix.