What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Justice and Rule]

Exactly though. Personal choice. I am not being excluded from the hobby. I'm choosing to put my dollar's and time elsewhere.

Personal choice.

Sure, and you're proving why it's safer and easier to stick to a setting than just create a bunch of new ones: people will stick with what they know before trying something new. That entire conversation is a great example of why Wizards would think this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, and you're proving why it's safer and easier to stick to a setting than just create a bunch of new ones: people will stick with what they know before trying something new. That entire conversation is a great example of why Wizards would think this.

Nobody said it doesn't make sense for WotC to think this way. It's more of a sad commentary that so few folks are brave enough to break out of it.

 

[Scribe]

Sure, and you're proving why it's safer and easier to stick to a setting than just create a bunch of new ones: people will stick with what they know before trying something new. That entire conversation is a great example of why Wizards would think this.

I feel like we are discussing different points. They could absolutely create a new setting that would be appealing. PF1 exists. It was created new.

Hell, I dont think its even particularly difficult especially for a company that creates new settings (MTG) literally ALL the time.

Its safer though, I'll give you that, for them to just meekly trickle out ignorable books.

Despite it all, its not them excluding anyone. Its my choice to walk away from what they are doing and thats a completely different thing.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Nobody said it doesn't make sense for WotC to think this way. It's more of a sad commentary that so few folks are brave enough to break out of it.

I can agree with that, but it's hard to try and break out when you have a certain amount of fans that see minorities at the front of a product and say "Well, this is just 'happy-happy' woke crap" without a look (Not accusing anyone here of this, but the quote-tweet brought up in the other thread definitely had that tone). Though who knows, I think it did fairly good numbers. Hopefully it'll get them to ignore those sorts of people and move forwards. Paizo is certainly doing well at adapting their own properties and updating them for the future.

I feel like we are discussing different points. They could absolutely create a new setting that would be appealing. PF1 exists. It was created new.

Yeah, but it had the luck of taking on a lot of people who Wizards essentially abandoned. Unique favorable circumstances right there.

Hell, I dont think its even particularly difficult especially for a company that creates new settings (MTG) literally ALL the time.

Its safer though, I'll give you that, for them to just meekly trickle out ignorable books.

Despite it all, its not them excluding anyone. Its my choice to walk away from what they are doing and thats a completely different thing.

I'm not ripping on you, but I'm just saying that you've already made the argument as to why they don't do this sort of thing elsewhere. I would love to have half a dozen setting books. My brother, a guy who doesn't play D&D much at all anymore, would likely read good setting books if they released them.

 

[Faolyn]

Nobody said it doesn't make sense for WotC to think this way. It's more of a sad commentary that so few folks are brave enough to break out of it.

You're not cool with the changes they made to Ravenloft.

You've said you'd rather that Dark Sun keep the slavery.

You had previously said you didn't consider the MtG settings or Radiant Citadel to be new.

Why would WotC think you want something that was actually new?

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not cool with the changes they made to Ravenloft.

You've said you'd rather that Dark Sun keep the slavery.

You had previously said you didn't consider the MtG settings or Radiant Citadel to be new.

Why would WotC think you want something that was actually new?

I don't like changes that retroactively change existing settings, and neither the MtG settings nor the Radiant Citadel settings were actually made by the D&D design team, no more than Wildemount was. I would love to see that team actually make something new, but it hasn't happened in a good while.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't like changes that retroactively change existing settings, and neither the MtG settings nor the Radiant Citadel settings were actually made by the D&D design team, no more than Wildemount was. I would love to see that team actually make something new, but it hasn't happened in a good while.

Sigh.

The MtG and Radiant Citadel were made by WotC. They were hired by WotC to make those settings. They are new settings.

People in these sort of companies have different jobs. The design team are obviously assigned to do work for existing settings because that's where their strengths lie. They get other people to do new settings. That's just how the job works.

 

[Hussar]

I've skipped on buying books I didnt think were marketed, or designed for me.

Does that mean I've been told to leave the hobby?

There’s somewhat of a difference between skipping a book just because it doesn’t appeal to you and sitting down at a table of strangers to play a “fight your way out of slavery” scenario that you didn’t write and are told to run/play if you want to participate.

Again NO ONE is talking about what you do at your table.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There’s somewhat of a difference between skipping a book just because it doesn’t appeal to you and sitting down at a table of strangers to play a “fight your way out of slavery” scenario that you didn’t write and are told to run/play if you want to participate.

Again NO ONE is talking about what you do at your table.

Yeah, really can't stress this enough: What you do at your own table is very different than releasing a product for mass consumption. There's a different level of care needed to release a major product compared to your own table because you can tailor your content to your players. Your tone is going to be better-understood at your own table, rather than someone running your stuff without your personal understanding of the material.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There’s somewhat of a difference between skipping a book just because it doesn’t appeal to you and sitting down at a table of strangers to play a “fight your way out of slavery” scenario that you didn’t write and are told to run/play if you want to participate.

This I definitely get. I am not a big public play person myself (even when I started my company and had to go to conventions, I just couldn't get into public sessions the way I can get into home sessions----and going to conventions was never a huge part of the gaming scene I was in so I probably just never developed the taste for it). I wouldn't expect public games to have the same content. I suppose the question is though: should published setting and other RPG material be done so with public play as the priority or as the deciding factor on what to include? Most people play at home with their friends, so you are potentially missing out on a lot if everything is geared towards audiences who are strictly playing with strangers.

Again NO ONE is talking about what you do at your table.

This I get too. People can do whatever they want in their home game. But a lot of this discussion is around what is socially acceptable in an RPG group, what is acceptable for publishers to print, etc. Again, I have no issue with creators deciding they want to avoid a particular topic, or deal with it in a more progressive way. What I want is for there to be a publishing environment where people feel free to do that but also take more chances with things like Dark Sun. I think something like a Dark Sun setting is not all that troubling or disturbing. I get that some people might have issues with it, but I also think if we have reached a point where that is completely unthinkable for a big publisher to tackle (by just including tropes that would appear in any sword and sandal film (or as mentioned Sword and Planet) and any post apocalyptic film, I think we are in an overly restricted environment (at least overly restricted in certain directions).

 

[Raunalyn]

And no one told him to leave the hobby, either. If he doesn't like something in a book or supplement, don't use it, don't read it, don't buy it. I did see someone mention that if he didn't like it, he could play a game or setting that was more to his liking. No one is telling him to leave the hobby if he doesn't like controversial content.

Dishonesty and hyperbole do nothing to help his argument.

Robert Heinlein once said that common sense is anything but common.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This I definitely get. I am not a big public play person myself (even when I started my company and had to go to conventions, I just couldn't get into public sessions the way I can get into home sessions----and going to conventions was never a huge part of the gaming scene I was in so I probably just never developed the taste for it). I wouldn't expect public games to have the same content. I suppose the question is though: should published setting and other RPG material be done so with public play as the priority or as the deciding factor on what to include? Most people play at home with their friends, so you are potentially missing out on a lot if everything is geared towards audiences who are strictly playing with strangers.

It's not just public sessions, but running sessions where you are adding in concepts not normally used in someone's game that they may or may not be able to handle. We've seen how this plays out before: Pathfinder took a while to address the fact that you could buy slaves in their Society play. It's much easier to let groups add in that sort of stuff than have people take that stuff out.

This I get too. People can do whatever they want in their home game. But a lot of this discussion is around what is socially acceptable in an RPG group, what is acceptable for publishers to print, etc. Again, I have no issue with creators deciding they want to avoid a particular topic, or deal with it in a more progressive way. What I want is for there to be a publishing environment where people feel free to do that but also take more chances with things like Dark Sun. I think something like a Dark Sun setting is not all that troubling or disturbing. I get that some people might have issues with it, but I also think if we have reached a point where that is completely unthinkable for a big publisher to tackle (by just including tropes that would appear in any sword and sandal film (or as mentioned Sword and Planet) and any post apocalyptic film, I think we are in an overly restricted environment (at least overly restricted in certain directions).

I think you are really missing that you are talking about something that makes people, particular groups of minorities, uncomfortable and unwelcome. It's much easier for someone like you to add that sort of thing in than have it standard and force GMs to make the decision to take it out.

And no one told him to leave the hobby, either. If he doesn't like something in a book or supplement, don't use it, don't read it, don't buy it. No one is telling him to leave the hobby if he doesn't like controversial content.

No, you're just making them feel unwelcome by using incredibly charged content as a set dressing in your game. Like, seriously, saying "No one is making them leave!" misses that this hobby is only just starting to open up and has plenty of problem areas with being largely white and male dominated. It's why it's so important to make people feel comfortable and welcome.

Really, we should focus on making newer groups comfortable because older groups who want this material more than have the means and experience to add it back in. There's nothing that stops you from adding stuff like rape and sexual assault into your game, but obviously having it standard is probably not a good idea given that there will be plenty of people who find it uncomfortable. It's the same sort of issue here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, really can't stress this enough: What you do at your own table is very different than releasing a product for mass consumption. There's a different level of care needed to release a major product compared to your own table because you can tailor your content to your players. Your tone is going to be better-understood at your own table, rather than someone running your stuff without your personal understanding of the material.

So are you and @Hussar saying that there are certain topics, like slavery, that simply shouldn't be published about in RPGs anymore? Is that it, because I've seen a lot of angling around that question.

 

[Raunalyn]

No, you're just making them feel unwelcome by using incredibly charged content as a set dressing in your game. Like, seriously, saying "No one is making them leave!" misses that this hobby is only just starting to open up and has plenty of problem areas with being largely white and male dominated. It's why it's so important to make people feel comfortable and welcome.

I was pointing out the hyperbole of another commenter. No one made the argument that they should leave the hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not just public sessions, but running sessions where you are adding in concepts not normally used in someone's game that they may or may not be able to handle. We've seen how this plays out before: Pathfinder took a while to address the fact that you could buy slaves in their Society play. It's much easier to let groups add in that sort of stuff than have people take that stuff out.



I think you are really missing that you are talking about something that makes people, particular groups of minorities, uncomfortable and unwelcome. It's much easier for someone like you to add that sort of thing in than have it standard and force GMs to make the decision to take it out.



No, you're just making them feel unwelcome by using incredibly charged content as a set dressing in your game. Like, seriously, saying "No one is making them leave!" misses that this hobby is only just starting to open up and has plenty of problem areas with being largely white and male dominated. It's why it's so important to make people feel comfortable and welcome.

Really, we should focus on making newer groups comfortable because older groups who want this material more than have the means and experience to add it back in. There's nothing that stops you from adding stuff like rape and sexual assault into your game, but obviously having it standard is probably not a good idea given that there will be plenty of people who find it uncomfortable. It's the same sort of issue here.

Are you saying that creators should no longer publish work featuring a topic that might some people, any people, feel unwelcome? That any such topic simply should be off-limits?

 

[Justice and Rule]

So are you and @Hussar saying that there are certain topics, like slavery, that simply shouldn't be published about in RPGs anymore? Is that it, because I've seen a lot of angling around that question.

No, I think if you're going to use slavery, that you should address it directly and not use it as set dressing or continue to use because canon dictates you do. I think such things should be examined and you should look whether or not you're just using it for some bit of flavor. For example, there are Delta Green scenarios that use things like child abuse and animal abuse, but also those scenarios go deep in addressing them and make them the focus of such things.

As it stands, I think D&D really doesn't do this sort of thing well and using such things really won't be done well in D&D, especially with the audience it is trying to reach. I think it misses the point of the game and what it is, to be honest.

I was pointing out the hyperbole of another commenter. No one made the argument that they should leave the hobby.

Yes, but the point is that we're prioritizing the comfort of older players rather than newer ones... or really, not even the "comfort" of older players as much as their demands to keep settings "accurate".

Are you saying that creators should no longer publish work featuring a topic that might some people, any people, feel unwelcome? That any such topic simply should be off-limits?

I don't believe I did say that!

I just don't think it's in Wizards's best interests to do so because I don't think they have the chops to do so and their audience is so broad that it's just not a good idea in the same way that I don't want them exploring sexual assault as a setting aspect. Instead, I think that they should smartly consider removing superfluous usages of things like slavery and remove them because if the only reason to keep them around is for "setting accuracy", we've basically conceded how useless they are in actual gameplay.

 

[Raunalyn]

Yes, but the point is that we're prioritizing the comfort of older players rather than newer ones... or really, not even the "comfort" of older players as much as their demands to keep settings.

Which has nothing to do with what I was saying.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Which has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I mean, it does, but I don't think you realize saying "But you don't have to play!" misses that prioritizing meaninglessly controversial content sends a message as to what is important in the community and how it views inclusiveness. Just because you aren't saying they aren't welcome doesn't mean they aren't getting that hint.

 

[Hussar]

And before we get too stuck on organized play, I’d point out that lots of gaming is still done in public spaces like an FLGS. Surely it’s not unreasonable to think that a group playing a slave scenario in public might contribute to an unwelcoming atmosphere to the hobby.

Oh and again for clarity, it’s the argument “don’t like it don’t read/play/buy it” that is very much anti-inclusive. Not that I personally have been pushed out of the hobby.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And before we get too stuck on organized play, I’d point out that lots of gaming is still done in public spaces like an FLGS. Surely it’s not unreasonable to think that a group playing a slave scenario in public might contribute to an unwelcoming atmosphere to the hobby.

Oh and again for clarity, it’s the argument “don’t like it don’t read/play/buy it” that is very much anti-inclusive. Not that I personally have been pushed out of the hobby.

To give an example adjacent to our hobby, I remember someone on a 40K page posting incredibly bad-taste sexualized models and there being a long discussion about how these sorts of models weren't inappropriate and unwelcoming towards females because they were his models. People really don't realize that they are part of a community and their choices, while their own, are reflected on by others there.