What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Is the assumption then that you are publishing for an audience in which there is bound to be  someone who is allergic?

No, it's recognizing the common "allergens" that have been a part of what you're writing and doing your best to avoid them. No one demands perfection. We are suggesting thought and care to avoid harming vulnerable groups.

 

[Hussar]

It comes up significantly less often than giant spiders, and you don't hear arachnophobes claiming they aren't welcome, or that spiders shouldn't appear in any RPG product. If you have a arachnophobe at your table as a GM you just make modifications, or don't pick a scenario where they feature heavily, you don't try and get them removed from every product because they are still a useful and important story element for most people.

So you feel that the issue of slavery is comparable to arachnophobia?

You might want to rethink that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Answering the thread's question - I think eliminating something like slavery within a game that draws its inspiration from a period of humanity's history where slavery existed, would likely influence our storytelling and world-building to lose an aspect of gravitas and authenticity. That is how I feel.

The question then becomes, how far does one go with controversial content to capture that gravitas and authenticity?

I'm not yet confident with my answer for the above question so I'm just putting it out there.

 

[Bagpuss]

So you feel that the issue of slavery is comparable to arachnophobia?

You might want to rethink that.

They aren't comparable as a societal ill, no. But in that it is something that a person objects to in an RPG, they are.

If someone is suffers from severe arachnophobia I think we can agree mention of them can cause harm in the form of panic attacks, and other physical reactions. The percentage of people that have actually been in slavery so are likely to get PTS from or other real harm from it being mentioned in an RPG is significantly less I think you will find.

The actions you can take as a GM to mitigated that harm is also comparable.

 

[Kaodi]

To go back to a comment I made in another thread about Dark Sun: What makes something into Book of Vile Darkness or Book of Erotic Fantasy material; unmentionable? Like the events that turned Last Wall into the Gravelands seem to be acceptable material but in real world terms that was a straight up extermination-type genocide of a recognizable nation, a real world crime of the highest order. Objective badness does not seem to be a sufficient condition for what must be avoided, nor does it seem to be a reliable guide to what is triggering.

 

[Cadence]

Answering the thread's question - I think eliminating something like slavery within a game that draws its inspiration from a period of humanity's history where slavery existed, would likely influence our storytelling and world-building to lose an aspect of gravitas and authenticity. That is how I feel.

The question then becomes, how far does one go with controversial content to capture that gravitas and authenticity?

I'm now curious about what things were big IRL that feel like they don't get highlighted in games: huge numbers of differing regional languages and dialects, seemingly random disease outbreaks with no cure that wiped out huge percents of the populations large and small (plague, smallpox, typhoid), significantly fewer rights for non-land owners, significantly fewer rights for non-citizens, significantly fewer rights for women, long recovery times and massive death rates from injuries, forced religious devotion at some level, etc...

Is it because modern gaming culture as a whole has decided they weren't fun? Is it that those aren't viewed by many as the exciting narrative parts of history classes? Is it that magic exists in the games and not IRL?

 

[Justice and Rule]

They aren't comparable as a societal ill, no. But in that it is something that a person objects to in an RPG, they are.

Yeah, but the point is that because they are not comparable as societal ills, they carry very different weights. The comparison falls apart because people don't treat slavery the same way they do someone's individual phobia because the phobia is, by its nature, often individualized to the person while something like slavery has had long-reaching effects on our society and certain groups of people in particular. It's an "Apples and iPods" sort of comparison.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm now curious about what things were big IRL that feel like they don't get highlighted in games: huge numbers of differing regional languages and dialects, seemingly random disease outbreaks with no cure that wiped out huge percents of the populations large and small (plague, smallpox, typhoid), significantly fewer rights for non-land owners, significantly fewer rights for non-citizens, significantly fewer rights for women, long recovery times and massive death rates from injuries, forced religious devotion at some level, etc...

Is it because modern gaming culture as a whole has decided they weren't fun? Is it that those aren't viewed by many as the exciting narrative parts of history classes? Is it that magic exists in the games and not IRL?

You raise a valid point and it is likely a combination of factors, like the ones you've listed, and not one factor alone.
Speaking for myself

• I'd love for languages & dialects to matter - particularly within the social pillar. And you can see that within Pandius where various Mystaran-fans contribute articles on linguistics and the evolvement of languages within that setting.
• I'd love for plagues to matter - and not be handwaved so easily with a paladin's class feature or a cleric's spell
• I'd love for famine to matter - and not be handwaved so easily with a few druidic spells
• Long recovery times exist - and I'm guessing many have changed Rest and Recovery within their D&D games
• Forced religion devotion is an interesting one, I've only slightly dabbled with this - but there could be some great stories one could create out of something like this. D&D has its fair share of cultists and zealots, so an aspect of that has been covered.
• Women's rights - dealing with this issue, to me, seems unfun within the context of D&D. Although we do have Drow societies which flips this and yet that seems fun to me.
• Fewer rights for common folk, non-land owners - we (big We) don't focus on this, although overthrowing despots and bad rulers is a trope within D&D. I know I'm going back to Mystara again, but that is my go-to setting - in the Duchy of Karameikos you have the Thyatian - Traladaran issue (colonialism essentially if you're not familiar). The ideas for adventurers to play characters within the underground Traladaran movement to overthrow or cause chaos within the Duchy are very enjoyable. Particularly because the Thyatian-born Duke is also painted as a good guy by the setting. So adventurers are good, as is the one they want to overthrow, Duke Stefan, who is desperately trying to keep it all together and gain independence from Thyatis, but has bad elements within his camp and jealous enemies within Thyatis who could be funding the underground Traladaran operation. This to me is gold.

Good list!

EDIT: Here is a few more - The influence and power of political and trade guilds, coinage, conscription, taxation.
You will see fan-written articles on all these things and more at the Pandius.

 

[MGibster]

It can mean any of those, so why not err on the side of caution.

I want to be clear here, I'm not talking about what's going on at an individual table. I'm thinking of books produced for a mass market. And for those who produce such books, it's not their responsibility to ensure every reader is safely ensconced in their zone of comfort. And if someone is prone to being triggered, it's their responsibility to figure out how to best deal with whatever it is that triggers them because none of us can depend on the whole world to cater to our wants and desires. I used to game with someone with a fairly severe case of arachnophobia and when I found out I just didn't use spiders. It doesn't follow though that any game product with spiders shouldn't exist because it might trigger someone.

It's like with allergens. Some people who are allergic to a food may eat it and get a stomach ache for an hour or two, while others may go into anaphylactic shock and possibly die. If you're making food for someone who's allergic, you avoid the allergen altogether; you don't add it because hey, it may just make them uncomfortable.

If I'm making food for someone I know is allergic to something I'm going to avoid those allergens. But despite the fact that people with severe allergies to shellfish and peanuts are out there, I can still go to a restaurant and order some Thai peanut shrimp.

 

[MGibster]

So by telling me “don’t like it, don’t buy it” you’re basically telling me I’m not welcome in the hobby.

Not every game is for everybody. Thirsty Sword Lesbians looks like a fantastic game, but I have no interest in it. I am not the target audience and that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of games that aren't for me. And quite frankly, if "the hobby" is D&D, then that's a big, big problem. There are other games. Try one of those.