What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Okay, and?
And that's why a lot of people are viewing this through the lens of D&D, and are less interested in other games. You can't expect folks to put a lot of effort into researching something that doesn't matter much to them, as much as that would be nice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Imaro

Legend
That's not the indictment you seem to think it is. Wanting to have the game that you like (and that your current group is playing) also have material with regard to topics, themes, and content that you want to explore is entirely reasonable. If you have to switch to another game in order to bring that content into play, that means not only expending money and time learning the new system (since mechanics are separate from themes et al), but also convincing your entire group to make the switch. All things which are barriers to trying those new games, in other words.
And that is exactly why 3PP exist. Now if you choose not to look into them well that's on you.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
And when a game publisher says, "You know, I was going to have a setting in which one culture went about systematically committing genocide, but I decided that that wasn't going to be acceptable in today's climate"...

...we'd probably say that was a reasonable choice and in good taste.
Isn't that the plotline of every demon and undead hoarde? Kill every living thing?
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
And that is exactly why 3PP exist. Now if you choose not to look into them well that's on you.
Looking into them means knowing that those third-party products exist in the first place, and being able to find them without undue difficulty. Given that "controversial" products are usually made by smaller publishers, who are less able to defend themselves against haters who say that their products offend their sensibilities and so either shouldn't exist or shouldn't be easily found by consumers – typically by way of leveraging harassment via unflattering coverage in game-specific coverage online and campaigns denouncing sales venues that carry them – their existence is thus not a given. Hence, it's on them, not us.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
You and @Justice and Rule keep making this error and it is baffling.
The PCs are not the only murderers in a D&D game.

It is like you positing that others are suggesting PCs must be/want to be slavers.
That's really not what either of us are saying at all.

In a fantasy setting, there are reasons for the violence. Even if it's NPC against NPC, there's a reason. It might just be meta-reasons, but there are reasons. If you have a bad guy who just murders people for no reason but to show how evil they are, then I think most people would think that's a poorly-done villain with uninteresting motives and/or that the GM is being unnecessarily edgy. There are a few exceptions, like if you have Joker-style villains, but the majority of bad guys have a reason for their violence. But what's the justification for slavery? Just to show how evil someone is (as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread)? There's other ways to do that that don't involve slavery.

And may I remind you, this thread started because of Dark Sun, where slavery isn't considered so much a great evil to be overcome as it is a societal norm to be tolerated or even engaged with. And if slavery is a societal norm, then there actually is a chance that the PCs might want to be slavers--or might end up as slaves. Didn't one of the first Dark Sun adventures have the PCs start out as slaves?

And again, what do you get out of a game that includes slavery? If it's just realism, do you also have a Random STD table for when your players go a-wenching? If you have a PC with the Noble background, do you check to see what effects inbreeding had on them? "Sure, you can be a prince, but you're also going to take extra damage after each combat due to hemophilia." Since the party has encountered great horrors on their travels, do you insist that they have PTSD? All of these things are realistic, and removing them from the game would, therefore, remove another crayon from the box and make the world less colorful, by the logic that's been going around this thread.

And if you say "well, magic will cure these things," then magic can also create constructs and animate objects to work the fields--and coin can hire some friendly giants to do the work of a dozen farmers (with plant magic to ensure bountiful crops to pay for it).

How do you think bad guys get into power? The very first AP Hoard of the Dragon Queen has you rescue a tortured half-elf Harper in the 2nd chapter. The first chapter has mercenaries and kobolds hired by the cultists pillage a town, presumably killing innocents in cold blood in the process.
I haven't read that one (we played in it briefly, but didn't finish it), but I imagine that there actually were some reasons there.

There's also another difference between the violence and the slavery. Unless you have PCs or NPCs who are sadists (in which case, we're back to unnecessary edginess), the killing is fairly quick. And in a fantasy world, there's definitely an afterlife and a chance of resurrection. Slavery is a long, slow process that can involve a lifetime of abuse.

And just in case you don't get it, I literally don't care what you do with your home campaign. The (non D&D) setting I just co-wrote has some slavery and slavery-in-all-but-name in it, but I was careful to put legal limits on it in-game and to provide ways for the slaves to be freed because I know what's acceptable for my table. As it turned out, the player who probably would be considered the most "sensitive" by some people chose to play an ex-slave--and not only an ex-slave, but one from the culture where people were brainwashed from birth into thinking being enslaved was the norm.

And quite frankly, if someone else got a hand on my setting notes and said "I like the world and would want to run it, but this slavery has to go," my response would be "No problem; I have some ideas as to what else can be done, if you're interested."

But a company who is writing to a general audience doesn't know what's acceptable for my table, and that's what's important here. When it comes to a topic like slavery, which has not only harmed many people in the past but still harms many people today (it's estimated there's about 50 million people who are currently enslaved), no game company is going to be able to write about slavery carefully enough. Whereas it's a safe bet that no gamers have ever been harmed by a kobold who was hired by dragon cultists. Sure, there are likely some gamers who had been attacked or even almost killed in the past, but being attacked by a kobold provides enough of a fantasy buffer that I'd bet most of those gamers would be OK--and that's not even taking into account that they'd also be playing people who can fight back.
 


JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
That's really not what either of us are saying at all.

In a fantasy setting, there are reasons for the violence. Even if it's NPC against NPC, there's a reason. It might just be meta-reasons, but there are reasons. If you have a bad guy who just murders people for no reason but to show how evil they are, then I think most people would think that's a poorly-done villain with uninteresting motives and/or that the GM is being unnecessarily edgy. There are a few exceptions, like if you have Joker-style villains, but the majority of bad guys have a reason for their violence. But what's the justification for slavery? Just to show how evil someone is (as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread)? There's other ways to do that that don't involve slavery.

And may I remind you, this thread started because of Dark Sun, where slavery isn't considered so much a great evil to be overcome as it is a societal norm to be tolerated or even engaged with. And if slavery is a societal norm, then there actually is a chance that the PCs might want to be slavers--or might end up as slaves. Didn't one of the first Dark Sun adventures have the PCs start out as slaves?

And again, what do you get out of a game that includes slavery? If it's just realism, do you also have a Random STD table for when your players go a-wenching? If you have a PC with the Noble background, do you check to see what effects inbreeding had on them? "Sure, you can be a prince, but you're also going to take extra damage after each combat due to hemophilia." Since the party has encountered great horrors on their travels, do you insist that they have PTSD? All of these things are realistic, and removing them from the game would, therefore, remove another crayon from the box and make the world less colorful, by the logic that's been going around this thread.

And if you say "well, magic will cure these things," then magic can also create constructs and animate objects to work the fields--and coin can hire some friendly giants to do the work of a dozen farmers (with plant magic to ensure bountiful crops to pay for it).


I haven't read that one (we played in it briefly, but didn't finish it), but I imagine that there actually were some reasons there.

There's also another difference between the violence and the slavery. Unless you have PCs or NPCs who are sadists (in which case, we're back to unnecessary edginess), the killing is fairly quick. And in a fantasy world, there's definitely an afterlife and a chance of resurrection. Slavery is a long, slow process that can involve a lifetime of abuse.

And just in case you don't get it, I literally don't care what you do with your home campaign. The (non D&D) setting I just co-wrote has some slavery and slavery-in-all-but-name in it, but I was careful to put legal limits on it in-game and to provide ways for the slaves to be freed because I know what's acceptable for my table. As it turned out, the player who probably would be considered the most "sensitive" by some people chose to play an ex-slave--and not only an ex-slave, but one from the culture where people were brainwashed from birth into thinking being enslaved was the norm.

And quite frankly, if someone else got a hand on my setting notes and said "I like the world and would want to run it, but this slavery has to go," my response would be "No problem; I have some ideas as to what else can be done, if you're interested."

But a company who is writing to a general audience doesn't know what's acceptable for my table, and that's what's important here. When it comes to a topic like slavery, which has not only harmed many people in the past but still harms many people today (it's estimated there's about 50 million people who are currently enslaved), no game company is going to be able to write about slavery carefully enough. Whereas it's a safe bet that no gamers have ever been harmed by a kobold who was hired by dragon cultists. Sure, there are likely some gamers who had been attacked or even almost killed in the past, but being attacked by a kobold provides enough of a fantasy buffer that I'd bet most of those gamers would be OK--and that's not even taking into account that they'd also be playing people who can fight back.
Why do you feel like it's a good enough fantasy buffer from reality to excuse a kobold bandit trying to kill you in a mugging but not apply the same fantasy buffer to snake-guy wants to kidnap you and take you to a hidden desert lair to toil in mine?
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Why do you feel like it's a good enough fantasy buffer from reality to excuse a kobold bandit trying to kill you in a mugging but not apply the same fantasy buffer to snake-guy wants to kidnap you and take you to a hidden desert lair to toil in mine?
Both have worked perfectly well in many fantasy stories, and I see no reason why they can't continue to do so.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top