What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Scribe]

Is there, or is it just that the label is a cultural signal about how we feel regarding the use of that label?

Oh for sure it's fallen into the realm of the ongoing annoyance that is the cultural divide in online discourse.

There is still a way to communicate things, without coming across as trying to moralize and preach.

I found a reading of the Ravenloft guide was not obnoxious in this regard, but everyone will have their own tolerance (trigger?) levels.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But does that mean it shouldn't have been made, and it's ok to give the people who made it and the people who like it a hard time, to the point of impuning their character?

This is also an area where more nuanced discussion and criticism I think is important. It is one of the reasons why I expressed my opinion that we are becoming too puritanical now (where just the hint of something can be an issue even if the reality of what the work in question is doing is more involved). I am not a huge Game of Thrones Fan, but my understanding is Game of thrones draws inspiration more from the ancient world with its slavery than American, and that it wasn't based on race or anything like that. Which I think makes the white savior issue less applicable. In this clip George RR Martin addresses it:
Maybe GoT can weigh in on how accurate this is.

 

[mythago]

If you go to a restaurant in the United States, they don't list the allergens on every dish. They might have something on the menu that says, "Hey, we sometimes cook with peanuts and cross contaimination is a possibility," but not for each dish. If you have allergies, it's your reponsibility to make sure you don't ingest something you shouldn't.

The US is a big place and this varies a lot by region and by restaurant. For chain restaurants, it's pretty typical for them to have little symbols indicating whether an item is vegan, vegetarian, or gluten-free, and it's also pretty typical to have a disclaimer explaining that the kitchen uses tree nuts or whatever. But there are restaurants that specifically list the major ingredients. Sometimes that's so the waitstaff doesn't have to keep answering whether _________ has shellfish in it, sometimes it's because it's a selling point for the restaurant to show all of the interest and clever ingredients they use to make that dish. Here in California you're lucky if the restaurant doesn't tell you the specific county your chicken came from.

 

[Faolyn]

Is it? Because D&D has experienced a meteoric rise in popularity that hasn't been seen since the 1980s, all the while it has contained some problematic elements. Do you think getting rid of these elements will see an improvement in sales? I doubt it, but I can't be absolutely sure.

I can't imagine it will hurt sales, except for those people who won't buy things they consider "woke."

We were talking about triggering elements. But in Curse of Strahd, the titular villain is an abuser who delights in torturing others, has thralls (slaves), and is a rapist who is trying to force a young woman to marry him. It contains many problematic and potentially triggering elements and it's considered one of the better adventures released for 5th edition.

Sure--but (a) CoS is marketed as a horror game, and (b) he's an individual, not a culture.

(And personally, I had to make so many changes to make that adventure interesting and actually horrific. You may consider it one of the better adventures; I consider it bland with a side of goofy.)

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not sure what more there is for me to answer. I've explained why I like what I like and even elaborated further on a few other real topics (controversial or otherwise) that I enjoy inputting into my table's games to build stories which seem more weighty and authentic to me and my players. I like where D&D gains its inspiration from - warts and all.

Ser Jorah Mormont in GoT/ASoIaF was an exiled slaver who fled Westeros and here he was in the story helping the many-titled Danaerys free Slavers Bay. That's an awesome character's arc IMO.
Perhaps you can tell me why you don't like it.

Not who you're responding to, but. I tried to read the books. Got through the first one and the only reason I didn't throw it in the trash was because it was a library book. Raping a 13-year-old girl 'till she liked it is a sickening and insulting trope.

But here's the other thing. You want your games to seem "weighty and authentic," "warts and all," so how does a player know that they aren't going to be subjected to those horrible things?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not who you're responding to, but. I tried to read the books. Got through the first one and the only reason I didn't throw it in the trash was because it was a library book. Raping a 13-year-old girl 'till she liked it is a sickening and insulting trope.

But here's the other thing. You want your games to seem "weighty and authentic," "warts and all," so how does a player know that they aren't going to be subjected to those horrible things?

Warning labels, and being clear in session 0.

 

[Lanefan]

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...

Other than the "fewer rights for women" piece, all of those either have featured or easily could feature in my games.

The two that IMO should be present in the mainstream games on a setting-wide basis are the many-languages piece and long recovery times from injury. The other things are (or easily can be) more regional or cultural e.g. one culture might have fewer (or no) rights for non-landowners, another might force a religion on its populace, one region might be undergoing a disease outbreak while another is not, etc.

Is it because modern gaming culture as a whole has decided they weren't fun?

Probably, in that some of them make play less "efficient" or streamlined. They've been sacrificed on the altar of speed-of-play.

Is it that those aren't viewed by many as the exciting narrative parts of history classes?

I don't think that's it.

Is it that magic exists in the games and not IRL?

That would certainly help explain the lack of widespread plagues, but doesn't do anything about the rest of those things.

 

[MGibster]

Sure--but (a) CoS is marketed as a horror game, and (b) he's an individual, not a culture.

I kind of feel like the goalpost are ever shifting. I didn't know we were limiting problematic to cultures only, I thought we were talking about problematic elements included in gaming in a general sense. So it is okay for game companies to include potentially triggering elements in their games. I'm glad we've settled that.

 

[Lanefan]

Are they required to? No. But it's also a good business practice when it comes to something with mass-market appeal aimed at a kids-and-up crowd.

That speaks to a different but relevant issue: I've never seen D&D as a kids game, and often kinda shake my head when I see it marketed to kids...not in any puritanical way (I think kids can generally handle a lot more than they're given credit for) but in a this-is-foolishly-limiting-what-you-can-do-with-it way.

But if you're selling food, and you know there are allergens in there and you don't list them...?

Everything that exists is an allergen to someone. Where do you draw the line?

 

[mythago]

So it is okay for game companies to include potentially triggering elements in their games. I'm glad we've settled that.

It's funny; the indie game scene has been doing this forever, but because they do so from a perspective that many would dismiss as "woke" I guess that doesn't count.