What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Cordwainer Fish]

If you go to a restaurant in the United States, they don't list the allergens on every dish.

In Ireland they do, in very fine detail. It's required by law.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

You can tell remarkable stories just using "safe for kids" material. You don't need to be edgy to be interesting.

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

By going with the most common ones. Peanuts. shellfish. slavery. rape.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Did we settle anything?

CoS is a horror game, which is very different genre from the typical D&D genre. A game marketed as horror is going to have different elements in it than one marketed as heroic fantasy.

 

[Lanefan]

You can tell remarkable stories just using "safe for kids" material.

You can indeed, no question there.

ou don't need to be edgy to be interesting.

However, opening the field to also include edgy and-or "adult" content is just that: opening the field. Fewer restrictions on what you can do-say-create, even if still a long way from "anything goes".

By going with the most common ones. Peanuts. shellfish. slavery. rape.

OK.

 

[billd91]

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?

It means it's a legitimate area of discussion, criticism, and deciding whether or not to buy/read the product. And had George RR Martin anticipated the complaints and decided not to publish, then it would have been an entirely legitimate decision on his part. He and his publisher felt that the overall story had value enough to out-weigh those criticisms.
Does Dark Sun have the a similar value to WotC? Apparently not.

 

[billd91]

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.

Whether it does or doesn't is an evaluation up to the reader. I can certainly imagine a perspective that wouldn't be swayed by the argument because the context that matters isn't the inspiration, it's the perspective and context of the reader that does. And there are a whole lot of potential readers (or viewers for the TV adaptation) whose perspective on slavery is formed much more strongly by the slavery of the last 500-odd years than that of the ancient world a thousand years and more earlier.

 

[Umbran]

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

It isn't like anyone here speaks for the world at large.

It is okay? In what sense? In the sense that one EN Worlder doesn't have an issue with it? Or in the sense that it will get no significant criticism from the broader world if it appears i a published product?

Nobody here can guarantee the latter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Whether it does or doesn't is an evaluation up to the reader. I can certainly imagine a perspective that wouldn't be swayed by the argument because the context that matters isn't the inspiration, it's the perspective and context of the reader that does. And there are a whole lot of potential readers (or viewers for the TV adaptation) whose perspective on slavery is formed much more strongly by the slavery of the last 500-odd years than that of the ancient world a thousand years and more earlier.

Again, I am not a big GoT fan so I may be musing important details, but I would say if the criticism of him is he is using the white savior trope, it certainly matters if the slavery in the setting isn't race based. I would also say it matters if he is trying to draw on slavery from the ancient world and not the American system. Now people can have whatever reaction they want to that emotionally and personally. But in terms of a criticism we are all supposed to listen to and weigh, I think you have to also consider what the author wrote, what their intentions were and where they drew inspiration from. That isn't to say someone's reaction to it shouldn't be relevant. Our subjective responses are important. I just don't think the argument that only the reader matters makes a lot of sense to me

 

[AnotherGuy]

Finally, if you lose an aspect of gravitas and authenticity, then OK. You lost one. But there are plenty of others out there without resorting to slavery.

I'm on my phone and so finding it tricky to maneuver and make links to other posts that I'd like to so I'm only, for now, going to reply to this section of your post.

Your final point is - you can tell stories without slavery, which isn't much of a point. I can also tell stories with gravitas and authenticity without devils/demons or murder for that fact. Is that where you want to go? I'm not sure exactly what point you're making with that comment.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And there are a whole lot of potential readers (or viewers for the TV adaptation) whose perspective on slavery is formed much more strongly by the slavery of the last 500-odd years than that of the ancient world a thousand years and more earlier.

Certainly I agree a writer needs to consider how an audience is going to respond. But even here there hasn't been a monolithic reaction. Plenty of people whose perspective on slavery is heavily informed by the US slavery system disagree on whether this is white savior, whether it evoked US slavery, etc.

My point isn't that you should agree with me, or with George RR Martin (again not a big fan of the show or book so I don't have a strong opinion on it). I am a lot less concerned with getting people to take the same view as I do on art and RPGs, as I am with there being room for there to be a discussion about this stuff. I posted the clip in question simply to show there are a variety of legitimate views one can examine on this particular piece of media and the trope posters were saying it used. That reasonable people can disagree about it. That a writer might go ahead with something, even at the risk of being misunderstood, not because they are trying to hurt anyone, or because they are bad, but simply because of something as random as the historical interests that inform their fiction.