Quote from: Omega;1142453Except this isnt a company doing whatever with their own product. This is a company saying that all the product they acquired from a previous company is at fault. Whats next? Heroscape is racist because it has samurai?

[video=youtube;_3PUu88nOcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3PUu88nOcw[/youtube]

Quote from: Shasarak;1142449Maybe the megacorp should make money for its shareholders then.  That is, after all, what megacorps should do.

Im actually curious how far rhis will go before the shareholders either put their foot down, or start to bail and sale.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142413Can we be critical of the criticism? Can we try to make our voices heard at WOTC that we don't agree, and are unhappy with the direction they are taking with the disclaimers?

Useless waste of time, now if you were talking about Hasbro... I figure a few thousand emails could have some effect, or maybe not, but worth the effort.

Quote from: FingerRod;1142451Which retroclone had lot of boobies? Asking for a friend.

Pathfinder before it became Wokefinder.

I was always surprised how much 90s Image comics inspired cheesecake they had.

Any company looking to dethrone 5e using an Unwoke 5.5e should realize that men and women really like sexy females in fantasy, and BDSM outfits and RenFaire lingerie are the best armor when dealing with dragons.

Quote from: Omega;1142453Except this isnt a company doing whatever with their own product.

Except it is. Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't or shouldn't have the legal right to alter it's own property? If you buy a house, are you beholden to the previous owner's decor?

I’m not saying I like or don’t like what they are doing but I will forever support their right to do so as the legal property owners. The previous owners sold their rights for cold hard cash. This is a consequence of that choice and they were well-compensated for it.

The only people truly complaining are those who hate “parental advisory: explicit content” stickers on their albums, which this is a form of.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1142462Pathfinder before it became Wokefinder.

I was always surprised how much 90s Image comics inspired cheesecake they had.

Any company looking to dethrone 5e using an Unwoke 5.5e should realize that men and women really like sexy females in fantasy, and BDSM outfits and RenFaire lingerie are the best armor when dealing with dragons.

Hear, hear!

It'd be interesting to see if their sales went down after they made the change. I'd bet they're lower. What year did they decide unsexy sells?

Quote from: Kael;1142464Except it is. Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't or shouldn't have the legal right to alter it's own property? If you buy a house, are you beholden to the previous owner's decor?

I think there's an important distinction to make about an individual's personal property or real estate. We're talking about intellectual property and gaming. A product made to be purchased meant to entertain the consumer. Owned not by one individual, but a company made up of different people and shareholders and whatnot.

Quote from: Kael;1142464Except it is. Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't or shouldn't have the legal right to alter it's own property? If you buy a house, are you beholden to the previous owner's decor?

It seems more similar to buying a house and then telling all of your guests how stupid the decor is and how much you hate it and how you think that it is just so ugly that you can not even believe it.

I do feel that there are matters of historical record which need to taken into account.

To me this is an ethical element.  I'm ok with companies adding disclaimers to things if they really need to, but there's something disturbing about going back and changing things after the fact.  This is separate from the motives (I think George Lucas's changes to Star Wars a generation after release are rather dubious ethically).

In many ways I feel like this responsibilty is increased if you feel that something released previously contained politically unobjectionable material.  We should never be pretending that the past always held the values of the present, as that would be a lie.  For example, if WOTC were to decide that "Oriental" is "problematic" and changed the name of the book to "Asian Adventures" that would be obscuring the fact that the word was deemed perfectly unobjectionable in the 80s when it was published*.

In fact, I'm not really ok with WOTC going back and altering even recent 5e products (which is something they have said they are doing, because that in itself obscures the speed with which the current political climate has changed.

*And of course where does it end?  Do we expurgate Huckleberry Finn because it has the "n" word?   Do we revise Merchant of Venice because it is considered Anti-Semitic?  Do we ban Nietszche and then leave a gaping whole in the history of modern western thought because he was in favour of slavery (and a misogynist)?  Do we ban Foucault because he was heavily influenced by Nietsczhe?  Do we ban almost the entire canon of critical race theory, gender studies and queer theory because they are all influenced by Foucault?

Quote from: Kael;1142464Except it is. Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't or shouldn't have the legal right to alter it's own property? If you buy a house, are you beholden to the previous owner's decor?

The only people truly complaining are those who hate "parental advisory: explicit content" stickers on their albums, which this is a form of.

Its an acquisition. Its not a game they made. There is a difference here.

And if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem. Thats fine. Stop trying to tell the rest of us there is no problem.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1142462Pathfinder before it became Wokefinder.

I was always surprised how much 90s Image comics inspired cheesecake they had.

Any company looking to dethrone 5e using an Unwoke 5.5e should realize that men and women really like sexy females in fantasy, and BDSM outfits and RenFaire lingerie are the best armor when dealing with dragons.

Ahhh...thank you. That was one that I never looked at.

Quote from: TJS;1142475I do feel that there are matters of historical record which need to taken into account.

To me this is an ethical element.  I'm ok with companies adding disclaimers to things if they really need to, but there's something disturbing about going back and changing things after the fact.  This is separate from the motives (I think George Lucas's changes to Star Wars a generation after release are rather dubious ethically).

In many ways I feel like this responsibilty is increased if you feel that something released previously contained politically unobjectionable material.  We should never be pretending that the past always held the values of the present, as that would be a lie.  For example, if WOTC were to decide that "Oriental" is "problematic" and changed the name of the book to "Asian Adventures" that would be obscuring the fact that the word was deemed perfectly unobjectionable in the 80s when it was published*.

In fact, I'm not really ok with WOTC going back and altering even recent 5e products (which is something they have said they are doing, because that in itself obscures the speed with which the current political climate has changed.

*And of course where does it end?  Do we expurgate Huckleberry Finn because it has the "n" word?   Do we revise Merchant of Venice because it is considered Anti-Semitic?  Do we ban Nietszche and then leave a gaping whole in the history of modern western thought because he was in favour of slavery (and a misogynist)?  Do we ban Foucault because he was heavily influenced by Nietsczhe?  Do we ban almost the entire canon of critical race theory, gender studies and queer theory because they are all influenced by Foucault?

This.  Plus, even once you make the legal/ethical distinctions, there are still avenues that are both legal and ethical but nonetheless a bad idea.  Corporations can do all kinds of legal and ethical things that will drive people away.  It's almost exactly like the power that the GM has in a game.  The GM can't shoot you, the player.  If the GM tries several highly unethical tricks on you, the players may rebel as a group.  Beyond that, the GM can be a complete dick such that the player avoids any dealings with that GM in the future.  Maybe the other dick players like their dick GM.  As long as that holds, the GM still has a game.  He's still a dick.

Quote from: Kael;1142464Except it is. Are you arguing that Hasbro doesn't or shouldn't have the legal right to alter it's own property? If you buy a house, are you beholden to the previous owner's decor?

I'm not saying I like or don't like what they are doing but I will forever support their right to do so as the legal property owners. The previous owners sold their rights for cold hard cash. This is a consequence of that choice and they were well-compensated for it.

The only people truly complaining are those who hate "parental advisory: explicit content" stickers on their albums, which this is a form of.

Of course they have the right but my concern is when changes are made without footnotes, comments, new dates in the front of the book, or any other indication. Flying Buffalo has recently done this with Tunnels & Trolls. They renamed a spell in all earlier PDFs but if you were buying the 1st edition T&T PDF for the first time it would be impossible for you to know they have changed it just by looking at the PDF.

They totally have the right to change the spell name but when you offer an old edition for sale people expect it is unaltered unless noted otherwise. They are buying it to see what the game was like in the past, in the case in point in 1975, and making it more politically correct without telling the reader is misleading.

With FB and T&T though it is the companies own game. Not something they acquired vial absorbing another company. And oddly I thought they had changed the name of that spell already in later editions? I'd have to dig mine out and check.