Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Brookshw]

snip

I get where you're coming form, however, WoTC's sales and approach have skyrocketed past anything TSR accomplished and are aimed at the market today. Unless your proposing that a re-release of DS would surpass sales of any other product they could launch, its a moot point. Also, acknowledging that TSR abandoned its code of ethics prior to having to sell the IP doesn't really support the point that WoTC shouldn't be seeking to establish and follow some type of standard, or taking care with the content they put out.

Tangent, after the SJ release, I'm dreading what they'll do to PS when it drops, it was by far my favorite published setting (followed by DS).

[Vahnavoi]

WotC's current success is not all their own doing. They are benefiting from out-of-company successes such as renewed popularity of the fantasy genre past 2000s (thanks to movies like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings and TV shows like Game of Thrones and Stranger Things), cheaper and wider-spread communications technology (see: the device you're reading this from right now), people who grew up with the old versions feeling nostalgic and wanting to play with their kids (meaning, to this day WotC benefits from groundwork laid by TSR), and a world-wide pandemic forcing people to stay indoors and creating a renewed interest in indoor activities, including tabletop and online variants of their game.

Sure, they're doing well. Doesn't mean they are making smart business decisions. TSR also was doing mighty fine almost to the point they collapsed. Despite all their blunders, the biggest reason TSR failed wasn't because the demand for their game was going down, they failed because they focused too much on things other than their game and stumbled in a situation where they couldn't even meed existing demand. In the same way, WotC can screw around and screw over both their content and content creators, while still remaining big. Why? Because of uncredited body of hobbyists who make and use D&D to run content WotC is unwilling to offer.

Saying the point is moot if I can't show a Dark Sun release being more profitable than other possible products, is horse hockey. They could do it even at a loss, with it still being worth it if it expands the market. It isn't given the risks in that direction are any bigger than those of pushing out more "for all audiences" stuff.

[Zuras]

Slavery in a setting is a really problematic issue because if players take it seriously it’s going to totally warp your campaign. Last time I saw a party encounter a culture with slavery baked in, the DM’s plan was “you need to negotiate with these evil guys to accomplish your goal” and the players reaction was “we will burn down the entire town of enslavers and salt the earth afterwards”.

You can have that stuff in your setting, but it can be a real problem if it’s in the foreground, rather than the background. Indiana Jones fights Nazis, and we know why Nazis are bad, but there’s no way you could maintain the tone of heroic pulp adventure if you showed a concentration camp on screen.

It’s like trying to set your game in Omelas. Some players might be the ones who walk away, others may not be satisfied with anything less than tearing the whole rotting edifice down.

[Psyren]

D&D isn't just for kids nor played just by kids, so the idea that some material is problematic because you wouldn't give it to kids is nonsense. This is a problem solved by the existing practice of putting an age group rating on a product.

They could do that. Orrrr.... they could just not bother releasing stuff that would need such a rating. Kyle's comments indicate they've chosen the latter.

More, the people who have strong opinions about having genocide or slavery in games? They aren't kids. They aren't talking for kids and vast majority of time they have no empirical basis for arguments about how the material would even affect kids. 95% of the discussion revolves around moral dislike adult players have for some topics. Watching you people talk is like watching those parents who seriously debate about telling their school-aged children where meat comes from, from the viewpoint of someone who was 4 when first taken to watch how game is butchered. It's ridiculous.

So you have to be a kid yourself in order to be concerned about officially-endorsed adult-oriented content in the game? I find that logic strange.

[Brookshw]

WotC's current success is not all their own doing. They are benefiting from out-of-company successes such as renewed popularity of the fantasy genre past 2000s (thanks to movies like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings and TV shows like Game of Thrones and Stranger Things), cheaper and wider-spread communications technology (see: the device you're reading this from right now), people who grew up with the old versions feeling nostalgic and wanting to play with their kids (meaning, to this day WotC benefits from groundwork laid by TSR), and a world-wide pandemic forcing people to stay indoors and creating a renewed interest in indoor activities, including tabletop and online variants of their game.

Certainly they've benefited form some outside cultural shifts, but most of the factors you reference came into play after they had already shown notable success beyond what TSR accomplished, not to mention some of the factors you list were also available and applicable during TSR's day.

Saying the point is moot if I can't show a Dark Sun release being more profitable than other possible products, is horse hockey. They could do it even at a loss, with it still being worth it if it expands the market. It isn't given the risks in that direction are any bigger than those of pushing out more "for all audiences" stuff.

Spending their resources on another product with broader appeal that could expand their market while being profitable is horse hockey? Color me skeptical.

[Vahnavoi]

@Psyren: Sure, warp any statement to a silly strawman, and the logic will seem strange. Criticism of adults who use kids as scapegoats for their own issues or make unfounded assumptions of what kids can handle, does not mean only literal kids have a say in the matter.

---

@Brookshw: the argument you said is moot is that keeping on catering to the same audience will hit diminishing returns due to self-competition. You base this claim on essentially just saying it hasn't happened yet. WotC keeping on doing what they've been doing is not inherently less risky than expanding the market via a loss-leader. It is simply unknown, unless you happen to have insider information I don't.

Corporate entitities that fail to make this distinction are the ones that get blindsided in the long term when, apparently suddenly, doubling down on previously successfull strategy doesn't work anymore. It's basic problem of induction stuff.

[Luccan]

Frankly I wouldn't want WotC to handle Dark Sun now anyway. I think they've demonstrated real failure at handling sensitive topics in the past couple years and they don't have the confidence to put out a product without wide appeal, even with all the disclaimers in the world thrown on it. Plus they gave up on making an independent system for Psionics a while ago now and Dark Sun needs that by default.

[Brookshw]

@Brookshw: the argument you said is moot is that keeping on catering to the same audience will hit diminishing returns due to self-competition. You base this claim on essentially just saying it hasn't happened yet. WotC keeping on doing what they've been doing is not inherently less risky than expanding the market via a loss-leader. It is simply unknown, unless you happen to have insider information I don't.

Corporate entitities that fail to make this distinction are the ones that get blindsided in the long term when, apparently suddenly, doubling down on previously successfull strategy doesn't work anymore. It's basic problem of induction stuff.

My position is that expanding the market can occur through different products, releasing one which has broader appeal, over one which has content that you've acknowledged will have limited market appeal, would be preferential. Your position appears to be predicated that a release of DS would grant broader market access over every single possible alternative, which is something I'm skeptical of.

You don't need to keep catering to the same audience, but how to expand is a wide playing field, and not moving in a DS direction doesn't mean you need to stay where you are either.

Frankly I wouldn't want WotC to handle Dark Sun now anyway.

Totally fair, any release by them wouldn't be the same DS from the 90s given their current track record.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly I wouldn't want WotC to handle Dark Sun now anyway. I think they've demonstrated real failure at handling sensitive topics in the past couple years and they don't have the confidence to put out a product without wide appeal, even with all the disclaimers in the world thrown on it. Plus they gave up on making an independent system for Psionics a while ago now and Dark Sun needs that by default.

Even though DS is not my jam, I agree with this 100%.

[NichG]

Not sure about "indiscriminately", I can't think of any instances where PCs are intended or expected to be the aggressors. Even bog standard dungeon dives treat the monsters as hostile to the players. Also, we're kinda throwing darts at what it is that's "problematic", WoTC didn't specify so I mentioned a number of potential issues that I could understand them being concerned with (not to mention people's lived/associated experiences which seems to be their current approach to what content to revise/edit).

In a 'bog standard dungeon dive', its a home invasion simulator. 'I invaded their home and they attacked me, so I was justified to kill them in self-defense!' isn't a great moral lesson if you're trying to hold the moral high ground about this kind of media and the messages that it can carry. If 'depicting an evil empire built on genocide as clearly evil and giving players the chance to play resistance members or people helping slaves escape or other such forms of objection against that empire' is 'problematic', then every single dungeon dive featuring sentient inhabitants should also be considered 'problematic'. Otherwise the word really is a farce.

I'd, as I've said, take the other side and say that neither should be considered problematic, because you aren't invading the home of anyone real, you aren't actually enslaving anyone, etc - its fiction. And in needing a human to 'run' that fiction, whatever injustice is being emulated by one side of the table, the other side of the table is running the ones who are suffering that injustice, and so over time you build empathy and the ability to handle greater degrees of nuance and moral complexity - whether a given group decides thats where they want to focu, or if they just want to do beer & pretzels is up to each group to decide for themselves.

If there's a segment of the audience who is going to be turned off by that content and not purchase it, isn't that all the more reason for WoTC to instead spend its resources on content which would be more broadly consumed?

As a pure business decision about what will sell and what won't, sure. Though just because it might make corporate sense doesn't mean that consumers who that decision negatively effects shouldn't hold it against them and vote with their wallet to change the corporate calculus.

But posters here are defending this as a moral argument (whether or not WotC is trying to earn brownie points for taking a moral high ground of some sort here aside, since its hard to speak to that based on one word in one interview). And that's a lot worse to me, because its pushing a particularly authoritarian norm if you examine it even a little bit. Kids learning to uncritically kill the targets designated by their DM is good, but learning to resist an authoritarian regime marked by slavery and genocide is bad? And it's feeding this Voldemort-esque norm of 'its publically recognizing the existence of evil acts that is bad and should be stopped, more-so than the acts themselves'.

Slavery in a setting is a really problematic issue because if players take it seriously it’s going to totally warp your campaign. Last time I saw a party encounter a culture with slavery baked in, the DM’s plan was “you need to negotiate with these evil guys to accomplish your goal” and the players reaction was “we will burn down the entire town of enslavers and salt the earth afterwards”.

You can have that stuff in your setting, but it can be a real problem if it’s in the foreground, rather than the background. Indiana Jones fights Nazis, and we know why Nazis are bad, but there’s no way you could maintain the tone of heroic pulp adventure if you showed a concentration camp on screen.

It’s like trying to set your game in Omelas. Some players might be the ones who walk away, others may not be satisfied with anything less than tearing the whole rotting edifice down.

At least in my interactions with Dark Sun, its foreground and intended to be something that the players are going to feel like burning down. The first Dark Sun computer game for example, you play a group of escaped gladiatorial slaves who find a village of escaped slaves in the desert and build up a credible resistance movement to fight off the army of the local sorceror king by forming alliances with nearby powers, with the fight against that army being the capstone encounter of the game. The Dark Sun novels begin with a focus on revolutionaries assassinating a sorceror king and proclaiming their city a free city without slavery, and the knock-on consequences and escalation proceeding from that. Dark Sun isn't saying 'this is part of the local society, you should make characters who just live with it and think its okay', nor is it really trying for 'Indiana Jones' in tone.

[Keltest]

The point was to highlight the ignorance of the consumer, not like they can ask questions when they shop on Amazon (ib4, I guess they can scroll reviews?).

If they can shop on Amazon, they can use google.

[EggKookoo]

At least in my interactions with Dark Sun, its foreground and intended to be something that the players are going to feel like burning down. The first Dark Sun computer game for example, you play a group of escaped gladiatorial slaves who find a village of escaped slaves in the desert and build up a credible resistance movement to fight off the army of the local sorceror king by forming alliances with nearby powers, with the fight against that army being the capstone encounter of the game. The Dark Sun novels begin with a focus on revolutionaries assassinating a sorceror king and proclaiming their city a free city without slavery, and the knock-on consequences and escalation proceeding from that. Dark Sun isn't saying 'this is part of the local society, you should make characters who just live with it and think its okay', nor is it really trying for 'Indiana Jones' in tone.

This sounds like a game my 11yo (and probably even my 7yo) would enjoy playing.

[Vahnavoi]

Your position appears to be predicated that a release of DS would grant broader market access over every single possible alternative, which is something I'm skeptical of.

It's not because it doesn't have to be, that's just supposition by you. No loss-leader has to beat every hypothetical alternative, because the risks of those alternatives are just as unknown. I'm talking about Dark Sun because it is an existing non-hypothetical property with known demand for it. This cannot be said for any unnamed or hypothetical competition. We'd just be guessing what kind of product might be succesful.

[Brookshw]

In a 'bog standard dungeon dive', its a home invasion simulator. 'I invaded their home and they attacked me, so I was justified to kill them in self-defense!' isn't a great moral lesson if you're trying to hold the moral high ground about this kind of media and the messages that it can carry. If 'depicting an evil empire built on genocide as clearly evil and giving players the chance to play resistance members or people helping slaves escape or other such forms of objection against that empire' is 'problematic', then every single dungeon dive featuring sentient inhabitants should also be considered 'problematic'. Otherwise the word really is a farce.

Really depends what you do with a bog standard dungeon dive and how you stock the dungeon, not to mention what the dungeon is in the first place, a lot of times its some giant ruin that the other side just happens to be in but isn't really there home to begin with, not to mention that just because there are creatures in the dungeon doesn't mean they need to be fought, that's something more on how the DM runs the game and the players in question.

As a pure business decision about what will sell and what won't, sure. Though just because it might make corporate sense doesn't mean that consumers who that decision negatively effects shouldn't hold it against them and vote with their wallet to change the corporate calculus.

But posters here are defending this as a moral argument (whether or not WotC is trying to earn brownie points for taking a moral high ground of some sort here aside, since its hard to speak to that based on one word in one interview). And that's a lot worse to me, because its pushing a particularly authoritarian norm if you examine it even a little bit. Kids learning to uncritically kill the targets designated by their DM is good, but learning to resist an authoritarian regime marked by slavery and genocide is bad? And it's feeding this Voldemort-esque norm of 'its publically recognizing the existence of evil acts that is bad and should be stopped, more-so than the acts themselves'.

I think you're slightly missing the (speculative) point, the moral concerns impact the business decision on its selling points, and that end result is why WoTC is likely not to release it, its doubt its a binary decision process on their end. Remember that argument here, at least as I've put forth, is why I can understand WoTC's point of view, and supported why there's some basis for it, I'm not claiming that I like that direction, just that its understandable.

At least in my interactions with Dark Sun, its foreground and intended to be something that the players are going to feel like burning down. The first Dark Sun computer game for example, you play a group of escaped gladiatorial slaves who find a village of escaped slaves in the desert and build up a credible resistance movement to fight off the army of the local sorceror king by forming alliances with nearby powers, with the fight against that army being the capstone encounter of the game. The Dark Sun novels begin with a focus on revolutionaries assassinating a sorceror king and proclaiming their city a free city without slavery, and the knock-on consequences and escalation proceeding from that. Dark Sun isn't saying 'this is part of the local society, you should make characters who just live with it and think its okay', nor is it really trying for 'Indiana Jones' in tone.

What I learned from the novels was don't let Troy Denning write novels that negate the premise of the world and were never supported in canon in later 2e supplements. Still salty on that one.

If they can shop on Amazon, they can use google.

Could, sure. Would? I mean, I certainly doubt people would put much leg work into it, which could be all the more reason for consumers being disgruntled if they find out after the fact what they bought is not what they thought they did (ya know, like all the angry people who suddenly discovered the OGL was a revocable license).

[Segev]

Frankly I wouldn't want WotC to handle Dark Sun now anyway. I think they've demonstrated real failure at handling sensitive topics in the past couple years and they don't have the confidence to put out a product without wide appeal, even with all the disclaimers in the world thrown on it. Plus they gave up on making an independent system for Psionics a while ago now and Dark Sun needs that by default.

Even though DS is not my jam, I agree with this 100%.

Yeah, consider this: Think of the reasons given for the changes to race rules (including changing it to being called "species") in and post-TCE. Think of the way things deemed "problematic" have been handled in existing works, already, as they're remade or "addressed."

Without going into any board-rules-violating specifics, think of all the things in Dark Sun that might fall under that "problematic" umbrella.

Now, imagine what a mass-appeal, designed-to-be-inoffensive Dark Sun would look like. Pretend, for a moment, that no missteps of the "Hazodee" sort are made at all. Imagine it is JUST cleansed of all that might displease the same people that are thrilled with the change of "race" to "species" and the alterations to the way races/species are designed.

Can you picture Dark Sun being Dark Sun with all those changes?


It's possible that all those changes might still yield an interesting setting. A sort of "Magic Dune," maybe, focused strictly on evil Dragon Kings trying to blight the already-blasted desert of a world while heroes cling to protecting the last vestiges of nature. But is that the Dark Sun you want?

[Keltest]

Could, sure. Would? I mean, I certainly doubt people would put much leg work into it, which could be all the more reason for consumers being disgruntled if they find out after the fact what they bought is not what they thought they did (ya know, like all the angry people who suddenly discovered the OGL was a revocable license).

And why exactly should people who definitionally arent putting any thought into their purchases be something to be worried about? What are we, their parents?

[Psyren]

@Psyren: Sure, warp any statement to a silly strawman, and the logic will seem strange. Criticism of adults who use kids as scapegoats for their own issues or make unfounded assumptions of what kids can handle, does not mean only literal kids have a say in the matter.

Assuming the only reason an adult might agree with a company's desire to give a particular topic a wide berth, is that said adult has "their own issues." is equally silly. I consume Handmaid's Tale and The Boys and Black Mirror and a large number of other properties that deal with forum-inappropriate subject matter - my enjoyment of those topics doesn't mean I have to agree with the idea of them being printed by WotC in a D&D sourcebook.

[NichG]

Really depends what you do with a bog standard dungeon dive and how you stock the dungeon, not to mention what the dungeon is in the first place, a lot of times its some giant ruin that the other side just happens to be in but isn't really there home to begin with, not to mention that just because there are creatures in the dungeon doesn't mean they need to be fought, that's something more on how the DM runs the game and the players in question.

I think you're slightly missing the (speculative) point, the moral concerns impact the business decision on its selling points, and that end result is why WoTC is likely not to release it, its doubt its a binary decision process on their end. Remember that argument here, at least as I've put forth, is why I can understand WoTC's point of view, and supported why there's some basis for it, I'm not claiming that I like that direction, just that its understandable.

Except that this is a criticism of those people who are complaining about Dark Sun for 'moral reasons' (or otherwise arguing that it would be morally problematic to publish Dark Sun if kids could play it), not necessarily a specific criticism focused on WotC and its decisions. I'm saying that the people who feel like Dark Sun shouldn't be published because of its problematic content are being hypocrites (at best) when they don't apply the same standard to other content in D&D. I find the fear of discussing serious things more 'problematic' by far than the discussion of said serious things, and I think its in our collective best interest not to give that particular take any credence.

Now it may certainly make sense that WotC responds to that environment in the usual corporate cya fashion, but that's a whole different matter. On that point, I'm not generally a fan of encouraging corporate entities centered around entertainment to behave in risk averse ways (be it risk of offending someone, risk of getting mobbed, risk of a flop, etc), because I don't see much value in obtaining yet another edition, splatbook, etc unless it actually is either novel in some fashion or at least manages to exceed the bar of 'mediocre'. But again, that's a different problem.

[Segev]

Assuming the only reason an adult might agree with a company's desire to give a particular topic a wide berth, is that said adult has "their own issues." is equally silly. I consume Handmaid's Tale and The Boys and Black Mirror and a large number of other properties that deal with forum-inappropriate subject matter - my enjoyment of those topics doesn't mean I have to agree with the idea of them being printed by WotC in a D&D sourcebook.

Thing is, once again, your argument for why WotC shouldn't publish such things could be applied to them being published at all. After all, why should anybody have to police what children watch on streaming services? The streaming services should simply not have such things on them!

[Brookshw]

And why exactly should people who definitionally arent putting any thought into their purchases be something to be worried about? What are we, their parents?

We aren't anything in the equation, WoTC is the one commercializing their content and has to balance good will and reputation vs. it's other business concerns.

[Keltest]

We aren't anything in the equation, WoTC is the one commercializing their content and has to balance good will and reputation vs. it's other business concerns.

And again, why should they care about people who arent bothering to even look at a product before they buy it?

[Trafalgar]

At least in my interactions with Dark Sun, its foreground and intended to be something that the players are going to feel like burning down. The first Dark Sun computer game for example, you play a group of escaped gladiatorial slaves who find a village of escaped slaves in the desert and build up a credible resistance movement to fight off the army of the local sorceror king by forming alliances with nearby powers, with the fight against that army being the capstone encounter of the game. The Dark Sun novels begin with a focus on revolutionaries assassinating a sorceror king and proclaiming their city a free city without slavery, and the knock-on consequences and escalation proceeding from that. Dark Sun isn't saying 'this is part of the local society, you should make characters who just live with it and think its okay', nor is it really trying for 'Indiana Jones' in tone.

Back in the day, I played and DM'd a lot of Dark Sun. And in almost every Campaign, everyone started out as slaves and escaped. I don't remember anyone ever playing any of the immoral character classes in the setting like Templar or Defiler. I think the worst thing was someone taking the Halfling as cannibal thing a little too seriously.

At the end of the day, what your pretend character does to another pretend character doesn't make you a good or bad person.

[Brookshw]

And again, why should they care about people who arent bothering to even look at a product before they buy it?

Because a bad general reputation will turn people off of making those purchases in the first place Here we are, in a thread about a topic that has seen numerous people swear off of buying WoTC products because of a loss of good will and reputation, and you're asking why those factors be important and valuable?

[Keltest]

Because a bad general reputation will turn people off of making those purchases in the first place Here we are, in a thread about a topic that has seen numerous people swear off of buying WoTC products because of a loss of good will and reputation, and you're asking why those factors be important and valuable?

Ok, but their reaction is specifically divorced from any reality. What the product does or does not contain is literally irrelevant if people arent actually looking at it and then complaining that it wasnt what they wanted. There will ALWAYS be people like that. Changing your product based on the reactions of people who werent going to buy it anyway only drives away the people who liked it.

[Segev]

Because a bad general reputation will turn people off of making those purchases in the first place Here we are, in a thread about a topic that has seen numerous people swear off of buying WoTC products because of a loss of good will and reputation, and you're asking why those factors be important and valuable?

I think the question is not answered by this, simply because the two situations don't analogize well. In one case, an informed and engaged audience reacted poorly to WotC trying to sneak something detrimental to the business and community-end of the hobby past everyone. In the other, uninformed and careless customers who don't pay attention might buy something they personally find offensive, and decide they are never buying anything again even though they don't pay enough attention to what they buy to know what they were buying in the first place.

One involves serious, engaged customers who know what they're buying and spend their money deliberately. The other involves probably one-off whim-buyers or folks buying presents for others. I should note that that latter category likely never hears about the allegedly reputation-damaging stuff, and forgets which product it's associated with anyway.

[Brookshw]

Ok, but their reaction is specifically divorced from any reality. What the product does or does not contain is literally irrelevant if people arent actually looking at it and then complaining that it wasnt what they wanted. There will ALWAYS be people like that. Changing your product based on the reactions of people who werent going to buy it anyway only drives away the people who liked it.

We're talking about people who did/would (theoretically) buy it, that last sentence talking about people who wouldn't buy isn't really connected to that point. Goes back to the conversation from earlier today about what products do they invest their resources in, those that can be successful and non-controversial, vs riskier products/limited markets and controversial ones.

Except that this is a criticism of those people who are complaining about Dark Sun for 'moral reasons' (or otherwise arguing that it would be morally problematic to publish Dark Sun if kids could play it), not necessarily a specific criticism focused on WotC and its decisions. I'm saying that the people who feel like Dark Sun shouldn't be published because of its problematic content are being hypocrites (at best) when they don't apply the same standard to other content in D&D. I find the fear of discussing serious things more 'problematic' by far than the discussion of said serious things, and I think its in our collective best interest not to give that particular take any credence.

Now it may certainly make sense that WotC responds to that environment in the usual corporate cya fashion, but that's a whole different matter. On that point, I'm not generally a fan of encouraging corporate entities centered around entertainment to behave in risk averse ways (be it risk of offending someone, risk of getting mobbed, risk of a flop, etc), because I don't see much value in obtaining yet another edition, splatbook, etc unless it actually is either novel in some fashion or at least manages to exceed the bar of 'mediocre'. But again, that's a different problem.

Missed this earlier. The bolded parts is misleading, no one said those discussions aren't important, it's whether this is the place for them. Also, to your second paragraph, it's an intrinsic matter to the issue at hand, and it sounds like you're acknowledging WoTC has some basis for it's conduct, even if you don't like it. I guess my work here is complete.

[Keltest]

We're talking about people who did/would (theoretically) buy it, that last sentence talking about people who wouldn't buy isn't really connected to that point. Goes back to the conversation from earlier today about what products do they invest their resources in, those that can be successful and non-controversial, vs riskier products/limited markets and controversial ones.

Ok, but now were back to "they arent paying attention, so the reputation doesnt matter, they will buy/not buy it based on factors entirely beyond Wizard's control."

[NichG]

Missed this earlier. The bolded parts is misleading, no one said those discussions aren't important, it's whether this is the place for them. Also, to your second paragraph, it's an intrinsic matter to the issue at hand, and it sounds like you're acknowledging WoTC has some basis for it's conduct, even if you don't like it. I guess my work here is complete.

You can understand why someone does a thing without approving of them doing it, you know.

Edit: And you actually did say these discussions aren't important, in your response to Segev about being tired of people bringing out the whole 'those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it' thing and calling it 'high horse stuff'.

[Brookshw]

Ok, but now were back to "they arent paying attention, so the reputation doesnt matter, they will buy/not buy it based on factors entirely beyond Wizard's control."

Not really, you can know a thing has a bad reputation without knowing the details. I'm sure you know something by reputation even if you aren't personally familiar with them.

You can understand why someone does a thing without approving of them doing it, you know.

Edit: And you actually did say these discussions aren't important, in your response to Segev about being tired of people bringing out the whole 'those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it' thing and calling it 'high horse stuff'.

And they aren't important, here, in this game. The world's not going to fall apart and genocide and slavery suddenly becoming widely accepted because D&D doesn't portray them. Assertions to the contrary are indeed high horse nonsense.

[Keltest]

Not really, you can know a thing has a bad reputation without knowing the details. I'm sure you know something by reputation even if you aren't personally familiar with them.

So the market niche of "people who have no idea what this thing is and no interest in learning more, but also somehow know about its reputation, who would otherwise be willing to get it for people (that they presumably think would like it, despite having no prior knowledge of it at all)" needs to be protected?