#Boycottgenshin and #Boycottgenshinimpact start trending on twitter but not over lootboxes or monetisation

[TheMysteriousGX]

No you obviously focus on the story, you just don't bring into it outsider issues that are not part of the game world and its canon. You take it in for what it is and see whether it works or not as a whole and then you judge whether you liked it or not. Focusing on random real world ramifications both is irrelevant and detracts from the experience so if anything you're more likely to miss out on plot bits if you overly focus on this bit. If you write off these as just another tribal enemy then you're less likely to notice extra traits that may become apparent later because you've already condemned them by that point.

What, until somebody else does a lore analysis video and officially gives you permission to think about it?

Most people don't look at every individual piece of media in a strict vacuum. And yeah, noticing yet another overused trope, bit of casual racism, or other dumbassed thing probably *would* "detract from the experience".

Problem is most people just can't turn off a switch in their brains to stop noticing things. That's just not how perception works for most people.

 

[Dreiko]

What, until somebody else does a lore analysis video and officially gives you permission to think about it?

Most people don't look at every individual piece of media in a strict vacuum. And yeah, noticing yet another overused trope, bit of casual racism, or other dumbassed thing probably *would* "detract from the experience".

Problem is most people just can't turn off a switch in their brains to stop noticing things. That's just not how perception works for most people.

The key idea is coming into a game looking to have fun and not being a killjoy about it by bringing up random irrelevant things you notice or over-focusing on those bits when it doesn't make any sense. It's one thing if the game has political themes or what have you but this game just has magic monsters that you're fighting. It's making a mountain out of a molehill.


It's not that you turn off your brain, it's that you put proportional emphasis on the things you notice based on their relevance to the supposed purpose of the activity. When I'm playing games, I'm not trying to save the real world and solve societal ills, I'm trying to have fun, so whatever such issue comes up is a very very low priority when contrasted to, say, what stats my new sword has or how much experience items I need for a subsequent level up.

 

[Hawki]

Great.

Notice the argument wasn't:
-User: The goblins in Harry Potter are based on anti-semitic tropes, of hook-nosed bankers running an economy behind the scenes, and being generally untrustworthy.
-Response: Why are you thinking about that? Just turn your brain off

It's not a 1:1 comparison, but:

The responses to the accusations mostly against Genshin Impact originally weren't that either it was people pointing out why those claims are wrong.......

This.

I used HP as an example to demonstrate that there's perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree with a point other than "just turn your brains off."

The reason I haven't commented specifically is, in part, because I've seen counter-claims as to what the creatures are based off. Some say indigenous people, while the wiki states that they're based on oni (Japanese demons).

What, until somebody else does a lore analysis video and officially gives you permission to think about it?

No, but I figure that if anyone is going to comment on a work, they should be at least somewhat familiar with the work. Otherwise you get stuff like the orc nonsense described earlier.

Problem is most people just can't turn off a switch in their brains to stop noticing things. That's just not how perception works for most people.

I agree, but that doesn't get us anywhere.

I mean, take Mario. Is Mario an endorsement of monarchy, sacrificing the working man to rescue a princess, who uses her feminine wiles to manipulate a plumber, whose quest to make it to the top of the ladder is represented by his collection of golden coins, putting into perspective the never-ending quest for capital? Or, is it just about some guy jumping on mushrooms to save a princess?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not everything has deeper meaning behind it. One can go too far in the other direction, that media is bereft of ANY kind of deeper meaning or theme (a case in point being the claim from Ubisoft itself that The Division has no politics whatsoever), but there's a happy medium between seeing meaning in everything, and seeing meaning nowhere.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The key idea is coming into a game looking to have fun and not being a killjoy about it by bringing up random irrelevant things you notice or over-focusing on those bits when it doesn't make any sense. It's one thing if the game has political themes or what have you but this game just has magic monsters that you're fighting. It's making a mountain out of a molehill.


It's not that you turn off your brain, it's that you put proportional emphasis on the things you notice based on their relevance to the supposed purpose of the activity. When I'm playing games, I'm not trying to save the real world and solve societal ills, I'm trying to have fun, so whatever such issue comes up is a very very low priority when contrasted to, say, what stats my new sword has or how much experience items I need for a subsequent level up.

Why do you keep insisting that the people who're noticing these things, whether or not you agree with them, are trying to not have fun?

Or are you just mad that people are talking about things you don't like?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, but I figure that if anyone is going to comment on a work, they should be at least somewhat familiar with the work. Otherwise you get stuff like the orc nonsense described earlier.

"The orc nonsense described earlier" was a common observation about D&D Orcs that I've heard in various gaming clubs for 20 years. These were hyper nerds who bragged about playing with Gygax and half the time didn't think that the "orc nonsense" was bad.

There's a bizarre insistence amongst a certain type of nerd that, if they disagree with a take, that must mean that the take is objectively wrong and must be a product of ignorance.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not everything has deeper meaning behind it. One can go too far in the other direction, that media is bereft of ANY kind of deeper meaning or theme (a case in point being the claim from Ubisoft itself that The Division has no politics whatsoever), but there's a happy medium between seeing meaning in everything, and seeing meaning nowhere.

Problem is most people just can't turn off a switch in their brains to stop noticing things. That's just not how perception works for most people.

 

[Eacaraxe]

There's a bizarre insistence amongst a certain type of nerd that, if they disagree with a take, that must mean that the take is objectively wrong and must be a product of ignorance.

That's not a "nerd" characteristic, that's an "evangelical" characteristic. Or if one is uncomfortable with the Christian parallel there, one might say a "zealot" characteristic despite the fact one merely replaces a Christian parallel with a Jewish parallel. In either case, it's the same phenomenon of one believing in something so fervently they're no longer capable of tolerating other ideas.

 

[BrawlMan]

That's not a "nerd" characteristic, that's an "evangelical" characteristic. Or if one is uncomfortable with the Christian parallel there, one might say a "zealot" characteristic despite the fact one merely replaces a Christian parallel with a Jewish parallel. In either case, it's the same phenomenon of one believing in something so fervently they're no longer capable of tolerating other ideas.

Same difference at this point.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Hawki]

"The orc nonsense described earlier" was a common observation about D&D Orcs that I've heard in various gaming clubs for 20 years. These were hyper nerds who bragged about playing with Gygax and half the time didn't think that the "orc nonsense" was bad.

Just to clarify that we're on the same page, when I'm talking about the "orc nonsense," it's the idea that orcs in DnD, because they're more or less inherently evil, are therefore racist?

There's a bizarre insistence amongst a certain type of nerd that, if they disagree with a take, that must mean that the take is objectively wrong and must be a product of ignorance.

That you quoted one of my posts indicates that you think I'm that kind of nerd. I mean, okay, that's your prerogative, and the type of nerd you describe probably isn't going to see themselves as such (yes, we all have blind spots), but on the wider subject, I actually do agree, that there would be those kinds of nerds who act as you describe.

However, I'd counter with two points. One, not every defence of a media is blind fanboyism. There's good faith defence in contrast to bad faith criticism (or even good faith criticism). To name two examples from this very site, one was Movie Bob's criticism of Halo. He himself admitted that he hadn't played the games, then went on to launch a bizzare argument that the series was in favour of mono-culturalism or something because you have one species (humanity) fighting against a coalition of alien species (the Covenant). It was such a bizzare argument that I, and many other people saw (I didn't comment at the time) that he was either grossly ignorant of the series or was deliberately trolling, because there's no way anyone could play Halo, engage with the worldbuilding and te themes it actually raises (among which being the dangers of blind faith, which is why the Covenant follows Truth so easily), and conclude that its theme is "diversity is bad." And by his own admission, MB hadn't even played it.

(If you think criticizing a work without actually consuming it is a practice confined to games, then I can point you to the Blood Heir controversy for instance.)

The second critique, the one that actually got me to comment, was an article stating that "Gears 5 is a Celebration of Genocide." I actually commented then because I couldn't believe that anyone could play Gears 5 (or really any Gears game) and actually come to that conclusion. The analogy I used is that it was like reading Lord of the Flies and seeing it as a defence of fascism, because if Ralph had been a harsher, stronger leader, the island might not have devolved into chaos. Yes, there's some train of logic there, but you'd be hard pressed to make it. I assume that the writer was genuine, but there's some takes that are so outlandish that it's hard to tell. Maybe that makes me a Gears fanboy, but if the definition of fanboy is "someone who disagrees with a negative take on a piece of media," then that's not a useful definition. This coming from a person who'd criticized Traviss's Gears novels (really not fond of her politics) who was disagreed with then. Does that make the people who disagreed with me fanboys? Certainly I didn't think so.

Nearly done, but back to my second point. If I am that "certain type of nerd" (again, I don't think I am, but I could be wrong - the outside looking in and all that), I'd like to point out that there's a reason why I haven't said anything definitive on the creatures here because a) I haven't played the game, and b) when I looked stuff up, I saw competing claims as to what the creatures were actually based on. There's a reason why I'm comfortable discussing HP for instance, and not GI, the distinction being I'm familiar with the former, and not the latter. For instance, I can understand the "goblins are anti-semitic idea," I just sharply disagree with it, in part because of the reasons I described above (and various other reasons). I don't believe that makes me a fanboy, but hey, could be wrong.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Just to clarify that we're on the same page, when I'm talking about the "orc nonsense," it's the idea that orcs in DnD, because they're more or less inherently evil, are therefore racist?

And based on several racial caricatures, along with goblins, gnolls, etc
From all sides, btw: some people didn't like the lazy writing that had sentient creatures theoretically capable of choice being entirely evil (there wasn't "more or less", especially back in the day), some people loved being able to slaughter "those kinds" of savage primitives, etc, etc, etc. You'd be surprised how many games back in the day had a Zulu War kind of vibe with the British as the explicit heroes.

That you quoted one of my posts indicates that you think I'm that kind of nerd. I mean, okay, that's your prerogative, and the type of nerd you describe probably isn't going to see themselves as such (yes, we all have blind spots), but on the wider subject, I actually do agree, that there would be those kinds of nerds who act as you describe.
*snip*
Nearly done, but back to my second point. If I am that "certain type of nerd" (again, I don't think I am, but I could be wrong - the outside looking in and all that), I'd like to point out that there's a reason why I haven't said anything definitive on the creatures here because a) I haven't played the game, and b) when I looked stuff up, I saw competing claims as to what the creatures were actually based on. There's a reason why I'm comfortable discussing HP for instance, and not GI, the distinction being I'm familiar with the former, and not the latter. For instance, I can understand the "goblins are anti-semitic idea," I just sharply disagree with it, in part because of the reasons I described above (and various other reasons). I don't believe that makes me a fanboy, but hey, could be wrong.

I don't really care if you disagree as long as you can understand why somebody might reach the conclusions that they do while still believing that they're honestly engaging with the media.

Like, what are the hook nosed, money loving goblins from folklore based on?

 

[Hawki]

And based on several racial caricatures, along with goblins, gnolls, etc

Then I'll have to agree to disagree.

From all sides, btw: some people didn't like the lazy writing that had sentient creatures theoretically capable of choice being entirely evil (there wasn't "more or less", especially back in the day), some people loved being able to slaughter "those kinds" of savage primitives, etc, etc, etc. You'd be surprised how many games back in the day had a Zulu War kind of vibe with the British as the explicit heroes.

Okay, slightly personal, but do you mind telling me how old you are?

The reason I ask is I'm not doubting any of what you said, but everything you're describing above is so utterly alien to my own experiences in tabletop gaming (Warhammer rather than DnD, so that could explain it also) that I'm wondering if there's a generation and/or cultural gap at work.

I don't really care if you disagree as long as you can understand why somebody might reach the conclusions that they do while still believing that they're honestly engaging with the media.

I guess yes. I mean, I don't doubt that people are engaging with media honestly a lot of the time, just that the conclusions they reach are sometimes baffling.

But I figure that goes for all of us. I mean, certainly I've been in the position of giving an honest interpretation and be greeted with "say what?" Comes with the territory.

Like, what are the hook nosed, money loving goblins from folklore based on?

I know what you're implying (Jews), but it's highly unlikely.

For starters, goblins exist/have existed in the folklore of Europe, South America, and Asia - not literally called goblins in the case of the latter two, but are basically goblins in all but name. You can't attribute anti-semitism to the development of such myths because they pre-date any contact with Jews by millennia.

Even in Europe itself, the idea of goblins dates back to Pagan myths, whereas anti-semitism started becoming significant in the Middle Ages on the continent. Yes, technically it's possible, in that anti-semitism goes at least as far back as 3000BCE (via Egypt) according to some arguments, but it's highly unlikely that the development of these myths came after the Jewish disaspora.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Okay, slightly personal, but do you mind telling me how old you are?

The reason I ask is I'm not doubting any of what you said, but everything you're describing above is so utterly alien to my own experiences in tabletop gaming (Warhammer rather than DnD, so that could explain it also) that I'm wondering if there's a generation and/or cultural gap at work.

The older members had played with Gygax a bit back before D&D had editions. They were 40-50 at the time. Good chunk of other members were early Air Force age. I was a teen when I joined.
Warhammer 40k had just transitioned to 3rd edition and started taking itself too seriously.

I guess yes. I mean, I don't doubt that people are engaging with media honestly a lot of the time, just that the conclusions they reach are sometimes baffling.

No argument there.

I know what you're implying (Jews), but it's highly unlikely.

For starters, goblins exist/have existed in the folklore of Europe, South America, and Asia - not literally called goblins in the case of the latter two, but are basically goblins in all but name. You can't attribute anti-semitism to the development of such myths because they pre-date any contact with Jews by millennia.

Even in Europe itself, the idea of goblins dates back to Pagan myths, whereas anti-semitism started becoming significant in the Middle Ages on the continent. Yes, technically it's possible, in that anti-semitism goes at least as far back as 3000BCE (via Egypt) according to some arguments, but it's highly unlikely that the development of these myths came after the Jewish disaspora.

Of course, goblin folklore also doesn't generally describe them as hook nosed and gold obsessed. Until you get to more modern interpretations.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And based on several racial caricatures, along with goblins, gnolls, etc
From all sides, btw: some people didn't like the lazy writing that had sentient creatures theoretically capable of choice being entirely evil (there wasn't "more or less", especially back in the day), some people loved being able to slaughter "those kinds" of savage primitives, etc, etc, etc. You'd be surprised how many games back in the day had a Zulu War kind of vibe with the British as the explicit heroes.

I don't really care if you disagree as long as you can understand why somebody might reach the conclusions that they do while still believing that they're honestly engaging with the media.

Like, what are the hook nosed, money loving goblins from folklore based on?

See the problem being if you try to trace everything back to origin at some point along the line it's easy to find something problematic and just stop there and declare the whole thing tainted and in need of change when that may not have been the origin or that the world has long since evolved past that point. Star Wars was baed on flash Gordon which was based on John Carter of Mars which was inspired by novels featuring colonialism in the past like She and King Solomon's Mines so Star Wars and most modern Sci-Fi is now tainted and needs to act too............


The issue with DnD is and the backlash to changes is it's always been a game where people have played basically table rules anyway and the stats were provided so people could do that. People are somewhat baffled at the seeming need for people to have things made cannon in a franchise where there is no cannon as no one group of adventurers were the only ones to do a certain official adventure module and anyone could end up doing it so the only canon tends to be lore and backstory to the worlds. It's simple would the DM allow it? Then you can do it and the official rule book could take a back seat. I doubt there is anything in the rulebook about having giant flying turtle pets but some DnD campaigns see players get them.

It seems a weird obsession to me in a number of ways for people to want things (often fan fics) to end up as some official cannon or be recognised when the push often has been a collective curation of canon. As an example everyone accepts that the whole magicing away poop stuff in Harry Potter is to be considered not canon or at least not spoken of as canon no matter how official the account it came from is........

 

[Hawki]

The older members had played with Gygax a bit back before D&D had editions. They were 40-50 at the time. Good chunk of other members were early Air Force age. I was a teen when I joined.

Okay, there definitely seems to be a generation gap here. I played Warhammer in my teens, and with no-one else other than fellow teenagers.

Warhammer 40k had just transitioned to 3rd edition and started taking itself too seriously.

And we'll have to agree to disagree there as well.

Of course, goblin folklore also doesn't generally describe them as hook nosed and gold obsessed. Until you get to more modern interpretations.

I can't comment on hook-noses so much, but gold obsessed definitely has its origins back in their ancient origins.

 

[Hawki]

See the problem being if you try to trace everything back to origin at some point along the line it's easy to find something problematic and just stop there and declare the whole thing tainted and in need of change when that may not have been the origin or that the world has long since evolved past that point. Star Wars was baed on flash Gordon which was based on John Carter of Mars which was inspired by novels featuring colonialism in the past like She and King Solomon's Mines so Star Wars and most modern Sci-Fi is now tainted and needs to act too............

Agree with this.

The thing is, we actually have a precedent for this. Zombies in pop culture now have nothing to do with their Voodoo origins, and fulfill a similar role as orcs - waves of fodder you can kill without remorse.

With orcs specifically, there's the question of "which orcs?" or "all orcs?" If you want to argue that the orcs of LotR are based on stereotypes, then yes, that's true (though we only know this through Tolkein's letters, otherwise, you'd kind of have to squint IMO). But how much should that origin 'taint' any other version of the concept? N.K. Jemesin, for instance, has argued that you can't separate orcs from their origins and that the whole concept is pretty much dead on arrival (she put it more eloquently than that, even if I disagree).

The issue with DnD is and the backlash to changes is it's always been a game where people have played basically table rules anyway and the stats were provided so people could do that. People are somewhat baffled at the seeming need for people to have things made cannon in a franchise where there is no cannon as no one group of adventurers were the only ones to do a certain official adventure module and anyone could end up doing it so the only canon tends to be lore and backstory to the worlds. It's simple would the DM allow it? Then you can do it and the official rule book could take a back seat. I doubt there is anything in the rulebook about having giant flying turtle pets but some DnD campaigns see players get them.

Doesn't DnD still have canon though? All its different settings? That people ignore canon doesn't change than canon exists.

It seems a weird obsession to me in a number of ways for people to want things (often fan fics) to end up as some official cannon or be recognised when the push often has been a collective curation of canon. As an example everyone accepts that the whole magicing away poop stuff in Harry Potter is to be considered not canon or at least not spoken of as canon no matter how official the account it came from is........

In various fandoms, there's certain tidbits that people seem to agree to just not talk about. Medi-chlorians in Star Wars, all of Star Trek V, etc.

On the other hand, being someone who writes plenty of fanfic, I'd love for someone to come and say "hey, this is great, can we make it canon?" Certainly when I'm writing multi-chaptered stuff, I try and keep to canon as much as possible, which is part of why it does bug me when new canon invalidates what I write, even when it was never canon to begin with.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

See the problem being if you try to trace everything back to origin at some point along the line it's easy to find something problematic and just stop there and declare the whole thing tainted and in need of change when that may not have been the origin or that the world has long since evolved past that point. Star Wars was baed on flash Gordon which was based on John Carter of Mars which was inspired by novels featuring colonialism in the past like She and King Solomon's Mines so Star Wars and most modern Sci-Fi is now tainted and needs to act too............

I mean, I'd hope modern SciFi has changed compared to Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciles.

And it has. THE CHANGE IS CALLING FROM THE HOUSE

The issue with DnD is and the backlash to changes is it's always been a game where people have played basically table rules anyway and the stats were provided so people could do that. People are somewhat baffled at the seeming need for people to have things made cannon in a franchise where there is no cannon as no one group of adventurers were the only ones to do a certain official adventure module and anyone could end up doing it so the only canon tends to be lore and backstory to the worlds. It's simple would the DM allow it? Then you can do it and the official rule book could take a back seat. I doubt there is anything in the rulebook about having giant flying turtle pets but some DnD campaigns see players get them.

For such a spirited defense of "but you can just change it to what you want, so who cares what's canon", you seem to care very much about what's official canon and not. Why is that?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I mean, I'd hope modern SciFi has changed compared to Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciles.

And it has. THE CHANGE IS CALLING FROM THE HOUSE

For such a spirited defense of "but you can just change it to what you want, so who cares what's canon", you seem to care very much about what's official canon and not. Why is that?

It kinda hasn't not as much as you'd think lol You can easily apply the critical lens to claim Vulcans are offensive whitewashed portrayals of Asian people I'm sure.

The simple reason being once people see something become canon they then want more to become canon.

We've already gone from Good Orcs to wheelchair accessible dungeons quite quickly. which before it would have been at the DM's discretion and more than likely the DM would have said something like "You can use the wheelchair but the dungeons aren't changing figure out how you plan to work this now. Setting a challenge for the players while now it's in the rules so the DM can't challenge the player to come up with a solution as such but is responsible for the solution themselves on top of all the other stuff.

It even then spreads further to reality being seen as just another canon people can influence and change to their will

Shippers got to see Kit Harington and Rose Leslie get together in real life (played John Snow and Ygritte in Game of Thrones) and so then later other idiots fans tried to break them up and get Kitt Harrington to divorce her because they wanted him to get with Emilia C

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Doesn't DnD still have canon though? All its different settings? That people ignore canon doesn't change than canon exists.

It's more instances of backstories and history from my (admittedly limited) understanding.
To put it in video game terms it would be like if in an MMO there was a set canon of "This group of adventurers were the ones who killed this boss" while in a lot of MMOs every group are the group who defeated the great evil threat no one group doing it is the lore. At most you're passive observers in the actual lore playing out and a stand in for any hero when you act. The world changes you don't as such or your actions specifically aren't recognised unless the DM chooses to or unless the books say things done get recognised and from what I understand campaigns are often more self contained in DnD and it's up to DM more to join them together if they wish.

In various fandoms, there's certain tidbits that people seem to agree to just not talk about. Medi-chlorians in Star Wars, all of Star Trek V, etc.

On the other hand, being someone who writes plenty of fanfic, I'd love for someone to come and say "hey, this is great, can we make it canon?" Certainly when I'm writing multi-chaptered stuff, I try and keep to canon as much as possible, which is part of why it does bug me when new canon invalidates what I write, even when it was never canon to begin with.

Oh I get the idea of wanting stuff to be canon. Medi-chlorians I never got the anger over. Mine is over Lightsabers. I always saw them as a physical manifestation of the force itself channelled through the crystal thus a persons will as such and force ability is what made some-one come off better is a clash or win the fight. It also explains why despite all the force powers characters often have only limited ones get used in fights as it's a clash of wills. I mean siths can shoot lightening and force choke people and you're telling me at no point did a sith lord just go "Fuck all this fighting" and light the jedi up with a force choke and kill them?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It kinda hasn't not as much as you'd think lol You can easily apply the critical lens to claim Vulcans are offensive whitewashed portrayals of Asian people I'm sure.

The simple reason being once people see something become canon they then want more to become canon.

We've already gone from Good Orcs to wheelchair accessible dungeons quite quickly. which before it would have been at the DM's discretion and more than likely the DM would have said something like "You can use the wheelchair but the dungeons aren't changing figure out how you plan to work this now. Setting a challenge for the players while now it's in the rules so the DM can't challenge the player to come up with a solution as such but is responsible for the solution themselves on top of all the other stuff.

...the...horror? Oh...no...an adventure supplement with 17 different one-shot adventures has...one...wheelchair accessible dungeon? And that's the slippery slope of legend and not a reference to a fan made, podcast popularized battle wheelchair?

Dunno, don't know why you can't ignore the "canon" and play how you like.

That's the argument, right?

The issue with DnD is and the backlash to changes is it's always been a game where people have played basically table rules anyway and the stats were provided so people could do that. People are somewhat baffled at the seeming need for people to have things made cannon in a franchise where there is no cannon as no one group of adventurers were the only ones to do a certain official adventure module and anyone could end up doing it so the only canon tends to be lore and backstory to the worlds. It's simple would the DM allow it? Then you can do it and the official rule book could take a back seat.

Take your own advice, I guess. Or is it "rules for thee and not for me" time?

It even then spreads further to reality being seen as just another canon people can influence and change to their will

Shippers got to see Kit Harington and Rose Leslie get together in real life (played John Snow and Ygritte in Game of Thrones) and so then later other idiots fans tried to break them up and get Kitt Harrington to divorce her because they wanted him to get with Emilia C

...okay? Besides from being obviously gross and a good reason for people to stop shipping real people, what's that got to do with *anything* related to this conversation?

Are you seriously trying to argue that game companies shouldn't listen to customer feedback because those customers might then be weird to real life celebrities? Did Sony becoming more prudish about sexualizing fictional minors lead to shippers making slashfic of Korean boy bands?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

...the...horror? Oh...no...an adventure supplement with 17 different one-shot adventures has...one...wheelchair accessible dungeon? And that's the slippery slope of legend and not a reference to a fan made, podcast popularized battle wheelchair?

Dunno, don't know why you can't ignore the "canon" and play how you like.

That's the argument, right?

Take your own advice, I guess. Or is it "rules for thee and not for me" time?

1 does, but as the thing becomes canon as such then it becomes an expectation to deal with that outside of the specific use and can and will cause arguments.

Also from what I've been hearing the present incarnation of the magic wheelchair is knda game breaking. Like traps don't trigger for it and it has high toughness + magic resistance or something.

...okay? Besides from being obviously gross and a good reason for people to stop shipping real people, what's that got to do with *anything* related to this conversation?

People pushing to have an impact and have their desires be made real. In some media it's getting it to become canon for some it goes further and they want it to be real life and have that power over real life too.

Are you seriously trying to argue that game companies shouldn't listen to customer feedback because those customers might then be weird to real life celebrities? Did Sony becoming more prudish about sexualizing fictional minors lead to shippers making slashfic of Korean boy bands?

More be careful who you listen to. Why you listen to them and don't just do it to appease people or a happy clappy feel good thing.