> Kuntz, the designer and Gygax collaborator, said that while some topics ought to be considered off-limits, it was a mistake to interfere with the implicit soc

> Kuntz, the designer and Gygax collaborator, said that while some topics ought to be considered off-limits, it was a mistake to interfere with the implicit social contract that has sustained Dungeons & Dragons for decade. I'm fully in agreement with this statement. This is like human group dynamics 101, which underlies all social interaction. You figure out what sort of people you are playing with, how familiar you are with each other, and what sort of fun you want to have together. If unsure, err on the side of tameness. This has many-many dimensions besides the ones about taboo topics mentioned in the article. Handling this through a form feels incredibly insincere and performative, and insinuates that people (including me) are not to be trusted. If you don't trust the people you're playing with, you shouldn't be playing in the first place. That being said, this is 100% manufactured controversy. It's virtue signaling from Hasbro (possibly ESG dollar sign motivated) as well as pearl clutching from right wingers. How tabletop works is you ignore all the stuff you don't like or don't care about. I have played with quite a few parties, some of them consisting of people who were complete strangers at first, and also quite socially heterogenous. I have never seen such a form in my life, and yet despite that, none of our campaigns turned into the pen-and-paper version of Blood Meridian.