JacktheRabbit
Explorer
aaa
Last edited:
D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet
- Status
3catcircus
Adventurer
This is a mistake that *every* progressive-thinking person in western society makes. Calling it white male privilege is a fallacy. It is "what those who are in the majority of a given society's makeup" do. I've lived (and continue to work) in predominantly Asian cultures (Japan, South Korea). They are some of the most blatant but polite "-ists" you'll ever meet. It isn't done out of malice. It isn't even a behavior, per se. It is a societal hivemind collective. I can't count on one hand the number of times I'd be in line at a store in Korea, step up to the counter, and immediately be cut in front of by a native - and just as quickly be ignored by the store clerk who would turn to help them. Or the innumerable "no Gaijin" establishments in Japan. They aren't doing anything *wrong* in doing so. They are simply avoiding a difficult situation. It is easier to help someone who speaks your language. It is easier to serve drinks to a customer who you know isn't going to become a "problem." One could easily, as a non-Asian term their behavior "Asian Privilege."
That unconscious and unintended bias is *vastly* different than actively going out of your way to sabotage someone's career, housing, or educational prospects because they are different than you.
Last edited:
ad_hoc
(they/them)
This is a weird sentiment that gets repeated. It's similar to the free speech one.
No one is pushing. No one is forcing. No one is infringing on their free speech.*
They are being told that they are asshats. Their choice is to stop being an asshat or go away. People can choose who they associate with. Not associating with abusive and toxic people is not 'forcibly changing them'.
It's not my responsibility to hang out with jerks. Just as it isn't Mearls' responsibility to listen to them or value their opinions.
*Well not no one. These things happen to marginalized peoples all the time. People who face actual violence, coercion, and suspension of their rights.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
I think it is the case of a few loud voices. Even on a message board which I think we can agree has more toxic people than the general population (of 5e players), his tweet is still supported by the vast majority. Here is exp given to 3 posts on the first page supporting Mearls' tweet.
It's wonderful that the D&D team are standing up against this sort of behaviour. If they do it enough hopefully we will have fewer and fewer toxic people in our community.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don’t agree with your interpretation at all. As already lointed out, he is not comparing mechanics vs lore. He’s sayibg that these things can typically be used by gatekeepers to keep “outsiders” from the game.
Then he says that it seems like lots of people that gatekeep in this way also seem to want to keep women from the game. He’s not commenting on Kate’s preferred playstyle at all.
I can see why you might draw that conclusion....the impulse to take a mention of “rules complexity” AND “lore density” and then read it as the age old “mechanics” vs. “roleplay” seems natural. But that’s not what he’s doing. It’s what you’re doing.
He also is in no way saying that women cannot enjoy or excel at strategy. I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion.
epithet
Explorer
Yes, he does correlate gatekeeping (based on rules & lore) with sexism. Clearly he does. I never said he didn't. I corrected your assertion that he correlated an aversion to "lore over strategy" with sexism. He never did that.
I don't know anyone who would give a crap about her hiring, either way. Sorry. To the best of my knowledge, the only people I've ever spoken with who are even aware of this issue are on this forum. That said, I can imagine that watching the video linked in the first post of the old, locked thread would lead some people to a knee-jerk reaction about "gameplay" and how it has to trump story and lore. The reason I can imagine that is because I saw exactly the same argument unfold on the SWTOR forums as that game was in development. A significant number of people were arguing that gameplay and "balance" were paramount, and should in all instances trump considerations of Star Wars lore and BioWare storytelling. Others asserted that the lore and story were the only reason for the game in the first place, without which they might as well not waste their time. Yes, certain developers were criticised for expressed opinions on that issue. No, none of the ones who had made their opinions known were (as I recall) women.
I also remember that during the development of Dragon Age Inquisition a developer made a comment in the context of being able to "space bar" past cut scenes and conversations in the game if you were in a hurry to get to the combat bits. Her comment was that maybe you should be able to space bar past the combat to get to the cut scenes and dialog. She said it as a joke, but the internet exploded. There was a general consensus at BioWare that the backlash had sexist motivation. I don't know, I thought her joke was funny, and I've often wished I could "space bar" past the trash fights in BioWare games.
So, yeah... I can see how someone could get the knickers in a bunch over the lore/strategy thing and carry on cranky for reasons entirely unrelated to the gender of the new hire. I can't really see why anyone would object to hiring a female designer. I can see your point, and I understand where you're coming from.
You still completely mischaracterized Mike's tweet, and I corrected you. "Gatekeeping via rules and lore" is not the same as arguing over the strategy/lore balance.
Doc_Klueless
Doors and Corners
Nevermind. When straight to the designer's twitter page.
Last edited:
epithet
Explorer
I think you and I are in general agreement in this thread, but I can see how someone could (with some effort) come to the conclusion that Mike's tweet was casting aspersions on women's facility with complex rules and dense lore.
If you accept that "rules complexity and lore density" are being used to "gatekeep" women away from the tabletop RPGs, it can be taken to imply that those are some sort of girl kryptonite. Spread some rules complexity and some lore density around the tree, and it will keep the girls out of the clubhouse. Yes, it is ridiculous. Completely. I can, however, see how the argument was put together, and the parts that were used.
Edit: I feel like I should also lay out why it's a load of crap. Not for you, obviously, but for thread tourists who might not be paying much attention and pick up the wrong idea. That sort of "gatekeeping" can be used against anyone. Really - anyone. You can find things in the rules I'm not aware of, and there is a lot of "Realmslore" I've blissfully ignored. Upthread you can find someone jokingly disqualifying Mike himself for his role in 4e. The thing about purity tests is that no one can pass them. Mike's tweet suggested that this sort of purity test was being applied to Kate because some guys didn't want a girl in the clubhouse, but it was absolutely not intended to (nor could it be reasonably interpreted to) suggest that she or any other woman is less capable of passing. Again, that's the thing about purity tests - no one can pass except for those who are given the answers.
And that's why Mike wasn't insulting women. (And also why using twitter to vent his spleen wasn't the best idea since ever.)
Last edited:
epithet
Explorer
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D General
Is D&D Survey Feedback Read? [UPDATED!]
