D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Tanin Wulf]

You shouldn't. I'm not passing judgment on, for example, your desire to exclude people who are only there to lure away your players, or otherwise be disruptive.

I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with the kind of gatekeeping at issue here. It's not the same thing to a different degree; it's completely unrelated.

Then perhaps the only thing we'll reach, this time around, is polite disagreement. But I hope that won't stop either of us from trying to reach understanding again next time?

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, I know. I am glad we're all on the same page now I am disagreeing with his claim that there is a correlation between the two. I don't think there is.

There may or may not be a general correlation between the two sets of jerk behavior: but it is apparent from reading the Tweets that there is a particular correlation among some of those being jerks to Mearls on Twitter right now and those who have historically been advocating jerky behavior to Mearls on Twitter for many moons. And correlation is not causation, but hard not to sympathize with his frustration after his excitement for hiring somebody he thinks has a lot to bring to the table.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You know, it is truly sad that we have gotten to a point when showing common human decency, like standing up for a new co-worker who is being subject to harassment solely based on her gender, is now considered by some to be bad because they believe it is just trying to "impress" people.

Doing the right thing is its own reward. Some lessons you learn when you are young are worth remembering.

Well said.

It always boggles my mind a bit when people assume that someone else is just being a good person to impress people. Like, what is the working theory, there? Do they just think that everyone is a selfish POS that only pretend to care about others to win imaginary brownie points?

 

[Sacrosanct]

It was an amazing thing when White Wolf's games came out and hit the college campuses. As diverse and welcoming as 5E is trying to be, and as I am sure other games try to be, the release of Vampire: The Masquerade did more to get women interested in gaming than any other system that I know of. None of the ones I gamed with in those days were actual supermodels, but some of them could have been.

To be fair to D&D, D&D never could have done that because Vampire is a completely different game played completely different than D&D could ever be. Vampire was Twilight before Twilight was a thing and appealed to a completely different demographic than the D&D murder hobos demographic. And when Interview with a Vampire came out only a couple years after Vampire and had all the wimmins swooning, Vampire was the game to play to emulate that much more than D&D could ever do and thus appealed to women much more than D&D could. Vampire fit perfectly for the androgynous beauty and melancholy attitude that was so popular of the time. And the movie AND game had those dripping in spades. It was a perfect storm

 

[redrick]

It's generally expected that managers will stand up for people on their team. Considering that the person in question was being savaged not for something they had done, but simply because of who they are, makes Mearls's response seem pretty light.

It is unfortunate that the language of his tweet suggested that women are less able to handle rules complexity than men. I don't believe that this was his intention, but the tweet easily reads that way. I think this is a great illustration of how even the best meaning individuals are no substitute for actual diversity in a leadership team. (Which is not to suggest that any one group of people is more or less likely to put their foot in their mouth, but with more than one group represented, we can all watch each other's backs.)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So different games will often appeal to different demographics without an inherent malice or bias?

 

[renevq]

Your first sentence might be true, but...
You enter a high-level tennis tournament precisely because you want to have a high level of gameplay (which necessarily will exclude others). Exclusionary elements to an activity is not inherently bad.

Is there are high level D&D tournament that requires high level play? If so, then yes, there should be a benchmark that needs to be met to play in it. You shouldn't have exclusionary elements for the game itself. To finish your analogy, that would be like saying "Can you return a 100+ mph serve? Do you know who won the first match between Borg and McEnroe and where it was played? If you don't you don't have any business playing tennis at all."

Nor do I think that people who use those terms in conversation are necessarily sexist (they CAN be, however).

The correlation is pretty strong.

 

[redrick]

So different games will often appeal to different demographics without an inherent malice or bias?

There is a difference between appealing to a demographic and discouraging or excluding a demographic. One can be welcoming to a broad range of demographics while still, ultimately, appealing to one demographic more than others.

It's also clear that the makers of D&D want to appeal to as broad a range of demographics as possible, and I, as a player of D&D would like that as well.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's generally expected that managers will stand up for people on their team. Considering that the person in question was being savaged not for something they had done, but simply because of who they are, makes Mearls's response seem pretty light.

It is unfortunate that the language of his tweet suggested that women are less able to handle rules complexity than men. I don't believe that this was his intention, but the tweet easily reads that way. I think this is a great illustration of how even the best meaning individuals are no substitute for actual diversity in a leadership team. (Which is not to suggest that any one group of people is more or less likely to put their foot in their mouth, but with more than one group represented, we can all watch each other's backs.)

(not trying to single you out here, just one example)

I think it is telling that people are jumping on the 'rules complexity' part of the tweet and leaving out the lore. It is much easier to twist the comment about rules complexity into him saying that it is bad than it is to say that he thinks lore is bad (or that some people are unable to learn it). If a person is going to call him out on the 'rules complexity' part they need to also make the case for the 'lore' part.

The most important part of the tweet to me is 'you're fired'. It is a clear unequivocal stance of solidarity. He states in no uncertain terms that he doesn't count the opinions of toxic people. If someone questions me about whether D&D is inclusive, it's an easy tweet to point to. Simultaneously the uproar is good publicity for D&D. The more people that get upset for being called out for their toxicity, the more cool people will see it and want to play. It's win-win.

 

[redrick]

(not trying to single you out here, just one example)

I think it is telling that people are jumping on the 'rules complexity' part of the tweet and leaving out the lore. It is much easier to twist the comment about rules complexity into him saying that it is bad than it is to say that he thinks lore is bad (or that some people are unable to learn it). If a person is going to call him out on the 'rules complexity' part they need to also make the case for the 'lore' part.

The most important part of the tweet to me is 'you're fired'. It is a clear unequivocal stance of solidarity. He states in no uncertain terms that he doesn't count the opinions of toxic people. If someone questions me about whether D&D is inclusive, it's an easy tweet to point to. Simultaneously the uproar is good publicity for D&D. The more people that get upset for being called out for their toxicity, the more cool people will see it and want to play. It's win-win.

Totally. The tweet ends strong. I will just admit that, as I read it, I had more of a "huh" expression on my face. Maybe because he opens with rules complexity and then moves to lore density and then finally gets to the really good part about firing sexist s from D&D. And while I understand the point he is making with "gatekeeping" being the operative word (it's not that women necessarily have any problem with density of lore — it's just that some folks in the existing playerbase, which happens to skew hard male, are using their lifelong knowledge of FR lore to gatekeep newcomers, who skew less male), the effect just gets muddled. Twitter and all.

So, again, I'm not trying to parse out Mike Mearls's intentions, because we have a body of statements on his part that make his overall position very clear. Maybe one could try to pick it apart for latent biases, but I think that's a bit much for a tweet. It's just, as some people upthread have said, not as effectively worded as it could be. Less a criticism of Mike Mearls and more a full-throated endorsement of why real diversity in leadership positions is important.