D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I can’t see who would feel offended by Mearls’s tweet, unless they misunderstood it. I thought it was very clear, but many have expressed confusion about what he meant, so perhaps he could have been clearer.

But now that it’s been cleared up....who’s offended by his tweet? I would expect only sexists and those who want to keep gaming to themselves. So...who cares if they’re offended?

Is it a bad thing to want to keep the game as you like it?

 

[Satyrn]

So @Sacrosanct can see what DocMoriarty said . . .

Edit. I'll cut that out. Sorry, Morrus.

 

[Morrus]

Mearl's "Firing" tweet

So [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] can see what DocMoriarty said

Do NOT do that. Ever. The privacy controls on this site are there for a reason. Do not try to circumvent them.

 

[epithet]

I'm not sure what you're upset about.

You aren't his customer base. You've been fired.

You should go find another game. 5e doesn't care about you.

Can you not see the irony?

Oh, I see the irony. I'd bet that it isn't the irony that you're thinking of, but I see it clearly.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[JacktheRabbit]

aaa

 

[abirdcall]

As I said upthread, there is a big difference between "gatekeeping", the term he used, and "prefer" which is what people are reading. I think lots of people who like heavier games try to get others to play them, instead of chasing them away.

But yes, it could have been worded better.

Yeah, the whole point of the tweet was to discourage certain people from buying his products. I'm not sure how it can be more clear. He said 'you're fired' to a bunch of his customers.

Of course I think it is very likely that the tweet will result in more players overall.

I think some people here don't realize that 5e is the most popular RPG ever and it isn't due to appealing to the devoted RPG enthusiasts. 5e has brought in a lot of new players and will continue to do so going forward.

 

[pogre]

Can we have the next social media tool craze to replace Twitter please!?

 

[jgsugden]

...But now that it’s been cleared up....who’s offended by his tweet? I would expect only sexists and those who want to keep gaming to themselves. So...who cares if they’re offended?

How about people that believe that showing disrespect for others, even when we disagree with them, and even when we think their views are reprehensible, is not a productive way to resolve differences?

Some people believe that open war, even when just a war of words, doesn't solve problems. It just evolves them.

I'd rather his reply had not attacked a group of people, but had instead stayed focus on the troubling issue. Don't "fire" people. Don't talk about a group of people as if they're all the same. Instead, address the underlying issue (a concern that sexism is being disguised as a focus on rules complexity and lore density) without insulting people.

I know a lot of D&D players that love strategy games, but are not really story driven players. Some of them love 4E, others 5E, others 3E or Pathfinder.... and the reasons they give for it are all rules related, not lore driven. And they can go on and on about it.

They'd rather that the people working on the game understand the strategy game underlying D&D combat in great detail - whether they are involved in writing rules, writing adventures, preparing for conventions or marketing the game. Some of those people may be disappointed to see a prominent hire *IF* they believed that hire lacked an understanding of the rules at the level they consider necessary.

Does that make them inherently sexist? I don't think so. Honestly, I think that calling them sexist, without knowing anything about their gender/gender identity, is far more sexist. There is nothing inherently gender related with liking a strategy game. Nor is there anything inherently gender related with not showing a deep appreciation for lore or story. I think that *assuming* there is a gender motivation behind people that are concerned with rules complexity and lore density is putting gender into the issue - and the assumption is sexist. Now, if he based his opinion upon metrics of some sort that is another matter... but it would appear that he was reacting to the vocal minority he saw tweeting, not on anything well researched.

 

[robus]

That sounds nice and all, but it’s an impossible goal. Human brains are flawed and irrational, and incredibly prone to unconscious bias. There will always be admission and hiring guidelines not 100% related to experience, talent, and qualifications. The only thing that removing such guidelines officially would accomplish is to insure that all such guidelines are unstated, unchallenged, and determined entirely by the hirer’s unconscious biases.

One of the refreshing changes over the past 20 years is corporate America's (at least) recognition that they don't operate outside of the culture. They've realized (by being proactive over things like gay rights - see Disney, Apple etc) that it can actually enhance their corporate image and have them be seen as both a desirable place to work and a positive force in the society.

One of the things that comes from recognizing that you're part of the culture is also realizing that the way you hire can either reinforce or counteract the current balance of demographic power. The qualifications and experience of certain groups have historically been held back due to biased hiring and promotion practices and corporations now realize that and are attempting to do better.

I say thank you for stepping up and having a conscience.