D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[ad_hoc]

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.

"Firing" them is the only appropriate response.

We just shouldn't put up with abusers. There is no middle ground.

Here is the example to illustrate the point. It used to be just an example but in recent times is actually relevant again:

Nazis want to exterminate all non-white people.
Non-white people don't want to be exterminated.
Let's exterminate half of the non-white people so that we can all get along.

The appropriate response is to just say no. To tell them that they aren't welcome.

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.

At best you are grossly uninformed. The reality is that gender is always an issue. It's just that it isn't an issue to cis men until they are called on their sexism. Men don't see gender as an issue as long as they are benefiting from the patriarchy that they live in. Once those privileges are threatened then they cry 'reverse sexism' and 'not all men'.

Here's another illustration:

There are 3 people. A white man, A white woman, and a black woman.

They are asked to describe what they are.

The white man says: "I'm a person."
The white woman says: "I'm a woman."
The black woman says: "I'm a black woman."

Do you see the problem?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I thought I was fairly clear that those were implications of the terms you used, rather than actual quotes. Allow me to clarify.

The are not implications I made though.

An assertion of "white male privilege" implies that the the person so labeled has, as a white male, been sheltered, insulated, or conditioned to the point that they are unable to perceive blatant injustice, unwilling to perceive that injustice, or have become supportive of and dependent on that injustice.

"White male privilege" is not a label. It's a behavior or scenario. That's your first problem. Your second problem is that you're ignoring the most common form of privilege: just being unaware. Someone doesn't have to be unable, or unwilling, or supportive of WP to have benefited from, or engage in WP behavior.

It further implies that whatever authority that person might have in the context of the conversation at hand is unearned, and would not exist but for the ethnic circumstances of that person's birth. It is often paired with the implication that the person who is labeling the other as "privileged" has, if that person is also a white male, elevated himself above the stigma of white male privilege through his virtuous character.

This is also nonsense*. Although, your preconceptions certainly do illustrate why you're taking the positions you are. I've mentioned this in the other thread. I've actually given presentations on privilege. This is not something I am inexperienced in. And I'm telling you, when you question the qualifications for a woman hire when you do not for a male hire when all other circumstances are the same, that is quite literally an example of what male privilege is. This isn't a matter of opinion. So you trying to silence me based on your own inaccurate assumptions of my motivations and what WMP actually is, is not only not your place to do so, but is actively harmful. Ironically, it also allows you to keep enjoying the benefits that come with WMP because you're not one of the people like Kate who has to keep going through this utter nonsense literally every time you accomplish something or get hired.


*Edit. It's nonsense because I'm in no way "elevated above the stigma", and I certainly am not any more virtuous than anyone else. I think your fundamental mistake in your line of thinking is assuming that anyone mentioning how you have WP means they are personally insulting you. That's not true at all. In fact, it gets tiring when people in the position of power act like THEY are the victims whenever you point out that they have been getting benefits other don't. When someone says I have WP because I don't get pulled over for my ethnicity, or that most everyone else looks like me, I don't take that as an insult. That's just a fact. And if someone says something that is a clear example of WP, me pointing that out doesn't automatically mean they are unable or unwilling to accept it. Most times it means they probably weren't even aware of it. However, if they keep doubling down on it after being presented the facts, then yeah. It absolutely is a flaw in their character, and that's why I made the comment I did earlier.

 

[hejtmane]

You can't "fire" your customers, it doesn't work like that. Basically Mike was just expressing frustration. If you think some rage tweet will make a self-appointed rules/lore gatekeeper quit playing or buying D&D books, you're under the influence of something potent.

D&D 5e became the most popular RPG by appealing to everyone who had ever played D&D, from the Red Box through 4e. Those "devoted enthusiasts" are the ones who brought in the new players. By itself, 5e has almost no ability to reach new players, because most people who have no connection with tabletop gaming would pick up a book and look through it. 5e energized and enthused the D&D devoted, who in turn went out and got their friends to join a party, bought a set of books for their kid, niece, nephew, etc., or in some cases started recording their game to share with the public.

D&D is a social game, and 5e has flourished because it appealed to those "devoted RPG enthusiasts" you seem ready to move beyond. They made more enthusiasts, and as long as we all remain enthusiastic we'll continue to grow the 5e player base moving forward.

That tweet, by itself, will only result in a handful of threads like this one that flare, sputter, and are forgotten.

I been tired of this entire subject for years now in fact this entire tweet was like yawn. Pretty simple if you are a male now days you are the worse person in the world; I just ignore it all and people can just hate me . Now on my twitter rant I do not have twitter do not use twitter and do not get twitter period.

 

[ad_hoc]

I think that while Mearls only hit a nerve with a very small, specific, and vocal group of people. I doubt it will have a negative impact on his reputation or his leadership; my gut tells me it will have a positive impact instead.

Yeah, I think the people lecturing him on how to correctly business have no idea about the actual demographics and sales numbers of 5e.

There are over 10 million active players. Most of them are either going to be happy and encouraged by his tweet, indifferent, or not even aware of it.

The more the sexist people make a fuss about it though, the more exposure 5e will gain and will attract the positive sorts of people that WotC wants in their game. Afterall, what the business side of the D&D team wants most are sociable players who will introduce new people who are not in the hobby games community to the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, its not in jeopardy, more of a philosophical question.

Though it seems like in tabletop gaming the trend is "streamlined" rules, aka simpler or less of them. I know in non historical wargaming that is a big push, get more people playing by having simpler rules. Then the fans of more complete rules complain that the game is becoming a hairs breath from going pew pew as you move models around the table.

Sure, that kind of stuff happens all the time. That’s just a matter of preference. But Mearls wasn’t criticizing anyone for having a preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you actually want to know, my post answers this question.

I felt like it implied it, but I wanted to be sure. I also think the bulk of your post was about defending complex rules and deep lore, neither of which is really the issue, which is why I didn’t comment on that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do not want to put words in someones mouth but maybe the fear is new people means new company direction. If you see a company hiring people whose ideas are different from what is currently happening wouldnt you expect that companies products to change to match the new people? Not that different is automatically bad of course.

But do we have any indication that will happen here? Do you mean the one line she said about not being as focused on combat in her games? Is that really so threatening to the game as is?

I mean, she plays in games that are watched by thousands of gamers who don’t seem to have amy issue at all with the style of play. She plays in games with Chris Perkins as a DM. Surely she understands that there are varieties of ways to play, and was simply stating her preference.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Do not want to put words in someones mouth but maybe the fear is new people means new company direction. If you see a company hiring people whose ideas are different from what is currently happening wouldnt you expect that companies products to change to match the new people? Not that different is automatically bad of course.

That is a valid point IMO. If they announced 6e and the core team was mostly people who worked on storytelling type games or thought D&D should be closer to improv communal theater I'd be concerned.

I won't lie, when my first image of the new hire was a person wearing elf ears it immediately gave me an impression that this person's direction for D&D would probably not be along the lines of what I'm interested in. Of course they could be a fan of murder hoboing while in elf ears but that was the initial impression. Due to my short attention span I have not investigated her gaming style further though outside reading she likes approx .25 CPS.

 

[nswanson27]

The reality is that gender is always an issue. It's just that it isn't an issue to cis men until they are called on their sexism. Men don't see gender as an issue as long as they are benefiting from the patriarchy that they live in. Once those privileges are threatened then they cry 'reverse sexism' and 'not all men'.

So I'm a man. I've happened to benefit from the patriarchy that I live in on occasion, no one has ever called me on my "sexism", yet I think sexism is wrong, and I don't cry those things when equality is restored...

 

[CleverNickName]

I thought they were Vulcan ears and I got really excited/confused.