D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Eric V]

"it was about what people thought the Orient was like from popular culture [i.e. Western Culture] not necessarily what it actually is."

So, it's at least up front about the usage of stereotypes.

A new book about, say, Kara-Tur, could easily be possible if done right. It's not that the idea is bad (representation is good); but the execution done in 1985 is simply not good. Which, ok: it was 1985. But once we know better, we're required to do better.

And your example of Warrior Nun shows that you (and the others like you) are STILL not getting it: Warrior Nun is something I watch passively. OA is an instruction manual on how to pretend to be (fantasy) Asian, with the idea that people will actually do so. A how-to manual for non-Asians about how to pretend to be Asian, written by white people is problematic at best. Yeah, for fiction, authors can go outside their lived experience. An instructional manual (which is what OA is)? No. Needs more than the one playgroup that @Panda-s1 found out about. If it wants to be on the up-and-up, that is.

Having said that, you really don't seem to be engaging honestly*; no one said writers (general) should be limited to certain subjects. No one said "that roleplayers not be allowed to play different characters. " Honest to God, these strawmen are exhausting, used to 'score points', and generally deflect from an issue where actual people have actual concerns over how they are being portrayed.

*or, it's something else, something worse.

 

[Cadence]

A new book about, say, Kara-Tur, could easily be possible if done right. It's not that the idea is bad (representation is good); but the execution done in 1985 is simply not good. Which, ok: it was 1985. But once we know better, we're required to do better.

And your example of Warrior Nun shows that you (and the others like you) are STILL not getting it: Warrior Nun is something I watch passively. OA is an instruction manual on how to pretend to be (fantasy) Asian, with the idea that people will actually do so. A how-to manual for non-Asians about how to pretend to be Asian, written by white people is problematic at best. Yeah, for fiction, authors can go outside their lived experience. An instructional manual (which is what OA is)? No. Needs more than the one playgroup that @Panda-s1 found out about. If it wants to be on the up-and-up, that is.

Could you elaborate on how your first sentence and middle of your second paragraph work together? What do you envision in a new Kara-Tur book that wasn't encouraging all kinds of players to engage in playing fantasy characters based on Asia? Is it just needing more playtesters (presumably both living in or directly from those countries, and those experience prejudice against them as they live in other countries) to make sure it tackles things well?

Could you also elaborate on how merely watching passively makes something ok? Maybe I missed something, but I assume you're not arguing that putting a disclaimer in front of Gone With the Wind, some of the Looney Tunes, and pulling Song of the South weren't needing to be done since folks only passively watched them.

 

[Aldarc]

Seriously.

People just aren't getting the difference between a manual like OA versus Tom Sawyer or some other book. The latter is a book one simply reads; that's the expected level of engagement with the book. It can contain bigoted aspects, but one needn't personally engage them.

I agree, but I would say that we do engage the problematic aspects of literature with far greater attention than we do with TTRPG books. Reading Tom Sawyer or the works of H.P. Lovecraft, for example, often comes with honestly engaging the racism as racism. Embracing literature as an artistic form means that it is criticized as art. However, when some people try to say that OA is art or literature, it seems to be more about shielding it from criticism that ironically other artistic forms receive, and I don't see that same sort of open engagement with the problematic aspects of OA as with Tom Sawyer or the works of H.P. Lovecraft. In this regard, it seems more about keeping the insularity of the TTRPG insular and removed from criticisms.

 

[Aldarc]

So you expect me to answer to your comparison between La Gioconda and OA, while you yourself fail to answer mine between OA and Tolkien (who isn't in the public domain)?

Are you gas-lighting me? I double-checked through this thread, and you haven't asked me or anyone a question regarding Tolkien in this thread. If you meant to ask me a question about Tolkien, then that's fine. However, framing my failure to answer an unasked question as a moral shortcoming on my part seems a bit unfair, no?

My personal opinion about this is irrelevant, since I already stated (again, post #8) that even books such as Mein Kampf should be available. So even a written statement from Zeb, wherein he admits that OA is racist, still wouldn't change my opinion on this matter.

Irrelevant maybe, but still sought.

Because you as well as others disregard the difference between public domain (meaning widely and often freely available) and copyright when you propose to ban OA (but suggesting that we could still buy a physical copy). And when users like Snarf Zagyg posit that a lot of works (even in the public domain) contain offensive ideas, someone like Neonchameleon starts reasoning that some works should remain while others shouldn't (even though one could argue that they all contain some form of offensive content), that OA should be removed but Star Trek TOS should remain. Since you don't listen to my arguments against banning any work, I'm posing counterarguments derived from your own flawed reasoning. So, again: does a publisher have a moral obligation to stop spreading offensive content, even if it is part of the public domain?

This seems like a verbose way of confirming that yes, you are moving the goal posts.

 

[VelvetViolet]

I think this whole discussion misses something potentially important: Why do we hold fantasy counterpart cultures of non-white cultures (in this case, East Asian) to increasingly higher standards than the rock-bottom standards we currently hold for fantasy counterpart cultures of so-called "white" cultures? The barbarian, cleric, druid, etc classes have pretty much nothing to do with any historical European (or non-European) cultures. They're a shallow mishmash of Hollywood stereotypes at best. By comparison, the OA classes seem far more historically accurate to their East Asian inspirations regardless of how objectively accurate they are... because in this case the authors actually seem to have researched the real world inspirations like bushido and qi.

The game treats a bland generic "white" (and I use the term very loosely) culture as the default. The samurai and ninja are Japanese versions of the fighter and thief, but are treated very differently in comparison. Why are there distinct "ethnic" (i.e. "non-white") and "non-ethnic" (i.e. "white") classes in the first place? That is textbook othering.

What I find the most surreal part? Pseudo-European GameLit/LitRPG is very well-represented in Japanese anime. In many cases these use obvious underpinnings of Taoism or other Eastern schools of thought (e.g. That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime is clearly D&D-derived but uses the concept of "magicules" which is obviously based on qi).

 

[Eric V]

I agree, but I would say that we do engage the problematic aspects of literature with far greater attention than we do with TTRPG books. Reading Tom Sawyer or the works of H.P. Lovecraft, for example, often comes with honestly engaging the racism as racism. Embracing literature as an artistic form means that it is criticized as art. However, when some people try to say that OA is art or literature, it seems to be more about shielding it from criticism that ironically other artistic forms receive, and I don't see that same sort of open engagement with the problematic aspects of OA as with Tom Sawyer or the works of H.P. Lovecraft. In this regard, it seems more about keeping the insularity of the TTRPG insular and removed from criticisms.

There are definitely different levels of engagement with literature, agreed. And OA certainly ain't no Tom Sawyer, the latter of which is engaged with as problematic racist literature.

But when I read Lovecraft, I'm reading it. An RPG is about taking on and acting out a (possibly offensive caricature) role. I am not putting in the effort to act out as a harmful stereotype when I do the former; there is danger of doing so in the latter. And I can't understand how people don't see the difference.

 

[Haldrik]

So Die Hard would have been a better less offensive film if there was a good German in it?

In all seriousness, if the main villain is a conspicuous German N*zi, or whatever, then yes. There should be a conspicuous German good guy that is heroic. Does the Good German have to be the lead role? Probably no. Does the Good German have to be a central supporting character? Probably yes.

Not only does the contrast add depth to the story, it helps avoid the demonizing of an ethnic group.


I also want to point. If rich heterosexual white males believe they are immune to the dangers of hatespeech, then they are not paying attention to what is going on around them.

The day is near, when white Americans will be glad that we are trying to figure out how to protect disempowered identities from hatespeech now.


The goal is. We all have a right to sit at the public table. If anyone is trying to push anyone else out of the table. It is the pusher who must be asked to leave, until the pusher ceases to be a pusher. That rule goes for everyone and every group, equally.

 

[Mercurius]

Mercurius, how is this uncharted territory?
The racism of REH sold well, and was most likely encouraged by the editors of Weird Tales and other publications.
There are no Black Conan stories published in 1933, with Black Conan defeating hordes of celts through inborn racial purity. Conan is the best, per the text of the stories, due to his Cimmerian race.

The Asian Exclusion Act denied birth citizenship to Chinese Americans...people born in the USA. The Palmer Raids illegally revoked the citizenship of naturalized Russian and Italian citizens.

What is new for some is the white, Protestant, plurality....is no longer the plurality.

I can see, how if one is used to one's voice being dominant, or the only singular voice allowed to speak, this would feel unprecedented and very dangerous.

If you voice belongs to a group that was expected to be silent, or erased, then one group controlling the expression or non expression of your existence is as precedented as the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

That is not at all what I was calling "uncharted territory." I was referring to the current context in which everyone from tech giants to forum moderators have become the de facto arbiters of what can and cannot be said on their platforms, or what constitutes racism, hate speech, etc.

 

[Cadence]

I think this whole discussion misses something potentially important: Why do we hold fantasy counterpart cultures of non-white cultures (in this case, East Asian) to increasingly higher standards than the rock-bottom standards we currently hold for fantasy counterpart cultures of so-called "white" cultures?

Imbalance of power based on historic officially sanctioned discrimination and its less blatant descendants are things. I'm great with setting high standards for all games. But I'm most worried about the things portraying historically disenfranchised minorities.

I'm sure there are many folks with European ancestry who would like better portrayal of their ancestral cultures. I'm not sure why it almost never seems to get pushed in the US until it can be inserted in the middle of a discussion about how a minority group is portrayed. And then nothing ever seems to get pushed by the questioners until the next thread brought up about a minority group. I can't speak to how it works in other countries.

 

[Bagpuss]

no one said writers (general) should be limited to certain subjects.

No they say things like it is "problematic" when they write on certain subjects, or they get pressured to censor themselves ("A Place for Wolves").

No one said "that roleplayers not be allowed to play different characters. "

No you just imply it is "problematic". Go ahead you can do it, but it's a problem if you do. Not saying you can't but...

It's just semantics.

And your example of Warrior Nun shows that you (and the others like you) are STILL not getting it: Warrior Nun is something I watch passively. OA is an instruction manual on how to pretend to be (fantasy) Asian, with the idea that people will actually do so.

And your not getting either they are both just entertainment. Are you saying if a Warrior Nun RPG came out it would somehow be worse than the series? That it is fine to watch an actor play a nun, but it is "problematic" to play one in an RPG?