TSR Running list of potential problematic issues in TSR era DnD

[TeutonicBerserker]

.

 

[Maxperson]

Two things. First, it WAS silly even at the time, and quickly realized as such almost immediately and thus removed later. Largely because while yes, one could encounter a sex worker in a city, it was unusually robust for an entry, and the implication that sex workers are largely liars and thieves is problematic.

15% likely to make something up is not "largely liars," nor is a 20% chance to be or work with a thief an implication that they are "largely thieves." Hell, they aren't even 20% like to be a thief, only be OR work with one, which isn't unusual for a prostitute. For all you know it's 5% chance of being a thief and 95% not, but with a 15% chance to work with one. You're greatly overexaggerating the implications of that table.

 

[Gradine]

Ten years ago, I don't know that I would have known what an ace person was, or the term nonbinary. Times will continue to change.

In 2011? Neither did I. Turns out I'm both though!

 

[Maxperson]

I specifically said I knew many of the obvious ones, but as a cishet male, I have blinders on and want to know other things I may have missed. You know, the whole point of this thread.

Everybody has blinders on. We are all products of our limited experiences. There's nothing about cishet male that makes you in any way out of the ordinary in that regard. You could have left that part out and been just as accurate.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, but "European style" is just as much a pastiche, in D&D. Norman knights, and Hungarian boyars, and Spanish conquistadores, and Teutonic crusaders, and Polish hussars, and Pictish warriors, are all "European", yet nobody bats an eye when they get lumped together as "vanilla D&D" style.

Anyway, I'm completely on board with getting non-European cultures represented in gaming, but if "European" is good enough a category to lump everything together, so should "Asian" or "African" or "South-American".

As I said, I am FOR more representation of different cultures, but I fear that (as seen with OA in the past) there will be criticism of "pastiche", while disregarding the fact that ALL of D&D is pastiche.

I think that the origins of D&D from Midwest "White" America wargaming probably has some bearing on why D&D often presents European cultures and peoples as a pastiche. Similarly, the "nobody" who "bats an eye" are likewise most typically* North Americans. As to whether people truly "bat an eye" about these things, I like to point to the horned viking helmets that were once fairly common in D&D art and how those have increasingly vanished in D&D art concurrently with the dissemination of the debunking of this ahistorical depiction of the Norse. This sort of thing happens regularly in the hobby, but the process of challenging European pastiche in D&D is often met with far less resistance, so it transpires far more peacefully and without too much notice.

* Yes, I know, not all are North Americans. But D&D is mostly rooted in North America, both in terms of business, customers, and play history.

 

[reelo]

(...) I like to point to the horned viking helmets that were once fairly common in D&D art and how those have increasingly vanished in D&D art concurrently with the dissemination of the debunking of this ahistorical depiction of the Norse.

Yeah, instead of helmets with horns, we now got funny looking humans with horns.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, instead of helmets with horns, we now got funny looking humans with horns.

And how many editions and decades ago were they introduced?

 

[Sacrosanct]

15% likely to make something up is not "largely liars," nor is a 20% chance to be or work with a thief an implication that they are "largely thieves." Hell, they aren't even 20% like to be a thief, only be OR work with one, which isn't unusual for a prostitute. For all you know it's 5% chance of being a thief and 95% not, but with a 15% chance to work with one. You're greatly overexaggerating the implications of that table.

Tell any ethnic group or minority group that 15% are likely liars and 20% hang out with thieves and then tell me that they are greatly overreacting when they take offense to that.

Everybody has blinders on. We are all products of our limited experiences. There's nothing about cishet male that makes you in any way out of the ordinary in that regard. You could have left that part out and been just as accurate.

These two statements are great examples of why this thread needs to exist in the first place. Being a cishet male is very much extra ordinary, because it means I haven't had to face a bucketload of issues or potential problematic challenges many others who aren't cishet males have to face. I.e., my blinders are significantly different than someone else's, and that difference is important. There is no even playing field here between all genders, ethnicities, and religions, especially when it comes to the context of how old school D&D was presented.

The implication that that someone who enjoys a ton of privilege by being in the largest group and the target demographic has the same blinders on as a minority because we're all the same is ludacris.

 

[Maxperson]

Tell any ethnic group or minority group that 15% are likely liars and 20% hang out with thieves and then tell me that they are greatly overreacting when they take offense to that.

I belong to the one you mentioned. Here's the thing, though. 15% of everybody being liars is very low. The percentage is much higher than that. UMass researcher finds most people lie in everyday conversation

Where you went wrong is in making it about race, instead of socioeconomic class like the DMG. You created a False Equivalence. The DMG states lie to get money, which is fairly common among the destitute, such as most prostitutes.

You know what else the really poor do a lot? Steal to survive. A higher percentage of the really poor steal. And an even higher percentage of people(of all races and classes) have stolen at some point during their lives, making them thieves. I think pretty close to 100% of those of us who work, work with thieves(people who have stolen). But again, you created the False Equivalence by linking it to race, rather than socioeconomic class.

What that chart was doing was simply acknowledging the facts of the situation that most prostitutes are in. In fact, it gave lower percentages than the reality would warrant.

These two statements are great examples of why this thread needs to exist in the first place. Being a cishet male is very much extra ordinary, because it means I haven't had to face a bucketload of issues or potential problematic challenges many others who aren't cishet males have to face.

No, it's really not, which is the issue people have with it. A straight white male has no more or less blinders on than a gay black male or a hispanic straight female. We just have different blinders. You aren't special in that regard.

All blinders create problems. I've twice had someone in a minority group go off on me and falsely accuse me of racism due to their blinders. One later came back to me and apologized. The other got pulled away from me by another member of the same race who realized the mistake he was making, shortly before it was going to become a fight.

Blinders are an issue regardless or race or gender. We should absolutely seek to overcome those blinders, but we should seek to own a greater share of them than we have.

The implication that that someone who enjoys a ton of privilege by being in the largest group and the target demographic has the same blinders on as a minority because we're all the same is ludacris.

I didn't say we have the same blinders on.

 

[HJFudge]

These two statements are great examples of why this thread needs to exist in the first place. Being a cishet male is very much extra ordinary, because it means I haven't had to face a bucketload of issues or potential problematic challenges many others who aren't cishet males have to face. I.e., my blinders are significantly different than someone else's, and that difference is important. There is no even playing field here between all genders, ethnicities, and religions, especially when it comes to the context of how old school D&D was presented.

The implication that that someone who enjoys a ton of privilege by being in the largest group and the target demographic has the same blinders on as a minority because we're all the same is ludacris.

Well, this assumes that the experience of people who have similar identities are the same. Which, well, as you say: It is ludacris. The idea that every cishet male received the same privileges as every other one is manifestly untrue, just as untrue as assuming every person who identifies with a minority group had equal discriminatory experiences or experienced equal struggles. Many traditionally discriminated groups have found solace in role-playing games such as D&D and it allows them to explore things in a way that they simply cannot in real life. This is also true for members of groups that traditionally hold power.

A cishet male born into poverty most absolutely experiences a ton of problematic challenges that someone who was born in a more well-to-do household never has to deal with, even if they are a minority in race or sexuality. (I fully realize that someone in a minority group is far more likely to belong to a lower economic group but it is a mistake to assume all members of a minority are poor and powerless and all white folk are well-off and wield power). Growing up, for example, I could not afford any of the modules or anything and that greatly shaped how I play now today: I got by not using them at all and played drawing inspiration from other sources, namely a lot of the library books I would pour through. So, today, I find I simply have no interest in such material since I never really played with them and I do not view them as adding value to my D&D experience.

That said, my experience is no more valuable or worthy of consideration than someone's who was born well off, who had easy access to the latest official materials and a wealth of sourcebooks. It is in fact helpful to consider BOTH of our viewpoints. Especially in regards to the hobby of D&D.

The same goes for demographical experience. An african-americans experience with the hobby definitely has value and should be examined but they are not intrinsically more valuable than an asians or someone from england, or what have you. All should be heard and be given weight and have a voice. As soon as we start listening to someone not because of their ideas or words but simply because of the color of their skin or their gender, well...the groups that have traditionally done that were never good ones.