D&D 5E Ray Winninger, in charge of D&D, states his old school bonefides.

[Mercurius]

Huh?

So, WotC's slow steps towards inclusiveness, avoiding systemic racism and sexism embedded in their products, is somehow disrespecting the OSR crowd? Only the ones who don't mind racism and sexism in their gaming, I suppose. I'm okay with that.

Let me try to offer a slightly different perspective. I won't even try to speak for the folks who actually don't want such changes to occur, but I think it is a misunderstanding to think that anyone who doesn't like every single change that is implemented is inherently against the underlying goal of those changes (that is, towards inclusiveness, etc). I think what some protest is A) The broad-brush through which things are labeled as racist, sexist, etc, and B) Any erasure or re-writing of the past, be it older products or even older gamers and game designers, without understanding the context of the time in which it was published, or said people grew up.

As for A, what is and is not racist, sexist, etc, is not set-in-stone. Meaning, just because someone cries "problematic," doesn't mean something is what they say it is. Otherwise there's a danger of getting rid of everything, because anyone can cry "problematic." Not only is our understanding of such things in a constant state of change, but there is no one-size-fits all understanding of what is or is not problematic, racist, sexist, -phobic, etc.

As for B, this is a common error that people make: applying current views to the past. We do it all the time with our family and ourselves, even. "I was so stupid back then," seemingly without realizing that one's 20-year old self shouldn't be judged by the same criteria as their 40-year old self. Everyone has a relative that uses cringeworthy words and phrases that are no longer considered acceptable, at least by many. But assuming that a 75-year old means the same thing when they use a certain word as if they were 25, lacks any understanding of history or context. This doesn't mean that it is OK, just that it is important to understand the context in which that 75-year old grew up.

(This happens all of the time with my 79-year old father. He's a very liberal guy, came of age in the 50s and 60s and embraced the socio-cultural zeitgeist of the time, but is still a product of his time, with certain biases and assumptions that I certainly don't have, and that wouldn't be viewed as acceptable by most younger folk).

Or to put it another way, a lot of such (older) folks aren't opposed to greater inclusivity and such, but just don't understand and/or agree with every interpretation or change. To use my father as an example again, he's often surprised when I point out that something he said is no longer considered acceptable. It isn't that he is resistant or wants things to stay the same, but that he doesn't mean it in the way that the newer understanding implies.

And of course WotC has to find the balance. They don't want to "cancel" the history of the game, nor do they want to exclude old school gamers as a whole, but they also recognize the changing demographic. So while I expect them to continue to move in the direction that you're saying, I do think that some skillfulness and care should be taken, and that they shouldn't fall into the trap of addressing every little grievance or complaint that comes up, but be somewhat measured in how they proceed. Or to put it more simply, they need to find a path somewhere between the extremes on either side, of "change everything!" and "change nothing!"

 

[overgeeked]

Why do you assume that all those interested in old school gaming are "whiny gatekeepers?"

I don't. I'm taking the tweet at face value.

"Noticed a group of fans demanding WotC demonstrate it cares about "old school"."

1) a group of fans; 2) demanding WotC; 3) demonstrate it cares; 4) about old school.

The only fans who care about old school are old school fans. Within the old school fans group there is only a small subsection that even cares about WotC and what it's doing. Of those, who would demand WotC demonstrate it cares about old school?

What group of fans would demand WotC demonstrate it cares about old school?

Whiny gatekeepers.

This attitude seems to be rather exclusionary. It also seems to be a rather uncharitable interpretation of his rather innocuous statement. I mean, maybe he's just saying, "All are invited to the table?"

I trust that, as a writer with years of experience, if Ray Winninger wanted to say "all are invited to the table" he would have simply said "all are invited to the table".

Is that what we should be shooting for, a big umbrella approach to the game and community?

Up to a point, yes. There are clearly toxic elements within the community that don't need to be included...racists, sexists, -phobes of all stripes. Beyond that, everyone is and should be welcome.

Now we just need to figure out what it is we're all doing with this "roleplaying game" thing. As a community we can't even agree on what that even means. And most attempts at defining it are automatically labelled as exclusionary. Which is a really weird take when trying to define what a word means.

 

[Blue Orange]

Boy some people here are lot more cynical and bitter than I realized. This just comes off as fun little tweet to me, no need to read so much into it. I guess we know why WotC staff stopped interacting with fans!

Get off my [(roll) 01-50: ] lawn.

 

[Mercurius]

What group of fans would demand WotC demonstrate it cares about old school?

Whiny gatekeepers.

I see your line of reasoning, I just think it is an assumption that I wouldn't make. You're still making a leap to "gatekeepers," as if somehow those voicing their desire for old school stuff and those involved in gatekeeping are somehow intrinsically released.

I trust that, as a writer with years of experience, if Ray Winninger wanted to say "all are invited to the table" he would have simply said "all are invited to the table".

Well, he's "stating his old school bonafides," to quote the thread title, which implies that he's also saying "We aren't leaving you behind," to old schoolers.

Up to a point, yes. There are clearly toxic elements within the community that don't need to be included...racists, sexists, -phobes of all stripes. Beyond that, everyone is and should be welcome.

Yeah, but the problem I'm pointing out is the broadness with which this is applied, both in terms of making assumptions as stated above, but also what constitutes "toxicity" or various isms and phobias.

I think the truly, demonstrably toxic elements tend to be weeded out on their own, and selected out - especially if WotC continues to foster a truly inclusive environment.

Now we just need to figure out what it is we're all doing with this "roleplaying game" thing. As a community we can't even agree on what that even means. And most attempts at defining it are automatically labelled as exclusionary. Which is a really weird take when trying to define what a word means.

And what's the problem? Why must this be collectively figured out? Why must we agree upon what roleplaying is? A truly inclusive, umbrella approach would encourage a diversity of approaches, and individuation in terms of approaching those questions.

I mean, isn't part of the fun of D&D--and RPGs in general--that we get to customize it to our hearts content, and play the game we want to play?

All I hear Winninger saying is that he's not leaving the heart of what old school is behind, or out. I don't see a problem with that, at least if we don't see "old school" as intrinsically linked to all sorts of baggage that it isn't (imo) intrinsically linked to.

 

[darjr]

I will point out that there are a ton of DMsGuild products that introduce new rules, and some of those rules look a lot of older edition rules! Yes, you need to make things for the 5e ruleset, but you can add things to 5e that make it look more and more like older editions. Like new death and dying or rest and recovery rules for example.

So in essence you can get old school rules and lore together - you just can't call them that

Huh. This is an interesting loophole. Do you have any examples of folks doing this to get older rules into their products?

 

[Oofta]

Huh?

So, WotC's slow steps towards inclusiveness, avoiding systemic racism and sexism embedded in their products, is somehow disrespecting the OSR crowd? Only the ones who don't mind racism and sexism in their gaming, I suppose. I'm okay with that.

So everybody that prefers OSR games* is sexist and racist? Really? Can't possibly be that it's just a preference for a style of play and a different set of rules.

*I'm not a member of the OSR crowd myself, I prefer 5E.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Huh?

So, WotC's slow steps towards inclusiveness, avoiding systemic racism and sexism embedded in their products, is somehow disrespecting the OSR crowd? Only the ones who don't mind racism and sexism in their gaming, I suppose. I'm okay with that.

So everybody that prefers OSR games* is sexist and racist? Really? Can't possibly be that it's just a preference for a style of play and a different set of rules.

*I'm not a member of the OSR crowd myself, I prefer 5E.

How do you possibly interpret "Only the ones" as "everybody"?

 

[Blue Orange]

I mean, you can be into OSR because you dislike the social changes in the past few decades, or because you prefer the old rules for a variety of other reasons (I can see preferring 4 classes to 12 easily), because you'd prefer to dungeon crawl, because you have fond memories of playing the game in the early days, because you have simulationist or gamist rather than narrativist leanings, or reasons I haven't mentioned. So you're going to see a correlation with those views, but it wouldn't be the majority of OSR players.

 

[Mercurius]

How do you possibly interpret "Only the ones" as "everybody"?

I think he's pointing out that Dire Bare implies that only people who don't mind racism feel that old school is being disrespected, when some of them--even a majority--could just be older players who feel their preferences are under-represented by what WotC is offering.

 

[Oofta]

How do you possibly interpret "Only the ones" as "everybody"?

The implication to me is clear: the only reason you don't like new directions in the game or feel disrespected is because you're racist and sexist.

Honestly, I don't know where the tweet came from, what the thought process was, or what subset of players it's targeted at. But I also don't think it's fair to lump people who don't happen to like some aspects of the current changes a group of misogynistic racists.