D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Aldarc]

That does not sound like gate keeping, that sounds like a definitional dispute. How can you claim that it was an instance of gatekeeping? If that was the case 4e would never have even existed, let alone spawned a sprawling volume of books.

Does this really come down to being upset that people strongly disagreed with the direction D&D went with 4e one way or the other?

Saying that "4e isn't D&D" is not a definitional dispute; it gatekeeps what constitutes valid expressions of D&D and its associated fandom.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

White male from an extremely privileged background? It's easy for him to be not offended.

This isn't the place for it, but this is a pretty dismissive response. A position or argument stands or falls on it's merits, no who delivers the argument.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Saying that "4e isn't D&D" is not a definitional dispute; it gatekeeps what constitutes valid expressions of D&D and its associated fandom.

This sounds very, very vague - to the point that I don't know what it means. For me, seeking validation from any external source is gigantic folly. It simply isn't possible in principle for someone to tell me whether or not what I think "constitutes a valid expression".

If someone is telling me that the way I play D&D is wrong, I just ignore that person.

 

[Aldarc]

My view on the whole 'this isn't an rpg statement': 1) I think these kinds of declarations aren't terribly useful, because usually people are using definition of RPG to advance a playstyle, so I think it is generally a bad argument. 2) But I don't think it is gatekeeping. It is, possibly, a bad faith argument, definitely not a good argument, but a person saying "This edition of this game isn't an RPG" isn't a form of gatekeeping. 3) Gatekeeping is actually pushing people out of the hobby. I think we throw that term around a lot, but by doing so you just water down its meaning. I would reserve gatekeeping to statements like "Girls shouldn't play D&D". If it is opened up to mean statements like "this isn't an RPG" then it really has no power as a term IMO. 4) If someone specifically tells you "No the game you are playing is not an RPG, I think that is a little more frustrating and annoying than if they say "This isn't an RPG to me". I still wouldn't consider it gatekeeping, but I could see how it would get under a persons skin more.

"If you are playing 4e D&D, then you are not playing a real RPG."

"If you are playing 4e D&D, then you are not playing true D&D."

It most definitely gatekeeping what constitutes who is or isn't playing D&D or an RPG.

This sounds very, very vague - to the point that I don't know what it means. For me, seeking validation from any external source is gigantic folly. It simply isn't possible in principle for someone to tell me whether or not what I think "constitutes a valid expression".

If someone is telling me that the way I play D&D is wrong, I just ignore that person.

Is 4e D&D actually D&D? For some edition warriors, the answer was "no." 4e was not regarded as a valid expression or truth about being a genuine form of D&D play.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Is 4e D&D actually D&D? For some edition warriors, the answer was "no." 4e was not regarded as a valid expression or truth about being a genuine form of D&D play.

Did that effect your ability to buy the books and play 4e with your friends? If not... who cares? Why would you concern yourself with other peoples opinions?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t doubt that he believes this to be true.

But that’s why oral histories can be interesting, but are rarely as persuasive as reliance on primary documents from the time.

People forget. People don’t have perfect recollection. People’s memories change. And even in those circumstances when people, 50 years later, perfectly recall everything - their views are limited. He doesn’t know what was going on in the entirety of the hobby (as is pretty clear).

That's why I try to be fairly specific in what I'm talking about during that period.

I think I have a fairly good idea of how West Coast D&D fandom worked in the broad, but I can't claim to be aware of how every pocket of D&D players out here operated (and some were considerably different most likely; the CalTech group, for example, was a quite different beast than the other large groups I was aware of at the time). No one does. I have a general sense of how things worked around the MIT centered groups because of information that came through from people like Glen Blacow and other Wild Hunt contributors in that area. Enough data propagated about how things worked in the vacinity of Lake Geneva that there's at least a broad idea I have of what went on there.

Now, I have to presume that there was a pretty large contingent of D&D players in New York State, probably centered around NYC. But I literally have no idea about them, any stylistic tendencies, or anything else. Same for what the D&D communities to be found in places like Texas (I know there was one around Austin, but that's it) or Chicago might have been like, and it'd be overreaching for me to try and say.

The amount of roleplaying was so well-established in the 70s that you had a rear-guard action of people fighting against it, and the first four-fold model of player agendas published in 1980 made it clear that there was a divide between gamist and RPers- and it was well established.

In fact, the main argument in the early 80s was that the influx of new young players was too concentrated on optimizing (munchkins) and didn’t grok the grand history of roleplaying.

Yup.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe.

But I’d rather trust someone who can cite his primary sources and has done his homework than @AbdulAlhazred who keeps telling me (and others) to shut our pie holes because he is the only person who knew what it was really like, even when it contradicts (a) our lived experiences and (b) what other people who have done the work have written.

I have never told anyone to 'shut up', and furthermore I've often explicitly qualified my observations as being mine, and a product of my experience and the experiences of people whom I have interacted with. OTOH its a pretty decent number of people in several areas of the US over virtually the entire history of D&D, including going to cons and a wide variety of other game-related activities. Maybe Jon Peterson's research qualifies him to be a superior authority, I don't know. Heck, I don't even know what his opinion of my observations would be, so I really won't get into that. I'd be happy to talk to the guy, it would probably be a fun conversation. I stated my experiences, they don't jibe 100% with yours, and what is surprising about that? It would be a sad little world if everyone lived the same life!

In addition, I also tend to think history is more complex than “Everyone plays just like I did!” And I trust the more complicated historical narratives than the self-serving and simplistic ones.

Well, I agree that history is complex. That is kind of where I'm coming from. I really have no idea what specific sources Jon used or how his research was done. I really strongly doubt anyone can authoritatively say what was the most common way that D&D was played. It will depend on who you talk to and when and where they were. I've talked to a lot of people, most seemed to have something similar to my experiences, but there is surely some selection there. Its not like I contend that all play was identical to what I experienced either. I knew of 'West Coast Play' as a trope way back when, though I'm not 100% sure when it became widely known about. It SEEMED TO ME at the time that it was fairly restricted to a certain circle and was not that common in the larger community. The other thing you have to take account of is that in the real world people's play isn't purist. Sometimes we just played characters that were 'pogs' and sometimes we got more into RP. It varied depending on mood and who exactly participated. So who can say how that sorts out on balance? IMHO most play of that period is best described as 'shallow characterization' where PCs would have a personality trait or two, but not really a developed CHARACTER (IE beliefs, goals, morals, etc.).

But that’s me. You can draw your own conclusions. The great thing about books with cited source is that unlike personal histories - you can fact check it yourself.

Well, yes, we could spend lots of time researching the research. I don't find winning a dispute with you online to be all that compelling a use of my time to be perfectly honest.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Did that effect your ability to buy the books and play 4e with your friends? If not... who cares? Why would you concern yourself with other peoples opinions?

It can absolutely effect one's ability to find new players, as is the case with any game. While people can get more focused on this than is appropriate, to act like mindspace is irrelevant in a social hobby is a bit much.

 

[Aldarc]

Did that effect your ability to buy the books and play 4e with your friends? If not... who cares? Why would you concern yourself with other peoples opinions?

Yes, as a matter of fact. I had friends who were pushed away from the hobby because of the 4e edition wars and some who refused to play while reiterating 4e edition war talking points in sheer ignorance of the actual rules of the edition.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

The breadth that you all give the term "gatekeeping" is much more broad than what I would apply. Two different factions vying for a product to come out the way they want is not gatekeeping - it's just people trying to get the product that they want.

One group wants X and the other group wants ~X.