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

[Bedrockgames]

"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.

First, I didn't make either other these arguments. But second I just see this as a matter of opinion. If someone doesn't think a particular edition of the game fits their understanding of an RPG, naturally anyone playing it, in their view isn't playing an RPG. Like I said, I think that isn't a good argument. I think it isn't useful. I don't think it is keeping people out of the hobby. I think we have a lot of playstyle discussions that are bad, that revolve around controlling the meaning of terms so our preferred style is accepted as the good, the correct, the official one. I don't like those arguments, but I don't see them as a form of gate keeping (which again for me would need to rise to the level of actually saying people shouldn't be playing the game). Saying I don't think you are really playing the game you think, is insulting, and it is a bad faith argument. But I would not label it gatekeeping because I think then it diminishes the utility of the term (and becomes a loud button people can invoke in debates about editions).

 

[Filthy Lucre]

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.

I want D&D 5e to be more like pathfinder and use a three action economy - are they gatekeeping me out of D&D? or are these just different products with different audiences?

Why would my demands be any more or less valid than anyone else's demands?

 

[Remathilis]

Most of those examples are not gatekeeping. To qualify as gatekeeping it actually has to limit access, not just make a claim. Saying women can't be real gamers is bad, but not gatekeeping. Not allowing women to play your roleplaying game or designing it to be unappealing to women would be gatekeeping.

Dismissing a woman's opinion on the game because she's a woman and not a "real" gamer is textbook gatekeeping. So is attempting to explain to a woman what she has experienced isn't really what she experienced. Gatekeeping doesn't necessarily require physical barring of the activity, just a feeling of unwelcomeness or thinly disguised disgust hidden under a veneer of civility. More harm is done by letting someone into a space and making them feel unwelcome or unappreciated than by outright banning them for the activity.

 

[Mirtek]

The Lich King wasn't horde. And the current expansion is not based in either the horde or alliance being at fault(at least that we know so far).

• Pre-WoW the horde started the first war
• Pre-WoW the horde started the second war
• Thrall reformed the horde and promised to be better - and the alliance believed them
• Then Garosh become Warchief and started another war against the Alliance.
• After he was defeated, with help of horde rebels, the new Warchief again promised to be better - and the Alliance believed them
• Then Sylvanas became warchief and started yet another war against the Allianc

Quite frankly from alliance perspective their attempt to end the horde after the second war was the right thing. Also the factions who very much against making peace with the horde right after Garosh's war and dismantling it then and there were also right by the power of hindsight (Teldrassil and the majority of Night Elf civilians would still be alive). And after Sylvanas we're once again being told that those Alliance parties against another peace treaty are in the wrong and they should not be to hung up on this whole genocide of the night elves thing, since the remaining horde is very sorry. They really promise to be better ...

Even horde players are pretty #### at blizzard for always making the horde the bad party in any horde - alliance conflict

And yet there were storylines where you aid the Murlocs as one of them, even going as far as rescuing their young and leading them to safety. And another where you make friends with a clan of centaurs.

Inbetween being asked by random NPC to deliver 15 murloc eyes or 20 centaur hoves or 10 gnoll paws, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Dismissing a woman's opinion on the game because she's a woman and not a "real" gamer is textbook gatekeeping. So is attempting to explain to a woman what she has experienced isn't really what she experienced. Gatekeeping doesn't necessarily require physical barring of the activity, just a feeling of unwelcomeness or thinly disguised disgust hidden under a veneer of civility. More harm is done by letting someone into a space and making them feel unwelcome or unappreciated than by outright banning them for the activity.

That's what I said. I'll quote myself, "or designing it to be unappealing to women would be gatekeeping." That's a feeling of unwelcomeness. There needs to be an actual limiter for it to be gatekeeping.

 

[Faolyn]

Most of those examples are not gatekeeping. To qualify as gatekeeping it actually has to limit access, not just make a claim. Saying women can't be real gamers is bad, but not gatekeeping. Not allowing women to play your roleplaying game or designing it to be unappealing to women would be gatekeeping.

No, it doesn't need to actually limit access. Because let's face it, the vast majority of people have no actual ability to limit access to whatever they're into.

Or rather, there's two forms of gatekeeping. One is as you say, but the other is when people decide to keep others from being part of the game.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

No, it doesn't need to actually limit access. Because let's face it, the vast majority of people have no actual ability to limit access to whatever they're into.

Or rather, there's two forms of gatekeeping. One is as you say, but the other is when people decide to keep others from being part of the game.

Eh... I really think this is much ado about nothing. There's only the will to power, folks. The only way to stop gatekeeping is to break down the gate. If you are unable to do that, asking the gatekeeper to open the gate probably isn't going to work.

 

[Maxperson]

• Pre-WoW the horde started the first war
• Pre-WoW the horde started the second war
• Thrall reformed the horde and promised to be better - and the alliance believed them
• Then Garosh become Warchief and started another war against the Alliance.
• After he was defeated, with help of horde rebels, the new Warchief again promised to be better - and the Alliance believed them
• Then Sylvanas became warchief and started yet another war against the Allianc

Quite frankly from alliance perspective their attempt to end the horde after the second war was the right thing. Also the factions who very much against making peace with the horde right after Garosh's war and dismantling it then and there were also right by the power of hindsight (Teldrassil and the majority of Night Elf civilians would still be alive). And after Sylvanas we're once again being told that those Alliance parties against another peace treaty are in the wrong and they should not be to hung up on this whole genocide of the night elves thing, since the remaining horde is very sorry. They really promise to be better ...

Even horde players are pretty #### at blizzard for always making the horde the bad party in any horde - alliance conflict

Yes it's more often the horde. It's not always the horde was my point.

Inbetween being asked by random NPC to deliver 15 murloc eyes or 20 centaur hoves or 10 gnoll paws, etc.

And 15 human bandanas, 12 elf whatevers, 30 dwarf widgets or go kill a bunch of gnomes in a dungeon.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it doesn't need to actually limit access. Because let's face it, the vast majority of people have no actual ability to limit access to whatever they're into.

If it drives people away, it limits access.

Or rather, there's two forms of gatekeeping. One is as you say, but the other is when people decide to keep others from being part of the game.

If you expand gatekeeping to to include using words that don't actually limit anyone, gatekeeping becomes too broad to really mean anything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we have really exaggerated this to an unhealthy degree though. Yes these things exist. I've encountered them in various ways directly. But there is also a tendency now for people to see offense EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING, even where it isn't intended. And we rarely take the time to truly look at something and go over whether it is genuinely a problem (the instant it gets labeled a problem it is toxic and if you don't agree its toxic, you are toxic). I don't think you can live life by saying if someone from a particular group takes issue that automatically means what they are saying is there, is there. You still have a responsibility to use your own reason and judgment, and people can still overreact (whether they belong to a minority group or not). Peronally I think this is a somewhat infantilizing way to deal with people.

Well, I hope this has some relevance to the thread topic... What I observed is that my wife was subjected to prejudice pretty much constantly. She could recount on a daily basis the insulting and just plain stupid things that people said to her. They showed profound disrespect, ignorance, and often ill-will. This is really and truly pervasive, and comes from your boss, your co-workers, your customers, etc. as the DEFAULT way they operate. Sure, they are 'unaware' of it, but it is still crushing your life, removing opportunities for you to gain advancement, enjoyment, and live in a dignified way. You cannot not fight it, unless you simply want to give up, and even that isn't really a viable pathway.

I know it sucks to be constantly told that your opinions, attitudes, and the entire thought structure erected by your culture is deeply racist etc. Isn't that pretty much analogous to '4e is like a videogame'? I mean, both could be facts, could they not? Certainly seen from a certain perspective they can both ring true. If its OK to have the later opinion, why is the former one so bad? Because it implicates us in being part of, and indirectly supporting, a racist and culturally imperialistic order? I stand guilty! I can still remember my father explaining this to me when he said "I am prejudiced, I am more comfortable around white people." He was a very fair and open minded guy and actively supported minorities when he could, and he could see this truth. Sadly, we find ourselves in a world where our duty as enlightened human beings is to change ourselves, not to get frustrated because people often point out why we need to do that.

OTOH I'm definitely sympathetic. It can be exhausting to confront this in every element of life on a constant basis. Neither you nor I are interested in being offensive or living embodiments of things we don't find acceptable ourselves. It sucks for us too, but it sucks a lot less than being on the receiving end...