D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

[Bedrockgames]

On the other hand, “it’s art” is used to defend the indefensible as frequently as “it’s religion” is used to avoid paying taxes.

We always have the option of not looking at art we don't like. There is art I don't like. But I think it should be allowed to exist. I am a lot more worried about people trying to censor art or blacklist artists, than I am about artists making things I don't like or producing art I disagree with. And more often, what is described as indefensible, is simply misunderstood or highly simplified (I think Piss Christ is a perfect example of this). Having lived through periods where people tried to control and censor art: I am always going to be in favor of free artistic expression.

 

[Malmuria]

However, I think you are assuming that the above is consensus, that is, that everyone can agree that aspects of 70s dnd were products of their time and now outdated.

However, lost in this discussion are all the other elements of context, including the historical circumstances that made the work of art possible and the intertextual influences, acknowledged or not.

Compounding this difficulty is the assumption that the endpoint of these discussions is necessarily offense and moral judgement. ... Well again, not quite, because context is important.

@Snarf Zagyg , see what I mean?

 

[Bill Zebub]

We always have the option of not looking at art we don't like. There is art I don't like. But I think it should be allowed to exist. I am a lot more worried about people trying to censor art or blacklist artists, than I am about artists making things I don't like or producing art I disagree with. And more often, what is described as indefensible, is simply misunderstood or highly simplified (I think Piss Christ is a perfect example of this). Having lived through periods where people tried to control and censor art: I am always going to be in favor of free artistic expression.

That’s not what I was talking about. I thought the analogy would make that clear.

In both cases, of course, the difficulty lies in distinguishing, or maybe proving, the sincere from the cynical, which is why the defense is effective.

Maybe I should have used service dog vests as my analogy?

 

[Bill Zebub]

When someone requests Every Breath You Take as their wedding song (true story ....), what does that say about the Police?

Weddings?

Everybody knows that song is about old school DMing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg , see what I mean?

I agree with what you wrote. Personally, I truly enjoy the critiquing and unpacking of works, but find that acknowledgment is different than either offense of moral judgment. That does not seem to be the case for everyone.

It's my opinion that the conversations are, sometimes, helpful. I think most people will get out of it what they bring in.

 

[Gradine]

I think this is simplifying. You are assuming it is all privileged people taking position A and all marginalized people taking position B. That is far from the case.

Some people hear this loud and clear, but they don't agree with the conclusion you are drawing or they don't agree with all of the implications you are drawing from it. Or they just think it is more complicated than you are presenting. My point is people may be listening, but have reached a point where they aren't interested in being converted to your point of view.

Of course it is more complicated than that; we're not dropping dissertations on a message board for pretend elves. One way in which it is that "privileged" and "marginalized" are not mutually exclusive conditions. Plenty of people attain some measure of power in spite of a lack of specific privileges. It is a truism, however, to note that "aren't interested in social inequality" and "possessing power and/or privilege" are highly correlated.

Considering how overwhelming the evidence is of the existence of inequality, it's hard not to look for alternative motives for drawing different conclusions, as personally unfair as that might be to any specific individual. Noting trends, on a macro-scale at least, is an important part in making progress.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That reminds me of the saying "There's no such thing as an anti-war film".
In Legion of the Damned (WW2 war-is-hell pulp) Sven Hassel recounts that he was inspired to join the German army after watching anti-war classic All Quiet on the Western Front. American soldiers get jazzed up for battle watching Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now.

But that saying is wrong. Movies like All Quiet on the Western Front and Full Metal Jacket helped me question the value of war, and be more critical of it. I am sure many, many people have had that reaction to such films. If someone misunderstands a work of art, or interprets it inside another context and uses it differently, that doesn't make the film not-anti-war. You can use violence, you can even revel in it, to make an anti-violence message. Tons of crime, martial arts, and dramas do this when they try to caution agains the cycle of retributive violence for example.

 

[Malmuria]

For myself, while D&D is combat-focused, I would prefer for it to not be a racism simulator.

I think there is room for science fiction that imagines how alien lifeforms might engage with one another. Star Trek does that, sometimes clumsily, but imo with an eye toward world-building (or, galaxy-building) and asking interesting questions. Whereas the racial dynamics of the implied dnd settings tend to be so much more prosaic. The fantasy seems to be: "what if debunked racial science and social darwinism were actually true? What if some races were inherently less intelligent than others, or divinely ordered to be 'barbaric' or 'slavish'?"
For example, consider the table for mercenaries in b/x. The fantasy here seems to be, "what if there were a racial hierarchy that resulted in a real and justifiable wage gap?":
Mercenaries - OSE SRD

Without denying that there are problems in some of the D&D publications, can we please have a rational look at this, and maintain it to the proper level, rather than seemingly hanging the very survival of the game on, overall, problems which can be serious but are extremely limited in scope ?

To wit, when alignment debates come up, my response is that I've been ignoring alignment for years and not worrying about it. And yet, for others the removal of alignment is a sign of the impending doom and ruination of the game. Or, recently on reddit and twitter many people were upset--like, very upset--that new races did not come with weight and height tables like in the 5e phb. Which was helpful in a way, because I hadn't noticed there were weight and height tables in the phb.

 

[S'mon]

But that saying is wrong. Movies like All Quiet on the Western Front and Full Metal Jacket helped me question the value of war, and be more critical of it. I am sure many, many people have had that reaction to such films. If someone misunderstands a work of art, or interprets it inside another context and uses it differently, that doesn't make the film not-anti-war. You can use violence, you can even revel in it, to make an anti-violence message. Tons of crime, martial arts, and dramas do this when they try to caution agains the cycle of retributive violence for example.

Well the point of the saying is that it's impossible not to depict war, or violence, as glamorous for some people. I remember watching the film Savior - Savior (film) - Wikipedia - I thought it was a great message against ethnic conflict (I grew up in Northern Ireland) and pro-peace. But I can imagine some people taking very different messages from it - "those guys are evil, look what they did to us", or even "massacring your enemies is fun!"

 

[MGibster]

In the video I watched, at the end of it she said exactly what I said - that Brooks could tell Nazi jokes, but other people should not. I remember it clearly as I'd agreed with most of the video - which included stuff like what you just said - and this final bit was shocking (to me) and something I strongly disagreed with.

I just watched the last 10 minutes or so of her video, Mel Brooks, The Producers and the Ethics of Satire about N@zis, and I think you're mistaken about what her message was. She didn't say it was okay for Brooks to tell jokes about Nazis but not okay for others. She said it was okay for Brooks to make jokes about Jewish suffering and made it clear that making fun of Nazis isn't the same as making a joke about Jewish suffering.

Yeah that’s precisely why I didn’t like American History X. I know people who loved it and got the message about the evils of the cycle of violence. I also know people who watched it and saw a message that Re-enforced their internalized prejudices that minorities are bad.

It's the old anti-war movie problem. Can you make an anti-war movie? Because even when you try, those soldiers often look heroic and badass despite whatever message you're trying to convey.