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

[Gradine]

(which they were, they basically removed a few words which, honestly, were far from being offensive at least in my European eyes).

Well there's the rub, innit? Your perspective is neither universal nor objective. When I use terms like "significant harm", that is not my own conjecture; it is language used by those who were actually harmed.

I'll note that I do find myself in that category with re: JK Rowling, and the harm her influence has caused has been incredibly significant, especially to my trans comrades in the UK.

E: Late to the game on the JKR moratorium, apologies

 

[Vaalingrade]

While critisizm of the past is certainly valid, I do think our study of it lately has veered too far into the negative end of the spectrum, as if those parts of history are the only things people want to talk about.

Because for a very long time, we've been giving reverence to some pretty bad stuff just because it was the mystic combination of 'old' and 'on our side'. Generations have grown up with all the negatives being obfuscated.

 

[Umbran]

Because for a very long time, we've been giving reverence to some pretty bad stuff just because it was the mystic combination of 'old' and 'on our side'. Generations have grown up with all the negatives being obfuscated.

Yeah. Having not been criticized on the matter for a very long time, actually having the flaws pointed out feels like a lot, when it is only what is due.

 

[Mannahnin]

While critisizm of the past is certainly valid, I do think our study of it lately has veered too far into the negative end of the spectrum, as if those parts of history are the only things people want to talk about.

I also detect (sometimes) an undercurrent of smug superiority in these discussions, as in, "Thank goodness we're so much better people than those monsters from before we all became enlightened", as if our views weren't shaped by our experiences and environment as much as theirs were.

Its valid to point out things that can be improved. But everything we love came of what came before just as much as everything of which we're ashamed. Do we exclusively have to focus on the negative stuff?

Do we? I spend a lot of time in OSR spaces celebrating all kinds of facets of old games, and I pretty regularly get into discussions about the inspirational fiction, too. Maybe outside OSR discussions it's not so dominated by positivity.

I don't think of anyone from back in the day as a monster, either, though I'm also not going to deny that the 2005 post from Gary where he invokes Chivington to justify Paladins slaughtering orc kids was anything but appalling.

 

[Lyxen]

While critisizm of the past is certainly valid, I do think our study of it lately has veered too far into the negative end of the spectrum, as if those parts of history are the only things people want to talk about.

Exactly. And it's true about the present as well, ToA is considered one of the best 5e modules, and still, just a few words out of thousands are sufficient for people to use it as a negative example.

I also detect (sometimes) an undercurrent of smug superiority in these discussions, as in, "Thank goodness we're so much better people than those monsters from before we all became enlightened", as if our views weren't shaped by our experiences and environment as much as theirs were.

Exactly my perspective as well, and this from people who actually don't contribute but certainly make contribution harder and harder.

Its valid to point out things that can be improved. But everything we love came of what came before just as much as everything of which we're ashamed. Do we exclusively have to focus on the negative stuff?

We shouldn't have, but some people revel in it. I just want a bit more of balanced reviews and acknowledgment of the positive parts, which outnumber the negative ones by an immense factor. And it's not a reason not to work on the negative at the same time.

 

[Charlaquin]

While critisizm of the past is certainly valid, I do think our study of it lately has veered too far into the negative end of the spectrum, as if those parts of history are the only things people want to talk about.

This seems like a bizarre assertion to me, there are plenty of other parts of history people want to talk about. We simply talk about different parts in different contexts.

I also detect (sometimes) an undercurrent of smug superiority in these discussions, as in, "Thank goodness we're so much better people than those monsters from before we all became enlightened", as if our views weren't shaped by our experiences and environment as much as theirs were.

I think that’s mostly something you’re reading into other people’s analysis that isn’t intended. I think most people engaging in critical analysis of past works are similarly critical of modern works, and most are hopeful that with continued social progress, people will one day look back on our current works and find things to critique that we, shaped as we are by our experiences and environment, don’t recognize today.

Its valid to point out things that can be improved. But everything we love came of what came before just as much as everything of which we're ashamed. Do we exclusively have to focus on the negative stuff?

We don’t exclusively focus on the negative. There is plenty of analysis of the positive aspects of past works as well. We just focus on different things in different contexts. Critical analysis is supposed to be critical, that’s the point. It’s not the only valid or valuable form of analysis, it’s just the one we’re engaged in, in the context of this discussion.

 

[BookTenTiger]

While critisizm of the past is certainly valid, I do think our study of it lately has veered too far into the negative end of the spectrum, as if those parts of history are the only things people want to talk about.

I also detect (sometimes) an undercurrent of smug superiority in these discussions, as in, "Thank goodness we're so much better people than those monsters from before we all became enlightened", as if our views weren't shaped by our experiences and environment as much as theirs were.

Its valid to point out things that can be improved. But everything we love came of what came before just as much as everything of which we're ashamed. Do we exclusively have to focus on the negative stuff?

I see you saying two things here (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting):

1) critiques of the past should include both positives and negatives

2) you are bothered by the smug attitude of those who critique the past


While I agree with the spirit of #1, I'm not sure it's appropriate for every discussion, especially in the context of the Artist and their Art. For example, if we are discussing Gygax's comments on "nits and love," I don't know that it's appropriate to balance out a racist quotation with positive remarks. On the other hand, if we are analyzing what made original D&D different than 5e, that's an appropriate discussion to have both positive and negative critiques.

For #2, I also get turned off by smug attitudes in any discussion! But it's not really something we have much control of online. One thing I try to do is lewd by example, making sure my own posts are the kinds of posts I would want directed at me (I am not always successful here, but I try). It's also impossible to read true intonation on a forum, so as much as I can I try to assume positive intent. If something seems insulting to me, I'll ask myself, "If they meant this in a non insulting way, how would it read?" Then maybe I'll realize I was reading too much into it, or maybe I'll realize that they really are being rude!

 

[Lyxen]

Well there's the rub, innit? Your perspective is neither universal nor objective.

Whereas yours is ? Especially considering what follows...

When I use terms like "significant harm", that is not my own conjecture; it is language used by those who were actually harmed.

Again, who where these people ? Do you know them ? Have they actually used that language to describe said harm to you ? On these specific supplements ?

I don't think you'll answer positively to all these questions, so yes, it's only a complete conjecture on your part, thinking that some people might have been harmed, and not only harmed, but "significantly harmed".

And I also honestly think that the few people reading these supplement today must have a knowledge of more recent editions, and the efforts made, and that they are way more intelligent than you give them credit for in terms of understanding when and under what circumstances said supplements were written. So it's again a case of "defending these poor people who might be harmed by the nasty writing but are too stupid to understand the circumstances".

I'll note that I do find myself in that category with re: JK Rowling, and the harm her influence has caused has been incredibly significant, especially to my trans comrades in the UK.

And again, I'm not discussing her, she has nothing to do with D&D and her influence is many order of magnitudes greater than old supplements from 40 years ago that no-one reads today apart from a few geeks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly. And it's true about the present as well, ToA is considered one of the best 5e modules, and still, just a few words out of thousands are sufficient for people to use it as a negative example.

Well… It is a good example of some of the things about modern D&D that we think has room for improvement. That doesn’t preclude it from also being a good example of some of the things about modern D&D we think are good. If the discussion was about, like, hexcrawl adventures, or use of ticking clocks, it might be pointed to as a positive example. In a discussion about representation of race, it’s pointed out as a negative example. Context matters.

We shouldn't have, but some people revel in it. I just want a bit more of balanced reviews and acknowledgment of the positive parts, which outnumber the negative ones by an immense factor. And it's not a reason not to work on the negative at the same time.

If the context of the discussion was a review, I would agree that it would be important to acknowledge the positive and negative aspects in due proportion, because that’s the point of a review. That’s not the context at hand though. The topic at hand is quite literally “discussing problematic issues in D&D.” Of course the focus is going to be on negative aspects in that context.

 

[HammerMan]

I can't imagine anything with 50+ years of history not having ANY dark days that don't follow modern thoughts. The fact is that D&D did really good and really bad things (even counting for when it was made) I think we can criticize thing without going overboard.

Could you imagine taking the Strixhaven book translating it's basic mechanics (deupdate?) to AD&D 1e, and bringing it back to 1985 and trying to pitch it? Is it any easier to imagine garbing the 1e Oriental adventures book and only from 1985 updating the mechanic but not the book itself and pitching it or selling it today?
1985-2022 is 37 years...

can you imagine in 2059 if people looked back at Strathaven and wild beyond the witchlight and said "Wow, how could such transphobic, racisit, garbage have been printed" without realizing for today it is somewhat (if not very) progressive?