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

[Bedrockgames]

Why on Earth would there be confusion? Unless the person were simply unaware that nonphysical harm exists?

Because you might be talking about someone being uncomfortable about a bit of text, you might be talking about someone being physically beaten to death because of a text, and you might be talking about someone feeling excluded because of a text. The problem with Harm as a term here is it is a powerful word that rides the more severe connotation of physical harm. You see this all the time. People say "this causes harm" as if it is the most terrible thing on earth, like it is responsible for murder and needs to be stopped. But then you dig in and it turns out three people on twitter find it morally objectionable for a reason many people don't agree with. I think the problem with it is has both become a charge (this causes harm)---that is often not thoroughly examine---and it is an ambiguous word that carries more power because of its ambiguity. Again if non-physical harm is as bad as you are saying, you should be able to say non-physical harm, or mental distress or whatever it is you are concerned about, and achieve the same result. But my point is the reason I think people may not want to do that is because they know when you get more specific, people probably won't take it as seriously because they are more worried about Harm (which could potentially mean something very very serious), than about minor specific instances of harm.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, I see this all the time. People stop at 'this causes harm' and they don't say what they mean by it. Harm has become sufficient in many of these discussions. All I am really saying is be more specific than just harm.

 

[HammerMan]

Sure. But since we can't know the extent of the problem, we can't reason based on incidence rate. We have to work with the data we have, based on the experiences of gamers we know and talk with.

I disagree. In our (consumer) inability to do the work (WotC and Hasbro can do surveys) we should be discussing all of our points of view and reference and not dismiss ANY input.

Let's take another example. We know that some number of minority folks and women have historically found gaming and geek social circles less than welcoming.

agreed. Even though the first person I even met to play with was a girl, and to this day she is a close friend and DM/Player I know that since the 90's she has delt with A LOT of BS. Including (but not limited to) when she has brought new boyfriends to places to show them her hobby the assumption was he was the expert and she was 'just arm candy'.

Downright hostile in the case of some gaming stores and clubs, from what most I've talked to over the decades have reported, to the extent that women's and girls' unwelcomeness or unpleasant receptions in some of those spaces became proverbial.

there was a thread on here maybe 7-8 years ago where all the women knew where security was to report harrasment at gen con and most of us guys didn't...

Representation in art is a classic and well-known factor.

yes and I celebrate all of the inclusiveness that started in 4e and continued to 5e and I foresee improving still in 6e and 7e and 8e...

When gaming books primarily or exclusively showed women in cheesecake renditions or as damsels in distress rather than as powerful protagonists like the men, that communicated (communicates, in some sad, current-day examples) a message of exclusion to would-be women players.

now this is one I don't know. I have only heard men ever say that "all or primarily damsels" almost every woman I know always focused on the few awesome character/art they got... I also find that in other circles as well. It is interesting what % is offended victims compared to % offended FOR the victims.

Same with lack of representation for protagonists of color. A lot of this stuff has gradually been progressing over time. Some publishers were doing better in the '90s, some not until the 2000s. WotC has seemed to make more progress on this with each edition they've published.

I agree and as I said above I welcome more inclusiveness not less. I just hope that people remember that 3e was more than 2e and 4e mor than 3e and 5e more than 4...

 

[Charlaquin]

interesting though. why would anecdotes be more useful when they are in your favor? Now this also leads to my favorite joke that "The plural of anecdote isn't evidence... but it is, because with enough (normally alot) of anecdotes you can make a testable survey of how many times something can happen"

You… Can’t though, that’s the point of the saying. Anecdotes lack the scientific rigor necessary for collecting useful data, such that even if you have lots of them, you still don’t really have anything sound enough to draw useful conclusions from.

 

[Yora]

It doesn't matter.

All this semantic quibbling is a useless distraction from the issue and I highly suggest no one else engage it.

"The issue"? What actually is the issue here?
There's lots of generalities being thrown around, but I'm still not sure where any of this specifically deals with stuff that is in D&D, or its creators.

 

[Mannahnin]

Because you might be talking about someone being uncomfortable about a bit of text, you might be talking about someone being physically beaten to death because of a text, and you might be talking about someone feeling excluded because of a text. The problem with Harm as a term here is it is a powerful word that rides the more severe connotation of physical harm. You see this all the time. People say "this causes harm" as if it is the most terrible thing on earth, like it is responsible for murder and needs to be stopped. But then you dig in and it turns out three people on twitter find it morally objectionable for a reason many people don't agree with. I think the problem with it is has both become a charge (this causes harm)---that is often not thoroughly examine---and it is an ambiguous word that carries more power because of its ambiguity. Again if non-physical harm is as bad as you are saying, you should be able to say non-physical harm, or mental distress or whatever it is you are concerned about, and achieve the same result. But my point is the reason I think people may not want to do that is because they know when you get more specific, people probably won't take it as seriously because they are more worried about Harm (which could potentially mean something very very serious), than about minor specific instances of harm.

I don't agree with your premise that it's misleading at all. Anyone who's got even the most basic grasp of civil or criminal law understands that the word "harm" encompasses a great deal more things than physical injury.

Your inference that "this causes harm" indicates that this is "the most terrible thing on Earth" seems to me pure hyperbole, though I will credit that you are sincere. It prompts a strong gut reaction of incredulity in me.

I think there's validity to the point that people should be specific about what KIND of harm when they are asked. That's reasonable. I agree with you there.

Is, for example, women and minority gamers finding gaming spaces or publications unwelcome or discouraging not a real problem? Do you not think it's more serious than mere transitory mental discomfort?

 

[Charlaquin]

now we get to weigh the usefulness against the potential harm.

we need knives to cut things (or scissors or blades of some sort) but these tools can be used as weapons. (Most tolls can and many of our favorite pole arms are farming tools). So then we bring this back to a D&D product (funny that is what we are supposed to all be here fore) and is the book as a tool more useful or more harmful?

We can get more specific than “is the book more useful or harmful?” We can ask, “are these specific elements of the book more useful or harmful?”

 

[HammerMan]

You… Can’t though, that’s the point of the saying. Anecdotes lack the scientific rigor necessary for collecting useful data, such that even if you have lots of them, you still don’t really have anything sound enough to draw useful conclusions from.

what is a survey if not a collection of everyone you surveys antidotes?

 

[HammerMan]

We can get more specific than “is the book more useful or harmful?” We can ask, “are these specific elements of the book more useful or harmful?”

yes, and we (I think) should weigh each section that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is, for example, women and minority gamers finding gaming spaces or publications unwelcome or discouraging not a real problem? Do you not think it's more serious than mere transitory mental discomfort?

this is exactly what I am asking for. Yes I think people feeling unwelcome is usually more serious than transitory mental discomfort. However I think there is lots of debate over whether these things are unwelcoming. I have heard very different things talking to different gamers belonging to these groups. Groups of people aren’t monolithic, and what I encounter elsewhere online, out in the world among gamers I know, if often very different from the opinions I see at en world. And I have watched different YouTube channels and listened to podcasts by different gamers belonging to these groups and also get a range of opinions on this matter. It is complicated. There are honest disagreements about this stuff even within the communities in question