D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Umbran]

Not disagreeing in the slightest.

But, in discussions where people ARE trying to prove something, then having actual evidence for opinions is a basic requirement, no?

Problem: "trying to prove something" and "opinions" don't go together.

Opinions are our positions or judgements we have formed that are NOT based on facts or knowledge. By definition, opinions will always fall short of being objectively provable. So, no, actual evidence for opinions is not required.

 

[wizard71]

I don’t think the art per se is bad in the main boos but in the Dragon Lance novels they recently released it’s an abomination. I wish they would let Larry Elmore draw Tanis Half-Elven because the artist or CGI rendering was straight out of the Abyss.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Who exactly is interested in imposing their preferences on others here, as opposed to wanting as many possible preferences supported and appreciated as can be accomplished? Why can't we have different games, if it's so hard to accommodate multiple styles in the same one? Is it even as hard as people say it is?

Plenty of people try to impose their own desires: "The art in 5e is terrible", "the maths in D&D should be complex, it's the only way people will get better", "BG3 deserves to fail because all the characters are evil", "D&D lore should never be changed", "Psionics cannot be spells", "Its impossible to play D&D without a half elf species".

It's all gatekeeping. And none of it is done out of a desire to exclude others. That's just the effect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think the art per se is bad in the main boos but in the Dragon Lance novels they recently released it’s an abomination. I wish they would let Larry Elmore draw Tanis Half-Elven because the artist or CGI rendering was straight out of the Abyss.

I really love Elmore's old work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Plenty of people try to impose their own desires: "The art in 5e is terrible", "the maths in D&D should be complex, it's the only way people will get better", "BG3 deserves to fail because all the characters are evil", "D&D lore should never be changed", "Psionics cannot be spells", "Its impossible to play D&D without a half elf species".

It's all gatekeeping. And none of it is done out of a desire to exclude others. That's just the effect.

I'm with @The Firebird on this one. Gatekeeping requires intention or the word is meaningless, or even actively harmful to the undeserving, since the term is nearly always used as a negative.

 

[Umbran]

Let's try a more extreme example... would you be ok with someone who preferred racially segregated pools because...

Mod note:
There is no call to try a more extreme example. Raising the stakes of the question, without first establishing that it remains a valid analogy, is not rhetorically sound, as well as taking you outside the scope of discussion of these messageboards.

You have then positioned it so you might as well be asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no answers only!" Which is not appropriate.

Even if you feel their position is problematic, aggressive posture and seeming logical traps on your part is not going to suddenly change their minds, or make the discussion better. If you cannot find a way to address the discussion in a constructive way that stays on topic, maybe it is time step away from it.

 

[ECMO3]

Note: I DO NOT MEAN POLITICAL CONSERVATISM. This is not a thread about politics.

I mean "conservatism" as in resistance to change. You see it all the time -- people complaining about the new art or aesthetics, literally saying things like "if they used the old art I would be in." It is so mind boggling to me.

D&D is a living game. OF COURSE the new books etc are going to adapt to the new market. If you literally won't play a newer version because tieflings or whatever, then it isn't for you. Don't demand it regress to the era you discovered D&D because that is what makes you feel good; play the version you discovered.

I don't liek every artistic or design choice either, but it isn't up to me to demand D&D coddle my unchanging preferences. If I want to re-experience BECMI (the edition I grew up with) I can just play that. And so can you.

/rant

The two things that annoy me the most are the endless demand for balance and being anit-AI in general and anti-AI art in specific.

There is a large portion of the fanbase just unwilling to consider changing despite the improvements that would follow and these bases of players are so influential that it bleeds into official products.

 

[FrozenNorth]

To me gatekeeping implies intentionality. And sometimes people do raise barriers for no other reason than to exclude. E.g. you aren't a true star wars fan if you don't know what planet Nien Nunb is from. It's good to have a term for this.

Your definition of gatekeeping makes virtually impossible to criticize ANYTHING as gatekeeping, since it depends on the mental state on the person who is gatekeeping, which is known only to them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don’t think the intended effect from the original statement was that the game should only be for older, educated people in that you have to be of a certain education level, but that the game should be marketed towards college-level age people - 18-21, instead of children. When the D&D storybook I read to my child has beholder art in it that looks suspiciously like one of the images in the new PHB…I can see who they’re trying to market towards.

I started playing at age 10 in 1989. It definitely seems that even in the late ‘80s, the target audience was teens, not college-age students.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your definition of gatekeeping makes virtually impossible to criticize ANYTHING as gatekeeping, since it depends on the mental state on the person who is gatekeeping, which is known only to them.

It does require that you believe people when they tell you their thought process and how they feel about things.