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

[mamba]

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.

the artist is perfectly fine with landscapes and dragons, but man does he not know how to paint humanoids, esp faces

 

[Micah Sweet]

No one (almost) believes their intentions are bad.

And for someone who’s intentions are good, then they should be grateful, not angered, to be informed that they are causing harm.

Provided they accept your premise, and you still might want to consider the factor that you're basically telling people their preferences are wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

of course it is incorrect, once it left the wargamer circles, it was mostly highschoolers. Evidence is basically anything about the history of D&D ever

The Basic set said ‘ages 10 and up’ right on the box

Just because they don't limit themselves with a label on the box doesn't mean their intended demographic is children.

 

[Zardnaar]

Liking THAC0 isn't exclusionary. Running an old edition with THACO isn't exclusionary.

Forming the Paladins of Purity and berating people for not liking it is.

I prefer not to use it but it's not a deal breaker if a potential DM uses it.

What is gatekeeping and exclusionary is form questions where the only correct answer us the one you want. If you want to play 5E (or anything really) and the other person doesn't you are excluded up to a point buy there's no requirement they cater to your specific tastes either.

I'm not offended if my friends play rugby because I'm excluded as it's not my thing. Getting blown off from a planned event because they might want to play rugby maybe (depends on the circumstances).

 

[The Firebird]

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.

This is not the case, and the reason why I included an example I did consider gatekeeping in my post.

Paul, you mentioned people having intentions they themselves consider bad. That's not the standard. The standard is their goal being exclusion. Often people consider that a valuable goal.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Provided they accept your premise, and you still might want to consider the factor that you're basically telling people their preferences are wrong.

Nothing wrong with having preferences. But if you express them in a way that makes other players feel unwelcome, then you are doing harm. That is what gatekeeping is. I gave you a list of examples earlier.

 

[The Firebird]

Thac0 by itself probably isn't but it's rarely if ever a question of a single mechanic being the lone point of contention around how the game should be... its Thac0, it's deterministic alignment, it's the unwillingness to admit or change old stereotypes, it's preferring the old artwork while ignoring it's lack of representing the myriad of types of players who now play D&D... and, intentional or not, whether you prefer these things or not... its creating barriers to others playing the game and is a form of gatekeeping. Your intention doesn't change the effect.

And since gatekeeping is regularly seen as an unalloyed evil in modern parlance, the above argument doesn't speak well for the people who like any of those things. That doesn't seem conducive to good conversation.

These posts encompass a difficulty I've seen throughout the thread. Statements of preference aren't being interpreted as such; they are shibboleths, they are transmuted into proxies for any number of unrelated issues. Liking Thaco all of a sudden has nothing to do with liking Thaco; it implies one belongs to a group that likes misogynistic artwork or exclusionary themes. Then Thaco itself becomes seen as misogynistic or exclusionary.

In a similar way, statements of offense have been interpreted so broadly. "I don't like what someone at WotC said" becomes a cultural signifier, and then negative elements of that culture are projected onto the speaker.

I agree with Micah; I don't think it's great for discussion.

 

[mamba]

Just because they don't limit themselves with a label on the box doesn't mean their intended demographic is children.

so you think they designed it for college students, but somehow got all the highschoolers flocking to it and the '10 and up' is just an accident / meaningless?

 

[Micah Sweet]

so you think they designed it for college students, but somehow got all the highschoolers flocking to it and the '10 and up' is just an accident / meaningless?

If children are playing your game, put them on the list. Doesn't mean you're specifically marketing to them.

 

[Imaro]

Absolutely. If you have an issue with old art because it objectifies women and lacks representation, then the response to such criticism will tell you everything. For example, if the person says, "ok lets drop the cheesecake and add in more ethnically reasonable representation" they have an interest of making the design element work inclusively. If they say, "na, this game isnt for those people" then you know all you need to know about that intent.

What if the person says.. but I just personally enjoy cheesecake art?