D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon

[evileeyore]

All done to keep society going, because we're civilized human beings and not chimps.

Coming back to this because your obvious anti-chimp bias has been 'triggering' away in the back of my brain.

Chimps (and most socially organized species) have social rules. It's what separates the socially organized animals from the pair and no social organization animals.

I don't understand how "frailty" has become part of this discussion.

If someone cannot join a group out of self imposed fears and demands are made that said group change to accommodate those irrational fears, then they are emotionally frail.

It's not a sign of frailty to respond to some cultural artefact, at least in part, in terms of the extent to which it speaks to you or your life or your experience.

Of course not and that's not what was being discussed.

They present a certain American way of doing or thinking about things as if it exhausted the range of actual or plausible human responses.

Let me let you into a little secret: All movies made in countries that depict only those countries* show only the way that country views and responds to things.

It's a rare movie or other work of media that gives a multi-national or global view of things, and even then they are strongly biased.


* Or even when the movie is depicting another country, but obviously in a "this is how we see them way".

Sometimes the disregard can be so total that it seems to exclude alternatives by implication.

That is an artifact of the viewer far more often than an imposition placed by the creator. And this is where we come back to the 'frail' portion of the conversation: If you cannot view a work and understand the context in which you are viewing it is coloured strongly by your own preferences, then you may be 'weak' or 'frail'. And if in your you flee from something needlessly ("I can't play D&D because I saw a chainmail bikini/bare midriff or thigh/buff dude, those sexist pigs!") or loudly demand the work or those enjoying it change to suit your preferences instead of creating your own work or group to enjoy the other work, well... then, yes, you are emotional frail.

It's not a sign of frailty to respond to a RPG book, at least in part, in terms of this picture of the gameworld that it creates, and how that relates to one's own sense of what counts as an engaging/plausible/interesting/pleasurable fiction - a fiction which one not only has to read about but has to participate in via a particular character.

Respond? No. Demand it's changed to suit you? Again, create your own gameworld or group within which to interpret the gameworld, or recognize you are joining a larger group and may have to bend a bit to fit in.

For reasonable players I'm not sure it requires any rethink of behaviour at all, does it?

I've played with a lot of reasonable Players (and GMs) and in some cases yes, they either adjusted a bit or I did.

For GMs the situation is different. If they are presenting a gameworld based on some set of assumptions about what makes for an engaging/plausible/interesting/pleasurable fiction, and it turns out that they have players who have different expectations in some of those respects, then some change may be required.

I agree. The players need to adjust their assumptions. As the GM, you are playing in my world. Do not like this? Go find another GM or run your own game. I'd be more than happy to play (baring some things).

Still it would be based on sex not gender, you technically should have room for both on the character sheet if you are going to have one.

Agreed. Which is why charsheets I make don't bother to have space for either.

 

[Jester David]

Coming back to this because your obvious anti-chimp bias has been 'triggering' away in the back of my brain.

Chimps (and most socially organized species) have social rules. It's what separates the socially organized animals from the pair and no social organization animals.

So if even chimps understand that you have to act a certain way around others, and not do certain behaviours... why are we having this conversation? What about this is this hard to understand?

 

[seebs]

Nope. They're just louder than the rest.

I am not inclined to believe that "just gets giggles when receiving death threats" is actually a common trait, so I think I'll stick with my theory that the people who can actually be hurt emotionally by other people are probably the overwhelming majority.

 

[seebs]

If someone cannot join a group out of self imposed fears and demands are made that said group change to accommodate those irrational fears, then they are emotionally frail.

Your characterization of the fears as "self-imposed" is, I think, rather significantly misrepresenting the way fear works.

If you frequently have the experience that other people react with hostility upon finding something out about you, being afraid that new groups of people may do the same if you don't have specific evidence to the contrary is not really a "self-imposed" fear. It's a reasonable assumption that there is some risk. As the kibologists say, you know what you do when you ASSUME, don't you? You draw a REASONABLE INFERENCE based on PRIOR OBSERVATIONS.

That is an artifact of the viewer far more often than an imposition placed by the creator.

This, too, is an oversimplification. The viewer is often correct to interpret it that way. Look, it could just be a coincidence that so many protagonists in US movies are white. But then you see an interview with Robert Rodriguez about the studio trying to make him change the parents in Spy Kids, because they were Too Ethnic, and Antonio Banderas was Too Mexican. And it turns out, it's not just the viewer thinking "there is some kind of pattern of exclusion here". It's a thing the creators are doing. On purpose, in that case.

So, there's some gaming groups that will absolutely not tolerate a gay character, and those groups are likely to be pretty hostile to gay players in other ways as well. So... Say you don't want to be in a group which is hostile to gay people, and you're looking at prospective gaming groups. And the groups post little character bios or something. The group which has a gay character in their list of existing character bios is almost certainly not going to be hostile. The others, you don't know... But hostility is frequent enough, and distressing enough, that it makes sense to prefer the one that looks inclusive.

And this is where we come back to the 'frail' portion of the conversation: If you cannot view a work and understand the context in which you are viewing it is coloured strongly by your own preferences, then you may be 'weak' or 'frail'. And if in your you flee from something needlessly ("I can't play D&D because I saw a chainmail bikini/bare midriff or thigh/buff dude, those sexist pigs!") or loudly demand the work or those enjoying it change to suit your preferences instead of creating your own work or group to enjoy the other work, well... then, yes, you are emotional frail.

You are creating an immensely broad category here which ranges from things no one seems to be doing or advocating to things that are essentially universal parts of the human experience.

Respond? No. Demand it's changed to suit you? Again, create your own gameworld or group within which to interpret the gameworld, or recognize you are joining a larger group and may have to bend a bit to fit in.

It's a shame that there is no possible middle ground between "demanding" and "requesting politely" or "expressing a preference". Man, if only there could be some middle ground there, then there'd be a rational and appropriate response to this.

 

[evileeyore]

So if even chimps understand that you have to act a certain way around others, and not do certain behaviours... why are we having this conversation? What about this is this hard to understand?

I have no idea what you aren't understanding. I'm saying, and have been, that one paragraph in a book is not the reason for 5e amazing success. It was largely unnecessary and irrelevant, though I do not decry it's existence.

I've also been saying that what you do at your table is your business, as is my table my business. I don't tell you how to run your game, don't presume you have the privilege to change how I run mine.


(All generalized from the meta-conversation, not the exchanges with you directly - )

I am not inclined to believe that "just gets giggles when receiving death threats" is actually a common trait, so I think I'll stick with my theory that the people who can actually be hurt emotionally by other people are probably the overwhelming majority.

Inversely I'm inclined to believe that many people who go to great lengths to tell us how many death threats they get are secretly over-joyed they now have a "good reason" to try to act as arbitrator of moral judgement over the rest of us.

Your characterization of the fears as "self-imposed" is, I think, rather significantly misrepresenting the way fear works.

No. However I am interpreting (and extrapolating) the way they react upon those fears.

A person who fears a group does not stand on the street corner shouting that said group must change to be more inclusive of them. They would fear the retributive backlash. However, knowing that crying "I'm afraid of them" will garner sympathy from others, many claim 'fear' where no fear exists.

If you frequently have the experience that other people react with hostility upon finding something out about you, being afraid that new groups of people may do the same if you don't have specific evidence to the contrary is not really a "self-imposed" fear. It's a reasonable assumption that there is some risk. As the kibologists say, you know what you do when you ASSUME, don't you? You draw a REASONABLE INFERENCE based on PRIOR OBSERVATIONS.

Yes, exactly. And those people do not then go on campaigns to force themselves into those groups. They create their own groups which hopefully eventually outnumber the previous groups, or the previous group slowly changes it's behavior as a reaction to shifts in the greater society.

This, too, is an oversimplification.

Of course. Most of this conversation is an oversimplification.

It's a thing the creators are doing. On purpose, in that case.

Yes, in order to 'appeal' to the broadest possible group.


In that specific case, probably erroneously, but then I'm not the audience for those movies so I can't correctly judge. Though I adore Antonio (rawr) in almost everything he's ever been in (so again, I might not be least biased judge).

So, there's some gaming groups that will absolutely not tolerate a gay character, and those groups are likely to be pretty hostile to gay players in other ways as well. So... Say you don't want to be in a group which is hostile to gay people, and you're looking at prospective gaming groups. And the groups post little character bios or something. The group which has a gay character in their list of existing character bios is almost certainly not going to be hostile. The others, you don't know... But hostility is frequent enough, and distressing enough, that it makes sense to prefer the one that looks inclusive.

Yes exactly. Find a group that fits for you, or create one. That's... exactly what I've been saying.

You are creating an immensely broad category here which ranges from things no one seems to be doing or advocating to things that are essentially universal parts of the human experience.

I'm responding in this convo, as these things have happened before... and as you said ASSUMPTIONS.

It's a shame that there is no possible middle ground between "demanding" and "requesting politely" or "expressing a preference".

I believe "requesting politely" is the middle group between "demand" and "express preference".

 

[Horwath]

Sales are that high because everyone of us had to buy at least 2 copies of PHB because of bad binding quality.

 

[Mistwell]

Sales are that high because everyone of us had to buy at least 2 copies of PHB because of bad binding quality.

Naw they replaced those on request. Most people got replacements if they had that issue. It was just one bad batch (of many batches).

 

[Jester David]

I'm saying, and have been, that one paragraph in a book is not the reason for 5e amazing success.

Well, first, I doubt there's any one singular reason. And I don't think anyone is saying there is. Or that the paragraph is that sole reason.

But is it contributing? Yes, I think it is.
Well, not the paragraph itself. But the attitudes it is emblematic of. What it represents, which is also supported in the art, the NPCs in the adventures, the attitudes of the people running the brand, etc. That paragraph is part of the larger whole, where WotC is saying "you are welcome in the hobby."

It was largely unnecessary and irrelevant,

If you were ever excluded, minimized, and marginalized by much of society, you'd realize how much it is necessary. How it is relevant.

This is not a maybe. I mentioned F. Wesley Schneider earlier, the editor-in-chief at Paizo. Founding staff at the company. And gay. He's fond of telling the anecdote of reading a Mutants & Masterminds game book where the Flash analogue was outted by the media as gay. And how it was presented seriously, and not as a joke. He wasn't a gay superhero, he was a superhero that was gay.
And this had an incredible impact on Mr Schneider, who suddenly felt included and represented.

Even if the paragraph only positively impacted a single person it would be worth it. But it didn't. You just have to look at the huge and positive reaction to the paragraph. It was called out on blogs and in reviews. It had a very real and positive impact.

That's the exact opposite of irrelevant.

though I do not decry it's existence.

No, you just call it "unnecassary" and "irrelevant". And devoted a week of your life and hundreds of words arguing for its irrelevance. Spending five or six times as much space as the actual paragraph took up.
Yeah, that's totally not decrying...

I've also been saying that what you do at your table is your business, as is my table my business. I don't tell you how to run your game, don't presume you have the privilege to change how I run mine.

Where has anyone said anything remotely about what you do at your table?

(I can pretty much guarantee no one here cares in the slightest about what happens at your game table...)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am not inclined to believe that "just gets giggles when receiving death threats" is actually a common trait, so I think I'll stick with my theory that the people who can actually be hurt emotionally by other people are probably the overwhelming majority.

That's what literally 90+% of scientific research on the subject of emotional trauma suggests, and general research into social behavior, and individual behavior, and neuroscience, and camparative study of different social species, and...yeah, basically all the evidence that could possibly be relevant.

Humans are effected by the behavior of other humans.

Also, one needn't be emotionally hurt by a thing to have good reason to avoid it.

 

[seebs]

Inversely I'm inclined to believe that many people who go to great lengths to tell us how many death threats they get are secretly over-joyed they now have a "good reason" to try to act as arbitrator of moral judgement over the rest of us.

That might happen among the people who go out of their way to tell others. But it's not the majority of the reaction. Mostly people panic and freak out.

A person who fears a group does not stand on the street corner shouting that said group must change to be more inclusive of them. They would fear the retributive backlash. However, knowing that crying "I'm afraid of them" will garner sympathy from others, many claim 'fear' where no fear exists.

Gosh, you're right. There's never been a civil rights march of any kind, Pride parades never happened, and there was no movement for women's sufferage. How silly I was to think that those things could have happened. Obviously, it's impossible for people who are afraid to try to do something about the circumstance in question.

... To be slightly less snarky about it: If you're gonna get hurt anyway, you might as well get hurt trying to improve things. Yes, this really is a way people think sometimes.

And to drag this back on topic: One of the things D&D offers us is a chance to explore thinking like that without the risk of dying in the process. But never forget that it's an actual thing that people do in real life too.