D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Eric V]

No they say things like it is "problematic" when they write on certain subjects, or they get pressured to censor themselves ("A Place for Wolves").



No you just imply it is "problematic". Go ahead you can do it, but it's a problem if you do. Not saying you can't but...

It's just semantics.



And your not getting either they are both just entertainment. Are you saying if a Warrior Nun RPG came out it would somehow be worse than the series? That it is fine to watch an actor play a nun, but it is "problematic" to play one in an RPG?

Yeah, it's one thing to observe something at a distance and critique it, and it's another thing to actively participate.

If you think it's just semantics, I can't help you. You're being reductionist to the point of being insulting. At least admit your strawman tactics and putting words into peoples' mouths.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, it's one thing to observe something at a distance and critique it, and it's another thing to actively participate.

If you think it's just semantics, I can't help you. You're being reductionist to the point of being insulting. At least admit your strawman tactics and putting words into peoples' mouths.

Tell me, which is worse: watching Saving Private Ryan or playing Call of Duty?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

OA is an instruction manual on how to pretend to be (fantasy) Asian, with the idea that people will actually do so. A how-to manual for non-Asians about how to pretend to be Asian, written by white people is problematic at best. Yeah, for fiction, authors can go outside their lived experience. An instructional manual (which is what OA is)? No. Needs more than the one playgroup that @Panda-s1 found out about. If it wants to be on the up-and-up, that is.

Um, no. Not unless you apply the instruction manual stipulation to all the other classes in the game which no one does. At the time, the game was about 10 years old and the framework then was all about creating a new class. No reasonable person would think that you are recreating what actual Samurai were in the time period. I have been fighting in armor for 35+ years and I don't think the Fighter class tells me how to fight. It is not an "instruction manual" on how to do anything. It is game rules how to pretend to be the character classes in it, just like the PHB then and now has rules on how to play a Paladin. These characters are superhuman and magical. Gygax went crazy with all the specific polearms and specific weapon adjustments vs. different armor classes. The game did the same with classes and Dragon magazine was full of them.

I understand that there are tropes and stereotypes in the book and that some people may be sensitive to them. Some to the point of being offended. But I think you are exulting the use of the book past reasonableness. You also are dismissing other media. You don't "passively" experience a show like Warrior Nun. You sit down, turn the TV on (or start the streaming) and choose to keep watching it and watch the next episode. That is not passive. I think the disclaimer is fine for a book like this as even the most pointed critiques find it cringe-worthy at worst. And that is to them.

I personally don't know if we need all those Asian themed classes anymore in the modern game as the main classes can easily cover them. I have noted that a leading Japanese TRPG (Sword World) does not have them.

 

[Bagpuss]

If one is making a movie where the villain is black, make sure there is also a prominent good guy who is also black. The same goes for any identity.

That's rubbish. No one had a problem with Kingsman, with a Black villian and not a single black good guy or Blade with a black hero and white villian.

Playing such a balancing act limits your creative opportunities and is a tad racist. People are more than just their identity labels.

 

[Eric V]

Tell me, which is worse: watching Saving Private Ryan or playing Call of Duty?

For whom?

 

[Remathilis]

For whom?

The consumer of the media. Which do you feel has a worse effect on them?

 

[VelvetViolet]

Imbalance of power based on historic officially sanctioned discrimination and its less blatant descendants are things. I'm great with setting high standards for all games. But I'm most worried about the things portraying historically disenfranchised minorities.

I'm sure there are many folks with European ancestry who would like better portrayal of their ancestral cultures. I'm not sure why it almost never seems to get pushed in the US until it can be inserted in the middle of a discussion about how a minority group is portrayed. And then nothing ever seems to get pushed by the questioners until the next thread brought up about a minority group. I can't speak to how it works in other countries.

I suspect it may be due to a combination of imperialist culture separating white people from their heritage, a really shoddy school system that fails to inspire any interest in history, blindness to their own privilege, the endlessly self-iterative mess than nerd culture has degenerated into, the general lack of knowledge on pre-Christian white cultures that didn't have writing to save their stories, Tolkien's perpetual shadow over the fantasy genre strangling creativity, etc.

There are already several roleplaying games that are designed to more accurately replicate specific cultural heritage like Trudvang, Mazes & Minotaurs, Dark Albion, and Mythic Vistas. This discussion is relevant to the fantasy genre as a whole and it occurs pretty commonly outside of discussions about non-white cultures: e.g. Slavic fantasy, Norse fantasy, Celtic fantasy, etc.

 

[Eric V]

The consumer of the media. Which do you feel has a worse effect on them?

Not a psychologist, so...

But I imagine a vet with PTSD might have a harder time with the film. I imagine playing a shoot-everything game that primarily targets certain ethnicities might have some long term effects on their worldview. Lots of qualified people have done deep-dives on these sorts of things; the latest I am aware of is in my home city, at the Universite de Montreal.

 

[Immeril]

Are you gas-lighting me? I double-checked through this thread, and you haven't asked me or anyone a question regarding Tolkien in this thread. If you meant to ask me a question about Tolkien, then that's fine. However, framing my failure to answer an unasked question as a moral shortcoming on my part seems a bit unfair, no?

It was not written question, but I thought that the question that it implied was obvious. By stating that Tolkien based the Orcs on 'repulsive Mongols', I am implying that he held racist beliefs to some extent. And since Tolkien's influence on both the fantasy genre as well as D&D and other RPGs is undeniable, it implies that the problematic content of OA is actually a part of D&D itself: heroes fighting against other civilisations simply because they are/look/act different.
So, using your rhetoric, should the Hobbit also be banned or not? And if not, why not? The ideal answer to this question would be one that could be used with any comparison. Because people have different priorities. To some, public domain would be the determining factor. Eric V thinks that there should be a distinction between books/movies and RPGs.
Perhaps people are glossing over my statement because I didn't pose it as a question.

Irrelevant maybe, but still sought.

Perhaps sought only to be disregarded?
My opinion: the fact that certain posters, who started out denying any racism, are now attempting to relativize the racism means that they were somewhat convinced by some of the counterarguments. Which is what debate is all about.

This seems like a verbose way of confirming that yes, you are moving the goal posts.

I’d say that this is due to my occupation. I’m not sure if a similar term exists in English legal procedure, but when we write briefs for an appeal to court, we start our arguments with (literal translation) ‘in principal order’, ‘in subordinate order’, ‘in more subordinate order’ and so on. The arguments are sorted according to importance. This sorting means that, even if the judge were to disregard our previous argument, we base our appeal on the current argument. This doesn’t mean that we personally disregard our previous argument.
Long story short: I wasn’t changing goal posts, since the discussion is still about removing OA from online stores. I was switching to my next argument, since neither one of us was able to convince the other with their current one.

And your not getting either they are both just entertainment. Are you saying if a Warrior Nun RPG came out it would somehow be worse than the series? That it is fine to watch an actor play a nun, but it is "problematic" to play one in an RPG?

Or video games. If someone thinks playing an Asian or a catholic in an RPG is bad, they should play an MMO. All the guys playing female characters is really cringy.

That's rubbish. No one had a problem with Kingsman, with a Black villian and not a single black good guy or Blade with a black hero and white villian.

Playing such a balancing act limits your creative opportunities and is a tad racist. People are more than just their identity labels.

I agree. A character should be praised for its merits, how well it is written or portrayed, not because it is a hero or villain. Anyone who saw Kingsman and thought 'why is the bad guy black and the good guy white?' has deep-rooted issues. Besides, there was a white villain, and guess what? Jackson's character was way more likeable than Caine's.

 

[Haldrik]

The origins of D&D is a freeform blending of many cultures. If not here and not now (Midwest US, 1970s), then it was fair game for cultural appropriation and misrepresentation. Fantasy = Exoticism.

Needless to say, the above methodology can lead to difficulties.

I am glad many different ethnic groups are playing D&D. It enriches our shared gaming experience. Each identity invites us into a different way of being human. For storytelling − and adventures! − our diversity is an incredible resource.

I am also glad to see specific ethnic groups complain when some aspect of D&D seems to misrepresent or even insult their own cultural heritage. In this thread, we are focusing on East Asian cultures. I feel the same way about European and West Asian cultures. I am happy when D&D holds every culture to the same need for respect and critique. It is easier for European Americans to discuss complaints from East Asian cultures, in the sense that the principles can be discussed more objectively, and the same principles of respect and critique apply to European cultures too.

There are some general rules that seem to work well.
• Dont borrow from an other culture, unless you feel intimate with that culture.
• Absolutely dont use reallife names, unless it is historically/mythologically accurate.

Dont use the names "Samurai" (or "Druid" or "Viking" or "Thunderbird" so on) unless one is making an honest effort to use the reallife name accurately and empathetically.

Yes, it is a high standard. And a good one. Let people who know what they are talking about, be the ones to introduce a "Samurai" into a D&D game.

You can still do creative freeform. Even a person who knows little about Japan or China or anywhere, can still appreciate aspects that are appealing and fascinating. Feel free to borrow them into the game. Avoid the word "Samurai" or a suggestion that this less knowledgeable usage is somehow Japan. Certainly avoid using the cultural aspects for offensive parts of the game.

WotC designed the 5e Samurai archetype, from studying Japanese films about Samurai. Heh, even that makes me cringe a little bit. But the methodology is on the right track to try bring an insiders view into the D&D game. I am confident that WotC doublechecked and triplechecked with Japanese citizens and historians, to make sure they werent walking into a field of landmines. As far as I can tell, the 5e Samurai is ok. But it is only the ones who are intimate with Japanese culture who can decide if the D&D Samurai is legitimate or not.

People can critique other an other culture − but only if they are empathetic and intimate with that culture and know what they are talking about. Otherwise, stick to the critique of abstract principles that can apply to any culture equally.

Good advice that I try to remember. Never say a critique, unless you say something admiring first. If one cannot think of something admiring then dont say the critique either, because one oneself isnt in a good place to say the critique. Also, if the person that is being criticized isnt listening, dont say the critique. Because it helps no one. The advice proves true most of the time. In an honest conversation, the advice is virtually always true.