Cultural Appropriation in role-playing games (draft)

[Mallus]

That said, I try to use "being provocative" as a tool and I don't view my video podcast series as comfort food.

I appreciate a good provocation, but when you try to draw equivalencies between "blackface", the use of an ethnic slur as a major American sports team's name, the terribly mediocre pop music of Katy Perry, and later, the various uses of pastiche in RPG game supplements, you've left "provocative" behind and entered the realm of "I don't really understand racism and the experience of racism".

I'm going to try to be constructive here, but forgive me if it goes astray (I've got a mean streak, too, in addition to a love of 1980s Prince). What I took away from your essay was that it's a work of well-meaning white ally (please correct me if that's mistaken) who, intent aside, was talking for minorities rather than to them. I found that provocative, though probably not in the way you meant. Less a call for mutual respect and more of a search for ways of ameliorating white guilt, which came with a heaping side of speaking about the experiences of marginalized groups, rather than asking them. A lecture, not a dialog.

Can I ask how much experience you have gaming with non-white/non-majority culture people? Do you have some practice to go along with the (post-colonial, critical race-influenced) theory?

I'm a lifelong, non-white American gamer. I've experienced ethnic slurs directed at me (though never as part of gamer culture). I've run games for majority non-white groups, heck, half the table talk in my high-school D&D campaign was in Farsi. Your post left me feeling misrepresented, not really represented at all, when nominally it was all about respecting people like me.

Do you have any specific questions to ask about the experiences of non-white gamers? I can try to help out, lend my one voice. I'm sure there are other folks around here who can add theirs.

As for a specific point, I'd like to address your concept of 'agency' w/r/t 'appropriating' other cultural elements. I can tell you flat-out, no white friend has taken away my agency by playing a samurai. To suggest that's even possible is frankly, insulting. You wouldn't question my playing a faux-English knight, why do you imply I'm somehow demeaned or lessened by someone playing an Asian-inspired character? This isn't theory for me. In one of my best campaigns, a white friend played the ever-honorable 'Kenji Yamamoto' for a span of 4 years. This wasn't hate speech. It wasn't an attack on my identity -- which, of course, begs the question that the identity of all non-white Americans is based around ethnicity. It was a Tuesday night among friends (and, perhaps more importantly, equals).

Racism is complicated, and serious, and it discussions of it are not served well by critical frameworks that draw dubiously-constructed equivalencies between things with unique & specific cultural contexts.

Sorry, this has gone on long enough and I've barely scratched the surface. There's the more intellectualized part of this where we can debate to what extent "culture" can be owned, licensed out, and/or given "consent" to use. This commoditization of culture practices & their treatment as some sort of IP is problematic in and of itself. Then there's the whole "media consumption as political activism" --ie, "consumerist activism" -- and questions of what benefit that actually provides to marginalized groups. Oy vey this can go on and on.

Tl; dr, you're obviously concerned about this, so please, ask how cultural appropriation is experienced by gamers, if at all. You might be surprised by the diversity of opinions you get.

And, again, if you have personal experiences as a non-white gamer, forgive my terrible assumptions about you, and share from your perspective.

 

[Bagpuss]

The fact that its making a contentious point that isn't part of the theme of the article is the point. It tribal signaling. It's not so much primarily intended to cause offense as it is to garner the sympathy of the rest of the tribe. "I'm an atheist, so if you are an atheist, then you'll agree with the rest of what I say as well." Plenty of tribes define themselves primarily by who they aren't or who they oppose. That's nothing weird.

Okay but it's a bit presumptuous, and still a bad technique. I'm an atheist and I pretty much disagree with a lot of what he said. It's fine that you don't take offense, the point is, it shouldn't be there it adds nothing to the point he's trying to make. I don't see the point in preaching to the choir if that was the intent, or offending others, it alienates them and detracts from the main argument.

Stick to the point. If he wants to make an article about atheism and how that relates to gaming go ahead, but this is meant about cultural appropriation.

 

[Bagpuss]

That said, I try to use "being provocative" as a tool and I don't view my video podcast series as comfort food.

What sort of tool? You mean like clickbait? Because as a tool for winning people over to your point of view it is counter productive.

 

[delericho]

If he wants to make an article about atheism and how that relates to gaming go ahead...

Yes, please do. I would be very interested to read that column - given the role of religion in, especially, fantasy settings, it's interesting to consider how that intersects with an increasingly-secular society.

 

[Umbran]

That said, I try to use "being provocative" as a tool and I don't view my video podcast series as comfort food.

Being provocative is overrated. Very overrated. As in, it isn't actually a very good communication tool at all. It is applicable in some very limited circumstances, but not many.

I mean, think of it this way. Being provocative, meaning, acting in such a way as to provoke. How is this different from, "being a troll," and why would we think would have substantially different results than trolling?

Being provocative is good for riling people up. If they already agree with you, you'll tend to fill them with a passion of agreement. If they don't agree (including being neutral), you'll tend to fill them up with a passion against you and your point. So, being provocative *is* comfort food - for those who already agree with you! But, overall, being provocative is polarizing - it is a tool that generates conflict, rather than consensus. What it doesn't do is make people think through their positions, or consider them critically. It makes them passionate, an that's not a state in which they are thinking well at all.

So, basically, if you are trying to create an argument, you're going to succeed. If you are trying to create a reasoned discussion, however, it may not be the appropriate choice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't mind people being provocative. But I have to wonder if that is even what is going on here. To me, this post reads as being pretty sincere. I believe the writer believes what he is saying (if he is invoking the idea of Hate Speech just to be provocative and doesn't actually believe Cultural Appropriation constitutes Hate Speech then I stand corrected). It isn't the provocativeness of the post that troubles me. I've read a lot of click bait articles that say something wild to provoke, then clarify their position. It is becoming a boring tactic, but I don't mind it. I am more bothered by the notion that he seems to think we are all engaged in hate crimes by enjoying pastiche settings or fantasy worlds that borrow cultural elements. Sure, maybe there are some folks out there using pastiches and other fantasy settings in that way, I don't think that is how the bulk of people who play Forgotten Realms are doing so as an act of Hate Speech or bigotry. Mostly people are just looking for cool aspects of history to bring into their game and to blend with other aspects to create something new and exciting. I make a distinction between that and say engaging in cruel and mean stereotypes or painting a culture as this awful thing.

 

[Umbran]

If it is intended to be offensive, sort of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Darwin Fish" style, it's predicated on a false assumption of what I find offensive.

Well, he wasn't writing to *you*, Celebrim in specific, was he? His work has an expected audience. If he's trying to be provocative, his success should be measured not on whether he provokes *you*, but whether he provokes many, or provokes his target audience, in general.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

I'm at the office just now, so I'll have to write more later. But for the moment let me simply say I did not write the column to piss off Celebrim.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, he wasn't writing to *you*, Celebrim in specific, was he? His work has an expected audience. If he's trying to be provocative, his success should be measured not on whether he provokes *you*, but whether he provokes many, or provokes his target audience, in general.

As you say, being provocative is very overrated. Should his success be measured on whether he provokes someone, or whether he provokes many, or rather on what he provokes them to do?

Besides which, I said offensive and not provocative.

But were it intended to be provocative to a particular 'target audience', I think it would have largely missed its mark, not only with myself, but the 'target audience'. And were it aimed as an artless missile against a target audience, that audience containing me as a member, it would have been aimed at me. When such missiles are launched, "To Whom they May Concern", it's still aimed at me regardless of its lack of specificity.

But, as I said, the target of the statement was an in group and not an out group. As such, I don't think it was intended to provoke his in group.

 

[Umbran]

As you say, being provocative is very overrated. Should his success be measured on whether he provokes someone, or whether he provokes many, or rather on what he provokes them to do?

He said, "I try to use "being provocative" as a tool," Since he didn't state the goal of using the tool, so for now, judging success on what he provoked them to do is not in reach.

Besides which, I said offensive and not provocative.

*He* said provocative. I think his assertion of his intent overrides your assertion of his intent.

But were it intended to be provocative to a particular 'target audience', I think it would have largely missed its mark, not only with myself, but the 'target audience'.

Assuming you know what that audience is, the people he is really trying to reach, which may not be the same as the people to whom it is distributed....