D&D 5E Does the inclusion of these two gamers undo WOTC desire to be inclusive?

[whiteape1]

I'll add to the war by stating "my favourite flavour is Cookies and Cream".

 

[Patrick McGill]

I think it's interesting to read posts from both sides of this. It's obvious that people on both sides are passionate and believe that they are right. As with all things, the truth of the matter probably lies muddied up in the middle somewhere.

This blog post (warning NSFW) in particular was interesting to me, from one of Zak's players.

I think in the end, I would encourage people to find their personal line in the sand, the point at which they are comfortable supporting a product, and do research. Too much of this, I believe, has turned into a flame war. For me, the fact that can be proven is: Wizards of the Coast have gone out of their way to be inclusive. If the opinions of hired consultants contradict this (which I am not sure that they do, at least no publically), those opinions have obviously not made it into the game itself.

 

[billd91]

Here is what I have been thinking a about the whole separate the person from his art. Say a game designer online presence is rather sexist he doesn't want to play with women in his home games. He does not get the whole issue with stripper armor. But he is an excellent game designer and none of his prejudices are in his work. But because of his online persona major game companies are afraid to hire him because of fearing a backlash or coming across as not sensitive to female gamers. But not having his input has the effect of not giving us the best game we could have. That is what I see has one of the issues. Does everyone in the game design industry need to be likable?

No, people don't need to be likable to be in the game design industry. However, I also don't have a problem when someone makes themself unemployable by being an ass. There are plenty of women working in the industry and if some designer has problems with women playing, he would probably have problems with his female co-workers and that's grounds enough for an employer to choose to stay away.

As far as the broader question goes - I will and do avoid products that have certain people attached to them because of the things they say online. I've witnessed some race-baiting that convinced me to avoid a particular designer's work. If I see this person's name attached to a product before I buy it, I will not buy it. My standards may be complex and I may have more tolerance on some subjects than others, but I do have standards.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I agree with billd91, when it comes to designers. A game creator's opinions become tied to their work, whether they intend them to or not. A game company thus becomes tied to those creator's opinions, whether they want to or not. By employing a problematic designer, the company associates itself with that opinion.

That said, having worked for WotC in the past, WotC employees and contractors are generally pretty careful about the subjects they post about on places like Twitter and Facebook and such, because of that association. I had to carefully monitor what I said about certain subjects.

With all that in mind, there is a difference between a designer and a consultant. Consultants aren't employed by the company. Consultants seem, to me, to be advanced playtesters. They aren't responsible for any actual content.

 

[Halivar]

Eh, all my favorite movies and books are made in part by people I detest, so I guess I got over this a long, long time ago. Upside? I get to enjoy a lot more things without first asking myself if I have to obligatorily hate it.

 

[Thaumaturge]

This is now an ice cream flame war thread.

The proper term is a Baked Alaska thread.

And my wife makes the best ice cream. All other ice creams are inferior, and those who enjoy them are probably engaged in badwrongfun.

—

At some point, the artist's belief seep into his work. The issue here is, the artist (the D&D team) isn't the one who has the views people don't like. The artist's views actually appear to be well received. I'm not sure we should be upset the artist asked a third party his opinion, even if we don't like the third party's opinions.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It's a shame this controversy has now spread to ENworld. Sure, it's fair to discuss it, but to my knowledge none of the accusations against the two individuals in the OP have been substantiated, at all.

If evidence existed, it would have been presented and we would be able to see it. Perpetuating unsubstantiated accusations is easy but it's also (IMO) intellectually and morally dishonest.

If you can link to something that supports the accusations, do so. If you have evidence that supports the claims, present it. But do not simply add to the vague accusations with more vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

For example:

I've witnessed some race-baiting that convinced me to avoid a particular designer's work. If I see this person's name attached to a product before I buy it, I will not buy it. My standards may be complex and I may have more tolerance on some subjects than others, but I do have standards.

This is so vague as to be meaningless, except that it occurs in a thread that identifies two specific individuals, inviting the association that one of them is now guilty of race-baiting, with the further implication that someone who buys products designed by the unnamed individual may not have "standards".

The accusation should be withdrawn or substantiated.

 

[Dausuul]

Here is what I have been thinking a about the whole separate the person from his art. Say a game designer online presence is rather sexist he doesn't want to play with women in his home games. He does not get the whole issue with stripper armor. But he is an excellent game designer and none of his prejudices are in his work. But because of his online persona major game companies are afraid to hire him because of fearing a backlash or coming across as not sensitive to female gamers. But not having his input has the effect of not giving us the best game we could have. That is what I see has one of the issues. Does everyone in the game design industry need to be likable?

IMO: The question is, at what point does bad behavior from a consultant require a response from WotC? At what point does WotC need to disassociate itself?

I mean, let's take the most serious accusation being leveled here: The claim that someone posted people's real names and addresses with the intent to have them stalked and harassed. That's a very serious claim. If it were shown to be true (and I am emphatically not saying it has been), nobody should touch that person with a standard-issue ten-foot pole. I don't care if we're talking about the most talented game designer who ever lived.

On the other hand, a lot of the complaints come down to obnoxious behavior (e.g., derailing) in online forums. That isn't nothing, but it also doesn't rise to the level of requiring a response from WotC beyond maybe, "These individuals' views are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WotC or anyone on the design staff." They're consultants, not full-time employees. Living in the world and doing business sometimes requires dealing with people who hold obnoxious views and behave in obnoxious ways.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

In response to the original question, my answer is NO.

In a plea to Morrus, I think this is the first time since these boards existed where a decision by the RPG.net mods - some of whom have dogs in this particular fight - makes the most sense: the topic is banned over there.

I really don't like the idea of a thoughtcrime, especially when it is being tried by internet. But that's me. I'm not really in to outrage fads.

 

[Mistwell]

You can view a lot of the research concerning this issue here.