Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[billd91]

Have you ever encountered someone who feigned interest or knowledge for acceptance?

Would anyone have to do that in the absence of gatekeepers?

 

[Wiseblood]

Would anyone have to do that in the absence of gatekeepers?

Yes, For some reason some people feel shame for their ignorance.

 

[CleverNickName]

Just in case. Was I being a jerk?

Nah, I don't think you were (or anyone was, for that matter). It just felt like this thread was starting to drift in the direction of "how close can someone get to it before it becomes a problem" and I wanted to say something about it.

 

[Anoth]

I really have no problem with Gatekeeping. There are certain players I don’t want to play with because of their playstyles. And I am happy to keep them out of my games and stay out of theirs. The problem for me is when they say what I can’t do at my table or if I would say what they can or can’t do at their table.

 

[Reynard]

I really have no problem with Gatekeeping. There are certain players I don’t want to play with because of their playstyles. And I am happy to keep them out of my games and stay out of theirs. The problem for me is when they say what I can’t do at my table or if I would say what they can or can’t do at their table.

But you wouldn't keep them out of the hobby, right? So, not gatekeeping.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

So I'm going to respond directly to the OP, and I haven't read much of the rest of the thread so someone may have already made this point...

But yes, gatekeeping is integral to the human condition, though it's not normally called that.

Humans evolved by being social creatures, and have dominated the earth in so-doing. Unlike solitary animals, humans have survived by making groups. Starting with family units, developing into tribes, which became towns, then cities, then nations, and empires. Making groups is tied directly to human behavior, probably for as long as humans have existed.

But there is a darker side to group mentality. Because when you define what is your group, you inevitably define what isn't in your group... the wolf pack does not consider a fox a member of its group, nor will the fox add a wolf to his family.

Today we still form groups, whether you notice it or not. You're a member of your country, your family, and your workplace. You like a sports team. You choose Coke or Pepsi. You pick a political party. Whatever you do, you'll always pick a group somewhere, and even when trying to be tolerant, you'll always be doubtful of the "not one of us," group.

After all, if they're not one of us, and we're the best, then therefore they are less than best.

Gatekeeping is that same construct, but instead of it being sports or politics or war, it's D&D editions. You're socially conditioned to do it.

The true test of character is recognizing that all gatekeeping is, is that social construct. People are different. They aren't worse.

Unless they're a paladin.

 

[CleverNickName]

I really have no problem with Gatekeeping. There are certain players I don’t want to play with because of their playstyles. And I am happy to keep them out of my games and stay out of theirs. The problem for me is when they say what I can’t do at my table or if I would say what they can or can’t do at their table.

This isn't gatekeeping. This is just deciding who you want to play with.

Gatekeeping would be telling some people that they shouldn't/can't/mustn't/don't deserve to play the game at all because they don't play the way you do. Or telling them they shouldn't/can't/musn't/don't deserve to be writing D&D material at all because they don't write the kind of materials you want to use. Or that they can't appreciate it, enjoy it, whatever, because of Reasons You Just Made Up.

It's pretty easy to spot; nobody does it by accident.

 

[Celebrim]

You could, do you watch football out of obligation, or because you like watching it. I'd say if you like watching football you're a fan of the game.

I occasionally enjoy watching football but I know that doesn't make me a fan of the game, because I know what a fan of the game is and have interacted with them, and I know that because of the gap in knowledge between me and them, that is not an interaction between peers.

I will say I'm a wrestling fan, not the WWE kind (not that there is anything wrong with liking the WWE) but rather the freestyle and Roman-Greco kind at the Olympics. I have no idea what the world standings are for the heavy weight categories, but I make it a point to watch it during the Olympics. I go out of my way to find when it's aired and watch. I don't particularly care who wins, but I want to watch because I enjoy the sport.

Which is fine, and I also enjoy watching wrestling, but I know I'm not a fan. I know this because my brother was a state champion in high school and wrestled in college, and I know just how huge the gap in knowledge there is between what I know of wrestling and what he knows. It would be pretentious and arrogant of me to claim to be a wrestling fan, and try to hold a conversation with him about wrestling on the basis of being a peer in my knowledge of wrestling with him.

I'm beginning to think the problem is you don't know what a 'fan' is. Casual interest in something or casual levels of appreciation for it does not make you a fan. It is an abbreviation for 'fanatic' and it implies an enthusiast with strong interest in the subject.

The better question is how does it hurt you? Why does it matter to you how I identify myself?

Well, I don't think that the mere act of you identifying yourself as a fan of something does hurt me. That's really a private matter with yourself. It only becomes a problem if either you try to assert membership in something on the basis of your fandom, when that fandom doesn't in fact exist, or if you misrepresent yourself as a fan to get inclusion and the group then assumes you are a member when in fact you are not. When that happens, it's a problem.

I'll give you one example. I very much like horses. I have some experience with them. As a youth, I was on a friend of my parents ranch, and I was interacting with his horses. The comfort I showed around them, the affection that I displayed for them, and the knowledge that I was showing of how to treat a horse inadvertently convinced the owner that I was a "horse person". So he asked if I would like to ride, and I enthusiastically said, "Yes.", and he put me on his best horse and immediately spurred the herd to a gallop on a curving and dipping course. I managed to keep my seat, but only just. I could have just as easily fallen off and killed myself. After I'd galloped a half mile or so, the owner realized that was not "a horse person" and slowed the group down and apologized. But in large part the fault was mine, in that I should have told the owner exactly to what degree I was comfortable with horses up front and not pretended even accidentally to more skill than I had.

This problem doesn't just extend to situations where membership in a group on the basis of minimum skill set is a matter of life and death, or at least ease and hardship, such as hikers, cavers, rock climbers, bicyclists and what not. Even in situations where membership on the basis of a minimum demonstrable skill only results in awkwardness for everyone involved, it's still rude to represent yourself as being in the in group when you aren't. In fact, in my experience, most really serious fans tends to underplay their own skill (Dunning-Krugar effect) precisely because they know how deep the fandom can go and how serious certain members are. They'd rather make little of the seriousness of their fandom than risk boasting of it to someone whose standards are much higher than theirs, and this includes people who are some of the best in the world. If someone asks, "Do you play chess?", "Only a little." is a very safe answer, because you don't know if you are speaking to an International Grandmaster or just someone with a casual interest. Don't assert you are a big fan of chess. I've been on both sides of the resulting awkward embarrassment.

Which gets us to the next issue:

What exactly would the problem be with engaging with a fandom in only a small way, and why would I need to qualify that to you? Why should I? Who are you to judge whether I'm worthy of being a fan, or should be able to call myself one?

All of this is about being judged fit. We're making the assumption here that it's always the judge who has wrong intent and is being rude, but in real life examples of rudeness in this relationship come from both directions. Yes, the judge can be an arrogant jerk, but sometimes it's the noob who wants acceptance that is being the arrogant jerk. You ask who I am to judge whether you are worthy of being accepted in the group, but you didn't stop to ask who you are to judge yourself worthy to be in the group?

There is a really sad episode in the documentary 'Darkon', where this awkward nerd that really wants to fit in recounts an event early in his participation in the community. He handmade a suit of armor out of cardboard and aluminum foil, and then proudly showed up in the community expecting acceptance. He didn't get it, and was widely mocked for his makeshift armor, and his behavior cast him in a bad light that he never really overcame. All he wanted to be was accepted and admired, and instead he ended up an outsider. Yes, you can make a case that no one should have mocked him, but I think you can also make a case that part of the problem here was a lack of introspective humility on the part of the 'noob' (and probably no shortage of envy). He tried to take a short cut into high station in the community, and that short cut was transparent to everyone in the community both what he was trying and that he just didn't 'get it'. It's a sad episode and I have a lot of sympathy for the guy, but it's also obvious he just didn't 'get it'.

Morrus has unfortunately had to point this out is that there are some people that claim CR viewers (lets assume some portion of them don't play the D&D TTRPG) can't be real fans is because they don't know anything about Mystara, or Greyhawk, or Blackmoor, or whatever. I think you'll agree that's dumb.

I do agree that 'that's dumb', but at the same time neither am I trying to gain acceptance at a table that has been playing Greyhawk for 40 years. I am not a "real fan", and I wouldn't try to present myself as one. As much as possible, I'd try to assume the attitude of a novice, and wait to win my respect from them. And if they asserted, "Look, we've been playing together 40 years. We're not only deep in Greyhawk lore, but we have so much table history together that a new player would be lost.", well, they have a right to keep the gate to their country.

If somebody wanted to join a D&D game then that group is well within their rights to set whatever rules and requirements you want. You could make them filling a 1000 question quiz to determine if they're going to join, that's up to you. However, nobody gets to decide if I'm a fan of D&D, or the Columbus Crew, or Local Town Sports Piggers but me.

Yes, but isn't it the first situation that is really relevant? I mean if the person never tries to enter the gate, why does it matter if there is a gate keeper?

 

[Celebrim]

But you wouldn't keep them out of the hobby, right? So, not gatekeeping.

Are there people you want to keep out of the hobby?

 

[Celebrim]

Or telling them they shouldn't/can't/musn't/don't deserve to be writing D&D material at all because they don't write the kind of materials you want to use. Or that they can't appreciate it, enjoy it, whatever, because of Reasons You Just Made Up.

Careful there. You might just destroy the narrative.