Gatekeeping, Edition Wars, and Fandom

Role-playing games are not immune to the tribalism that is itself a symptom of the Internet bringing humanity together. Defining oneself by an allegiance to a topic and defending it from others has been around as long as humanity has been interacting. To understand the controversies that sometimes roil geek fandom, sports teams provide a useful guide on what constitutes a "fan."

Role-playing games are not immune to the tribalism that is itself a symptom of the Internet bringing humanity together. Defining oneself by an allegiance to a topic and defending it from others has been around as long as humanity has been interacting. To understand the controversies that sometimes roil geek fandom, sports teams provide a useful guide on what constitutes a "fan."

Title image by William Tung from USA (SDCC13 - T-Shirt BoothUploaded by daisydeee) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
[h=3]A Brief History of Fandom[/h]Fandom, and its ability to influence the material that created it, all began with Sherlock Holmes:

It was the dawn of fandom as we now know it—zealous, fractious, hydra-headed, and participatory. Of course, these 19th-century proto-nerds didn't use the phrase fan fiction. The term wouldn't enter the lexicon until the mid-'60s, around the publication of the earliest fanfic journal, the Star Trek-themed Spockanalia. Sherlockians called them parodies and pastiches (they still do), and the initial ones appeared within 10 years of the first Holmes 1887 novella, A Study in Scarlet. Fan-written homages began to appear in earnest not long after Conan Doyle infamously killed off Holmes in order to spend more time on his serious work, historical novels. He was moved, less than a decade later, to resurrect the beloved sleuth, mindful of a massive fan outpouring.


Jon Peterson traces the fandom of Dungeons & Dragons in Playing at the World to a confluence of geek-related fandoms (wargaming, science fiction, and the Society of Creative Anachronism to name a few), all of which came together to produce the tabletop role-playing game communities we know today. This new fandom went well beyond co-creator of D&D Gary Gygax's marketing efforts, which focused primarily on wargamers:

While Gygax supervised and encouraged the spread of Dungeons & Dragons through the wargaming community, its wild propagation through science-fiction fandom rode a wave of sheer grassroots advocacy. Once Arneson had offhandedly sparked the interest of Minn-stf, the highly interconnected communities of science-fiction fans created many opportunities for cross-pollination: in APAs, at the large-scale science-fiction conventions and with the multitude of college-aged fans who commuted between their hometowns and distant universities. Just as Grasstek brought his Dungeon to the World Science Fiction Convention, so did other members of Minneapolis fandom bring the game to the attention of distant venues.


Jennifer Grouling Cover in The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games explains how this new form of fandom mixes with other forms:

Gaming culture has recently become a part of the scholarly discussion of fan culture, or fandom. Although fans engage in a variety of activities, which may include role-playing, the genre that has garnished the most attention is fan fiction, where fans write their own stories based on TV shows or other artifacts of popular culture...It was in fan communities (specifically fantasy and science fiction fans) that Dungeons and Dragons (Deb) first became popular, and it has retained its popularity in these communities (Mackay, 2001, p. 16). In fact, Crawford and Rutter (2007) suggest that gaming in general should be considered as a part of studying fandom (p. 271). Can TRPG players be considered just another group within the larger fandom subculture or does it represent its own culture? Perhaps gaming is a part of fandom as a whole.


Self-publishing is a key part of fandom and this creation process (be it by the game master with her players or published as part of an officially-endorsed system like DM's Guild) is a feature of tabletop RPGs. Dr. Richard Forest explained how D&D propagates itself in The Complete Oracle:

The genius of Dungeons & Dragons is that it is a machine that makes more Dungeons & Dragons, and it does this right at your table. D&D is not in the books. It is at the game table. It is in our scribbled notes. It is in our maps, in our jokes, in our daydreams during dull classes or meetings, in our forum posts from work, in our blogs and tweets and zines...Dungeons & Dragons is the game we build together...The game works because it is ours. From the very beginning, we all knew this. Even the designers knew it at the beginning, though they have sometimes claimed otherwise under the influence of avarice, pride, or market and company pressures. The game itself is built to support its own extension...You can’t play the game without creating something new. Dungeons & Dragons is a machine for generating more Dungeons & Dragons, and once you pick it up and start playing it, it’s yours. Which is the basis of the entire hobby.


The ability to "make more D&D" also risked splintering the player base, as customers of D&D began playing in one of the many worlds TSR (then owner of the brand) published. As RPG fandom grew in popularity, it became increasingly fractious until it harmed D&D's publishing model and nearly sunk the company that created it, TSR. Shannon Appelcline illustrates TSR's downfall in Designers & Dragons:

TSR had unbalanced their AD&D game through a series of lucrative supplements that ultimately hurt the long-time viability of the game. Meanwhile they developed so many settings — many of them both popular and well-received — that they were both cannibalizing their only sales and discouraging players from picking up settings that might be gone in a few years. They may have been cannibalizing their own sales through excessive production of books or supplements too.


That was when fandom was untamed, uncontrolled, and -- most importantly for TSR -- not always profitable. Thanks to the Internet and social media, the tables have turned and now fandom feeds publishers in a virtuous cycle through Open Game Licenses and co-publishing efforts like the DM's Guild.
[h=3]Why We Like[/h]Digital social media pivots on the "like" button. Likes signal what we find appealing, but it also indicates to others -- friends, colleagues, even enemies -- that we like something too. This reinforces our connection to a topic by indicating not just that we enjoy or support a topic, but we can see how many others agree with us. There's a reason this feedback loop works so well; it drives our self-esteem. This self-esteem is what influences fandom, as Allen R McConnell explains in "The Psychology of Sports Fandom":

It has been well established that people derive self-esteem benefits from simple associations with successful others. Research by Cialdini and colleagues has shown that people are more likely to wear sports-related apparel following team victories than following losses, and they are more likely to use first-person pronouns to describe victories—our offense was great today—and third-person pronouns to describe losses—they couldn't score a run if their lives depended on it. Our need to increase our sense of self-worth leads us to seek broad connections, and this not only plays out in terms of sports team identification, but in our sense of connection to various phenomena ranging from favorite authors to nationalism.


This sense of belonging is a powerful driver that shores up our self-esteem. Social connectedness (AKA relatedness) is one of the three pillars of Self-Determination Theory, which argues that satisfaction is driven by relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Fandom satisfies our need to relate, but given that geeky fandom is often structured by those who know the most about esoteric subjects, it also rates highly in our display of competence -- both our personal sense of competence and how others perceive that competence.

Taken together, this explains why it's not enough that a fandom topic, like an edition of D&D, be fun and engaging; fans often look for proof it's "better" than others, because by signaling their allegiance to a fandom, it feeds into their own self-worth. It's also part of "gatekeeping," in which fans attempt to protect or define fandom through exclusive of others. In an era where fans ferociously defend their fandom, McConnell's warning is apt:

These observations are not intended to say that anyone's strongly-held beliefs, ranging from sports team allegiances or religious preferences, have less meaning or validity. Indeed, having self-worth, a sense of greater social connectedness, and belief systems that we hold passionately represent some of the most meaningful aspects of life. Yet at the same time, observing these processes play out in seemingly "less important" domains, like an All-Star Game, should remind us to be mindful of how these basic psychological processes operate in other domains of our lives and why we should guard against allowing our allegiances and belief systems to run amok over others.


Fandom, it seems, is not driven solely by allegiance to an edition or philosophy of gameplay. It's about us.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Tony Vargas

Legend
Gatekeeping is a pretty nebulous term, and seems to be (like so many other terms) used mostly to refer to "that thing you said or did that I didn't like," but ultimately seems to be an effort to keep a thing that the gatekeeper likes from changing in some way. I can think of a few things I wish had enjoyed a bit of gatekeeping back before they went off the rails.
Gatekeeping is defending the sub-culture (which can be reeeeally teeeeny and specific) of an in-group by screening-out/indoctrinating potential new members. D&D, itself, has been de-facto gatekeeping the hobby for decades: it's the only RPG with meaningful mainstream name recognition, so where most potential new gamers start. If they find they don't like D&D at first blush, they most likely exit the hobby, if they don't adapt their expectations and playstyles to what D&D delivers & rewards, they most likely get frustrated with it and exit the hobby. Sure, a few determined geeks run the gauntlet to try some other game in some small niche and thus give D&D some small fry to keep it company (and make it look HUGE by contrast) in it's little pond...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
Gatekeeping in the clickbait headline, but no mention of it really in the meat of the article?

Truly a real journalist you have become. No more does the MSM have to teach you.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Gatekeeping is defending the sub-culture (which can be reeeeally teeeeny and specific) of an in-group by screening-out/indoctrinating potential new members.

Yes.

D&D, itself, has been de-facto gatekeeping the hobby for decades....

See, that uses the term 'gatekeeping' so broadly that it ceases to have any real meaning, and just becomes a provocative buzzword tossed around to garner some sort of emotional but frequently illogical response. I agree there is such a thing as 'gatekeeping', albeit I don't necessarily agree that it is always destructive since any healthy community mentors prospective members into the community and explains to them the standards of that community.

I don't think there is any value at all in talking about metaphorical gatekeeping. And I'd prefer - since the term has negative connotations - to only apply to the term to obviously destructive and discriminatory acts of gatekeeping, as opposed to ones that are at least non-discriminatory or potentially even positive and reasonable acts.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
See, that uses the term 'gatekeeping' so broadly that it ceases to have any real meaning
Really? You can't see how having one primary entry point to a sub-culture from the mainstream, couldn't result in de-facto 'gatekeeping' effects?

I agree there is such a thing as 'gatekeeping', albeit I don't necessarily agree that it is always destructive since any healthy community mentors prospective members into the community and explains to them the standards of that community. And I'd prefer - since the term has negative connotations - to only apply to the term to obviously destructive and discriminatory acts of gatekeeping, as opposed to ones that are at least non-discriminatory or potentially even positive and reasonable acts.
While it's a reality not brought about by any intentional or overt acts (though, arguably, the edition war was fought in part to preserve it, so might qualify), it does seem to have a net discriminatory and, if not destructive, and least not constructive, effect. Had several very different RPGs achieved similar mainstream awareness to D&D back at the height of the fad, the hobby might have grown quite a bit more over the decades, and become more diverse.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
See, that uses the term 'gatekeeping' so broadly that it ceases to have any real meaning

I think, in this case, it is not simply too broad. It is inaccurate.

Gatekeeping is an activity. D&D is not a thinking entity. It does not take actions.

I agree there is such a thing as 'gatekeeping', albeit I don't necessarily agree that it is always destructive since any healthy community mentors prospective members into the community and explains to them the standards of that community.

No. Mentoring and gatekeeping are not the same thing.

A mentor says, "Oh, you want to try this? Well, I can help you if you'd like."

A gatekeeper says, "Oh, you want to try this? Well, let me see if you are good enough," and then sends you away if you don't fit their criteria. The gatekeeper does not generally provide help after that. They only attempt to control access.

And, in the modern parlance or social situations - a male geek trying to tell a woman cosplayer how she's not a "real fan"? That's gatekeeping.
 


Celebrim

Legend
Really? You can't see how having one primary entry point to a sub-culture from the mainstream, couldn't result in de-facto 'gatekeeping' effects?

No, I don't. I'm baffled, because you just defined "gate-keeping" in a manner I was pretty much happy with, and now you are contradicting your own definition.

You appear to be arguing that having one most popular and well-known game in a gaming subculture is "defending the sub-culture of an in group". That's frankly BS both from a semantic standpoint, and in practice, since you are attributing will and agency to an object and further ignoring that most people enter a gaming subculture because they are invited to play in a game, and thus as an actual matter of practice ones entry into a subculture involves interaction with people. If your first exposure to RPing is being invited to play a game of FATE is the game of FATE now suddenly engaged in the act of gatekeeping?

While it's a reality not brought about by any intentional or overt acts...

Wait, no. Not only is this a direct contradiction of your own definition ("Gatekeeping is defending the sub-culture...") but it should be obvious that the word "gatekeeping" came to have this meaning precisely because of intentional and overt acts.

(though, arguably, the edition war was fought in part to preserve it, so might qualify)....

Huh? No, the edition war was not fought over preserving a supposed right or ability to engage in gatekeeping. That's ridiculous on its face and unsustainable in detail. Are you suggesting for example that Pazio broke from WotC because they wanted to preserve some ability to determine who could or could not enter the fandom or hobby, as opposed to having a legitmate business interest in producing a marketable product? And the rest of your assertion is equally bogus as it pertains to the actual reasons why the edition war was fought.

...it does seem to have a net discriminatory and, if not destructive, and least not constructive, effect. Had several very different RPGs achieved similar mainstream awareness to D&D back at the height of the fad, the hobby might have grown quite a bit more over the decades, and become more diverse.

Are you saying that because D&D is popular gaming is not? First of all, you appear to be arguing from the basis of the counterfactual here, "If something did not happen, then this might have happened...." At best that is pure speculation, but not only is it pure speculation it seems just as likely to be wrong as correct. Had not D&D achieved fad level status in the popular culture, so that it penetrated into the public conscious through various other media, it seems likely that the hobby would have attracted less interest, and further it seems obvious to me that a collection of smaller less popular less economically successful games could not even collectively achieved the level of public awareness that D&D achieved.

And whether your counterfactual speculation is true or not, it still has nothing to do with "gatekeeping".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Celebrim

Legend
I think, in this case, it is not simply too broad. It is inaccurate.

Gatekeeping is an activity. D&D is not a thinking entity. It does not take actions.

Agreed.

No. Mentoring and gatekeeping are not the same thing.

Also agreed.

A mentor says, "Oh, you want to try this? Well, I can help you if you'd like."

A gatekeeper says, "Oh, you want to try this? Well, let me see if you are good enough," and then sends you away if you don't fit their criteria. The gatekeeper does not generally provide help after that. They only attempt to control access.

And, in the modern parlance or social situations - a male geek trying to tell a woman cosplayer how she's not a "real fan"? That's gatekeeping.

Agreed.

My point is that we seem to be trying to apply the term "gatekeeping" to things that aren't gatekeeping, and I'm not sure what is the more destructive outcome of doing that, that it would excuse actual discriminatory gatekeeping based on stereotypes or that it would condemn what is actually necessary for the health of a community.

By this broad usage you yourself are a gatekeeper for a community, in perhaps a more literal sense than we would use it for some dork at a convention saying girls weren't welcome at his table. Yet, I don't think either of us think your role as gatekeeper needs to be absolutely abolished as a thing inherently unhealthy. (Even if we may quibble at times over the standards a gatekeeper ought to uphold.) And in that way, I don't like the term "gatekeeping" at all, since it seems to be the sort of term that is prone to misunderstanding and misuse. It seems to be a term borrowed from one academic discipline into another field, and which was being applied metaphorically in the first place and now we have metaphors of metaphors of metaphors. That to me strikes as decay of meaning, and if we can't avoid that, we should drop the metaphors and just talk plainly about the thing itself.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
No, I don't. I'm baffled, because you just defined "gate-keeping" in a manner I was pretty much happy with, and now you are contradicting your own definition.
I'm putting "de-facto" in front of it for a reason. Gatekeeping is something people do, by 'de-facto' I mean an effect has been happening that is like the result of gatekeeping, but not necessarily because anyone's actively engaging in the activity. Coincidence rather than conspiracy.

No, the edition war was not fought over preserving a supposed right or ability to engage in gatekeeping. That's ridiculous on its face and unsustainable in detail. Are you suggesting for example that Pazio broke from WotC because they wanted to preserve some ability to determine who could or could not enter the fandom or hobby, as opposed to having a legitmate business interest in producing a marketable product?
Paizo acted for perfectly pragmatic business reasons, I assume. The people they were selling to, OTOH, clearly wanted to maintain a status quo. Maybe some of them did want to do that in part because they just didn't like change or just liked applying their hard-won system mastery to a game just like 3.5, maybe some were more actively defending the sub-culture of D&Ders - PF was helpful to each agenda.

And the rest of your assertion is equally bogus as it pertains to the actual reasons why the edition war was fought.
What actual reasons were those? The professed dissatisfaction with the then-current ed of D&D being 'an MMO' or 'a tactical board game' or 'fighters casting spells' or 'dissociated mechanics' all of which were, themselves, utterly bogus, but all of which pointed to defending the sub-culture that thrived in the environment kept by D&D's dominance in it's past forms.

Are you saying that because D&D is popular gaming is not?
Yes! Because I love me some irony. :)

If D&D had attained the same noteriety, but been a more accessible game. Or if several other RPGs had also achieved mainstream name recognition, the hobby might well be larger and more diverse. Those are the "counter-factuals" the hypothetical thought-experiment.

But the only factual evidence is correllation. D&D is the most popular RPG, has been so fairly consistently since the beginning, and TTRPGs are an extremely tiny market.
 

epithet

Explorer
... That to me strikes as decay of meaning, and if we can't avoid that, we should drop the metaphors and just talk plainly about the thing itself.

The decay of meaning, and the use of metaphors to label and invalidate people who don't agree with you, seem to be the defining characteristics of modern discourse. To talk plainly about the thing itself would be to risk offending the sanctimonious or "triggering" the delicate, and we can't have that now, can we?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top