• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

epithet

Explorer
...
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.
...

They were not "absolutely bogus," they were expressions of how some players felt about that edition. You don't have to share those opinions, but you can't dismiss them as invalid, any more than those players can dismiss your favorable opinion of that edition.

People supported Pathfinder because it gave them what they wanted. That's not gatekeeping, that's just simple commerce. It's the same reason people support D&D 5e or any other product on the market. People like what they like, and want what they want, and as a general rule spend their money on those things more than on other things.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.

That's why I broke out the differences between mentoring and gatekeeping, and mentioned the current colloquial usage of gatekeeping as well. Mentoring is good and healthy. The only gatekeeping we should be engaged in is (pardon my colorful language) "Are you a douchebag? Yes? Get out of my game / gaming room."

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.

If we want to talk about more narrow use, then technically, I'm less a gatekeeper than a bouncer. I don't screen people before they can enter, I reject them after they have already entered and proven problematic. But, that distinction aside, my gatekeeping is pretty clearly of the "Are you a d-bag?" variety.


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.

Dude, I'm sorry, but language use changes, and you cannot effectively resist it, any more than the Académie française could prevent "le t-shirt" from entering the French lexicon. The conversation on the topic of gatekeeping is so, so much larger than this website, that you would be throwing pebbles at the tide.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
They were not "absolutely bogus," they were expressions of how some players felt about that edition. You don't have to share those opinions
Calling something that is factually incorrect an "opinion" doesn't resolve it's conflict with the facts. "Fighters casting spells" for instance, is 100% factually false, when said of 4e, it is not a reaction or an opinion, it is merely false. As opposed to "fighters casting spells" said of 5e, which is true, thanks to the EK subclass, and not a problem. The same is true of prettymuch every edition-war mischaracterization of 4e. They point not to wanting something different from /a/ game (or the war would've ended in 2009 with the availability of Pathfinder and the OSR), but to /needing/ that game to be the current edition of D&D, in perpetuity. A plausible reason for needing that is actual gatekeeping, wanting to defend the sub-culture of the hobby by keeping the entry-point, D&D, in a form that promoted the ideals & preconcieved notions of that sub-culture, a D&D that was like D&D had always been before the horror of 4e.

Even if that's all just me forgetting to take my meds or needing a heavier-gage tinfoil hat, and nobody actually wanted any of that, 5e did deliver on it.

People supported Pathfinder because it gave them what they wanted.
Some of what they wanted, anyway, or they wouldn't have felt the need to continue warring against 4e after they had it. Let alone after 4e went out of print. Yet they did, and still do. That speaks to a motivation beyond mere prefference - gatekeeping behavior fits it well... but, so does generalized dislike of change, and so does a desire to preserve the 'investment' of acquired system mastery...
 

epithet

Explorer
... "Fighters casting spells" for instance, is 100% factually false, when said of 4e, it is not a reaction or an opinion, it is merely false. ...
I think you might be just being too littoral.

As I understand it, the "fighters casting spells" complaint had nothing to do with characters of the fighter class using magic, but was instead a reference to the fact that the spells cast by spellcasting classes were expressed as abilities or powers, and the class features of non-magic-using classes were also expressed as abilities or powers in roughly the same format as the spells were. Thus, when your brawny fighter was swinging a sword at an orc, the feeling was that he was essentially casting the "swing a sword" spell. The criticism was that there was not sufficient mechanical distinction between what would, in 5e, become the "attack action" and the "cast a spell action."

But then, you know that already.

My point is that "the fighter isn't casting spells" is an invalid dismissal of the complaint that, in the opinion of a player of D&D, "using a fighter ability feels like spellcasting."
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
My point is that "the fighter isn't casting spells" is an invalid dismissal of the complaint that, in the opinion of a player of D&D, "using a fighter ability feels like spellcasting."
A fighter ability in 4e used weapons, spells used implements, fighter abilities did (untyped) damage based on the weapon used, spells did damage including a wide range of damage types based on the spell itself, fighter abilities generally hit AC, spells rarely if ever did, fighter attacks were melee & close, attack spells mostly ranged & area, and so forth, on down the line.
The complaint remains completely bogus, even if rephrased more softly as 'feelz.' The feel of playing a fighter (defender who /needs/ to get into the thick of things to be effective) and spellcasting wizard (controller with no such requirement) are completely different.

At the bottom of it, after many itterations, the actual complaint could be extracted from the bogus one: that fighters had a similar (not the same) number of at-will, encounter, daily, and utility 'exploits' (manuvers would have been so much better a term) to wizards' spells, and that among other things, made those classes roughly balanced, rather than the wizard claiming Tier 1 and the fighter sitting in Tier 5. The wizard's spells still came out ahead - they were more varied & versatile, included additional at-wills, free rituals, and a preparation mechanic that doubled his number of daily & utility spells known - just not by the huge margin at high level that traditional LFQW delivered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

epithet

Explorer
... The only gatekeeping we should be engaged in is (pardon my colorful language) "Are you a douchebag? Yes? Get out of my game / gaming room."
...

I don't agree with that. I think it is perfectly legitimate "gatekeeping" to say "this is the game we're playing, and if you want to join us we'll be expecting you to play that game, too." If your game group is into, for example, gothic horror, then no one should expect you to welcome a bunch of Spelljammer elements into the campaign. Sure, you should be polite in your insistence that you're not running/playing that genre, but you don't have to be flexible... it's your game.
 

Celebrim

Legend
A fighter ability in 4e used weapons, spells used implements, fighter abilities did (untyped) damage based on the weapon used, spells did damage including a wide range of damage types based on the spell itself, fighter abilities generally hit AC, spells rarely if ever did, fighter attacks were melee & close, attack spells mostly ranged & area, and so forth, on down the line.
The complaint remains completely bogus, even if rephrased more softly as 'feelz.' The feel of fighter and spellcasting wizard are completely different.

At the bottom of it, after many itterations, the actual complaint could be extracted from the bogus one: that fighters had a similar (not the same) number of at-will, encounter, daily, and utility 'exploits' (manuvers would have been so much better a term) to wizards' spells, and that among other things, made those classes roughly balanced, rather than the wizard claiming Tier 1 and the fighter sitting in Tier 5. The wizard's spells still came out ahead - they were more varied & versatile, included additional at-wills, free rituals, and a preparation mechanic that doubled his number of daily & utility spells known - just not by the huge margin at high level that traditional LFQW delivered.

I find that you ought to be careful dismissing other peoples ideas as 'utterly bogus', because almost certainly there are people that feel the same way regarding your ideas.

But I'm not here to refight an edition war, least of all one I both started (accidently) and won (definitively).
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I find that you ought to be careful dismissing other peoples ideas as 'utterly bogus', because almost certainly there are people that feel the same way regarding your ideas.
... in retrospect, I think I took your post the wrong way....
...nevermind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I don't agree with that. I think it is perfectly legitimate "gatekeeping" to say "this is the game we're playing, and if you want to join us we'll be expecting you to play that game, too."

We are talking about different scales. I am talking about The Hobby. You are talking about Your Table.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I think you might be just being too littoral.

Um... Unless you are trying to call him a son of a beach, I think you mean "literal". :p



My point is that "the fighter isn't casting spells" is an invalid dismissal of the complaint that, in the opinion of a player of D&D, "using a fighter ability feels like spellcasting."

Yeah. There is a logical fallacy informally called "bait and switch". It includes (among other tactics) when you use a word or phrase meaning that the speaker didn't intend to dismiss their argument. It got mightily abused in the edition wars.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top