Harassment in gaming

[Xvartslayer]

If I want to be further educated about a topic, I cannot say that I would choose non-educational programming as my go-to source. Nova is a good place to learn the broad strokes of things (and they usually direct you to other more detailed sources at the end of the program). Downtown Abbey? Eh, not so much. To be perfectly blunt, I probably would not choose a television source at all.

Now it's not like I'm saying that people in the beauty industry are some kind of monsters. I'm sure some are, there's always some in every industry, but most are probably just average people. However, when your product's purpose is to enhance the beauty of the user, the best and easiest way to create demand for that product is to play on the natural insecurity people have about their appearance.

And it's not just the cosmetics and fashion industries. Look at gyms. They engage in the same marketing game of playing on our insecurities to sell memberships to men and women. They make men feel insecure about not having big muscles or not being completely ripped, and women feel bad about not being a size zero or not having a thigh gap you could drive a truck through. There's a gym in my area that specifically sells butt-enhancing training routines to women: they have posters split down the middle showing one cottage cheese butt cheek on the left, and one tight firm butt cheek on the right, and slogans like "what would you rather see in the mirror" and "don't let your booty be a bummer."

I was essentially saying "You are so misinformed on the topic that even a British soap opera would add to your knowledge." But if you want to go above and beyond with Nova please do. I bet the costume designers, set designers and cosmetologists that work for Downtown Abbey know more on the subject than anyone at Nova.

Heck, it might help prevent you from denigrating and dismissing the career choices, passions and hobbies of many smart, creative, motivated and successful women. They should not have to apologize for loving beauty. Or fitness, for that matter.

 

[Kaminszakr]

FWIW, a possible way to get at the data and study it might be to partner with an academic institution and work with some gaming-inclined grad students to gather the info. We did a pretty large study about games and motivation in 2006 when I was at Ohio St and partnered with GAMA to do it (easier to do since they’re also in Columbus, like Ohio St)

 

[Umbran]

I was essentially saying "You are so misinformed on the topic that even a British soap opera would add to your knowledge."

If you have to get snarky to make your point, your point probably isn't nearly as good as you think it is.

Moreoever, if you get snarky, you are likely to be asked to leave the thread. So, please, avoid the snark going forward.

 

[MechaPilot]

You specifically called out the mention of trans characters in 5e, which is also likewise 'just' a matter of presentation - as a game 5e would be no different if that was omitted. So how are the pronouns any different?

Oh, this is an easy one. The pronoun usage is a matter of presentation because it affects neither how the game plays nor the descriptions of the game worlds: it affects only the genders of characters used in examples of how to resolve things that may come up during play. The inclusive statement about transgendered and non-heterosexual characters is descriptive of the game worlds to the same extent that describing the possible hair and eye color choices for any given race are descriptive of the game worlds. The descriptive nature of the inclusive statement and the coloration statement, unless negated by a declaration from the DM, effectively gives license to create a character that a DM may feel is not appropriate for his/her game or game world.

Admittedly, both of the descriptive statements are very easy to ignore if one is so inclined.

 

[sunshadow21]

However, if you mean that the creators/players shouldn't have to accept that there will be some who vociferously object to the lack of inclusiveness, then I disagree.

In my experience, the most effective way to object to a product I don't like is to simply not buy it, and most companies that put out niche products are prepared for this. Complaints about products from people that know full well before they start complaining the product is not for them are usually not worth listening to and reveal far more about the complainers than they do the maker of the product.


Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

 

[Springheel]

It depends on what you mean by attacked. People do have the right to voice their disagreement with whatever they want to, and to advocate for changes that they want to see. This should generally not be done by making personal attacks. And if that's what you mean, then I agree. However, if you mean that the creators/players shouldn't have to accept that there will be some who vociferously object to the lack of inclusiveness, then I disagree.

Sure. I guess what I mean by "attacked" is someone saying, "This game is BAD(tM)" as opposed to, "This game isn't to my taste."

There are plenty of games that I don't find appealing--I'm not into space operas, I don't like Westerns, etc. But I wouldn't complain that a Western RPG is wrong to focus on only that particular setting, or that they should try and be more inclusive by adding more fantasy.

I wouldn't "attack" them for that kind of thing, but I'd sure appreciate it if they would stop, and the presence or absence of such illustrations affects my purchasing decisions. I don't want that kind of borderline-pornographic garbage in my life.

And of course you're within your rights to not purchase anything, for whatever reason you like. But some people want to take it a step further and say that NO ONE should be able to purchase it. Some people won't buy fantasy games because they consider them "borderline occult". That's fine with me. But if they tried to get the industry to remove all references to magic in RPGs, I would see that as a problem.

Sure. But, we're not talking about a niche RPG here. We're talking about D&D - which, for most intents and purposes, IS the hobby.

Well, the article in the OP was complaining about the hobby in general (and Malifaux in particular), not just D&D.

 

[delericho]

Oh, this is an easy one. The pronoun usage is a matter of presentation because it affects neither how the game plays nor the descriptions of the game worlds

Sorry, I disagree. It very much changed the description of game worlds - while female adventurers were very much outliers in 1st and 2nd Ed, they were now assumed to be just as common as males. That's significant.

 

[sunshadow21]

And of course you're within your rights to not purchase anything, for whatever reason you like. But some people want to take it a step further and say that NO ONE should be able to purchase it. Some people won't buy fantasy games because they consider them "borderline occult". That's fine with me. But if they tried to get the industry to remove all references to magic in RPGs, I would see that as a problem.

That's not fine with me. Most of the people I find most irritating when this topic comes up are those that are screaming that loudest about what others should be doing in the name of "inclusiveness" while completely ignoring the fact that they are in fact being just as non-inclusive as those they are attacking by not being willing to even tolerate the presence of the opposing viewpoint. The original article that sparked all of this is a prime example of that to me; I get that there are problems in our hobby that need be fixed, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who coins the term "white male terrorism " is genuinely serious about starting anything close to a meaningful dialogue in hopes of eventually reaching a solution acceptable to everyone. The whole tone of that article is very much "burn the infidels" and a rallying cry for the army of would be social justice warriors (and yes, I use that term deliberately to fully mean everything that tends to get attached to it, because that very much seems to be the target audience for that article) to gather together and force everyone to accept the author's solutions without question or hesitation. People in this thread have talked about presentation, and that word matters a great deal in regards to this thread and that article. I have no problem acknowledging that more can be done and that more conversation can be had, but articles like that are the last thing this conversation needs. It simply adds more negativity and hostility to a conversation that is already extremely negative and hostile while driving away all the people in the middle that are simply tired of the idiot extremists on both sides.

The related article on Enworld itself did a far better job of highlighting the problem while leaving room for actual constructive discussion, and that does seem to have occurred to at least some degree, but for me at least, the vast majority of the constructive conversation has been heavily drowned out. I haven't been able to read more than half a dozen posts at a time simply because too many people are either trying to bludgeon their opponents out of the thread and/or simply aren't listening and are talking right past each other. In the end, I am left agreeing that more conversation needs to be had, but if this is the best conversation that we can muster, the people who are tired of the topic and see no point in discussing it further may well have a legitimate point. There's only so much ranting and raving I can listen to before it all becomes background noise.

 

[Hussar]

Sure. I guess what I mean by "attacked" is someone saying, "This game is BAD(tM)" as opposed to, "This game isn't to my taste."

There are plenty of games that I don't find appealing--I'm not into space operas, I don't like Westerns, etc. But I wouldn't complain that a Western RPG is wrong to focus on only that particular setting, or that they should try and be more inclusive by adding more fantasy.



And of course you're within your rights to not purchase anything, for whatever reason you like. But some people want to take it a step further and say that NO ONE should be able to purchase it. Some people won't buy fantasy games because they consider them "borderline occult". That's fine with me. But if they tried to get the industry to remove all references to magic in RPGs, I would see that as a problem.



Well, the article in the OP was complaining about the hobby in general (and Malifaux in particular), not just D&D.

Again, you are equating apples with oranges.

1. In the OP, she was attacked an harassed because she gave a bad review of the game. Totally different issue.

2. You are still equating producing something like a Wild West game with producing a game that celebrates slavery, delights in graphic sexual (including non-consensual) content and denigrates race and gender. Do you honestly not see the difference?

 

[Springheel]

You are still equating producing something like a Wild West game with producing a game that celebrates slavery, delights in graphic sexual (including non-consensual) content and denigrates race and gender. Do you honestly not see the difference?

Where did I do this, exactly? What I was comparing was a swords and sorcery game that depicted attractive, scantily clad people (which is a particular style of fantasy setting) with a Western or Space Opera game, which are different kinds of settings. I don't know where you got slavery or non-consensual sex from (although for the record, if adults want to play a game about slavery and non-consensual sex, I wouldn't presume to tell them they can't).