D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Kobold Boots]

If we're going to assume bad faith, then we have very little we can actually discuss or talk about. I would like to assume good faith on the part of the debaters, but if you believe I am lying, then nothing I can do will make any difference.

So here I stand, I can do no else.

You've been on the forums for three years and have 40 posts. You're being scrutinized due to a combination of lack of posting activity and choice of posting activity plus this is a hot thread.

A lot of us have checked out because no good can come of this. You're seeing the braver or more annoying of us in this thread and if you're not an entirely known quantity here it's safer to assume for most you're part of the annoying crowd and assign tone appropriately.

Be safe
KB

 

[Tanin Wulf]

You'll note the irony of complaining about others assuming bad faith, when they themselves support gatekeepers to keep out the "fake" D&D players...

Assuming your story is true, and happened exactly as it was presented... How often do you think that is an issue to warrant adopting a cynical mindset and vetting process for new players?

I did not advocate a cynical mindset. Just because something is an inherent part of a job that happens to be able to BE cynical, does that mean it MUST be done cynically or even done all the time?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh that's easy! My college gaming group almost fell apart when a woman, let's call her Heather, started dating one of my gamers. She wanted the join our group, and we had an opening, and she seemed like a great person. So we brought her in.

Turns out, we were wrong. She confessed, quite literally, to only joining to get him out of the group and break us up (and she succeeded, three months later, on getting him out... but the group endured). She never had any interest of learning D&D or anything she deemed, "geeky." She just resented the fact that he was hanging with us instead of her. (A year later, he finally broke up with her after their relationship cost him his college career.)

After the fact, I looked back and saw all kinds of red flags that she didn't give a about D&D or gaming in general and was just toxic. A little better vetting (gatekeeping) on what her interests actually were in this, and not in a high inquisition manner, would have done wonders to avoid a situation. But I was 19 and didn't see it coming at the time.

No offense, but there are two major issues with this.

Firstly, that's not a D&D problem. That's a social dysfunction problem of that person. No extra D&D rule or systems mastery would solve that issue.

Secondly, this strikes me very much as, "Well, this one time at band camp, this one person did something bad with a flute. That's why we need to do background checks on everyone who wants to join band and play the flute."


Let me be clear. There should be no gatekeeping built into the game. The whole point of a game, any game, is to have fun. People can have fun when they don't know the rules. In fact, the people who seem to have the most fun are those who are just learning because they don't have preconceived notations on how to play (like when I was teaching my kids how to play). The whole point of running a business is to grow the customer base. Incorporating any gatekeeping function into a game runs directly counter to all of the above. If there is any gatekeeping needed, it's between the personalities of the people involved, and should have nothing to do with the game. As Mearls has said himself, "No rule will fix a broken player."

To give you an anecdotal experience, shortly after 3.5 came out, I had the opportunity to play (my first experience with 3e). I wanted to play an arcane archer because it sounded cool. That was immeidatley met by the gatekeeprs telling me how it was a weak build, how I needed to know how to design effective build, etc.

I did not play that game, nor 3e after that (outside of video games).

That's what gatekeeping does. And it's a pox to the hobby, regardless of your anecdotal story of this one unstable girlfriend whose behavior had nothing to do with the game itself.

 

[neobolts]

I certainly believe that is a story you have now told on enworld...

To be fair, the hideous and manipulative behavior of teenagers is readily believable, particularly when affairs of the heart are involved.

I once mustered fake enthusiasm & attended a fundamentalist church service in the hopes of getting a pretty girl to like me.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

You've been on the forums for three years and have 40 posts. You're being scrutinized due to a combination of lack of posting activity and choice of posting activity plus this is a hot thread.

I lurk. A lot. I've been around since 200...2? 3? But never registered until 3 years ago when I was hunting for gamers in a new location. I recall having to re-register this last summer when I moved back to Indiana? (I probably had less than 5 posts.)

I can see the reason behind doing this Gatekeeper duty that I'm being scrutinized for, and even why it's happening. I'm hoping soon the irony will be noticed...

A lot of us have checked out because no good can come of this. You're seeing the braver or more annoying of us in this thread and if you're not an entirely known quantity here it's safer to assume for most you're part of the annoying crowd and assign tone appropriately.

Be safe
KB

Thank you.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I did not advocate a cynical mindset. Just because something is an inherent part of a job that happens to be able to BE cynical, does that mean it MUST be done cynically or even done all the time?

Being a self-appointed busybody (ie, hobby community gatekeeper) isn't, nor should be, a job...

 

[Tanin Wulf]

No offense, but there are two major issues with this.

Firstly, that's not a D&D problem. That's a social dysfunction problem of that person. No extra D&D rule or systems mastery would solve that issue.

Yes, it was (a social group issue, not a D&D issue)... but in any social group, THAT is ONE (and only a MINOR one at that) function of what any gatekeeper/vetting person should be doing.

Secondly, this strikes me very much as, "Well, this one time at band camp, this one person did something bad with a flute. That's why we need to do background checks on everyone who wants to join band and play the flute."

Well, experience often drives policy.

Let me be clear. There should be no gatekeeping built into the game.

If we're talking built into the game, then I'm wholeheartedly in agreement.

If there is any gatekeeping needed, it's between the personalities of the people involved, and should have nothing to do with the game. As Mearls has said himself, "No rule will fix a broken player."

Absolutely agree! This is exactly what I'm getting at.

To give you an anecdotal experience, shortly after 3.5 came out, I had the opportunity to play (my first experience with 3e). I wanted to play an arcane archer because it sounded cool. That was immeidatley met by the gatekeeprs telling me how it was a weak build, how I needed to know how to design effective build, etc.

I did not play that game, nor 3e after that (outside of video games).

That's what gatekeeping does. And it's a pox to the hobby, regardless of your anecdotal story of this one unstable girlfriend whose behavior had nothing to do with the game itself.

That's what a bad gatekeeper does. One who doesn't know how to be welcoming without being paternalistic. One who doesn't know how to encourage and help without being unwanted.

Your anecdote, similarly, was not a problem with the rules, but with the player-cum-gatekeeper. It's the same issue.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

Being a self-appointed busybody (ie, hobby community gatekeeper) isn't, nor should be, a job...

Every store owner is one for his or her own community. Ever person organizing a gaming group is one for his or her own community. (EDIT: Heck, what you're doing right now is gatekeeping me, the new person on the scene in this sense.)

If you're talking the broad, universal community of High Holy Gaming... well that's a problem of scale, personalities, and trying to impose regulation on an unregulatable environment.

 

[Mistwell]

He appears less to have been making a general statement, and more pointing out that many of the folks making a stink over Welch being hired are the exact same folks who have been hounding Mearls & Co. to make 5E more of a gate kept game than it is or will be. See no reason to doubt his experience since dealing with these same folks in social media is something he has been doing for years.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

I see no reason to draw the conclusion about his tweet that you have, given he doesn't say anything like what you're assuming he means, and what you're assuming he means is so far from the plain words he used that if that really is what he meant than once again I think my point is well proved that he said it poorly.

 

[77IM]

We need somebody to gatekeep threads like this.

"Oh yeah? You think you can discuss social dynamics in modern gaming? Have you read Nick Yee's doctoral thesis? Oh really? What was your favorite part?"