log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

Status
Not open for further replies.

gyor

Legend
Mansplaining is a sexist and embarrassingly pathetic term used to try and silence male voices by feminists.

BTW on a side note Mearls is getting into crap from women who felt he insulted their intelligence by suggesting women can't handle rules complexity.

They have a point. Modern feminism is so mysgonistic and paternalistic, not just mysandrist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tanin Wulf

First Post
What? The point of knowledge isn't to sniff out the "fake geek girls", or posers as you term them.

Never did I ever mention "fake geek girls." Nor did I say the point of knowledge is...

I said the function of a gatekeeper in an inclusive community was often to find who is not really a member and is pretending to be one, NOT to put down those who want to become members, who are learning to become members, who don't care about being members, etc. Etc. The gatekeeper's role was often to be the welcoming one who would help you get in and learn, rejecting only those who are obviously fake (and usually not by denigrating them... there's actually quite a fascinating art to this whole topic in "polish school").

Please read the words I wrote and not your own terms for them.
 
Last edited:


Olrox17

Hero
GM: so, what is your character going to do, Mike?
Mike: I want to explain to the people of Twitter that using rules to keep people, especially women, out of D&D is wrong.
GM: roll a persuasion check.
Mike: ouch. A natural 1.
GM: unfortunately, your passionate argument ends up offending both women gamers, who feel like you're underestimating their skills, and elitist gamers, who are reminding you that you can't fire loyal, paying customers. Your bosses might not be happy about this...
Mike: crap...
 

ehren37

Explorer
Never did I ever mention "fake geek girls." Nor did I say the point of knowledge is...

I said the function of a gatekeeper in an inclusive community was often to find who is not really a member and is pretending to be one, NOT to put down those who want to become members, who are learning to become members, who don't care about being members, etc. Etc. The gatekeeper's role was often to be the welcoming one who would help you get in and learn, rejecting only those who are obviously fake (and usually not by denigrating them... there's actually quite a fascinating art to this whole topic in "polish school").

Please read the words I wrote and not your own terms for them.

Bolded, because you don't seem to understand the issues with your own words. Again, the gatekeeper using knowledge to keep out those deemed "fake". Which in the past, his historically been women, who are subject to a battery of tests by creepy dudes. Far more than any guy would be.

NO ONE is pretending to enjoy D&D to get in the gamer club, and they don't need your help unless they ask. You might think you're being helpful, but lots of people feel this way...

[sblock]
1497308282958.jpg
[/sblock]
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Legend
BTW on a side note Mearls is getting into crap from women who felt he insulted their intelligence by suggesting women can't handle rules complexity.

.

That's not what he suggested at all, and anyone (male or female) that came to that conclusion is misunderstanding him (understandable because he worded his tweet poorly). What he was referring to were those guys who use system complexity as their go-to tactic to keep women out, regardless if the woman understands or not. In fact, that's where mansplaining comes in. Explaining something to a woman like she doesn't know when she in fact does. But that doesn't stop these guys from doing it, which is what he is talking about.
 

Wiseblood

Adventurer
Yeah, we need to focus on what's important here. Specifically, how this tweet affects your feelings and ego because of his choice of words.

That whole sexism and misogyny thing he was referring to? Entirely beside the point and not worth discussing.

This is about you and how you were personally bothered by his specific choice of words. Nothing else.

Because words hurt, and you have to make sure people know they can't just go around using words you don't like.

I guess this is a response to me. (If not I blame vanity.)

If Mike wants fairness and impartiality he would be wise to avoid loaded terms.

My feelings are not hurt and my ego is intact. I have said my piece I shall resume lurking.
 

neobolts

Explorer
Mearls' first tweet was awkwardly worded, and could be taken to mean he was anti-complexity and anti-lore. His follow up tweet about the role of "mentors" shepherding new players into D&D was more constructive.

D&D "gatekeepers" are bad. Our hobby is not under threat from "fake" gamers. There is no gate to be kept, and there is no value to self-annointed gatekeepers following criteria that exist in their own mind.

D&D "mentors" are much better. A good DM shouldn't be running rules-heavy lore-dense games for inexperienced players anyway.
 


Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
When I finally get HyperGlobal Mega-net up and running I'm going to fire any employee who uses Twitter. A true pox upon modern civilization.
 



seebs

Adventurer
Mansplaining is a sexist and embarrassingly pathetic term used to try and silence male voices by feminists.

I used to think that.

So, there's a thing that happens where someone who's unambiguously a domain expert gets lectured on newbie-level stuff. And this has happened to lots of my friends.

But you know what? It's happened to people who were believed to be male maybe once or twice, and to people who were believed to be female hundreds of times, and almost exclusively done by men.

It's a thing. I don't know why it's a thing, but it is an actual thing.
 

seebs

Adventurer
I said the function of a gatekeeper in an inclusive community was often to find who is not really a member and is pretending to be one,

Okay, so the answer is "no one is pretending to be one" and we're done, congratulations, every gatekeeping we ever needed in the history of D&D is done, now we can stop.
 

neobolts

Explorer
That said, I cannot make myself believe that Mr. Mearls dislikes players who like more crunch. It simply does not make sense in the CONTEXT of everything else. You almost have to have this belief about him a priori to get lathered up about the post.

...

Come on. Really. Take a deep breath. Mearls hates people that like rules? Does that even make sense?

This. You've got it right.

His post was oddly worded, but clearly aimed at self-proclaimed gatekeepers, "hired" in their own minds to defend D&D from imagined fake gamers. And now he was "firing" them. To be this deep into this thread and still be suggesting Mearls is "firing" players who like complexity or lore seems disingenuous.

Secondly, the only group he is running to the defense of is inexperienced players. The demographics of D&D are shifting, and more women are discovering the game. As we get a new influx of inexperienced players, it so happens that some are women. Inexperienced players typically need guidance; they don't know yet what they are doing. Again to be this deep into this thread and suggesting that Mearls thinks all women are less capable (when he is speaking clearly in terms of experience) seems disingenuous.
 

Tanin Wulf

First Post
Okay, so the answer is "no one is pretending to be one" and we're done, congratulations, every gatekeeping we ever needed in the history of D&D is done, now we can stop.

Why? Only half the job (which should be an honored (EDIT: that is, one the person doing must treat with due decorum and respect, not respect from the community, burden is always on the welcomer) one with lots of responsibility on that person, in any community, not just D&D, to be the welcoming face and not the face of exclusivity) was eliminated with the elimination of that clause.
 
Last edited:

Tanin Wulf

First Post
Bolded, because you don't seem to understand the issues with your own words.

I can assure you, I do.

Again, the gatekeeper using knowledge to keep out those deemed "fake".
Is only part of the job in a traditional role of it in more than the D&D community. Indeed, seems gamers may have appropriated a term to mean something else.

Which in the past, his historically been women, who are subject to a battery of tests by creepy dudes. Far more than any guy would be.
Oh? My gay gamers wouldn't exactly agree with that statement. The tests were certainly different, but no less demeaning, insulting, or shameful.

So what about LBGTQ? What about my minority gamers who were often excluded because they were black? Did their experience not count? "History" seem to be rather loaded here. And the black woman who was married to the white man at my table? Oh man... was she being excluded in the past because she was black, or because she was a woman? (She had times where it was hard to tell.)

NO ONE is pretending to enjoy D&D to get in the gamer club, and they don't need your help unless they ask. You might think you're being helpful, but lots of people feel this way...
I didn't say anyone was pretending. Problem seems to be located in the inferences the reader wishes to draw, not in the implications in the text on screen.

Also, you never did answer why mentoring was in quotes. I am still seeking understanding on that.
 
Last edited:

neobolts

Explorer
the function of a gatekeeper in an inclusive community was often to find who is not really a member and is pretending to be one

D&D is not a charity; I have both closed invite-only groups and open groups to meet new players. Both have their function.

That said, what sort of experiences have you had where people are either pretending to be D&D players or pretending to be part of your social group? The only negative players I can draw to mind are those that are rude, disruptive, or unhygienic. Do have a specific story or experience that required gatekeeping to weed out a pretender? I'm not trying to say your experiences aren't valid, I'm just not following your position and thought an anecdote might help me understand.
 

Tanin Wulf

First Post
D&D is not a charity; I have both closed invite-only groups and open groups to meet new players. Both have their function.

That said, what sort of experiences have you had where people are either pretending to be D&D players or pretending to be part of your social group? The only negative players I can draw to mind are those that are rude, disruptive, or unhygienic. Do have a specific story or experience that required gatekeeping to weed out a pretender? I'm not trying to say your experiences aren't valid, I'm just not following your position and thought an anecdote might help me understand.

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.
 

Tanin Wulf

First Post
Oh! Another one: a man I was one of the groomsman for, let's call him Mike, asked me about joining my group once when we lived in Michigan. He seemed genuinely interested. We sat, we chatted, we talked about what actually goes on, and he admitted that he didn't really have an interest in being a part of anything long term. He just didn't know anything about D&D culture, was kind of interested, and wanted to see what sort of "nerds" were there. (If that sounds pejorative, it wasn't; it was part of the ebb-and-flow of a nuanced and very healthy conversation.)

So, that ended up not turning toxic or having a player who just wanted to test the limits of things (as I know this guy well, I know he would have done that, it's his personality and it's 95% of the time a good thing for our jobs). Because he was vetted, by the gatekeeper for the group (me) up front. He came to understand what it means to us and had no interest in that, but he did want to see it in action (before D&D podcasts were a thing). He enjoyed his time, found it not to be his cup of tea, and thanked us all for an enlightening experience.

He's still a great friend to this day.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top