D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[TerraDave]

Not to parse words or anything...but looking at it again, he does say gatekeeping and not prefer.

Its an important distinction. So no, he is not calling fans of GURPS or Champions.

But I still wonder if that is really the issue, or is it just jerkiness. I think women are dissuaded by jerkiness, and the jerkiness of some affects the play of many.

 

[Ace-Azzameen]

Mearls sounds like he is gatekeeping a bit himself. How is he going to go about "firing" players? How about, just be civil and don't be a jerk to ANYONE at your table. He doesn't have to make it into some noble social crusade- who's he trying to impress?

 

[Tanin Wulf]

The mistake is a mindset that a newbie or woman needs someone to guide them...

So you'd rather no one be available to help anyone learn new things? Because that's something that can be directly inferred from this statement.

"Welcome to your new endeavor... NOW FEND FOR YOURSELF!"

Note this does mean I'm endorsing purity tests (I am most certainly not). I'm taking your first line and stripping away the subordinate clauses to get at the heart of the universal statement in these words and pointing out this goes to a place perhaps even more unhealthy than purity tests, because it's even more exclusive.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

So you'd rather no one be available to help anyone learn new things? Because that's something that can be directly inferred from this statement.

"Welcome to your new endeavor... NOW FEND FOR YOURSELF!"

Note this does mean I'm endorsing purity tests (I am most certainly not). I'm taking your first line and stripping away the subordinate clauses to get at the heart of the universal statement in these words and pointing out this goes to a place perhaps even more unhealthy than purity tests, because it's even more exclusive.

I think they key word is, 'need'. It implies weakness. A dependency.

And of course, needing things is fine. I need help with my medical scans. And central heating system.

The trick being, I choose to find someone to help me. Choose someone to need.

When folks assume you need help, it gets pretty annoying rather fast.

Look, I realise its a power tool and yes ok, that's not where we decided to put that hole. Any holes. Whatever! The point is... I'm on a journey of adventure! Of learning! Ok fine, just bring bandages. And tea.

Saying all this, gating, hazing, bullying, dickery -- it's a universal. Learning to stand up and wittily proclaim, 'Yes of course my dear! And fnuck you!' with a smile is a rapidly fading art. Much more likely to flip out in ALL CAPS and point fingers these days, sad to say. Which, in my limited experience, seems to feed the dickery. But hey...

On topic:

Women: Generally ok.
Mearls: Glasses. Needs a beard.
Tweet: Twerps.

GOOD DAY.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

I would contend there are people I think need help with a topic who disagree with me (e.g. my children). I am assuming those folks need me. It's usually on me to know when its appropriate to insist on helping them and when it's better to step back, treat them as equals, or simply let them make mistakes.

EDIT: And I do agree with your last paragraph, quite strongly.

 

[Warpiglet]

When you work for a big company you have to be careful in what you say. It is easy for others to make it into something other than intended. We see examples of this all of the time. Companies lose money and sponsors over misinterpretations all of the time.

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.

And as to gatekeeping...it is simply lame on so many levels. You fight to get enough players to have a game and then try to be an elitist? That sucks and is stupid. I have actually been turned off of games because of behavior like this. If players were smart, they would act as ambassadors for the game.

If you refrain from picking your nose and wiping it on my stuff and keep cheetos fingers off of my stuff, I will try to like you. I don't care where you are from or what your deal is (as long as you are relatively kind and cooperative). I don't care what your politics are. I don't care what color you are. I am desperate to play more!

I am hoping women are accepted in gaming. I am really trying to get my oldest child (a daughter) into the game. She likes Skyrim and fantasy so it should be a fit. In my opinion, D&D actually increased my ability and desire to read, write and create. These things actually are what helped me survive in grad school and in my career.

I do have to laugh about stereotyping and women otherwise. A friend's wife is a joy to play with. She is kind of lighter on the rules but is getting her kids into the game. She roleplays and belly laughs at the party's misadventures. That is the sort of player I can relate to! My buddy and I are better versed in the rules but having a mixture at a table is simply more of a party.

The irony for me is that my only experience with an all female group was the opposite of what some people suggest. They were munchkins and bent the rules to their favor! I could go on about their love for drow who were without sunlight sensitivity, but the point should be clear!

I have one request for a new designer, male or female. Make some cool sh*t that makes me want to spend money. I really love the product to date. I am a fan of whatever designers can keep that going. I can only guess that some internet trolls made comments to the contrary and that Mr. Mearls was pointing out the silliness of such a position.

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

 

[Guest 6801328]

Agreed, but I think that people that are parsing his statement to find reasons to dislike are missing the point.

He didn't say that people who enjoy complexity or lore are bad fans, or should be fired from D&D.

He said that those "who insist on gatekeeping via rules complexity and lore density" are the problem. And that's really the key.

Insist, and gatekeeping. Those are words of exclusion.

There is nothing wrong with geeking out to something you love. And then sharing that passion with others. But there is a big problem with those who do nothing more than use their knowledge to try to assert their superiority over others, and, moreover, try to exclude people ("gatekeeping") based on their own perception of their superiority.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The thing that I loved about D&D growing up (and this was some time ago, long before the mainstreaming of nerd culture) was that it gave outsiders a place to come together. It was amazing. Yeah, it retrospect, it was a predominantly white, male place. But it was a place where people could, for lack of a better term, nerd out. All you needed was a desire to play, and a love for the game. It wasn't like there was a lot of "lore" to even learn at the time.

So it seems vicious and cruel to me that there are those who play today that would even think of denying this to others. D&D should never be exclusionary, and people should never try and use their knowledge of the game to exclude others; rather, if you know a lot about the game, you should be showing your love of the game by teaching others. Right?

And it really burns me up that D&D can't hire a female developer without this type of crud. It's 2018, not 1950. What kills me is that there are probably a lot of people that don't even realize what they are doing. They're probably thinking to themselves, "Well, it's just about the credentials, amirite?" No, that's not it. It's about presumptions. There are people out there that whenever some bog standard guy is hired, would say, "Well, gee, I guess we'll wait and see what comes out. Because there must be reasons for the hire." But if a woman is hired, even before she does a single thing, there is this entitled belief that she has to prove to these so-called gatekeepers that she is worthy of the job. What does it say about our community that there are those who would try to turn someone's dream job into a nightmare because of her gender before she even starts working?

It makes me ill. Really ill. That this is in our community. I don't know if she is going to do a great job, a good job, or a bad job. But I'm going to trust that WoTC hired a good person, and I'm going to wait and see what her work looks like. That's how it's supposed to work, right?

TLDR; I get the frustration, anger, and disappointment.

Said more eloquently than I could manage, but spot on to 90% of what my own reaction has been.

(The other 10% is highly un-generous thoughts toward those defending their misogyny with contrived arguments.)

 

[Aldarc]

Agreed, but I think that people that are parsing his statement to find reasons to dislike are missing the point.

He didn't say that people who enjoy complexity or lore are bad fans, or should be fired from D&D.

He said that those "who insist on gatekeeping via rules complexity and lore density" are the problem. And that's really the key.

Insist, and gatekeeping. Those are words of exclusion.

TLDR; I get the frustration, anger, and disappointment.

Oh, I most vehemently agree with you and Mearls on the points that you raise here and in your elaboration on these points that I don't quote. My post only sought to observe that the expectation that Mearls should have been clearer with his meaning misses the emotional and ethical sentiment that spurred Mearls's tweets.

Mearls sounds like he is gatekeeping a bit himself. How is he going to go about "firing" players? How about, just be civil and don't be a jerk to ANYONE at your table. He doesn't have to make it into some noble social crusade- who's he trying to impress?

I don't think that he is trying to impress anyone, to be honest. And the whole "firing" players bit is really just a smoking gun about the issue behind the tweet, albeit not "firing" but "hiring." Keep in mind that his own business integrity is also on the line here. WotC's D&D division made the decision to hire Kate Welch, and Mearls's hiring of this person is implictly being called into question. And the basis by which his hiring of this person is being called to question is deeply revealing of a larger systemic problem of sexist gatekeeping in geekdom, particularly within tabletop roleplaying subculture.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

If players were smart, they would act as ambassadors for the game.

Amen! "Gatekeepers" forget that the original intent behind almost any group having that kind of knowledge is not to shame people who don't, but to be able to tell who is a poser TRYING TO FOOL YOU AND HARM YOUR GROUP (not gaming group, social group). It's not to shame people who are: 1) learning, or 2) don't care about your specific topic/lore, or 3) just don't have the same breadth of knowledge.

It's all about being an ambassador.