D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Minigiant]

I think the issue is when

1) the stereotype is based on a real group of people
2) the stereotype has a weak claim to exist in the setting
3) the stereotype is primarily displayed as negative

Again, the problem wasn't that designers and gamers in old school gaming were racist. It was that there was a culture of nonseriousness and silliness that caused a culture of apathy in creativity. And if one is apathetic while creating elements ofyour game, it is easy for you to do 1 and 2 when creating 3.

 

[Mallus]

Confoundingly, race and gender activism today manifests many of the same characteristics that gave rise to rise to Nazi Germany.

I know it's bad form to reply to someone who's been kicked out of a thread, but since they quoted me, I feel the need to respond.

Comparing modern social justice movements to the Nazis is crazy talk. Nazism was a grievance politics for the majority which targeted vulnerable minorities, helped along a Big Lie. There is an analogy here with contemporary US society... ahem... let's leave it at that.

I have criticisms of some social justice rhetoric. It can be reductive (in the way it can elide class, for example) and/or essentializing (in the way foregrounds experiences of systemic oppression, which can be complicated or even untrue for certain members of certain groups). These criticisms are more about various social justice framings being insufficient for specific tasks, not that they're, like Nazi-wrong.

Today's social justice movements are also necessary, valuable, and, unmm, really American -- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, self-determination and self-identification, all people finally being equal under the law, and all.. And if this means no more half-orcs in the next PHB... I'll live.

Also, kudos to everyone participating. I swore this would get locked.

 

[HJFudge]

No, you are misunderstanding two points.

First off, you can't compare this to the Satanic Panic of the 80's because that was ridiculous not because of the idea that D&D could influence you, but that people thought it could allow you to do impossible things: cast spells, summon demons, etc. That was part of why it's not comparable to what is being talked about.

The second part is that you are conflating "behavior" with "attitude". This is common mistake and you see it most often when people talk about video games, and how they don't have any effect on kids. The fact of the matter is that video games (and D&D) won't change your behavior: it won't get you to shoot up a school, it won't get you to murder your friends for XP, or any of the other big ridiculous behaviors.

It can, however, influence your attitude. Playing violent video games, for example, can desensitize you to violence. Similarly, if you play games with stereotypes you become less concerned about those stereotypes in real life because the game normalizes them. The idea that media influences your attitudes is so proven that it's almost inarguable: we have commercials for a reason, and we have propaganda for a reason. Pop culture matters, and D&D is absolutely pop culture, even if how you absorb it (roleplaying) is drastically different from how you may absorb other parts of pop culture.

Will bad depictions in D&D make you an instant racist, burn a cross, commit a hate crime? No. But it'll probably desensitize you to other bad depictions, make you care less that they are there, and generally influence your attitude so that those depictions are normalized in your mind one way or another. It doesn't make you do things, but it can make you tone-deaf to the things around you by making them seem at least "alright", which is why you get offensive stuff like Bright. And Bright's not trying to be racist, but in trying not to be racist it just comes off as really offensive.

And at the worst, it'll have people defend that stuff because it was normalize to them and they just don't see why it's offensive. And I'm not talking about the people in this thread, but to give an example... okay, Mortal Kombat. Everyone knows that one, right? Well, when they released their 2009 game, Sonya Blade looked like this:

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 133161

Well, when the next game came out in 2015, she looked like this:

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 133162

And when that happened, there was something of a minor naughty word fit with some of the fans. They said they were making her ugly, they were "desexifying" her and all sorts of stuff. That wasn't just being guys being stupid and horny, but them reacting to basically being shown that what they liked before maybe wasn't that great. They had been taught that the former image was alright, and when the latter came out they felt like they were being told they were wrong. And that's the sort of naughty word you get: if you just let stuff sit, you let it fester and entrench itself. Video games has a problem with objectifying the naughty word out of women, and hell even TTRPGs have had that problem: we all have seen chainmail bikinis on covers before. You normalize something and it becomes harder to change when you know it's probably not a great thing to have.

That's the sort of attitudinal change that happens in things like D&D if you just let bad stuff sit. Again, no one is likely to go out and murder someone for Gruumsh. But you can tell people that stereotypes are cool in D&D, and if they are cool in D&D, people will be more okay with them in real life. That's the influence of pop culture.

But your argument is that if a person sees a negative stereotype in a D&D game book. Well, something they feel to be one, lets say. Then that person will be okay with it if he sees it in real life.

It doesn't hold up!

That because I, okay lets take me out of it, lets say SOMEONE. SOMEONE sees a female oversexualized on TV or a video game that they will be more inclined to either treat women in an overly sexualized manner or be okay with it happening.

Will they treat women in a more negative context because of this? Or will they be able to separate fantasy and real life and act/behave accordingly? You linked a study regarding a survey of adolescents who play video games. I read the abstract but I have questions! This statement in particular is hard for me to parse: "With age, adolescents were more likely to view images as negative, but were also less likely to recognize stereotypic images of females as harmful and more likely to judge video-game playing as a personal choice."

So, again, despite the influence of video games, as they matured and aged their views became more tolerant...not in all ways perhaps, but these ARE children we are discussing. I do not understand the 'judge video game playing as a personal choice' bit either. I too view playing video games as a personal choice. Is that something that is in contention, in academia?

Not only that, but the study is...and I quote here: "This study examined adolescents' attitudes about video games along with their self-reported play frequency." It is a study about the adolescents attitudes toward video games. That is what they are finding out. How kids view the effect of video games. Not what effect video games actually have.

The Satanic Panic of the 80's very much feared that D&D would influence kids away from Christianity. Yes there was also the fantastically outrageous thrown out for affect, but to deny that they did not think D&D would have a pernicious influence on their children. Not everyone claimed it was gonna make them cast spells. But merely get them to stop going to church, or do drugs, or...well, any number of things that are actual things.

Today, it is a similar moral panic. Many think that D&D will influence people (kids?) to be more okay with racism in real life or with treating others differently based on ethnicity/skin color. Which, well, again... why in the world would how a fake orc in a fake world that you play in a game of make believe have ANY affect on how someone views another person in real life?

Same concept. Same arguments. Same fallacies.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

But your argument is that if a person sees a negative stereotype in a D&D game book. Well, something they feel to be one, lets say. Then that person will be okay with it if he sees it in real life.

It doesn't hold up!

That because I, okay lets take me out of it, lets say SOMEONE. SOMEONE sees a female oversexualized on TV or a video game that they will be more inclined to either treat women in an overly sexualized manner or be okay with it happening.

Will they treat women in a more negative context because of this? Or will they be able to separate fantasy and real life and act/behave accordingly? You linked a study regarding a survey of adolescents who play video games. I read the abstract but I have questions! This statement in particular is hard for me to parse: "With age, adolescents were more likely to view images as negative, but were also less likely to recognize stereotypic images of females as harmful and more likely to judge video-game playing as a personal choice."

So, again, despite the influence of video games, as they matured and aged their views became more tolerant...not in all ways perhaps, but these ARE children we are discussing. I do not understand the 'judge video game playing as a personal choice' bit either. I too view playing video games as a personal choice. Is that something that is in contention, in academia?

Not only that, but the study is...and I quote here: "This study examined adolescents' attitudes about video games along with their self-reported play frequency." It is a study about the adolescents attitudes toward video games. That is what they are finding out. How kids view the effect of video games. Not what effect video games actually have.

The Satanic Panic of the 80's very much feared that D&D would influence kids away from Christianity. Yes there was also the fantastically outrageous thrown out for affect, but to deny that they did not think D&D would have a pernicious influence on their children. Not everyone claimed it was gonna make them cast spells. But merely get them to stop going to church, or do drugs, or...well, any number of things that are actual things.

Today, it is a similar moral panic. Many think that D&D will influence people (kids?) to be more okay with racism in real life or with treating others differently based on ethnicity/skin color. Which, well, again... why in the world would how a fake orc in a fake world that you play in a game of make believe have ANY affect on how someone views another person in real life?

Same concept. Same arguments. Same fallacies.

The main argument references is that the satanic panic was about fictional consequences.

actually surviving it as a young D&D player who also had a connection with a faith community I can attest that the fear for many was that D&D would desensitize people to the taboos of faith (not make them cast fireball). And people making these arguments know this.

the fear was that D&D (and heavy metal!) would desensitize people to the taboos and change their behavior.

then there was the chick guy who thought...well go read one of his hilarious cartoons if not familiar! He seemed to believe people would ready their fireball spells.

the rub for some is that they like the game and it’s tropes just fine. If they are asked to change them, they need a good reason.

if the arguments advanced are no better than the ones advanced during the Satanic Panic they don’t feel compelled to do so and maybe feel resentful that their hobby is altered for a trumped up bogus reason. Add to this people casting aspersions about their lack of feeling for others and bigotry and some probably resist to resist.

All of which is moot because WOTC is going to do WOTC.

I am sure my group will keep our unsanitized books. That said, I’d find it interesting to play in a campaign with kingdoms of neutral or good orcs! we surely have done good half orcs a plenty.

but having a preference to pretend a group of monsters is evil is not synonymous with racism. Especially when you consider all of the exceptions. Well yeah if you pretend these humanoids are evil it’s ok; but once you cross the line to these pretend monsters you have entered racist territory!

do and think what you want but I don’t buy the logic. I don’t feel guided by Twitter to make moral judgments. If I did, I would let them tell me where to shop and what to buy for what they see as legitimate feelings. We each have to use our own power of reasoning to make the call.

I don’t agree with the idea that monsters should be changed for any social good; neither do I insult or judge those who do. I can respect that people often to try hard to do what they think is right even if their method doesn’t make sense to me. I am just flummoxed that others lack insight into the converse; that people who disagree might not be obtuse but simply come to a different conclusion.

 

[Justice and Rule]

But your argument is that if a person sees a negative stereotype in a D&D game book. Well, something they feel to be one, lets say. Then that person will be okay with it if he sees it in real life.

It doesn't hold up!

I mean, I just cited studies to you that show that completely happens with things like video games. It's a well-known phenomenon.

That because I, okay lets take me out of it, lets say SOMEONE. SOMEONE sees a female oversexualized on TV or a video game that they will be more inclined to either treat women in an overly sexualized manner or be okay with it happening.

Will they treat women in a more negative context because of this? Or will they be able to separate fantasy and real life and act/behave accordingly? You linked a study regarding a survey of adolescents who play video games. I read the abstract but I have questions! This statement in particular is hard for me to parse: "With age, adolescents were more likely to view images as negative, but were also less likely to recognize stereotypic images of females as harmful and more likely to judge video-game playing as a personal choice."

So, again, despite the influence of video games, as they matured and aged their views became more tolerant...not in all ways perhaps, but these ARE children we are discussing. I do not understand the 'judge video game playing as a personal choice' bit either. I too view playing video games as a personal choice. Is that something that is in contention, in academia?

I mean, again, we've seen studies on this. Yes, if you put in stereotypes that are bad, or behaviors that might be considered sexist, they will eventually start to normalize. This stuff is well-documented. Again, the idea that our culture influences people is basically the backbone on which all media is purposed; if it didn't work, we wouldn't have things like commercials.

The Satanic Panic of the 80's very much feared that D&D would influence kids away from Christianity. Yes there was also the fantastically outrageous thrown out for affect, but to deny that they did not think D&D would have a pernicious influence on their children. Not everyone claimed it was gonna make them cast spells. But merely get them to stop going to church, or do drugs, or...well, any number of things that are actual things.

Today, it is a similar moral panic. Many think that D&D will influence people (kids?) to be more okay with racism in real life or with treating others differently based on ethnicity/skin color. Which, well, again... why in the world would how a fake orc in a fake world that you play in a game of make believe have ANY affect on how someone views another person in real life?

Except one is based purely on emotional and religious grounds, while the other is actually based in psychological studies and science. The Satanic Panic doesn't work because it's entirely fueled by emotion. Could something influence you to second-guess church or that drugs might be alright? Absolutely. Was there any reason to this D&D would do that? No. That's the thing: there are things that D&D could influence you to do, like look up more fantasy fiction or get interested in magic or medieval history or creative fiction. D&D influences you! The problem with the Satanic Panic is that they illogically jumped to all these things they thought were bad.

But in the case of influencing things like sexism and stuff? Yes. It's like video games. We have tons of actual data on this that you're just ignoring without presenting any alternative evidence beyond your own feelings. Can D&D influence how people view gender and race? Yes, because D&D is a game that deals with all those: it's a game about history and society. It depicts gender, people, cultures, the whole shebang. Of course it would influence how people might view that stuff.

Same concept. Same arguments. Same fallacies.

I mean, no. If this were true, you could actually provide studies that show people aren't influenced by media or pop culture or video games.

But we have those studies: we know that media influences us. It's basically the backbone by which the advertising industry is based, along with things like propaganda. What we take in absolutely influences our attitude, unless you think you are completely immune to outside influence.

Hell, we know this is true because we know the Satanic Panic managed to convince a bunch of people that D&D was a bad thing! And we're not talking religious people, but just regular people being influenced by hearing this stuff over and over and making assumptions on it. Really, you'd think D&D fans would be extra sensitive to how the media depicts them given that their game has suffered a decent amount in the past from it.

 

[Mallus]

That said, I’d find it interesting to play in a campaign with kingdoms of neutral or good orcs!

My college DM introduced me to honorable, Klingon-esque orcs 30 years ago. A lot of the recent WotC changes are things we've been doing for a long time now. Heck, I'm playing a lawful good hobgoblin in a campaign he's running with friends & family currently over Zoom.

But I'll never get rid of my old AD&D hardbacks... and sometimes my groups might even play them as-written (well, mostly!).

 

[Minigiant]

@Justice and Rule I think another direct example is Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

GamesWorkshop killed it because WHFB wasn't making enough money. However after TotalWar Warhammer and Vermintide spread like wildfire,they realized that the issue wasn't that people didn't like it. The issue was their narrow marketing and very expensive models. There just wasn't enough upper middle class white male gamers in the UK, USA, France, Canada, Australia, and NZ to keep that crazy expensive game going at the rate GW wanted. So they scrubbed a lot of the bad lore and made an open statement on diversity to expand the player base.

And an portion of the Warhammer base lost their minds.They felt as if the game was leaving them. However the model that GW wasnotmaking the money they wanted and they saw the potential profits.

WOTC isn't on the leavel ofdesperation that they needed to kill a brand and create a new one. But brand expansion is brand expansion. And you can't be lazy and expand your brand.

 

[Justice and Rule]

@Justice and Rule I think another direct example is Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

GamesWorkshop killed it because WHFB wasn't making enough money. However after TotalWar Warhammer and Vermintide spread like wildfire,they realized that the issue wasn't that people didn't like it. The issue was their narrow marketing and very expensive models. There just wasn't enough upper middle class white male gamers in the UK, USA, France, Canada, Australia, and NZ to keep that crazy expensive game going at the rate GW wanted. So they scrubbed a lot of the bad lore and made an open statement on diversity to expand the player base.

And an portion of the Warhammer base lost their minds.They felt as if the game was leaving them. However the model that GW wasnotmaking the money they wanted and they saw the potential profits.

WOTC isn't on the leavel ofdesperation that they needed to kill a brand and create a new one. But brand expansion is brand expansion. And you can't be lazy and expand your brand.

That's certainly part of it. I mean, killing off a line entails a lot more emotion for a lot more reasons, but the hatred towards Age of Sigmar from some players is absolutely because they look at it as a replacement to something they liked, and thus won't judge it on its own merits but just reflexively dislike it. I know I went through that phase with Age of Sigmar (not a WFB player, but a fan of the setting).

Edit: Honestly the more I think about it, the "We changed things from what they were and now people reflexively hate it" is really a great example without getting into the touchiness of racism and sexism. It's just so easily identified, too, from TV to movies to comics. Change something that has been around for a while and, for better or worse, some people simply won't accept it because it's new and they like the old.

You let the bad stuff sit long enough and it becomes the old stuff people are used to and they'll also reflexively defend it, even if they don't think they care about it that much.

 

[Scribe]

So they scrubbed a lot of the bad lore and made an open statement on diversity to expand the player base.

What scrubbing? Yes, they made an open statement (as there are a lot of folks who actually think they as the Imperium are the good guys at the table!) but scrubbing? Nah. The lore is the lore.

Fantasy wasnt killed because it was untenable as a setting (outside of copyright lol) but because of as you say utter failure by Management to market it appropriately.

40K sold more than well enough outside of the UK. The issue was just GW didnt try to do Fantasy properly.

Anyone offended by the open statement of intent, didnt get the setting in the first place.

 

[Justice and Rule]

What scrubbing? Yes, they made an open statement (as there are a lot of folks who actually think they as the Imperium are the good guys at the table!) but scrubbing? Nah. The lore is the lore.

Fantasy wasnt killed because it was untenable as a setting (outside of copyright lol) but because of as you say utter failure by Management to market it appropriately.

40K sold more than well enough outside of the UK. The issue was just GW didnt try to do Fantasy properly.

Anyone offended by the open statement of intent, didnt get the setting in the first place.

Yeah, the statement of intent was something different for something different, but the reflexive nature of people against change works, because that's kind of what we're talking about. Like, people don't think bad Roma stereotypes are a problem if you keep including the Vistani in things. And then when you finally say "Yeah, this is problematic", people are up in arms because you let it go for so long.