D&D General On Early D&D and Problematic Faves: How to Grapple with the Sins of the Past

[Mercurius]

I find it a bit unnerving how a kind of quasi-religious worldview has taken over certain segments of the population, with baked in assumptions about what is or is not good, true, and right. This can be exemplified by the word "problematic," which is often used in a manner as if there is a clear and obvious Book of Law as to what is or is not problematic. This is the One, True Way that everyone must be, and if they aren't, they are Problematic! I mean, maybe that's always been the case, but it seems to have become more vociferous, with more fervor, the last decade or so.

What is so often lacking is a sense of cognitive fluidity and openness - not codifying one's opinions, not crystallizing around a certain group of tenets, taking each instance (and person) as unique, and questioning one's own assumptions, rather than knee-jerking and pointing the finger, always on the lookout for Problematic Material to go after. What is perhaps most disturbing is the diminishment of openness, of a sense of, "I don't know, it could be - this is what seems true to me." And instead we often get, "No, that is problematic! That is wrong! How dare you think otherwise?!"

"Problematic" is largely a matter of perspective; it is contextual to time, place, and community. It is not hard-wired into the fabric of the universe. Even culturally speaking, it varies by community and sub-culture and--perhaps most importantly--changes over time. What is often lost is that our finding something problematic according to the latest Proper Way to See Things isn't inherently true or of merit. It is a perspectival, temporal snapshot with baked in assumptions and underlying biases.

The latest Thing is probably not--probably never--the Final Thing. To put it another way, our finding something problematic today might be considered "problematic" tomorrow.

Not to mention that the very word itself implies that certain ways of seeing things that differ from our own, or what we deem to be true, are a problem - rather than, quite possibly, simply a different worldview based on different underlying assumptions. This is where I get that quasi-religious vibe: If it differs from my truth, it is a problem. Problems imply solutions, which is rarely just "let it be." This problem-solution mentality doesn't want us to accept two possibilities: One, people see things differently and that's OK, or at least, it is inevitable and beyond our control; two, it may be that how I see things isn't necessary the best or one-true-way to see them.

I also hear people castigating people of bygone eras for not transcending their context or not being ahead of the curve. Not only does this imply a monolithic direction of historical development (e.g. the term "wrong side of history," as if there is a singular historical path we must all take, and implies that we're on the right side!), but it assumes that the views one espouses now are the "one true way" one must think, and if only people could get with the program (even people from 50 years ago!).

I think more important than the ability to put your finger to the wind and adjust to the vue de jour in one's preferred community ("Wait, I forget, is this on the updated list of problematic things?"), is the capacity to be cognitively flexible and non-rigid. Part of this may be entertaining the idea that history--and how we see it--is like a vast water system with endless pathways, rivers, rivulets. It moves on, flows ever towards to sea. We can look back at some backwater and say, "That's problematic!" And in so doing, forget that we also will be looked back on some day, and we're all part of the same flow.

I would suggest that looking back at the past for something to call problematic is a mostly fruitless endeavor. What matters is who we are now and where we're going. Perhaps part of that comes from looking back and deciding who we want (or don't want) to be. We all have past generational elements that we are, hopefully, moving forward along the developmental curve (I'm frequently arguing with my Boomer father about "problematic" things he says, though often am an instant of my own complaint - expecting him to change, rather than just "letting be").

But we could also just release the grip a bit, and recognize that we're all products of our environment, our culture, caught in our own little backwater of history. The point, I think, is to transcend it right now - not what people did 50 years ago, but what we are doing now. Not our neighbor, but ourselves. What sort of artist, person, human being do we (do I) want to be? What is problematic to me? And does worrying about what others do, especially people of long ago, help that in any way, or does it merely prove to be a distraction?

In other words, why are we so insistent that others change, to the point--in some--of actually wanting to re-write who they were so that they are more palatable to our current sensibilities?

In looking at the past, I would suggest that we try to see and accept it as it actually was. That doesn't mean we condone it or have to be the same; if anything, it frees us to choose who we want to be. And in doing so, we change "what is problematic" from being about others, and thus what is outside of our control, and becomes more about our own personal empowerment in being who we want to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

First of all, yes. including those mental stat modifiers based on sex at all is sexist, full stop.

Second, I think you are ignoring the fact that since this is a game about fantasies, there really isn't a need to try and force this kind of simulation.

As was said above, how important the simulation part is compared to the fantasy part will vary from person to person, so in general we probably shouldn't just claim "it's fantasy, so it shouldn't matter" whenever one's personal simulation limit is reached.

Of course, you also have to look at the people you're with and decide if the level of simulation you want will work with everyone, and be prepared to compromise if it isn't.

 

[MGibster]

One of the things that can come up when people claim to be doing things on grounds of verisimilitude is that they're often, shall we say, pretty selective about what bothers them and what doesn't, and the particulars can be a very bad look.

I think we're all rather selective when it comes to verisimilitude. I have a friend who simply will not watch any zombie movies unless it is explicit that they have supernatural origins. An evil wizard casts a spell raising an undead army? Fine. Radiation from a probe that recently returned from Venus? Nope.

I am of course not defending the use of restrictions on attributes for women characters though. It strikes me as unnecessary and having it doesn't exactly break verisimilitude for me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

John,

Thank you for helping share your enthusiasm with the next generation of gamers! I am curious to find out what their thoughts on the issue are.

If it makes you feel better, I understand where you are coming from, in terms of a simulationist perspective. That said, I think that we have to acknowledge that this is a game, with game concepts like "hit points" and "levels." As such, I would put forth the assertion that we should avoid having gendered limits, or bonuses, in the game. We aren't simulating who is the most powerful weightlifter in the real world; instead, we are enabling people to enjoy themselves. And for that reason, I would think that we should strive to let all people enjoy their heroic images equally.

Yeah, I too want to commend you on the delicate way you replied.
Too often I see posters not being charitable.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is so often lacking is a sense of cognitive fluidity and openness - not codifying one's opinions, not crystallizing around a certain group of tenets, taking each instance (and person) as unique, and questioning one's own assumptions, rather than knee-jerking and pointing the finger, always on the lookout for Problematic Material to go after. What is perhaps most disturbing is the diminishment of openness, of a sense of, "I don't know, it could be - this is what seems true to me." And instead we often get, "No, that is problematic! That is wrong! How dare you think otherwise?!"

This is definitely something that has impacted my ability to enjoy online discussions around media (it affects other areas of life as well obviously). It is the certainty, intensity of it and insistence upon everyone agreeing that I find hard to wrap my head around. And people are going to have different expectations from art, artists, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to expect everyone to agree on the oughts there. Also it seems thing like irony get lost in the mix.

 

[Scott Christian]

Weirdly enough, I have an opposite experience: strangers I met online are more likely to go there than people I know well. The mask of anonymity makes it easier to stay in the fictional space and romance the character rather than the player (is my hypothesis)

I agree with your hypothesis. All my tables are in person, and in person is often (unless you get that one person ) more aware of other people's reactions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Radiation from a probe that recently returned from Venus? Nope.

Quite right. I have it on good authority that all Venus probes are treated with anti-zombie radiation rays.

 

[Alzrius]

It is the certainty, intensity of it and insistence upon everyone agreeing that I find hard to wrap my head around.

The single best explanation I've ever heard is this:

"Every issue has become a moral issue."

Obviously, there's an element of pith/hyperbole there, but it seems to summarize the tone and tenor of the current climate. People can compromise on matters of politics and policy, personal tastes and preferences, ideas and opinions, etc. But no one ever wants to compromise their morals. When something becomes an issue of right/good versus wrong/evil, then intransigence sets in, since the other side can only be understood as an enemy, and so is necessarily held to be (whether out of unwitting ignorance or deliberate malice) out to destroy that which you hold dear.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think we're all rather selective when it comes to verisimilitude. I have a friend who simply will not watch any zombie movies unless it is explicit that they have supernatural origins. An evil wizard casts a spell raising an undead army? Fine. Radiation from a probe that recently returned from Venus? Nope.

I agree, we are all selective in regard to verisimilitude. I think the lengthy discussions arise when a large group is selective about the same thing, and another group deems it as unimportant. Tasha's new racial ASIs made that very clear, as did the cantina debate. Here, it is not individual, but rather groups. And it is that group mentality that leads one to have a hard time understanding how the other side "doesn't get it."

 

[Milieu]

What is so often lacking is a sense of cognitive fluidity and openness - not codifying one's opinions, not crystallizing around a certain group of tenets, taking each instance (and person) as unique, and questioning one's own assumptions, rather than knee-jerking and pointing the finger, always on the lookout for Problematic Material to go after. What is perhaps most disturbing is the diminishment of openness, of a sense of, "I don't know, it could be - this is what seems true to me." And instead we often get, "No, that is problematic! That is wrong! How dare you think otherwise?!"

I don't deny that some people do get overzealous in going after people they view as having said something problematic, but there is a no less vociferous and even less open "How dare you call foo problematic!" in nearly every case.

See, for example, the inciting incident of this thread: Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro reproduced historical documents exactly in their book. They included a disclaimer that some of the things in those documents are problematic and "These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today." Rob Kuntz (among others) called this "slanderous". How dare they say Gygax was sexist! I find that latter a lot worse than the former.

"Problematic" is largely a matter of perspective; it is contextual to time, place, and community. It is not hard-wired into the fabric of the universe. Even culturally speaking, it varies by community and sub-culture and--perhaps most importantly--changes over time. What is often lost is that our finding something problematic according to the latest Proper Way to See Things isn't inherently true or of merit. It is a perspectival, temporal snapshot with baked in assumptions and underlying biases.

The latest Thing is probably not--probably never--the Final Thing. To put it another way, our finding something problematic today might be considered "problematic" tomorrow.

Not to mention that the very word itself implies that certain ways of seeing things that differ from our own, or what we deem to be true, are a problem - rather than, quite possibly, simply a different worldview based on different underlying assumptions. This is where I get that quasi-religious vibe: If it differs from my truth, it is a problem. Problems imply solutions, which is rarely just "let it be." This problem-solution mentality doesn't want us to accept two possibilities: One, people see things differently and that's OK, or at least, it is inevitable and beyond our control; two, it may be that how I see things isn't necessary the best or one-true-way to see them.

I also hear people castigating people of bygone eras for not transcending their context or not being ahead of the curve. Not only does this imply a monolithic direction of historical development (e.g. the term "wrong side of history," as if there is a singular historical path we must all take, and implies that we're on the right side!), but it assumes that the views one espouses now are the "one true way" one must think, and if only people could get with the program (even people from 50 years ago!).

What is socially acceptable changes, sure. That insulting or discriminating against people hurts them doesn't. Sexism hurts people, whether it's socially acceptable or not. And the reason some things are considered "problematic" is that some groups of people find them hurtful. It's not perfect by any means, but nor is it an arbitrary fad (irrespective of the fact the sometimes people DO use "problematic" as a way to look down on others).

I think more important than the ability to put your finger to the wind and adjust to the vue de jour in one's preferred community ("Wait, I forget, is this on the updated list of problematic things?"), is the capacity to be cognitively flexible and non-rigid. Part of this may be entertaining the idea that history--and how we see it--is like a vast water system with endless pathways, rivers, rivulets. It moves on, flows ever towards to sea. We can look back at some backwater and say, "That's problematic!" And in so doing, forget that we also will be looked back on some day, and we're all part of the same flow.

I would suggest that looking back at the past for something to call problematic is a mostly fruitless endeavor. What matters is who we are now and where we're going. Perhaps part of that comes from looking back and deciding who we want (or don't want) to be. We all have past generational elements that we are, hopefully, moving forward along the developmental curve (I'm frequently arguing with my Boomer father about "problematic" things he says, though often am an instant of my own complaint - expecting him to change, rather than just "letting be").

But we could also just release the grip a bit, and recognize that we're all products of our environment, our culture, caught in our own little backwater of history. The point, I think, is to transcend it right now - not what people did 50 years ago, but what we are doing now. Not our neighbor, but ourselves. What sort of artist, person, human being do we (do I) want to be? What is problematic to me? And does worrying about what others do, especially people of long ago, help that in any way, or does it merely prove to be a distraction?

In other words, why are we so insistent that others change, to the point--in some--of actually wanting to re-write who they were so that they are more palatable to our current sensibilities?

In looking at the past, I would suggest that we try to see and accept it as it actually was. That doesn't mean we condone it or have to be the same; if anything, it frees us to choose who we want to be. And in doing so, we change "what is problematic" from being about others, and thus what is outside of our control, and becomes more about our own personal empowerment in being who we want to be.

I don't see the potential for some of the things I've said being looked back at one day as "problematic" as an argument against calling things problematic. Some of the things I've said were problematic, and recognizing that is a good thing. I've learned, and I'm still learning, and sometimes the way I learn is someone points out something I didn't realize was a problem.

When I was in middle school, it was common in my cohort to use the word "gay" as a generic insult: anything we didn't like we would call "gay." Lots of people around me did it (not an excuse), and I just kind of absorbed it and started doing it without thinking about it. As obvious as it seems now, I didn't think about the fact that people who were gay would be hurt or insulted by that. Embarrassingly, it didn't even occur to me until I saw an ad campaign calling it out as problematic. I sure felt stupid, but I didn't complain about "political correctness" or that "you can't say anything these days"; I just decided to stop unintentionally hurting people around me. And that's not the only example.

So—even if some of them are overzealous; even if some of them are frustrated at hearing the same petty insults every day and so don't always react in the way that is most helpful to me—I am grateful that there are people who expect me to change the problematic things I say.