D&D General On gatekeeping and the 'live-streaming edition wars'

[Gradine]

Here's the sad truth: this isn't a new war. It's a new front in a war that's possibly older than the hobby itself.

Gatekeepers gatekeep for a reason; they don't want certain types of people in their hobby (or certainly not being welcomed and catered to, at the very least). Stream fans are, by and large, a younger, much more diverse audience (regardless of how true this actually is, it's hard to deny that this is the most common perception of that audience). And grognards lamenting younger, more diverse D&D players is about as old as dirt.

Honestly this whole thing has much more in common with the whole chainmail bikini thing or even gamergate than with any edition war.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Don't worry. The streamers will themselves fracture over which stream is the best - their own modern version of the Edition Wars - and then we can all be happy in our insular, warring little tribes.

 

[ccs]

Sitting here and marvelling for a moment.

Gamers, for decades, have been itching for a major media representation of their stuff - like a halfway decent movie. Folks have been saying the are dying for a good D&D movie for ages.

When they actually get a major media movement (in streaming gaming) they want to draw lines between themselves and it.

Myself?
I'd rather watch a D&D movie (hopefully a good one) than watch others play the game.

But hey, watch whatever entertains you.

 

[Beleriphon]

Gatekeeper: "What is your favourite colour?"

Blue. No red!

 

[billd91]

Is it a war?
streaming fans won’t take arms to defend anything! They like the play, the social, the fantasy, they feel attach to people not necessarily the game.

OK, everyone. Let's say "Hello" to the problem post. What's the problem? You're ascribing behavior or beliefs to someone else. How do you know what the streaming fans will do or that they don't necessarily like the game?

The worst part of any of these wars, edition or fandom gatekeeping, is the ascribing motives or feelings to the other side and posting on that topic as if you know the truth. That's when the conflict gets personal. It's OK for someone to go into their own personal feelings and opinions. But don't presume to know anything about anybody else unless they specifically tell you - and don't use that to generalize about everyone else.

 

[billd91]

If someone says they're a "big fan of D&D," and I ask them about what kinds of characters they've played and what kinds of campaigns they've played in, it's not because I'm trying to figure out if they're a RealTrueFan or anything like that, it's because I'm thinking about inviting them to a gaming table.

You could start with "Are you interested in joining a game?" rather than use gatekeepy questions. It's a little like approaching a potential sex partner and starting by asking if they prefer 69 or taking turns for oral sex.

 

[billd91]

Sitting here and marvelling for a moment.

Gamers, for decades, have been itching for a major media representation of their stuff - like a halfway decent movie. Folks have been saying the are dying for a good D&D movie for ages.

When they actually get a major media movement (in streaming gaming) they want to draw lines between themselves and it.

Technically, the ones who wanted more media representation might not be the same people who are drawing lines between themselves and it.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Kind of like saying caroling is a traditional X-mas activity... when almost nobody actually does it these days? This is a traditional setting that they haven't really supported*... within the lifespan of many of their players?

How much weight do we put on tradition like that?



Okay, I wasn't clear about what I meant by "played", so I won't chafe at this. But, I gotta tell you, I find "the GM has used lots of the classes in the book" a weak reason to need more classes.



*Now begins the argument on what constitutes "real support". The Living Greyhawk Gazeteer was published in 2000, and there hasn't been a new version of the setting for two whole editions. I call that "not supported".

I'll say it again: you're being super pedantic and effectively "gatekeeping" the use of the word tradition.

It's pretty clear what the poster was saying: "I wish the next release was for a setting that I already know and enjoy; something that gets the nostalgia flowing; something drawn directly from D&D's past; something traditional. However, I don't begrudge anyone their book."

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with calling old things "traditional"? Why do you need to quibble over the use of that word? What's the point? The way they used it makes perfect sense within the context of their post.

EDIT: nor is there anything wrong with saying that from a certain perspective, Wildemount is a traditional D&D setting (pseudo-medieval euro fantasy that has its roots in a home game). They're just two different and incompatible ways of approaching the issue, each with different aims.

 

[MGibster]

You must be this cool to ride this ride.

 

[Morrus]

streaming fans won’t take arms to defend anything! They like the play, the social, the fantasy, they feel attach to people not necessarily the game.

This is exactly the kind of gatekeeping comment we don't want. We'll let people decide for themselves what they like or what they'll do.