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

[Umbran]

Why on earth not?

As I've asked elsewhere - Why are you making a distinction? What purpose does it serve?

Many people are hockey fans, but that doesn't at all mean they're going to cheer for every team equally.

Sports teams are in a literal (yes, really literal) competition. If and when you and Matt Mercer are throwing down - your home table against his stream, then come talk to us about this being a fitting analogy.

Same is true in D&D. We're all D&D fans, but D&D is a pretty big tent and within that tent we all have things we support and promote and things we don't support and don't want to see promoted

That last bit... "don't want to see promoted" is the problem. "I don't like it, so nobody else should have it," is maybe the most selfish thing a fan ever said on this planet.

Asking everyone to support everything is, IMO, idealistic to the point of folly.

Aaand... a strawman for the internet argument WIN!

Dude, nobody said everyone had to support everything, or anything like that. I think you just proved the point that the act of dividing Them and Us needs a certain amount of policing. Thank you.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"As I've asked elsewhere - Why are you making a distinction? What purpose does it serve?"

Because precision in communication is useful to understanding, and not necessarily indicative of bad faith?

 

[Krachek]

streaming is a new phenomenon to DnD,
and there is some questions that arise for WotC.

do streaming fans can be good customer?
do streaming fans want to play their games like those they watch?

depending on the answers, which I don’t know, WotC may move to follow this trend. Move may result in additional product, we just get a first one, but also any new iteration of the rules.

streaming may result in fantastic commercial opportunities for DnD. It can give access to new range of customers, the next step is to sell them something.

 

[Morrus]

"As I've asked elsewhere - Why are you making a distinction? What purpose does it serve?"

Because precision in communication is useful to understanding, and not necessarily indicative of bad faith?

Pedantry for the sake of pedantry isn’t useful to anybody, though. It’s just annoying. Sure there may be some corner cases where you’re researching the market for a book or something, but in general conversation going out of one’s way to divide or exclude groups of people? Not so much.

(And that goes both ways of course; as in my OP, declaring that nobody cares about the opinions of a demographic of fans is just the same behaviour).

 

[schneeland]

streaming is a new phenomenon to DnD,
and there is some questions that arise for WotC.

do streaming fans can be good customer?
do streaming fans want to play their games like those they watch?

depending on the answers, which I don’t know, WotC may move to follow this trend. Move may result in additional product, we just get a first one, but also any new iteration of the rules.

streaming may result in fantastic commercial opportunities for DnD. It can give access to new range of customers, the next step is to sell them something.

I feel short-term these questions have already been answered. I stopped watching CR after season 1, but there were quite a lot of reports of people buying books and starting their first game. Also, the sales rank for the new campaign book is probably a good indication of the willingness of CR fans to buy about everything related to their favourite show.

The main question IMO is: will these people keep playing or do they drop out rather quickly. That's something that probably only WotC's surveys can answer.

Besides: I think this is a separate discussion from gate-keeping, so mods might want to move it.

 

[DemoMonkey]

I disagree with you Morrus, but I did ask my question because I was interested in the general opinion. Thank you, and the others, for the responses.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t think you’re talking about the same thing. We’re talking about not gatekeeping.

My concern is that any disagreement with or dislike of some aspect of the culture will be taken as gatekeeping by those who disagree with the disagreement.

Using my hockey analogy again, if I meet some people who are considering becoming hockey fans I don't see it as gatekeeping when I tell them they're idiots if they decide to cheer for the Leafs. A Leafs fan, however, might call me a gatekeeper for saying just this.

And in the D&D realm, I personally am not a fan of the streamed games as anything other than pure entertainment, as I don't think they accurately portray what happens around a typical table most of the time. Further, I wonder if those brought in to gaming by the streams are being given unrealistic expectations by what they've seen there.

Is it gatekeeping to say that? I don't think so...but my concern is that some would - perhaps maliciously - say it is

 

[billd91]

My concern is that any disagreement with or dislike of some aspect of the culture will be taken as gatekeeping by those who disagree with the disagreement.

Using my hockey analogy again, if I meet some people who are considering becoming hockey fans I don't see it as gatekeeping when I tell them they're idiots if they decide to cheer for the Leafs. A Leafs fan, however, might call me a gatekeeper for saying just this.

And in the D&D realm, I personally am not a fan of the streamed games as anything other than pure entertainment, as I don't think they accurately portray what happens around a typical table most of the time. Further, I wonder if those brought in to gaming by the streams are being given unrealistic expectations by what they've seen there.

Is it gatekeeping to say that? I don't think so...but my concern is that some would - perhaps maliciously - say it is

Stop complaining about efforts to stop gatekeeping because you're afraid of being falsely accused of gatekeeping. The impact of being falsely accused of gatekeeping is SO much smaller than the effect of the gatekeeping in the first place.

And honestly, that applies double to other... similar... issues that come up in debates about gaming culture.

 

[Morrus]

My concern is that any disagreement with or dislike of some aspect of the culture will be taken as gatekeeping by those who disagree with the disagreement.

Using my hockey analogy again, if I meet some people who are considering becoming hockey fans I don't see it as gatekeeping when I tell them they're idiots if they decide to cheer for the Leafs. A Leafs fan, however, might call me a gatekeeper for saying just this.

And in the D&D realm, I personally am not a fan of the streamed games as anything other than pure entertainment, as I don't think they accurately portray what happens around a typical table most of the time. Further, I wonder if those brought in to gaming by the streams are being given unrealistic expectations by what they've seen there.

Is it gatekeeping to say that? I don't think so...but my concern is that some would - perhaps maliciously - say it is

You’re confusing the subject with the person.

‘I like/don’t like x“ is not gatekeeping.

’People who like/don’t like x are not real fans” is gatekeeping.

If I tell you you’re not a real D&D fan if you don’t watch streaming videos, you’d rightly object. Because I’m gatekeeping.

Gatekeeping is about excluding people from the hobby. That’s why it’s called gatekeeping.

 

[Lanefan]

As I've asked elsewhere - Why are you making a distinction? What purpose does it serve?

If nothing else, it serves the purpose of discussion and debate.

That last bit... "don't want to see promoted" is the problem. "I don't like it, so nobody else should have it," is maybe the most selfish thing a fan ever said on this planet.

And is also a perfectly valid point of view, reject it as you will.

I'm probably coming across as far more absolute than my opinions actually are, in order to make a point, but I see nothing at all wrong with promoting one's own point of view.

Aaand... a strawman for the internet argument WIN!

Yay me?

Dude, nobody said everyone had to support everything, or anything like that.

Yet that's kind of how the OP came across in my view, hence my reply.

I think you just proved the point that the act of dividing Them and Us needs a certain amount of policing. Thank you.

In any debate, on any topic, there's ultimately only three places a person can be: 1. on one side or another (there can sometimes be more than two sides in the same debate), 2. neutral, or 3. uninvolved and-or unaware the debate exists.

People in 1. are quite naturally going to try to convince others in 1. to switch to their side, but they're also going to try to swing people in the 2. and 3. areas over to their particular side or viewpoint both by promoting their own viewpoint and by criticizing the other(s).

And yes, as long as the debate continues there's going to be some level of division between the sides. Sometimes that level is utterly trivial, other times it runs deep - maybe too deep - but to try and deny its existence seems, again, idealistic.