D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

[BookTenTiger]

I don't think it's necessary to provide a positive critique every time you provide a negative one in order to maintain some sort of balance. But one of the bigger problems with online communication is that the negative discourse tends to attract a lot more attention. I would wager that the threads with the most activity on this site are the ones where negativity is heavily featured. And this particular phenomenon isn't limited to discussions about the past or even to EN World alone.

Oh yeah, totally. I get a lot more quoted replies on a negative post than a positive one. That dopamine rush of recognition or outrage is hard to fight, but I try!

 

[Scribe]

except I need words that means (A group but not a group I want to single out) so like I said in the post... I used Orc and Elf as stand ins... it could have been X and Y

I know, but what is being compared (fictional beings in a setting where fantastical things happen vs real life racism for example) just doesn't make sense.

Orcs are not a stand in for any real life group of people, in today's world, or Edition.

To phrase that issue in this way, sets a premise that doesn't stand.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One other factor is how a person changes as they grow older. Lord knows if I were judged solely on what I wrote 20 some odd years ago, it would not be good lol. The key is to see if the person has changed, even if what they did prior was problematic. If someone's learned and gotten better, I am much more willing to give forgiveness.

Contrasted to people like Piers Anthony, who seemed to double down on the problematic beliefs all the way to now.

 

[MGibster]

Sure, and this being a D&D board, sometimes that's about something entirely ludicrous too. Like I've been called a "bad person" on here (repeatedly actually for a while many years ago) because I foolishly admitted that I used to... back in 2E... <whispers> sometimes fudge the dice so I didn't start a TPK and have to make us spend hours rolling new PCs and maybe re-writing the entire adventure and so on... <end whisper>

You need to turn in your DM stripes right now!

Drill Instructor: What makes the gross grow?
DMs: The tears of players, sir!

 

[payn]

if I wasn't worring about them I would have booked my honey moon a month ago.

I don't know about this but since the culture merged before i was born (and I am old) I don't understand what to do to do the right thing.

I am trying to understand... and again when I was told to research it, and I did, I found as many people are saying they NEED tourism as say they NEED it to stop, and that the amount that don't like it is less than those that do like it.

So again... how do I act responsibly? Do I go with the majority? Do I go with what is best for me(especially since my fiancé doesn't give a rats but about what the locals want)? Do I go with the loudest? I normally try to let my heart be my guide... but in the last 5ish years I have repeatedly been called a bad person for doing what I think is right. SO now I am gun shy. Am I a bad person? Am I going to cause harm if I don't go to a state I have never been to but want to? Am I going to cause harm if I do go to a state I have never been to but want to? What do I do if the answer is YES to both do harm?

As an American who travels to Europe a lot (not in the last two years ) it helps to do your homework. Americans (in general) are terrible vacationers. A lack of perception of local culture and sense of entitlement are often mentioned. I try to do as the Romans when im a tourist. Its not perfect and most people will appreciate your questions because it shows you care.

If some locals have the opinion you shouldn't come at all, that is unreasonable. If it was really harmful, and a majority thought so, it would be illegal to travel. A little research upfront can make you a welcome visitor over another jerk traveller.

 

[Gradine]

Handy advice: when people start demanding you write detailed essays for them, that's as good a sign as any that you're dealing with a troll

 

[Umbran]

Since one seems to think that his anecdotes are significant proofs of something, why should I not bring my own to the table ? Are they less significant for some reason ? Are only some anecdotes allowed here ?

No. Don't get hyperbolic. The fact of the matter is that you can't splay a few anecdotes into the discussion and come to "TEH TRVTH". There isn't a whole lot of point in anecdote-sizing, if you will.

Since words are important (apparently, in the US, words like "exotic" are no longer allowed to be used), I sincerely question the use of "significant", and would like to understand why it is being used in this context. I know that this is the internet, and that unless you exaggerate you will not be take seriously, but "significant harm" had better mean something really significant, don't you think ?

You know the famous cartoon of the sealion, yes?

You haven't established that you have the perspective to know the impact of certain kinds of events, you haven't stated your standards of what is significant, and you have a rhetorical stake in the results. So, you are not positioned as a reliable judge of what is "significant".

You should expect to receive the trust you offer. You don't trust that their report that the harm was significant. Why should they trust your assessment?

 

[Umbran]

the problem is that in this case it is literally that some % of the locals just don't want outsiders there (even though We are supposed to be a melting pot).

At this point, folks should ask themselves how many times the moderator will remind you that this thread is about RPGs before some form of action is taken to keep the discussion on track.

Keep it on topic, please.

 

[HammerMan]

I know, but what is being compared (fictional beings in a setting where fantastical things happen vs real life racism for example) just doesn't make sense.

Orcs are not a stand in for any real life group of people, in today's world, or Edition.

To phrase that issue in this way, sets a premise that doesn't stand.

no

it is a stand in... replace Orc with Group X and ELf with Group Y aand the point stands

 

[Lyxen]

No. Don't get hyperbolic. The fact of the matter is that you can't splay a few anecdotes into the discussion and come to "TEH TRVTH". There isn't a whole lot of point in anecdote-sizing, if you will.

And I'm fine with that, I'm just wondering why I was specifically tagged about this when I was not the first one to provide an anecdote, that's all.

You know the famous cartoon of the sealion, yes?

Actually, I don't.

You haven't established that you have the perspective to know the impact of certain kinds of events, you haven't stated your standards of what is significant, and you have a rhetorical stake in the results. So, you are not positioned as a reliable judge of what is "significant".

And why would the OP be a reliable judge, since he is using this to support his position, through anecdotes ? Especially since all I'm asking him (and never got any answer) is what HE considers significant.

You should expect to receive the trust you offer. You don't trust that their report that the harm was significant. Why should they trust your assessment?

No, indeed, I don't trust it, and I won't until I get some explanations. Do you trust everything people say here ? So if I write that the impact of a non-errata-ed ToA on non-white gamers has been null, what happens ? Automatic trust ?