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

[HammerMan]

Because I think for most people, the term harm, suggests something very substantial, usually physical. When it is invoked in these conversations, it is used vague, but retains the power of that meaning, regardless of what the concern in question is. My point is people have a very different emotion reaction to "this causes harm" than they do to "this causes mental discomfort". I think it is much better to be specific about what the concern is for this reason. Otherwise, the language obfuscates the problem a bit, and it uses this very charged term "Harm" when it might be applying to things people don't regard as harmful but as something else entirely. Like I said, there is a difference between physically harming someone and socially harming them, or making them uncomfortable by giving them text to read that they find upsetting. We distinguish between this stuff for a reason.

If non-physical harm is important, you can make a solid case for that without using a term that confuses whether we are talking about physical or non-physical harm.

and this is a bit of word play...

"substantial harm" and "Mental discomfort" each provoke responses

this is why surveys can be biased.

"We aske 100 people and then put the top 10 answers on the board..." but the same question asked in different ways can get WILDLY different answers... form those same 100 people.

something as simple as this game of make believe can still be pushed one way or another by wording.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

despite the obvious problem of them being a cis-white 50+ years old, which I understand is sort of a capital offense to some these days

Mod Note:

Way to stick your fork in the wall socket!

 

[HammerMan]

I think this is seriously discounting the intelligence of everyone in the discussion.

No one. And I mean NO ONE thinks GAZ 10 is going out and stabbing First Nations people or that drow are strangling black people in the streets.

but there ARE people that think games and stories MAKE people go out and stab other people...

 

[Mannahnin]

I actually understand all of that... the reason dueling antidotes is the best we can do is because we do not have a large enough sample size. the reason sample size matters is if it is 3% of people and you know 2 of them and I know NONE of them to me it can seem 3% is super small while 3% to you is huge.

Sure. But since we can't know the extent of the problem, we can't reason based on incidence rate. We have to work with the data we have, based on the experiences of gamers we know and talk with.

Let's take another example. We know that some number of minority folks and women have historically found gaming and geek social circles less than welcoming. Downright hostile in the case of some gaming stores and clubs, from what most I've talked to over the decades have reported, to the extent that women's and girls' unwelcomeness or unpleasant receptions in some of those spaces became proverbial. We know that some of this sprang from nerds' defensiveness about our pastimes and safe havens, and some of it from unexamined sexist or racist tropes within our culture. Representation in art is a classic and well-known factor. When gaming books primarily or exclusively showed women in cheesecake renditions or as damsels in distress rather than as powerful protagonists like the men, that communicated (communicates, in some sad, current-day examples) a message of exclusion to would-be women players. Same with lack of representation for protagonists of color. A lot of this stuff has gradually been progressing over time. Some publishers were doing better in the '90s, some not until the 2000s. WotC has seemed to make more progress on this with each edition they've published.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"substantial harm" and "Mental discomfort" each provoke responses

yes, which is why you would use them for different things. Or if there is mental discomfort that amounts to substantial harm, you would use that language. My point is you are using a term that denotes substantial harm, but using it to address a range of things, where many arguably reside much lower on the spectrum of harm. I am not saying those things can't be bad, shouldn't be talked about. But I think language like harm, sneaks in stuff that isn't necessarily there, or at the very least, things that the other side needs to argue on behalf of being there.. After all, if something like mental discomfort or non-physical harm is as significant as you are saying (and I am not saying it isn't) then why can't you just call them what they instead of using a broad term that also includes ideas of physical harm and severe harm.

 

[Mannahnin]

Because I think for most people, the term harm, suggests something very substantial, usually physical. When it is invoked in these conversations, it is used vague, but retains the power of that meaning, regardless of what the concern in question is. My point is people have a very different emotion reaction to "this causes harm" than they do to "this causes mental discomfort". I think it is much better to be specific about what the concern is for this reason. Otherwise, the language obfuscates the problem a bit, and it uses this very charged term "Harm" when it might be applying to things people don't regard as harmful but as something else entirely. Like I said, there is a difference between physically harming someone and socially harming them, or making them uncomfortable by giving them text to read that they find upsetting. We distinguish between this stuff for a reason.

If non-physical harm is important, you can make a solid case for that without using a term that confuses whether we are talking about physical or non-physical harm.

Why on Earth would there be confusion? Unless the person were simply unaware that nonphysical harm exists?

There is also a range of harms between "mental discomfort" and "physical injury", as both etiquette and much of our legal systems stand attest to. Let's look at my example of sexism in gamers making game stores and clubs unwelcoming to and uncomfortable for women and girls. That has historically harmed gamers by depriving them of opportunities for community and to play games that would or could have benefitted everyone involved.

That's certainly less severe harm than being strangled, but more serious than mere transitory mental discomfort.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is seriously discounting the intelligence of everyone in the discussion.

No one. And I mean NO ONE thinks GAZ 10 is going out and stabbing First Nations people or that drow are strangling black people in the streets.

My point is it is unclear what you mean when you say harm, and using that term, invokes the power of something that is physically harmful (it is like how we use the term safety in RPGs today and consent: those things invoke physical safety or sexual assault, so using them to apply to socially uncomfortable situations, feels like a way of easily persuading people to the importance of safety tools by using fuzzy language). Here it is the same. If you are worried about promoting stereotypes, we should talk about that. If you are worried about something being offensive, or making a person uncomfortable, we should talk about that. I think calling it harm, is misleading (because peoples' minds go to things like physical harm, serious harm, not necessarily to being uncomfortable or promoting stereotypes). Now if you feel the net effect of this, leads to harm, fair enough say that too (the use of stereotypes leads to physical harm). I just think folding it all under harm, both clouds the discussion and causes people to take the discussion less seriously because we don't necessarily know what issues people are concerned about.

And also to be clear on GAZ 10, I haven't read it so I can't weigh in there. I am just speaking more generally about RPG content that people find troubling for a variety of reasons.

 

[CleverNickName]

My point is it is unclear what you mean when you say harm

 

[Vaalingrade]

My point is it is unclear what you mean--

It doesn't matter.

All this semantic quibbling is a useless distraction from the issue and I highly suggest no one else engage it.

 

[Charlaquin]

"countryist" (i'm sure there is a proper term)

Nationalist