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

[Bill Zebub]

"But it causes harm" also has limited usefulness. It's what people say when they want to remove something they find offensive, like D&D in the 1980s for example. I don't find "it causes harm" to necessarily be a compelling reason to stop doing something. I might not agree that it causes harm.

Well then we have to compare the harm to the cost of doing something about it.

We know the problem, systemic racism, is huge. Unbelievably huge.
The "harm" would be the degree to which RPGs contribute to the problem, multiplied times the size/seriousness/importance of the problem.
Doing something about it means making adjustments to a make-believe game about elves and dragons.

I'm not sure there's a correlation value small enough to conclude that it's not worth the cost.

 

[Yora]

again... if the majority of gamers are cis white males... then we have to pick sides. When some % of X says they want A and another % of X want B... we are the outsiders looking in. We are the ones that then have to decide how to be a good alley to X. The problem is how do we that are NOT X decide what is or isn't right? By themselves even a unified minority is just that, a minority. So they need allies in the majority. The problem lies with how do we try to fret out "Is this hostel or is that sub group of X over reaching" Harder still is

When someone in the Majority tells you "This minority wants X" and then someone in the minority tell you "No we want Y" and that original person from the majority shows some % of the minority wants X... and that member of the minority shows that some % want Y... now what?

As I see it, it is always a good practice to listen to any kind of objection and take a moment to think about what you're doing or creating and what kind of image that projects or message it is sending. Often enough, you will find that some of the implications are bad, or that you can see how that makes certain people feel upset, but you've never really thought about it. Reflection on what you're doing and creating is always a good thing.

But it becomes a problem when some people of a given group say they find something objectionable and want it gone, but other people of the same group say it's something they really liked and are upset that it's taken away from them. By following one sub-group's view on how the greater group should be presented, you can end up with forcing erasure on another sub-group within that group. That's a situation where there is no safe option that covers any possible cases of harm. Sometimes something that is seen as a threat by one sub-group is seen as empowerment by another sub-group. Examples that come to mind are trans-phobic feminists, or homosexuals who deny bisexuality exists. (Not encountered either in the wild myself, but these are or have been issues.)

To get back to my earlier point, it does not work to treat various discriminated groups as monolithic wholes. Within all these groups there is always a wide range of diversity that goes down many levels, each having different experiences and needs. Creative works that please everyone, or at least offend nobody are impossible to make. Everything always has to be weighted by how much it bothers some people and how much it uplifts others, and for what reasons. If I make something that bothers segregationists, I'm of course not really feeling inclined to accomodate them. But if something is regarded as a welcome boost by people who have a lot to push against, while it's a minor annoyance to others who are given more of a pass by society, then it can seem right to side with the former over the later.
This is a fundamental issue of society. And whatever the philosophy of factual knowledge is called. There are no individuals who we can accept as being right about these things and everyone else being wrong. Even of there was, we wouldn't be able to objectively determine who it is. In the end it always comes down to making a personal judgment on how much offense to who is an acceptable trade for giving how much much joy to who?

 

[Vaalingrade]

How positively convenient for people who prefer not to have to do anything.

If you can turn actual discussion into quibbling over semantics and demanding empirical evidence, you can get people to stop listening and participating, thus undercutting any movement and preserving... whatever is so important about problematic stuff. Culture? Tradition? Whatever. Anyone that speaks up must be silenced by 'just asking questions' very loudly until the leave.

 

[Yora]

Well, you can always choose to just not reply.

But to come back to my earlier question again: What are the specific tbings in D&D or its writers that are so problematic to need discussing?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think we are getting into silly examples but I think “This use of harm causes harm” falls into the vague and overly charged usesge I am describing

The use was neither vague nor charged. I used it in the sense of "have an adverse effect on", which is a perfectly normal way to use the word. It is an accepted definition.

My point is simply there are already different ways of using the word harm beyond "physical harm". The way we determine what kind of harm people are talking about is the context.

I don't think anyone is actually confused about what harm means in the context of this conversation. Comparing it to physical harm seems more about rendering it as some kind of "lesser harm", and therefore not concerning.

However, there's no way to compare physical harm and the kind that's being discussed here, nor is there a need to do so. Doing so seems like an attempt to dismiss what may be valid concerns based solely on semantics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, you can always choose to just not reply.

But to come back to my earlier question again: What are the specific tbings in D&D or its writers that are so problematic to need discussing?

Depictions of certain races (drow are black, the text about orcs in Volo's) are often cited as being racist-shaped. Not directly racist, but they look like the sorts of things a racist would say, which makes the traditional targets of racism uncomfortable.

So what do we do about it? Make drow distinctly grey and change the wording of the orc culture description. Make it clearer that races aren't monocultures. Get rid of essentialism where possible. Stop describing all members of a certain race as evil. Try not to do any of these things in a way that breaks the game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So what do we do about it? Make drow distinctly grey and change the wording of the orc culture description. Make it clearer that races aren't monocultures. Get rid of essentialism where possible. Stop describing all members of a certain race as evil. Try not to do any of these things in a way that breaks the game.

Alternately, we could insist on playing the game exactly like we did in the 80’s until somebody offers irrefutable proof that that way is causing measurable harm.

You know, just in case this is an invented problem, fabricated by pinko activists.

EDIT: Apparently my satire wasn’t completely obvious here. And it wasn’t even Umbran who didn’t get the joke, so there’s probably something to it. Sorry. But, yes, this was meant 100% ironically/satirically.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The use was neither vague nor charged. I used it in the sense of "have an adverse effect on", which is a perfectly normal way to use the word. It is an accepted definition.

My point is simply there are already different ways of using the word harm beyond "physical harm". The way we determine what kind of harm people are talking about is the context.

I don't think anyone is actually confused about what harm means in the context of this conversation. Comparing it to physical harm seems more about rendering it as some kind of "lesser harm", and therefore not concerning.

However, there's no way to compare physical harm and the kind that's being discussed here, nor is there a need to do so. Doing so seems like an attempt to dismiss what may be valid concerns based solely on semantics.

I would argue it’s use is a kind of semantic argument. “This causes harm” is a common refrain of online critiques of RPGs and, I believe, it has a lot more potency than it otherwise would because if the physical and serious connotations it has. If someone clarified, or doesn’t use That kind of phrasing, I tend to be less critical. But I do think “X causes harm” carries a moral weight that “x is upsetting doesn’t” for instance and that ability to capture the intensity if something like physical harm or significant harm and applying to less severe concerns, is why I think it isn’t the best vise of language. My problem with it is it tends to be a conversation stopper. It makes people feel more icky to push back on charges that a book causes harm than to push back on charges a book makes someone uncomfortable

 

[Irlo]

It makes people feel more icky to push back on charges that a book causes harm than to push back on charges a book makes someone uncomfortable

Why would anyone push back on charges that a book makes someone uncomfortable? Maybe they shouldn’t do that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It makes people feel more icky to push back on charges that a book causes harm than to push back on charges a book makes someone uncomfortable

Maybe it feels icky for a reason.

Like all the ickiness of badgering someone who has already been made uncomfortable.