I don't know how thinking about things stifles or leads to a less creative project. Typically speaking I think it leads to less lazy stuff because it forces you to actually think about what you are doing rather than just tossing things in that look cool.
Thinking about things is fine. Designers should think about all kinds of things when they make a game. Personally I have developed the habit of thinking for a full week for each entry, before writing anything down, when there is time to do so (obviously this may vary from project to project depending on timeline). So it isn't thinking about things, or researching things, that I object to here. What I object to is the bolded. I am talking about taking a method of design (in this case say having to think about content from a lens of whether it is problematic, having to incorporate cultural elements in an authentic way, etc) and making that mandatory (which these conversations are increasingly doing).
Also, there isn't anything wrong or lazy about going by gut instinct sometimes, or by using something because it seems cool. And I think there is something to be said for occasionally going with raw feeling, emotion, instinct in art and design. You can put just as much effort into the design of some cool feature you've pulled from a source, as you can delving into that source. Because a designer or artist doesn't have as their aim doing a deep dive of authenticity and contexualitzation, that doesn't mean they aren't putting the same amount of effort into the creation of the thing (they are just directing their energy and focus elsewhere). It also is pretty obvious that this approach you are advancing, while fine on its own, can also lead to lazy design. I have seen plenty of projects that were just rote inverting of tropes, or taking the blueprint established in conversations like this and applying it (once you know the blueprint, it is just a matter of applying it to the design). I think it is more exciting when designers aren't operating off any kind of blueprint or lens personally.
Yeah, uh, this is nonsense? No one thinks that doing this is going to fix racism, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think critically about what we take from other cultures.
.
Personally I don't think it is nonsense. I see a lot of posts claiming this is a step in solving things like racism. But more than that, I think it is counter productive and actually reverses progress on racism in many ways. We are doing this thing where people increasingly feel like they have to either stay in their box, or walk on eggshells when going outside their box (i.e. their cultural, racial, religious identity) and I think that creates barriers between people in the real world. I am not saying people should be deliberately insulting or racist, but I think the degree to which we nitpick over minutiae and the way we are dividing people into groups based on superficial characteristics, is making it harder for folks to cross cultural boundaries, to truly get to know people who are different from them, etc.
Like, what propaganda would be made? Who would be making it?
Anyone who is putting ideology before creativity. Not all propaganda is going to be nefarious. Some can be well intentioned (a lot of the just say no messaging was well intentioned, but still propagandistic and it led to a lot of bad art----if somewhat intriguing to look at in hindsight). A classic case of propaganda would be something like reefer madness. It is a very simplistic and exaggerated depiction of drug use, and its primary purpose wasn't to be a moving piece of art, but to promote an anti-drug ideology. I think in most cases, even when the message is a good one, the message or ideology being the primary concern, weakens art because it makes nuance and layers nearly impossible. The message has to be clear and can't be muddy or messy.
It's not about having long conversations all the time because you don't always need to. But in the case of randomly cribbing things from other cultures, then yes, you probably should think about what you are doing. You talk about gatekeeping, but shoddy inclusion and racially-charged language are far greater gatekeepers because they actively make minority members of our community feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. This whole thing comes off less about not wanting to have a conversation and simply wanting to ignore that D&D has problems
I think the opinions on this among minorities in the hobby vary considerably. And I think there is a lot of disagreement on what constitutes racially charged language or shoddy inclusion. This isn't about wanting to ignore problems in D&D, it is that people have genuine disagreements over what is a real problem and what is an exaggeration of a non-problem. There are all kinds of reasons to draw on aesthetics in design (where it is for an rpg, for music, for literature). I think we are at a very rigid point right now, where anything that isn't a full exploration of the original context, and a celebration of the culture from which it comes, is cast in a dark light. But I don't think we ever truly cross these cultural boundaries in a real way, unless we are at a point when people can have fun exploring other cultures. Right now, it doesn't feel like it is very fun. In fact we are in a sirtuaion where the expectation is the artist hires consultants to make sure they are engaging in the right kind of fun when they draw on cultural elements. We've made culture taboo. And I don't think that is good for art. That doesn't mean I think people should be blatantly racist or something. But I do think we have moved way too far in the direction of stifling art and cultural exchange.
