D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[FrogReaver]

Offense is the wrong word. It’s that elements of the game that remind people of racism they have experienced in real life, makes the game not fun for them.

IMO it’s the same difference

Ok, if I'm baiting, again, how is this not telling people who are being made to feel bad so that you can have what you want to sit down and shut up? Thank you for so graciously telling me that I can voice my opinion, but, actually ask that things be changed? That's a bridge too far.

Again, how is this not telling people that your imaginary friends are more important than their feelings? They're "allowed" to tell you that they don't like something and that something makes them feel unwelcome in the hobby, but, are not "allowed" to ask you to change it? Seriously?

Again, I’m not going to take the bait.

If you really want to have this discussion then stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[TheSword]

IMO it’s the same difference

I don’t see how you can make the case then that this is a perspective issue. Sure if someone finds something offensive then potentially we could say they were overly sensitive ... I’m offended by your use of a silly French accent yet neither I nor anyone I know is French for example.

However if what they experience reminds them of racism I don’t see how you can invalidate that with a big picture argument.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Thank-you for posting this. I was going to comment on the previous statement but I had no references to back it up. I imagine most wars are a result of conflict over resources.

I bet even those religious wars were underneath it all a conflict over resources.

 

[Dire Bare]

So, in other words, your imaginary friends are more important to you than the real people who are being driven away from the hobby by the descriptions of your imaginary friends. Whether it's chainmail bikinis, lack of presentation of non-cis individuals, inclusion of descriptions pulled straight out of racist screeds, doesn't matter. It's more important to you that your imaginary friends are kept as is, rather than changed to reflect the feelings of real, living people who are telling you that the inclusion (or lack of inclusion) of these elements makes them feel unwanted in the hobby.

Is that about the right of it? I haven't justified my offense sufficiently to you, so, you feel free to dismiss it because it's "not based on the full picture". So, it's okay to force me from the hobby or make me feel bad because you want to preserve the "heritage" of pretend characters that don't actually exist.

Did I miss anything there?

Nailed it.

My selfishness trumps inclusivity and growing the hobby. Gatekeeping the hobby for ostracized white male nerds keeps it pure. Female gamers, nonbinary gamers, gamers of color . . . all fake nerds anyway.

SARCASM: I hope it's obvious, but the above is sarcasm. It hurt to actually type that out, but I think it encapsulates the feelings of a subset of D&D fans pretty well.

 

[Krachek]

I think that the heritage of Dnd should be kept, and it would be fool to sacrifice evil orc and drow or any other legacy of DnD on a bonefire. But we dont have to be stuck in old fashion way of thinking. The game should continue to evolve.
WoTC have enough writer to introduce a Drow city that freed from Lolth and become a somewhat good society.
The same for the orc, it so easy to introduce smarter, wiser orc that freed themselves from thier evil,master that created them.
We have seen this in other games, even in tv show like Star Trek the races behavior has evolved
matching current expectation of the society.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I bet even those religious wars were underneath it all a conflict over resources.

Over ideology. People imposing views on others. People not admitting they are wrong. People not accepting other views. Not just resources. Excuse of resources is used in some cases.

 

[Hussar]

IMO it’s the same difference


Again, I’m not going to take the bait.

If you really want to have this discussion then stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm sorry, but, how am I putting words in your mouth. You flat out stated that if I'm taking offense, you are the one who gets to determine if I've take "enough" offense. The fact of me telling you that X makes me uncomfortable isn't enough. I have to tell you that X makes me uncomfortable and you have to agree.

Do you not see how bad that is?

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but, what, EXACTLY, does this:

those that take offense at someone regardless of the intention of the other should learn how to avoid such perceived offense or learn ways of dealing with it.

mean?

See, you seem to be taking it personally. It's not. No one is saying YOU are being offensive. This is where @Oofta keeps missing the point. It's NOT ABOUT YOU. You, the person using X are not the important part of the equation. Frankly, you don't matter here. What matters is someone is telling you that X bothers them and makes them uncomfortable. Now, the ball is back in your court. You have a decision to make. Is it more important to you to keep X unchanged or is it more important to listen to the real life people who are telling you that X is a problem?

Apparently, this is a more difficult decision that I seem to think.

 

[Mercurius]

Everyone has the right to take as much or as little offense as they want. If nothing else, we all have the inviolable right to think and feel whatever we want. The question is, how much should that legislate the game as it is presented?

I'm guessing that no one would be so extreme to suggest that anytime anyone takes offense about anything, no matter how innocuous, that thing should be changed. On the other end of the spectrum, probably no one actually thinks that nothing should ever be changed, no matter how blatantly mocking of a given demographic. We're all somewhere in-between. The problem is that a tug-of-war ensues that pushes people to one side or the other, and ends up arguing against a straw man caricature, when really we should be talking about the spaces in-between. Which this thread has mostly done, I think.

 

[Eltab]

I believe the "expanded Monster Manual with multiple alternative descriptions of the monsters' culture" mentioned upthread would come out looking a lot like Volo's Guide.

 

[Mercurius]

I believe the "expanded Monster Manual with multiple alternative descriptions of the monsters' culture" mentioned upthread would come out looking a lot like Volo's Guide.

How about the Monsters-Can-Be-People-Too Manual?

Joking aside, I like Volo's. It is a far more interesting read than the traditional MM. I'd love to see them supplement this approach with a occasional pocket reference book that compiles monsters from previous books of just stat blocks and pictures to use as table references, as the one downside of Volo's is that they don't including as many monsters.