Urban Arcana

[buzz]

But again--still looking for a yes-or-no answer from someone--does it look like WotC is actively making a decision not to make that central cover character a white guy?

SNIP

But that means that a conscious decision not to make that character a white guy (if indeed that's what they're doing) is also not representing a big slice of the American community, does it not?

SNIP

Notice I never said it was a bad thing to depict a variety of races and gender types in gaming--that's one of the comments that Bran, Ranger, et al, have put into my mouth--I just said it seemed like a bad idea (business-wise) to consciously decide to make that central cover character anything but a white guy (if indeed that is the case; there's only been three covers after all so only time will tell).

I still don't see why this matters. Do you feel "excluded" by products like Nyambe: African Adventures or Rokugan? Is the subset (large as it may be) of the gaming community that is white and male so easily threatened simply because a WotC product doesn't feature 100% white male characters that they have to suddenly talk of WotC having an "agenda"?

You keep saying that people are putting words in your mouth and exaggerating; but given the fact that you're even asking these questions, I don't think the reaction is really all that unjustified. The rationale for your criticism is, imo, pretty ridiculous. Why should WotC's motives be suspect just for producing one of the few RPG products that demonstrates a modicium of racial and gender diversity... not to mention a smidgen of fashion awareness (something fairly germane to one of the genres d20M seeks to emulate, e.g., contemporary action movies)?

Kind of like how WotC uses the feminine pronoun in favor of the male pronoun. The notion there is that using the male pronoun is sexist. That's ludicrous IMO, but even if that's so, then favoring the female pronoun is also discriminatory, so why bother?

WotC, as far as I can see, does not favor either pronoun. They switch off occasionally, most often when referring to iconic types; something that is farily commonplace nowadays. Other d20 companies do it (Malhavoc, for one), and some companies have probably been doing it longer (White Wolf).

For the record, I don't think that either of these practices are evident of any "agenda" other than acknowledging the fact that humans (gamers or no) come in a variety of genders and skin colors... something that's been overwhelmingly ignored by most other RPG products produced in the last few decades.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Sounds like you're engaging in the kneejerk labeling that I spoke of above. My gamers weren't turned off by the iconics because they are bigots, they were turned off because they felt excluded, like the game was designed for a different crowd. Yes, they are more close-minded than I'd like, but that's really not their problem. It's WotC's (because it cost them some business) and it's mine (because I really wanted to give this game a try).

Kneejerk, hardly. But honestly, it doesn't require a whole lot of deep cognition to come to this conclusion. Anyone who shuns a good book because they don't like the cover is a simpleton IMO. Anyone who refuses to buy the book or try the game because they feel they were excluded based on the cover is in the same boat. I imagine people like that don't play much of anything at all.
I can honestly say that I would not want to run into anyone who has such a seriously narrow way of thinking.
That's not even taking any possible bigotry into consideration, which would just be the cherry on top of a particularly foul sundae.
I've been unfortunate enough to have morons join my group when I wasn't the one running the game and it's unbearable. However, among the chronic gas-passers and genetic throwbacks I've had to endure, none of them have lamented their abscence from a book cover. It just boggles my mind that anybody thinks about it THAT much.

OK, to clarify then: to my question regarding the design team's choice for central cover iconic, you do not believe that in the three-out-of-three cases that WotC did not make a specific choice to exclude white males from that spot?

Maybe not everyone thinks about it as much as you, or at least your group, do.

 

[Psychotic Dreamer]

Does anyone know where I can find a large image of the cover? The one on Wizards store is fairly small. I want to see what this is all about.

I don't have a local game store so I can't check it out there.

Just curious.

 

[Felon]

Honestly, will anyone step forward and say, "I'm a white male, and I didn't buy the book because the central figure wasn't one of my people."

They won't necessarily do that. Rather, the potential problem is that some members of the core audience will reject the product without even thinking out a nice complete thought balloon about it. They'll just let their eyes skip over it, and that's all it takes. It'll be a kneejerk reaction like some of my group had that "that's not for us". Again, decidedly less than open-minded, but it's not the consumer who suffers for it.

In any event, there's some logic for you, or at least something close enough to logic that I can imagine the marketing folks coming up with the ideas while trying to figure out the cover. I'm not saying that it'll convince you, but it could have been enough to convince said marketers.

Well-said. It may have at that. Like I said, I think only time will tell.

Originally posted by King of Old School
I don't think anyone's being any more or less unfair to you in assessing your motives than you are being to WotC in judging theirs.

It is not particularly fair to ascribe sentiments to me that are opposed to what I've actually stated expressly. Several times

As for the rest of what you've said, I consider most of it to be valid points that I'd been mulling over myself. Yes, I do think a male elf would be considered more of a white guy than a female drow. No, I'm sure what Adam Swift's ethnicity is, or even if the character on the D20 Menace book is him (off-hand I'd go with Bran's guess that he's a native American). Yes, I think it'll take more than 3 books to provide more than a general impression of what WotC's "official" central cover iconic policy is (if anything).

Originally posted by Buzz
I still don't see why this matters. Do you feel "excluded" by products like Nyambe: African Adventures or Rokugan?

Doesn't matter to me so much (both are fine books), but yes I do think that those games--particularly the former--do not have an appeal to some gamers at least partially because they simply can't develop a connection with the settings or feel any association with a character of another ethnicity. Deride them for that if it makes you feel like a better person, but ulitmately they're entitled to their opinions and feelings as much as anyone, and their dollar has just as much buying power.

Is the subset (large as it may be) of the gaming community that is white and male so easily threatened simply because a WotC product doesn't feature 100% white male characters that they have to suddenly talk of WotC having an "agenda"?

Who said there should be 100% male iconics? I did not.

To answer your question, yes I do imagine that some gamers are mixed in with those millions of people who listen to AM talk radio 10 hours a day.

You keep saying that people are putting words in your mouth and exaggerating; but given the fact that you're even asking these questions, I don't think the reaction is really all that unjustified.

lol, ah one of the great tenets of political correctness; even asking a question is grounds to immediately judge a person guilty of sexism, racism, ageism, heightism, or what have you. To even acknowledge the issues exist at some level is tatamount to being a hate-monger.

It is in fact unjustified because you keep ascribing despicable dispositions to me that I haven't actually expressly expressed. For instance...

The rationale for your criticism is, imo, pretty ridiculous. Why should WotC's motives be suspect just for producing one of the few RPG products that demonstrates a modicium of racial and gender diversity...

For the umpteenth time, I don't object to diversity. It is discrimination that I find problematic. What I do suspect is that they may be altogether excluding white male iconics from that central cover spot, and that does seem to smack of both bad business and a form of reverse-discrimination (albeit one of the more trivial instances that I'm likely to encounter within my lifetime). It's too soon to be much more than a suspicion, but I'm content to wait and watch as D20M marches on. I wish I could go to the Wizards boards and actually ask this question, but needless to say no matter how tactfully I broach the subject, the resultant indignation on that board will make the posts here look quite civil by comparison.

Originally posted by Bran
But honestly, it doesn't require a whole lot of deep cognition to come to this conclusion. Anyone who shuns a good book because they don't like the cover is a simpleton IMO. Anyone who refuses to buy the book or try the game because they feel they were excluded based on the cover is in the same boat. I imagine people like that don't play much of anything at all. I can honestly say that I would not want to run into anyone who has such a seriously narrow way of thinking.

Your own statements indicate a certain predilection for making hasty, disdainful assessments about folks who think and react differently from you (and are therefore "simpletons"), and that brings your own level of open-minded enlightenment into question. People have their own values and experiences that shape their perceptions; they may indeed take stock of things that you don't. And that just might not make them foul idiots. Have you ever experienced reverse-discrimination? Ever lost a job or experienced social hostility due to your race or gender? It happens, and when it does it leaves an indelible mark upon one's perspective.

I've been unfortunate enough to have morons join my group when I wasn't the one running the game and it's unbearable. However, among the chronic gas-passers and genetic throwbacks I've had to endure...

As you sit weighing and measuring others at the gaming table to see if they're fit to be in your company, do you ever wonder if there a few imperfections in your own character that would make you reconsider your own fitness to so readily dole out contempt towards others for their inadequacies?

...none of them have lamented their abscence from a book cover. It just boggles my mind that anybody thinks about it THAT much.

I doubt anyone does think about it that much. I seriously doubt it will ever become a political hot potato or anything like that. Just something that some folks will observe and then keep silent about lest they be accused of intolerance for voicing their observation.

 

[Felon]

Does anyone know where I can find a large image of the cover? The one on Wizards store is fairly small. I want to see what this is all about. I don't have a local game store so I can't check it out there. Just curious.

Honestly? I don't think bigger pictures will make this discussion more accessible. I think the discussion now has more to do with questioning motives and prejudices. They think I'm making a big deal about something so innocuous that only a bigot would make a big deal out of. I don't think I'm making a big deal out of something innocuous, I just made some innocuous comments that they made a big deal out of. Wrap your head around that and you've just about got all of this flap boiled down to its essentials.

 

[Anti-Sean]

Felon,

My guess is that Wizards wanted to show off some of the new features that are part of Urban Arcana. As tired as I am of their overexposure in D&D, drow are a part of the UA setting that is separate and distinct from what is offered up in d20 Modern. (I would've preferred they used a combination of other Shadowkind, maybe some goblins, bugbears or illithid, but that's just me). I think it was a good idea on their part to show Shadowkind on the cover to help differentiate UA from d20M, and show some of the new options that the game provides. Perhaps they could have replaced one or more of the figures on the cover with a white guy, (maybe a spellcaster or somesuch), but since that could be covered somewhat by d20M, that cover wouldn't speak (to me, at least) as much about the separate and distinct qualities of the setting.

To me, it's like putting a Fighter and a Monk on the cover of Sword and Fist - yes, some of the options inside the book can be used by other classes, but the "Ooh, Shiny!" bits inside the book deal primarily with fighters and monks, so it makes sense for the cover to represent that. (Sorry for the weak analogy, I'm up far earlier than normal, and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.)

[Edit - added the missing half of a sentence - still blaming the coffee]

 

[buzz]

Doesn't matter to me so much (both are fine books), but yes I do think that [Nyambe and Rokugan]--particularly the former--do not have an appeal to some gamers at least partially because they simply can't develop a connection with the settings or feel any association with a character of another ethnicity. Deride them for that if it makes you feel like a better person, but ulitmately they're entitled to their opinions and feelings as much as anyone, and their dollar has just as much buying power.

I would imagine that nearly 100% of D&D's fanbase is human. Do products that feature nonhuman characters on the cover prevent the human audience from "developing a connection"? I'd think not. And, yes, I think that your assertion about prominently featuring white males is about as valid.

Who said there should be 100% male iconics? I did not.

You've made it pretty clear that prominently featuring anything other than your narrowly-defined concept of a "hero" (i.e., white, male, and not dressed in anything "trendy") is a Bad Thing(tm) indicative of some malign, PC agenda on WotC's part.

Do you have this same negative reaction to, say, movies featuring minority actors, or music made by different ethnicities?

lol, ah one of the great tenets of political correctness; even asking a question is grounds to immediately judge a person guilty of sexism, racism, ageism, heightism, or what have you. To even acknowledge the issues exist at some level is tatamount to being a hate-monger.

I'm pretty fed up wth this "victims of PC brainwashing" defense. Now who's putting words into other people's mouths?

And you have made it pretty clear that you aren't just rasing a purely academic argument:

It is discrimination that I find problematic. What I do suspect is that they may be altogether excluding white male iconics from that central cover spot, and that does seem to smack of both bad business and a form of reverse-discrimination (albeit one of the more trivial instances that I'm likely to encounter within my lifetime).

A reader doesn't need to be a PC commando to read an assertion like this and find it questionable. WotC publishes *one book* (UA doesn't count, as the characters depicted are mythological creatures) that features an African-American male *in addition to* a white male and an Asian female, and you're crying "discrimination" and "agenda." "The white male should have been at the center! To feature any other ethnicity or gender is bad business sense! How can any white male gamer bring themselves to use a product that features a black man featured on the cover?"

You don't have to be a PC zombie to be offended by this. This kind of thinking is dated and irrational; if it brings criticism and derision upon you, it's only becasue it is entirely deserving of such a reaction.

Your own statements indicate a certain predilection for making hasty, disdainful assessments about folks who think and react differently from you (and are therefore "simpletons"), and that brings your own level of open-minded enlightenment into question.

Likewise, WotC seem to think differently from you, and thus must have an "agenda."

Let me ask you this: if the *content* of the book has been exactly the same, but the art had featured white males more prominently, would that have improved your or your group's reaction to the book?

If no, then you simply don't like the product, which is fine.

If yes, then you'll have to excuse my utter lack of sympathy for your point of view.

 

[Felon]

You've made it pretty clear that prominently featuring anything other than your narrowly-defined concept of a "hero" (i.e., white, male, and not dressed in anything "trendy") is a Bad Thing(tm) indicative of some malign, PC agenda on WotC's part.

Disingenuous horsepoop. I've done nothing of the sort. In fact, I've already stated that I am all for diversity iin gaming, including iconics, and that I do in fact play characters of various ethnicities and even the occasional female character. You've convinced yourself of your assertions in spite of the things I've said, not because of them. I certainly hope that you don't always feel compelled to villainize every person that you debate with.

Do you have this same negative reaction to, say, movies featuring minority actors, or music made by different ethnicities?

And now you've apparently abandoned the debate in order to maximize your offensiveness with personal attacks. You falsely label someone, and then ask if that untruth you made up applies to other areas. Obviously it doesn't. What, it would help you to know Blade was the first DVD I bought (not to mention a fine example of an Urban Arcanna iconic)? Probably not; you're too deep into your indignation fantasy.

I'm pretty fed up wth this "victims of PC brainwashing" defense. Now who's putting words into other people's mouths?

Not me. You said "given the fact that you're even asking these questions, I don't think the reaction is really all that unjustified". That pretty much validates my response. Just asking questions--merely broaching the subject--was enough for you to get label-happy.

A reader doesn't need to be a PC commando to read an assertion like this and find it questionable.

...but it helps.

WotC publishes *one book* (UA doesn't count, as the characters depicted are mythological creatures)

Mythological or not, the central iconic's not male. And it's a little too early to tell, but D20Menace may continue the trend.

that features an African-American male *in addition to* a white male and an Asian female, and you're crying "discrimination" and "agenda."

There you go again. I haven't been dramatically crying anything. I've been pretty calm and level-headed. It's been you and others who've been inflammatory and melodramatic.

"The white male should have been at the center! To feature any other ethnicity or gender is bad business sense! How can any white male gamer bring themselves to use a product that features a black man featured on the cover?"

More misrepresentation, more dishonesty, more self-delusion. The epitome of the straw man tactic. I've already corrected you and others on this point several times, so no reason to waste my breath here.

You don't have to be a PC zombie to be offended by this. This kind of thinking is dated and irrational; if it brings criticism and derision upon you, it's only becasue it is entirely deserving of such a reaction.

You don't have to be a PC zombie, but you do have to be pretty irrational yourself to criticize someone for things that they only said in your own private, imaginary debate. Case in point:

Likewise, WotC seem to think differently from you, and thus must have an "agenda."

You put "agenda" in quotes like it's a word that I keep throwing out. I haven't used it once.

 

[Felon]

My guess is that Wizards wanted to show off some of the new features that are part of Urban Arcana. As tired as I am of their overexposure in D&D, drow are a part of the UA setting that is separate and distinct from what is offered up in d20 Modern. (I would've preferred they used a combination of other Shadowkind, maybe some goblins, bugbears or illithid, but that's just me).

Oh, I definitely agree. Just to be absolutely clear here, my comment wasn't about UA by itself. I was speaking of a possible trend of exclusion.

I think it was a good idea on their part to show Shadowkind on the cover to help differentiate UA from d20M, and show some of the new options that the game provides. Perhaps they could have replaced one or more of the figures on the cover with a white guy, (maybe a spellcaster or somesuch), but since that could be covered somewhat by d20M, that cover wouldn't speak (to me, at least) as much about the separate and distinct qualities of the setting.

Man, I disliked that UA cover iconics for a few reasons. A white guy wouldn't have made feel better about it though; that was not the point I was making.

To me, it's like putting a Fighter and a Monk on the cover of Sword and Fist - yes, some of the options inside the book can be used by other classes, but the "Ooh, Shiny!" bits inside the book deal primarily with fighters and monks, so it makes sense for the cover to represent that. (Sorry for the weak analogy, I'm up far earlier than normal, and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.)
[Edit - added the missing half of a sentence - still blaming the coffee]

OK, but let's say all the D&D core class iconics in the PHB were women. It wouldn't be the end of the word, but would it really be that outrageous or sexist that someone would point that out, and suggest that it's a little odd for a game whose audience is overwhelmingly male to actively exclude men from the choice of iconics (unless, of course, it was Avalance Press publishing the book, but that's a whole 'nother thread ).

 

[Ranger REG]

OK, that's fairly amusing (and if folks are going to take pot-shots at me, then I do hope they'll at least try to be a little clever, because I could use a laugh) but I have in fact indicated numerous times that an all-white suburban Norman Rockwell family that looks like mine is not what I want in an RPG, so again we're back to straw-manning.

Then what do you want? A clean-cut book complete with a picture of college prep kids with swords on the cover? At least the d20 Modern Core Rulebook got something of a clean-cut urban image (if you can call it that; they look like the "good guys"). Don't know what it is you're ragging on Urban Arcana for, picture-wise and content-wise.

Granted there is a degree of desirabiliy in reaching a broader audience, and I'm all for a broad representation of people (something I seem to have to keep repeating), but a decision to exclude a specific ethnic/gender combination from that center spot based on the fact that it is your current core audience makes little sense. In all the snideness, I have yet to see anyone explain the logic in that.

I can only give you an educated guess. The core audience is growing up and growing old, and probably growing tired of playing this kind of game so they're leaving this hobby and the number is dwindling. Remember, their large fan base is based on a very old and yet long-running game.

While they do not wish to exclude all audience of any age, Wizards did their market research and find that their demographic is college-aged adults (18-24). So they have to make the product appeal toward those audience and yet find a balance with other audience.

To put in an analogy, I mean it's kinda hard to mix hip-hop rap music (young kids like) with rock songs by Bon Jovi (what thirtysomething like) in one music compilation CD to appeal everyone.