Reaction to WotC announcements re: Vistani (Drow, orcs, etc.

[ewancummins]

I don't know, you seem close to getting my perspective. After all, you put "problematic" in scare quotes and you readily acknowledge that liking books to which someone else objects doesn't equal being a racist (whatever racist means--the word is badly overused these days).

But the tone of the social media comments and interviews from Wizards doesn't come off like that.
It comes off as deadly serious and unwilling to admit that many people simply have different tastes in gaming. Wizards references real world political controversies and and pledges its corporate support for certain extreme ideologies during a time (in America, certainly) of riots, political violence, and widespread looting and vandalism.
That's a quick way to lose fans and customers. It has lost me.


There's a huge difference in the way these recent changes have been presented to gamers and the way TSR addressed criticism about how certain things from 1E were removed in 2E.
I recall the editorial in Dragon in which an editor-- Roger Moore I think-- responded to criticism from a gamer who was displeased that demons and devils had been left out of 2E. There was no rudeness, no lecturing, no condescension. None of this 'find another game' attitude. He certainly didn't call the guy a bigot. He just explained why the decision was made, noted that one could put these monsters back in at one's home table, and then talked up the new butt-kicking giants and dragons as higher level baddies.
And he mentioned that the company might but these monsters back in the game if it found a way to do that that avoided bad press and addressed parental concerns.
(As you doubtless know, that is exactly what happened a few years later).

[ewancummins]

The rest of my ideas related to Vistani, orcs, and drow fit better in other threads, as they are not criticism of Wizards' marketing but rather notions for use in the game.


Thanks for reading, guys.
And thank you to everyone who responded to my posts, including those who didn't see eye-to-eye with me.

[tomokaicho]

In another old thread, I suggested that the Barovian gypsies could be separated from Vistani if one wished.

Just make them White European types that like bright clothing. No need for any 'Romani sensitivity reader'.

[Five]

I think we can all come up with over-the-top strawmen of what could be a clearly racist roleplaying game. It's not hard. There's a continuum between that and some unobtainable vision of a game that won't offend anyone, even if they are trying hard to find offense. Reality will always be somewhere in between. And saying "it's just fantasy" denies the even the possibility of the problem. Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it can't be influenced by the racism the world is soaking in.

No, of course not. Same as we can't say that it is influenced by the racism the world is soaking in. Ultimately it's the dreamer (reader) who decides.

By delineating/framing/etc a roleplaying game as a fantasy game, calling it what it is and what it has been marketed as since its inception, Wizards could make an attempt to protect the game from future "attacks" (ever-evolving current generational outrage), as reasonably and as responsibly, "truthfully", as they can. Clearly stating what the product is and what it is not, quick blurb on corporate ethics, that sort of thing. The simpler the better IMO.

I probably should say that I am a decades-long gamer who can't remember ever opening a Dungeons and Dragons book and thinking to myself "Geez, that's a harsh treatment of fillintheblank. That's just wrong". I just don't book club (read reality from) it. Maybe I'm a queer hand in being like that.

The steps they say they are taking (listening to player feedback, attempts at not painting real world people/cultures in a negative light, etc) is noble and not the issue that I have with Wizards. I hope all companies put such (legit) effort into their consumer base, even if it is to profit off of them.

Issue I have is with their execution of some of those steps (in addition to taking part in the morphing of real people into ones that should remain grounded in fantasy).

By condemning their legacy/legacy products, assuming that disclaimer is their final say, they have done nothing but exacerbate the problem, and on multiple internal levels (immoral profiteering, back-handing predecessors, etc), and external levels (broadstroking its older audience, multiple generations and a nation to boot!, into the local witch, though I know what I am and what I'm not, so I'm not torn up about it at all. The shot though is lazy, irresponsible, and unprofessional. To put it nicely. "It's not us it's them" haha really? Is that taking ownership of the internal issues that they themselves are trying to address?).

And then there's the "Dungeons and Dragons teaches" bit. Where to start? Unless the current staffers have PhDs, then this is an arrogant, unfounded, (again) irresponsible statement to make. They (a game publisher) again, blur the line between fantasy and reality, and send mixed signals as to what their product actually is. Parents picking this product up for their kids will have trouble figuring out what it is. Is it a game, or is it a social teaching aide? What and where are the qualifications of the people whose names I see? These "playtesters", are they other kids? What age are they? Is it a programme in some schools?

If all parents are expected to know what Dungeons and Dragons is, the old "what rock have you been living under?" sticker slap, then surely Wizards knows that everybody, in multiple nations across the planet, knows Dungeons and Dragons as a fantasy roleplaying game. So that begs the question, why are they now focusing on non-fantasy issues?

To better their product, to evolve it to include the current generation is one thing. To politicise it is another.

Now, somebody out there might be thinking "Stick to your old school mind in your old school game then. How do these changes affect your game?" (or other such thoughts).

My answer is also an admittedly remote point: they don't. They just change my view of the game publisher.

I know I am repeating myself (yet again). Please don't think that I am trying to sway anybody's opinions. I'm not at all. I did it this time in a attempt to further clarify mine, in case it wasn't already clear. I can ramble so it's possible. Heh. I will not be doing so in future posts, as it will accomplish nothing but add white noise to an otherwise decent enough thread. I will continue to read whatever is posted here just cos I like reading other people's opinions. Time for me to bow out though

[tomokaicho]

This, I just don't get. Trying to do better is preachy? Should they do it in silence? Maybe I'm looking at it with rose-colored glasses, but I see a company (here for company read: group of people, not monolithic inhuman corporation) trying to reconcile perceived missteps in their past with a new cultural shift. I'm willing to cut them a whole lot of slack while they navigate these seas, because it isn't easy to confront your own biases, and it's not like there's a roadmap of how to get to a better place. Every one of these "problematic" products has someone who loves it, and that doesn't make them a racist. Sometimes you just want to be a ninja. Sometimes you just want to bash some evil orcs. Sometimes you want your players to get clues from a mysterious wanderer of questionable motives. There's got to be a way to accommodate those play patterns without alienating people, but it's not clear how to get there.

Have you ever considered that all fantasy RPGs are replete with tropes and stereotypes about Europe? Have you ever taken up this cause, or seen someone else do so? If not, why not?

The Dark Sun setting will likely never see the light of day again because it has slavery in it. Or if it does make a reappearance, it will be so different as to no longer be the same setting. The Vistani, a negative and racist charicature of Romani gypsies according to WotC will be treated like every trans and homosexual character at Paizo - meaning, always the good guys, never shown in a negative light.

The self righteousness of people pushing racial absurdities throughout the West (but not in normal countries elsewhere its important to note) shows the truth of Yates' poem, the Second Coming. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Another way to put it is that the Dunning–Kruger effect is running rampant in our society, and it won't be corrected without a firm hand.

I am a person that speaks, reads and writes four languages, and understands quite a bit of the context of foreign countries. Yet the loudest voices against 'racism', 'cultural appropriation' and other social constructs are monolingual undermen that have self selected themselves to put on the bully uniform lest they become the victim. Its tedious.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Have you ever considered that all fantasy RPGs are replete with tropes and stereotypes about Europe? Have you ever taken up this cause, or seen someone else do so? If not, why not?

Of course they are. But the sheer number of European analogues in fantasy ensures that you get a variety of tropes, and not simple stereotypes. And since the majority of the material has written by white men, there's no need for a while male sensitivity reader. You don't get only one-sided views from an outsider to those cultures. Maybe you get mythologized versions from descendants of those cultures, who may or may not have ever set foot in their ancestral lands, but you don't get them portrayed as the abnormal "other".

The Vistani, a negative and racist charicature of Romani gypsies according to WotC will be treated like every trans and homosexual character at Paizo - meaning, always the good guys, never shown in a negative light.

Here I actually agree with you to an extent. Putting marginalized groups on a pedestal where they can do nothing wrong is just as bad as the opposite. The goal should be a nuanced representation, with both good and bad individuals in the group. But to do that, you need more than one vistani (or gay, or whatever) character every 10 years.

[tomokaicho]

Of course they are. But the sheer number of European analogues in fantasy ensures that you get a variety of tropes, and not simple stereotypes. And since the majority of the material has written by white men, there's no need for a while male sensitivity reader. You don't get only one-sided views from an outsider to those cultures. Maybe you get mythologized versions from descendants of those cultures, who may or may not have ever set foot in their ancestral lands, but you don't get them portrayed as the abnormal "other".

"Abnormal", or just different? We may have different recollections of the 1980s, but I am pretty sure that Oriental Adventures was not a white supremacist publication, and Asians were not portrayed as abnormal. The main difference between OA and the European style settings was an honor and ancestry mechanic.

Now that the staff of WotC and Paizo is diverse, I hope they won't be using these diverse writers to culturally appropriate European cultures. I hope gay people won't be writing "one-sided" heterosexual NPCs.

Here I actually agree with you to an extent. Putting marginalized groups on a pedestal where they can do nothing wrong is just as bad as the opposite. The goal should be a nuanced representation, with both good and bad individuals in the group. But to do that, you need more than one vistani (or gay, or whatever) character every 10 years.

Paizo has hundreds of homosexual or trans NPCs in their products. We have enough of a sample to know how it will be handled. God forbid that the deraved homosexual trope be used.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

"Abnormal", or just different? We may have different recollections of the 1980s, but I am pretty sure that Oriental Adventures was not a white supremacist publication, and Asians were not portrayed as abnormal. The main difference between OA and the European style settings was an honor and ancestry mechanic.

OA was not all at racist in my recollection of the 80's, but I was 10 then, and still in a D&D group that thought nothing of each PC having a girlfriend NPC who would pop out of the woods for celebratory sex after each battle and then disappear afterwards. I like to think I've evolved a bit since then. No, it's not a white supremacist publication, and no one said it was, and the authors seem to have had the best of intentions based on their forwards to it. But a quick flip through shows more "exotic" and "mysterious" than you can shake a stick at, and "Oriental" describing every thing from races to weapons. Par for the course in the 80's, yes. But more than a little tone-deaf now, and about what you might expect of such a book written by three white guys. No matter how much research Gygax, Cook, and Breault did, they don't have the perspective of someone from one of the Asian cultures they pulled from. They certainly could have used a sensitivity reader to at least file down the edges, had such a concept existed then.

Paizo has hundreds of homosexual or trans NPCs in their products. We have enough of a sample to know how it will be handled. God forbid that the deraved homosexual trope be used.

I haven't kept up with recent Paizo products, so I did some quick googling and found this:
https://wesschneider.tumblr.com/post/93 ... finder-rpg
I went down the list searching up whatever info I could on these characters:
Azaz Arafe & Khelru - Azaz is Neutral. don't know about Kheru, Bors & Roshad - not clear, but seem neutral or good, Dredge - lawful evil, Lady Sophriona - unclear, Muminofrah - unclear. helps the PCs, but has slaves, Vera & Xulaine - unclear, Agrit Staginsdar & Sara Morninghawk - LN & NG, Alexius Demetri & Lycio Vallant - unknown and LG, Aron Kir & Sosiel Vaenic - N & NG, Arshea - NG, Bella Belvorica & Solveig Ayrdahl - unknown & CG, Cesseer of Ning - unclear, Irabeth & Anevia LG & NG, Lona Orames & Duranna Alnurris - LE & NE

I stopped there because a) I was getting tired and didn't care all that much, b) I'd found what I was looking for... more than one queer character that's not painted in the best light, and more than one of those outright Evil, but also several good ones. Looks to me like a decent balance. (Compare that to Ravenloft... we've got Hazlik, and Strahd if you count CoS. Two Depraved Homosexuals, right in line with the trope. Then since we're counting CoS, there's Godfrey and Vladimir, a couple of revenants who were good in life and can be redeemed. Two minor characters in the Tapestry of Dark Souls novel. And.... apart from speculation about Nostalia and Ivana, and Alanik Ray and Sedgewick, that's it.)

Besides: wizards isn't Paizo, and in most cases orientation is much easier to tack onto a character or remove from it without changing the character than race/culture, so it's not a great comparison.

[Wolfglide of the Fraternity]

OA was not all at racist in my recollection of the 80's, but I was 10 then, and still in a D&D group that thought nothing of each PC having a girlfriend NPC who would pop out of the woods for celebratory sex after each battle and then disappear afterwards. I like to think I've evolved a bit since then.

If they were skilled at safely getting from battle site to battle site, it sounds like they should have been employed scouting ahead of the party.
I was once told that the PCs of absent players are kept in an "interdimensional port-a-potty," thus making it easy to remove and reintroduce them in play. I wonder if this is a related phenomenon.

But a quick flip through shows more "exotic" and "mysterious" than you can shake a stick at, and "Oriental" describing every thing from races to weapons.

I remember seeing a 5th edition product (which may not have been from WotC) which had a lot of Eastern monsters in it, but every single one smart enough to speak spoke a language called "Oriental." To me, it had an uncomfortable (and probably unintentional) connotation of "all those languages sound alike."

(Compare that to Ravenloft... we've got Hazlik, and Strahd if you count CoS. Two Depraved Homosexuals, right in line with the trope. Then since we're counting CoS, there's Godfrey and Vladimir, a couple of revenants who were good in life and can be redeemed. Two minor characters in the Tapestry of Dark Souls novel. And.... apart from speculation about Nostalia and Ivana, and Alanik Ray and Sedgewick, that's it.)

Besides: wizards isn't Paizo, and in most cases orientation is much easier to tack onto a character or remove from it without changing the character than race/culture, so it's not a great comparison.

I never said it explicitly, but Qualensturm (from my first Conferences story in QtR 24) was supposed to be gay. Contrary to this particular trope, however, it is actually one of his remaining humanizing traits. Playing on his love for his deceased partner could even be a lifeline for his redemption.