Anyways. While watching the aftermath of all this play out has been... riveting (in a horrific cant-turn-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way,) at least for myself, now seems like an ideal point to take what has been learned and move on.
Agreed.
My point has been made. I will not be responding to this thread anymore.
I'll bite one more time, because I don't think these should be left unanswered, but it's amazing how your can argue that the article was voluntarily inflammatory as clickbait, so people would argue and generate traffic, while arguing that the proof is the closure of comments, which does the absolute opposite of what you're arguing.
But that implies that the past editions had rules that were veiled racism and that those who still play those editions use their character creation discissions based on real-world racist ideology.
No it doesn't, this is the base of your argument, and this has been pointed out to you several times that it doesn't. You keep insisting because you want that to be true, but it's simply not accurate. At this point, your are purposefully misleading people by your own biased interpretation that goes against the facts.
The minute you introduce someone to the table who says things like "of course you'd play an Orc slaying Elf, how colonial of you, to act out your oppression fantasies" or "you can't play a Calishite character, in reality you're not a person of color", or "you can't play a female character you're a male"... the minute those ideas enter the game, it is poison. If you can't accept your friend's creative attempt to role-play a woman; how can you possibly accept magic, dragons, and fairies.
[...]
Hodes walks up the driveway, with a can of gas in one hand, a book of matches in the other... and wearing a T-Shirt that says "I love arson" and a picture of Donald Sutherland from Backdraft on it... and James Haeck invites him right in the front door.
Nobody said the first thing, you're extremely overreaching the point being made, and your conclusion is extremely disingenuous. You're shutting down any chance of anyone having any kind of rational exchange with these outrageous exaggerations.
If you read James Mendez Hodes article, it is not ambiguous or unclear, it's a condemnation of Tolkien, the D&D community in particular, and the fantasy fandom in general. It's not an article saying "racism is bad", it's an article saying "here are the racists!" and pointing at the community. I find it offensive, because it was designed to offend; I find it inflamatory, because it was designed to inflame. There is literally no productive discussion to be had on such an artical because it is tailor crafted to derange conversation.
My point however, is none of this ever had to come to D&D Beyond. James Haeck added the link to his article (which is otherwise great) as a throw-away line to add social significance and wieght to the piece. I think adding it was maybe a simple mistake on Haeck's part, because he does not recognize or have the lived experience of being the victim of severe social stigma attached to the game.
Haeck appears to be my son's age, so to him the worst social stigma associated with playing D&D is that one could be considered "nerdy". I don't think he's ever run across a person literally shouting that the game is evil and threatening him with physical violence or offering to save him by burning his books, manuals, and magazines.
For those of us that have experienced that, James Mendez Hodes article is a grim reminder that the thing we love can be used as a scapegoat for any manner of social ills. When that happens, people who like to blame art for transmitting evil ideas, calling for banning books and blaming the community don't come far behind that sort of hyperbole.
I think it is the case that Haeck didn't truely consider D&D's history, or the impact such an article has on the community. That's a mistake. Leaving the citation included in the article and giving James Mendez Hodes that acknowledgement and that platform once they discover how hurtful it can be... that's irresponsible.
> However, if his intent was to make the game more inclusive, then he should not have made the statement with a link to another inflammatory article. Can we both agree on that?
No, I cannot and will not agree with that. Sometimes facing things may seem 'inflammatory' if you feel you're on the wrong side of things.
You seem to conflating implications and actualisations, that something having problematic connotations is the same as something being intentionally problematic. That's a false equivalency, and not what either piece was saying.
Honestly, I find your notions of 'brand loyalty' and the idea that someone can't claim to like D&D if they express anything other than blind positivity about it creepy and weird. I have no issue with people scanning social media, but 'investigating' it to determine 'brand loyalty'? Yikes, do you have no idea how creepy that sounds?
Anyways. While watching the aftermath of all this play out has been... riveting (in a horrific cant-turn-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way,) at least for myself, now seems like an ideal point to take what has been learned and move on.
Agreed.
My point has been made. I will not be responding to this thread anymore.
I'll bite one more time, because I don't think these should be left unanswered, but it's amazing how your can argue that the article was voluntarily inflammatory as clickbait, so people would argue and generate traffic, while arguing that the proof is the closure of comments, which does the absolute opposite of what you're arguing.
Hold on. I never said the article was deliberately inflammatory (which is what I presume you meant.) Sure, the thought crossed my mind that that might be the case... but I kept that to myself, because it's a fairly nasty accusation, and I don't like to make nasty accusations without some sort of evidence beyond mere speculation.
The only reason I even brought it up was to point out that closing the comments DISPROVES the idea. I'm actually saying that such speculation has been quelled, and that anyone else who had the thought cross their mind should at least be glad that that was laid to rest, no matter what else they think of the situation.
EDIT: And after reading the rest of the comments, particularly Planeswalker's, I see that earlier he made a statement where HE was calling the article deliberately inflammatory, and that THAT was what you were responding to. Apologies on getting confused and thinking you were referring to me.
EDIT: And after reading the rest of the comments, particularly Planeswalker's, I see that earlier he made a statement where HE was calling the article deliberately inflammatory, and that THAT was what you were responding to. Apologies on getting confused and thinking you were referring to me.
To be honest, I wasn't sure if you were, and refrained from replying because of that. I was indeed replying to Planewalker, but still appreciate the clarification, so thank you ;)
> However, if his intent was to make the game more inclusive, then he should not have made the statement with a link to another inflammatory article. Can we both agree on that?
No, I cannot and will not agree with that. Sometimes facing things may seem 'inflammatory' if you feel you're on the wrong side of things.
You seem to conflating implications and actualisations, that something having problematic connotations is the same as something being intentionally problematic. That's a false equivalency, and not what either piece was saying.
Honestly, I find your notions of 'brand loyalty' and the idea that someone can't claim to like D&D if they express anything other than blind positivity about it creepy and weird. I have no issue with people scanning social media, but 'investigating' it to determine 'brand loyalty'? Yikes, do you have no idea how creepy that sounds?
Hate is always foolish and love is always wise. Laugh hard. Run hard. Be kind.
I think I got you upset. I didn't want to push your buttons. Sorry.
> However, if his intent was to make the game more inclusive, then he should not have made the statement with a link to another inflammatory article. Can we both agree on that?
No, I cannot and will not agree with that. Sometimes facing things may seem 'inflammatory' if you feel you're on the wrong side of things.
You seem to conflating implications and actualisations, that something having problematic connotations is the same as something being intentionally problematic. That's a false equivalency, and not what either piece was saying.
Honestly, I find your notions of 'brand loyalty' and the idea that someone can't claim to like D&D if they express anything other than blind positivity about it creepy and weird. I have no issue with people scanning social media, but 'investigating' it to determine 'brand loyalty'? Yikes, do you have no idea how creepy that sounds?
Hate is always foolish and love is always wise. Laugh hard. Run hard. Be kind.
I think I got you upset. I didn't want to push your buttons. Sorry.
Just to clarify for those reading, PlaneswalkerVA is quoting my twitter bio back at me, having 'investigated' me like he did James Haeck for crimes of brand disloyalty, perhaps as some attempt at intimidation.
I'll bite one more time, because I don't think these should be left unanswered, but it's amazing how your can argue that the article was voluntarily inflammatory as clickbait, so people would argue and generate traffic, while arguing that the proof is the closure of comments, which does the absolute opposite of what you're arguing.
No it doesn't, this is the base of your argument, and this has been pointed out to you several times that it doesn't. You keep insisting because you want that to be true, but it's simply not accurate. At this point, your are purposefully misleading people by your own biased interpretation that goes against the facts.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
If you read James Mendez Hodes article, it is not ambiguous or unclear, it's a condemnation of Tolkien, the D&D community in particular, and the fantasy fandom in general. It's not an article saying "racism is bad", it's an article saying "here are the racists!" and pointing at the community. I find it offensive, because it was designed to offend; I find it inflamatory, because it was designed to inflame. There is literally no productive discussion to be had on such an artical because it is tailor crafted to derange conversation.
My point however, is none of this ever had to come to D&D Beyond. James Haeck added the link to his article (which is otherwise great) as a throw-away line to add social significance and wieght to the piece. I think adding it was maybe a simple mistake on Haeck's part, because he does not recognize or have the lived experience of being the victim of severe social stigma attached to the game.
Haeck appears to be my son's age, so to him the worst social stigma associated with playing D&D is that one could be considered "nerdy". I don't think he's ever run across a person literally shouting that the game is evil and threatening him with physical violence or offering to save him by burning his books, manuals, and magazines.
For those of us that have experienced that, James Mendez Hodes article is a grim reminder that the thing we love can be used as a scapegoat for any manner of social ills. When that happens, people who like to blame art for transmitting evil ideas, calling for banning books and blaming the community don't come far behind that sort of hyperbole.
I think it is the case that Haeck didn't truely consider D&D's history, or the impact such an article has on the community. That's a mistake. Leaving the citation included in the article and giving James Mendez Hodes that acknowledgement and that platform once they discover how hurtful it can be... that's irresponsible.
> However, if his intent was to make the game more inclusive, then he should not have made the statement with a link to another inflammatory article. Can we both agree on that?
No, I cannot and will not agree with that. Sometimes facing things may seem 'inflammatory' if you feel you're on the wrong side of things.
You seem to conflating implications and actualisations, that something having problematic connotations is the same as something being intentionally problematic. That's a false equivalency, and not what either piece was saying.
Honestly, I find your notions of 'brand loyalty' and the idea that someone can't claim to like D&D if they express anything other than blind positivity about it creepy and weird. I have no issue with people scanning social media, but 'investigating' it to determine 'brand loyalty'? Yikes, do you have no idea how creepy that sounds?
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Hold on. I never said the article was deliberately inflammatory (which is what I presume you meant.) Sure, the thought crossed my mind that that might be the case... but I kept that to myself, because it's a fairly nasty accusation, and I don't like to make nasty accusations without some sort of evidence beyond mere speculation.
The only reason I even brought it up was to point out that closing the comments DISPROVES the idea. I'm actually saying that such speculation has been quelled, and that anyone else who had the thought cross their mind should at least be glad that that was laid to rest, no matter what else they think of the situation.
EDIT: And after reading the rest of the comments, particularly Planeswalker's, I see that earlier he made a statement where HE was calling the article deliberately inflammatory, and that THAT was what you were responding to. Apologies on getting confused and thinking you were referring to me.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche* - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
To be honest, I wasn't sure if you were, and refrained from replying because of that. I was indeed replying to Planewalker, but still appreciate the clarification, so thank you ;)
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Hate is always foolish and love is always wise. Laugh hard. Run hard. Be kind.
I think I got you upset. I didn't want to push your buttons. Sorry.
Just to clarify for those reading, PlaneswalkerVA is quoting my twitter bio back at me, having 'investigated' me like he did James Haeck for crimes of brand disloyalty, perhaps as some attempt at intimidation.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules