Thread: Gatekeeping

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Lothal View Post
    I should have probably stressed out that the important things in life should absolutely be inclusive.

    The thing I had in mind while posting the OP was those cases like when you say the Star Wars sequels don't feel like Star Wars to you you're called a gatekeeper. Or check the thread about Shadowlands not feeling like Warcraft. Too many people feel like you have to like everything because if you don't, you are somehow hurting the feelings of people who do like said thing and thus you're gatekeeping.

    Which is absurd.
    That seems like being "stubborn" more so than anything to do with gatekeeping.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2021-01-23 at 12:24 AM. Reason: rephrasing that to be less problematic
    "It's a big club. And you ain't in it. It is also the club they use to beat you with." - George Carlin

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    Yeah as someone who leapt from 2nd Ed to 5th Ed, I think while there are some great systems, and well done for doing the "multiply by -1" to the whole Armor Class THAC0 thing, a lot of the rest of it just doesn't make it feel like D&D anymore.
    There are thankfully a lot of OSR clones out there that borrow the good from newer editions but cut out a lot of nonsense.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    As a long time D&D player, and like most of the things you post, this is bullshit.

    D&D has improved dramatically with the reduction in gatekeeping to the overall tabletop RPG hobby and to D&D in specific with 5E and a massive reduction in the system mastery needed to enjoy the game. As a long time DM, I can kill my party just fine. But killing PCs isn't the point.

    And I'm going to stop there since as I said to begin with, everything you just wrote is absolute, complete, total horse-shit.
    Coolio, I appreciate the time you took to respond to a personal opinion with your own but add insults too.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    This is inaccurate to history. I recommend a somewhat scholarly history of the medium called Playing At the World.
    Cool. Yeah I am going by my experience. And what is inaccurate, handing me a book and not explaining anything basically what? Should I just trust your words on it?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    What the fuck are you talking about? Why do so many of your posts read like words strung together without the smallest hint of understanding on your part?
    Probably because if I make a post you are required by MMO-C law to insult the Theo so as to maintain the good graces of a nice little clique here.

  3. #23
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,098
    The thing is, Theo, having a bunch of people playing furry immortal spellcaster versions of themselves? That's on the DM and the players. The 5e system allows you to do that if you want, but it doesn't force you to do that. If you and your DnD team want an immersive character-driven story game where people die if they make any errors.... you can still do that! There is nothing stopping you. My last 5e campaign ended in a total party wipe, because we deserved it, and because my DM doesn't feel obligated to pick up every book and use every rule. The rules and subsystems we don't like we... don't use!

    Don't take systems and possibilities away from the people that want them just because you can't say 'no, that isn't appropriate for this campaign, we're not going to use it'

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    The thing is, Theo, having a bunch of people playing furry immortal spellcaster versions of themselves? That's on the DM and the players.
    Yeah, I mention that, thus my over point is gatekeeping can be good or bad depending on context.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Depending on the hobby gatekeeping can be a good idea if you want it to stay fun.

    Like, for example many of the changes in Dungeons and Dragons have really altered the game to such a degree that really no character dies, everyone is a spellcaster and thanks to new official rules coming out, ones choice of race is totally irrelevant. Basically everyone's character is a spellcastering immortal furry. This is partly because accommodating a new sort of fanbase has led to players who aren't so much for role-playing characters, but instead role-playing a fantastical representation or expression of themselves. This is an example the importance of say "Gatekeeping". But then again in the realm of hobbies gatekeeping really doesn't matter so much since rules and such are whatever you make of them.

    But it does reflect that the hobby has changed to meet the desires of a different sort, and thus changed the public facing culture of the game.

    Gatekeeping can be good or bad, it really depends on the context.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    The thing is, Theo, having a bunch of people playing furry immortal spellcaster versions of themselves? That's on the DM and the players. The 5e system allows you to do that if you want, but it doesn't force you to do that. If you and your DnD team want an immersive character-driven story game where people die if they make any errors.... you can still do that! There is nothing stopping you. My last 5e campaign ended in a total party wipe, because we deserved it, and because my DM doesn't feel obligated to pick up every book and use every rule. The rules and subsystems we don't like we... don't use!

    Don't take systems and possibilities away from the people that want them just because you can't say 'no, that isn't appropriate for this campaign, we're not going to use it'
    Totally

    I mean that very thing is written in the book of every single RPG I've ever read...no matter what system. 5E, Pathfinder, WoD, etc.... pretty much every single one of them says something along the lines of "take what you like, lose what you don't. The most important rule is to have fun."

    And any good DM makes proper use of the "Rule of Cool"...even when it goes against "Rules as Written".

  6. #26
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    26,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Coolio, I appreciate the time you took to respond to a personal opinion with your own but add insults too.
    Because, per usual, you framed your opinion as fact, and as usual, you are wrong.

    You parrot the same bullshit talking points all the OSR fanboys jerk off to these days and it's tiresome bordering on egregiously insulting. We can all open the books. All WOTC has done has opened things up for more people to be more creative. The only thing we've lost is everyone playing an elf because they want extra dex or everyone min/maxing a dipshit orc because they want to be the biggest barbarian.

    Now they can be dipshit min/maxed furries.

    And if that's the kind of game people want to play, you're in no position to say those options shouldn't be available to them. It is what WOTC has finally realized. Because all it is is gatekeeping and badwrongfun, which adds all of jack diddly squat to the hobby.

    And the absolute boom in the hobby because of it has shown that people like you, as usual are on the losing side of history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    "That's my style; I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  7. #27
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Depending on the hobby gatekeeping can be a good idea if you want it to stay fun.

    Like, for example many of the changes in Dungeons and Dragons have really altered the game to such a degree that really no character dies, everyone is a spellcaster and thanks to new official rules coming out, ones choice of race is totally irrelevant. Basically everyone's character is a spellcastering immortal furry.
    Literally none of this is true.

    1> It's super easy to die in 5e. It's also super easy for a DM to hold your hands and not threaten you, but if you drop someone to zero hit points and hit them twice more, they're fully dead (the system, for those who don't know, is you go unconscious at 0hp and start making "death saves", which are basically 50/50; fail three, and you die. Hitting an unconscious person is an automatic critical hit, and getting hit is an automatic failed save, and an auto crit automatically fails two). It was the same way in 3e and 4e, in that you went unconscious at zero HP and weren't "fully dead".

    1a> Healing is also WAY stingier in 5e, from spellcasting; in 3.X, a 3rd-level healing spell (Cure Serious Wounds) heals 3d8+character level. In 5e, that's 3d8+spellcasting ability modifier; that caps at +5 in most cases. 5e sees a lot more attrition over continued fights as a result, compared to 3.X.

    2> There are entire classes that don't involve spellcasting at all. Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, and Monks. Same as always. Some of those classes have one or two subclasses that get a tiny amount of spellcasting, like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, but it's way less than any other caster; they're what's called a "1/3-caster", as opposed to full casters like clerics and wizards, or half-casters like paladins and rangers. This has always been a factor in D&D, back to 3e; they just had prestige classes you'd use to get spellcasting if you wanted it, rather than a subclass, but it's the same basic idea.

    3> All that's changed with races is that there are now optional rules to let you swap some things around; you can trade "default" attribute bonuses for new ones of your preference, swap languages and skills for new ones, that sort of thing. If you want to play a Half-Orc Wizard, you no longer have to be the dumbest kid in school. You'd still be tougher than most because of Relentless Endurance, and able to bean someone in the skull with your staff really well because of Savage Attacks. You're still a Half-Orc, you can just be the scrawny Half-Orc who was raised by Dwarves and was way smarter than most of their kin. You're no longer pushed into lining up your race and your class' stat bonuses or forced to lag behind everyone the entire game. Which is how it was, until this change.

    This is partly because accommodating a new sort of fanbase has led to players who aren't so much for role-playing characters, but instead role-playing a fantastical representation or expression of themselves.
    Utter horseshit.

    What this change does is mean I can make Belgammatron, the Gnome Beastmaster Ranger, who rides around on his magic bear companion beaning people in the face with a staff, and Bel will kick as much ass as Boring McElfo, the Wood-elf Ranger who's been carbon stamped from Central Casting.

    If you think being the incarnation of furious wooded vengeance in the form of a half-mad magical forest being who's a whopping three feet of fury is my "expression of myself", you're crazier than that character concept. Particularly as I could talk about my Genasi Genie Warlock who's basically conceptually inspired as a con artist like Hondo from the Star Wars: Clone Wars series, the Mountain Dwarf abjuration wizard who's the tankiest arcane caster in the world, etc. And that's just a handful of the character concepts I have prepped in D&D Beyond for when the campaign I'm in wraps up and we move on to the next one. These changes enable a much wider diversity of characters, and dismantle the insistence on stereotyping that the game's unnecessarily enshrined over the years.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    If you and your DnD team want an immersive character-driven story game where people die if they make any errors.... you can still do that! There is nothing stopping you. My last 5e campaign ended in a total party wipe, because we deserved it, and because my DM doesn't feel obligated to pick up every book and use every rule. The rules and subsystems we don't like we... don't use!
    My current game is working through the Tomb of Annihilation campaign, and it's been frickin' crazy. I've gotten hit for more than half my health in a single blow more than a handful of times in the course of the game. I've been on death's door multiple times, a single death save away from rolling a new character, and that's with our DM giving us special advantages. We HAVE lost characters in the course of the game. We could've lost more, except for some smart play at certain moments. And we haven't even gotten to the Tomb yet, which is a reboot of one of the most vicious official meatgrinder dungeons the game's ever produced.

    The idea that you can't die in this game is just wrong. ToA has the special added nicety that resurrection magic flat-out doesn't work. You fail your death saves, that's it. Burn the body so it can't be raised as an undead, and move on. No Revivify, no Raise Dead, none of that. Which, again, was always a part of D&D; death has always only ever been temporary at mid-tiers and above.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Cool. Yeah I am going by my experience. And what is inaccurate, handing me a book and not explaining anything basically what? Should I just trust your words on it?
    Going by just your experience is fine but is also why I said your assertions were inaccurate. As many seem to be calling you out on in form or another.

    I specifically linked to the Good Reads page so you don't necessarily have to take my word for it but can see the views of others positively and negatively.
    "It's a big club. And you ain't in it. It is also the club they use to beat you with." - George Carlin

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    Because, per usual, you framed your opinion as fact, and as usual, you are wrong.

    You parrot the same bullshit talking points all the OSR fanboys jerk off to these days and it's tiresome bordering on egregiously insulting. We can all open the books. All WOTC has done has opened things up for more people to be more creative. The only thing we've lost is everyone playing an elf because they want extra dex or everyone min/maxing a dipshit orc because they want to be the biggest barbarian.

    Now they can be dipshit min/maxed furries.

    And if that's the kind of game people want to play, you're in no position to say those options shouldn't be available to them. It is what WOTC has finally realized. Because all it is is gatekeeping and badwrongfun, which adds all of jack diddly squat to the hobby.

    And the absolute boom in the hobby because of it has shown that people like you, as usual are on the losing side of history.
    This is also the second time you've responded to Theo to essentially say "Your opinion is wrong, here are some insults, and my opinion is correct".

    There is no objective measure to say which edition of D&D is the best. It's entirely subjective. Your entire argument for why 5e is better is because more people play it. That makes it more popular and more successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better. I mean, that's like trying to argue Baby Shark is the best song on YouTube.

    I totally get why WotC streamlined D&D. They are trying to make money. I do not fault them for it.

    I still enjoy 5e, but I still prefer the depth of 3.5. Someone isn't wrong for liking 5e, nor is someone wrong for liking a different version. There aren't winners and losers here. People are allowed different tastes.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Lothal View Post
    Anybody else here hate the word "gatekeeping"? I suddenly see it everywhere and it drives me mad. I hate how people throw it around as a definitive argument against your opinion, hate the universal inclusivity it is supposed to represent.

    Any thoughts?
    I opened this thread already rolling my eyes at the one-word title of it.

    I was very pleasantly surprised to find others hating this new buzzword that has been going around lol

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post

    Probably because if I make a post you are required by MMO-C law to insult the Theo so as to maintain the good graces of a nice little clique here.
    "The Theo" makes it easy. Like when "The Theo" refers to herself in the third person.

  12. #32
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    This is also the second time you've responded to Theo to essentially say "Your opinion is wrong, here are some insults, and my opinion is correct".

    There is no objective measure to say which edition of D&D is the best. It's entirely subjective. Your entire argument for why 5e is better is because more people play it. That makes it more popular and more successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better. I mean, that's like trying to argue Baby Shark is the best song on YouTube.

    I totally get why WotC streamlined D&D. They are trying to make money. I do not fault them for it.

    I still enjoy 5e, but I still prefer the depth of 3.5. Someone isn't wrong for liking 5e, nor is someone wrong for liking a different version. There aren't winners and losers here. People are allowed different tastes.
    There's nothing wrong with saying that 3.5 is your favorite version of DnD, the point that I think most of us are trying to make is that 5e hasn't ruined DnD by existing. You can absolutely still play 3.5 if that's your jam, a lot of people do!

  13. #33
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    There's nothing wrong with saying that 3.5 is your favorite version of DnD, the point that I think most of us are trying to make is that 5e hasn't ruined DnD by existing. You can absolutely still play 3.5 if that's your jam, a lot of people do!
    And the problem with his argument is that a lot of people (Theo included, hence my response earlier) explicitly frame their arguments in a "WotC made this change, which was bad" manner, rather than a "and I preferred it the way it was, for these reasons". The latter allows for disagreement by personal opinion. The former doesn't; it argues for a supposed objective determination of value.

    This is particularly true when you make an argument that claims factual things which aren't even true, which was also the case with Theo's claims.

    Like you said; if you prefer 3.5, play 3.5. I've got probably a thousand dollars of D&D books on the shelves behind me right this second, and only one of those books is 5th Edition (admittedly, because I've shifted to digital purchases this time around). I've played a ton of 3.5, and a ton of 2e before that. 5e's my favorite, but 3.5 was "crunchier". Sometimes in bad ways; there were definitely trap choices and the like in that game, and a lot of power creep over the years. Also in good ways, since there were a lot more ways to refine a concept, mechanically. I prefer 5e, but I'd never tell someone their preferred version is objectively "worse".

    What I like most about 5e is the reduction in bookkeeping; there's simply way fewer bonuses and penalties to juggle, since so many boil down to advantage/disadvantage; you've either got one, the other, or neither. And they just cancel out if there's one or more of both. Easy. Makes combat go a lot faster, in my experience. But yeah; absolutely personal choice. I prefer narrative to crunch, some people prefer crunch to narrative. Different strokes for different folks.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-01-23 at 04:33 AM.

  14. #34
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    52,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    ones choice of race is totally irrelevant
    I thought you said imperialism is a bad thing? If so, why are you perpetuating fantasy tropes based on a fundamentally imperialist worldview. Rofl.

    I was wondering when we'd get someone complaining about Tasha's in this forum and proceeding to out that the most substantive reading they get out of speculative fiction is "dragon pretty" rather than getting why it's kinda problematic to say all folk of a particular race are inherently X alignment or inherently smarter/dumber. Inb4 the inevitable reply is a Thermian Argument to the effect of "it's fine because it's just fiction" or worse, "it's how it is in real life too".



    Gatekeeping tends to be a symptom of groups with foundational beliefs that don't stand up to outside scrutiny, the hoop jumping is just a method of weeding out people that aren't true believers or sufficiently facile to go along with it. This is why gaming communities in particular have tended to be highly insular and toxic long after video games themselves became mainstream.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-01-23 at 05:06 AM.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    This is also the second time you've responded to Theo to essentially say "Your opinion is wrong, here are some insults, and my opinion is correct".

    There is no objective measure to say which edition of D&D is the best. It's entirely subjective. Your entire argument for why 5e is better is because more people play it. That makes it more popular and more successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better. I mean, that's like trying to argue Baby Shark is the best song on YouTube.

    I totally get why WotC streamlined D&D. They are trying to make money. I do not fault them for it.

    I still enjoy 5e, but I still prefer the depth of 3.5. Someone isn't wrong for liking 5e, nor is someone wrong for liking a different version. There aren't winners and losers here. People are allowed different tastes.
    Its certainly objectively better for the company to stay afloat.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    There's nothing wrong with saying that 3.5 is your favorite version of DnD, the point that I think most of us are trying to make is that 5e hasn't ruined DnD by existing. You can absolutely still play 3.5 if that's your jam, a lot of people do!
    In any product that does iterations, one can definitely be disappointed with the direction that they take. I think "ruined" might be a strong word for it (as I have said I'm generally ok with 5e), but I can see how others may feel that way. If a person is expecting further iterations similar to what they have already expected, why is it surprising that they may be disappointed when it is taken in a new direction?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Its certainly objectively better for the company to stay afloat.
    Right, which I have already agreed with. However, that is completely separate from whether a person thinks it is a better system. Better sales does not necessarily mean better quality.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Its certainly objectively better for the company to stay afloat.
    I'm not sure WotC and Hasbro were really all that worried about "staying afloat"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    In any product that does iterations, one can definitely be disappointed with the direction that they take. I think "ruined" might be a strong word for it (as I have said I'm generally ok with 5e), but I can see how others may feel that way. If a person is expecting further iterations similar to what they have already expected, why is it surprising that they may be disappointed when it is taken in a new direction?
    But there's a difference between people that say:

    I prefer 3.5 and/or Pathfinder
    and

    5E isn't 'real' D&D

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    But there's a difference between people that say:
    and
    It depends on if they are stating it objectively or subjectively.

    I have no issues if someone feels that 5e departed so far away from what they consider D&D that it seems like something else.

    Objectively, whatever they call D&D, is D&D.

  19. #39
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    52,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    It depends on if they are stating it objectively or subjectively.

    I have no issues if someone feels that 5e departed so far away from what they consider D&D that it seems like something else.

    Objectively, whatever they call D&D, is D&D.
    Yeah, but that argument can be extended to edition purism all the way back to the OG days of alignment specific languages which no one is advocating we return to because... Lol.

    The fact that they pick certain aspects in particular to whinge about (i.e. harping on player customization and accessibility) and not others is the tell as to what their complaint actually is - that traditional fantasy is being invaded by SJW beta soyboy cucks that insist on deconstructing their tropes and refuse to perpetuate the racist or sexist ones out of respect for Tolkien or Gygax or whatever.

    It's not a function of "I prefer 3.5", it's a function of "I prefer the people who used to exclusively play 3.5".
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  20. #40
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    In any product that does iterations, one can definitely be disappointed with the direction that they take. I think "ruined" might be a strong word for it (as I have said I'm generally ok with 5e), but I can see how others may feel that way. If a person is expecting further iterations similar to what they have already expected, why is it surprising that they may be disappointed when it is taken in a new direction?
    One can absolutely be disappointed with a direction that is being taken. But this thread is about gatekeeping. If you don't like the direction that the iterations are going that's fine, if you reject any person who likes the direction, or is new to the game as of the newest iteration, as 'not a real fan' that's where things cross the line for me.

    I liked 3.5 a lot. There were a few things that were really broken in it from a 'you can powergame the crap out of this', but if you had people who were willing to not be munchkins or a DM that murdered anyone who started a sentence with "Well technically..." you had the freedom to do some pretty crazy and awesome things in the system. But if someone got introduced to DnD by watching Critical Role, and went out and picked up the 5e players handbook, and wants to play a few campaigns? Well... my group's DM isn't Matt Mercer, and I'm no Laura Bailey, but if everyone sits down at a table and has fun then I'm glad that they brought it to more people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •