|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jan 6, 2023 23:11:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jan 7, 2023 0:00:27 GMT -5
These kind of articles seem hostile -- in a subtle way -- to older gamers and the OSR community as if implying many of us are essentially white supremacists. Yes, most of us were in gaming groups that were largely white males playing characters who were also largely white males. But that was the demographic in the 70's and 80's, it wasn't exclusionary -- at least that's not what I remember in any intentional way. Girls usually didn't want to play, and there were no people of color in my high school! The beauty of D&D is that it can be as diverse as you want. True, the medieval fantasy roots it came out of are largely the products of white, European men and later writers and gamers dug into that folklore. That's like getting into Napoleanics and later on complaining that "Hey, these miniatures are all white men!" In regards to D&D... Weren't dwarves and gnomes described as having brown skin in the MM? And the sub-races of humans in the World of Greyhawk are pretty diverse with the "white" Suloise getting the worst rap for their cultural traits and the "white supremacist" Suloise being cast as villains in the Scarlet Brotherhood. The arguably dominant Oeridians are described as bronze skinned. Most of the Flanaess is made up of mixed races. So, D&D was already pretty diverse even back in the day, for anyone who wanted to lean into that.
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jan 7, 2023 13:30:40 GMT -5
Without bragging, I played a black prominent NPC in Gamma World back in 84 (on record with illustrations) and had an ongoing quasi-Congo since 82 (on record with maps and NPCs) so it's been there without a peep from the many diverse players that were with me. Many of the old diverse players are retired but I had new diverse players in the 2000s who refused to be filmed which is why I ended up with the "usual suspects" for those late 2000s films. Also just because people are not constantly bragging that they played with folks that are different back in the 1970s doesn't mean it isn't so.
The perception of the writer is mistaken. The world is not the way that they claim but maybe they are like that in their little world. The article seems worded in a way to discount people who share my open mentality on the basis of identity alone so that is really cruel to the legacy of Gary who had heavy ideas about openness and opportunities for all regardless of background. What is next? A ban of the game as an unforgivable culture? Just another opportunistic writer.
|
|
