Personal: The Inclusion Is Bad Myth

This question came up on a forum: What do you think are the most damaging ideas in the hobby? The post I put together received some initial praise, then decried as violating the “no politics” rules of the forum. It was eventually taken down. Thankfully, one of the moderators was able to preserve the content. The below is an expanded version of the original post. 

Edit: Patreon Article (The content is the same, link is for alternate formatting to help some readers.) https://www.patreon.com/posts/personal-is-bad-56770208

Inclusion Is Bad & The Idea That Inclusion Causes Exclusion

Part 1: The Biases of Game Design & How It Influences The Hobby

Before I go into other “isms”, let me start with the general elitism that some gamers exude. There is a kind of gatekeeping that happens in any subculture, be it music, fashion, or gaming, that says: 

“If you don’t know X then you are not a real Y.”

This form of elitism serves to push people out when they are coming to learn about a topic and is something I’ve seen repeated many times at game stores, demo days, or cons. Which, let me add the demo days thing really boggles the mind, as it’s supposed to be an introduction. Then I think about the experiences of others in and around the gaming hobby that have been shared with me.

Before we met, my wife had been told things like: 

• Go play Pokémon, when asking about Magic the Gathering and how to play. 
• You want Archie Comics, when asking where to start at a comic shop.
• Black people can’t be goth, when presenting as a goth. 

Each of these are examples of a person falling outside a group’s expectations of what X should be. This is also an issue that exists within the tabletop hobby as well. When I grew up, RPGs were predominantly male, and when women joined us, for some reason others at the table pushed them into healer or support roles. It wasn’t until the mid-90s that I began seeing any movement here, and that was only if I was at a table playing something other than Dungeons & Dragons. 

Note: This is not an attempt to bash D&D as some kind of root of all gaming evil. However, I will be addressing one of the creators and concept’s baked into the original rules later. 

This “no girls allowed” mentality hasn’t gone away though, it only seems to have shifted; or what is more likely, the scope of this mentality is now on full display thanks to the internet and social media. We see it with the vehement reactions to things like the combat wheelchair, or published  LGBTQIA+ characters. Just the use of the phrase: “Get woke, go broke” with regards to anything outside regurgitating the same imagery or types of characters. While we can talk about various companies’ interpretation of inclusion, and internal practices as a different topic, I’m going to try and stay focused.

One of the arguments that comes up around inclusion in gaming is that games should not be political. Something that I find particularly painful, and misleading; are games like Monopoly not political, or was it designed to teach you the inherent failings of capitalism ^[1]? What makes inclusion political, but a lack of inclusion apolitical? 

Look at the demographics of the US and we see a diverse population. Wouldn’t representing this diversity in games then be inherently non-political? US demographics ^[2]:

By Ethnic Background 

• White 61.4%
• Black 12.3%
• Ingenious .7%
• Asian 5.3%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander .2%
• Other .2%
• Two or more 2.3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any background) 17.6%

By Sexual Orientation 

• Hetero 83.5%
• LGBTQIA+ 8.9%
• Refused to answer 7.6%

Note: For the purposes of this article I was unable to source gender data that was non-binary. 

The idea of inclusion, or representing a broader spectrum of people is seen as pushing a liberal agenda. If this is true, then is the opposite not also true? If one pushes for a lack of diversity, to remove things they feel are undesirable, is that not also an agenda? If one takes umbrage with the idea of a more diverse set of characters, the question is why? 

Did the inclusion of characters that do not fit older images somehow change anything happening at your personal game table? One might argue yes, as the art is different. Is that so bad? The older images still exist, and are just as accessible to you as they were before. However, now there are new images, accessible to people that may better identify with characters who are not part of this older mold. 

Is it because a factious character in a fantasy world holds views different from your own? Let’s pause on this to explore another aspect of politics in games for a moment. (We will loop back around to different points of view though.) 

Gary Gygax, seen as the grandfather of tabletop RPGs and created Dungeons & Dragons, a game with an inherent political bias, that of the authors. It asserts that humans are the most capable of races and that through conquest one can achieve personal power which translates to political power and control over others. Don’t believe me, let’s look at some of the earliest aspects of the game. 

• Non-Human characters were referred to as Demihuman, which by definition means less than human. (Like Demigod) 
• Non-Human characters possessed arbitrary level caps.
• Upon reaching level n of a given class, lower level followers begin gravitating to the player character. More so, the character is now expected to take some form of holding to rule.

Note: There is an article: The Monster as a Player Character included in an older edition of Dungeons & Dragons that outlines the express views of the author that “D&D is unquestionably “humanocentric”, with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity.” 

It is worth calling out that there is an inherently western viewpoint of society, good, evil, law, and chaos. This is something Dungeons & Dragons has struggled with for a long time. As mentioned above, there is very much a might makes right, and narrow view of justice as well ^[3][4]. The idea that western society is inherently the correct one, and social structures outside this norm are evil is pervasive in Dungeons & Dragons. As outlined by the author, Dungeons & Dragons was not a place for other cultures to prevail, additionally, these societies are relegated to “monsters.” Gygax also did not see a place for women at the gaming table. We see all of these issues depicted in the artwork of Dungeons & Dragons. 

Later authors would attempt to make strides to change some of the cultural perceptions, but these were not necessarily the best researched ^[5]. Granted Wizards of the Coast is making strides to adjust this, but when they do the company seems to receive backlash as it conflicts with these older ideas ^[6][7]. This resistance only reinforces that there are biases baked into the foundations of Dungeons & Dragons. This is not an attempted hit job, but rather an attempt to remove the filters we place on the hobby so that we can better see the viewpoints that are so ingrained into this space, that they no longer feel political. As such, let us dispel the notion that there are no politics in rules or views presented in Dungeons & Dragons, and return our focus to the concepts of inclusion. 

Earlier we presented demographics from the US, what if we expanded this globally ^[8]?  

• Asia 59.54%
• Africa 17.2%
• Europe 9.59%
• North America 7.6%
• South America 5.53%
• Oceania 0.55%

Sexual Orientation Data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation (This was a bit more nuanced so I’m linking to the full article instead.)

When thinking about representation of a fantasy world, imagine an adventuring party of four people. If we use our more representative breakdown, there may be one white character, who may or may not be male, as the group will likely be divided, two male, two female, with about a ~30% chance of one of the four characters identifying as LGBTQIA+ and/or non-binary. Of course, this does not account for the non-Human races of the setting. Factoring that in, there may not be a white male character at all. However, this is a very small sampling, and games tend to have a larger sample of iconic characters, so there is greater room for diversity in background as well. 

Confronting my own past for a moment. In 2013 we released Fractured Kingdom. The game is set in a post-post-apocalyptic Berlin and although the game does have an even breakdown of male and female iconic characters, the six iconic characters depicted appear white. Part of this comes from me as an author not taking demographics into consideration at the time, nor providing feedback to the artist, other than getting technical aspects of the characters correct. When releasing Metahumans Rising in 2019, this is something we looked to correct. The iconic team falls across a broader spectrum of backgrounds, which we hope is not just more inclusive, but more representative of the world around us. As an aside, part of the content that we had to trim for budgetary reasons was an exploration of Wayfarer’s race which included a trinary reproduction process, with any member of the triad being the possible host for offspring. This is something we hope to present in full context in later supplements. 

Why do we say all this? It’s because representation matters. It’s harder to turn someone away because they don’t fit the mold when someone that looks like them is part of the core content. Now again, this doesn’t affect one’s home table but it does affect public spaces. The hobby shop, the comic store, anytime someone new is attempting to join a hobby and they might be shut down. If this means that the characters you identify as are now less represented to make room for others, does that mean you are less welcome in the hobby? Well, maybe. 

Part 2: Inclusion Causes Exclusion

Alright, before anyone gets the pitchforks ready, let me explain what I mean. Most people are familiar with the phrase, “Everyone deserves a seat at the table.” That is true. However, there is an unstated caveat which is best defined as Wheaton’s Law ^[9], or simply, “Don’t be a dick.” 

For centuries marginalized groups have been kept on the outside. Events such as Black History Month or Gay Pride evolved from discrimination, and the both figurative and literal fights to be recognized as people ^[10][11]. Today we see people argue why there isn’t a White History Month or a Straight Pride, and that’s because every month is white history, and if you’re straight your sexual orientation is not a cultural punchline ^[12]. Inclusion means that marginalized people no longer have to carve out their own spaces, that the core is willing to accept them, and implicit within that statement is that one can be themselves without fear of reprisal. 

Does this exclude someone who was previously at the gaming table? It shouldn’t. So why do some people feel that it does? Change is hard, and people who may not have considered themselves discriminatory, are now faced with associating with people they may not have been exposed to before, and it brings discomfort. However, so long as everyone is open and willing to play in good faith, this is something we can get past. One might argue that their beliefs prevent them from associating with, or approving of some background. For this, I will only say that beliefs can evolve, and that creating barriers to people that mean you no harm only hardens the divide. (One example of religious beliefs evolving ^[13].) 

This only looks at the more obvious forms of discrimination that can exclude people from a gaming table. Let me take some time to reflect on my past, and another more insidious version of gatekeeping, and how this becomes part of the “inclusion is exclusion” argument. 

Growing up, it was common for children to rib one another. As kids we were vicious, looking for any angle of attack to get the next cut in. We considered this harmless fun, until it wasn’t. Because this was systemic within my peer group, it was easy to become blind to the fact that not everyone was playing the same game. If this resonates with you, hopefully so will the following. As I got older, I began to see the cloistered nature of my friends, and how this type of humor quickly becomes exclusionary. 

Being of a Mexican-American ethnic background, with a majority Jamaican family, I saw how often my core friends used stereotypes that they felt were in jest, but were extremely derogatory. They didn’t notice when I began making new friends, until they realized I wouldn’t bring these groups around each other. When asked why I pointed out that they were still making jokes that would hurt other people and I didn’t want to potentially cause others to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable. (Granted, I was a teen and still a shit in many other ways, but that’s unrelated.) This was met with general derision and the proclamation of my status as a “pussy.” 

This trip down memory lane isn’t about me though. When I was able to catch up with these friends a decade later, I saw how they had not changed and had instead remained insulated. They told me stories of how players came in and out of their games, but never clicked for one reason or another. When I revisited their style of humor I was met with comments like: “There’s no offense intended from my comments. It’s the other person’s fault for being offended.” or “They should be less sensitive.” To rephrase this, it boils down to the idea that one should be allowed to say whatever they want, without negative consequences. Unfortunately, this is both harmful to others and exclusionary. 

Once again, if this is part of the social contract of your personal table, no one is trying to change that. (Okay, yeah I am) However, I would ask that you take an introspective look at your personal table and see how comments you think are meant in jest affect other people. Don’t just assume everything is okay. Sometimes people become desensitized to painful experiences and there may be someone suffering that doesn’t realize it. When discussing public spaces this is a rather insidious form of gatekeeping that can easily be called bullying if you’re not in on the joke. 

Why is this relevant? When making the argument “inclusion leads to exclusion,” we need to understand who’s actually being excluded. Everyone should feel welcome, regardless of their background. However, Wheaton’s Law should always be in effect. If the humor relies on stereotypes, it’s probably not something that’s appropriate at the table.

A closing thought on humor. It’s important to think about how humor can be applied. Not every racist talks about white replacement theory, not every homophobe shares their views on marriage. Statements like: “It’s only a joke,” can be used as a shield to defend bad faith actors who are actually insulting or targeting people with whom they take offense. 

A lot of what I’ve discussed in the “inclusion leads to exclusion” section asks for self reflection. Moreover, it focuses on ideas that one may say offensive things that can hurt other people and not realize the damage that they do. Self reflection can be hard as it is a sword that cuts indiscriminately. Just because someone identifies with a minority group does not mean that they are not capable of exclusionary behavior. 

To give an example, one form of exclusionary behavior that is not readily apparent is ageism. Modern tabletop roleplaying has been around for over forty-five years. It’s not uncommon to see gamers in their 50’s, 60’s, or older. One of the struggles I’ve seen for older gamers, even in their 30’s and 40’s is a kind of elitism that comes with a more recent trend of narrative driven mechanics, or mechanically driven narrative in games. In this situation, younger gamers see older people as poor role players before they even sit down at the table. As with other forms of exclusion, this removes the player before they have an opportunity to interact. There is no validation of assumptions, or even discussion on how one defines roleplaying. 

Part 3: Where Do We Go From Here? 

If there is an answer it might be something like this: No one wants to feel excluded, we should strive to be welcoming not just in our words but in our actions as well. Be mindful of the things we say, and how others might interpret them, and remember everyone is here to have fun. Be mindful of reciprocity, i.e. the golden rule: Treat others as you would like others to treat you. It’s a theme that falls across multiple faiths and belief systems, but no matter ones’ background is worth remembering. The shorter answer is always be mindful of Wheaton’s Law and exclusion should never be an issue. My personal favorite though is this:  

“Peoples is peoples. No is buildings. Is tomatoes, huh? Is peoples, is dancing, is music, is potatoes. So, peoples is peoples. Okay?”

• Pete, the Muppets Take Manhattan. 

References 

1: Monopoly was meant to teach the unfairness of capitalism:  https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins

2: Demographics of the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States 

3: Gary Gygax on the treatment of prisoners, definition of Lawful Good, and more https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762&start=77

4: The Misogyny At The Core Of Our Hobby https://stargazersworld.com/2020/08/26/the-misogyny-at-the-core-of-our-hobby/

5: Dungeons & Dragons Stumbles With Its Revision Of The Game’s Major Black Culture https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/10/dungeons-dragons-stumbles-with-its-revision-of-the-games-major-black-culture/ 

6: Wizards of the Coast is addressing racist stereotypes in Dungeons & Dragons https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/23/21300653/dungeons-dragons-racial-stereotypes-wizards-of-the-coast-drow-orcs-curse-of-strahd 

7: Tolkien And Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_race

8: Demographics of the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world 

9: Wheaton’s Law: https://www.attorneyatwork.com/wheatons-law/ 

10: The Origins Of Black History Month https://today.tamu.edu/2021/02/08/the-origins-of-black-history-month/

11: LGBT Pride Month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride 

12: Why we don’t have White History Month https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/2/7/14503144/white-history-month-black-history-month-white-pride-nationalism-racism 

13: Mormons confront a history of Church racism https://theconversation.com/mormons-confront-a-history-of-church-racism-95328