| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly what someone with 9,676 posts would say.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, that's why it's so baffling (to me) that you're so adamant this is some form of gatekeeping.
Because attempting to define an exclusive group of players where there was none previously serves no purpose other than to exclude rather than include. It doesn't matter what criteria RD was looking to use, but the idea that it needs to be discussed is gatekeeping. "I actually know this game because I've done X, Y, and Z," just creates a way to shutdown players who haven't.
Might I also say, it's also a little weird to me that you're so vocally against post counts meaning anything and yet are so aware of them.
A lot of of us on these forums enough to know each other and their post histories. This isn't anything new. Nearly every online subculture that I know with small communities are aware of regular posters and new faces to the community. This isn't unusual.
EDIT: Also, thanks for making a thread about gatekeeping that so wildly missed the point that we're now arguing over what is now essentially the trolley problem but with a thin veneer of the alignment system painted over it.
I have read over this thread, and I wonder if maybe the language we use to talk about experience with this game might be part of the problem.
The word veteran does only mean someone who has a lot of experience in a particular field, but I think it is so often associated with war and fighting, that it is possible that a lot of people get hostile just thinking about experience playing a game in this context.
Also, experience with role playing games is wonderful, but the constant growing nature of PF2, and how new of a system it is, would have me feeling resistant to wanting to claim to have a better understanding of the system than a player with less years of experience playing other games, because I feel like a lot of my experience with other games makes me close minded to some of the more creative elements of PF2.
People seemed ready to establish "this class must be played this way" types of arguments within weeks of the system being launched. Personally, I have found that leaning into some of the "worst" build ideas and trying to understand what they can do, has helped me see just how flexible the system is.
So I guess all of that is to say that I catch myself thinking I know a rule in PF2, because I skimmed over it one time and immediately applied an idea I had about a similar mechanic in another game, and that that experience I have with other systems can even be an impediment if I entrench myself into thinking that I "know" the rules, rather than being willing to go back and re-read them when someone expresses an idea different than how I remember them.
Frankly, that's why it's so baffling (to me) that you're so adamant this is some form of gatekeeping.Because attempting to define an exclusive group of players where there was none previously serves no purpose other than to exclude rather than include.
That's simply not true.
There are plenty of legitimately exclusive games for a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head:
- A group that imposes additional rules to the official ones.
- A pre-existing group that is looking to augment their group with someone of similar experience, particularly involving high-level play.
- A campaign or scenario with complex themes that are inappropriate for new players (e.g., underwater combat, or sexualized roleplay).
I'm sure there are other scenarios in which someone has legitimate, non-jerky reasons to limit their search to "veterans" only.
"I actually know this game because I've done X, Y, and Z,"
Can you detail which part of Ravingdork's posts could be intellectually honestly paraphrased this way?
[defining 'veteran' Pathfinders] just creates a way to shutdown players who haven't.
I completely ... AGREE! ... with you. (As an isolated comment.) Indeed, Ravingdork is asking a question whose answer could be used for some pretty terrible practices.
It's not unlike scientists asking what genes control eye color. Is the scientific question out of bounds because the answer enables eugeneticists to fulfill their twisted fantasies about a Master Race?
No.
Also, thanks for making a thread about gatekeeping that so wildly missed the point that we're now arguing over what is now essentially the trolley problem but with a thin veneer of the alignment system painted over it.
You're welcome. And given your responses to the original post, which is 3/4 quotes from the three articles you linked, I can tell that you have some real interest in discussing the topic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, that's why it's so baffling (to me) that you're so adamant this is some form of gatekeeping.Because attempting to define an exclusive group of players where there was none previously serves no purpose other than to exclude rather than include.That's simply not true.
There are plenty of legitimately exclusive games for a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head:
- A group that imposes additional rules to the official ones.
- A pre-existing group that is looking to augment their group with someone of similar experience, particularly involving high-level play.
- A campaign or scenario with complex themes that are inappropriate for new players (e.g., underwater combat, or sexualized roleplay).I'm sure there are other scenarios in which someone has legitimate, non-jerky reasons to limit their search to "veterans" only.
Except we already do that. We have been doing it since the creation of roleplaying games without the need to create a classification of elite players.
"I actually know this game because I've done X, Y, and Z,"Can you detail which part of Ravingdork's posts could be intellectually honestly paraphrased this way?
That's not what I am doing. I, and others, have said that creating a "veteran class" of players is gatekeeping. We're not saying that it was RD's intent, but that's what it does. He has since argued that it isn't his intent, but that doesn't mean it isn't gatekeeping. We're discussing across each other. It doesn't matter if RD just wants to use "being a veteran" to pad out his online GM resume, but codification of it creates a situation that excludes those not in the in-group.
Also, thanks for making a thread about gatekeeping that so wildly missed the point that we're now arguing over what is now essentially the trolley problem but with a thin veneer of the alignment system painted over it.You're welcome. And given your responses to the original post, which is 3/4 quotes from the three articles you linked, I can tell that you have some real interest in discussing the topic.
I have interest in discussing gatekeeping. I don't have interest in discussing what you've selectively chosen to present as gatekeeping. You are missing the crux of the argument and started a thread not understanding why the topic was broached. So now we have this wild unfocused thread with people sniping back and forth that's just as likely to get locked as this one is.
My complaint has always been that creating a classification of "better players" is gatekeeping and that we shouldn't do that. Given that this thread has produced few ideas, it seems that I'm not alone in that idea. Gatekeeping is an important topic, but it doesn't need a new thread outside of this one since that thread would literally just exist in response to RD's post. Which is what I'm doing by responding here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
