- Posts: 3610
- Thank you received: 3958
- The Game Room
- Games Catchall
- Excellent column from Mark Rosewater about diversity in design
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
Excellent column from Mark Rosewater about diversity in design
Second, and this was raised in the Reddit thread, a wide variety of people in the art is nice, but what about the design team and the paying jobs that Magic creates? How does that measure up to the standard Rosewater sets for their art? I don’t know, but being a part of the hobby games industry, my hunch is not great.
So, yeah, I mostly just felt like shrugging after reading it.
It reminds me of the time they went on a gay pride parade with the slogan "Dragons and Wizards belong in our games and you do too". And it also reminds me of the fact that they sell corporate parafernalia with their logo in rainbow colours so you can tell everyone how gay-friendly your corporation is.
The fact that Wizards itself is heavily inbred and has bad working conditions is also not a fact that escapes me.
Still, on an aesthethic level Magic has become more diverse but by the typical Americentric, heavily corporate-friendly standards. That is, characters clearly fall into the "white, black or asian" American categorization, worlds follow American demographic standards (so they avoid worlds where, say, 90% of the characters would be black). Their main character lineup is also an example of Nivea diversity: You have it, but it's suspiciously split evenly instead of having a random assortment of faces. Most monsters are still male and women are still suspiciously absent from cards depicting violence (Not quite, they are now assassins but almost never the actual target)
I also have an axe to grind and that's pointing out that for all their talk about diversity, they haven't found the space to put a single gipsy character in neither the Indian nor Eastern European blocks. And how most of their "diversity" regarding sexuality is the typical supplementary material gay that you would never know about by playing the actual game.
EDIT: Also, one of the latest blocks is the old "Amerindians in contact with Nature against colonizers" trope.
And, to be honest, I'm not going to praise the morality of a company who pushes gambling onto children. I respect Rosewater, but his work will always be tained by that fact.
If you'd like to infer all of the rest of it and think that every article he writes needs to touch on those topics, then I can't help you, but I'd have to say that you're missing the point. In all honesty, I haven't touched a Magic card in well over a decade, so I have no idea what their current sets look like or how their company functions. I just thought that the fairly detailed explanation of their efforts, not only in terms of personal identity but also in game style/approach, was worth reading.
I don't want designers to put a couple black people in their games because they think they'll make more money. I want them to do it because it's the right thing to do.
having an affinity for things that are similar to the environment you were raised in, including prioritizing things that look like you. There's just a physiological thing that happens in the brain when you see yourself represented. It feels comforting.
Arguably the whole "I require an environment that looks like me" is the basis of every nationalist uprising occurring in so many Western democracies at this particular date & time. Which is interesting, because when a person who would be labeled as "in the majority" expresses an interest in "prioritizing things that look like me" that person is immediately identified, called out, demonized, & held up as an example of what not to do and how not to be. And yet Rosewater extols & promotes that very same approach with other groups. The idea that it's less about characters who reflect your personal beliefs, and more about "people who look like you" feels like crass tokenism on a level that reeks more of marketing than justice.
So, we want the ability for players to make a personal connection to the game. The brain does that when it sees things that look like itself, so it's clear that as a game designer, you want to make sure that every player has the potential to see themselves in your game.
I don't mean to sound like a Proud Boy (you know I'm not) but I've always felt the more people tried to "explain" the requirement of diversity, the more it sounds like they're unwittingly doing the nationalists' work for them.
I'll give Rosewater some credit for putting himself out there for all to see, regardless of whether he checks all the boxes or not. He's advancing the conversation. Frankly, given he's writing from the position of a multi-million dollar project chief, speaking to diversity's impact on financial success is where he enters the room. He's speaking to other designers as well as us end-users, perhaps more so. Telling other designers that catering to Joe Whitey is hurting their sales is a solid approach to changing the industry.
Erik Twice wrote: I don't want designers to put a couple black people in their games because they think they'll make more money. I want them to do it because it's the right thing to do.
Uh huh. And how do you define that effort? What could Rosewater do that would meet the standards of the "right thing to do"? He's talking about making sure that there are people of varying identity in their game because it makes people feel welcome to play it and you're suggesting that the only motivation he has is money. Almost by definition, if the game is played by more people, Wizards will make more money. So, what exactly would comprise the "right thing to do"? Producing a set full of all Gypsy characters for free? Would Wizards not making a dime on something like that satisfy your ethical requirements? That's a helluva way to run a business.
To Sag's point: This is the lead designer of one of the most popular card games in the world suggesting that the way forward is to acknowledge the variety of people that play his game and other games like it. If their game is more successful (and, yes, makes more money!), then other designers and companies may be willing to follow their lead. That's the point of the whole column. The fact that he's also couching the identity issue alongside player type (Timmy, Spike, etc.) is him trying to demonstrate that inclusivity doesn't have to be about tokenism, but instead is simply about improving their game.
Incidentally, suggesting that someone's effort to improve their game is "morally bankrupt" simply because it makes the game more successful and that success is defined by money is exactly the kind of pretentious horseshit that will make most people tune out from what otherwise may have been a valid point.
I do admit I'm being very cynical, but I think we should all be skeptical of game companies coming out in favour of diversity when it benefits them and trying to frame it in a way that benefits them. This article is not groundbreaking and Wizards painting one (1) character in supplementary materials as trans four years ago is not exactly a high bar.
But don't you see how nasty and cynical that is? Telling designers to portray minorities because it makes them money only hammers the point that you don't care about them! If you cared about black, or gay or whatever people in the first place, you wouldn't need a financial incentive to do it!
Sagrilarus wrote: Telling other designers that catering to Joe Whitey is hurting their sales is a solid approach to changing the industry.
This is exactly like when Pride comes to Madrid and every single TV channel talks about the economic benefits and the boost to tourism but not about, well, actual gay people.
For me, all he had to do was to treat "diversity" as a responsability he has as a game designer and not "tool" to make his game more successful.
Jackwraith wrote: What could Rosewater do that would meet the standards of the "right thing to do"?
The way he compares real-world identities with marketing terms is also very creepy.
They should represent gipsies when appropiate, even if it doesn't make them any money or gipsies aren't their target audience. That's it.
So, what exactly would comprise the "right thing to do"? Producing a set full of all Gypsy characters for free?
Erik Twice wrote: For me, all he had to do was to treat "diversity" as a responsability he has as a game designer and not "tool" to make his game more successful.
Except that that's exactly what he's doing by trying to stress that they want all kinds of people to be comfortable playing their game, which includes having people of different identities as prominent characters. The fact that it includes more people and, thus, potentially makes his game more successful MIGHT be incidental, especially given how populated the games, Magic, and fantasy trope audiences are with (often) young, (often) White, (usually) males who think that any kind of approach to this topic is pandering or an example of so-called "social justice warriors" influencing what before was their almost-exclusive fief of interest. In fact, you're doing a great job of mimicking their responses by attaching your own particular bias to what he's saying.
I'm not oblivious to the ulterior motives of massive corporations. I'm a Marxist, so my cynical side is at the ready in every situation I encounter. But in the same way that the "liberal media" are actually massive corporations owned by people who don't approach the neighborhood of what a liberal or progressive outlook actually is, it is possible to express views that aren't necessarily dictated solely by money within those hierarchies. That's especially possible when you've been around as long as Rosewater has and have as much of a public face in the industry as he does.
Again, the fact is that he wrote something not only to detail how Wizards has approached this process but how other designers and companies might do so, as well. That's a net positive and I don't really care if his motivation was more dollars. If being inclusive becomes a profitable thing in this industry, so much the better.
Shellhead wrote: Magic is still owned by Hasbro, last time I checked. Hasbro is a large, publicly-traded corporation. so Rosewater probably felt the need to position his diversity stance in a way that would be more acceptable to greedy investors. Doing something because it is right doesn't impress investors. Doing something because it attracts more customers and generates more sales is something that does impress investors.
That's much the heart of it. When you debate a topic you use arguments that will ring with your intended audience. You can call that cynical, or you can call it strategic. In this particular case it's a good approach, because the "it hurts business to be inclusive" response is a get-out-of-jail-free card that's been thrown on the table for a couple of generations. He's kicked that leg out from under them, the next argument can proceed.
It's about intended audience, and most of us don't need to be convinced about our already-held beliefs on the topic.
- The Game Room
- Games Catchall
- Excellent column from Mark Rosewater about diversity in design