Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've had two issues with Gatekeeping in the past few years, both involving wargaming groups that put me off from visiting the stores they played at ever again.

I know I've shared the tales of dealing with the 40k meta chasers who told me, that I could play my Knights in the shop if I bought Canis Rex and used him in my list, because without him, "You aren't serious enough about winning to play here."

My second was a run in with a group of BattleTech donkey-caves with ulterior motives.

I had really gotten into the lore and bought the BattleMech Manual, Technical Readout: 3145 Republic of the Sphere, the Ares Super-Heavy Mech (and a backup one not put together), a Campaign book (whose name I cannot remember... Shattered Something?, but cost a pretty penny and some models.

I heard the group was friendly, but they told me flat out that they don't play 'mechs only, I can't use anything from that era. They didn't realize that I'd played for a long time, a long time ago (when I would show up with Aerospace fighters, Boomerang Spotter planes, and Long Tom Artillery pieces hugging the corner of the map), and realized that I can use my stuff in the IlClan era.

These bastards proceeded to tell me that I needed to buy all new stuff, and that I couldn't use any of what I had. But three (of the five) separate players approached me and were super friendly and said, "since you can't use that stuff, I'll buy it off you." (and offered pennies on the dollar - Sadly for them I'm not fething stupid.)

Now there are all sorts of Gatekeepers when it comes to gaming.

Meta chasers seem to be a common one, the same can be said of narrative gamers looking for a very specific look and style in their opponents.

I know I've been guilty of it, when I'm looking for a fun casual pickup game and my opponent has an illegal list and no clue what they're doing. I know I should sit down with them and show them the ropes... but sometimes you just want to play, so you come up with some lame excuse not to play them. I realize that I'm in the same group as the meta chasers. Telling someone I don't want to play with them, based on their army list.

95% of the time, my stupid empathy kicks in, and I'll see if we can put together a Combat Patrol for them and we play a mission or two, so they can learn the game.


The Internet/Redditt/the Chans all pretty much say these are the reasons (these are not my thoughts, I just copied them, and summarized them here):

Fear of Dilution/Loss of Identity:
Some individuals see their hobbies, including wargaming, as a core part of their identity. When these hobbies become more mainstream or commercialized, gatekeepers might fear that the hobby's unique identity will be diluted or lost, prompting them to protect what they see as the "purity" or authenticity of their community.

Sense of Superiority/Control: Gatekeeping can provide some individuals with a sense of superiority, knowledge, or control within the community. By setting themselves as the arbiters of who belongs or what constitutes "true" wargaming, they can feel more important or knowledgeable. This can be an ego boost, establishing them as authorities or "true fans."

Resistance to Change:
As communities grow and evolve, dynamics can shift. Gatekeeping may arise as a reactionary response to the perceived erosion of the community's original values or practices. It can be a way of resisting change and preserving traditions that they hold dear.
In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics:
Humans tend to create "in-groups" and "out-groups." In ambiguous settings, people may gravitate towards those they perceive as similar (in-group) and align against those they view as different (out-group), potentially leading to exclusion or dismissal of newcomers or those who don't fit a specific mold.
Protecting Against "Tourists": Some argue that gatekeeping is necessary to protect the hobby from those they deem "tourists" who may lack respect for the hobby or try to impose changes that are viewed as detrimental. They may see this as a way to maintain the quality and integrity of the hobby.
In essence, while potentially well-intentioned in some cases (e.g., preserving lore or protecting against negativity), gatekeeping can create unwelcoming environments, hinder creativity, and ultimately stifle the growth and enjoyment of the hobby for others.

What are your thoughts? Do you see Gatekeeping as necessary, or do you hate it when people do it?

What are some other reasons why people do it?

I think gatekeeping is not inherently bad. If you're into a specific thing, keeping it the way you like it is fine I think.

It's contextual. There are forms of gatekeeping that are unpleasant, done for nasty reasons and so on. But then there's gatekeeping because the people in a group enjoy a particular kind of experience and won't enjoy it if it is changed.

Here's an interesting essay I read on the topic a year or two ago:
Geeks, Mops and Sociopaths
https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Gatekeeping is always tricky because its not always as simple as there being a formal rule or policy that enforces the gatekeeping


1) Some are purely in a person's own mind. They interpret a comment or action in a way that creates a false gate. Perhaps someone says something jokingly that is then taken seriously; or casual comments are taken out of context or someone reads too much 'between the lines'. etc... Whatever the reason there are some "gates" which are entirely self imagined/interpreted. As such they can be barriers for just a single person.

2) Many gates are simply unchallenged. Some are simply casual things and policies within a group that have simply been unchallenged. This can very easily be the case when a group forms around one single social grouping which then accepts new members from outside of that grouping. There were never intended to be gates, but they kind of just formed up from similar elements within the founding and surviving members of the group. What is practice becomes policy and remains so unless someone challenges it. Often new people.

3) Some are challenged poorly. Like it or not some people will challenge gates in a very ham-fisted/aggressive/dismissive style. This can create a polarizing situation where it quickly becomes nothing to do with the gate and everything to do with the egos involved. This is where you can get really messy situations where people on both sides can agree the gate is bad/wrong/not needed but where no one wants to back down or such because now its an ego thing/control/influence/whatever.





Ultimately gates will happen, be they intentional or unintentional and many of them are not cut and dry good nor bad.

Eg "All armies must be painted with at least 3 colours"
That's a gate. It ensures that armies played are painted. For many that is considered a good thing because it helps create the game experience of painted armies fighting it out; for others they like it because it means that those engaging are engaging with more of the hobby (painting) not just playing.

Others might argue that its a barrier and that unpainted grey is still justifiable. Some might say that the police is too strict and that grey's should be allowed so long as the person is clearly making an effort to paint and update their army. Thus making the group more open to newbies getting started etc....


There's no actual "right" nor "wrong" answer until you start to apply context to the rule and why it exists. Even then those contexts are not inherently right nor wrong.





In the end gatekeeping is about control and influence on a group and its always going to happen. Indeed sometimes social groups that attempt to have no boundaries and limits can have a whole slew of problems all of their own caused by the lack of boundaries and gates.

 Da Boss wrote:

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Good read, cheers

I would define gatekeeping most broadly as requiring a certain level of commitment, proficiency, or knowledge to actively participate in a community or fandom. Gatekeeping is neither inheretnly good nor bad, because while it keeps some people, it preserves the character of the community. And this makes sense, right? A narrative, hobby driven gaming club is uninterested in new members who want to win games with unpainted armies, while a club that is focused on high level competitive play doesn't want people with suboptimized lists who aren't keeping up with the rules and meta.

IMO what the OP is describing is more cliqueiness than gatekeeping. I almost wonder if the OP misinterpeted the comment about Canis Rex, because that makese sense as a joke, but is a really odd thing to say in earnest. The Battletech stuff just seems like a toxic group.

The former comes off as really condescending and off putting in the OP, but from a different POV might be seen as a heads up. "Hey, just so you know, we're all pretty cutthroat here, and want to play against the best lists and armies."

The latter seems like a playgroup that really just doesn't want to add anybody. Once they give you two different reasons you can't play with them, it's probably less about the reasons and more that they just dont' want to play with anybody not in the group (or possibly just the OP).

Positive gatekeeping allows new people into the community while keeping the core values of hte community intact. Malevolent gatekeeping keeps new people out to preserve the social status of those already in.

I know "gatekeeping" tends to get a bad rap, and rightly so when it's used to exclude people from enjoying a hobby. That said, I think there's room to talk about how we guide folks into shared spaces with care and intention. Wargaming, like many complex hobbies, comes with its own set of standards, norms, and unspoken etiquette. Much like different competitive leagues in sports, it helps when newcomers are gently brought into those expectations—not to shut anyone out, but to make the experience better for everyone. We occasionally complain about TFG bringing an absolute smasher of a list, but if that's enjoyable to that individual then the people putting/shutting them down are creating a negative space for the min/max types.

In my view, wargaming is a social contract as much as it is a game. We play to enjoy each other’s company, and there’s a mutual understanding of what that enjoyment looks like. If someone consistently resists the rhythm and etiquette of the space, it can make the experience harder for others. That’s why I think it’s okay to be intentional about onboarding new folks in a way that preserves the joy and community we've built—so long as we're being friendly, open, and supportive.

Gatekeeping does tend to be a somewhat loaded term in that its used when people describe being gatekept out of whatever it is; and yeah it can be intentional rule abuse; it can be racism and such and it can just be cliques.

It's a kind of catch-all but often a negative term based on how and when most people choose to use it.

My question is does it even work?

Social borders are inherently porous, cultures are inherently dynamic and cultural borders are inherently fuzzy.

Gatekeeping may work for a time and at a very small individualistic scale, but it is working against entropy, and nothing wins against entropy.

It depends.

If you’re joining an existing club, it’s going to have its own foibles and peccadillos. Nothing wrong with that, but it can mean it’s not going to be a good fit for everyone. That is a fairly benign form of gatekeeping. Nobody is really doing anything on purpose there.

But then we get Sad Acts on the Internet who claim to Gatekeep the entire hobby. Which is a ludicrous and fruitless endeavour. Sure, your chosen echo chamber might resound with the message you want to hear. But the second you step outside of it? You. Have. No. Power. At all. But you may very well be laughed at and ridiculed, regardless of what or who you think you’re gatekeeping against.

So it varies, and wildly. On the more benign side (sorry, we only really play long, narrative campaigns/tournament level), it can be in the approach and communication. On the more extreme side you’re simply wasting energy shrieking into a void so vast, it doesn’t even notice.

 Tyran wrote:
My question is does it even work?

Social borders are inherently porous, cultures are inherently dynamic and cultural borders are inherently fuzzy.

Gatekeeping may work for a time and at a very small individualistic scale, but it is working against entropy, and nothing wins against entropy.

I think the article Da Boss posted does a good job of explaining it. Gatekeeping only works when a community is organic AND shares values. Once a community is driven primarily by external forces, than usually money overrides values. But communities can be subsets of a larger one. If you only like the Movies, can you still be a Marvel fan? Marvel would say yes. The four dudes at the comic shop might say no.

A great example is the band Green Day, who came up in the punk scene and were a big deal at 924 Gilman, a music venue that only allows bands on small lables to play. Green Day, of course, became a massive world wide sensation, and brought punk music to millions. They were the most successful punk band since the clash 15 years earlier, and obviously nobody could gatekeep them out of calling themselves punk. But... they were never allowed to play at Gilman again, because tehy were on a major label. Some fans would even turn their backs to them when they played with other bands. So there was a community that held to it's values even if it meant rejecting a former member who became a big deal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But then we get Sad Acts on the Internet who claim to Gatekeep the entire hobby. Which is a ludicrous and fruitless endeavour. Sure, your chosen echo chamber might resound with the message you want to hear. But the second you step outside of it? You. Have. No. Power. At all. But you may very well be laughed at and ridiculed, regardless of what or who you think you’re gatekeeping against.

The internet is the bastion for the lonely and angry. Even people with no articulatable religious or moral convictions still want to stand for something. So they pick their hobby, and convince themselves that they are noble and good because they work to keep the hobby pure.

 Tyran wrote:
My question is does it even work?

That’s a tough question to answer definitively. What does “gatekeeping working” even look like? The examples from the original poster seem to suggest success through exclusion—but if I’m reading the tone right, Lathe didn’t continue gaming with either group. So, I’m not sure that’s a win, socially or for the hobby.

I think the effectiveness of easing someone into a group really depends on the individual and how it's done. If you take a former tournament veteran and only let them play with beginners, they're probably going to lose interest fast. But putting a new player with others who are also learning—and giving them room to grow before facing min/max lists—might genuinely help them enjoy the game more.

At the end of the day, it's a hobby, and everyone engages with it differently. If we focus on making entry points accessible while respecting the norms of each space, we can build communities that are both welcoming and sustainable. I think guidance can work, but hard gatekeeping rarely leads to lasting engagement.

What the OP describes isn't really gatekeeping. Rather it's just bizarre arbitrary insularity, sometimes paired with attempts to scam. I don't mean however to downplay how jerky those folks were.

I'm actually a fan of certain kinds of gatekeeping if it relates to holding to a high standard of quality and a better overall experience. I've shared before how at my little basement club you'll never find unpainted minis. Is that having a standard or gatekeeping?

It did feel like there were some ulterior motives at play in both situations. If the shop owner expects someone to buy merchandise before they’re allowed to play in a group, maybe that explains why he pushed for a new model purchase—but that’s just speculation on my part.

When I first moved to Washington, I stopped by a GW store and an employee told me about a monthly Gargant battle royale they ran. He encouraged me to buy one and join in, but I had zero interest in owning that model. Honestly, it felt like he was trying to hit a sales quota. Then again, maybe he genuinely wanted more players for the event and was just being inclusive—could’ve been the opposite of gatekeeping!

I do wonder: if the original poster had picked up Canis Rex and adjusted their BattleTech army to align with what those two groups expected, might they have had a more enjoyable time?

 Eilif wrote:
What the OP describes isn't really gatekeeping. Rather it's just bizarre arbitrary insularity, sometimes paired with attempts to scam. I don't mean however to downplay how jerky those folks were.

I'm actually a fan of certain kinds of gatekeeping if it relates to holding to a high standard of quality and a better overall experience. I've shared before how at my little basement club you'll never find unpainted minis. Is that having a standard or gatekeeping?

That's different than gatekeeping, unless you are vocalizing the opinion that "if you don't paint you can't really be a 'wargamer'". Having a club that that has a set of standard because the members enjoy that aspect of the experience is different then condemning anyone else who enjoys a different or even "lower" set of standards.

 Jammer87 wrote:
I do wonder: if the original poster had picked up Canis Rex and adjusted their BattleTech army to align with what those two groups expected, might they have had a more enjoyable time?

I'm going to guess yes for the former, and no for the latter. I think the first group was just try hards who swallow conventional wisdom completely, and try to act like they're in the know because they follow the lead of better players. The latter group sound like jackasses who don't want new people to play with. Or, I say this not trying to be insulting, they didn't like the OP for some reason and just wanted to avoid playing with him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ssgt Carl wrote:
That's different than gatekeeping, unless you are vocalizing the opinion that "if you don't paint you can't really be a 'wargamer'". Having a club that that has a set of standard because the members enjoy that aspect of the experience is different then condemning anyone else who enjoys a different or even "lower" set of standards.

Saying you can't play with us unless you meet a standard is almost the platonic ideal of gatekeeping.

Ah yes, the eternal clash: Greys vs. Painted. A rivalry more legendary than elves vs. dwarves. Look, telling someone they need to paint models just to play is basically hobby hazing—“You want to roll dice? Better get out your brush and sacrifice a weekend.” Not everyone gets their thrills from staring down a detail brush for six hours. Some people just want to play the dang game.

But hey, if someone only enjoys playing against painted armies, then we're locked in a cosmic stand-off. One side cries “freedom!” while the other mutters “aesthetic standards.” This is gatekeeping in its purest form—everyone fiercely defending their joy. And weirdly enough? It kind of works. Everyone plays with people who align with their vibe, and no one has to suffer through a battle where half the enemy army looks like they were dropped out of a LEGO bucket.

 Polonius wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
My question is does it even work?

Social borders are inherently porous, cultures are inherently dynamic and cultural borders are inherently fuzzy.

Gatekeeping may work for a time and at a very small individualistic scale, but it is working against entropy, and nothing wins against entropy.

I think the article Da Boss posted does a good job of explaining it. Gatekeeping only works when a community is organic AND shares values.

Values change with time. Eventually people grow old and the community either depends on a new generation that comes with new values, or it dies with its old members.

Gatekeeping can slow that process, but it cannot stop it.

 Polonius wrote:


Saying you can't play with us unless you meet a standard is almost the platonic ideal of gatekeeping.

I guess im differentiating between "gatekeeping a specific group" (rules and standards, like an tournament, FLGS, or private club has a right to set) as opposed to gatekeeping the entire hobby. I may be articulating it poorly. Saying "you cant play with me in this very specific setting because we set some rules for this little club" and "I refuse to play with you in any setting because you are wrong for not setting the same standards that have arbitrarily placed upon myself." are two different things.

If you define Gatekeeping as "Controlling access to something" then yes, any sort of rule is gatekeeping

If you consider it more "the action of discouraging or criticizing others’ participation in or enjoyment of a shared activity or interest." It becomes more about a snobby attitude meant to push people entirely out of the hobby if don't observe it in exactly the same way

Something i dont think i saw mention is gatekeeping when in reality they do not want the property to change with the times and modern sensibilites.
Take D&D, as it got a sleuth of new fans, many kinda gave it a look and realized, there where some real, lets say, problematic elements, making entire races inherently evil(Orks, Drow).
Now there is a push to make them alot more nuanced. But there is pushback. which i think is bad.
But then there is also pushback on this new way of playing D&D. mostly focused on well, actualy power fantasy and making sure that the characters can do whatever they want really. and sometimes using D&D as therapy and emotional outlet rather than real fun.

 Polonius wrote:


Saying you can't play with us unless you meet a standard is almost the platonic ideal of gatekeeping.

I agree with you and that's why I'm ok with gatekeeping. I think we may have discussed this before.

My question then is Gatekeeping ok if you find ways to make it inclusive? Is it still gatekeeping then?

My real life example would be:
We only play with painted minis here but here's several painted warbands/armies/etc you can choose from if you don't have painted figures yet.

The goal being to gatekeep the quality of the experience while being open to the participation of anyone who wants to share that experience.

Assuming that what I'm doing is Gatekeeping then my answer to "Gatekeeping, why do we do it?" is.
Because if I'm going to spend some of my free time it organizing and hosting a wargame club I want that gaming to be with painted miniatures on great terrain with people of goodwill who prioritize the same.

 Ssgt Carl wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


Saying you can't play with us unless you meet a standard is almost the platonic ideal of gatekeeping.

I guess im differentiating between "gatekeeping a specific group" (rules and standards, like an tournament, FLGS, or private club has a right to set) as opposed to gatekeeping the entire hobby. I may be articulating it poorly. Saying "you cant play with me in this very specific setting because we set some rules for this little club" and "I refuse to play with you in any setting because you are wrong for not setting the same standards that have arbitrarily placed upon myself." are two different things.

If you define Gatekeeping as "Controlling access to something" then yes, any sort of rule is gatekeeping

If you consider it more "the action of discouraging or criticizing others’ participation in or enjoyment of a shared activity or interest." It becomes more about a snobby attitude meant to push people entirely out of the hobby if don't observe it in exactly the same way

I think you need both definitions, because they overlap. My informal play group has a pretty strict no upainted models policy, and we generally don't play wagainst grey hordes. Many of us also share that we think painting is part of the hobby and playing unpainted is a lesser sort of hobbying.

If you only associate gatekeeping with negative intentions or consequences, than sure, you can use your definition. But I think that's too narrow of a definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jammer87 wrote: But hey, if someone only enjoys playing against painted armies, then we're locked in a cosmic stand-off. One side cries “freedom!” while the other mutters “aesthetic standards.” This is gatekeeping in its purest form—everyone fiercely defending their joy. And weirdly enough? It kind of works. Everyone plays with people who align with their vibe, and no one has to suffer through a battle where half the enemy army looks like they were dropped out of a LEGO bucket.

Well, in this discussion both sides are basing their points on the same argument, just with different contexts. Both are arguing, essentially, that their hobby time is valuable and they want to spend it the way they want to spend it. Some people don't want to "waste" time painting, others don't want to "waste" time playing against an unpainted army. But one side has both a long history of past practice as well as the intended use of hte products from the manufacturer backing them up.

Tyran wrote:Values change with time. Eventually people grow old and the community either depends on a new generation that comes with new values, or it dies with its old members.

Gatekeeping can slow that process, but it cannot stop it.

Sure, in the context of the eventual heat death of the universe, there isn't much we can do.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Something i dont think i saw mention is gatekeeping when in reality they do not want the property to change with the times and modern sensibilites.
Take D&D, as it got a sleuth of new fans, many kinda gave it a look and realized, there where some real, lets say, problematic elements, making entire races inherently evil(Orks, Drow).
Now there is a push to make them alot more nuanced. But there is pushback. which i think is bad.
But then there is also pushback on this new way of playing D&D. mostly focused on well, actualy power fantasy and making sure that the characters can do whatever they want really. and sometimes using D&D as therapy and emotional outlet rather than real fun.

D&D is the best example of how gatekeeping didn't work, and it's consequences. Between the new edition, remote play, and cultural cache, D&D became popular with a much wider range of people than even in 4th edition, which famously caused an exodus of long time players over the rules. D&D became a front in the culture war, and is often so actively inclusive it makes me, a progressive middle aged white dude, feeling like it's not really for me. I like evil orcs and calling races races. I do not want to litigate if Tolkein was racist or if assigning physical stats to races is problematic. I'm guessing the pendelum will swing, both as culture shifts again, the player base evolves, and WOTC realizes how actually buys the game rather than just plays it.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ssgt Carl wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


Saying you can't play with us unless you meet a standard is almost the platonic ideal of gatekeeping.

I guess im differentiating between "gatekeeping a specific group" (rules and standards, like an tournament, FLGS, or private club has a right to set) as opposed to gatekeeping the entire hobby. I may be articulating it poorly. Saying "you cant play with me in this very specific setting because we set some rules for this little club" and "I refuse to play with you in any setting because you are wrong for not setting the same standards that have arbitrarily placed upon myself." are two different things.

If you define Gatekeeping as "Controlling access to something" then yes, any sort of rule is gatekeeping

If you consider it more "the action of discouraging or criticizing others’ participation in or enjoyment of a shared activity or interest." It becomes more about a snobby attitude meant to push people entirely out of the hobby if don't observe it in exactly the same way

I think you need both definitions, because they overlap. My informal play group has a pretty strict no unpainted models policy, and we generally don't play against grey hordes. Many of us also share that we think painting is part of the hobby and playing unpainted is a lesser sort of hobbying.

If you only associate gatekeeping with negative intentions or consequences, than sure, you can use your definition. But I think that's too narrow of a definition.

I don't disagree. Both those definitions are the straight-up dictionary definition 1 and 2.
I think what the general line of thinking here is that gate keeping can be about the spirit of it. It can be malicious "im better than you because I'm pure and you're not" or it can be "We have some standards, how can we encourage you to be part of what we enjoy?"

Where I play I would cut off 95% of people I could play with if we held to "only painted model rules. That said, about 95% of those are actively working on painting and every time we play our armies show progress (except for one guy who essentially refuses to paint, and is also kind of a min/max power gamer)

I have adjusted my thinking a few times. I used to look down on people that didn't paint their own minis. I thought anyone who commissioned someone to paint for them as on the same level as someone who used an unpainted army, just richer. As my own time, income, and priorities changed (I still won't pay for someone to paint my figures and always prefer to play with painted armies) I guess I came to the conclusion that it wasn't some sort of moral failing or personality flaw that you were a "mop" rather than a "fanatic" (going back to that article posted early in this thread.) Nor is it wrong if you're a "fanatic" that only wants to enjoy the hobby with other, like-minded "fanatics" as long as you're shooing off any groups of mops you see gathering nearby... if that makes sense...

 Ssgt Carl wrote:


I don't disagree. Both those definitions are the straight-up dictionary definition 1 and 2.
I think what the general line of thinking here is that gate keeping can be about the spirit of it. It can be malicious "im better than you because I'm pure and you're not" or it can be "We have some standards, how can we encourage you to be part of what we enjoy?"

I think we're broadly along the same lines, I just wanted to clarify that I think there can be positive gatekeeping.

Where I play I would cut off 95% of people I could play with if we held to "only painted model rules. That said, about 95% of those are actively working on painting and every time we play our armies show progress (except for one guy who essentially refuses to paint, and is also kind of a min/max power gamer)

I have adjusted my thinking a few times. I used to look down on people that didn't paint their own minis. I thought anyone who commissioned someone to paint for them as on the same level as someone who used an unpainted army, just richer. As my own time, income, and priorities changed (I still won't pay for someone to paint my figures and always prefer to play with painted armies) I guess I came to the conclusion that it wasn't some sort of moral failing or personality flaw that you were a "mop" rather than a "fanatic" (going back to that article posted early in this thread.) Nor is it wrong if you're a "fanatic" that only wants to enjoy the hobby with other, like-minded "fanatics" as long as you're shooing off any groups of mops you see gathering nearby... if that makes sense...

I think that's a fine attitude. I'm currently in a Conquest slo-gro league and spent some fo the morning before my game on Saturday finished the bases on a unit so I was 100% fully painted... and played a guy with unprimed plastic. C'est la vie.

Am I morally superior to that guy? Not at all. Do I take the hobby more seriously? I think so.

I have a full time job and a toddler, and I make time to paint roughly two full armies or so a year. The reality is that 1) I enjoy painting armies, and 2) I am good at quickly painting armies to a tabletop standard. I think it's human nature to attach some value to something that I both like and excel at.

 Polonius wrote:


D&D is the best example of how gatekeeping didn't work, and it's consequences. Between the new edition, remote play, and cultural cache, D&D became popular with a much wider range of people than even in 4th edition, which famously caused an exodus of long time players over the rules. D&D became a front in the culture war, and is often so actively inclusive it makes me, a progressive middle aged white dude, feeling like it's not really for me. I like evil orcs and calling races races. I do not want to litigate if Tolkein was racist or if assigning physical stats to races is problematic. I'm guessing the pendelum will swing, both as culture shifts again, the player base evolves, and WOTC realizes how actually buys the game rather than just plays it.

Same, im VERY progressive, an Anarchist even. But even im weirded out by how D&D got changed. The PRogressiveness came at the cost of rough edges of the world, where every species is on good terms with every other species ETC ETC and they are all noble and good. and Even the evil vampire has a tragic motive.

 Polonius wrote:

I have a full time job and a toddler, and I make time to paint roughly two full armies or so a year. The reality is that 1) I enjoy painting armies, and 2) I am good at quickly painting armies to a tabletop standard. I think it's human nature to attach some value to something that I both like and excel at.

I think that's a great point to realize! We attach some value based on what we have personally invested into it and invest in parts we excel at. Now I don't know what's really in his head, but the guy I mentioned before that doesn't paint has made comments that lead me to believe he doesn't think it's 'important'. He's tried to paint a couple figures and like anyone who hasn't painted much they aren't particularly good. I think he decided "I'm not good at this so I'm going to focus elsewhere." He likes crafting powerful lists and finding synergies and tactics rather "wasting time on arts and crafts". He might crush someone's beautifully painted army in a game with his gray horde and thinks he beat them because he "take[s] the hobby more seriously" based on what he has assigned value to. Who gets to be the final arbiter of what is 'valuable'? The 'creators'? The Zeitgeist? The local meta? Each individual. I don't think it matters as long as we don't get our joy from crushing someone else's joy because they draw it from a different source

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


D&D is the best example of how gatekeeping didn't work, and it's consequences. Between the new edition, remote play, and cultural cache, D&D became popular with a much wider range of people than even in 4th edition, which famously caused an exodus of long time players over the rules. D&D became a front in the culture war, and is often so actively inclusive it makes me, a progressive middle aged white dude, feeling like it's not really for me. I like evil orcs and calling races races. I do not want to litigate if Tolkein was racist or if assigning physical stats to races is problematic. I'm guessing the pendelum will swing, both as culture shifts again, the player base evolves, and WOTC realizes how actually buys the game rather than just plays it.

Same, im VERY progressive, an Anarchist even. But even im weirded out by how D&D got changed. The PRogressiveness came at the cost of rough edges of the world, where every species is on good terms with every other species ETC ETC and they are all noble and good. and Even the evil vampire has a tragic motive.

I'd almost joke that the gen-x kids that played D&D in the 70s, 80s, and 90s found the fantasy of moral clarity and being able to positively affect the world to be be compelling, while current youth playing find the fantasy of an articulatable identity detached from mechanics to be compelling. When I grew up the art of D&D was generally combat between heroes and a monster, while all the D&D art I see now is like an orc running a B&B.

Ssgt Carl wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I have a full time job and a toddler, and I make time to paint roughly two full armies or so a year. The reality is that 1) I enjoy painting armies, and 2) I am good at quickly painting armies to a tabletop standard. I think it's human nature to attach some value to something that I both like and excel at.

I think that's a great point to realize! We attach some value based on what we have personally invested into it and invest in parts we excel at. Now I don't know what's really in his head, but the guy I mentioned before that doesn't paint has made comments that lead me to believe he doesn't think it's 'important'. He's tried to paint a couple figures and like anyone who hasn't painted much they aren't particularly good. I think he decided "I'm not good at this so I'm going to focus elsewhere." He likes crafting powerful lists and finding synergies and tactics rather "wasting time on arts and crafts". He might crush someone's beautifully painted army in a game with his gray horde and thinks he beat them because he "take[s] the hobby more seriously" based on what he has assigned value to. Who gets to be the final arbiter of what is 'valuable'? The 'creators'? The Zeitgeist? The local meta? Each individual. I don't think it matters as long as we don't get our joy from crushing someone else's joy because they draw it from a different source

Oh, this isnt' even a close call. A person who builds and paints an army to their own vision is 100% getting more value than a person throwoing together units to win games. Because the complete hobbyist will have something tangible and physical, that they can use forever. the Meta chaser has fun until they get bored, and then they have nothing.

I'm sure they exist, but grey plastic meta chasers tend not to last in the hobby. There's a rule change, or a new interest, or their army gets nerfed, and they sell and move on. .

 Polonius wrote:


Oh, this isnt' even a close call. A person who builds and paints an army to their own vision is 100% getting more value than a person throwoing together units to win games. Because the complete hobbyist will have something tangible and physical, that they can use forever. the Meta chaser has fun until they get bored, and then they have nothing.

I'm sure they exist, but grey plastic meta chasers tend not to last in the hobby. There's a rule change, or a new interest, or their army gets nerfed, and they sell and move on. .

Oh you gatekeeper you 🤣

Also, agreed.

 Polonius wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


D&D is the best example of how gatekeeping didn't work, and it's consequences. Between the new edition, remote play, and cultural cache, D&D became popular with a much wider range of people than even in 4th edition, which famously caused an exodus of long time players over the rules. D&D became a front in the culture war, and is often so actively inclusive it makes me, a progressive middle aged white dude, feeling like it's not really for me. I like evil orcs and calling races races. I do not want to litigate if Tolkein was racist or if assigning physical stats to races is problematic. I'm guessing the pendelum will swing, both as culture shifts again, the player base evolves, and WOTC realizes how actually buys the game rather than just plays it.

Same, im VERY progressive, an Anarchist even. But even im weirded out by how D&D got changed. The PRogressiveness came at the cost of rough edges of the world, where every species is on good terms with every other species ETC ETC and they are all noble and good. and Even the evil vampire has a tragic motive.

I'd almost joke that the gen-x kids that played D&D in the 70s, 80s, and 90s found the fantasy of moral clarity and being able to positively affect the world to be be compelling, while current youth playing find the fantasy of an articulatable identity detached from mechanics to be compelling. When I grew up the art of D&D was generally combat between heroes and a monster, while all the D&D art I see now is like an orc running a B&B.

I mean you could say something about how this generation, their fantasies are the unattainable domestic bliss.
Heck, when i had Idle fantasies in the car, they are more "I want to get sent to another world and open a restaurent" then "Imma gonna kill a god"

Not to derail, but personally my issue with D&D is that the changes made to the game only make sense if you're being explicit that the fantasy races in D&D are supposed to be analogues for real world ethnic groups, and that it's important to model them as though they were ethnic groups in the game world.

It essentially boils down all of fantasy into a bunch of different human cultures with funny masks on, and doesn't really allow for any exploration of metaphysical themes. If you're not modelling 2020s american racial politics, you're apparently doing it wrong?

That seems extremely reductive and weird to me. Like, I think a game where you model 2020s american racial politics is fine if that's your idea of fun, but I also think a game where Orcs are animate matter possessed by evil spirits and birthed from an alchemical cauldron is cool, because at the end of the day D&D is mostly a game about fighting monsters, killing them, and taking their stuff. Adding a whole load of extra baggage and nuance to a game where 90% of the rules are about how to kill stuff faster and more brutally just seems like a really weird disconnect and like a lot of people would be happier if they played a story game where combat wasn't such a big focus.

But none of that really bothers me because I don't play D&D with anyone except people I know personally in real life, and I'm usually the DM and can set the table culture as I like it. And if someone doesn't like the way I do things, I just shrug and let them leave, because I've got no issue with them disliking it, seems fair enough to me.

But I think people get way, way, WAY too upset about this stuff generally. Nobody is forcing you to play in any particular way and if they are you can just put down the dice and walk away.

Same applies with wargaming. Nobody can force you to play against unpainted minis and nobody can force you to play any particular game at any time. So gatekeep away I reckon, and as long as you're transparent and polite I feel like everyone should be fine.

I’m now going to suggest a possible positive form of Gate Keeping. Please keep in mind it’s focussed, and super specific.

Many years ago, during Necromunda’s short lived 2nd Edition? I was a GW Till Monkey. Part time, manning the till during “Veterans” Nights. Two a week, Tuesday and Thursday.

I’d created a loose narrative framework. I considered it pretty robust, with a number of narrative outcomes depending on who went where and who dun wot.

Then came The Spyrer Player. Who, by their own admission, “I Only Play To Win”. Despite playing the only ‘gang’ that cannot by definition actually win any Necromunda Campaign ever.

I should, I really should, have just said ‘sorry, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it’s not suited to this campaign’. But I didn’t.

He did however run into my Cawdor Gang*, promptly lost a quarter of his Gang, then retried the rest of them because apparently it’s not fun when people can hit back.

Which, for me, was all the sweeter, as the by then experienced and so, so very expensive Malcador that had copped a long range Krak Grenade to the groin ended up Captured on the injury chart.

Said “Play2Win” goon flounced off in a right, shall we call it fluffery buffery, refusing a Rescue mission, making Rico’s Redneck Redemption** incredibly flush with cash.

But he’d ruined many a game night by then. Not simply by running Spyrers (that was a sign though, not a good one), but by refusing to do anything cinematic. Micro Manager meets Micro Measurement. Until of course it went against him, where a sad tantrum ensued.

*This was before I did custom campaigns, where the one running it really shouldn’t have a gaming stake.

**This is a factual name for my then Cawdor Gang. I apologise if I’ve cast aspersions.