I’ve seen the word “gatekeeping” tossed around in some head-scratching contexts — such as reminding players of the rules, restricting character options in a game, asking a player to make the correct roll, and even suggesting that a different style of play or a different game might be better suited for someone. It feels like some people might have gotten the wrong idea of what gatekeeping is and what its purpose can be, especially when that purpose is good.

The harmful forms of gatekeeping are pretty blatant, and most of us are familiar with them — insisting that only certain types of games or playstyles are “real roleplaying” or “real RPGs” or judging people for their preferences (such as playing D&D over “indie” games). And, of course, gatekeeping people because of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or any number of other ways. Those things create barriers to entry and discourage people from participating in the hobby by making them feel uncomfortable or unwelcome (and if you disagree that’s bad, you can fuck right off).

But how does someone conclude that the examples I started with are gatekeeping? How did those things make them feel excluded or unwelcome? Is telling a player, “No, you can’t play an elf, we’re playing Traveller” gatekeeping?

It’s entirely possible that someone, somewhere, has shown up to a Traveller game with a straight-up fantasy character concept. But it’s more likely that they simply came up with a character concept that didn’t quite fit in with the premise of the game they were joining. Maybe it was a miscommunication issue or a misunderstanding. Maybe they’d only played one game (you know which one) and thought all roleplaying games were the same. How the table reacts will determine if the situation slips into gatekeeping. If this player gets mocked and belittled for the concept, their inexperience with the game, or as a roleplayer in general, they will feel excluded. It’s also perfectly avoidable since all the GM or the other players had to do was work with the player to figure out how they could make that concept work, or find another concept that would work that also satisfied the player¹. The same can be said for someone who joins an ongoing game where the PCs have deep, sophisticated backstories; they enjoy delving into mechanical intricacies when the other players don’t; or even simply don’t always remember what dice to roll. It doesn’t take much to let a mismatch in playstyles or attitudes slip into gatekeeping behavior — and when that player leaves the group because they don’t feel welcome or the group decides not to invite the player back, it’s easy to justify the behavior that led to it.

But is it gatekeeping to not want inexperienced players to join a group or not want a playstyle mismatch? It may not be a bad form of gatekeeping if there isn’t clear communication. I don’t want a player in my games who will try to exploit rules to a degree that it impacts everyone’s enjoyment, takes an adversarial attitude toward other players or the GM, or won’t collaborate with the other players. One or more of those behaviors or play styles might be valid in certain contexts or if everyone is on board, I just don’t typically enjoy them. I especially don’t want to play with somebody who has toxic beliefs and behaviors. I’ll keep people out of my games that don’t align with our table culture or personalities and be clear about it upfront. It’s still gatekeeping, but it’s for their enjoyment as much as my friends and me ². Often, though, potential issues aren’t evident up-front, and sometimes they add add up during the game. Addressing issues as they come up versus them building up steam is the best case scenario. For playstyle issues, I usually will try to work with them or communicate that I’m not enjoying how they play; if that doesn’t seem to work, I may ask if they’re enjoying how we play and suggest it might be a better use of everyone else’s time to find a different game. For toxic individuals, I’ll just eject them from the game³. I would have gatekept for all the right reasons in those cases.

So the next time you see someone claim they were gatekept because they didn’t know the rules to a game, before quote-dunking them⁴ or laughing at them (it’s okay; sometimes I have the same instinct), maybe wait a beat and try to find out a little bit more about why they felt that way. Gatekeeping (if that’s what happened) can include empathy and understanding their perspective, if it’s approached properly. They may simply need to understand where it’s coming from, and subjecting them to more of it doesn’t help.