In 2023, after discussions with Jennell Jaquays, the title of Jaquaying the Dungeon was changed to Xandering the Dungeon, as I’ve previously described in A Historical Note on Xandering. At the beginning of 2024, a little over a week ago as I write this post, Anne of DIY & Dragons wrote a blog post questioning the timeline of events I had described.
There were a number of accusations made as part of this post. Some of these accusations can be ascribed to a difference of opinion, honest confusion, and legitimate grievances, which I will address below. Others, however, were factually false.
After making a brief public statement regarding the factual inaccuracies in these accusations, I reached out to and was also reached out to by members of the RPG trans community, including Anne. Very meaningful and heartfelt conversations have been had, and I am deeply grateful to all of them for their time and their thoughtfulness.
One outcome of these conversations is that Anne has posted a retraction and correction of some of the statements made in her original post, which I encourage you to read to have a better understanding of both why Anne wrote her post and why the corrections we’re making are important: An Update on Jaquaysing.
Revisions have also been made to A Historical Note on Xandering in conjunction with this statement that will hopefully prevent similar confusion in the future.
In addition, I’ve been asked, by Anne and others, to address several specific questions at greater length.
Did Jennell invent the term xandering or ask you to remove her name from the term/article?
No. Nor, to be clear, have I ever claimed that she did.
Did the original version of the article use Jennell’s deadname?
Yes, because the article was written when Jennell was still using her deadname and had not yet identified as trans.
When Jennell identified as trans, I immediately began using her preferred name and her true pronouns in any new writing or conversation, but I did not go back and immediately revise older articles that mentioned her and her work to remove her deadname until Jennell specifically asked me to.
While I still believe there is easily ignored nuance and complexity to the issue of revising extant works, I regret waiting for Jennell to reach out to me because it hurt Jennell. What I should have done, given the prominence of the article, is reach out to her directly. This was an important lesson, and one that I’ve acted on several times since these events occurred in 2018 — e.g., contacting trans authors when reviewing works that were published under their deadnames to ascertain what credit I should use.
What is the specific timeline of your communication with Jennell regarding changes to the article?
In response to discussions with Jennell, there have been two major alterations to both the article and the Alexandrian website as a whole (since both the term and Jennell’s works are widely used and discussed on the site).
The first of these, as noted above, was in 2018. Jennell first reached out via a comment on the site, and we then exchanged private messages. I do not have records of these messages, but the outcome was that Jennell’s deadname would be removed from the site. This included deleting or updating text, graphics, and metadata. It also included deleting comments from readers of the site which included her deadname.
It may be important to note that this project took a little over a year to complete, as it included periodically rescanning the site with search engines to detect any hidden metadata or filenames on both the current and older versions of the site that still contained her deadname.
The second major alteration began in 2023, as I was preparing for the publication of So You Want To Be a Game Master. I’m going to number this sequence of events in an effort to make it as clear as possible:
- I reached out to Jennell regarding the use of the term “jaquaying.”
- Jennell reiterated her preference for the term “jaquaysing” (including the final S in her last name), but stressed that it was very important to her that no form of the term featuring her name but missing the final S be used.
- I let my publisher know that Jaquays wanted the term changed and that we should be careful to make sure no instances of the old term remained.
- This prompted a legal question about whether or not her name should be used for the term at all.
- In consultation with others — but, to be clear, not Jennell — it was determined that a new term should be used, and I created the term “xandering.”
- I let Jennell know that the term would be updated in the upcoming book and that the website would also be updated before the book came out. She thanked me for the update. This final communication took place in April 2023, and it would sadly be the last time I spoke with Jennell.
- The text of the book was then updated with the new term. I believe this was completed by the end of April, but it may have been early May. (Other proofreading and corrections were also being made throughout this time.)
- In September 2023, I began the process of updating the article and website.
- On November 1st, 2023, the change was announced and the website updated. Significant changes continued to be made for roughly the next two weeks, with additional changes being made thereafter as missed changes were reported.
- The book was released November 21st, 2023.
To reiterate, at no point in time did Jennell request the term “xandering,” participate in the creation of the term “xandering,” nor explicitly endorse or disapprove of the use of “xandering.”
Did Jennell know that the term would be updated in both the book and on the website?
Yes.
Would Jennell object to anyone using the term “jaquaysing”?
No. As I noted in my original statement, she preferred this version of the term to the original “jaquaying.”
In my discussions with Anne and others, however, it has become clear that my post was read by some to mean that Jennell was somehow hurt by people using “jaquaysing” or that she was upset with them for using it. This is horrifying to me and was in no way my intention.
To be as clear as possible: Using “jaquaysing” or advocating for its use is not the same thing as making violent threats. It’s the latter that Jennell and I both condemned, not the former.
If you are among those who were led to believe that you had hurt Jennell by using the term “jaquaysing” or that Jennell was upset with you for doing so, I want to reassure you in the strongest possible way that this is not the case and apologize for in any way contributing to that belief.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Beyond the scope of Anne’s original blog post, a significant number of other accusations have been made. These include:
- That Jennell Jaquays was a co-author of the original article and that I had removed her co-author credit.
- That the article plagiarized some earlier article or book written by Jennell Jaquays.
- That Jennell invented the term “jaquaying” and/or the term “xandering.”
- That the term “jaquaysing” predated my article and I was trying to “steal” it from someone.
- That Jennell demanded her name be removed from the article, or that I had claimed she did.
- That Jennell threatened to sue me, or that I had claimed she did.
- That I lied about being in communication with Jennell Jaquays.
- That I had removed all reference to Jennell Jaquays from the article and/or my book.
To be clear, Anne is not responsible for these false claims. In some cases, they are actually being repeated or created by people trying to “defend” me. It’s therefore important that they be explicitly addressed:
None of these things are true.
I have done my best to call out these mistruths when I have seen them on social media, and if you see them in the future, I’d appreciate your help in giving polite corrections.
However, while these factual corrections are important, I ultimately do not want them to distract us from what I consider a deeper and more meaningful truth that I have failed to address and which I believe must be understood.
It is not my place to express that truth, however, and I am very grateful that Ava Islam has given me permission to share her thoughts. Please take the time to read her words. They are important.
A STATEMENT BY AVA ISLAM
Dear Justin,
I’m hoping to start a dialogue with you in genuine good faith, and try to explain the context behind Anne’s blog post and why people are reacting the way they have. I can see from your end how that would be really blindsiding if, from your point of view, you’ve been trying to act ethically to the best of your ability. Let me share what I think mine and a lot of folks, including Anne’s, perspective and experience has been to cause this kind of reaction
To start on a personal note: I have been reading your blog since I was in high school. I read that original blog post about the style of dungeon design Jennell typified in Caverns of Thracia probably in 2013, at a time when I was really grappling with and beginning to figure out my gender identity. Your article is what introduced me to Jennell’s work.
So, on the one hand, as someone getting started in this community, it was incredibly heartening to see the pioneering importance of a trans woman in this field. Equally, however, it was just as disheartening to see that she was deadnamed in that article, even past the point where her transition was a matter of public record.
The old school scene, at least its centralized forums of conversation, felt decidedly different with regards to demographics back then, and trans acceptance broadly was at a much different place too. It was very difficult to try to have any conversation about Jennell’s work where she wasn’t being deadnamed and/or misgendered, and any attempt at correction was a fucking tedious, emotionally exhausting slog. Or the flipside, when trying to introduce someone to her work and referencing your article which had her deadname, it would inevitably draw questions or “corrections” when addressing her by her proper name and gender identity.
In fact, in terms of specific bad actors with a bigoted, transphobic agenda in the scene where Jennell’s name/identity became contested ground, we have had to contend with people like Melan/Gabor Lux, Prince of Nothing, and many others of that crowd who are explicitly reactionary and bigoted, especially towards trans people. But in Melan’s case especially, he managed to blend in and not get called out for so long until I explicitly had to document how he consistently deadnamed and misgendered Jennell, even while simultaneously holding up her work as an exemplar against which he compared, derided, and mocked the works of often marginalized designers.
In light of this, your longstanding refusal to update the articles until Jennell herself requested it was an incredibly sore spot for every trans woman in this scene I’ve ever talked to; we all noticed this, and to a T we all resented it. When you posted the article outlining your stance on updating her name, it just reinforced this. For better or for worse, you exemplified what all of us faced so often in every avenue of our lives, which is just the constant fight to basic dignity and respect for our personhood.
And you represented it in one of its most frustrating forms. For many of us, the kind of bigotry and transphobia we face from out and out bigots is one thing, but what often felt so much more insidious and hard to combat is the kind of detached, intellectual, liberal dehumanization about what constitutes basic standards of decency and respect when it comes to trans people. Of the attitude that words and ideas matter more than people; of the disposability of being valued for our contributions, but not our personhood. To this day I still find myself trying to convince so many people who should know better that its not okay to deadname someone just because you’re referring to a period in time where they hadn’t transitioned yet.
So when Jennell finally came in and corrected you, from our viewpoint it wasn’t a situation where we felt “good on you for doing the right thing”, it was a “god, fucking finally!” Judging from her tone in that comment, I think Jennell was also quite aggrieved in that moment. It still didn’t feel great though; there wasn’t a sense in which it felt like you understood what the issue actually was, broadly. There was no apology from you. And of course, there was no correction of “Jaquaying” to “Jaquaysing”.
In light of that context, of Jennell literally having to correct you on that matter, you still not fulfilling this ask of hers was baffling. The justifications you gave about the work or logistics it would require again seemed to miss the heart of the issue, getting bogged up in technicalities instead; it wasn’t about getting the record perfectly updated, it was about *acknowledgement* and *respect* and correcting your behaviour going forward; it was for showing up and actually standing by and supporting someone so in every other context where some weirdo or bigot would say “its Jaquaying not Jaquaysing” we could point and be like “Justin has acknowledged himself that he made a mistake in the spelling.”
At the end of the day, its a made up term which you came up with, and there’s no actual, enforceable obligation you had to change it. But in light of having kept it up with her deadname for so long, to not oblige this request felt incredibly disrespectful. And so I think for us in the community, that prevented the wound from how long it was kept up with her deadname from ever really healeing and any instance of “Jaquaying” became a sore spot that over time emotionally became conflated with the act of deadnaming itself.
So, before I move forward to the next part of the story, here’s a point I want to bring up: though you don’t know us, me, Anne, and several others aren’t just your average “internet rando” for lack of a better term. We’re not as well known as you but we are all known community members, as well as industry peers to some degree. Nor are we strangers to Jennell; we might not have been close friends with her, but we were connected on socials, and she was aware of and champions of our work. Genuinely, the high point of a career as my designer was when Jennell reached out to praise me about my book. She meant a lot to us; there was kinship and solidarity and mentorship there. Like Anne said in her post, she was one of our foremothers; this language might seem dramatic to you but in queer, and especially trans community, its not just figurative or symbolic. These things have very real meaning. And along with these also comes certain unspoken understandings and codes of conducts, ways in which we as women and especially as trans women know how to stick up for each other and have each other’s backs (you’ll notice there’s a lot of times where I’ve slipped into using “we”, and thats because, while I obviously can’t truly speak for anyone other than myself, I am relaying what is genuinely a very common experience).
What I’m getting at here is the way in which usage of “Jaquayed” vs “Jaquaysed” became a subject of debate. When you say there was harassment about it, I don’t know what you might specifically be referring to, but again let me give you what was basically my, and Anne, and many others’ experiences. We saw Jennell, herself, on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere expressing frustration with the misspelling of the term. We identified with that frustration, and we did what we generally do in this case, which is when one of us expresses her wishes, we carry that flag with us so she doesn’t have to fight that battle everywhere alone.
For my part, I don’t think anything I or any of my friends or peers did ever counted as harassment; we made a point to use Jaquaysed/Jaquaysing in any of our written work, and when we saw someone else using “Jaquayed” we would say “hey, Jennell prefers this.” No more, no less, no drawn out argumentation, and in no stronger terms than Jennell herself expressed. Over time, Jaquaysing with the s was gaining more and more traction in discussion that I saw. If this itself was upsetting to Jennell I’m really, truly, deeply regretful. My gut feeling says that it wasn’t, and she had an open line of communication to me any time if she felt it was; I’m going to wager moreso that the fact that this was conflict had gone on so long to the point that it was interminable. As trans people, so many aspects of our lives feel embattled; even the spaces that should be ours for play and relaxation are perenially marred with conflict. This is true of every trans person, and especially every trans woman, whom I know in this scene. My motivation in reaching out to you specifically is to try to do something, no matter how slight, towards making that no longer the case.
All of this is why “A Historical Note on Xandering” really left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths. It felt like, by doing our best to respect Jennell’s public preference and stand in solidarity with her, we were being painted as people instigating a “harassment campaign” (and later being accused of putting words in her mouth). Then, the ambiguity of whether or not she had agreed to the change to the term “xandering” and being unable to confirm that since you were the only source vs her previously stated preferences. And the timing of it with her illness and then eventual death.
Ultimately, as Anne expressed to me privately, in her own words: “For me (and I’m realizing this somewhat in retrospect) the biggest issue was that what Justin said made people who respected Jennell feel like they could/should no longer say Jaquaysing because they respect her too much to go against her wishes.”
The optics of putting your own name in place of where a trans woman’s was around the time of her death is not good. I know you don’t mean it to be, I know you have no malice or ill-intent, or conspiracy, but it is erasure. I know also, that you wrote the essay, and that its theorizing is often misattributed to Jennell herself rather than you when that is not the case. I know you continue to credit and champion Jennell at every point. But it is still erasure.
You have seen, even in the wake of Anne writing her post and your response, how much information degrades on the internet. We live in a world where signal definitively lost the war to noise. By changing the name of the term itself, you are ensuring vast swathes of people you reach will never know about Jennell’s contributions and influences, will never discover her work the way so many people did prior when the term was Jaquaying/Jaquaysing. It took on a life outside of your post; even absent any mention of the article, just using the term would ensure that some people who didn’t otherwise know about Jennell would find out about her.
I understand why legally, you might want to avoid using her name when your book is going into print, but adopting your name instead of something more neutral like “Thracian” at the moment you stand to profit, which unfortunately coincides with the moment of Jennell’s passing, just ends up reading as the capstone in what has felt like a perennial saga of disrespect. The way you’ve responded to Anne, I think, has also not given people the inclination to give you the benefit of the doubt. For better or for worse, it reads as a continuation of a pattern of you dismissing trans women and their concerns. Charges of disingenousness, outrage farming, or click-baiting are especially egregious for those of us who know Anne, who has been a tireless caring and supportive community leader for many years who has always shunned the spotlight herself in favour of uplifting others, and who does not engage in this hobby in a commercial context or seeking renown. Her only aim was trying to preserve Jennell’s legacy, and continuing to make this hobby a welcoming place for any who might find inspiration in her memory.
I hope that is an aim we can all share.
AN APOLOGY
To Ava, Anne, and the wider trans community: I hear you and I understand.
What has resonated with me through my conversations is that there is a mismatch between my perception of events and the wider community’s perception of events because I have thought of these things primarily in the context of Jennell, and I have ignored the effect on the wider trans community.
So when I privately apologized to Jennell years ago and we mended our fences and then spent years in a distant, but friendly professional relationship — recommending each other for work and that sort of thing — I thought I had reached an understanding and healed any harms.
But I was ignorant of and ignoring the harm to a wider community.
A private communication cannot heal a public harm.
Therefore, to the trans community, let me say clearly and publicly:
I am very sorry for the harm that I’ve caused you.
That harm, and the pain it caused, is also what motivated Anne to write her original blog post. I have apologized to her privately for that, and I would like to now also do so publicly: I understand what motivated you to write your original blog post. I am very sorry that my actions have caused you pain. I am hopeful that these are the first steps towards making things, if not right, then better.
We are also in mourning for Jennell Jaquays, who was tragically taken from us and from her loving wife and family on January 10th, 2024. It’s a loss and a pain that we all share. But it’s also, as Anne wrote, “a loss to trans women in gaming, people like me, for whom Jennell’s example of how to be out, successful, and admired served as an inspiration, and as a reminder that we have a place, we belong, in a hobby and an industry that can sometimes seem quite hostile to our existence. Even those of us who didn’t know her knew of her, and we could look to her as an exemplar, and as someone whose presence cultivated a safer space. Every trans woman I know in gaming has been affected by her loss.”
Nothing and no one can replace Jennell Jaquays.
In her memory and honor, I ask you to join me in donating to her family’s memorial fund. I will also be supporting the Jennell Jaquays Memorial Game Jam and, at the recommendation of members of the trans community I’ve spoken with, making a recurring donation to Trans Lifeline in her honor.
I can certainly appreciate the legal reasoning for changing the term prior to the publication of the book (and I have no doubt your publisher had a very strong opinion) but I do think choosing “xandering” was a misstep. Regardless, I’m glad you’re taking this opportunity to grow rather than retrench, and I appreciate that you shared Ava’s statement in (I assume) full.
Jennell’s death was a horrible shock. My heart goes out to her family and the whole community.
What’s the thought process behind sticking to the term ‘Xandering’ instead of taking Ava Islam’s excellent suggestion to pick a ‘neutral’ term such as ‘Thracian’? I am not a trans woman, and so cannot accept or reject your apology to trans women, but the issue of erasure does appear to still be present.
Even stripping away the issues surrounding gender identity and power, you’re still attempting to name a concept that you did not invent after yourself. It’s not technically plagiarism – after all, you do cite Jaquays throughout your original article – but it is bizarre and presumptuous. It reads very strongly like the goal is for people in the future to give you credit for these concepts. It will never not feel strange to new readers to come across an article where you discuss somebody else’s work in length and then name their methods after yourself.
I’m not looking to vilify you or send you to the internet gallows, but I am wondering what actions you intend to take and what behaviours you intend to change, if any, in response to Ava Islam’s explanation of how specifically naming methods you learned from Jaquays feels harmful.
Maybe you should’ve xandered your backpedal a little better
It still reads as completely ridiculous that all of this was prompted by someone asking you to spell their last name correctly.
There’s only one L in my last name Kilian, but as people are more used to seeing it with two I have been occasionally credited as “Tom Killian”. When I’ve asked people to update the spelling I’ve never once had somebody respond “let me consult with my lawyer and I’ll get back to you”.
Even if we accept that you had to change the term and that you couldn’t simply update the spelling, naming it after yourself is stupid and I think it’s fine to admit that even if it’s too late to change what’s going to print. People know you wrote the article on Jaquaysing for the same reason that they’ll know you wrote your book: your name is already on it.
> Even stripping away the issues surrounding gender identity and power, you’re still attempting to name a concept that you did not invent after yourself.
But he did invent it.
Jaquays didn’t invent the classification system first systematized in the article. She also wasn’t the sole originator of the techniques described in the article.
The fact that people seem to have become convinced that she DID because Alex named the article after her, and that therefore she or they have some claim to what Alex wrote or should have control over it, seems to be the whole reason the name was changed in the first place.
Hey Henry, I don’t want to turn the comment section into a whole back and forth over this, so I’ll just say that “Jaquaysing/Xandering the Dungeon” doesn’t describe a classification system, and Jaquays not being the sole originator this method isn’t relevant to Justin Alexander not being the creator of the concept. The article is an analysis of Jaquays’s style of dungeon design, and shows how using that style can help improve other designs. Alexander is extremely clear in his article as to what he’s writing about, and does not even include an attempt to claim that he invented the concepts.
Not having invented the concepts he writes about doesn’t make Alexander a bad person. There’s nothing malicious about writing about how other people do things – especially when credit is given. It doesn’t mean other people get to “control” the content of his writing. But it does mean that naming those concepts after himself doesn’t make any sense. Writing an analysis of something also doesn’t make it yours, however.
If Alexander feels differently about this – that he actually did invent this concept, and that is why he chose to name it after himself – then I think he can speak for himself in that regard. I’d be interested in hearing his take on which parts of the concept are uniquely his and warrant making this move.
I don’t really want to get into a back-and-forth, either. But the article you read and the article I’ve read are apparently two different articles.
A woman has died tragically so let’s do some friendly fire at one of her biggest fans and a tireless promoter of her work who was perhaps lazy with a massive text update on his really verbose blog and misguided with his choice for changing a verb he originated.
I am so tired.
Putting the above back-and-forth stuff aside, the majority of Old Schoolers ARE going to keep using “Jaquaysing”, and when new arrivals come in to other circles and use “Xandering” a large number of the old heads will, I *guarantee* it, tell them it ought to be Jaquaysing. After which the new arrivals will, should they show any confusion, be told some version of these events, and likely not a flattering one.
I feel like Justin’s eaten his whole crow; I got no grouch here. Just to note that that scenario… IS going to keep on happening, long-term, and keep this thing alive.
Thracia is a real place. as someone who lives there, i’d ask people not to use “Thracian Design”. it sounds like Thracian people came up with the design, and disallows me to take the concept seriously.
This is all endless drama now. It is sad that entire statements must be made, and apology tours be conducted, and certainty that all due rings must be kissed, as to receive acceptance by many who relish in offense.
In 2024, we should all be better than this by now and not have to worry about who will have yet the next grievance which will require the requisite public grovelling.
Everyone judging. Everyone demanding restitution. Everyone offended at even honest mistakes.
Can we all just get back to playing games?
#9.
So a bunch of people are going to slander Justin.
What’s your solution?
Thank you.
“Did Jennell know that the term would be updated in both the book and on the website? Yes.”
That’s not the relevant question. This question is still ambiguous. The relevant and unambiguous question is “Did Jennell know that the term would be updated **to Xandering** and not **to Jaquaysing**?”
Xandering is when you, an adult, send a group of teenagers to fight demons and vampires while you hang out in the schools library.
I’ve never commented here before but I wanted to say this is a really well thought out and mature response from you. Acknowledging that we’re all part of a community and our actions and words can have consequences that we didn’t intend. And letting a trans person speak for themselves about what happened and how it affected them was a really good idea.
It’s clear you had the best intentions and didn’t mean anyone any harm, and then listened and learned from people’s responses. I hope others can learn from this whole episode too, and we can all put it behind us and move on.
#12
No slander is needed for the tale to be unflattering. Justin responded to Jennell’s request (in 2018) to fix the term and spell her name correctly with basically “Ok! understood, as soon as I have time in my schedule I’ll fix it.” And then he never did.
This is much appreciated. It was well thought out and a good dialog seemed to be had. I think this is a good representation of restorative justice and reflects well for the community.
Some of the folks talking of “backpedaling” and “apology tours” should really take a beat and really see what’s going on here with other human beings around them rather then their own “little world”.
Learning and expanding is the point, folks, and this is a great example of such.
I appreciate you making this post.
As a trans woman myself, I have long felt that you have cultivated a diverse and safe community, and my opinion on that has not changed.
I definitely think that not updating Jennell’s deadname until being explicitly asked was the straightforwardly wrong thing to do. I obviously can’t speak for the trans community as a whole, but I feel that it is a wrong that can easily be grown beyond, and I (as a casual reader / viewer) have no reason to doubt that you would be more proactive in the future.
For me, the primary issue (as it seems to be for several others) is the term “Xandering”. In the wake of it previously being named after Jennell, it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The copyright issue is obviously understandable, but I know that I will continue to use the term “Jaquaysing”.
I understand the position you must be in, with Xandering already being in print, and I don’t have any advice for that.
Ultimately, I have a lot of respect for you and your work. I wish that you had done a few things differently. I hope that it’s something you can take into the future.
#12 – As per #17, it won’t take slander to make it unflattering (but I would expect there there will also be significant slagging-off beyond that).
As for a solution: There isn’t one. That it’s in print in book form means it’s too late to stop this from happening in some form.
Nor am I primarily talking to your side of the equation, here. I’m primarily talking to the other side, who want *more* in the way of restitution or reversal or apology, to remind them:
The renaming isn’t ultimately going to BE a credit-transfer or erasure or any of that; it might have been, but not now. It’s going to be a weight Justin’s going to have to wear. A punchline, not a credit.
I’m a transwoman, an OSR creator and I’m crying. 15min ago a was ready to defend you against claims and wanted to quote your Historical Note to show that “No, actually Jennell wanted people to not use the term jaquaysing eather.” And now I learn this was not like this at all. I’m so mad and disapointed to know you used the term xandering and not jaquaysing (what kind of legal trouble could have resulted? Like who could sue you exept Jennell herself?) I so disappointed to now know it took you so many years the change her name in the most cited and well known article about her. I always saw you as the guy who hat the ampersand t-shirt in rainbow and transcolors. Heck, my default youtube page is YOUR YT channel and I have a tap open right now from yesterdays Roll for Combat episode with you as a guest. But now…I don’t know if I want to continue reading my copy of “So you want to be a gamemaster” even though I really want to be one. I want to cross out ever “xandering” in it and replace it with “jaquaysing” and maybe gift that book to someone else. I’m soo soo hurt. I now exactly how Anne and Ava felt. I should really thank them.
RIP Jennell
Honestly, there are many things you could’ve credited yourself for, but you did not pioneer this type of design. Everyone makes mistakes, but this apology is not going to change the fact that “Jaquaysing” or, if you truly wanted a more neutral term, “connecting” or something would’ve been the appropriate term to use in this case.
“It will forever be known as ‘Jaquaysing a dungeon’. I have spoken.” – Rebecca Heineman, Jennell Jaquays’ wife, 1/30/24
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1aezwig/rebecca_heineman_jennell_jaquayss_widow_weighs_in/
—-
I do agree with Ava, this is erasure. I have crossed out “xandering” in my book and replaced it with “jaquaysing” and I think Justin Alexander should do it as well.
Sincerly a fellow transwoman
This is a wholly insufficient apology. You still misspelled her name for years, even after being asked directly to change it, and can’t even mention it. You still are insisting on going forward with an entirely self-centered rebrand for commercial purposes. I cannot support you or any of your material any further from this point, if this is the stance you are taking. Contrition means nothing if you take no steps to repair your damage, and you need to do better than an extended I’m Sorry You Took It That Way.
“Justin says that using Jaquays’ name is a problem because people think it means he doesn’t control his own writing. That’s ridiculous! It doesn’t make any sense! Also, Jennell’s wife has the final say over Justin’s writing!”
C’mon. Are you even listening to yourselves?
I welcome discussion, but slurs, violent threats, and/or threats of legal action have been and will be deleted.
Criticism of Jennell’s actions or Rebecca’s actions will also not be tolerated here. They have done nothing wrong and I’m not going to play host to any attacks on them.
@Henry: You’re walking a thin line. Try to find a more respectful way of expressing your thoughts.
I agree that some of the original claims made against you were unreasonable, and I am glad that you have recognised that you are not without blame in this situation. I certainly think your publishers over-reacted, and it is in poor taste to allow a ‘not arduous or terrible legal question’ to take precedence over honouring someone’s contribution, but I recognise that it is not a decision you personally made. Your publisher should take some responsibility and blame for that, and I regret that the entirety of that blame has been laid at your feet.
Although it is entirely reasonable that changes to the printed work cannot be made at this point, and if we accept that is preferable for terminology on your blog to match that of the book (I do not personally find this position compelling, but that is besides the point), there is no reason the blog cannot still acknowledge that the term Jaquaysing exists as an alternative. “(also called Jaquaysing after Jennell Jaquays)” in places where you use the term ‘Xandering’ heavily would go a long way to demonstrating that you recognise that the situation is regrettable. This would also, arguably, better educate your readers, who would be more equipped to discuss these concepts in other places if they had knowledge of both terms.
More critically, I believe that your response here still demonstrates an unconscious transphobia or misogyny that I am yet to see challenged. Ava’s point about a “detached, intellectual, liberal dehumanization” is important here. You approached the criticism directed at you as though it were nothing but a smear campaign, but had no reason to assume that the arguments presented were bad-faith. This is not uncommon behaviour for people whose internet presence is built upon maintaining themselves as an intellectual authority, but it is not behaviour that is compatible with allyship. In order to be good allies, we need to recognise that archetypal intellectual is not something to aspire to, as it inevitably leads us to value our own opinions over those of others.
The concerns of a single marginalised blog author are not made invalid because they are expressed in anger or because they gather public support, and those who would try and convince you otherwise are often acting in bad faith to try and disempower groups of people supporting each other, where their marginalised voices would otherwise be easily ignored. It seems to me that the concept of ‘the outrage mob’ is one that you have internalised, and in seeing a threat to your position as an intellectual (a threat that was certainly present), leveraged to discredit criticism. I hope that, once this has calmed down following this apology, you will have the time and space necessary to reflect on why you had an initial response of anger, and the methods you used to attempt to discredit the author. It is also notable that the concept of ‘outrage culture’ is predominantly produced by people who wish to persecute the marginalised, and your evocation of it could make marginalised people question their safety in your spaces.
Thank you for the update and clarity, Justin. I appreciate your candor and responsibility. I’m glad to see an internet argument get hashed out reasonably, that is a rare occasion.
I think it is a shame that Jennell seems to have never been aware that you were changing the term to “Xandering” instead of “Jaquaysing,” as she requested. But I don’t think it’s a major problem nor that you meant any ill will by it.
The verisimilitude of this situation … I am shocked, shocked I say, that the person that told me I wasn’t playing “real dungeons & dragons” when I was enjoying 4e would do a hideous thing like this. Shocked.
Bold of you to say you understand and hear us as your conclusion when you still deny to give the trans person the basic decency of respecting her name in the term you coined over a decade ago. Bold of you to claim “There was a discussion of legalities” about the use of her name, but never thought enough of her person to simply ask her if it was alright to use her name in your book. It’s not that complicated to get that in writing in the long period of publishing a book.
Also, in an article about a trans individual, if you’re worried about “The record” and “people finding the original works published under a different name,”
A. You shouldn’t have renamed this term in the first place, merely corrected the spelling. If its important to you enough to write a big blog post, it’s important enough to put the work into making it possible in your book.
B. Just make a note at the end of the post. Honestly, it’s not hard to say “Note: Jennell Jacquays work has been published under the name XYZ.” in text at the bottom of the post. You do this sort of thing on all sorts of posts, and have now updated the original post with a note about your own name. It’s not hard and you pretending it is speaks volumes.
You’ve lost any degree of my personal respect, and my professional respect is begruding. I won’t support any of your future works, and I will urge all friends and future acquantences to steer clear as well.
I think that many commenters here have to give Justin some slack, between a full-time job, family, his blog and private life, I think it is very easy to honestly promise to revise your own work to appease someone and then have life come in and push the effort to the background. All humans are fallible and I think it is wrong to read ill intent into his failure to update the articles immediately.
Moreover, I think that there is no obligation for Justin to use the term “Jaquaysing”. The term in the article is used for what I consider Justin’s own intellectual achievements, i.e. the analysis of popular and successful map layouts and the derivation of strategies to come up with other dungeons that feature the elements that made these elements successful. As far as I know, this extraction and collection of principles and concepts from the study of the dungeons was the result of Justin’s own independent reflections and I therefore consider it his own achievement, which he may refer to as he likes in his own work.
The term Jaquaysing/Xandering the dungeon, in my understanding, pertains to the application of the principles identified by Justin from the study of (good) dungeon designs, which he openly and fully attributes to their authors. In no way does Justin belittle the work of the designers, but instead has (also in his book) clearly and exhaustively given credit to the source material from which he devised his own design principles. To the contrary, he is likely one of the earliest out-spoken fans of Jennel’s work, and his articles in my opinion likely play a significant part in her current fame.
While I myself will likely continue to predominantly use the term Jaquaysing out of habit, I therefore do not consider anyone in the wrong for using the term “Xandering”, especially in view of legal issues that were pointed out by his editors during the preparation of his amazing book.
I am using an automatic translator, so some words may not be correct for the context of what I intend to say. In my opinion, the only mistake Justin made was using someone else’s name as a verb. As it turned out, by involving someone so directly in a “public” concept (designing non-linear dungeons) you turned it into a private concept and dependent on that other person. In this case the trigger was that that person didn’t like a letter was missing from the original name, but it could have been anything else. Changing the term was a sudden necessity to avoid future problems and changing it to Xandering was a sarcastic (intentional or not) move, or a perhaps only a unconscious way of to “protect” himself using his own seal. Because he was not trying to take over the concept, but only to give it a word to be able to name it. Changing the old Jaquays name across the entire web – and not just from the moment the new name came into legal existence – was a request that Justin would have right to refuse. Attacking him because he took too long to do so seems typical of poorly designed villains in a railroading adventure.
Thank you for this, really and truly.
You might want to share a link to this on Mastodon since over there it looks like you’re completely ignoring the discussion, and now that Nitter is down it’s impossible to see anything you might be saying on Twitter, at least for folks who aren’t willing to login there
@24.
>”Contrition means nothing if you take no steps to repair your damage”
I’m not clear on what steps you have in mind specifically, but he has given a good-faith spotlight here to trans voices and he (claims he) is donating to trans charities in response to this. I wouldn’t describe that as “taking no steps.”
>”you need to do better than an extended I’m Sorry You Took It That Way.”
His words are “I am very sorry that my actions have caused you pain.” That is so much different than how you describe- he is taking ownership of and accepting responsibility for the pain that was caused.
Hey Justin,
I’m a long-time fan of your work, including your blog posts on game design, your remixes, and now your book. More than anyone else’s, your work has shaped my thinking about RPGs for the better, and greatly improved both the home games I run and my public work. I’ve recommended your work to countless friends, including buying a copy of your book for my GM and lending my personal copy to other friends.
I will be using the term Jaquaysing, in accordance with her widow’s wishes, and have crossed out and annotated the book headers accordingly. If you won’t be fully updating the term in your own work, I do wonder if there’s a way to edit the original “Xandering” article to better reflect this name as well (e.g. “Xandering, also known as Jaquaysing on many parts of the internet in honor of Jennell Jaquays’ work…”), rather than siloing that discussion into the explanation posts.
I have a lot of strong feelings right now, like many other trans women. I’m sure you do too! Probably more so – I have thankfully never been the center of a social media firestorm, but I’ve never seen that be a good time for anyone! It must be frustrating for false claims about you to circulate online. It must be grating to have people say you plagiarized an article that you wrote, that you were very clear about the influences of, and that did important and valuable work in synthesizing and popularizing elements of great dungeon design.
I appreciate your clarifications and apology in this article, and am grateful to Ava, Anne, and yourself for handling this in a productive and good-faith manner. I can see no malicious intent throughout any of this, only justifiably strong emotions on their part and well-intentioned but flawed attempts at liberal “allyship” on your part. I am grateful that all parties have acknowledged their part in this, and that you have committed to doing better (and have been working to do so for some time now).
I am also feeling hurt.
I will likely continue supporting your work in future, even though much that was unearthed does leave a bad taste in my mouth, and look forward to your continued efforts to improve and better support marginalized communities.
A simple thing you could do with future editions and reprintings of So You Want To Be A Game Master is to revert to calling multithreaded dungeon design Jaquaysing, with a side-note about Jaquays pioneering that school of design.
I appreciate your recognizing and promoting the technique. It’s how I learned about it, and about Jaquays and her history of game design. But properly crediting her in future editions and making it clear she never objected to the term going forward is the gracious thing to do.
Responding to Talia, of course, now that she is dead he would no longer have problems with possible future requests regarding the term. Unless she has descendants, in that case it is better to remain cautious. It is very easy to ask someone else from 2000 km away to get back into a swamp from which it took 1 year of web editions to get out.
About credit. Jaquays’ work is public, he has already obtained recognition and salary for it, if it has not been enough it is not Justin’s fault. On the contrary, many of us knew her thanks to him. If he hadn’t turned his name into a verb in the first place none of this would have happened. Because he changed Jaquaysing for Xandering he is not stealing anything from her.
The weirdest thing I’ve seen in all this is the number of people who apparently believe that Jennell Jaquays invented dungeoncrawling.
Or even the people who think she invented non-linear dungeons.
This is absolutely exhausting.
This entire well written and intensely thought out post goes to show that Justin Alexander has gone well well WELL out of his way to be kind, respectful, generous, and charitable with friendliness to everyone upset, everyone who is sensitive on this subject, and all yhe people who are very sensitive and constantly needing to express anger about many social issues today.
I am a kind and non-judgmental person. I do not care what you’re like, as long as you dont hate others, hurt others, or hurt yourself. (Bigotry is evil. Violence is evil. Etc.)
And I would be the first person to raise a strange eyebrow at anyone upset, and when I realized people were serious – laugh at every single person who cant find something real to be angry about. Justin was beyond respectful from the start. And the work he did to update old content, alone, is more than anyone should do. He is above and beyond kind and generous doing this. Not doing it wouldn’t make you a villain. It is what it is. We become better in the future.
Of course if Jennell (sp?) asked me directly, I would edit old content too. It would kindof be jerky to not EVENTUALLY do it. But just one brief pass. Then inform her “If you find any I missed, just email me and I’ll update!” Then that’s it. Done. No problem with thay either, as it is respectful and kind. If that wasn’t enough, I would see the askers as entitled if they demanded more. Especially time that can be used to HELP OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MORE/BETTER FUN! And I’d take my time to update anything. Bc it is what it is. 99% of ppl would never do anything. 99.9999% of Americans would ignore her request and never respond OR WORSE attack her for being trans. Justin? He is so kind he went ABOVE AND BEYOND what even a good person would do.
All you ppl upset need to find real problems to be upset over. Get counseling to vent your anger about evil americans oppressing trans people or jerks being horrible to dead historical figures. Bc this isnt that. This is fabricated drama.
Finally, for the author of that smear article? Justin is ABOVE AND BEYOND kind, generous, and respectful. I am a good, charitable person who dedicates my life to helping poor children and traumatized people. I say that EXCLUSIVELY to say that a good person would absolutely be doing good to simply reply with “That article and person? They are a liar, did sloppy/no research, their smears are baseless, and if I were rich I’d sue for defamation bc it is factually untrue. No one should listen to this author. They should never be trusted after these false smears.” Then never address it ever again.
Justin did ABOVE AND BEYOND. He went to respond to the accusations. Multiple times. He had CONVERSATIONS with this person who performed defamation against him. He respected this author who deserved no respect due to the sloppy research and outrageous smears and falsehoods.
You people who are upset after all Justin did to go above and beyond? You need help. You shouldnt be this outraged over a respectful person giving someone they admire credit. You shouldn’t be angry when someone so kind and generous with their time, so respectful of people upset, and so caring and empathetic for your emotions at this time, is being so great in response to you.
He really should have not even responded and sent a legal letter to takedown the smear article and demand a public restraction and apology. And that wouldve been something a good person could still do and retain goodness. He is above and beyond good to you upset angry people who must not have real problems to get angry about. Which is weird bc there are so many villains who literally hate and wish violence on Jennell. Even in the context of her work in D&D. Yet you want to pretend Justin isnt being a Saint here? Get off Twitter and touch Grass, you terminally online personas.
Thank you for providing such a detailed and civil overview and background of the situation, Justin, Anne, Ava et al.
As an outsider to the circles affected I often find such debate (is it the right word?) quite confusing and indeed exhausting to analyze — especially whenever grief is involved.
To see the situation described in a civil manner, with the parties involved seeking mutual understanding and consensus, is incredibly appreciated.
Apologies for the wording just in case — English is not my first language.
Okay, as I understand it, Jennell popularised non-linear dungeons, and Justin came up with his own system to categorise and organise development of non-linear dungeons.
It would’ve made perfect sense at the time to call that ‘Xandering’ since it’s Justin’s system, but he graciously named it after its initial inspiration, Jennell. Since then, ‘Jacquaysing’ (typo aside) has had over a decade to become the standard term. And it’s a term that’s appreciated for its recognition of Jennell’s importance and contribution to the hobby.
So it’s a mess. It makes just as much sense now for Justin to name the system after himself as it did 14 years ago. But doing it now is taking back that gift – a gift that meant a lot to a community that doesn’t get as much appreciation as it should.
Also, given how long and widely the term has been in use, it’s questionable if Justin even CAN take it back at this point.
I suspect that the best approach at this point is, if possible, to have another talk to your publisher, explain to them how much hurt and confusion this approach is causing the community, and see about getting clearance from Jennell’s estate to use the original term ‘Jacquaysing’. If it’s too late to change it in the book, at least to restore it in the blog article and in future editions of the book.
I’m sorry to see this all become such a mess. As far as I can see, no-one intended any harm here, I can understand everyone’s sides in this thing, and I hope it can all be resolved peacefully going forward.
I don’t think you deserve shouting at, but I have to agree that you rationalised your way into a situation that caused hurt.
For me, it comes down to two factors: When you coined the term years ago, you gave a boost to a creator. By now retracting that boost by changing the name, you raise the question of why. And the reason of “I was advised to do it because a lawyer thought it might cause legal troubles” doesn’t feel very palatable.
And secondly, I think you prolonged an untenable status quo by being too perfectionist. Scrubbing Jenell’s deadname off the site was the right approach, but for the matter of correcting her last name, your perception that you need to be as thorough blinded you to other solutions, and in the end caused the unwanted version to stay in place for years. If you had fixed it in the central articles, and added a note saying that you made a mistake and that the term without the “s” might still turn up here and there until you have the time to thoroughly correct things, the blow-up over the last months wouldn’t have been as severe.
And I think right now, the situation calls for a similar maybe not thorough but clearly visible response from you. You can’t change the book, and restoring it to the site is the same amount of effort again. But what takes nothing more than five minutes is adding an Author’s Note to the Xandering the Dungeon article along the lines of:
“In fact, you might encounter the term ‘Jacquaysing’ (or variants thereof) in the internet, which refers to exactly the same concept, and was coined based on previous versions of this article. I had to edit my blog due to a variety of reason in the lead-up to the publishing of my book So You Want To Be A Game Master, but this does not invalidate the old term. The late Jenell Jacquays would be honored to be remembered this way.”
This would also help calm what I suspect will be a rift in the communities in the coming months. Unless you make your stance clear that the old term continues to be valid, you will be cited and championed by proponents of the new term in what will be hurtful and unnecessary internet arguments.
Alien@System & others:
This isn’t a real controversy. The people who are hurt, honestly shouldn’t be and should find a better cause to find outrage with. This is a big nothing-burger and fabricated outrage for no real reason.
If there exists a Rift in any community because of this, then I say we welcome that rift so as to separate the children no one should take seriously from the adults who just want to play games.
We not only should stop giving Justin advice or pretending this is something, but we should completely abd totally disregard anyone who wants to pretend this is anything more than a nothing-burger.
JUST SPITBALLIN HERE
It seems to me that with the passing of Jennell, there is no risk of legal action directly from her. If there’s a real concern about that as a legal risk, who else might make a legal claim? I’m no lawyer, but I think it would be a stretch to imagine even her widow could make that claim, much less would.
But still, if Ms. Heineman agrees not to pursue such a claim, that should allay any fears and then future print runs of the book can revert the name back to Jacquaysing, with an editor’s note succinctly explaining the controversy, focused on the legal fear and the decision to pursue a fix that addresses the legal fear after realizing that the initial response turned out to be short-sighted and hurtful to a certain community.
I mean, didn’t Lizzo already have a song fully released into the world and charting but went back and rerecorded new lyrics because she learned the lyrics as she had them were upsetting to a specific group of people? Not to put her on a pedestal, I know she has other controversies plaguing her to various degrees, my point is that a change like this isn’t unprecedented.
Justin, it’s commendable that you’re taking this seriously and with an open mind. Some people in this comment section may think they’re supporting you, but a support that shields creators from *good-faith criticism made by the minorities who trust them* (and dismisses them as childish or drama-hungry) is no support at all.
I’m surprised that you’d have any legal troubles with the term. Is Rebecca not willing to give you the green light on the matter? I can’t claim to know what she (or a lawyer) might have told you, so as a fallback option hopefully “Thracian design” or “multithreaded design” can do the trick?
Hopefully by the time you publish a second printing of the book, you’ll have reconsidered the issue and found a good solution.
I’ve been a big fan. I tried to consider this for a while.
It was ultimately the people defending you that convinced me that this is unethical.
A lot of good faith questions have been asked that could help mend your reputation if thoughtfully acknowledged. I think your choice to ignore several echoing concerns speaks volumes, and not to your credit. I sincerely hope you reconsider your approach.
Did you have specific questions in mind, Nicole?
Did Jennell know that the term would be updated to Xandering and not to Jaquaysing?
Why must the term be Xandering? (I understand why Thracian is inappropriate. There are a number of terms that have been suggested that are reasonable alternatives. There are some CS terms that have not been suggested that may also be apt.)
Do you understand why several people have stated they are okay with a change, but not a change to your name?
My next question is based on a specific other comment from part 1:
> Klil H. Neori says:
> @John thank you! That’s page 537 in the print edition I have.
> For some reason I wasn’t expecting acknowledgements to be in the back. I will note that Arneson and Gygax, unlike her, are mentioned in the Dungeons chapter itself, in the Advanced Dungeons section, page 141 in the same print edition. It specifically cites their Castle Darkmoor and Castle Grayhawk as megadungeon campaigns. Which makes the fact that Jennell’s The Caverns of Thracia is not mentioned by name in the section about “xandering” all the more peculiar.
Do the wishes of Jennell’s widow impact your decision-making here?
That is an echo of my prior question, but I want to ask: why did Arneson and Gygax merit explicit discussion but not Jennell? I would not ask if her work wasn’t so obviously influential on your thinking about dungeons. Do you understand why, if nothing else, that this could come across as a slight? Or misogyny?
I also believe George communicated this very respectfully :
> More critically, I believe that your response here still demonstrates an unconscious transphobia or misogyny that I am yet to see challenged. Ava’s point about a “detached, intellectual, liberal dehumanization” is important here. You approached the criticism directed at you as though it were nothing but a smear campaign, but had no reason to assume that the arguments presented were bad-faith. This is not uncommon behaviour for people whose internet presence is built upon maintaining themselves as an intellectual authority, but it is not behaviour that is compatible with allyship. In order to be good allies, we need to recognise that archetypal intellectual is not something to aspire to, as it inevitably leads us to value our own opinions over those of others.
> The concerns of a single marginalised blog author are not made invalid because they are expressed in anger or because they gather public support, and those who would try and convince you otherwise are often acting in bad faith to try and disempower groups of people supporting each other, where their marginalised voices would otherwise be easily ignored. It seems to me that the concept of ‘the outrage mob’ is one that you have internalised, and in seeing a threat to your position as an intellectual (a threat that was certainly present), leveraged to discredit criticism. I hope that, once this has calmed down following this apology, you will have the time and space necessary to reflect on why you had an initial response of anger, and the methods you used to attempt to discredit the author. It is also notable that the concept of ‘outrage culture’ is predominantly produced by people who wish to persecute the marginalised, and your evocation of it could make marginalised people question their safety in your spaces.
I would really appreciate you addressing what he had to say. For what it’s worth, as a woman, I am questioning whether I am welcome in this space.
Why must the term be Xandering?
In whatever sense you mean “must,” it probably doesn’t.
The only “must” is that it can no longer be an eponym based on Jaquays’ name, because that has created not only the impression that Jennell (and potentially her heirs) had moral and/or legal rights to the use of the eponym, but also the impression that she had legal and/or moral rights to the text of the article.
Did Jennell know that the term would be updated to Xandering and not to Jaquaysing?
No. I’ve answered this several times. I really don’t know how to make it any clearer. Jennell was not involved in creating or approving the new term. The underlying belief that she had a legal or moral right to review or approve the content of the article because of the eponym I created is, for better or worse, the exact reason the eponym needed to be changed.
Do you understand why several people have stated they are okay with a change, but not a change to your name?
Sure.
why did Arneson and Gygax merit explicit discussion but not Jennell?
Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax are referenced as the creators of D&D and the modern roleplaying game. Jennell didn’t create D&D.
I know that my creation of the original eponym has led some people to believe the Jennell Jaquays created the concept of non-linear dungeons. I know that some people even believe that it means Jennell is responsible for creating the concept of the dungeon iteself. I know this because I’m still getting e-mails, messages, and comments from people telling me this.
I’m a huge fan of Jennell Jaquays’ work, but these things are not true.
Do you understand why, if nothing else, that this could come across as a slight? Or misogyny?
I understand why people are saying that. It doesn’t mean that I agree with them.
Here at the Alexandrian, I often engage in critical analysis and historical review. This is, for example, why “Xandering the Dungeon” surveys, discusses, and analyzes the work of Jaquays, Arneson, Gygax, Mentzer, Moldvay, and Wham, among others. So You Want To Be a Dungeon Master, however, is not written as critical analysis or historical review. It’s an instruction manual.
For a similar example, consider The Art of the Key. “A Brief History of the Key” discusses work by Arneson, Pete & Judy Kerestan, Gygax, Bob Blake, Mike Carr, Harold Johnson, Jeff R. Leason, Jason Carl, Chris Pramas, and Laura & Tracy Hickman. When I’m discussing how to use and design dungeon room keys in So You Want To Be a Game Master, however, none of these people are mentioned. Because, again, it’s not a history book or critical review.
I recognize the underlying belief that, because I created an eponym from Jaquays’ name, I shouldn’t be allowed to write about or talk about dungeon design anywhere and in any form unless I give credit to Jennell for my own writing. Some have even gone so far as to claim that I owe Jennell and her heirs a share of my book’s profits.
But these things are not true. And are, unfortunately, just another example of why the eponym needed to be changed.
I would really appreciate you addressing what he had to say.
The reason my initial response to Anne’s post assumed it was a smear was because it was filled with grotesque factual errors aimed at smearing me. This notably included Anne directly linking to statements, including statements made by people other than myself, which directly contradicted the false claims she was making.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to have engaged with Anne and gain a better understanding of why she made her original post. And I’m also grateful to Anne for retracting the false statements that she made. There are many people who lack Anne’s integrity.
As for the claim that I believe Anne’s concerns are “made invalid because they are expressed in anger or because they garner public support,” I’ll note that the very first paragraph of this post states that Anne and other members of the trans RPG community have legitimate grievances. It’s why I felt it was important to share my platform with Ava so that she could express those grievances. I also recognize that me apologizing for my past actions does not mean that anyone needs to accept that apology.
There is, however, an additional assumption here that I’m required to agree with someone just because they’re claiming a grievance. For example, that I’m required to concede my creative ownership over my own writing.
That is not the case.
It is incredibly disappointing that you engage with criticism as if it is in bad faith. It is terrible that you experienced the effects of having controversy on the internet. I understand that you have been abused and threatened. That is horrible.
That doesn’t mean the reason you were being criticized is invalid.
> that has created not only the impression that Jennell (and potentially her heirs) had moral and/or legal rights to the use of the eponym,
Have you received that impression from anyone outside of the internet mob?
Who could exercise those legal rights, if they exist? Has a competent attorney advised you that Jennell or heirs would have “moral and/or legal rights”? Or were you advised that if was generally thorny and best practice to change by the publisher?
> I recognize the underlying belief that, because I created an eponym from Jaquays’ name, I shouldn’t be allowed to write about or talk about dungeon design anywhere and in any form unless I give credit to Jennell for my own writing
I urge you to understand that this is not an underlying belief of any reasonable critics. This is, frankly, ridiculous. Unfortunately, this could not have been more accurate:
> More critically, I believe that your response here still demonstrates an unconscious transphobia or misogyny that I am yet to see challenged…You approached the criticism directed at you as though it were nothing but a smear campaign, but had no reason to assume that the arguments presented were bad-faith. This is not uncommon behaviour for people whose internet presence is built upon maintaining themselves as an intellectual authority, but it is not behaviour that is compatible with allyship. In order to be good allies, we need to recognise that archetypal intellectual is not something to aspire to, as it inevitably leads us to value our own opinions over those of others.
Since I brought it up under the previous post, and I have the physical book I preordered with me, I feel compelled to push back on this part of your comment:
“Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax are referenced as the creators of D&D and the modern roleplaying game. Jennell didn’t create D&D.”
The full sentence I was referring to is this:
“The earliest D&D campaigns, including those that existed even before D&D did – like Dave Arneson’s Castle Blackmoor and, later, Gary Gygax’s Castle Greyhawk – were originally megadungeon campaigns.”
This is after the term “megadungeon” is introduced, seeming to provide a modicum of historical context. It is not merely mentioning them as the inventors of D&D.
That is hard to reconcile with the later statement in this comment:
“Here at the Alexandrian, I often engage in critical analysis and historical review. This is, for example, why “Xandering the Dungeon” surveys, discusses, and analyzes the work of Jaquays, Arneson, Gygax, Mentzer, Moldvay, and Wham, among others. So You Want To Be a Dungeon Master, however, is not written as critical analysis or historical review. It’s an instruction manual.”
This instruction manual does, in fact, at least once that I could see, provide some history, as many instruction manuals do.
However, when we get to the section on xandering, not only do you not provide this minimal level of reference to the history – which suggested to you the use of Jennell’s last name for the original term you coined in the first place – but you state:
“These… adventures are known as xandered dungeons…”
That is not a mere absence of historical background for the purpose of brevity or clarity – this seems to misrepresent facts. “Xandering/xandered” is a new term, that you coined relatively recently, to override both the original term you coined, as well as the correction that she asked for years ago, and which you’ve not decided to follow up on, under both of which it is far more well known. This technique is not passively known in that way. You actively want people to have it be known in that way.
Are we really tripling down on the “Jennell Jaquays invented nonlinear dungeons and it’s trans erasure that she isn’t given the same credit as Arneson and Gygax” thing?
@Henry
In his own words, when Justin coined “jaquaying” (sic) in 2010, what he “wanted was a word that could capture the pioneering dungeon design of Jennell Jaquays, who designed Caverns of Thracia, Dark Tower, Griffin Mountain, and a half dozen other old school classics for Judges Guild, Chaosium, Flying Buffalo, and TSR.” He went on to refer to her then recent essays about her subsequent video game map designs for Halo Wars. It’s clear that 2010 Justin thought she deserved a whole lot of credit for what his book now claims is “known as xandered dungeons”.
@NicoleAva:
Who could exercise those legal rights, if they exist? Has a competent attorney advised you that Jennell or heirs would have “moral and/or legal rights”?
Would the claim that Jennell had legal or moral rights to the use of the eponym and/or, because it uses the eponym, my article hold up in court?
The best possible answer is, “Maybe.” It’s the type of question which can only be answered by actually going to court, which is expensive and often ruinous even if you win.
On that note, I’d like to take a moment and acknowledge the commenters here who have suggested various solutions to this problem. I appreciate the desire to do so, and I understand why it’s easy to think, “Just ask for permission!” would be a solution.
Unfortunately, that’s not a solution. It’s actually the problem.
“You just need to falsely concede that you require someone else’s permission to publish your own writing!” is not only legally problematic for obvious reasons, it’s deeply revolting to any creative person.
To be clear here: She didn’t write my article. My article is not a summary of her work, nor is its analysis or methodology limited to her adventures. She did not invent dungeons. She did not invent nonlinear dungeons. She did not create the system for analyzing, creating, and modifying dungeons described in my article or my book.
I understand that this will mean nothing to those who simply ignore all the other creators cited in the original article (not to mention my own original work), and even less to those who think Jaquays invented dungeoncrawling or dungeon levels with multiple exits or whatever.
But the reality is that I wrote the article, and conceding my creative ownership over my own writing is not an option and will never be a “solution.”
I also know that the motivation for many in trying to find a “solution” is that they liked the original eponym and want to continue using it. I understand that. I also liked the original eponym, wish that I could still use it, and am sad that I can’t.
but [you] had no reason to assume that the arguments presented were bad-faith
Other than the absurdly false statements directly contradicted by the sources which were linked to “prove” the “libel.” Statements which were, it should be noted, later retracted because they were false.
“You can’t be an ally unless you’re willing to accept people libeling you” is, frankly, a bullshit definition of “ally.”
From my very first statement about this on Twitter, I said that “I would like to believe that Anne is sincere in what she posted.” As I noted above, I’m glad that turned out to be true. But it’s impossible for me to take, “Why would you think that blatant libel is bad faith?” as a serious question. The answer is obvious.
Have you received that impression from anyone outside of the internet mob?
Define “internet mob.” It’s not a term I’ve used here, and it seems intended to simply dismiss or discredit people under some sort of No True Scotsman argument.
You seem to be suggesting that only members of the “internet mob” would suggest that my article plagiarizes Jennell Jaquays. But among those who said I was plagiarizing Jaquays is Anne herself. (This is, it should be noted, one of the claims that she retracted.)
So am I supposed to dismiss these arguments as bad faith? Or does considering them bad faith mean that I’m not a good ally?
> I recognize the underlying belief that, because I created an eponym from Jaquays’ name, I shouldn’t be allowed to write about or talk about dungeon design anywhere and in any form unless I give credit to Jennell for my own writing
I urge you to understand that this is not an underlying belief of any reasonable critics. This is, frankly, ridiculous.
To briefly recap:
1. Anne made that argument.
2. Klil made that argument.
3. You quoted Klil making that argument and asked me to comment on it, saying that my failure to do so previously (even though I had, in fact, addressed these claims previously) “speaks volumes, and not to your credit.” You, in fact, reinforced the argument, implying that it was, among other things, misogyny not to credit Jennell when I write about dungeon design.
4. I assumed your question was in good faith, and I answered it.
5. You dismissed Klil’s argument as “ridiculous” and criticized me for taking it seriously.
6. Klil then posted a reply repeating the argument that it was unethical for me not to credit Jennell when I write about dungeon design.
Frankly, I reject the framing of this Catch-22.
@Klil:
There seems to be a meaningful distinction for you between “Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax created D&D” and “Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax created D&D while running games in Castle Blackmoor and Castle Greyhawk.”
I respect that this is a meaningful distinction for you. All I can really say is that it’s not meaningful to me.
We seem to broadly agree that Jennell Jaquays deserves acknowledgment in the book. We seem to also have a different opinion about whether or not including someone in the Acknowledgments section of the book is the appropriate way to acknowledge them.
As I’ve mentioned previously, if mentioning Dave Arneson three times, Gary Gygax twice, and Jennell Jaquays once is, in fact, an insult to Jennell’s legacy, then it was not an intentional one.
@Justin
“There seems to be a meaningful distinction for you between “Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax created D&D” and “Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax created D&D while running games in Castle Blackmoor and Castle Greyhawk.”
I respect that this is a meaningful distinction for you. All I can really say is that it’s not meaningful to me.”
With respect, you are misquoting me quoting your book. Again:
“The earliest D&D campaigns, including those that existed even before D&D did – like Dave Arneson’s Castle Blackmoor and, later, Gary Gygax’s Castle Greyhawk – were originally megadungeon campaigns.” – p. 141 in the first paperback printing.
The context is clear – you introduce megadungeons (starting bottom of page 140), and this is the historical context you provide, in place. The distinction between that and your phrasing, “Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax are referenced as the creators of D&D and the modern roleplaying game”, should be very clear.
And as for your mention of me in your response to @NicoleAva, I would appreciate you not ascribing to me an argument I did not make. I did not make the argument that the late Jennell deserves credit for your writing, or your own work. I do think, just like you did in 2010, that she deserves credit for the “pioneering dungeon design”, which you expressed an interest in capturing with the term you coined, on which design your further writing was based, on which design it has expanded, etc. This is basic acknowledgment of your predecessors that is expected even in an instruction manual – and you yourself accept this when you introduce megadungeons, as I have repeatedly explained.
This pattern you have, of ascribing arguments to people which they did not make, and rephrasing things in responses so that they are hard to recognize when compared to the original, is extremely frustrating. To avert that in the following, I am going to ask a question, one that should have a simple yes or no answer:
Do you think it is factually accurate to state, as you do in your book, in the section titled “Xandered Dungeons”, that nonlinear designs as you describe there are “known as xandered dungeons”?
Justin wrote: “Klil then posted a reply repeating the argument that it was unethical for me not to credit Jennell when I write about dungeon design.”
Klil wrote: “I do think, just like you did in 2010, that she deserves credit for the “pioneering dungeon design”, which you expressed an interest in capturing with the term you coined, on which design your further writing was based, on which design it has expanded, etc. This is basic acknowledgment of your predecessors that is expected even in an instruction manual”
I’m not seeing the difference.
If anything, you’re the one trying to put words in Justin’s mouth.
I do agree with Nicole that this is ridiculous.
@Henry
This is the pattern of rephrasing I’m talking about.
This is what Justin said:
“I recognize the underlying belief that, because I created an eponym from Jaquays’ name, I shouldn’t be allowed to write about or talk about dungeon design anywhere and in any form unless I give credit to Jennell for my own writing”
This is what Nicole said about it: “I urge you to understand that this is not an underlying belief of any reasonable critics. This is, frankly, ridiculous.”
This is what Justin then says before what you quote:
“1. Anne made that argument.
2. Klil made that argument.”
I did not make that argument, neither here, nor under the previous post. I explained my actual argument, in detail. If you have any actual objections to the arguments I am actually making, feel free to present them.
Nope. You’re clearly making that argument and trying to dodge out of it with the same weird “that’s not a reference to the creation of D&D, it’s historical context referencing the creation of D&D” bullshit.
You just want to be offended and are looking for an excuse, even if the only excuse you can find is “yes, you acknowledged her, but I think you should have acknowledged her on a different page.”
@Henry
People can read what I wrote, read what Justin wrote, including the original series of articles and the book, and come to their own conclusions, without your editorializing.
As for “looking for an excuse” “to be offended”, no, I do not preorder books to be offended by the behavior of their authors.
Do you think it is factually accurate to state, as you do in your book, in the section titled “Xandered Dungeons”, that nonlinear designs as you describe there are “known as xandered dungeons”?
Obviously yes.
Beyond that, I’m ultimately just not interested in the debate you want to have about which page of the book Jaquays “should” have been acknowledged on. Nor am I ever going to find merit in the “Jaquays should have the same number of references as Arneson & Gygax!” premise that you’re working from, no matter what kind of “gotcha” semantics you want to throw around on this point.
Thanks for sharing your POV.
I disagree with you.
Have a nice day.
Very well, let’s put the credit issue aside. Thankfully, your answer to my yes or no question gives us something factual to work with. Let’s go over this:
1. You coined “xandered dungeon” and all its derivatives sometime before putting it in the book, but only publicized it about a month before its official publication date, meaning after it had gone to the printers, so it was impossible for the statement to be factually accurate when you wrote it.
2. If I now Google “xandered dungeon” I get 7 results, as opposed to 197 results for “jaquayed dungeon”, and 8 results for “jaquaysed dungeon”. Let’s say Google isn’t as credible anymore, or is too corrupted by my search history. Let’s go with Bing: 25 for “xandered dungeon”, 4,430 results for “jaquayed dungeon”, 27 for “jaquaysed dungeon”. So the statement doesn’t seem to be factually accurate now, either.
Unless you’ve got a better methodology to offer for 2, that statement, and your affirmation of it now, does not look supportable. Do you agree?
Hey, I cooled of since the last time I wrote.
These are my thoughts: Lots of people, including me, only ever knew about Jennell Jaquays because of your blog post. I’m very thankful for that.
You coined a term, a term to honor Jaquays work in dungeon design. This became a problem for Jennell Jayquays herself a long time ago, because so many peole only knew her from your post. But it only became a problem for you recently.
You changed you blog post and changed the term in your book. You of cause have every right to do that. It does however leave a bad taste, when you changed the term to kind of refer to yourself, when you were in fact not a pionier the dungeon design, when the original term did in fact refer to one.
I just think you had the reach to make Jennell Jayquays work known back then and now you wrote a best selling book about game mastering which will probably be used and quoted for a long time and the term in the book refers to the author himself, not the pionier like it used to.
I can not see this in any other light than a male author with much more reach errasing a transwoman from history.
You made her known and you will make her be forgotten.
Have a nice day.
PS: My book, in which I crossed out xandering and replaced it with jayquaysing, I will give to my friend who ran her very first game on saturday. She is also a transwoman.
As a modestly late to the party observer I would like to note that this whole thing is fascinating and a little sad in that it seems there is so much pain here.
There seems to be an argument that Justin has done harm to Jennell Jaquays at least in memory and via a very complex set of issues that butt up against an elevated need for Justin to clarify his relationship to his work for reasons that can be construed as arcane.
Erasure is complicated as a bystander. I can only imagine it is more so for the everyday folks who have to experience it in the real and visceral ways that many trans folks do. I see at the heart of the experience and the pain, a real desire to want to elevate Jennell as a luminary, a creator, a member of the community; someone worthy of being seen.
I also see that the intense desire to see that done interacts with the life and times of Justin in ways that amplify his actions. Its calls into question his timing, his ethics, his ‘honor’ and his commitment. Its led some to impugn his character and his sincerity.
As someone who never knew of Jennell Jaquays’ work, I can simply say that I never would have even known about it were it not for Justin. If it wasn’t for this blog post and others like it, and the comments Justin has made and effectively memorialized in this pseudo-amber that is his website, I would never have known of the tension between the works and recognition of Jennell or of her unfortunate passing.
I think of this in the context of Justin’s sincerity or commitment. It is easier to be silent. It is easier to remove the criticism from the venue. I do not think that Justin has been lazy in his approach to this moment. Was he ‘lazy’ or ill timed in his previous efforts? Perhaps, I wasn’t there but I usually try to err that folks are mortal and busy over malicious.
Capitalism, much like misogyny, exert subtle and intense pressures. Pressures like legal teams and publishers providing guidance. Pressures like legal systems not yet equipped to the scale and scope of the issues trans people face in being seen. Pressures like not allowing folks to have the time to learn or have the emotional reservoir to engage at greater depth with complex identity ideas. I know from my own work in legal fields it is all too common to have the role of identity and the open social context that evolves in communities be discarded or ignored. It is hard to teach. It is hard to learn. It is hard to elevate the other.
So not only do I see a sort of trap of capitalism to imply that Justin had time, energy, knowledge, awareness to take on technical issues that seemed outsized to their concern as elevated in his personal context in updating the blog, we understand that based on Justin’s own communication with Jennell the issue seemed of lesser import.
Also we must contend with an assumption that he had power in the relationship with his publisher, especially when his presumed well being was at stake or impacted. This is challenging to me with my experience in my interactions with that industry. Ideally Justin had some capacity to work with that team but the industry serves its own timelines and concerns.
Also then I sense some assertion that Justin should have continued to use the name of another person. This also seems challenging. Honoring now, but perhaps goulish to the family of Jennell Jaquays tomorrow.
To say nothing of the fact that lawyers don’t make such assertions about claim and liabilty lightly; look no further than the estates of Tolkein, Carrol, Disney and more. A name attached to a thing implies rights in our society. To so cavalierly dismiss one of the more prominent abuses of our capitalist society seems lacking in foresight.
Jennell Jaquays descendants may make any number of decisions that Jennell would not have. The issue as seen by those who think in this context creates the very issue Justin addresses in his need to preserve the sanctity of his decisions, timing, rights, etc.
So if there is adequate ‘proof’ that Justin ‘needed’ to address the name of the system, concept or what have you then the rest of the issues that I can see come from minimizing erasure and honoring the person at the heart of the argument.
Some unintentional malfeasance is leveled at Justin because of optics and timing. Publishing is not fast but it is fairly inexorable past a certain point. The timing of when Justin revealed the new name seems to ignore that Jennell’s timeline of health could not be foreseen or adapted to in that process. Of course Justin also notes that any consideration that he should have to is really the point. Justin was not beholden to Jennell and point of fact at the time of the publishing work believe himself to be on solid ground with her.
Could Justin have acknowledged Jennell more? Sure. SHOULD he have? Poster Klil notes that despite changing the name, the original name of the concept as presented in the blog still appears in a search engine. Jennell Jaquays name appears in the book. It appears on this blog. It appears in this very thread, a discourse on the nature of Justin’s response, his pressures and needs, and the work and relevance of Jennell in the community by critics of Justin and by Justin himself. Even without this thread how much more does Justin need to do to elevate someone who inspired him? Why should his expression of that be mired in the notions or values of others as something to comply with? Im not sure I understand but perhaps on the merits of that specific issue someone could articulate the expectation given its context. Could Justin do something updated in the next edition if he is so blessed? SHOULD he? I don;t know.
I took the time to write all this to say that I don’t think that Jennell’s work is diminished socially by this shift. I don’t see Justin as a villain either. I think he is a person caught in the complicated dialectic around identity, yes but also how a person or concept comes to be known in a timeless mutable medium like this blog. For many who buy his book, search for his terms, this discussion will present. Responses will be present. The community movement to refer to working as Justin defined then or now will be present…until its not, but who knows when that will be?
See also that Wikipedia has already encapsulated with its semi-permanence, the coining of Justin’s original term, the communities call to name it for Jennell, and undoubtedly will further flesh itself with references and signposts to what may well become a social conflict if we let it. Xanderians versus Jayquaysians. Disappointing when at the end of the day Jennell is still seen, Justin seems to still honor her but we fight amidst the castings of our art and its drama to find slight rather than a common affection.
I hope that as grief softens and time passes folks can see that Justin is trying and has been for some time and that no amount of frustration at him will diminish what ‘might’ have been if there was more time with Jennell in this world. That is the nature of grief; to ache with what could have been or will never be.
The Internet is an unforgiving morass, but many of us still see you, and think well of you. Xanderian of Jayquaysian alike. I hope this event leads to learning and healing for all. Take care.
If Alex originally called the term something else, there would be no cries of erasure. That particular issue seems that he created a term for his analysis of design patterns in successful dungeons, and at a later point because of potential legal dangers changed the term he had created.
Look at the Tolkien estate, which has been quite litigious. Even asking permission to publish using another’s name is acknowledging that the other has some rights to it. Say later rights to republish or update some of Jennell’s works were sold, could that publisher make legal issues? And even winning a court case can be expensive.
As a creative, has he lost control over his own works and own term because for a time it was a homage to a different wonderful creative? Jennell’s legacy stands on it’s own, but because he helped draw attention to it does that mean if he does so in a lesser way (because her name is still prominently and respectfully referenced in the articles) that he should be condemned for erasure?
If so, that shows that future creatives should not celebrate other’s works, else they too lose control over their own work such that they can’t change it in the future. And that’s a sad thing.
I won’t relitigate any of the events that are already laid out in great detail. I will say that after discovering the genius of Jaquays’ work, and spending years referring to it as such (jaquaysing – and yes I corrected the missing “s” in my usage), it is neck breaking to see Justin try so pathetically to retcon the concept and language. From a purely academic position, his defenses make zero sense. Every issue identified has a clear and simple solution (many of which have been stated in this thread) and all of which begin form the position of true appreciation for the scope of the mistake made. Disingenuous whining about how hard text is to edit on a digital blog (you can not be serious with that weak sauce?) or entry-level legal concerns (which could have EASILY been resolved with a simple written agreement) will do nothing to sway public opinion. You coined a phrase – good on you, but you did it incorrectly, refused to acknowledge (or grow) from your initial mistake, then – at the worst possible time (Jennell’s passing) you decide to “rename” the term that is emblematic of her contributions and legacy?
Sorry, no dice.
I now regret buying your book, which I am reminded of every time I see it on my bookshelf, wishing to myself that I could resume reading it but knowing it would be like drinking expired milk and I would be unable to get over the initial gag reflex of your odious and unrepentant behavior.
Additionally, upon receiving my boxed set of The Dark Tower OAR (from Goodman Games) I was THOROUGHLY SADDENED to find not only your retrospectively patronizing introduction included in the final work, but a subsequent article analyzing Jennell’s design work. It was like finding a love letter to Charles Manson amidst the pages of a book dedicated to Sharon Tate’s life.
If you have 99% pudding with 1% feces, no matter how good that 99% is – you have feces pudding. Bon appetit.
Sadly, once you’ve concluded that special legal agreements might be or would be required for me to continue using my own writing with the original term included, you’ve already reached the point where the change was necessary. You can think that’s “disingenuous” or that it makes “zero sense,” but, unfortunately, reality is reality.
As I’ve said before, I wish that wasn’t the case. But, for better or worse, that’s just the way it is.
I’m sorry that you find yourself unable to enjoy good GMing advice or the excellent edition of Jennell’s wonderful Dark Tower as a result. I hope that changes for you in the future.
So erasure is when you complain about someone mentioning you in a way you find annoying until they stop? This being again their fault somehow…
Or is it failing to provide you with free publicity?
Stealing your general vibes?
This reminds me a lot of how indie games developers get a lot more abuse for making their games free than charging 5 cents for them because once you give people something they become convinced it’s because you owe it to them and resent you for the lackluster efforts.
> It was like finding a love letter to Charles Manson amidst the pages of a book dedicated to Sharon Tate’s life.
This is a desperately unhinged sentence. Justin Alexander did not send people to kill Jennell Jacquays. That’s the main thing I am pleading with you to understand, above and beyond anything else I could say in this comment. Justin Alexander did not send people to kill Jennell Jacquays. Justin Alexander did not send people to kill Jennell Jacquays. Justin Alexander did not send people to kill Jennell Jacquays.
Let me be clear that I am assuming good faith here. I absolutely believe that when you wrote that sentence it was an accurate representation of your feelings, with perhaps a small margin of error to either side because of the vagaries of communication and how a person might word something a little more strongly than is strictly necessary because they value the effect it might have over communicating with absolute fidelity to their feelings.
But the fact that you made this comparison at all indicates that you need to get off the internet, immediately, and go talk to some people in the flesh, because your sense of what is and isn’t proportional to feel and think and say is, for one thing, obstructively, maladaptively skewed by what I suspect is the internalized requirement to be emotionally invested in something at all times; and for another, incredibly detached from what it feels like to receive immediate, in-person feedback to the things you say.
Touch. Grass.