D&D 5E Thoughts on this article about Black Culture & the D&D team dropping the ball?

[epithet]

...I've never done any drugs or had a drug addiction, so it would be utterly ridiculous for me to think and say to someone who does "Well, if you wanted to stop, then you would!" We all know it doesn't work that way. ...

We also know there's a helluva lot more to sword fighting than is represented in D&D combat, so we probably all agree that a realistic addiction mechanic is not a thing we should expect to see.

 

[Shasarak]

You know I never really noticed that the Forgotten Realms was lacking an Africa land. For some reason I always associated Chult with the South American jungles.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For some reason I always associated Chult with the South American jungles.

Dinosaurs = Doyle's Lost World?

 

[Shasarak]

Dinosaurs = Doyle's Lost World?

I always figured that since Dinosaurs were pre-Africa then they could be found anywhere even the Isle of Dread.

 

[Remathilis]

In the Forgotten Realms, where scandinavian heritage is reduced to "barbarian" warriors in horned helmets, Celtic heritage is repackaged as dwarves and elves, Slavic heritage is ground up into Ravenloft tropes (with Romani lovingly reimagined as vistani,) are we really pretending to be shocked at the trite amalgamation of some African cultural elements in Chult?

While I get your point, your examples are a bit off. Scandenavian heritage is filled by the Northlanders (but essentially stereotypical Vikings with boats, horned helms and the like), Cetlic heritage is purely the realm of the Moonshaes and Ffolk, which is based on Ireland so hard it hurts. Slavic heritage isn't Ravenloft (although Barovia is little but a repurposed Transylvania) but areas like Narfell and Damara, and the Romani analogue in Faerun is the Gur (although Ravenloft's Vistani are likewise based on the Gypsy stereotype). Tack on that Amn is essentially Moorish/occupied Spain, Chessenta is Greece, and Mulhorand is Egypt and you have a huge melting pot of tropes running around. (and that ignores Maztica, Kara-Tur, and Zakhara).

I guess the better question is... what would work better?

D&D sourcebooks, even in the height of production, were finite as far as how much detail a culture could get. Its far easier to describe a setting like "Its Ancient Egypt with magic" or "Its pirates of the Caribbean without firearms" and rely on the tropes, stereotypes, and generalizations those phrases associate than explain every nuance of a fantasy culture (which will inevitably be a reskinning of an existing culture anyway since humans can only visualize that which they are already familiar with. I mean, we can't even give non-humans cultures that don't invariably end up some variant on human culture, its nearly impossible to do that with humans.

Now, I'm not saying we can't be sensitive to cultural depictions of how a race/culture is depicted, but at a certain point we have to determine if having Barovia be an accurate depiction of Medieval Slavic and Romani culture is worth giving up "Transylvania as depicted by Universal/Hammer films".

 

[Uller]

What do I think?

No good deed goes unpunished.

If you are looking for something to be offended by, you'll likely find it.

If you are expecting an accurate portrayal of African cultures, buy a history book with a variety or primary sources.

Last I checked, the Congo did not include undead dinosaurs at any time in recorded history.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I'm a bit conflicted here. On one hand I don't want to simply dismiss someone's concerns. They obviously feel something here, or they wouldn't have spoken up about it. On the other hand though, this is D&D. D&D has never really been a vehicle for presenting culture. Any culture really. While, sure, you certainly can dive deep into some culture through the game, the way D&D has been presented hasn't really supported any depth in cultural analysis.

And, there's the simple practical issues as well. D&D is largely verbal during play. Sure, we might use some visual aids, but, most of play is done through talking. So, if we want to evoke a particular culture (whether real world or otherwise), it's limited by our own abilities to do so.

Take the "clicks" thing for example. I'll freely admit I am absolutely terrible at doing accents. I cringe to think what my attempt to do anything approximating any African accent (or any accent for that matter). I'd wind up sounding like Jar Jar Binks. It would be incredibly culturally insensitive. To the point where I'd be terribly embarrassed to even make the attempt.

So, how do I, white middle class Canadian, try to convey to my players that they aren't playing in, well, not to put too fine a point on it, White Middleclassia the Setting? While I cannot do accents, I probably can toss the odd click into my speech pattern without botching it up too badly. At least at that point, I'm somewhat conveying that this setting isn't Faux Europe with horrible Scottish and Eastern European accents.

I guess my question, if I actually have a question, is, how do I convey the setting in play if I don't use some verbal cues to clue in my players?

 

[Phasestar]

https://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons...dium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Kotaku_facebook

D&D is not reality and while it is often inspired by reality, it is the myths/stereotypes of reality that D&D borrows from to create heroic fantasy that reminds us of certain mythical elements of the real world. They are all "dated stereotypes" and that's generally fine. Part of the goal of the adventure is to put players in a hostile jungle environment. When you look for real-world inspiration, you pretty much get Aztec / Maya / African myths/stereotypes for that just as you get European stereotypes when you look to do deep forests, caves filled with monsters and castles. It seems to me like some folks are bending over backwards to find ways to take offense over a fictional fantasy world that is completely open to their own creativity.

"He concluded that “WotC has effectively told me, as a POC, that I’m no longer welcome to play in a game world I’ve known and loved for years as a POC player character.” Barber now plays in a diverse D&D group with a homebrew setting."

I don't think WotC did anything of the sort, he's assigning motive and importance to actions that no doubt had nothing to do with the conclusions he's drawn. I'm glad he found a homebrew setting that he likes though. There are plenty of "official" settings I don't like for various reasons, but it's not required to play in those.

"no black writers or consultants worked on Tomb of Annihilation."

The color of the skin of the people working on the product should not be a matter of interest. The part of the article focusing on the quality of the setting was the right focus.

 

[guachi]

Let us pray that the author does not also glance at Maztica, Zakhara, or Kara-Tur.

My day job is Arabic linguist in the Navy. Back when Al-Qadim first came out I paid it no mind. A few years ago I bought everything Al-Qadim I could (love the boxed sets). It does a good job incorporating actual Arabic and fantasy/fictional Arabic culture while separating out anything overtly religious.

I think it's about as good as could be expected. It's no more an accurate representation of Arabic culture as Indiana Jones is of '30s and '40s America (or Nazis).

 

[Parmandur]

While I get your point, your examples are a bit off. Scandenavian heritage is filled by the Northlanders (but essentially stereotypical Vikings with boats, horned helms and the like), Cetlic heritage is purely the realm of the Moonshaes and Ffolk, which is based on Ireland so hard it hurts. Slavic heritage isn't Ravenloft (although Barovia is little but a repurposed Transylvania) but areas like Narfell and Damara, and the Romani analogue in Faerun is the Gur (although Ravenloft's Vistani are likewise based on the Gypsy stereotype). Tack on that Amn is essentially Moorish/occupied Spain, Chessenta is Greece, and Mulhorand is Egypt and you have a huge melting pot of tropes running around. (and that ignores Maztica, Kara-Tur, and Zakhara).

I guess the better question is... what would work better?

D&D sourcebooks, even in the height of production, were finite as far as how much detail a culture could get. Its far easier to describe a setting like "Its Ancient Egypt with magic" or "Its pirates of the Caribbean without firearms" and rely on the tropes, stereotypes, and generalizations those phrases associate than explain every nuance of a fantasy culture (which will inevitably be a reskinning of an existing culture anyway since humans can only visualize that which they are already familiar with. I mean, we can't even give non-humans cultures that don't invariably end up some variant on human culture, its nearly impossible to do that with humans.

Now, I'm not saying we can't be sensitive to cultural depictions of how a race/culture is depicted, but at a certain point we have to determine if having Barovia be an accurate depiction of Medieval Slavic and Romani culture is worth giving up "Transylvania as depicted by Universal/Hammer films".

Tethyrians are Celts: Sword Coast is German(Iluskans)-Celt(Tethyrians)-Romance melting pot (i.e, Western Europe).