D&D General Oh, the Humanity! Exotic Races, Anthropocentrism, Stereotypes & Roleplaying in D&D

[Mercurius]

Solution: Don't adopt ridiculous voices. At best, it has no real purpose in-game. It doesn't add verisimilitude. And at worst, you're perpetuating stereotypes and being kind of a jerk.

DMs - talk to your players about not caricaturing (and try not to do it yourself).
Players - maybe talk to your DM about talking to the players about not caricaturing (and try not to do it yourself)

I share your dislike of bad accents, although probably for different reasons. I just find them silly and annoying, especially if done poorly. I've had the same thought about why is it that almost every fantasy world, as depicted in film, involves people with British accents? It gets worse when a random thou or doth is thrown in.

On the other hand, there's the opposite problem: fantasy people speaking as if they're contemporary people, whether American, British, or whatever. In that regard, I think both Game of Thrones and LotR did a good job depicting characters that seemed inhabitants of their worlds, and that's partially because both involved actual dialogue from the books, and Martin and Tolkien are/were master writers.

But I don't think a bad Scottish accent--or really, most of the time, a bad vaguely/quasi-Scottish accent--is cultural appropriation in any sort of meaningful or harmful way, especially in the context of a game group. I see it more as sloppy and unimaginative.

 

[MGibster]

If you're a player, don't appropriate other cultures. Just don't. If you think you're being respectful, you're probably not. If you're not Scottish (or of Scottish extraction), don't do that bad Scottish accent. Every D&D group is overflowing with them. Don't add to the pile. If you're not Irish, don't do Lucky the Leprechaun or Bono. No one needs to hear that 39th bad Dublin accent.

We're talking about a game with a druid and Asian style monk as core classes so it's odd to complain about cultural appropriation. If you're in my game, go ahead and appropriate cultures. You want your dwarf to sound like Arnold Schwarzenegger? Go nuts. You want to name your monk Li Mu Bai because you thought Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was an awesome movie? Heck yeah, Chow Yun-fat is awesome. Cultural appropriation, or exchange, isn't always a negative.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is an interesting question, but one I think can be answered in a way that makes sense within the context of a setting.

SNIPPED

I think the key is, again, playing with the tools of D&D lore in a variety of ways, and structuring it all in such a way that internal consistency is achieved, and everything makes sense within the logic of the world itself.

Sure, and sometimes it is. I remember Dominic Deegan had a major plot point be that the Orcs were rising as the new "Golden Age Society" and the humans were fading just like the elves had before them (think it was the elves) and it was a very interesting setting idea.

But I also think a lot of settings have a much more.... natural balance? Like if you were to paint the map with various zones, the "here be intelligent monsters" zones would be at least as big as the "civilized" kingdoms.

And some of them are presented as being still quite powerful in their own rights. They are "rising threats", or like the Giants and Yuan-Ti, they are presented as fallen empires in ways similar to the Elves and Dwarves.


But all of that is sort of... sideways from the point I was trying to make.


A lot of the discussion tends to be "how many PC races before the world makes less sense" but that is a very different question from "how many sentient races until the world is too crowded" and the MM provides us with a lot of sentient races.

Just in the Underdark I know there are Drow, Duergar, Snirvfelbin, Grimlocks, Quaggoths, Mindflayers, Myconids, Troglodytes, Hooked Horrors, Grell, Fomorians. Flumphs, Cloakers, Chuuls, and Aboleths according to the Monster Manual.

That is more races in the Underdark than most people consider for the entire campaign world. Now, maybe a DM limits them, or doesn't realize that some of these creatures are fairly intelligent, but it seems a pertinent point of conversation of why adding Lizardfolk as an enemy is fine and has no worldbuilding problems, but adding them as a race that can be reasoned with and talked to is.

 

[Khelon Testudo]

On the one hand, I understand people being uncomfortable with their accent being... portrayed poorly. It can be bloody annoying. (As an Aussie, I should know - only the best of English actors can do it half-way right!) On the other hand, if you're sitting around the table in the privacy of your own basement, and no-one there has the accent you're trying to convey, I don't see the harm unless there is a real attempt to mock.

I mean, it's not theatrical work or the like, where you're playing a role someone could do better in because of their life experience - or even should be given to someone of that culture because minority roles are so rare.

It's just you and your friends. Although some accents would be more problematic than others, for historical reasons. 'Ebonics', Native American (which IRL would be more than one accent), and German come to mind for different reasons.

 

[Mercurius]

But all of that is sort of... sideways from the point I was trying to make.

A lot of the discussion tends to be "how many PC races before the world makes less sense" but that is a very different question from "how many sentient races until the world is too crowded" and the MM provides us with a lot of sentient races.

Just in the Underdark I know there are Drow, Duergar, Snirvfelbin, Grimlocks, Quaggoths, Mindflayers, Myconids, Troglodytes, Hooked Horrors, Grell, Fomorians. Flumphs, Cloakers, Chuuls, and Aboleths according to the Monster Manual.

That is more races in the Underdark than most people consider for the entire campaign world. Now, maybe a DM limits them, or doesn't realize that some of these creatures are fairly intelligent, but it seems a pertinent point of conversation of why adding Lizardfolk as an enemy is fine and has no worldbuilding problems, but adding them as a race that can be reasoned with and talked to is.

Don't forget that it is a game with the underlying goal to be playable and fun. All of those creatures exist--in the meta-context--to provide enemies, challenges, and sometimes allies to the player characters.

But I guess I missed the lizardfolk discussion. I see nothing wrong with adding them--or any other sentient race--as "a race that can be reasoned with and talked to."

If we're talking about setting verisimilitude, and assuming that a DM cares about the craft and coherency of their setting, then some degree of care and balance is a good thing. Not specifically about the lizardfolk, but justifying whatever races exist as part of "civilization" within the context of the world itself.

In one conversation about settings some time ago, I brought up the idea that one of the axes by which settings can be defined is, at one end, the kitchen sink that includes everything within the D&D toolbox--the assumption being that if it is in the rules, it exists in the world somewhere--and on the other end, the tightly thematic setting, with Dark Sun being a well-known D&D example.

TSR and WotC have mainly published settings towards the kitchen sink side of the spectrum, for whatever reason--perhaps because they feel that the best approach is to provide an "anything goes" setting and allow individual DMs and groups to decide what portions of it they want to use. That said, I would like to see them venture more into thematic settings, and perhaps the Magic settings are a sign that they are. Ravnica and Theros are both very thematic; in fact, the nature of the Magic planes is that each explores a limited palette. And of course they all work within a meta-context...so it would make sense that WotC publishes, in the not-too-distant future, a Planescape meta-setting that facilitates linkage between these planes.

But I'm getting away from the topic...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Don't forget that it is a game with the underlying goal to be playable and fun. All of those creatures exist--in the meta-context--to provide enemies, challenges, and sometimes allies to the player characters.

But I guess I missed the lizardfolk discussion. I see nothing wrong with adding them--or any other sentient race--as "a race that can be reasoned with and talked to."

If we're talking about setting verisimilitude, and assuming that a DM cares about the craft and coherency of their setting, then some degree of care and balance is a good thing. Not specifically about the lizardfolk, but justifying whatever races exist as part of "civilization" within the context of the world itself.

In one conversation about settings some time ago, I brought up the idea that one of the axes by which settings can be defined is, at one end, the kitchen sink that includes everything within the D&D toolbox--the assumption being that if it is in the rules, it exists in the world somewhere--and on the other end, the tightly thematic setting, with Dark Sun being a well-known D&D example.

TSR and WotC have mainly published settings towards the kitchen sink side of the spectrum, for whatever reason--perhaps because they feel that the best approach is to provide an "anything goes" setting and allow individual DMs and groups to decide what portions of it they want to use. That said, I would like to see them venture more into thematic settings, and perhaps the Magic settings are a sign that they are. Ravnica and Theros are both very thematic; in fact, the nature of the Magic planes is that each explores a limited palette. And of course they all work within a meta-context...so it would make sense that WotC publishes, in the not-too-distant future, a Planescape meta-setting that facilitates linkage between these planes.

But I'm getting away from the topic...

You mention Dark sun as being "tightly thematic", so I was curious. Here is a list of every sentient race I could find for Darksun, minus the ones exclusively added in 4e. Sourced from 1d4chan and the horrifically incomplete Darksun Wiki.

Aarakocra
Dray
Dwarf
Elan
Elf
Gith
Half-Giant
Halfling
Human
Kenku
Maenad
Mul
Pterran
Ssurran
Tarek
Thri-kreen
Yuan-ti
Pyreen
Psurlons
Anakore
Belogi
Brogh
Silt Runner
T'chowb
Tohr-Kreen (Mantis Noble)
Thrax
Villichi


I'm counting 27 races. Some aren't player options, and technically I probably shouldn't count Muls and Half-Elves, which would bring us down to 25.

So, I think you are right. Most of these are adding to the game at a meta-level, and really not considered "part of the world", but I think it is fair to say that for some people, the world of DnD is full of strange societies, and sometimes the bug gets in your head. "Hey, those mantis people we fought last campaign were odd. What would it be like to play one?"

And as a DM, I feel like I need to figure out not only the player races, but also the villain races. I need to know where they are, and how they interact with people, but the conversation always seems focused on the player side of things, when talking about how coherent the world is.


Edit: And to be somewhat more on topic. How can we present a human-centric world, when there are 24 other races in the world? Human's can't actually outnumber all of them and those civilizations still be stable, unless they are all in decline. Which gets... odd.

 

[Mercurius]

You mention Dark sun as being "tightly thematic", so I was curious. Here is a list of every sentient race I could find for Darksun, minus the ones exclusively added in 4e. Sourced from 1d4chan and the horrifically incomplete Darksun Wiki.

I'm counting 27 races. Some aren't player options, and technically I probably shouldn't count Muls and Half-Elves, which would bring us down to 25.

So, I think you are right. Most of these are adding to the game at a meta-level, and really not considered "part of the world", but I think it is fair to say that for some people, the world of DnD is full of strange societies, and sometimes the bug gets in your head. "Hey, those mantis people we fought last campaign were odd. What would it be like to play one?"

And as a DM, I feel like I need to figure out not only the player races, but also the villain races. I need to know where they are, and how they interact with people, but the conversation always seems focused on the player side of things, when talking about how coherent the world is.


Edit: And to be somewhat more on topic. How can we present a human-centric world, when there are 24 other races in the world? Human's can't actually outnumber all of them and those civilizations still be stable, unless they are all in decline. Which gets... odd.

Most of us here are DMs, so can probably all relate to the basic fact that world-building stretches far beyond what players every will encounter (or care to know). Some players really want to dive into the lore, but most just show up to roll some dice. But, my point is that D&D involves a whole "side game" which includes everything the DM does that doesn't show up in a given session. Namely, world-building. Some DMs get away with creating set-pieces and/or a co-created campaign settings, but a lot of us care about such things--like who the villain races are, where and how they interact with people (to use your words).

This isn't to say that such deep world-building is only for the DM's gratification, for certainly a more internally coherent world can only benefit the player experience. But that I resonate with what you are saying--that the conversation tends to focus on player experience. Not only is the DM putting more work in, but often engages in campaign and setting design as its own "co-hobby." For some of us, even, it is just as--if not even more--enjoyable than the actual play experience. The "meta-game," if you will.

When I'm designing a new setting, or updating an old one, one of the things I put some time into is deciding which races and creatures exist, in what numbers, where, and how they interact. I'm reminded of a chart from the 1E DMG (I think) that had all races on both the X and Y axis, and how friendly they were with each other. It was a bit simplistic, but something like that can be useful.

Then, before session zero, I email out a short PDF about the setting (I find that a two-sided page is all players can generally be expected to read, and even then I go over it in session zero). It may include ways in which my setting differs from the standard tropes and assumptions of D&D, as well as what races are allowed, etc.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Every good writer knows that the more unusual the scenes and events of his story are, the slighter, more ordinary, the more typical his persons should be. Hence Gulliver is a commonplace little man and Alice is a commonplace little girl. If they had been more remarkable they would have wrecked their books. The Ancient Mariner himself is a very ordinary man. To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much; he who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange.

—C.S. Lewis

This more or less sums up my feelings on exotic nonhuman characters these days. When the player characters are themselves strange, confronting them with further strangeness loses a noticeable degree of impact. (I suspect that my feelings in this matter are entirely the result of my having long since abandoned traditional story and role-playing focused games in favor of adventure and exploration focused games. When the point of playing is to explore the game-world, exploring the characters becomes at best a distraction.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

This more or less sums up my feelings on exotic nonhuman characters these days. When the player characters are themselves strange, confronting them with further strangeness loses a noticeable degree of impact. (I suspect that my feelings in this matter are entirely the result of my having long since abandoned traditional story and role-playing focused games in favor of adventure and exploration focused games. When the point of playing is to explore the game-world, exploring the characters becomes at best a distraction.)

And there are also stories of strange families in ordinary settings. Take the Addam's Family.

And a lot of DnD settings are now kind of getting... blaise. Normal. Familiar. So taking something strange to something familiar makes sense. It breaks the common pattern. Tells a different story.

 

[reelo]

And a lot of DnD settings are now kind of getting... blaise.

You mean blasé. Which means unimpressed. People get blasé. Things don't.