D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Oofta]

If like me you're not a Star Wars mega fan can you tell me what the difference is between all the different species? Because outside a couple of outliers, basically the ones that don't speak English, I can't. The vast majority are just humans in funny costumes.

I think that's what you get if the only difference between species is "generic cultures that can span multiple species". Are they with the empire or the rebellion, part of the XXX collective? The other issue of course is that for any given culture it would also be handy to have an abbreviation, something that could clue you in without reading a bunch of text. Maybe something that could even be shortened to two letters.


Thing is most people, even with relatively little experience with D&D just get the difference between an elf and a dwarf. What some consider the games biggest weakness is also in many ways it's biggest strength. Much like cats vs dogs, the behavior of individuals will vary but creatures of the same species will generally be more alike than different.

That, and unlike other games (i.e. WoW, Warhammer, etc.), there are no pre-established organizations, political structures and world building will vary from campaign to campaign. You need things to still hold it all together, default alignment and culture that varies by race is one of those things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, wrong. See the number of war crimes and murders committed against invading Nazis.

You seem to have many opinions anchored in a complete lack of historical data.

You seem to be confused.

Killing ruthless invaders who have come to slaughter, oppress and pillage (which is certainly a fair way to characterize Nazi occupiers, even in, say, France) is not "murder" in a general sense. Especially as they are likely trying to do the same to you.

It is of course possible to commit war crimes against such a group, especially if they've been captured, disarmed, and are being peaceful. But if they're still fighting, it is not going to be "murder". Also, you seem to be attempting to frame things so that legitimate resistance groups like the French resistance, who hit Nazi occupiers, were "murders", which may technically have been legally true, but is obviously unlikely to be something that people would agree was morally true.

That, and unlike other games (i.e. WoW, Warhammer, etc.), there are no pre-established organizations, political structures and world building will vary from campaign to campaign. You need things to still hold it all together, default alignment and culture that varies by race is one of those things.

Why though?

It seems to be you only "need" that if you expect people to constantly be changing from group to group to group with different settings and so on every time.

I don't think that's a reasonable scenario. It's certainly not something to build your game around. D&D has always challenged these assumptions. Like, with Taladas, in 2E, you've non-evil Ogres and Goblins playable right there in the core book. Literally the first setting released for 2E, in 1989, and you're tell me you "need" default alignment by race. That's not a well-supported argument. I'm not even sure I'm following your rationale.

 

[Oofta]

Why though?

It seems to be you only "need" that if you expect people to constantly be changing from group to group to group with different settings and so on every time.

I don't think that's a reasonable scenario. It's certainly not something to build your game around. D&D has always challenged these assumptions. Like, with Taladas, in 2E, you've non-evil Ogres and Goblins playable right there in the core book. Literally the first setting released for 2E, in 1989, and you're tell me you "need" default alignment by race. That's not a well-supported argument. I'm not even sure I'm following your rationale.

If I join someone else's game I have a general understanding of how the world works unless they tell me they specifically override some details. We discuss things during session 0, but 80-90% of the game is going to work just like everyone else's game. Are there exceptions? Yes. But without a baseline assumption, you can't have exceptions. If I go to drive a car the layout of the dash, exactly how the gear shifter and controls work will vary. But I'll still know how to drive the car within a few moments.

I think that's a good thing. It's a formula that's worked for half a century and continues to work. Baseline assumptions + relatively minor modifications unique to the setting is main selling point of D&D IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Justice and Rule]

If I join someone else's game I have a general understanding of how the world works unless they tell me they specifically override some details. We discuss things during session 0, but 80-90% of the game is going to work just like everyone else's game. Are there exceptions? Yes. But without a baseline assumption, you can't have exceptions. If I go to drive a car the layout of the dash, exactly how the gear shifter and controls work will vary. But I'll still know how to drive the car within a few moments.

I think that's a good thing. It's a formula that's worked for half a century and continues to work. Baseline assumptions + relatively minor modifications unique to the setting is main selling point of D&D IMHO. YMMV.

Can't this stuff be done with like a three-sentence exposition drop if it comes up? Like, "The party sees several Orcs with bows. In this land, Orcs live in nomadic communities allied with the Northern Lords. They hunt <insert creature> and often sell their furs and wares to local markets. This may be a hunting party... or they may be bandits. What do you do?"

 

[Umbran]

Then what is the dramatic function of race?

Have you not gotten the point that globally attaching specific function to race is the problematic thing?

Racial monoculture seems a pretty cliche notion at this point, and without mass comunication, make very little sense over significant distances. Dramatic functions can be determined locally, where the PCs happen to be adventuring now, rather than globally.

If an ogre community can be aggressive or gentle, brutal or sophisticated, collective-minded or individualistic, then what does the community’s ogre-ness bring to the table? Why make them ogres at all, and not humans? Or centaurs?

Since the position has always been that humans were the infinitely flexible ones, and could have any type of culture, you probably should have been asking yourself that question before now.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Can't this stuff be done with like a three-sentence exposition drop if it comes up? Like, "The party sees several Orcs with bows. In this land, Orcs live in nomadic communities allied with the Northern Lords. They hunt <insert creature> and often sell their furs and wares to local markets. This may be a hunting party... or they may be bandits. What do you do?"

You could - but now you've made a new expectation.

 

[Bagpuss]

I'm pretty sure we agree that as far as PC defaults, that there shouldnt be any.

Totally agree if there weren't any PCs my campaigns would run so much smoother...

...oh PC defaults. That makes more sense, still one can but dream.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

If I join someone else's game I have a general understanding of how the world works unless they tell me they specifically override some details. We discuss things during session 0, but 80-90% of the game is going to work just like everyone else's game. Are there exceptions? Yes. But without a baseline assumption, you can't have exceptions. If I go to drive a car the layout of the dash, exactly how the gear shifter and controls work will vary. But I'll still know how to drive the car within a few moments.

I think that's a good thing. It's a formula that's worked for half a century and continues to work. Baseline assumptions + relatively minor modifications unique to the setting is main selling point of D&D IMHO. YMMV.

It’s what makes a kingdom of noble and good orcs novel and exciting.

If they said in many lands orcs are seen as x but there are tales of y is fine for me.

I wouldn’t even mind outsiders being able to break the mold whether fallen or redeemed.

but I do like some baseline assumptions to subvert as you see fit

 

[Justice and Rule]

You could - but now you've made a new expectation.

Of what?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Of what?

Of what orcs are like. At least in this region (which is fine)

I mean, you called them orc, thus invoked orc tropes. These orcs aren't like typical orcs. The players have some idea in their head about what a typical orc is, from exposure to media. You've edited that.

If they didn't have any idea what an orc was, you'd have given half an answer (you didn't describe them physically). If you didn't want them to look like orcs, or have some other orcish trait, you shouldn't have called them orcs.

You can't make your audience only think of half a trope.

I'm all for doing a better job making it clear that monster fluff entries are only 'typical' versions and that variations exist, and I'm among those actively asking for cleaning up language, but if there are going to be races in the game, the race has to mean something. Not, "the race should mean something" - "the race will mean something, whether the designers control that meaning or not."