D&D 5E WotC to increase releases per year?

OK, I see what you're saying, and I do agree that we don't want to turn different cultures into exotic others. But there's a problem. If you disregard accuracy (and with it, possibly also things that you/the writers view as morally problematic) in favor of what's cool, well, that could easily be just cultural appropriation.

The ideal would be to create completely unique cultures. But that's not easy for everyone to do. In another thread (also about this topic), I mentioned taking the basic elements of something in a non-European culture and using it as inspiration for something else (my post here). And I was told that it was possible that no matter how much I stripped something of its cultural baggage, it could still be seen as cultural appropriation or coding.

Even much of the "generic East Asian" problem in 1e Kara-Tur was a side-effect of replacing standard D&D classes with ones rooted in specific East Asian cultures, then having the problem that you needed Japanese yakuza in faux-China and wu jen (based on Chinese wūshī) in faux-Japan because you didn't have generic thief and wizard classes to fill the party niches.
Well, the obvious thing here is to not do that. In this edition, at most you might need an archetype, or a new background or three. And the rest is fluff and reskinning.

The other problem was too much "cultural accuracy" in the sense of excessive use of real-world history. That made 1e Kara-Tur a slog to read and hard to use for actual gaming. That drove having Maztica not having ironworking and (in order to keep conquistador supremacy) wizardry. The result was places that were just less fantastic than Faerun, and thus less attractive to game in.
Yes, and Maztica was the result of a combination of too little time and effort put in the worldbuilding and being too unwilling to make changes in the setting's history. It could be fixed quite easily.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Part of the problem is that the very existence of these non-European locations in the pulps that inspired D&D was based on exoticism: a way for the authors to show just how strange, foreign and alien these people were (especially the women, wink wink nudge nudge). And as much I still love Howard's Conan stories (because the man could write), you do have to take them as products of their time and the way they depict people from non-European inspired areas is very problematic. At the same time, it doesn't make any sense to white wash the world and pretend those places don't exist. The real world is richer for its diversity and so is a well realized fictional world. And since we can idealize those worlds, we can have these cultures meet without basking in the horrors of our own real past such as imperialism, colonials and the slave trade.

I'm just not sure how to best present those places for consumption as lands of adventure.
My take, so far, as I work on multiple projects that draw from cultures around the world, is to simply present them as places people live. There are a few empires in my Islands World setting (I had originally said no empires but decided against that), and they are based on France, Spain, and Persia, respectively. What they don’t do is, go into a land they view as “savage” and decide they’ve a right to rule there because the locals are better off as part of the empire.

Instead they’re more like pre-colonial European and Asian empires. Taking land from people who are technologically on roughly equal footing, fighting real wars for land and power, not just sweeping in and ravaging a continent, etc, and only evil cultists have slaves.

Meanwhile, in the Turtle Archipelago, elves and orcs fight and also intermarry, as do gnomes and Halflings, minotaurs, Goliaths, and countless others, because it’s sort of a Mediterranean meets Caribbean meets Zorro-sequel colonial Spanish California setting, where many trade winds meet at different times of year, from around the world. The dominant cultures are native, with pockets of immigrant cultures, places where cultures have mixed, and provinces where foreign powers are exerting military (Albarona/Not-Spain) or economic power (Capet/Not-France) and intermingling with local culture as a result.

So, I’ve already set the main adventuring region as something other than Europe, where European influences are present but not dominant.

Next, when I write a culture of Firbolgs as mountainous, runners, with hidden roads and temples and cities in the mountains, I’m not setting this as a place to gawk at in wonder, any more than Capet’s City of Seven Princes, named after the great seven towers which are each named as though it were the prince of some esoteric concept, or the great blue coastal fortress of Azulejo in Albarona, which has influences of old Idanian architecture from when most of Albarona was an Idanian vassal state, and is home to some of the most ancient and beautiful Cathedrals in the known world.

Each region of the world is a place where folks live, work, and get into trouble and need help.
 

The subclasses are tuned high.

Floating racial stats.

New class options on top of the PHB.

All pure Powercreep.
Um...not...really, though.

The new options for classes almost all serve either to allow the DM to make up for running the game differently than the core books intend, or to make the PHB’s least powerful classes work a little better at most tables having issues with them.

None of it makes any character more powerful than what was in the phb.

Nor do floating ASIs. They don’t make anyone more powerful.

And the subclasses are within the same power range as the PHB. They just don’t tend to be in the low end. That isn’t power creep by any rational definition.
 

Um...not...really, though.

The new options for classes almost all serve either to allow the DM to make up for running the game differently than the core books intend, or to make the PHB’s least powerful classes work a little better at most tables having issues with them.

None of it makes any character more powerful than what was in the phb.

Nor do floating ASIs. They don’t make anyone more powerful.

And the subclasses are within the same power range as the PHB. They just don’t tend to be in the low end. That isn’t power creep by any rational definition.

It's just imho.

Floating asi and swapping stuff benefits vsone races way more than other. Powercreep.

Several archetypes. The clerics and Druids Powercreep.

Any class getting additional options power creep.

Any class replacement better than PHB Powercreep.

Some Powercreep is good eg Tasha's beastmaster but there's a lot of Powercreep overall in Tasha's more than say Xanathars which had the odd thing like healing spirit.

If you like the Powercreep that's fine. It's still Powercreep.

And the game is already easy mode.
 

It's just imho.

Floating asi and swapping stuff benefits vsone races way more than other. Powercreep.

Several archetypes. The clerics and Druids Powercreep.

Any class getting additional options power creep.

Any class replacement better than PHB Powercreep.

Some Powercreep is good eg Tasha's beastmaster but there's a lot of Powercreep overall in Tasha's more than say Xanathars which had the odd thing like healing spirit.

If you like the Powercreep that's fine. It's still Powercreep.

And the game is already easy mode.
I think it’s totally off base to call “bringing the least powerful class up to the low-middle” power creep.
 

I think it’s totally off base to call “bringing the least powerful class up to the low-middle” power creep.

That's good Powercreep to me. I didn't allow it for other reasons but would in different scenario.

It's still Powercreep though. And there's a lot of bad Powercreep in tasha's.
 

Which is fine, it's certainly a change to the "gnoll story" from earlier editions, even though the demon-worshipping part was added in 3E.
Yeenoghu was referred to as the "Demon Lord of Gnolls" back in the AD&D 1e Monster Manual, so the demon-worshipping aspect of gnolls has been there since 1977 at least.
 

That's good Powercreep to me. I didn't allow it for other reasons but would in different scenario.

It's still Powercreep though. And there's a lot of bad Powercreep in tasha's.
I definitely disagree with your definition. Powercreep has always been, previously, used to describe a situation where new options make PCs more powerful than they could have been before.

Alternate class features don’t do that. Even the purely additive features are optional fixes for places where classes were underperforming, or simply fix a gameplay issue.

But, even settings that aside, what in the book could you possibly consider “bad powercreep?”
 

I definitely disagree with your definition. Powercreep has always been, previously, used to describe a situation where new options make PCs more powerful than they could have been before.

Alternate class features don’t do that. Even the purely additive features are optional fixes for places where classes were underperforming, or simply fix a gameplay issue.

But, even settings that aside, what in the book could you possibly consider “bad powercreep?”

Bad Powercreep is when you take a powerful option already and make it better.

The new cleric domains for example are coming close to this along with the Druid options. That's just off the top of my head.

Good Powercreep is making a weak option better.
 

OK, I see what you're saying, and I do agree that we don't want to turn different cultures into exotic others. But there's a problem. If you disregard accuracy (and with it, possibly also things that you/the writers view as morally problematic) in favor of what's cool, well, that could easily be just cultural appropriation.
Which is why I favored having the authors be people from the real-world analogs. If Kozakura and Wa are rewritten by Japanese people, while Shou Lung and T'u Lung are rewritten by Chinese people, well, whose culture would those authors be appropriating, exactly?
 

Remove ads

Top