Faolyn
(she/her)
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.Oh, no.
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.
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.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.
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.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.