D&D General All Dead Generations: "Classic Vs. The Aesthetic"

[Crimson Longinus]

And what makes them cool? That they're the enemy - maybe honourable, maybe not - to be fought and vanquished.

Taking away their enemy-ness removes much of their (meta-game) reason for being.

I don't think that is true. They however need to be something more than just green humans.

 

[Charlaquin]

And what makes them cool? That they're the enemy - maybe honourable, maybe not - to be fought and vanquished.

No, what makes them cool is they’re fun imaginary creatures. They’re cool whether they’re enemies or allies. And in fact, they’re cooler if they can be both in different contexts.

Taking away their enemy-ness removes much of their (meta-game) reason for being.

Nah, their reason for being is to make the world a fantastical place full of fantastical creatures.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think that is true. They however need to be something more than just green humans.

Why though? Like, I get that it’s your preference, but I don’t understand why they need to be less nuanced than humans to be interesting to you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't blame @Malmuria! The article posted starts off by saying:

NOTE: THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT THE USE OF HUMANOIDS OR THE RACIALIZED OTHER IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS... THIS POST IS ABOUT HOW AESTHETIC (SETTING, PLAYER EXPECTATIONS, THEMES AND IMAGERY) INTERACT WITH MECHANICS AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES.​

It says that, but then the example it gives of the gygaxian aesthetic features the text “the subhumans’ cries for mercy, their gurgling mongrel tongue incomprehensible to the people of law and civilization, but Blackleaf delights in their terror, as his people and the teeming goblin filth have waged a war of annihilation for ten thousand years.”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why though? Like, I get that it’s your preference, but I don’t understand why they need to be less nuanced than humans to be interesting to you.

They don't need to be less nuanced than humans! They just need to be different than humans. We already have humans.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It says that, but then the example it gives of the gygaxian aesthetic features the text “the subhumans’ cries for mercy, their gurgling mongrel tongue incomprehensible to the people of law and civilization, but Blackleaf delights in their terror, as his people and the teeming goblin filth have waged a war of annihilation for ten thousand years.”

That's true, but I think the main text of the article does what it says on the tin.

 

[Charlaquin]

They don't need to be less nuanced than humans! They just need to be different than humans. We already have humans.

Pardon me if I find that hard to believe when you’re very vocal about not considering “cosmetic differences and superpowers” sufficient to differentiate them from humans, and then whenever someone suggests making them as nuanced as humans you say “then they’ll be human apart from cosmetic differences and superpowers.”

 

[Charlaquin]

That's true, but I think the main text of the article does what it says on the tin.

My point is that these issues with the portrayal of race in D&D are deeply bound up in play aesthetics, as evidenced by the fact that you can’t get through an example of play under a gygaxian aesthetic without evil goblins coming up. Trying to talk about the latter without the former is like trying to discuss public education without talking about politics. The two subjects are intrinsically linked.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Pardon me if I find that hard to believe when you’re very vocal about not considering “cosmetic differences and superpowers” sufficient to differentiate them from humans, and then whenever someone suggests making them as nuanced as humans you say “then they’ll be human apart from cosmetic differences and superpowers.”

To you 'nuanced' seem to mean 'identical to humans mentally and socially and in capabilities.' To me that is not nuanced, it is lazy. Making things identical to humans is not adding nuance, it is removing it.

 

[Faolyn]

So, in other words the monsters weren't monsters any more.

Given as how both the at-table and in-fiction function of creatures like those has generally been to be the foe, the villain, the monster, my question is this: if they're made to be just like everyone else and no longer the outsider or the foe then what's their function in the setting, and in the game?

Their function is that of people. The person you buy armor from may be an ogre. The person who guides you around the city may be an elf.

The bandit who attacks you as you walk through the wilderness may also be an ogre or an elf.