D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

It's interesting, because I find The Witcher to be closer in tone to Conan than I do to LotR. But I'm not sure if The Witcher has had a significant influence on D&D as of yet.
Yes to it being closer to Conan (which has simply passed out of fashion and been forgotten).

But Witcher has been massively influential on modern D&D (mostly via the computer games). That's where all those hags are coming from. It's bought Slavic folktales into focus.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

But Witcher has been massively influential on modern D&D (mostly via the computer games). That's where all those hags are coming from. It's bought Slavic folktales into focus.
I'm looking forward to my Cleric turning dead against the spirit of an unborn child killed and not buried properly!
 





That is more a case of including people who are not exclusively white, heterosexual and male.
I want to address this point as I think this framing may be somewhat deceptive, in that it seems to imply that D&D was this cloistered monastery within which only straight, white males were allowed - and everyone else actively kept out. Certainly, there used to be (and still is, to some extent) a "gatekeeper" phenomena, but this also has to do with fear of geekdom becoming mainstream, not simply a matter of excluding everyone other than straight white men. And it was "practiced" by a minority of, well, socially awkward dudes who were likely afraid of women. The majority of RPG players are, and have generally always been, open and accepting of any and all who are interested in the hobby--at least that has been my impression.

Again, this is not to say that gatekeeping didn't exist, or that there weren't elements of the "boy's club" phenomena, but if you time travelled back to 1984 and visited a dozen D&D clubs and groups, most of them would be accepting of female and/or non-white players. Maybe a bit surprised or suspicious at first ("Wait, why would a girl want to play D&D?!") but not antagonistic, and mostly due to not being used to non-white dudes being interested in the game. Being, a relatively benign ignorance or non-exposure rather than outright hostility to the "other."

I think the primary factor is that culture has shifted so that being a geek--to whatever degree--is more accepted. We see waves of this through the mainstreaming of geek stuff with Harry Potter, anime, the Lord of the Rings movies, Game of Thrones, the MCU, etc. With this, a wide range of demographics has become interested in the game, or at least more prominent. A

Nerds and geeks of all demographics have always existed, and I'm not sure there's a way to assess numbers over time except through memory and anecdote. But there may also be, as it has become more socially acceptable, a kind of mass "coming out of the closet" of geeks and quasi-geeks. Meaning, it isn't only that more people have become geeks or nerds, but more people have embraced their "geeky side." So "geekdom" is less an either/or, and more a matter of, "What are you geeky about?"

That said, I don't think this "de-shunning" of geek culture or geekery is sufficient to explain the huge current popularity of D&D. It is part of it, but I think there is something to the game that people yearn for, which has to do with a more organic, imaginative experience that can be shared with friends. But that's a bit of a different topic.
 

It shows that most people start playing aged around 12 or so.

You know what age I started playing? 12. What age did you start playing?

The demographic hasn't changed*, it just has different people in it.


*not quite true. It now includes females.
Not a total stretch to say it includes minorities now too. Or at the very least, they are aware that it's not the 70s anymore. For example, I remember the official racial descriptions of the elves in ADnD as all being "pale" (or basically "white"). And outside of Drow and a black warrior on the cover of White Plume Mountain, all the artwork was similar in vein.
 

Apropos of swords-and-sorcery and art:
I rather doubt that art depicting nearly-nekkid folks is, in fact, any way necessary for a gaming product discussing how to run or play in a swords-and-sorcery RPG game, what a swords-and-sorcery setting is like.

To my mind, some of the crucial elements of a stereotypical swords-and-sorcery setting are:
  • The world is not a good place: the great cities are pits of decadence and corruption, rural boroughs are thick with hostility and superstition, the wilds full of unfathomable dangers. The setting doesn't have to be grimdark, but bucolic Shire-like or Rivendell-like lands aren't likely to be found.
  • Few, if any, cosmic powers (gods and such) are benevolent, if indeed they are present at all.
  • Magic, particularly arcane magic, is dangerous to wield, and usually the purview of villains.
  • If the protagonists are fighting great evil it is not out of a heroic sense of duty or noble calling. (More like a less comic version of saving the world "because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!") There's a good chance most of them are anti-heroes.

None of those elements actually require art in the style of Ye Olde Chaine-Maile Bikinis, Ye Burly Bare-Chestèd Manly Men, and the like. Likewise, I don't think a game setting or the emergent story of a game session be required to closely resemble Howard or Lieber in order to qualify as sword-and-sorcery.

Apropos of shifts in gaming culture and how shifts in D&D reflect it:
@Mercurius apropos of your more recent post, I don't necessarily disagree that most gaming tables would have been/were accepting of women or people of colour "back in the day". (*)

However, I think the issue has more to do with how publishers didn't take into account how their content came across to groups outside the customary demographics that predominated in older times.

Just like in other media, people who aren't heteronormative white men unsurprisingly prefer to see themselves positively reflected in RPGs available on the mass market as people who can be and indeed are heroes - or at least, protagonists - and just as unsurprisingly prefer not to see stereotypes that have been leveled at them over the years as justification for various sorts of oppression used to describe creatures that are usually employed in games as enemies to be defeated or destroyed.

(*) Note however that being accepting of individuals is not analogous to supporting structural changes to the way RPGs were or are presented to be more welcoming of or less off-putting to such folk writ large.
 


Remove ads

Top