D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Scribe]

Because human suffering is part of those genres, and WotC is afraid of depicting it.

Not to pile on, but I dont think this is it.

I think its about not having a hint that the PLAYERS engage in or promote, or tolerate, that suffering. The only image Wizards pushes, is a hopeful, heroic, positive, one that the players will rise above, be great, win, and make friends with the villain's along the way.

 

[MGibster]

I can't speak for all of those, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but most of the people in New Ravenloft are explicitly not real.

A lot of them aren't, but the players don't really have an easy way of finding that out. I've run the campaign twice now, and it just never came up either time. I have no idea why they put that tidbit in the campaign, but it doesn't do anything for the story.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not to pile on, but I dont think this is it.

I think its about not having a hint that the PLAYERS engage in or promote, or tolerate, that suffering. The only image Wizards pushes, is a hopeful, heroic, positive, one that the players will rise above, be great, win, and make friends with the villain's along the way.

Yeah, that seems true. I also agree with @Ruin Explorer xplorer in that human suffering may be referenced, but is very rarely depicted. Coming from a historical background, I don't like that the darker parts of the past are sometimes routinely ignored. Heroes shine all the brighter in the dark.

 

[MGibster]

I think its about not having a hint that the PLAYERS engage in or promote, or tolerate, that suffering. The only image Wizards pushes, is a hopeful, heroic, positive, one that the players will rise above, be great, win, and make friends with the villain's along the way.

And to be fair, this is exactly what I've always wanted out of D&D. I've never wanted moral ambiguity or gritty anti-heroes, I want G vs. E. I'm fine with slavery and other terrible things existing so long as we're fighting against it.

 

[Scribe]

A lot of them aren't, but the players don't really have an easy way of finding that out. I've run the campaign twice now, and it just never came up either time. I have no idea why they put that tidbit in the campaign, but it doesn't do anything for the story.

Because if they are not real, and Wizards can point to that, then the only people who are real are the big bads that the players (who are pushed as heroic and good) must stop, and the (heroic and good) players. It cleans up a lot of morality questions.

And to be fair, this is exactly what I've always wanted out of D&D. I've never wanted moral ambiguity or gritty anti-heroes, I want G vs. E. I'm fine with slavery and other terrible things existing so long as we're fighting against it.

And thats a fine take, and I'm glad the game meets your desired viewpoint. I would much rather have that ambiguity, and to have Wizards moralize at us about what is good (and its not Conan)? Thats a pass from me.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can't speak for all of those, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but most of the people in New Ravenloft are explicitly not real.

Doesn't mean that they're not human. They just don't have an afterlife. They're like non-D&D humans. When we die, we die. The fact that they don't have souls doesn't mean that they aren't human or can't suffer.

You're wrong. Just wrong. As I've said before, I've read every official D&D 5e book. Human suffering has been a major part of recent D&D 5e adventures and settings. Even more so than many earlier adventures (Princes of the Apocalypse, Storm King's Thunder, and Tyranny of Dragons were more "save the world"-style adventures than "end human suffering", which has been a motivating factor for Icewind Dale, Netherdeep, Descent into Avernus, Tomb of Annihilation, and quite a few other adventures more than "save the world").

Do they show suffering/privation in the art? Because I don't have access to the latter three, but VRGtR does not really show that in its art. It shows perilous situations, and it talks about suffering, but it doesn't show it, and it's kind of curious. Unless I'm forgetting - I do have access to let me know where and I can look.

Is depiction in art a necessity for human suffering to be a part of those books? As far as I know, something doesn't suddenly start existing inside a book once there's a bit of art depicting it.

The goalpost is "does the book depict human suffering?" not "does the book have art depicting human suffering?" And the answer to both of those questions is yes.

I don't know about Van Richtens, but I know there is art of Jander Sunstar being tortured on a tree in Descent into Avernus. That's depiction of human suffering (or vampire suffering) in the art. Icewind Dale has art of a wizard being burnt at a stake with townsfolk crowding around it to warm up as the wizard screams in pain. Netherdeep has art of how Ruidium is slowly killing people corrupted by their bodies with red crystals and boils. That's all depictions of human suffering in art.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And to be fair, this is exactly what I've always wanted out of D&D. I've never wanted moral ambiguity or gritty anti-heroes, I want G vs. E. I'm fine with slavery and other terrible things existing so long as we're fighting against it.

I want both, and in particular I don't want the game to push one over the other as an agenda.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because if they are not real, and Wizards can point to that, then the only people who are real are the big bads that the players (who are pushed as heroic and good) must stop, and the (heroic and good) players. It cleans up a lot of morality questions.



And thats a fine take, and I'm glad the game meets your desired viewpoint. I would much rather have that ambiguity, and to have Wizards moralize at us about what is good (and its not Conan)? Thats a pass from me.

Since the big bads can't be permanently killed either, in a way nothing but the PCs is real. The whole thing is essentially a shared hallucination.

 

[Medic]

I can't speak for all of those, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but most of the people in New Ravenloft are explicitly not real.

I do not have Van Richten's Guide, but Curse of Strahd has a fixed population of "real" people in Strahd's domain of dread that perpetuate through reincarnation. A good deal of Barovia's population are actual NPCs - that is to say, soulless meatpuppets that exist specifically as walking talking props to add a degree of reality his domain and play into his ego. Which is a bit meta, but fine I suppose.

Not to pile on, but I dont think this is it.

I think its about not having a hint that the PLAYERS engage in or promote, or tolerate, that suffering. The only image Wizards pushes, is a hopeful, heroic, positive, one that the players will rise above, be great, win, and make friends with the villain's along the way.

I think this articulates the point in a much better way. It's fiction, there's nothing wrong with a player character somehow ending up as a conquering warlord or criminal kingpin.

 

[Scribe]

Since the big bads can't be permanently killed either, in a way nothing but the PCs is real. The whole thing is essentially a shared hallucination.

Pretty much? I'm not a huge fan of the setting anyway I think at this point. Or maybe not this version? I dont know, perhaps its a different topic, but it just seems...even more pointless than my typical grimdark fare?

Like if the inhabitants are shells, the big bad just comes back with no change, and the players are heroic (and the book makes a point of the players being heros doing heroic things) with the expectation to win, rise above, and come out the other side, it just seems....I dont know, a really poor fit for the current vision at Wizards?