D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Aldarc]

Well we know that’s not true. Apparently DnD players need WotC to explain outsider tropes and bigotry to them. Otherwise how could they possibly know anything about bigotry?

To be fair, having that explicitly said in the text was one of the things that attracted the queer community to the tiefling.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To be fair, having that explicitly said in the text was one of the things that attracted the queer community to the tiefling.

I think outsider character options who are misunderstood if face prejudice have long appealed to people in gaming who feel different or out of place. And sometimes it can be surprising which options people attach these kinds of meaning to. The tiefling thing went completely over my head until very recently (I didn’t understand why people are so passionate about them until this connection was pointed out to me).

 

[cranberry]

So, show me the more mature material describing half elves in Level Up.

Oh, right, it's only chasing younger demographics when WotC does it.

Funny how WotC does EXACTLY the same thing as every other gaming company, but, apparently that's wrong...

I was stating a fact, not making a judgement.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

calling orcs savage and brutal.

I keep thinking about how wild it is that you think this is a huge ask. Just to…not call the popular race that looks and dresses differently while not living in cities or using the same tech as the more “familiar” peoples, savage. Like you can’t think of any other way to describe such people? Really?
Perhaps we should then go back to the kind of thinking on orcs that leads to Gygax quoting US Army officers speaking genocidally about Native People to make an point about how it’s just pragmatism to murder orc babies?

Or, we could just move on as a hobby, and leave the fantasy racism to settings and home games.

Calling kender kleptomaniacs.

Well actually no, what happened with them is that people didn’t like there being a race that tend to be travelers who are in fact stealing all your stuff. The new description is better, and less disruptive, anyway.

Calling drow treacherous and deceitful.

Yeah dear gods why must we insist on not describing the dark skinned elves as treacherous and deceitful like it’s in their blood rather than part of the influence of a deity over her cult!? How dare!?

Come on. This stuff is obvious. It’s been obvious since before I joined the hobby in the late 90’s.

But does the default  have to be sunshine, lollipops, and everyone loves each other?

You mean like in LevelUp?

Of course, it’s also a completely BS characterization of just about anything.

Hell, even the kids cartoons that folks want to compare anything that isn’t crappy grimdark nonsense to don’t fit that characterization.

The fact that you can’t see any air between “leave fantasy racism to settings and home games, describe each people simply and from their own perspective” and “sunshine, lollipops, and everyone loves eachother” is your creative hangup, not wotc’s or EnWorld Publishing’s.

 

[Faolyn]

I don’t think this is the case. As Inpokntrd out in my other post, you could have a perfectly functional PHB with little flavor in race sections and it could work fine. But if you have flavor, in my view these are good tropes and they have lasted so long because tend to resonate with people. I am not against doing new things with old tropes, but I do think that seems to be almost our exclusive focus these days and taking a “how do we fix or flip these tropes” as a priority is I think leading to extremely dull content that fails to connect to it inspire a lot of people. Again by all means, new spins and twists can be great. But I think the way people look down in perfectly good tropes just leads to throwing the baby out with the bath water

I'm pretty sure that if you wrote every species' description in terms other than "other people hate them," people would be more than capable of coming up with their own resonating angst.

The only reason why those tropes have lasted so long is tradition, because it means you have the bulk of a pre-made background all ready for you and don't have to come up with something new. But most gamers are pretty imaginative and capable of coming up with their own reasons for latching onto a character.

 

[Faolyn]

A lot of the stuff coming out lately feels very ‘children’s show’ to me in tone.

A lot of 'children's show' stuff is actually pretty darn mature.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In fairness to your point, the 1E books don't really get into this stuff I think. I just reviewed the Elf and Half elf entry in the PHBs, and those mostly just stick with core mechanics (from which you could extrapolate culture I suppose but still it is mostly just saying things like what weapons they get bonuses on and what classes they can be). Same with the half elves. Even if you go to the monster manual (which the entries direct you to do), it doesn't really mention any of the stuff we are talking about (do keep in mind it is like 5 AM so take this with a grain of salt if I missed any lines in the 1E text). In fact all it really says is "They mingle freely with either race".

I would imagine though that a lot of people though were drawing on how elves were depicted in a lot of fantasy (not just Tolkien but stuff like Poul Anderson as well.

By 2E I feel like most groups I played with ran elves as fairly arrogant and disdainful of other races. In the 2E description it doesn't quite say that:

View attachment 281595
It does mention they distance themselves from humans and that they dislike dwarves. Also in the 2E description at least the reaction half elves face ranges from fascination to bigotry. So I don't think the situation was meant to be that the majority of elves were bigoted against them, just that they might have applied that same distance and caution they had for humans

I like the 2E lore, but I think the main thing is it is more interesting to keep half elves as a racial option at the start of the game. Honestly one of the things I think weighs down many of the later editions when you compare them with stuff like b/x and AD&D is there is so much lore in sections of the book that really are about making a character. The lore can be more relegated to things like setting books and the game works fine. When I read 5E for example, one of the reasons that I lose interest (and I have nothing against it as an edition) is the lore in the character section. It just doesn't really appeal to me (and there is nothing particularly wrong with it, I just don't get excited by it). If it were presented more like the 1E classes and races, I could find whatever flavor I want in them (and it would be a faster read I think). So I do think there is something to be said for a more neutral approach. There is something to be said for the brevity in that edition (at least when it comes to stuff like character creation options). Don't get me wrong the entries aren't just one paragraph or something, but I think they take up like maybe a page column of text or a quarter of a column mostly and they almost exclusively focus on class abilities and limits.

Yeah I prefer the lighter approach, myself. I don’t need a chapter per species.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A lot of 'children's show' stuff is actually pretty darn mature.

Seriously I keep thinking about stuff like She-Ra, or Adventure Time, or Steven Universe, or Avatar (both series but the first was more aimed at kids than the second), and how they deal with mature and sometimes quite dark topics, and sure as hell aren’t starting from a default of “no conflict everything is good and happy”.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Given that they are targeting Minecraft players, "children's show" is spot on. They are clearly going after a much younger demographic.

Yes, hip, brand new game Minecraft that only the youngs understand.

 

[cranberry]

Yes, hip, brand new game Minecraft that only the youngs understand.

Obviously, people of all ages play MC. The majority however are children.