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

[Incenjucar]

It was more (as an example) if you have an Italian and a Brit and whether they tease each other playfully with racist tropes about each others cultures as would be common amongst friends. Apologies, I didn't make myself clear.

No Brits and Italians were harmed by the posting of this post.

Yeah this isn't universal at all. As someone with French ancestry living in America I can affirm that it is deeply unpleasant dealing with even European ancestry "jokes".

 

[Faolyn]

Creative complexity requires more page count. Something somewhere has to give. I wonder where it will be?

Page count isn't that big a deal. The Level Up AG is a physical book that has over 600 pages. D&D is almost certainly not going to include anything like the cultures and destinies, martial maneuvers, crafting rules, or strongholds and followers that the AG has. Which means that the next PHB could easily spend multiple pages for even 20-30 species and still not be anywhere near the same size the AG is.

And WotC is moving more towards an online presence with D&D Beyond; there's really no limit to the length that a website can be, which means they could go for incredibly complexity with no problems at all.

But they don't even need that much space. Take a look at the MM's treatment of orcs. It's a little over one column of text, nearly all of which is negative. One column of text that's mostly neutral with bits of both negative and positive, is more than enough to give plenty of creative complexity and inspiration for players.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In my games, Orcs are basically human-sized chimpanzees with stone age technology. Roughly as intelligent as the average human peasant, but just wired different. They're naturally aggressive and violent, and their social structure is based on strength and intimidation.

Chimpanzees are TERRIFYING. Cool analogy.

 

[Faolyn]

But that backstory is cool to have it realized within a long campaign if you make it a focus, perhaps seeping through ever so slightly at first and then bubbling out at the end. There are so many avenues to take with such a story.

The apology of Corellon, the reforging of the orcs, cursing the elven bloodline to ugliness, the abandonment of the Corellon by the elves, judgement of Corellon by his peers, a new homeworld for the orcs, destruction of the elven homeworld, finding the true individual responsible behind their uĝliness, loss of elven "immortality"...etc

I see possibilities for great stories that would otherwise not likely spring into mind if both races were "pretty"

I don't think Chaosmancer means to make orcs pretty--and I certainly don't. What we're talking about is not saying that ugliness = evil = it's OK to kill them or deny them a homeland.

 

[Guest 85555]

... Yes, it is presented as good by the author, because it is the Fremen Mirage. But unless there is someone else in the story who is presenting it, many of those that call Conan a Barbarian are using a title given to him by his enemies, and by those who are part of the corrupted society.

I suppose, but Howard is using it in a positive way even if the arrogant people in the setting use it to sneer at him. And certainly when players talk about their Barbarian PC they mean it in a positive way.

Country life versus City life is literally the Fremen Mirage. You are saying that there are only elements, but then your counterpoint is just parts of the Mirage. And again, yes, the Author who is putting forth this idea of the good and value in rugged hard living that doesn't make you soft, but makes you strong, is going to present the idea as good. But it only really works if the city life, the life of being comfortable and sedentary is presented as bad and weak. But it also means that the city-folk are using the term derisively, and they are proved wrong by the author.

Again I guess. Personally I am not a huge fan of the Fremen Mirage terminology because this is an idea that goes way back. But I also think this idea that city life and country life are different, is not bound up in that cyclical understanding of civilizations. And there is often tension between people in the country and people in the cities. Using that as fodder for characterization is fine I think. I don't see the issue here that you do with it.

And this is where the Barbarian probably does well in DnD, because the Fremen Mirage doesn't exist in DnD. The nobility is seen as corrupt and decadent, but we also have many medieval ideas of the "true noble" who is a strong leader and a wise man, or the power of scholarship presented in wizards. There are other forms of power available in DnD, so it doesn't become a major issue. But it is still really easy to see where the problematic parts are.

But this just shows that it isn't even a problem. This is part of my main point here is we are using these lenses where something could be an issue in theory, but then most people are just playing barbarians because they are a fun trope and most people play scholarly wizards or noble warriors because they are fun and it is a fantasy world deeply removed from out own. I think the problem here is problematizing everything even when it isn't really a genuine problem.

You keep acting like this counters my point, and I don't know why. I've never claimed that the term barbarian represents a specific group. I also don't see how your anecdote disproves my point, if anything it strengthens it.

If the term doesn't represent a specific group, why is it an it an issue?

She calls you that because the connotations of the word are "crude" and often Barbarians are associated nearly exclusively with tribal people. It isn't spelled out exactly, but it also isn't something that is actively worked against in the text of the class or the presentations.

I think this completely misses the point. It is a playful exchange where she calls me a barbarian because 1) she is invoking imagery like conan which is funny, and 2) there is an image of westerners as crude in Thailand, not because we were tribal. Her use of this term has nothing to do with invoking anything derogatory about tribal people. And even if it did, it would be so removed from that, getting upset over it is pointless (like getting mad because someone said "Hey were you raised in a Barn" when you don't close the door).

It isn't big enough to make a stink over, but it is something to keep an eye on, something to consider changing, just because it isn't wonderful the way it is. I'd also like to see more tribal people presented as full wizards, and not just lesser "shamans" as they tend to do.

This isn't a cancer that needs to be monitored though. These are just tropes in a fantasy game

Because we can find a better, more evocative word. Yes, this issue isn't exclusive, but not being exclusive is no reason not to keep an open mind about potentially changing the word. I love the class, I love the imagery, I just think it is possible to improve it. And yet, the idea of the name of the class changing is supposed to have scared me into backing off an earlier point, like the name changing would somehow be this massive negative thing we should avoid. But that didn't apply to Priest did it? Or Thief? Or Fighting-Man? Or Magic-User? We've changed the names of classes before, why can't we do so again?

I suppose you can always come up with a more evocative word. And feel free to try. But Barbarian seems pretty perfect to me.

We changed the names of those classes you site because the old names were very stiff. Fighting Man, I think feels off for most people. But importantly we all know what thief refers to in D&D even if they change the name. We all know what a fighter is. With Barbarian, especially because it has been taken out in the past, I think if you renamed it, you would potentially confuse people. I agree the name isn't super important. You might find another term that works. I still don't quite get the argument for changing it though. At the very least it's established and familiar. It would be like changing the name of the fighter suddenly today.

But they also spark biases. They can get us comfortable not questioning things that should be questioned.

I don't think this is that true. I do think people can form biases. I am a lot more worried about biases formed in history class in elementary school than I am about media imagery. And I think the best cure for any misperceptions created by media imagery, again isn't to alter media (which I would say is in the realm of art and free expression) but to make people better at engaging art. Where I am really worried isn't so much games and movies, but actual propaganda, which can appear in both for sure but is more likely to be spread by a meme. Again I don't think changing the meme really alters anything. You need people to be better equipped to decipher propaganda when they encounter it (which is where I do think these kinds of critical approaches can be useful, I just think when we take them to the point of altering every little detail because we have so overprioritized media purity, it becomes a problem in itself).

And how is this potential interest quashed if we have a different name? A more nuanced and complete vision? If Cleric had a valid class identity associated with Shamans, would that not get people more interested in shamans? You can accurately depict holy people of other cultures AND spark interest in them.

The name itself is unlikely to change things that much. But I mean these simple, exciting, and fun depictions are what grab our attention. The real history, the real information is much more involved, more dry, less likely to captivate you unless you already have an interest. For example, it took a movie like Excalibur to really spark my interest in the middle ages (D&D was as I said before the catalyst) but with Excalibur I developed a more concrete vocabulary of what it was I was interested in learning about. It's filled with anachronisms. You aren't going to really understand medieval knights if you go by Excalibur. But I wouldn't change it. It is absolutely a gorgeous movie and is the thing that sparked so much of my interest in that topic. But it took reading books like Strong of Body, Brave and Noble and all the textbooks we read in our Medieval History Course to get a better grasp of that (and not saying I know all that much about it, I took some courses and read some books).

Sure you an also do more authentic depictions of cultures in games but that can be tricky. Because it can be a challenge to make real history as exciting or easy to immediately grok as fantasy. There are plenty of games that do that. I don't think D&D is the best vessel for that kind of approach (it is just too much centered around a very gameable world filled with gameable conceits).

Honestly I think you want and need both. There should be more authentic games and there should also be games that are more just about a thin veneer of culture over fantasy tropes to have fun and roll some dice. And both can lead to a deeper interest in these topics (but a deeper interest in these topics shouldn't be the aim of an RPG anymore than the aim of a movie isn't to tell history----a movie can't because it is limited to one narrative usually)

And again, the point I responded to that led to this tangent was basically a gotcha. A "but wouldn't this mean we should challenge the name of this class? HAHA gotcha, now you have to agree with me because no one wants that extreme change!" But... I don't see it as an extreme change. I have seen good arguments for the change, just like I've seen good arguments to go back to Priest for the cleric, and good arguments to change fighter to warrior.

I just don't see it as a big deal.

I wasn't doing it as a gotcha. I don't think you have to agree with me just because I made a point. I am sure I have made plenty of points I find persuasive that you think are total garbage (I would hope some would land, but it is very difficult to change peoples minds and a lot of this is highly subjective ethical interpretations of media). So if I gave that impression, i do apologize. I don't think I am owed agreement by anyone just because I make a point in a post. Sometimes I try to be witty or humorous. Not sure if I was doing that here. But it has been misunderstood in the past when I have done that. So hopefully it's clear I don't think I have hit some kind of win button in this conversation. I consider your point of view a perfectly valid one and I am not here to say you are bad for not agreeing with me

Do you honestly think history is so boring, that an accurate depiction of it wouldn't be entertaining? Haven't there been dozens of great films exploring real historical events? It could be presented in a boring fashion, but I've been entertained watching a guy discuss domes in Venice without him having to make up false facts or present them as the work of aliens.

I find history interesting, but it is also not as easy as reading a fantasy novel. So I think it is worth pointing out that really studying history takes time and patience and isn't he same thing as watching an episode of star trek.

But to answer the question, no history isn't boring and you are right many great films have been made about history. And many great games can be too. I just don't think every game and every movie MUST be rooted in an authentic history, and I think the needs of these mediums often demand that, to achieve a particular aim or vision, you deviate from history.

Sure, and if I am watching a documentary about domes in Venice (one of the few places I have been outside Boston and California), then I too don't expect aliens to show up. That said I also have no objection to ancient aliens even though I consider that to be extremely terrible history. Nor do I have an objection to someone making a movie about Venice that features more exciting elements like aliens (and maybe that even sparks some further interest in it). One of the things I love about history is learning how different it was from how I maybe saw it depicted in a movie or a book. For example when when I was young my favorite show was I, Claudius. I watched I, Claudius, I loved it, and a lot of it is faithful to history but it also deviates tremendously as well. Part of the fun of reading about Augustus after I watched it was learning where I Claudius wasn't accurate.

Sure, you don't HAVE to change the name of the Barbarian, it isn't a requirement, but... why would it be bad? You keep presenting this as some sort of terrible deed, as the destruction of the entire class, but the argument is mostly that the name isn't accurate and could be better. We can still entertain, without having to perpetuate the biases and tropes of the past. It isn't an insurmountable task.

No, I have much bigger things in my life to worry about than the change to a class name. So of course it wouldn't be bad. I still don't see why it is needed because or why it needs to be particularly accurate to anything. It captures the concept better than most terms I think. And I don't believe the argument that it perpetuates biases.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Page count isn't that big a deal. The Level Up AG is a physical book that has over 600 pages. D&D is almost certainly not going to include anything like the cultures and destinies, martial maneuvers, crafting rules, or strongholds and followers that the AG has. Which means that the next PHB could easily spend multiple pages for even 20-30 species and still not be anywhere near the same size the AG is.

And WotC is moving more towards an online presence with D&D Beyond; there's really no limit to the length that a website can be, which means they could go for incredibly complexity with no problems at all.

But they don't even need that much space. Take a look at the MM's treatment of orcs. It's a little over one column of text, nearly all of which is negative. One column of text that's mostly neutral with bits of both negative and positive, is more than enough to give plenty of creative complexity and inspiration for players.

I thought they said they were keeping up on the physical books. You can't put most of your content online without breaking the spirit of that claim.

 

[Faolyn]

Agree.
But one cannot deny the racial tension between the various species on the space station on DS9 created far more interesting stories and a more immersive experience.

See, I would say that the personal tensions were much better than any racial tensions. Especially since DS9 showed so many people of any particular species who didn't fit into that species' hat. It made the racial tensions look like stupid bigotry. But the personal conflicts were far more engaging.

 

[Faolyn]

I thought they said they were keeping up on the physical books. You can't put most of your content online without breaking the spirit of that claim.

Whether they are or aren't, doesn't matter. They can still make a perfectly complex species in a column of text.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whether they are or aren't, doesn't matter. They can still make a perfectly complex species in a column of text.

It can be done, sure. But can  they do it?

 

[Faolyn]

It can be done, sure. But can  they do it?

Can they? Sure. Will they? Who knows.

But it hardly matters for you, since you keep saying that you rely on Level Up and other 3pp.