D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[el-remmen]

Anyway, I won't be arguing the content of the quote anymore.

Regardless of what you or anyone else personally think of it, it nevertheless is a telling difference in assumptions about what goes on in the game - which is my ultimate point.

 

[GMMichael]

Every time I start to feel down about the direction of D&D rules and default setting assumptions and the amount of houseruling/homebrewing work I have to do to make it representative of what I want to play/run, I remind myself that this is still preferable to the assumptions in the game as it was once played . . .

I just started playing a new game. Whatever works, I guess.

Interestingly, however, the same issue also includes letters in the Forum section that challenge biases and insensitivities baked into the game at the time. One warns against using real-world religions as the basis of D&D gods, explaining that it is disrespectful to present versions of the divine for living religions like the Hindu gods or Native American spirits for a game.

Yet, in 2024, we're still fighting the evil Oni and Naga/Mariliths, which use real-world religious ideas. But they did get rid of phylacteries, so there's some progress.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1. The people objecting are the ones who need to be "forgiven"? C'mon. That's a pretty weak admonishment.
2. In-game consequences for toxic out of game attitudes leaking into it, is not the way to handle that.

How should it be handled then? A sidebar about what you should and shouldn't do morally in an RPG? Is something like that necessary?

 

[M.L. Martin]

Yet, in 2024, we're still fighting the evil Oni and Naga/Mariliths, which use real-world religious ideas. But they did get rid of phylacteries, so there's some progress.

Cough*Asmodeus*Cough

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who said anything about the game itself? No, the game doesn't need to spell out not to do this. But this is an article in Dragon discussing how the game is played and addressing it.

Reasonably in my opinion. It addresses something a player might choose to do and how it would likely have negative in-setting consequences. Is your objection the article's use of the passive voice? I suppose the language could be punched up if you prefer.

 

[payn]

 

[el-remmen]

[forget it]

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just started playing a new game. Whatever works, I guess.


Yet, in 2024, we're still fighting the evil Oni and Naga/Mariliths, which use real-world religious ideas. But they did get rid of phylacteries, so there's some progress.

There's no logical way to get rid of everything someone might object to, which I suspect is why WotC's focus is on what they get the most complaints about, and therefore what things are most likely to result in a decrease in profits.

 

[Reynard]

1. The people objecting are the ones who need to be "forgiven"? C'mon. That's a pretty weak admonishment.
2. In-game consequences for toxic out of game attitudes leaking into it, is not the way to handle that.

Sure, but we are talking about the year 1986 here. Lots of entertainment in 1986 looked just like this. It wasn't great then and certainly not now, but we shouldn't pretend to be shocked that people 40 years ago did not hold the values we have today.

 

[el-remmen]

I'm starting to understand why @Snarf Zagyg frequently posts his threads and then walks away and doesn't engage anymore.