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

[CapnZapp]

So yeah, the balance has tipped towards greater awareness and sensitivity in the last decade or so, even as the rules have embraced an over-the-top chockablock heroic fantasy that is not to my taste. I am not saying those things are necessarily connected (they certainly don't have to be),

There definitely is a trend away from gritty campaign settings which feature "bad things" like inequality, racism, crude and unfair laws, feudalism, slavery and serfdom, etc.

However, those bad things can be important tools to transport the story into "another time". I can only speak for myself, but pseudo-medieval fantasy doesn't quite feel right when coupled with modern sensibilities.

The things remain bad to the characters that are exposed to it. The usefulness is as narrative tools, to set a tone, to signal we're not in Kansas anymore: don't expect people to act or even think in modern ways.

(I definitely don't mind people enjoying an alternate reality like Bridgerton where black people are well integrated into the nobility of England, but not ALL depictions of faux-historical societies should have historical wrongs removed)

I long for the time where the pendulum swings back. It is possible to separate the author's views from those of a campaign world and it's NPCs. An adventure where poverty or child labor or whatever dies not need to be controversial if only people stop assuming the writers actively promote everything they write about. The default assumption should not be the author personally condones injustice unless they make sure every protagonist fights against it. You shouldn't need a reason to feature it; it just being there in the background - uncommented upon - is not inherently wrong.

In literature or movies it works much better than in ttrpgs currently. There you have controversial works of art discussed and reviewed without necessarily being overshadowed by accusations against the creators. An actor should rightly be held accountable for his actions behind the camera, but not in front of it.

In the same way a ttrpg writer can be humanist liberal and pro-equal rights while still enjoying a dark and gritty fantasy campaign featuring all sorts of decadence and injustice. Without any suspicion he's secretly [insert misogynist/ racist/ supremacist/ fascist/ MAGA here]!

You definitely can discuss sensitivity and feature rpg campaign worlds without it at the same time. Just because fictional worlds are unclean does not mean the progress we've accomplished (Metoo and more) is undone.

It is exceedingly likely this will once again be the norm, and I can't wait.

I hate that I need to clearly state that I'm liberal pro-democracy pro-equality antiracist in every way, but too many people reflexively assume I must be a MAGA head if I enjoy or even tolerate injustice, even though I only do so in fictional rpgs.

If you dont want any of this, that's fine. Just as long as we can agree Bridgerton (say) has its place but not ALL ttrpg campaigns discussed here must champion every modern virtue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There definitely is a trend away from gritty campaign settings which feature "bad things" like inequality, racism, crude and unfair laws, feudalism, slavery and serfdom, etc.

However, those bad things can be important tools to transport the story into "another time". I can only speak for myself, but pseudo-medieval fantasy doesn't quite feel right when coupled with modern sensibilities.

The things remain bad to the characters that are exposed to it. The usefulness is as narrative tools, to set a tone, to signal we're not in Kansas anymore: don't expect people to act or even think in modern ways.

(I definitely don't mind people enjoying an alternate reality like Bridgerton where black people are well integrated into the nobility of England, but not ALL depictions of faux-historical societies should have historical wrongs removed)

I long for the time where the pendulum swings back. It is possible to separate the author's views from those of a campaign world and it's NPCs. An adventure where poverty or child labor or whatever dies not need to be controversial if only people stop assuming the writers actively promote everything they write about. The default assumption should not be the author personally condones injustice unless they make sure every protagonist fights against it. You shouldn't need a reason to feature it; it just being there in the background - uncommented upon - is not inherently wrong.

In literature or movies it works much better than in ttrpgs currently. There you have controversial works of art discussed and reviewed without necessarily being overshadowed by accusations against the creators. An actor should rightly be held accountable for his actions behind the camera, but not in front of it.

In the same way a ttrpg writer can be humanist liberal and pro-equal rights while still enjoying a dark and gritty fantasy campaign featuring all sorts of decadence and injustice. Without any suspicion he's secretly [insert misogynist/ racist/ supremacist/ fascist/ MAGA here]!

You definitely can discuss sensitivity and feature rpg campaign worlds without it at the same time. Just because fictional worlds are unclean does not mean the progress we've accomplished (Metoo and more) is undone.

It is exceedingly likely this will once again be the norm, and I can't wait.

I hate that I need to clearly state that I'm liberal pro-democracy pro-equality antiracist in every way, but too many people reflexively assume I must be a MAGA head if I enjoy or even tolerate injustice, even though I only do so in fictional rpgs.

If you dont want any of this, that's fine. Just as long as we can agree Bridgerton (say) has its place but not ALL ttrpg campaigns discussed here must champion every modern virtue.

Thank you. You covered my position on this better than I could.

 

[billd91]

In other words, people can be blind to certain things because their experience is not universal.

Anyway, to sum up- D&D is awesome. Everyone should be welcome to play. No one should feel uncomfortable.

These are two very important things to keep clear. NO ONE should be made to feel uncomfortable approaching D&D or the RPG hobby in general. That's the ultimate reason we're seeing corporations embrace changes in their approaches - keeping various bigotries, subtle and unsubtle, out of the materials they produce. They don't want to self-sabotage their efforts to appeal to as broad a market as they can.
And Snarf's first statement quoted above underscores why not everyone necessarily understands every perspective, every potential way a publication might make someone uncomfortable. So when someone says it does, maybe listen to them and listen to how they talk about it rather than brush it off. Maybe some of their concerns are based on misunderstandings, and maybe some of yours are. It also underscores why the game and its inclusiveness is always a work in progress and mistakes will be made by writers, artists, editors, reviewers, and consumers.

You, as in you various GMs out there, can run your own home game any way you want from historically accurate to full-on edge lord. But your home game isn't going to appeal to the whole market and may actively put people off because they are tired of putting up with some of those issues in their normal lives and want to play in a haven away from that. They should be no less served by the game's publications and management as a product and brand than you are.

 

[prabe]

It seems to me--and it has for a long time--that you can and probably should have various sorts of bad things in your setting, even if (especially if) you haven expectation at your table that the PCs will be heroes. Those bad things can be there so the PCs can change them (or defeat them); the reason you have slavers is so the heroic PCs can beat the snot out of them.

 

[payn]

It seems to me--and it has for a long time--that you can and probably should have various sorts of bad things in your setting, even if (especially if) you haven expectation at your table that the PCs will be heroes. Those bad things can be there so the PCs can change them (or defeat them); the reason you have slavers is so the heroic PCs can beat the snot out of them.

Can be a slippery slope in a game where anything goes. What happens when the PCs beat the snot out of them so they can become them?

 

[prabe]

Can be a slippery slope in a game where anything goes. What happens when the PCs beat the snot out of them so they can become them?

That seems like a different game than one with the expectation the PCs will be heroes, dunnit? I mean, that also is a legitimate approach, but I'd say in that instance the bad things are less there as things for the PCs to change, as a setting thing--becoming slavers changes the campaign, ending slavery changes the setting.

 

[payn]

That seems like a different game than one with the expectation the PCs will be heroes, dunnit? I mean, that also is a legitimate approach, but I'd say in that instance the bad things are less there as things for the PCs to change, as a setting thing--becoming slavers changes the campaign, ending slavery changes the setting.

That sounds like a campaign/adventure path which is fine, but not everyone follows them. I may just be once bitten twice shy about some of these topics. Folks may look for a revenge/hero fantasy, or they may look to explore the darker side of life. Worst case scenario is becomes a parody and/or perpetuation of stereotypes of topics I find sensitive. Its been quite sometime since I have included topics such as these and it hasnt made my games any less interesting. YMMV.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That seems like a different game than one with the expectation the PCs will be heroes, dunnit? I mean, that also is a legitimate approach, but I'd say in that instance the bad things are less there as things for the PCs to change, as a setting thing--becoming slavers changes the campaign, ending slavery changes the setting.

To me, all that stuff is a setting thing that the PCs can interact with as they see fit.

 

[prabe]

That sounds like a campaign/adventure path which is fine, but not everyone follows them. I may just be once bitten twice shy about some of these topics. Folks may look for a revenge/hero fantasy, or they may look to explore the darker side of life. Worst case scenario is becomes a parody and/or perpetuation of stereotypes of topics I find sensitive. Its been quite sometime since I have included topics such as these and it hasnt made my games any less interesting. YMMV.

Yeah, obviously different people will have different experiences and preferences. I've had things like this come up in my free-written homebrew campaign, and things worked out pretty well; this is not guaranteed or universal or universalizable, of course.

 

[prabe]

To me, all that stuff is a setting thing that the PCs can interact with as they see fit.

Sure. And if they choose to eliminate slavery, at least locally, that's possible, right? Like, if they put in the effort to effect that social change, they can do it?