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

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Of course, if they put in the effort and win out. It's all up to them.

 

[prabe]

Of course, if they put in the effort and win out. It's all up to them.

Cool. I think something bad in the setting--like slavery--becomes more likely to be a problem for the players at the table, the harder the GM actively works to keep the players from fixing/changing it (or, plausibly, if the GM expects/intends for the PCs to embrace it).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Cool. I think something bad in the setting--like slavery--becomes more likely to be a problem for the players at the table, the harder the GM actively works to keep the players from fixing/changing it (or, plausibly, if the GM expects/intends for the PCs to embrace it).

That's why in my games, stuff like that is part of the world the PCs exist in, and in many cases is accepted as status quo by NPCs, but I put no expectations on what PCs do in response to it. If they want to fight injustice, they absolutely can, and success is determined by their tactics and logical in-setting resistance as per the situation. Everything is filtered through the setting, which as closely as possible exists as a separate entity where things happen independently of the PCs unless they take action. I hate the idea of setting as backdrop for PC shenanigans. The world is my character as the GM.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

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, as evidenced by the opening sentence of this portion of a Dragon article from 1986 (#112). As most things in life, some things get better, other things get worse, and everything is different, even if some things seem to never change.

View attachment 369503

Not exactly a strong stance about the inappropriateness of playing out your peeping tom fantasies at the table.

I would posit that it is a strong stance, once which is using an ironic/amused voice to suggest what is considered plainly obvious. But it feels weak compared to the much more baseline level of aggressive language we now use on the internet. I had that exact issue at that exact time it was new, and it was perfectly clear even then that the passage was written with a wry sense of amusement that A: we all knew someone at the game table who thought it was funny to pull a shenanigan like that; and B: we all also knew it wasn't cool.

 

[prabe]

That's why in my games, stuff like that is part of the world the PCs exist in, and in many cases is accepted as status quo by NPCs, but I put no expectations on what PCs do in response to it. If they want to fight injustice, they absolutely can, and success is determined by their tactics and logical in-setting resistance as per the situation. Everything is filtered through the setting, which as closely as possible exists as a separate entity where things happen independently of the PCs unless they take action. I hate the idea of setting as backdrop for PC shenanigans. The world is my character as the GM.

Yup. There are many things that exist in the setting, for the PCs to interact with as they will. There is exactly one thing in my setting I'm not inclined to allow them to change, and I've made that clear to them. The world is there to serve the needs of the game, which might vary moment-by-moment. While as GM I bring the world to the table, same as the players bring their characters, the in-game functions of them are different enough that i am reluctant to describe the setting as my character.

 

[Mannahnin]

I would posit that it is a strong stance, once which is using an ironic/amused voice to suggest what is considered plainly obvious. But it feels weak compared to the much more baseline level of aggressive language we now use on the internet. I had that exact issue at that exact time it was new, and it was perfectly clear even then that the passage was written with a wry sense of amusement that A: we all knew someone at the game table who thought it was funny to pull a shenanigan like that; and B: we all also knew it wasn't cool.

Eh. I think the gap between back then and today is that today, whether we use aggressive language or not, people are less shy about simply drawing table rules and restrictions and expecting their follow players not to act out juvenile sex offender fantasies.

Certainly part of the assumptions behind the article are a greater level of societal tolerance for that sort of behavior (particularly in fiction, like the aforementioned Revenge of the Nerds or Porky's), and part of it is the then-more prevalent paradigm of running a game as a neutral world simulation, and enforcing consequences for misbehavior diegetically rather than through straightforward out of game conversation. This follows from stuff like Gary's advice to strike misbehaving players with bolts from the blue.

I do think it is a better and more useful approach to handle these sorts of things with adult, out of game conversations about expectations and boundaries, rather than refusing to discuss them and only imposing sanctions in-game, which can come off as either passive aggressive or tacitly approving of these kind of shenanigans.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don’t think @el-remmen was saying they were shocked, just that they’re glad the culture has shifted since then.

What's so deeply frustrating to me is that this culture shift is so piecemeal and incomplete.

Like, I don't want to get into specific politics, but if you tune into practically ANY country's election coverage these days, you're likely to see proud bigots and predators who try to and often succeed in laying claim to large swaths of the cultural sphere, even as more milquetoast centrists decry anything that smacks of asking them to change (be it issues of race or gender or even just "kids these days and their protests" or being "cancelled" or not having "free speech").

D&D is doing OK, but it is still grappling with honoring its legacy without carrying over the rough stuff. It's hard to be anticolonial when an iconic D&D experience is killing creatures with green skin who have an "evil culture" in their homes and taking their stuff. It's hard to be sympathetic to the mentally ill when you've got Pandemonium and eldritch horrors from beyond the stars that cause madness. It's hard to have a Barbarian class and not live dangerously close to racist beliefs about nomadic peoples. It's hard have Intelligence as a numerical stat, or to have an exclusively human kingdom in a world where ethnostates are actively being pursued. Not impossible, but something to treat with care and concern.

So, this...

The past is another country. They do things differently there.

...I wish it were true. The Faulkner quote seems more relevant to me. "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

I can only speak for myself, but pseudo-medieval fantasy doesn't quite feel right when coupled with modern sensibilities.

One interesting interaction I had in my current game was when I introduced a helpful NPC who essentially believed in the divine right of kings and the very medieval idea that nobles were just "born different." Everyone had their role to play in society, and you are born into your role, and you have certain rights and responsibilities because of your role.

The setting is very fairy tale in nature, and is currently ruled by an evil queen figure that is kind of the main antagonist at the moment, so this NPC was helpful in that he also believed that the wrong person was on the throne, and that this usurper needed to be dethroned.

The ick factor from my players was immediate and strong. This character was immediately slotted into the same space that more overtly hostile NPC's occupied: not someone to trust. They made friends with the overtly self-interested thief and the amoral dark magician figure. But the guy who wanted to restore the king to their "rightful place" on the throne? Don't trust that guy's ideas.

I enjoyed their reaction quite a bit, though I didn't expect it.

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.

I think that the first barrier to this comes when you define what is a "bad thing."

Because if you say a "bad thing" is, say, fantasy racism, you might wind up at a table with someone who unironically believes that, say, certain "types of people" should "go back to where they came from" and suddenly you're not playing a fun fantasy romp, you're having a difficult conversation.

People don't always agree on what the "bad things" are.

The second barrier to this comes when the "bad thing" is a bit too real. Killing children is a classic evil monster kind of thing, but probably not OK in a game where someone's child was killed. Sure, we can all agree that killing children is a bad thing, but we can also probably see that this isn't a good idea for fantasy fun times with someone whose child actually died. There's a lot of bad things that might not be in a game, because a game of D&D isn't necessarily a fun place to explore those bad ideas.

Certain "bad things" can ruin someone's fun.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I have to say, I can't think of a single time I've heard anyone argue that I should feel bad because I liked material we might find "problematic" today. I think a lot of people are still trying to figure out the best way to reconcile their love of older material which contains aspects that go against their current values. The most difficult part of this is that it's a process rather than something you ever complete. You will constantly assess and reassess your opinion of works from the past.

As a fan of H.P. Lovecraft's work, I'm lucky in that I never have to contend with problematic content.

I'd argue that it's not so much about "making people feel bad". It's about trying to move forward while getting people to actually acknowledge that a problem exists at all.

Lovecraft is a perfect example. I've argued repeatedly that Lovecraft's name should not be on the list of "recommended reading" in the 5e Player's Handbook. I do truly believe that. The recommended reading list is not a bibliography. It is not serving any academic purpose. It's a list of works that are being suggested to inspire people's games. And, while I'm also a Lovecraft fan, I do recognize that his works are filled with some incredibly brutal bigotry. Stuff that .... well... probably shouldn't inspire anyone's game.

Is Lovecraft a major figure in the genre? Of course. Any serious student of the genre absolutely should read Lovecraft. Totally agree with that.

Should the Player's Handbook and WotC endorse Lovecraft as something you should read to inspire your games? I don't think so. I think there are other works that are just as inspiring that don't make me want to wash my eyes out with bleach after reading. And, yes, different times, different whatever. Sure. But, in the Player's Handbook? Maybe it would be better to leave that one out.

Does that make me a bad person for reading Lovecraft and enjoying it? For listening to Lovecraft Week on things like Drabblecast? Dunno. Don't care. I do know that I don't really want someone's first dip into the genre to start with Lovecraft.

Likewise, I have similar feelings about the works of Robert E. Howard. There's all sorts of problematic stuff in his writing, but it doesn't change his massive influence on fantasy literature and D&D. In Appendix E, Howard sits right by N.K. Jemisin, a sure study in contrasts. Frequently the past and the present are a struggle, both within ourselves and with each other. And that's okay.

 

[prabe]

I think that the first barrier to this comes when you define what is a "bad thing."

Because if you say a "bad thing" is, say, fantasy racism, you might wind up at a table with someone who unironically believes that, say, certain "types of people" should "go back to where they came from" and suddenly you're not playing a fun fantasy romp, you're having a difficult conversation.

People don't always agree on what the "bad things" are.

The second barrier to this comes when the "bad thing" is a bit too real. Killing children is a classic evil monster kind of thing, but probably not OK in a game where someone's child was killed. Sure, we can all agree that killing children is a bad thing, but we can also probably see that this isn't a good idea for fantasy fun times with someone whose child actually died. There's a lot of bad things that might not be in a game, because a game of D&D isn't necessarily a fun place to explore those bad ideas.

Certain "bad things" can ruin someone's fun.

This is why knowing the people at the table and/or using good safety tools might be useful. That way, if the point of the game is for the PCs to be heroes and address bad things in the setting, you can choose bad things the players will enjoy having in the game. If there's something you've put in your setting that'll ruin someone's fun, you can always take it out, at least for the game that someone is in.

 

[Clint_L]

(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 agree with the overall gist of your post. However, I don't agree with this statement, not because of the way that you are using it, but because of the way others have used similar sentiments (historical realism) to justify making game choices that many would find objectionable.

Because ALL depictions of faux-historical societies that I have ever seen in a TTRPG have almost all of the historical differences, including wrongs, removed. OD&D settings were not more similar to actual Medieval English culture than 5e settings. It's like discussing whether Universal Studios or Disneyland is more realistic. D&D, in order to be playable, has always just had the merest bit of medieval lipstick applied.

So really, this is about choosing which lipstick you and your players prefer. A shade of lipstick that is a bit more racist? Misogynistic? Hierarchal? Inequitable? It's a fantasy game, and if that makes it feel more realistic and immersive to you, I ain't gonna judge, unless I'm playing.

My own home campaign had a story develop in which the low level characters helped a group of sex workers fight back against a pimp. We're all consenting adults, everyone was comfortable with the themes, I certainly didn't get into too much realism, and it was by all accounts a very satisfying story arc, with a few long term ramifications (my spouse's character afterwards kept sending money back to the emancipated sex workers, to help them establish their own collective).

On the other hand, at school I don't go near a plot like that with a ten foot pole, and would redirect any choices the players made that headed in such a direction. We all agree up front that L wants to keep his job so it is a PG campaign, and that is that. If a student starts crossing the line, which happens not infrequently, I remind them of the agreement and they make a different choice.

On that last point, and circling back to the premise of this thread, one thing that I think has changed, and decidedly for the better, is that D&D doesn't rely on assumptions as much as it used to. New groups are much more likely to discuss ground rules up front, or raise objections when they find the play erring in a, well, objectionable direction.

I think this is a sign of cultural change within D&D related to the much increased diversity of its player base. Speaking for myself, it was easy to assume that everyone was on the same page when we were all a bunch of 13 year old white boys from Nanaimo. I mean, we were still wrong, but not as wrong as we would have been if some of us were [gasp] girls. But these days, a new group at my club is mixed between genders, ethnicities, religious points of view, and so on, and so being up front about assumptions, and changing them from assumptions to understandings, is imperative.