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

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.
If I were a betting man, if I were to be a fly in the wall watching a bunch of 14 year olds play D&D I bet I'd see them making some of the same juvenile sex offender jokes/situations I did way back in 1990.

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.
You say it's hard, but it's not. At least I don't see where the difficulty lies.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Sure, but that's where an individual group can do things that a mass publisher can't. D&D-branded official content should avoid putting tables in a situation where they have to discuss editing or removing or working around the Bad Stuff in order to have fun (if only because people who don't want to play with the Bad Stuff will just not pick up the product with the Bad Stuff in it).
 



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").
Yeah, reactionary politics are rough to deal with. The good news is, they are a sign of progress. It’s a long observed pattern that whenever big strides are made towards social equity, there is pushback in reaction to that progress. Sometimes those reactions can be quite extreme, and it can be rough to live through a period where reactionary politics are on the rise. But in the long term, that pushback eventually subsides, and net progress is made. The road is long, but it bends towards justice.
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.
Yeah, this is the part I personally struggle the most with, because I really love a good, classic dungeon delve with iconic monsters as enemies, but that premise has deeply colonial underpinnings. I don’t think there are any easy answers when it comes to decolonizing D&D, but I think it’s a worthwhile goal to pursue.
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.
I think this one is a matter of deconstructing “madness” and reconstructing something else to fill its thematic space. Part of how Lovecraft played on the fear of mental illness in his work was to imply that what we consider sanity is really just blissful ignorance, and what we mistake for madness is just deeper insight into truths too horrible to accept. I would recommend those who want to play with themes of cosmic horror lean into that. Glimpsing the horror of the far realm doesn’t “drive you insane,” it’s just deeply traumatic. For a good example of this done well, I look to Bloodborne, where instead of a depleting sanity score, you have an increasing Insight score. With higher Insight, you start to see things that were there all along, but your mind couldn’t accept; and once you see them, and they see you seeing them, they pose a greater threat to you.
It's hard to have a Barbarian class and not live dangerously close to racist beliefs about nomadic peoples.
It’s a shame we’re stuck with the name Barbarian, because I don’t think the class is all that bad at a base mechanical level. A warrior who uses an altered state of consciousness to enhance their fighting abilities is cool, and has plenty of mythical and historical precedent across many cultures. But the name Barbarian and the altered state being called Rage are anchors around the class’s neck.
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.
We are seeing a move towards more specially diverse humanoid settlements being depicted in WotC’s settings, which I think is a move in the right direction. Intelligence as a stat is another case where the need to stick with old naming conventions holds us back. It’s functionally just the “pass more knowledge checks” stat, and for wizards rhe “cast spells better” stat, which fits with their story of gaining magic through studious dedication.
 

Sure, but that's where an individual group can do things that a mass publisher can't. D&D-branded official content should avoid putting tables in a situation where they have to discuss editing or removing or working around the Bad Stuff in order to have fun (if only because people who don't want to play with the Bad Stuff will just not pick up the product with the Bad Stuff in it).
And I thought I was clear I was talking about what people can do at tables, not what publishers should do in/with books. I mean, it might be worth addressing how to handle it in DM-facing material, but I don't know that it needs to be in a published setting--especially not one aimed at the largest-possible market.
 

And I thought I was clear I was talking about what people can do at tables, not what publishers should do in/with books. I mean, it might be worth addressing how to handle it in DM-facing material, but I don't know that it needs to be in a published setting--especially not one aimed at the largest-possible market.
I don't see any problem with that stuff being in a published setting, but I agree it would be counter-indicated in regards to WotC's " biggest and least objectionable tent" business goals, so I'm not surprised at all at the medieval theme parking and pushing of modern sensibilities.
 

I don't see any problem with that stuff being in a published setting, but I agree it would be counter-indicated in regards to WotC's " biggest and least objectionable tent" business goals, so I'm not surprised at all at the medieval theme parking and pushing of modern sensibilities.
A way to think about it--a way that might lead to less-dismissive descriptions--could be to consider that if a game has the expectation that the PCs will be heroic, maybe eventually saving the world (which hasn't really been on-offer in my games, even the ones going to 20th level) then the world should probably be one worth saving. This seems especially apt once there are other world-like places for the PCs to go: Why are they worried so much about this place?
 

A way to think about it--a way that might lead to less-dismissive descriptions--could be to consider that if a game has the expectation that the PCs will be heroic, maybe eventually saving the world (which hasn't really been on-offer in my games, even the ones going to 20th level) then the world should probably be one worth saving. This seems especially apt once there are other world-like places for the PCs to go: Why are they worried so much about this place?
Fair enough. I will note, however, that modern games and stories have save the world arcs too, and the modern world is in many ways not much better than the type of fantasy worlds we're discussing. So, "make sure the world is worth saving" is far from a dealbreaker.
 

Fair enough. I will note, however, that modern games and stories have save the world arcs too, and the modern world is in many ways not much better than the type of fantasy worlds we're discussing. So, "make sure the world is worth saving" is far from a dealbreaker.
it does tend to be the only world they have at the time so it dying is a bit of a problem what with it being the only place to keep your stuff and such
 

Remove ads

Top