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

[Staffan]

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)

This goes back to my old comparison of Luke Cage vs Black Panther. Luke Cage lives in a reasonably realistic (for comics, that is) version of Harlem: rampant crime, racist cops, poverty. The difference from the real world is that Luke Cage has the means to do something about that. I believe the TV series at one point referred to him as "a racist cop's worst nightmare: a bulletproof (bleep)." And there's definitely a kind of catharsis in playing in a world where things suck, but you can set things right.

But at the other end, we have Black Panther, who lives in Wakanda. Wakanda is a futuristic utopia, that was never colonized because they had the means to resist, and never had to bow down to European or other outside influence. Life is great if you're Wakandan, and the Black Panther is mostly about maintaining that power and possibly redirecting it in other directions than isolationism. And there's a different kind of joy in playing in a world where things don't suck, and your job is to keep things from sucking.

I'm a white cis dude who lives in one of the world's most affluent and happy countries. It's not a perfect life, but I'm pretty much playing life on easy mode. So having some hardships in the games I play is... exciting, might be the right word. In a Luke Cage campaign, I might experience vicarious hardship, but I will probably be able to fight back, or at least climb on top of the heap. But for someone in less fortunate circumstances, having the same or worse hardships in-game might not be their idea of a good time. And for a company like Wizards of the Coast who's always aiming at a broad audience, it probably makes more sense to be welcoming than to turn people off. And it's not like I have a problem with Black Panther-style worlds either where the threat is external.

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.

Fate of Cthulhu does some interesting stuff in this realm. There, exposure to the Mythos doesn't necessarily make you "mad", but it does make you strange, perhaps physically and perhaps mentally.

The only magic setting that gets vaguely close is Amonkhet, and it's still quite a bit different from Dark Sun and not nearly as crapsack of a world. I don't think there's value in abandoning the IP, just that it's a VERY difficult setting to do right. 4e's version of it sold well, but it still wasn't nearly thoughtful enough about the potential for propping up really problematic things.

I think Amonkhet is worse than Dark Sun, because it is artificially manipulated. As I recall, the Egyptian-style civilization there had a huge focus on being competitive, with the best of the best earning the right to "eternal life" as mummies. Only it turned out that it was all a lie perpetuated by one of Magic's big bads, Nicol Bolas, in order to get an army of exceptionally powerful zombies to use to invade other planes.

 

[Dausuul]

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?

The same thing that happens when the PCs invent slavery in a setting that doesn't have it.

You cannot create a setting which makes it impossible for the PCs to do awful stuff.

 

[payn]

The same thing that happens when the PCs invent slavery in a setting that doesn't have it.

You cannot create a setting which makes it impossible for the PCs to do awful stuff.

I mean, I suppose if you think anything goes is a requirment. I dont. I have a small list of things and slavery and sexual assault are on it. I have no idea why many a gamer find these topics irresistible to their gaming.

 

[CleverNickName]

I mean, I suppose if you think anything goes is a requirment. I dont. I have a small list of things and slavery and sexual assault are on it. I have no idea why many a gamer find these topics irresistible to their gaming.

I know right? I don't understand how these things are "must haves" for certain D&D tables. I've been doing just fine without them for more than 30 years. But the way some people talk about them, you'd think they were vital.

 

[payn]

I know right? I don't understand how these things are "must haves" for certain D&D tables. I've been doing just fine without them for more than 30 years. But the way some people talk about them, you'd think they were vital.

I get it, folks want to explore all aspects of life in an RPG environment. Authors write about these things all the time. We as humans explore all of humanity, the good and the bad. What I have found, however, is often these topics are not given the proper diligence at the table. GMs and players that have low brow takes at best tend to just ruin the experience. There is so many possibilities to explore leaving a few mature topics off the list goes unnoticed for me. YMMV.

 

[Weiley31]

I think a major (not THE mind you so YMMV) factor is the fact/idea that the players want/get to basically go Mortal Kombat on a slaver/sex offender creep and slam their faces down into the curb. Rescuing people and breaking their chains ala Clive Rosefield from Final Fantasy 16 or whichever popular trope fiction story shows something like that. Changing the system and all.

That's the only things I can think of as the major draws.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't worry about inclusiveness. I'm not the best GM out there, but I'm pretty good. My game is exclusive. If someone doesn't like the way I do things, that's cool. Maybe next time. Or maybe not, I can play with someone else. It's no skin of my back if someone disagrees with me on how to game or what to include or whatever else.

What I don't get is the toxic hall monitor attitude that Karens and busybodies have where they think that everyone who's playing it "wrong" need to be corrected or called out or shamed for their own good, or whatever. Seriously, if it's not your game, it's none of your business, and the real problem is you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, I suppose if you think anything goes is a requirment. I dont. I have a small list of things and slavery and sexual assault are on it. I have no idea why many a gamer find these topics irresistible to their gaming.

For slavery, I honestly think it is more a marriage of convenient tropes than anything else. Consider:

1) The heroes need to rescue people.
2) Therefore, people need to be in danger from outside forces
3) It is dramatic to be too late, and show up in the aftermath of an attack.
3a) But you still want to rescue people, therefore the enemy took people.
Query: Why would the outside forces who destroyed the town and killed some people, take others who can then be rescued?

And the obvious answer is forced labor, aka Slavery. So, bad guys go and enslave people, so that it makes sense for them to have captured people instead of just killing everyone and just taking their stuff. The problem is... it then becomes the default for ALL bad guys. We want people to go to goblin caves/orc ruins/hobgoblin forts/Gnoll Encamptments/Drow Cities/Ilithid Hives/Giant Castles/ect ect ect... well, they took X to enslave them and so you are going to go rescue X!

It is easy and convenient... but then gets so oversaturated so that EVERYONE is doing it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I get it, folks want to explore all aspects of life in an RPG environment. Authors write about these things all the time. We as humans explore all of humanity, the good and the bad. What I have found, however, is often these topics are not given the proper diligence at the table. GMs and players that have low brow takes at best tend to just ruin the experience. There is so many possibilities to explore leaving a few mature topics off the list goes unnoticed for me. YMMV.

I can understand the curiosity, the preferences, the storytelling potential. I'm referring to the folks who go beyond that, into the Must Have territory. Like they cannot play D&D (or at least enjoy D&D) without them at all. That's the part that baffles me. I've always figured they were exaggerating, but some of the posts I've read make me wonder.

 

[Weiley31]

I don't worry about inclusiveness

Fair warning, that's a forbidden statement on here.