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

[Lanefan]

What series is that? I think the person you're responding to has me blocked.

Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire

 

[Micah Sweet]

Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire

Yeah, good stuff. Really hope he finishes it someday.

 

[MGibster]

There’s a big difference between an author writing about slavery in their novel, folks choosing to have it in their own settings at home, and WotC using it in a setting.

In what way is it different?

Slavery is a fraught topic for obvious reasons, and you can choose to read or not read that author. As long as your home game is copacetic on how it is used, then it’s nobody else’s business (though that said I would personally want to confirm rather than assume we were all on the same page).

It's just as easy to choose or not choose to play D&D. I realize slavery is so distasteful to some people that they don't want to even see fictionalized accounts in a game, but I don't see why WotC should cater to that particular point of view.

WotC is publishing a game for a wide demographic. The last thing they need is insensitive portrayals of slavery, sexual violence, etc. associated with their brand.

They're publishing a game that revolves around violence as your basic conflict resolution device. At its basic core, D&D is still about kicking down doors, killing monsters, and getting loot. I think D&D will be perfectly fine if slavery is limited to the bad guys like Lloth worshippers in Menzoberrranzan.

I get it. There are topics I’m comfortable using at home that I would never use in our games at school (not to mention miniatures!). Just as there are plenty of books that I read but I wouldn’t teach. Context matters.

Context does matter. I don't think it's a problem for teens to see fictionalized slavery in a fantasy game. If you don't want to deal with it at school, fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it needs to be excised from the game entirely. I don't believe that's any more reasonable than demanding demons and devils be removed from the game.

 

[jasper]

man people in the past where strange

and the present people are stranger. What will the future bring..... beware beware

 

[Raiztt]

Why is it that whenever I express that I don't want to spend multiple hours a day relaxing by pretending to be okay with horrid things we see and hear and learn about in real life, I always get either direct accusations or side-ways comments about not being able to tell the difference between fiction and reality?

"Pretend" to be okay? My brother, the entire real world runs on institutionalized evil. You're not "pretending" you're okay with it lol. I'm sorry that this is upsetting to you.

 

[Reynard]

They're publishing a game that revolves around violence as your basic conflict resolution device. At its basic core, D&D is still about kicking down doors, killing monsters, and getting loot.

I don't think this is true. Loot is irrelevant, and the stories WotC wants you to tell -- based on the adventures they put out -- are action adventure heroism that would fit perfectly in the MCU. D&D is not about violence, it is about kicking butt for the good guys. And has been for a long time.

 

[Raiztt]

I don't think this is true. Loot is irrelevant, and the stories WotC wants you to tell -- based on the adventures they put out -- are action adventure heroism that would fit perfectly in the MCU. D&D is not about violence, it is about kicking butt for the good guys. And has been for a long time.

Man, we are playing very different games. When is "kicking butt" not extreme violence? Why is it that almost every class ability has to do with combat?

To say that D&D is not about violence is quite a stretch, IMHO.

 

[Reynard]

Man, we are playing very different games.

No we aren't. Or we are, but I'm not playing D&D. I am describing what WotC is presenting. It is pretty clear.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think this is true. Loot is irrelevant, and the stories WotC wants you to tell -- based on the adventures they put out -- are action adventure heroism that would fit perfectly in the MCU. D&D is not about violence, it is about kicking butt for the good guys. And has been for a long time.

i don't think there's really all that much of a divide between 'violence' and 'kicking butt for the good guys', it's just people justifying the latter in their minds as 'somehow different' when it's not really, the battle for new york could pretty easily be reskinned mindflayers and some purple worms and fit right in as DnD slaughter.

and maybe there's not much looting in MCU but that's more because all of the heroes 'magic' items they tend to get fairly early on because they're iconic to the characters, tony's armour, cap's shield, moljnir...

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not much interested in building a setting from outside the perspective of the people living in it any more than is absolutely necessary.

Sure, but if you are going to state that the society has less developed morals, because they have too few resources, just like in historical times. Then you introduce an element that would increase resources... you can't argue that the people in historical times believed in superstitions that look like this element, so the increase in resources wouldn't lead to more developed morals.

At that point, the morals are not being decided because of the resources of the society, they are being decided because you said so, and the historical comparison is just a smokescreen justification. Because removing the common elements does not cause you to re-evaluate the situation.