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

[Hussar]

I think you are drawing a line that did not really exist for ancient people.

That line certainly existed. Because in the real world, no matter what, ritual does not produce repeatable results. For those ancient people, they could believe whatever they liked and it made zero difference. Thus we have as many different beliefs and rituals as we have people.

In DnD land, it has quantifiable results.

 

[Hussar]

That expansion of characters and scope is to me a perfect blueprint for how a big sprawling D&D campaign should look once it's well underway; where you're not just telling one story but many and there's not just one party but many, some of which interweave with each other and others that remain mostly isolated.

Combine that with his willingness to kill off key characters and I'd say that series should be required reading for any DM.



(now if he'd only just get on and finish the damn thing...)

A pretty solid explanation for why I couldn’t get through it. To me, this series is probably one of the worst inspirations for a campaign.

Cut out about 3/4 of it and then I’m interested.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's a meta-consideration here as well: once the story has achieved that good ending (e.g. you've cleaned up Gotham), where do you go from there if you want to keep the campaign going?

Sustaining a campaign over the very long term (a primary underlying consideration of mine) is why there always needs to be another enemy or problem, be it an individual or a system or a society or even just the other characters in the party.

And so, in a very long Gotham campaign you might - like Batman - never clean up the whole place but instead see incremental successes as you go along.

And yet, there are still ongoing Superman stories, without Metropolis being Gotham. So, as a meta-consideration, the story can go on, for quite a long time, without the need to create a single society so full of problems that you spend real-life years chipping away at the problems.

And if we want to argue "well, superman actually.." then there are dozens of other examples. They got 12 years of stories and multiple novels out of Murder, She Wrote. 22 years out of Cyberchase. A long running, or even very long running campaign does not require systemic, banal evil to be everywhere.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think of it like the defining message of the series Angel, "you fight the good fight not because you're going to eventually win, but because every little bit of good you do makes a difference to someone, and the world becomes just a little brighter, even if it's just for a little while".

If I were playing a heroic character in D&D, that's what I would focus on.

Sure, like I said, it is great to read or watch that. For some of us? Less fun to pretend to live it for IRL years of barely making a difference in our fantasy game we play for fun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In what way is it different?

The difference between including something in your home game and WoTC including it in the official game, is the same difference as hanging a nude portrait of yourself in your bedroom, compared to plastering it on a billboard on the highway.

One is in the privacy of your home, where you have full control over who sees it and how they approach it. The other is out in the public where you have no control over it.

The difference between something being in an novel, and something being in a role-playing game is contribution. In a novel, I sit back and watch how the character reacts. If I disagree with that characters actions, then I can engage in a variety of ways. In a TTRPG I am the one deciding what acts the character takes or doesn't take. Making me responsible for those actions, even if in a small way.

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.

Part of my frustrations with slavery in DnD isn't that it is limited to the bad guys. Because it is, and that is a good thing. No, my issue is that it is ALL of the bad guys. Have you ever taken a moment to see how ubiquitous it is?

Aboleths
Evil humans and ect
Drow
Duergar
Derro
Evil Giants
Yuan-ti
Mind flayers
Kou-toa
Gnolls
Goblinoids
Orcs
Ogres
Oni
Evil Dragons
All Genies
Kraken
Cyclops
Fomorians
Grimlock
Ixitxachitl
Kobold
Morkoth
Vampires
Liches
Neogi
Beholders
Bullywugs
Fiends
Hags
Githyanki
Lamia

Seriously if it is evil and intelligent in DnD the odds are incredibly high it either was a slave, is a slave, or owns slaves.

 

[Aldarc]

That expansion of characters and scope is to me a perfect blueprint for how a big sprawling D&D campaign should look once it's well underway; where you're not just telling one story but many and there's not just one party but many, some of which interweave with each other and others that remain mostly isolated.

Combine that with his willingness to kill off key characters and I'd say that series should be required reading for any DM.



(now if he'd only just get on and finish the damn thing...)

No. Just no.

 

[MGibster]

D&D is not about violence, it is about kicking butt for the good guys. And has been for a long time.

Kicking butt isn't violent? From my point of view, the above statement is so far divorced from reality that I don't even know how to address it. I don't think we have any common ground here.

That line certainly existed. Because in the real world, no matter what, ritual does not produce repeatable results. For those ancient people, they could believe whatever they liked and it made zero difference. Thus we have as many different beliefs and rituals as we have people.

Caesar: I thought you had reservations about the gods.
Gracchus: Privately, I believe in none of them - neither do you. Publicly, I believe in them all.
Spartacus 1960

I think the beliefs of people in the ancient world were likely fairly complex. It's not my area of expertise, but I wonder how much us lay people get wrong just based on what we know about modern religious beliefs.

The difference between including something in your home game and WoTC including it in the official game, is the same difference as hanging a nude portrait of yourself in your bedroom, compared to plastering it on a billboard on the highway.

I don't quite follow. WotC is releasing a product very similar to a novel. One has to either buy the book or participate in a D&D game to unlock the contents of the book. There's no equivalence to plastering something on a billboard. Your argument that it's out in public just doesn't hold water.

But assuming just for a moment your argument had merit, so what? Oh, no. These really evil folk who worship a spider queen keep slaves.

Part of my frustrations with slavery in DnD isn't that it is limited to the bad guys. Because it is, and that is a good thing. No, my issue is that it is ALL of the bad guys. Have you ever taken a moment to see how ubiquitous it is?

You make a good argument for it being overused.

 

[Hussar]

Caesar: I thought you had reservations about the gods.
Gracchus: Privately, I believe in none of them - neither do you. Publicly, I believe in them all.
Spartacus 1960

I think the beliefs of people in the ancient world were likely fairly complex. It's not my area of expertise, but I wonder how much us lay people get wrong just based on what we know about modern religious beliefs.

.

What difference does that make? It doesn’t matter how nuanced. The truth is, ritual and magic in DnD worlds have nothing to do with belief. They demonstrably work. And they are repeatable.

The notion of “faith” in a DnD world is very nebulous thing. Is it faith when you know it works? Worship? Oh yeah. Worship is a thing. But faith? The belief that something is true without any evidence? Just doesn’t apply.

People in DnD land know for a fact gods exist. They can meet them. They can literally see them. It’s no more a matter of faith than knowing the sun exists.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To be fair, that wasn't my argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, like I said, it is great to read or watch that. For some of us? Less fun to pretend to live it for IRL years of barely making a difference in our fantasy game we play for fun.

Sure. You have your preference, and I have mine.