D&D General On Early D&D and Problematic Faves: How to Grapple with the Sins of the Past

[UngainlyTitan]

Just because a thing has a lot of components does not mean that the thing itself isn't art.

D&D is art all the way up and down, from individual books to the whole body of its publication to your particular session.

I understand you position but I also have some difficulty considering a set of rules as art. I tend to see those as tools.

 

[Reynard]

the general horniness of the game

While I am generally a person who thinks RPGs and RPG players need to be more open to sex as a component of play (because play generates stories, and adult human stories often include sex) it I'd perfectly understandable that a game you are expected to play by yourself will be able to be much hornier and explicit that one you are expected to play publicly.

 

[Argyle King]

From my perspective, Baldur's Gate 3 included a lot of elements that people here would complain about in a written campaign. The inclusion of slavery in the underdark, the general horniness of the game, the racism, blood libel in the Auntie Ethel quests, etc., etc.

I'm inclined to feel similarly.

I have no empirical data to compare, but my guess would be that some overlap exists between people who play tabletop D&D and people who would play a D&D based video game.

In one context, content is deemed a reason to not buy something and may even be a reason to boycott a product. In another context, the result is deemed an award-winning game of the year and best-seller.

Comparing that, I think there is value in trying to parse out how the tabletop community draws a line between problematic content or desired content.

I do think the game dials up the horniness quite a bit. I'm not personally offended by it, but Astarion (in particular) can be annoying, and there are some conversations which offer little in the way of a non-intimate response.

 

[Charlaquin]

From my perspective, Baldur's Gate 3 included a lot of elements that people here would complain about in a written campaign. The inclusion of slavery in the underdark, the general horniness of the game, the racism, blood libel in the Auntie Ethel quests, etc., etc.

I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think the inclusion of slavery in a D&D campaign is an inherently bad thing, provided the slavers are framed as villains. It’s probably a wise business decision for WotC to avoid the topic, though. I’m all in favor of the horniness in the context of a single-player game, it’d probably get pretty awkward in a group of my platonic friends and sometimes family members. I’m not sure what racism and blood libel you refer to, but maybe it comes later in the game, I still haven’t played past act 1.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First Air Supply were great! Or more accurately their two songs written by Jim Steinmann were great.

Second I find Gygax a more challenging case than Lovecraft. Mostly because as I said in the other thread one of the things D&D is is a work of moral philosophy. I believe more people have spent more time and effort engaging with nine point alignment than they have Socrates, Descartes, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand combined. And you spend more time being with and absorbing and embodying the colonist settlers of Keep on the Borderlands than anyone ever does when they read about Herbert West, reanimator.

And from what I can tell Gygax's understanding of good, especially Lawful Good ... isn't. His law Vs chaos is a Fantasy Western with lawful folks back East, Chaotic/Evil indigenous inhabitants and where the settler's are presented as morally right. And his Paladins bring it all together with even more problems of their own.

And in terms of works of moral philosophy with actual influence over people D&D is almost certainly high up in the second tier of recent centuries (it's no Communist Manifesto, Little Red Book, or even Wealth of Nations but probably beats any work by any primary philosopher)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I’m all in favor of the horniness in the context of a single-player game, it’d probably get pretty awkward in a group of my platonic friends and sometimes family members.

MonsterHearts looks like a great game and was the basis of a great Critical Role one-shot. I cannot imagine playing it with anyone, though.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

First Air Supply were great! Or more accurately their two songs written by Jim Steinmann were great.

Second I find Gygax a more challenging case than Lovecraft. Mostly because as I said in the other thread one of the things D&D is is a work of moral philosophy. I believe more people have spent more time and effort engaging with nine point alignment than they have Socrates, Descartes, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand combined. And you spend more time being with and absorbing and embodying the colonist settlers of Keep on the Borderlands than anyone ever does when they read about Herbert West, reanimator.

And from what I can tell Gygax's understanding of good, especially Lawful Good ... isn't. His law Vs chaos is a Fantasy Western with lawful folks back East, Chaotic/Evil indigenous inhabitants and where the settler's are presented as morally right. And his Paladins bring it all together with even more problems of their own.

And in terms of works of moral philosophy with actual influence over people D&D is almost certainly high up in the second tier of recent centuries (it's no Communist Manifesto, Little Red Book, or even Wealth of Nations but probably beats any work by any primary philosopher)

First off, anything I have come across by Steinmann was great.

Second, I think that Lovecraft is more influential via secondary works than his own which mask his influence somewhat.

As for Gygax, that is an interesting take and one I never really considered before. Generally, the D&D take on alignment was something I never could take seriously. Law vs Chaos, fine that one is as old as the hills but his views on good and evil and how they aligned with law and chaos was something I could not take seriously.
I also recognised early that there was a lot of the, what I would call, the frontier western in D&D. Cowboys vs Indians, which is all very well if one is a Cowboy but another matter if one is the Indian.

Which is probably why I ignored D&D setting in my early games until I found that I needed some help from the professionals to get a campaign past the opening phase and started running adventure paths.

However, given your premises where are you taking this thesis.

 

[billd91]

That would probably be a wise business decision for WB, but I’m not sure it would actually lead to a better outcome in the fight for trans rights. They’d need to offer her a lot of money for her to consider such a deal, so in the end it’d likely be a 6 of one, half a dozen of the other situation.

Yeah, I don't see Rowling letting go of the Potterverse at all, but if there was a chance of it, it would be extremely expensive. And at that point, what's the difference? She's paid with money enough to damage people in either event. Our best hope is that WB carefully monitors their returns on Potterverse material and, if her TERF-mania can be reasonably shown to damage the brand, they pay her less to license it.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think the inclusion of slavery in a D&D campaign is an inherently bad thing, provided the slavers are framed as villains. It’s probably a wise business decision for WotC to avoid the topic, though.

I'm in the same boat in that I don't mind if slavers are in the game provided they're bad guys. But every time this topic comes up, there are those who argue it's very inclusion should not be in the game no matter the context. And given the success of BG3, I'm not sure it is a wise topic for WotC to avoid. It didn't turn people off to BG3 and I don't think it would turn people off to D&D.

I’m not sure what racism and blood libel you refer to, but maybe it comes later in the game, I still haven’t played past act 1.

I don't want to spoil anything for you, but other than the Underdark slaves, it's all right there in Act 1. Even today, we don't all appear to have the same concerns over what's problematic in D&D. Nevermind how we engage with elements of the game as it existed in decades past, we're still trying to figure out how to engage with the game today.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Second, I think that Lovecraft is more influential via secondary works than his own which mask his influence somewhat.

I'd agree. Memetic Cthulhu is far more like Call of Cthulhu the RPG than it is Lovecraft's sank-after-hit-by-a-fishing-boat Cthulhu. And this is a reflection of the outsized influence RPGs that have you spend a long time exploring their setting wield.

However, given your premises where are you taking this thesis.

Simple. When someone is an influential moral philosopher (regardless of their intent) recognising their moral and philosophical shortcomings is far more important than it is for other notable figures.