D&D General Greyhawk Humanocentricism?

[Crimson Longinus]

"It's okay to not like things, but don't be a dick about it."

More importantly: Liking what one likes is lovely. Not letting anyone else have what they like because you need everything to only give what you like is a pretty clear problem. It's part of why, for example, gay people basically never get core protagonists unless the creator goes out of their way to make it happen. Because most people are straight, and most of them only want a straight protagonist so they can relate to them more.

Sure. But this is a fraught example and comes dangerously close to trivialising real issues. Inclusion and representation of gay people and dragon people are not even remotely the same thing. You're not being oppressed if someone doesn't let you play a dragon person.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. But this is a fraught example and comes dangerously close to trivialising real issues. Inclusion and representation of gay people and dragon people are not even remotely the same thing. You're not being oppressed if someone doesn't let you play a dragon person.

Sure. But the fundamental point still stands: restricting things only to that which is popular or common is, fundamentally, unfair. It's telling only one group of people that only their interests and values matter, and everyone else can stuff themselves.

Or, if you prefer, this is another rebuttal to, "If you want it, run your own game." Because that statement fundamentally misses the point: Plenty of people really like this thing, even if they aren't the majority, and it is stupid for damn-near-every setting to actively and permanently exclude such things....ESPECIALLY when literally no one can tell you you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to include it, but there can still be options, rules, or tools to help people include the things they want and not include the things they don't.

15 years ago, I had people straight-up actively telling me that dragonborn simply should never exist at all. 10 years ago, I had people telling me (not meanly, more resignedly) telling me I should be happy with the fact that dragonborn were begrudgingly included despite explicit book text saying that elves and dwarves and halflings are universal and dragonborn/etc. are weird and abnormal and don't belong.

And then five years ago? We had repeated surveys indicating that dragonborn were not only rising in popularity, they'd already displaced multiple of those allegedly-universal races and had nudged into the top 5.

It's almost like there really was some, y'know, actual suppression of some preferences over others, and that players themselves have actively started saying, "hey, actually, we really like this thing."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. But the fundamental point still stands: restricting things only to that which is popular or common is, fundamentally, unfair. It's telling only one group of people that only their interests and values matter, and everyone else can stuff themselves.

Welcome to capitalism, you seem to be new here!

Or, if you prefer, this is another rebuttal to, "If you want it, run your own game." Because that statement fundamentally misses the point: Plenty of people really like this thing, even if they aren't the majority, and it is stupid for damn-near-every setting to actively and permanently exclude such things....ESPECIALLY when literally no one can tell you you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to include it, but there can still be options, rules, or tools to help people include the things they want and not include the things they don't.

But this is not true at all. The newer species exist in many settings.

15 years ago, I had people straight-up actively telling me that dragonborn simply should never exist at all. 10 years ago, I had people telling me (not meanly, more resignedly) telling me I should be happy with the fact that dragonborn were begrudgingly included despite explicit book text saying that elves and dwarves and halflings are universal and dragonborn/etc. are weird and abnormal and don't belong.

And then five years ago? We had repeated surveys indicating that dragonborn were not only rising in popularity, they'd already displaced multiple of those allegedly-universal races and had nudged into the top 5.

It's almost like there really was some, y'know, actual suppression of some preferences over others, and that players themselves have actively started saying, "hey, actually, we really like this thing."

Preferences change, people change. It's not a conspiracy. Besides, if dragonborn are super popular, then you shouldn't have trouble finding like-minded people to game with.

 

[Parmandur]

I recall that the Kron Hills and Flinty Hills very specifically have gnome nations.

But I can’t think of anywhere that are halflings lands. Maybe a village or valley here or there in human-controlled lands.

Gnome populations, yes, but decentralized clan holdings: lots in various forests, too. Halflings are mentioned in various places, tge box set has a place of origin table that gives an idea about where the non-Human Species are clustered.

 

[AnotherGuy]

"It's okay to not like things, but don't be a dick about it."

Agree.

More importantly: Liking what one likes is lovely. Not letting anyone else have what they like because you need everything to only give what you like is a pretty clear problem.

To be clear, I do not have history with Greyhawk and I generally agree with @Azzy's take on it upthread, where he said that Greyhawk is supposed to be a bare-bones setting and malleable for the table (paraphrasing here).

I would though, heavily dislike it if WotC decided to make a Mystara line and started including Dragonborn, Goliaths, Warforged etc in the Known World. There are several other continents in that setting, why do they need to muck up the Known World with the current flavour? (rhetorical question)

Having said that, I am a fan of different takes on settings such as Doomed Forgotten Realms.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But the fundamental point still stands: restricting things only to that which is popular or common is, fundamentally, unfair. It's telling only one group of people that only their interests and values matter, and everyone else can stuff themselves.

I feel this is a double-edged sword somewhat.
Not including all the playable content in an official traditional setting tells a group of people to stuff themselves.
Including all the playable content in a revised traditional setting tells a group of people to stuff themselves.

Is it easier for a table to add or subtract playable content for a setting in your opinion?
These boards are full of THACO = bad, and an additive system = good.

 

[Remathilis]

I have definitely seen at least one person argue that, because there isn't any nation that dragonborn canonically lived in/ruled over, they can't exist on Greyhawk.

As have I. I'd like to see that person make the same argument for halflings. They won't, but that's because halflings get the OG pass.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agree.


To be clear, I do not have history with Greyhawk and I generally agree with @Azzy's take on it upthread, where he said that Greyhawk is supposed to be a bare-bones setting and malleable for the table (paraphrasing here).

I would though, heavily dislike it if WotC decided to make a Mystara line and started including Dragonborn, Goliaths, Warforged etc in the Known World. There are several other continents in that setting, why do they need to muck up the Known World with the current flavour? (rhetorical question)

Having said that, I am a fan of different takes on settings such as Doomed Forgotten Realms.

At least for me? Have any dragonborn in it be from those other continents.

Pseudo-medieval settings are 100% compatible with having unusual, uncommon people from other continents. Remember, von Eschenbach in the late 12th century had a biracial (black Moorish queen mother, white English father; half-brother of Parzival) Arthurian knight. So it isn't even like "this character's people come from another continent" is impossible in a farflung, comparative backwater area.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel this is a double-edged sword somewhat.
Not including all the playable content in an official traditional setting tells a group of people to stuff themselves.
Including all the playable content in a revised traditional setting tells a group of people to stuff themselves.

(Edit: forgot to respond to this part by itself)
The problem is that you have spoken of only two things: including, or not including. But there are at least three other options: excluding ("no, we will not ever add this and it emphatically is not part"), offering ("you could allow X, perhaps by <method Y>..."), and discouraging ("well, maybe you could have X...but we'll make it suck the entire time and hope you stop.")

Offering might also be called "passive including." Passively including a lot of options is very easy and can be done in nearly any setting. Active inclusion is a bigger ask, I certainly grant that. It'd be cool to see more settings that actively include dragonborn, but frankly I hold out little hope for that. Passive inclusion is nearly trivial--just (a) don't forbid it and (b) offer maybe a paragraph or two somewhere that talks about ideas one could use for broader inclusivity.

That mandates nothing from the people who get their knickers in a twist at the idea of scalybois with extreme halitosis adventuring in the Flanaess. They can always do as noted below: tell anyone who asks that that just isn't an option, please move along if you want it.

Is it easier for a table to add or subtract playable content for a setting in your opinion?

Unless it's load-bearing content, as in critically-important historical events, people, etc. depend on it, it is 100% always easier to remove an option than it is to add one. Just tell people they aren't allowed to play it. Done like dinner.

These boards are full of THACO = bad, and an additive system = good.

Well sure. That's because we literally have actual, scientific research showing that people are better at additive math than subtractive math; that people are better with relatively small additions rather than relatively large additions; and that people are better with round numbers than any old random number. THAC0 is just about the worst of all worlds, since it uses subtractive math, quickly hits multiple digits or (much, MUCH worse) negative digits, and is completely haphazard in how "bonus" vs "penalty" is described. For real: every combination of "+N bonus," "-N bonus," "-N penalty," and "+N penalty" was used more than once in 2e rules. That's how utterly awful the structure of THAC0 was.

If--and I stress this as an extremely strong IF--the designers had actually stuck to AC that never became negative and THAC0 that never got beyond a pretty heavily restricted range, and they actually made it "-5 Vorpal Sword" and "-3 Full Plate" etc., then THAC0 would still have been inferior, but it would have only been somewhat so. But no, they went the whole nine yards for every possible inferiority except requiring division. Other parts of the 2e rules made sure to handle that stuff.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I would though, heavily dislike it if WotC decided to make a Mystara line and started including Dragonborn, Goliaths, Warforged etc in the Known World. There are several other continents in that setting, why do they need to muck up the Known World with the current flavour? (rhetorical question)

Please do not interpret this is telling you you can't have your own opinions, but I do want to raise a point.

Mystara was the line that rewrote magic users to get name-level followers when a new kingdom's Gazetteer came out, created new (race-as-) classes never previously playable creature types (and no few new to the world) with each Creature Catalogue entry, and added colonies of winged minotaurs whenever the Princess Ark made another port call to fill Dragon magazine pages.

I'm also a huge Mystara fan, but IMO, it's a perfect example of a setting that rebuilt itself for every release.