D&D General All Dead Generations: "Classic Vs. The Aesthetic"

[Faolyn]

Not quite. The protest starts when there is removal of what exists.

Removal of a general alignment is a problem to me.

Adding a network of tribes, villages, and hunter/gatherers (all Orcs for example) who instead of reaving form a community network that is distinct from that generalization (which is just a short hand for a DM anyway), is world building.

What's easier (not for you, but for gamers in general):

Creating orcs as (usually) chaotic evil, then creating a bunch of different tribes, villages, and hunter/gatherer bands where the writers have to say for each group if it's also CE and if not, what's different about it and why, which the DM then has to relay to the PCs so they don't go around mindlessly killing of orcs that are actually in one of those rare CG groups (unless they're evil enough to go around killing orcs regardless of those orcs' actions),

--or--

Creating orcs as not having any intrinsic alignment and then only specifying when a tribe, village, or band tends towards a specific alignment?

I know which one sounds a lot easier to me...

 

[Argyle King]

But, see, whenever that sort of thing gets suggested, the protestations of “humans with rubber masks!” start.

In addition to what some others have (I think) said, I think the "rubber mask" criticism has a connection to a related but different issue: the idea that tangible differences in physical form and morphology also ought not have value.

Which isn't something I'm saying you do or don't support. It's just part of what I've seen past conversations include.

So, to push an extreme/absurd argument...
I'm playing a dragonborn, but his culture is entirely human and physically having scales, giant teeth, and so-forth have no effect?

Okay, so what defines a dragonborn?

I'm sure some people don't care about that. Others obviously do.

Some people are okay with having different skins for Call of Duty soldiers but still expect that the mp5 do something different than the m-4 carbine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So...Is this thread conjuration or thread evocation?

Thread proliferation.

 

[Charlaquin]

In addition to what some others have (I think) said, I think the "rubber mask" criticism has a connection to a related but different issue: the idea that tangible differences in physical form and morphology also ought not have value.

Which isn't something I'm saying you do or don't support. It's just part of what I've seen past conversations include.

It certainly isn’t something I support, and it comes across as either a misapprehension or misrepresentation of what I actually support.

So, to push an extreme/absurd argument...
I'm playing a dragonborn, but his culture is entirely human and physically having scales, giant teeth, and so-forth have no effect?

Okay, so what defines a dragonborn?

I'm sure some people don't care about that. Others obviously do.

Why on earth wouldn’t having scales, giant teeth, and so forth have an effect?

Some people are okay with having different skins for Call of Duty soldiers but still expect that the mp5 do something different than the m-4 carbine.

That’s fine, but from my perspective people seem to be saying that if red team and blue team can both use either gun, they’re “exactly the same,” apart from “aesthetics and firepower,” which for some unspecified reason don’t count.

 

[Malmuria]

How are they not human? How are they "inherently interesting"? Because if it just what they look like then that's not going to work for me.

I'm struggling to see how humanoid creatures, as currently represented in 5e, are inherently interesting or extremely differentiated from humans. To take a random non-orc example (for variety), Bugbears (MM p.33)

Bugbears are born for battle and mayhem. Surviving by raiding and hunting, they bully the weak and despise being bossed around, but their love of carnage means they will fight for powerful masters if bloodshed and treasure are assured.

Does the bugbear count as a creature that is "interesting"? It's basically the exaggeration of a human cultural stereotype turned into an entire raison d'etre for a creature's existence. Humanoid creatures and societies are part of the dnd's wargaming legacy, wherein various caricatures of human culture were transfigured by gygax into fantasy combatants for a game with a semi-realist/simulationist character. The original article I posted discusses this:

While revivalists, especially those seeking early play styles and adventures out of nostalgia, tend toward the quasi-realism and seriousness of adventures like B2 - Keep on the Borderlands, the adventures of the 1970’s and early 1980’s were a varied and science fantasy and/or jokes about then popular culture were very common. Gygaxisn vernacular fantasy is essentially a nostalgic aesthetic, moored in, but not fully containing the varied aesthetics of early Dungeons & Dragons. The counter Gygax's wargame false realism also runs deep in early RPGs, a tendency might be called “gonzo”, where the bizarre, humorous, and satirical are justified and introduced in game.

 

[Scribe]

What's easier (not for you, but for gamers in general):

Creating orcs as (usually) chaotic evil, then creating a bunch of different tribes, villages, and hunter/gatherer bands where the writers have to say for each group if it's also CE and if not, what's different about it and why, which the DM then has to relay to the PCs so they don't go around mindlessly killing of orcs that are actually in one of those rare CG groups (unless they're evil enough to go around killing orcs regardless of those orcs' actions),

--or--

Creating orcs as not having any intrinsic alignment and then only specifying when a tribe, village, or band tends towards a specific alignment?

I know which one sounds a lot easier to me...

For individuals? Well thrasher one would be to ask the company we are paying to do then work, to actually...do the work.

Provide that Alignment.
Provide that basic historical overview.
Provide that 'permission' to discard those things.
Provide the examples through the official canon and world building effort, that while there is a trend toward X behavior/culture/religion, there is also room for Y.

The easiest path, is to hold Wizards to a standard where they provide both.

If that's somehow beyond the pale, I still choose the first option. It's easier to add, and go against type, than to do everything.

Again, if they don't provide us with something, why do we pay them?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why on earth wouldn’t having scales, giant teeth, and so forth have an effect?

It could potentially make them better at being some classes which according to you is problematic essentialism. For example if their scales provided natural armour this would make them better than races without this for classes that do not have armour proficiencies.

 

[Nefermandias]

Skeletons and zombies. minor fiends. Constructs. Zealous cultists. Hired mercenaries. Paid soldiers.

Boring. Killing orcs feels much more satisfying.

 

[Argyle King]

It certainly isn’t something I support, and it comes across as either a misapprehension or misrepresentation of what I actually support.

Why on earth wouldn’t having scales, giant teeth, and so forth have an effect?

That’s fine, but from my perspective people seem to be saying that if red team and blue team can both use either gun, they’re “exactly the same,” apart from “aesthetics and firepower,” which for some unspecified reason don’t count.

Again, I'm not saying that's your position, but it certainly is a position I've seen. I think that's part of where the "rubber mask" position pops up.

How much difference is enough? Crappy answer but... well, that depends. Vulcans did a lot with a cheap set of prosthetic elf ears; in other media creatures played by actors were given thousands of dollars of prosthetics but it's largely a bit hollow.

 

[Charlaquin]

It could potentially make them better at being some classes which according to you is problematic essentialism. For example if their scales provided natural armour this would make them better than races without this for classes that do not have armour proficiencies.

It would be beneficial for those classes to have. It wouldn’t make them inherently better at being those classes, as having a +2 to the class’s primary ability does.