American RPGs

[delericho]

Also, it there is a game play/mechanic issue. If you enforce languages and use them extensively, the PCs will eventually pick up the languages and you are "back to english" since the issue will fade in the background. If you use them some, then there is a lot of stop/start in a session if you make the players "translate" to the other players (otherwise it is just handwaved). Finally, if not used much, no one will pick them other than whatever the baseline system provides.

My feeling as to the best way to handle this may be to drop specific languages known almost entirely, and introduce a Linguistics skill. Then, for "social interaction" skill challenges, allow the use of the Linguistics skill to "address him in his own tongue" as a primary skill use.

That way, you get some limited flavour from the use of other languages, but you also get to mostly handwave the issue away for ease of gameplay.

(Of course, for additional credit, the game world/adventures could include various bits of exotic languages in naming conventions, pieces of poetry and text, and so forth... just little bits of 'stuff' to establish the scene without dwelling on the issue overly.)

 

[delericho]

I feel that one key area where the game is very US-centric is in the issues of social equality and social mobility. Sure, D&D has kings and lords and nobles of all stripes, but this is really a very thin veneer over a fairly classless society, especially where PCs are concerned.

Even today in the UK, where things are a lot more fluid than they used to be, being a member of the nobility, and particularly having a 'significant' noble rank, is largely a matter of birth. In the past, not only was holding noble rank largely a matter of birth, but holding significant military rank was a largely a matter of holding noble rank as well - unless you were 'the right stuff' you found it very difficult to rise to an officer's rank. (cf the Sharpe novels and TV series - the character is very notable for being an officer who was not also a gentleman).

 

[Celebrim]

I feel that one key area where the game is very US-centric is in the issues of social equality and social mobility. Sure, D&D has kings and lords and nobles of all stripes, but this is really a very thin veneer over a fairly classless society, especially where PCs are concerned.

I agree, but I don't so much find this an American bias as part of the general 'assumption of convenient anachronisms' which has crept into modern gaming on the simple basis that it is convenient and familiar. Even if the DM imagines a non-familiar world, there is still the problem of getting the players to understand the world in which their characters live and act accordingly.

Typical gamisms:

The PC's stay in inns that are very much like hotels, rather than much more like staying in people's homes.*
The PC's order food off extensive printed menus, rather than being served what the host has or simply asking for particular items to be served.
Coin is common and plentiful.
Everyone speaks the same language.
Weapons are freely available and may be carried everywhere. Full plate may be worn into a free town, and no one blinks an eye.
Persons (especially PCs) have freedom of the roads, even when armed.
PCs never pay taxes.
Finance and the instruments of finance are known.
Destitution and poverty are rare, except for when they show up like 'bad weather' to signify the presence of the BBEG.
Gender equality is assumed.
Racial equality is assumed.
Xenophobia is rare.
Corruption is rare.
'Good' aligned societies have modern sensibilities about cruelty in punishment, slavery, libertarianism, and generally resemble modern liberal western democracies in every feature but name.*
Well defined nation states.
Almost everyone is literate.
Professional national standing armies.
PCs have freedom of speach.
Goods can be purchased on demand off the shelf from a large existing stock of such items.
Rank doth not have its priviledges. There is a presumed meritocracy and freedom to change social classes.
*Those might be American biases, or at least Western European biases.

Violate just about any of those gamisms in your world, and not only does it become more complex, but the unspoken assumptions of your players will have to be continually corrected during the game and especially in the early sessions when you'd really rather get the game moving.


As for 'Legality of Weapons' issues, they are typically missing from all fantasy campaigns, but show up in the rules of all or most modern campaigns regardless of whether the game is American or not.

 

[Bluenose]

I feel that one key area where the game is very US-centric is in the issues of social equality and social mobility. Sure, D&D has kings and lords and nobles of all stripes, but this is really a very thin veneer over a fairly classless society, especially where PCs are concerned.

Even today in the UK, where things are a lot more fluid than they used to be, being a member of the nobility, and particularly having a 'significant' noble rank, is largely a matter of birth. In the past, not only was holding noble rank largely a matter of birth, but holding significant military rank was a largely a matter of holding noble rank as well - unless you were 'the right stuff' you found it very difficult to rise to an officer's rank. (cf the Sharpe novels and TV series - the character is very notable for being an officer who was not also a gentleman).

It's perhaps more true to say that having an existing noble title helped if you wanted to hold significant military rank, but even in medieval times there are plenty of examples of individuals from the lowest ranks of the nobility (knights' sons, country squires, etc.) obtaining high military rank through service (which they would sometimes be able to turn into higher social rank). William Marshal, Bertrand du Guesclin, Sir John Fastolf, all were from the lower ranks of the nobility and all commanded armies in the field for their king(s). I think your general point about social mobility is valid, but there were exceptions.

 

[delericho]

Frontier spirit.

Elements like characters wandering about town armed and armoured, and especially the "Points of Light" concept, sometimes leave me wondering if D&D isn't a Wild West game with fantasy trappings, rather than a Tolkienistic fantasy or a medieval-based game.

 

[Dausuul]

I think there's MASSIVE European-originated-cultural bias. Absolutely enormous. ... The game gets incredibly detailed and persnickety about European tropes and weapons, but then tells you to just retheme if you want something that's not European.

This is very very very true. European fantasy is assumed to be the default. After a few years in any given edition, you might see a single sourcebook devoted to East Asian fantasy. Any other culture should count itself lucky if it gets so much as a two-page spread in Dragon.

(Of course, this wasn't always the case. In 2E every culture could expect to get a boxed campaign setting full of European stereotypes about that culture. Yay, multiculturalism.)

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I can see some American-inspired assumptions in RPGs, though I lean more toward these being "gamisms" as Celebrim stated more than anything else.

However, I think that a lot of these elements manifest for the sake of the game more than anything else.

I think that it's possible to modify these assumptions to fit a campaign setting of your choice as you wish. For example, in 4e, you can simply place a general assumption that PCs are the only ones literate by default; also, you could assume that only PCs are the ones who speak Common (or more than just Common, if humans) by default. Though the list of languages is shorter in 4e than in previous editions, you can still provide a barrier for some PCs if the NPC they're trying to talk to doesn't speak their language.

Conversely, you can establish standards for your campaign setting that explain the anachronisms/conveniences as you wish, as well. For example: with my old 3.5 D&D game, I had the dwarves invent the printing press about 100 years or so prior to current campaign date. Because of that invention (and its spread), literacy was widespread in the area where the adventurers were active. Common was so, well, "common" because the area where the PCs were active was part of a large kingdom (now, in 4e, I go with the "official language of a fallen empire" bit).

As for the availability of arms & armor, I'd argue that cost is the major barrier for most folk. Where dealing in gold pieces is the standard for PCs, dealing in silver & copper is the norm for non-adventurers. So a longsword costing 15 g.p. may be nothing for the starting-off PC, it's a major expense for a commoner (like scraping enough cash together to buy a brand-new car only with cash nowadays, for example).

FWIW, the legality of weapons & armor was addressed in the 1e (& 2e, IIRC) sourcebooks for the Lankhmar setting. It addressed general rules of law, fines, punishments, & the like for people in the city of Lankhmar.

Though I can see D&D as being Eurocentric in general, I think that there's so much mythic elements from other cultures thrown into the mix that their origins are lost in the mix: oni, lammusu, coautls, rakshasa, etc. There's such a dramatic mixture of time periods & cultures in default D&D that it becomes a unique thing in its own right.

And, that's not even considering the impact that such things as magic, divine forces, primal/spritual powers, etc. would have on the world as real forces instead of as mental constructs (for the most part) as they are here.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Typical gamisms:

The PC's stay in inns that are very much like hotels, rather than much more like staying in people's homes.*
The PC's order food off extensive printed menus, rather than being served what the host has or simply asking for particular items to be served.
Coin is common and plentiful.
Everyone speaks the same language.
Weapons are freely available and may be carried everywhere. Full plate may be worn into a free town, and no one blinks an eye.
Persons (especially PCs) have freedom of the roads, even when armed.
PCs never pay taxes.
Finance and the instruments of finance are known.
Destitution and poverty are rare, except for when they show up like 'bad weather' to signify the presence of the BBEG.
Gender equality is assumed.
Racial equality is assumed.
Xenophobia is rare.
Corruption is rare.
'Good' aligned societies have modern sensibilities about cruelty in punishment, slavery, libertarianism, and generally resemble modern liberal western democracies in every feature but name.*
Well defined nation states.
Almost everyone is literate.
Professional national standing armies.
PCs have freedom of speach.
Goods can be purchased on demand off the shelf from a large existing stock of such items.
Rank doth not have its priviledges. There is a presumed meritocracy and freedom to change social classes.
*Those might be American biases, or at least Western European biases.

Violate just about any of those gamisms in your world, and not only does it become more complex, but the unspoken assumptions of your players will have to be continually corrected during the game and especially in the early sessions when you'd really rather get the game moving.

As for 'Legality of Weapons' issues, they are typically missing from all fantasy campaigns, but show up in the rules of all or most modern campaigns regardless of whether the game is American or not.

Some of those strike me as modern conceits, so in a sense they could be considered "for the game" in the sense that many gamers probably couldn't care less about the lack of availability of credit or the need to eat what was available rather than having a huge selection based on modern logistics and agriculture.

The lack of racism and sexism seem more like good marketing...only a small percentage of females are going to want to play a game where they have to either play a male character or make up reasons for why they aren't treated like chattel. Even by Western cultural standards, their absence is more an ideal than an accurate reflection.

The lack of social stratification does strike me as unusually American. If I were to live in Korea, for example (and we have discussed this as an option), I would be cut a lot of slack for being an obvious foreigner. If I really wanted to fit in and spend a long time there (i.e., many years), I would have to learn a tremendous amount of subtle differences in speech, family relationships, and acceptable polite behavior based upon status. Addressing a significantly older co-worker as an equal would be considered an affront -- and justifiably so, since anybody who knows the rules would only do so as a deliberate insult. Linguistically, I would have to adjust to interpreting cues of speech in a culture where just saying "no" isn't always acceptable. It is likely I wouldn't have access as a foreigner to services like credit cards from Korean banks -- things that would be much less of a problem for a Korean in the U.S.

Korea is a technologically advanced democracy, and it is no more socially conservative than some parts of the U.S. or Europe. The consideration of status is different, however, and plays a role in many things American citizens take for granted.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Violate those gamisms in your world, and not only does it become more complex, but the unspoken assumptions of your players will have to be continually corrected during the game and especially in the early sessions when you'd really rather get the game moving.

Great post, generally. You could also add a list almost that long about the role of religion in society (and government).

I don't fully agree with your conclusion, though. When I started my current (now two years running) campaign by explaining that the setting was Europe in 1198, the players abandoned those gamisms immediately--very little prodding on my part. I guess it just comes down to expectations: When players think they're playing D&D-style fantasy, they expect those gamisms, just like the expect similar things out of the LotR movies. When they know they're playing something more historical, those gamisms suddenly seem out of place (as they would in a movie like, say, Kingdom of Heaven).

 

[Dragonbait]

I guess it just comes down to expectations: When players think they're playing D&D-style fantasy, they expect those gamisms, just like the expect similar things out of the LotR movies. When they know they're playing something more historical, those gamisms suddenly seem out of place (as they would in a movie like, say, Kingdom of Heaven).

And then there are players who are just thick or have certain personal morals that will suddenly conflict with settings that don't use the modern conceits. A player of mine is playing a minotaur fighter and is surprised/annoyed/offended when people see him for the first time and don't react to him like they would a human or any other common race. It offends him OOCly.

But getting a little more on topic: This thread has been very informative. I wonder how many posters that have listed what they think are American-centric concepts in D&D are from other countries rather than Americans that are speculating on such things?

I've seen a few games from other countries (Warhammer FRP, Cadwallon, and Sword World/Record of Lodoss War). For the most part they all seem very much like what one would see in any other setting made in the US. Nothing stood out as very Euro-centric or Japanese. Granted, Sword World in particular was based off of D&D to begin with.