D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Mercurius]

I don't think it gets enough credit, actually.

It came around just as the generation that rejected the 'adults can't enjoy 'childish' things status quote and who are very focused on both having experiences and sharing them. So you had a bunch of people primed for it just in time for it to become destigmatized.

Yes, agreed. A confluence, if you will.

and the only thing standing in the way of that growth is the gatekeepers yelling at people for doing it wrong.

Not sure I follow with this, though. How are the "gatekeepers"--and more so, which ones--standing in the way of growth? From what I can tell, the growth is happening just fine. Now granted I don't go to conventions and rarely to game stores, but I also don't see a huge monolithic block of gatekeepers, and of course the obvious goes without saying: D&D is thriving, with more players than ever, regardless of gatekeeping.

I do see lots of online arguments - and "gatekeepy-iness"--or rather, touches of exclusion--from people on both sides of whatever the specific debate is. So in this more specific context, I see touches of "new D&D sucks" as well as "D&D has moved beyond your old-fashioned tastes." It is rarely so blatant on either side, but there's a fair amount of intolerance for what amounts to--in my opinion--disagreements in taste.

 

[Scribe]

"D&D has moved beyond your old-fashioned tastes."

You can see it in the last few pages alone.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, there's your impression as a member of the in-group, and then there's the impression of someone who isn't one of those nerdy white guys sitting a the gaming table. I don't disagree that a lot of gaming groups/clubs/whatever would have said that they were open to everyone and actually have been so... yet still been hard to approach or not appeared approachable to someone who was female or a member of a minority group. There was a group that played at the local student union who was like that - open to women and minorities but overwhelmingly white male. They were quite happy to accept everyone but it wasn't exactly surprising that they were mostly from a very particular demographic because they were painfully white and nerdy.
The appearance of the hobby, from the perspective of its publications and very public participation (such as women playing on streaming media) has had to change to make the hobby more approachable. One one hand, that means more female characters engaging in heroics rather than victimhood or needing to be saved, more minority characters, and on the other hand a lower percentage of white male characters and cheesecake.

First of all, which in-group am I a member of? I'd like to know

But I think you highlight an important point: that the publishers lead, and that having more diversity in the art and presentation is helpful towards that end.

As for the student union you mention, that's just the nature of such things: they start with a relatively tight demographic, and then someone outside it breaks the ice, and more folks flood in. I think of Eminem and him trailblazing for white rappers being taken serious (sorry, Vanilla Ice, you don't count). Obviously we're not "there" yet in most contexts, but overall the needle is moving in the right direction.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I guess what I'm saying is, there's very little sword and sorcery in D&D, there used to be more (or at least more room for it) and I wish it was included. The so-called "big tent" could stand to be a little bigger.

The hobby can always include more genres. The fact that a few older genres haven't been updated to 5e yet doesn't mean that they're purposefully being excluded or will never come to 5e. There's just a lot of them out there to update, and something has to come first. I think Dark Sun is fairly likely to be updated to 5e soon.

You could say that Urban Fantasy is being excluded from 5e, because it's really not present in any official setting books. (No, I don't think that Ravnica counts, and Sharn is just a single city in Eberron.) You could say that Prehistoric Fantasy has always been excluded from D&D, due to there not being any official Prehistoric D&D settings in any of the editions. You could say that Wuxia is being excluded from 5e, because we haven't gotten Kara-Tur or Kamigawa in D&D 5e yet. Hell, a week ago you could say the same thing about Epic Fantasy, War Fantasy, and Swashbuckling Fantasy, but those are no longer accurate statements due to the announcement of updated rules for Spelljammer and Dragonlance. More and more genres are slowly getting support in D&D 5e. The fact that Swords and Sorcery hasn't come yet isn't indicative of anything. It just means that it hasn't been updated yet. The lack of support isn't evidence that it won't ever get support, and it certainly isn't evidence that WotC is actively excluding older genres. It just means that WotC wants to update other genres first.

 

[Mercurius]

The hobby can always include more genres. The fact that a few older genres haven't been updated to 5e yet doesn't mean that they're purposefully being excluded or will never come to 5e. There's just a lot of them out there to update, and something has to come first. I think Dark Sun is fairly likely to be updated to 5e soon.

You could say that Urban Fantasy is being excluded from 5e, because it's really not present in any official setting books. (No, I don't think that Ravnica counts, and Sharn is just a single city in Eberron.) You could say that Prehistoric Fantasy has always been excluded from D&D, due to there not being any official Prehistoric D&D settings in any of the editions. You could say that Wuxia is being excluded from 5e, because we haven't gotten Kara-Tur or Kamigawa in D&D 5e yet. Hell, a week ago you could say the same thing about Epic Fantasy, War Fantasy, and Swashbuckling Fantasy, but those are no longer accurate statements due to the announcement of updated rules for Spelljammer and Dragonlance. More and more genres are slowly getting support in D&D 5e. The fact that Swords and Sorcery hasn't come yet isn't indicative of anything. It just means that it hasn't been updated yet. The lack of support isn't evidence that it won't ever get support, and it certainly isn't evidence that WotC is actively excluding older genres. It just means that WotC wants to update other genres first.

I think (or hope) you are right. I think the reason so many are attached to sword & sorcery is that it has a huge influence on early D&D. When D&D was born, the vast majority of fantasy was either high/epic fantasy or sword & sorcery, or Tolkien and Howard, respectively. Both diversified into a broader range of sub-genres, although both still have a strong influence and place within the larger fantasy tradition.

That said, I'm more surprised that we haven't seen something post-apocalyptic and/or dystopian yet - both themes that are very strong in other media. In that sense, Dark Sun fits the bill, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they kept Dark Sun in the cupboard a little longer and one of the new settings was a different approach to post-apocalyptic. We shall see.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think (or hope) you are right. I think the reason so many are attached to sword & sorcery is that it has a huge influence on early D&D. When D&D was born, the vast majority of fantasy was either high/epic fantasy or sword & sorcery, or Tolkien and Howard, respectively. Both diversified into a broader range of sub-genres, although both still have a strong influence and place within the larger fantasy tradition.

That said, I'm more surprised that we haven't seen something post-apocalyptic and/or dystopian yet - both themes that are very strong in other media. In that sense, Dark Sun fits the bill, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they kept Dark Sun in the cupboard a little longer and one of the new settings was a different approach to post-apocalyptic. We shall see.

Because human suffering is part of those genres, and WotC is afraid of depicting it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because human suffering is part of those genres, and WotC is afraid of depicting it.

Ravenloft disagrees. Netherdeep disagrees. Icewind Dale disagrees. Descent into Avernus disagrees.

I mean, seriously, the motivation for redeeming/killing Zariel in Descent into Avernus is the fact that if you don't, literally everyone on Elturel (and probably eventually Baldur's Gate) will be permanently trapped in Avernus and tortured for all eternity. It doesn't get much more "human suffering" than that.

 

[bedir than]

Because human suffering is part of those genres, and WotC is afraid of depicting it.

You should watch the trailer for Dragonlance

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ravenloft disagrees. Netherdeep disagrees. Icewind Dale disagrees. Descent into Avernus disagrees.

I mean, seriously, the motivation for redeeming/killing Zariel in Descent into Avernus is the fact that if you don't, literally everyone on Elturel (and probably eventually Baldur's Gate) will be permanently trapped in Avernus and tortured for all eternity.

I can't speak for all of those, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but most of the people in New Ravenloft are explicitly not real.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You should watch the trailer for Dragonlance

That's actually the only real artistic/visual depiction of suffering/privation I can think of in 5E, interestingly. And it is recent. Perhaps a direction change? But yeah it's a genuine counterpoint.

Ravenloft disagrees. Netherdeep disagrees. Icewind Dale disagrees. Descent into Avernus disagrees.

Do they show suffering/privation in the art? Because I don't have access to the latter three, but VRGtR does not really show that in its art. It shows perilous situations, and it shows scary monsters, and it talks about suffering, but it doesn't show it, and it's kind of curious. Unless I'm forgetting - I do have access to let me know where and I can look.

5E definitely has situations in text, described, which are fairly horrifying but it seems more shy about showing any images of such than any previous edition or even any RPG I can think of.