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

[billd91]

I want to address this point as I think this framing may be somewhat deceptive, in that it seems to imply that D&D was this cloistered monastery within which only straight, white males were allowed - and everyone else actively kept out. Certainly, there used to be (and still is, to some extent) a "gatekeeper" phenomena, but this also has to do with fear of geekdom becoming mainstream, not simply a matter of excluding everyone other than straight white men. And it was "practiced" by a minority of, well, socially awkward dudes who were likely afraid of women. The majority of RPG players are, and have generally always been, open and accepting of any and all who are interested in the hobby--at least that has been my impression.

Again, this is not to say that gatekeeping didn't exist, or that there weren't elements of the "boy's club" phenomena, but if you time travelled back to 1984 and visited a dozen D&D clubs and groups, most of them would be accepting of female and/or non-white players. Maybe a bit surprised or suspicious at first ("Wait, why would a girl want to play D&D?!") but not antagonistic, and mostly due to not being used to non-white dudes being interested in the game. Being, a relatively benign ignorance or non-exposure rather than outright hostility to the "other."

I think the primary factor is that culture has shifted so that being a geek--to whatever degree--is more accepted. We see waves of this through the mainstreaming of geek stuff with Harry Potter, anime, the Lord of the Rings movies, Game of Thrones, the MCU, etc. With this, a wide range of demographics has become interested in the game, or at least more prominent. A

Nerds and geeks of all demographics have always existed, and I'm not sure there's a way to assess numbers over time except through memory and anecdote. But there may also be, as it has become more socially acceptable, a kind of mass "coming out of the closet" of geeks and quasi-geeks. Meaning, it isn't only that more people have become geeks or nerds, but more people have embraced their "geeky side." So "geekdom" is less an either/or, and more a matter of, "What are you geeky about?"

That said, I don't think this "de-shunning" of geek culture or geekery is sufficient to explain the huge current popularity of D&D. It is part of it, but I think there is something to the game that people yearn for, which has to do with a more organic, imaginative experience that can be shared with friends. But that's a bit of a different topic.

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.

 

[Scribe]

None of those elements actually require art in the style of Ye Olde Chaine-Maile Bikinis, Ye Burly Bare-Chestèd Manly Men, and the like. Likewise, I don't think a game setting or the emergent story of a game session be required to closely resemble Howard or Lieber in order to qualify as sword-and-sorcery.

You are 100% correct, just as the softer, more colourful style trend of today, which people seek to deny for some reason, is also not required. Its simply a different style, and if its used to aim the product at a specific demographic...seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Apropos of swords-and-sorcery and art:
I rather doubt that art depicting nearly-nekkid folks is, in fact, any way necessary for a gaming product discussing how to run or play in a swords-and-sorcery RPG game, what a swords-and-sorcery setting is like.

To my mind, some of the crucial elements of a stereotypical swords-and-sorcery setting are:

• The world is not a good place: the great cities are pits of decadence and corruption, rural boroughs are thick with hostility and superstition, the wilds full of unfathomable dangers. The setting doesn't have to be grimdark, but bucolic Shire-like or Rivendell-like lands aren't likely to be found.
• Few, if any, cosmic powers (gods and such) are benevolent, if indeed they are present at all.
• Magic, particularly arcane magic, is dangerous to wield, and usually the purview of villains.
• If the protagonists are fighting great evil it is not out of a heroic sense of duty or noble calling. (More like a less comic version of saving the world "because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!") There's a good chance most of them are anti-heroes.

None of those elements actually require art in the style of Ye Olde Chaine-Maile Bikinis, Ye Burly Bare-Chestèd Manly Men, and the like. Likewise, I don't think a game setting or the emergent story of a game session be required to closely resemble Howard or Lieber in order to qualify as sword-and-sorcery.

Apropos of shifts in gaming culture and how shifts in D&D reflect it:
@Mercurius apropos of your more recent post, I don't necessarily disagree that most gaming tables would have been/were accepting of women or people of colour "back in the day". (*)

However, I think the issue has more to do with how publishers didn't take into account how their content came across to groups outside the customary demographics that predominated in older times.

Just like in other media, people who aren't heteronormative white men unsurprisingly prefer to see themselves positively reflected in RPGs available on the mass market as people who can be and indeed are heroes - or at least, protagonists - and just as unsurprisingly prefer not to see stereotypes that have been leveled at them over the years as justification for various sorts of oppression used to describe creatures that are usually employed in games as enemies to be defeated or destroyed.

(*) Note however that being accepting of individuals is not analogous to supporting structural changes to the way RPGs were or are presented to be more welcoming of or less off-putting to such folk writ large.

The sword and sorcery elements you described above are not prevelant (to the point of not being present at all) in current D&D, so it seems that genre is being excluded.

Happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Scribe]

The sword and sorcery elements you described above are not prevelant (to the point of not being present at all) in current D&D, so it seems that genre is being excluded.

Happy to be proven wrong.

You know you'll just be pointed to the 'Dark Fantasy' section of the ravenloft book.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That said, I don't think this "de-shunning" of geek culture or geekery is sufficient to explain the huge current popularity of D&D. It is part of it, but I think there is something to the game that people yearn for, which has to do with a more organic, imaginative experience that can be shared with friends. But that's a bit of a different topic.

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

 

[Greg Benage]

The sword and sorcery elements you described above are not prevelant (to the point of not being present at all) in current D&D, so it seems that genre is being excluded.

Most of them were always excluded from D&D. It's always had its bucolic settings, benevolent gods and angels, and pervasive high-fantasy wizardry. I agree that prior to ~1984, the published adventures were more likely to feature the knaves, rogues and reavers we associate with S&S, but the implied (and explicit) setting of D&D has always been a poor fit for S&S.

Even third-party settings, such as Primeval Thule, which I otherwise love, throw in high-fantasy bits that spoil the stew.

 

[Composer99]

The sword and sorcery elements you described above are not prevelant (to the point of not being present at all) in current D&D, so it seems that genre is being excluded.

Happy to be proven wrong.

I wasn't making any point with respect to the prevalence of swords-and-sorcery content in 5e D&D or lack thereof, so, apropos of the point I was making (which had to do with art)... so... so what? Why would I even care to try to prove you wrong?

It's worth nothing that in the 5e DMG, there is discussion on pages 38-41 on the different "flavours of fantasy", including a description of swords-and-sorcery. That is basically all the treatment that swords-and-sorcery gets in the DMG, although I should note that most of the other genres discsussed have also been hitherto underserved, with so far only some getting new time in the limelight with the publication of various setting books - Theros for mythic fantasy (more or less) or Ravenloft for dark fantasy (more or less), for instance. Indeed, the DMG explicitly states: "Heroic fantasy is the baseline assumed by the D&D rules." (DMG 38)

(I should also note, apropos of the recent announcement of Spelljammer, that insofar as "gonzo fantasy" is "a thing" distinct from what the DMG calls "crossing the streams", such a subgenre didn't even rate a mention in the DMG as a "flavour of fantasy", although it's about to get its time in the limelight as well.)

The rules, then assume a heroic fantasy baseline. What is more, insofar as D&D 5e has a "default" setting, it's the Forgotten Realms, which for the most part falls squarely into the mold of heroic fantasy. Most adventures published thus far are therefore either set in the Realms or have been shorn of setting - the Yawning Portal anthology, for instance, or how Ghosts of Saltmarsh introduces such a tiny part of Oerth as to not really get across its distinctive qualities, or how Curse of Strahd has nothing in particular to do with the Ravenloft setting as such.

Little wonder that swords-and-sorcery has yet to have its day in the sun. It may well do so in the future, though - or not.

None of this is to attempt to prove you wrong, but that was never my goal. The closest I might get to such an attempt is to dispute that swords-and-sorcery was particularly prevalent or important to the "gameplay culture" of the past, except for serving as one of the inspirations of the game. In that it is similar to, say, Tolkeinesque fantasy. But I am not sure you are asserting that to begin with, and in any event the amount of swords-and-sorcery content in times past not particularly germane to the question of "D&D and who it's aimed at" in the present.

 

[Arilyn]

When did D&D ever lean into Swords&Sorcery as its' main theme? Magic is very packaged and predictable. Sure, player characters looted for xp but it tended to build up so characters could then build a stronghold. Swords and Sorcery loot disappears fast as the protagonists spend it all wildly or lose it to misfortune. One minute you are king, next a slave. The concept of large decaying, corrupt cities has never really been a thing in D&D either. Characters in S&S are pulpy heroes who start very competent and improve slowly. Also, as pulpy heroes they are not vulnerable to being killed by a lucky kobold or fall into a pit trap. Oh, and no way Conan carefully assembles supplies before delving underground.

 

[lingual]

I want to address

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.

Unfortunately some small portion of the gaming population may derisively describe this as "wokification".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Unfortunately some small portion of the gaming population may derisively describe this as "wokification".

The fun part is we don't have to care what they think!