D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[Chaosmancer]

While certainly many societies don't need and will not have "hard" slavery, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "good" kingdom in a moral sense. Every polity is looking out for their own self-interest, and from a modern perspective (which I assume you are coming from here), any literal kingdom is going to be termed as "problematic" in some ways.

Was there a point to pivoting to "there is no such thing as a good kingdom" while also saying that I'm right that slavery isn't needed? Or is that just a subtle way of going "well, they are all bad anyways, so how they are bad doesn't matter?"

This is why I don't look at these things from a modern perspective unless the issue in question is a moral issue for my players (ie, I or they can't stomach the presence of an element, which is an issue in a few places) or a practical issue at the table (some degree of abstraction is needed for viable play). And of course, we all draw our own lines for this stuff.

Yeah, and some lines end up being that the GM and players... would prefer to look at things from a modern perspective to make sure that their fantasy worlds they made up for fun are actually fun to exist in for those players and GMs.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I haven't seen WotC putting R or X rated content in the game though. Although, as we've pointed out, they have all sorts of nasty things in the game. Curse of Strahd has genocide, domestic abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, and there's some pretty icky implications with Strahd's attitude towards consent. There's even a holy man who creates what's essentially a child bride in the hopes that Strahd will be happy with her and leave other women alone.

I agree with you that WotC shouldn't put overly graphic material in the game beacuse it doesn't fit the tone of what most of us are looking for in a high fantasy game. Our disagreement is that I don't believe slavery is a rated R or X topic. I don't have a problem with an evil organization, like those dirty Lloth worshipping jerks in the Underdark, being slavers. Not even when it comes to teenagers playing.

Right, WoTC isn't pushing these things. This thread has never been about what WoTC is pushing.

What has largely happened is some of us have said "we don't like having the worst aspects of humanity in our game worlds, we don't think you need them" and other people saying that isn't realistic enough for them, and they need to include slavery, racism, forced prostitution, dog fighting and whatever else they feel like because that is how the world actually is in reality and how else will you have conflicts in your game? Which is generally followed by us saying "You can do that in your home game if you want. WoTC never will because they have too large of an audience, and it isn't needed to make conflict in your game. You can have conflicts and evil people without going all the way down the sewer."

And yes, before anyone jumps in to tell me that THEY never said THAT, I'm summarizing the thread and synthesizing the posts of six different people, because I am talking about the general flow of the thread, not you in specific.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, and some lines end up being that the GM and players... would prefer to look at things from a modern perspective to make sure that their fantasy worlds they made up for fun are actually fun to exist in for those players and GMs.

Not saying otherwise. We just have very different ideas on that score.

 

[TiQuinn]

What has largely happened is some of us have said "we don't like having the worst aspects of humanity in our game worlds, we don't think you need them" and other people saying that isn't realistic enough for them, and they need to include slavery, racism, forced prostitution, dog fighting and whatever else they feel like because that is how the world actually is in reality and how else will you have conflicts in your game? Which is generally followed by us saying "You can do that in your home game if you want. WoTC never will because they have too large of an audience, and it isn't needed to make conflict in your game. You can have conflicts and evil people without going all the way down the sewer."

Makes me wonder how many people in this thread use safety tools in their games like lines and veils or the X card, etc. Because talking about this in a forum is one thing, having slavery as a plot point in a game at a table and one of the players says “that’s not cool, I’m uncomfortable with this” is another.

 

[MGibster]

Makes me wonder how many people in this thread use safety tools in their games like lines and veils or the X card, etc. Because talking about this in a forum is one thing, having slavery as a plot point in a game at a table and one of the players says “that’s not cool, I’m uncomfortable with this” is another.

I don't use x-cards and I typically only use lines & veils during session zero when running a horror game. I've never felt the need to use safety tools to play D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Makes me wonder how many people in this thread use safety tools in their games like lines and veils or the X card, etc. Because talking about this in a forum is one thing, having slavery as a plot point in a game at a table and one of the players says “that’s not cool, I’m uncomfortable with this” is another.

For the record, I do have a safety discussion in session 0.

 

[Reynard]

I don't use x-cards and I typically only use lines & veils during session zero when running a horror game. I've never felt the need to use safety tools to play D&D.

I run at conventions regularly and I always make sure the participants are aware of the availability of the X card. No one has ever pulled it.

 

[Belen]

Makes me wonder how many people in this thread use safety tools in their games like lines and veils or the X card, etc. Because talking about this in a forum is one thing, having slavery as a plot point in a game at a table and one of the players says “that’s not cool, I’m uncomfortable with this” is another.

I do not use any safety tools. I have never seen a reason to use them in my games. I typically run PG-13 games (i.e., hardcore stuff usually happens offscreen) and usually only run games for people I know these days. The last time I recruited new folks, I did describe the types of games I run and I made sure to meet them in person to make sure that there were compatible vibes.

 

[Lanefan]

The only thing I see WotC facilitating is butt kicking for goodness by defeating slavers and freeing people. Or is there something I'm missing? As for the prices, no. Why would they include that?

Why? Because, for typical PCs who are rolling in wealth, an easy and obvious way to free slaves is to buy them and then set them free. And dunno 'bout you but were I the DM and some PCs did this I wouldn't have a clue what to charge them.

 

[MGibster]

Why? Because, for typical PCs who are rolling in wealth, an easy and obvious way to free slaves is to buy them and then set them free. And dunno 'bout you but were I the DM and some PCs did this I wouldn't have a clue what to charge them.

In all my years of playing D&D, I've never experienced PCs who wanted to buy slaves because they were rolling in wealth. I'm sure they exist, but I don't think it's common and I don't see why WotC would include such prices in their game. Come to think of it, because the economy is so wonky, would it even make sense to to own slaves from a strictly economic point of view? The Soviets kept a bunch of German POWs after World War II to use them as forced labor but finally gave up when they figured out the program cost them far more than they would ever get back.