D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Azzy]

Yeah egregious is the wrong word. There isn't anything inherently wrong with leaning on a particular source of media.

If the book was called "Japanese Adventures", it wouldn't be an issue, but that's not how the book was branded.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the book was called "Japanese Adventures", it wouldn't be an issue, but that's not how the book was branded.

Which is why I said it was frustrating for those of us who wanted more Chinese stuff. But I don’t think it’s egregious or morally bad (and it was honestly kind of expected at that time given the prevalence of Japanese stuff)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'll trust Asian voices on how "okay" Oriental Adventures was, rather than folks in this thread who refuse to accept any progress towards a more inclusive D&D.

I highly recommend the Asians Represent podcast, where a panel of Asian-diaspora gamers go through Oriental Adventures (and later, other books) and discuss what works . . . and what very much does not.

I think you should listen to that podcast. I listened to it. Obviously I don’t agree with all their points but I am not saying don’t hear what people have to say. I think you should listen to a broad range of opinions

 

[Dire Bare]

I think you should listen to that podcast. I listened to it. Obviously I don’t agree with all their points but I am not saying don’t hear what people have to say. I think you should listen to a broad range of opinions

I did. It's why I recommended it.

The panelists on the podcast, obviously, do not represent all Asians, or even all Asian-diaspora folks. They don't all agree on all points. They're all gamers, but not all are D&D "super-fans" like many of us here on ENWorld. Some of them were familiar with OA before the podcast discussion, others were looking at it for the first time. Many of the panelists have a degree of academic expertise on Asian cultures and history.

Their consensus on OA was . . . it's bad. It is rife with reductive stereotypes and conflates Asian cultures throughout the book. There isn't much to recommend the book to modern audiences who are of Asian descent or who care about respectful representation of Asian cultures. There is some acknowledgment that this was not the intent of the authors, but it was the result.

The panelists do not represent all valid opinions on the systemic racism embedded in the book, but again, I'll give their voices more weight than those who push back against WotC working to change D&D to move away from words, concepts, and depictions that are racist (if unintentionally) in OA. I'm glad WotC makes the book available as "legacy" content with a much needed disclaimer, but I'm also glad WotC will likely never publish a similar book.

 

[Faolyn]

If you can find me a reference to phylactery between 200 CE and 1975 (when it was incorporated into the D&D lexicon) which doesn’t apply to tefillin, I’ll be impressed. Because I can’t find one.

 

[MGibster]

Their consensus on OA was . . . it's bad. It is rife with reductive stereotypes and conflates Asian cultures throughout the book. There isn't much to recommend the book to modern audiences who are of Asian descent or who care about respectful representation of Asian cultures. There is some acknowledgment that this was not the intent of the authors, but it was the result.

What was the consensus of Asians at the time of publication? While I think OA was a good book, it was definitely a product of its time and has flaws. I wouldn’t expect anyone to publish a book inspired by Asian fantasy in the exact same manner.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I did. It's why I recommended it.

The panelists on the podcast, obviously, do not represent all Asians, or even all Asian-diaspora folks. They don't all agree on all points.

To me this is a key point. I listened to it, and I actually like a lot of the RPG material the host has written, but I also this is one point of view on the topic. I don't think peoples backgrounds are especially important in terms of who gets to have an opinion, but I think listening to people from these places and with Asian backgrounds is relevant so I encourage anyone to listen to the podcast. My own experience talking to people has been a wider set of reactions (the opinions on that podcast are real opinions you will see for sure, but you also see plenty of people who don't have any issues with this stuff, or have a slightly more nuanced reaction). But more importantly, I found some of their criticisms, not very convincing personally. Still I think people should express how they feel and I did enjoy listening to their take on it. Also those were long podcasts, so I understand they were kind of going through on the fly and not necessarily writing out all their opinions in way where the arguments might have been stronger if they weren't off the cuff (not all of it was off the cuff from what I remember but some of it was people reacting to the books in real time). I've done podcasts myself and find that a pretty tricky thing to do on the spot . But we had a whole thread devoted to this when it happened. I still listen to their podcast too because they cover more than just OA (and again I often disagree with their views on these things but I am interested in what they have to say)

Their consensus on OA was . . . it's bad. It is rife with reductive stereotypes and conflates Asian cultures throughout the book. There isn't much to recommend the book to modern audiences who are of Asian descent or who care about respectful representation of Asian cultures. There is some acknowledgment that this was not the intent of the authors, but it was the result.

And we have covered all this here already and in other threads. Needless to say, I think the issue of conflating cultures isn't really a problem in a fantasy setting (I just find it annoying in OA because I would like to have more Chinese material there). In a lot of places I didn't see the stereotypes they found, in some I did though. I still think it is one of the more more interesting D&D books to come out. One of my issues when this first happened is initially the calls were to take down the book completely. I think that would have been very bad for the gaming community because even if someone doesn't like it, it is an important part of gaming history (but also a functional book for those who want to use it for 1E). Ultimately we got the content waring on all the books, which again I don't agree with with, but is a much better outcome than the books being taken down totally.

The panelists do not represent all valid opinions on the systemic racism embedded in the book, but again, I'll give their voices more weight than those who push back against WotC working to change D&D to move away from words, concepts, and depictions that are racist (if unintentionally) in OA. I'm glad WotC makes the book available as "legacy" content with a much needed disclaimer, but I'm also glad WotC will likely never publish a similar book.

And that is fair. I don't weight people's opinions based on their identity but I do seek out a diversity of people to get opinions from.

 

[Voadam]

I'll trust Asian voices on how "okay" Oriental Adventures was, rather than folks in this thread who refuse to accept any progress towards a more inclusive D&D.

I highly recommend the Asians Represent podcast, where a panel of Asian-diaspora gamers go through Oriental Adventures (and later, other books) and discuss what works . . . and what very much does not.

I watched their first two-hour youtube video where they start in on 1e OA and I found it to be terrible analysis and it led me not to trust their analysis in general.

They spent an hour criticizing OA as intentionally sexually exoticizing and othering Asians by introducing the comeliness stat for Asians and not for normal D&D characters.

The comeliness stat had terrible and sexist agency removing mechanics that were awful all around and is worthy of criticism. But it was factually not introduced in OA to set up specifically sexy dragon lady and ugly Asian men stereotypes or to other Asians as different from normal Europeans with weird beauty and ugly powers.

It was not introduced in OA, it was carried over from normal core 1e D&D. It had been introduced in Dragon Magazine, then included in the World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting boxed set, and then into general core 1e D&D with Unearthed Adventures, and then applied straight with no modification in OA along with the other six ability scores.

The Asians Represent guys started in 3e and not 1e and were not familiar with 1e so they came across the new to them mechanic, which is fine. However, they then jumped right from not knowing into assuming it was created to other Asians and asserting incorrectly it was done to do so. If you did not know the background of 1e and the comeliness stat this factually inaccurate portrayal could easily lead to thinking how OA is treating Asians as exotically different and requiring different treatment based on sexualized stereotypes.

There are stereotypes of Asian sexualized exoticization and othering and they are real issues, but they are not things that 1e OA inclusion of comeliness does to separate Asians in the game as different from Europeans in the game. OA treats Asian beauty the same as European beauty.

This not knowing and jumping to their assumptions and asserting their assumptions as facts and not conjectures or impressions removed any trust I had in anything they said about things I did not already independently know. Both facts and characterizations.

Later the lead guy when told about the factual inaccuracy that was the basis of his analysis doubled down and said it did not matter because it was how it struck him at the time.

 

[Bae'zel]

It was not introduced in OA, it was carried over from normal core 1e D&D. It had been introduced in Dragon Magazine, then included in the World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting boxed set, and then into general core 1e D&D with Unearthed Adventures, and then applied straight with no modification in OA along with the other six ability scores.

Yeah that's a very important detail, and background to this. I personally would have never known (and, frankly, I never noticed this in my original copy of OA).

The more you learn.

 

[Gradine]

If I hated myself enough to wade back into this debate, I'd point out that the fact that they chose OA as the product to re-introduce Comeliness is exactly the kind of exoticization and sexualization that the podcast hosts were talking about, and thus the stupid stat existing for different stupid reasons in earlier editions does nothing to negate the point they were making with OA there.

Not that a single minor and ultimately inconsequential factual inaccuracy should completely invalidate the entire rest of their argument or point of view, but then we are humans, and when we emotionally disagree with the topline argument we will do what we can to find and uncover any excuse to toss the baby out with the bathwater.