But look at who the complainers are: it's people who are actually gamers, not people who know nothing about RPGs and who are just reacting to whatever conspiracy theory that was presented to them.
If people who are actually gamers are complaining about things in the community, then maybe they should be listened to, because they actually know what they're talking about.
But not everyone agrees about the merits of the complaints, and I think when you look at the results around how to approach tropes and elements of the game, at least to me, it seems to be having a detrimental effect on things like playability and peoples' ability to create things freely. I just don't think it has produced a healthy culture in the hobby
I don't think you'll find anyone objecting to ideas such as these being introduced in new settings. In fact they'd welcome these flipped-script situations. I'm seriously thinking of incorporating your idea in my Mystara game as a rumor for the isolated Alfheim elves (which could or could not be true).
But your question "why aren't there more games like that?" is something for WotC right and game designers? Surely you aren't demanding everyone switch their homebrew games to play your ideal version of D&D?
No, of course I'm not demanding anything. But I am wondering why there aren't more like that. Not that exact scenario, of course, but games where the "kill on sight" foes aren't the typical ones. I mean, my idea isn't even really a flipped script, like you said. I just took a look at a realistic outcome of one group of people wanting to claim an area that was already claimed by another group of people who were of equal power level, and nobody assumed that the second group would just roll over because some of them had "good" in their alignment tag.
Sure, I agree that difference is there. That is why I quoted Tarantino's it's the 80s part II but this time we are doing it to ourselves
But not everyone agrees about the merits of the complaints, and I think when you look at the results around how to approach tropes and elements of the game, at least to me, it seems to be having a detrimental effect on things like playability and peoples' ability to create things freely. I just don't think it has produced a healthy culture in the hobby
Well, not everyone agrees about the merits of your complains or that it's detrimental to playability or creativity, or that it's produced an unhealthy culture. A couple of us have asked how it's detrimental or unhealthy, and your answers have mostly been somewhere between "reasons" and "it's not the kind of game I'm used to." So... shrugs.
No, of course I'm not demanding anything. But I am wondering why there aren't more like that. Not that exact scenario, of course, but games where the "kill on sight" foes aren't the typical ones. I mean, my idea isn't even really a flipped script, like you said. I just took a look at a realistic outcome of one group of people wanting to claim an area that was already claimed by another group of people who were of equal power level, and nobody assumed that the second group would just roll over because some of them had "good" in their alignment tag.
Honestly my impression is many are like this. There are plenty of games out there that don't feature kill on sight monsters and plenty of D&D campaigns are more nuanced. I always saw kill on sight type campaigns as one fully set in "Game mode" where it is there as a conceit to maximize playability. But I know in my own games most encounters are a lot more nuanced (and half the time they are friendly encounters). If there is violence it is usually for a reason (i.e. officials looking for the party because they robbed a bank, a grudge that needs to be settled, etc).
If I had to venture a guess, it would be laziness. I know from myself I think I'm far more creative when I'm running my own adventures and not using published material.
That's why I'm looking forward to when I finish my current campaign and do just that.
EDIT: And I'm a person who loves the original script of orcs as well as flipped scripts. I can have fun with both. And I'm probably one of the few here that loved the Warcraft movie and was very saddened to hear they weren't going to make another.
Well, not everyone agrees about the merits of your complains or that it's detrimental to playability or creativity, or that it's produced an unhealthy culture.
A couple of us have asked how it's detrimental or unhealthy, and your answers have mostly been somewhere between "reasons" and "it's not the kind of game I'm used to." So... shrugs.
Well from the adventures I've got, here are some of the none tribal enemies involved. (I'm spoilering this in case people haven't played them):
Lost Mine has the Redbrands taking control of the village and murdering and stealing at will. The leader of those group being a human from the Lord's Alliance.
[*]It has a drow as an enemy too, who are not tribal.
[*]Dragon of Icespire Peak has a dragon as its main bad guy.
[*]Princes of the Apocalypse has organised cults as the main bad guys, who are acting as bandits. Attacking and raiding caravans and villages is part of what they've been doing. These cults are largely made up of species like humans.
[*]Icewind Dale has Duergar as one of the main enemies, who are definitely not a tribal society. They are sabotaging towns and killing people at will.
[*]Light of Xaryxis (Spelljammer) has Astral Elves, Neogi, Mind Flayers, Vampirates, Giff, and Gith as raiders. All of which have large and powerful organised societies.
#1 -> Okay, but it also features tribal raiders as well. Both in the beginning and the end credits
#2 -> Being the "main bad guy" doesn't mean they are attacking villages and caravans.
#3 -> only part of what they are doing? Hmm, interesting. So their plots went beyond just raiding.
#4 -> "Sabotaging" towns? Not raiding them? And killing people "at will"? What does that even mean.
#5 -> Yes, as space pirates. Now, here is an interesting subversion. How many of those "tribal" people are shown raiding (basically the only thing they do) in the high-class, high-powered organizations of space piracy?
So, we have five adventures here. And other than humans have you noticed that none of the "raider" species double up? It is all one offs. Meanwhile, how easy would it be for me to find five or more adventures showcasing raiding tribal people? Usually one of the same three groups?
Those cannibal halflings that don't raid villages to steal their animals and crops (hint hint, cannibal), who only attack people who enter their land, and are the hyper specific example from a single setting? What about them?
You know what is even more amusing about your example? There is another tribal halfling society, but it doesn't raid its neighbors, and it isn't kill on sight or even enemies of the "civilized" world. Funny how we can have all these different interpretations of halflings, but asking for "let's not keep making orcs the same thing all the time" or "can we have goblins be more complex than murder puppets" gets cries of making everything bland and samey.
It is almost like, the issue isn't trying to show more complex tribal societies, since that is a thing we are allowed to do occassionally... just not with THOSE people.
If the party is attacked by a group of orc bandits, the party will often kill them, track down their home, and kill all the other orcs there, even if there's no reason to assume that any other orcs in the area are hostile. Obviously not always, but frequently, because the purpose of the orcs is to be killed.
Honestly, is this a common aspect of game play today? These days, most of the people I've gamed with won't just attack any random orc they meet. Last time I had a game with orc antagonist, my players were very concerned about not attacking them for no good reason. Even back in the old days, we attacked orcs because it was made clear they were no good villains. We didn't attack them because they were orcs, we attacked them because they were part of the same group raiding or otherwise harming others in the vicinity.
But my reason for focusing on the term "ugly" is that orcs have been othered. It's been made OK to kill them in a way that's rarely acceptable for the "prettier" races.
If I had to venture a guess, it would be laziness. I know from myself I think I'm far more creative when I'm running my own adventures and not using published material.
That's why I'm looking forward to when I finish my current campaign and do just that.
I think it's more than there was a major decision by WOTC to make 5e money by running on nostalgia.
So a good 60% of more of official content was reprinting old content, updating what what extremely outdated, and filling the books with the minimal additional content to sell.
WOTC was more or less focused on selling nostalgia and anemoia to 5e fans.
And quite often failing at some point and falling into the darkness. Since the early days of D&D you could have an exception to the rule. Those very rare exceptions don't invalidate the rule. You aren't going to stop and try to discuss morality with 9,999 vampires just because 1 in 10,000 might have some good in it. You're simply going to kill that 10,000th vampire without ever knowing that it had some good.
I seem to remember the most popular story hour this forum ever had started (20 years ago!) by asking if a paladin could possibly redeem a succubus, even though they are all intrinsically evil.
