D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then those people need therapy, because they are out of touch with reality.

Mod Note:

That’s going a bit far, IMHO.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

This thread got weird.

 

[Guest 85555]

But in their fantasy worlds there is. Like James Cameron's Avatar with the Na'vi (translation the people), or with the various Star Trek races treated as people.
Am I misunderstanding somewhere, or is there an argument being made that it is all fantasy, so fantasy racism doesn't match with real life racism, but in these fantasy games only humans can be people because in real life only humans are people?

It is more subtle than that. You can treat all kinds of beings as humans, racial conflict as standins or commentary on racism in the real world (I've pointed to star trek as well as an example of this sort of thing, where laudable social goals are explored in science fiction). But you can also have worlds that are just meant to be about dealing with creatures that are monsters and not meant to reflect any kind of people. And then sometimes it's just about rolling dice and killing orcs. That doesn't mean the person who is doing that, wouldn't be concerned about racism in the real world with real human beings, or wouldn't be able to watch Avatar and get the underlying ideas concerning race and colonialism (they just wouldn't be bringing that into their own games). The whole point about these being fictional races is mainly just that these aren't actual people in the real world being harmed.

The human and people tangent is probably not giving us any clarity because that actually started to intersect with real world concerns (and so in my case it was more about saying I can see having orcs as monsters who aren't meant to be a people or to be persons----but then people started defining personhood and one of my issues with the definition, because it include 'human being' as part of its definition, and offered only two criteria, it was possible to say some people therefore don't qualify as a person (I was a lot more concerned about that and so I treated the issue of whether orcs, aliens from outer space or undiscovered sapient lifeforms are people as a less pressing concern)

 

[Guest 85555]

I'm not sure it is a problem. If I were reading a novel, most novels at least, little world building tidbits like that kind of nag at me. Because you're absolutely right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources to train, equip, and maintain a significant fighting force and that will rely on some very sophisticated infrastructure (even when taking into account magic and whatnot).

But I admit that I take a slightly different approach to world building for a game. I typically only concern myself with what matters during the actual game play. Does it matter how my city of a million people feeds itself? Not unless it matters during the adventure. Does it matter how a seemingly "tribal" society with no cities, countries, or empires of their own maintain a well trained and equipped standing army? Not unless it matters during the adventure.

I tend to overbuild these things myself, considering a lot of factors (probably because I am more interested in books on trade in the ancient world than fantasy books). But this has also made me a lot more open to the ‘it’s just a game’ approach because I can say in my own experience for every 4-5 players in my group, 1 expresses concern about these kinds of details. Now I like having such players because they are the types who can poke holes in the setting by asking questions, which leads to deeper world building. But only me and that player really care about it, so any time I invest in thinking about population sizes, resources etc, is tune I could have didn’t making orc filled dungeons to explore. I think in the end these are just two different styles of play and it’s good if the core game can accommodate both

Also the kinds of nitpicks you see online (where people are googling information in the course of a discussion) are often not what comes up in live play. It is either usually very idiosyncratic (ie the player happens to know a ton about ancient Mediterranean ship building techniques) or more obvious but important things (I.e. hey where are they getting water for all these people?)

 

[Minigiant]

I actually liked how there was a human creator deity in 4e, but he was killed by Asmodeus and their name and memory struck from the Multiverse, their realm turned to Baator, and their servants turned to devils. Thus humanity had a racial deity but due to them being lost, humanity has adopted all manner of other deities (some racial, some primal, and some monstrous) and that lack of a deity is why humanity is so diverse. It was a far bit more novel than "humans are special snowflakes" thing most settings do to justify humanity having no unified culture or traits.

My 4e DM mad it where Asmodeus convinced the human creator deity to heroically sacrifce himself to win the Dawn War and used that to transform Baator and switch alignments. "Angels must be the same aligment of their god. But what if their god is dead and stricken?"

He went with the myth that Kord created half-orcs to add diversity to the strong orc body. Soeveryone but Humans had a god.

 

[Minigiant]

Also the kinds of nitpicks you see online (where people are googling information in the course of a discussion) are often not what comes up in live play. It is either usually very idiosyncratic (ie the player happens to know a ton about ancient Mediterranean ship building techniques) or more obvious but important things (I.e. hey where are they getting water for all these people?)

Actually a lot of it comes from live play.

Most of the D&D lore is written purely for the perspective of the ones in the dungeon. D&D stopped being a purely silly dungeon game very early.

The second your PCs step outside the dungeon, a lot of the lore stops making sense. That end up breaking the DM's system of having the world move along with the PCs. Because if the world makes no sense, the monster's actions are purely DM fiat and cannot be estimated by players. Which takes players out the game.

I mean the 6MWD was a result of making monster so stupid, resourced, and primitive that there was nothing logically that they could do to a party that retreated, rest, and returned at 100% strength

 

[MGibster]

The second your PCs step outside the dungeon, a lot of the lore stops making sense. That end up breaking the DM's system of having the world move along with the PCs. Because if the world makes no sense, the monster's actions are purely DM fiat and cannot be estimated by players. Which takes players out the game.

I might agree with this assessment if WotC showed any real interest in developing their lore/settings. Curse of Strahd is every bit as silly as the original I-6 Ravenloft module from 1983. Don't get me wrong, it's my all time favorite AD&D adventure, but from a world building perspective it's full of the same problems many other settings are. I might be taking your use of the dungeon literally, for me, as soon as you stop adventuring is when D&D stops making any sense. The economy alone in most settings is odd.

 

[Guest 85555]

Actually a lot of it comes from live play.

Most of the D&D lore is written purely for the perspective of the ones in the dungeon. D&D stopped being a purely silly dungeon game very early.

The second your PCs step outside the dungeon, a lot of the lore stops making sense. That end up breaking the DM's system of having the world move along with the PCs. Because if the world makes no sense, the monster's actions are purely DM fiat and cannot be estimated by players. Which takes players out the game.

I mean the 6MWD was a result of making monster so stupid, resourced, and primitive that there was nothing logically that they could do to a party that retreated, rest, and returned at 100% strength

I might agree with this assessment if WotC showed any real interest in developing their lore/settings. Curse of Strahd is every bit as silly as the original I-6 Ravenloft module from 1983. Don't get me wrong, it's my all time favorite AD&D adventure, but from a world building perspective it's full of the same problems many other settings are. I might be taking your use of the dungeon literally, for me, as soon as you stop adventuring is when D&D stops making any sense. The economy alone in most settings is odd.

In fairness though the original Ravenloft module was an attempt to explain the silliness of a random vampire encounter in a dungeon

I was talking more about deep historical realism stuff (things that get mentioned casually on the internet but require a pretty detailed understanding of economic history and historical cultures to even notice). Not stuff like ‘why is there even a vampire in this dungeon?’ (which is the question Ravenloft tried to address)

 

[Minigiant]

I might agree with this assessment if WotC showed any real interest in developing their lore/settings. Curse of Strahd is every bit as silly as the original I-6 Ravenloft module from 1983. Don't get me wrong, it's my all time favorite AD&D adventure, but from a world building perspective it's full of the same problems many other settings are. I might be taking your use of the dungeon literally, for me, as soon as you stop adventuring is when D&D stops making any sense. The economy alone in most settings is odd.

I meant literally.

The excuses for the humaniod species in the dungeon itself sorta make sense if you swuink at it. And those you meet in the dungeon tend to be ultraviolent. But outside the dungeon, it is just dumb.

Are these controlled monsters who are provided by a powerful master outside the dungeons or thinking people who provide for themselves?

D&D is 50 year old and officially can't answer the question

 

[Minigiant]

In fairness though the original Ravenloft module was an attempt to explain the silliness of a random vampire encounter in a dungeon

I was talking more about deep historical realism stuff (things that get mentioned casually on the internet but require a pretty detailed understanding of economic history and historical cultures to even notice). Not stuff like ‘why is there even a vampire in this dungeon?’ (which is the question Ravenloft tried to address)

The point is that Early D&D/RPG designers copy and pasted real history or false retellings of real history to make the excuses who why intelligent people acted or look like they did.

Not only did this not make sense as only bits and pieces were copied, it was many times offensive to the people or descendants of the people who they copied.