D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Oofta]

Yep, I agree with this! I think D&D has been moving in the right direction for a while.

It just boggles my mind when some people defend how it used to be, as if that's how it is now.

It doesn't bother me if people run their games differently than I run mine.

 

[Minigiant]

The Wired article is about a "study" done by a "social scientist" at a politicized upper-class university in a highly politicized state in the US. In other words, it's done by someone without a real job in an environment that's highly intolerant of dissenting viewpoints.

I'm more than halfway in and yeah it seems like 2 guys talking about some dumb professor who doesn't know what they are talking about.

There are real discussions about race in D&D but this ain't it. The article writer isn't attuned with the game enough to be making sense so two fans are rightfully complaining

 

[toucanbuzz]

 

[Alzrius]

It does, it's just buried in the intro to the MM.

The introduction to the 5e Monster Manual says this, however

"The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you."

Well sure, but that sentiment has been explicit for quite some time. The AD&D 2E Monstrous Manual says in its "How to Use This Book" section: "ALIGNMENT shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered."

The 3E tried to quantify the degree to which such exceptions would occur, using a three-tier system, each tier of which denoted the overall percentage of deviation from the listed alignment. I know some people don't care for that level of quantification, but at least it put the listings right there in each individual creature's entry.

 

[Oofta]

Well sure, but that sentiment has been explicit for quite some time. The AD&D 2E Monstrous Manual says in its "How to Use This Book" section: "ALIGNMENT shows the general behavior of the average monster of that type. Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered."

The 3E tried to quantify the degree to which such exceptions would occur, using a three-tier system, each tier of which denoted the overall percentage of deviation from the listed alignment. I know some people don't care for that level of quantification, but at least it put the listings right there in each individual creature's entry.

It could have been clearer and arguably should have been. I was just pointing out that it is in there.

 

[CleverNickName]

D&D is people. Lots of people. And, much as we may like to think otherwise, there's nothing about RPGs that selects against any of the bad traits of humanity.

So, racism, sexism, and such - you'll find them here, like you'll find them anywhere. The question for each of us is whether we dismissively wave it away, or whether we look at it and work to change that.

I haven't watched the video yet, but... a couple of older white men talking about racism? Not sure that's going to be relevatory.

Umbran has grasped the essence of the discussion (if not the discussion in the video, certainly the discussion that we should be having about it.) The goal isn't to figure out how much racism we can get away with, or who is allowed to get away with it. The goal is to do better.

 

[Umbran]

There are numerous races in D&D. To me, that means diversity exists in D&D.

Okay, that's a great way to put it. To you, that means diversity exists.

Are you in the audience for whom it is a particularly relevant question?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Best summary I can give. Some players maybe racists but the Author of the article is just picking on D&D to get notice.

I'm not sure anyone who's getting published in Wired is starving for attention.

 

[Zardnaar]

Dickheads exist in every sub culture so doesn't surprise me. If I want to play OSR I have to recruit modern gamers there's no OSR movement here. To small I suppose.

D&D's basically a tool to me. It's what you do with it. You can do whatever with it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Wired article is about a "study" done by a "social scientist" at a politicized upper-class university in a highly politicized state in the US. In other words, it's done by someone without a real job in an environment that's highly intolerant of dissenting viewpoints.

Irvine, California, is a conservative -- both in the political and don't-rock-the-boat sense -- city in Orange County, historically one of the most conservative counties in the United States. UC Irvine is also one of the most respected universities in the country.

Deciding it's from a scholar in California, so therefore the argument isn't worth listening to, is silly.