D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[David Howery]

I thought it was extremely icky back in the early 90s. It was one of the things that embarrased me about D&D even then.

I started gaming not long after they first appeared in G3... of all the problematic stuff in 1E, the only thing that made me think 'geez, that's not right' was the notorious 'random prostitute' table in the back of the DMG...

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Exactly. And we can admit that until DS9, maybe they didn't have so much intent to subvert it, but eventually developed it.

Yes. And I agree that Quark, Rom et al. are some of the most sympathetic characters within the whole franchise.

I think that with Star Trek - where alien species were explicitly designed to be monolithic expressions of certain facets of the human psyche - that it's been very difficult to avoid stereotyping. As individual characters are explored through the show, and they become more relatable, that in turn impacts the fans' understanding of the species as a whole, and informs subsequent development.

Klingons are perhaps the most developed, with the oriental/shoe polish layer, the noble savage/samurai hybrid layer, the religious zealot layer etc. - maybe Klingons have successfully shucked their stereotypical influences by now, but the road there wasn't easy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And yet, no one seemed to connect the dots on that way back in the day.

As I’ve discussed in many similar threads, people DID have an issue with it back then. Almost nobody really listened, though.

There’s all kinds of reasons for that, of course. The hobby was much more insular back then, less integrated. There were fewer ways of actually getting the message out to anyone who could make a difference. And, of course, not all those who could be reached would actually care.

 

[Hussar]

the Drow is the one that, in hindsight, had incredibly bad optics. And yet, no one seemed to connect the dots on that way back in the day. I certainly didn't, and I don't recall anyone in my gaming circle pointing it out. I wonder sometimes if the fact that D&D was invented and played by 'white males who were interested in Conan and LOTR" almost 100% in the early days led to the problematic stuff being overlooked so much....

Honestly, I don't think there's any doubt. It's hardly like D&D is alone here. Fantasy as a genre has been that way for a very, very long time.

And, it does take time to change. Twenty years ago, or so, people really started pushing for less cheesecake, chainmail bikini art. And there was all sorts of push back back then saying that such art was just part of fantasy. But, now, we have pretty damn good art in D&D books and, no cheesecake. So, it's not like it was a loss. Same goes with showing more representation in the art as well. Having characters that look like more people is a good thing, I think. Most people seem to think it's a good thing. And, it's led to some really great art in the books. Win win.

So, when people talk about losing things because of removing stuff that people find off putting, I really have to wonder why people think that. There's pretty much no evidence for it. Every time we've ejected some problematic element out of the hobby, it has made the hobby better and made it more appealing to more people.

Given a pretty strong winning streak over the past couple of decades, I just don't understand the resistance.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Star Trek is actually a pretty good example of how to do it right - Klingons, Ferengi, reformed terrorists, so on and so forth. Nuanced depictions lead to better stories.

It's utterly baffling to me that people think that this will somehow lead to less creativity. That somehow adding depth and nuance to descriptions of various game elements will mean losing something.

People are commenting on what they see WotC actually doing, not on what they in theory could do. Yes, I would love to see D&D species to be expanded to have nuanced deep lore like the Klingons. But that absolutely is not what is currently happening. As noted, all the new species are incredibly barebones, they have next to no lore, to the point that even their physical size is undefined. It is the literal opposite of nuanced deep lore.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

the Drow is the one that, in hindsight, had incredibly bad optics. And yet, no one seemed to connect the dots on that way back in the day. I certainly didn't, and I don't recall anyone in my gaming circle pointing it out. I wonder sometimes if the fact that D&D was invented and played by 'white males who were interested in Conan and LOTR" almost 100% in the early days led to the problematic stuff being overlooked so much....

I remember being bothered by this for decades.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, but it seems to me the solution to that is world building: show me a world where goblinoid cultures are diverse and fully developed. I think setting books are a better place for that kind of information. It does pose a problem of how to describe a goblin in the core MM though. 5e monster books might be the worst of both: bloated descriptions that still manage to paint entire races with a broad brush, to the point that removing text actually helps make creatures more varied.

So, D&D's problem here is the fact it isn't developed for one setting, but multiple ones.

Star Trek, for the most part, has one general overall setting and timeline (with some divergence, notably the Kelvin timeline). A species like the Ferengi or Klingons have had decades of writers writing about the same group of people, adding, and remixing as needed, until something closer to a fleshed-out culture emerged. You could say the same is true of Pathfinder which has used the same setting (Golarion) for all supplements and adventures. Barring the things retconned out or never-spoken-of, every bit of Pathfinder lore expands Golarion and refines it.

D&D has never had a single setting. Well, one that stuck, I guess. It had a few default settings, but it always immediately tried to support multiple settings at once. The closest we got to this might have been the Nerath/Nentir Vale era in 4e and early attempts to make Faerun the sample setting in 5e, but both times people clamored for more settings.

This paints a problem as in Pathfinder there is one race of elves that can expanded upon supplement after supplement, but in D&D there are Oerth elves, Faerun elves, Krynn elves, Eberron elves, Ravenloft elves, Mystara elves, Athas elves, etc. Each a little different than the next, and in some cases (Eberron and Athas) radically different. Now, imagine a setting book that tries to create a fleshed-out culture for that setting's elves, dwarves, dragonborn, orcs, goblins, dragons, beholders, giants, etc. You'd fill 400+ tomes just doing that! And most settings don't get support beyond one book, so you'd either end up with a bunch of creatures that have one paragraph culture (defeating the purpose) or are just ignored. D&D lore is not additive, its competitive.

D&D has tried to skirt the issue with a "default + exceptions" system: the Core books provide a default or stock version of creature in question, and when a setting diverges from it, it spells out the difference. Except now, we are leaning towards no default, just blank slates that settings will have to address in the limited page-count they already have. I don't see how any cultural detail gets fleshed out in this model, and instead we are going to get very generic descriptions and stat-blocks with limited information.

OF COURSE, if D&D wanted to abandon the multiverse and create a unified D&D setting akin to Golarion (Nentir Vale 2.0) and use the space in the PHB, MM, supplements, and modules to explore various aspects of the setting in great detail, the work would be much simpler. Volo's guide goes over the different types and tribes of orcs in Nerath 2, Fizban's guide goes over the dragons and dragonborn cultures of one setting with great detail rather than try to adapt to a dozen different worlds, you could do it. Of course, no setting right now is in a good place to become the default setting (most 2e era settings are carrying baggage issues, and Eberron is a little too unique to be D&D's default setting unless you want dragonmarks and warforged as core).

So, as I see it, there are two choices effectively if the current model is no longer working.

1.) Create an all-encompassing monosetting that D&D can expand in great detail, while leaving ALL other settings in the dustbin.
2.) Make the core rules extremely vague and generic and assume that the DM will have to do all the major lifting using some guidance from various setting books.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of either. But this is the Sophie's Choice that we're facing. What's more important: multiple diverse settings or multiple diverse cultures per species?

 

[Scars Unseen]

So, as I see it, there are two choices effectively if the current model is no longer working.

1.) Create an all-encompassing monosetting that D&D can expand in great detail, while leaving ALL other settings in the dustbin.
2.) Make the core rules extremely vague and generic and assume that the DM will have to do all the major lifting using some guidance from various setting books.

I'm not a fan of those options either, and I don't think D&D can fully embrace either and retain the level of popularity it has reached so far. The former would fly in the face of one of D&D's bigger strengths: that by not being explicitly beholden to any one setting, it makes for a decent starting point for any number of settings, most notably including custom ones for each gaming group. The latter would just be a repeat of the mistake WotC made with 4E: keeping settings in name only while actively demolishing everything that made them what they were. They've already done a good job of ensuring that the best setting material to draw from is decades old books they didn't publish. It'd be a shame to do the same with entire core elements of the game itself.

In all honesty, the best thing they could do IMO is keep to your "default + exception" format, but instead of books with those exceptions, lean hard into reviving the old Monster Ecologies format for Dragon+ and then publish digital compendiums on an annual basis, with print on demand for those who want a physical version. And throughout that, they can revise old monsters and races where necessary and flesh out new ones as they're created.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not a fan of those options either, and I don't think D&D can fully embrace either and retain the level of popularity it has reached so far. The former would fly in the face of one of D&D's bigger strengths: that by not being explicitly beholden to any one setting, it makes for a decent starting point for any number of settings, most notably including custom ones for each gaming group. The latter would just be a repeat of the mistake WotC made with 4E: keeping settings in name only while actively demolishing everything that made them what they were. They've already done a good job of ensuring that the best setting material to draw from is decades old books they didn't publish. It'd be a shame to do the same with entire core elements of the game itself.

In all honesty, the best thing they could do IMO is keep to your "default + exception" format, but instead of books with those exceptions, lean hard into reviving the old Monster Ecologies format for Dragon+ and then publish digital compendiums on an annual basis, with print on demand for those who want a physical version. And throughout that, they can revise old monsters and races where necessary and flesh out new ones as they're created.

I like the concept, but Dragon+ is not Dragon Magazine, having a well-earned reputation as a worthless bundle of advertisements. Maybe they can start a web series with ecology articles. Connecting anything you want people to read to Dragon+ doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[Faolyn]

OF COURSE, if D&D wanted to abandon the multiverse and create a unified D&D setting akin to Golarion (Nentir Vale 2.0) and use the space in the PHB, MM, supplements, and modules to explore various aspects of the setting in great detail, the work would be much simpler. Volo's guide goes over the different types and tribes of orcs in Nerath 2, Fizban's guide goes over the dragons and dragonborn cultures of one setting with great detail rather than try to adapt to a dozen different worlds, you could do it. Of course, no setting right now is in a good place to become the default setting (most 2e era settings are carrying baggage issues, and Eberron is a little too unique to be D&D's default setting unless you want dragonmarks and warforged as core).

So, as I see it, there are two choices effectively if the current model is no longer working.

1.) Create an all-encompassing monosetting that D&D can expand in great detail, while leaving ALL other settings in the dustbin.
2.) Make the core rules extremely vague and generic and assume that the DM will have to do all the major lifting using some guidance from various setting books.

There's a third possibility--one that D&D has actually done in the past. In some of the 3x MMs, the monsters (or at least some of them) would have two sections at the end of each write-up, entitled "Monster in the Forgotten Realms" and "Monster in Eberron."

It seems that WotC could go back to something like that, if they had a "Nentir Vale 2.0." Here's how the monster is generically. Here's the role it plays in this particular setting. It would be particularly useful if those two sections were sometimes quite different, as opposed to "here's gnolls, who are violent ravagers, and here's gnolls in NV2, who are violent ravagers in this particular area." More like "Gnolls are territorial hunters but are willing to let intruders alone if they prove they aren't going to hunt the gnolls' food supplies. In NV2, they are actually demon-spawn who will kill anyone who enters their territory."