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

[Micah Sweet]

I think something got chopped there. But, I'll go with your specifics, but, I'm afraid, some are not specific enough to comment.

Races in the PHB - AFAIK, there aren't any real issues there outside of drow and orcs. A bit of rewrite there and we're good to go. I mean, that's already been dealt with hasn't it? And, why

Monsters in the MM - Ok, that's too broad. There are what, 300 (ish) monsters in the MM. Some are perfectly fine, some have some issues. Gonna need a more specific list before I can answer. But, why would calling monsters "monsters" be a problem? Have you heard anyone seriously criticizing calling a dragon a monster? Can you point to specific instances here or is this purely hypothetical?

But, no, I will not pick a race and tell you how I would rewrite it because, frankly, why would I? There is no "what is acceptable or not" checklist that you can just plop down and follow. That's not how this works. We deal with issues as they come up, not create hypotheticals to drown out the real issues that are actually hurting people. So, again, please bring up specific issues and not hypotheticals. Ferengi as a Jewish caricature is not a hypothetical. People have been pointing to that for decades. There is a fair degree of very specific examples - not just the imagery but also the description and dialogue in the shows - that supports the interpretation.

See, that's the problem. I point to similarities in the pictures and get told, oh, well, that's just not good enough. Others point to the connections between the laws of acquisition and Jewish laws, the treatment of women, and various other points of similarities, and that gets ignored because the pictures aren't good enough. It gets rather frustrating to have to keep repeating the same arguments over and over again because people want to only focus on line by line fisking the issue without bothering to step back and see the whole picture.

So, no, again, I cannot answer your question to your satisfaction because you refuse to be very, very specific in your questions. Choose an actual issue and then we can talk. Because throughout this thread, people have been pretty careful to focus on specifics and stuff that can be demonstrated. Hypotheticals are pointless.

If you dont think you can answer, fair enough. But AcererackTriple6 managed something that was good enough for me.

 

[Malmuria]

So here is my greatest fear...

In the last two years, D&D has embraced the multiverse in earnest. At the same time, they have been responding to the notion that "lore" isn't important, and indeed both of their major deep-dive "lore" books (Volo and Tome of Foes) are rife with problematic lore. It would be easy then to scrap much of the lore altogether and only have vague, generalized info and mechanics rather than any sort of depth or detailed lore.

The current method of doing Races post-Tasha shows that; how much lore info do you have about haregons or fairies? What they look like, how they act, what they eat, what kind of societies they live in, who are their allies and enemies, etc.? We aren't even given height, weight, or lifespans anymore. It's the minimum amount of info possible to explain the concept, and the rest is either left to the settings to define them or the DM to figure out. It will be a thumbnail sketch and nothing more.

I suspect we will be seeing something that is between the current 5e write-ups in the PHB/MM (a handful of paragraphs, at most) and the SRD. A little flavor text and a general description, but don't expect things like origins, societies, or other lore like that anymore.

If we consider this purely in terms of game design, is this such a bad thing? I feel like ttrpg rules and reference books should prioritize being useful at the table and not have a paragraphs upon paragraphs of lore that I may or may not actually want to use. Setting books, on the other, can be written for leisurely reading.

 

[Mordhau]

If we consider this purely in terms of game design, is this such a bad thing? I feel like ttrpg rules and reference books should prioritize being useful at the table and not have a paragraphs upon paragraphs of lore that I may or may not actually want to use. Setting books, on the other, can be written for leisurely reading.

The problem for this discussion is that what's useful at the table is fantasy monocultures with non-human species painted in broad stereotyped strokes.

That feels like the elephant in the room to me here. Once we start going beyond individual bad depictions to structural criticism, we have to wrestle with the fact that non-human species are generally functionally simple because that's their basic role in the game. (I think you even see this in science fiction - the more different types of aliens you see, the more each type of alien needs to be clear and distinct and have easily identified characteristics).

 

[Remathilis]

If we consider this purely in terms of game design, is this such a bad thing? I feel like ttrpg rules and reference books should prioritize being useful at the table and not have a paragraphs upon paragraphs of lore that I may or may not actually want to use. Setting books, on the other, can be written for leisurely reading.

Core books have a purpose to inspire and provide context. One of my biggest complaints with 4e's original books what how little they gave me to work with. Races barely filled a page of usable lore, monsters rarely gave more than a few bullet-points worth of explanation, and class abilities had a single sentence to explain what they were in the game-world. One of the biggest noticeable changes came when Essentials was the introduction of lore back into monsters, classes, and races. Explanations, suggestions, ideas. Things that told me what a rule's place in the world was.

I will be saddened if we go back to 4e's "minimalist lore" model. The game will be weaker for it.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem for this discussion is that what's useful at the table is fantasy monocultures with non-human species painted in broad stereotyped strokes.

That feels like the elephant in the room to me here. Once we start going beyond individual bad depictions to structural criticism, we have to wrestle with the fact that non-human species are generally functionally simple because that's their basic role in the game. (I think you even see this in science fiction - the more different types of aliens you see, the more each type of alien needs to be clear and distinct and have easily identified characteristics).

I mean, in almost any fiction a species different than us is just an exaggeration of some human concept or stereotype given an altered physical form. Ask anyone what makes an elf different than a human and the answer HAS to be more than "pointed ears" for it to mean something. Then again, maybe they are just humans with pointed ears. Maybe that's what we (as a community) want them to be now. An elf is just a costume you put on (literally and figuratively) with some associated game mechanics attached.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, in almost any fiction a species different than us is just an exaggeration of some human concept or stereotype given an altered physical form. Ask anyone what makes an elf different than a human and the answer HAS to be more than "pointed ears" for it to mean something. Then again, maybe they are just humans with pointed ears. Maybe that's what we (as a community) want them to be now. An elf is just a costume you put on (literally and figuratively) with some associated game mechanics attached.

I do think that's what us being pushed for. The future of D&D looks to be rather boring in that respect. Very happy I have all the previous material to pull from.

 

[Malmuria]

The problem for this discussion is that what's useful at the table is fantasy monocultures with non-human species painted in broad stereotyped strokes.

That feels like the elephant in the room to me here. Once we start going beyond individual bad depictions to structural criticism, we have to wrestle with the fact that non-human species are generally functionally simple because that's their basic role in the game. (I think you even see this in science fiction - the more different types of aliens you see, the more each type of alien needs to be clear and distinct and have easily identified characteristics).

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I will just note that the amount of lore in OD&D was extremely minimal and somehow we got by.

 

[Mordhau]

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.

Well yes. I think that's inevitable - you can't really do what are lot of people are asking for without setting creation. And probably, I would add, creating a new setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well yes. I think that's inevitable - you can't really do what are lot of people are asking for without setting creation. And probably, I would add, creating a new setting.

Scribe and I have been suggesting that WotC just create a new setting that hits all the bases they want for a while now. Since the core books are going to be so thin now without descriptions, they should have plenty of creative juice left for it!