D&D General Should D&D feature fearsome critters and other Americana?

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
I find that doubtful. The creators lived in a homogeneous part of the country and were openly racist. They didn't even want to include Tolkienfolk but gave in to popular demand. The 1st Edition PHB artwork is almost entirely white human men. Suffice to say, Bigfoot would've been a monster through and through, whereas it'd be a playable species today.
Most of us don't play with any Gygaxes, though. The cantina effect is a modern complaint that every tavern in people's home games is filled with 45 different ancestries, including some extremely high-fantasy ones, like people whose grandparents were efreet or dragons.

People were talking about the effect here in ENWorld years before WotC line art depicted it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

borringman

Villager
Yeah, I get it, and I think the back half of my comment agrees with that. Hasbro didn't invent xenophilia; they just changed things to encourage it, because it sells player option supplements.

For example, to get a little back on track, Bigfoot likely wouldn't be a "monster" these days, if released in official WotC material. Sasquatches would be a playable species, naturally with the usual +2s that every species gets.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
Yeah, I get it, and I think the back half of my comment agrees with that. Hasbro didn't invent xenophilia; they just changed things to encourage it, because it sells player option supplements.

For example, to get a little back on track, Bigfoot likely wouldn't be a "monster" these days, if released in official WotC material. Sasquatches would be a playable species, naturally with the usual +2s that every species gets.
and would be called Chewbacca in less than five minutes.
 




Jolly Ruby

Privateer
I think what you risk is taking dnd as a medieval fantasy simulator and turning it too explicitly into a settler-colonial simulator. As you mention it's implicit in the game already--adventurers killing things and taking stuff--but the fantasy medieval gloss makes it more palatable (perhaps).

The medieval fantasy gloss definitely makes it more palatable, at least for people who aren't from North-America, like me. The OD&D's "settlers fantasy" of finding land, getting rid of it's savage chaotic inhabitants and bringing civilization Law to the land while shamelessly robbing every penny you can find isn't that fun if you think about it too much.

Placing it in a fake-medieval setting allowed the DMs and Players to think outside the colonial framework and creating stories that ressonate with a multitude of backgrounds, and I'm sure it's fundamental to D&D popularity outside America.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
The medieval fantasy gloss definitely makes it more palatable, at least for people who aren't from North-America, like me. The OD&D's "settlers fantasy" of finding land, getting rid of it's savage chaotic inhabitants and bringing civilization Law to the land while shamelessly robbing every penny you can find isn't that fun if you think about it too much.

Placing it in a fake-medieval setting allowed the DMs and Players to think outside the colonial framework and creating stories that ressonate with a multitude of backgrounds, and I'm sure it's fundamental to D&D popularity outside America.
I think we have been suggesting adding them to a monster manual or something
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
The medieval fantasy gloss definitely makes it more palatable, at least for people who aren't from North-America, like me. The OD&D's "settlers fantasy" of finding land, getting rid of it's savage chaotic inhabitants and bringing civilization Law to the land while shamelessly robbing every penny you can find isn't that fun if you think about it too much.
I'm working on a hexcrawl setting for an ongoing Shadowdark game and I'm having to carefully strip out anything that smacks too much of Manifest Destiny which, yeah, is very gross.
 


Remove ads

Top