EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I'm not the person you asked, but I feel this is an excellent question to answer, so I'll take the plunge if you're okay with that.
For my part, D&D is four things: a game, and primarily a cooperative one; a fantastical collaboration (which may or may not be "a story"); an expression and/or exploration of myth, legend, culture, and history; and a social activity, both for each individual group that plays it at a specific table, and for folks like you and I who engage with one another across and between such groups.
D&D-as-game: I don't want to exclude the possibility of competitive approaches to D&D, because those exist and are valid, but I consider it self-evident that the fundamental, rock-bottom essence of D&D-as-game is cooperative rather than competitive. The fact that it is fundamentally a cooperative game (even if it can also be a competitive one) means that it should, up to a reasonable standard, treat distinct approaches of play equally, especially if they are in principle billed as equal things. For example, nothing in the game indicates that specific races or classes stand out from the rest, so these things should be within some reasonable range of "equal" to one another--that does not mean perfect lockstep exactitude, but it does mean that I should be able to reasonably get a similar level of participation and contribution by choosing to play a Fighter as I would by choosing to play a Sorcerer. The specific kinds of participation and contribution may (indeed, I would argue should) be different in at least some ways, but they should be reasonably commensurate regardless of class chosen. (Races are slightly different, since they affect stats, and stats are clearly described for what impact they should have; but up to differences in stats, it shouldn't be unreasonably more useful to play an Elf than to play a Dragonborn or whatever.)
This is a long-winded way of saying that, as a cooperative game, D&D should have reasonable and well-supported balance between options billed as equal. There are further things involved here, such as my belief that a well-made ongoing game requires the ability to make informed decisions and to learn from past mistakes, but this section has already grown overlong.
D&D-as-fantastical-collaboration: Using this phrasing in part because I understand that, for many, D&D doesn't have or need any story element per se, or any story should always arise after rather than occur "in the moment" or be planned beforehand. I think even those folks, though, would agree that apart from the actual gaming component, the players and the DM are collaborating in order to have an enjoyable experience. The previous section was about what I think the rules should be; this and later sections are about what I think the practice should be. Because rules =/= practice; it's a difference between the syntax of a language and the semantic content of specific expressions.
But as to what this means, we're in it together, all of us, whichever side of the screen we sit on. We treat each other with respect, and we respect the spirit of the game. Ideally, if the previous section was well-designed, there should never be any need for practice to override the rules, because the rules exist only to serve the practice and for no other purpose. Such things are difficult, though, and thus there may be times when practice should override the letter of the rules, in order to preserve the spirit thereof. However, that should be done with caution, since (as alluded to above) "balance" is in some sense also part of the spirit of the rules, and overriding the rules carries a significant risk of violating that spirit. Apart from rules, though, this is where things like what counts as an "exploit" vs "creatively using the rules" is decided, where campaign premises and monster selection occur, where the amount of player participation in the creation of the world is decided. There are no singular right answers here, though there may still be wrong ones, e.g. players should not be permitted to be coercive or exploitative, and DMs should not extort or manipulate their players. Coercion and manipulation aren't collaboration, they're control.
D&D-as-mythopoeia: I absolutely love the fact that D&D enables one to explore alternate metaphysics, cosmology, and even epistemology, where the very grounding of what is real or true can be examined. Even for people who don't really want to delve into such aspects, though, D&D is an opportunity to bring out all sorts of wonderful ideas and stories from cultures and groups around the world. There are so many perspectives to explore, it's almost daunting to pick just one! (This is part of why I have such a hard time understanding the constant, almost obsessive-seeming emphasis on "always vaguely-European, always pseudo-Medieval, always Tolkien-esque, always gritty, always traditional," etc. It just seems so confining and closed-off, like having a genie who can magically summon whatever food you want whenever you like and always requesting pizza, usually pepperoni but sometimes going a little wild and getting combination or--the scandal!--Hawaiian.)
This is where the "research into other cultures" stuff comes in, from two directions. One, if I'm to understand anything about a different perspective, I have to show it a minimum of respect, as established in the previous section. That means at least making a good-faith effort to understand its context and message. As before, I don't demand perfection of anybody. I just don't see "try to understand where they're coming from" as some horrible onerous burden, instead I see it as a demonstration of respect. When dealing with things or people you don't know, it is almost always better to be more respectful than necessary, rather than less; I have never regretted being too respectful with things or people I didn't know, but have absolutely regretted failing to be sufficiently respectful. Two, this enriches me as both a person generally and as a DM specifically! I am better able to develop cool and interesting experiences because I have explored so many things and listened to so many perspectives. As DM, I have to play every NPC and creature of the world. By necessity I must portray a diversity of experiences. Exposing myself to more real perspectives and experiences is the best way to practice those skills!
D&D-as-social-activity: Not as much to say on this one. It is what it says on the tin. Some of this was already covered above (e.g. be respectful to the other participants), but it also covers "meta" components of play, like discussions on forums like these, or pursuing art or products I consider worthwhile, or in various other ways being part of the community of people who play D&D. As a community, we have certain rights both individual and collective; and associated with every right is, necessarily, a duty. In society at large, the right to freedom of expression entails a duty not to restrict the expression of others--though it does not entail a duty to witness or engage. In the D&D community, we have a right to engage with the game as we so choose, up to the point of harming others' engagement; and we have a duty to respect the ways others engage, up to the limits of what is acceptable (which generally means "non-harmful.")
This is a long-winded way of saying that, as a cooperative game, D&D should have reasonable and well-supported balance between options billed as equal. There are further things involved here, such as my belief that a well-made ongoing game requires the ability to make informed decisions and to learn from past mistakes, but this section has already grown overlong.
D&D-as-fantastical-collaboration: Using this phrasing in part because I understand that, for many, D&D doesn't have or need any story element per se, or any story should always arise after rather than occur "in the moment" or be planned beforehand. I think even those folks, though, would agree that apart from the actual gaming component, the players and the DM are collaborating in order to have an enjoyable experience. The previous section was about what I think the rules should be; this and later sections are about what I think the practice should be. Because rules =/= practice; it's a difference between the syntax of a language and the semantic content of specific expressions.
But as to what this means, we're in it together, all of us, whichever side of the screen we sit on. We treat each other with respect, and we respect the spirit of the game. Ideally, if the previous section was well-designed, there should never be any need for practice to override the rules, because the rules exist only to serve the practice and for no other purpose. Such things are difficult, though, and thus there may be times when practice should override the letter of the rules, in order to preserve the spirit thereof. However, that should be done with caution, since (as alluded to above) "balance" is in some sense also part of the spirit of the rules, and overriding the rules carries a significant risk of violating that spirit. Apart from rules, though, this is where things like what counts as an "exploit" vs "creatively using the rules" is decided, where campaign premises and monster selection occur, where the amount of player participation in the creation of the world is decided. There are no singular right answers here, though there may still be wrong ones, e.g. players should not be permitted to be coercive or exploitative, and DMs should not extort or manipulate their players. Coercion and manipulation aren't collaboration, they're control.
D&D-as-mythopoeia: I absolutely love the fact that D&D enables one to explore alternate metaphysics, cosmology, and even epistemology, where the very grounding of what is real or true can be examined. Even for people who don't really want to delve into such aspects, though, D&D is an opportunity to bring out all sorts of wonderful ideas and stories from cultures and groups around the world. There are so many perspectives to explore, it's almost daunting to pick just one! (This is part of why I have such a hard time understanding the constant, almost obsessive-seeming emphasis on "always vaguely-European, always pseudo-Medieval, always Tolkien-esque, always gritty, always traditional," etc. It just seems so confining and closed-off, like having a genie who can magically summon whatever food you want whenever you like and always requesting pizza, usually pepperoni but sometimes going a little wild and getting combination or--the scandal!--Hawaiian.)
This is where the "research into other cultures" stuff comes in, from two directions. One, if I'm to understand anything about a different perspective, I have to show it a minimum of respect, as established in the previous section. That means at least making a good-faith effort to understand its context and message. As before, I don't demand perfection of anybody. I just don't see "try to understand where they're coming from" as some horrible onerous burden, instead I see it as a demonstration of respect. When dealing with things or people you don't know, it is almost always better to be more respectful than necessary, rather than less; I have never regretted being too respectful with things or people I didn't know, but have absolutely regretted failing to be sufficiently respectful. Two, this enriches me as both a person generally and as a DM specifically! I am better able to develop cool and interesting experiences because I have explored so many things and listened to so many perspectives. As DM, I have to play every NPC and creature of the world. By necessity I must portray a diversity of experiences. Exposing myself to more real perspectives and experiences is the best way to practice those skills!
D&D-as-social-activity: Not as much to say on this one. It is what it says on the tin. Some of this was already covered above (e.g. be respectful to the other participants), but it also covers "meta" components of play, like discussions on forums like these, or pursuing art or products I consider worthwhile, or in various other ways being part of the community of people who play D&D. As a community, we have certain rights both individual and collective; and associated with every right is, necessarily, a duty. In society at large, the right to freedom of expression entails a duty not to restrict the expression of others--though it does not entail a duty to witness or engage. In the D&D community, we have a right to engage with the game as we so choose, up to the point of harming others' engagement; and we have a duty to respect the ways others engage, up to the limits of what is acceptable (which generally means "non-harmful.")
So. With ALL of that said, I hope you can see why I find full-throated and respectful articulation of cultural elements to be an important goal--particularly those elements that are often neglected or, worse, simply tacky trappings "lazily used" to quote an above poster. That's why I advocated what I did early in the thread. It's not, at all, a matter of snatching others' toys away and scolding them for using them wrong, as many alarmists in this thread have already said or implied. Nor is it a matter of a "slippery slope" toward "everything stays in its own box." It's a matter of gaining understanding, enriching my game (and, as a consequence, myself, which is always nice), and showing respect to others.
Though I think he was being a bit over-dramatic, Gygax described the DM as needing comprehensive knowledge on a huge variety of topics--architecture, geography, ecology, tactics, language--in order to construct a campaign worth playing in. I don't think you need to be encyclopedic on those things, but being conversant in them helps a great deal. You can't really become conversant in (say) archaeology--which is quite likely to be relevant for many adventurers in their delving!--unless you actually read about and research what things occur archaeologically. It doesn't have to be a big thing.
As an example, I had had a vague notion that bas relief was A Thing What's Found A Lot at archaeological sites, so I mentioned it in passing several times. One of my players picked up on that, and has now said his character wants to learn how to sculpt so that he can contribute his own wisdom for the ages in a similar fashion. That made me realize I didn't really know why I'd heard about it so much, so I went looking. After an hour or so of Googling, the consensus was that relief sculpture in general is much sturdier than "sculpture in the round," and bas relief specifically tends to be very sturdy, able to survive thousands of years even under some amount of weathering conditions. (Consider, for example, the open-air temples of Egypt with their sunken-relief walls: weathered, yes, but still discernible despite at least a millennium of neglect!) That's enough work, in my book, to have given a good-faith effort at understanding and respecting this aspect of the field of archaeology. I wouldn't dream of demanding a degree in the field or anything nearly so onerous. But doing a little research and making a conscious decision seems like the least one can do when investing a campaign with something.
