D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[Vaalingrade]

Sure, that's what I am: a fifty-three-year-old edgelord. Yep.

Didn't call you one. I was one and had such ideas and have grown tired of them. The stuff you were complaining about is the same as what that guy I was would constantly complain about.

Re-read what I wrote: I expressly did not say "People suck," or even "People are basically bad." I said "People are basically mixed." Mixed as in "roughly equal portions of both." Go on--show me the post-adolescent edgelord who says that.

See, I read the part that was complaining about 'trivializing the reality of evil' and "suggest a world in which sincere good intentions are enough (I mean, I wish they were, but they aren't)" and ' implicitly trivialize human evil', which is the kind of thing I used to say before I decided human evil deserves to be not just trivialized, but kicked aside to accentuate the positive to encourage its growth and to realize 'evil' is just bad motivation and bad choices, not some force or energy out there in the world acting on its own.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Imma PM ya 'cuz I done littered the thread enough.

 

[Malmuria]

Some random thoughts on dnd art

- I feel that for a lot of people, perhaps particularly young people, one of the main ways they interact with the hobby is through drawing “original characters.” The main dnd reddit page seems to mostly consist in such “OC”s. I think this comes out of fan fiction culture and is something newer fans are bringing into the hobby.

- the character-driven art in official 5e products is going to represent the fact that 5e has a large number of playable races. Any grouping of characters are going to have tieflings, orcs, genasi, goblins, etc, depicted as protagonists not as “monsters” as they would have been in earlier editions.

- not sure if the art is more “cute” on the whole. It does seem less geared towards only a hetero male audience. This is a difficult thing to track, but I think of the way that Tieflings have become queer coded in a lot of fan art, and that is probably filtering back into the official art. I get a similar sense in the willingness to put non-action scenes on the covers, to make explicit that those scenes are also “dnd” in addition to the fighting the lich scenes. Or, for that matter, to make a cover saturated not with cool greens, but with vibrant purple. We see this with Dawes’s work that I posted—a similar art style might read differently based on color palette, context, and topic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah I'm with @doctorbadwolf on the "surviving via predation" seeming...completely unrelated to the stuff you've described @South by Southwest, and I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by "IRL, the world doesn't love us; a fantasy world that does is soft."

And this bit...

This I vehemently disagree with. “People are basically good” does not trivialize human evil. It contrasts and highlights it. If anything, pessimistic views of people trivialize human evil by making it seem like people are just behaving naturally.

...I completely agree with. Grimdark is almost always WAY, WAY more "trivializing" of evil and its banality, because it flattens the world into "bad people potentially doing kind-of-okay things for usually bad reasons" vs "bad people doing mostly sucky things for usually bad reasons." A world that has brightness in it actually has the possibility of differences.

I further...have no idea what the connection is between building a world wherein people generally have good intentions (even if they still do bad things) and "trivializing the reality of evil." Like, let me speak in concrete terms, referring to the world I myself have made.

I run a game for my friends that I call Jewel of the Desert, using Dungeon World. It is set in the Tarrakhuna region, a semi-arid, arid, or outright desert land. The Tarrakhuna is heavily inspired by the Thousand and One Nights, the Seven Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor, several actual Islamic Golden Age classics, and certain actual places or time periods, such as Al-Andalus at the height of its success and glory. It samples from the geography and culture of Moorish Spain and Morocco specifically and North Africa, the Near and Middle East, and (to a limited extent) the Indian subcontinent.

I have explicitly and intentionally set out to create an overall "bright" world. Overall, the average person is generally decent; showing mercy is almost always an effective strategy; there is a general opposition to most really terrible things (e.g., slavery is outlawed and considered really really awful). Ordinary folks mostly want to do the right thing, but they may not always know what the right thing is, or they may feel backed into a corner, or fall prey to schemes or manipulation and not know how to get out. Most (NOT all, but most) leadership types are either actually good people, or "pragmatically good" people--doing good, or at least beneficial/pro-social things, because those things are useful or productive, not out of the goodness of their heart.

Yet there are also some really dark things in this world. There's a literal assassin-cult that consorts with devils and desires the ability to murder people basically whenever they want. There's a secret faction of druids who want to destroy all the cities and their residents and turn the region into a massive swamp ruled by their hive-mind. A black dragon has been manipulating the city for centuries to take over, having the entire city as its "hoard." There was a horrific mind-virus spirit-entity, the Song of Thorns, capable of infecting and corrupting people solely by reading the lyrics of the Song. (Note "was": the party killed this spirit very extremely dead.) The rich and powerful--super-merchants, Jinnistani nobles, archwizards, etc.--often suffer no consequences for their misdeeds unless they do something very stupid.

Darkness exists in this world. And it absolutely does threaten to overtake the good and noble things, if no one acts. But the world as it already exists is WORTH saving. It is a place where people can, in fact, actually be happy. They are not guaranteed to be happy, or good, or friendly. But they probably are, so long as they're given a chance.

That's why this kind of art appeals to me. The world I have made is not at all afraid to stare into the ugliness that mortal-kind can display, but it does not revel in it, nor does it normalize it. The light shines; its defenders, if sincere and true, can keep it shining. That doesn't mean it's impossible for darkness to grow and spread--indeed, the darkness is constantly looking for new openings to exploit, that's kind of how it rolls. But good people, in the right place, at the right time, can stop the darkness and save, perhaps not the whole world, but certainly the part of it they know about.

Because I'm so tired of worlds where cynicism is the norm. I'm so completely done with worlds where most people are selfish, racist idiots. That doesn't mean I make every NPC a saint. But it does mean that, in general, doing the right thing for the right reasons works, if people are willing to stand up. That is, to be sure, somewhat fantastical.

It's a fantasy, that's the point.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Yeah I'm with @doctorbadwolf on the "surviving via predation" seeming...completely unrelated to the stuff you've described @South by Southwest, and I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by "IRL, the world doesn't love us; a fantasy world that does is soft."

What I mean isn't complicated or weird: a fantasy world in which success is generally easy and one's character dying only happens in really extreme scenarios is a "soft" fantasy world. That's all I mean by it--nothing more.

I run a game for my friends that I call Jewel of the Desert, using Dungeon World.

Okay, now I'm freaking out. That is the exact name I chose for one of the chunks of my newly-written campaign. I chose it for this gorgeous little town I lived in in the Indian desert long ago.

It is set in the Tarrakhuna region, a semi-arid, arid, or outright desert land. The Tarrakhuna is heavily inspired by the Thousand and One Nights, the Seven Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor, several actual Islamic Golden Age classics, and certain actual places or time periods, such as Al-Andalus at the height of its success and glory. It samples from the geography and culture of Moorish Spain and Morocco specifically and North Africa, the Near and Middle East, and (to a limited extent) the Indian subcontinent.

I have explicitly and intentionally set out to create an overall "bright" world. Overall, the average person is generally decent; showing mercy is almost always an effective strategy; there is a general opposition to most really terrible things (e.g., slavery is outlawed and considered really really awful). Ordinary folks mostly want to do the right thing, but they may not always know what the right thing is, or they may feel backed into a corner, or fall prey to schemes or manipulation and not know how to get out. Most (NOT all, but most) leadership types are either actually good people, or "pragmatically good" people--doing good, or at least beneficial/pro-social things, because those things are useful or productive, not out of the goodness of their heart.

No problem to my mind. It is not my claim here that D&D adventures OR ART ought always and everywhere to depict life as dark, unforgiving, and "nasty, brutish, and short." That would....suck. Really.

What I do contend is that there should be space for nastiness and evil that doesn't just roll over and die when the Unstained Virtuous Ones come marching in. One of the things I like most about Strahd is how very killable he just isn't. I've played in campaigns where both progress and victory were really easy, right? And they got boring fast. In my fantasy worlds, I want evil to be smart, savvy, and dangerous. Recent official art doesn't seem to focus much on danger. But I would never want my party's every adventure to about another Strahd, either. The game needs to be fun, and it won't be if all in it is pain, misery, and nasty, clawing back-stabbing. I prefer goodness and beauty be in there no less than evil and corruption. As you say below, it's a fantasy, that's the point. No disagreement from me.

That's why this kind of art appeals to me. The world I have made is not at all afraid to stare into the ugliness that mortal-kind can display, but it does not revel in it, nor does it normalize it. The light shines; its defenders, if sincere and true, can keep it shining.

We don't know each other, but let me here assure you: I am all about that, and not just in D&D. I believe in decency because it's decent, not because of anything it brings me.

Because I'm so tired of worlds where cynicism is the norm.

I don't want it to be the norm; I just don't want hard things to be consistently ignored in the my version of the game. If others do (and I don't say you do), that's their business and their choice, of course.

I'm so completely done with worlds where most people are selfish, racist idiots. That doesn't mean I make every NPC a saint. But it does mean that, in general, doing the right thing for the right reasons works, if people are willing to stand up. That is, to be sure, somewhat fantastical.

I more than agree with this and don't even consider it fantastical; I consider it--in a limited way--achievable IRL. I mean, insofar as we see real evil in the world as evil, it follows that there really has to be such a thing as goodness, right? We wouldn't get so upset about it if something better weren't truly possible.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, I hadn't quite paid attention, but, look at the top of the page and the poll.

75% of people aren't seeing a major change in the aesthetics or aren't bothered by the changes if they're there. Less than 10% of respondents actually dislike the changes.

Pretty much sums up the whole thing doesn't it? Either people don't see or don't care about the changes and only a tiny minority of people are actually seeing what the OP saw.

If 3 out of 4 people don't dislike something, you're doing pretty good.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Heh, I hadn't quite paid attention, but, look at the top of the page and the poll.

75% of people aren't seeing a major change in the aesthetics or aren't bothered by the changes if they're there.

Less than 10% of respondents actually dislike the changes.

Pretty much sums up the whole thing doesn't it? Either people don't see or don't care about the changes and only a tiny minority of people are actually seeing what the OP saw.

If 3 out of 4 people don't dislike something, you're doing pretty good.

mmmmh...
Maybe you want to make more homogeneuos sums.

@160 voters:

We can say that changes are perceived by 67% against 16,9% that doesn't express on the existence of changes (clearly trying to subctract him/her self from the discussion, giving that that kind of response can end on some other already present statement without difficulties) and 16,3% who negates that there are changes.
So our poll indicates clearly that the large majority of people actually see a change in aesthetics.

From those who recognize changes, only 13% confirm that the changes are in line with their fantasy world style.
The majority (51%) do not have problems with the changes, but anyway do not want to play in a fantasy world that reflect the new aesthetics. Worst: 11% feels damaged by the new aesthetics and 13% is very upset feeling that it seems another game at all.

So we can say that people that embrace the change in all is only 13%. The rest are various nuance of dislikeness: from the 51% who it's ok with those changes but do not use them to inspire him/herself, to a 24% who feels upset in a way or another by it. There is also a 11% who feels unable to express a position about.

So far, we cannot say that is a bed of roses. Obviously this poll is polarized and not representative, just a little out of curiosity way to give a free space of expression about the topic to forum members.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The majority (51%) do not have problems with the changes, but anyway do not want to play in a fantasy world that reflect the new aesthetics.

That is not what that choice says. It says "I'm ok with those changes, even if my ideal setting has a different aesthetics."

Nothing in that says they don't want to play with those aesthetics, just that it isn't their ideal.

 

[Yaarel]

The poll is faulty for many reasons, ranging from options with faulty premises, options confused by combining more than one option, and options that were added late after the other option already received votes.

The results of the poll are flawed, even meaningless, and any analysis of it largely moot.

 

[Fifth Element]

The majority (51%) do not have problems with the changes, but anyway do not want to play in a fantasy world that reflect the new aesthetics.

You have no basis for that conclusion. Very few people ever play in their "ideal" setting, which is how you phrased the poll, because they are only one person at the table. Claiming that someone does not way to play in a world that is not their ideal setting is untenable, because plenty of settings are "good enough" even if they're not ideal.

64% of the people who acknowledge a change either actively like the change or are fine with it.