D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[PsyzhranV2]

“we should be more thoughtful about the messages our fictional works communicate.”

This. A thousand times this.

 

[Tonguez]

I can't believe no one mentioned the biggest trope that D&D gets totally wrong - a magical 100% combat-effective PC or NPC until the magical hit point counter drops to zero, and regardless of encumbrance levels.

People exert themselves during an attack. They tire at a rate based upon exertion levels and physical fitness. They become less effective the longer a fight drags on influenced by damage/pain/injury and offset by adrenaline. Weapons that weigh a few pounds increasingly feel heavier and heavier as a fight goes on. People carrying a literal ton of gear oughtn't be able to be very effective unless they ditch that gear at the first signs of a fight.

Um, I’m not understanding your post.
Just maybe all those things in your second paragraph are what HP loss is representing? HP 0 doesnt have to mean dead - just the accumulation of pain and exhaustion means they can no longer act with any kind of effectiveness.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Um, I’m not understanding your post.
Just maybe all those things in your second paragraph are what HP loss is representing? HP 0 doesnt have to mean dead - just the accumulation of pain and exhaustion means they can no longer act with any kind of effectiveness.

The problem is that when you are on 1hp you are fundamentally 100% as effective at almost everything except taking a blow as you are at full hit points. Your athletics skill is entirely undiminished by being beaten within an inch of your life as long as you are able to stand up. Your accuracy with a bow is entirely undiminished. And there's no fatiguing effect to attacking (other of course than in 4e where you drop down to your at wills or with the Battlemaster burning up their dice).

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Not a single one of those quotes says that, at all.

Indeed, Tolkien’s works were informed by predominant cultural norms of the time, including scientific racism. That doesn’t make him “a biggot,” it is an example of how racism is a product of institutions, not individuals. Modern works that play off of Tolkien’s works perpetuate those ideas, despite them having long been discredited. This does not make modern fantasy authors “bigots,” but it is an example of the perniciousness of institutionalized racism and how thoughtlessness can easily lead to its prepetuation. The message is not “if your fantasy world includes different races you are an evil racist,” it’s “we should be more thoughtful about the messages our fictional works communicate.”

I'm not sure how fantasy worlds count as an "institution" or why fantasy worlds must communicate a message.

As a side note, Someone who espouses racism based on psudoscience is a biggot. Just like Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, Hitler, and probably everyone else in this imperfect world. Biggotry is defined by intolerance. I see no reason why someone being born in another era is an excuse. But just because someone is biggot does not mean he or she did not create a great work of art, invention, etc.

Nevertheless, I fail to see how the color of a made up monster in an elf game indicates biggotry, nor the presence of slavery, sexism, or any other form of discrimination. Fantasy worlds are not real life politics.

I'm very curious how people arrive at that conclusion. I understand why someone might feel uncomfortable with a certain fantasy world, but I don't see how it can be problematic in an of itself.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure how fantasy worlds count as an "institution" or why fantasy worlds must communicate a message.

They don’t. The scientific community is an institution, and scientific racism (which informed Tolkien’s works and in turn informs most of modern fantasy) is a product of institutionalized racism.

As a side note, Someone who espouses racism based on psudoscience is a biggot. Just like Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, Hitler, and probably everyone else in this imperfect world. Biggotry is defined by intolerance. I see no reason why someone being born in another era is an excuse.

Indeed it is not an excuse. And any racist ideas Tolkien may have espoused are not excused by the time in which he lived (I’m not familiar enough with Tolkien’s personal views to form a judgment, I am only familiar with his work, and at that only casually.) However, his inaccurate views on race aren’t what I would call something he “espoused” any more than I “espouse,” say, the theory of gravity. It was a part of his worldview, informed by his culture, which was institutionally racist. And that can be seen in his writing.

But just because someone is biggot does not mean he or she did not create a great work of art, invention, etc.

Sure, but nor does it mean their bigotry doesn’t have a negative impact of the quality of their work.

Nevertheless, I fail to see how the color of a made up monster in an elf game indicates biggotry, nor the presence of slavery, sexism, or any other form of discrimination. Fantasy worlds are not real life politics.

And again, no one is claiming that the color of a made up monster or the presence of slavery, sexism, or any other form of discrimination in a work of fiction indicates bigotry on the part of the creator. You should endeavor to understand an argument before attempting to critique it.

I'm very curious how people arrive at that conclusion. I understand why someone might feel uncomfortable with a certain fantasy world, but I don't see how it can be problematic in an of itself.

Because the message of a work matters independently of the author’s views and intent. People have found great value in the works of bigoted creators, and people have been harmed by the works of well-meaning creators. The effects a work has on its audience is tremendously more important than the intent of its creator.

 

[Hussar]

Or, to put it another way, the author doesn't matter at all. The author is a false construct when trying to critique a work because, well, what the author thinks, feels, or whatever else, is completely and utterly irrelavent. The author hasn't been relevant to criticism for about seventy years now.

The author is irrelevant because author's lie, author's change their minds and are completely unreliable as a source. Never minding that the author might be too dead to discuss the work in question.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or, to put it another way, the author doesn't matter at all. The author is a false construct when trying to critique a work because, well, what the author thinks, feels, or whatever else, is completely and utterly irrelavent. The author hasn't been relevant to criticism for about seventy years now.

The author is irrelevant because author's lie, author's change their minds and are completely unreliable as a source. Never minding that the author might be too dead to discuss the work in question.

its worth noting that the death of the author isn’t a universally held position with regards to criticism.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or, to put it another way, the author doesn't matter at all. The author is a false construct when trying to critique a work because, well, what the author thinks, feels, or whatever else, is completely and utterly irrelavent. The author hasn't been relevant to criticism for about seventy years now.

The author is irrelevant because author's lie, author's change their minds and are completely unreliable as a source. Never minding that the author might be too dead to discuss the work in question.

its worth noting that the death of the author isn’t a universally held position with regards to criticism.

Yeah, it’s complicated. While I generally don’t put much stock in authorial intent and consider message to be far more important, I also don’t think Death of the Author in the traditional sense (where the context surrounding a work’s creator is treated as irrelevant to analysis of the work) really works for modern critique.

As an easy example, I don’t think J.K. Rowling saying Dumbledore is gay (or whatever other retcons she’s tweeted, pick your favorite) counts for anything; whether she intended these things to be true or not, they not communicated in the text. On the other hand, I do think some of the things she has publicly said since publication cast a new light on some of the choices she made in the writing of the original series, and I think it is worthwhile to take those things into account in a critical analysis of the text.

So, yeah. Like I said, it’s complicated.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, it’s complicated. While I generally don’t put much stock in authorial intent and consider message to be far more important, I also don’t think Death of the Author in the traditional sense (where the context surrounding a work’s creator is treated as irrelevant to analysis of the work) really works for modern critique.

As an easy example, I don’t think J.K. Rowling saying Dumbledore is gay (or whatever other retcons she’s tweeted, pick your favorite) counts for anything; whether she intended these things to be true or not, they not communicated in the text. On the other hand, I do think some of the things she has publicly said since publication cast a new light on some of the choices she made in the writing of the original series, and I think it is worthwhile to take those things into account in a critical analysis of the text.

So, yeah. Like I said, it’s complicated.

And that, exactly, is the most contemporary consensus amongst critics, as far as I know.

The author isn’t irrelevant, but the author’s intent doesn’t determine what the work is. The work doesn’t “belong” exclusively to the author, once published.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And again, no one is claiming that the color of a made up monster or the presence of slavery, sexism, or any other form of discrimination in a work of fiction indicates bigotry on the part of the creator. You should endeavor to understand an argument before attempting to critique it.

OK. I don't understand the argument. What is the argument? How should it be understood.