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

[Charlaquin]

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

I’ve spelled it out for you more than once in this conversation already, but I’ll try again. Institutionalized oppression is pernicious and we should be aware of its influences in media we create and consume, as well as the messages our own works communicate.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I’ve spelled it out for you more than once in this conversation already, but I’ll try again. Institutionalized oppression is pernicious and we should be aware of its influences in media we create and consume, as well as the messages our own works communicate.

But that doesn't spell it out.

* What is "institutionalized oppression"? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Structural discrimination—sometimes called “institutional” (Ture and Hamilton 1992/1967: 4)—should be distinguished from organizational: the structural form concerns the rules that constitute and regulate the major sectors of life such as family relations, property ownership and exchange, political powers and responsibilities, and so on. (Pogge 2008: 37) It is true that when such rules are discriminatory, they are often—though not always—the deliberate product of some collective or individual agent, such as a legislative body or executive official. In such cases, the agents are guilty of direct discrimination. But the idea of structural discrimination is an effort to capture a wrong distinct from direct discrimination. Thus, Fred Pincus writes that “[t]he key element in structural discrimination is not the intent but the effect of keeping minority groups in a subordinate position” (1994: 84). What Pincus and others have in mind can be explained in the following way."

I'm not sure how a fantasy world fits into institutional discrimination. Can you explain it? Maybe you're working with a different definition from a better informed source than Stanford University.

My second point of misunderstanding comes from responsibility. Is it the creator's job not to create something that might be "problematic" or the view/read/etc.'s responsibility to guard one's mind from problematic ideas regardless of source. Personally, I think we should not allow media to influence us in problematic way; instead we must master our minds and only allow our opinions to be changed by well-reasoned arguments. Perhaps, I am wrong. I would be interested in seeing who the responsibility should be placed on creators and not consumers.

 

[Charlaquin]

But that doesn't spell it out.

* What is "institutionalized oppression"? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Structural discrimination—sometimes called “institutional” (Ture and Hamilton 1992/1967: 4)—should be distinguished from organizational: the structural form concerns the rules that constitute and regulate the major sectors of life such as family relations, property ownership and exchange, political powers and responsibilities, and so on. (Pogge 2008: 37) It is true that when such rules are discriminatory, they are often—though not always—the deliberate product of some collective or individual agent, such as a legislative body or executive official. In such cases, the agents are guilty of direct discrimination. But the idea of structural discrimination is an effort to capture a wrong distinct from direct discrimination. Thus, Fred Pincus writes that “[t]he key element in structural discrimination is not the intent but the effect of keeping minority groups in a subordinate position” (1994: 84). What Pincus and others have in mind can be explained in the following way."

I'm not sure how a fantasy world fits into institutional discrimination. Can you explain it? Maybe you're working with a different definition from a better informed source than Stanford University.

Again, a fantasy world is not institutionalized discrimination. Scientific racism is institutionalized discrimination. Tolkien’s views were informed by scientific racism, and his work perpetuated it. Modern fantasy world that are informed by Tolkien are often therefore influenced by institutionalized racism (specifically scientific racism).

My second point of misunderstanding comes from responsibility. Is it the creator's job not to create something that might be "problematic" or the view/read/etc.'s responsibility to guard one's mind from problematic ideas regardless of source.

...Both? Neither? Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. It is a creator’s responsibility to be aware of their influences and make conscious choices about the messages in their work. It is a consumer’s responsibility to be aware of the messages in the media they consume and make conscious decisions about what media they do or don’t consume.

Personally, I think we should not allow media to influence us in problematic way; instead we must master our minds and only allow our opinions to be changed by well-reasoned arguments.

Human brains don’t work that way. We are affected by things in ways we are not conscious of all the time, and we are easily swayed by emotional arguments.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

It has always bothered me that magic is treated like some sort of science.

It also bothers me when the game world is round and orbits a star. I like it when the world is flat, or endless, or something else; or the sun actually is a chariot drawn across the sky, or something even more fantastic.

Finally, even though I'm not a believer, I do appreciate widespread monotheism in game worlds, and I usually roll my eyes when I see an atheistic country or nation.

 

[Lanefan]

when you give players more penalties, they will just look for a way that they can rest and remove those penalties so they can "be 100% ready".

Assuming those penalties are so easily removeable and-or that there's time for the PCs to do it.

Even something as simple as taking 4e's 'bloodied' mechanic and applying it such that "if a living creature is bloodied it fights at -1 to hit and damage until and unless it is no longer bloodied" would go a surprisingly long way toward simulating fatigue.

Constructs, undead, and maybe a few other things would ignore this rule as fatigue is a foreign concept to them.

 

[Lanefan]

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

This made me laugh, as the way it's worded tells me critics are generally unable to agree as to whether any given author is alive or dead.

Or undead?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Again, a fantasy world is not institutionalized discrimination. Scientific racism is institutionalized discrimination. Tolkien’s views were informed by scientific racism, and his work perpetuated it. Modern fantasy world that are informed by Tolkien are often therefore influenced by institutionalized racism (specifically scientific racism).

What does scientific (human) racism have to do with dwarves? Furthermore, no one can provide an accepted definition of what a race is scientifically. How can scientific racism exist as an except when we don't even know what a race is? The whole thing is a little confusing to me. If scientific racism can't stand on its own two feet as a theory, why should we care if it influences anything?

...Both? Neither? Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. It is a creator’s responsibility to be aware of their influences and make conscious choices about the messages in their work. It is a consumer’s responsibility to be aware of the messages in the media they consume and make conscious decisions about what media they do or don’t consume.

Why must a work have a message? If a work does have a message, isn't consuming said media consent to allow that piece of media to influence you?

Human brains don’t work that way. We are affected by things in ways we are not conscious of all the time, and we are easily swayed by emotional arguments.

Are they? Can we not guard ourselves? Is there no defense? I'm sure. Some people seem to be more easily influenced than others, which means some people are able to guard themselves - at least to some extent. Alternatively, we could train ourselves to discard emotions. Soldiers seem to be able to do it; military training teaches them to compartmentalize. Navy Seals don't cry when a terrorist goes down, but they do when one of their own takes a bullet. Why not do the same thing with media? Compartmentalize reality and fantasy?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This made me laugh, as the way it's worded tells me critics are generally unable to agree as to whether any given author is alive or dead.

Or undead?

Guess we found out what happened to Elvis and Paul McCartney.

 

[Derren]

Static worlds (not 5E trope, but D&D in general).

D&D worlds like the Forgotten Realms have histories spanning centuries, sometimes even millenia, but nothing changes in them. People used the same kind of materials and weapons back then than they are now. There is no form of advancment at all be it scientific, magical or political.

Related to that, dungeons. Somehow there are still dozens of unspoiled dungeons and ruins out there, filled with treasure that no one has bothered to clean out or in the case of ruins deconstructed for building materials.

One big trope D&D has is the "fallen advanced society" which was more advanced than the current nations (even when it existed several centuries before) who made all the artifacts you encounter etc. and was generally better in everything than the current nations.

 

[Lanefan]

One big trope D&D has is the "fallen advanced society" which was more advanced than the current nations (even when it existed several centuries before) who made all the artifacts you encounter etc. and was generally better in everything than the current nations.

Post-apocalyptic worlds are a common setting trope across all kinds of fiction.

Some of them even work out OK.