D&D 5E WotC to increase releases per year?

[Ath-kethin]

I started to realize this about dragons a while back, even before I realized this about "evil humanoids". Dragons, in D&D, are usually portrayed as highly intelligent, sentient beings. And not only is a large part of the game's mythos to track these beings down, murder them, take their stuff . . . . but to make clothing and tools out of their corpses!

I made this a plot point in a DragonStar game I was working on, but never actually got to run. DragonStar is an old FFG d20 campaign marrying D&D and Star Wars, essentially. In the DragonStar setting, the galaxy-spanning empire is run by dragons, currently the emperor is a despotic red dragon. I decided that a large part of the reason why dragons banded together and took over the galaxy, is that they were tired of being hunted and made into grisly trophies by the "good" races . . . .

I always wanted to play DragonStar, and even bought (one of?) the core book(s?) back in the day. I used bits of it in an Eberron game a few years later bit that was that.

I like your logic for the dragon empire!

 

[Oofta]

Note that such a take is much easier to pull off when the creatures in question aren't depicted as being the playthings of a demon, who created them explicitly to make gamers leary of moral consequences feel OK about slaughtering them on sight.

I love Mystara, though I tend to use it piecemeal in my own games. And Bruce Heard's Voyage of the Princess Ark had a massive impact on how I design settings and view their presentation.

In a very real sense, 5e's gnolls are positioned to take the place of orcs and goblins as mindless canon fodder. I guess it's easier than creating nuanced worlds and individuals. I call it lazy because it's literally kicking the "always evil" can down the road instead of dealing with it directly. And no volume of mea culpas from WotC brass will remove their presence in the core books, or the company's doubling down on it in the first major 5e expansion (Volo's Guide).

It will be fine until gnolls become a playable race and then we'll be in the same boat.

Beyond that, expressing any opinions on this subject tend to get the thread shut down and it's a tangent anyway.

 

[Faolyn]

I started to realize this about dragons a while back, even before I realized this about "evil humanoids". Dragons, in D&D, are usually portrayed as highly intelligent, sentient beings. And not only is a large part of the game's mythos to track these beings down, murder them, take their stuff . . . . but to make clothing and tools out of their corpses!

Of course, the other option is to assume the dragons do the same thing. And/or in-setting, people care more about souls than physical bodies, so people might be grossed out but not morally horrified.

(But yes, I fully get what you're saying here.)

 

[Oofta]

Something I would really like to see, but may be difficult to pull off would be adventure materials based on myths from cultures other than the mish-mash of western Europe we have now.

I loved the concept of Oriental Adventures and Al-Qaddim for example, even if it was only something I borrowed from for "exotic" locations, aka some location not based on my mangled version of Norse mythology.

 

[Reynard]

Well, that's not the only reason, but it's certainly a part of it.

Anytime you describe a fantastical creature . . . like an orc, a gnoll, or a dragon . . . as a person (or having the qualities of person-hood) but also describe them in ways we used to dehumanize real people in the real world, it's problematic. Especially if it's seen as okay to kill them and take their stuff without guilt.

It's not an easy conversation, and, as a community, we're just starting to scratch the surface. There's a lot of pushback from folks who DON'T want to go down this rabbit-hole . . . "It's just fantasy, it's not real . . ."

I started to realize this about dragons a while back, even before I realized this about "evil humanoids". Dragons, in D&D, are usually portrayed as highly intelligent, sentient beings. And not only is a large part of the game's mythos to track these beings down, murder them, take their stuff . . . . but to make clothing and tools out of their corpses!

I made this a plot point in a DragonStar game I was working on, but never actually got to run. DragonStar is an old FFG d20 campaign marrying D&D and Star Wars, essentially. In the DragonStar setting, the galaxy-spanning empire is run by dragons, currently the emperor is a despotic red dragon. I decided that a large part of the reason why dragons banded together and took over the galaxy, is that they were tired of being hunted and made into grisly trophies by the "good" races . . . .

My point is that whether or not it is okay to kill those dragons and take their hoards is based on the decisions made for each individual setting (or, in some cases, each individual dragon). If, for example, dragons are the barrow wyrms of Beowulf, they are absolutely there to kill and loot. They are a blight on the graves of the kings of old. They are inherently evil creatures that exist to defile what is held in highest regard.

You can tell interesting stories about the morality of killing dragons for their treasure, but you don't have to. What I object to is the growing trend of viewing these things are expansive truths when they are based on the worlds we construct, on a case by case basis.

 

[Reynard]

Something I would really like to see, but may be difficult to pull off would be adventure materials based on myths from cultures other than the mish-mash of western Europe we have now.

I loved the concept of Oriental Adventures and Al-Qaddim for example, even if it was only something I borrowed from for "exotic" locations, aka some location not based on my mangled version of Norse mythology.

I think it is a lot easier for something like "Oriental Adventures" (they certainly would not call it that) to slide into the region of cultural appropriation, even if the book itself is thoroughly well researched with an army of diverse sensitivity readers. The fact is, it's going to be kind of weird to walk into a game store or convention and see a table of middle aged white dudes pretending to be samurai. I don't claim to know at what point it starts being offensive, but I am sure there is a line.

 

[Scribe]

I think it is a lot easier for something like "Oriental Adventures" (they certainly would not call it that) to slide into the region of cultural appropriation, even if the book itself is thoroughly well researched with an army of diverse sensitivity readers. The fact is, it's going to be kind of weird to walk into a game store or convention and see a table of middle aged white dudes pretending to be samurai. I don't claim to know at what point it starts being offensive, but I am sure there is a line.

Yeah, makes for a hard sell I'm sure within Wizards too. 'Lets expand on X. Hmm maybe not Sword Coast again anyone?'

 

[Faolyn]

I think it is a lot easier for something like "Oriental Adventures" (they certainly would not call it that) to slide into the region of cultural appropriation, even if the book itself is thoroughly well researched with an army of diverse sensitivity readers. The fact is, it's going to be kind of weird to walk into a game store or convention and see a table of middle aged white dudes pretending to be samurai. I don't claim to know at what point it starts being offensive, but I am sure there is a line.

But on the other hand, we hardly want to segregate players based on their ethnicity...

 

[Oofta]

I think it is a lot easier for something like "Oriental Adventures" (they certainly would not call it that) to slide into the region of cultural appropriation, even if the book itself is thoroughly well researched with an army of diverse sensitivity readers. The fact is, it's going to be kind of weird to walk into a game store or convention and see a table of middle aged white dudes pretending to be samurai. I don't claim to know at what point it starts being offensive, but I am sure there is a line.

Which I understand and also don't. Nobody bats an eye when my Korean heritage buddy plays a cleric of Thor.

But I also get that we're ripping off a "dead" culture that was crushed and assimilated long enough ago that no one cares any more.

So I'd love books on a whole variety of mythological backgrounds from around the world. I'd also like to be able to fly and that's not going to happen any time soon either.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

There is no can to kick down the road because there is nothing wrong with explicitly evil cannon fodder enemies. The only reason people are side eyeing orcs and goblins being treated that way is because people want to play orcs and goblins -- and largely because of WoW, people playing orcs and goblins is very visible.

It will be fine until gnolls become a playable race and then we'll be in the same boat.

Well, then the problem with gnolls becomes this: in previous editions, they were a playable race. Gnolls had player stats in AD&D, 3e, and 4e. 5e just threw that in the trash for some reason, and then changed the default lore to reinforce the change, closing the doors on official support for playable gnolls. I've seen more than a few people who were very specifically bitter about this.