Your table is YOUR table.

[Gradine]

Yes, but falsely. In direct contradiction to your point, I say that ONLY what people do in their individual games actually matters.

Okay. Um.... no? I mean, you're certainly entitled to think that that's how it ought to be, but it's also pretty painfully obvious that the things that are actually in the books actually matter to an awful lot of people, whether those things are positively or negatively received.

I mean, take the gender statement in the 5.0 PHB. I was pretty deep at that point in my heavy self-denial phase, but even then I very much appreciated it (or at least the thought behind it, given its awkwardness and even-at-the-time outdated language); and I was far from alone in that sentiment. Meanwhile, a lot of really awful people got really upset over it.

Now, is it true that transgender and non-binary players (and characters) existed in D&D tables long before that statement? Of course. And is it true that there are still tables where such players and/or characters are not welcome? Yes, of course! You might even be correct in stating that such actual realities at home games are more important than whatever cultural shift in values are being signalled by these changes in the written text. But that doesn't render those shifts entirely unimportant either. Both are plenty significant to plenty of people. Again, that much is pretty obviously evident.

 

[TerraDave]

Of course the OP is right. Do what you like.

But I don’t think this site, and certainly not these boards, would exist if they did give not us fans a place to complain. We would do that even if the RPG business was well run, and frequently it is not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Can someone explain to me what is actually being discussed? Are snowflakes being annoyed that [whatever race] is not being depicted as bloodthrirsty subhuman savages?

Mod Note:

Throwing around pejoratives like “snowflakes” is not permitted here. Please keep it civil.

 

[Faolyn]

It seems to me it’s less about what’s going on at our own specific tables and instead what goes on in these discussions.

I mostly avoid them because they seem really fraught. Like it’s an either/or situation. Either orcs are metaphorical commentary on colonialism OR they’re just monsters that can be morally dispatched.

But the truth is… they’re made up. They can be either of those things or both, or anything else that folks want them to be.

To be fair, it's kind of hard to have a monster be both a commentary on colonialism and monsters that can be morally dispatched at the same time (all of them, not just the leadership), unless maybe you're using a system with no alignments.

But yes, orcs (and other monsters) can be anything you want, no matter what the books tell you they are. I'm just happier when the books' default is not Always Evil Kill On Sight.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

My table isn't actually my table, it's just a license agreement.

 

[Aldarc]

People weren’t sick of dragon age and the argument that the mcu is tired is just bs.

I was tired of the MCU. It was already starting to feel like a chore for me to keep up with the movies. I was starting to have Marvel fatigue around the time of Spider-Man Homecoming and Black Panther.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be fair, it's kind of hard to have a monster be both a commentary on colonialism and monsters that can be morally dispatched at the same time (all of them, not just the leadership), unless maybe you're using a system with no alignments.

But yes, orcs (and other monsters) can be anything you want, no matter what the books tell you they are. I'm just happier when the books' default is not Always Evil Kill On Sight.

Well, alignments are just a simplification of a much more complex idea, so I don’t know how much that can tell us.

And as for what I personally prefer… I didn’t mention it because it’s kind of beside my point. I tend to enjoy and prefer a more nuanced approach in my RPGs for sure. But I was watching my kid play a video game called “Orcs Must Die” and I’m not the least bit concerned about the impact that game will have on his outlook.

 

[Lanefan]

Part of the reason for pushing back against some (not all) modern mainstream RPG trends in order to - in the tiniest of ways - slow-stop-reverse them is so that if-when a new player comes to my table I and the existing players don't have to spend ages rewiring that player's expectations and outlook to suit what we already have in place. As in:

--- yes your character's going to die unless you're outrageously lucky (which has happened, rarely)
--- yes this campaign is going to last forever if I have any say in it
--- no you're not going to gain a level every few sessions
--- yes there are some species that are more or less kill-on-sight (though within those species exceptions can and do exist)
--- yes slavery is a thing in the setting, sometimes accepted and sometimes not depending on the specific society you're dealing with at the time. Slaves in faux-Rome, accepted fact of life; while suppliers, buyers, and sellers of slaves in faux-France are kill-on-sight in the eyes of the law.
--- yes the list of PC-playable species really is that short
--- yes evil characters are allowed, as is CvC activity as long as it doesn't spill over to the table

The farther the modern mainstream game(s) drift from this, the harder it becomes for me to find-recruit new players; so even saying "Hey, us old-school bangers are still here too" can help in that regard.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, alignments are just a simplification of a much more complex idea, so I don’t know how much that can tell us.

Well, in many games like D&D, especially in previous editions, the idea is that alignment is this fairly absolute thing. If something is Good, then everything they do is Good (or neutral at worst). For example, back in 3x's Book of Exalted Deeds where they had good totally-not-poisons-honest, or in 5e when they had the Good god Moradin turn his back on the duergar because they failed their saving throws against mind control. Meanwhile (as I wrote on another thread) you have Evil orc gods who don't actually have that evil a portfolio. If you go by the original origin story, Gruumsh just wanted to give his people a place to live after all the human and demihuman gods claimed the good parts for themselves. But for that, the orcs were branded evil and everything they did was evil.

Logically speaking, orcs, elves, dwarfs, whatever, should be as alignmentally-diverse as humans, but because they have "Lawful Evil" or "Chaotic Good" in their statblock, people, including the game's writers come up with rationales like "orcs and goblinoids have less free will than humans do."

(I don't want to derail this anymore than necessary into an alignment thread, so feel free to ignore this rant and roll your eyes at me. But I kinda want to see a setting where, like, halflings and dwarfs got all the good land thanks to their gods and the humans and elves and whatever else got the shaft, and see what the PCs think and do about it.)

And as for what I personally prefer… I didn’t mention it because it’s kind of beside my point. I tend to enjoy and prefer a more nuanced approach in my RPGs for sure. But I was watching my kid play a video game called “Orcs Must Die” and I’m not the least bit concerned about the impact that game will have on his outlook.

That much probably won't, if it's a one-off. I think the problem comes if every depiction of whatever someone is exposed to is evilevilevil. Which, you have to admit, was the case for a very long time, and is almost certainly why there's so much pushback at the idea of removing alignments or having "pretty" orcs or things like that. If the original AD&D books had decided that only about half of all orcs were evil but the other half were good or neutral (as opposed to them being mostly evil, with a few good orcs, if the DM wants), there wouldn't be nearly so many alignment arguments.

(Again, don't want to derail, feel free to ignore me if you prefer.)

 

[Umbran]

Part of the reason for pushing back against some (not all) modern mainstream RPG trends in order to - in the tiniest of ways - slow-stop-reverse them is so that if-when a new player comes to my table I and the existing players don't have to spend ages rewiring that player's expectations and outlook to suit what we already have in place.

You do realize that arguing here, with people who are not involved in the publishing of the game does not make significant headway to achieve these ends, though? And, if I am wrong, and there is feedback, don't expect that to be feedback in the direction you want.

If, in pushing back, the "old-school bangers" end up looking like jerks, that's not going to help your cause.