Your table is YOUR table.

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm not trying to argue with the publishers; as an individual that would be pointless. The argument is to (ideally) sway public opinion even just a tiny little bit, as that's what the publishers do listen to.

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

So you're saying I look like a jerk, here?

Hmmmmm.....

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

While those preferences are all fine, I don’t think that the RPG space should bend to the preferences you have for your table. I prefer that a variety of ways to play exist, and if the price to pay is that you sometimes have to explain your approach to new players and show them the virtues you find in it, then so be it.

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.)

Well, I think the idea that everything a person does is good or everything a person does is evil to be simplistic and also pretty illogical. But… if that’s the game others want to play, that’s absolutely fine by me! I don’t feel the need to demand the books only describe one approach to this stuff. There might be something fun about the kind of campaign setting that you describe.

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.)

Sure… I think we see more diversity in how this stuff is handled precisely because there are differing views about it. And I think that’s good, personally. Why should we limit ourselves to one way to handle this stuff? It seems so bizarre to me.

But in regard to your other point… I acknowledge that media depictions can be problematic, and I would agree that the more prevalent a negative trend may be, the more problematic it likely will be. But I don’t think any and all instances of such must or should be treated with the same importance.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm not trying to argue with the publishers; as an individual that would be pointless. The argument is to (ideally) sway public opinion even just a tiny little bit, as that's what the publishers do listen to.

Then go start a Youtube channel. That's how you influence the TTRPG world these days.

 

[Mercurius]

All of this makes me double-down on the view that every D&D world--whether published or homebrew--should have its own cosmology, its own mythology, and its own configuration of core tropes and ideas. This allows orcs and everything else to be contextual to the world itself, rather than there being one over-arching cosmology and D&D mythology that is the default assumption for every setting.

I realize that most folks don't want to build intricate mythologies for their worlds and will just default to the core rules. But WotC could, at least, be bolder in exploring the possibilities of what the D&D toolset can offer. They kind of did this with Eberron, as well as with the 2nd edition settings.

But a lot of the squabbles are over the default core. WotC could ameliorate this somewhat by taking more of an approach of "There are different ways to do X, Y, Z, and here are some specific examples from different D&D worlds." And explicitly state that D&D worlds and ideas need not be metaphorical for real world stuff - only if you, as the DM and specific group, want them to.

 

[gban007]

I'm not trying to argue with the publishers; as an individual that would be pointless. The argument is to (ideally) sway public opinion even just a tiny little bit, as that's what the publishers do listen to.

So you're saying I look like a jerk, here?

Hmmmmm.....

In my opinion, no, you weren't looking like a jerk here, but there are some in the old school crowd who very much attack other playstyles, which seems to push people further away, rather than sway opinion towards them. So fair to advocate for preferred playstule and articulate why in hope of swaying people, counterproductive to attack other people's playstyle / accused them of badwrongfun (again which i didn't see you doing here, but others do, hence others being on my ignore list and not yourself )

 

[Micah Sweet]

All of this makes me double-down on the view that every D&D world--whether published or homebrew--should have its own cosmology, its own mythology, and its own configuration of core tropes and ideas. This allows orcs and everything else to be contextual to the world itself, rather than there being one over-arching cosmology and D&D mythology that is the default assumption for every setting.

I realize that most folks don't want to build intricate mythologies for their worlds and will just default to the core rules. But WotC could, at least, be bolder in exploring the possibilities of what the D&D toolset can offer. They kind of did this with Eberron, as well as with the 2nd edition settings.

But a lot of the squabbles are over the default core. WotC could ameliorate this somewhat by taking more of an approach of "There are different ways to do X, Y, Z, and here are some specific examples from different D&D worlds." And explicitly state that D&D worlds and ideas need not be metaphorical for real world stuff - only if you, as the DM and specific group, want them to.

Agreed. Clarity of intent, in the text, is always better.

 

[Committed Hero]

We should be free to comment on the merits of a particular system, even if no one is going to be swayed by them.

 

[Umbran]

The argument is to (ideally) sway public opinion even just a tiny little bit, as that's what the publishers do listen to.

Well, two things:
1) Arguing doesn't seem to sway public opinion. Arguing gets eyeballs of people who want to see one side or another of the argument take a verbal trouncing. I see little sign that it changes the minds of those who don't start out agreeing with you.

2) EN World is here for people to discuss games with each other. We do not promise to be a suitable venue for attempting to sway public opinion. Specifically, we do not support some of the approaches to discourse that folks seem to think sway public opinion.

So you're saying I look like a jerk, here?

No. Please read what it on the page. Please do not read into what is on the page. It was a cautionary statement, not a passive-aggressive accusation.

We should be free to comment on the merits of a particular system, even if no one is going to be swayed by them.

Totally. Especially if your comment is on the merits of the system you like in a way that isn't really taking digs at systems you don't like.

Or, as one of our foundational moderators used to say, "I double-dog dare you to tell us how awesome your game is without comparing it to any other game."

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not trying to argue with the publishers; as an individual that would be pointless. The argument is to (ideally) sway public opinion even just a tiny little bit, as that's what the publishers do listen to.

Yeah, I don't feel owed anything or like we are having a direct argument with WOTC when we complain about something. It is just the company that controls D&D, which is the biggest TTRPG property and the center of the hobby. So people like to give their opinions, and a lot of these things tie to overall trends in the hobby as well. I think we already just had an evil orc conversation though and it didn't end all that great, so probably best to just accept people here disagree a lot on this stuff. Also really time will give us a better sense of who has their finger on the pulse of things. We aren't going to settle these arguments today

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not trying to argue with the publishers; as an individual that would be pointless. The argument is to (ideally) sway public opinion even just a tiny little bit, as that's what the publishers do listen to.

ENWorld doesn't really seem like the most effective place to sway the hearts and minds of public opinion. Even if this website sometimes shows up in WotC polls on D&D, it's still incredibly niche even in the D&D sphere. Anyone who is posting here is very likely considered a demographic dinosaur by WotC's standards. We are not the future of D&D.