|
|
Post by arjen on Feb 23, 2024 18:27:20 GMT -5
This might be a testy subject as it might nudge politics. Then again everything, about stories, told now or decades ago, touch politics, I will try to keep this personal politic neutral as possible.
OD&D was written as a setting neutral fantasy RPG but has an implied setting; that setting includes hobbits, elves, dwarves, dragons, giants, goblins and 4 armed apes in desert regions. It was presented as a general setting and the way it offered the addition of other PC races (balrogs or dragons, based on the printing) suggests that it was presenting a world, with player option races and monsters to encounter, as an example but without explicitly stating that. It said: "these are the classes and races and monsters" and it also said: "create whatever you want, if someone wants to play a Balrog let them".
Rules about non-human races, their extra abilities/options and their class limits and class level limits, however telegraphed an implied setting. An implied setting that was human-centric with some Tolkien-based fantasy races/species as minorities in a world that was populated and defined as a more Moorcock, Anderson, Leiber, Howard, Lewis setting. I guess it only makes sense if you're familiar with the Gygax/Arneson type of late 60s, early 70s fantasy/sci-fi popular media (mainly book) exposure.
The thing is, when you compare D&D against it's early and later RPG competitors like Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels and Trolls, Arduin, Tekumel etc. ; these later games had a more defined and 'tied-to-the-rules' defines setting and rules. Magic, monsters, races and such were tied to the setting and the setting was tied to the rules. Later there were some generic rule sets, like GURPS, and they were defined and designed as such.
Back to D&D, oD&D, basic D&D, AD&D etc. ; the D&D setting was never defined, except in products for specific settings like Greyhawk, FR, Dragonlance etc. but then still, those setting were defined as in how they differed from 'Basic D&D' with the exclusion and inclusion of races and classes and extra rules/restrictions that came with it. D&D, as a game and a brand and a setting has not changed that much and every change has been an addition.
We now know that the "cleric" class was developed, on the fly, because one player in the proto-d&d game played a vampire and another player requested a way to be ably to counter the influence of that vampire PC on the campaign. The result was a kinda-FM that had extra abilities to confront the undead but was restricted in using magic sword because and it was defended because of some obscure rule regarding priests and drawing blood on sacred grounds.
The weird thing is with D&D and modern/current D&D is in how much of the weirdly arbitrary races, monsters and classes have survived and defined D&D, and, in my opinion far beyond, their expiration date.
More coming...
|
|
|
|
Post by arjen on Feb 23, 2024 18:53:34 GMT -5
next installment (I'm doing this bit by bit)
There are elements in oD&D and 5e D& that are similar but don't make sense in the idea of D&D being a "general fantasy RPG".
Clerics and weapon restrictions for example, race based class restrictions and level limits; these are all based on flimsy oD&D and pre-D&D ideas that go counter to the "play whatever you want" and run "whatever setting" you want philosophy.
These kinda make sense within a, limited exposure, to fantasy literature in the 70s in the USA mid-west, environment; but is weird from the perspective of 70s non_USA or USA 2020s perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 23, 2024 22:02:09 GMT -5
arjen, I want to respond to this, but first let me ask you a question, what is your history? What fantasy have you read and from what range of time periods? What is your exposure to folklore, legends, mythology, fairy tales and such. Have you read any of the old pulp magazine fiction and have you watched 1950s-1960s B movies?
|
|
|
|
Post by arjen on Feb 23, 2024 22:21:27 GMT -5
So, 50 years after the first publishing of D&D you have tropes that, literary, can be sources to specific players or game designers that had conversations like" I want to be able to counter this vampire being played by this other player" and the answer was kinda:" yes your character can turn them like 'van Helsing" can but in exchange you can't use magic swords, but you can use some spells that are less powerful than magic user spells and are more healing and protective than aggressive" And that exchange became a trope that still exists today and still has DM's or D&D rulebook writers scrambling to find reasons for.
The D&D setting and game works because its 'fantasy' which means it's kind of what we know about history but with some stuff that is different, like dragons, magic, elves, monsters and hobbits and stuff; and cool maps. Sci-fi is based on what we know but it's in the future and some stuff is different and fantasy is about what we know but it's in the past but there's magic and monsters and elves. Basically, the default is about what we know and what the other people at the table know but some stuff is different and the people at the table recognize what and how it is different. There's wizards, dragons and elves and stuff but when the PC's want to cut down a tree, ford a river or bribe a castellan we all base that situation about a shared understanding about how the 'real world' "works". Fantasy is 95% real world, with stuff we mostly understand equally and 5% or so different stuff that is specifically mentioned or at least implied by referring to shared fiction (medieval Europe but Norse, Celtic and Greek myths, monsters and Gods are real). btw there is this great oD&D pastiche called; "Mazes and Minotaurs" that is written, complete with fake history, if D&D was mainly inspired by Greek Mythology instead of Tolkien, Howard etc.
The thing is; the implied D&D setting has been there from the start and has been ported over, partly, through 50 years of supplemental books, rewrites, editions, authors etc.. The implied setting has changed with the addition of new race, classes, monsters and tropes and a new implied setting. The original setting was human centric where most of the 'known' world was inhabited by humans and non-humans like elves, goblins, trolls and dwarves were uncommon (and possibly 'on their way out', Tolkien wise). Current D&D has much more different non-humans, classes and not necessarily based on 60s/70s human-centric Western fantasy literature. "half-elf" might make sense or be a fairly neutral in a context of a fantasy world with 90% humans and a scattering, reclusive and diminishing population of elves; humans are the default. However in a setting teeming with sentient non-human races (like most current fantasy settings) where the average person will encounter non-humans on a daily basis; getting bread from the Dwarven bakery, fruit from the Elven grocer, deal with goblins at the bank and being driven around town by the orc taxi speedfreak; yes in those settings 'half-elf' meaning that the other half is assumed to be human can be 'iffy' and draw a parallel to being called "half-Asian" in the USA.
Tropes that are 'appropriate' or 'neutral' within the context of, say, a Tolkien type of setting or background might be less so in another setting. If you are publishing an RPG that aims to be the vanilla fantasy RPG with an 'open' setting for DM's to pick and choose, add to and remove from etc., it is good to try to remove or rename certain tropes that are based on specific settings.
And for those that try to argue that you can't be 'racist' against fantasy races or species because they don't exists. Fantasy and sci-fi is 95% real world knowledge and parallels and all that is not specifically defined as different from real world can be considered equivalent to real world; just for ease of being able to have a shared understanding of the setting. We can have different ideas of how what "browlk" looks like but when it is described as a howling "browlk" brandishing it's crude weaponry, looking at us with it's beady eyes and baring it's sharp teeth, we already have a shared image that probably doesn't differ that much, even though we never heard of a "browlk" before; it never existing before I combined those letters. Yet we now have a mental picture of it it our minds because we used 'real world' imagery and understanding to make sense of the sentence.
Now lets say that 'browlk's are thought to be simple and servile creatures that take well to life of slavery and servitude because they lack the intellect for independent thought. Still fantasy and "browlk" are not real so you can't be really bigoted about them because, "hey, fantasy, they're not real". Because 'Fantasy" means that "you are told what is different and the rest you fill in yourself", the "browlk"'s enslavement might draw on the implied understanding of who deserves to be enslaved. This might work in an RPG with a specific setting, the characteristics of 'browlk's are defined and part of this setting (for whatever narrative, maybe questionable, function), but "brwolk"s would be problematic, with the above characteristics, in an open 'vanilla' fantasy setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by arjen on Feb 23, 2024 22:42:20 GMT -5
arjen , I want to respond to this, but first let me ask you a question, what is your history? What fantasy have you read and from what range of time periods? What is your exposure to folklore, legends, mythology, fairy tales and such. Have you read any of the old pulp magazine fiction and have you watched 1950s-1960s B movies? I am Dutch, born in 1976. I grew up on Sunday afternoon movies with Erol Flynn, John Wayne; pirate , westerns and mythological/historical 50s/60s/70s blockbusters. Bible stories from my Protestant school and general Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. brothers Grim and other European fairytales. Got into Marvel Comics, especially X-men (when they were still at the mansion, Kitty Pride and Night crawler and stuff) and Elfquest. After being introduced to Tolkien I devoured what was available in the library: Leiber, Tanith Lee, Donaldson, Moorcock, Lovecraft, LeGuinn, Vance, Howard, Norton, de Camp, Carter etc. (loved some, hated others). I have been an avid appendix N reader: my favorites are Leiber, Moorcock, Poul Anderson's 3 hearths and 3 Lions, Bellair's Face in the Frost, Clark Ashton Smith (weirdly not part of the appendix), Wagner. As an European I was always puzzled by the kind of disconnect between American Fantasy (based on European history and myth) and local myth, fairy tales and fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by arjen on Feb 23, 2024 23:26:21 GMT -5
I've never really noticed a big difference between European and American fantasy, so this is intriguing to hear about. The thing is that since D&D it is hard to distinguish. For example: the German RPG Das Schwarte Aude (The Dark Eye) has more of an European feal in their setting but it still takes tropes from D&D that didn't exist before D&D. The prime example is having orcs and goblins being different species/races/lineages, it kind of started with Tolkien, but even in his works orc an goblin meant the same or one could mean difference in stature or lineage. Since D&D orcs and goblins have been separate species and D&D and/or Chainmail have been the sole source of this. Back to the "Dark Eye", what I likes about is was the depiction of monsters that were closer to European fairy tales, Trolls are not the 'Poul Anderson" type but big bearded giants that like sweats, kobolds are mischievous small creatures with magical power (like pixies). |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 23, 2024 23:58:53 GMT -5
Speaking from AD&D 2E experience, the core rulebooks were always setting agnostic with a bent towards European feel and mythos. That was because everyone and their brother wrote up their own setting that had been going on since 1975 (standard date given by others). I liken the core rules to being the toolkit that you and your players use to build your unique world. You are free to modify the classes and races as you see fit. You are encouraged to create new races and classes. In 2E, the class grouping system helped in streamlining how classes were handled. Class kits were introduce to give players a way to distinguish their fighter from other fighters. It was a much more robust system over prior ways of doing it like in AD&D 1E. , the Class Kits in 2E IMO suffered from the problem that many of them were not written for PCs who by definition go adventuring, they were written for NPCs who by Kit design did not adventure or it would not make any sense for them to adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 0:05:59 GMT -5
arjen , I want to respond to this, but first let me ask you a question, what is your history? What fantasy have you read and from what range of time periods? What is your exposure to folklore, legends, mythology, fairy tales and such. Have you read any of the old pulp magazine fiction and have you watched 1950s-1960s B movies? I am Dutch, born in 1976. I grew up on Sunday afternoon movies with Erol Flynn, John Wayne; pirate , westerns and mythological/historical 50s/60s/70s blockbusters. Bible stories from my Protestant school and general Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. brothers Grim and other European fairytales. Got into Marvel Comics, especially X-men (when they were still at the mansion, Kitty Pride and Night crawler and stuff) and Elfquest. After being introduced to Tolkien I devoured what was available in the library: Leiber, Tanith Lee, Donaldson, Moorcock, Lovecraft, LeGuinn, Vance, Howard, Norton, de Camp, Carter etc. (loved some, hated others). I have been an avid appendix N reader: my favorites are Leiber, Moorcock, Poul Anderson's 3 hearths and 3 Lions, Bellair's Face in the Frost, Clark Ashton Smith (weirdly not part of the appendix), Wagner. As an European I was always puzzled by the kind of disconnect between American Fantasy (based on European history and myth) and local myth, fairy tales and fantasy. This is interesting because I see OD&D as being completely compatible with the fiction that we share in common. I have read a lot of fiction between the beginning of recorded history and 1900 and then the 1900-1970s at the time I started playing and refereeing OD&D in 1975. I have used the first The Arduin Grimoire since it first came out and I see it as intimately part of OD&D. I also see OD&D as being a completely different thing disconnected from all the later versions. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
And for those that try to argue that you can't be 'racist' against fantasy races or species because they don't exists. Fantasy and sci-fi is 95% real world knowledge and parallels and all that is not specifically defined as different from real world can be considered equivalent to real world; just for ease of being able to have a shared understanding of the setting. We can have different ideas of how what "browlk" looks like but when it is described as a howling "browlk" brandishing it's crude weaponry, looking at us with it's beady eyes and baring it's sharp teeth, we already have a shared image that probably doesn't differ that much, even though we never heard of a "browlk" before; it never existing before I combined those letters. Yet we now have a mental picture of it it our minds because we used 'real world' imagery and understanding to make sense of the sentence. Now lets say that 'browlk's are thought to be simple and servile creatures that take well to life of slavery and servitude because they lack the intellect for independent thought. Still fantasy and "browlk" are not real so you can't be really bigoted about them because, "hey, fantasy, they're not real". Because 'Fantasy" means that "you are told what is different and the rest you fill in yourself", the "browlk"'s enslavement might draw on the implied understanding of who deserves to be enslaved. This might work in an RPG with a specific setting, the characteristics of 'browlk's are defined and part of this setting (for whatever narrative, maybe questionable, function), but "brwolk"s would be problematic, with the above characteristics, in an open 'vanilla' fantasy setting. I struggle to understand where this comes from given that there are zero monsters in D&D that have ever caused me or anyone I know out IRL to picture any variety of real world human. Your browlk to me is just a goblin, a completely non-human creatures in every regard. I don't have any shared image that comes to mind at all that would reference any human. I don't run games where the PCs take slaves, I have run games where players fought slavers and freed slaves. I think any racism is not inherent in the game at all, but resides in the hearts and minds of some small part of the gaming community with which most of us have not gamed. There are no monsters in OD&D that are a standard for any real world person. As for NPCs bandits, pirates and the like could be of any skin color, just as in the real world they can be of any skin color. Players in my experience don't ask me what color the human villains are and I would not normally specify that unless pressed and then they would be a mixed group. Back in Roman times especially early Roman times and before skin color was not the big deal that has been over the last 500 years and that is more how I run my game, skin color is not really important. In 49 years, I have never asked a player what color their PC is and few have ever used skin color as part of their character description. I have had players of a wide variety of backgrounds and ethnicities and rarely have any of them brought any of that into their PC. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 0:22:53 GMT -5
I've never really noticed a big difference between European and American fantasy, so this is intriguing to hear about. The thing is that since D&D it is hard to distinguish. For example: the German RPG Das Schwarte Aude (The Dark Eye) has more of an European feal in their setting but it still takes tropes from D&D that didn't exist before D&D. The prime example is having orcs and goblins being different species/races/lineages, it kind of started with Tolkien, but even in his works orc an goblin meant the same or one could mean difference in stature or lineage. Since D&D orcs and goblins have been separate species and D&D and/or Chainmail have been the sole source of this. Back to the "Dark Eye", what I likes about is was the depiction of monsters that were closer to European fairy tales, Trolls are not the 'Poul Anderson" type but big bearded giants that like sweats, kobolds are mischievous small creatures with magical power (like pixies). I have dozen of types of trolls. But they all regenerate. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 0:24:48 GMT -5
As an aside, the Class Kits in 2E IMO suffered from the problem that many of them were not written for PCs who by definition go adventuring, they were written for NPCs who by Kit design did not adventure or it would not make any sense for them to adventure. That's debatable really since the a good portion of the kits I've read worked well for PCs like pathfinder for rangers. It really comes down to who wrote The Complete Handbook of X and how well things were playtested. It has been several years since I played 2E, but IIRC quite a few Kits specified they were tied to an area to some degree and had to maintain certain things that tied to them to an authority figure that limited where or if they could go anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 0:43:30 GMT -5
It has been several years since I played 2E, but IIRC quite a few Kits specified they were tied to an area to some degree and had to maintain certain things that tied to them to an authority figure that limited where or if they could go anywhere. Some paladin, cleric, and druid kits do that, but ones for the other classes don't have that limitation. At the time I was playing in a 2E game for a couple of years or so, I was playing Clerics and I found the Kits a bit frustrating the way they took away a lot more than they gave. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Feb 24, 2024 1:12:40 GMT -5
At the time I was playing in a 2E game for a couple of years or so, I was playing Clerics and I found the Kits a bit frustrating the way they took away a lot more than they gave. It's a trade off though. Granted not a lot of the kits were given thorough playtesting and DMs frequently altered the kits to fit their table. I'd rather have a kit then say Cavaliers that were overbalanced and had a whole slew of problems. That was the problem with 1E that was fixed in 2E. No classes there were actually grouped together in the grand scheme of things. When UA came out they moved Paladins to be a sub-class of Cavalier. None of the TSR D&D editions were perfect, including your pride and joy OD&D.  For shame, bite your tongue!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 1:13:51 GMT -5
It's a trade off though. Granted not a lot of the kits were given thorough playtesting and DMs frequently altered the kits to fit their table. I'd rather have a kit then say Cavaliers that were overbalanced and had a whole slew of problems. That was the problem with 1E that was fixed in 2E. No classes there were actually grouped together in the grand scheme of things. When UA came out they moved Paladins to be a sub-class of Cavalier. None of the TSR D&D editions were perfect, including your pride and joy OD&D. For shame, bite your tongue! Thank you El Borak, have an Exalt!   |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 1:14:47 GMT -5
 No SMH |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Feb 24, 2024 1:15:48 GMT -5
No SMH As well you might PD, as well you might.  |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Feb 24, 2024 6:16:04 GMT -5
Speaking from AD&D 2E experience, the core rulebooks were always setting agnostic with a bent towards European feel and mythos. That was because everyone and their brother wrote up their own setting that had been going on since 1975 (standard date given by others). I liken the core rules to being the toolkit that you and your players use to build your unique world. You are free to modify the classes and races as you see fit. You are encouraged to create new races and classes. In 2E, the class grouping system helped in streamlining how classes were handled. Class kits were introduce to give players a way to distinguish their fighter from other fighters. It was a much more robust system over prior ways of doing it like in AD&D 1E. , the Class Kits in 2E IMO suffered from the problem that many of them were not written for PCs who by definition go adventuring, they were written for NPCs who by Kit design did not adventure or it would not make any sense for them to adventure. I wonder just how much of the 2E "splat book" idea (no insult intended) were influenced by the plethora of NPC classes introduced for 1E in the Dragon. WE played the heck out of some of those NPC classes as PC classes. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Feb 24, 2024 6:24:32 GMT -5
And for those that try to argue that you can't be 'racist' against fantasy races or species because they don't exists. Fantasy and sci-fi is 95% real world knowledge and parallels and all that is not specifically defined as different from real world can be considered equivalent to real world; just for ease of being able to have a shared understanding of the setting. We can have different ideas of how what "browlk" looks like but when it is described as a howling "browlk" brandishing it's crude weaponry, looking at us with it's beady eyes and baring it's sharp teeth, we already have a shared image that probably doesn't differ that much, even though we never heard of a "browlk" before; it never existing before I combined those letters. Yet we now have a mental picture of it it our minds because we used 'real world' imagery and understanding to make sense of the sentence. Now lets say that 'browlk's are thought to be simple and servile creatures that take well to life of slavery and servitude because they lack the intellect for independent thought. Still fantasy and "browlk" are not real so you can't be really bigoted about them because, "hey, fantasy, they're not real". Because 'Fantasy" means that "you are told what is different and the rest you fill in yourself", the "browlk"'s enslavement might draw on the implied understanding of who deserves to be enslaved. This might work in an RPG with a specific setting, the characteristics of 'browlk's are defined and part of this setting (for whatever narrative, maybe questionable, function), but "brwolk"s would be problematic, with the above characteristics, in an open 'vanilla' fantasy setting. I struggle to understand where this comes from given that there are zero monsters in D&D that have ever caused me or anyone I know out IRL to picture any variety of real world human. Your browlk to me is just a goblin, a completely non-human creatures in every regard. I don't have any shared image that comes to mind at all that would reference any human. I don't run games where the PCs take slaves, I have run games where players fought slavers and freed slaves. I think any racism is not inherent in the game at all, but resides in the hearts and minds of some small part of the gaming community with which most of us have not gamed.There are no monsters in OD&D that are a standard for any real world person. As for NPCs bandits, pirates and the like could be of any skin color, just as in the real world they can be of any skin color. Players in my experience don't ask me what color the human villains are and I would not normally specify that unless pressed and then they would be a mixed group. Back in Roman times especially early Roman times and before skin color was not the big deal that has been over the last 500 years and that is more how I run my game, skin color is not really important. In 49 years, I have never asked a player what color their PC is and few have ever used skin color as part of their character description. I have had players of a wide variety of backgrounds and ethnicities and rarely have any of them brought any of that into their PC. It is unfortunate that some of the real life angst is now bleeding into the hobby we love and share in common. Much of the old "pulp" fantasy was written in different times with different views of the world. Some of my favorite writers implied (or perhaps outright stated) a certain less-than-desireable world view such as racism, however I still enjoyed reading their writings understanding the time frame from which they came. Many of those "pulp" stories also featured slavery and other detestable practices though in many instances the main characters fought against such. Wargamers, where D&D seems to have originated were often history buffs so I'm unsurprised such "detestable" features appeared in games/campaigns. IIRC Judges Guild reference books like Ready Reference sheets featured slavery, I assume due to historical and literary reference. I have heard on some Facebook forums folks have been banned because they refused to go "woke" when referencing the "half" species such as half-elf or half-orc, being called racists for these references. Were I part of a group like that I'd remove myself. I do not seek to participate in a "woke" or "inclusive" game. Too much like real life, I play games to escape such... |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Feb 24, 2024 6:50:15 GMT -5
On a different note, it seems much of D&D has been touted as a vehicle to replicate the "pulp" fantasy of yesteryear. When I hear this I think Swords & Sandals. Yet the game replicates more fantastical medieval Europe than it dose running around in a loincloth with a sword and shield. I've struggled with mechanics that would let me replicate a Character's skill in avoiding getting hit/lowering their armor class without having to buy or seek out better and better armor. I run a 3.5 D&D game and appreciate a series of "unarmored defense" feats presented in the AEG Feats book. Allows me to offer that type of game to my players, assuming they want to invest in the feats.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 24, 2024 14:44:10 GMT -5
On a different note, it seems much of D&D has been touted as a vehicle to replicate the "pulp" fantasy of yesteryear. When I hear this I think Swords & Sandals. Yet the game replicates more fantastical medieval Europe than it dose running around in a loincloth with a sword and shield. I've struggled with mechanics that would let me replicate a Character's skill in avoiding getting hit/lowering their armor class without having to buy or seek out better and better armor. I run a 3.5 D&D game and appreciate a series of "unarmored defense" feats presented in the AEG Feats book. Allows me to offer that type of game to my players, assuming they want to invest in the feats. Ah, see when I hear pulp I think sword & sorcery as in REH and Conan. Conan in the books always wore the best armor he could get his hands on. The loin cloth Conan is a comic book thing. But if you want to run sword and sandal with OD&D then you make a house rule for unarmored Fighting-Men based on dexterity to give them the AC that they need to start and then have it improve every so many levels. Also there are magical bracers and some other items you could add that are not armor but help AC. OD&D is very mutable for whatever you want to run. The main thing with house rules is the playtesting and tweaking if needed. |
|
|
|
Post by muddywater on Mar 28, 2024 16:31:41 GMT -5
And for those that try to argue that you can't be 'racist' against fantasy races or species because they don't exists. Fantasy and sci-fi is 95% real world knowledge and parallels and all that is not specifically defined as different from real world can be considered equivalent to real world; just for ease of being able to have a shared understanding of the setting. We can have different ideas of how what "browlk" looks like but when it is described as a howling "browlk" brandishing it's crude weaponry, looking at us with it's beady eyes and baring it's sharp teeth, we already have a shared image that probably doesn't differ that much, even though we never heard of a "browlk" before; it never existing before I combined those letters. Yet we now have a mental picture of it it our minds because we used 'real world' imagery and understanding to make sense of the sentence. Now lets say that 'browlk's are thought to be simple and servile creatures that take well to life of slavery and servitude because they lack the intellect for independent thought. Still fantasy and "browlk" are not real so you can't be really bigoted about them because, "hey, fantasy, they're not real". Because 'Fantasy" means that "you are told what is different and the rest you fill in yourself", the "browlk"'s enslavement might draw on the implied understanding of who deserves to be enslaved. This might work in an RPG with a specific setting, the characteristics of 'browlk's are defined and part of this setting (for whatever narrative, maybe questionable, function), but "brwolk"s would be problematic, with the above characteristics, in an open 'vanilla' fantasy setting. I struggle to understand where this comes from given that there are zero monsters in D&D that have ever caused me or anyone I know out IRL to picture any variety of real world human. Your browlk to me is just a goblin, a completely non-human creatures in every regard. I don't have any shared image that comes to mind at all that would reference any human. I don't run games where the PCs take slaves, I have run games where players fought slavers and freed slaves. I think any racism is not inherent in the game at all, but resides in the hearts and minds of some small part of the gaming community with which most of us have not gamed. There are no monsters in OD&D that are a standard for any real world person. As for NPCs bandits, pirates and the like could be of any skin color, just as in the real world they can be of any skin color. Players in my experience don't ask me what color the human villains are and I would not normally specify that unless pressed and then they would be a mixed group. Back in Roman times especially early Roman times and before skin color was not the big deal that has been over the last 500 years and that is more how I run my game, skin color is not really important. In 49 years, I have never asked a player what color their PC is and few have ever used skin color as part of their character description. I have had players of a wide variety of backgrounds and ethnicities and rarely have any of them brought any of that into their PC. I agree with this whole heartedly. I don't think any of this is a game or author problem, I think this is some people's personal problems that they should not be bringing to the game table. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 28, 2024 17:40:51 GMT -5
That is the problem these days, too many people that need professional help, think that the referee/DM is obligated to be their therapist.
|
|
No 
