Most campaign settings seem to be initially designed around a certain set of heroes or certain heroes become the central focus of the campaign. This is pretty obvious in Dragonlance and also very true of Forgotten Realms. It is less true of Greyhawk or many other campaigns.
When a world is built around the adventures of a certain party you get two things occuring. First, you do get some detailed villains and more time to focus on interesting quirks. However, the negative aspects of this are overwhelming. First, the player races come to be defined by particular characters. Again, this is most clearly highlighted in Dragonlance where the personalities of the characters in the primary party are then thrust upon the entire races of those characters so that you actually have an entire homogenous race of clones of that character with only minor physical differences. For those races more commonly seen in other settings, the primary character's traits carry over. Suddenly blind wizards are common, every Half-Elf has a beard and all Drow are good-aligned and carry two scimitars.
However, even more importantly than the reductionism of character races within the setting is the fact that all these wonderfully detailed evil organizations are designed to be, and almost certainly eventually are, overthrown and soundly defeated by those given heroes. This means that by the time the PCs get to play within this world all the world's conflicts have been positively resolved and there is little or nothing left for them to do. Furthermore, when you know that there are vastly powerful heroes in the world who could do all the PC's work with no struggle, any victory on the part of the PCs comes off as quite meager and common place. Ultimately this may mean that the DMs end up replaying the adventures in the preexisting canon and giving the PCs a supporting role. This also has problems.
Tied into this is that a lot of settings are part of an extremely tight pre-existing and often living canon that it seems meddlesome to change or impact. So the timeline of the official world moves forward within products and official changes are made. The longer a campaign runs, the more out of synch with the official canon it becomes. Of course, without moving forward there is no good way for the designers to incorporate new ideas into the world, good or bad ones, or remove bothersome or painfully bad elements from the world without claiming that things had always been that way and anything that said contrary was incorrect. Although on one hand there is no problem with having an out-of-synch campaign, and trying to find your own way to keep up with the changes you like, as long as you have a stable group of players, new players will often find it difficult to adjust if they are too hooked on a newer version of the world.
Another problem with a lot of campaign worlds is that many of them seem afraid to change too much. As such a lot of campaign worlds come off as basically clones of one another with only a few twists. Part of this comes from the fact that there is quite a lot of story elements, spell names and the racial list as well as a good bulk of the monsters are 'core' which means that campaigns can't really mess with them quite as much as they might like to. As the look, the feel and the mechanics of the heroes party and most of what they encounter as well as the racial interactions between the world does not get changed nearly as much as it could and probably should.
Now, this isn't to say that some campaigns don't make some attempt to escape the strict definitions given and introduce their own options, but often this comes off in such a way that the changes feel half-hearted because the list is still identical and then the new campaign-specific races tend to be things so bizarely alien that they don't seem to fit in or only fit in when you don't really consider them. A few obvious examples of this are the Thri-keen, the Warforged, Drow, Vampire-blooded, Minotaurs... I can't think of any campaign setting that is brave enough to step up and simply say 'elfs are too different in this world to be PCs' or 'there are small-sized Humans, so Halflings aren't available' or even 'Orcs aren't evil or antagonistic to Dwarfs in this world, so you can play them with these stats and Dwarfs get a bonus against Troglodytes instead'. The closest I've ever seen is Ravenloft that replaced the Half-Orc with something effectively identical.
Outside of races, there could be some elements of the classes that could change. For instance, it is hard to imagine that heavy armored, mace-wielding Clerics really embrace a universal concept of Priest that could or should be applied equally across all worlds. Similarly, Bards necessarially being traveling social outcasts is something that is so very Euro-centric that it disturbingly out of place in more Eastern-style campaign settings.
When the players are forced to choose from the same list of options and the basic monsters descriptions, roles and functions stay the same, the element of shifting from world to world doesn't really feel very valid.
I am sure others could expand on this list of problems that seem to occur in a lot of campaign settings. There really aren't, and perhaps can't be, a really good setting that can escape all these and other problems and yet still be well marketed. Eberron attempted to escape a lot of problems, but then I have a lot of difficulty seeing it as much more than a 'junk' campaign that threw all the crap it could into the setting randomly and then had the fat guy sit on the lid in an attempt to cram it all together. The end result was a world with no real antagonists, no real goals for the PCs to accomplish and a lot of PCs playing what is meant to be flavored very much as 'social outcast' PCs without being actually suffering the effects of being so.
The answer to this seems to simply be to encourage or at least ALLOW people to Homebrew their own campaigns with their own world, their own monsters, their own PC options, their own weapon options, magical items and so forth. Which is something a pen and paper RPG can very easily incorporate... ....
But then there is that twist. We aren't going to be able to Homebrew whole campaigns anymore. At least not if we want to use absolutely any of the nifty options that WotC is making available. By computerizing everything and working from image files and datafiles and be regulariting it through the internet in such a way that a person's use of the material is closely and tightly monitored to ensure they pay for all the books containing material before it is utilized, the ability of homebrewing becomes nonexistant.
New or highly altered PC races and classes will not be comptatible with the Player Creator. Even if they were, you won't be able to make custom models of characters of these races. Moreover, models of custom monsters will be unavailable. Even new features, feats or simple rule changes will be impossible to utilized through these 'helpful' programs.
This isn't something I expect WotC to change. It would be quite impossible to have any hopes of making a totally open, totally flexible and totally adaptable computer program that would allow people, especially those without a huge amount of programing detail, to have the freedom available in a full pen and paper RPG. This is even more true when the concern of protecting copywrite comes into play.
Of course, granted, no one is going to force people to use the programs, the programs are just nifty little additions for those who own laptops and are willing to play within a tightly defined set of rules to utilize. However, by the same token, I really have to wonder if it is necessary to reward people for their lack of creativity and originality further than we do already....
You are rigth. Some official setting are cool but the "iconic" characters steal too...action. How can you creating a Lord of Rings campaing after the ring are destroyed? Or what if Strand Von Zarovich is killed by the PCs?
A option is a remake or reboot of official setting, where DM change canon history by his taste (for example Dragonlance is invaded by githyanki flying fleet). Other option would be "spin off" settings, for example world with the same nations and pantheon from official settings.
And I add other question, the new elements (psionic, incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, PC races, monsters like half-dragons or planar dragons...) in old settings. Can you imagine incarnum in Dark Sun or Ravenloft?
But I suposse the new strategy from WotC are "ambigous" or incomplete settings, with only a couple of thing, where you end the rest, like "points of light".
That being addressed, I agree with you mostly. Dragonlance campaigns will always suffer in the shadows of the Heroes of the Lance. If you player after the War of the Lance, the world has already been saved, and if you play through the War of the Lance, your either going to feel like interlopers or a side act.
There are too many cookie cutter medieval European styled settings out there with little or nothing to set them apart besides names and maps. I'm constantly amused by the Forgotten Realms v. Greyhawk v. Mystara arguments that pop up because people will fight rabidly to declare that their generic European setting is better than the other two. These aren't the only generic European se ttings, either. Kalamar, Dragonlance, Scarred Lands, and many others all play off the medieval European tropes with some little twists. This really isn't necessary.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on Eberron. While it's not perfect, I still think it does an admirable job of applying a pulp veneer over the basic D&D tropes. I also don't believe that it's the setting's job to provide you with overarching stories or goals for your players. I believe that is your and your players' job, to be done at the table and during character generation. All the setting has to provide for you is the backdrop and inspirations for those goals.
I think, though, that there is a vibrant market for campaign settings. First of all, they cut down on the work. If I want to run a medieval/renaissance European style campaign, I use the Forgotten Realms. I have everything I need to run a, IMO, vibrant and exciting campaign in those pages. Also, there needs to be a variety of them because, obviously, D&D isn't just for generic European style adventures. While that's D&D's core, the game allows for a huge variety of world's and themes, and there should be settings that cater to all these niches. While I may think there are too many settings for D&D that are medieval Europe with Elves and Wizards, I don't think there are near enough that are not.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on Eberron. While it's not perfect, I still think it does an admirable job of applying a pulp veneer over the basic D&D tropes. I also don't believe that it's the setting's job to provide you with overarching stories or goals for your players. I believe that is your and your players' job, to be done at the table and during character generation. All the setting has to provide for you is the backdrop and inspirations for those goals.
To be fair, I really didn't get enough into Ebberon after learning its special campaign-specific races were Robots and LA-0 Werecritters and their defitions of Goblinoids in the Races of Ebberon seemed too overly narrowly defined for me to want to grab it up.
But, from what I've read, too much of Ebberon is structured in such a way that there doesn't seem to be much for the PCs to do. Everyone is good or neutral, there are no major conflicts, no overarching evils leaking into the world, no forces of evil to do combat with, the whole world has been well explored and well mapped... its all too civilized, peaceful and content within itself. But, that's just my impression from reading people bat adventure ideas around. It may very well work for very politically-based campaigns, however.
I think, though, that there is a vibrant market for campaign settings. First of all, they cut down on the work. If I want to run a medieval/renaissance European style campaign, I use the Forgotten Realms. I have everything I need to run a, IMO, vibrant and exciting campaign in those pages.
Of course, then it begs the question as to why Forgotten Realms and not GreyHawk or Mystara? Is it really necessary to have Elminister interlope in your campaigns?
Strangely enough, though, I thought back in AD&D 2E that the big defining feature of Forgotten Realms was having dinosaurs and Dinosaur people, but I can't recall seeing or hearing much about them at all in 3E. So the one really unique hook about the world kind of no longer exists.
Also, there needs to be a variety of them because, obviously, D&D isn't just for generic European style adventures. While that's D&D's core, the game allows for a huge variety of world's and themes, and there should be settings that cater to all these niches. While I may think there are too many settings for D&D that are medieval Europe with Elves and Wizards, I don't think there are near enough that are not.
Yes, there is this too. Not enough general variety in the cultural aspects of the game being represented. Of course, on the flip side of this was another point I meant to argue and forgot about.
The settings that aren't based in Europe such as Oriental Adventures and Al-Quadium tend to suffer horribly from an Orientalism perspective. In other words they choose to highlight the different aspects of their cultural and present them in a negative light in order to boost European culture. In fact, moreover, they often take things that were approximately the same in both European and Asian cultures, such as a the weight of the feudal government on the people and the extent of patriarchy in the society, and then highlight and push them in the Asian-themed worlds while totally ignoring or writing them out of the European-themed worlds. Thus they seek to imply there is more difference than there should rightly be and boost European society as the superior one by modern standards.
Interestingly, though, the writers also tend to make the Asian-themed worlds less racially divided than the European-themed ones. I don't know quite what to make of that, but the way difference is exaggerated and the society is essentialized and reduced when forming these worlds demonstrates in a way that is a bit disturbing that we are not playing within an Asian mythological world, but rather an American's view of what an Asian mythological world should be.
To be fair, I really didn't get enough into Ebberon after learning its special campaign-specific races were Robots and LA-0 Werecritters and their defitions of Goblinoids in the Races of Ebberon seemed too overly narrowly defined for me to want to grab it up.
But, from what I've read, too much of Ebberon is structured in such a way that there doesn't seem to be much for the PCs to do. Everyone is good or neutral, there are no major conflicts, no overarching evils leaking into the world, no forces of evil to do combat with, the whole world has been well explored and well mapped... its all too civilized, peaceful and content within itself. But, that's just my impression from reading people bat adventure ideas around. It may very well work for very politically-based campaigns, however.
I'm not an expert on Eberron, but after reading the campaign book, I found a nice selection of conflicts to pull from. They're there, but obviously if the setting turns you off, you wouldn't have bothered looking for them. That's mellow.
Of course, then it begs the question as to why Forgotten Realms and not GreyHawk or Mystara? Is it really necessary to have Elminister interlope in your campaigns?
Strangely enough, though, I thought back in AD&D 2E that the big defining feature of Forgotten Realms was having dinosaurs and Dinosaur people, but I can't recall seeing or hearing much about them at all in 3E. So the one really unique hook about the world kind of no longer exists.
Honestly, I just like FR the most out of the three. It's an arbitrary decision based wholly in personal preference. (Also, I play down the influence of the big names in my home games.)
Yes, there is this too. Not enough general variety in the cultural aspects of the game being represented. Of course, on the flip side of this was another point I meant to argue and forgot about.
The settings that aren't based in Europe such as Oriental Adventures and Al-Quadium tend to suffer horribly from an Orientalism perspective. In other words they choose to highlight the different aspects of their cultural and present them in a negative light in order to boost European culture. In fact, moreover, they often take things that were approximately the same in both European and Asian cultures, such as a the weight of the feudal government on the people and the extent of patriarchy in the society, and then highlight and push them in the Asian-themed worlds while totally ignoring or writing them out of the European-themed worlds. Thus they seek to imply there is more difference than there should rightly be and boost European society as the superior one by modern standards.
Interestingly, though, the writers also tend to make the Asian-themed worlds less racially divided than the European-themed ones. I don't know quite what to make of that, but the way difference is exaggerated and the society is essentialized and reduced when forming these worlds demonstrates in a way that is a bit disturbing that we are not playing within an Asian mythological world, but rather an American's view of what an Asian mythological world should be.
Eh, I'm gonna have to disagree with you to some extent on this one. I think the Orientalism is based on two things, neither of which is malicious and meant to support some idea of cultural superiority. First of all, these settings were created by Westerners. They were well versed in their source material, but still, they can't help but to look at it from a Western perspective. Second, and somewhat related to the first, they were creating these settings for a Western audience who wanted something that was different, so they magnified the differences between the real medieval Asia and Europe. Having a for Asians by Asians setting, for instance, may alleviate these complaints, but it also may bring all new complaints because players may not be able to connect with and appreciate the setting's wildly different cultural perspective.
Most campaign settings seem to be initially designed around a certain set of heroes or certain heroes become the central focus of the campaign. This is pretty obvious in Dragonlance and also very true of Forgotten Realms. It is less true of Greyhawk or many other campaigns.
And yet DL and FR (the first published setting to be upgraded to 4e) are still going strong among their respective growing fanbases.
I do see a growing number of resentful players trying to covet their game world, making it their own and proclaim they're the major player(-character)s. I usually chuckled at them and put them in their places. They shouldn't be competing with iconic figures. The world is a big place. Find your own adventures and make your own history.
When a world is built around the adventures of a certain party you get two things occuring. First, you do get some detailed villains and more time to focus on interesting quirks. However, the negative aspects of this are overwhelming. First, the player races come to be defined by particular characters. Again, this is most clearly highlighted in Dragonlance where the personalities of the characters in the primary party are then thrust upon the entire races of those characters so that you actually have an entire homogenous race of clones of that character with only minor physical differences. For those races more commonly seen in other settings, the primary character's traits carry over. Suddenly blind wizards are common, every Half-Elf has a beard and all Drow are good-aligned and carry two scimitars.
Meh. Usually newbie players do that, as they've yet to assimilate into the hobby on their own. I recalled a campaign that involved one paladin named Arturius Rex and one ranger named Aragorn. I'm not going to cast them out for not being creative, especially when we need more hobbyists. Let them find their footing, even if it means to emulate an inspired figure, both inside and outside the game world.
I can understand one's resentment for the populating of Drizzt clones. I just don't think you should discriminate them, be it newbie or veteran.
However, even more importantly than the reductionism of character races within the setting is the fact that all these wonderfully detailed evil organizations are designed to be, and almost certainly eventually are, overthrown and soundly defeated by those given heroes. This means that by the time the PCs get to play within this world all the world's conflicts have been positively resolved and there is little or nothing left for them to do. Furthermore, when you know that there are vastly powerful heroes in the world who could do all the PC's work with no struggle, any victory on the part of the PCs comes off as quite meager and common place. Ultimately this may mean that the DMs end up replaying the adventures in the preexisting canon and giving the PCs a supporting role. This also has problems.
To use real-world analogy, I thought the world would get better after the fall of the Soviet Union.
As they say, nature abhors vacuum. If one evil organization fall, another is there to pick up the vacancy. This may be a chance to deviate from the baseline world (if it is a published setting) to introduce an entirely different set of enemies.
Tied into this is that a lot of settings are part of an extremely tight pre-existing and often living canon that it seems meddlesome to change or impact. So the timeline of the official world moves forward within products and official changes are made. The longer a campaign runs, the more out of synch with the official canon it becomes. Of course, without moving forward there is no good way for the designers to incorporate new ideas into the world, good or bad ones, or remove bothersome or painfully bad elements from the world without claiming that things had always been that way and anything that said contrary was incorrect. Although on one hand there is no problem with having an out-of-synch campaign, and trying to find your own way to keep up with the changes you like, as long as you have a stable group of players, new players will often find it difficult to adjust if they are too hooked on a newer version of the world.
As for as backstory is concerned, I will use the history of the published world up to the starting game date. Whatever happens after that, it is the DM's responsibility to chronicle new canon as defined by the events that happened due to his players' actions.
So don't hold canon of published setting sacrosanct, unless we're just discussing the world on its baseline reference. But when it comes to your FR campaign and my FR, there will be some notable differences aside from cast of characters.
Another problem with a lot of campaign worlds is that many of them seem afraid to change too much.
They shouldn't be, yet I do see the panic. When you purchased the published setting, it is yours to play with. WotC want you to play with it.
Now, this isn't to say that some campaigns don't make some attempt to escape the strict definitions given and introduce their own options, but often this comes off in such a way that the changes feel half-hearted because the list is still identical and then the new campaign-specific races tend to be things so bizarely alien that they don't seem to fit in or only fit in when you don't really consider them. A few obvious examples of this are the Thri-keen, the Warforged, Drow, Vampire-blooded, Minotaurs... I can't think of any campaign setting that is brave enough to step up and simply say 'elfs are too different in this world to be PCs' or 'there are small-sized Humans, so Halflings aren't available' or even 'Orcs aren't evil or antagonistic to Dwarfs in this world, so you can play them with these stats and Dwarfs get a bonus against Troglodytes instead'. The closest I've ever seen is Ravenloft that replaced the Half-Orc with something effectively identical.
Well, there is a certain risk when trying to introduce a new setting that deviate far outside the range of known fantasy elements. For the designers, man, they hope they sell since they need some income flowing in to pay their bills. I mean, as much as they put their heart and soul into said setting, they hope there are others (plural) that would like it enough to buy.
But you have to admit, most settings are based on the same formula for fantasy genre, or futuristic genre, etc., and they know they're sellable.
Outside of races, there could be some elements of the classes that could change. For instance, it is hard to imagine that heavy armored, mace-wielding Clerics really embrace a universal concept of Priest that could or should be applied equally across all worlds. Similarly, Bards necessarially being traveling social outcasts is something that is so very Euro-centric that it disturbingly out of place in more Eastern-style campaign settings.
When the players are forced to choose from the same list of options and the basic monsters descriptions, roles and functions stay the same, the element of shifting from world to world doesn't really feel very valid.
Can't help when the option comes from one set of universal rules: Dungeons & Dragons.
Sure, each setting could alter the rules if need be.
Or what if Strand Von Zarovich is killed by the PCs?
As a Ravenloft fan, if Strahd was killed by the PC's, I'd imagine the domain of Barovia would merge with the neighboring lands.
As a Ravenloft fan, if Strahd was killed by the PC's, I'd imagine the domain of Barovia would merge with the neighboring lands.
Or the next most evil person would become darklord. Perhaps the vampire Dillisnya Strahd imprisoned in a crypt.
@Peter Weller: Dude, you were awesome in Robocop :D
.
@Peter Weller: Dude, you were awesome in Robocop :D
I feel I was better in Buckaroo Banzai, but to each his own. ;)
To be fair, I really didn't get enough into Ebberon after learning its special campaign-specific races were Robots and LA-0 Werecritters and their defitions of Goblinoids in the Races of Ebberon seemed too overly narrowly defined for me to want to grab it up.
But, from what I've read, too much of Ebberon is structured in such a way that there doesn't seem to be much for the PCs to do. Everyone is good or neutral, there are no major conflicts, no overarching evils leaking into the world, no forces of evil to do combat with, the whole world has been well explored and well mapped... its all too civilized, peaceful and content within itself. But, that's just my impression from reading people bat adventure ideas around. It may very well work for very politically-based campaigns, however.
I don't think you read enough. Warforged are more like a Homonculus or Shield Gaurdian than any gear and acuator driven Robot, and Shifters are not capable of full transformation (their ability is like a weakened version of Barbarian rage). Goblinoids also have more information out there than just what's in Races of Eberron, which is often noted as being one of the less well written Eberron supplements.
There are plenty of obvious, very pulpy/epic, Evil powers, including demons/devils and wierd outsiders plotting to take over the world. Evil also lurks amidst organizations that otherwise seem Good/Neutral. The highest authorities of the religion dedicated to fighting Undead, Demons, and Evil Lycanthropes is himself, Lawful Evil and seeks to usurp power. The king of the nation that is pushing most fervently for peace is an Evil Vampire who works behind the scenes to subtlety destroy his enemies.
The setting is also very conflict heavy. The main continent is in a cold war state, and could go to war again very soon. Discrimination and conflict (both violent and non-violent) based on culture, religion, race, nationalism, and other factors is also very common. That's in addition to the more classic "save the world from powerful Evil" mentioned before.
This is all in addition to a philosophy that suggests PCs are meant to be the stars and world shakers. All of higher level NPCs have their hands tied and influence limited for various reasons. This results in situations where a handful of mid-level PCs without such limitations really are the most logical choice for people to solve a problem/save the world.
This is all in addition to a philosophy that suggests PCs are meant to be the stars and world shakers. All of higher level NPCs have their hands tied and influence limited for various reasons. This results in situations where a handful of mid-level PCs without such limitations really are the most logical choice for people to solve a problem/save the world.
No kidding!
Just because civilization's more widespread in Eberron doesn't mean that there's nothing to fight. It has plenty of pulp/noir villains just begging to be fought, from petty gangsters to cults and secret organizations. And of course, there are monsters in all the dark corners. Think of action movies, like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Pirates of the Caribbean -- both listed as inspiration for Eberron.
If your Eberron campaign is set in a "civilized" locale, the PCs can be private eyes or secret agents, like Dick Tracy and James Bond. Or you can send them on Indiana Jones-style adventures into the backwater parts of the world -- and trust me when I say that there are a lot of those.
Intrigue's only one part of an Eberron campaign. "Who sent those guys after us?" "Is she really on our side?" "Why does she want us to collect all the pieces?" It adds depth to the plot, and makes it so that there's rarely a neat, tidy resolution.
Although I have to agree with you that these settings were in no way malicious in the intent behind their implementation, the end result is still a negative one reinforcing stereotypes that I (and perhaps others of like mind) would wish to see FANTASY (where anything is possible) challenge and reinvent rather than reinforce.
As an arabic speaker and Muslim, I have often felt that Al-Qadim embodied the most worst of Orientalism: unified land under idealised unchanging caliph, devious assassins, decadent oriental potentates contrasted to their progressive western counterparts. Maybe this is how many westerners feel comfortable viewing the Orient. But they should not delude themselves into thinking it is without malice and insult. Those are thinly veiled for anyone who looks at the setting from the perspective of someone with a grasp of the culture. Which, happily for most here, will be a negligible percentage of forum-goers. So you can just say 'Hey its just a game. Dont take it so seriously.'
Icidentally, many of my Asian friends have had the same or commensurable issues with Oriental Adventures (Samurai worhip and essentialism, type casting of a whole cultural sphere) that plague Al-Qadim.
This is not even delving into the whole sub-saharan angle, which is another story for another night
Chahir
Nor hideous, real racism and all.
^PCness have however NO reason, no place in D&D, EVER.
If PCness had no place in D&D then we would still have a system where all PHB races were exclusively white people and any other colored skin was an evil monsterous 'other'.
We would still have a system where female characters are penalized for being female and books encouraging the DM to dismiss and abuse her at every opportunity with the rationality being that it was a patriarchial society and that was realistic.
We'd still have a system where the PCs were expected to go around killing (goblin) children.
The majority of people said that this wasn't fun and new people weren't joining because of these elements. If you want to play your game like that (and with other examples of such elements) be free to. However, most people have ruled that PCness does have a very important place in D&D (just like any story being sold to a mass public audience).
There is however a difference PCness and REALLY taking care of social evils.
the point is that D&D is a game, that also show not an utopia. Evil IS. Please leave the Isms out of the game, and let it neutral.
If PCness had no place in D&D then we would still have a system where all PHB races were exclusively white people and any other colored skin was an evil monsterous 'other'.
Meh. D&D is at its base, Eurocentric.
That's why they need to open their eyes that there are other worldly things besides Medieval Europe. Like the Orient, for instance.
Would be nice if some daring Middle Eastern gamers would redesign Al Qadim (or whatever title you wish to use). What better way to educate us or open our eyes?
If PCness had no place in D&D then we would still have a system where all PHB races were exclusively white people and any other colored skin was an evil monsterous 'other'.
We would still have a system where female characters are penalized for being female and books encouraging the DM to dismiss and abuse her at every opportunity with the rationality being that it was a patriarchial society and that was realistic.
We'd still have a system where the PCs were expected to go around killing (goblin) children.
You put it more succintly than I ever could. The reason this thing interests me is that I would really like to see some culture-specific (not too specific, it is D&D after all) CSs that ARENT cultural parodies. I for one feel that Al-Qadim was far better executed than Kara-Tur in terms of (if not cultural sensitivity) verisimilitude.
Would be nice if some daring Middle Eastern gamers would redesign Al Qadim (or whatever title you wish to use). What better way to educate us or open our eyes?
Yeah, but then buying it would get us put on a "watch list". You might even get a visit from the FBI if you were a chem major.
Such a setting would probably make the same errors... reversed.
the 'whiteys' would be made in a stereotypical way, and would probably made the bad guys. And the natives cultures 'whitewashed' and presented in a positive way that will surely have an agenda behind it. Noble savages/natives and bad foreigners.
Meh...
Such a setting would probably make the same errors... reversed.
the 'whiteys' would be made in a stereotypical way, and would probably made the bad guys. And the natives cultures 'whitewashed' and presented in a positive way that will surely have an agenda behind it. Noble savages/natives and bad foreigners.
I don't recall any particular anti-white sentiment in Al-Quadim, Kara-Tur, Nyambe, Maztica settings, or any more "white-washing" of the cultures to a degree greater than is done in D&D in regards to Europe.
Nyambe specifically states that the design team made a conscious effort not to go down the noble savage path, but rather, draw upon African mythic lore and themes. There are people who have contact with generic European/Asian cultures aren't treated any better/worse than others. Actually, the foreigners are used in the setting to introduce things like standardized currency, steel weapons, and more organized mercantile powers.
It also even takes advantage of those negative expectations. There's a section where it mentions mysterious people from the North coming in ships to raid and pillage towns for wealth and slaves. The whole time, you're thinking, "Oh boy, here comes the villification of white people".
It turns out that they're not Humans, but Orcs. Just regular Orcs, like the kind that pillage and enslave Humans in every Eurocentric setting. :P
I don't know, but the 'orcs of the north' could be offensive... an hint of the white/mulsim raiders of history. Frankly, it's not any better, really.
There's already Northern and "Near-Eastern" (as well as Far Eastern) Humans in the setting and they have far less tense relations with the inhabitants of Nyambe. The Orcs are not lumped together with them, and are just as much their are enemies. There's also a history of tyrannical Nyambe Orc (subrace) empires.
It's much better. The equivalent in a D&D setting would be having more peaceable foreigner Humans share their land with dangerous humanoids, as opposed to making all the foreigners (Humans or otherwise) the dangerous humanoids themselves.
It's also worth noting that the Northern Orcs are a relative annoyance. Nowhere near as bad or universally reviled as the Nyambe native sub-race of Orcs (Kosan). They maintained a tyrannical empire and enslaved Humans for hundreds of years.