Sunday, January 22, 2023

Building Bhakashal - OGL, Morality Clauses and D&D


I wrote a blog post last year dealing with the issue of “problematic” monsters in D&D, I sent it out to two different “left leaning” people that I correspond with on Twitter asking for opinions. 


They never responded. So I sat on the piece, figuring it was “too much”.


The OGL business has spurred me to reconsider. However, I have decided to make this post somewhat generic, as otherwise it will create a tsunami of responses as people on the left will think I’m trolling and people on the right will think I’m exaggerating.


That’s just how ridiculous the TTRPG Twitter is at this point.


The Argument

All arguments have premises, if you reject a premise, the argument falls. So here is the premise of this argument:


  1. Monsters aren’t real


If you disagree with this premise, then you can stop here.


If you accept this premise, read on.


  1. If monsters aren’t real, then they either:

    1. Represent nothing, they are “empty signifiers”

    2. Represent something in the real world


So you have two choices:

  1. Monsters aren’t real, but they don’t “represent” or “stand in” for anything in the real world

  2. Monsters aren’t real, and each one represents something in the real world


Now, there are a few options available to you at this point. Perhaps if you think A is correct, monsters at one point represented something in the real world, but subsequent use has changed that. So, for example, orcs may have been caricatures of real world groups at one point, but over the years that association has changed and now the representation is no longer strong. I think many D&D players ended up in this place, they saw orcs as empty signifiers as by the point they encountered them, that’s what they were. 


Or perhaps you think that orcs were never meant to represent any particular real world group in the first place. Wherever you fall on this argument, one thing is abundantly clear if you take the time to read any of the academic literature on this stuff: the perspective on the left is very emphatically B, and for good reason.


Most monsters in D&D are mythological, and mythological monsters represent other things in the real world. Some interpretations claim that monsters are symbols of our vices and sins (lust, greed, etc.), others will claim that they represent real world groups of people that were considered dangerous (e.g. witches, dryads, sirens, etc. represent the patriarchal fear of female power), but many of the “monsters” of mythology are representative of groups in the real world that have been considered dangerous.


I think this is a solid argument, as I accept that mythological monsters were meant as warnings about real world groups/issues, this seems obvious. And if they were meant to represent real world groups, then they are “othering” by default. Reducing real world groups to “threats” is a process of undermining their humanity and othering them, pretty much by definition.


Monsters are not real, monsters are the “other”, and monsters are historically associated with real world groups/issues, so any monster in D&D is, in principle, “problematic”, e.g. either racist, sexist, ableist, etc, etc, etc.


It won’t stop with orcs, or undead, there is plenty more to come.


Which brings us back to the OGL and the morality clause.


I think the conclusion here is pretty obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: almost every monster in D&D is going to be “problematic” by these standards, standards already used to argue that orcs are “racist”. So if the TTRPG community “on the left” already accepts the “orcs are racist” argument, they will inevitably have to embrace the “most if not all monsters are problematic” argument.


Which means that the morality clause in WotC’s newest iterations of the OGL is easily weaponized to silence people. I suspect this will lead to two results:


  1. In the beginning, people on “the left” will use this to lodge complaints about creators on “the right” whom they dislike. It will be super easy to do, just point to a monster that has historical/mythological associations, and say it’s problematic as it reproduces harmful stereotypes. You have seen this with orcs, recently with undead, and you will see it with other monster types as we move forward.


  1. As time goes by, people “on the right” will glom on to this, and start to do the same, arguing that monsters in games made by creators “on the left” are also cyphers for real world groups, because they have to represent something, and thus problematic as they reproduce harmful stereotypes.


In short, the morality clause in the OGL will become a tool in the culture wars. 


Oh joy.


The root of this problem is that people on the left haven’t really thought through the consequences of what they are doing. They were more than happy to jump on the orc train when it was first discussed, as it gave them a quick and easy way to dunk on old school gamers as “racist”. I was surprised at the initial fervor with which it was used in this way. I mean, I’ve been playing D&D for decades, and I haven’t had a single POC player complain about orcs or suggest they were offended by them until the last few years. And yes, I’ve had many POC players over the years, and yes, they were vocal and politically engaged so if they were concerned I’m sure it would have come up. So clearly the people who were supposed to be stereotyped by fantasy orcs weren’t concerned about it for decades, for many of them, orcs were just orcs, and any historical associations were long gone by this point.


But I shouldn’t have been surprised. Social media is ALL ABOUT the quick dunk, obtaining Twitter points for accusing someone of something heinous, which both makes you look virtuous and makes the community “safer”. 


I don’t think that many of these people really understood the theory behind their accusations, that pretty much all monsters in D&D could be discussed in this way, and thus that almost all of the game is “problematic” on a basic level. I’ve seen a few people over the last few years realize this, they will consistently argue that D&D is “colonialist” all the way down, and is thus irredeemable, e.g. it cannot be “decolonized” and is thus hopelessly flawed, and that playing it is inherently harmful. 


I would suggest that most people on the “left” haven’t gone this far, but then again, most people on the “left” that you see on Twitter haven’t really engaged with the academic literature on these subjects to any meaningful degree, they are just weaponizing a concept they only understand on the surface. 


That pretty much sums up left leaning Twitter.


The solution to all of this nonsense is to go with option A, TTRPG monsters aren’t real, and aren’t meant to represent anything in the real world. I think this makes sense as the associations mythological monsters have now are very different from the associations they have had historically. This happens as decades of media representation have changed the meanings and associations.


Take zombies as a case, historically, there is ample evidence that they have racist associations, but modern zombies are often associated with things like rampant consumerism. I think this is one of the consequences of “postmodern” theory, if you are constantly problematizing and reinterpreting signifiers then you can’t hold on to any one association or meaning, they will always be shifting and changing.


In fantasy TTRPGs monsters are there to provide opposition for the PCs, a threat to motivate them and to make the game challenging. I refuse to believe that thousands of POC gamers over the last 4 decades or so associated humanoid races like orcs, gnolls, etc. with POC, and were thus engaging in the slaughter of “stand-ins” for themselves in some sort of self-hating process in service of white supremacy. I suspect that for most people playing D&D over the years, the historical associations that would have made evil monsters “stand-ins” for real world groups were lost years ago. 


I think that WotC should just drop this morality clause entirely. If some 3rd party makes problematic content using the OGL then WotC can just publicly denounce them. No one actually believes that WotC is responsible if a third party makes problematic content while using the OGL. If WotC is using this morality clause with good faith, I think it will backfire on them, creating endless problems as content is put under the microscope from both sides of the political spectrum to fuel the culture war.


If, however, they are just doing it as a shield to justify their draconian approach to the OGL, if the concern is not genuine, then they have just botched this up terribly.


Either way, it will be an interesting future for WotC.


Monday, January 16, 2023

Building Bhakshal - Running from the Wizards

For the last week or so I have been assessing developments at WotC with respect to online D&D gaming, microtransactions and the changes to the OGL to determine if they would impact Bhakashal. The interim conclusion is “not really”, I may have to alter my presentation of certain information,  but I won’t have to use anything from the WotC PI, and I have changed all of the classes and “races” so I suspect that there won’t be concerns. I have no need to involve anything with D&D online. So I think I’m good.


However, it’s not just designers that are hit by this, it will also impact DMs and players who decide to switch away from 5e D&D to something else. Pathfinder is an obvious choice, and from what I hear it’s pretty fun.


However, I think people are vastly underestimating the choices available to them, even if they don't want to stray "too far" from D&D.


D&D Adjacent Games

There are a number of games which are “D&D adjacent”, e.g., they are similar enough to 5e that you should be able to switch to them without too much difficulty. An obvious example is my system of choice, AD&D 1e. It is NOT the same as 5e, but 5e was created by mixing and matching bits from previous systems of D&D, AD&D 1e included. 


I know this can be done as dozens of my players have done it. They play 1e with me, but some run 5e at home. They want to be plugged in to the latest thing, or their parents got them the 5e books, or whatever, but they play 5e at home and 1e with me, and they have no issues. The games are different, but similar enough that they can figure it out.


The thing is, there are quite literally hundreds of games that would fit in this category, OD&D, AD&D 1e and 2e, Holmes Basic, Moldvay BX, Mentzer Red Box BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, Classic D&D, 3rd Edition, 3.5, 4e, any of these games will be approachable by someone who played 5e.


Then there are the retroclones, OSRIC, Iron Falcon, Swords and Wizardry, Castles and Crusades, Swords and Six Siders, Whitehack, Adventurer Conqueror King, BlueHolme, Labyrinth Lord, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Adventures Dark and Deep, Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea, Basic Fantasy, etc, etc, etc. There are over 100 retroclones of D&D that are approachable by anyone who has played 5e.


So far we are still on D&D adjacent games, games that emerged from D&D so they should be easily approachable by a group of 5e players.


D&D Inspired

When D&D originally hit the scene in the 70’s it inspired competitors, and they were legion. Tunnels and Trolls, Tekumel, Talislanta, Chivalry and Sorcery, Skyrealms of Jorune, Runequest, Rolemaster, Basic Role Playing, Stormbringer, Amber Diceless, GURPS, Warhammer… Some of these games are very different than D&D, but they are no more difficult to learn and run than at least some of the editions of D&D. 


The reason I’ve listed these games is that most of them would be “close enough” to 5e that your group could pick them up, and there is a metric ton of support materials available between them.


Honestly, if you have played any edition of D&D (with the possible exception of 4th), I think you will find enough familiar in most of these systems that you would be able to pick them up and run a game that would be tons of fun for your 5e group.


And as for the systems that are quite a bit different (Amber Diceless, Jorune or Runequest), the level of complexity is approachable, which means, IMO, that you would be able to make this work for your 5e group.


Personally, my recommendation for someone who wanted to transition a group off 5e would be Talislanta. Hands down one of the most flavorful settings ever made, mechanics that resemble D&D enough to be usable with minimal fuss, a unique system, tons of support materials, an online community with resources, and mountains of it is FREE (http://talislanta.com/). 


Talislanta materials are free because the game designers wanted them to be available, and that means that the website and the community are a LABOR OF LOVE. These are people who WANT to share this unique gaming world, and WANT you to be able to play in it for FREE. 


I know to people who want all the bells and whistles and to be involved in the “current thing” this may seem ephemeral, but that sort of enthusiasm means you will ALWAYS find people willing to help you with rules problems, you will never exhaust the support materials, and you will get to experience fantasy gaming unlike anything you have played before. 


Some people might think it would be too much a shock to transfer to a game like Talislanta, but here’s the thing. If you can master D&D (5e or otherwise) you can master Talislanta or any of the games that I have listed above. 


Give WotC the business and go play Talislanta!


It will keep you busy until Bhakashal is ready!!!!!

Building Bhakashal - Trust the Process In a sandbox style game, the referee leaves things open and the PCs actions drive the play. This conc...