How Stereotype Impacts Perceptions Of How D&D Should Be Played.

Recently, while doom scrolling through YouTube I came across a D&D skit entitled 'That One Guy In Every Dungeon And Dragons Game'. The premise of the skit is pretty straight foward, focusing on the sterotypical modern Dungeons & Dragons game. Players circled around a table intently listening to the Dungeon Master as he describes an awe inspiring "scene". With elouquent & colorful language belonging to a shakespearian play. The purpose of the skit's creation becomes aparrent; as the main character 'Scoots' bursts foward from the side lines and punches 'The Goblin King' in the crotch. Completely derailing the game session & fulfilling the sterotypial actions of a murderhobo (a concept I wrote about here). It's a fun & charming skit. However, while watching I noticed some rather harmful sterotypes/assumtions about how D&D should be played that I'd like to discuss.

Harmful Sterotype 1. Dungeon & Dragons Players

Should Be in Character At All Times.

Since the advent of the Dungeons & Dragons Actual Play genre, shows like 'The Adventure Zone', 'Harmon Quest', & 'Critical Role'. Have proliferated the idea that a good Player or a good Dungeon Master must engage in improv. Detailed character backstories, rehearsed voices, cosplay; all of these elements of the sterotypical modern Dungeons & Dragons game can be spotted in 'That One Guy In Every Dungeon And Dragons Game'. Perpetating the idea that you need these elements at your table in order to properly enjoy Dungeons & Dragons.

Shows like 'The Adventure Zone', 'Harmon Quest', & 'Critical Role'; dont actually represent what happens at the table. These shows all have two things in common that prevent them from recreating an accurate Dungeons & Dragons game.

1. They priotize the audice's entertainment above all else. Shows like 'The Adventure Zone', 'Harmon Quest', & 'Critical Role'; make money by feeding their audience's an unrealistic, idealized version of the game. A real game of Dungeons & Dragons, is focused on ensuring that everyone at the table is having fun engaging with the world presented to them & with eathother. Not on what is most appealing to a 3rd party, whose living vicariously through the actors "playing the game".

2. They have massive production budgets. Music, lights, dramatic sets, and well painted mini's; these elements would bankrupt the typical Dungeon Master should he or she try to replicate them at scale for a home game.

Harmful Sterotype 2. A Dungeons & Dragons Game

Should Resemble A Narrative Epic.

Over the past year, as I've gone deeper & deeper into the rabbit-hole that is the OSR & Vintage Gaming. I've discovered that the amount of time the typical Dungeon Master invests in preping his campagin. Is time he could've spent actually playing. As The Basic Expert explains in his video 'Why I don't Run "World Shattering Event" Campaigns Anymore', D&D was orginally built to simulate a pulp-like story. This can be seen in Appendix N, which is found in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The Pulp-like style of Dungeon Mastering is far simpler when compared to it's cousin; the Narrative Epic. Instead of pre-planned encounters & Dungeon Master driven play. Pulp-like Dungeon Mastering uses random tables & player driven action. The story is more engaging because only what is determined to be interesting will be expolred. When I compare this to the Narrative Epic style of play, it becomes obvious why so many of these games fizzle out after 6 sessions. The game stopped being interesting and became a chore.