Source: https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/taco-sushi-debate
DnD fans debate whether sushi is unrealistic in a make-believe game
New art from the Dungeons and Dragons PlayerrCOs Handbook has sparked debates about racism and what real-world foods fit in a fantasy game.
Mollie Russell
Published: 2024-09-05
Dungeons and Dragons
Bewilderingly, sushi and tacos have become the focus of a heated
Dungeons and Dragons discussion online, as art from the new D&D PlayerrCOs Handbook happens to feature both of these foods. After a fan Tweet from September 1 decried this artistic choice as rCLnonsenserCY, several members of the D&D community rushed to defend sushi and tacosrCO status as fantasy game food.
That original tweet came from X user osgamer74, who shared new art for
the HeroesrCO Feast spell from the 2024 PlayerrCOs Handbook. rCLTacos? Sushi?
What the fuck is this nonsense?rCY, they comment.
That original post has gained a lot of traction (so much that its
creator has now muted the post), so osgamer74 has expanded on their
original thought. Apparently, their, er, rCybeefrCO with the artwork is that sushi and tacos are too rCLcontemporaryrCY for D&DrCOs mostly faux-medieval settings. They equate them to McDonaldrCOs meals, as osgamer74 can buy
both in their local mall.
On 9/6/2024 3:40 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
Source: https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/taco-sushi-debateBetter just to eat pizza while playing the game
DnD fans debate whether sushi is unrealistic in a make-believe game
New art from the Dungeons and Dragons PlayerAs Handbook has sparked
debates about racism and what real-world foods fit in a fantasy game.
Mollie Russell
Published: 2024-09-05
Dungeons and Dragons
Bewilderingly, sushi and tacos have become the focus of a heated
Dungeons and Dragons discussion online, as art from the new D&D PlayerAs
Handbook happens to feature both of these foods. After a fan Tweet from
September 1 decried this artistic choice as ononsenseo, several members
of the D&D community rushed to defend sushi and tacosA status as fantasy
game food.
That original tweet came from X user osgamer74, who shared new art for
the HeroesA Feast spell from the 2024 PlayerAs Handbook. oTacos? Sushi?
What the fuck is this nonsense?o, they comment.
That original post has gained a lot of traction (so much that its
creator has now muted the post), so osgamer74 has expanded on their
original thought. Apparently, their, er, abeefA with the artwork is that
sushi and tacos are too ocontemporaryo for D&DAs mostly faux-medieval
settings. They equate them to McDonaldAs meals, as osgamer74 can buy
both in their local mall.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:34:29 -0400, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 9/6/2024 3:40 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
Source: https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/taco-sushi-debateBetter just to eat pizza while playing the game
DnD fans debate whether sushi is unrealistic in a make-believe game
New art from the Dungeons and Dragons PlayerrCOs Handbook has sparked
debates about racism and what real-world foods fit in a fantasy game.
Mollie Russell
Published: 2024-09-05
Dungeons and Dragons
Bewilderingly, sushi and tacos have become the focus of a heated
Dungeons and Dragons discussion online, as art from the new D&D PlayerrCOs >>> Handbook happens to feature both of these foods. After a fan Tweet from
September 1 decried this artistic choice as rCLnonsenserCY, several members >>> of the D&D community rushed to defend sushi and tacosrCO status as fantasy >>> game food.
That original tweet came from X user osgamer74, who shared new art for
the HeroesrCO Feast spell from the 2024 PlayerrCOs Handbook. rCLTacos? Sushi?
What the fuck is this nonsense?rCY, they comment.
That original post has gained a lot of traction (so much that its
creator has now muted the post), so osgamer74 has expanded on their
original thought. Apparently, their, er, rCybeefrCO with the artwork is that
sushi and tacos are too rCLcontemporaryrCY for D&DrCOs mostly faux-medieval >>> settings. They equate them to McDonaldrCOs meals, as osgamer74 can buy
both in their local mall.
Oh, for the days when a gaming session revolved around pizza, crisps,
and soda!
[And after a particularly good session, maybe a run to
the donut shop to celebrate!]
Nowadays,* none of our group can afford such dangerous diets. Oh sure,
we might splurge on some junk food (because D&D without crisps isn't
the same; you need to have SOMETHING at hand to throw at the DM when
he makes a ruling you don't like! ;-)
But as often we're likely just do without the unhealthy stuff,
replacing it with stuff that doesn't destroy our aging bodies so
quickly. We just can't afford to do it anymore. Why, the other day*
somebody brought KALE to munch on! The horror!
....
As for the sushi/topic debate... it's just silly. Yes, it's
unrealistic that a completely different culture in a completely
different world would create a snack that looks exactly like modern
day food (especially tacos, which are heavily dependent on modern food processing). But, at the same time, the ideas of these food aren't so
alien: pound wheat and water to make a tortilla, wrap it around some
meat and veggies and you get something similar to a taco. Eating fish
and veggies raw isn't that unusual either.
Plus, we're happy to overlook so many other anachronisms in the game
that drawing the line at taco and sushi is ridiculous. In a world
where elves are using rifles to shoot at plate-armored dwarves (who
happily munch on sandwiches in their downtime), _that_ is the hill you
want to die on in the battle about realism?
Although maybe it's all just lingering resentment over 2nd edition
D&D's much-maligned attack-roll system that is the cause of it all.
Taco is only one letter away from THACO, after all. ;-)
Nowadays,* none of our group can afford such dangerous diets. Oh sure,
we might splurge on some junk food (because D&D without crisps isn't the same; you need to have SOMETHING at hand to throw at the DM when he
makes a ruling you don't like! ;-)
But as often we're likely just do without the unhealthy stuff, replacing
it with stuff that doesn't destroy our aging bodies so quickly. We just
can't afford to do it anymore. Why, the other day* somebody brought KALE
to munch on! The horror!
On 9/6/2024 6:31 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Although maybe it's all just lingering resentment over 2nd edition
D&D's much-maligned attack-roll system that is the cause of it all.
Taco is only one letter away from THACO, after all. ;-)
I occasionally understand THAC0, but even when I was playing with it it
felt like an enormous kludge. Either the old table-lookup method or the >simple Attack-roll system from 3rd edition always made more sense (and
were mathematically equivalent.
DnD has had this habit of keeping utterly baffling artifacts from the
early times of the hobby for way too long, long after everyone else
already switched to something way easier.
The same actually with descending AC. I know the arguments for it, I
just don't know why anyone would be making them in good faith.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:50:01 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2024 6:31 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Although maybe it's all just lingering resentment over 2nd edition
D&D's much-maligned attack-roll system that is the cause of it all.
Taco is only one letter away from THACO, after all. ;-)
I occasionally understand THAC0, but even when I was playing with it it
felt like an enormous kludge. Either the old table-lookup method or the
simple Attack-roll system from 3rd edition always made more sense (and
were mathematically equivalent.
DnD has had this habit of keeping utterly baffling artifacts from the
early times of the hobby for way too long, long after everyone else
already switched to something way easier.
The same actually with descending AC. I know the arguments for it, I
just don't know why anyone would be making them in good faith.
I'm a firm supporter of descending AC, but I can't in any way argue
for its inclusion in good faith. As much as I dislike a lot of stuff
in 3E+, I can't disagree that many of the changes they made _were_ for
the better. Especially stuff like changing AC going up as it improved. Old-school D&D was really weird in how, in some cases, lower numbers
were better and in other cases, you wanted to roll high. 3E (and
onwards) fixed a lot of these oddities.
My preference for AC-going-down is almost entirely nostalgic. I like
it because it's what I learned, and I feel oddities like that are one
of the things that gave D&D its own character.
[There's maybe a little gatekeeping involved too; a bit of
"keeping the rules weird to keep the normies out." But
I'm not proud of that bit ;-)]
But, yeah, mostly when I argue in favor of AC-goes-down, it's meant
pretty tongue-in-cheek. Same with THAC0. I mean, I can do it in my
head and enjoy it, but boy did it discourage a lot of people from
engaging with the game. I mean, it was better than the constant table- look-ups of 1E but not by much.
On 9/7/2024 9:28 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:50:01 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2024 6:31 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Although maybe it's all just lingering resentment over 2nd edition
D&D's much-maligned attack-roll system that is the cause of it all.
Taco is only one letter away from THACO, after all. ;-)
I occasionally understand THAC0, but even when I was playing with it it
felt like an enormous kludge. Either the old table-lookup method or the
simple Attack-roll system from 3rd edition always made more sense (and
were mathematically equivalent.
DnD has had this habit of keeping utterly baffling artifacts from the
early times of the hobby for way too long, long after everyone else
already switched to something way easier.
The same actually with descending AC. I know the arguments for it, I
just don't know why anyone would be making them in good faith.
I'm a firm supporter of descending AC, but I can't in any way argue
for its inclusion in good faith. As much as I dislike a lot of stuff
in 3E+, I can't disagree that many of the changes they made _were_ for
the better. Especially stuff like changing AC going up as it improved.
Old-school D&D was really weird in how, in some cases, lower numbers
were better and in other cases, you wanted to roll high. 3E (and
onwards) fixed a lot of these oddities.
My preference for AC-going-down is almost entirely nostalgic. I like
it because it's what I learned, and I feel oddities like that are one
of the things that gave D&D its own character.
[There's maybe a little gatekeeping involved too; a bit of
"keeping the rules weird to keep the normies out." But
I'm not proud of that bit ;-)]
But, yeah, mostly when I argue in favor of AC-goes-down, it's meant
pretty tongue-in-cheek. Same with THAC0. I mean, I can do it in my
head and enjoy it, but boy did it discourage a lot of people from
engaging with the game. I mean, it was better than the constant table-
look-ups of 1E but not by much.
My only defense is it's to prevent players using loaded dice. As A DM
it was no issue as that's how I learned it (well thac0 with 2e) and I
just tell you if you hit or miss, you don't need to know it at all.
That and reverse compatibility. Easy enough to change it on the fly if >using the opposite for monsters or whatever.
The only other improvement I can think 3e+ made was allowing M-Us to
cast more than one spell at first level (not withstanding 2e specialists
and 1e cantrips)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 08:16:17 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,942 |