This is an interesting question. I see a lot of people mentioning that since war, slavery, classism, ableism, etc. are part of history, it makes sense to have them in the game. I’m a historian, so I have a lot of sympathy for that perspective. However, two points https://twitter.com/kiltedfiend/status/1296275940100759552

One, whether or not these things should exist in the game world, and two, whether or not the PCs interact with these things in the campaign. With respect to the first question, it is sort of a default assumption for many that D&D campaigns are set “in the past”, and they can be

But that’s not necessary. Tekumel, one of the most amazing settings, is set on another planet so is a sci-fi setting, many of the fictional sources that inspired D&D such as Vance’s Dying Earth are set in the far, far future. All D&D requires is magic, the rest…

… is setting specific. So for me for example, my setting is explicitly Vancian, set 1000 years before the death of the sun, millions of years into our future. In a setting that far into the future, do you still have to have war, slavery, etc? Of course you could have them…

… with the assumption that human nature is sort of universal and thus we will always have war, slavery, etc. Or you can assume that over millions of years of history (remember, human civilization is around 5000 years old) certain things have changed. Obviously that’s open…

… for debate, but I don’t see any NEED to maintain these features in your game world as they are somehow “essential” to the human experience. I have been running 4 concurrent D&D campaigns for the last 2 years, so far I have managed to keep them running without…

… any slavery or war being part of the gaming experience. There are many other sources of conflict that work just fine. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be there, I’m saying that they don’t need to be. The second point is about what the PCs experience

If you are running a campaign where you feel that slavery, war, etc. are needed for “verisimilitude” purposes (setting aside the question of whether your fantasy campaign needs verisimilitude), that doesn’t mean that the PCs need to be interacting with these things.

War, slavery, classism, ableism, etc. can be part of the game world without your PCs becoming embroiled in them in a significant way. Just because there are wars going on doesn’t mean the PCs are soldiers, or working for one side of a conflict or the other.

D&D CAN work at the “micro-level”, e.g. the PCs can be focused on local goals and dealing with the consequences of their actions, rather than “saving the world” all the time (which often ends up touching on these bigger themes). As a matter of fact, I find “saving the world”...

… campaigns to be extremely overdone and dull. Decades of fantasy literature and cinema have made these sorts of themes so commonplace that they lack any resonance for me. It’s why I don’t run Tolkien style D&D and never have. It’s why I prefer Howard/Vance/Leiber

Fantasy, it’s not world ending, it’s textured and weird and engaging on a different level. Of course, YMMV and such, everyone has their preference. But there is no NEED for any of these elements in the game. D&D works very well with the PCs facing immediate and smaller scale…

… challenges then having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Big, overarching plot elements like wars and slavery and such can of course be dramatic and engaging, but in my experience can lead to railroady games where you have to reach a particular result

If, however, a group is on board (e.g. through a session 0 consultation) with a theme, it can be handled well. I ran a group of players through the A series BITD and smashing slavers was a visceral experience. Of course, if there are players who do not want these themes then…

… I wouldn’t run a game with them, but if everyone is on board it can be a real win.