Dungeons and Dragons rolls the dice with new rules about identity(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Dungeons and Dragons rolls the dice with new rules about identity
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons-rule-changes-race-species.html
196 comments
https://archive.md/z2q8s
Why interview solely the grognards? Even OSE options like Shadowdark have adopted terms like ancestry over race. It sorta feels like this article is trying to create an issue where none exists.
Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. We're more concerned with improving the mechanics and speed of gameplay, balancing martials and casters, improvements to the core books, backgrounds, bastions, and impactful changes.
We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. I think Crawford in the article puts it well: “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. We're more concerned with improving the mechanics and speed of gameplay, balancing martials and casters, improvements to the core books, backgrounds, bastions, and impactful changes.
We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. I think Crawford in the article puts it well: “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
I find this mystifying. I think of "choosing a dwarf makes you a lesser wizard" as being a pretty core part of D&D. Have they released specifics on this? If race/species is going to become purely cosmetic, have they explained what will replace it, mechanically?
That's kind of the problem with it was it was mechanically implementing something that was more setting/background cosmetics specific in the first place. Not all settings think dwarves should have a harder time becoming a wizard. Forgotten Realms, the modern "default" for D&D thinks anyone can do anything if they want, classes are just "jobs" available to anyone. Those settings that do care, including throwback settings, generally make it a story telling device about why things are the way they are ("dwarves are closer to the earth and have a hard time learning illusions") and the hardships exceptions face ("it took a lot more work and they lost access to some of their home community") and making it a mechanical disadvantage doesn't do anything more interesting than the storytelling tools already inherent in the setting.
The problem is that some racial bonuses are things that can be plausibly explained away by background (stat bonuses, mental abilities, humans getting a feat) but a lot aren't (aarakocra flight, dragonborn breath weapons, halflings being able to hide more easily), and they're all balanced against each other. Does an aarakocra raised by humans get human bonuses, and still get to fly? Does a human raised by aarakocra lose their human bonuses but grow wings?
That's almost exactly the split they made actually, with things like feats and flight still species based, but statu bonuses and backgrounds (with maybe some small exceptions) not being species based.
They did some work to balance it, but really species have never been the biggest balance issue, it's always been class stuff, or magical vs. martial issues, or the fact that ranger is thematically cool if you like LOTR, but sucks mechanically compared to other classes.
They did some work to balance it, but really species have never been the biggest balance issue, it's always been class stuff, or magical vs. martial issues, or the fact that ranger is thematically cool if you like LOTR, but sucks mechanically compared to other classes.
Have the details been published anywhere? I looked briefly and only see stuff describing it in general and saying it is yet to be released.
These changes were a part of the 2024 edition of the Player's Handbook (PHB) and Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), both now published, with more of it to come in other updated books. (Or "5.2E" if you prefer the simple decimal point of the 2024 updated Systems Reference Document [SRD] over "5E (2024)".)
You're conflating physical properties with other abilities/characteristics. Does a dwarf have a physical limitation preventing them from wielding magic? This is the argument.
I don't see anything innately wrong with a human who can breathe fire, or has wings, or a dwarf with four arms, so long as you're willing to RP it. It does seem silly to say that no, it's actually against the rules, your dwarf can't learn magic.
I don't see anything innately wrong with a human who can breathe fire, or has wings, or a dwarf with four arms, so long as you're willing to RP it. It does seem silly to say that no, it's actually against the rules, your dwarf can't learn magic.
Not sure how familiar you are with the rules of D&D, but "lesser wizard" in this context means suboptimal stat bonuses, not limitations on magic.
There are different versions of D&D. At least in some versions, you have some control over assigning some of the stats, and so you could assign some of them as you wish if you want better bonuses for magic.
It shouldn't limit you from using magic, and it doesn't, and that is good.
But, sometimes you will want to do things other than just casting spells (especially if you have run out of spells or if there is anti-magic preventing casting spells), so you can decide if you want to be good at one thing, or good at other things too but perhaps not as much.
It shouldn't limit you from using magic, and it doesn't, and that is good.
But, sometimes you will want to do things other than just casting spells (especially if you have run out of spells or if there is anti-magic preventing casting spells), so you can decide if you want to be good at one thing, or good at other things too but perhaps not as much.
> It shouldn't limit you from using magic, and it doesn't, and that is good.
But it does limit how good you can be at magic since you can't get as high magic stat, hence lesser wizard.
But it does limit how good you can be at magic since you can't get as high magic stat, hence lesser wizard.
Then why have races at all?
That's actually a really good question. It's certainly one of the key debated questions at the heart of what WotC is doing here (and as others point out, somewhat lagging the rest of the TTRPG industry, many of which got bored of "races" in the D&D mechanical sense a long time, in one way or another).
Are they archetypes for builds? Why are they archetypes for builds? Is it problematic if they are archetypes for builds? Are they just flavor for settings and character backgrounds and other storytelling needs? Should they be? Why have "races" at all and not just "backgrounds"?
It's an interesting ongoing debate.
Are they archetypes for builds? Why are they archetypes for builds? Is it problematic if they are archetypes for builds? Are they just flavor for settings and character backgrounds and other storytelling needs? Should they be? Why have "races" at all and not just "backgrounds"?
It's an interesting ongoing debate.
> I think of "choosing a dwarf makes you a lesser wizard" as being a pretty core part of D&D.
I agree that you should be able to make suboptimal choices if you wish, but I think that shouldn't be the issue.
Your character will be more than just a dwarf and a wizard (otherwise the game will be too simple), in addition to those things, so if a dwarf will be more likely to have an advantage at something else that is independent of classes, then you can have that, and still be a wizard, even if a "greater wizard" lacks what your character will have.
(There might also be the possibility, that if dwarf wizards are not very common (for whatever reason; there are many possibilities, depending on the story), then someone might not expect you to be a wizard so might be possible for some surprise if you are disguised by mundane means.)
I agree that you should be able to make suboptimal choices if you wish, but I think that shouldn't be the issue.
Your character will be more than just a dwarf and a wizard (otherwise the game will be too simple), in addition to those things, so if a dwarf will be more likely to have an advantage at something else that is independent of classes, then you can have that, and still be a wizard, even if a "greater wizard" lacks what your character will have.
(There might also be the possibility, that if dwarf wizards are not very common (for whatever reason; there are many possibilities, depending on the story), then someone might not expect you to be a wizard so might be possible for some surprise if you are disguised by mundane means.)
Every game has rules. As kids we learn not to peep when playing hide and seek...
But this is D&D in the end it's all up to the DM.
But this is D&D in the end it's all up to the DM.
The frustrating thing here is that the people in the article are complaining that Wizards isn't 'leaving it up to the DM', but that's one of the main things that WotC always drives home - and still is. If you want to fill your world with racist, ableist, sexist asshats and tell your players that their orc character is going to be inherently stupider than other races because they're inherently (genetically?) inferior, you still can.
What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'
What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'
Because it's a fantasy game and all humans are equal in it already? This feels a lot like simply corporate virtue signalling (all while exporting US culture wars)
Suggesting that grizzy bears as a category are bigger and stronger than humans isn't controversial, Neither is a hulking half orc, until now apparently?
Suggesting that grizzy bears as a category are bigger and stronger than humans isn't controversial, Neither is a hulking half orc, until now apparently?
This hit the nail on the head.
Racial stat bonuses were never a thing anyone cared about. It’s the easiest thing in the world to change if a DM’s setting called for really smart orcs, or strong lumbering elves.
Spending so much time thinking about the political implications of racial bonuses in a game where the DM gets final say anyway is just some sort of advertising.
We’re talking about it on the front page of HN after all.
Racial stat bonuses were never a thing anyone cared about. It’s the easiest thing in the world to change if a DM’s setting called for really smart orcs, or strong lumbering elves.
Spending so much time thinking about the political implications of racial bonuses in a game where the DM gets final say anyway is just some sort of advertising.
We’re talking about it on the front page of HN after all.
> If you want to fill your world with racist, ableist, sexist asshats and tell your players that their orc character is going to be inherently stupider than other races because they're inherently (genetically?) inferior, you still can.
Maybe people are angry over all this judgmental crap? Orcs are so dumb that they weren't a PC class before, you just fought them as monsters, its like saying its racism to call bears dumber than humans.
If you judge people like this, expect them to judge you back and call you names as well.
> What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'
The game is still not inclusive, the people who wanna play as a bugbear or a mindflayer still have to do opt-in etc. There will always be monsters that the players cannot play unless you change the entire game to the core.
There is no reason Orcs should be a player race, them doing that is just because they see Orcs as black people, so who is the racist here?
Maybe people are angry over all this judgmental crap? Orcs are so dumb that they weren't a PC class before, you just fought them as monsters, its like saying its racism to call bears dumber than humans.
If you judge people like this, expect them to judge you back and call you names as well.
> What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'
The game is still not inclusive, the people who wanna play as a bugbear or a mindflayer still have to do opt-in etc. There will always be monsters that the players cannot play unless you change the entire game to the core.
There is no reason Orcs should be a player race, them doing that is just because they see Orcs as black people, so who is the racist here?
I'm not sure what you're saying is accurate.
While technically, the player race is "half orcs", in practice I haven't seen virtually anyone differentiate between the two. It's just "the stats for players who want to be orc" and "the stats for orcs as enemies".
It's quite common for people to play as races like bugbears or mindflayers. It's more a limitation of being able to create player stats for every humanoid monster.
I've never seen a critic of how D&D handles race argue that orcs are meant to represent black people. I think you might be reading into things.
While technically, the player race is "half orcs", in practice I haven't seen virtually anyone differentiate between the two. It's just "the stats for players who want to be orc" and "the stats for orcs as enemies".
It's quite common for people to play as races like bugbears or mindflayers. It's more a limitation of being able to create player stats for every humanoid monster.
I've never seen a critic of how D&D handles race argue that orcs are meant to represent black people. I think you might be reading into things.
The change is a good one, and there's still abilities that differentiate species, so dwarves still have toughness, and a bunch of other abilities.
Previously a Dwarven wizard was just a really bad choice, and you'd be noticeably less powerful than say an Elven wizard so no-one ever played one.
Now an Elven Wizard for instance has a few bits and pieces that might make them a bit better, but still leave a Dwarven Wizard as a viable choice.
This makes the game far more interesting in every way: players have more interesting builds, more character choices, and can play whatever combinations that they want.
Previously a Dwarven wizard was just a really bad choice, and you'd be noticeably less powerful than say an Elven wizard so no-one ever played one.
Now an Elven Wizard for instance has a few bits and pieces that might make them a bit better, but still leave a Dwarven Wizard as a viable choice.
This makes the game far more interesting in every way: players have more interesting builds, more character choices, and can play whatever combinations that they want.
I mean, if you go far back enough "dwarves cannot be wizards" was a core part of D&D as well.
I'm kind of surprised that optimized builds even exist, at least outside competitive games.
Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not.
Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.
Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not.
Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.
It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste.
It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).
It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).
This is a valid point and it's honestly one of the things that I really enjoy about the Dungeon Crawler Carl series. One of the main character's best weapons is charisma. Multiple different types of spells or abilities are modified by secondary stats, like charisma with charm or illusion spells.
I haven't played D&D in, like 30 years, but I don't ever remember those types of game mechanics being involved. If they are now it would make for some great potential combinations. If a dwarf gets -1 INT and +1 CON, but certain types of spells use CON as a modifier then it creates an interesting combination.
I haven't played D&D in, like 30 years, but I don't ever remember those types of game mechanics being involved. If they are now it would make for some great potential combinations. If a dwarf gets -1 INT and +1 CON, but certain types of spells use CON as a modifier then it creates an interesting combination.
I've been playing Grim Dawn recently, and feeling the tension between optimizing and exploring, between pre-built and puzzled out.
If you can manage to forget about the answer key lurking on every forum, the core experience of finding synergy, figuring out a build, balancing resistances is surprisingly fun.
> Why interview solely the grognards?
And, I know it's a rhetorical question, but the answer is:
> So the article can serve double duty as a Nat Geo-style jungle expedition, providing glimpses of unwashed tribespeople to intrigued middle Americans.
If you can manage to forget about the answer key lurking on every forum, the core experience of finding synergy, figuring out a build, balancing resistances is surprisingly fun.
> Why interview solely the grognards?
And, I know it's a rhetorical question, but the answer is:
> So the article can serve double duty as a Nat Geo-style jungle expedition, providing glimpses of unwashed tribespeople to intrigued middle Americans.
> Why interview solely the grognards
When D&D players are described as grogs, Eurotrash has won.
When D&D players are described as grogs, Eurotrash has won.
> Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know.
Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on.
> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
Ok, but IMO nobody has more fun by doing 13 damage a round instead of 10. The consequence of chasing optimality is it simply leads a DM to tune encounters appropriately.
> We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT.
So instead everyone is using the same optimised builds but with more species variety? Does that really improve the state of games in your experience?
I sort of want disparate builds, playing to aptitudes. Balancing spell lists and feats etc to make lots of viable builds is a hard problem to solve though (I've not played the 2024 rules so have no idea how well they've done?).
Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on.
> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
Ok, but IMO nobody has more fun by doing 13 damage a round instead of 10. The consequence of chasing optimality is it simply leads a DM to tune encounters appropriately.
> We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT.
So instead everyone is using the same optimised builds but with more species variety? Does that really improve the state of games in your experience?
I sort of want disparate builds, playing to aptitudes. Balancing spell lists and feats etc to make lots of viable builds is a hard problem to solve though (I've not played the 2024 rules so have no idea how well they've done?).
I think the main thing, stat-wise, that leads to un-fun is when there's imbalance within a party. It's dull to play a power fantasy game where the other players are significantly more powerful than you. Balance is the main concern.
Now, a good DM can house-rule around a lot of these things, but designing rules for balance is quite hard, as is learning new rules, which is why these systems are a thing in the first place, so ideally the rules should by default allow this kind of creativity and flexibility without creating large power imbalances, both between players and between players and monsters (also something that's more difficult than it looks, hence things like challenge ratings and pre-built adventures).
(I'd argue the fairly high variance of D&D combat also causes problems here, both for fun and balance, because it's no fun when a powerful character completely bricks in a fight against a lesser opponent because of cursed dice, and it also makes it harder for the DM to get useful feedback to balance encounters)
Now, a good DM can house-rule around a lot of these things, but designing rules for balance is quite hard, as is learning new rules, which is why these systems are a thing in the first place, so ideally the rules should by default allow this kind of creativity and flexibility without creating large power imbalances, both between players and between players and monsters (also something that's more difficult than it looks, hence things like challenge ratings and pre-built adventures).
(I'd argue the fairly high variance of D&D combat also causes problems here, both for fun and balance, because it's no fun when a powerful character completely bricks in a fight against a lesser opponent because of cursed dice, and it also makes it harder for the DM to get useful feedback to balance encounters)
On one hand many people don't want to be dead weight when the dice start rolling. On the other hand it can be more fun to be the Half-Ork Wizard with 7 INT trying to role play a big dumb guy who's only love is setting things on fire with his mind and getting paid for it.
There's the age old role play vs. roll play argument. With a good DM it shouldn't matter but if you're running some prebuilt campaign then it might lead to unexpected struggles.
There's the age old role play vs. roll play argument. With a good DM it shouldn't matter but if you're running some prebuilt campaign then it might lead to unexpected struggles.
> On the other hand it can be more fun to be the Half-Ork Wizard with 7 INT trying to role play a big dumb guy who's only love is setting things on fire with his mind and getting paid for it.
At 7 int are you smart enough to even have learnt to cast cantrips?
I do think that there is a difference between playing a suboptimal combination and dumping your classes primary stats such that you're largely incapable of doing things...
There's a line between suboptimal and non-viable.
For example, a fighter which maxed charisma with appropriate feats for being admired/respected etc. Just a super stand up lovely guy. Super personable, gorgeous smile, good form, rarely seen him fight I admit - but he looks the part! But I do put some points in Str (Dex if finesse) and Con. Otherwise you probably can't actually be a fighter, you won't match the class descriptor (imo)
At 7 int are you smart enough to even have learnt to cast cantrips?
I do think that there is a difference between playing a suboptimal combination and dumping your classes primary stats such that you're largely incapable of doing things...
There's a line between suboptimal and non-viable.
For example, a fighter which maxed charisma with appropriate feats for being admired/respected etc. Just a super stand up lovely guy. Super personable, gorgeous smile, good form, rarely seen him fight I admit - but he looks the part! But I do put some points in Str (Dex if finesse) and Con. Otherwise you probably can't actually be a fighter, you won't match the class descriptor (imo)
> Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on
Who is it being done “for” if not for the people who play this game? Don’t you have the same stake in changes to the game as anyone else?
Who is it being done “for” if not for the people who play this game? Don’t you have the same stake in changes to the game as anyone else?
> Who is it being done “for” if not for the people who play this game?
Many changes to media franchises and games are being made in an effort to attract a new audience, or with the belief that it increases appeal to the "modern audience". Emphasis because this is the buzzword phrase that gets used quite a lot to justify changes that are generating some amount of controversy or negative attention. The problem is that "modern audiences" may not actually exist
Many changes to media franchises and games are being made in an effort to attract a new audience, or with the belief that it increases appeal to the "modern audience". Emphasis because this is the buzzword phrase that gets used quite a lot to justify changes that are generating some amount of controversy or negative attention. The problem is that "modern audiences" may not actually exist
Not all changes are for the players. The changes to remove perceived racial biases may improve inclusion for some minority of players. It may be a serious issue for those players, the game designers, or some executive. Just like real world changes to improve inclusivity, most are unaffected and simply move on.
For the changes people care about, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) publishes "Unearthed Arcana" or pre-release versions of content (e.g., bastions, the Monk class, a new Druid subclass). People will playtest the new content and WotC surveys players to get feedback. Based on the feedback, they may make additional changes or even scrap some things entirely.
For the changes people care about, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) publishes "Unearthed Arcana" or pre-release versions of content (e.g., bastions, the Monk class, a new Druid subclass). People will playtest the new content and WotC surveys players to get feedback. Based on the feedback, they may make additional changes or even scrap some things entirely.
> The changes to remove perceived racial biases may improve inclusion for some minority of players
Everyone is represented by the same race by the rules, just like the left wants, humans are just one race all with the same abilities. Even all genders have the same stats, so dungeons and dragons was the progressive utopia from the start where every human has no biological differences stat wise.
The only ones who see an issue are those who thinks that black people are orcs, but black people aren't orcs black people are humans just like white people.
Everyone is represented by the same race by the rules, just like the left wants, humans are just one race all with the same abilities. Even all genders have the same stats, so dungeons and dragons was the progressive utopia from the start where every human has no biological differences stat wise.
The only ones who see an issue are those who thinks that black people are orcs, but black people aren't orcs black people are humans just like white people.
Do you play D&D? Have you ever? What was your experience of this like when you did?
I will likely do some searching on this later, but I am curious how "race" ever came to be the word we use instead of "Species" in nearly every video game I know of that has a character creator (at least until recently)? I know I have struggled to not say race when I really mean species just out of many years of habit.
That being said, I don't really understand the push to remove species benefits from games (not just D&D) and instead just do a name change? It makes sense that in a fictional world that different species would have their strengths and weaknesses just for biological reasons.
Or story reasons like in Mass Effect where the Asari live to around 1000 or more (I don't remember exactly) and have a very natural benefit for biotic abilities.
I understand the concern that some of these traits were originally racially fueled, but it makes sense for there to be differences of some sort.
That being said, I don't really understand the push to remove species benefits from games (not just D&D) and instead just do a name change? It makes sense that in a fictional world that different species would have their strengths and weaknesses just for biological reasons.
Or story reasons like in Mass Effect where the Asari live to around 1000 or more (I don't remember exactly) and have a very natural benefit for biotic abilities.
I understand the concern that some of these traits were originally racially fueled, but it makes sense for there to be differences of some sort.
> how "race" ever came to be the word we use instead of "Species" in nearly every video game I know of that has a character creator
The character creator does not let you roleplay as a tree, bacterium, moss, fish, vole, etc.
It lets you roleplay as an anthropomorphised, sentient, sapient, language-using creature, with minor visual differences - a human, an almost-human that looks like a lizard, an almost-human that looks like a cat, an almost-human that looks like a bird, an almost-human with hooves and horns, a short human, a very short human, a tall human with pointy ears, a dark-skinned human, a blue-skinned human, a green-skinned human, a purple-skinned human, and so on.
If you're Commander Shepard, you're going to have sex with all of them. I suspect the progeny, if any, would be fertile. Claims that these are distinct species that all colonised different parts of the galaxy are a thin veneer. True "alien" life would be hyperintelligent shades of blue like in HHGTTG, hiveminds like in Ender's Game, or the amazing fauna in Scavengers Reign. They would not be a human actor wearing a Cornish pasty, even if you say they're Klingons.
I put it to you that your character creator choices are all the same SPECIES, and their differences are minor genetic and cultural groupings driven by geographical isolation, which we call "ethnicity" or "RACE". And all the stories you make up playing RPGs are, in fact, human dramas. You're pretending that the story tensions aren't just ethnic tensions, but that's what they are. And when you kill orcs, drow, revenants or other "baddies", you're actually just killing stand-ins for humans. Humans that your ethnicity/tribe of humans looks down on (if you fight non-sentient monsters or plants, I'll let you off with that)
The character creator does not let you roleplay as a tree, bacterium, moss, fish, vole, etc.
It lets you roleplay as an anthropomorphised, sentient, sapient, language-using creature, with minor visual differences - a human, an almost-human that looks like a lizard, an almost-human that looks like a cat, an almost-human that looks like a bird, an almost-human with hooves and horns, a short human, a very short human, a tall human with pointy ears, a dark-skinned human, a blue-skinned human, a green-skinned human, a purple-skinned human, and so on.
If you're Commander Shepard, you're going to have sex with all of them. I suspect the progeny, if any, would be fertile. Claims that these are distinct species that all colonised different parts of the galaxy are a thin veneer. True "alien" life would be hyperintelligent shades of blue like in HHGTTG, hiveminds like in Ender's Game, or the amazing fauna in Scavengers Reign. They would not be a human actor wearing a Cornish pasty, even if you say they're Klingons.
I put it to you that your character creator choices are all the same SPECIES, and their differences are minor genetic and cultural groupings driven by geographical isolation, which we call "ethnicity" or "RACE". And all the stories you make up playing RPGs are, in fact, human dramas. You're pretending that the story tensions aren't just ethnic tensions, but that's what they are. And when you kill orcs, drow, revenants or other "baddies", you're actually just killing stand-ins for humans. Humans that your ethnicity/tribe of humans looks down on (if you fight non-sentient monsters or plants, I'll let you off with that)
My instinct would be it's a borrowing from Tolkien, which is full of "the race of men" and "the Elvish race" etc.
In that, Tolkien was casually following traditional European usage, e.g. the "German race" versus the "English race", which didn't clearly distinguish between genetics and culture. I can appreciate the desire to get away from using "race", since it is such a loaded term. The problem with using "species", though, is that it already has a well-defined meaning incompatible with "race". In the end, I expect that convenience will win out over precision.
I think the use of the term "race" probably comes from early Dungeons & Dragons. The original D&D had dwarf, elf, gnome, and hob^H^H^H halfling as character classes. It used the term "demi-humans" for these.
In 1978, TSR produced "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", the first of many attempts to clean-up and rationalize the game's basic system. It appears to me that this is where they first factored out race (i.e., [human, half-elf, elf,...]) as a separate PC characteristic.
From my cursory search, Tolkien seems to have often referred to dwarves, elves, and whatnot as "peoples" and used the word "race" for different subgroups of those. He at some point wrote (in a letter, not in the stories) that that at least elves & men were able to interbreed on ocassion, and thus were technically the same species. But he was mainly interested in the drama around half-elves, and left open questions about dwarf/elf and hobbit/ent pairings for later explorers...
In 1978, TSR produced "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", the first of many attempts to clean-up and rationalize the game's basic system. It appears to me that this is where they first factored out race (i.e., [human, half-elf, elf,...]) as a separate PC characteristic.
From my cursory search, Tolkien seems to have often referred to dwarves, elves, and whatnot as "peoples" and used the word "race" for different subgroups of those. He at some point wrote (in a letter, not in the stories) that that at least elves & men were able to interbreed on ocassion, and thus were technically the same species. But he was mainly interested in the drama around half-elves, and left open questions about dwarf/elf and hobbit/ent pairings for later explorers...
Tolkien never gave a comprehensive explanation for his position, but Robert Stuart in his Tolkien, Race, and Racism in Middle-earth (2022) argues that Tolkien consistently assumed that all the flesh-and-blood humanoids in Middle-earth were interbreedable.
One thing I like about the new rules: they let users create their own unique species/class combinations, without feeling like the game's rules are limiting you.
For example, a Barbarian gnome or Half-orc wizard can be fun choices from a role playing perspective, but suboptimal in combat or gameplay. Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
For example, a Barbarian gnome or Half-orc wizard can be fun choices from a role playing perspective, but suboptimal in combat or gameplay. Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
Speaking as both a D&D DM and player, the "sub-optimal game play" makes the campaign more fun, more diverse, and offers more thoroughly enjoyable role-playing and problem solving opportunities. It doesn't make it less fun.
Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them.
The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them.
The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
An experienced DM can of course let their players create whatever character they want, but a less experienced DM might be concerned about balance/fairness/implications of bending the rules. By creating an alternative, flexible rule for ability scores, a table can feel confident that the characters they build are still balanced.
> The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
As you said above, the DM and table can agree to whatever constraints they want for the game, including using the old ability scores.
> The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
As you said above, the DM and table can agree to whatever constraints they want for the game, including using the old ability scores.
Then just like before, don’t use them. You can still roll a sub-optimal character. No one is forcing anyone to make only superheroes.
I disagree. Sometimes you might select such combinations because you like suboptimal combinations for a challenge or for other reasons. (The rules should not prohibit from making such selections.) However, there might sometimes be advantages as well as disadvantages to your selections.
However, I don't like class-based systems so much, and I prefer skill-based systems. Instead of selecting a character class, you can select which skills you want (including narrower skills; I think the skills in GURPS are not narrow enough) and how much of each one.
But see also my other comment for other details.
However, I don't like class-based systems so much, and I prefer skill-based systems. Instead of selecting a character class, you can select which skills you want (including narrower skills; I think the skills in GURPS are not narrow enough) and how much of each one.
But see also my other comment for other details.
You can make sub-optimal combinations, but D&D is a team game. If you build a Barbarian that can't deal damage, or a Wizard who's spells never land, you're letting the rest of your team down.
> The rules should not prohibit from making such selections.
The new rules give you _more_ freedom to choose a suboptimal build. You can even play a Gnome with low intelligence under the new rules, something that was impossible before.
> The rules should not prohibit from making such selections.
The new rules give you _more_ freedom to choose a suboptimal build. You can even play a Gnome with low intelligence under the new rules, something that was impossible before.
> If you build a Barbarian that can't deal damage, or a Wizard who's spells never land, you're letting the rest of your team down.
Such things seems excessive; a suboptimal choice probably would not mean that you cannot cast spells at all if your character is a spell caster, but you shouldn't need to be a spell caster if you do not want to.
There is the things you can do regardless of race/species/class/etc, anyways. In my experience, many of these things are significant to the story (I had done such things more often than class powers, actually).
Such things seems excessive; a suboptimal choice probably would not mean that you cannot cast spells at all if your character is a spell caster, but you shouldn't need to be a spell caster if you do not want to.
There is the things you can do regardless of race/species/class/etc, anyways. In my experience, many of these things are significant to the story (I had done such things more often than class powers, actually).
> Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
Illogical. Without racial differences there's not such thing as a non-standard combination anymore. The entire flavour of a wizard gnome was that it was not an expected combination because it was suboptimal.
This change removes variety and is thus bad.
Illogical. Without racial differences there's not such thing as a non-standard combination anymore. The entire flavour of a wizard gnome was that it was not an expected combination because it was suboptimal.
This change removes variety and is thus bad.
Technically "species" is also incorrect, since many D&D races can produce fertile offspring, whether half-breeds or otherwise (half-elf and half-orc have been core races for ages)
You're describing the 'mate-recognition' definition of species, which does not rule out cross breeding because memebers of each species could be geographically isolated but still compatible.
Species, like race and all other human created categorical systems have edge cases, exceptions and oddities and mostly importantly different definitions!
There are many examples where species definitions get thrown out because biology does crazy things. From the all female salamander species which interviewed with other species, to the multi organism man-of-war jelly thing floating in the ocean, biology does crazy stuff that will forever confuse us humans.
Nowadays, in my line of work I now think of nucleotide distance between individuals... But even that metric is troublesome.
Species, like race and all other human created categorical systems have edge cases, exceptions and oddities and mostly importantly different definitions!
There are many examples where species definitions get thrown out because biology does crazy things. From the all female salamander species which interviewed with other species, to the multi organism man-of-war jelly thing floating in the ocean, biology does crazy stuff that will forever confuse us humans.
Nowadays, in my line of work I now think of nucleotide distance between individuals... But even that metric is troublesome.
Sure, but it seems pretty much all D&D “species” can interbreed, in which case those are no longer edge cases and perhaps the word “race” makes more sense.
In D&D is there a history of how the different races came to be? Did they have some sort of diverging point from a single ancestor?
In D&D is there a history of how the different races came to be? Did they have some sort of diverging point from a single ancestor?
Domestic dog, wolf, and coyote are described as separate species even though they can interbreed.
That is what the word race is for, not species. Dog breeds in general are races, the fantasy races are like dog breeds.
My understanding is that the word's use has morphed over time and it could be used to mean ethnicity back in the day (probably still can, I'd expect "Irish race", "Scottish race" or "English race" to parsed as intended in most contexts). Given how D&D uses it the people who wrote the game interpreted "race" to mean anything basically humanoid that looked systemically different which seems like a reasonable take for the times. Then people rolled with it because we're generally talking high fantasy where science has no meaning and "race" rolls off the tongue better than "species".
> how "race" ever came to be the word we use instead of "Species" in nearly every video game
Races can interbreed, at least in most European languages. You can't have half elves if they were separate species.
Like dogs for example, the dog breeds are called races in many languages for obvious reasons. So race is something that is less different than species but still noticably different genetically.
Races can interbreed, at least in most European languages. You can't have half elves if they were separate species.
Like dogs for example, the dog breeds are called races in many languages for obvious reasons. So race is something that is less different than species but still noticably different genetically.
I think the main reason is that it kind of pigeon-holed certain races and classes. There were just objectively correct choices. In a game where there should be no "correct" choice. And it was mostly benefit, very few drawbacks. And the drawbacks that existed could easily be circumvented.
I dont think calling Redguards a different species to Nords is going to go down well with the Elser Scrolls crowd
Adding meaningless chaff like this to the rulebook has a near 1.0 correlation with entirely in-module railroad campaigns, avoidance of house rules and homebrewing, and by-the-book rules play. The new D&D audience only knows how to color inside the lines. Case in point: Celebration and debate over tiny rules changes any group could have made themselves.
Really jogs the noggin.
Really jogs the noggin.
It's nice to have a better core game. D&D is perhaps the only TTRPG known to have such sparse content that players have to fix the rules themselves to make the game playable.
I gave up learning new systems after I spent lots of money on 3.5e books and then 4e came out. It wasn’t that I didn’t want to spend money it just seemed that another big overhaul of all the rules felt like the beginning of the end for the game being anything more than cardboard and paper for sale. My imagination seemed to be able to fill in any gaps that wizards of the coast seemed intent on selling me.
I have a vast library of 2e books that I promise you are still "good enough".
WotC is good at churning out paper but it's certainly in the interest of that particular entity's continued existence. Debatable if it is for anyone else but I'm sure that anyone consistently playing simply gets dragged along with the trend of "the new shiny".
WotC is good at churning out paper but it's certainly in the interest of that particular entity's continued existence. Debatable if it is for anyone else but I'm sure that anyone consistently playing simply gets dragged along with the trend of "the new shiny".
I always thought the writing was better in 2e but the mechanics were better in 3.5e. But 4e just seemed like the mechanics were different but not better for some reason other than they could sell new books to old players.
D&D is so dominant it's more or less the only system you can count on any given TTRPG player knowing, and often there's a lot of resistance to learning any other system. It makes sense for it to evolve into more of a blank slate system that is flexible by default so you can add your own spin on top, and that's a lot of how it's been evolving, because it adds to the ease of playing and running a game. A really good DM barely needs a system at all, and a terrible DM will be awful even given a great system, but the ruleset makes a difference for the majority of DMs that are somewhere in between.
Getting angry about the change also makes no sense by the same logic. You can continue calling it whatever you want in your own game. It’s not like the company is sitting there policing your speech in your own house.
> The company now suggests that extended Dungeons & Dragons campaigns begin with a session in which players discuss their expectations and list topics to avoid, which could include sexual assault or drug use. Dungeon masters are encouraged to establish a signal that allows players to articulate their distress with any subject matter and automatically overrule the dungeon master’s own story line.
This got a lot of flak. But I can see why they did it. Many such cases of DMs, especially the game store kind, using DnD as their own sexual assault simulator. RPGHorrorStories has a lot.
This got a lot of flak. But I can see why they did it. Many such cases of DMs, especially the game store kind, using DnD as their own sexual assault simulator. RPGHorrorStories has a lot.
I see why it gets a lot of flak too. People are becoming increasingly neurotic and fragile, and coupled with that we are increasingly unable to fluidly deal with differences this creates as they arise. We're talking about playing a boardgame with friends, do we really need to have a trigger-warning session? And when does that end? Every time I hang out with my friends should we update our daily list of no-no words first?
> People are becoming increasingly neurotic and fragile, and coupled with that we are increasingly unable to fluidly deal with differences this creates as they arise.
Another way to interpret this would be that people are becoming increasingly comfortable with telling people they're not comfortable with something, and leaving when others at the table are refusing to take the feelings of others into consideration.
> We're talking about playing a boardgame with friends, do we really need to have a trigger-warning session?
D&D isn't always played with friends. Not that many of my friends play D&D, or are interested in; most of the people I've played with were strangers to me when we first began playing.
> Every time I hang out with my friends should we update our daily list of no-no words first?
You likely have this list in your head already for your friends; it's not necessary to explicitly rehash it because you've built a relationship with these people, and you know not to brag about your awesome trip with your dad in front of someone who's dad died last week.
But when you're meeting new people, you don't know what they've gone through. That's why it's better to be explicit at the start of this.
Another way to interpret this would be that people are becoming increasingly comfortable with telling people they're not comfortable with something, and leaving when others at the table are refusing to take the feelings of others into consideration.
> We're talking about playing a boardgame with friends, do we really need to have a trigger-warning session?
D&D isn't always played with friends. Not that many of my friends play D&D, or are interested in; most of the people I've played with were strangers to me when we first began playing.
> Every time I hang out with my friends should we update our daily list of no-no words first?
You likely have this list in your head already for your friends; it's not necessary to explicitly rehash it because you've built a relationship with these people, and you know not to brag about your awesome trip with your dad in front of someone who's dad died last week.
But when you're meeting new people, you don't know what they've gone through. That's why it's better to be explicit at the start of this.
>But when you're meeting new people, you don't know what they've gone through. That's why it's better to be explicit at the start of this.
Personally I find it useful when I first meet someone because I can mark them as someone to avoid. Life is far too short to voluntarily walk on eggshells all the with emotionally crippled people who are constantly looking for things to be offended about. This goes double for when it comes to playing long sessions of D&D or any other sort of free-form game.
Not only did new management make these ridiculous changes to the core structure of the game, they recently threw Gary Gygax (who had more creativity and talent in his pinkie finger than any of them) and other founders under the bus. Fortunately nobody is prevented from getting old editions of D&D and playing a worthwhile game, or simply moving to GURPS or Runequest.
Personally I find it useful when I first meet someone because I can mark them as someone to avoid. Life is far too short to voluntarily walk on eggshells all the with emotionally crippled people who are constantly looking for things to be offended about. This goes double for when it comes to playing long sessions of D&D or any other sort of free-form game.
Not only did new management make these ridiculous changes to the core structure of the game, they recently threw Gary Gygax (who had more creativity and talent in his pinkie finger than any of them) and other founders under the bus. Fortunately nobody is prevented from getting old editions of D&D and playing a worthwhile game, or simply moving to GURPS or Runequest.
>But when you're meeting new people, you don't know what they've gone through. That's why it's better to be explicit at the start of this.
Personally I find it useful when I first meet someone like this because I can mark them as someone to avoid. Life is far too short to voluntarily walk on eggshells all the with emotionally crippled people who are constantly looking for things to be offended about. This goes double for when it comes to playing long sessions of D&D or any other sort of free-form game.
Not only did new management make these ridiculous changes to the core structure of the game, they recently threw Gary Gygax (who had more creativity and talent in his pinkie finger than any of them) and other founders under the bus. Fortunately nobody is prevented from getting old editions of D&D and playing a worthwhile game, or simply moving to GURPS or Runequest.
Personally I find it useful when I first meet someone like this because I can mark them as someone to avoid. Life is far too short to voluntarily walk on eggshells all the with emotionally crippled people who are constantly looking for things to be offended about. This goes double for when it comes to playing long sessions of D&D or any other sort of free-form game.
Not only did new management make these ridiculous changes to the core structure of the game, they recently threw Gary Gygax (who had more creativity and talent in his pinkie finger than any of them) and other founders under the bus. Fortunately nobody is prevented from getting old editions of D&D and playing a worthwhile game, or simply moving to GURPS or Runequest.
> Another way to interpret this would be that people are becoming increasingly comfortable with telling people they're not comfortable with something, and leaving when others at the table are refusing to take the feelings of others into consideration
Yet another way to interpret this is we’re increasingly catering to narcissists who think that their personal feelings and sensitivities should override the norms and conventions of the group. Your example highlights the problem. You don’t need to tell people to tip toe around someone’s dad having died because that’s a generally recognized social norm.
That’s what it comes down to. People want to just be able to target their behavior to a general, objective social norm, without customizing it for myriad individual sensitivities. That’s a good approach. Don’t do anything that transgresses the social norm. Don’t be offended by anything that complies with the social norm.
Yet another way to interpret this is we’re increasingly catering to narcissists who think that their personal feelings and sensitivities should override the norms and conventions of the group. Your example highlights the problem. You don’t need to tell people to tip toe around someone’s dad having died because that’s a generally recognized social norm.
That’s what it comes down to. People want to just be able to target their behavior to a general, objective social norm, without customizing it for myriad individual sensitivities. That’s a good approach. Don’t do anything that transgresses the social norm. Don’t be offended by anything that complies with the social norm.
> People want to just be able to target their behavior to a general, objective social norm
But herein lies the problem. There is no general, objective social norm that covers the range of topics necessary.
Social norms are regional, cultural, familial, situational, etc. If you were to optimize for some universal standard, the result would be pretty boring. Think: “what would be appropriate in a corporate workplace?”.
Learning to navigate this as a group seems like a rather reasonable and necessary social skill for everyone involved. People who bristle at those with certain sensitivities seem to be masking sensitivities of their own and would prefer to just avoid a potentially uncomfortable conversation.
And I’ve gotta be blunt: many gamers (tabletop and otherwise) are often all too eager to blow right past norms or are unaware of them completely, which leads to recommendations like the above being helpful/necessary.
But herein lies the problem. There is no general, objective social norm that covers the range of topics necessary.
Social norms are regional, cultural, familial, situational, etc. If you were to optimize for some universal standard, the result would be pretty boring. Think: “what would be appropriate in a corporate workplace?”.
Learning to navigate this as a group seems like a rather reasonable and necessary social skill for everyone involved. People who bristle at those with certain sensitivities seem to be masking sensitivities of their own and would prefer to just avoid a potentially uncomfortable conversation.
And I’ve gotta be blunt: many gamers (tabletop and otherwise) are often all too eager to blow right past norms or are unaware of them completely, which leads to recommendations like the above being helpful/necessary.
> But herein lies the problem. There is no general, objective social norm that covers the range of topics necessary.
I’m pretty sure people happily played board games together in the recent past without these conversations.
I’m pretty sure people happily played board games together in the recent past without these conversations.
A lot of people did, and a lot of people were made to feel extremely uncomfortable and unwelcome and ended up leaving the game/community because of their bad experiences with DMs who don't understand that it's not okay to have NPCs sexually assault a player's character just because they're a woman.
Now that we're laying out these kinds of guidelines, maybe the people who legitimately don't understand why that's bad will stop and listen to what others have to say, and the ones who don't will be showing that they're deliberately ignoring how they make other people feel.
Now that we're laying out these kinds of guidelines, maybe the people who legitimately don't understand why that's bad will stop and listen to what others have to say, and the ones who don't will be showing that they're deliberately ignoring how they make other people feel.
> You don’t need to tell people to tip toe around someone’s dad having died because that’s a generally recognized social norm.
No, but I do need to tell them that my dad died in order for them to know. Otherwise, the GM just might bring my PC's dad up out of the past, and kill him in front of my PC again.
That's all that "the form" or Session Zero is. It's explicitly laying out things that you may be sensitive to, so that the rest of the group can continue to behave in that general, objective social norm you're talking about. It's a way for them to let me know that their dog died last week, so that I know that the first combat of the first session shouldn't be fighting a bunch of guard hounds.
No, but I do need to tell them that my dad died in order for them to know. Otherwise, the GM just might bring my PC's dad up out of the past, and kill him in front of my PC again.
That's all that "the form" or Session Zero is. It's explicitly laying out things that you may be sensitive to, so that the rest of the group can continue to behave in that general, objective social norm you're talking about. It's a way for them to let me know that their dog died last week, so that I know that the first combat of the first session shouldn't be fighting a bunch of guard hounds.
Some nerds need and appreciate formalization of what you’re describing as a social norm being made explicit and spelled out for them. Besides, most DMs I’ve played with already do this kind of “ok what kinda stuff is everyone thinking about for this campaign?” conversation already, so these guidelines are just a reminder for players or DMs to include this stuff in that conversation too.
> We're talking about playing a boardgame with friends, do we really need to have a trigger-warning session?
First, it's not a "boardgame." It's a Role Playing Game. It's much more unbounded than a board game and you are actually playing. Not just rolling dice but acting and imagining and adding to the experience. You play your character and you decide how that character acts.
> do we really need to have a trigger-warning session?
You could have one. Generally cover strong NOs and decide on hot-topics that often make people uncomfortable:
racism/slavery, romance/sex, phobias, etc.
Then setup a system to halt if anything new comes up.
People throw around "trigger" and "safe-space" like they're above feeling anything but sometimes it's just being considerate. It's not just about language but situations.
We play D&D to have fun. For some, that means "leaving politics out of it" but for others, those "politics" impact our actual daily lives. To pretend they don't exist or to have to interact with them in a game can be just as un-fun.
> And when does that end? Every time I hang out with my friends should we update our daily list of no-no words first?
Now you're being facetious. You communicate like people. That's it.
If someone was recently mugged in real-life, you probably wouldn't have their character get attacked by a rogue. If someone had arachnophobia, you probably wouldn't drop down the RPG-cliche giant spider. If someone has to deal with real-life racism, you could probably understand why "knife-ears" wouldn't feel fun. OR maybe they're all okay. It's all about opt: opt-in and opt-out.
> oupled with that we are increasingly unable to fluidly deal with differences this creates as they arise.
I think that's a YOU-issue. My friend group is a complex group of people, and yet we find a way to have fun every week with D&D while also respecting all members of the game.
First, it's not a "boardgame." It's a Role Playing Game. It's much more unbounded than a board game and you are actually playing. Not just rolling dice but acting and imagining and adding to the experience. You play your character and you decide how that character acts.
> do we really need to have a trigger-warning session?
You could have one. Generally cover strong NOs and decide on hot-topics that often make people uncomfortable:
racism/slavery, romance/sex, phobias, etc.
Then setup a system to halt if anything new comes up.
People throw around "trigger" and "safe-space" like they're above feeling anything but sometimes it's just being considerate. It's not just about language but situations.
We play D&D to have fun. For some, that means "leaving politics out of it" but for others, those "politics" impact our actual daily lives. To pretend they don't exist or to have to interact with them in a game can be just as un-fun.
> And when does that end? Every time I hang out with my friends should we update our daily list of no-no words first?
Now you're being facetious. You communicate like people. That's it.
If someone was recently mugged in real-life, you probably wouldn't have their character get attacked by a rogue. If someone had arachnophobia, you probably wouldn't drop down the RPG-cliche giant spider. If someone has to deal with real-life racism, you could probably understand why "knife-ears" wouldn't feel fun. OR maybe they're all okay. It's all about opt: opt-in and opt-out.
> oupled with that we are increasingly unable to fluidly deal with differences this creates as they arise.
I think that's a YOU-issue. My friend group is a complex group of people, and yet we find a way to have fun every week with D&D while also respecting all members of the game.
You can use whatever rules you like with your friends. When I play Monopoly with my friends we like to put fees and fines on "Free Parking," then if you land there you can take the money. We all agreed it's more fun this way.
> When I play Monopoly with my friends we like to put fees and fines on "Free Parking," then if you land there you can take the money. We all agreed it's more fun this way.
Listen, your game, your rules 100%
But I will say, the Free Parking house rule is why most games of Monopoly take so freaking long. (And if you're fine with that, then that's fine too!). The fees and fines are meant to take money out of the player's pockets and drive them closer to bankruptcy so the dang game CAN end.
Unfortunately, it's a game that just feels bad. You either play as-is and it feels bad to go broke. or you house-rule and the money keeps circulating until someone builds all Hotels and completely obliterates someone when they land on the third and fourth-edge properties
Listen, your game, your rules 100%
But I will say, the Free Parking house rule is why most games of Monopoly take so freaking long. (And if you're fine with that, then that's fine too!). The fees and fines are meant to take money out of the player's pockets and drive them closer to bankruptcy so the dang game CAN end.
Unfortunately, it's a game that just feels bad. You either play as-is and it feels bad to go broke. or you house-rule and the money keeps circulating until someone builds all Hotels and completely obliterates someone when they land on the third and fourth-edge properties
But it's just so much fun you never want it to end!
TTRPGs are only superficially similar to board games, especially the direction that D&D has evolved (it grew out of fairly mechanics heavy wargames but has slowly moved to have a much higher emphasis on the roleplay). That makes it a) much more free-form than a board game, and b) makes the players much more emotionally invested in the story that's being told. In addition the setting is much more likely to involve more detailed focus on dark topics, death especially (not just in a 'that unit's dead' way, but 'my brother just died' way). It's far more likely that someone's going to stop enjoying themselves because of the topic in such a game than in a board game.
(Also, it's far more common that you will be doing this with a group of people you've only just met, but in general I think such games should lean more towards the lighter side)
(Also, it's far more common that you will be doing this with a group of people you've only just met, but in general I think such games should lean more towards the lighter side)
If you're playing with close friends, you probably wouldn't railroad things to their character that would damage your friendship. If you know your friend is touchy about something traumatic do you rib them about it?
I think you're trying to force a narrative that doesn't really fit. This change isn't in response to "everything is woke now", it's in response to people playing with strangers more.
So don't play with those ones?
This is why these types of initiatives do far more harm than good. They hide problems rather than address them.
This is why these types of initiatives do far more harm than good. They hide problems rather than address them.
Presumably you've had different experiences, but from my personal D&D experience I've had zero people who abused the "distress signaling" and seen multiple cases where people were a bit uncomfortable and didn't really say anything other than snarky jokes (e.g. a player's backstory culminates in them graphically torturing an NPC to death while everybody else at the table is weirded out).
"Don't play with them" strikes me as impractical advice compared to communicating. If you're 6 months into a campaign as opposed to establishing a protocol to be able to say "hey this is kinda much for me, could we take the gruesome details of this offline?"
Communicating a tone for the setting early would have also helped.
"Don't play with them" strikes me as impractical advice compared to communicating. If you're 6 months into a campaign as opposed to establishing a protocol to be able to say "hey this is kinda much for me, could we take the gruesome details of this offline?"
Communicating a tone for the setting early would have also helped.
> This is why these types of initiatives do far more harm than good. They hide problems rather than address them.
How do these initiatives hide these problems?
How do these initiatives hide these problems?
Those people typically don't tell you ahead of time. I wouldn't do this with my close friend group either, we know each other. I think we can all agree on "hey this is touchy for me could we please not" and it works as a filter for people who get upset about it.
But this "initiative" suggests addressing the problems through dialogue.
D&D is supposed to be a collaborative effort, "My way or the highway" isn't how a table should be run.
D&D is supposed to be a collaborative effort, "My way or the highway" isn't how a table should be run.
Agree, only issue is sometimes it's difficult to leave if the game runner or the players spring this type of sh** behavior on you. Especially if you're not expecting it, and then players / runner do almost nothing other than try to in some way entrap you in a miserable experience. Like noted below in a different comment, happens when you're trying to run a game also. Players do the same, trying to act out their disgusting fetishes, while forcing you to run the experience. Many horrible experiences over the years from the show runner side of the table.
May be your only social group. Usually people who are this far down in the nerd / geek hierarchy don't have that many friends anyways. It usually implies you already failed most of the ideas human society prioritizes anyways. Often means the only people to hang out with are other nerds and rejects. NY Times (frankly really mean) chart on the subject from 2008 [1]. Course, what do you expect from the company that wrote this article being discussed?
This (somewhat) less mean (although still about the same) chart [2] has approximately the same view on the situation. You're already down with people who watch children's shows and go to Ren Faires. Probably the type that sit around on New Years Day arguing about Dungeons and Dragons annoying PC rule changes rather than having friends to party with.
[1] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/09/opinion/09opa...
[2] https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...
May be your only social group. Usually people who are this far down in the nerd / geek hierarchy don't have that many friends anyways. It usually implies you already failed most of the ideas human society prioritizes anyways. Often means the only people to hang out with are other nerds and rejects. NY Times (frankly really mean) chart on the subject from 2008 [1]. Course, what do you expect from the company that wrote this article being discussed?
This (somewhat) less mean (although still about the same) chart [2] has approximately the same view on the situation. You're already down with people who watch children's shows and go to Ren Faires. Probably the type that sit around on New Years Day arguing about Dungeons and Dragons annoying PC rule changes rather than having friends to party with.
[1] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/09/opinion/09opa...
[2] https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...
> > which could include sexual assault or drug use
Wouldn't any potion, including potions of healing, be considered "drug use"? Howabout excessive drinking by dwarves at a tavern in the canonical DM party formation ritual?
Wouldn't any potion, including potions of healing, be considered "drug use"? Howabout excessive drinking by dwarves at a tavern in the canonical DM party formation ritual?
In the western world, a potion of healing is more akin to taking antibiotics, and imbibing alcohol has been agreed to be just a Regular Thing People Do, not a drug thing.
And in any case, yeah! This is why you talk things out in a session zero! If a player at a table is an alcoholic, they might not want to play in a campaign where other PCs regularly binge-drink. It doesn't necessarily mean the other players aren't allowed to do this, it might just mean that this isn't the right table for the player, or it might mean that the DM has to scratch out "alcoholic" as a trait for an NPC and replace it with something else.
And in any case, yeah! This is why you talk things out in a session zero! If a player at a table is an alcoholic, they might not want to play in a campaign where other PCs regularly binge-drink. It doesn't necessarily mean the other players aren't allowed to do this, it might just mean that this isn't the right table for the player, or it might mean that the DM has to scratch out "alcoholic" as a trait for an NPC and replace it with something else.
If you need to go through a HR exercise at the beginning of a game perhaps you need to find a different group of people to play with.
Let's look at another media: movies. Do you ever look at reviews or the advisory notices to see if a movie will be appropriate for someone you're watching it with? This is the exact same thing but since the story hasn't been written yet, you need to agree with all the story tellers (DM and players) what your story rating will be.
Do you skip this step when it's your closest pals who can handle a gory mature story? sure!
Is it good to have a system for others to use or in public settings? Definitely.
Do you skip this step when it's your closest pals who can handle a gory mature story? sure!
Is it good to have a system for others to use or in public settings? Definitely.
Hypothetical situation: someone had an abusive alcoholic father, and discussion of drinking and alcohol brings up a lot of unwanted feelings, including anxiety, unpleasant memories resurfacing, etc.
You're suggesting that the person in that scenario should either suffer those feelings in silence or should just keep trying new groups until they find one that just coincidentally doesn't bring up those topics?
Or someone who was sexually assaulted should keep that to themselves, and if discussion of the topic comes up in the game and makes them uncomfortable they should just leave and go find a new group without telling anyone why?
Are you suggesting that you could just say "hey, these are things that bother me so I'd rather not be part of the game if these topics are going to come up", and either the DM can exclude those topics, or they can refuse and the player can go somewhere else? Because that's exactly what is being discussed.
Lay out your ground rules. If there's no way to reconcile, go elsewhere, but it saves people getting blindsided halfway through the game and then having to deal with it while surrounded by other people and potentially feeling very vulnerable.
You're suggesting that the person in that scenario should either suffer those feelings in silence or should just keep trying new groups until they find one that just coincidentally doesn't bring up those topics?
Or someone who was sexually assaulted should keep that to themselves, and if discussion of the topic comes up in the game and makes them uncomfortable they should just leave and go find a new group without telling anyone why?
Are you suggesting that you could just say "hey, these are things that bother me so I'd rather not be part of the game if these topics are going to come up", and either the DM can exclude those topics, or they can refuse and the player can go somewhere else? Because that's exactly what is being discussed.
Lay out your ground rules. If there's no way to reconcile, go elsewhere, but it saves people getting blindsided halfway through the game and then having to deal with it while surrounded by other people and potentially feeling very vulnerable.
So what if your dad died last month, and the DM decides it'll be a cool twist for his BBEG to abduct your character's dad gouge his eyes out and try to kill him?
It's good to be able to explain these things, and IMO a lot of D&D players aren't comfortable being the first one to say that stuff without an "HR" exercise to give them permission.
It's good to be able to explain these things, and IMO a lot of D&D players aren't comfortable being the first one to say that stuff without an "HR" exercise to give them permission.
Well, if my dad had died, I would understand the DM has no clue, until I say something.
If I say something and that scene plays out, things are understandably ugly.
If I don't and find myself uncomfortable, that is on me to manage, nobody else at the table.
How are these things so damn hard for people to understand?
All that was true when I played years ago. People would intro the game, have chat about stuff and then get into it. I recall having tough conversations, and I recall just being a good human to the other humans as a given.
I don't get the discussion today.
If I say something and that scene plays out, things are understandably ugly.
If I don't and find myself uncomfortable, that is on me to manage, nobody else at the table.
How are these things so damn hard for people to understand?
All that was true when I played years ago. People would intro the game, have chat about stuff and then get into it. I recall having tough conversations, and I recall just being a good human to the other humans as a given.
I don't get the discussion today.
I'm not sure which side you're arguing for, but I do agree with what I think I'm reading - that you should be able to tell the table what you are and aren't comfortable with. And the new rules encourage that.
You are reading it correctly. The before game meet n greet was where everyone caught up with everyone else.
Maybe being pre cell phone has something to do with it all.
Where and when I came from, the idea of having to do a "might trigger" rundown did not need to happen because of the dynamics I put into my prior comment.
How about this mess:
Say one chooses to not talk about a dead father confident the game will play out fine. Basically omit the father in the pre-game rundown of potential triggers.
Then the scene happens, and major trigger!
Now what?
Seems to me one falls back on the very basic rules above and acts accordingly.
Nobody else would be blamed. How could they?
The result is the talk didn't solve anything, which us my point and lack of understanding.
Another POV:
DM runs a scene that is a major trigger for someone. Bummer.
Pause game, help that person, right? Take a bit and figure it out? Do they want to end play? Is there something any of us can do? Etc...
Blame and shame aren't the answers. Being a good human is the answer.
Seems like someone is trying to write be a good human rules. Ah well. They tried I guess.
Maybe being pre cell phone has something to do with it all.
Where and when I came from, the idea of having to do a "might trigger" rundown did not need to happen because of the dynamics I put into my prior comment.
How about this mess:
Say one chooses to not talk about a dead father confident the game will play out fine. Basically omit the father in the pre-game rundown of potential triggers.
Then the scene happens, and major trigger!
Now what?
Seems to me one falls back on the very basic rules above and acts accordingly.
Nobody else would be blamed. How could they?
The result is the talk didn't solve anything, which us my point and lack of understanding.
Another POV:
DM runs a scene that is a major trigger for someone. Bummer.
Pause game, help that person, right? Take a bit and figure it out? Do they want to end play? Is there something any of us can do? Etc...
Blame and shame aren't the answers. Being a good human is the answer.
Seems like someone is trying to write be a good human rules. Ah well. They tried I guess.
The point, I think, is that a lot of people pathologize "this is just a me problem" to the point that they don't want to bring things up at all, particularly if it's not someone they're very familiar with, because while some people react reasonably to, for example, "please do not include a graphic description of bugs crawling around, I had a really bad experience once and it still bothers me to think about", some people will also very deliberately introduce things for that reason.
Or perhaps you say "I don't like it if X" when you really meant "I am going to have a full blown trauma flashback if you surprise me with X", and they think that you meant what you said, and it's something they would do with all the maliciousness of hanging a "boo!" sign on your front door one day.
The goal is, I think, to recognize that a lot of people are bad at being the first one to bring things up, as well as a lot of people being bad at "reading the room", and set up an explicit normal structure to reduce the friction of doing so.
(Whether they succeeded or not is a different question, but I think that was the goal - to try and make it feel more normal and part of the structure and expectations, and thus have lower friction to bring things up a priori and in the moment, rather than people feeling like "I'm the problem" if there's no explicit moment for it and they have to ask.)
Yes, you can't make people be good people, but you can try to provide tools to make it feel more like the normal part of setting up and running your game to leave explicit room for them to say something. More or less the difference between saying "you can call us after filling out the paperwork and have us add manual edits to what you filled out" and "you can just include a form 412 and check the boxes for which things apply, and fill out an other box at the bottom if it's not covered".
Or perhaps you say "I don't like it if X" when you really meant "I am going to have a full blown trauma flashback if you surprise me with X", and they think that you meant what you said, and it's something they would do with all the maliciousness of hanging a "boo!" sign on your front door one day.
The goal is, I think, to recognize that a lot of people are bad at being the first one to bring things up, as well as a lot of people being bad at "reading the room", and set up an explicit normal structure to reduce the friction of doing so.
(Whether they succeeded or not is a different question, but I think that was the goal - to try and make it feel more normal and part of the structure and expectations, and thus have lower friction to bring things up a priori and in the moment, rather than people feeling like "I'm the problem" if there's no explicit moment for it and they have to ask.)
Yes, you can't make people be good people, but you can try to provide tools to make it feel more like the normal part of setting up and running your game to leave explicit room for them to say something. More or less the difference between saying "you can call us after filling out the paperwork and have us add manual edits to what you filled out" and "you can just include a form 412 and check the boxes for which things apply, and fill out an other box at the bottom if it's not covered".
Ah ok.
In the case of someone being malicious, many just would no longer choose to play in their campaigns. Incentives to NOT fuck with people seemed plenty high enough.
Apparently that is no longer the case.
In the case of someone being malicious, many just would no longer choose to play in their campaigns. Incentives to NOT fuck with people seemed plenty high enough.
Apparently that is no longer the case.
It was never the case. In my experience, we can partition people into three groups: (a) "Why would anyone do that?"; (b) "What's wrong with doing that?"; (c) "People obviously do that." People from groups a and b tend to consider members of group c "sensitive", because members of group a don't recognise members of group b (considering them members of group a, if they even think about it) so believe group c are overreacting to imagined slights, and members of group b don't care because they don't think group c's objections should be sustained. Members of group c can usually distinguish between members of groups a and b, but it's such an uphill battle to convert members of group a into members of group c that it's rarely worth doing. (Members of group c often find it hard to empathise with members of group a, because "how can anyone be that obtuse?" – and members of group a often consider it the responsibility of group c members to do all the work of teaching them, because "you're the one with the extraordinary claim: that requires you to provide extraordinary evidence".)
I try to be a member of group (d): "I suspect that might be a problem, so why don't we talk about that?". This behaviour is very annoying, but it's clearly better than groups a, b or c. (In practice, though, I'm usually a member of group a, occasionally a member of c, and probably group b about loads of stuff I've never thought about.)
I try to be a member of group (d): "I suspect that might be a problem, so why don't we talk about that?". This behaviour is very annoying, but it's clearly better than groups a, b or c. (In practice, though, I'm usually a member of group a, occasionally a member of c, and probably group b about loads of stuff I've never thought about.)
Part of the problem is a "boiling the frog" situation - if you're invested in the campaign, or in the social circle, just burning the bridge in the moment is a very high cost.
I'm not the type of person who wouldn't say something in the moment, but I've had a lot of friends who were in longstanding campaigns well past the point of the people involved dreading going to sessions because some interactions had turned the group dynamic into a shitshow, and some conjunction of the social ramifications of being the one to blow it up and sunk cost fallacy meant that they kept going even as it poisoned their friendships.
I'm not the type of person who wouldn't say something in the moment, but I've had a lot of friends who were in longstanding campaigns well past the point of the people involved dreading going to sessions because some interactions had turned the group dynamic into a shitshow, and some conjunction of the social ramifications of being the one to blow it up and sunk cost fallacy meant that they kept going even as it poisoned their friendships.
Ugly times there!
Neither am I. Perhaps the game value is different these days.
No game is worth my friendships. Would have to speak up, then follow it through and adhere to the golden rules to treat people right while it all gets sorted out.
Anyone not on board with sniffing something that toxic out is just going to have to go their way, best of luck, etc...
Maybe these things help people. Hope so though I do feel it all is a sort of dodge around people both being more direct in their interactions, which absolutely do include benefit of the doubt being given where necessary. And having just a bit thicker skin, that being derived from "we are as offended as we think we are" basically mandating everyone managing how they respond to potential offenses.
There just are a whole bunch of ways to do that which leave others the outs needed to bring the conversation to a reasonable place and more of us need to use them more of the time.
Put another way, the people burning an hour trying to figure out who is the biggest asshole deserve to have that conversation.
Maybe that just isn't so important?
Thanks for an interesting exchange everyone. I will read final responses on my way out.
Neither am I. Perhaps the game value is different these days.
No game is worth my friendships. Would have to speak up, then follow it through and adhere to the golden rules to treat people right while it all gets sorted out.
Anyone not on board with sniffing something that toxic out is just going to have to go their way, best of luck, etc...
Maybe these things help people. Hope so though I do feel it all is a sort of dodge around people both being more direct in their interactions, which absolutely do include benefit of the doubt being given where necessary. And having just a bit thicker skin, that being derived from "we are as offended as we think we are" basically mandating everyone managing how they respond to potential offenses.
There just are a whole bunch of ways to do that which leave others the outs needed to bring the conversation to a reasonable place and more of us need to use them more of the time.
Put another way, the people burning an hour trying to figure out who is the biggest asshole deserve to have that conversation.
Maybe that just isn't so important?
Thanks for an interesting exchange everyone. I will read final responses on my way out.
Why do you frame it as an "HR exercise" when it's just the people who are about to play a game talking about what they expect out of it?
And how would I find a group of people whose playstyle is compatible with what I'm looking for without actually talking to them?
And how would I find a group of people whose playstyle is compatible with what I'm looking for without actually talking to them?
> Why do you frame it as an "HR exercise" when it's just the people who are about to play a game talking about what they expect out of it?
Because they're so incapable of considering other people's feelings that they think the only time anyone ever does so is because someone cried to HR about something and HR is making you sit through a meeting to cover the company's ass legally, and not because anyone actually cares about how they make other people feel.
Because they're so incapable of considering other people's feelings that they think the only time anyone ever does so is because someone cried to HR about something and HR is making you sit through a meeting to cover the company's ass legally, and not because anyone actually cares about how they make other people feel.
Why would the DM put something in their game that actually traumatizes people?
While I'd generally expect this to be naturally rare in dnd, this isn't the case in many other games.
Monsterhearts deals with unhealthy sexual relationships at its core. Night Witches deals with sexism at its core. Bluebeard's Bride deals with straight up sexual violence at its core. These topics are heavy and its worth having some systems in place to help people navigate them.
This is especially true with con culture, where people are likely to play ttrpgs with total strangers.
Monsterhearts deals with unhealthy sexual relationships at its core. Night Witches deals with sexism at its core. Bluebeard's Bride deals with straight up sexual violence at its core. These topics are heavy and its worth having some systems in place to help people navigate them.
This is especially true with con culture, where people are likely to play ttrpgs with total strangers.
It's not hard to do inadvertently, especially if you are going for a game that deals with heavy topics. Something that feels to be about the same level of seriousness to the DM may hit too close to home for a player (and one reason for X-card like systems on top of discussing stuff before the game, is that the player themselves may not realise themselves until they're in the moment)
Because they're manipulative, mean humans.
Players do the same. Try to run a somewhat normal game, and your players will purposely try to act in some of the most reprehensible ways imaginable just to try to force you to run their disgusting fantasies.
Players do the same. Try to run a somewhat normal game, and your players will purposely try to act in some of the most reprehensible ways imaginable just to try to force you to run their disgusting fantasies.
Some people just don't understand social norms and, you know, other people's feelings, and use these sorts of games as their own personal power fantasy.
There have been a kind of gross number of threads I've seen where women join a group, make their character, and then spend the entire first session having their character abused, belittled, sexually assaulted, impregnated, etc.
Worth noting that not all D&D groups are among close friends; sometimes you get invited to a group because you're looking for people to play with and your friend group (if you have one) doesn't play. No different than joining a frisbee golf team, except with a much greater chance of a bottom-tier caliber of people.
There have been a kind of gross number of threads I've seen where women join a group, make their character, and then spend the entire first session having their character abused, belittled, sexually assaulted, impregnated, etc.
Worth noting that not all D&D groups are among close friends; sometimes you get invited to a group because you're looking for people to play with and your friend group (if you have one) doesn't play. No different than joining a frisbee golf team, except with a much greater chance of a bottom-tier caliber of people.
A problem with the X-Card concept is that it can only be used within the pre-existing Overton Window of the group anyway, so you might as well ditch it in favor of normal social negotiation. For example, X-Card guidelines always tell players they can use it to block anything they're uncomfortable with. However, you'll quickly learn you can't use it to block political ideology from the DM, even if you legitimately find it triggering and distressing.
> you'll quickly learn you can't use it to block political ideology from the DM
That's like, not true at all. The X card is exactly for that purpose, the GM doesn't get a special exception from the effect of the X card.
As a GM, if a player reaches for the X card for any reason I'm obliged to stop and listen.
I'm curious what exactly you mean by "political ideology" in this context. Can you give a concrete example of the kind of thing that makes you uncomfortable?
That's like, not true at all. The X card is exactly for that purpose, the GM doesn't get a special exception from the effect of the X card.
As a GM, if a player reaches for the X card for any reason I'm obliged to stop and listen.
I'm curious what exactly you mean by "political ideology" in this context. Can you give a concrete example of the kind of thing that makes you uncomfortable?
I believe you, but that's not the case everywhere. I've had DMs who have put drag shows in our game as part of tavern entertainment, for example. Even though I have no problem with them in real life, I have no desire to see them in my fantasy game because it just reminds me of contemporary culture war shenanigans. When questioned on it or asked if we could not do that, I've received nothing but pushback. Stuff like that.
Not every group is right for every person.
But the big thing is this: it's not your fantasy game. It's the shared fantasy game of you, the other players, and the DM.
But the big thing is this: it's not your fantasy game. It's the shared fantasy game of you, the other players, and the DM.
> Not every group is right for every person.
In the context of an X-card discussion, that's hilarious.
"Touch the X-card, but only if the group agrees on why the X-card was touched. Otherwise, find new group"
turns out the real x-card was the group itself :)
In the context of an X-card discussion, that's hilarious.
"Touch the X-card, but only if the group agrees on why the X-card was touched. Otherwise, find new group"
turns out the real x-card was the group itself :)
This is true of every voluntary social thing.
yes, exactly, that's why the X-card thing is just useless performative theatre
I find the X-Card most useful at conventions. When I sit down at a table I have no idea where strangers' lines are. It provides a more frictionless way to let people tell you how to be courteous, without knowing them very well.
I think guidelines and an equivalent of a trigger warning is a better solution. It's really hard to modify a campaign on the fly if for example someone is uncomfortable with cults but that's the primary driver of the storyline.
It's another means of communication, ultimately. If your desires and needs for the game are incompatible with others in the group, it's not going to work out (and the more rigid this is, the smaller the set of people you're going to be able to play with).
The general point makes sense, the GM is has a lot of social power and there are risks to publicly calling them out on anything really.
But I'm having a hard time imagining this specific example. What would be an example of political ideology from the GM that you'd want to block?
But I'm having a hard time imagining this specific example. What would be an example of political ideology from the GM that you'd want to block?
I know a number of otherwise pleasant people who have as a political/philosophical view that it's not rude to insult certain identity groups.
I wouldn't say I find it triggering when someone says something about men, just annoying, but I can imagine someone who is more easily upset feeling that way.
That being said, if you have friends willing to say things that they know upset you, you probably need better friends, not a card.
I wouldn't say I find it triggering when someone says something about men, just annoying, but I can imagine someone who is more easily upset feeling that way.
That being said, if you have friends willing to say things that they know upset you, you probably need better friends, not a card.
Mostly political agendas that spill over from the real world, often surrounding themes of social justice and left-wing activism but sometimes right wing fascist themes as well. I just find it infuriating to have the DM shoehorn their extremist political views into a game. Especially with the leftist DMs, I've found that I'm usually expected to reinforce their beliefs and not question them, even with provided X-Cards or the like.
But what is an example of this in a game? How would this come up in a way that you'd feel uncomfortable with? I'm just struggling to see concretely what this would look like.
Examples elsewhere in this comment section like eg sexual assault I can easily see how that would both come up in a game and interact with player experience to make them uncomfortable in a way they may not want to have to explain in the middle of a session.
Examples elsewhere in this comment section like eg sexual assault I can easily see how that would both come up in a game and interact with player experience to make them uncomfortable in a way they may not want to have to explain in the middle of a session.
And a better solution for this is to not run campaigns at conventions or public games that have sexual assault.
I'm getting downvoted simply for giving examples, thus proving my point. But if you need a concrete example, I once had a DM include a drag show in-game.
Did you know straight men have been doing drag for centuries? It’s called theatre.
That’s pretty disingenuous. There’s a very big different between theatre and a drag show.
I’m sure the player in question wouldn’t have minded an old timey theater production of all men playing women. Drag shows are pretty modern and I’m sure entirely took them out of the setting, just as if the DM had the bad guys have Uzis and AK-47s.
I’m sure the player in question wouldn’t have minded an old timey theater production of all men playing women. Drag shows are pretty modern and I’m sure entirely took them out of the setting, just as if the DM had the bad guys have Uzis and AK-47s.
giraffe_lady(2)
Well, we’re almost in 2025. I found it preposterously offensive that D&D was trying to tell us that a 25 Kg, 1.10 meter gnome, couldn’t be as good as a fighter as a 150 Kg, 2.20 meter Orc.
I’m glad they fixed that obvious shortcoming of the game. I’m sure too buy the new edition materials now.
I’m glad they fixed that obvious shortcoming of the game. I’m sure too buy the new edition materials now.
Here's my gift link for the full article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons...
For the longest time a mmorpg I used to play used to have gender-based bonuses an maluses. So a woman would make a shitty warrior and a man an under-powered mage. On the game's boards this was argued about forever because many girls wanted to play warriors. The guardians of the game were not relenting. Females as strong as males were "unrealistic"... In a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead....
Eventually, as more and more players quit the game the gender differences were dropped. Before that I used to play some female characters to get access to the op mage bonuses. But damn, there were so many creeps who thought i was a "real" girl.
Eventually, as more and more players quit the game the gender differences were dropped. Before that I used to play some female characters to get access to the op mage bonuses. But damn, there were so many creeps who thought i was a "real" girl.
> Females as strong as males were "unrealistic"... In a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead....
A tired argument in gaming and fiction in general.
Whatever your fictional world, it needs to have an internally consistent ruleset. Typically these worlds are modelled after our own and only the differences are highlighted, so the assumption is that unless explicitly mentioned, the rules are the same as on Earth.
For example, you can't use the existence of magic in a fictional world to argue there may as well be aircraft flying around too.
The strength of women vs men is no different, it's not like some Earth deity has arbitrarily decided that females are to be weaker. There are a lot of biological reasons why that is so. If these are not changed in the fictional world to be able to support the existence of equally strong females, then your world becomes less internally consistent.
A tired argument in gaming and fiction in general.
Whatever your fictional world, it needs to have an internally consistent ruleset. Typically these worlds are modelled after our own and only the differences are highlighted, so the assumption is that unless explicitly mentioned, the rules are the same as on Earth.
For example, you can't use the existence of magic in a fictional world to argue there may as well be aircraft flying around too.
The strength of women vs men is no different, it's not like some Earth deity has arbitrarily decided that females are to be weaker. There are a lot of biological reasons why that is so. If these are not changed in the fictional world to be able to support the existence of equally strong females, then your world becomes less internally consistent.
What biological changes have happened has made it so a human can jump 7.5 meters forward (or 2 meters upwards) decked out in full plate mail?
I have never played a fantasy game where characters regularly had to take a dump (maybe Dwarf Fortress has defecation but it's more of a simulator game than an rpg). Yet the lack of shitting in fantasy games has not caused hordes of nerds to scream about how it is internally inconsistent that players can eat, but not shit.
And yes there are actual aircraft flying around in many fantasy worlds.
And yes there are actual aircraft flying around in many fantasy worlds.
Women are generally weaker than men, and even in the situation that you're explaining, women with a strength penalty could still end up stronger than men within the game.
The insistence that acknowledging that women are weaker than men is some sort of bigotry is deeply misogynistic. If fantasy women are just as strong as men, then real women just need to work harder to live up to the standards of men. If women in fantasy are as strong as men, then women in reality aren't being allowed to see themselves in fantasy.
The repeated justification that women in a fantasy world shouldn't resemble women, or "...in a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead..." is silly. Women in a game can also get magic powers that make them stronger. Erasing female physicality is erasing women, and replacing them with men playing women.
The insistence that acknowledging that women are weaker than men is some sort of bigotry is deeply misogynistic. If fantasy women are just as strong as men, then real women just need to work harder to live up to the standards of men. If women in fantasy are as strong as men, then women in reality aren't being allowed to see themselves in fantasy.
The repeated justification that women in a fantasy world shouldn't resemble women, or "...in a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead..." is silly. Women in a game can also get magic powers that make them stronger. Erasing female physicality is erasing women, and replacing them with men playing women.
In real life, the kind of women who are warriors are generally stronger than most men, including the kind of men who want to be warriors.. Gwendolyn Christie (of GOT fame) is 6'3" and can bench press you without breaking a sweat. Gina Carano (of UFC fame) can squat 530 pounds and deadlift 450 pounds.
Preventing someone from playing as a strong warrior woman based on incorrect assumptions about female physicality would erase women who actually exist.
Preventing someone from playing as a strong warrior woman based on incorrect assumptions about female physicality would erase women who actually exist.
> Gwendolyn Christie (of GOT fame) is 6'3" and can bench press you without breaking a sweat.
But she is still weaker than the strongest men. In the game she can put points into strength and be stronger than almost all men, but a person who plays a man and also dumps everything into strength will be even stronger.
So she is still represented in such a system.
But she is still weaker than the strongest men. In the game she can put points into strength and be stronger than almost all men, but a person who plays a man and also dumps everything into strength will be even stronger.
So she is still represented in such a system.
[deleted]
And how many standard deviations to the right from the average is Gwendolyn Christie?
In a fantasy world, how many standard deviations from average are the female warriors? It doesn't matter, it's a fantasy world where the data isn't real and you're playing the main character, she's allowed to be above average.
Irrelevant. She exists.
The parent I was replying to suggested that someone wanting to play a character modeled after her would somehow be erasing women. But denying people the right to play a character modeled after a real, live woman would erase the real, live woman who actually exists in the world we live in, and all the other women like her.
The parent I was replying to suggested that someone wanting to play a character modeled after her would somehow be erasing women. But denying people the right to play a character modeled after a real, live woman would erase the real, live woman who actually exists in the world we live in, and all the other women like her.
You are missing the point entirely,
Gwendoline Christie almost certainly can't bench that person (i'll humour the absurd "who can bench more" frat bro thing for the discussion). If Gwendoline Christie was male, she would be 3 standard deviations larger than the average. Her testosterone levels are "nerfed" due to being female.
Gina, and any female bodybuilder for that matter, are of course stronger than your average man, but they are again, "nerfed" by biology, if they had the testosterone production of a man due to being male, they would be considerably stronger, maintain better muscle mass relative to the hours they have put in bodybuilding.
In the in game implementation, a high strength female charcter would be an impressive rarity, demonstrating great strength, despite biological hinderances. This correctly acknowledges their uniqueness, and brings their other traits to the table (considerably higher in int or "smarter" than other strong characters)
Gina, and any female bodybuilder for that matter, are of course stronger than your average man, but they are again, "nerfed" by biology, if they had the testosterone production of a man due to being male, they would be considerably stronger, maintain better muscle mass relative to the hours they have put in bodybuilding.
In the in game implementation, a high strength female charcter would be an impressive rarity, demonstrating great strength, despite biological hinderances. This correctly acknowledges their uniqueness, and brings their other traits to the table (considerably higher in int or "smarter" than other strong characters)
No, it appears that you are missing the point.
The OP was suggesting that a role-playing fantasy game should not allow strong warrior women characters because that would somehow not allow women to fantasize about being the character because women are weaker at the very extremes of strength so a strong female character is really somehow just a man.
But as demonstrated, strong females actually exist in the real world, and the sex-based strength differences are irrelevant unless the GM deliberately creates a scenario in which those differences matter, which would mean a scenario requiring a character to bench more than 450 pounds, squat more than 600 pounds, or deadlift more than 700 pounds (all of which are under the women's world records).
The argument about protecting "female physicality" is just a MRA argument that was soundly rejected by D&D because it has no basis in the real world, and thus no basis in a fantasy world filled with dragons and magic.
The OP was suggesting that a role-playing fantasy game should not allow strong warrior women characters because that would somehow not allow women to fantasize about being the character because women are weaker at the very extremes of strength so a strong female character is really somehow just a man.
But as demonstrated, strong females actually exist in the real world, and the sex-based strength differences are irrelevant unless the GM deliberately creates a scenario in which those differences matter, which would mean a scenario requiring a character to bench more than 450 pounds, squat more than 600 pounds, or deadlift more than 700 pounds (all of which are under the women's world records).
The argument about protecting "female physicality" is just a MRA argument that was soundly rejected by D&D because it has no basis in the real world, and thus no basis in a fantasy world filled with dragons and magic.
As a person that plays a female barbarian, what exactly makes you think strong female don't exist when women have lower base strength?
Are you responding to the wrong comment?
I've said multiple times that strong females exist in the real world, and that players should be allowed to role play as such in D&D if they want. The D&D team, and the community as a whole agrees with that. It's only a small portion of the internet that seems to be upset with allowing this sort of freedom to role play.
I've said multiple times that strong females exist in the real world, and that players should be allowed to role play as such in D&D if they want. The D&D team, and the community as a whole agrees with that. It's only a small portion of the internet that seems to be upset with allowing this sort of freedom to role play.
Does anyone play a human constantly holding a torch?
Usually everyone forgets until vision and sight matter (boss fight, in a fog, or down to the wire).
Usually everyone forgets until vision and sight matter (boss fight, in a fog, or down to the wire).
Haven't seen it in a long time. Generally one or two characters will cast a Light spell on something like a shield or holy symbol. Dark vision/devil sight will cover the rest of the party. Foundry has really nice lighting effects using shaders for VTT play.
This is one of the changes I like the most about Shadowdark. None of the players have darkvision, but all of the monsters do. Combat is unpredictable and dangerous, and darkness is a real threat. And Torches are finite resources that last 60m of IRL time, so there is an in-game impact to dilly-dallying, endless debates, and rules-lawyering.
Yep. So many races/species have darkvision, and so many people prefer playing non-humans, that it usually doesn't matter, and a single Cleric will typically have Light prepared anyway.
I should really start running more sessions in a dark place, where stealth matters.
I should really start running more sessions in a dark place, where stealth matters.
I'm playing a human warlock with a Genie patron...so yes, I always have a lamp ha
Wonderful piece—tons of interviews with people complaining about the changes, yet no interviews with people in support. And yet the authors mention (almost embarrassedly) that it's the fastest selling title in WotC's history.
Clearly a lot of people like this change—and it's a great change! Yet the authors didn't feel like talking to any of those people, instead repeatedly coming back to Musk's whining. Great journalism 10/10 no notes.
Clearly a lot of people like this change—and it's a great change! Yet the authors didn't feel like talking to any of those people, instead repeatedly coming back to Musk's whining. Great journalism 10/10 no notes.
I would argue that likely the sales are despite this. Not because of this. Could be there would be lot more sales if these weren't in place. In general RPGs have gained lot more popularity and visibility and thus are more popular. And DnD is most well known system.
> I would argue that likely the sales are despite this. Not because of this.
Unless you have evidence, you could argue anything. The evidence is that it's selling really well with these rules.
Unless you have evidence, you could argue anything. The evidence is that it's selling really well with these rules.
[deleted]
D&D is old, outdated, the new mechanics are ridiculous. Pathfinder is even more elaborate, overly complicated and therefore useless, out of touch with reality. The whole D&D is a dead thing. And with these brainwashed additions I'm sure Gary Gygax is turning in his grave... someone should cast a resurrect spell on him and let him decide whether to cast a fireball on WoTC or an ice storm.
An educational microcosm example of totalitarianism - everybody is equal, and even fictional settings where that is not the case cannot be tolerated.
> Kuntz, the designer and Gygax collaborator, said that while some topics ought to be considered off-limits, it was a mistake to interfere with the implicit social contract that has sustained Dungeons & Dragons for decade.
I'm fully in agreement with this statement. This is like human group dynamics 101, which underlies all social interaction. You figure out what sort of people you are playing with, how familiar you are with each other, and what sort of fun you want to have together. If unsure, err on the side of tameness. This has many-many dimensions besides the ones about taboo topics mentioned in the article.
Handling this through a form feels incredibly insincere and performative, and insinuates that people (including me) are not to be trusted. If you don't trust the people you're playing with, you shouldn't be playing in the first place.
That being said, this is 100% manufactured controversy. It's virtue signaling from Hasbro (possibly ESG dollar sign motivated) as well as pearl clutching from right wingers. How tabletop works is you ignore all the stuff you don't like or don't care about. I have played with quite a few parties, some of them consisting of people who were complete strangers at first, and also quite socially heterogenous.
I have never seen such a form in my life, and yet despite that, none of our campaigns turned into the pen-and-paper version of Blood Meridian.
I'm fully in agreement with this statement. This is like human group dynamics 101, which underlies all social interaction. You figure out what sort of people you are playing with, how familiar you are with each other, and what sort of fun you want to have together. If unsure, err on the side of tameness. This has many-many dimensions besides the ones about taboo topics mentioned in the article.
Handling this through a form feels incredibly insincere and performative, and insinuates that people (including me) are not to be trusted. If you don't trust the people you're playing with, you shouldn't be playing in the first place.
That being said, this is 100% manufactured controversy. It's virtue signaling from Hasbro (possibly ESG dollar sign motivated) as well as pearl clutching from right wingers. How tabletop works is you ignore all the stuff you don't like or don't care about. I have played with quite a few parties, some of them consisting of people who were complete strangers at first, and also quite socially heterogenous.
I have never seen such a form in my life, and yet despite that, none of our campaigns turned into the pen-and-paper version of Blood Meridian.
> You figure out what sort of people you are playing with, how familiar you are with each other, and what sort of fun you want to have together.
Yes. And you figure this out with a new group by using the new tools during a session zero :)
Yes. And you figure this out with a new group by using the new tools during a session zero :)
The problem with session zero imo, is that the vast majority of campaigns you play with strangers/non-close acquaintances only lasts 2-3 sessions in my experience. Dedicating one session to just setup is not really feasible.
If you're playing a long campaign, you're playing with friends and you probably already know each other well enough to know what flies and what doesn't.
I just don't see how it's a good solution for anyone, but all human interaction is messy, and the problem they are trying to solve definitely exists, so they couldn't have just ignored the problem, so they offered a one size fits all solution that's ideal for probably no one.
If you're playing a long campaign, you're playing with friends and you probably already know each other well enough to know what flies and what doesn't.
I just don't see how it's a good solution for anyone, but all human interaction is messy, and the problem they are trying to solve definitely exists, so they couldn't have just ignored the problem, so they offered a one size fits all solution that's ideal for probably no one.
How is it sensitive or even reasonable that all fantasy species are equally capable? That just seems bizarre. It's core to fantasy tropes that Elves are long lived, magical and intelligent. And that Orcs are stronger than humans. Absolutely bizarre to make changing that anything to do with inclusivity...
That really doesn’t matter. What really matter is they fixed Ranger and Paladin is no longer MAD.
As a DM since White Box, I have absolutely no problems with D&D being more inclusive. I think it is primarily a bunch of basement-dwelling incels that seem to be upset about it.
I just want to find a good living world game that is 3.5e and not on discord. I would wish for a Star Wars saga edition game but that is probably asking too much.
in D&D race always meant species. No real change there. But the idea that there are no common "baseline" traits based on species is obviously nuts and contradicted by plenty of real world examples.
Thankfully individual DMs and players are free to keep WOTC's "liberal" politics trend out of their own gaming experiences if they wish. Everyone is free to use their own terms and house rules to tailor the base game to taste.
Thankfully individual DMs and players are free to keep WOTC's "liberal" politics trend out of their own gaming experiences if they wish. Everyone is free to use their own terms and house rules to tailor the base game to taste.
I have no idea about the current rules, but haven't they always been separate species? Can an elf and a dwarf make a fertile child?
I don't know about elves and dwarves, but just about every race could be a human hybrid.
But it came with stat hits. Half-elves were more like humans than elves, etc.
And from what it seems, they're separating stats from race/species. Which is probably an overall good. I'm going to use the older terminology as this was the issue with the older game. If you wanted to be a wizard, you should be an elf. If you wanted to be an elf, you should be a wizard. And things like that. Certain classes just worked better with certain races.
But now, if I want to be an elf barbarian, that's better supported. I'm not fighting the game rules to play the role I want to.
But it came with stat hits. Half-elves were more like humans than elves, etc.
And from what it seems, they're separating stats from race/species. Which is probably an overall good. I'm going to use the older terminology as this was the issue with the older game. If you wanted to be a wizard, you should be an elf. If you wanted to be an elf, you should be a wizard. And things like that. Certain classes just worked better with certain races.
But now, if I want to be an elf barbarian, that's better supported. I'm not fighting the game rules to play the role I want to.
You're right it's not ideal that races shoehorn you into certain classes, but on the other hand you don't want someone's race to be flavortext. I think there's a balance to be struck. I doubt DnD will find it on the first shot, but I'm looking forward to what it looks like for the version after next.
Elves and dwarves still keep their night vision, elves don’t sleep, dwarves have a better save vs poison (IIRC).
I do like how they’ve opened up the species in general. I have a character in a campaign that is essentially based on my cat, a tabaxi rogue with impulse control issues.
I do like how they’ve opened up the species in general. I have a character in a campaign that is essentially based on my cat, a tabaxi rogue with impulse control issues.
[deleted]
Isn't this just WotC catching up to 90% of other TTRPGs?
There's a part of me that understands where the pushback on these changes is coming from (some people are narcissistic and could abuse these tools), but ultimately it seems like a good thing to have in the book for groups that aren't already friends. If you don't need em, just don't use em.
As an aside, I would encourage anyone that's just getting into the hobby now, not to give WotC any money. There's a ton of other RPGs out there that are just as good if not better and aren't accompanied by grotesque profit maximizing. But either way, just make sure everyone is having fun.
There's a part of me that understands where the pushback on these changes is coming from (some people are narcissistic and could abuse these tools), but ultimately it seems like a good thing to have in the book for groups that aren't already friends. If you don't need em, just don't use em.
As an aside, I would encourage anyone that's just getting into the hobby now, not to give WotC any money. There's a ton of other RPGs out there that are just as good if not better and aren't accompanied by grotesque profit maximizing. But either way, just make sure everyone is having fun.
My opinion is that this is not the way to do it.
> “Races” are now “species.”
I think neither word is really "proper", but "race" is shorter. (I am not really either for or against this change, and I don't really mind this, much.)
They mention that Paizo preferred "ancestry", and that does seem better to me than iehter "race" or "species". (However, I think it is not really that much of a significant issue, anyways.)
> Some character traits have been divorced from biological identity; a mountain dwarf is no longer inherently brawny and durable, a high elf no longer intelligent and dexterous by definition
I think that is not quite right. On average, a mountain dwarf might be brawny and durable, but individual characters should be allowed to be difference from averages in many ways; it should not require you to be average or above average according to your character's race/species/gender/etc, because you can have more diversity. But, "diversity" should not mean that such biological traits do not apply at all; that is the wrong way to do it.
Also, such things as "intelligence" is not so simply explained by a single number anyways; it is more complicated than that. Strength is less so, but still can be not so simple, too.
(An example which is separate from the ones mentioned above: If your character has hands like scorpion, then there are bonuses to some things and penalties to other things, and you might be able to grapple by hand as though it is bite, and some tasks that would normally only need one hand will now require two hands, etc. So, many traits will have advantages and disadvantages. And, if you have wings to fly then you can fly; if your character is small then can fit into smaller spaces but cannot easily reach the stuff in the high shelf (nor attack a taller character's head as easily); etc.)
> Robert J. Kuntz, an award-winning game designer who frequently collaborated with Gary Gygax, a co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, said he disliked Wizards of the Coast’s efforts to legislate from above rather than provide room for dungeon masters — the game’s ringleaders and referees — to tailor their individual campaigns.
I think they are right; the game should be individual. You can decide if you want to use any rule variants, etc; such a thing is common enough anyways. WotC cannot (and should not attempt to) control everything.
> In addition to its species, each character in Dungeons & Dragons is assigned a class such as bard, druid, rogue or wizard.
I would prefer a skill-based system, although D&D is a class-based system. (This is not a complaint; people who do like a class-based system might prefer D&D.)
> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice,” Crawford said, adding, “They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
Even if it is not the best combination, it should still be a playable character. Sometimes you might want a suboptimal choice, but it is not only that. There should be other things that can be defined as well, such as skills, etc. You can have the advantages and disadvantages of each, in order to make up the character like you like to do it.
(Another example would be: A wizard that likes to carry a lot of spell books should have enough strength to carry them. Having good strength is also helpful in case you run out of spells and want to fight by hand, but then you should also need a skill in fighting by hand; this is why I like skill-based systems.)
> There was also a tabaxi, a creature with the feline appearance and night vision that one would expect of a species created by the Cat Lord. “He’s a tabaxi adopted into an elven family,” said Kyle Smith, who created the character, Uldreyin Alma Salamar Daelamin the Fifth, for this campaign. “He’s also a sorcerer — the magic is innate to that. He’s deciding between who he is and what he was raised in.”
This is something that you should be allowed to have. In this way, you will be tabaxi (and therefore, have night vision), but you had learned elven things (e.g. perhaps elven languages). And, is also a sorcerer (so you can cast spells). So, that is good that your character is not only one thing. However, you should not have to decide between them; you are all of them, isn't it?
> Smith added, “If being a tabaxi didn’t matter, then who cares?” “He’d just be a fuzzy elf,” Cutler chimed in.
It would seem that the rule changes would make that problem. I agree it is no good and I explained above.
> “Races” are now “species.”
I think neither word is really "proper", but "race" is shorter. (I am not really either for or against this change, and I don't really mind this, much.)
They mention that Paizo preferred "ancestry", and that does seem better to me than iehter "race" or "species". (However, I think it is not really that much of a significant issue, anyways.)
> Some character traits have been divorced from biological identity; a mountain dwarf is no longer inherently brawny and durable, a high elf no longer intelligent and dexterous by definition
I think that is not quite right. On average, a mountain dwarf might be brawny and durable, but individual characters should be allowed to be difference from averages in many ways; it should not require you to be average or above average according to your character's race/species/gender/etc, because you can have more diversity. But, "diversity" should not mean that such biological traits do not apply at all; that is the wrong way to do it.
Also, such things as "intelligence" is not so simply explained by a single number anyways; it is more complicated than that. Strength is less so, but still can be not so simple, too.
(An example which is separate from the ones mentioned above: If your character has hands like scorpion, then there are bonuses to some things and penalties to other things, and you might be able to grapple by hand as though it is bite, and some tasks that would normally only need one hand will now require two hands, etc. So, many traits will have advantages and disadvantages. And, if you have wings to fly then you can fly; if your character is small then can fit into smaller spaces but cannot easily reach the stuff in the high shelf (nor attack a taller character's head as easily); etc.)
> Robert J. Kuntz, an award-winning game designer who frequently collaborated with Gary Gygax, a co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, said he disliked Wizards of the Coast’s efforts to legislate from above rather than provide room for dungeon masters — the game’s ringleaders and referees — to tailor their individual campaigns.
I think they are right; the game should be individual. You can decide if you want to use any rule variants, etc; such a thing is common enough anyways. WotC cannot (and should not attempt to) control everything.
> In addition to its species, each character in Dungeons & Dragons is assigned a class such as bard, druid, rogue or wizard.
I would prefer a skill-based system, although D&D is a class-based system. (This is not a complaint; people who do like a class-based system might prefer D&D.)
> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice,” Crawford said, adding, “They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
Even if it is not the best combination, it should still be a playable character. Sometimes you might want a suboptimal choice, but it is not only that. There should be other things that can be defined as well, such as skills, etc. You can have the advantages and disadvantages of each, in order to make up the character like you like to do it.
(Another example would be: A wizard that likes to carry a lot of spell books should have enough strength to carry them. Having good strength is also helpful in case you run out of spells and want to fight by hand, but then you should also need a skill in fighting by hand; this is why I like skill-based systems.)
> There was also a tabaxi, a creature with the feline appearance and night vision that one would expect of a species created by the Cat Lord. “He’s a tabaxi adopted into an elven family,” said Kyle Smith, who created the character, Uldreyin Alma Salamar Daelamin the Fifth, for this campaign. “He’s also a sorcerer — the magic is innate to that. He’s deciding between who he is and what he was raised in.”
This is something that you should be allowed to have. In this way, you will be tabaxi (and therefore, have night vision), but you had learned elven things (e.g. perhaps elven languages). And, is also a sorcerer (so you can cast spells). So, that is good that your character is not only one thing. However, you should not have to decide between them; you are all of them, isn't it?
> Smith added, “If being a tabaxi didn’t matter, then who cares?” “He’d just be a fuzzy elf,” Cutler chimed in.
It would seem that the rule changes would make that problem. I agree it is no good and I explained above.
WoTC bought D&D so it's no surprise.
The worst they did is the LoTR Magic The Gathering card series. They managed to create black Aragorn and asian Gandalf. And they turned Goldberry into a fat woman. I'm sorry but that's simply not what the book depicts.
It's not done to unite people. It's not done out of good intentions. It's done because there's a very woke political agenda behind this.
It's not harmless: it's history rewriting. It's propaganda at work.
The worst they did is the LoTR Magic The Gathering card series. They managed to create black Aragorn and asian Gandalf. And they turned Goldberry into a fat woman. I'm sorry but that's simply not what the book depicts.
It's not done to unite people. It's not done out of good intentions. It's done because there's a very woke political agenda behind this.
It's not harmless: it's history rewriting. It's propaganda at work.
Rewriting what history, exactly?
Don’t forget, but this is all made up. None of this is real, buddy.
Don’t forget, but this is all made up. None of this is real, buddy.
Lord of the Rings, much like any folk tale, story or even a book you were brought up with, is a considerable cultural and historical artifact, particularly in the UK. Trying to use it to export US culture wars is just fairly short sighted and pretty insulting to the authors creation.
It came from a different time. If you want change, write something new, you know?
It came from a different time. If you want change, write something new, you know?
folk tales are an ironic example, given they generally lack a canonical form, are frequently adjusted or embellished depending on who's telling the story, and have evolved over time and from place to place. I'd argue that the more modern idea of a 'one true' version of a story, from which any variation is lesser (bolstered in law by copyright and trademark), is the historical abberation, compared to different creators putting their own spin on any given setting, story, or character.
Now, that spin may be good or bad, from your point of view, and that point of view may be affected by what resonated with you about the original work (I think it's often a bad idea for someone to be working with some source material they fundamentally dislike, which seems to be quite common in adaptations nowadays), but that's an opinion as opposed to an appeal to some sense of moral importance of preservation of some particular elements of the original.
Now, that spin may be good or bad, from your point of view, and that point of view may be affected by what resonated with you about the original work (I think it's often a bad idea for someone to be working with some source material they fundamentally dislike, which seems to be quite common in adaptations nowadays), but that's an opinion as opposed to an appeal to some sense of moral importance of preservation of some particular elements of the original.
I disagree with exporting US culture wars, but the correct response to that is an eyeroll, perhaps a witty comment, and then moving on because it doesn't actually affect the game. The correct response is not to import the reactionary responses from those same culture wars: that is active participation in the culture war you claim is short-sighted.
For witty comments, I suggest an observation on how the response to "we have invented highly-artificial racial categories so we can maintain a system of structural oppression" is "members of all racial categories are equal, so let's make sure we hit quota in our mass media!" – though you might prefer something about cultural appropriation, or reading comprehension (maybe a dig at the US literacy rate, if you're feeling edgy and snobbish). A good witty comment reminds you, and those around you, that our problems are not their problems: to look at the problems we actually have, and try to address those, rather than export (harmful) solutions that address (admittedly, worse) problems we don't have.
Racism in the UK is bad enough, without adding US-style racism to the mix as well – and most reactionary responses to US-style antiracism are US-style racism. Don't play the game.
For witty comments, I suggest an observation on how the response to "we have invented highly-artificial racial categories so we can maintain a system of structural oppression" is "members of all racial categories are equal, so let's make sure we hit quota in our mass media!" – though you might prefer something about cultural appropriation, or reading comprehension (maybe a dig at the US literacy rate, if you're feeling edgy and snobbish). A good witty comment reminds you, and those around you, that our problems are not their problems: to look at the problems we actually have, and try to address those, rather than export (harmful) solutions that address (admittedly, worse) problems we don't have.
Racism in the UK is bad enough, without adding US-style racism to the mix as well – and most reactionary responses to US-style antiracism are US-style racism. Don't play the game.
Excellent points. Thansk
As a DM since White Box, I have no problem with D&D becoming more inclusive. Obviously, DMs are free to change anything they don't like, but I think a default of PCs having more options (they are exceptional heroes, after all, so most norms wouldn't need to apply) is good. You can be the rare half-orc wizard on an equal footing with the elf.
The only people who seem to be bent about it are the basement-dwelling incels that fueled things like Gamergate.
The only people who seem to be bent about it are the basement-dwelling incels that fueled things like Gamergate.
I'd bet Melon Husk hasn't played D&D in years … I doubt he'd be able to even find a table that didn't bow to his every whim.
Honestly, the "species" thing has bothered me for years. I'm not sure I'd agree with divorcing physical traits completely, but that's easy enough to house-rule, as is everything else about the game. I feel sure that anyone getting upset is doing so performatively, not because it's actually a problem.
Honestly, the "species" thing has bothered me for years. I'm not sure I'd agree with divorcing physical traits completely, but that's easy enough to house-rule, as is everything else about the game. I feel sure that anyone getting upset is doing so performatively, not because it's actually a problem.