D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[FrogReaver]

They wouldn't be doing the change if it was bad for them.

I agree it's a good business move - but why? Right now there's a squeaky wheel that makes a lot of noise and is very good at silencing any opposing voices and sanctioning those that go against their desires.

So by all means, WOTC made the right move for their Shareholders - but it's not obvious that the goodness of the decision is based on anything more than the bottom line of appeasing that squeaky wheel.

We can't know from here, but voices aren't silenced. Offensive posts are removed, trollers are banned, and so on.

I hate to put it this way, but I don't know that you can actually understand it unless you are on the receiving end of it. Posters on one side of an issue are typically given much greater leeway in attacking and responding whereas posters on the other side have to walk on eggshells lest they be deemed offensive or a troll or banned. That has quite the chilling effect on truly open dialogue. IMO there are truly offensive posts and trolls on both sides so please don't take that as me claiming they don't exist.

 

[Maxperson]

The fact that you’ve not seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. There are several accounts available.

You can find several accounts of Bigfoot sightings, too. I have yet to see anything cited(and I'll admit I did skip several pages in these fast moving discussions) that come close to resembling the orc language. One person attempted to in response to a post of mine, but his citations weren't even close.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I agree it's a good business move - but why?

Maybe because the overall community wants it?

Right now there's a squeaky wheel that makes a lot of noise and is very good at silencing any opposing voices and sanctioning those that go against their desires.

I know what it's like to be silenced and called a bigot based on someone misunderstanding me, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (Incident on other forum where some people thought I was a homophobe based on a badly worded post on my part)
So, you don't want this because of why exactly? You still haven't answered that. You have expressed how you don't want this to replace base rules, but they probably won't do that.

Posters on one side of an issue are typically given much greater leeway in attacking and responding whereas posters on the other side have to walk on eggshells lest they be deemed offensive or a troll or banned. That has quite the chilling effect on truly open dialogue. IMO there are truly offensive posts and trolls on both sides so please don't take that as me claiming they don't exist.

Oh, definitely, but I'd argue one side obviously has more than others.

 

[Helldritch]

Why not both. Fight for people in both worlds.

Simply because fighting for the rights of non existant people is futile and pointless.

Fifth, and it is to you I say, "Stop complaining about people complaining and wanting to change something. Be progressive, and do whatever you're telling us to do as well". It's hypocritical to tell people online to stop telling other people what to do while you're doing the exact same thing.

I am quite progressive enough (if such a thing is possible) thank you. My problem is that putting the tag racist on a game as inclusive as D&D is asking for bad perception from people outside the community. Imagine the following headline:"WotC changes the rules for its brand D&D game because of alleged racist content." Nothing more needed to bring an end to the game. Just like the accusations of Satanism had a huge impact, so would this one.

 

[Maxperson]

First, that's different, they were an outside group that knew near-to-nothing about D&D. Second, their offense was ridiculous and had no base. Third, we're not changing the game, we're adding optional rules to make the game more versatile with optional rules. Fourth, we're not asking for the destruction of D&D, the satanic panic was.

Ahh, so only people who get offended by things you agree with matter and have foundation.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe because the overall community wants it?

Where is the evidence of that, though? We've heard some complaints and the decision to change it, but there's nothing that I've seen or heard of to indicate that the majority of the community wanted this change to happen. I'm also curious how many of those that do want the change, only want it because some people are offended.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, definitely, but I'd argue one side obviously has more than others.

Doubtful I think. IMO It's just the tendency of supporting those we agree with and ignoring their bad behavior while picking up on every bit of bad behavior done by those with opposing viewpoints. Seems to me more likely that you are viewing this through a very biased lens.

I would say I've been trolled on this very thread. I have had countless words of mine twisted here well beyond anything reasonably resembling something I said. But I'm pretty sure you liked those posts where that was happening. I'd be willing to bet that the only difference between me and many of those other posters you say were offensive or trolling is that I refused to feed the trolls on this thread and if I had I would have appeared as the troll to you.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Ahh, so only people who get offended by things you agree with matter and have foundation.

It seems to me that debating about inclusivity leads to better results than trying to determine what is offensive or not.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I think the mechanics and setting are a bit more related than that. I don't know that you can totally divorce setting from mechanics and actually end up with a compelling game.
[/QUOTE

I would argue, 5e largely has. Outside of some easily ignored flavor text, not much in the PHB or DMG screams: /300/ ”This is the Forgotten Realms” /300/

More specific rules can be added in Settings book to capture the feel of a particular setting.

Monster books do not need to list Alignment. Like the old legacy stat block of # Appearing, time for this in monster stat blocks is over. Let each DM decide how many creatures appear and how the creatures act.

Books like Volos and Mord’s Tome, are nice enough I guess. Frankly after 40+ years of gaming, I would have preferred more stat blocks, and less flavor text, that I will most likely ignore in favor of whatever idea I have instead.

Tech difficulties, apparently my response was added to the quote...mea culpa.

Mea also too tired to fix. Mea Maxima Culpa

 

[FrogReaver]

It seems to me that debating about inclusivity leads to better results than trying to determine what is offensive or not.

Is that actually a meaningful distinction? Seems to me that inclusivity is being used to mean "don't do what offends".