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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I thought this had been clear. I don't want anything changing up something that's already been established.

And I think it's clear that this isn't a problem. WotC will not make the core rulebooks invalid.

 

[FrogReaver]

And I think it's clear that this isn't a problem. WotC will not make the core rulebooks invalid.

then there’s no issue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And I think it's clear that this isn't a problem. WotC will not make the core rulebooks invalid.

Well.... not invalid, but ....

"When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment. In recent reprintings of Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd, for example, we changed text that was racially insensitive. Those reprints have already been printed and will be available in the months ahead. We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present."

I think that this means that future reprints of core rulebooks could have altered language. We will see moving forward- I think it's easier to change language in APs than it is in the PHB, DMG, and MM.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

then there’s no issue.

And now you've solved the discussion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whoops. Oh well.

Anyhow, after reading through the last dozen or so pages, I am struck by how the solutions of the "two sides" are closer than the interpretation around the question of racism in D&D tropes. Think about that for a moment. If we're somewhat close on solutions, why not just agree to disagree on the rest? If person A interprets the connection of x-trope with racism, it doesn't mean they don't care about people or are racist; if person B wants to see changes, it doesn't mean they want to destroy D&D or legislate your game.

The point being, let's stop arguing over interpretation and focus on solutions, which are far easier to come to agreement on. So here goes:

Most of us seem to agree on broadening the presentation of orcs to provide for a wider range of orcish theme and behavior. Gruumsh orcs remain as a viable monster race, but options are provided for non-all-evil orcs. OK? Can we all agree on that?

Drow might be a bit trickier, but I think the same applies. Fully excise the "cursed=black skin" thing, keep traditional drow otherwise as-is, but re-frame them not as "fallen elves" but "fallen drow" - meaning, they are a sub-sub-race, and non-evil (daerk-skinned) drow exist and are actually the "true" original drow, but exist in secret because of the association with the bad drow (I like the idea of the original drow being more neutral-aligned). I actually like the idea that the original drow are black skinned, with the fallen drow being shades of gray -- which better fits the idea of a subterranean race, anyway.

Vistani? Again, I don't know them enough to have an opinion, but it sounds like the parallels with a real world culture are more obvious. Seems to be a cultural consultant--preferably of Romani descent--is in order. Let's leave it to them.

OK? Does anyone actually disagree with these solutions?

According to the last few pages it appears that those solutions (at least for orcs) are already in the game.

 

[Oofta]

As someone who both loved Ford v. Ferrari and is currently watching Hyperdrive because, hey, CARS, I can honestly say ...

WHAT?

Not that long ago I showed my wife how to do something on her car that she had been driving for over a year. I knew how to do it because I had read through the owner's manual. You never know when it's going to come in handy!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think that this means that future reprints of core rulebooks could have altered language.

Do the core rulebooks have any such "errors"? Orcs are in Volo's, Vistani in CoS, and Chultans in ToA.
Some could argue the Monster Manual orc section could be revised, but I don't think they're going to do that, and if it does happen, it won't be a huge change.

 

[FrogReaver]

And now you've solved the discussion.

well except for someone quoting words that show the premise it was based on to be invalid.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

What are you talking about. The game of D&D had demons, devils, possession, worship of other gods, and much more that would even as a game, be offensive to religious people. There's plenty of supporting evidence.

But, if the religious people knew anything about D&D, they would know that in D&D you kill the demons and devils. The point is, this isn't another "satanic panic" as it actually has a base in the game. Vistani are offensive, and they are making a book with variant rules for character creation. This isn't trying to destroy D&D like the Satanic Panic is, and you are overreacting to the situation by comparing the two.

 

[Cadence]

I think that this means that future reprints of core rulebooks could have altered language. We will see moving forward- I think it's easier to change language in APs than it is in the PHB, DMG, and MM.

Do the core rulebooks have any such "errors"? Orcs are in Volo's, Vistani in CoS, and Chultans in ToA.
Some could argue the Monster Manual orc section could be revised, but I don't think they're going to do that, and if it does happen, it won't be a huge change.

If there isn't much in the PHB or DMG that deals with it, they could always just do a "Revised MM". Put in the edits, fix whatever they're going to on the humanoids, add something about making them PCs, and make that the version that's sold from then on. Not even close to an edition change or the arrival of UA in 1e or Skills and Powers in 2e.