D&D (2024) The future of edition changes and revisions

[Vaalingrade]

While I'm happy for the people who are happy to have an official update to their setting... maybe not all settings should come back if they need to be so extensively overhauled to fit with modern sensibilities.

 

[Echohawk]

Drow don’t exist in Krynn.

DLS4: Wild Elves has something to say about this claim.

 

[DarkCrisis]

DLS4: Wild Elves has something to say about this claim.

Some things werent fleshed out for a while and "drow" and "dark elf" got intermingled. In DL, "Dark Elves" and "Drow" are "evil elves" and has nothing to do with black skinned elves that live underground.

And yes some publications do mentioned dark skinned drow elves because also again that stuff wasnt really fleshed out yet.

The closest you will get are some that come on Starjammers etc. But natively Krynn does not have black skinned underground evil elves. "Drow" and "Dark Elf" just mean "evil elves".

 

[Staffan]

And here’s the modern problem. No, not every setting is the same and they absolutely should not be.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a difference. I'm saying that the difference between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms is really, really small.

It's like quibbling over the taste difference between Pepsi and Coke, when there's also orange soda, lemonade, coffee, or beer on the menu.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

According the lastest Drizzt books: In Faerun Lolth was good. The Drow acting evil corrupted her. Currently she's turned her back on it all and her demons secretly run things in her name. She still grants spells if a priestess asks but inst requiring prayers and sacrfices etc because she just doesnt care one way or the other.

This is what is about to cause the big civil war in Menzo as the head priestess now know the real history of the drow and her demons run things in her name since she cant be bothered to care, and if this info gets out well.... big changes for the Drow.

That's such a Forgotten Realms take, I don't mean that in a bad way! It's definitely more interesting than earlier approaches.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a difference. I'm saying that the difference between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms is really, really small.

It's like quibbling over the taste difference between Pepsi and Coke, when there's also orange soda, lemonade, coffee, or beer on the menu.

The difference are not very small unless you are simply grading it by "has heroes, magic, and monsters."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If someone is suggesting that complainers are hypocrites because they only complain about some changes and not others, or that complainers are so few in number as to be irrelevant, or that even the complaints themselves are unimportant, that's an attempt to intimidate and shame complainers into silence. And it certainly isn't showing respect for their point of view, or seeking to understand that point of view.

I mean, this doesn't really make sense. First off, let's not pretend "intimidate and shame" doesn't mean "bully". I hope you won't quibble with that.

The hypocrite point, yes, that's a rather weak argument, and yeah could be argued to be simply an attempt to get people to shut up. It's not really a rational position.

However, both the other points have some validity, whether you're comfortable with it or not, and claiming they're "bullying" (which you are) is itself pretty funny and arguably what you're complaining about - an attempt to shut people up by saying they're just being bullies - which some would see as an attempt to intimidate and shame lol (I laugh but it's absolutely a double-edged sword you're swinging here). Specifically:

1) "There are few complainers" - This is a fair point in many situations. It's not "bullying" to point it out. On the flipside, there being few complainers doesn't mean the complainers are wrong. You often see this with changes to the law - very often, a change might have no obvious impact to a layman, but a huge impact to a specialist who understands the consequences. However, that doesn't appear to apply here. Nonetheless, pointing it out is not bullying, but pointing it out doesn't mean you're automatically right. It does however mean that where things are simply a matter of taste/aesthetics, it's not likely to be a major problem.

2) "The complaints are unimportant" - This is no more "bullying" than suggesting the complaints are important. It's a discussion of opinions of the relative merits of things. The idea is to argue your case sufficiently persuasively that people are persuaded. People not being persuaded doesn't mean you're wrong, of course.

And I think the POV respect/understanding issue is just another double-edged sword. So that could be applied very widely.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The difference are not very small unless you are simply grading it by "has heroes, magic, and monsters."

That's not really true. That box would encompass all D&D settings and virtually all fantasy RPGs, science-fantasy RPGs, urban fantasy RPGs, and so on.

It's all about zoom.

Both settings fit in with the high-level "D&D settings" box.

Zoom down to the next level say, "Kitchen Sink D&D settings" box, and they're both still in it. Whereas stuff like Birthright and Dark Sun has been excluded, as, interestingly, has Dragonlance.

Next "World-specific medieval/renaissance-inspired Kitchen Sink D&D settings", they're still in it, but say, Spelljammer and Planescape are no longer in it.

We can probably zoom again to say "World-specific, primarily Western-style-culture focused medieval/renaissance-inspired Kitchen Sink D&D", and now we're probably down to GH, FR, and Mystara in terms of official settings.

I'm sure we could keep going, but hopefully you see the point.

 

[JEB]

1) "There are few complainers" - This is a fair point in many situations. It's not "bullying" to point it out. On the flipside, there being few complainers doesn't mean the complainers are wrong. You often see this with changes to the law - very often, a change might have no obvious impact to a layman, but a huge impact to a specialist who understands the consequences. However, that doesn't appear to apply here. Nonetheless, pointing it out is not bullying, but pointing it out doesn't mean you're automatically right. It does however mean that where things are simply a matter of taste/aesthetics, it's not likely to be a major problem.

Sure, it can be apparently true that "there are few complainers" - though plenty of folks could be complaining about any particular problem, out of sight of this particular forum - but how often is that point raised as a way to further discussion and understanding? I'm having trouble seeing that as anything but an attempt to make the complainers feel small and irrelevant.

2) "The complaints are unimportant" - This is no more "bullying" than suggesting the complaints are important. It's a discussion of opinions of the relative merits of things. The idea is to argue your case sufficiently persuasively that people are persuaded. People not being persuaded doesn't mean you're wrong, of course.

It's a very small step from "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant." And if you want to debate the relative merits, then you'd engage with the relative merits, not refocus the discussion on the grand cosmic significance of the complaints themselves. I mean, is a family argument over finances less "important" than arguments about global warming? Sure, but suggesting that the family argument isn't "important" enough to be worthwhile is just rude at best.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure, it can be apparently true that "there are few complainers" - though plenty of folks could be complaining about any particular problem, out of sight of this particular forum - but how often is that point raised as a way to further discussion and understanding? I'm having trouble seeing that as anything but an attempt to make the complainers feel small and irrelevant.


It's a very small step from "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant." And if you want to debate the relative merits, then you'd engage with the relative merits, not refocus the discussion on the grand cosmic significance of the complaints themselves. I mean, is a family argument over finances less "important" than arguments about global warming? Sure, but suggesting that the family argument isn't "important" enough to be worthwhile is just rude at best.

Re: "there are few complainers" being relevant, is that people often have exaggerated ideas about how widely-held their complaints are, and often to make arguments on the basis that their complaints are widely-held (for example, I saw someone trying to argue that "most people" disliked a movie in a series, when that movie was very successful financially and critically, quite recently - it was obvious that the "most people" existed solely in his mind). Pointing out that this is not the case is obviously valid, and trying to suggest it's merely an attempt to "hurt feelings" is, whilst kind of funny, not very valid.

This is particularly relevant when things like aesthetics are being argued, and most of what's argued about D&D is, in fact, aesthetics. I.e. artistic taste. If you are arguing that a specific artistic taste "should" be followed, whether that's a style of brushwork or having D&D not regain all HP on a rest by default, then it obviously matters whether that's a widely-held preference.

Of course you can make more interesting arguments by admitting that it is not perhaps a widely-held taste, but that if it were, perhaps would lead to the game having a more interesting aesthetic, but that requires being realistic and not feeling offended because someone (correctly) points out your opinion is not widely-held.

Re: "the complaints are unimportant" to "the complainers are unimportant", your own argument illustrates a serious problem with what you're saying, because context matters. It's not at all rude to say someone's argument over their family finances is small potatoes when the context is something wider. Thus your general point has no apparent weight to it here. Context is king. If the context of the argument is solely a small-scale thing, then, yes, obviously, saying "Well it doesn't matter on the larger scale" is something of a non-sequitur. I think reading it as "bullying" whenever it happens is a tad precious and self-pitying (which is not to say it never is!), but this is all about context.

And let's be real - we've all seen threads about a medium-context or broad-context topic derailed by someone's obsession with a very specific and essentially narrow-context/largely irrelevant point. In those cases it's absolutely appropriate to suggest the narrow-context issue "doesn't matter" in the broader context. But in a narrow-context-specific discussion, it would not be appropriate to barge in and dismiss it because of the larger context.