D&D 5E First World: Possibly One of the New D&D setting?

[Parmandur]

I don't agree with this at all. I mean, it's true it hasn't been revised much... but I think that is due to 5E hyper-fixating on one of the least problematic regions, and the one with the most "modern" sensibilities... the Sword Coast. Only region to get a setting book, too.

There are a lot of regions of FR that are really, REALLY problematic, and 5E has so far stayed clear of them (with a handful exceptions).

I think it also speaks well of Greenwoods open minded hippy ways: they didn't have to change much to fit modern sensibilities at all. The Sword Coast was actually where his game was set, and he was a "say yes" sort of DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A game is only as consistent and as real as the DM and players choose to make it. Which means that what the books actually doesn't matter unless you prefer games that railroad you.

Ravenloft is a game of gothic horror. People are horrible to each other in that game because it's a game of gothic horror, not because of verisimilitude.

And you can always choose to add as many horrible things into a game as you want. Many GMs manage to do that just fine, and a lot of their stories end up on places like r/rpghorrorstories. Because most of the time, it's done badly by people who include bigotry, claiming it's for "historical" reasons but it's actually so they can be jerks.

And quite frankly, I don't want to play in a fantasy setting where I personally would be discriminated against.

You can also choose to remove as many horrible things as you want to make a game more to your liking. But again, playability and popularity.

 

[Faolyn]

As we've previously discussed, there were alternative approaches to a total setting reboot for addressing those issues.

And I disagree. There's so much stuff in there that was problematic that altering only those things would be a reboot in and of itself, and an incomplete-feeling one at best.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It does, and I do.

So stop complaining about books you're not going to buy. You already just play Level Up, right? Not official WotC books? Wait for the settings you like to get official releases in D&D 5e by WotC so then they're opened up on DMsGuild. Then we can both get the stuff we like. You can get whatever older version of the setting you like, and I can get whatever newer version with modern changes that I do. I really do not get why you keep complaining over, and over, and over again. Especially for someone that just said "it doesn't matter if there's an official release, just use the 3rd party versions".

I also don't care about art

Fine.

don't agree about the balance

I was just giving my personal example from when I tried to do what you're recommending. The balance was worse in my experience.

and obviously have different opinions about problematic content than you.

Your view that racist and other bigoted things should remain bigoted for the purpose of "being faithful to the source material"? Yeah, that's a bad take. A really, really bad idea that would do way more harm than whatever "good" you think it would accomplish.

 

[Faolyn]

The Forgotten Realms is about the same vintage, and it also hasn't been heavily revised in the course of 5E (it actually moved closer to older-edition incarnations, in fact). Of course, if the Realms is the revisit we're supposed to get in 2024, they may use the opportunity to make more extensive changes...

Ravenloft has already had several mini-revisions anyway. Darklords have died or been kicked out and domains have been moved around or even thrown into the Mists. It's not a "real" world, after all, so altering things is much easier than it would be for a place like the Realms.

 

[JEB]

So stop complaining about books you're not going to buy.

I'm sure folks said the same thing to people who complained about the problematic content in Volo's Guide to Monsters. I'm more inclined to let all D&D fans be heard, so Wizards can calibrate their material to the largest segment.

Your view that racist and other bigoted things should remain bigoted for the purpose of "being faithful to the source material"?

That's not what @Micah Sweet said. He said that people can have different opinions on what material is "problematic."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm sure folks said the same thing to people who complained about the problematic content in Volo's Guide to Monsters. I'm more inclined to let all D&D fans be heard, so Wizards can calibrate their material to the largest segment.

I never saw anyone say that. I saw people denying that the way Volo's describes Orcs is a problem at all, though. And if people were arguing that, they'd be in the wrong because problematic content is on a whole different level than changes to classic settings to update them to 5e.

That's not what @Micah Sweet said. He said that people can have different opinions on what material is "problematic."

No. He's repeatedly said that he's against changing settings at all when updating them to 5e and that doing so would be "mangling the IP". And whether or not Vistani and similar examples are "problematic" is not up for debate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ravenloft has already had several mini-revisions anyway. Darklords have died or been kicked out and domains have been moved around or even thrown into the Mists. It's not a "real" world, after all, so altering things is much easier than it would be for a place like the Realms.

Every one of those so-called "revisions" continued and/upon expanded upon the setting. They didn't alter the past. That's what I care about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never saw anyone say that. I saw people denying that the way Volo's describes Orcs is a problem at all, though. And if people were arguing that, they'd be in the wrong because problematic content is on a whole different level than changes to classic settings to update them to 5e.

No. He's repeatedly said that he's against changing settings at all when updating them to 5e and that doing so would be "mangling the IP". And whether or not Vistani and similar examples are "problematic" is not up for debate.

You can come up with a different explanation for a story element (and often you probably should), but I would prefer that the story as we knew it can still be told.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You can come up with a different explanation for a story element (and often you probably should), but I would prefer that the story as we knew it can still be told.

No. I am not okay with keeping Vistani and Aperusa racist because you like internal consistency. Being anti-racist trumps nerds that dislike change. There is absolutely no good reason to keep something racist in D&D just because you want to tell the same stories you used to with that setting.

Seriously, why does this even need to be discussed? If you want to keep something racist in D&D, no matter the reason, you're actively trying to harm others. Being fine with racist content existing is siding with the racism.