WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Alzrius]

Which is also understandably frustrating to those who'd rather there just be a rule, or who think that everything should always be on the table in perpetuity. But this is one of those situations where the best answer is not going to be the easiest answer

I want to stress that I'm not looking for any sort of hard-and-fast rule; for that matter, I don't think that everything is permissible all the time. Rather, I think it's beneficial to have these sorts of discussions to examine what we think of as acceptable and what's not, especially in response to claims that certain things are obvious, intuitive, or virtuous/vile enough that they don't need further examination.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Urg.

Again, this is just like my writing forum.

"Conflict is the core of story, so let's immediately jump to the worst possible things to shove in people's faces!"

Scale of stakes! Audience! Self control! Treating serious subjects with a modicum of care! Why is this a language no longer spoken by writers?!

I agree with you. It really seems largely this "if you allow anything bad, you must allow everything bad. After all, if you can justify one thing, you can justify anything" type of circular logic and... anti-banning purity? I'm not sure about the correct terms, but it does seem to always stem from a "you can't tell me not to do it" even though we are talking about official products meant for the general public

 

[Chaosmancer]

And yet popular shows and book series have it.

And yet, Novels and TV shows are not Tabletop gaming materials that can be used by pre-teens in a game of entertainment.

You could decide to include SA in chess too, if you really wanted to, but it does seem like that would be entirely pointless beyond just being "edgy"

I wouldn't include it in game outside of maybe referenced and even that's unusual.

Then why argue to include it in official WoTC materials? Because that is what the conversation is about. Not should anyone ever have the right to reference in any context, ever.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And that's a battle you're highly likely to lose.

Okay? Does that mean I shouldn't advocate for more options?

There can only be one default, otherwise it's not a default.

The default can "choose one of these". That is still a default.

The other names just point to things a DM can look up if she wants to see some different ideas. Fully presenting more than one in the DMG would add page count and probably only serve to confuse the issue.

Confuse what issue? That as the DMG says it is all a theoritical construct? That there are multiple models? That they then don't provide anything for those other models, just present one of them as though it were true for all three?

They are already causing confusion.

I'd honestly be less frustrated if they just said they were doing the Great Wheel, that the Great Wheel was true, and were honest about it. But instead they are trying to act like they gave us options, while making only one version true.

Now were they to put out a splat book - either as its own thing or as part of a bigger Guide To Worldbuilding - in which several other cosmologies were fully presented and discussed, along with tips and ideas on how to build your own, that would be worthwhile. But it still wouldn't make Great Wheel any less the official default.

Why would you have a seperate guide to world-building outside of the DMG which should be the guide to world-building?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Twitter is no different except there is no-one who can stop his worst impulses from pouring out.

I find that is a common trait with many people with wealth...Bill Gates is another asshat, and for many reasons probably worse, that sadly doesn't get near the amount of pushback he should.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not what is involved here. Some are making absolute statements which is where the pushback is.

My "absolute statement" is that it shouldn't be in official material, which is advertised, sold, and expected to be used without adult supervision, by 13 to 15 year olds.

Because, if you have as your main villain a guy who is stated to rape people, then you are going to have 13 to 14 year old DMs having that villain rape people. because the book told them that is what happens.

This doesn't involve your table, this doesn't involve novels, it doesn't involve TV cop dramas. It involves official rulebook material.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So you're suggesting that if someone is very upset by something, it's only okay to exclude it if it's "evil" in terms of causing pain for no other purpose than to cause pain? And that's sufficient reason to tell them "sorry, I know this other thing upsets you, but since it's not 'evil' in the aforementioned definition, it causing you distress isn't a good enough reason not to include it?"

No, that isn't what I said.

Why is it okay to include spiders in the official rulebook but not rape? Because spiders may make some people uncomfortable, but they are a natural creature and many people like them or have them as pets. Rape meanwhile is a vile act of evil that serves nothing but to harm others. There is nothing here. These two things are not similar, they are not even related. The idea that someone's arachnephobia is being used as an apolgetics argument for including rape in official game material is just... foul.

EDIT: On further reflection, the "it's only to cause pain and suffering" idea doesn't always hold true, as there's also a presentation in terms of a reproductive strategy, which comes up in various fantasy/sci-fi franchises, ranging from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ("She will give us a son! You must take her now!") to the xenomorphs (i.e. oral rape) in the Aliens series.

Please never expound on how it is a "reproductive strategy" for a royal to rape an unwilling woman to have an heir. Ever. I cannot express in words how much this makes me want to vomit to even have to type these words.

Parasitism is different. I should not need to explain this.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I thought you were talking about the DMG?

I am talking about the DMG. Why are we saying Planescape, which has never been published for 5e, is vital to the DMG?

That's what I was talking about. Have a default assumption is great as a basis for settings within an edition, there isn't any need, or even real reason to, spend much page count on alternate cosmologies. Just throw in one of those text boxes.

What text boxes? There aren't any text boxes explaining the alternate cosmologies. And if having a default is so great, why not have the DMG set in Mystara? Or Eberron? Surely that would be even better, right?

 

[Umbran]

EDIT: On further reflection, the "it's only to cause pain and suffering" idea doesn't always hold true, as there's also a presentation in terms of a reproductive strategy....

Mod Note:
And now, we have gone beyond good taste.

It is time for this line of discussion to close. Let it drop, folks. Thanks.

 

[Alzrius]

Why is it okay to include spiders in the official rulebook but not rape? Because spiders may make some people uncomfortable, but they are a natural creature and many people like them or have them as pets. Rape meanwhile is a vile act of evil that serves nothing but to harm others. There is nothing here. These two things are not similar, they are not even related. The idea that someone's arachnephobia is being used as an apolgetics argument for including rape in official game material is just... foul.

No apologetic is being made; this is an inquiry as to why some topics which cause people distress are verboten while others are considered permissible.

Your explanation completely ignores the distress that people with severe arachnophobia feel, and doesn't address why their pain can be overlooked by knowingly including something which they find upsetting. That two people find something traumatic, even if the two things are different, isn't something you can hand-wave away as "one's worse than the other." The person who finds "the other" more upsetting won't agree, and they deserve to be considered. If there's a chance to make even a small number of people more comfortable, isn't that worth taking?

Please never expound on how it is a "reproductive strategy" for a royal to rape an unwilling woman to have an heir. Ever. I cannot express in words how much this makes me want to vomit to even have to type these words.

It undercuts the idea that there's no basis for the act except to cause pain and suffering. The xenomorphs in Alien are no different in this regard, having weaponized their reproductive cycle in a way that the filmmakers deliberately set out to make comparable to sexual assault.

EDIT: I typed this before I saw the mod note. Accordingly, I'll make no further replies on this particular topic.