D&D 5E D&D's Inclusivity Language Alterations In Core Rules

In recent months, WotC has altered some of the text found in the original 5th Edition core rulebooks to accommodate D&D's ongoing move towards inclusivity. Many of these changes are reflected on D&D Beyond already--mainly small terminology alterations in descriptive text, rather than rules changes.

Teos Abadia (also known as Alphastream) has compiled a list of these changes. I've posted a very abbreviated, paraphrased version below, but please do check out his site for the full list and context.

• Savage foes changed to brutal, merciless, or ruthless.
• Barbarian hordes changed to invading hordes.
• References to civilized people and places removed.
• Madness or insanity removed or changed to other words like chaos.
• Usage of orcs as evil foes changed to other words like raiders.
• Terms like dim-witted and other synonyms of low intelligence raced with words like incurious.
• Language alterations surrounding gender.
• Fat removed or changed to big.
• Use of terms referring to slavery reduced or altered.
• Use of dark when referring to evil changed to words like vile or dangerous.

This is by no means the full list, and much more context can be found on Alphastream's blog post.

 

[Azzy]

It is just that people who think Frazetta IS fantasy (and I am one of them) aren't going to see that style in D&D any more.

It's funny, really. I've never liked Frazetta's work at all. (I'm not knocking those that do like it—I just don't like it at all).

 

[AstroCat]

We have had this discussion in other threads, but it is clear that while WotC has been bewbs averse for quite some time, and are making efforts on cultural sensitivity, they still love their horror tropes. I don't think it is reasonable to say that they never "push boundaries" broadly when they seem to really love body horror in many contexts. It is just that people who think Frazetta IS fantasy (and I am one of them) aren't going to see that style in D&D any more.

And yeah a very modern d&d party of half bunny bards that look like cartoon characters within a game of none to little conflict resolution or action not my thing, as much as an action packed adventure Conan/Elric inspired Frazetta and classic Greyhawk are my thing.

But didn't they super water down the Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft book, just asking? I was never a huge Ravenloft guy but my friends who are were not thrilled with the new content interpretations. We did play the 5e Ravenloft adventure though and it was awesome, my friend who is Ravenloft aficionado ran it and it rocked even for me.

So I just don't find the neo-d&d enjoyable and inspiring but I do find it all over time funneling down to looking very much like the same thing over and over with most of the flavor, lore and maybe ironically meaningful diversity removed. It's all becoming the same thing with no room to explore lore because they might step on someone some where's toes.

 

[Reynard]

And yeah a very modern d&d party of half bunny bards that look like cartoon characters with a game of no conflict resolution or action

But this isn't actually a thing WotC is doing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's funny, really. I've never liked Frazetta's work at all. (I'm not knocking those that do like it—I just don't like it at all).

I do like Frazetta’s work but it has also been ages since the old sword and sorcery vibe was part of D&D art (it pretty much went away during the Satanic panic, and 2E was generally more on the ‘wholesome’ side (in spite of one or two images in the DMG: and maybe done if the Brom art for Dark Sun)

one thing I will say about Frazetta, I think it is a little unfair for people to reduce him to ‘beans’ [EDIT: that should be ‘bewbs’]. He portrayed the beauty of the human form (and leaned on lofty and idealized). The Men abd Woman both were scantily clad and in amazing shape. Nothing wrong with that kind of art. Art has long depicted human beauty and physical ideals. Not saying it is the right guy for WoTC covers. I just think it is a bit unfair to make fun of Frazetta as if all he did was paint salacious imagery. His stuff is perfectly in line with the kind of human form depicted in Renaissance artwork or classical sculptures

Also not saying you have to like him Azzy. It’s personal taste. Just using your post to jump into the Frazetta discussion

My personal favorite for D&D has been Stephen Fabian

 

[AstroCat]

But this isn't actually a thing WotC is doing.

Of course its a purposely exaggerated example, but that is more of the vibe I'm getting these days. We've checked out some of latest adventures, even tried to use parts of them and it all has this very "samey" feel and style to them regardless of the setting. It just keep getting further and further away from what we find enjoyable.

 

[Corinnguard]

And yeah a very modern d&d party of half bunny bards that look like cartoon characters with a game of no conflict resolution or action not my thing as much as Conan/Elric inspired Frazetta and classic Greyhawk are my thing.

But didn't they super water down the Ravensloft book? I was never a huge Ravenloft but my friend who are were not thrilled with the new content.

So I just don't find the neo-d&d enjoyable and inspiring but I do find it all over time funneling down to looking very much like the same thing over and over with most of the flavor, lore and mayube ironicall meaningful diversity removed. It's all becoming the same thing with no room to explore lore because they might step on someone some where's toes.

Which edition of D&D do you happen to like?

 

[AstroCat]

Which edition of D&D do you happen to like?

I've enjoyed them all on some level from OG late 70s as a kid all the way through 5e up to like 2-3 years ago. I loved 5e on test/launch it was our main game for a really long time. Actually we often still play 5e, just act as if it ended a couple years ago.

I do admit, we gave 4e/Ebberon a fair try (full campaigns and all) but ultimately found it not fun mechanically to play and moved over to Savage Worlds till the 5e play tests came into our group.

We are now dabbling with Shadowdark, DCC and I've read some C&C, backed the Kobold Press game and some other more indie versions. Seeing which one sticks.

 

[Reynard]

Of course its a purposely exaggerated example, but that is more of the vibe I'm getting these days. We've checked out some of latest adventures, even tried to use parts of them and it all has this very "samey" feel and style to them regardless of the setting. It just keep getting further and further away from what we find enjoyable.

Oh, i won't argue that WotC adventures are compelling. I am not a big fan of the company in general. I was just pushing back against the idea that D&D is all fluffy bunnies.

But it is the MCU of RPGs: everything feels exactly the same, and not particularly good.

 

[Hussar]

This thread has become what I thought it would be, and that's not a good thing. I just wonder what the upside to this is for WotC. If they did this and didn't talk about it, would anyone notice? Would D&D be perceived in a more positive way by anyone?

But now it is out in the open and it's getting predictable reactions from people with different perspectives. And if it gets out in the broader culture, it is going to push D&D into the "culture war." And that's not something WotC wants with the new edition coming next year. I know this because over the years I've played D&D with people of every political stripe and found that the hobby has fans all over the spectrum.

Let's be clear: WotC certainly can do this, and it's not censorship for them to do it. Much like removing "fat" and other words from James and the Giant Peach, it's just creates controversy and makes a group of people angry. And didn't we have enough of that already with this new edition launch?

Note they DID do this without telling people.

And this is the reaction.

Imagine the reaction if they actually announced it beforehand.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Of course its a purposely exaggerated example, but that is more of the vibe I'm getting these days. We've checked out some of latest adventures, even tried to use parts of them and it all has this very "samey" feel and style to them regardless of the setting. It just keep getting further and further away from what we find enjoyable.

But you keep giving examples of things that aren't real, and also mixing it in with critiques of inclusion, which muddies your point.

Look, it's fine to not like WotC, it's fine to not like the current iteration of D&D. No one is arguing that you must, or that your tastes are wrong.

But you are posting in a thread about WotC making small changes to the language they are using in order to make their work more inclusive, and when you criticize "neo-5e" in that context, your critiques are going to look like you don't like the fact that WotC is making efforts to be more inclusive. If that's not your intent, good! But as it is, it sure looks like that's your main critique of WotC.