D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, funny that. Every single time I bring up media examples for people, they are never actually familiar with them. Also interesting how you want to lead with that when I laid them out pretty clearly so you don't need to know anything about the actual products.

I don't play video games and I don't like superhero movies or comics so those just aren't media I can say much intelligent on. I mean I've seen superman movies in the past (the old ones). But I don't have any real opinions on what superman ought to be or Louis Lane

So when a controversial book comes out, you will wait months, sometimes years to engage with it, so your experience isn't shaded by the controversy.... and yet here you are, still before the official release date of this book, at the forefronts of the discussion telling us how we should view this "controversy".

Yes, typically I wait. For example when Last Jedi came out, I think I waited something like 6 months to a year just so none of the emotions around the conversation were in my head. An RPG book is different because I do like getting those when new editions come out and you aren't experiencing them the way you experience a show or movie. With the new books I have had to save so I only have the PHB so far and and just learning about the DMG and MM from articles and threads until I am able to get them.

Interesting.

And yes, you have repeatedly brought up the boogeyman of the Hayes code. You have repeatedly told us that this will chill creativity, constrain it, stifle it, make it worse and harder and.... where's the evidence? You have been saying this for YEARS. You keep claiming this has been a decade long slide, but there is no evidence.

I don't think this needs evidence. It is pretty apparent to me talking to people in the hobby, as a designer myself it is pretty apparent too, and you can see it in works, just like you could see it in movies form the Hays code. But from where I am standing it is very clear this stuff is impacting peoples creativity and causing a lot of folks to second guess and self censor. If you don't think that is happening. Fair. But I can pretty much guarantee out in the world, it is kind of laughable to suggest that isn't going on. To me the Van Richten book looked like a product of this kind of thinking about media and game design for instance.

So why should I believe you? You've made the same claim for years, and you've been proven wrong by the things that have come out. So I have no reason to believe that THIS TIME you are correct.

You don't have to. Also I don't think I have been proven wrong by anything. From my vantage point there has been a steep decline in the quality of material available over the past ten years. And we've seen how the orc debate moved from 'you can like problematic things' and 'of course we aren't taking away evil orcs' to where it is now. So I don't think teh concerns I have raised about it are all that crazy. But if this stuff doesn't bother you, if you feel the books are better and people are more free to be creative than before, fair enough. That is your view. I am just giving you my view (and I do think the validity of my view is apparent. I tis pretty clear to me there is a change in how people are viewing these things and that people are starting to really grow tired of the trend. I could be wrong, but I expect, as I said in the other post, in tend years people will look back on this time and see it as an overcorrection that resulted in some odd aesthetics and designs choices

 

[Maxperson]

OK - for the sake of the argument: Why shouldn´t / couldn't my goliath with max strength be stronger as your gnome with max strength?
And: How do we know the "statistical averages" of a species? Well - "Oh, lets look at the picture of a group of Orcs - Gee, most of them seem to be stronger than a human!" or... looking at species modifiers

They really should. The powerful build doesn't cut it because then you end up with a race that stronger than another race, yet simultaneously not stronger than the same race. Its an inherent contradiction.

What I do as a house rule is allow stats to go above 20 equal to the racial bonus. So a goliath with +2 to strength can hit 22. That halfling caps at 20, but can go to 22 dex.

 

[Voadam]

"Breath Weapon" was changed to "Destructive Breath"

They did? That seems weird.

 

[Maxperson]

They did? That seems weird.

It does seem weird, and if true is something else to dislike. It really seems like WotC changed a lot just for the sake of change. Like they said, "We need to make enough changes to make it worthwhile to buy 5.5e. Let's change breath weapon into destructive breath."

 

[Hussar]

but I assure you there is ample evidence of people not enjoying the game and enjoying a lot of media due to changes like this (and I can just say anecdotally it impacts my fun for sure).

Then, for the millionth time, PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE. You've been asked over and over and over again to show evidence and have never, ever done so. If there is "ample evidence", then pony up. Let's see it. If it's ample, you should be able to show me at least one or two examples.

But, as of yet, despite your repeated claims that there is ample evidence, none is forthcoming. Why do you refuse to actually provide any evidence? I've provided mine. My evidence is circumstantial, sure. I totally get that. Nothing has obviously been definitive. But, you've repeatedly refused to even provide any evidence.

So, again, how are you any different from Pat Pulling and promoting "outrageous and untrue rumors about the hobby"? What's the difference between your mother and you? You are making unfounded claims, refusing to provide any evidence based on things you've "heard".

And, note, the claim isn't that phylacteries perpetuate bigotry. It's that the removal of these things makes the game more welcoming. Proven by the MASSIVE influx of new gamers from demographics that never appeared previously.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, sir - that's a average half-orc
And if it's not, it's simply one picture -the argument doesn't depend on this picture. (And it didn't depend on me chosing "goliath" instead of orc or minotaur in another post). Someone could post 100 pictures of orcs from D&D books and 100 pictures of gnomes - the "average orc" will be way beefier and of course bigger than the gnomes.

Gnome (1e MM)

Orc (2e MC)

 

[Chaosmancer]

Problems aside, AI art is leading to the democratization of art and making it accessible to people without artistic talent or, those who are disabled.

Democratization of art? What are you even talking about? Did we have a democratization of singing or cooking at some point as well? IF you want to get better at art.... learn how to make better art. Don't rely on a program to steal the work from others and make it for you.

And, before you get too righteous about the disabled, allow me to introduce you to a royal painter for three of the English Monarchs, including Queen Victoria.

Sarah Biffin was born without arms. The above is a Self-Portrait she painted of herself, by holding the brush in her mouth.

Yes, AI makes it easier for people to make art. But for people who truly, truly desire to make art... literally nothing is capable of stopping them short of death or full body paralysis. Most of those claiming it "democratizes" art just don't feel like they should need to devote themselves to the practice of it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then, for the millionth time, PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE. You've been asked over and over and over again to show evidence and have never, ever done so. If there is "ample evidence", then pony up. Let's see it. If it's ample, you should be able to show me at least one or two examples.

Hussar, there isn't statistical evidence. This is all based on being in the hobby and seeing and hearing what people are saying and looking at what is coming out and seeing the impact. If that is insufficient for you, and you think I am wrong, fair enough as I I have said. But I suspect, given how intense your reactions are to me, that there is the possibility a part of you suspects I am right (otherwise, you can just dismiss my opinion as not relevant or meaningful). But the evidence is people in threads like this telling you they don't like these changes and why. People saying they feel uncomfortable because they are afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing because there is such scrutiny of language and creative output. It comes up in all these conversations. And you will see it in different ratios on social media. And out in the world, when you get offline, I see even more of a strong negative reaction

But, as of yet, despite your repeated claims that there is ample evidence, none is forthcoming. Why do you refuse to actually provide any evidence? I've provided mine. My evidence is circumstantial, sure. I totally get that. Nothing has obviously been definitive. But, you've repeatedly refused to even provide any evidence.

I am not sure what kind of evidence you even want me to supply. This is based on what I am seeing and hearing from people in conversations and posts I see people making online. I am not going to link peoples posts in threads just to prove a point. If you don't accept that this is going on, that is totally fine. You don't have to agree with me.

So, again, how are you any different from Pat Pulling and promoting "outrageous and untrue rumors about the hobby"? What's the difference between your mother and you? You are making unfounded claims, refusing to provide any evidence based on things you've "heard".

Well I have a much better sense of humor than Pat Pulling for starters. But I am also not going around making up stuff. I am just giving my opinion on how I see the hobby being impacted by these ideas (like evil orcs being problematic). I am not making up lies about people

And, note, the claim isn't that phylacteries perpetuate bigotry. It's that the removal of these things makes the game more welcoming. Proven by the MASSIVE influx of new gamers from demographics that never appeared previously.

D&D has gotten more popular, I think because of things like Stranger Things. I doubt changes like altering the phylactery are what is drawing that crowd

 

[Gradine]

The biggest problem is that we've convinced ourselves, as a collective humanity, that art isn't worth making if it's not good. Which is, of course, a lie. The only way to "democratize" art is to break free of that paradigm. This would, of course, render generative AI "art" absolutely necessary

 

[Remathilis]

A few other points of interest.

In 1e, a gnome has no ability adjustments. They must have a 6 strength minimum and cap at 18 (15 for females) and thus can have exceptional (%) Strength, though gnomes can only go to a 50% and half-orcs to 99% (only humans can get a 100%) Half-orcs also have a min of 6 and max of 18 (both genders). So the difference between a gnome and a half-orc is that the orc has a +1 strength (can't go above 18/99) and gnome females are called 3 points lower (which is an issue of gender, not race). A male gnome has the same range of strength as a male half-orc.