Your table is YOUR table.

[Emerikol]

I can see this. This touches upon the big changes we see in government, at least in the USA, right now. Average people see the pendulum swing too far one way and vote for change. When that change becomes too much, they will vote for change again and the pendulum will swing back the other way. Add this to social media where some are trying to force others into saying and doing something they may not agree with, maybe under threat of being called names and maybe even exposing where you live and such. It is more a society thing right now over just a gaming thing.

I think everyone here agrees and knows my table is mine and I can be whatever I want it to be. If I lose players for it, I can change or get new players. Some of the problem for me is that I do not understand the need for the changes. I have been playing for 40+ years with certain norms and now the game is different. The expectation is there to change and go along if you want to talk about the game online or play in other groups online or at shops and conventions rather then just your basement group.

Can I make a 5.5e module to sell on DMsGuild and take the FR setting back 100 years and have orcs be the bad guys? I can make it and try to post it. It may or may not be sent back for whatever reason.

I think if people believed WOTC was doing it because the majority of people wanted it then they'd be more accepting. For example, if the local ice cream store added soft serve ice cream along withs scoop, the scoop lovers should realize that a lot of people like soft serve. Be thankful scoop is still here. That isn't what is happening. The ice cream store now serves crystalized cauliflower which few like and when we complain the store tells us to like it or go home and make our own ice cream. Which by the way I did. And it's more than just the ruined ice cream. I don't really like the people that own the ice cream store which now doesn't sell ice cream but instead crystalized cauliflower because they are overbearing in their views.

 

[stonehead]

Yes, but falsely. In direct contradiction to your point, I say that ONLY what people do in their individual games actually matters.

I think this is kind of ridiculous, and it puts publishers in a position where they are always entirely blameless. I mean, imagine a rulebook that was filled with <thing you personally hate>. The text describes it, the pictures in the margins depict it, and maybe it even spread to the cover art. Would "well why do you care? You can just run it differently at your table" sound like a reasonable defense then?

I'm not even in the pro-evil orcs camp. Warcraft has had heroic orcs for over two decades now, and no one makes a stink about that. I'm just against the argument that no one is allowed to complain about what gets published in official books.

Especially because in this specific case, it's something that they liked that changed. To further the music analogy, this isn't an example of an old person complaining about "kids these days" and their music. This would be an example of a diehard fan of a specific band complaining that they've sold out. Something you like changing into something you don't feels a lot different than something new coming out that you dislike.

 

[Reynard]

I think this is kind of ridiculous, and it puts publishers in a position where they are always entirely blameless. I mean, imagine a rulebook that was filled with <thing you personally hate>. The text describes it, the pictures in the margins depict it, and maybe it even spread to the cover art. Would "well why do you care? You can just run it differently at your table" sound like a reasonable defense then?

Or, you know, neither buy it nor play it.

 

[KYRON45]

The only constant is change my friends.

 

[Bohandas]

All of this makes me double-down on the view that every D&D world--whether published or homebrew--should have its own cosmology, its own mythology, and its own configuration of core tropes and ideas. This allows orcs and everything else to be contextual to the world itself, rather than there being one over-arching cosmology and D&D mythology that is the default assumption for every setting.

Yeah. And on that note, why do so many pieces of geeky media feel the need to tie everything together into a single mismatched setting that doesn't make sense? It's not just D&D, it's also the two big comicbook companies too.

 

[Desdichado]

Every time the "orc alignment" discussion reignites around here, I feel like it is important to remind people that what you do at your table -- especially in your home, with your friends you have playing with for 20+ years -- is up to you. The only thing that matters is the comfort and safety of the people at that table, and if you are open and honest every can have their trope cake and eat it too.

There's an obvious corollary to this, though... The farther that the game migrates from the tropes that we recognize and desire, the more justified we are in saying, screw it, I'm not a customer anymore.

Speaking of which, I'd love to see some good data on adoption rates of 5.5 vs 5e. I'm 100% sure that it's not available yet, even if WotC have some early read on it. But I'm really curious. Certainly from my own perspective, it seems that WotC and the Greater Seattle RPG industry in general has been catering to a smaller crowd than they used to, and another crowd that's more vocal every day is calling them out for being left behind. But loudness on the internet never was a good gauge of what people generally are actually doing, so who knows? Most likely, all of these controversies aren't even on the radar at all of most gamers.

Of course, there could be other reasons why gamers are delaying purchase or adoption of 5.5 vs 5e that aren't related to internet controversies too.

My point is that there is no moral imperative that WotC or anyone else can hand down upon you or your game. "Do what thou wilt, let it harm none" is a good credo to go with here. But also "judge not lest ye be judged." That is to say: let people enjoy their game the way they want to play it.

I think its curious that people post that phrase out of context. As if less than half a dozen verses later Jesus doesn't specifically instruct the listeners to that sermon exactly how to judge. Context matters. I absolutely WILL judge other peoples games, at the very least, I will judge whether or not I have any desire to play in such a game, or if I think their advice about gaming has any relevance to me or not.

Certainly publishers have to make decisions regarding sensitive topics, their audience, and the public at large. But as a group of people enjoying a past time, you don't need to immerse yourself in these debates.

Sensitive topics are sometimes two-edged swords. You pander to one side, you lose the other, and vice versa. Certainly publishers do have to make decisions about their audiences, but they can't complain when they do if part of their audience calls them out for freezing them out and leaving them behind.

 

[Emerikol]

Yeah. And on that note, why do so many pieces of geeky media feel the need to tie everything together into a single mismatched setting that doesn't make sense? It's not just D&D, it's also the two big comicbook companies too.

Amen to that! I wish Marvel and DC would listen to you. I don't mind an Avengers world or an X-Men world. Teams can be fun. But we don't need a world with every single hero ever in it.

 

[stonehead]

Or, you know, neither buy it nor play it.

Is there some reason why you can't do both? For sure you shouldn't buy a game you morally object to. Why can't you also say you're not happy about all the depictions of <that thing you hate> in the books? Don't get me wrong, it's good to remind people that they don't need to follow the books exactly, but I don't think we should use that argument to try to shut down discussion or complaints. And how far would this protection extend? Is the only rule that matters the ones that you use at your table? Are you not allowed to complain about an imbalanced class, or poorly implemented mechanic?

I would use a cookbook as an analogy, rather than music. Certainly, you know your tastes better than the authors do, and can modify the recipe as you see fit. If you like spicy chili, then add a few more peppers in than the recipe requires. If you can't handle spice, maybe don't use any at all. That's all good, and sometimes it is useful to remind people that they don't need to follow every line of the recipe.

But if a cookbook is published that calls for pineapples and ranch in the chili, you're allowed to complain about the recipe. The way you cook at home isn't "the only thing that matters". If a recipe is bad, then it's bad, and you're allowed to complain about it. I don't even think there's anything wrong with 2024 orcs, it's just the general argument that bothers me.

 

[Emerikol]

I think the changes to Orcs and Drow are just one of many examples that the folks at WOTC are out of touch with their players. Not every player but many of them. Was anyone going to quit D&D because Orcs were evil as they have been from day one?

 

[Theory of Games]

Is this still the "our Table" thread or has it been polymorphed (like so many others) into a "I hate WotC" thread?

It's like a few of us decide to discuss cupcakes and people arrive demanding to discuss how carrot cake is evil. OVER and OVER and OVER.

Is that disruptive?