D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[TiQuinn]

I think it's true that market forces are play an important role here. I don't think it's true that they are the only deciding factor. That is, I see statements from people who make decisions at WotC that are not simply "this is where the market is", but imply a kind of moral valence or necessity to the actions they're taking. I don't think that is just marketing.

A hypothesis: if the designers said "we are making change X to meet market demand" rather than "we feel this change is morally correct" they would get less pushback.

So you feel the issue has little to do with storybased gaming vs site-based dungeon crawling, or perceived deadliness of the game or the traditional arguments for why grognards don’t like the direction WotC has taken D&D - instead it’s the moral stance they’ve taken and changes in the rules that reflect it?

Several thoughts here. First, I think the OSR is a complex community that has more extreme views in many directions than WotC. It's not a haven but it does have more of what people want.

Which people precisely?

Second, I think the importance of WotC support is hard to deny. It is not just first among equals--it exercises an outsize influence in the space.

Again, what influence? The OSR community was built as a counter action to the direction WotC took the rules when the game became more of a focus on heroic PCs and tactical rules.

This seems more like the reverse: This is not about WotC influencing the industry, it’s about certain grognards wanting to influence WotC - not that these grognards have no place to go or system to turn to.

 

[The Firebird]

So you feel the issue has little to do with storybased gaming vs site-based dungeon crawling, or perceived deadliness of the game or the traditional arguments for why grognards don’t like the direction WotC has taken D&D - instead it’s the moral stance they’ve taken and changes in the rules that reflect it?

I think that's part of it. I was thinking of the orc changes when I wrote that. I didn't think it would be worthwhile to open that line of discussion but I hope that gives you the context.

Which people precisely?

I mean people who feel left out or disparaged by WotC.

Again, what influence? The OSR community was built as a counter action to the direction WotC took the rules when the game became more of a focus on heroic PCs and tactical rules.

This seems more like the reverse: This is not about WotC influencing the industry, it’s about certain grognards wanting to influence WotC - not that these grognards have no place to go or system to turn to.

What influence does WotC have? I'm not sure where the confusion lies. It is hard for someone to avoid playing WotC products unless they have a dedicated, long time group.

 

[Hussar]

I'm still utterly baffled why "this change is being done because it's morally correct" is a problem.

And, just to add, I would point out that "this change is being done because it's morally correct" has apparently been welcomed with pretty open arms considering that for the first time in D&D's history, we're seeing massive growth in markets - women, minorities - that had never been seen in the hobby before.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think that's part of it. I was thinking of the orc changes when I wrote that. I didn't think it would be worthwhile to open that line of discussion but I hope that gives you the context.

I mean people who feel left out or disparaged by WotC.

Disparaged because WotC is trying to be inclusive, unless one has a particular moral stance that is counter to that?

What influence does WotC have? I'm not sure where the confusion lies. It is hard for someone to avoid playing WotC products unless they have a dedicated, long time group.

Well, you see - you pivoted from grognard to people of a certain moral view who disagree with WotC’s current position. My point is for grognards. Of course, sadly, there are games out there that cater to gamers of certain moral views as well.

 

[The Firebird]

I'm still utterly baffled why "this change is being done because it's morally correct" is a problem.

You don't see why a company taking a strong stance about a controversial issue could make people feel like they are not welcome?

And, just to add, I would point out that "this change is being done because it's morally correct" has apparently been welcomed with pretty open arms considering that for the first time in D&D's history, we're seeing massive growth in markets - women, minorities - that had never been seen in the hobby before.

I think one of the best things about 5e is the growth its caused in the hobby. That's a great thing and there are benefits across the RPG industry because of it. It's worth reflecting on why it was effective in that regard.

To bring it back to a point I made earlier, I don't think there had to be explicit statements like "women not welcome" in 3 or 4e for it to be a not particularly welcoming environment relative to 5e. The art, for example, played a significant factor.

I think it is worth reflecting on why some long time fans feel unwelcome in the current era. Is it just that they like silly, outdated mechanics? Is it just that they are bitter and have certain moral views? I think that's a tempting thought, because it absolves us of any further response. But that makes it dangerous because it makes easy to dismiss reasonable concerns, and easy to stop empathizing with people who feel left out.

 

[Zardnaar]

You don't see why a company taking a strong stance about a controversial issue could make people feel like they are not welcome?

I think one of the best things about 5e is the growth its caused in the hobby. That's a great thing and there are benefits across the RPG industry because of it. It's worth reflecting on why it was effective in that regard.

To bring it back to a point I made earlier, I don't think there had to be explicit statements like "women not welcome" in 3 or 4e for it to be a not particularly welcoming environment relative to 5e. The art, for example, played a significant factor.

I think it is worth reflecting on why some long time fans feel unwelcome in the current era. Is it just that they like silly, outdated mechanics? Is it just that they are bitter and have certain moral views? I think that's a tempting thought, because it absolves us of any further response. But that makes it dangerous because it makes easy to dismiss reasonable concerns, and easy to stop empathizing with people who feel left out.

It's probably because if you take a side on any hot button isdue you instantly alienate 40% of the population. Doesn't matter what the issue is.

The louder vices online usually represent 10% or less of the population. Catering to then is fine if they're your core demographic. T
In very broad terms 1/3rd swing one way, 1/3rdswing another 1/3rd are in tbe middle/indifferent.

That patterns true in in USA, UK, mostly here (40/40/20), not sure say rest of Anglosphere or Europe.

Cancel culture swings both ways as well and outrage marketing only goes so far. Most people fall in one of those 3 factions the louder ones even smaller number.

But they all think they're correct. My country is 5 million people. About 8 billion people disagree with us on some level.

And of course internet, negativity, bull horn.

This applies across multiple product lines espicially pop culture stuff.

 

[The Firebird]

Disparaged because WotC is trying to be inclusive, unless one has a particular moral stance that is counter to that?

No doubt there are some people out there who are upset at any attempt at inclusivity. I'm not defending that viewpoint.

I don't want to assert that the orc changes are wrong. I think that's a high bar to clear and I'm not sure I agree. But I do want to assert that there are good faith reasons why someone might not like them. The traditional orc has a long history in literature. It ties back to demons (the origin of the word in Beowulf), to the swine things of the The House on the Borderland, to Tolkien, to classic mods.

When we say "this is necessary for inclusivity", it implies that the old depictions are flawed, that they are immoral, that someone who favors them is necessarily opposed to inclusivity. And I think those kind of statements can make people who like the older literary depictions feel they're being told their fun is bad, their interests are bad, and they must change.

I think that is a very black and white depiction. But as I mentioned in earlier posts, I think there is a temptation to present these things as black and white so that people with the wrong views can be made unwelcome without much more thought. And I don't think it wrestles with how this comes across to folks who have a bit more nuance in their opinions.

 

[mamba]

I think it is worth reflecting on why some long time fans feel unwelcome in the current era. Is it just that they like silly, outdated mechanics? Is it just that they are bitter and have certain moral views?

given what they often complain about loudly, it appears to in fact be their views. If you are opposed to inclusivity and that is why you object to 5e or 2024, then good riddance, we tolerated stuff like that for far too long already.

I will always remember a YT channel called Diversity & Dragons complaining about the art in the new books not catering enough of their grognard views, guess some people just do not understand the word 'diversity'....

 

[Zardnaar]

given what they often complain about loudly, it appears to in fact be their views. If you are opposed to inclusivity and that is why you object to 5e or 2024, then good riddance, we tolerated stuff like that for far too long already.

I will always remember a YT channel called Dungeons & Diversity complaining about the art in the new books not catering enough of their grognard views, guess some people just do not understand the word 'diversity'....

Except the term diversity has been weaponized. I take it to mean variety. That means some products you might not like get made.

I'm not saying they cater to grogs but more like movies. Some are G others PG, other R18 etc.

What American companies screw up is they're really bad at it. Comes across to me fake and hamfisted ymmv.

My countries about 30 years ahead we did it in90s except more organically. It's an ongoing process.

 

[billd91]

When we say "this is necessary for inclusivity", it implies that the old depictions are flawed, that they are immoral, that someone who favors them is necessarily opposed to inclusivity. And I think those kind of statements can make people who like the older literary depictions feel they're being told their fun is bad, their interests are bad, and they must change.

I think that is a very black and white depiction. But as I mentioned in earlier posts, I think there is a temptation to present these things as black and white so that people with the wrong views can be made unwelcome without much more thought. And I don't think it wrestles with how this comes across to folks who have a bit more nuance in their opinions.

But it pretty much IS necessary or is at least highly supportive for inclusivity. SOMETHING has to give. I like the older, classic use of humanoids, but I recognize MY ATTACHMENT to that as a part of the game HAS TO GIVE WAY for the good of the game. That’s the adult thing to do here. I can still lament it a bit, but I’m not going to stamp about the place because I know why they’re doing it and accept that the game has a better market for it.