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

[TiQuinn]

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

Really.

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.

Then I go back to the argument that WotC is not making a product for the vanishingly small number of players who are seeking inspiration from a book from 1908 or the maybe ever so slightly larger group whose orcs are inspired directly from Beowulf. Again, these are players who have in all likelihood moved onto other games already if fidelity to the published rules and monster descriptions was that massive of an issue for them - which again leads me around to who is trying to influence who then?

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.

Perhaps despite whatever nuanced view one has, if they look around and see that the people nodding agreement with them are of a certain moral view, maybe it’s not the company that has a problem.

 

[Imaro]

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'....

When you've been constantly catered too for so long that you mistakenly view that as what is normal it's hard to accept that real inclusivity and diversity by necessity means you have to give some of that up so others can get their piece of the pie.

 

[mamba]

Except the term diversity has been weaponized. I take it to mean variety.

so do I, I'd say a book in which I like 70% of the art is more varied than one in which I like 10% or 100%, somehow they complained that there was art included they did not like (not that they liked none of it, just that they did not like as much as previously... too many smiling faces, gay dwarves baking cookies, etc.)

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

it will always be a process, and the last 10 years have not helped

 

[Zardnaar]

so do I, I'd say a book in which I like 70% of the art is more varied than one in which I like 10% or 100%, somehow they complained that there was art included they did not like (not that they liked none of it, just that they did not like as much as previously... too many smiling faces, gay dwarves baking cookies, etc.)


it will always be a process, and the last 10 years have not helped

Well a lot of it is self inflicted as well. If that loudest 10% is missing off the 90% well yeah.

Remember wasn't to long ago on ENworld the neo piritans declared all sorts of things in D&D is unacceptable. Darksun gets mentioned (would probably get called woke now).

Them BG3 cones out made by European company featuring material that would be at home in 3.0s book of vile darkness. Gets a billion on sales in about a month or so more money than 5E did in 10 years.

WotC can't capitalize on it because they're treating the customer base as infants who can't handle mature content. BG3 existence proves the neo puritans wrong.

So we have a bland and boring sanitized American D&D. May work out but I'm suspecting 5.5 don't reach 5.0s heights.

I'm not saying BG3 is the one true way forward but it exists alongside WotC comparative slop.

I'm saying give us faithful darksun, products like BG3, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, something for the kids and modern D&D products. Mix it up. The last 5.0 products basically sucked let's face it.

Could be wrong but we will see with 5.5's fate.

 

[The Sigil]

I am not going to apologize for the fact that my tastes in D&D art run about the same as my taste in music... as in, "I prefer the stuff that was in vogue when I was in my teenage years" - because most of us psychologically are in the same boat... for most of our lives, our preferred "stuff" will be what we happened to like when we became more or less self-actualized (usually during our teenage years). After all, that's why nostalgia works!

Find someone who tells you their favorite band is the Beatles... or the Rolling Stones... or Van Halen... or Nirvana... or N'Sync... or (insert band here) and I would give better than 50/50 odds I can guess their age to within 5 years. Music is more universal than games.

If you give my your favorite iteration of D&D, instead of guessing at your age, I would guess about the year you discovered the hobby (since your favorite is likely "the current version at the time you found the hobby"). I won't ALWAYS be right, but I'd wager I'm right more often than not.

Now, this doesn't mean I insist that "I will only play my favorite iteration of the game" or insist "my favorite iteration IS the best iteration" - I will simply insist "my favorite iteration is my favorite." (I know, I know, tautologies are tautologies.) This is not an objective fact; it is a subjective opinion!

Now of course, we'd ALL prefer the world revolved around us, so I don't take offense with someone saying, "I wish this game would utilize my preferred art style" (which is different than saying "this games sucks/I won't play it because it doesn't do so"). On the other hand, I'm also not really interested in what YOUR preferred art style is unless it's the same as mine (just like nobody else wants to hear about your favorite D&D character/band/MtG deck/sports team, they want to tell you about THEIR favorite D&D character/band/MtG deck/sports team).

So to me, I think complaining about an art style is kind of silly. I also think complaining about complaining about an art style is kind of silly. I'm gonna do me, and I'll play my game in a mishmash of editions AND art styles because it's what I like. And I expect your mishmash to be different than mine and as long as you're not trying to stop me from playing my game, I'm not going to stop you from playing yours.

My parents taught me, "try not to offend other people, and if you're 'other people' don't try to be offended." I think that's the best advice I can give here. I'm not offended by the OP, and I'm not offended by people who complain about art styles in books.

 

[The Sigil]

Them BG3 cones out made by European company featuring material that would be at home in 3.0s book of vile darkness. Gets a billion on sales in about a month or so more money than 5E did in 10 years.

True. It won't surprise many that know me that BG3 wasn't really my cup of tea (I don't usually care to run adult content in my games - probably because I'm still running games that often have teenagers whom I am not the parent of and I don't want to have conversations about that kind of stuff with their parents first, but I'm also not a big fan of the Forgotten Realms setting for a number of reasons). So I didn't buy BG3. But I also didn't COMPLAIN about BG3 (full disclosure: I did complain about the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness, and on this very forum - I guess I have mellowed since then). Those that like it can play it, and those that don't (like me) can save themselves some money.

So we have a bland and boring sanitized American D&D. May work out but I'm suspecting 5.5 don't reach 5.0s heights.

This is an interesting take. I think the Realms are bland and boring and sanitized, but not because it's neo-puritanical. It's more that it's become an "everything goes" setting and mixing all the flavors together makes for a very muddled, non-distinctive, "bland" flavor. But I also recognize that the Realms IS many peoples' cup of tea (after all, Forgotten Realms sourcebooks tend to be the best sellers among WotC's supported campaign settings). So I try not to complain about other peoples' fun, I just decline to join them because it's not fun for me.

I'm saying give us faithful darksun, products like BG3, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, something for the kids and modern D&D products. Mix it up. The last 5.0 products basically sucked let's face it.

Could be wrong but we will see with 5.5's fate.

Eh. Dark Sun wasn't my cup of tea, either. What you may think is exciting ("faithful darksun") some might just find "boring and overdone," and others might find appalling.

Of course, every setting probably has stuff in it people find appalling. Ravenloft? Racist! (Vistani) Mystara? Racist! (Orcs of Thar) Dark Sun? Evil! (Slavery, genocide, cruelty) Spelljammer? Racist! (Hadozee) Birthright? Classist!

... I could go on but you get the point. The parts of a setting that one person finds "spicy" and let you "sink your teeth" into a setting are exactly the same parts that the next guy finds bland or even offensive!

I would love to see WotC bring back MANY of their settings with faithful recreations... but the problem is, that because WotC is no longer made up of the same people that wrote the original settings, the things modern WotC writers find spicy or exciting are the things the original writers of the setting found bland or offensive... and vice versa. That doesn't mean either of those (current writers or former writers) is empirically "correct" in their assessment. It just means that every one of us has different things we like, and because the old writers have moved on, it will be almost impossible for the new writers to make "faithful recreations."

But is it just Dark Sun? I'd hope to see faithful recreations of settings I DON'T like... since it would give me hope I might also see faithful recreations of settings I DO like! But I'm not going to think WotC should cater to my tastes.

 

[Incenjucar]

I am much more inclined to think that WotC's D&D folks just don't share, understand, or prioritize the perspectives of the fans who find things like the gnome cartoon to be a personal dig. Professionals who dwell on grudges against their audience tend to burn out very publicly fairly quickly after saying something regrettable on social media.

 

[Hussar]

Here’s the trick though. No one says Ravenloft is racist. They say that the depiction of Vistani was racist and should be changed.

Then you have people losing their poop because they suddenly equate changing the Vistani with calling them racist. Same with virtually all this stuff. People equate changes in the presentation of the game as some sort of personal attack.

Which then turns the discussion toxic because you can no longer say, “Hey this depiction is kinda icky” without people crying that they are being made to feel unwelcome in the hobby.

 

[dragoner]

In general, not just D&D, people are loathe to get rid of things they have become accustomed to. I bought the new PHB, it is a nice book, though other than maybe page flipping for character generation it doesn't have anything wrong with it. For me, do I pick it over Holmes that I started with? I don't know, I might play a game, though the basic is easier. I could totally see someone interested in it, really digging into it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

People not taking a stand is why the world is where it is today.