D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

Medic

Neutral Evil
No. I don't think that WotC would ever give the option of buying slaves in a modern D&D 5e book. I don't think that WotC would do anything that would even appear to be endorsing the idea of the characters buying and owning slaves.

But I don't really think that qualifies as "sanitizing" the hobby. And if it does, it really isn't something worth complaining about. I'd be more concerned with the people complaining about the removal of rules for buying slaves than I would be with the removal of them in the first place.
I am not complaining. They are altering something for the purpose of making it more palatable. That is sanitizing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Why wouldnt they? Why is it even controversial?
You seriously can't see why having sexualized D&D art like that would be controversial? Why it wouldn't fit in with the rest of D&D 5e's art? The closest things to that in 5e are the Succubus and Harpy art, and those are for monsters that have an excuse for dressing like that. Just randomly having scantily clad male and female adventurers in 5e art would be unnecessary and undeniably turn away parents that might want to buy a D&D 5e product for one of their children.

If that counts as "sanitizing" the game, then the term has no real meaning and is not at all a valid complaint. I'm sorry if you really, really want D&D 5e art to look like a bad 80's porno cover, but that's just not going to happen. It's not because D&D is being aimed at kids now, but that they want to open it up so kids can play it without their parents getting concerned about that sort of thing. That would be like complaining that MCU movies don't have nudity and the Boys-style gore in them. It's just not necessary to get their stories across and actively turns away potential customers. If good marketing counts as "sanitizing," then the term has no meaning.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I am not complaining. They are altering something for the purpose of making it more palatable. That is sanitizing.
If the thing wasn't palatable in the first place (giving options for characters to buy slaves in a game that primarily focuses on heroic fantasy), then it's worth removing. And, again, if that counts as sanitizing, that removes the ability for the term to be used in a useful way.
 

That's as likely as a Disco subclass for Bards...
No. Playstyle as you said can be done at the table level. What I said was market a book for sword and sorcery, with art and style that evokes that past era, with full youtube, twitter, and website support about how great it is, to go out and be a reaver.

LOL with no desire to offend anyone here, I had to go look and pass over several examples.

Conan_The-Barbarian.jpg


We both know they wont. ;)
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Everything requires DM approval, but you are technically correct. But I'm pretty sure @Scribe wasn't specifically asking for evil options that don't require DM approval. They still work as character options and are more evil-themed than any other official subclass in the game.
I think that while you are technically correct that everything requires DM approval, unless the DM says during session 0 or before that elves and clerics are not options, a player can choose an elven cleric without asking the DM for permission. It's assumed that the default races and classes/subclasses are available for selection.

This conversation had me wondering about the background charts in Xanathar's. I note that the birthplace has on it brothel, sewer, prison or secret organization, shadowfell and outer plane of your choice as birth locations. I would consider those to be dark. There are also a few background options on those charts that are dark or at least bad for the PC and could be used as a reason a PC went dark. And the events that can happen to you include tragedies and possible slavery. Even though the are charts to roll on, you are explicitly told as a player that you can just choose the option you want.

That said, there was still more of this sort of things in the products of prior editions, increasing in amount the farther back you go.
 


Scribe

Legend
You seriously can't see why having sexualized D&D art like that would be controversial?

Is this a problem too?

dcbd77bf4d8b7c6ac945dca9107d4d40.png

Just randomly having scantily clad male and female adventurers in 5e art would be unnecessary and undeniably turn away parents that might want to buy a D&D 5e product for one of their children.

So, sanitizing, to maximize sales.

What my impression is from most of this thread is that when most people are complaining about sanitizing, they're complaining about the art styles of books like the Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Journeys Beyond the Radiant Citadel. There were a ton of comments early on saying exactly that.

Right, because as you said, no way we get Conan anymore, we need to sanitize, for Sales.
 

Hussar

Legend
I commented earlier that I thought sanitizing was a rather loaded way of describing making the game more welcoming to people other than adolescent (either by age or maturity) white males. Pulling out the grossly misogynistic, racist, bigoted elements that filled the genre for the better part of the 20th century is sanitization? I guess?

If that's the definition of sanitization that we're going with here, then I, for one, 100% support it and I think that anyone who thinks that we should go back to the days when POC and women were unwelcome in the genre and the hobby should show themselves out the door. I would much rather have a sanitized game that included them in the hobby than an unsanitized hobby that panders to those that want to roll the clock back.

AFAIC, those people are not welcome in my hobby. Anyone who thinks that their fun should come at the expense of anyone else is not welcome. If the only way to enjoy the hobby is to use imagery or concepts that are grounded in bigotry, racism and misogyny, then, well, there's the door.

It's really that simple.
 

Scribe

Legend
I commented earlier that I thought sanitizing was a rather loaded way of describing making the game more welcoming to people other than adolescent (either by age or maturity) white males. Pulling out the grossly misogynistic, racist, bigoted elements that filled the genre for the better part of the 20th century is sanitization? I guess?

If that's the definition of sanitization that we're going with here, then I, for one, 100% support it and I think that anyone who thinks that we should go back to the days when POC and women were unwelcome in the genre and the hobby should show themselves out the door. I would much rather have a sanitized game that included them in the hobby than an unsanitized hobby that panders to those that want to roll the clock back.

AFAIC, those people are not welcome in my hobby. Anyone who thinks that their fun should come at the expense of anyone else is not welcome. If the only way to enjoy the hobby is to use imagery or concepts that are grounded in bigotry, racism and misogyny, then, well, there's the door.

It's really that simple.
I mean, to ME, thats 100% what 'sanitization' would mean in this case. I'm baffled as to what else it would be.

Cleaning up, the things which wizards no longer thinks are palatable to the target demographic. - Sanitization.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top