D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Minigiant]

Ok.

If by "target demographic" you mean, well, everyone, then, sure, it's sanitization.

Not quite sure why that seems to be a negative thing then.

It's seen as negative because some fans don't want to share. Not equally or not in their favor anyway.

Basically more people have entered the fandom and now 90% of it isn't targetted to the longest fans anymore.

It's been happening in so many long time fandoms right now as POC, women, internationals, and younger fans have entered fandoms.: sports, movies, minis, big IPs, etc. And old executives. are moving and retiring, leaving their replacements to boost profits to please shareholders..

 

[Retreater]

But what did a lot of people focus on? The fact that it included some safety tools (and that one image had a character in a wheelchair).

One thing I specifically disliked was the player-facing options to play undead PCs, like it's a goal of gaining cool powers. I think this kills the feel of the horror of the setting, just to be a "half vampire."

 

[Scribe]

One thing I specifically disliked was the player-facing options to play undead PCs, like it's a goal of gaining cool powers. I think this kills the feel of the horror of the setting, just to be a "half vampire."

My reaction to the Reborn wasnt horror it was 'oh cool, is this how you could play The Nameless One?'

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

One thing I specifically disliked was the player-facing options to play undead PCs, like it's a goal of gaining cool powers. I think this kills the feel of the horror of the setting, just to be a "half vampire."

Everyone wants to play Blade or Frankenstein's Monster that then goes on to kill Dracula/Dr. Frankenstein. Having an option for players to play those archetypes is a good thing, IMO, even if I would never play one of them.

 

[Greg Benage]

Pulling out the grossly misogynistic, racist, bigoted elements that filled the genre for the better part of the 20th century is sanitization? I guess?

I’m gonna switch sides again right quick. You can enjoy settings where things such as racism, misogyny and bigotry exist (and slavery, genocide, incest, etc., just to hit some of the GRRM highlights) without being a misogynist, racist or bigot. You can also not be a fan of settings that have been sanitized of all such human failings without being a Deplorable.

I don’t know if I’d call it “Disneyfication” but the Forgotten Realms is increasingly coming to resemble the campus of Vassar College. For my part, it’s great if all kinds of people are represented…but if you only include the human diversity you find worthy of celebration and remove the baser, uglier human failings, yeah, you’ve got a sanitized setting that will turn some people off. And it’s not just white, middle-aged nerds — Westeros seemed to attract a rather diverse audience.

 

[Hussar]

I have zero issues with Conan. It seems others do.

So, not everyone, I suppose.

Again, if your definition of sanitization is "Make this appealing to as many people as possible without insulting or denigrating anyone", and you're finding yourself not right behind that? Well, given the choice between sanitization and the alternative? Yeah, I know which one I'd choose.

 

[Scribe]

Again, if your definition of sanitization is "Make this appealing to as many people as possible without insulting or denigrating anyone", and you're finding yourself not right behind that? Well, given the choice between sanitization and the alternative? Yeah, I know which one I'd choose.

Yes well, thats pretty much explicitly my point.

I dont have a problem with Conan. It seems that 'modern sensibilities' would indicate that I should. Wizards targeting a demographic which finds Conan problematic, is or has or will continue, to sanitize their product to not offend and appeal to that target demographic.

Which is 100% fine, and is simply what several folks here have stated.

"Yes, Wizards is sanitizing their products for their target demographic."

Which wouldnt seem to be the same target demographic, as DCC has.

So yes, D&D is aiming their product at someone else, which is fine. Still nothing wrong with Conan.

EDIT: And the funny part is, there is a Sword and Sorcery component in the Ravenloft book, as a type of Horror right?

So why didnt Wizards lean into that, show some art in the style associated, really market that as an option. Heck, its in the DM guide too right?

Because its not sanitary.

 

[Medic]

I’m gonna switch sides again right quick. You can enjoy settings where things such as racism, misogyny and bigotry exist (and slavery, genocide, incest, etc., just to hit some of the GRRM highlights) without being a misogynist, racist or bigot. You can also not be a fan of settings that have been sanitized of all such human failings without being a Deplorable.

I don’t know if I’d call it “Disneyfication” but the Forgotten Realms is increasingly coming to resemble the campus of Vassar College. For my part, it’s great if all kinds of people are represented…but if you only include the human diversity you find worthy of celebration and remove the baser, uglier human failings, yeah, you’ve got a sanitized setting that will turn some people off. And it’s not just white, middle-aged nerds — Westeros seemed to attract a rather diverse audience.

Correct. I come from a marginalized background and have been discriminated against my entire life, but a character that I play in an ongoing game unashamedly expressed that he was grateful that a neighboring nation extinguished an entire ethnic group that he felt did him wrong. He's also seized victory from the jaws of defeat several times and defended the rest of the party with his life. They aren't really sure what to make of him.

One thing I specifically disliked was the player-facing options to play undead PCs, like it's a goal of gaining cool powers. I think this kills the feel of the horror of the setting, just to be a "half vampire."

I acknowledge that this is anecdotal and likely does not reflect the experience most have, but I've used the Reborn template for an evil character once and felt that it meshed splendidly.

 

[MGibster]

I’m gonna switch sides again right quick. You can enjoy settings where things such as racism, misogyny and bigotry exist (and slavery, genocide, incest, etc., just to hit some of the GRRM highlights) without being a misogynist, racist or bigot. You can also not be a fan of settings that have been sanitized of all such human failings without being a Deplorable.

I feel as though when you remove the negativity from a setting you end up with something that more closely resembles a theme park rather than a living breathing world. But you know what? I've been to both Disneyland and Disney World and I had a great time at both places so I certainly see the appeal. I find it rather odd that I consider D&D 5e to be the best incarnation of the game while simultaneously not enjoying the game nearly as much as I used to. In large part I think it's because I'm not the same person I was thirty years ago, but then who is, right? WotC is making a good game and I'm happy so many people are enjoying it. But none of the settings are really all that interesting to me. They just don't grab me.

 

[Greg Benage]

I've been to both Disneyland and Disney World and I had a great time at both places so I certainly see the appeal.

Yeah, to be honest, about 75% of the time I'm playing D&D beer-and-pretzels style and the "sanitized" setting is perfectly fine for our lighthearted antics. But every once in a while, I want to cleanse the palate with some Midnight.

However, I also recognize there are people who don't like the sanitized style at all, and I'm not going to claim they're History's Greatest Monsters for having that preference.