D&D General D&D: Literally Don't Understand This

[Mistwell]

NOW it makes sense! Thank you. I suppose next we’ll see “Drizzit D’Uarden has great jeans.”

 

[Angus MacDeth]

What I literally don't understand is how anyone can interpret someone saying "I'm not a fan of high-heeled shoes or other modern clothing in D&D art" as somehow engaging in ethnic gatekeeping. Or how one could possibly make the leap from "you don't like modern eyewear in D&D art" to "you're clearly intolerant toward women, people of color, and LGBTQ folks (as well as people who wear glasses) and obviously wouldn't welcome them at your table."

Here are two facts...

1. I personally don't care for the inclusion of modern clothing, hairstyles, or food in D&D art.
2. For the last eleven years, my regular gaming group of five has included a person of color (she's Afro-Scandinavian, to be precise) and a non-binary person.

How can both of these things be true? Because the one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Bonus fact: All of us wear glasses!

 

[Umbran]

It's another to claim that stuff is D&D in the totally not a new edition.

Wow. This thread is not about arguing over what constitutes an edition.

One person thinks it is about... hotplates? I don't recall Taylor Swift mentioning hotplates, but fine. I can see that as more relevant to this discussion than edition nomenclature.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People in this thread have called for shame on the WotC posse for including art with eyeglass wearers.

It's quite clear I'm not welcome at their able and mocking my feeling that way isn't welcoming either.

I'm very sorry discourse in this thread has led you to feel this way (that must be very unpleasant), but I feel this is an overreaction. People just have preferences. That doesn't mean they're necessarily going to be intolerant of yours because they differ from theirs. People play characters in my games I wouldn't play in a million years, but I certainly don't shame them for doing so.

 

[Scribe]

This thread is not about arguing over what constitutes an edition.

Agreed, and since 5.5 is totally just 5e, per Wizards, then no, Avatar and all that are not foundational to modern D&D.

 

[Cadence]

I still don't like rapiers, but it's mostly for mechanical reasons.

It feels like Princess Bride would make my inspirational list. Maybe not for tons of actual mechanics, but I think I'd have to keep the rapier just for that, if nothing else.

 

[Remathilis]

People in this thread have called for shame on the WotC posse for including art with eyeglass wearers.

It's quite clear I'm not welcome at their able and mocking my feeling that way isn't welcoming either.

This is basically the whole "adventurer wheelchair" scenario, just with a different medical device. People act like people with disabilities laid in bed dying until the 20th century...

 

[Micah Sweet]

It feels like Princess Bride would make my inspirational list. Maybe not for tons of actual mechanics, but I think I'd have to keep the rapier just for that, if nothing else.

I just don't care for the fact that mechanically the rapier was so obviously the best choice for certain pretty common builds that they seemed to be everywhere.

 

[Umbran]

closer to the first than the second. When this came out I simply ignored it. I also did not start the topic, but since it is going on already I see nothing wrong with posting in it.

Your post happens within a context. That context currently includes a swath of vocal folks right now telling people to "Embrace tradition. Reject modernity".

Which is really freakin' ironic. If Gygax, Arneson, and friends had followed that advice, we'd be going out bowling, not playing D&D. The game would not exist if they were content with tradition.

A healthy community will include some experiments you don't care for. That should be okay.

If it is okay with you, as noted, there's no need to defend or justify yourself.

 

[Umbran]

This is basically the whole "adventurer wheelchair" scenario, just with a different medical device. People act like people with disabilities laid in bed dying until the 20th century...

Especially when the first eyeglasses came around in the late 13th century (so, 1268-1330, in Italy, to be more precise) - they predate plate armor!