• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Do you think we'll see revised core books in 2024? (And why I think we will)

Do you think we'll see revised core rulebooks in 2024? And if so, which option?


  • Total voters
    130
Status
Not open for further replies.

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
Haha. Or it might be wishful thinking, on your part. Hey, didn't we go back and forth about a hypothetical "5E" way back in 2010-11, iirc?
You might have me confused with someone else. This certainly isn't "wishful thinking".

You've made the call. Own it! When those new books come out, with their many changes, in 2024, we will all have been warned.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
Presumably that's because he wanted to give jobs to the people living in New Zealand!

Most, if not all, of the actors playing major roles were European, which makes sense considering that the venue of Middle-earth is basically "Mythic Europe." One could argue, though, that the people of Gondor should have been played by southern Europeans (Mediterranean).
Demographically, New Zealand has a predominantly white population. It is, in historical terms, a British settler colony, and at that level can be compared to Australia, Canada and the US.

The reason Maori were cast as Uruk-Hai is because Uruk-Hai are brown, not white. It's not mysterious, and frankly I'm baffled that you joke about this and note the contrast with the all-white heroes, while denying that there's anything racist in the pulp and fantasy heritage of tropes that D&D draws upon.
 

pemerton

Legend
What I find baffling and troublesome is how advocates of this perspective, by and large, don't really consider others, as if it is either/or.
As far as I can tell, the "other perspective" is the claim that there is no racial context/heritage to the tropes present in pulp or fantasy.

I've considered that claim. I just don't think it's true. JRRT didn't just wake up one day and imagine a whole race of baddies who are dark-skinned and fight with scimitars, and whose allies are "Easterlings" and "Southrons". He drew upon a repertoire of readily-available tropes and ideas.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Demographically, New Zealand has a predominantly white population. It is, in historical terms, a British settler colony, and at that level can be compared to Australia, Canada and the US.

The reason Maori were cast as Uruk-Hai is because Uruk-Hai are brown, not white. It's not mysterious, and frankly I'm baffled that you joke about this and note the contrast with the all-white heroes, while denying that there's anything racist in the pulp and fantasy heritage of tropes that D&D draws upon.
When did I joke? All I said is that Jackson hired people who lived in New Zealand, and Maoris better fit the mold of how Tolkien described Uruk-Hai. Nor did I deny that there's racism in fantasy tradition--there's racism throughout human history and tradition, and fantasy is no different. What I'm saying is that you and others are employing a very narrow, one-sided hermeneutic that only sees one thing and ignores everything else or, worse, sees everything as opposed to it. "If you're not with us, you're against us. You're one of them."

As for the heroes, again, they fit the context--that is, what Tolkien described. How would you have had Jackson cast the characters, especially given that he wanted to stay true to Tolkien's vision? If a film-maker was recreating an (insert non-European ethnicity) myth, would you take issue if they only cast people of that ethnicity?
As far as I can tell, the "other perspective" is the claim that there is no racial context/heritage to the tropes present in pulp or fantasy.

I've considered that claim. I just don't think it's true. JRRT didn't just wake up one day and imagine a whole race of baddies who are dark-skinned and fight with scimitars, and whose allies are "Easterlings" and "Southrons". He drew upon a repertoire of readily-available tropes and ideas.
Yeah, you're not really hearing what I'm saying. There are many perspectives. Unfortunately, most, I've found, fall into a duality: the one you advocate and is popular here ("A"), and the "other perspective" that you mention that others hold ("B"). I'm speaking from a different view from either ("C"), although see partial truths in both A and B. I'm trying (and evidently failing) to push the conversation to a more dialectical and multi-perspectival approach, one that considers A, B, C, and others. What I see, time and time again, is people not really willing to entertain anything outside of their own preferred interpretive framework; and those advocating the "other perspective" are generally not better (and in some ways, worse). Advocates of "A" see anything different as "B," and vice versa. I suppose the only real recourse for those of "C" and other perspectives is to opt out and wait until the dust settles between A and B, so as not to be continually misconstrued as one or the other.
 

teitan

Legend
I don't even see a 5.2, I see complete compatibility refresh with additional options and the optional rules from Tasha's implemented with the "standard" approach as examples of how to build a cultural heritage, keeping legacy races intact while giving a new option. I see new subclasses added with no major overhauls to existing subclasses except for tweaks here and there. Maybe another bonus popular race like Goblin, Orc or Firbolg added in. I see an expanded Monster Manual with some unpublished classic monsters added but with TOF and Volo's Guide remaining in print. Maybe monsters from adventures. I see expansions to the DMG being new magic items, chase rules, seafaring rules, & vehicle rules brought in. Mostly an art refresh with fancy covers. a 5.0125.
 

The thing that needs to be done, which would create something along the lines of compatability issues, is a review of the saving throw maths.

Of course, seeing as their data suggests people don't usually play high levels they may not bother.

(Although I personally have been in the situation as early as 9th level when I've just had to say to the party "don't count on me to do anything in this fight as I'm unlikely to past my save vs dragonfear" - I'm sure it was a highly overlevelled dragon but I dont think that really mitigates it).
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
There are many perspectives. Unfortunately, most, I've found, fall into a duality: the one you advocate and is popular here ("A"), and the "other perspective" that you mention that others hold ("B"). I'm speaking from a different view from either ("C"), although see partial truths in both A and B. I'm trying (and evidently failing) to push the conversation to a more dialectical and multi-perspectival approach, one that considers A, B, C, and others.
What is "perspective C"?
 

teitan

Legend
What is "perspective C"?
He explained it pretty clearly, that it is both can be true but partially true. Example, did Tolkien use the Mongolian hordes as the basis for the Orc hordes and their allies? Yes. Is it inherently racist? Not necessarily. Racist would be explicit denigration and suppression of Mongols based on their race. In replacing that idea with Orcs, the "archetype" of the Mongolian, Genghis Khan led hordes that ravaged Europe, becomes a fantasy story but not a story about Mongolians, but a story about Orcs in the same way that Dracula was inspired by Vlad Tepes, nothing about Dracula is really Vlad but by looking at it through a microscope you can very much see the common roots or inspirations. But Mongolians aren't corrupted elves warped by an evil god to serve him and his heirs as soldiers in a war.
 

imagineGod

Legend
Has anyone here watched a Chinese mythic movie or read mythical works from China translated into English?


The movies are sometimes show an overt Imperialist attitude. And almost all the cast are Asian. The enemies of the nascent Imperium are usually Asian too or more often monstrous humanoids.

There is also the divine mandate of heaven at play.

That goes back a long way into mythology.

Even myths on the South Americas before the European Colonizing missionaries destroyed many historic works narrate Imperial ambitions by natives in those lands.

A goog vs evil trope is often times presented with the evil usually monstrous.

To think that the tropes of white American designers of last century are somehow unique in painting heroes as human and enemies Monstrous is not to have read literature and mythology from across the world.

Even the Romani people, and not the fictional Vistani of Ravenloft, but real Romani people from Eastern European literature fall into tropes by native I authors from that region with high Romani populations.

To imply that Gary Gygax was somehow intellectually lazy or even mildly racist is dishonest when view from this century now instead of from the perspective of the lived Zeitgeist then.

Ironic how alignment of good vs evil is suddenly a thing, but not using those words, to describe bad-wrong-fun by modern writers. Because if there is no objective good nor evil, nothing can be wrong. Mythic stories of good and evil are simply other words for right and wrong that our societies still depend upon. Obviously, what is right and wrong changes over time and from culture to culture and geography to geography.

So thinking white authors of the 19th century are objectively wrong today, but Asian authors of that same period or earlier are ignored as ever being wrong, is dishonest. All global human mythology shares similar tropes.

And while some of us here try to showcase how good we are, we talk of diverse art without considering that a financial business that uses diverse art to enrich mostly white senior managers and shareholders is not any different from cultural appropriation and exploitation.

I will not mention names, but a publisher I know rather print the books abroad because it is cheaper than help provide work for locals. During the pandemic also sacked some workers. But gets praised for diversity, when most of the board is white and financial beneficiaries are white. This is not a white problem but a Capitalist one. In Japan, an expose showed many animators worked for poverty wages while the executives raked in profits for successfully Anime movies.

The D&D gold economy is powered by Capitalism too. That requires expensive loot to purchase. .Traditional roots of D&D tropes of Dungeons are for raiding out of sight. and Dragons as symbolic of treasure hoarders and the final boss fight.

You could argue adventurers should use their wealth to build schools for NPCs to lift them up in level and status like adventurers. Maybe a future D&D will do that. But like the " Ship of a Theseus" is it then still Dungeons and Dragons?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't think we will see a new half edition release or a minor change release, but I do think that we will see 50th anniversary special cover books for everything. If I'm wrong and they do release changed core books, it's going to be a 5.4 or 5.5. If they don't make significant changes, there won't be incentive enough to get a lot of players to buy the new books.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Part of what I mean is the implicit setting as laid out in the monster manual, which has all the well-know problems in the way they categorize humanoid groups ("savage," "feral," "bloodlust," etc). But patient zero for this kind of things is the Forgotten-f-ing-realms. There's not shortage of lore across several editions, along with an extensive novel series, and yet it continually defaults to one-dimensional, mono-chromatic fantasy tropes. Even the layout of the world is a lazy recreation of earth. As Gus L writes,
Before there was an Eberron, the Forgotten Realms had non-evil orcs who were not only accepted into human(and non-human) society by the thousands, but given positions of authority and respect. It's not nearly as one dimensional as you make it out to be.
 

pemerton

Legend
He explained it pretty clearly, that it is both can be true but partially true. Example, did Tolkien use the Mongolian hordes as the basis for the Orc hordes and their allies? Yes. Is it inherently racist? Not necessarily. Racist would be explicit denigration and suppression of Mongols based on their race. In replacing that idea with Orcs, the "archetype" of the Mongolian, Genghis Khan led hordes that ravaged Europe, becomes a fantasy story but not a story about Mongolians, but a story about Orcs
So "Perspective C" is an argument that racist tropes cease to be racist if we file off the serial numbers? If we keep the skin colour, eye shape and scimitars, but call them Orcs rather than Turks or Mongols, then we're no longer drawing on, and re-presenting, tropes of the "Asiatic" hordes threatening Europe?

(I would add: has anyone ever asserted that LotR is a story about Mongolians? I haven't, not in this thread or elsewhere; ultimately I would say it is a story about the Fall, although that's such a big topic that of course other themes get swept up and into it. What I have asserted is that when evil needs to be represented in the form of people, JRRT goes straight to a readily available set of tropes - and not serpents (he'd already done that one)!)

As I already posted, I have fully considered Perspective C well before @Mercurius posted it in this thread. And for the reasons I've already stated, in this post and in this thread, I don't agree with it. Apart from anything else, I think it's an incredibly shallow reading. (I mean, if it was true then - contrary to his evident intentions - JRRT would have completely failed to say anything about the English people in his account of Hobbits and their Shire.)
 

imagineGod

Legend
Whataboutism
Here is a low budget TV series that showcases a slice of young adult fiction about Afro-futurism. It is not Utopia. Changing who is in charge does not by itself change the problems with human power dynamics.

Noughts-Crosses.png


Let us consider Into The Mother Lands RPG that flours itself as Fred from Colonial attitudes. If we give the creators a pass, then it is no different from giving Gary Gygax a pass when viewed from the perspective on the 70s and 80s.

Because Into The Mother Lans will be a fun game to play. It will not be perfect. It will likely gloss over problematic things from African cultures and empires. Several African cultures like Indian cultures has the outcasts and untouchables for various reasons. Historical records show black-on-black slavery. Recent cases of abuse of house help trafficked from African nations into Europe and America are a thing that happens. An African CNN journalist did an expose.

If we are honest, and the world was different, a global African Empire would not have been Utopia. It simply would have been human with the same greed and tragedies.
 
Last edited:


pemerton

Legend
Has anyone here watched a Chinese mythic movie or read mythical works from China translated into English?
Yes.

In the Jet Li and Jackie Chan films that are set in a somewhat mythical, or at least romanticised, 19th or early 20th century China, when they want to depict colonists they just cast white people!

The movies are sometimes show an overt Imperialist attitude. And almost all the cast are Asian. The enemies of the nascent Imperium are usually Asian too or more often monstrous humanoids.

<snip>

A goog vs evil trope is often times presented with the evil usually monstrous.
And? The point being made about Orcs and their cousins is that when JRRT wanted to depict "the monstrous", the most monstrous things he could reach for drew on stereotyped tropes of "Eastern" hordes.

if there is no objective good nor evil, nothing can be wrong.
This is a highly contentious claim in the philosophy of value. Prominent philosophers who disagree with it include Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre. So it's not exactly a stable platform from which to launch an argument.
 

pemerton

Legend
Let us consider Into The Mother Lands RPG that flours itself as Fred from Colonial attitudes. If we give the creators a pass, then it is no different from giving Gary Gygax a pass when viewed from the perspective on the 70s and 80s.

Because Into The Mother Lans will be a fun game to play. It will not be perfect. It will likely gloss over problematic things from African cultures and empires. Several African cultures like Indian cultures has the outcasts and untouchables for various reasons. Historical records show black-on-black slavery. Recent cases of abuse of house help trafficked from African nations into Europe and America are a thing that happens. An African CNN journalist did an expose.

If we are honest, and the world was different, a global African Empire would not have been Utopia. It simply would have been human with the same greed and tragedies.
Suppose that some or all of this were true. What would it tell us, at all, about the racial aspects of the Orc et al tropes found in LotR and transmitted from there to D&D?
 

1E to 2E style change would be my prediction.

I guarantee though that if the change is anything short of 3E to 4E people will be downplaying it and saying it's just a half edition or whatever lol. If its 1E to 2E level at least one poster here will probably try to claim "the changes are smaller than 3E to 3.5E!". Mystic Meg has spoken!

Though to be honest I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference between say a 3E to PF type change (frequently called 3.75E) and 1E to 2E so some debate might be fair.

I do think backwards compatibility will be a major goal, particularly with DM-facing materials, as realistically in most groups most of the burden of buying stuff either ends up on or is channelled through the DM and no-one wants to lose all those cool adventures one had bought but not yet run. 1E to 2E was pretty good for this.
 

I don't even see a 5.2, I see complete compatibility refresh with additional options and the optional rules from Tasha's implemented with the "standard" approach as examples of how to build a cultural heritage, keeping legacy races intact while giving a new option. I see new subclasses added with no major overhauls to existing subclasses except for tweaks here and there. Maybe another bonus popular race like Goblin, Orc or Firbolg added in. I see an expanded Monster Manual with some unpublished classic monsters added but with TOF and Volo's Guide remaining in print. Maybe monsters from adventures. I see expansions to the DMG being new magic items, chase rules, seafaring rules, & vehicle rules brought in. Mostly an art refresh with fancy covers. a 5.0125.
You've literally described a change far larger than 3E to 3.5E and are calling it less than 5.2E lol. Amazing.
 

imagineGod

Legend
Yes.

In the Jet Li and Jackie Chan films that are set in a somewhat mythical, or at least romanticised, 19th or early 20th century China, when they want to depict colonists they just cast white people!


And? The point being made about Orcs and their cousins is that when JRRT wanted to depict "the monstrous", the most monstrous things he could reach for drew on stereotyped tropes of "Eastern" hordes.


This is a highly contentious claim in the philosophy of value. Prominent philosophers who disagree with it include Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre. So it's not exactly a stable platform from which to launch an argument.
Again you make the assumption, wrongly, because you do not know my lived experience or educational background. I have written a Master's thesis with Harvard referencing so understand the academic peer review process and research methods, including statistical analysis.

Hence quoting to correct sets up failure.

Good and evil are shorthand for frames of reference used across human traditions and cultures. You could consider it the most rudimentary set theory. Basically, evolutionary survival encoded into symbology.

We may ask why are diseases considered bad when they are useful natural parts of the ecosystem that serve a purpose?

From the human perspective, due to the negative effect of disease on human populations, disease is considered bad and this is seen globally across cultures and populations. Ancient gods linked to pestilence and plague are considered evil.

One of the challenges of the modern interconnected world is the loss of a common frame of reference, hence so many arguments online.

For example, if there is objective bad-wrong-fun, then all wil agree. Yet, all do not, so when one group tries to state it unequivocally, you get resistance.

We can look into some mythic traditions of the dead. In African culture, a connection to ancestors makes the spirits of the dead more like guardian angels of Western myths. Yet in Western based RPGs, ghosts are not do considered. However, fear of The Other is also common in African tribal folklore, for valid reason. The unknown stranger could be a plague bearer. Our current pandemic showcased how bringing the unknown home brought disease home.

Obviously, with modern science, we can re-evaluate ancient customs for the better. But this too is subjective. The early shelter at home orders for the pandemic were good for society but bad for individual households with infected members. This brings unto play that Ursula Le Guinn trope from The Left Hand of Darkness about socially approved sacrifice. Then you may ask why two tropes were linked negatively. Left hand and darkness Modern science tells us both left and right hands are equal. Ancient tropes are not perfect, the fear of darkness comes from ancient times when light was scarce at night and humans lacked night vision. Moving at night was risky, many predators hunted at night. It then became shorthand for evil.
 

pemerton

Legend
Again you make the assumption, wrongly, because you do not know my lived experience or educational background. I have written a Master's thesis with Harvard referencing so understand the academic peer review process and research methods, including statistical analysis.
I didn't make an assumption. I made an assertion, in response to yours.

Good and evil are shorthand for frames of reference used across human traditions and cultures.
This claim is extremely contentious. I've met many moral philosophers and don't think I've ever met one who adopted this view. Again, therefore, I don't think this is a very stable platform from which to launch an argument.

Ancient tropes are not perfect, the fear of darkness comes from ancient times when light was scarce at night and humans lacked night vision. Moving at night was risky, many predators hunted at night. It then became shorthand for evil.
And what does this tell us about the continued place of Orcs in D&D and similar FRPGing?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top