D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[Sacrosanct]

Over just the past week or so, we've seen threads about how WoTC is rethinking alignment, shelving Oriental Adventures, etc. With everything going on in society in general, it makes complete sense that companies are also evaluating how they approached certain related topics in the past.

Several folks are happy. Some are upset. Some are relieved, while others disappointed. But here's the thing: we always have a choice. We always have. Ideals, assumptions, stereotypes, cultural sensitivity, progression, regression, they all happen in an ever changing environment. The game doesn't remain static like Uno. It changes not only mechanically, but philosophically with each revision.

And we as consumers have the choice to play it or not. This is not a new thing. We all still have our favorite editions, and no one has come, or will come, to take those away. When WotC took over, I wasn't a big fan, and didn't play 3e all that much. When 4e came out, I really didn't like the direction they went and still played AD&D. When 5e came out, I was brought back in. We can talk about it on forums, and voice our opinion at WoTC, but ultimately the only power we have is to choose to play or not, and choose to play the way we want or not. Trying to force others to play how we want is when it becomes problematic, especially when those changes are to bring in other types of players. AFAIC, I got my game, and if some things change about it that I might not be a fan of, I still have my game, so why not let others have theirs too?

So if WoTC refines alignment, gets rid of making all orcs evil, shelves OA, removes references to gypsies, and hires cultural writers, you can either keep playing the game how you want to play it, or don't and stick to whatever you game you do want. The times are a changing. No one is forcing anyone to stay on the train if you don't want. And even if you get off, you can always get back on. Trust me, that's what I did, and it's entirely possible. But all this arguing back and forth about how YOU ARE WRONG with a half dozen threads about the same topic isn't all that productive.

 

[Mercurius]

Deja vu.

But yeah, an obvious truth(s) that should be frequently repeated.

Let us hope that WotC takes a Big Tent approach and provides published material for a wide range of options.

 

[Helldritch]

It is a fast going train that we're seeing. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

 

[Oofta]

Well, all I can say is that YOU ARE WRONG.

Okay, kidding aside I only have an issue with people that make assertions of how I must run my game, claim that certain things are self evident, or that there is or needs to be one way to play.

Things will continue to evolve and change. How much impact that will have in my home campaign remains to be seen. I only hope that we still have room in the big tent to satisfy both those people who want to drinking the metaphorical beer while eating popcorn and playing a game about killing monsters to those who want to have deep philosophical debates about the morality and meaning of good and evil.

People play for different reasons and with different styles.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, all I can say is that YOU ARE WRONG.

Okay, kidding aside I only have an issue with people that make assertions of how I must run my game, claim that certain things are self evident, or that there is or needs to be one way to play.

Things will continue to evolve and change. How much impact that will have in my home campaign remains to be seen. I only hope that we still have room in the big tent to satisfy both those people who want to drinking the metaphorical beer while eating popcorn and playing a game about killing monsters to those who want to have deep philosophical debates about the morality and meaning of good and evil.

People play for different reasons and with different styles.

For example, the talk around alignment. By removing "all orcs are evil" from the core rule, it allows people who prefer the moral philosophical discussions, or a game world that is much more grey, to have that. Me personally? I prefer my games to be simpler, with far fewer moral ambiguity scenarios, because to me it's a game. Not a model of real life. Because it's a game I have that luxury. Sith are the bad guys, etc. But the important thing is that by WoTC making that change, it doesn't force me to also make the change. I can play how I've always played. It's my choice I still have. And other people can get the progress they prefer as well.

 

[Oofta]

For example, the talk around alignment. By removing "all orcs are evil" from the core rule, it allows people who prefer the moral philosophical discussions, or a game world that is much more grey, to have that. Me personally? I prefer my games to be simpler, with far fewer moral ambiguity scenarios, because to me it's a game. Not a model of real life. Because it's a game I have that luxury. Sith are the bad guys, etc. But the important thing is that by WoTC making that change, it doesn't force me to also make the change. I can play how I've always played. It's my choice I still have. And other people can get the progress they prefer as well.

Fair enough. I just think the game just loses something if everything becomes a "make all of your own rules" instead of emphasizing that the entries in the MM are just suggestions (along with some other changes that have been beaten to death in other threads).

But despite all the activity here and there I don't expect truly significant change for some time to come, more clarification and public campaign setting specific changes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just think the game just loses something if everything becomes a "make all of your own rules" instead of emphasizing that the entries in the MM are just suggestions (along with some other changes that have been beaten to death in other threads).

I get that this is hyperbole, but I've got to say, I think hyperbole is a big part of why these conversations go off the rails, so maybe we can like, stop using hyperbole for a week or something?

Obviously, making a creature not have a fixed alignment isn't remotely comparable to "make all of your own rules", so like, let's just not go there, eh?

I think one major elephant in the room, which you have actually acknowledged is this fear that, if you choose to run things in some sort of old-skool way, you'll be seen as a racist or whatever. Well, here's the shocking truth - society is changing, and it doesn't really matter what WotC does. Even if WotC didn't change, if people start feeling like the "default" Orc presentation is racist, well, that's how people feel. The only difference is, either you and WotC get seen as racists, or just you do. Obviously from WotC's perspective, they'd prefer not to be in that club. But them keeping elements that society starts to see as racist or sexist or whatever is not going to magically make people not see you as racist, if they see those things as racist.

Do you see what I'm saying? WotC doing nothing, or changing nothing will not prevent societal change. It will not prevent new players going "Orcs sure sound like something my racist uncle would be on about..." or "Wow, really blackface elves?" about the Drow. Sorry. Maybe society won't change that much (doubt it though, especially as people who play RPGs have long tended to be people who are more sensitive to this kind of thing, and still to some extent are).

This is why I think all these "But let's get them to try NOT to change Orcs!" comments and so on are deeply misguided. It's like, yeah, they could do that, but all that's going to happen is people going to think WotC are kinda racist. Because they need actual change to make stuff convincing.

Will people grouse? Of course they will. We're grognards for grog's sake. We'll grouse about anything. But as @Sacrosanct says, you can get off the train. 5E is already an extremely functional game and will remain so. Getting off it won't stop the rest of society from changing, though.

 

[Oofta]

I get that this is hyperbole, but I've got to say, I think hyperbole is a big part of why these conversations go off the rails, so maybe we can like, stop using hyperbole for a week or something?

Obviously, making a creature not have a fixed alignment isn't remotely comparable to "make all of your own rules", so like, let's just not go there, eh?

I think one major elephant in the room, which you have actually acknowledged is this fear that, if you choose to run things in some sort of old-skool way, you'll be seen as a racist or whatever. Well, here's the shocking truth - society is changing, and it doesn't really matter what WotC does. Even if WotC didn't change, if people start feeling like the "default" Orc presentation is racist, well, that's how people feel. The only difference is, either you and WotC get seen as racists, or just you do. Obviously from WotC's perspective, they'd prefer not to be in that club. But them keeping elements that society starts to see as racist or sexist or whatever is not going to magically make people not see you as racist, if they see those things as racist.

Do you see what I'm saying? WotC doing nothing, or changing nothing will not prevent societal change. It will not prevent new players going "Orcs sure sound like something my racist uncle would be on about..." or "Wow, really blackface elves?" about the Drow. Sorry. Maybe society won't change that much (doubt it though, especially as people who play RPGs have long tended to be people who are more sensitive to this kind of thing, and still to some extent are).

This is why I think all these "But let's get them to try NOT to change Orcs!" comments and so on are deeply misguided. It's like, yeah, they could do that, but all that's going to happen is people going to think WotC are kinda racist. Because they need actual change to make stuff convincing.

Will people grouse? Of course they will. We're grognards for grog's sake. We'll grouse about anything. But as @Sacrosanct says, you can get off the train. 5E is already an extremely functional game and will remain so. Getting off it won't stop the rest of society from changing, though.

I will agree that some of the wording, presentation and art is problematic. Beyond that, there's been thousands of lines posted.

I'm just saying that at it's base D&D has some simple, basic assumptions. If you're a casual player, you know who the monsters are. You can play a hero, you can play a murder hobo, you can play a TTRPG version of Doom.

I think the game loses something if all monsters have no alignment or simple categorization. I also don't see any major changes anytime soon, it's not like they're going to release 6E when the game is still growing and selling record numbers.

P.S. Stop telling me I'm a racist because I don't have an issue with evil monsters.

 

[Campbell]

For me personally orcs leaning evil is not much of an issue. The uncritical use of uncivilized brute, barbarian at the gate, and warrior race tropes used by empires to justify brutal occupations are the bits I find distasteful.

 

[Lanefan]

Things will continue to evolve and change. How much impact that will have in my home campaign remains to be seen.

That's a key point: the effects of any WotC changes to the game won't be seen now, but in ten years players new to the game during that time will quite logically start out with (and likely maintain) different expectations than old-timers like me, because that's how the game is being presented, and therein lies the potential clash.

We already see this now, in a more game-only way, with new players having expectations around near-guaranteed combat winnability and very rapid healing-recovery amd lower lethality that simply don't match what a lot of old-timers cut their teeth on, and it leads to headaches and arguments when one type of player tries to play at the table of another.

I only hope that we still have room in the big tent to satisfy both those people who want to drinking the metaphorical beer while eating popcorn and playing a game about killing monsters to those who want to have deep philosophical debates about the morality and meaning of good and evil.

People play for different reasons and with different styles.

Agreed. The trick is to not have those styles become so incompatible that one style simply cannot play with another.