Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8033013" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't think WotC are likely to do away with a default world, nor change away from the core three-book structure as the primary method of delivering D&amp;D. So there's that.I think the underlying issue here is actually that, from somewhere basically 3E onwards, WotC have taken an approach (to an admittedly varying degree) that basically all material can be used in all settings, as long as the DM agrees. That's fine, but what it's also lead to is a lot of stuff being designed in rather generic, not specific, ways. Which is good and bad. The problem is, for me, world book should be allowed to be as different as they need to be, rather than all being so compatible you can always take bits from one for another. I do feel like Theros was a move in the right direction at least.Why are people still asking this question? Did you read any of the threads on this? It's because the language used to describe orcs, and the language used by 1910s racist textbooks, and 2020s racist Facebook posts, to describe black people, are virtually identical. It's also particularly weird that Orcs were given an INT penalty when no other playable race is (and indeed, IIRC only one other race has a penalty at all).The same is not true of the other creatures you list. Goblins in some fiction are potentially anti-Semitic stereotypes (Harry Potter, for example), but not in D&amp;D, because D&amp;D doesn't invoke any of those stereotypes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8033013, member: 18"] I don't think WotC are likely to do away with a default world, nor change away from the core three-book structure as the primary method of delivering D&D. So there's that. I think the underlying issue here is actually that, from somewhere basically 3E onwards, WotC have taken an approach (to an admittedly varying degree) that basically all material can be used in all settings, as long as the DM agrees. That's fine, but what it's also lead to is a lot of stuff being designed in rather generic, not specific, ways. Which is good and bad. The problem is, for me, world book should be allowed to be as different as they need to be, rather than all being so compatible you can always take bits from one for another. I do feel like Theros was a move in the right direction at least. Why are people still asking this question? Did you read any of the threads on this? It's because the language used to describe orcs, and the language used by 1910s racist textbooks, and 2020s racist Facebook posts, to describe black people, are virtually identical. It's also particularly weird that Orcs were given an INT penalty when no other playable race is (and indeed, IIRC only one other race has a penalty at all). The same is not true of the other creatures you list. Goblins in some fiction are potentially anti-Semitic stereotypes (Harry Potter, for example), but not in D&D, because D&D doesn't invoke any of those stereotypes. [/QUOTE]

Verification