D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Hussar]

They could have come up with a name. Instead, you are either a human or an elf in terms of mechanics. You show your heritage by cosmetic appearance.

I liked that the half-elf has special mechanics.

But they don’t. That’s the point.

The ONLY difference between the two is two skill profs and a cantrip.

That’s the sum total of the mechanical difference. Arguments from the mechanics side don’t actually reflect what’s happening.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they don’t. That’s the point.

The ONLY difference between the two is two skill profs and a cantrip.

That’s the sum total of the mechanical difference. Arguments from the mechanics side don’t actually reflect what’s happening.

No, that's  your point. You've mentioned it several times. Other issues with the new mixed heritage "rules" include making your mixed heritage an entirely cosmetic choice, which seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Also the removal of half-elf and half-orc as species entries, which dramatically drops their profile no matter what the mechanics are.

 

[Hussar]

So agree with your point of view or you're the bad guy?

Ignoring the fact that the language draws directly from bigoted sources and mirrors the same makes you the good guy?

 

[Hussar]

No, that's  your point. You've mentioned it several times. Other issues with the new mixed heritage "rules" include making your mixed heritage an entirely cosmetic choice, which seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Also the removal of half-elf and half-orc as species entries, which dramatically drops their profile no matter what the mechanics are.

But that isn’t what they said. They said they liked the unique mechanics.

There are more than one issue here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that isn’t what they said. They said they liked the unique mechanics.

There are more than one issue here.

Half-elves as a race entry in the 2014 PH are a unique mechanic, even if the actual differences aren't enormous.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't play video games so I don't really have much I can say. The last controversial game I recall was grand theft auto, and frankly when I see a lot of video games, I personally find them distasteful and juvenile. But I also would just do the same I do with films I find distasteful and either not watch them/play them, or learn more to see if they are as bad as I have been hearing and then make a decision. But again I don't play video games so I really can't weigh in more than that on video game culture. You can also describe some of the best films ever made as horrible if you isolate the bad elements (and many people still find them terrible in context: Dirty Harry, A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, etc). I am selecting from the 70s but this premise applies to most recent decades. I don't think you would have made movies better by saying Taxi Driver, or A Clockwork Orange don't need those elements. And just so my argument doesn't appear cartoonish, I understand in both cases the directors were still weighing audience response and an internal moral compass (Kubrick changed a scene from the book that I think was too far for a lot of people, and I think he made the right call). Maybe video games aren't striving for this level of meaning, I don't know. Again I can't weigh in, but I'd rather err on the side of allowing things to exist and just not engaging them if I find them awful. And if I find them truly awful I think it is entirely fair to make arguments for why. My line isn't in the criticism itself, its in the assertion that its so bad other people shouldn't be able to make that determination for themselves by watching it and in how these things often become massive forces on social media where people are then afraid to even stand up for something they consider a misunderstood work of art, because you can get labeled whatever the movie is getting labeled and it will have real social consequences for you.

So, because you don't play video games you can't understand how controversial games have been made in the last five years, dealing with subjects that many find uncomfortable or offensive? Well, let me be a bit more explicit then.

You have claimed that in the last 10 years it has become "so much worse" and that there is a chilling effect on media being made across the board. I have since pointed out video games, movies, and novels written which tackle difficult and controversial topics that no one has tried to cancel, no one has chilled, and no one has really cared to comment on. So, this broad culture movement has seemed to skip somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all media.

So if it isn't preventing difficult things from being depicted in movies, Television, books, or video games, where is this chilling effect? How can you continue to claim that we are on the path to go "too far" when you can't point to a single industry that has actually not produced content like what you are talking about over the past 10 years?

I am not in the business of saying what art should and shouldn't be using. Again I don't understand video games so I can't comment very well on that. But take Scarface. A lot of people feel that glorifies violence. Arguably it does. At the very least it uses a kind of glamor to to paint the canvas with carnage and bloodshed. I am 100% okay with that, and think it is a beautiful movie, the same way I think Lady Snowblood is beautiful or One Armed Swordsman is beautiful. Violence can be cathartic in media and it can serve a higher artistic aim. And I say all that as someone who isn't a fan of real world violence and lived for many years in a neighborhood where things like gunshots were more routine than they ought to be (and my feeling is that horrible stuff exists in the world so it should exist in art too---and you can even find meaning in to). Look, Alice Cooper is a born again Christian. There is a lot of stuff he does in his art that would seem to contradict his beliefs (and just so we are 100% clear, I am not a born again Christian and don't subscribe to an evangelist point of view at all). I agree with him when I've seen him in interviews where he gets asked, sometimes by people who are Christian and troubled that he is thinking of doing something like playing King Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar or getting beheaded on stage, that its art and it is different from his personal set of beliefs. In the case of JCS it is particularly striking because that seems to actually go against some of what he actually believes but he is still okay performing in it). An artist who presents scenes of violence an bloodshed and other horrible things isn't endorsing those things (there may be some who do, but in most cases they are simply using them as subject matter).

Yeah, as a writer I AM in the business of saying what art should and should not be using. And as a human being with empathy towards others. Sure, maybe a game specifically marketed as a power fantasy where a man assaults women for fun is somehow giving some sort of artistic merit... but I doubt it. And while you want to talk about violence, violence, and let's focus on the violence, that wasn't what I was pointing out.

There can be a discussion on violence. But interestingly, neither this thread nor my point focus on violence or killing. But, again, going out there and saying "But, it is ART and you can't say anything negative that might prevent ART" just leads to people with hate in their hearts to decide to lie and claim artistic protections that aren't deserved.

Maybe if we lived in a society where people had their rights, I'd be more sympathetic to the idea. But since we live in a society where every day I see news feeds telling me that such and such state has passed a law taking away more rights from people, I'm not exactly thinking we are in a healthy place where we can just "live and let live" because one side will end up dead.

I am very wary of any movement where we say "this needs to stop happening in art". I get that there will be terrible depictions of things I may disagree with. But I think free expression is too important and while it may start innocently for a good reason, it always seems to inevitably get turned upon the powerless by the powerful once that lever enters into things. Today you might not be showing acts of racial violence between orcs, tomorrow it might be you aren't able to show LBGTQ relationships. Obviously there are going to be some lines, but we really need to be cautious here in my option and I think the best approach is to take things individually and on a viewer by viewer level (i.e. if you don't like a book, simply don't buy it).

We already weren't allowed to show LGBTQ+ things. We already live in a world where a trans-person appearing in a commercial gets people pulling out semi-automatic guns and "protesting". We lived in that world, for decades. And it was this very movement of saying enough is enough, we need to be better, that started making it even slightly more acceptable.

You talk about how things have gotten worse and worse in the last few years? Do you realize that in the last 5 to 10 years I have seen more same-sex couples and inter-racial couples on shows and commercials than I have seen in my entire life? Those happened because the people in power heard us saying that enough is enough, and we need to do better. And stopping that progress because you fear it will somehow reverse course? That doesn't make sense.

But that isn't what we are talking about exactly. We are focused on WOTC and orcs, and here no one is saying the game needs to be like those video games you described. They are talking about mild elements from the real world to make the game have a greater sense of danger, reality, etc. Even when they are serious, they are often done in a fade to black or off camera approach.

Funny, every time I talk about WoTC, you want to talk about the "broader cultural moment". Any time I want to talk about the cultural Zeitgeist, you want to talk about WoTC. I know no one is saying that they want SA put into Core DnD, because obviously that would be inappropriate, which is the point. There are things that we have decided are inappropriate to put into the core books. If you want to do it at your table, go ahead. But in the core books, we have standards. And that hasn't led to the downfall of anything yet.

This I agree with. If you are going to critique something at least read the thing for yourself and do so in good faith before blasting it. It is very easy to go into hyper critical mode and I've seen a lot of well intentioned criticisms of RPG products take away the opposite of the intended meaning because they were so focused on a particular critical angle.

And since the majority of people are posting good faith criticisms and understanding the work, then we shouldn't have a problem here.

 

[Faolyn]

Sorry. I wasn’t clear.

I meant that being a bigot should be a flaw.

Not being the victim of bigotry.

Ah, gotcha.

 

[Guest 85555]

So, because you don't play video games you can't understand how controversial games have been made in the last five years, dealing with subjects that many find uncomfortable or offensive? Well, let me be a bit more explicit then.

I simply mean it is hard to comment in an informed way on a medium I don’t follow. People can describe it but I won’t have much insight as I just don’t understand it the way I understand movies or RPGs.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is fighting for territory or religion or to avenge an ancient insult interesting and fun? They're all ways of generating conflict, and none of them should be off the table entirely in published worldbuilding.

Most of those rarely come up in published settings, and when they do, it usually involves punching up, or at least punching sideways.

Including bigotry is just punching down, and worse, the bigots are rarely shown to be bad because of their bigotry--elves and dwarfs are notorious for it and are both considered to be good peoples. Especially when they're bigoted against those mean ol' orcs and goblins.

 

[Guest 85555]

You have claimed that in the last 10 years it has become "so much worse" and that there is a chilling effect on media being made across the board. I have since pointed out video games, movies, and novels written which tackle difficult and controversial topics that no one has tried to cancel, no one has chilled, and no one has really cared to comment on. So, this broad culture movement has seemed to skip somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all media.

So if it isn't preventing difficult things from being depicted in movies, Television, books, or video games, where is this chilling effect? How can you continue to claim that we are on the path to go "too far" when you can't point to a single industry that has actually not produced content like what you are talking about over the past 10 years?

I don’t think you have made this case. TV, movies, novels, etc they have all been subject to this trend. I think anyone paying attention to the culture sees that. It doesn’t mean movies never depict difficult things. Some do. Some depict difficult things currently acceptable. But you clearly get the sense that there is a deep chilling effect on what is permissible. And plenty of people industries have commented on how this is the case.