Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8616590" data-attributes="member: 7023887">A shoplifter.I'm making it difficult? I'm not the one labelling literally every change to the hobby &quot;sanitization&quot;? If everything from goofy art, to getting rid of nudity in D&amp;D art, to giving a race magic counts as &quot;sanitization&quot; the term has literally no useful meaning. That's the thing making discussions difficult. Brushstrokes labelling everything that you don't agree with as a &quot;sanitization&quot; or &quot;Disneyfication&quot; of the game. &quot;Controversial&quot; is not the same thing as &quot;problematic&quot;. Gully Dwarves are problematic. Vistani are/were problematic. The fact that most dark skinned races in the hobby were evil is problematic. Sexualizing women in D&amp;D art is problematic. Kender being a nigh-universally hated race? Not problematic. Not in the same sense of the other content, at least. Most people don't object to the kender's presentation in the books. They object to how people are recommended to play them and the problematic behavior that it encourages. Not truly &quot;problematic&quot; in the sense that there are bad connotations from the race, but &quot;controversial&quot; in how they're played at the table. And not every attempt to make something in the hobby less controversial or problematic is a &quot;sanitization&quot;. Some of it is just fixing mistakes that previous editions made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8616590, member: 7023887"] A shoplifter. I'm making it difficult? I'm not the one labelling literally every change to the hobby "sanitization"? If everything from goofy art, to getting rid of nudity in D&D art, to giving a race magic counts as "sanitization" the term has literally no useful meaning. That's the thing making discussions difficult. Brushstrokes labelling everything that you don't agree with as a "sanitization" or "Disneyfication" of the game. "Controversial" is not the same thing as "problematic". Gully Dwarves are problematic. Vistani are/were problematic. The fact that most dark skinned races in the hobby were evil is problematic. Sexualizing women in D&D art is problematic. Kender being a nigh-universally hated race? Not problematic. Not in the same sense of the other content, at least. Most people don't object to the kender's presentation in the books. They object to how people are recommended to play them and the problematic behavior that it encourages. Not truly "problematic" in the sense that there are bad connotations from the race, but "controversial" in how they're played at the table. And not every attempt to make something in the hobby less controversial or problematic is a "sanitization". Some of it is just fixing mistakes that previous editions made. [/QUOTE]

Verification