D&D 5E Ray Winninger, in charge of D&D, states his old school bonefides.

[Blue Orange]

As an old time gamer myself (started playing in 1980), I think what WOTC has done is great overall. That does not mean I like everything they have done, although I do like most of it.

Before I go further I want to talk about the word "race" - From my point of view what "race" refers to in D&D is not the same as what "race" refers to IRL. Race IRL encompasses people who are all human and from different areas or cultures. For example in D&D we do not say humans native to Chult are a different "race" than humans native to Rasheman, on the character sheet both say "human" or "variant human" while IRL they would be different races.

The books back you up! From the 2e PHB (1989): "This is not a race in the true sense of the word: caucasian, black, asian, etc. It is actually a fantasy species for your character -- human, elf, dwarf, gnome, half-elf, or halfling." The 1e PHB doesn't address this issue at all--it simply lists 'racial stocks' such as dwarf, elf, etc.

So, yes, all human backgrounds would be considered the same 'race' as far back as 1989.

 

[whimsychris123]

I went ahead and read some of the comments on the Tweet thread to get some context for this statement. Ugh. Usually a mistake and a rabbit hole I always seem to fall into.

At any rate, people can "demand" things of WotC all they want, but WotC is going to do what WotC is going to do. I personally think they've been rather responsive to the gaming community as a whole, new and old players alike.

 

[Mordhau]

One issue I can also see older gamers having with the disclaimer is that it's indiscriminate, and is applied to every single pre-5E product, without differentiating by content or by era. Is the Wizard's Spell Compendium Vol. 1 really just as likely to be offensive as Oriental Adventures? Should someone have to brace themselves against problematic content in a 4E book from 2011, just as they would a 0E product from 1975?

It's one thing to point out certain specific products or product lines as problematic. But I can kind of understand why suggesting to newer gamers that every single product before 2014 is a potential minefield of offense would bug some people.

(Not to mention, as we've discovered, it's not like 5E has avoided offensive content either...)

Because if they did they'd be opening themselves up for argument. Why Oriental Adventures and not Monstrous Mythology? It has X. They'd be put into a situation where people would be asking them to explain what exactly is problematic about A while others are demanding they explain why they refuse to see that B is horrible and harmful etc.

The way they did it means they actually conceded nothing and were able to wash their hands of it all. They didn't say that all old products had issues, just that any old products might do - which is true - they might.

 

[JEB]

Well, with some of those people, you have to read between the lines and figure out whether they are Old School or "Old School". Are they upset about mechanics changes or maybe changes to the general lore of the region? Or are they upset that all the pseudo-gypsy/Romani racist garbage was changed? And now "just bringing the old stuff back" is sounding like another code phrase that the non-inclusive people will use.

"Reading between the lines" means making assumptions about why someone says or does something. Engaging folks on their reasons is generally much more educational. The ones who have bad reasons for disliking a given change will generally out themselves, eventually. The rest, you will often find, have a variety of other reasons. (In my experience, most often it's just wanting the stuff they grew up with to stay comfortable and familiar, which is hardly a hate crime in and of itself.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Can you imagine if some sect of NFL fans demanded the new commissioner prove they were around before instant replay?

 

[JEB]

Because if they did they'd be opening themselves up for argument. Why Oriental Adventures and not Monstrous Mythology? It has X. They'd be put into a situation where people would be asking them to explain what exactly is problematic about A while others are demanding why they refuse to see that B is horrible and harmful etc.

The way they did it means they actually conceded nothing and were able to wash their hands of it all. They didn't say that all old products had issues, just that any old products might do - which is true - they might.

Oh, I perfectly understand why they did things the way they did. As you indicate, it's very efficient - acknowledge and deflect criticism, while conceding nothing. I'm just pointing out why older fans might be offended by such a blanket disclaimer, since it can have unintended implications.

 

[Mordhau]

Oh, I perfectly understand why they did things the way they did. As you indicate, it's very efficient - acknowledge and deflect criticism, while conceding nothing. I'm just pointing out why older fans might be offended by such a blanket disclaimer, since it can have unintended implications.

I don't really see any reason to. Are they saying that there is nothing in the back catalog that would merit the disclaimer?

I see how they might want be disappointed if they wanted WotC to explicity take an anti-SJW stance. Clearly, that wasn't it. But I don't really see what the issue with this is from an apolitical point of view (other than really being a somewhat silly statement of the obvious).

 

[JEB]

I don't really see any reason to. Are they saying that there is nothing in the back catalog that would merit the disclaimer?

I see how they might want be disappointed if they wanted WotC to explicity take an anti-SJW stance. Clearly, that wasn't it. But I don't really see what the issue with this is from an apolitical point of view (other than really being a somewhat silly statement of the obvious).

I'm sure many older fans agree there's stuff in the back catalog that merits the disclaimer. That doesn't mean they're fine with every single D&D product prior to 5E being labeled as potentially problematic.

Warning newer D&D fans that they're in for problematic stuff before they read Oriental Adventures makes sense. But I can see why some folks would consider it unfair to suggest that new fans should be equally cautious when perusing, say, 4E's Heroes of the Feywild.

 

[Mordhau]

I'm sure many older fans agree there's stuff in the back catalog that merits the disclaimer. That doesn't mean they're fine with every single D&D product prior to 5E being labeled as potentially problematic.

Warning newer D&D fans that they're in for problematic stuff before they read Oriental Adventures makes sense. But I can see why some folks would consider it unfair to suggest that new fans should be equally cautious when perusing, say, 4E's Heroes of the Feywild.

Why does it matter? Where is the unfairness? Who is it unfair to?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm sure many older fans agree there's stuff in the back catalog that merits the disclaimer. That doesn't mean they're fine with every single D&D product prior to 5E being labeled as potentially problematic.

Warning newer D&D fans that they're in for problematic stuff before they read Oriental Adventures makes sense. But I can see why some folks would consider it unfair to suggest that new fans should be equally cautious when perusing, say, 4E's Heroes of the Feywild.

It's a simple solution that doesn't require them to go through every previous official D&D product from 40 years worth of non-5e products and analyze each one to see if it holds up to modern sensibilities. It's way easier, less time-consuming, and far cheaper to just put the same warning on all of the previous stuff. It's more practical and is probably the only way to avoid missing stuff or seeming like they're making attacks against certain people. If people are offended by that, it's not anyone's fault but their own.