WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Zardnaar]

Do I need to explain the difference between a classroom and a game of DnD between friends?



Do I need to explain the difference between a book and a game of DnD again?



Resiliency doesn't matter. That's not the point I'm making.

No but you're acting like you're the final arbiter on what's acceptable in D&D. Newsflash you're not.

You do need consent and buy in from the players if you're doing adult themes though. It's not something that appeals that much to me but depending on execution I'm not opposed to it as such.

I wouldn't join an R18 anything goes evil campaign I might if it's R18 horror themed, Sopranos, Game of Thrones or whatever.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well for one thing, I don't really think a horror game like Ravenloft should be marketed to 13 to 15 year olds. That being said, that was the age I was when I was first introduced to the Ravenloft setting, which as we've said included an NPC who perpetrated this sort of crime, and I don't recall being warped or damaged by its presence.

Why can't 13 to 15 year olds enjoy horror?

Also, why are you adding language about being "warped" or "damaged"? I've never claimed anything like that.

I was even younger when I first read Dragonlance, with the aforementioned Tanis background. Again, I don't recall being damaged by a main character being the product of rape.

Why do I need to keep explaining the difference between books and games? This is a really obvious difference that I have already covered.

 

[seebs]

So wait, you don't trust people to decide which material should or shouldn't be in the game. But you DO trust them to provide guidance on how it should be used?

Yes, no, maybe? I don't think this is a thing where "trust" is a boolean. In general, by default, I am more comfortable with "maybe include guidance for dealing with a topic" than I am with "no, ban that topic".

First reaction of many pre-teens when uncomfortable with a subject is to make jokes. Do you think mocking Sexual Assault would be useful?

Making jokes about uncomfortable topics is one of the primary tactics used in recovery from trauma. It can also be an awful idea. But your claim wasn't that it might be bad, it was that it could not be good. That's what I'm objecting to.

Many pre-teens, in an attempt to be "mature" lean into the dark, morbid or violent. Do you think THAT would lead to good and beneficial things?

Sometimes!

The process of growing up actually sorta works!

This isn't exactly rocket science here.

No. Rocket science uses evidence, not appeals to emotion.

Uh huh. So, how many books have you seen on shelves labeled "18+ content"? Are we going to have another "Book of Erotic Fantasy" or "Book of Vile Darkness" that we label as "not for kids"?

Maybe? I sort of like the idea of them being labeled.

Meanwhile, what moral panic are you even talking about? There is no moral panic here.

"not the types of things that could benefit anyone" is sort of the central example. That's the entire point of a moral panic; pick some aspect of how humans behave, say it's bad, and declare that it'll be absolutely definitely bad and not good, and thus we should do something to stop it.

There is a discussion on what is appropriate for a general public release. There is no "predictable outcome" here.

I don't know what you think this means, and I lack the patience to try to explain it.

There is already content we do not depict in official Dungeons and Dragons materials. This is also specifically something that has ALREADY BEEN REMOVED. So, where is the problem? What is the moral panic about discussing the reasons something has already happened?

"Has been removed" is not the same as "an absolute, total, ban and expressing contempt and derision towards the idea that someone could benefit from approaching a difficult topic in the context of an RPG."

You are trying to make this discussion into something it absolutely is not.

I didn't know it was against the rules to look at the many ways in which our current ways of doing things are flawed and talk about how we think we could do better.

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear there's no point in us trying to discuss this; you're apparently the sole authority on what a discussion is or isn't, and keep waffling between partially participating in the topic a couple of other people were talking about, and insisting that it isn't the topic, and either way I'm not interested in pursuing it further here/now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Kobold Press (it's not a thread derail this time, I swear!) did an Animal Lord warlock patron in Tome of Heroes. It's pretty good. If I was running it I'd probably allow a tiny bit more customisation of spells to specific animals. KP assigns patron spells based on whether a patron is a land, air, or sea creature, which is pretty reasonable given their space limitations, but it's one of those things I'd be flexible with at table. If your patron is Brother Ox you could probably talk me into having some of the minotaur horns spells from Deep Magic, for instance.

I'll have to look for that. I've been avoiding a lot of KP stuff because I didn't want to figure out what to take out because of Midgard. But this sounds like a cool concept to pull from.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No but you're acting like you're the final arbiter on what's acceptable in D&D. Newsflash you're not.

So therefore I should never have any opinions on what the company should make? I'm not the final arbiter of what is acceptable for Amazon either, but I have opinions about how they treat their employees.

You do need consent and buy in from the players if you're doing adult themes though. It's not something that appeals that much to me but depending on execution I'm not opposed to it as such.

Can you get consent and buy in from people who buy an official product without first reading it? Is that even possible without labeling the book with a sticker that says "Contains Sexual Assault"?

I wouldn't join an R18 anything goes evil campaign I might if it's R18 horror themed, Sopranos, Game of Thrones or whatever.

Good for you. Has nothing to do with the point.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'll have to look for that. I've been avoiding a lot of KP stuff because I didn't want to figure out what to take out because of Midgard. But this sounds like a cool concept to pull from.

Most if the Midgard stuff is just a bit if fluff.

I bought the Midgard books after Time of Beasts as the Midgardisms were interesting.

Kinda like those old AD&D books I read before the PHB.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, no, maybe? I don't think this is a thing where "trust" is a boolean. In general, by default, I am more comfortable with "maybe include guidance for dealing with a topic" than I am with "no, ban that topic".

Well, to bad. There are subjects that are already not included in DnD products.

Making jokes about uncomfortable topics is one of the primary tactics used in recovery from trauma. It can also be an awful idea. But your claim wasn't that it might be bad, it was that it could not be good. That's what I'm objecting to.

Interesting. Which of the children at the table are recoverying from Trauma? Because if you don't know, then why does this apply to what I said?

Sometimes!

The process of growing up actually sorta works!

So, it would be good years later? I don't particularly feel like "but in a few years this could lead to maturity" is really a ringing endorsement for a product to include this topic in their official materials.

Maybe? I sort of like the idea of them being labeled.

And do you think we really need specific 18+ official WoTC products?

"not the types of things that could benefit anyone" is sort of the central example. That's the entire point of a moral panic; pick some aspect of how humans behave, say it's bad, and declare that it'll be absolutely definitely bad and not good, and thus we should do something to stop it.

And so you want to apply this standard to Sexual Assault? Or to games where people play pretend about Sexual Assault? I hopefully don't have to point out that this is an incredibly worrying take if that is what you mean.

"Has been removed" is not the same as "an absolute, total, ban and expressing contempt and derision towards the idea that someone could benefit from approaching a difficult topic in the context of an RPG."

Uh huh. So, since I didn't do that second one, what is your point?

I didn't know it was against the rules to look at the many ways in which our current ways of doing things are flawed and talk about how we think we could do better.

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear there's no point in us trying to discuss this; you're apparently the sole authority on what a discussion is or isn't, and keep waffling between partially participating in the topic a couple of other people were talking about, and insisting that it isn't the topic, and either way I'm not interested in pursuing it further here/now.

Sure sure, whatever. Funny how YOUR opinion is just a discussion and not you acting as the sole authority on what is isn't okay, but MY opinion is.

I really must be incredible considering I am told I'm the sole possible authority on every discussion I ever have.

 

[seebs]

I can't imagine a D&D game working well if all the PCs were furries. Where in a standard D&D world would they even find a data center to work in?

 

[Incenjucar]

I can't imagine a D&D game working well if all the PCs were furries. Where in a standard D&D world would they even find a data center to work in?

There's Mechanus, but fur gets in all the gears, which is why they just have ants instead.

 

[Maxperson]

I can explain this a fifth or sixth time, but would it make a difference? It doesn't just "list the planes" it lists the planes... of the Great Wheel. I've explained this, again and again. It doesn't have to say "this is specifically for the Great Wheel" because it presents the Great Wheel as though it was the only version that actually mattered.

You can get it wrong a seventh time you like. It does not list the PLANES of the Great Wheel. It lists only the NAMES the Great Wheel uses for the planes that exist for all cosmologies.

The Great Wheel calls it Ysgard, The World Tree calls it Asgard, and The World Axis has a different name for it. The plane is the same for all three.

And it is present in all 5e Cosmologies because, just like the Plane of Fire or Mechanus, it is presented as true even though it isn't true for the World Axis. It is forcing it to be true for every cosmology.

The bolded is not supported by the 5e DMG and is actually refuted by the 5e DMG. You seem to be going by older editions with that claim.

And this is the entire problem. It is such a problem that you can't even seem to understand the extent this ruins the World Axis.

Actually I do. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing. I'm simply telling you what the 5e DMG says. Were I ever to run Eberron(and I don't think I ever will), I'd use the 3e lore and cosmology, not the 5e one.