Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8033948" data-attributes="member: 18">No, it isn't. If you honestly think it is, at this point, after this much discussion, I'm not sure I'm a person who can help you to understand.It's about problematic material being produced by WotC, and the impact that has, particularly on minorities who are already dealing with oppression. It's not about whether you're feeling slightly stung because some rando on a messageboard told you that you aren't a racist, but you maybe thought he might not mean it. I mean, if you really believe that it is, sorry, you're wrong, and you're confused, and probably beyond help, because you can't tell the difference between a corporation perpetuating racist stereotypes or at least getting dangerously close to doing so, in published products, which are sold for money, from you thinking a dude on a messageboard maybe doesn't think you're a good person.On another level, a lot of this is about future-proofing D&D. The reality is, some of the ideas that have been historically common in D&D are no longer cool. Times change. WotC aren't idiots. They aren't ideologues. They're not politicians. They're a corporation, that want to make money. In order to keep selling their product, particularly to younger people (who according to surveys, are the vast majority of the audience), they want to keep it with the times, not to become a historical artifact. The reality is, even if D&D made no changes, it would be unlikely to attract much criticism in the mainstream or get "cancelled" by any significant number of people (though if we had another, worse, better-evidenced version of the Mearls incident, it definitely could). But would it be increasingly less popular with people under about 35? Yeah. Yeah it would. It's not like that hasn't happened before. In the 2E era, it wasn't social issues, but it was out-of-touch-ness that lead to TSR falling as White Wolf rose. Even in the 4E era, it was a completely different form of out-of-touch-ness. Other grogs may remember the terrible adverts with a European-accented person mocking older editions, which almost seemed like a parody, except they weren't (like genuinely they seem like something from the Simpsons). And even some of the basic ideas of 4E, much as I approve of them, were ones which helped to split the audience. You keep harping on about "hurt" and "offended" (and no, that's definitely not hyperbole, you've used both words over and over), but what you don't realize is that it doesn't have to rise to even that level to be deleterious. You don't need to throw out all your D&D books and block Jeremy Crawford on Twitter to decide "Hmmmm, D&D is kind of for old fogeys and has some creepy stuff in it, maybe I'll buy this other RPG instead". And yeah, that's not really happening yet. D&D is riding high. But WotC want to keep it that way, or as close to that way as they can, not to let it slip. And these changes are part of that.It's interesting that the changes being made seem calculated not to "split the audience", either - nothing they're suggesting is likely to actually offend many people. We're about as groggy as it gets here for people who actually play and buy 5E stuff (there are far groggier places, but they don't, by and large, so are irrelevant), and the number of people who are even mildly put out by these suggestions is pretty small. Most people don't care, and a lot of people think they're a good thing. And we're at the extreme end.</blockquote>

Verification