R.L. Stines books still don't come with a trigger warning. R&J (and Shakespeare) taught in high school does not give a trigger warning. Most shows on TV may say "Intended for mature audiences" if that applies and leave it at that. They don't browbeat the issue. Quite frankly, this seems to be a phenomena relegated to DnD
It's not surprising that a roleplaying product (where you literally play out the actions of a character, in an usually-communal setting) would have different standards than a book or TV show (where you just read or watch).
Except it seems to be taken to an extreme by a suspect a small albeit vocal group of folks within DnD (note I did not say TTRPGs) I said DnD specifically.
DnD is the most popular TTRPG ever (by like an order of magnitude). It's also basically the oldest (and has some...old-fashioned ideas), and experiencing an unprecedented growth in playerbase, especially among young people. All of that adds up. Furthermore, despite (or because of) their moves towards inclusivity and psycological safety, their sales keep going up.
Yeah, I know DnD is the most popular RPG. I am well aware of market demographics within gaming. Honestly, there is not truly an TTRPG market. DnD is the tabletop RPG market for the most part or I will say as goes DnD so goes the market. The last part however is somewhat speculative. DnD sales increases could be contributed to a number of reasons. None of the least being that DnD has FINALLY started to release crunchy books that actual have rules expansions for people to game with (Xanathar's, Tasha's, Mordenkainen) and these books honestly took a good while to come out as compared to past editions so people were hungering for crunchy content. Also, now they are finally releasing campaign worlds including classic campaign worlds like Eberron and Ravenloft that people have been asking for. So you can't contribute this increase in popularity to the diversity push which was actually very recent all things considered in DnD 5E history. OH! Also this thing called a global pandemic happened that had people shut inside and thus people started gaming more. DnD has pretty much said the pandemic boosted sales. Now that summer is here and many places even in the most conscious states are opening up and loosening restrictions I am curious if this will impact the growth? I guess we will see but my point is no you are claiming something that is not a contributor to the popularity as the drive has only recently started and the upswing was going on before that.
Well just add another component...Critical Role which is VERY popular is highly inclusive and obviously cares about these issues (see Orcs of Wildemount) and their popularity for sure added to the growth of the hobby.
R.L. Stines books still don't come with a trigger warning. R&J (and Shakespeare) taught in high school does not give a trigger warning. Most shows on TV may say "Intended for mature audiences" if that applies and leave it at that. They don't browbeat the issue. Quite frankly, this seems to be a phenomena relegated to DnD
It's not surprising that a roleplaying product (where you literally play out the actions of a character, in an usually-communal setting) would have different standards than a book or TV show (where you just read or watch).
Except it seems to be taken to an extreme by a suspect a small albeit vocal group of folks within DnD (note I did not say TTRPGs) I said DnD specifically.
DnD is the most popular TTRPG ever (by like an order of magnitude). It's also basically the oldest (and has some...old-fashioned ideas), and experiencing an unprecedented growth in playerbase, especially among young people. All of that adds up. Furthermore, despite (or because of) their moves towards inclusivity and psycological safety, their sales keep going up.
Yeah, I know DnD is the most popular RPG. I am well aware of market demographics within gaming. Honestly, there is not truly an TTRPG market. DnD is the tabletop RPG market for the most part or I will say as goes DnD so goes the market. The last part however is somewhat speculative. DnD sales increases could be contributed to a number of reasons. None of the least being that DnD has FINALLY started to release crunchy books that actual have rules expansions for people to game with (Xanathar's, Tasha's, Mordenkainen) and these books honestly took a good while to come out as compared to past editions so people were hungering for crunchy content. Also, now they are finally releasing campaign worlds including classic campaign worlds like Eberron and Ravenloft that people have been asking for. So you can't contribute this increase in popularity to the diversity push which was actually very recent all things considered in DnD 5E history. OH! Also this thing called a global pandemic happened that had people shut inside and thus people started gaming more. DnD has pretty much said the pandemic boosted sales. Now that summer is here and many places even in the most conscious states are opening up and loosening restrictions I am curious if this will impact the growth? I guess we will see but my point is no you are claiming something that is not a contributor to the popularity as the drive has only recently started and the upswing was going on before that.
If we're splitting hairs, I just said that sales keep going up, regardless ("despite (or because of)"). I don't claim to know why, but it doesn't look like they're being punished for the new direction they decided to take.
If we're splitting hairs, I just said that sales keep going up, regardless ("despite (or because of)"). I don't claim to know why, but it doesn't look like they're being punished for the new direction they decided to take.
Well, that remains to be seen as the campaign really just started. All that being said, I have said numerous times MOST people I don't believe care about playable humanoid races being any alignment the same as humans as it has zero game impact. I mean the Dwarves of the Faerunian North and the Northern towns are going to continue to view orcs as a whole evil no matter what their actual alignment is. The only difference is if adventuring PCs encounter some orcs they may learn something like one tribe is raiding because the dwarves built their lands on top of their ancestral grounds or something like that which I think would be an interesting twist but I don't know since I am using ancestral burial grounds and orcs I might be accused of painting folk in bad light. LOL. As far as Ravenloft I will say I was going to buy it no matter how bad or good the product was because I was Ravenloft was one of my favorite worlds back in the day and I happy to have it see the light of day again. Also, in all honesty I am happy with the product by far despite a few nitpicky things I have like Relentless Killers (those poor misunderstood people) not having an alignment. I do hope DnD continues to grow but I think WOTC will be gathering feedback as their directions continues and I guess they will weigh opinions like they did on bringing back 9 alignments when 5E was released and some people will get what they want and some will not. The benefits of democracy eh. Pax.
All that being said, I have said numerous times MOST people I don't believe care about playable humanoid races being any alignment the same as humans as it has zero game impact. I mean the Dwarves of the Faerunian North and the Northern towns are going to continue to view orcs as a whole evil no matter what their actual alignment is. The only difference is if adventuring PCs encounter some orcs they may learn something like one tribe is raiding because the dwarves built their lands on top of their ancestral grounds or something like that...
My guess is the primary game impact is on players who play as orcs (or any playable race, really). Rather than tell them "you have to be abnormal to not be evil" or "you have to follow your nature over nurture" or whatever, they can decide for themselves who to be. It still might come with some built-in plot hooks about "being viewed as evil by <some prejudiced folk>" but that's not mandatory. Seems like more narrative freedom, to me. Tell the stories you want to tell, play the parts you want to play, all that stuff.
Well just add another component...Critical Role which is VERY popular is highly inclusive and obviously cares about these issues (see Orcs of Wildemount) and their popularity for sure added to the growth of the hobby.
Yeah I own Wildmount. Along with the Eberron campaign setting. So, since they are inclusive of Orcs that is what made CR popular (even though Eberron did that years before them btw)? Not the inclusion of women on the show and stuff like that. ORC FOLK! That's the answer my brother. I hear you 100 percent. Also is Wildmount the most popular DnD campaign world? I own the book but wondering did it outsale all the other DnD campaign worlds? I will say I didn't buy the book because of how they treat orcs though. That was not even a consideration in my purchase.
P.S. See I'm old but I keep up with new campaign worlds like Wildmount and Ravnica '(the latter I was not impressed with) too. Buying campaign worlds ain't new.
All that being said, I have said numerous times MOST people I don't believe care about playable humanoid races being any alignment the same as humans as it has zero game impact. I mean the Dwarves of the Faerunian North and the Northern towns are going to continue to view orcs as a whole evil no matter what their actual alignment is. The only difference is if adventuring PCs encounter some orcs they may learn something like one tribe is raiding because the dwarves built their lands on top of their ancestral grounds or something like that...
My guess is the primary game impact is on players who play as orcs (or any playable race, really). Rather than tell them "you have to be abnormal to not be evil" or "you have to follow your nature over nurture" or whatever, they can decide for themselves who to be. It still might come with some built-in plot hooks about "being viewed as evil by <some prejudiced folk>" but that's not mandatory. Seems like more narrative freedom, to me. Tell the stories you want to tell, play the parts you want to play, all that stuff.
Well, everyone's experience is different. Due to the city where I reside being shut down for over a year (no theater, no live sporting events, etc.), a loving and fun partner who shares many of my same interests, and a fairly good circle of friends throughout the country (I am currently in 4 different gaming groups) i.e 4 different campaigns on various days of the week for various of amounts of time. I play with people from all walks of life, genders, ethnicities, gender preferences, religions, and orientations. In all MY games I can say by and large most people are not looking at a race that deep from the "nature or nurture" perspective or looking to make a political statement or psychosocial treatise based upon the characterization of a race. By and large they think of a concept they want to play and look at races grant a mechanical benefit to what class they want to play, which Tasha's open the door wide open on (Say YES now to high strength Wild Elf barbarians. Yay!) and go from there. This is not to see people don't write detailed backstories and stuff like that for their PCs. I am a self-professed tactical powergamer but always write a detailed background history for my PCs starting from childhood and choose an alignment based off of how his fantasy life shaped the PC (see powergaming/tactical play and storytelling can go hand-in-hand! Wow!). So, I am just not seeing people go that deep with race. The few times I have watched CR since that seems to set the gold standard for DnD for many people on here it does not seem they go that deep either as far as race. They seem to go deep with CHARACTER regardless of race BUT if in your games people are looking at a fantasy race to make a social statement I hear you. That is your experience. I will say Regardless of how that character truly is alignment wise he/she is still going to be shaped by how society feels about him/her. That is to say an orc from a peaceful tribe in Faerun that worships Eldath is realistically still going to encounter plenty of prejudice from the dwarves and human townspeople of the Faerunian north but I hear you man: Orc Lives Matter! Like I said I far more concerned with fiendish races, etc. not having alignments, and sentient malignant monsters, etc.
Well, everyone's experience is different. Due to the city where I reside being shut down for over a year (no theater, no live sporting events, etc.), a loving and fun partner who shares many of my same interesting, and a fairly good circle of friends throughout the country I am currently in 4 different gaming groups i.e 4 different campaigns on various days of the week for various of amounts of time. I play with people from all walks of life, genders, ethnicities (though White male is dominant), gender preferences, and orientations. In all MY games I can by and large most people are not looking at a race that deep from the "nature or nurture" perspective or looking to make a political statement of psychosocial treatise based upon the characterization of a race. By and large they think of a concept they want to play and look at races that grant a mechanical benefit to what class they want to play, which Tasha's open the door wide open on (Say YES now to high strength Wild Elf barbarians. Yay!) and go from there. This is not to see people don't write detailed backstories and stuff like that for their PCs. I am a self-professed tactical powergamer but always write a detail background history from my PCs starting from childhood and choose an alignment based off of how his fantasy life shaped the PC (See powergaming/tactical play and storytelling can go hand-in-hand! Wow!).
Thumbs up to all that! That's incredibly similar to my experience with the game these days.
Personally, I find 5e's traits/ideals/bonds/flaws system way more useful than alignment, and tend to only reluctantly pick an alignment after figuring out everything else, and then the campaign ignores it entirely.
So, I am just not seeing people go that deep with race. The few times I have watched CR since that seems to set the gold standard for RPG for many people on here it does not seem they went that deep either. They went deep with CHARACTER regardless of race BUT if in your games people are looking at a fantasy race to make a social statement I hear you. That is your experience but regardless of how that character is it is still going to be shaped by how society feels about him/her. That is to say an orc from a peaceful tribe in Faerun that worships Eldath is realistically still going to encounter plenty of prejudice from the dwarves and human townspeople of the Faerunian north but I hear you man Orc Lives Matter.
I was just making a guess about what would be the biggest impact, or where the biggest impact would be felt. My own playstyle attaches so little significance to game-race that it doesn't affect me, but then I avoid any DMs who are strict about PC/creature behavior being "by the book." I gather there are players and DMs more directly affected by these things than me, of course.
I do find official support for, well, any and all cases of essentialism being reduced or removed (i.e. the "nature vs nurture" conflict is outdated and pointless to my worldview) to make my particular playstyle easier.
Like I said I far more concerned with fiendish races, etc. not having alignments.
From a strictly gameist perspective, it makes a lot of sense to have "easy" antagonist creatures. "Monsters" you can play the tactical board game against without roleplaying hiccups or ethical dilemmas. I gather that "fiends" and whatnot are the natural fit for that, though I've never trusted D&D's worldbuilding enough to really rely on it ;)
D&D alignment, being definitionally two-dimensional, is at least a passable take on how to do that.
All that being said, I have said numerous times MOST people I don't believe care about playable humanoid races being any alignment the same as humans as it has zero game impact. I mean the Dwarves of the Faerunian North and the Northern towns are going to continue to view orcs as a whole evil no matter what their actual alignment is. The only difference is if adventuring PCs encounter some orcs they may learn something like one tribe is raiding because the dwarves built their lands on top of their ancestral grounds or something like that...
My guess is the primary game impact is on players who play as orcs (or any playable race, really). Rather than tell them "you have to be abnormal to not be evil" or "you have to follow your nature over nurture" or whatever, they can decide for themselves who to be. It still might come with some built-in plot hooks about "being viewed as evil by <some prejudiced folk>" but that's not mandatory. Seems like more narrative freedom, to me. Tell the stories you want to tell, play the parts you want to play, all that stuff.
Well, everyone's experience is different. Due to the city where I reside being shut down for over a year (no theater, no live sporting events, etc.), a loving and fun partner who shares many of my same interesting, and a fairly good circle of friends throughout the country I am currently in 4 different gaming groups i.e 4 different campaigns on various days of the week for various of amounts of time. I play with people from all walks of life, genders, ethnicities (though White male is dominant), gender preferences, and orientations. In all MY games I can by and large most people are not looking at a race that deep from the "nature or nurture" perspective or looking to make a political statement of psychosocial treatise based upon the characterization of a race. By and large they think of a concept they want to play and look at races that grant a mechanical benefit to what class they want to play, which Tasha's open the door wide open on (Say YES now to high strength Wild Elf barbarians. Yay!) and go from there. This is not to see people don't write detailed backstories and stuff like that for their PCs. I am a self-professed tactical powergamer but always write a detail background history from my PCs starting from childhood and choose an alignment based off of how his fantasy life shaped the PC (See powergaming/tactical play and storytelling can go hand-in-hand! Wow!). So, I am just not seeing people go that deep with race. The few times I have watched CR since that seems to set the gold standard for RPG for many people on here it does not seem they went that deep either. They went deep with CHARACTER regardless of race BUT if in your games people are looking at a fantasy race to make a social statement I hear you. That is your experience but regardless of how that character is it is still going to be shaped by how society feels about him/her. That is to say an orc from a peaceful tribe in Faerun that worships Eldath is realistically still going to encounter plenty of prejudice from the dwarves and human townspeople of the Faerunian north but I hear you man Orc Lives Matter. Like I said I far more concerned with fiendish races, etc. not having alignments.
I just want to say I appreciate your perspective and your communication about your experiences. It always helps me to better see a problem/topic if I have multiple angles on it.
From a strictly gameist perspective, it makes a lot of sense to have "easy" antagonist creatures. "Monsters" you can play the tactical board game against without roleplaying hiccups or ethical dilemmas. I gather that "fiends" and whatnot are the natural fit for that, though I've never trusted D&D's worldbuilding enough to really rely on it ;)
D&D alignment, being definitionally two-dimensional, is at least a passable take on how to do that.
Thanks for what was said before the preceding the above quote. It was a good dialogue. I also apologize for the typos/syntax mistakes. I was multitasking between WFH and posting on this board. WFH has benefits but sometimes not grammar wise when typing in a rush.
Onto the point the point in quotes above. Yes. I am at heart a gamists. From a player perspective I approach DnD by default from a tactical/powergaming standpoint and then try to layer and equal amount of storytelling. I would take a sidebar to note that this uptick in DnD sales is also when some of the crunchiest books have come out and crunchy books seem to sale very well. Hmmm. Being a gamists I like my monsters to be "tidy" but "tidy" doesn't mean none complex. Evil characters can have motivations that while evil benefit a good cause and thus create some moral dilemmas for those who like that kind of game. Eberron is a fine example of that.
DnD world building in the past I have found very good for the most part. Take Planescape. If you can find those old products which are ridiculously expensive now for some reason from what I have seen the level of detail of the planes is very good and this is where alignment matters for things like fiends. In particular, for Planescape there was one supplement called Planes of Law. In that boxed set they went into detail about the different planes of law and the layers on each. For the Nine Hells (at that time redubbed Baator) they covered the 5th level of Hell, Stygia. They explained how since the Lord of that Plane was imprisoned in an Ice mountain there were different gangs of devils fighting in the streets within the main city of Stygia for control of the layer. I THINK the city was called Tantlin's Harbor if my memory is correct. At any rate, it explained how a visitor there could get caught up and be in danger of getting caught in the crossfires (proverbially and literally) of the gangs vying for control. It sounds chaotic right? Not really because while these bands were all at war and the gangs dividing up the city and fighting the Lord of Fifth, Levistus was still a part of the hierarchy and answered to the Lord of Ninth (Asmodeus though they wouldn't name him in 2E) and the different devil packs fighting for control were well organized individually with a command structure, etc.
This was vastly different from say some of the demonic outposts that existed on Pazunia, the first layer of the Abyss. Where some outposts and citadels existed and a demon chief like a balor or something maybe the lord of the town but his whims were often capricious (chaotic) and the different bands fighting there were not organized but rather just based on who was the strongest or most charismatic demon (Tanar'ri). Each expansion of the Blood War was like this and really emphasized the differences between the two races. 3.5 did this well also with two supplements called Hordes of the Abyss and Tyrants of the Nine Hells. This is why when 4E came along and you had Demons (Chaotic Evil) and Devils and Yugoloth both of which are fundamental to the Blood War but vastly different in outlook from the demons and each other labeled as simply "Evil". It mattered. Not having the LE and NE really impacted the how different these things were, which is why I am curious as to what will happen if 5E does Planescape which along with Ravenloft, and Dark Sun, got voted the top 3 worlds that fans wanted to see released.
I just want to say I appreciate your perspective and your communication about your experiences. It always helps me to better see a problem/topic if I have multiple angles on it.
Thanks. I think a robust discussion is always fun.
I love some of the discussion here. It’s natural to lament change. Sometimes embracing new is hard because One might think it invalidates one’s world view, or insinuates they way one played previously was wrong. It’s none of those things. Doing away with alignment is just in… alignment with the way that a large part, perhaps the majority, of the community has been playing. I haven’t used alignment in D&D in decades. I can’t recall a campaign where it factored in any real sense to at least five long term campaigns. It’s just… irrelevant.
Look, you want orca to all be listed as Evil in your campaign? Great! Have fun. But why does anyone feel the need to try and force that on everyone else?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
I love some of the discussion here. It’s natural to lament change. Sometimes embracing new is hard because One might think it invalidates one’s world view, or insinuates they way one played previously was wrong. It’s none of those things. Doing away with alignment is just in… alignment with the way that a large part, perhaps the majority, of the community has been playing. I haven’t used alignment in D&D in decades. I can’t recall a campaign where it factored in any real sense to at least five long term campaigns. It’s just… irrelevant.
Look, you want orca to all be listed as Evil in your campaign? Great! Have fun. But why does anyone feel the need to try and force that on everyone else?
If no one uses alignment, and people can play the game as they wish, then why not leave alignment in?
There is no forcing involved. If you want to play with it you can, and if not, don't.
Ah but, my friend, this is the root of so many problems on these forums. Some people here do not like 5e, in particular because they are powergamers who want more crunch in the game, more powergaming options, and especially many more clearer rules that they can manipulate to enforce their power on others at their tables. They don't like the fact that 5e was designed along much simpler paradigms of simpler english rules with a DM arbitrating everything. And they hate the fact that 5e is so successful when they want to play a different game still called D&D. They want to be part of the trend, but THEIR trend and they will stop at nothing to criticise the game as designed (not that it does not have a few flaws).
......
The end point here is that D&D is just a game system for friends to play with, it's not a "media", and I'm sorry, it's really hypocritical of some people to voluntarily turn a blind eye on specific major types of "-isms" (see above, or the black, all evil orcs of Jackson's LotR) because they are "cool", but rant on very minor ones to push their personal (and sometimes political) agenda.
From what I have seen during my two years here, toxic roleplayers are the ones who are enforcing their views and play styles on others far more often than powergamers.
That is interesting. Please show me forum threads were it's the roleplaying side that is actually poses problems. Actually, let's start humbly, just find me one thread where it's really toxic roleplaying that is causing the problem (and murderhoboing is not roleplaying).
That is easy. We will start right here with your comment bashing on murder hobos for literally no reason.
Recently, there was a thread about a roleplayer wanting the group to do less senseless killing and murderhoboing, but the rest of the group felt that it was generally okay. The poster did not do anything wrong, and it is mostly a session zero issue where expectations were not communicated well, but there is also a bunch of people just bagging on murder hobos and say they suck. You do not have to like murderhoboing, I certainly do not like that playstyle, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
A bit further back, on the thread about TCOE, there are a bunch of posts that are basically "I do not like options and choices, because min-maxing and powergaming."
Speaking of TCOE, dig into any topic about it, and he-who-should-not-be-named cannot even bring himself to say Tasha's or use the acronym TCOE, and yet he will denigrate any group or player that plays differently from him.
Powergamers are not the boogeyman to be wary of, toxic roleplayers are. There is also nothing wrong with pushing political objectives in any hobby, whether it be games, sports, art, or anything else out there.
That is your opinion, but I beg to differ, my opinion is that it is absolutely and utterly wrong to do this.
Especially in a hobby that just relates to groups of friends simply playing a game together. It has nothing to do with the hobby.
D&D is just like any other hobby and medium, and if singers, writers, athletes, etc. can promote their own political views in their own works, the creators of D&D can promote whatever their political views are via D&D. It is really hypocritical to think that it is okay to promote your own political views via D&D but discouraging the creators from doing so at the same time.
It would really be hypocritical if someone was doing this, but who is pushing political views on these forums via D&D ? Certainly not me.
Plenty of hobbies are just people getting together and enjoying each other's company, but that does not mean it is wrong to include politics into the hobby. What you label as politics outside and foreign to the hobby, I label it as the traditional values of respect and manners that should be inherent and self-evident.
Creators want to lessen the pain of others and expand the audience, and labelling that as politics is political. Choosing to ignore the pain of others and dismissing it as politics is also political.
The creators of 5e want to bring more awareness to social and political issues via D&D
Prove it.
In particular, they published 5e as it was with the PH and the DMG and the MM, prove to me that they had such a social and political agenda. I don't see the faintest trace in there, they wanted to publish the best D&D game ever, and they did. That's all.
The proof is in their actions: they keep printing new books and talk about inclusion.
and toxic roleplayers do not like the fact that D&D's simplicity means that it can accomodate different players with different playstyles and worldviews.
What ? Where in hell does this come from ?
D&D's system is simple and flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of players, but toxic roleplayers have a better-than-thou attitude against murder hobos and power gamers. And what many people see as legitimizing murderhoboing against an entire race, toxic roleplayers sees it as just part of the game.
They also hate the fact that 5e is so successful due to its ability to appeal to a wide audience. They want D&D to stagnate and will stop at nothing to to criticise the evolution of the game.
Again, please show to me one "toxic roleplayer" that want the game to stagnate ?
As for me, I'm a roleplayer and storyteller, and I absolutely want the game to progress, in the direction in which it was designed, which is with little crunch, few simple rules, the DM being in charge. So I want many more settings books, and adventures books. That is progress, because it builds on the way the game was designed, as a solid foundation.
Everything crunchy, by the way, is not progress, it's called backwardness, it's from past editions, and it's on dead branches on the D&D tree, the ones that did not generate such a fantastic gaming community.
Removing alignment is hardly crunchy. If anything, it makes things simpler. I do not care about alignment enough to have a strong opinion on whether it should stay or be removed, but I think making it optional is the right way to go to please both sides. However, the way alignment is implemented now, it is as about as interesting and significant as lifestyle expenses and encumbrance, but since it is not technically optional, when alignment does come up suddenly, it is highly disruptive and problematic.
What you label as progress and original intent is subjective. For example, I want more options and flexibility, and I am happy that TCOE allowed for more customization. I and the vast majority of others see that as progress, but other people and players do not and think it over complicates things or make things too powerful. I do not mind more setting and adventure books, but I do not see that as progress, as it is just more of the same.
If you are going to talk smack about liberals and social justice warriors, leave powergamers out of it, they have nothing to do with the topic on hand. I do not know why you are so butthurt over powergamers, but scapegoating them for all the ills of 5e is just silly.
Not all of them, but a fairly large numbers is not silly at all. Just read these forums, and see the amount of conflict generated by trying to stretch the RAW towards more power (because, strangely, it's always in that direction, just as with people rolling dices for stats strangely only get incredibly high scores that they brag about).
The reason I participate in these debates is to try to show the silliness of that, and to show how silly people can get while doing this singularly short sighted reading of the rules (because the rules themselves tell you "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules...None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game").
I do not think these forums are representative of all players, and there are plenty of threads involving annoying roleplayers too.
However, one major difference is that powergamers overall are more polite and respectful than roleplayers. I do not recall any power gamer calling people noobs during my two years here. What I do often hear/read about is the constant tide of belittling, dismissiveness, and rudeness shown by roleplayers towards powergamers and murderhobos. I have not met any murderhobos yet, but I assume they are generally more polite and respectful than roleplayers.
If you want to talk about how powergamers and murderhobos are ruining the game for you, then at least attack them appropriately on a topic that actually involves them. Alignment has practically nothing to do with powergaming. Alignment also does not have anything to do with the stereotypical murderhobos either, but I do see plenty of roleplayers justifying their own murderhoboing against goblins and orcs under the guise of roleplay and alignment.
Also, companies promoting their political views via their own business, products, and services is far better than promoting their political views by lobbying politicians via bribes and Super PACs. For a corporation to put money where their mouth is, I think that is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.
Oh, i'm a realist about that, I regret that this is the way the world works, but if WotC needs to do the belly dance to survive like other companies, I will support them in this, if that is what it takes for them so survive and continue to develop the game I love.
And if, back to the topic at hand, they need to do some TOKEN gesture to satisfy the rabid SJA (yes, I don't like Artificers as a class either, and actually the name suits these people rather well) by not publishing alignment on some new monsters, I'm actually fairly supportive.
But honestly, seeing that alignment still exists, how would you classify a creature whose description includes: "These specialized but flawed terrors serve a single purpose: to drain the cerebral fluids from sapient minds."
Alignment exists, and the root issue I have with it is that it technically is not optional. As a GM, it is easy for me to say to my players "Ignore alignment when you encounter something that needs it.", but other players can expect RAW as the baseline, and it is not as easy for them to just assume their GM is ignoring alignment rules when Robe of the Archmagi or Obsidian Steed Figurine pops up.
Removing alignment from most stat blocks may seem like a token gesture to you, but I think it is a meaningful first step. What I personally want is the further separation of lore and rules; I do not like how the rules and lore intermingle in the text below the stat block of creatures.
For Vampiric Mind Flayers, I would classify them as neutral evil or unaligned, and I lean towards unaligned. In a regular campaign, the Elder Brain sounds like a neutral evil entity to me, so its underlings would match its alignment. In a cosmic horror campaign where I would most likely use them, I would use unaligned instead, to highlight the fact that good and evil does not really exist, and the multiverse does not care about dumb, insignificant, petty things like love, justice, morals, or whatever else pathetic mortals think of.
If I were to redesign the display format of monsters, I would reformat it to something like this: [stat block] additional rules (undead nature, language of emotion, etc.) and explanations [variant and optional rules] [lore] I would keep stat blocks are largely the same, but I would clean up the text section around the stat block and excise lore to its own textbox, like how variant and optional rules are handled in Drow Shadowblade and Drow Inquisitor. I would put alignment in the lore box.
That is interesting. Please show me forum threads were it's the roleplaying side that is actually poses problems. Actually, let's start humbly, just find me one thread where it's really toxic roleplaying that is causing the problem (and murderhoboing is not roleplaying).
"I'm just playing my character" (used to justify your character being a colossal jerk) is one of the classic hallmarks of toxic play, though I'm willing to listen to arguments that it isn't roleplaying. Incidentally, "I'm just playing my alignment" (also used to justify being a colossal jerk) is another of those hallmarks. In general I have found that toxic players are not toxic because of being roleplayers or power gamers or whatever, they're toxic because they're toxic people.
Plenty of hobbies are just people getting together and enjoying each other's company, but that does not mean it is wrong to include politics into the hobby. What you label as politics outside and foreign to the hobby, I label it as the traditional values of respect and manners that should be inherent and self-evident.
Cool, so WotC can learn the hard way, like Lorraine Williams did, that when you crap all over your fanbase, they will leave the hobby in droves. I mean maybe that is what will be best is for WotC to go so far into the red that Hasbro grows a pair and sells off the RPG division so all the doofuses that think cramming their politics into the hobby was smart. Cause nothing says "I love RPGs" like cratering the hobby.
Plenty of hobbies are just people getting together and enjoying each other's company, but that does not mean it is wrong to include politics into the hobby. What you label as politics outside and foreign to the hobby, I label it as the traditional values of respect and manners that should be inherent and self-evident.
Cool, so WotC can learn the hard way, like Lorraine Williams did, that when you crap all over your fanbase, they will leave the hobby in droves. I mean maybe that is what will be best is for WotC to go so far into the red that Hasbro grows a pair and sells off the RPG division so all the doofuses that think cramming their politics into the hobby was smart. Cause nothing says "I love RPGs" like cratering the hobby.
Politics and media have been intertwinned a long time and I doubt that appealing to a young demographic with progressive social views will negatively impact sales....as they have moved towards this and sales have only been steadily increasing and they posted the best year ever in 2020 financially.
Politics and media have been intertwinned a long time and I doubt that appealing to a young demographic with progressive social views will negatively impact sales....as they have moved towards this and sales have only been steadily increasing and they posted the best year ever in 2020 financially.
Lorraine Williams thought things were hunky-dory before TSR imploded around her too. But hey, don't worry, when D&D is a smoldering crater and the hobby as a whole takes a nosedive, you can tell yourself it was all worth it cause "muh politics".
Politics and media have been intertwinned a long time and I doubt that appealing to a young demographic with progressive social views will negatively impact sales....as they have moved towards this and sales have only been steadily increasing and they posted the best year ever in 2020 financially.
Lorraine Williams thought things were hunky-dory before TSR imploded around her too. But hey, don't worry, when D&D is a smoldering crater and the hobby as a whole takes a nosedive, you can tell yourself it was all worth it cause "muh politics".
Well I guess only time will tell. In one year we will see where WotC sits.
Politics and media have been intertwinned a long time and I doubt that appealing to a young demographic with progressive social views will negatively impact sales....as they have moved towards this and sales have only been steadily increasing and they posted the best year ever in 2020 financially.
Lorraine Williams thought things were hunky-dory before TSR imploded around her too. But hey, don't worry, when D&D is a smoldering crater and the hobby as a whole takes a nosedive, you can tell yourself it was all worth it cause "muh politics".
Actually TSR was doing quite badly revenue wise (due to both unexpectedly high secondary costs due to book returns combined with an unsuccessful attempt to get into trading cards) which lead up to her selling the company to WotC a year later.
Considering D&D is going from strength to strength currently, I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Also arguably the sale to WotC was a net positive to D&D and the hobby in general; they've shepherded D&D from strength to strength.
Politics and media have been intertwinned a long time and I doubt that appealing to a young demographic with progressive social views will negatively impact sales....as they have moved towards this and sales have only been steadily increasing and they posted the best year ever in 2020 financially.
Lorraine Williams thought things were hunky-dory before TSR imploded around her too. But hey, don't worry, when D&D is a smoldering crater and the hobby as a whole takes a nosedive, you can tell yourself it was all worth it cause "muh politics".
Actually TSR was doing quite badly revenue wise (due to both unexpectedly high secondary costs due to book returns combined with an unsuccessful attempt to get into trading cards) which lead up to her selling the company to WotC a year later.
Considering D&D is going from strength to strength currently, I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Also arguably the sale to WotC was a net positive to D&D and the hobby in general; they've shepherded D&D from strength to strength.
When Wildmount came out I thought that they would not top that in sales for 2020 but then Tasha's came out and they said that was the best seller for 2020 I was honestly surprised.
They had said that Wildmount had been the best selling book since the PHB and DMG....so to beat that in the same year is pretty impressive.
Plenty of hobbies are just people getting together and enjoying each other's company, but that does not mean it is wrong to include politics into the hobby. What you label as politics outside and foreign to the hobby, I label it as the traditional values of respect and manners that should be inherent and self-evident.
Cool, so WotC can learn the hard way, like Lorraine Williams did, that when you crap all over your fanbase, they will leave the hobby in droves. I mean maybe that is what will be best is for WotC to go so far into the red that Hasbro grows a pair and sells off the RPG division so all the doofuses that think cramming their politics into the hobby was smart. Cause nothing says "I love RPGs" like cratering the hobby.
Again, what you call politics is what I call respect and manners. And for the past several years, traditional values has earned Wizards more revenue and customers than crapping all over them with systemic discrimination and prejudice. You do not have to like it. I think people should grow some skin too. But when people are saying that they are in pain and are hurt, stopping and listening is the least we can do.
A man takes care of others. A man lets women and children get on the lifeboats first. A man in pain grows a pair and lets doctors work on more severe patients first, instead of getting offended that people who are more vulnerable are getting treatment. Rubbing salt in others' wounds and taking away their anesthesia to get high off of it is just being a dick, not a man.
Well just add another component...Critical Role which is VERY popular is highly inclusive and obviously cares about these issues (see Orcs of Wildemount) and their popularity for sure added to the growth of the hobby.
If we're splitting hairs, I just said that sales keep going up, regardless ("despite (or because of)"). I don't claim to know why, but it doesn't look like they're being punished for the new direction they decided to take.
Well, that remains to be seen as the campaign really just started. All that being said, I have said numerous times MOST people I don't believe care about playable humanoid races being any alignment the same as humans as it has zero game impact. I mean the Dwarves of the Faerunian North and the Northern towns are going to continue to view orcs as a whole evil no matter what their actual alignment is. The only difference is if adventuring PCs encounter some orcs they may learn something like one tribe is raiding because the dwarves built their lands on top of their ancestral grounds or something like that which I think would be an interesting twist but I don't know since I am using ancestral burial grounds and orcs I might be accused of painting folk in bad light. LOL. As far as Ravenloft I will say I was going to buy it no matter how bad or good the product was because I was Ravenloft was one of my favorite worlds back in the day and I happy to have it see the light of day again. Also, in all honesty I am happy with the product by far despite a few nitpicky things I have like Relentless Killers (those poor misunderstood people) not having an alignment. I do hope DnD continues to grow but I think WOTC will be gathering feedback as their directions continues and I guess they will weigh opinions like they did on bringing back 9 alignments when 5E was released and some people will get what they want and some will not. The benefits of democracy eh. Pax.
My guess is the primary game impact is on players who play as orcs (or any playable race, really). Rather than tell them "you have to be abnormal to not be evil" or "you have to follow your nature over nurture" or whatever, they can decide for themselves who to be. It still might come with some built-in plot hooks about "being viewed as evil by <some prejudiced folk>" but that's not mandatory. Seems like more narrative freedom, to me. Tell the stories you want to tell, play the parts you want to play, all that stuff.
Yeah I own Wildmount. Along with the Eberron campaign setting. So, since they are inclusive of Orcs that is what made CR popular (even though Eberron did that years before them btw)? Not the inclusion of women on the show and stuff like that. ORC FOLK! That's the answer my brother. I hear you 100 percent. Also is Wildmount the most popular DnD campaign world? I own the book but wondering did it outsale all the other DnD campaign worlds? I will say I didn't buy the book because of how they treat orcs though. That was not even a consideration in my purchase.
P.S. See I'm old but I keep up with new campaign worlds like Wildmount and Ravnica '(the latter I was not impressed with) too. Buying campaign worlds ain't new.
Well, everyone's experience is different. Due to the city where I reside being shut down for over a year (no theater, no live sporting events, etc.), a loving and fun partner who shares many of my same interests, and a fairly good circle of friends throughout the country (I am currently in 4 different gaming groups) i.e 4 different campaigns on various days of the week for various of amounts of time. I play with people from all walks of life, genders, ethnicities, gender preferences, religions, and orientations. In all MY games I can say by and large most people are not looking at a race that deep from the "nature or nurture" perspective or looking to make a political statement or psychosocial treatise based upon the characterization of a race. By and large they think of a concept they want to play and look at races grant a mechanical benefit to what class they want to play, which Tasha's open the door wide open on (Say YES now to high strength Wild Elf barbarians. Yay!) and go from there. This is not to see people don't write detailed backstories and stuff like that for their PCs. I am a self-professed tactical powergamer but always write a detailed background history for my PCs starting from childhood and choose an alignment based off of how his fantasy life shaped the PC (see powergaming/tactical play and storytelling can go hand-in-hand! Wow!). So, I am just not seeing people go that deep with race. The few times I have watched CR since that seems to set the gold standard for DnD for many people on here it does not seem they go that deep either as far as race. They seem to go deep with CHARACTER regardless of race BUT if in your games people are looking at a fantasy race to make a social statement I hear you. That is your experience. I will say Regardless of how that character truly is alignment wise he/she is still going to be shaped by how society feels about him/her. That is to say an orc from a peaceful tribe in Faerun that worships Eldath is realistically still going to encounter plenty of prejudice from the dwarves and human townspeople of the Faerunian north but I hear you man: Orc Lives Matter! Like I said I far more concerned with fiendish races, etc. not having alignments, and sentient malignant monsters, etc.
Thumbs up to all that! That's incredibly similar to my experience with the game these days.
Personally, I find 5e's traits/ideals/bonds/flaws system way more useful than alignment, and tend to only reluctantly pick an alignment after figuring out everything else, and then the campaign ignores it entirely.
I was just making a guess about what would be the biggest impact, or where the biggest impact would be felt. My own playstyle attaches so little significance to game-race that it doesn't affect me, but then I avoid any DMs who are strict about PC/creature behavior being "by the book." I gather there are players and DMs more directly affected by these things than me, of course.
I do find official support for, well, any and all cases of essentialism being reduced or removed (i.e. the "nature vs nurture" conflict is outdated and pointless to my worldview) to make my particular playstyle easier.
From a strictly gameist perspective, it makes a lot of sense to have "easy" antagonist creatures. "Monsters" you can play the tactical board game against without roleplaying hiccups or ethical dilemmas. I gather that "fiends" and whatnot are the natural fit for that, though I've never trusted D&D's worldbuilding enough to really rely on it ;)
D&D alignment, being definitionally two-dimensional, is at least a passable take on how to do that.
I just want to say I appreciate your perspective and your communication about your experiences. It always helps me to better see a problem/topic if I have multiple angles on it.
Thanks for what was said before the preceding the above quote. It was a good dialogue. I also apologize for the typos/syntax mistakes. I was multitasking between WFH and posting on this board. WFH has benefits but sometimes not grammar wise when typing in a rush.
Onto the point the point in quotes above. Yes. I am at heart a gamists. From a player perspective I approach DnD by default from a tactical/powergaming standpoint and then try to layer and equal amount of storytelling. I would take a sidebar to note that this uptick in DnD sales is also when some of the crunchiest books have come out and crunchy books seem to sale very well. Hmmm. Being a gamists I like my monsters to be "tidy" but "tidy" doesn't mean none complex. Evil characters can have motivations that while evil benefit a good cause and thus create some moral dilemmas for those who like that kind of game. Eberron is a fine example of that.
DnD world building in the past I have found very good for the most part. Take Planescape. If you can find those old products which are ridiculously expensive now for some reason from what I have seen the level of detail of the planes is very good and this is where alignment matters for things like fiends. In particular, for Planescape there was one supplement called Planes of Law. In that boxed set they went into detail about the different planes of law and the layers on each. For the Nine Hells (at that time redubbed Baator) they covered the 5th level of Hell, Stygia. They explained how since the Lord of that Plane was imprisoned in an Ice mountain there were different gangs of devils fighting in the streets within the main city of Stygia for control of the layer. I THINK the city was called Tantlin's Harbor if my memory is correct. At any rate, it explained how a visitor there could get caught up and be in danger of getting caught in the crossfires (proverbially and literally) of the gangs vying for control. It sounds chaotic right? Not really because while these bands were all at war and the gangs dividing up the city and fighting the Lord of Fifth, Levistus was still a part of the hierarchy and answered to the Lord of Ninth (Asmodeus though they wouldn't name him in 2E) and the different devil packs fighting for control were well organized individually with a command structure, etc.
This was vastly different from say some of the demonic outposts that existed on Pazunia, the first layer of the Abyss. Where some outposts and citadels existed and a demon chief like a balor or something maybe the lord of the town but his whims were often capricious (chaotic) and the different bands fighting there were not organized but rather just based on who was the strongest or most charismatic demon (Tanar'ri). Each expansion of the Blood War was like this and really emphasized the differences between the two races. 3.5 did this well also with two supplements called Hordes of the Abyss and Tyrants of the Nine Hells. This is why when 4E came along and you had Demons (Chaotic Evil) and Devils and Yugoloth both of which are fundamental to the Blood War but vastly different in outlook from the demons and each other labeled as simply "Evil". It mattered. Not having the LE and NE really impacted the how different these things were, which is why I am curious as to what will happen if 5E does Planescape which along with Ravenloft, and Dark Sun, got voted the top 3 worlds that fans wanted to see released.
Thanks. I think a robust discussion is always fun.
I love some of the discussion here. It’s natural to lament change. Sometimes embracing new is hard because One might think it invalidates one’s world view, or insinuates they way one played previously was wrong. It’s none of those things. Doing away with alignment is just in… alignment with the way that a large part, perhaps the majority, of the community has been playing. I haven’t used alignment in D&D in decades. I can’t recall a campaign where it factored in any real sense to at least five long term campaigns. It’s just… irrelevant.
Look, you want orca to all be listed as Evil in your campaign? Great! Have fun. But why does anyone feel the need to try and force that on everyone else?
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
If no one uses alignment, and people can play the game as they wish, then why not leave alignment in?
There is no forcing involved. If you want to play with it you can, and if not, don't.
That is easy. We will start right here with your comment bashing on murder hobos for literally no reason.
Recently, there was a thread about a roleplayer wanting the group to do less senseless killing and murderhoboing, but the rest of the group felt that it was generally okay. The poster did not do anything wrong, and it is mostly a session zero issue where expectations were not communicated well, but there is also a bunch of people just bagging on murder hobos and say they suck. You do not have to like murderhoboing, I certainly do not like that playstyle, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
A bit further back, on the thread about TCOE, there are a bunch of posts that are basically "I do not like options and choices, because min-maxing and powergaming."
Speaking of TCOE, dig into any topic about it, and he-who-should-not-be-named cannot even bring himself to say Tasha's or use the acronym TCOE, and yet he will denigrate any group or player that plays differently from him.
Plenty of hobbies are just people getting together and enjoying each other's company, but that does not mean it is wrong to include politics into the hobby. What you label as politics outside and foreign to the hobby, I label it as the traditional values of respect and manners that should be inherent and self-evident.
Creators want to lessen the pain of others and expand the audience, and labelling that as politics is political. Choosing to ignore the pain of others and dismissing it as politics is also political.
The proof is in their actions: they keep printing new books and talk about inclusion.
D&D's system is simple and flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of players, but toxic roleplayers have a better-than-thou attitude against murder hobos and power gamers. And what many people see as legitimizing murderhoboing against an entire race, toxic roleplayers sees it as just part of the game.
Removing alignment is hardly crunchy. If anything, it makes things simpler. I do not care about alignment enough to have a strong opinion on whether it should stay or be removed, but I think making it optional is the right way to go to please both sides. However, the way alignment is implemented now, it is as about as interesting and significant as lifestyle expenses and encumbrance, but since it is not technically optional, when alignment does come up suddenly, it is highly disruptive and problematic.
What you label as progress and original intent is subjective. For example, I want more options and flexibility, and I am happy that TCOE allowed for more customization. I and the vast majority of others see that as progress, but other people and players do not and think it over complicates things or make things too powerful. I do not mind more setting and adventure books, but I do not see that as progress, as it is just more of the same.
I do not think these forums are representative of all players, and there are plenty of threads involving annoying roleplayers too.
However, one major difference is that powergamers overall are more polite and respectful than roleplayers. I do not recall any power gamer calling people noobs during my two years here. What I do often hear/read about is the constant tide of belittling, dismissiveness, and rudeness shown by roleplayers towards powergamers and murderhobos. I have not met any murderhobos yet, but I assume they are generally more polite and respectful than roleplayers.
If you want to talk about how powergamers and murderhobos are ruining the game for you, then at least attack them appropriately on a topic that actually involves them. Alignment has practically nothing to do with powergaming. Alignment also does not have anything to do with the stereotypical murderhobos either, but I do see plenty of roleplayers justifying their own murderhoboing against goblins and orcs under the guise of roleplay and alignment.
Alignment exists, and the root issue I have with it is that it technically is not optional. As a GM, it is easy for me to say to my players "Ignore alignment when you encounter something that needs it.", but other players can expect RAW as the baseline, and it is not as easy for them to just assume their GM is ignoring alignment rules when Robe of the Archmagi or Obsidian Steed Figurine pops up.
Removing alignment from most stat blocks may seem like a token gesture to you, but I think it is a meaningful first step. What I personally want is the further separation of lore and rules; I do not like how the rules and lore intermingle in the text below the stat block of creatures.
For Vampiric Mind Flayers, I would classify them as neutral evil or unaligned, and I lean towards unaligned. In a regular campaign, the Elder Brain sounds like a neutral evil entity to me, so its underlings would match its alignment. In a cosmic horror campaign where I would most likely use them, I would use unaligned instead, to highlight the fact that good and evil does not really exist, and the multiverse does not care about dumb, insignificant, petty things like love, justice, morals, or whatever else pathetic mortals think of.
If I were to redesign the display format of monsters, I would reformat it to something like this:
[stat block]
additional rules (undead nature, language of emotion, etc.) and explanations
[variant and optional rules]
[lore]
I would keep stat blocks are largely the same, but I would clean up the text section around the stat block and excise lore to its own textbox, like how variant and optional rules are handled in Drow Shadowblade and Drow Inquisitor. I would put alignment in the lore box.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
"I'm just playing my character" (used to justify your character being a colossal jerk) is one of the classic hallmarks of toxic play, though I'm willing to listen to arguments that it isn't roleplaying. Incidentally, "I'm just playing my alignment" (also used to justify being a colossal jerk) is another of those hallmarks. In general I have found that toxic players are not toxic because of being roleplayers or power gamers or whatever, they're toxic because they're toxic people.
Cool, so WotC can learn the hard way, like Lorraine Williams did, that when you crap all over your fanbase, they will leave the hobby in droves. I mean maybe that is what will be best is for WotC to go so far into the red that Hasbro grows a pair and sells off the RPG division so all the doofuses that think cramming their politics into the hobby was smart. Cause nothing says "I love RPGs" like cratering the hobby.
Politics and media have been intertwinned a long time and I doubt that appealing to a young demographic with progressive social views will negatively impact sales....as they have moved towards this and sales have only been steadily increasing and they posted the best year ever in 2020 financially.
Lorraine Williams thought things were hunky-dory before TSR imploded around her too. But hey, don't worry, when D&D is a smoldering crater and the hobby as a whole takes a nosedive, you can tell yourself it was all worth it cause "muh politics".
Well I guess only time will tell. In one year we will see where WotC sits.
Actually TSR was doing quite badly revenue wise (due to both unexpectedly high secondary costs due to book returns combined with an unsuccessful attempt to get into trading cards) which lead up to her selling the company to WotC a year later.
Considering D&D is going from strength to strength currently, I'm not sure the comparison is valid. Also arguably the sale to WotC was a net positive to D&D and the hobby in general; they've shepherded D&D from strength to strength.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
When Wildmount came out I thought that they would not top that in sales for 2020 but then Tasha's came out and they said that was the best seller for 2020 I was honestly surprised.
They had said that Wildmount had been the best selling book since the PHB and DMG....so to beat that in the same year is pretty impressive.
Again, what you call politics is what I call respect and manners. And for the past several years, traditional values has earned Wizards more revenue and customers than crapping all over them with systemic discrimination and prejudice. You do not have to like it. I think people should grow some skin too. But when people are saying that they are in pain and are hurt, stopping and listening is the least we can do.
A man takes care of others. A man lets women and children get on the lifeboats first. A man in pain grows a pair and lets doctors work on more severe patients first, instead of getting offended that people who are more vulnerable are getting treatment. Rubbing salt in others' wounds and taking away their anesthesia to get high off of it is just being a dick, not a man.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >