BUT, I can refer to dozens of articles talking about the histories of the various controversies that D&D has been embroiled since its inception, and the vast vast majority that refer to any racism and misogyny in the game are very very recent. I lived through that era. It is a simple fact, it is actual history, that in the 70's,80's, and 90's, D&D was beset with attacks over it being a murder/suicide cult, or one that promotes satanism, or anti-Christianity. But sexism and racism was hardly ever brought up. Your "lived experience" might be different, but it was in the minority 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago.
The fact that it was hardly ever brought up is the exact problem. People weren't cognizant of the racist and/or sexist undertones (or in some groups overtones), they are now.
Exactly, society has moved on. The fact that something wasn't controversial at one time doesn't mean that it can never become controversial, that's just silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The fact that it was hardly ever brought up is the exact problem. People weren't cognizant of the racist and/or sexist undertones (or in some groups overtones), they are now.
"Gaming in general is a male thing. It isn't that gaming is designed to exclude women. Everybody who's tried to design a game to interest a large female audience has failed. And I think that has to do with the different thinking processes of men and women." Gary Gygax
"There will be four major groups in which women may enter. They may be FIGHTERS, MAGIC USERS, THIEVES and CLERICS. They may progress to the level of men in the area of magic and, in some ways, surpass men as thieves. Elven women may rise especially to high levels in clerics to the elves. Only as fighters are women clearly behind men in all cases but even they have attributes that their male counterparts do not!" Len Lakofka, The Dragon Magazine 1977
Tables published on the article regarding the "beauty" skill - meant to replace charisma for female characters
There are tons of other examples in this nice article
BUT, I can refer to dozens of articles talking about the histories of the various controversies that D&D has been embroiled since its inception, and the vast vast majority that refer to any racism and misogyny in the game are very very recent. I lived through that era. It is a simple fact, it is actual history, that in the 70's,80's, and 90's, D&D was beset with attacks over it being a murder/suicide cult, or one that promotes satanism, or anti-Christianity. But sexism and racism was hardly ever brought up. Your "lived experience" might be different, but it was in the minority 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago.
The fact that it was hardly ever brought up is the exact problem. People weren't cognizant of the racist and/or sexist undertones (or in some groups overtones), they are now.
Or, maybe that people who actually lived through that time, who quite literally have infinite more experience in that matter than some 19 year old, might be able to know what is good for them, than said 19 year old. Maybe, just maybe, that those that actually lived through that time did not recognize any racist or sexist overtones because there were none in D&D.
Wow. Thats so staggeringly false. Any 19 year old could read the rules for older versions of D&D and (with enough time) become an expert in them. Saying that because they werent alive when those versions of D&D came out their opinions on the content dont matter is honestly just stupid.
Being older does not automatically make you wiser, despite popular belief to the contrary.
look, dennis. we are not denying you of your childhood. maybe you didnt experience this racism/sexism. thats great.maybe you didnt notice any. thats fine, many people didnt. but some did, and thats the sad reality. racism/sexism in dnd exists, and did 40 years ago. we are not targeting you because you didnt notice. thats fine, some people are more attuned to these things, others less so. but rascism and sexism was present. thats an undeniable fact. it wasnt ever present(not everyone who plays dnd is racist/sexist. a few are, but we are not saying that because some are, you are. we are simply saying that racism/sexism was present. so.. yeah.
I just dont understand what you are trying to accomplish. are you trying to deny that racism is present in dnd? are you trying to say that money is key? are you trying to start an argument? this is an honest question, I am a bit confused as to your goal
I just dont understand what you are trying to accomplish. are you trying to deny that racism is present in dnd? are you trying to say that money is key? are you trying to start an argument? this is an honest question, I am a bit confused as to your goal
Some people don't want balance, they really want the game to remain forever static and unchanging because being exposed to new things causes them to go on geriatric rants about how much better things were back in the days when minis were made out of lead and female characters had a strength penalty to balance out their ability to bear children.
And to be clear, since my patience has been exhausted:
I am thirty-six years old, Dennis. I am also a non-binary individual who is a new player of D&D 5e specifically, within the last four years, who approves of many of the new directions and initiatives Wizards is taking. They're not getting everything right, primarily because they're Wizards of the Coast and are thus an objectively terrible company, but to my infinite surprise they're getting more right than wrong.
You may continue to believe that anyone who sees issues with the history/presentation of D&D is nothing but a callow youth unfamiliar with reality and unlikely to stick with the hobby, if you wish. You will be provably incorrect, but you may believe as you desire.
I just dont understand what you are trying to accomplish. are you trying to deny that racism is present in dnd? are you trying to say that money is key? are you trying to start an argument? this is an honest question, I am a bit confused as to your goal
Some people don't want balance, they really want the game to remain forever static and unchanging because being exposed to new things causes them to go on geriatric rants about how much better things were back in the days when minis were made out of lead and female characters had a strength penalty to balance out their ability to bear children.
And to be clear, since my patience has been exhausted:
I am thirty-six years old, Dennis. I am also a non-binary individual who is a new player of D&D 5e specifically, within the last four years, who approves of many of the new directions and initiatives Wizards is taking. They're not getting everything right, primarily because they're Wizards of the Coast and are thus an objectively terrible company, but to my infinite surprise they're getting more right than wrong.
You may continue to believe that anyone who sees issues with the history/presentation of D&D is nothing but a callow youth unfamiliar with reality and unlikely to stick with the hobby, if you wish. You will be provably incorrect, but you may believe as you desire.
Tell you what folks. I am not going to change anyone's mind, especially if they are under 25.
Let's just wait and see what happens with sales of the new books, like the one with the picture of the prom on it. Let's see how sales do. As I said earlier, the ultimate test will be sales. If those books do badly, I expect you will see changes at WOTC, as Hasbro shareholders don't care what was right or wrong 40 years ago. They care about profits. And if it goes as I expect, many people on this site won't like the team that will move in if sales tank.
Dont worry, you're not changing the minds of us 25+ year olds either :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Tell you what folks. I am not going to change anyone's mind, especially if they are under 25.
Let's just wait and see what happens with sales of the new books, like the one with the picture of the prom on it. Let's see how sales do. As I said earlier, the ultimate test will be sales. If those books do badly, I expect you will see changes at WOTC, as Hasbro shareholders don't care what was right or wrong 40 years ago. They care about profits. And if it goes as I expect, many people on this site won't like the team that will move in if sales tank.
Dont worry, you're not changing the minds of us 25+ year olds either :)
Yeah, I'm 50 and he refused to hear me. I wonder why he never saw or heard about this issue 40 years ago?
Tell you what folks. I am not going to change anyone's mind, especially if they are under 25.
Let's just wait and see what happens with sales of the new books, like the one with the picture of the prom on it. Let's see how sales do. As I said earlier, the ultimate test will be sales. If those books do badly, I expect you will see changes at WOTC, as Hasbro shareholders don't care what was right or wrong 40 years ago. They care about profits. And if it goes as I expect, many people on this site won't like the team that will move in if sales tank.
Anyway, I hope that we do get an updated PHB, but I don't really think that is going to happen. I think we could get and book with alternatives to the original Subclasses, but that may be a stretch as well.
I doubt we'll get an updated PHB or revisions to OG subclasses either. Not unless there was overwhelming demand for it in the survey, but even then I'd be skeptical without there being a serious shift in WotC's philosophy for 5e.
I doubt we'll get an updated PHB or revisions to OG subclasses either. Not unless there was overwhelming demand for it in the survey, but even then I'd be skeptical without there being a serious shift in WotC's philosophy for 5e.
I agree, which makes me wonder even more about what the Survey is looking for.
I doubt we'll get an updated PHB or revisions to OG subclasses either. Not unless there was overwhelming demand for it in the survey, but even then I'd be skeptical without there being a serious shift in WotC's philosophy for 5e.
We might not get say, an updated PHB, but I could see them maybe rereleasing stuff with updates.
I mean Tasha's heavily revamps ranger with optionsal class feature replacements and expanded on the basttlemaster by adding more maneuvers. (Granted, there's also the fighting style and feat, so it's not ONLY battlemaster affected, but it is the main source of maneuvers.) So I wouldn't be shocked if they added similar updates to other older subclasses.
Nothing is stopping Wizards from reprinting updated PHB material in a new companion book. Fixing/upgrading bad/behind PHB content does not necessarily equate to a whole-ass new PHB. It could very easily be Bigwig's Training Academy or some such, an optional bolt-on book that prints new versions of existing content for those who want them without invalidating older content. Or at least, without 'invalidating' it any more than it would by dint of existing.
Nothing is stopping Wizards from reprinting updated PHB material in a new companion book. Fixing/upgrading bad/behind PHB content does not necessarily equate to a whole-ass new PHB. It could very easily be Bigwig's Training Academy or some such, an optional bolt-on book that prints new versions of existing content for those who want them without invalidating older content. Or at least, without 'invalidating' it any more than it would by dint of existing.
Way back when, a guy asked me (slightly paraphrased) if there were any People of Color that attended High School with me. We were in North Carolina at the time, and this was a significant issue there. I considered it. I went to High School in Colorado Springs. I couldn't remember any People of Color, but I was pretty sure there were some. I said "All I remember is that I went to High School with normal people."
That's when I started playing roleplaying games, and the game I started with was the first edition of AD&D. Were we any more "ist" than other folks? No. Any less? Possibly. People who play roleplaying games tend to be pretty bright, they tend to like fiction of all sorts, and most my friends were heavy readers. I learned a lot about philosophy from Azimov and Heinlein. I loved Star Trek, which was notable for pushing "racial" boundaries and had a lot to say about gender roles, national stereotypes, and how ordinary people could do extraordinary things.
When some fool from the press corps shows up for a sound bite, they don't want to hear a rep from WotC give a meaningful comment about how "terrible" D&D is and always has been, they want to hear "Oh yes, it was horrible." The person actually talking usually adds "but we are working on it all the time." and that part of their sentence will be edited out.
So in a game in which there actually are Races, unlike on Earth, were we have species, the question is, are all Dwarves alike? Is every one of them dour, gruff, and tactless? Are they all strong, and tough, live underground and know everything there is to know about stonework, mining and crafting? Honestly, that would make them pretty dull to me.
From the very beginning of the game, the conceit was that Humans were the most "flexible" of all races, and that's why they were the dominant race for all settings. The problem has always been that being "flexible" is inferior to being powerful. All the other races got powers, and Humans were fairly rarely played. In my years of playing, I have seen very few Human player characters. Mountain Dwarves and Half-Elves are pretty much the only races that get 4 points worth of scores as a benefit, along with all the other powers they get. That makes them, along with Drow, the Master Races, and that's horrible.
5th edition Humans come in a version that gets one point to each score, which is trivial and I still don't see any in play, and a Feat at first level plus 2 score points. I do see some of those now and again, mostly for "power builds" that a lot of people despise. They still aren't anywhere near as good as a Half-Elf. Darkvision in and of itself is worthy of a Feat.
There are classes and sub-classes that need work. I've pondered the issues with many of them. The idea of giving all Warrior types versions of the Battle Master maneuvers has merit. Armor needs to do more than just make it harder for the target to get hit. In the real world, armor also made it more difficult to damage someone who was protected, and for armor to remain useful through the Tiers, it needs to scale in some way. Currently, Studded Leather Armor (which has never really existed. the real thing was usually called "Cur Bolis") has only one less point of armor class below that of Plate with a character who has a 20 Dex. Sorcerers could use a few spells for each bloodline that were unique to them, and possibly an slightly expanded spell list over all. Wizard have too many schools, there are far too many Domains for Divine casters, and the Hexblade clearly needs to be re-tuned or removed.
The rules for resting aren't working. Short Rests need to be a passive thing, in which all "short rest" abilities are recovered after one hour of downtime no matter what light activity has been going on. Casting Cantrips isn't strenuous, the very idea that at will abilities are a strain to use is silly. Simply requiring Concentration for abilities like using Sorcerery points to create Spell slots would solve a lot of nonsense. The actual relationship between Sleep and Exhaustion needs to be more clearly defined, because Elves don't need to sleep, and yet there is a school of thought that says they never-the-less become exhausted after a while.
I don't expect any of these things to be addressed any time soon. Not in a "5.5" edition, and probably not all of them in 6th edition. Also, I've lived to see a lot of changes in American culture in my time, so who knows what standards will be like when 6th edition rolls out. They may decide to remove all races, cultures, genders, and re-write all the lore. I note that even now, Alignment is under attack, and there have been so many pages of argument about how to replace it. It can't be removed, not without doing with 4th edition did, and creating a game that "Just isn't D&D".
PF did an “unchained” book that gave a few of the character classes a boost. Releasing a new edition or half edition may be a bit premature at this point, but they could reimagine some parts of the core game that groups could choose implement or ignore.
I would like to remind people to stay on topic. I understand that topics can drift, but when the topic of the thread is a hypothetical future edition/revision, it should be relatively easy to notice you've drifted off topic when you start getting into arguments about the history of D&D.
Exactly, society has moved on. The fact that something wasn't controversial at one time doesn't mean that it can never become controversial, that's just silly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"Gaming in general is a male thing. It isn't that gaming is designed to exclude women. Everybody who's tried to design a game to interest a large female audience has failed. And I think that has to do with the different thinking processes of men and women." Gary Gygax
"There will be four major groups in which women may enter. They may be FIGHTERS, MAGIC USERS, THIEVES and CLERICS. They may progress to the level of men in the area of magic and, in some ways, surpass men as thieves. Elven women may rise especially to high levels in clerics to the elves. Only as fighters are women clearly behind men in all cases but even they have attributes that their male counterparts do not!" Len Lakofka, The Dragon Magazine 1977
Tables published on the article regarding the "beauty" skill - meant to replace charisma for female characters
There are tons of other examples in this nice article
Wow. Thats so staggeringly false. Any 19 year old could read the rules for older versions of D&D and (with enough time) become an expert in them. Saying that because they werent alive when those versions of D&D came out their opinions on the content dont matter is honestly just stupid.
Being older does not automatically make you wiser, despite popular belief to the contrary.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
look, dennis. we are not denying you of your childhood. maybe you didnt experience this racism/sexism. thats great.maybe you didnt notice any. thats fine, many people didnt. but some did, and thats the sad reality. racism/sexism in dnd exists, and did 40 years ago. we are not targeting you because you didnt notice. thats fine, some people are more attuned to these things, others less so. but rascism and sexism was present. thats an undeniable fact. it wasnt ever present(not everyone who plays dnd is racist/sexist. a few are, but we are not saying that because some are, you are. we are simply saying that racism/sexism was present. so.. yeah.
N/A
I just dont understand what you are trying to accomplish. are you trying to deny that racism is present in dnd? are you trying to say that money is key? are you trying to start an argument? this is an honest question, I am a bit confused as to your goal
N/A
And to be clear, since my patience has been exhausted:
I am thirty-six years old, Dennis. I am also a non-binary individual who is a new player of D&D 5e specifically, within the last four years, who approves of many of the new directions and initiatives Wizards is taking. They're not getting everything right, primarily because they're Wizards of the Coast and are thus an objectively terrible company, but to my infinite surprise they're getting more right than wrong.
You may continue to believe that anyone who sees issues with the history/presentation of D&D is nothing but a callow youth unfamiliar with reality and unlikely to stick with the hobby, if you wish. You will be provably incorrect, but you may believe as you desire.
Please do not contact or message me.
this needs to be said. thank you
N/A
Dont worry, you're not changing the minds of us 25+ year olds either :)
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yeah, I'm 50 and he refused to hear me. I wonder why he never saw or heard about this issue 40 years ago?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I’m 40. Wanna give it a shot with me?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Probably for reasons not worth the time or acid reflux spent speculating on it.
Anyway, I hope that we do get an updated PHB, but I don't really think that is going to happen. I think we could get and book with alternatives to the original Subclasses, but that may be a stretch as well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I doubt we'll get an updated PHB or revisions to OG subclasses either. Not unless there was overwhelming demand for it in the survey, but even then I'd be skeptical without there being a serious shift in WotC's philosophy for 5e.
I agree, which makes me wonder even more about what the Survey is looking for.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
We might not get say, an updated PHB, but I could see them maybe rereleasing stuff with updates.
I mean Tasha's heavily revamps ranger with optionsal class feature replacements and expanded on the basttlemaster by adding more maneuvers. (Granted, there's also the fighting style and feat, so it's not ONLY battlemaster affected, but it is the main source of maneuvers.) So I wouldn't be shocked if they added similar updates to other older subclasses.
Nothing is stopping Wizards from reprinting updated PHB material in a new companion book. Fixing/upgrading bad/behind PHB content does not necessarily equate to a whole-ass new PHB. It could very easily be Bigwig's Training Academy or some such, an optional bolt-on book that prints new versions of existing content for those who want them without invalidating older content. Or at least, without 'invalidating' it any more than it would by dint of existing.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yup exactly what they are going to do
Way back when, a guy asked me (slightly paraphrased) if there were any People of Color that attended High School with me. We were in North Carolina at the time, and this was a significant issue there. I considered it. I went to High School in Colorado Springs. I couldn't remember any People of Color, but I was pretty sure there were some. I said "All I remember is that I went to High School with normal people."
That's when I started playing roleplaying games, and the game I started with was the first edition of AD&D. Were we any more "ist" than other folks? No. Any less? Possibly. People who play roleplaying games tend to be pretty bright, they tend to like fiction of all sorts, and most my friends were heavy readers. I learned a lot about philosophy from Azimov and Heinlein. I loved Star Trek, which was notable for pushing "racial" boundaries and had a lot to say about gender roles, national stereotypes, and how ordinary people could do extraordinary things.
When some fool from the press corps shows up for a sound bite, they don't want to hear a rep from WotC give a meaningful comment about how "terrible" D&D is and always has been, they want to hear "Oh yes, it was horrible." The person actually talking usually adds "but we are working on it all the time." and that part of their sentence will be edited out.
So in a game in which there actually are Races, unlike on Earth, were we have species, the question is, are all Dwarves alike? Is every one of them dour, gruff, and tactless? Are they all strong, and tough, live underground and know everything there is to know about stonework, mining and crafting? Honestly, that would make them pretty dull to me.
From the very beginning of the game, the conceit was that Humans were the most "flexible" of all races, and that's why they were the dominant race for all settings. The problem has always been that being "flexible" is inferior to being powerful. All the other races got powers, and Humans were fairly rarely played. In my years of playing, I have seen very few Human player characters. Mountain Dwarves and Half-Elves are pretty much the only races that get 4 points worth of scores as a benefit, along with all the other powers they get. That makes them, along with Drow, the Master Races, and that's horrible.
5th edition Humans come in a version that gets one point to each score, which is trivial and I still don't see any in play, and a Feat at first level plus 2 score points. I do see some of those now and again, mostly for "power builds" that a lot of people despise. They still aren't anywhere near as good as a Half-Elf. Darkvision in and of itself is worthy of a Feat.
There are classes and sub-classes that need work. I've pondered the issues with many of them. The idea of giving all Warrior types versions of the Battle Master maneuvers has merit. Armor needs to do more than just make it harder for the target to get hit. In the real world, armor also made it more difficult to damage someone who was protected, and for armor to remain useful through the Tiers, it needs to scale in some way. Currently, Studded Leather Armor (which has never really existed. the real thing was usually called "Cur Bolis") has only one less point of armor class below that of Plate with a character who has a 20 Dex. Sorcerers could use a few spells for each bloodline that were unique to them, and possibly an slightly expanded spell list over all. Wizard have too many schools, there are far too many Domains for Divine casters, and the Hexblade clearly needs to be re-tuned or removed.
The rules for resting aren't working. Short Rests need to be a passive thing, in which all "short rest" abilities are recovered after one hour of downtime no matter what light activity has been going on. Casting Cantrips isn't strenuous, the very idea that at will abilities are a strain to use is silly. Simply requiring Concentration for abilities like using Sorcerery points to create Spell slots would solve a lot of nonsense. The actual relationship between Sleep and Exhaustion needs to be more clearly defined, because Elves don't need to sleep, and yet there is a school of thought that says they never-the-less become exhausted after a while.
I don't expect any of these things to be addressed any time soon. Not in a "5.5" edition, and probably not all of them in 6th edition. Also, I've lived to see a lot of changes in American culture in my time, so who knows what standards will be like when 6th edition rolls out. They may decide to remove all races, cultures, genders, and re-write all the lore. I note that even now, Alignment is under attack, and there have been so many pages of argument about how to replace it. It can't be removed, not without doing with 4th edition did, and creating a game that "Just isn't D&D".
<Insert clever signature here>
PF did an “unchained” book that gave a few of the character classes a boost. Releasing a new edition or half edition may be a bit premature at this point, but they could reimagine some parts of the core game that groups could choose implement or ignore.
I would like to remind people to stay on topic. I understand that topics can drift, but when the topic of the thread is a hypothetical future edition/revision, it should be relatively easy to notice you've drifted off topic when you start getting into arguments about the history of D&D.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here