Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
This claim, although it has been repeated dozens of times, has been thoroughly debunked.
Please read this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, and this post.
Yes, Orcs, Drow, Hobgoblins, Neimoidians, and other sci-fi/fantasy races are fictional. We all know that. You can stop pretending that we're all toddlers that don't have a sense of reality yet. We know that. However, they often have stereotypes and cultural elements from real world peoples attached to them. That is the problem.
Just, seriously, read those posts. The thread isn't that long. You could at least have the decency of reading through it before posting stuff that has been rebutted multiple times already.
Please and thank you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Derrick, I served with Susumu Kodai on the Yamato with the Black Tigers, during our interstellar voyages Derrick grew from an angry young man to a courageous and valiant and sensitive leader. Derrick Wildstar was a friend of mine. You sir, are no Derrick Wildstar.
So your catapaulting off the Argo's flight deck with the presumption that fictional constructions are somehow innocuous by nature flies in the face of generations of production efforts where fictional and particularly fantastically set fictions are brought up to be more reflective of broader cultural sensibilities; and as an argument crashes like that time Wildstar tried to take his bespoke fighter off the Argo in a cosmic cyclone only to wreck it against the gun decks.
There's nothing in the RAW or even present lore that prevents a DM from defining "clear cut" bad guys. There's a lot of reasons a particular table, especially a convention event may not be a given player's cup of tea. In my experience, meeting the group before committing and carefully reading the program event description usually gives me an idea of what I'm in for before I launch into it. Sorta like discussions online.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think I said it before, but the whole notion that this is a thing is what I'd say is silly beyond compare. I've never been in a game where the DM had to make an extra effort to point out that X monster or Y character was evil or bad. Any and all adventure I can recall already made a point of that, regardless of invisible "EVIL" pancartes hanging over entire demographics of critters. Nobody ever had to tell themselves "orcs are evil, the lot of them" to justify taking action against orcs because if there were orcs and the party was meant to fight them those orcs would have been shown to be slavers or looters or robbers or an invading warlord's elite shock troops or all of the above. Evil never had to be implied by metagame knowledge, it was always explicit if the story wanted it to be. Sessions aren't going to take longer. There's not going to be any doubt unless the DM actually wants it for their story. DMs aren't going to have to tell you that yes, those things are evil, have at it without blemishing your pure white Goody-Good souls. Thinking that tha's going to change, that's silly.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes the lore won't be lost, but those who don't know it exists, won't seek it out. It is what it is. I really don't care. I just said it's a shame.
Conversations with who, a few squeaky wheels?
In this case, WoTC got scared into complying with the demands of a relatively small number of people.
How many people have you personally met that have been offended by D&D?...
Uh hello ... *raises hand*
Also: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/95854-design-direction-changes-for-race-in-d-d-5e?comment=398
Also: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/108237-is-wotc-treading-an-insensitive-line-concerning?comment=27
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
My mistake Kotath. I reread your comment and I see what you are trying to get at. Apologies!
I'm thinking you don't really care because you know it's a bunk argument. There's a story and lore section in this very forum where new players and more experienced players have extended discussions about prior edition lore and portrayal. Like comic book continuity debate level stuff. This is more to my point that you don't seem to know what "is" is regarding the accessibility of lore and new players use of said material.
That's also just not true. It is a story spread by outlets like BolS to get the "Lore Revanchists" all up in arms. You can continue to pretend that editorial decisions have been made to bow to some threatening "minority" of players, when in reality these, like all changes to popular pastime production, were made to draw more folks into the game.
Personally, every gamer I've discussed content changes with in person likes the changes being done, to a one seeing them as ways to do more with the game. They also like that the publisher is taking more steps to being more cultural responsible and diversity open because it makes running the game easier. Not sure whether you thought your elliptical challenge was supposed to frustrate me or something. It's only in online spaces do I find people making proclamations of shame and sadness over paragraph excisions they don't seem to actually be familiar with.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is really a silly statement. There are current players and potential players that WotC, as a business, should be trying to engage with their product. Even if there were currently a small number of people who are players and who expressed concern for some objectionable lore, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that D&D may not have appeal to a great number of potential payers for these same concerning reasons. As I have said many times over several days: an IP has to remain relevant to continue to thrive. [REDACTED]
And several people across a few threads have given concrete, anecdotal examples from real life people who found some D&D content offensive. In fact, Third_Sundering linked some examples on this very page. How many times will this ask be made, only to ignore it and ask again later?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The minority appears to be those complaining about the errata, but time will tell I guess.
DND absolutely is optimised for violence. That's what the whole system is built around. Oh, okay, I guess you can magic your way out, but it sure as heck isn't built to encourage social interaction. Sure, there are one roll pass/fail options for social encounters but the game is not optimised for them. And yes, you can use words but that only makes my point - if you're not articulate and social encounters rely on IRL words, what kind of character are you going to choose?
Even if that is the case shouldn't we want them to still enjoy the game and not try and downplay how they feel?
I'll be honest I've sat the last couple of days out cause I asked for a personal opinion, which opened a technical issue, resounded to how the technical issue could be resolved and got hit with contractual BS which I had said I didn't want to hear about and that really made me believe that people here don't even want to consider someone else's opinion and just want those they believe are wrong to shut up and sit down.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Too many are participating in this discussion with the intent of "convincing" others to assume their beliefs and/or dismissing others that won't. The purpose of allowing this thread to remain open is to allow individuals to share their thoughts and reasoning for why they feel the way that they do.
Anything and everything else needs to be taken to Private Message, as contributions that do not promote a respectful, welcoming atmosphere will not be permitted.
Thank you.
It seems very much the case looking at this and a few other boards. Regardless of your skepticism, to your question precisely how do these errata prohibit the players, for whom you claim to be advocating, from playing the game the way they've been playing?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To answer your question likely nothing unless they want to stick to RAW. Now here is where I'm having issues for some reason when I flip things around, I get the same answer. (Emotional , how does pre-errata stop you from playing how you want to play?)
I fully aware it is a really bad way to answer that, and I don't want to downplay the negative experiences that others have had with the published material. I feel stupid because when I think about it, a lot of you are getting a different answer but I get the same for both situations. (It doesn't help that how i think is with equations and I am really bad with emotional connections)
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
The difference doesn't lie JUST in the errata. That is just a small victory for people that live with the fact that the world treats them as "other" every day and in all aspects of their lives. The changes are just a small step towards not being "others" in at least some small way. Where some here are bemoaning the loss of some fictional lore, others are grateful that things are getting better, if only in a minor and mostly insignificant way. They still have to face every day life, but at least in the fantasy of D&D, it is a little easier to escape from it for just a while. The words matter to them in a way that many others can never really understand.
Edit: At least that is what it means to me.
To anser your question: nothing.
Nothing is stopping the people in this thread from playing the D&D we want to play. We're invested. We're hooked. We're the sure bet. We're all hundreds of dollars in and gonna keep going because we're heavily engaged with the hobby on multiple levels. Frankly, Wizards doesn't give a shit about us. It knows it'll keep us unless it cocks up in spectacular style a'la 4e, and it also knows it can't really do anything to us. The triple-plus digit post DDB forum user is generally very, very well informed on the game and has thoroughly internalized the knowledge that we can do whatever we like. Wizards could've announced that all drow were now Tiny bright pink Tinkerbells that spent their lives delivering coal to naughty children and outside of the forum outrage, nobody here would really care. We'd just shrug, keep going in our games, and let Wizards do whatever damnfool thing the Good Idea Fairy has instigated next. They can't muck with our games, we're way past the point where we give a shit what Wizards says about lore.
The guy who comes in with three posts to his name, timidly asking if he's allowed to do something in his game he's been running for a few months as his first exposure to D&D? That guy cares what Wizards thinks. That guy is who the errata is for, not us. The errata is designed to discourage fewer new players who may have a cool idea they want to try that the old books disallow, or who may come in from a setting different than Faerun and be confused by the dissonance between 'their' lore and the Forgotten Realms-based book lore. Those players are not hooked. They are not sure bets. Remember - for most people, the rules of a game are the rules of a game. If something's in the rulebook, that means it has to be obeyed or the game won't work right. That's how every single other kind of game out there works, tabletop RPGs are entirely unique in that their rules are fuzzy and up to the discretion of the table. If you try and houserule away half the rules of Monopoly, the game stops working and nobody has fun. Wizards has to teach people that it's okay to monkey with the rules of D&D and make up your own cool stories. Jeremy Crawford has stated before that he's constantly surprised by how many people never figured out that they could go beyond the rulebooks and do something new, a big part of his job is in trying to effectively convince people of this thing everybody in this thread treats as a total taken-for-granted nonissue.
I couldn't give three shits what Wizards says about the lore of drow in the Forgotten Realms. if I'm running a table and some mind-altering disease has me running it in Faerun, the lore of the dark elves is what I bloody heckin' say it is. If I'm running a game in the Bellowing Wilds, in Etharis, in Eberron, in Tursk? The lore of drow in the Forgotten Realms has exactly and precisely zero impact on my game. But I'm not a typical D&D player. By Wizards' standards I'm an extremely advanced player they don't need to worry about. The guy who got a bunch of D&D rulebooks for Christmas and is trying out his first game? He has a very good chance of not knowing that he can throw out the lore in the books and make his own, no matter that all the books tell him he can. He's new, he's unsure of himself, and he doesn't know if he can do it properly. And if he decides the lore kinda sucks because it has unpleasant undertones that make him uncomfortable? He's more likely, by far, to decide the game just isn't for him and give it up than to decide to rewrite half the game lore to suit his table better.
That's why Wizards is changing things. Not to satisfy the 'woke' crowd, but to make it easier for people who don't know what tabletop RPGs are all about to get involved, invested, and figure out how awesome the hobby can be without bouncing off of sharp pain points or confusing, contradictory 'lore' that doesn't fit the world the new players want to try out.
Please do not contact or message me.
Bra-f***ing-VA! Insightful as usual Yurei.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I want to thank both yurei and golaryn for their responses. Sorry about arguing with you all the last couple of days.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Don't feel bad, no need to apologize. Half the reason I love getting stuck in to meaty debates like this is that nothing is better for testing and sharpening your own opinions and knowledge on a given issue than pitting it against its enemies in gladatorial combat, hueh. I say in most all these threads that if even one person's understanding expands as a result of the calm, reasoned posts that happen in between all the neckbeard dueling and catfighting? The thread was worth it.
I'm glad my words could help, and I apologize in turn if I grew too heated. I take these arguments perhaps more seriously than I should and sometimes frustration gets the better of me.
Please do not contact or message me.
These forums can get fairly heated and it is easy to get swept up into it. I am sorry if my response have felt dismissive.