This is just my take on what is going on with the narrative change in D&D. I get what Wizards is trying to do. On one hand I can support it... making things much more gray in the game setting and not so cookie cutter. Yet, in doing so they really are reinventing the entire setting. If monsters are not "evil" any more, then this will open many many doors that will require complex navigation through. I never considered D&D to be a world of gray like Shadowrun or the World of Darkness. It's simplistic, and part of that charming simplicity is you generally know who the bad guy is. It's a fantasy, not a reflection of the real world.
Was also extensively discussed - and I mean extensively - back when Tasha's was in prerelease cycle and the Diversity and Dragons statement was new. To summarize dozens of threads (both intended to discuss the changes and those sabotaged into 'discussions' of the changes) and many thousands of posts by actors both good and bad...
It's awesome if you personally, Dear Reader, have never felt injured or excluded by some of D&D's existing 'lore', tropes, or historical precedents. Other people have. Wizards has decided that the good that comes from strict, dogmatic adherence to decades-old lore and decisions made as often as not by an entirely different company is outweighed by the harm such decisions inflict on those who have not historically been welcome at the table. Some players feel Some Kinda Way about that, but even Wizards has openly said those players are absolutely free to keep playing the game with whichever version of the D&D lore they wish to. They simply want to make the game's default state more welcoming to a wider array of people. You can continue to play D&D exactly the same way you always have, and if other folks end up playing it a different way? Remember - that's no skin off your nose.
If monsters are not "evil" any more, then this will open many many doors that will require complex navigation through. I never considered D&D to be a world of gray like Shadowrun or the World of Darkness. It's simplistic, and part of that charming simplicity is you generally know who the bad guy is. It's a fantasy, not a reflection of the real world.
It's really not hard to portray the bad guys as bad guys if you want. There doesn't need to be an invisible metagame "EVIL" indicator above an NPC's head for players to figure out that slavers are bad and deserve what's coming to them, that taking out bands of roving orcs who've been looting and pillaging isn't bigotry, and that it isn't the worst thing in the world to be wary of representatives of a nation of fanatical Lolth worshippers.
I DM. I like to think you can trust me when I say most DMs aren't out to constantly trip up their players. The goal is to have fun, not to set up traps for players so you can yell "gotcha!" and point at them for Being Out Of Line when they have their character do something morally ambiguous. This change really doesn't change anything. It's all about appearances. Now don't get me wrong, those mean something: I'm sure there's lots of people for who these changes matter a lot, and I'm all for that. D&D as a game, as an institution, should have the right values and represent the right ideas. However on the table, it won't make a difference. Not on any table I ever played at anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
DMs can continue to run the game as they want... except if they use D&D Beyond the "books" the paid for will be changed, and if you wanted the version you had when you paid, you're out of luck, unless DDB plans to let us choose between Pre and Post Errata.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Yurei1453, sorry for posting a repeat of earlier. I scanned through the recent forums posts and didn't see anything on this topic.
And I was in no way making light of anyone's experience in a D&D game. I've personally never run across anyone who complained out being "injured or excluded by some of D&D's existing 'lore', tropes, or historical precedents." I've read about a lot of folks who've said they've experienced this, but I don't see examples, just the general statement. I'd love some clarification here. After all, when I run a game, I need to be aware of pitfalls that may crop up in my stories. I have every desire to be sensitive to the player experience. Everyone at the table should be having fun.
The following is an example of a simple story I've run in the past. The orc horde (based on existing lore) swarms over the mountains and into the valley surrounding Deadsnows in the Silver Marches (Luruar). It's an old trope. I've never had a player ask, however, "Shouldn't the orcs be kinder and gentler? Shouldn't they be seeking a diplomatic solution?" No, it's simply accepted that the orcs want the humans eliminated. It's as simple as that. Am I promoting a harmful stereotype? If I am, then much of Faerun's history needs to be rewritten since much of that history revolves around the conflict between orcs and the other races (i.e., elves, dwarves, humans, etc.) for the Silver Marches. In fact, most of the history of the Forgotten Realms centers around conflict of some kind, and generally that conflict is the forces of good versus the forces of evil. Are we saying that as a stereotype Angels in D&D are not part of the "forces of good" and the devils / demons are not to be feared for being "evil"?
I have no problem with the humanoid races no longer having hard hard-fast stereotypes. Players need to be free to play what they want to play. I long ago got rid of alignment and simply allow the players to reap the rewards of their actions (good, bad, or otherwise). My issue is not with Tieflings or Drow or Orcs (yes, I see the irony regarding my example above), etc. The occasional orc that realizes there may be a different way than the barbaric traditions of his/her people has the makings of a great story where said orc seeks out the players to help him/her show his/her people this new way. My issue is with the monsters and aberrations. By saying that everything is merely gray in the world, the entire setting changes. I just wonder if WotC has thought through the ramifications. The following are just my general thoughts. Like everything else, the issue probably isn't as big a deal as I think it is...
There's really no reason to have metallic or chromatic dragons at all. In fact, if there is no good or evil, then the entire idea of Bahamut and Tiamat needs to get thrown out as the source of "good" and "evil" dragons.
Aberrations, essentially alien Cthulu-like entities, should never have motivations a person can really get a good grasp on. Aberrations aren't necessarily evil, but then they don't define their processes the way the natural denizens of the world do. If the lore suddenly changes to say that aberrations are now relatable, they are no longer really an enemy.
The fae, another utterly alien culture, will also need a complete overhaul. The Seelie and Unseelie courts are defined by motivation, and by extension the fae as a whole are as well. Each fae creature has a purpose and role in the world. That's one of the reasons they cannot lie and someone's word can bind them fast in the fae wylds. For a fae, lying is denying their purpose and is akin to unmaking themselves. Individual fae can certainly appear to have good or evil intentions and/or actions, but their motivations are alien to most of us as we don't operate like they do.
So, my concern really comes down to the established lore in the game. I've always been under the impression that D&D is, at its core, a simple game (no matter how crunchy the various rules editions have been in the past). It's basic concept is that you are the good guy (a hero!) protecting those who need help against the aggressive actions of monsters. Can you introduce much more gray into your game? Absolutely! But to do that means you have to alter the base setting.
For me, I enjoy "gray" games. It's the reason I truly enjoy playing in the World of Darkness (my system of choice is Werewolf: the Apocalypse, but the Forsaken are fun too) and Shadowrun. I just don't personally think D&D is a good fit for this style of play. But, perhaps, WotC is looking to revamp D&D to make it more of a "gray" game. I guess that would be fine. It wouldn't be the same game, though, and that needs to be admitted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
D&D Beyond is legally obligated to keep their content current, October. They are not allowed to say "well we don't like your new revision so we're gonna just keep using the old stuff". If they did so they'd lose their license in an afternoon and we'd all lose ALL of our books. No thanks. They have a contractual obligation to do what they're doing, even if they hated it.
I am 100% certain the Internet will have screengrabs of the old Volo's lore chunks. Not an ideal solution by any means, but the only solution digital users have. Welcome to the wonderful world of Controlled Documents. I work with these things for my day job, they're always just the best.
DMs can continue to run the game as they want... except if they use D&D Beyond the "books" the paid for will be changed, and if you wanted the version you had when you paid, you're out of luck, unless DDB plans to let us choose between Pre and Post Errata.
I have no desire for DnDBeyond to keep old copies of the books. They absolutely need to reflect the current WotC published material. If I wanted to read old material (and that's a big "if") I'd have to look elsewhere. I consider DnDBeyond a valuable resource and have no wish, as Yurei1453 pointed out, for them to risk their licensing deal with WotC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
D&D Beyond is legally obligated to keep their content current, October. They are not allowed to say "well we don't like your new revision so we're gonna just keep using the old stuff". If they did so they'd lose their license in an afternoon and we'd all lose ALL of our books. No thanks. They have a contractual obligation to do what they're doing, even if they hated it.
I am 100% certain the Internet will have screengrabs of the old Volo's lore chunks. Not an ideal solution by any means, but the only solution digital users have. Welcome to the wonderful world of Controlled Documents. I work with these things for my day job, they're always just the best.
This is disingenuous. I did not imply that the reason was that D&D Beyond would say "We don't like your new version." I am pointing out that if people use DDB as their means of playing D&D , and not printed books, then everyone who says they can keep playing they way they want is not being completely truthful.
Fortunately for me, I have all the irl books, and because of the precedent this sets, I likely won't purchase anymore products on DDB. I'm sure they won't care, but I don't want to spend money for something that might change from what I paid for.
I am certain that people here will make assumptions about me based on this position, because that's how the internet is now, the fact remains, we paid for X, and now we are getting Y and we have no recourse. Maybe one day they will make a change that affects your game in a way you don't like, and then maybe you'll understand.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
There can be societal trends without them being absolutes. The descriptions are still intact, just with disclaimers that individuals may vary. Not 'will' vary but 'may' vary.
Yup, I completely agree with you. My orc plot device above would be a perfect example of this.
We're just in this world a lot of extremes. I try to operate with the following in mind: "Hold onto what is good, but always work toward what is better." I tend to recoil against extremes of any kind. And although the current changes in the D&D lore does not represent an extreme, I can see it easily going that direction. We'll see!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
I'm not going to name specific names, but back when every third thread in GD was some variation of 'WIZARDS IS BLOWING UP THE LORE AND RUINING D&D FOREVER!!', there were two particular players that had stories I thought were compelling. One was a person of mixed heritage who tried to get into D&D during older editions and felt drawn to half-orcs thematically, as a representation of his own heritage...but then he saw that half-orcs received a sharp penalty to Intelligence and Charisma simply for bearing orcish blood and bounced off the game entirely. For that player, the message was clear - mixed-heritage creatures were Bad, Undesirable, and Not Okay, and he didn't want to deal with that in the game when he dealt with it in everyday life. D&D was hostile to him, so he didn't engage with it. He was not welcome at the table.
Another player from back then is gay, and in a stable and healthy relationship with their beau. Until very recently, D&D had absolutely zero representation for non-straight, non-cisgendered folk, and it was considered good manners to simply not talk about those things at the table. That was, in fact, the argument thrown about many, many, many times when this buddy of mine (and myself, for that matter) were arguing in favor of the direction Wizards is taking, if not necessarily their specific execution. Players said "why does your sexual orientation or identity matter? Why do I have to put gay or trans or whatever characters in the game just so you can feel like you belong in it? Can't you just belong in it because you have a big sword and a quest list?" The harm was that Wizards' tacit approval, up until 'bout two or three years ago, of what amounted to Don't Ask Don't Tell meant a lot of folks felt offput by the game. My buddy had to learn to tolerate constant friction and pain points while playing if he wanted to enjoy his favorite game. He was welcome at the table...but only so long as he kept his sexual orientation to himself and didn't rise to the bait when people made light of 'Other' folks.
Again, I'm summarizing from memory from a goodly little while ago so forgive me if I'm missing some of the subtler nuances, but this was a real issue. There was one thread in particular that started as a simple question on whether the term "Madness" in the DMG for trauma-induced mental injuries was okay. it turned into a giant fiery threadnaught in which a number of people who had been diagnosed with mental illnesses and PTSD said that yes, the DSMG calling those things 'Madness' was uncomfortable and offputting to them and made them want to engage with the game less, while a small but fiercely vocal group of ultra-conservative players castigated those people and insulted them grievously for having emotions and opinions not identical to the conservatives' own.
it was a very rough time to be a DDB forum user. Infractions flowed like water, and literally any thread was at real risk of being dragged into another fight about The Core Values of D&D(C). Wizards adjusting lore to make certain things less binary is not a bad thing, in many players' view. But we've all kinda learned it's not okay to talk about, in case ye wake the wrath of the sleeping Grognards.
...in case ye wake the wrath of the sleeping Grognards.
I have no idea what a "Grognard" is, but the word made me smile. Thanks for that!
And, also, thank you for the examples. They were exactly what I asked for. I need some time to chew on them before I say anything in response. Appreciate ya!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
In what universe does it make sense to change an entire game system for EVERYONE for a TINY minority of people who are upset by words. Every time they change the game to accommodate this small group of people, the orcs in my games get stupider and stupider.
By saying that everything is merely gray in the world, the entire setting changes.
No, it really doesn't. Really. Adding a few specks of white and grey in the otherwise entirely black Drow sea doesn't change anything. Especially since we've known there were exceptions for pretty much as long as we've known Drow to begin with.
If the premisse of your campaign is that a horde of orcs is coming to raid, loot and pillage, that's fine. Why should anyone question if those orcs shouldn't be gentler? Even if the book says not all orcs are agressive savages, these apparently happen to be. And their actions justify designating them "the enemy" and trying to stop them. Nothing wrong with this, in any version of the MM.
Dragons are dragons. Bahamut and Tiamat aren't just dragons, they're godlike beings of unfathomable power. It's ok that they stand for Good and Evil respectively. And it makes sense that their progeny tends to inherit their character, but given that it doesn't inherit their godlike nature it makes equal sense that "regular" dragons do not stand for some immutable cosmic force. Have your characters ever met a relatable aberration? One that didn't act in way that was hostile or at least detrimental to them? What the scholars taught your ranger about aberrations potentially being "misunderstood" more than actually evil is a moot point when the specific aberration they're dealing with is definitely trying to kill them. Same with the fae. "Alien and inscrutable" doesn't mean "we have to try and get along no matter what". It means "let's see what they do and act accordingly".
If the difference between the book saying "X is evil, period" vs the book saying "X is usually evil" throws the entire adventure in disarray for the PCs, I don't know what to tell you. We've had exceptions to these absolute alignments in official publications since forever really, and most adventures I recall attribute motivations or give actions to NPCs and monsters that fairly clearly indicate where they stand on the "they hate us - they don't care about us - they love us" scale.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
'Grognard' is an admittedly derisive term for someone who clings to the game's past to the point of directing hostility towards new players and anyone who attempts to change the game from the version the grognard grew up playing and has formed attachments to. Note that 'grognard' doesn't mean 'old player' - it's perfectly possible to be a longtime D&D player without evincing any signs of grognardism. Grognards are, specifically, people who resist any changes to the game and furthermore do so in a mean-spirited, bad-actor way that puts them at odds with newer/younger/more adaptive players. Their own anger and frustration, their feeling that they're being judged and found wanting, drives them to hostility and confrontation out of a defensive reflex reaction to try and preserve "Their" game whilst driving out anyone not part of their specific clique/club/generation.
THis post, earlier in the thread, is very common and typical of the sort of posts you get from people who might be called 'grognards'. You'll get a lot of this sort of thing, as people decided that other people's emotions aren't worth considering and that we should all leave the game to those who 'deserve' to keep it and find something else, instead.
The woke mob strikes again. These people can't handle big scary words like "slave" or "colony" so they go around sterilizing everything they touch. Make your own game and be sure to include lots of safety pads and trigger warnings so people who can't handle playing a damned table top game for kids have a place they can feel safe and represented.
If the premisse of your campaign is that a horde of orcs is coming to raid, loot and pillage, that's fine. Why should anyone question if those orcs shouldn't be gentler? Even if the book says not all orcs are agressive savages, these apparently happen to be. And their actions justify designating them "the enemy" and trying to stop them. Nothing wrong with this, in any version of the MM.
Well put.
Even if "some orcs are raiding, because some orcs are like that" is a shallow/reductive trope (and that's par for the course where old-school D&D is concerned), the setting and system going the extra quarter-mile to just allow more nuanced tropes is a good thing.
In what universe does it make sense to change an entire game system for EVERYONE for a TINY minority of people who are upset by words. Every time they change the game to accommodate this small group of people, the orcs in my games get stupider and stupider.
In the world where said changes only affect if you want them do.
There is a difference between representation that didn't exist before, and changing existing things from what they were.
Everyone should feel represented in the game. Period. Adding characters of any type should not be an issue.
Sometimes things can be blatantly wrong, and should be changed. If D&D had literal versions of real-world people being denigrated, then yes, change those things. But we are talking about monsters in a fantasy setting that are not analogs for the real world. I am aware that Tolkien's orcs were based on an asian stereotype, but D&D orcs are not Tolkien orcs. Go take it up with Tolkien.
Orcs as a species are not humans. They are not us. Orcs are evil because in this made-up fantasy world there are real gods who can be real evil and who have the power to make creatures any way they want. If Gruumsh is real in D&D, and Gruumsh is evil, and Gruumsh is a powerful god who can create living beings... then Gruumsh can create a species of creatures who are all evil.
Now, let's be fair here, it has been the case for a very long time now that anyone who wants to play a Good orc (or half-orc) or a Good Drow can do that. That's not new. What is new is ret-conning things to say that an evil god couldn't possibly create all evil creatures.
If someone who has mixed ancestry in the real world wants positive representation in D&D for mixed-ancestry, Half-orcs are not the only option. Nevermind half-elves, make any mixed-race humanoid you want. Make half-dwarves, half-halflings (quarterlings?), half-whatevers. But please don't suggest that because half-orcs come from a fantasy race that is treated as villains means that there is NO positive representation of mixed-ancestry.
D&D in not an analog for the real world. Play your game the way you want. If WotC wants to update their books I AM FINE WITH THAT. I have no problem with them choosing to do that. They can publish new print versions, but I paid for version X on DDB, and now I am being forced to accept Version Y. In the past when we decried some of these changes, people would argue "What's the problem, they're not going to come and take your books!" Well, if you bought on D&D Beyond, then yes... yes, they are going to take your books.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
In what universe does it make sense to change an entire game system for EVERYONE for a TINY minority of people who are upset by words. Every time they change the game to accommodate this small group of people, the orcs in my games get stupider and stupider.
In the world where said changes only affect if you want them do.
Which is this world, by the way.
Unless you bought your books on DDB, then it will affect you, because the book you bought will change.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just wanted to start a thread talking about the following article: "D&D: WotC’s New Lore Changes Raise Questions Among Players"
This is just my take on what is going on with the narrative change in D&D. I get what Wizards is trying to do. On one hand I can support it... making things much more gray in the game setting and not so cookie cutter. Yet, in doing so they really are reinventing the entire setting. If monsters are not "evil" any more, then this will open many many doors that will require complex navigation through. I never considered D&D to be a world of gray like Shadowrun or the World of Darkness. It's simplistic, and part of that charming simplicity is you generally know who the bad guy is. It's a fantasy, not a reflection of the real world.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Already being discussed, in part.
Was also extensively discussed - and I mean extensively - back when Tasha's was in prerelease cycle and the Diversity and Dragons statement was new. To summarize dozens of threads (both intended to discuss the changes and those sabotaged into 'discussions' of the changes) and many thousands of posts by actors both good and bad...
It's awesome if you personally, Dear Reader, have never felt injured or excluded by some of D&D's existing 'lore', tropes, or historical precedents. Other people have. Wizards has decided that the good that comes from strict, dogmatic adherence to decades-old lore and decisions made as often as not by an entirely different company is outweighed by the harm such decisions inflict on those who have not historically been welcome at the table. Some players feel Some Kinda Way about that, but even Wizards has openly said those players are absolutely free to keep playing the game with whichever version of the D&D lore they wish to. They simply want to make the game's default state more welcoming to a wider array of people. You can continue to play D&D exactly the same way you always have, and if other folks end up playing it a different way? Remember - that's no skin off your nose.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's really not hard to portray the bad guys as bad guys if you want. There doesn't need to be an invisible metagame "EVIL" indicator above an NPC's head for players to figure out that slavers are bad and deserve what's coming to them, that taking out bands of roving orcs who've been looting and pillaging isn't bigotry, and that it isn't the worst thing in the world to be wary of representatives of a nation of fanatical Lolth worshippers.
I DM. I like to think you can trust me when I say most DMs aren't out to constantly trip up their players. The goal is to have fun, not to set up traps for players so you can yell "gotcha!" and point at them for Being Out Of Line when they have their character do something morally ambiguous. This change really doesn't change anything. It's all about appearances. Now don't get me wrong, those mean something: I'm sure there's lots of people for who these changes matter a lot, and I'm all for that. D&D as a game, as an institution, should have the right values and represent the right ideas. However on the table, it won't make a difference. Not on any table I ever played at anyway.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
DMs can continue to run the game as they want... except if they use D&D Beyond the "books" the paid for will be changed, and if you wanted the version you had when you paid, you're out of luck, unless DDB plans to let us choose between Pre and Post Errata.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Yurei1453, sorry for posting a repeat of earlier. I scanned through the recent forums posts and didn't see anything on this topic.
And I was in no way making light of anyone's experience in a D&D game. I've personally never run across anyone who complained out being "injured or excluded by some of D&D's existing 'lore', tropes, or historical precedents." I've read about a lot of folks who've said they've experienced this, but I don't see examples, just the general statement. I'd love some clarification here. After all, when I run a game, I need to be aware of pitfalls that may crop up in my stories. I have every desire to be sensitive to the player experience. Everyone at the table should be having fun.
The following is an example of a simple story I've run in the past. The orc horde (based on existing lore) swarms over the mountains and into the valley surrounding Deadsnows in the Silver Marches (Luruar). It's an old trope. I've never had a player ask, however, "Shouldn't the orcs be kinder and gentler? Shouldn't they be seeking a diplomatic solution?" No, it's simply accepted that the orcs want the humans eliminated. It's as simple as that. Am I promoting a harmful stereotype? If I am, then much of Faerun's history needs to be rewritten since much of that history revolves around the conflict between orcs and the other races (i.e., elves, dwarves, humans, etc.) for the Silver Marches. In fact, most of the history of the Forgotten Realms centers around conflict of some kind, and generally that conflict is the forces of good versus the forces of evil. Are we saying that as a stereotype Angels in D&D are not part of the "forces of good" and the devils / demons are not to be feared for being "evil"?
I have no problem with the humanoid races no longer having hard hard-fast stereotypes. Players need to be free to play what they want to play. I long ago got rid of alignment and simply allow the players to reap the rewards of their actions (good, bad, or otherwise). My issue is not with Tieflings or Drow or Orcs (yes, I see the irony regarding my example above), etc. The occasional orc that realizes there may be a different way than the barbaric traditions of his/her people has the makings of a great story where said orc seeks out the players to help him/her show his/her people this new way. My issue is with the monsters and aberrations. By saying that everything is merely gray in the world, the entire setting changes. I just wonder if WotC has thought through the ramifications. The following are just my general thoughts. Like everything else, the issue probably isn't as big a deal as I think it is...
So, my concern really comes down to the established lore in the game. I've always been under the impression that D&D is, at its core, a simple game (no matter how crunchy the various rules editions have been in the past). It's basic concept is that you are the good guy (a hero!) protecting those who need help against the aggressive actions of monsters. Can you introduce much more gray into your game? Absolutely! But to do that means you have to alter the base setting.
For me, I enjoy "gray" games. It's the reason I truly enjoy playing in the World of Darkness (my system of choice is Werewolf: the Apocalypse, but the Forsaken are fun too) and Shadowrun. I just don't personally think D&D is a good fit for this style of play. But, perhaps, WotC is looking to revamp D&D to make it more of a "gray" game. I guess that would be fine. It wouldn't be the same game, though, and that needs to be admitted.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
D&D Beyond is legally obligated to keep their content current, October. They are not allowed to say "well we don't like your new revision so we're gonna just keep using the old stuff". If they did so they'd lose their license in an afternoon and we'd all lose ALL of our books. No thanks. They have a contractual obligation to do what they're doing, even if they hated it.
I am 100% certain the Internet will have screengrabs of the old Volo's lore chunks. Not an ideal solution by any means, but the only solution digital users have. Welcome to the wonderful world of Controlled Documents. I work with these things for my day job, they're always just the best.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have no desire for DnDBeyond to keep old copies of the books. They absolutely need to reflect the current WotC published material. If I wanted to read old material (and that's a big "if") I'd have to look elsewhere. I consider DnDBeyond a valuable resource and have no wish, as Yurei1453 pointed out, for them to risk their licensing deal with WotC.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
This is disingenuous. I did not imply that the reason was that D&D Beyond would say "We don't like your new version." I am pointing out that if people use DDB as their means of playing D&D , and not printed books, then everyone who says they can keep playing they way they want is not being completely truthful.
Fortunately for me, I have all the irl books, and because of the precedent this sets, I likely won't purchase anymore products on DDB. I'm sure they won't care, but I don't want to spend money for something that might change from what I paid for.
I am certain that people here will make assumptions about me based on this position, because that's how the internet is now, the fact remains, we paid for X, and now we are getting Y and we have no recourse. Maybe one day they will make a change that affects your game in a way you don't like, and then maybe you'll understand.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Yup, I completely agree with you. My orc plot device above would be a perfect example of this.
We're just in this world a lot of extremes. I try to operate with the following in mind: "Hold onto what is good, but always work toward what is better." I tend to recoil against extremes of any kind. And although the current changes in the D&D lore does not represent an extreme, I can see it easily going that direction. We'll see!
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
Double post, but I got ninja'd. Let's see here.
I'm not going to name specific names, but back when every third thread in GD was some variation of 'WIZARDS IS BLOWING UP THE LORE AND RUINING D&D FOREVER!!', there were two particular players that had stories I thought were compelling. One was a person of mixed heritage who tried to get into D&D during older editions and felt drawn to half-orcs thematically, as a representation of his own heritage...but then he saw that half-orcs received a sharp penalty to Intelligence and Charisma simply for bearing orcish blood and bounced off the game entirely. For that player, the message was clear - mixed-heritage creatures were Bad, Undesirable, and Not Okay, and he didn't want to deal with that in the game when he dealt with it in everyday life. D&D was hostile to him, so he didn't engage with it. He was not welcome at the table.
Another player from back then is gay, and in a stable and healthy relationship with their beau. Until very recently, D&D had absolutely zero representation for non-straight, non-cisgendered folk, and it was considered good manners to simply not talk about those things at the table. That was, in fact, the argument thrown about many, many, many times when this buddy of mine (and myself, for that matter) were arguing in favor of the direction Wizards is taking, if not necessarily their specific execution. Players said "why does your sexual orientation or identity matter? Why do I have to put gay or trans or whatever characters in the game just so you can feel like you belong in it? Can't you just belong in it because you have a big sword and a quest list?" The harm was that Wizards' tacit approval, up until 'bout two or three years ago, of what amounted to Don't Ask Don't Tell meant a lot of folks felt offput by the game. My buddy had to learn to tolerate constant friction and pain points while playing if he wanted to enjoy his favorite game. He was welcome at the table...but only so long as he kept his sexual orientation to himself and didn't rise to the bait when people made light of 'Other' folks.
Again, I'm summarizing from memory from a goodly little while ago so forgive me if I'm missing some of the subtler nuances, but this was a real issue. There was one thread in particular that started as a simple question on whether the term "Madness" in the DMG for trauma-induced mental injuries was okay. it turned into a giant fiery threadnaught in which a number of people who had been diagnosed with mental illnesses and PTSD said that yes, the DSMG calling those things 'Madness' was uncomfortable and offputting to them and made them want to engage with the game less, while a small but fiercely vocal group of ultra-conservative players castigated those people and insulted them grievously for having emotions and opinions not identical to the conservatives' own.
it was a very rough time to be a DDB forum user. Infractions flowed like water, and literally any thread was at real risk of being dragged into another fight about The Core Values of D&D(C). Wizards adjusting lore to make certain things less binary is not a bad thing, in many players' view. But we've all kinda learned it's not okay to talk about, in case ye wake the wrath of the sleeping Grognards.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have no idea what a "Grognard" is, but the word made me smile. Thanks for that!
And, also, thank you for the examples. They were exactly what I asked for. I need some time to chew on them before I say anything in response. Appreciate ya!
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
In what universe does it make sense to change an entire game system for EVERYONE for a TINY minority of people who are upset by words. Every time they change the game to accommodate this small group of people, the orcs in my games get stupider and stupider.
No, it really doesn't. Really. Adding a few specks of white and grey in the otherwise entirely black Drow sea doesn't change anything. Especially since we've known there were exceptions for pretty much as long as we've known Drow to begin with.
If the premisse of your campaign is that a horde of orcs is coming to raid, loot and pillage, that's fine. Why should anyone question if those orcs shouldn't be gentler? Even if the book says not all orcs are agressive savages, these apparently happen to be. And their actions justify designating them "the enemy" and trying to stop them. Nothing wrong with this, in any version of the MM.
Dragons are dragons. Bahamut and Tiamat aren't just dragons, they're godlike beings of unfathomable power. It's ok that they stand for Good and Evil respectively. And it makes sense that their progeny tends to inherit their character, but given that it doesn't inherit their godlike nature it makes equal sense that "regular" dragons do not stand for some immutable cosmic force.
Have your characters ever met a relatable aberration? One that didn't act in way that was hostile or at least detrimental to them? What the scholars taught your ranger about aberrations potentially being "misunderstood" more than actually evil is a moot point when the specific aberration they're dealing with is definitely trying to kill them.
Same with the fae. "Alien and inscrutable" doesn't mean "we have to try and get along no matter what". It means "let's see what they do and act accordingly".
If the difference between the book saying "X is evil, period" vs the book saying "X is usually evil" throws the entire adventure in disarray for the PCs, I don't know what to tell you. We've had exceptions to these absolute alignments in official publications since forever really, and most adventures I recall attribute motivations or give actions to NPCs and monsters that fairly clearly indicate where they stand on the "they hate us - they don't care about us - they love us" scale.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
whelp yurei, it seems they woke up anyway >>
Maybe these people should find a game that exists instead of wanting to change pre-existing games, which were meant for the general populace.
'Grognard' is an admittedly derisive term for someone who clings to the game's past to the point of directing hostility towards new players and anyone who attempts to change the game from the version the grognard grew up playing and has formed attachments to. Note that 'grognard' doesn't mean 'old player' - it's perfectly possible to be a longtime D&D player without evincing any signs of grognardism. Grognards are, specifically, people who resist any changes to the game and furthermore do so in a mean-spirited, bad-actor way that puts them at odds with newer/younger/more adaptive players. Their own anger and frustration, their feeling that they're being judged and found wanting, drives them to hostility and confrontation out of a defensive reflex reaction to try and preserve "Their" game whilst driving out anyone not part of their specific clique/club/generation.
THis post, earlier in the thread, is very common and typical of the sort of posts you get from people who might be called 'grognards'. You'll get a lot of this sort of thing, as people decided that other people's emotions aren't worth considering and that we should all leave the game to those who 'deserve' to keep it and find something else, instead.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well put.
Even if "some orcs are raiding, because some orcs are like that" is a shallow/reductive trope (and that's par for the course where old-school D&D is concerned), the setting and system going the extra quarter-mile to just allow more nuanced tropes is a good thing.
In the world where said changes only affect if you want them do.
Which is this world, by the way.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
There is a difference between representation that didn't exist before, and changing existing things from what they were.
Everyone should feel represented in the game. Period. Adding characters of any type should not be an issue.
Sometimes things can be blatantly wrong, and should be changed. If D&D had literal versions of real-world people being denigrated, then yes, change those things. But we are talking about monsters in a fantasy setting that are not analogs for the real world. I am aware that Tolkien's orcs were based on an asian stereotype, but D&D orcs are not Tolkien orcs. Go take it up with Tolkien.
Orcs as a species are not humans. They are not us. Orcs are evil because in this made-up fantasy world there are real gods who can be real evil and who have the power to make creatures any way they want. If Gruumsh is real in D&D, and Gruumsh is evil, and Gruumsh is a powerful god who can create living beings... then Gruumsh can create a species of creatures who are all evil.
Now, let's be fair here, it has been the case for a very long time now that anyone who wants to play a Good orc (or half-orc) or a Good Drow can do that. That's not new. What is new is ret-conning things to say that an evil god couldn't possibly create all evil creatures.
If someone who has mixed ancestry in the real world wants positive representation in D&D for mixed-ancestry, Half-orcs are not the only option. Nevermind half-elves, make any mixed-race humanoid you want. Make half-dwarves, half-halflings (quarterlings?), half-whatevers. But please don't suggest that because half-orcs come from a fantasy race that is treated as villains means that there is NO positive representation of mixed-ancestry.
D&D in not an analog for the real world. Play your game the way you want. If WotC wants to update their books I AM FINE WITH THAT. I have no problem with them choosing to do that. They can publish new print versions, but I paid for version X on DDB, and now I am being forced to accept Version Y. In the past when we decried some of these changes, people would argue "What's the problem, they're not going to come and take your books!" Well, if you bought on D&D Beyond, then yes... yes, they are going to take your books.
Caveat Emptor.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Unless you bought your books on DDB, then it will affect you, because the book you bought will change.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?