Why even have races? Why not just list a bunch of things and let people pick the ones they want until it reaches a points limit. Oh, I know - because then we end up with a peach melba yoghurt of a game where you dont fight the undead and evil isnt really evil. (other examples exist)
The main reason for not using point build for things like races, other than tradition, is that it's a bear to balance.
No, it can definitely be done. Look at Shadowrun. They use a point buy system in a combat-focused RPG.
The actual main issue with a point buy system is that it complicates character creation. More complex character creation decreases the potential player base, which would make D&D less popular and WotC less money in the long run.
True, look at GURPS if you want another example, you create racing by using the point but system and putting them in "packages."
However, a point buy system is honestly quite confusing, and though you can do a lot of things with it, it usually increases min-maxing and people can create some really overpowered builds with it. I also think a lot of D&D's appeal (at least to me) lies in the fact that you follow a more linear path (your class), as opposed to just cobbling together different abilities.
However, I think we should keep races in 5e. They work quite well with class and having a point buy system if you want to play another race, just adds another level of confusion, and stops people from testing out and playing loads of cool races. Also, it generally makes it harder for newer players to play more interesting races, since they may not know how to bundle together different types of abilities, and it may be hard for them to do that without a lot of help, unless the game designers spent loads of time, pages, and added more complexity to the game so they could make 40+ different racial templates/packages of abilities shown earlier in the book.
A point buy system is possible, but it would take away some of the best elements of 5e. And, having it work with races would still be possible, but it would create an uneccesary and complicated game designing mess.
That and as a DM removing all the set numbers, why should I use the races provided by the game? All the ties to world building is gone. I might as well have elves mining and Dwarves living in the trees.
Yeah. I'd mentioned this earlier as well (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/141483-kenku-species-in-mordenkainen-presents-monsters-of). I am fine with it - but I do think it took away an aspect that made them unique. I played (well, still play but that campaign has been on hold since COVID since the DM doesn't want to play through Discord) - and it was mostly for RP aspect. I sometimes would change my voice when I spoke as a Kenku, other times I'd just explain how I'd imitate a goblin for this part, then a human for that part, etc.
I really don't think that being small, which has a mechanical effect is the same as having an "accent" that has no mechanical effect. Lucky for you, you can still play your Kenku just like you always have. The rest of us just don't have to since it isn't "RAW" anymore.
The problem is that, going forward, the Mimicry-only Kenku will only exist for people who were already familiar with it since Wizards is now mandating use of the MMoU at Adventurer's League games and has stopped printing Volo's Guide to Monsters. IOW, some amount of lore will be lost unless older players actively keep reviving the lore of the old Kenku by telling it to younger players.
The lore you are trying to defend isn't even "old lore" it started with 5e.
In 2e Kenku couldn't talk at all and just made "bird squawks"
in 3/3.5 they had their own language, but also spoke common
In 4e they had mimicry but could also talk normally.
In 5e they lost their voice and then got it back again.
So I will ask again, which one is the "true" Kenku? Which version of the lore should be held above all others and be the "truth" for all who play the game? All the lore is out there, all the various versions for all things from all editions, is there for people that are actually really interested. It isn't hidden away in ancient vaults or located in the basement of the local planning office. Just use your internet search engine of choice.
It's far less important what the "true Kenku" is, than the fact is that Kenku in 5e pre-MMoM had interesting lore that gave people an incentive to role-play differently than they usually do. So instead of making the mimicry-only Kenku an Optional feature, they just got rid of it altogether. That's basically self-induced censorship.
Point is, having more lore is generally better. I'm not "ANTI" players getting the choice to play a boring Kenku. I'm PRO the choice of different Kenku (or other species/races) to play. Erasing lore decreases choice for people who are unaware of its existence.
It's far less important what the "true Kenku" is, than the fact is that Kenku in 5e pre-MMoM had interesting lore that gave people an incentive to role-play differently than they usually do. So instead of making the mimicry-only Kenku an Optional feature, they just got rid of it altogether. That's basically self-induced censorship.
"All the lore is out there, all the various versions for all things from all editions, is there for people that are actually really interested. It isn't hidden away in ancient vaults or located in the basement of the local planning office. Just use your internet search engine of choice."
It's far less important what the "true Kenku" is, than the fact is that Kenku in 5e pre-MMoM had interesting lore that gave people an incentive to role-play differently than they usually do. So instead of making the mimicry-only Kenku an Optional feature, they just got rid of it altogether. That's basically self-induced censorship.
"All the lore is out there, all the various versions for all things from all editions, is there for people that are actually really interested. It isn't hidden away in ancient vaults or located in the basement of the local planning office. Just use your internet search engine of choice."
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
WotC owns Dungeons and Dragons and all rights to it. If you don't like what they print, vote with your wallet and spend your money else where. Just because you don't like the change WotC made to a property that they own does not make it the same as people banning books at libraries.
Now to that first part about choice. According to the original printing of Kenku in Volo's, Kenku had no choice presented. The were forced to play ONE way. Also, if people aren't taking a few minutes to research a character on the internet, they are going to pick the race that requires more effort to role play either. Now that they have been reprinted, they in fact do have choices in how they are roleplayed.
Edit: Also, you are the one protesting a book and wanting it changed.
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
WotC owns Dungeons and Dragons and all rights to it. If you don't like what they print, vote with your wallet and spend your money else where. Just because you don't like the change WotC made to a property that they own does not make it the same as people banning books at libraries.
Correct, I have the right not to spend my money on a product that I feel is clearly inferior in quality to a previous set of products, not just b/c of the Kenku issue, but also due to oversimplification of spellcasting monsters, lack of new lore in general, lack of New Playable species (including some teased by previous UA) that, by implication, would be included in a book with the word "Multiverse" in it, and the complete disconnect between stats and species abilities.
I also have the right to state on a forum WHY I am making such a decision, as do you.
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
Now to that first part about choice. According to the original printing of Kenku in Volo's, Kenku had no choice presented. The were forced to play ONE way. Also, if people aren't taking a few minutes to research a character on the internet, they are going to pick the race that requires more effort to role play either. Now that they have been reprinted, they in fact do have choices in how they are roleplayed.
Edit: Also, you are the one protesting a book and wanting it changed.
Right, I have no beef with Wizards writing an additional, blander version of the Kenku, provided that they retain some text in the new book about more interesting way(s) to play the species. You're clearly twisting my words. I said that CHOICE is good in an RPG. Wizards here is clearly choosing to reduce choice by reducing information.
Just b/c Wizards owns the content doesn't mean their censorship of that content is automatically good and appropriate. Either you are not aware of how censorship has historically worked or you are intentionally hiding your motives for squelching arguments against MMoM. Are you aware that several scientists and philosophers chose to NOT publish their theories and agreed to censor or "tone down", their own ideas in the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance in order to avoid offending the powerful Catholic Church? Even stuff as basic (from our modern PoV) as the Earth Not being the center of the universe but instead just a mere planet orbiting the Sun was suppressed on several separate occasions, sometimes by the astronomers themselves out of a desire to avoid punishment.
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
WotC owns Dungeons and Dragons and all rights to it. If you don't like what they print, vote with your wallet and spend your money else where. Just because you don't like the change WotC made to a property that they own does not make it the same as people banning books at libraries.
Correct, I have the right not to spend my money on a product that I feel is clearly inferior in quality to a previous set of products, not just b/c of the Kenku issue, but also due to oversimplification of spellcasting monsters, lack of new lore in general, lack of New Playable species (including some teased by previous UA) that, by implication, would be included in a book with the word "Multiverse" in it, and the complete disconnect between stats and species abilities.
I also have the right to be a forum to say WHY I am making such a decision, as do you.
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
Now to that first part about choice. According to the original printing of Kenku in Volo's, Kenku had no choice presented. The were forced to play ONE way. Also, if people aren't taking a few minutes to research a character on the internet, they are going to pick the race that requires more effort to role play either. Now that they have been reprinted, they in fact do have choices in how they are roleplayed.
Edit: Also, you are the one protesting a book and wanting it changed.
Right, I have no beef with Wizards writing an additional, blander version of the Kenku, provided that they retain some text in the new book about more interesting way(s) to play the species. You're clearly twisting my words. I said that CHOICE is good in an RPG. Wizards here is clearly choosing to reduce choice by reducing information.
Just b/c Wizards owns the content doesn't mean they that censorship of that content is automatically good and appropriate. Either you are not aware of how censorship has historically worked or you are intentionally hiding your motives for squelching arguments against MMoM. Are you aware that several scientists and philosophers chose to NOT publish their theories and agreed to censor, aka "tone down", their own ideas in the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance in order to avoid offending the powerful Catholic Church? Even stuff as basic (from our modern PoV) as the Earth Not being the center of the universe but instead just a mere planet orbiting the Sun was suppressed on several separate occasions, sometimes by the astronomers themselves out of a desire to avoid punishment.
Again, why are You siding with censorship?
LOL
Ok, now not only are you trying to equate the changes made to Kenku (by the owner no less) to banning books at libraries, but to suppression of science by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
I can't understand how you don't see that you are the Church in this situation. You said this:
Right, I have no beef with Wizards writing an additional, blander version of the Kenku, provided that they retain some text in the new book about more interesting way(s) to play the species.
You are the one demanding that a private company conform to your ideas of what is right.
It's far less important what the "true Kenku" is, than the fact is that Kenku in 5e pre-MMoM had interesting lore that gave people an incentive to role-play differently than they usually do. So instead of making the mimicry-only Kenku an Optional feature, they just got rid of it altogether. That's basically self-induced censorship.
"All the lore is out there, all the various versions for all things from all editions, is there for people that are actually really interested. It isn't hidden away in ancient vaults or located in the basement of the local planning office. Just use your internet search engine of choice."
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
Why, exactly, is this so important? There is a lot of lore out there on a lot of different subjects. It often frustrates me how few seem to know basic concepts from most or even any classical mythologies.
Or the simplest grasp of basic economics, let alone the economics of publishing specifically. You know that there is zero or near zero political pressure to cease production of the older material, right? And that version control is a thing in games?
Or having enough imagination of their own to come up with ideas on their own.
Imagination is often spurred on by the ideas of others. Most writers of fiction are merely "borrowing" material written by other fiction writers.
I support broadening the experience of what it means to play a PC. The 5e Kenku pre-MMoM gave players an incentive to do that by challenging how we thought of our use of language. This in itself is a creative exercise.
I could just as well say to you, if people wanted to play a crow-appearance non-flying avian species so badly, why couldn't they just ignore the mimcry role-play requirement of the pre-MMoM Kenku? Surely they had that much imagination, right?
Again, having some more interesting choices is good for a table top RPG. By eliminating species features instead of making them optional and by eliminating spells from NPC and boss monster write-ups, the publishers have opted for Less information, and therefore less choice.
You claim there is zero political pressure on MMoM. I think you are forgetting that we are living in a time of much political pressure in general to be "woke" even at the cost of creativity, which has now creeped into reducing the spectrum of choices in fictional worlds. Self-censorship is still censorship. And before you or someone else starts insinuating otherwise, I absolutely do support broadening the player base of D&D, including the DM base of the game. I also support the elimination of Always Evil alignments that were de riguer for the so-called "monstrous humanoid races" like Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs in older editions. What I do Not support is the outright elimination of choices for players via the elimination of information. I do Not support stripping away of flavorful, role-play impactfull lore in favor of some bland mealy-mouthed generic Astroturf that is boring and discourages role-playing creatively via the erasure of information.
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
WotC owns Dungeons and Dragons and all rights to it. If you don't like what they print, vote with your wallet and spend your money else where. Just because you don't like the change WotC made to a property that they own does not make it the same as people banning books at libraries.
Correct, I have the right not to spend my money on a product that I feel is clearly inferior in quality to a previous set of products, not just b/c of the Kenku issue, but also due to oversimplification of spellcasting monsters, lack of new lore in general, lack of New Playable species (including some teased by previous UA) that, by implication, would be included in a book with the word "Multiverse" in it, and the complete disconnect between stats and species abilities.
I also have the right to be a forum to say WHY I am making such a decision, as do you.
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
Now to that first part about choice. According to the original printing of Kenku in Volo's, Kenku had no choice presented. The were forced to play ONE way. Also, if people aren't taking a few minutes to research a character on the internet, they are going to pick the race that requires more effort to role play either. Now that they have been reprinted, they in fact do have choices in how they are roleplayed.
Edit: Also, you are the one protesting a book and wanting it changed.
Right, I have no beef with Wizards writing an additional, blander version of the Kenku, provided that they retain some text in the new book about more interesting way(s) to play the species. You're clearly twisting my words. I said that CHOICE is good in an RPG. Wizards here is clearly choosing to reduce choice by reducing information.
Just b/c Wizards owns the content doesn't mean they that censorship of that content is automatically good and appropriate. Either you are not aware of how censorship has historically worked or you are intentionally hiding your motives for squelching arguments against MMoM. Are you aware that several scientists and philosophers chose to NOT publish their theories and agreed to censor, aka "tone down", their own ideas in the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance in order to avoid offending the powerful Catholic Church? Even stuff as basic (from our modern PoV) as the Earth Not being the center of the universe but instead just a mere planet orbiting the Sun was suppressed on several separate occasions, sometimes by the astronomers themselves out of a desire to avoid punishment.
Again, why are You siding with censorship?
LOL
Ok, now not only are you trying to equate the changes made to Kenku (by the owner no less) to banning books at libraries, but to suppression of science by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
I can't understand how you don't see that you are the Church in this situation. You said this:
Right, I have no beef with Wizards writing an additional, blander version of the Kenku, provided that they retain some text in the new book about more interesting way(s) to play the species.
You are the one demanding that a private company conform to your ideas of what is right.
Suppression of information is suppression of information. Just because some ideas are of literal global significance and some are isolated to players of what is supposed to be a creative "nerd" hobby does not make censorship for spurious reasons or reasons of "avoiding controversy" appropriate.
Note that Wizards is not replacing the 5e pre-MMoM Kenku with a more creative take on the species. The "new" Kenku is clearly lacking in flavor. If Wizards had paid people to come up with some truly interesting lore to replace the pre-MMoM 5e Kenku (and a boatload of other species/races), then a lot fewer of us in the player base would be unhappy with their new book.
Again, you are siding with censorship. Can you clearly not see that it is Wizards that is eliminating information rather than offering choice to players? Self-induced censorship is still a version of censorship. Interesting that you will not directly address this point in my arguments. Your attempt at accusing me of censorship when clearly I have advocated for greater choice instead of lesser choice indicates that you are willing to use manipulation to avoid answering my question to you: Why do you support censorship?
Self-induced censorship is still a version of censorship. Interesting that you will not directly address this point in my arguments.
Because it is irrelevant. It is their company. It is there property. It is theirs to build or burn as they see fit. You, me and everyone else can only influence those choices by how we opt to spend our money. They are a business. If they will make more money by publishing books like Tasha's and MMM, then they will. There is no grand conspiracy against the player base beyond finding ways to get their money.
It is isn't "CeNsOrShIp!!!" it is just plain old Capitalism.
Censorship by economic pressure is also censorship. Just because they think they have an economic reason to do something doesn't automatically make it right.
No, we are not just "consumers". This in itself is a dangerous line of thinking. It numbs us to the broader possibilities of what it means to be human. It saddens me that you think "You, me, and everyone else can only influence those choices by how we opt to spend our money." This is hogwash. You, me and everyone else are human beings. This means far more than our decision to spend money or not spend money on a particular product or particular company. We are creative creatures. Most of us have voices and languages, which we can use to communicate to one another. Isn't that what we are (at least attempting) to do here? Do we not have the ability to, through speaking and writing, influence the long-term trajectory of fictional and non-fictional worlds? Please stop accepting this humdrum bull dropping of an idea that human beings can only influence corporations by spending or withholding money.
Censorship by economic pressure is also censorship. Just because they think they have an economic reason to do something doesn't automatically make it right.
No, we are not just "consumers". This in itself is a dangerous line of thinking. It numbs us to the broader possibilities of what it means to be human. It saddens me that you think "You, me, and everyone else can only influence those choices by how we opt to spend our money." This is hogwash. You, me and everyone else are human beings. This means far more than our decision to spend money or not spend money on a particular product or particular company. We are creative creatures. Most of us have voices and languages, which we can use to communicate to one another. Isn't that what we are (at least attempting) to do here? Do we not have the ability to, through speaking and writing, influence the long-term trajectory of fictional and non-fictional worlds? Please stop accepting this humdrum bull dropping of an idea that human beings can only influence corporations by spending or withholding money.
We will have to just agree to disagree. We will see what happens to the game in about 18 months and if the direction changes.
A lore-based curse is not at all the same thing as a culture that we normally think of in the real world. Yes, cultures interact, but a genetic curse cannot be "traded" or "exchanged" with as one would a recipe or even a language. I'm pointing this out to say that the Mimcry feature-limitation of the pre-MMoM Kenku is not just any old cultural trait, so you are making a false equivalency.
Also, you're imagining that I'm saying something I did not. My opinion is that players should be able to See in the Kenku description the option to play as a mimic-only linguistically limited PC. If that option isn't on the table b/c it literally isn't in the description, how do newer players and DMs who are ONLY familiar with MMoM going to know that even exists? As I have already said, just b/c something is on the Internet doesn't mean any particular player has the strong desire to look it up.
Like I said, having the OPTION to be "mimicry only" be included in the MMoM doesn't take creativity away from the player. It just gives them more options, not less since I'm not saying that the player be required to use that feature-limitation.
Hello there I'm recently getting into the whole DnD side of things I've done a few one shots I'm 1 shots I'm in the middle of a campaign but I'm also intrigued on creating brand new races have you got any suggestions and any advice regarding races feet spells weapons
Yeah I am going to have to pass on this. To me it is what made the Kenku unique and interesting. (I mean personally that is what I feel like happened to most of the races). I guess I can understand that people think it is hard creatively, but I think that just makes them more fun in that sense. I would rather have the Kenku characters go through like a journey to break the curse or something like that. But to each their own, just not my cup of tea so I will be sticking to the old version in my games.
Yeah, same tbh, and I would be incredibly surprised if anyone gives the Kenku update (in particular) the time of day.
Ever since my brother decided to play one for our second campaign (Orgel) they’ve been a real favourite of ours, because of how unique they are (or were) to role play and think about as a player character, and because of how much of a story telling goldmine the concept of an intelligent species without original thought really is (seriously five out of the six of us have DMed since that campaign, and we’ve all done some sort of unique story line regarding Kenku).
I’ve been steadily comparing the updated races with the legacy versions lately (for DMing reasons), and so far, there’s something sort of bland and uninspiring about these new versions. There’s been nothing that’s given me new ideas, or felt like something I could take and build a character/storyline around. It just all feels a little bit boring, like looking at row after row of blank canvases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That and as a DM removing all the set numbers, why should I use the races provided by the game? All the ties to world building is gone. I might as well have elves mining and Dwarves living in the trees.
Discord: MasterWitch#2965
My World Anvil account if you're interested. Work in progress.
https://www.worldanvil.com/w/land-of-the-fallen-7Blandfall7D-masterwitch
Yeah. I'd mentioned this earlier as well (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/141483-kenku-species-in-mordenkainen-presents-monsters-of). I am fine with it - but I do think it took away an aspect that made them unique. I played (well, still play but that campaign has been on hold since COVID since the DM doesn't want to play through Discord) - and it was mostly for RP aspect. I sometimes would change my voice when I spoke as a Kenku, other times I'd just explain how I'd imitate a goblin for this part, then a human for that part, etc.
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
The lore you are trying to defend isn't even "old lore" it started with 5e.
In 2e Kenku couldn't talk at all and just made "bird squawks"
in 3/3.5 they had their own language, but also spoke common
In 4e they had mimicry but could also talk normally.
In 5e they lost their voice and then got it back again.
So I will ask again, which one is the "true" Kenku? Which version of the lore should be held above all others and be the "truth" for all who play the game? All the lore is out there, all the various versions for all things from all editions, is there for people that are actually really interested. It isn't hidden away in ancient vaults or located in the basement of the local planning office. Just use your internet search engine of choice.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's far less important what the "true Kenku" is, than the fact is that Kenku in 5e pre-MMoM had interesting lore that gave people an incentive to role-play differently than they usually do. So instead of making the mimicry-only Kenku an Optional feature, they just got rid of it altogether. That's basically self-induced censorship.
Point is, having more lore is generally better. I'm not "ANTI" players getting the choice to play a boring Kenku. I'm PRO the choice of different Kenku (or other species/races) to play. Erasing lore decreases choice for people who are unaware of its existence.
"All the lore is out there, all the various versions for all things from all editions, is there for people that are actually really interested. It isn't hidden away in ancient vaults or located in the basement of the local planning office. Just use your internet search engine of choice."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You're making an assumption, though, that someone would bother to do that. Most people who play D&D do not trawl the Internet for lore. The people who go to actively search for lore is less than those who watch hours of Youtube or spend hours on Reddit or DnD Beyond to discuss ideal builds. They just want to play a game with other people. The central problem here is LESS choice because people have LESS information.
By your argument, people who try to prohibit public schools from carrying D&D books because "demons" and "devils" and "magic" offend them are doing nothing wrong because "hey, it's always available on the Internet". So now you're practically making the same argument as people who support banning books. Are you seriously okay with that?
WotC owns Dungeons and Dragons and all rights to it. If you don't like what they print, vote with your wallet and spend your money else where. Just because you don't like the change WotC made to a property that they own does not make it the same as people banning books at libraries.
Now to that first part about choice. According to the original printing of Kenku in Volo's, Kenku had no choice presented. The were forced to play ONE way. Also, if people aren't taking a few minutes to research a character on the internet, they are going to pick the race that requires more effort to role play either. Now that they have been reprinted, they in fact do have choices in how they are roleplayed.
Edit: Also, you are the one protesting a book and wanting it changed.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Correct, I have the right not to spend my money on a product that I feel is clearly inferior in quality to a previous set of products, not just b/c of the Kenku issue, but also due to oversimplification of spellcasting monsters, lack of new lore in general, lack of New Playable species (including some teased by previous UA) that, by implication, would be included in a book with the word "Multiverse" in it, and the complete disconnect between stats and species abilities.
I also have the right to state on a forum WHY I am making such a decision, as do you.
Right, I have no beef with Wizards writing an additional, blander version of the Kenku, provided that they retain some text in the new book about more interesting way(s) to play the species. You're clearly twisting my words. I said that CHOICE is good in an RPG. Wizards here is clearly choosing to reduce choice by reducing information.
Just b/c Wizards owns the content doesn't mean their censorship of that content is automatically good and appropriate. Either you are not aware of how censorship has historically worked or you are intentionally hiding your motives for squelching arguments against MMoM. Are you aware that several scientists and philosophers chose to NOT publish their theories and agreed to censor or "tone down", their own ideas in the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance in order to avoid offending the powerful Catholic Church? Even stuff as basic (from our modern PoV) as the Earth Not being the center of the universe but instead just a mere planet orbiting the Sun was suppressed on several separate occasions, sometimes by the astronomers themselves out of a desire to avoid punishment.
Again, why are You siding with censorship?
LOL
Ok, now not only are you trying to equate the changes made to Kenku (by the owner no less) to banning books at libraries, but to suppression of science by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
I can't understand how you don't see that you are the Church in this situation. You said this:
You are the one demanding that a private company conform to your ideas of what is right.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Imagination is often spurred on by the ideas of others. Most writers of fiction are merely "borrowing" material written by other fiction writers.
I support broadening the experience of what it means to play a PC. The 5e Kenku pre-MMoM gave players an incentive to do that by challenging how we thought of our use of language. This in itself is a creative exercise.
I could just as well say to you, if people wanted to play a crow-appearance non-flying avian species so badly, why couldn't they just ignore the mimcry role-play requirement of the pre-MMoM Kenku? Surely they had that much imagination, right?
Again, having some more interesting choices is good for a table top RPG. By eliminating species features instead of making them optional and by eliminating spells from NPC and boss monster write-ups, the publishers have opted for Less information, and therefore less choice.
You claim there is zero political pressure on MMoM. I think you are forgetting that we are living in a time of much political pressure in general to be "woke" even at the cost of creativity, which has now creeped into reducing the spectrum of choices in fictional worlds. Self-censorship is still censorship. And before you or someone else starts insinuating otherwise, I absolutely do support broadening the player base of D&D, including the DM base of the game. I also support the elimination of Always Evil alignments that were de riguer for the so-called "monstrous humanoid races" like Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs in older editions. What I do Not support is the outright elimination of choices for players via the elimination of information. I do Not support stripping away of flavorful, role-play impactfull lore in favor of some bland mealy-mouthed generic Astroturf that is boring and discourages role-playing creatively via the erasure of information.
Suppression of information is suppression of information. Just because some ideas are of literal global significance and some are isolated to players of what is supposed to be a creative "nerd" hobby does not make censorship for spurious reasons or reasons of "avoiding controversy" appropriate.
Note that Wizards is not replacing the 5e pre-MMoM Kenku with a more creative take on the species. The "new" Kenku is clearly lacking in flavor. If Wizards had paid people to come up with some truly interesting lore to replace the pre-MMoM 5e Kenku (and a boatload of other species/races), then a lot fewer of us in the player base would be unhappy with their new book.
Again, you are siding with censorship. Can you clearly not see that it is Wizards that is eliminating information rather than offering choice to players? Self-induced censorship is still a version of censorship. Interesting that you will not directly address this point in my arguments. Your attempt at accusing me of censorship when clearly I have advocated for greater choice instead of lesser choice indicates that you are willing to use manipulation to avoid answering my question to you: Why do you support censorship?
Because it is irrelevant. It is their company. It is there property. It is theirs to build or burn as they see fit. You, me and everyone else can only influence those choices by how we opt to spend our money. They are a business. If they will make more money by publishing books like Tasha's and MMM, then they will. There is no grand conspiracy against the player base beyond finding ways to get their money.
It is isn't "CeNsOrShIp!!!" it is just plain old Capitalism.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Censorship by economic pressure is also censorship. Just because they think they have an economic reason to do something doesn't automatically make it right.
No, we are not just "consumers". This in itself is a dangerous line of thinking. It numbs us to the broader possibilities of what it means to be human. It saddens me that you think "You, me, and everyone else can only influence those choices by how we opt to spend our money." This is hogwash. You, me and everyone else are human beings. This means far more than our decision to spend money or not spend money on a particular product or particular company. We are creative creatures. Most of us have voices and languages, which we can use to communicate to one another. Isn't that what we are (at least attempting) to do here? Do we not have the ability to, through speaking and writing, influence the long-term trajectory of fictional and non-fictional worlds? Please stop accepting this humdrum bull dropping of an idea that human beings can only influence corporations by spending or withholding money.
We will have to just agree to disagree. We will see what happens to the game in about 18 months and if the direction changes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A lore-based curse is not at all the same thing as a culture that we normally think of in the real world. Yes, cultures interact, but a genetic curse cannot be "traded" or "exchanged" with as one would a recipe or even a language. I'm pointing this out to say that the Mimcry feature-limitation of the pre-MMoM Kenku is not just any old cultural trait, so you are making a false equivalency.
Also, you're imagining that I'm saying something I did not. My opinion is that players should be able to See in the Kenku description the option to play as a mimic-only linguistically limited PC. If that option isn't on the table b/c it literally isn't in the description, how do newer players and DMs who are ONLY familiar with MMoM going to know that even exists? As I have already said, just b/c something is on the Internet doesn't mean any particular player has the strong desire to look it up.
Like I said, having the OPTION to be "mimicry only" be included in the MMoM doesn't take creativity away from the player. It just gives them more options, not less since I'm not saying that the player be required to use that feature-limitation.
Hello there I'm recently getting into the whole DnD side of things I've done a few one shots I'm 1 shots I'm in the middle of a campaign but I'm also intrigued on creating brand new races have you got any suggestions and any advice regarding races feet spells weapons
Yeah, same tbh, and I would be incredibly surprised if anyone gives the Kenku update (in particular) the time of day.
Ever since my brother decided to play one for our second campaign (Orgel) they’ve been a real favourite of ours, because of how unique they are (or were) to role play and think about as a player character, and because of how much of a story telling goldmine the concept of an intelligent species without original thought really is (seriously five out of the six of us have DMed since that campaign, and we’ve all done some sort of unique story line regarding Kenku).
I’ve been steadily comparing the updated races with the legacy versions lately (for DMing reasons), and so far, there’s something sort of bland and uninspiring about these new versions. There’s been nothing that’s given me new ideas, or felt like something I could take and build a character/storyline around. It just all feels a little bit boring, like looking at row after row of blank canvases.