The newest post made two hours ago seems so extra to me. I don't mean to offend or upset anyone, but it doesn't seem to be actually doing anything. Language evolves over time, of course, but this...just seems so unnecessary. Why spend extra resources in "discovering" what's the most "offensive" terms, and why not use those resources to just write better books? Obviously, with Spelljammer: Adventures In Space, the book wasn't a hit like Wizards thought it would be. Instead of focusing on weird things that can easily be managed, just make better books with more content.
Edit: It seems that I may not have been clear with some of my point, which is my bad. To further explain what I'm saying, my point is: Why make a public post about something so minuscule, making it a near center piece on the website and drawing everyones attention to it, but not about the massive complaints about the content of some of their recent books to come out?
It's not like they spent hundreds of hours on this. They're making a big deal about it because it IS a big deal to be more inclusive/ less ignorant about that kind of stuff. Better books can and should happen alongside better representation - pitting the two against each other does nothing but move us backward imho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Yes, people have a problem with the term 'race.' For the people it matters to, this is a welcome change. For the people that don't care, it doesn't affect them negatively in any way. Changing it does not take any resources away from working on anything else. It's an extremely simple fix that makes the game more inclusive. It should have been done years ago.
I mean, Spelljammers was meant to be extremely inclusive, but the content lacked immensely. I think it's perfectly fine to mention the two side by side. I didn't make this post to pit them against eachother, as I'm perfectly fine with inclusion and the decision to make the company look better to the public, but when you look at what the content actual was, it was sorely lacking. Take the Radiant Citadel, for example. That book was ALL about inclusion, and maybe it was just me, but only about..3 of the 13 stories were fun to read through and play through. My opinion is subjective, of course, but I know plenty of others who feel the same. The teams are definitely focusing on certain things more than others. Again, I have no problem, and even encourage, plenty of inclusion, but...the weird things they try to bring to light, like how they want to stray away from the term "race" is just kinda annoying when they know that the main complaints have been about the content of their books, but they don't make any comments about that.
I mean, Spelljammers was meant to be extremely inclusive, but the content lacked immensely. I think it's perfectly fine to mention the two side by side. I didn't make this post to pit them against eachother, as I'm perfectly fine with inclusion and the decision to make the company look better to the public, but when you look at what the content actual was, it was sorely lacking. Take the Radiant Citadel, for example. That book was ALL about inclusion, and maybe it was just me, but only about..3 of the 13 stories were fun to read through and play through. My opinion is subjective, of course, but I know plenty of others who feel the same. The teams are definitely focusing on certain things more than others. Again, I have no problem, and even encourage, plenty of inclusion, but...the weird things they try to bring to light, like how they want to stray away from the term "race" is just kinda annoying when they know that the main complaints have been about the content of their books, but they don't make any comments about that.
I'm having a hard time believing that you're not pitting inclusivity and content against each other. If your main complaint seems to be the lack of good content in the recent books, why do you want to blame WoTC deciding to change a few words/descriptions to make them more inclusive? These are two separate arguments/complaints you should have.
Them straying from the term "Race" has nothing to do with you disliking the content of Radiant Citadel/other books. At least, I doubt it does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
To me, it's not them straying away from it. It's them making a deal of it by making a post about something that a rather smaller portion of the D&D community as a whole has been complaining about, rather than making posts that the majority of the playerbase is complaining about i.e. Spelljammers.
It's not like they spent hundreds of hours on this. They're making a big deal about it because it IS a big deal to be more inclusive/ less ignorant about that kind of stuff.
They're making a post because it's still very important to a lot of people, even if there are also other problems they should be addressing. They should be working on better content for sure, but they should also be promoting a change in their philosophy to make the "rather small portion of the D&D community" as you put it, feel less small and pushed aside. There's not much more to say besides this, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
What's odd is that DnD used the term race in a way that doesn't seem like it should be an issue. I mean, isn't it a good thing to refer to humans as one race? Anyways, I have a problem with the term "species", they should use something more fitting, like "lineage", which they even alluded to in Tasha's.
To me, it's not them straying away from it. It's them making a deal of it by making a post about something that a rather smaller portion of the D&D community as a whole has been complaining about, rather than making posts that the majority of the playerbase is complaining about i.e. Spelljammers.
You do have to realize that "rather small portion" and "majority of the playerbase" are utterly, 100% defined by each of our personal internet bubbles?
In my experience, the "majority of the playerbase" has certainly not complained about the quality of Spelljammer content. But I also realize that's only my experience, and don't presume anything about the millions of other players.
Each of our anecdotal experiences are purely anecdotal. Any attempt by any of us to presume to know what is actually majority or minority opinion is useless at best and agenda-driven at worst.
The newest post made two hours ago seems so extra to me. I don't mean to offend or upset anyone, but it doesn't seem to be actually doing anything. Language evolves over time, of course, but this...just seems so unnecessary. Why spend extra resources in "discovering" what's the most "offensive" terms, and why not use those resources to just write better books? Obviously, with Spelljammer: Adventures In Space, the book wasn't a hit like Wizards thought it would be. Instead of focusing on weird things that can easily be managed, just make better books with more content.
this changes the language and what it means to people. It will not change D&D mechanics or rules. And at your table you can still call it race if your table desires. I suspect this is a solid move. I suspect this is a move motivated by Hasbro. It's easy enough.
I genuinely encourage anyone to take their exceptions to the UA Survey.
I take into consideration posts on forums from nearly every platform, going from Twitter, Reddit, Facebook groups, here on DNDBeyond, Instagram, Youtube, Twitch, and a couple others. I'm not just talking about me and my friends. I'm talking about posts I've seen, quite literally, countless times on the Spelljammers conversation. It's simple to see when you are always on the internet.
Sorry, I think I explained my point better in another comment.
Why are you using Spelljammer as an example when that encountered significant problems because, among other things, they failed to be cognizant of how their content could impact marginalized people? If anything, this is the perfect example of why diversity consultants and basing changes off of their recommendations are deeply necessary. You appear to be ignorant of these complaints as you use this as an example of them favoring inclusivity over content. I have seen you use language that suggests you believe you understand the situation. Phrases like “only a small portion of people complain about this” and ”they are ignoring complaints a large portion of the community are complaining about that” so my question to you is how much have you actually looked into this? Have you attempted to understand the subject from every available angle, or have you only looked at this from how it does or does not impact you personally? Problems still exist even if they do not impact you directly.
The term race is so wrong for D&D, its laughable at this point. Gygax was right to go with demihuman for non-human species. Now, D&D is doing it's dangest to try to pretend that yeah elves and dwarves are totally the same species, in fact you can have your half-dwarf/elf character because they can totally interbreed and have children: what the heck? Just look at the latest rules and how they are trying to eliminate different stat blocks for half-elves and half-orcs for instance.
A race is an unofficial subgrouping of species, meaning they can interbreed successfully but have some differences in phenotype. Race as used in D&D is illogical. Either call it species or demihumans and bury the term race. At the rate things are going with D&D with how they are pandering to everyone to give them the most OP and unique character origin they can get we are going to be having Half Lizard/Tabaxi's. Too much munchkin and too much clout chasing over a very stupid argument. Change the name and tell people to shut it and move on.
If I were speaking just for myself in a vacuum, I would say I do not have a problem with the usage of race in the context of D&D. While it is not exactly a proper use of the word by modern definitions of what constitutes a race versus a species, I am also a bit of a dork who reads the OED’s etymology sections for fun, and understand they are using a historical definition of “race” where it meant what we refer to as “species” today. This definition was popularised by Tolkien, who used the archaic form of “race” to refer to the different species of humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits, etc.
But we do not live in a vacuum, so I am rather glad they are making this change. For starters, it is more accurate to say “species” in modern parlance, and it just makes a lot more sense for D&D to use the present form of words than expect folks to understand they are using a 14th century definition in a 21st century work. Additionally, it cannot be ignored that this game has lots of roots in racism - Gygax’s statements on race and the early editions of D&D were not only racist by 2022 standards, they were problematic even in the 70s. Removing the word charged word “race” and going with a more scientific term like “species” removed some of the “some races are better than others” subtext Gygax was known for and wanted included in his game.
I never said it wasn't necessary. I was making the point of, why make such a big deal out of this when other things (being the content we are paying for [or lack there of]) are just brushed over and not talked about by Wizards? I think you are misinterpreting what this is about lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The newest post made two hours ago seems so extra to me. I don't mean to offend or upset anyone, but it doesn't seem to be actually doing anything. Language evolves over time, of course, but this...just seems so unnecessary. Why spend extra resources in "discovering" what's the most "offensive" terms, and why not use those resources to just write better books? Obviously, with Spelljammer: Adventures In Space, the book wasn't a hit like Wizards thought it would be. Instead of focusing on weird things that can easily be managed, just make better books with more content.
Edit: It seems that I may not have been clear with some of my point, which is my bad. To further explain what I'm saying, my point is: Why make a public post about something so minuscule, making it a near center piece on the website and drawing everyones attention to it, but not about the massive complaints about the content of some of their recent books to come out?
It's not like they spent hundreds of hours on this. They're making a big deal about it because it IS a big deal to be more inclusive/ less ignorant about that kind of stuff. Better books can and should happen alongside better representation - pitting the two against each other does nothing but move us backward imho.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Yes, people have a problem with the term 'race.' For the people it matters to, this is a welcome change. For the people that don't care, it doesn't affect them negatively in any way. Changing it does not take any resources away from working on anything else. It's an extremely simple fix that makes the game more inclusive. It should have been done years ago.
I mean, Spelljammers was meant to be extremely inclusive, but the content lacked immensely. I think it's perfectly fine to mention the two side by side. I didn't make this post to pit them against eachother, as I'm perfectly fine with inclusion and the decision to make the company look better to the public, but when you look at what the content actual was, it was sorely lacking. Take the Radiant Citadel, for example. That book was ALL about inclusion, and maybe it was just me, but only about..3 of the 13 stories were fun to read through and play through. My opinion is subjective, of course, but I know plenty of others who feel the same. The teams are definitely focusing on certain things more than others. Again, I have no problem, and even encourage, plenty of inclusion, but...the weird things they try to bring to light, like how they want to stray away from the term "race" is just kinda annoying when they know that the main complaints have been about the content of their books, but they don't make any comments about that.
I'm having a hard time believing that you're not pitting inclusivity and content against each other. If your main complaint seems to be the lack of good content in the recent books, why do you want to blame WoTC deciding to change a few words/descriptions to make them more inclusive? These are two separate arguments/complaints you should have.
Them straying from the term "Race" has nothing to do with you disliking the content of Radiant Citadel/other books. At least, I doubt it does.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
To me, it's not them straying away from it. It's them making a deal of it by making a post about something that a rather smaller portion of the D&D community as a whole has been complaining about, rather than making posts that the majority of the playerbase is complaining about i.e. Spelljammers.
They're making a post because it's still very important to a lot of people, even if there are also other problems they should be addressing. They should be working on better content for sure, but they should also be promoting a change in their philosophy to make the "rather small portion of the D&D community" as you put it, feel less small and pushed aside. There's not much more to say besides this, lol.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
That's fair!
What's odd is that DnD used the term race in a way that doesn't seem like it should be an issue. I mean, isn't it a good thing to refer to humans as one race? Anyways, I have a problem with the term "species", they should use something more fitting, like "lineage", which they even alluded to in Tasha's.
You do have to realize that "rather small portion" and "majority of the playerbase" are utterly, 100% defined by each of our personal internet bubbles?
In my experience, the "majority of the playerbase" has certainly not complained about the quality of Spelljammer content. But I also realize that's only my experience, and don't presume anything about the millions of other players.
Each of our anecdotal experiences are purely anecdotal. Any attempt by any of us to presume to know what is actually majority or minority opinion is useless at best and agenda-driven at worst.
Not mutually exclusive pursuits.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I'm not talking about my personal anecdotes...
Sorry, I think I explained my point better in another comment.
this changes the language and what it means to people. It will not change D&D mechanics or rules. And at your table you can still call it race if your table desires. I suspect this is a solid move. I suspect this is a move motivated by Hasbro. It's easy enough.
I genuinely encourage anyone to take their exceptions to the UA Survey.
Unless you are performing worldwide surveys, your experience of what opinions are a small portion or a majority is purely anecdotal.
I take into consideration posts on forums from nearly every platform, going from Twitter, Reddit, Facebook groups, here on DNDBeyond, Instagram, Youtube, Twitch, and a couple others. I'm not just talking about me and my friends. I'm talking about posts I've seen, quite literally, countless times on the Spelljammers conversation. It's simple to see when you are always on the internet.
Why are you using Spelljammer as an example when that encountered significant problems because, among other things, they failed to be cognizant of how their content could impact marginalized people? If anything, this is the perfect example of why diversity consultants and basing changes off of their recommendations are deeply necessary. You appear to be ignorant of these complaints as you use this as an example of them favoring inclusivity over content. I have seen you use language that suggests you believe you understand the situation. Phrases like “only a small portion of people complain about this” and ”they are ignoring complaints a large portion of the community are complaining about that” so my question to you is how much have you actually looked into this? Have you attempted to understand the subject from every available angle, or have you only looked at this from how it does or does not impact you personally? Problems still exist even if they do not impact you directly.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The term race is so wrong for D&D, its laughable at this point. Gygax was right to go with demihuman for non-human species. Now, D&D is doing it's dangest to try to pretend that yeah elves and dwarves are totally the same species, in fact you can have your half-dwarf/elf character because they can totally interbreed and have children: what the heck? Just look at the latest rules and how they are trying to eliminate different stat blocks for half-elves and half-orcs for instance.
A race is an unofficial subgrouping of species, meaning they can interbreed successfully but have some differences in phenotype. Race as used in D&D is illogical. Either call it species or demihumans and bury the term race. At the rate things are going with D&D with how they are pandering to everyone to give them the most OP and unique character origin they can get we are going to be having Half Lizard/Tabaxi's. Too much munchkin and too much clout chasing over a very stupid argument. Change the name and tell people to shut it and move on.
If I were speaking just for myself in a vacuum, I would say I do not have a problem with the usage of race in the context of D&D. While it is not exactly a proper use of the word by modern definitions of what constitutes a race versus a species, I am also a bit of a dork who reads the OED’s etymology sections for fun, and understand they are using a historical definition of “race” where it meant what we refer to as “species” today. This definition was popularised by Tolkien, who used the archaic form of “race” to refer to the different species of humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits, etc.
But we do not live in a vacuum, so I am rather glad they are making this change. For starters, it is more accurate to say “species” in modern parlance, and it just makes a lot more sense for D&D to use the present form of words than expect folks to understand they are using a 14th century definition in a 21st century work. Additionally, it cannot be ignored that this game has lots of roots in racism - Gygax’s statements on race and the early editions of D&D were not only racist by 2022 standards, they were problematic even in the 70s. Removing the word charged word “race” and going with a more scientific term like “species” removed some of the “some races are better than others” subtext Gygax was known for and wanted included in his game.
I never said it wasn't necessary. I was making the point of, why make such a big deal out of this when other things (being the content we are paying for [or lack there of]) are just brushed over and not talked about by Wizards? I think you are misinterpreting what this is about lol