Heck, you talk about 6th and all I can feel at this point is apathy since the company has become more and more mediocre in it's rush to put out poor products and sand blast away any sort of distinction between races/species/phenotypes/fera; We are getting effectively less depth and nuance so that no one anywhere can be offended by any of it.
The species thing has nothing to do with this, dude.
It's a contributing reason for me seriously consdering dropping D&D entirely kid; I've been playing this game or reading the novels since the late 80's and the decision to begin dissolving extent lore and world building in favor of something super generic and homgenized does them no favors with me or other folks who enjoyed the depth of the various settings.
Changing the word "race" to species doesn't alter or take away any preexisting lore. What it does do is make sure a more accurate and less offensive term is in place.
That is your opinion, which a number of us don’t agree with. I respect your view that you see it as an offensive term, and I ask that you respect my view that differentiates the word from racist connotations
The problem is that those of us who don’t like this change and are looking for an Old School version of D&D to play are going to have our opinions severely limited by the potential crackdown associated with OGL 1.1. Which, to me, feels like Hasbro is even further alienating a subset of the hobbyists.
Heck, you talk about 6th and all I can feel at this point is apathy since the company has become more and more mediocre in it's rush to put out poor products and sand blast away any sort of distinction between races/species/phenotypes/fera; We are getting effectively less depth and nuance so that no one anywhere can be offended by any of it.
The species thing has nothing to do with this, dude.
It's a contributing reason for me seriously consdering dropping D&D entirely kid; I've been playing this game or reading the novels since the late 80's and the decision to begin dissolving extent lore and world building in favor of something super generic and homgenized does them no favors with me or other folks who enjoyed the depth of the various settings.
Changing the word "race" to species doesn't alter or take away any preexisting lore. What it does do is make sure a more accurate and less offensive term is in place.
QUESTION:
How is taking someone belonging to another culture with whom you could potentially procreate and categorising that someone as an entirely different species than your own not offensive?
I can see how there might be a case for changing Race to Heritage. Because the word does come with a lot of political and historical baggage.
But one could argue that Species is exponentially more offensive, and it's not in the slightest bit accurate, either.
Also:
If you agree with the understanding that race is a fiction and that there is only one "race"—the human race—then why is it that Human should not qualify as a race as it has done for literally decades in the literature that informed the game in the first place? Why is this so offensive?
I can predict that any response to these questions is going to point out that fantasy races are not analogous with ethnicities in the real world, but then that is the very reason that people shouldn't be projecting their personal beliefs about what does or does not constitute racism onto what is a fantasy game and then seeking to impose those beliefs on others.
Heck, you talk about 6th and all I can feel at this point is apathy since the company has become more and more mediocre in it's rush to put out poor products and sand blast away any sort of distinction between races/species/phenotypes/fera; We are getting effectively less depth and nuance so that no one anywhere can be offended by any of it.
The species thing has nothing to do with this, dude.
It's a contributing reason for me seriously consdering dropping D&D entirely kid; I've been playing this game or reading the novels since the late 80's and the decision to begin dissolving extent lore and world building in favor of something super generic and homgenized does them no favors with me or other folks who enjoyed the depth of the various settings.
Changing the word "race" to species doesn't alter or take away any preexisting lore. What it does do is make sure a more accurate and less offensive term is in place.
That is your opinion, which a number of us don’t agree with. I respect your view that you see it as an offensive term, and I ask that you respect my view that differentiates the word from racist connotations
The problem is that those of us who don’t like this change and are looking for an Old School version of D&D to play are going to have our opinions severely limited by the potential crackdown associated with OGL 1.1. Which, to me, feels like Hasbro is even further alienating a subset of the hobbyists.
Please escort yourselves to the relevant race/species thread if you wish to discuss this, thank you.
I mean, you kicked this off by Presenting my position without full context. If you don't like the way that this conversation is going you are more then welcome to go and post in one of the dozen or so OGL threads; hell theres even one by Caerwyn where he explicitly tries to defend it.
I mean, you kicked this off by Presenting my position without full context. If you don't like the way that this conversation is going you are more then welcome to go and post in one of the dozen or so OGL threads; hell theres even one by Caerwyn where he explicitly tries to defend it.
Have a nice day!
I'm not the one defending a blantantly racist term. No offence but it seems kind of shallow to be literally threatening to stop playing a game because a single word changed.
And if you want to play an old-school style game, have a look at the countless OSR games on offer, such as Basic Fantasy:
The species thing has nothing to do with this, dude.
Having watched Gamer Gate unfold in real time, the parallels to what's happening here are becoming a bit ominous
I'm not saying the entire OGL controversy was ginned up out of whole cloth by people who weren't gaining any traction in their complaints about WOTC's "wokeness", but I'm wondering how much of a contributing factor it's been
"D&D should be open"/"save 3rd-party creators" are nice slogans that it seems like everyone should be able to get behind. So was "ethics in journalism"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The species thing has nothing to do with this, dude.
Having watched Gamer Gate unfold in real time, the parallels to what's happening here are becoming a bit ominous
I'm not saying the entire OGL controversy was ginned up out of whole cloth by people who weren't gaining any traction in their complaints about WOTC's "wokeness", but I'm wondering how much of a contributing factor it's been
"D&D should be open"/"save 3rd-party creators" are nice slogans that it seems like everyone should be able to get behind. So was "ethics in journalism"
I haven't heard of "gamer gate" but I do see a strong correlation between people who defend using "race" and people who are heavily worried (and often aggressively so) about the OGL.
Don't get me wrong; the OGL is probably something to keep an eye on, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as apocalyptic of an issue as some people make it out to be.
That is your opinion, which a number of us don’t agree with. I respect your view that you see it as an offensive term, and I ask that you respect my view that differentiates the word from racist connotations
The problem is that those of us who don’t like this change and are looking for an Old School version of D&D to play are going to have our opinions severely limited by the potential crackdown associated with OGL 1.1. Which, to me, feels like Hasbro is even further alienating a subset of the hobbyists.
Please escort yourselves to the relevant race/species thread if you wish to discuss this, thank you.
[REDACTED]
I mean, you kicked this off by Presenting my position without full context. If you don't like the way that this conversation is going you are more then welcome to go and post in one of the dozen or so OGL threads; hell theres even one by Caerwyn where he explicitly tries to defend it.
Have a nice day!
I'm not the one defending a blantantly racist term. No offence but it seems kind of shallow to be literally threatening to stop playing a game because a single word changed.
And if you want to play an old-school style game, have a look at the countless OSR games on offer, such as Basic Fantasy:
https://www.basicfantasy.org/
[REDACTED]
Having watched Gamer Gate unfold in real time, the parallels to what's happening here are becoming a bit ominous
I'm not saying the entire OGL controversy was ginned up out of whole cloth by people who weren't gaining any traction in their complaints about WOTC's "wokeness", but I'm wondering how much of a contributing factor it's been
"D&D should be open"/"save 3rd-party creators" are nice slogans that it seems like everyone should be able to get behind. So was "ethics in journalism"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I haven't heard of "gamer gate" but I do see a strong correlation between people who defend using "race" and people who are heavily worried (and often aggressively so) about the OGL.
Don't get me wrong; the OGL is probably something to keep an eye on, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as apocalyptic of an issue as some people make it out to be.
[REDACTED]