3.) OGL 1.1 was a pressure cooker situation - the larger D&D's audience grew, the more danger Wizards felt it was in from bad-faith large actors and from hateful content and the more pressure it felt to Do Something, Quickly. D&D's large and increasingly diverse community actually makes it more vulnerable to hateful content, not less, because the amount of people that content can reach and potentially harm is much higher than it historically has been. Wizards wanted to get in front of this and make sure it had plans and protections in place to stop the sort of widespread harm that could come from a single bad actor doing something awful, but Kyle states that what they arrived at was always the wrong plan. WotC is working on a Content Policy, and it will not seek to enforce that policy on anyone else - but Kyle specifically mentions that if a creator choose to directly flaut/go against that policy, Wizards is going to be Understandably Unhappy with that creator and may not have the nicest of things to say about such content and those who peddle it. But this is the intended defense now - Wizards is intending the community to be D&D's primary shield against hatefulness, and their goal/strategy is to act as an amplifier for that community because Wizards is itself part of the D&D Community and it gets to have a say in what people do.
However. The point was made more than once that when Wizards realized that its OGL ambitions were putting it in the position of "you can have legal protections and recourse against bad actors, or you can have a robust and vibrant creatore community - pick one and only one", they could not backpedal fast enough. Losing the creator community was seen as far, far, far too great a cost for anything a new OGL, no matter what it did, could accomplish, which is why they ultimately went Creative Commons. Their goals, desires, and concerns did not change - their strategy for dealing with those things did.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I watched the interview all the way through. Kyle handled it better, he said he’d seen the questions in advance so that helped avoid any disasters. After the OGL debacle the creative team seems to have more of a say which can’t be a bad thing. Said all the right things Corporatewise as you might expect. Little mention of the digital side and how monetisation might work. Seems it’s full speed ahead with OneDND, that’s a mistake IMHO (5E is mostly Ok). He said it was 5.5E, but really if you have to buy a new set of core books it’s a new edition, so be useful for someone to ask him that.
There were no "disasters" in the first interview either, just a bunch of reactionary morons and s-words looking for reasons to be outraged at the most banal corporate position imaginable (i.e. diverse leadership is good.)
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
Completely ignoring aggression only favors the aggressor.
Managing a brand takes money; acquiring a brand takes money. Presently, Hasbro is not exactly cash flush - it has been a hard couple years for Hasbro, starting with the implosion of Toys-R-Us a couple years ago and continuing through the pandemic (specifically supply chain disruption in China, a major producer of Hasbro products), and now with inflation meaning folks have less money to spend on toys.
Hasbro has not really changed its business model to keep up - for years it has had a “throw brands at the wall and see what sticks” approach, with them producing a couple hundred different brands. Brands that all need specialised molds to make parts for, employees managing them, advertising dollars, etc. Many of these brands have a low rate of return - and when you are not exactly flush with cash, you want to make sure every dollar is being used to its maximum.
Which is why Hasbro is changing to their brand focus - rather than have a few big brands and a couple hundred little, low return brands, they are going to focus on their high return brands. That way their cash on hand can go further as it is being focused on things like D&D, Magic, MLP, GI Joe, Monopoly and other classic games, and Transformers.
It also means they are unlikely to have any big acquisitions like you propose - they don’t want to spend money on acquiring a new brand (which they would also have to continue to support financially) when they are in the process of consolidation and narrowing their focus. Sure, they might make big purchases like building Magic Arena or purchasing D&D Beyond, but those were both investments in their existing brands.
I also wanted to respond to the point about Hasbro avoiding video games like the plague - that is simply wrong. WotC actually had a game development wing for a number of years - they had a few in house projects in the work, including a new space IP helmed by former BioWare developers (who knew Wizards from Baldur’s Gate 1 and hated working for EA-helmed BioWare). This division was closed down about a month ago after years of work - making AAA games is extremely cash and manpower intensive, while also being incredibly risky (a few bugs and/or bad reviews can tank a game’s profits and utterly destroy the company making them). As such, Hasbro pulled the plug on the entire WotC gaming development wing.
So, while it is fair to say Hasbro is not currently looking to explore the video game market, it is not accurate to say they have avoided it like the plague - they actively embraced it until they decided the risk-reward math did not work out.
I'll add too that D&D, especially Digital D&D, is a natural hedge for them. When things like pandemics force us all inside and shut down factories, their toy sales will slump but more people will play D&D online. And when things reopen, FLGS and conventions and physical D&D make a comeback.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
I'm pretty critical of D&D, Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro and the people involved in managing and creating content and I wasn't bothered by this particular interview. Quite literally the only I ask is that they release information, produce content and do interviews without saying something racist.... That is a pretty low bar I have set for them and 95% of the time they disappoint, so I guess I'm saying.... great job not being total corporate pricks .... I guess?
Let's see if they can get through the weekend without tripping over their own feet.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
Kyle specifically stated that Wizards gets to also be part of the broader D&D community, and due to their position they have a large voice in it. They try to use that voice responsibly, but it was very much inferred that not only does Wizards have a duty to use that voice to protect minority and marginalized people - and everybody else, frankly - from hateful content however they can, they also have a fundamental right to decry and condemn anyone who wants to try and associate D&D with hate. D&D developers and Wizards employees play and love the game too, and they have a right to speak up when someone tries to use it to wicked ends.
No, just ignoring problematic content is not the answer. It's never the answer. It is in fact almost entirely the opposite of the answer. Allowing hate to get by unchecked and unanswered is not really any different than being an originator of hate in the first place. Ostriching and letting people do whatever they like with problematic content would be irresponsible in the extreme.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
Gaming doesn't really have a choice about it. All the amplifier point means is that they have a voice, they are going to use it when it seems appropriate to them, and they recognize that, as the leading publisher in the space, whatever they say is going to get more attention than a smaller operation.
I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
And you are wrong, as has been demonstrated over and over and over again during the last couple decades
Deplatforming can be effective. Hiding under a rock and pretending the trolls and provocateurs don't exist absolutely doesn't
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)
Ignoring the trolls is not always the wrong thing to do, but at no point did they commit to responding to everything. Just that they'll respond when they consider it appropriate.
While ignoring can work for an individual seeking to save themselves from the pressures of constant hate, it does nothing to combat the animus, anxiety, aversion, and apathy of others.
Anxiety is the most common. Anxiety is the worry about or regarding, concern for safety relating to or of, and efforts relating to concern and worry relating to the object of anxiety. It is often incorrectly reduced to “fear”. One need not be afraid of something to be concerned about it. Anxiety is distress, worry, concern, and overt anxiousness – including anticipatory ideation -- relating to a group culturally disavowed, about something or someone that is strongly expressed in physical, literal, or metaphorical terms. It includes prejudice against this group of people, such as worrying about what they do in the restroom or if they will have some way that you will dig for and present as poorly understood information relating to sports.
Apathy is the second most common -- it is not caring, not wanting to be involved not dealing with it. Apathy is ultimately a form of aversion.
Aversion is the next form of it, and is The avoidance, escape from, retreat from, being disgusted by, in opposition to, identifying something as repugnant, and exhibiting strong feelings about this. Aversion is the desire to avoid, the act of arguing to avoid or reduce encounters. To move away or push away -- by deed or word, law or more. It includes being unwilling to listen or accept factual statements made by disavowed people. An example is not wanting those people in the place you want to go to and complaining about it.
the last and ultimately rarest of them -- but with the power to use the others most commonly -- is Animus. Animus is an intense dislike. This is often described using a single word, used previously. people say it about a food they will not eat. It involves devaluing the lives of people, erasing their dignity, opposing their civil and human rights, denying them the ability to mark themselves, and outright harm them. Animus is easily distinguished by overly concerned and reactionary language and violence, in any form. It includes agitating in the interest of preventing these disavowed people from being part of or engaging in social activities or in community places and activities by law or policy.
These Four A's underlie the behavioral nature of all manner of circumstances -- racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, Colorism, Transphobia, arguments about reverse racism, comments about intragroup conflict, Passing, and more. They are the mechanism by which Stigma is enacted and established, and the result of Stigma's antithesis, privilege.
They provide a model for determining if an action or statement is ultimately empowering stigma, or is disempowering it, and are used in several companies as the basis of policy relating to harm against the population.
I know this because I teach this, I developed this from previous work, and it is a pragmatic approach that does not worry about calling a person something that triggers and engages their defensiveness, as it is focused on the behaviors, ultimately forcing a confrontation with cognitive dissonance.
And sorry, but I suspect I am still a bit hot about previous things, -- however, I hope that this can help in seeing where the ultimate product of the effort to circumscribe some ways of engaging with the content in the manner often considered here thus far succeeds or falls short.
And dang nabbit, I swore I wouldn't work here. Very sorry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm watching this interview right now. I didn't make it through all of the other time Kyle spoke, but a lot of the things he said have reassured me and shown a clear dedication to us, the community of D&D players and fans.
It's sad because Wizards is being transparent and engaging with the community, but there are some people who still seem to want to attack them over this. Honestly, no wonder Wizards is hesitant to let their employees talk publicly about controversial topics. If people react like this and invent "disasters" from the video, or talk about statements that never happened, then it clearly shows that those fans never really cared about communication and having a better relationship with Wizards. Instead, it appears that some just want to attack Wizards over and over again, even if they have no reasonable evidence to support allegations of wrongdoing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I watched the interview all the way through. Kyle handled it better, he said he’d seen the questions in advance so that helped avoid any disasters. After the OGL debacle the creative team seems to have more of a say which can’t be a bad thing. Said all the right things Corporatewise as you might expect. Little mention of the digital side and how monetisation might work. Seems it’s full speed ahead with OneDND, that’s a mistake IMHO (5E is mostly Ok). He said it was 5.5E, but really if you have to buy a new set of core books it’s a new edition, so be useful for someone to ask him that.
Publishing new core books is what they did for 3.5e.
Yes, that what I think would be useful to clarify, if the changes can be put in a single supplement that would be better.
I watched the interview all the way through. Kyle handled it better, he said he’d seen the questions in advance so that helped avoid any disasters. After the OGL debacle the creative team seems to have more of a say which can’t be a bad thing. Said all the right things Corporatewise as you might expect. Little mention of the digital side and how monetisation might work. Seems it’s full speed ahead with OneDND, that’s a mistake IMHO (5E is mostly Ok). He said it was 5.5E, but really if you have to buy a new set of core books it’s a new edition, so be useful for someone to ask him that.
Publishing new core books is what they did for 3.5e.
Yes, that what I think would be useful to clarify, if the changes can be put in a single supplement that would be better.
I’m sure they’re planning to release new editions of each of the core 3: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual. An overhaul of the scope they’re talking about would impact all three, and practically speaking it’s better to break it up so people can buy the portions they need/want, rather than tell everyone they have to pay the larger price for some kind of omnibus. Also means if you want to ensure access to the earlier editions, make sure you buy it ahead of the release date if VGtM and MToF are any indication.
This interview (on the Mastering Dungeons channel) was conducted by Teos Abadía. He is Colombian and It was great hearing from latino/latinx creators in the D&D space!
That's one of the best parts of Kyle's tour imo, it's given me exposure to D&D channels I might not otherwise have heard of to try out.
In reference my prior post, I can proffer an extant, in-thread example of Anxiety in multiple expressions. Even a touch of aversion in the way that dismissal was performed and how the avoidance of contrary factual evidence undermines a previous statement.
This is the kind of stuff I hope the Content effort that Kyle spoke about will help to quell, and I like how he noted that they are sharing that responsibility with the community. Yes, it does mean the will benefit to some degree from the labor of people of color and other stigmatized populations -- but I suspect that rising in defense of this game is something they will very much do.
I also liked more than I previously expressed the whole One D&D is a development and evolution of 5e, rather than an entirely new edition. I do expect them to produce additional books, of course -- one of the tasks they have set for themselves (and is between the lines of Kyle's responses) is that they need to unify the position, and that means updating the books to clear out some detritus -- so a lot like what they did with MMotM, but across the entire core line, thus disrupting reliance on things and providing new ways to make each of the 'species" (a term I and my players are pretty hostile towards) unique and different without relying on some false equivalency.
That also means that it will be a bit longer before they do move forward and do 6e, and that "backwards compatibility" isn't just a "hint" -- it is essentially jsut a series of updates to solve problems in the very game that itself -- so it isn't even so much as backwards compatibility as it is "we gonna do a reset and still keep things close as they were, so that we have a solid foundation to move forward".
I don't know any of the people involved -- I avoid YouTube, and would not have seen this had it not been linked to herein and so any suppositions about their mental state or whatever will be filtered through my being a psychologist and based on observable elements, not suppostionand what ifs, and motives are rarely fully revealed. I can make estimations based on knowledge of corporate culture and the nature of business, but even my BA in that won't get me nearly as far or as accurate as I prefer to be.
I suppose it is inevitable that during a period of change, some folks are not able to adapt to the change. I suspect that just like the larger system above the social one, that failure to adapt will result in a slow but sure decrease and absence of them from the field.
To use an earlier comment: it is the most assuredly effective way in this context to deplatform. No wonder they are in a panic. Both Kobold and Paizo have some pretty strong rules about diversity as well. It is almost as if they will have to rely entirely on very small press -- much like has been done since 1813...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It would seem the Bank of America has seen fit to rate the Hasbro stock as "Underperform" once again, citing 'destroying customer goodwill' through 'the danger of over monetizing brands'.
Publishing new core books is what they did for 3.5e.
Yes, that what I think would be useful to clarify, if the changes can be put in a single supplement that would be better.
Why? They didn't do that in 3.5, and 3.5 did fine. Better than fine in fact.
The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
After inflation, I don't think it's a lot different from when 3.5e came out.
The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
After inflation, I don't think it's a lot different from when 3.5e came out.
I would also proffer that 5e has a lot of problems that need fixing - as far as editions go, 5e is very simplistic and players have very few real customisation options after choice of subclass at level 3 (particularly with martial users who do not even get spell selection). A change is very much needed to add a level of complexity to character creation which is sorely lacking in the present game.
Additionally, even as character choices are watered down, 5e is not exactly the most DM friendly system - monsters have long lists of spells DMs have to flip through and find (easy enough on Beyond—a nightmare in paper if you don’t have the spells memorised already). We’re already seeing streamlining monsters is one of their goals, reducing the burden on DMs and thus reducing one of the major barriers of entry for players, folks deciding not to DM because they think it would be too hard.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieThere were no "disasters" in the first interview either, just a bunch of reactionary morons and s-words looking for reasons to be outraged at the most banal corporate position imaginable (i.e. diverse leadership is good.)
Completely ignoring aggression only favors the aggressor.
I'll add too that D&D, especially Digital D&D, is a natural hedge for them. When things like pandemics force us all inside and shut down factories, their toy sales will slump but more people will play D&D online. And when things reopen, FLGS and conventions and physical D&D make a comeback.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
I'm pretty critical of D&D, Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro and the people involved in managing and creating content and I wasn't bothered by this particular interview. Quite literally the only I ask is that they release information, produce content and do interviews without saying something racist.... That is a pretty low bar I have set for them and 95% of the time they disappoint, so I guess I'm saying.... great job not being total corporate pricks .... I guess?
Let's see if they can get through the weekend without tripping over their own feet.
Kyle specifically stated that Wizards gets to also be part of the broader D&D community, and due to their position they have a large voice in it. They try to use that voice responsibly, but it was very much inferred that not only does Wizards have a duty to use that voice to protect minority and marginalized people - and everybody else, frankly - from hateful content however they can, they also have a fundamental right to decry and condemn anyone who wants to try and associate D&D with hate. D&D developers and Wizards employees play and love the game too, and they have a right to speak up when someone tries to use it to wicked ends.
No, just ignoring problematic content is not the answer. It's never the answer. It is in fact almost entirely the opposite of the answer. Allowing hate to get by unchecked and unanswered is not really any different than being an originator of hate in the first place. Ostriching and letting people do whatever they like with problematic content would be irresponsible in the extreme.
Please do not contact or message me.
Gaming doesn't really have a choice about it. All the amplifier point means is that they have a voice, they are going to use it when it seems appropriate to them, and they recognize that, as the leading publisher in the space, whatever they say is going to get more attention than a smaller operation.
And you are wrong, as has been demonstrated over and over and over again during the last couple decades
Deplatforming can be effective. Hiding under a rock and pretending the trolls and provocateurs don't exist absolutely doesn't
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)
This was overall a very informative interview. I am looking forward to the next one.
Also, please try to stay polite and on topic.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ignoring the trolls is not always the wrong thing to do, but at no point did they commit to responding to everything. Just that they'll respond when they consider it appropriate.
While ignoring can work for an individual seeking to save themselves from the pressures of constant hate, it does nothing to combat the animus, anxiety, aversion, and apathy of others.
Anxiety is the most common. Anxiety is the worry about or regarding, concern for safety relating to or of, and efforts relating to concern and worry relating to the object of anxiety. It is often incorrectly reduced to “fear”. One need not be afraid of something to be concerned about it. Anxiety is distress, worry, concern, and overt anxiousness – including anticipatory ideation -- relating to a group culturally disavowed, about something or someone that is strongly expressed in physical, literal, or metaphorical terms. It includes prejudice against this group of people, such as worrying about what they do in the restroom or if they will have some way that you will dig for and present as poorly understood information relating to sports.
Apathy is the second most common -- it is not caring, not wanting to be involved not dealing with it. Apathy is ultimately a form of aversion.
Aversion is the next form of it, and is The avoidance, escape from, retreat from, being disgusted by, in opposition to, identifying something as repugnant, and exhibiting strong feelings about this. Aversion is the desire to avoid, the act of arguing to avoid or reduce encounters. To move away or push away -- by deed or word, law or more. It includes being unwilling to listen or accept factual statements made by disavowed people. An example is not wanting those people in the place you want to go to and complaining about it.
the last and ultimately rarest of them -- but with the power to use the others most commonly -- is Animus. Animus is an intense dislike. This is often described using a single word, used previously. people say it about a food they will not eat. It involves devaluing the lives of people, erasing their dignity, opposing their civil and human rights, denying them the ability to mark themselves, and outright harm them. Animus is easily distinguished by overly concerned and reactionary language and violence, in any form. It includes agitating in the interest of preventing these disavowed people from being part of or engaging in social activities or in community places and activities by law or policy.
These Four A's underlie the behavioral nature of all manner of circumstances -- racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, Colorism, Transphobia, arguments about reverse racism, comments about intragroup conflict, Passing, and more. They are the mechanism by which Stigma is enacted and established, and the result of Stigma's antithesis, privilege.
They provide a model for determining if an action or statement is ultimately empowering stigma, or is disempowering it, and are used in several companies as the basis of policy relating to harm against the population.
I know this because I teach this, I developed this from previous work, and it is a pragmatic approach that does not worry about calling a person something that triggers and engages their defensiveness, as it is focused on the behaviors, ultimately forcing a confrontation with cognitive dissonance.
And sorry, but I suspect I am still a bit hot about previous things, -- however, I hope that this can help in seeing where the ultimate product of the effort to circumscribe some ways of engaging with the content in the manner often considered here thus far succeeds or falls short.
And dang nabbit, I swore I wouldn't work here. Very sorry.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm watching this interview right now. I didn't make it through all of the other time Kyle spoke, but a lot of the things he said have reassured me and shown a clear dedication to us, the community of D&D players and fans.
It's sad because Wizards is being transparent and engaging with the community, but there are some people who still seem to want to attack them over this. Honestly, no wonder Wizards is hesitant to let their employees talk publicly about controversial topics. If people react like this and invent "disasters" from the video, or talk about statements that never happened, then it clearly shows that those fans never really cared about communication and having a better relationship with Wizards. Instead, it appears that some just want to attack Wizards over and over again, even if they have no reasonable evidence to support allegations of wrongdoing.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Yes, that what I think would be useful to clarify, if the changes can be put in a single supplement that would be better.
I’m sure they’re planning to release new editions of each of the core 3: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual. An overhaul of the scope they’re talking about would impact all three, and practically speaking it’s better to break it up so people can buy the portions they need/want, rather than tell everyone they have to pay the larger price for some kind of omnibus. Also means if you want to ensure access to the earlier editions, make sure you buy it ahead of the release date if VGtM and MToF are any indication.
Why? They didn't do that in 3.5, and 3.5 did fine. Better than fine in fact.
In reference my prior post, I can proffer an extant, in-thread example of Anxiety in multiple expressions. Even a touch of aversion in the way that dismissal was performed and how the avoidance of contrary factual evidence undermines a previous statement.
This is the kind of stuff I hope the Content effort that Kyle spoke about will help to quell, and I like how he noted that they are sharing that responsibility with the community. Yes, it does mean the will benefit to some degree from the labor of people of color and other stigmatized populations -- but I suspect that rising in defense of this game is something they will very much do.
I also liked more than I previously expressed the whole One D&D is a development and evolution of 5e, rather than an entirely new edition. I do expect them to produce additional books, of course -- one of the tasks they have set for themselves (and is between the lines of Kyle's responses) is that they need to unify the position, and that means updating the books to clear out some detritus -- so a lot like what they did with MMotM, but across the entire core line, thus disrupting reliance on things and providing new ways to make each of the 'species" (a term I and my players are pretty hostile towards) unique and different without relying on some false equivalency.
That also means that it will be a bit longer before they do move forward and do 6e, and that "backwards compatibility" isn't just a "hint" -- it is essentially jsut a series of updates to solve problems in the very game that itself -- so it isn't even so much as backwards compatibility as it is "we gonna do a reset and still keep things close as they were, so that we have a solid foundation to move forward".
I don't know any of the people involved -- I avoid YouTube, and would not have seen this had it not been linked to herein and so any suppositions about their mental state or whatever will be filtered through my being a psychologist and based on observable elements, not suppostionand what ifs, and motives are rarely fully revealed. I can make estimations based on knowledge of corporate culture and the nature of business, but even my BA in that won't get me nearly as far or as accurate as I prefer to be.
I suppose it is inevitable that during a period of change, some folks are not able to adapt to the change. I suspect that just like the larger system above the social one, that failure to adapt will result in a slow but sure decrease and absence of them from the field.
To use an earlier comment: it is the most assuredly effective way in this context to deplatform. No wonder they are in a panic. Both Kobold and Paizo have some pretty strong rules about diversity as well. It is almost as if they will have to rely entirely on very small press -- much like has been done since 1813...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It would seem the Bank of America has seen fit to rate the Hasbro stock as "Underperform" once again, citing 'destroying customer goodwill' through 'the danger of over monetizing brands'.
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2023/02/hasbro-slapped-by-bank-of-america-for-destroying-customer-goodwill.html
So, I fully expect more interviews and more communcation to come out of Hasbro / WotC in order to increase shareholder trust.
The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
After inflation, I don't think it's a lot different from when 3.5e came out.
I would also proffer that 5e has a lot of problems that need fixing - as far as editions go, 5e is very simplistic and players have very few real customisation options after choice of subclass at level 3 (particularly with martial users who do not even get spell selection). A change is very much needed to add a level of complexity to character creation which is sorely lacking in the present game.
Additionally, even as character choices are watered down, 5e is not exactly the most DM friendly system - monsters have long lists of spells DMs have to flip through and find (easy enough on Beyond—a nightmare in paper if you don’t have the spells memorised already). We’re already seeing streamlining monsters is one of their goals, reducing the burden on DMs and thus reducing one of the major barriers of entry for players, folks deciding not to DM because they think it would be too hard.