I think a great thing to do would be to take some of the subclasses from each of these books, and then ask random players:
a.) would you be able to recognize which book each of them came from, or are they all so indistinct in terms of identity and thematics?
b.) would you want/allow them at your table, both in regards to theming and to game balance? How would you feel as a player using core content alongside such classes/subclasses, or as a DM having to create fun and challenge with such content?
Because I imagine it's going to have a negative impact on the game when the other player gets a class that involves graphic gore and body horror and features that are significantly more powerful than what other players get, and on the DM side I've already had to deal with players who think they're fine to play an Illrigger or Gunslinger along with all of the overpowered spells in those books—just because they're on DDB.
There's a history lesson to be learned from the days of 2e and 3e about oversaturation of subpar content. Unless we just want to pat ourselves on the back for a dozen indistinguishable horror books with overpowered content and white men as the main characters.
I think a great thing to do would be to take some of the subclasses from each of these books, and then ask random players:
Why? Partnered content isn't about trying to make the perfect D&D, partnered content is about D&D Beyond being a digital storefront (mostly, I think WotC wants to compete with DriveThruRPG). If people feel product X is too redundant with product Y... they won't buy one of them.
I think a great thing to do would be to take some of the subclasses from each of these books, and then ask random players:
Why? Partnered content isn't about trying to make the perfect D&D, partnered content is about D&D Beyond being a digital storefront (mostly, I think WotC wants to compete with DriveThruRPG). If people feel product X is too redundant with product Y... they won't buy one of them.
Is it because you think the average player won't approve of content you support and which you feel is aimed at yourself?
And let's be honest, do we have any reason to believe any new initiative by WotC is going to give more diverse content and more diverse creators the same opportunities they've given their pet creators? For all the insistence that releasing third-party content takes so much time and effort, look at the past month since the new head's statement. Two new horror-themed books already since that statement. One of which was released in a state that was sorely in need of further editing and proofreading. The other is significantly larger than other releases—a clear sign of WotC believing Grim Hollow deserves more of their material on the site than anyone else.
Why should we believe that more diverse and varied content, let alone better-balanced content, will be coming to the game? Rather than just a "ooh, look at them" article every two months that still gives as much space to Drakkenheim or Syndaroum as more unique and flavorful content?
Even better yet... September is just around the corner. How many horror-themed books will we see in that month? How many more releases of overpowered content? WotC dedicating the time to new classes, only when they're designed to relish in being edgy and/or blatantly overpowered?
I think a great thing to do would be to take some of the subclasses from each of these books, and then ask random players:
a.) would you be able to recognize which book each of them came from, or are they all so indistinct in terms of identity and thematics?
b.) would you want/allow them at your table, both in regards to theming and to game balance? How would you feel as a player using core content alongside such classes/subclasses, or as a DM having to create fun and challenge with such content?
Because I imagine it's going to have a negative impact on the game when the other player gets a class that involves graphic gore and body horror and features that are significantly more powerful than what other players get, and on the DM side I've already had to deal with players who think they're fine to play an Illrigger or Gunslinger along with all of the overpowered spells in those books—just because they're on DDB.
There's a history lesson to be learned from the days of 2e and 3e about oversaturation of subpar content. Unless we just want to pat ourselves on the back for a dozen indistinguishable horror books with overpowered content and white men as the main characters.
What would your proposed solution be? Cause it sounds like you are getting at a "I don't like X therefore no-one should get to have X" cause you haven't brought up toggles or content filters like most people who just want to curate their play experience usually do.
You know you are allowed to just say " No horror sublasesses" or "Content from this list of books is allowed" and provide a list, or "No content from this list" and provide the list of prohibited books.
Your arguments against much of this sounds like "Why are they selling Red Leicester when they already sell cheddar?" but with D&D classes in place of cheese. Sure, both are English cheeses, but they are different enough that some people like one over the other, and in case you hadn't noticed, horror and fantasy fiction has as much nuance in flavor and appeal as cheeses do. ( Yes ha ha, my similes are cheesy and so are my puns. )
Some people like one, but not the other. Some people like Gothic horror, some people like cosmic horror, and some people like Shlocky goofy horror, and some people don't like any of those and don't have to. You are in control of what goes on your table and you are responsible for maintaining that control, and if you don't want to be, then maybe just don't DM, or don't play in games that have those classes.
Of all the partnered content present on the site, the majority isn't horror, and the ones that are, are built to be be balanced in their own balancing ecosystem, so of course some might be busted outside of it. Let people have their fun, and just enforce your boundaries. You have that ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Of course, "let people have their fun". As in, let those of us getting what we want keep getting focus exclusively to themselves.
Part of Dan Ayoub's post was insisting that the 2024 rules were shaped by "the community", rather than a tiny minority of players, insisting (in spite of WotC's declared stance on backwards compatibility) that it "enhances" the rules rather than "replaces" them. Given how every D&D community and discussion board has become much less active since the release of the 2024 rules, and WotC's adamant insistence of the "success" of the rules, it's pretty clear that WotC is happy to cater to a smaller audience as long as that audience is the right people, liking the right content, made by the right people. And as long as that audience is happy, they couldn't care less what other people think.
Of course, "let people have their fun". As in, let those of us getting what we want keep getting focus exclusively to themselves.
Part of Dan Ayoub's post was insisting that the 2024 rules were shaped by "the community", rather than a tiny minority of players, insisting (in spite of WotC's declared stance on backwards compatibility) that it "enhances" the rules rather than "replaces" them. Given how every D&D community and discussion board has become much less active since the release of the 2024 rules, and WotC's adamant insistence of the "success" of the rules, it's pretty clear that WotC is happy to cater to a smaller audience as long as that audience is the right people, liking the right content, made by the right people. And as long as that audience is happy, they couldn't care less what other people think.
Once again, it'd be incredibly useful if you specified who this supposed audience of the "right people" is? What is this "right content"? Who are these "right people" making it? Stop alluding and just be explicit so we can have a meaningful discussion here.
Goo thing i refreshed, cause Davyd said what i was going to ask, but far more politely.
They sure as Shar aren't listening to me, but i ain't going to pretend my voice is the only one that matters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
The fallacy with the whole "they're only listening to a small segment of the community" is that's all they can practically listen to. It's absurd to think there is any way for them to get feedback from the entire community, so we can write that off. But even the act of looking for feedback self selects for a small slice of the community. This is a slice of the community that
1. Engages with the game outside of the game
2. Performs this out of game engagement in spaces where WotC has done presence in terms of news and updates
3. Intersects with updates on play test material
4. Has an interest in play test material and testing it
5. Has the bandwidth to actually test it
6. Then has the bandwidth to actually provide feedback
These are ever narrowing slices of the community and that narrowing is unavoidable. It you don't engage with play testing or even providing blind feedback, you can't complain about your voice not being heard. And even if you do engage, you have to keep in mind that wotc is going to listen to what appeals to the most number of voices, and that group may not include you.
The community is not a monolith, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have overarching preferences, trends of play, and wants
Also to note, the latest releases here have been for 2024 rules (excluding Abomination Vaults, who's a completely different can of worms). Wich is normal as WOTC pushes the system over the older rules.
As mentionned, the community is less interested so far in the 2024 edition. Thus, there isn't much third party stuff designed for 2024 yet. Conclusion : the choice of 3rd party stuff for 2024 to publish on Beyond and push the 2024 system is reduced. And if the choice is between publishing gothic horror stuff, folk horror stuff, or nothing, it's the horror stuff that get's published, because publishing nothing doesn't benefit anybody.
I'm not sure we have valid metrics to support the notion the community isn't interested in the 2024 rules. We have statements by wotc saying the 2024 core rulebooks are the fastest selling D&D books to date, but if we're going to write that off, we should certainly write off all anecdotal claims to the contrary.
I think a great thing to do would be to take some of the subclasses from each of these books, and then ask random players:
a.) would you be able to recognize which book each of them came from, or are they all so indistinct in terms of identity and thematics?
b.) would you want/allow them at your table, both in regards to theming and to game balance? How would you feel as a player using core content alongside such classes/subclasses, or as a DM having to create fun and challenge with such content?
Because I imagine it's going to have a negative impact on the game when the other player gets a class that involves graphic gore and body horror and features that are significantly more powerful than what other players get, and on the DM side I've already had to deal with players who think they're fine to play an Illrigger or Gunslinger along with all of the overpowered spells in those books—just because they're on DDB.
There's a history lesson to be learned from the days of 2e and 3e about oversaturation of subpar content. Unless we just want to pat ourselves on the back for a dozen indistinguishable horror books with overpowered content and white men as the main characters.
Again you’re stating as if it’s a fact that only white men (who I’m guessing is the “right people” you think WotC are chasing after) are interested or suited to the third party stuff released so far when as I said above Ghostfire at least goes out their way to include minority representation, especially for the LGBTQA+ community and are often better at it than the first party releases. I’m currently running a Grim Hollow campaign for a group made up almost entirely of teenage girls and they’re loving it as a setting.
As Davyd said earlier it seems like you’ve made up your mind based entirely on your preferences (which of course you’re entitled to do) and are then trying to justify that by making it into a moral concern about representation
Why don't you come out and say it? No insinutions, no non-sequiturs, no dancing around the issue.
Who is it that WoTC is catering to, and who is it that are being left out?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
The fallacy with the whole "they're only listening to a small segment of the community" is that's all they can practically listen to. It's absurd to think there is any way for them to get feedback from the entire community, so we can write that off.
Well, revealed preference (i.e. what are people buying) is a decent way of polling the broader community, but also seems to be something the OP objects to...
Given the OP's predilection for mentioning a want for balance in arguments about game design & 3pp(Among other things), I think they may be pitting everything Dungeons & Dragons 5e does against Pathfinder 2E, which explicitly espouses balance as a core game design philosophy & virtue....& WotC against Paizo.
Although post 32 has been deleted I do not appreciate what it was implying about myself or my character in addition to making some very large assumptions about me and what my players should enjoy. If personal attacks is the best the OP can come up with when given examples that their arguments aren’t based in anything other than their own bias and opinions I can’t see the point in engaging any further with them
Although post 32 has been deleted I do not appreciate what it was implying about myself or my character in addition to making some very large assumptions about me and what my players should enjoy. If personal attacks is the best the OP can come up with when given examples that their arguments aren’t based in anything other than their own bias and opinions I can’t see the point in engaging any further with them
Yeah that was beyond the pale of them, and i had to stop myself from laying into the OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Evidently DDB staff are happy to censor criticism of the misogynistic tropes endemic to the works WotC gives their support to. But given that the company is currently trying to float off the success of a video game that relished in pandering to the bigotry of white male gamers, and in particular using a character written deliberately to portray queer men as rapists and predators for one of their own releases, it's clear what people WotC consider their customers—let alone people at all.
And best of luck to LaTiaJacquise, because if WotC ever does release anything not written to appeal to straight white men, it's the folks like you who will be vilified by their typical target audience for such content existing.
trying to float off the success of a video game that relished in pandering to the bigotry of white male gamers
This is a game that showed up on a list of "woke games to avoid" because of the fact you could
Create a trans PC
Create a character of any skin colour or gender expression
Literally didn't use "male" or "female" to refer to the body types, and instead used "type 1" and "type 2"
Allows for pretty much any form of expression of romantic or sexual love between consenting adults (bigots had to mod in "straight relationships only")
Has a massively diverse selection of peoples represented across both allies and enemies
I just want to point to that last one—good representation means that marginalized people have as equal representation amongst protagonists and antagonists as non-marginalized people.
This seems like you're trying to prop up your preference with disingenuous moralization—"It couldn't possibly be I just don't like third party stuff, it's because it's objectively morally bad for these unfounded reasons...."
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. It's attitudes like yours that make caricatures of the real need to keep advancing diverse, inclusive representation in the hobby, setting things back
trying to float off the success of a video game that relished in pandering to the bigotry of white male gamers
This is a game that showed up on a list of "woke games to avoid" because of the fact you could
Create a trans PC
Create a character of any skin colour or gender expression
Literally didn't use "male" or "female" to refer to the body types, and instead used "type 1" and "type 2"
Allows for pretty much any form of expression of romantic or sexual love between consenting adults (bigots had to mod in "straight relationships only")
Has a massively diverse selection of peoples represented across both allies and enemies
I just want to point to that last one—good representation means that marginalized people have as equal representation amongst protagonists and antagonists as non-marginalized people.
This seems like you're trying to prop up your preference with disingenuous moralization—"It couldn't possibly be I just don't like third party stuff, it's because it's objectively morally bad for these unfounded reasons...."
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. It's attitudes like yours that make caricatures of the real need to keep advancing diverse, inclusive representation in the hobby, setting things back
Ah yes, the very inclusive game where:
- there are no canonical trans or non-binary characters and no acknowledgement of such if you wish to play your character as such
- non-white peoples are consistently written to be victimized or vilified
- the only canonically queer party members have their sexuality vilified and associated with abuse and ****
- the only non-white human-resembling party member was initially written to portray him as inferior to a white man (and still has echoes of that in the released game)
- women in positions of power and authority are consistently portrayed as evil (up to a major goddess, for the sake of giving a white male character a plotline that uses said goddess as a prop to make him look smarter and better than her)
- returning characters from the past games are either party members if they're white or reduced to shallow one-note villains to be killed off if they're not
- one main character's storyline is unfinished because she's not white and the CEO of the studio thinks not getting a satisfactory ending is what she "deserves"
But yeah, a game in which Gale exists in contrast to Astarion and Wyll clearly respects different people equally. And a company that's happy to relish in the depiction of queer men as predatory, grooming monsters clearly cares about their queer audience.
trying to float off the success of a video game that relished in pandering to the bigotry of white male gamers
This is a game that showed up on a list of "woke games to avoid" because of the fact you could
Create a trans PC
Create a character of any skin colour or gender expression
Literally didn't use "male" or "female" to refer to the body types, and instead used "type 1" and "type 2"
Allows for pretty much any form of expression of romantic or sexual love between consenting adults (bigots had to mod in "straight relationships only")
Has a massively diverse selection of peoples represented across both allies and enemies
I just want to point to that last one—good representation means that marginalized people have as equal representation amongst protagonists and antagonists as non-marginalized people.
This seems like you're trying to prop up your preference with disingenuous moralization—"It couldn't possibly be I just don't like third party stuff, it's because it's objectively morally bad for these unfounded reasons...."
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. It's attitudes like yours that make caricatures of the real need to keep advancing diverse, inclusive representation in the hobby, setting things back
[Snipped]
I was gonna do the classic sub-quote deconstruction of each of your points, before I realized by the third bullet how disingenuous you were being. Like literally your first point is nonsense because in the Realms (something emphatically repeated by it's creator), being trans isn't something people would comment on any more than your hair or eye colour because it's not discriminated against. So this just further supports my theory is you're looking to justify your personal, subjective opinion through faux, dishonest moralizing. Heck you don't even refute that and instead focus on BG3 which screams volumes. As such, I think I'm just gonna move on from this discussion.
I think a great thing to do would be to take some of the subclasses from each of these books, and then ask random players:
a.) would you be able to recognize which book each of them came from, or are they all so indistinct in terms of identity and thematics?
b.) would you want/allow them at your table, both in regards to theming and to game balance? How would you feel as a player using core content alongside such classes/subclasses, or as a DM having to create fun and challenge with such content?
Because I imagine it's going to have a negative impact on the game when the other player gets a class that involves graphic gore and body horror and features that are significantly more powerful than what other players get, and on the DM side I've already had to deal with players who think they're fine to play an Illrigger or Gunslinger along with all of the overpowered spells in those books—just because they're on DDB.
There's a history lesson to be learned from the days of 2e and 3e about oversaturation of subpar content. Unless we just want to pat ourselves on the back for a dozen indistinguishable horror books with overpowered content and white men as the main characters.
Why? Partnered content isn't about trying to make the perfect D&D, partnered content is about D&D Beyond being a digital storefront (mostly, I think WotC wants to compete with DriveThruRPG). If people feel product X is too redundant with product Y... they won't buy one of them.
Is it because you think the average player won't approve of content you support and which you feel is aimed at yourself?
And let's be honest, do we have any reason to believe any new initiative by WotC is going to give more diverse content and more diverse creators the same opportunities they've given their pet creators? For all the insistence that releasing third-party content takes so much time and effort, look at the past month since the new head's statement. Two new horror-themed books already since that statement. One of which was released in a state that was sorely in need of further editing and proofreading. The other is significantly larger than other releases—a clear sign of WotC believing Grim Hollow deserves more of their material on the site than anyone else.
Why should we believe that more diverse and varied content, let alone better-balanced content, will be coming to the game? Rather than just a "ooh, look at them" article every two months that still gives as much space to Drakkenheim or Syndaroum as more unique and flavorful content?
Even better yet... September is just around the corner. How many horror-themed books will we see in that month? How many more releases of overpowered content? WotC dedicating the time to new classes, only when they're designed to relish in being edgy and/or blatantly overpowered?
What would your proposed solution be? Cause it sounds like you are getting at a "I don't like X therefore no-one should get to have X" cause you haven't brought up toggles or content filters like most people who just want to curate their play experience usually do.
You know you are allowed to just say " No horror sublasesses" or "Content from this list of books is allowed" and provide a list, or "No content from this list" and provide the list of prohibited books.
Your arguments against much of this sounds like "Why are they selling Red Leicester when they already sell cheddar?" but with D&D classes in place of cheese. Sure, both are English cheeses, but they are different enough that some people like one over the other, and in case you hadn't noticed, horror and fantasy fiction has as much nuance in flavor and appeal as cheeses do.
( Yes ha ha, my similes are cheesy and so are my puns. )
Some people like one, but not the other. Some people like Gothic horror, some people like cosmic horror, and some people like Shlocky goofy horror, and some people don't like any of those and don't have to. You are in control of what goes on your table and you are responsible for maintaining that control, and if you don't want to be, then maybe just don't DM, or don't play in games that have those classes.
Of all the partnered content present on the site, the majority isn't horror, and the ones that are, are built to be be balanced in their own balancing ecosystem, so of course some might be busted outside of it.
Let people have their fun, and just enforce your boundaries. You have that ability.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Of course, "let people have their fun". As in, let those of us getting what we want keep getting focus exclusively to themselves.
Part of Dan Ayoub's post was insisting that the 2024 rules were shaped by "the community", rather than a tiny minority of players, insisting (in spite of WotC's declared stance on backwards compatibility) that it "enhances" the rules rather than "replaces" them. Given how every D&D community and discussion board has become much less active since the release of the 2024 rules, and WotC's adamant insistence of the "success" of the rules, it's pretty clear that WotC is happy to cater to a smaller audience as long as that audience is the right people, liking the right content, made by the right people. And as long as that audience is happy, they couldn't care less what other people think.
Once again, it'd be incredibly useful if you specified who this supposed audience of the "right people" is? What is this "right content"? Who are these "right people" making it? Stop alluding and just be explicit so we can have a meaningful discussion here.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Goo thing i refreshed, cause Davyd said what i was going to ask, but far more politely.
They sure as Shar aren't listening to me, but i ain't going to pretend my voice is the only one that matters.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
The fallacy with the whole "they're only listening to a small segment of the community" is that's all they can practically listen to. It's absurd to think there is any way for them to get feedback from the entire community, so we can write that off. But even the act of looking for feedback self selects for a small slice of the community. This is a slice of the community that
1. Engages with the game outside of the game
2. Performs this out of game engagement in spaces where WotC has done presence in terms of news and updates
3. Intersects with updates on play test material
4. Has an interest in play test material and testing it
5. Has the bandwidth to actually test it
6. Then has the bandwidth to actually provide feedback
These are ever narrowing slices of the community and that narrowing is unavoidable. It you don't engage with play testing or even providing blind feedback, you can't complain about your voice not being heard. And even if you do engage, you have to keep in mind that wotc is going to listen to what appeals to the most number of voices, and that group may not include you.
The community is not a monolith, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have overarching preferences, trends of play, and wants
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Also to note, the latest releases here have been for 2024 rules (excluding Abomination Vaults, who's a completely different can of worms). Wich is normal as WOTC pushes the system over the older rules.
As mentionned, the community is less interested so far in the 2024 edition. Thus, there isn't much third party stuff designed for 2024 yet. Conclusion : the choice of 3rd party stuff for 2024 to publish on Beyond and push the 2024 system is reduced. And if the choice is between publishing gothic horror stuff, folk horror stuff, or nothing, it's the horror stuff that get's published, because publishing nothing doesn't benefit anybody.
I'm not sure we have valid metrics to support the notion the community isn't interested in the 2024 rules. We have statements by wotc saying the 2024 core rulebooks are the fastest selling D&D books to date, but if we're going to write that off, we should certainly write off all anecdotal claims to the contrary.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Again you’re stating as if it’s a fact that only white men (who I’m guessing is the “right people” you think WotC are chasing after) are interested or suited to the third party stuff released so far when as I said above Ghostfire at least goes out their way to include minority representation, especially for the LGBTQA+ community and are often better at it than the first party releases. I’m currently running a Grim Hollow campaign for a group made up almost entirely of teenage girls and they’re loving it as a setting.
As Davyd said earlier it seems like you’ve made up your mind based entirely on your preferences (which of course you’re entitled to do) and are then trying to justify that by making it into a moral concern about representation
Why don't you come out and say it? No insinutions, no non-sequiturs, no dancing around the issue.
Who is it that WoTC is catering to, and who is it that are being left out?
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Well, revealed preference (i.e. what are people buying) is a decent way of polling the broader community, but also seems to be something the OP objects to...
Given the OP's predilection for mentioning a want for balance in arguments about game design & 3pp(Among other things), I think they may be pitting everything Dungeons & Dragons 5e does against Pathfinder 2E, which explicitly espouses balance as a core game design philosophy & virtue....& WotC against Paizo.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Although post 32 has been deleted I do not appreciate what it was implying about myself or my character in addition to making some very large assumptions about me and what my players should enjoy. If personal attacks is the best the OP can come up with when given examples that their arguments aren’t based in anything other than their own bias and opinions I can’t see the point in engaging any further with them
Yeah that was beyond the pale of them, and i had to stop myself from laying into the OP.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Evidently DDB staff are happy to censor criticism of the misogynistic tropes endemic to the works WotC gives their support to. But given that the company is currently trying to float off the success of a video game that relished in pandering to the bigotry of white male gamers, and in particular using a character written deliberately to portray queer men as rapists and predators for one of their own releases, it's clear what people WotC consider their customers—let alone people at all.
And best of luck to LaTiaJacquise, because if WotC ever does release anything not written to appeal to straight white men, it's the folks like you who will be vilified by their typical target audience for such content existing.
This is a game that showed up on a list of "woke games to avoid" because of the fact you could
I just want to point to that last one—good representation means that marginalized people have as equal representation amongst protagonists and antagonists as non-marginalized people.
This seems like you're trying to prop up your preference with disingenuous moralization—"It couldn't possibly be I just don't like third party stuff, it's because it's objectively morally bad for these unfounded reasons...."
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. It's attitudes like yours that make caricatures of the real need to keep advancing diverse, inclusive representation in the hobby, setting things back
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Ah yes, the very inclusive game where:
- there are no canonical trans or non-binary characters and no acknowledgement of such if you wish to play your character as such
- non-white peoples are consistently written to be victimized or vilified
- the only canonically queer party members have their sexuality vilified and associated with abuse and ****
- the only non-white human-resembling party member was initially written to portray him as inferior to a white man (and still has echoes of that in the released game)
- women in positions of power and authority are consistently portrayed as evil (up to a major goddess, for the sake of giving a white male character a plotline that uses said goddess as a prop to make him look smarter and better than her)
- returning characters from the past games are either party members if they're white or reduced to shallow one-note villains to be killed off if they're not
- one main character's storyline is unfinished because she's not white and the CEO of the studio thinks not getting a satisfactory ending is what she "deserves"
But yeah, a game in which Gale exists in contrast to Astarion and Wyll clearly respects different people equally. And a company that's happy to relish in the depiction of queer men as predatory, grooming monsters clearly cares about their queer audience.
I was gonna do the classic sub-quote deconstruction of each of your points, before I realized by the third bullet how disingenuous you were being. Like literally your first point is nonsense because in the Realms (something emphatically repeated by it's creator), being trans isn't something people would comment on any more than your hair or eye colour because it's not discriminated against. So this just further supports my theory is you're looking to justify your personal, subjective opinion through faux, dishonest moralizing. Heck you don't even refute that and instead focus on BG3 which screams volumes. As such, I think I'm just gonna move on from this discussion.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here