According to Game Informer — "the surprising importance and inclusions of what is arguably the oldest D&D campaign setting of them all – Greyhawk."
So how does Greyhawk fit in? According to GI, the Dungeon Master's Guide contains a sample setting—and that setting is, indeed, Greyhawk. Not only that, but the book will come with a double-sided poster map with the City of Greyhawk on one side and the Flannaes on the other—the eastern part of one of Oerth's four continents.
(https://scruffygrognard.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/576cymap_th.jpg)
Even as the multiverse of D&D worlds sees increased attention, the Dungeon Master's Guide also offers a more discrete setting to get gaming groups started. After very few official releases in the last couple of decades, the world of Greyhawk takes center stage.
The book fleshes out Greyhawk to illustrate how to create campaign settings of your own. Greyhawk was the original D&D game world crafted by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax, and a worthy setting to revisit on the occassion of D&D's golden anniversary. It's a world bristling with classic sword and sorcery concepts, from an intrigue-laden central city to wide tracts of uncharted wilderness. Compared to many D&D campaign settings, it's smaller and less fleshed out, and that's sort of the point; it begs for DMs to make it their own.
The book offers ample info to bring Greyhawk to life but leaves much undetailed. For those eager to take the plunge, an included poster map of the Greyhawk setting sets the tone, and its reverse reveals a map of the city of the same name. "A big draw to Greyhawk is it's the origin place for such heroes as Mordenkainen, Tasha, and others," Perkins says. "There's this idea that the players in your campaign can be the next great world-hopping, spell-crafting heroes of D&D. It is the campaign where heroes are born."
- Game Informer�
Also this was released today, "Characters from the classic D&D cartoon get a makeover in this internal art from a chapter opener in the new Player's Handbook. Artist Credit: Dmitry Burmak"
(https://www.gameinformer.com/sites/default/files/2024/05/13/ba534aa0/dnd04.jpg)
"Oh boy! I can't wait to see how Greyhawk has been revised and updated for modern audiences." -- Nobody, ever.
Quote from: Almost_Useless on May 14, 2024, 11:42:27 PM"Oh boy! I can't wait to see how Greyhawk has been revised and updated for modern audiences." -- Nobody, ever.
This was one of the first replies I saw when the news broke:
"I love being mindful of the history D&D. A new vision of the Oerth of Greyhawk (and Blackmoor) for this century is awesome.
I am curious, what aspects of the legacy content they will mine and which they will tweak for sensibilities today."
So yes, someone, today.
Quote from: Almost_Useless on May 14, 2024, 11:42:27 PM"Oh boy! I can't wait to see how Greyhawk has been revised and updated for modern audiences."
'Put a chick in it and make her lame and gay!' - Kathleen Kennedy (probably)
Where's Sheila? Has the woke gingercide got her as well?
Quote from: Mistwell on May 15, 2024, 01:03:46 AMQuote from: Almost_Useless on May 14, 2024, 11:42:27 PM"Oh boy! I can't wait to see how Greyhawk has been revised and updated for modern audiences." -- Nobody, ever.
This was one of the first replies I saw when the news broke:
"I love being mindful of the history D&D. A new vision of the Oerth of Greyhawk (and Blackmoor) for this century is awesome.
I am curious, what aspects of the legacy content they will mine and which they will tweak for sensibilities today."
So yes, someone, today.
He said "nobody," implying an actual person, not the NPCs that follow WotC today. I fully expect them to shill for WotC and its wokeness...
Quote from: El-V on May 15, 2024, 06:27:06 AMWhere's Sheila? Has the woke gingercide got her as well?
Eric isn't there, either.
Remember, Dungeon Master said that the Cavalier was right more often than he said that of any other character.
I thought the cartoon characters were officially in the Forgotten Realms. Have they moved to Greyhawk?
Based on the font used for the show's title, I would have thought their wrecked roller coaster cart dropped them into Mystara.
I wonder if Gary's original thirteen-level dungeon will be published in the book.
WotC has run the Forgotten Realms setting into the ground. They need something else.
Forgotten Realms didn't get published until several years after the cartoon. Anything placing them in Faerun happened long after the cartoon ended.
Even if they were, WotC took several Greyhawk adventures and set them in Forgotten Realms in 5E, and The War of the Lance got reskinned as Rise of Tiamat. Ignoring some comic book and plopping the cartoon characters onto Oerth is easy.
Quote from: Almost_Useless on May 14, 2024, 11:42:27 PM"Oh boy! I can't wait to see how Greyhawk has been revised and updated for modern audiences." -- Nobody, ever.
This was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the announcement.
Quote from: Mistwell on May 14, 2024, 08:17:45 PMAlso this was released today, "Characters from the classic D&D cartoon get a makeover in this internal art from a chapter opener in the new Player's Handbook. Artist Credit: Dmitry Burmak"
I guess they had no room for Sheila? Maybe she has the hood of her cloak of invisibility up.
(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/5/5a/Sheila_IDW.png)
To clarify, while the DMG will use Greyhawk as a 'how to build a setting' example, the PHB will include images, characters, and references from across D&D's numerous settings.
I think they should include "The Gygax 75 Challenge".
That's one of the better guides for creating a campaign world, in my opinion, and would be compatible with using Greyhawk as an example.
$10 says that the Bandit Kingdoms will be considered too "problematic" and get axed.
Quote from: El-V on May 15, 2024, 06:27:06 AMWhere's Sheila? Has the woke gingercide got her as well?
Possibly. Though I suppose she might be in the picture but has her hood up as well. :)
edit: Oops! I should have scrolled down first before responding. The joke has already been made!
If it keeps them away from Dark Sun, Mystara, and Birthright they can go ahead and devour the hell out of this setting as the locusts they resemble will.
How long have they been there? Bobby's all grown up
Quote from: THE_Leopold on May 15, 2024, 04:31:00 PMIf it keeps them away from Dark Sun, Mystara, and Birthright they can go ahead and devour the hell out of this setting as the locusts they resemble will.
There was a time when I thought Wokies of the Coast would never touch Dark Sun, that the setting was just too inherently edgy, and they couldn't possibly sanitize it without changing it so much it'd be unrecognizable and would lose all of its marketable appeal.
Now I realize that isn't how the Wokies think. They don't care about theme; they don't care about faithfulness, and increasingly, they don't even care about marketability. The current left would look at wokifying Dark Sun as all the more rewarding for how thoroughly they'd have to ruin it. The biggest of all trophies to hang on their wall.
At this point, I fully expect Woke Dark Sun to be something the world will be forced to endure within the next 5 years.
I mean, one of their public facing employees publicaly stated that Dark Sun was too problematic, and their spelljammer maps had a section in one of them called "Athas Space", with the implication (later rolled back) being that Dark Sun had been blasted to bits somehow, with the salvageable and marketable monsters hanging out in that section of the setting instead.
Now, that didn't enter their full canon like that, but you can tell they were considering it. Consider how much hatred they must have for a huge setting like that, one of their most popular ever, being canonically obliterated, just because it had slavery that, while obviously evil and abhorent, wasn't a pile of anti-white bleating and George Floydisms.
But yea, I think they are more likely to destroy it in a different way; something like, have someone go back in time and rewrite history. Maybe some other weird self-insert like the autistic paladin they decided made the deck of many things (or however it went). That seems more likely than actually wiping out something so marketable, even for them.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 15, 2024, 07:13:44 PMQuote from: THE_Leopold on May 15, 2024, 04:31:00 PMIf it keeps them away from Dark Sun, Mystara, and Birthright they can go ahead and devour the hell out of this setting as the locusts they resemble will.
There was a time when I thought Wokies of the Coast would never touch Dark Sun, that the setting was just too inherently edgy, and they couldn't possibly sanitize it without changing it so much it'd be unrecognizable and would lose all of its marketable appeal.
Now I realize that isn't how the Wokies think. They don't care about theme; they don't care about faithfulness, and increasingly, they don't even care about marketability. The current left would look at wokifying Dark Sun as all the more rewarding for how thoroughly they'd have to ruin it. The biggest of all trophies to hang on their wall.
At this point, I fully expect Woke Dark Sun to be something the world will be forced to endure within the next 5 years.
Its a game setting. The only ones forced to endure it are those foolish enough pay for it or play games using it. For the rest of the sane world it can be easily ignored.
The important thing is that Mordekainen can finally be zim/zir true authentic self as a disabled rainbow birthing elf of color and there is nothing you bigots can do about it!
Quote from: RNGm on May 15, 2024, 08:25:03 PMThe important thing is that Mordekainen can finally be zim/zir true authentic self as a disabled rainbow birthing elf of color and there is nothing you bigots can do about it!
I'm betting Mordenkaenen will be bi-sexual and one of the fucking assholes at WoTC will have him fucking one the characters that Gary's kids, watch. WotC staff can't be bothered reading source material, they will most likely continue on with the crap that WotC did to Greyhawk with Iuz basically conquering too much land creating an imbalanced campaign world. Its more of a war campaign with how WotC wrote it with armies marching everywhere.
Quote from: cavalier973 on May 15, 2024, 07:03:48 AMI thought the cartoon characters were officially in the Forgotten Realms. Have they moved to Greyhawk?
They have moved from Mystara to FR to who knows where a few times.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2024, 11:52:50 AM$10 says that the Bandit Kingdoms will be considered too "problematic" and get axed.
I'd always assumed Greyhawk was too "problematic" for Wizards to begin with. I won't be surprised if the setting gets altered beyond recognition.
Considering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Quote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
Quote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Agreed and seconded
Unless I see or hear them ruining Greyhawk, I won't assume the worst. But as HZ says it will go against their carefully constructed personal narratives on the topic.
If Greyhawk is presented faithfully without any woke bullshit then I will listen to reviews and decide from there. Hopes are not high for such a product unless WOTC has secretly hired some staff that know what the hell they are doing.
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on May 17, 2024, 10:44:20 AMI'd always assumed Greyhawk was too "problematic" for Wizards to begin with. I won't be surprised if the setting gets altered beyond recognition.
Out of curiosity, why? Greyhawk is probably the one I'm least familiar with out of the high-profile D&D settings, but it never seemed to be any edgier than Forgotten Realms.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
Is it possible; that WOTC will try to turn Greyhawk, into Gayhawk?
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
You're really going to try and claim to be one of their customers? My point is that most of the posters here have totally written them off and are not their customers, which you either missed or...well, you do have your narrative to stick to don't you?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
You're really going to try and claim to be one of their customers? My point is that most of the posters here have totally written them off and are not their customers, which you either missed or...well, you do have your narrative to stick to don't you?
Well, you are right, I am not one of their customers. I wrote off WotC back when 4E came out because they delivered a shit sandwich of a game and claimed it was filet mignon. Then when customers weren't buying the crap they produced, they blamed the poor taste and the grognardism of those same customers.
Kinda like what you are setting people up for here.
If you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Fuck off and go try to gaslight someone else with your bullshit.
I chose my path. That was with Kobold Press instead of WotC. I supported Tales Of The Valiant. And I'm not disappointed with what I have gotten so far.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 05:08:45 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
You're really going to try and claim to be one of their customers? My point is that most of the posters here have totally written them off and are not their customers, which you either missed or...well, you do have your narrative to stick to don't you?
Well, you are right, I am not one of their customers. I wrote off WotC back when 4E came out because they delivered a shit sandwich of a game and claimed it was filet mignon. Then when customers weren't buying the crap they produced, they blamed the poor taste and the grognardism of those same customers.
Kinda like what you are setting people up for here.
If you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Fuck off and go try to gaslight someone else with your bullshit.
You're not at all following what I'm saying. I'm not saying it will be good (though it might be), I'm saying that for many (possibly most) of the people on this board, it
must be shit or else their little worlds will implode. That's not me gaslighting, that's the effects of the continuous bombardment of anti-WotC posts on this site (and, yes, elsewhere too).
I agreed with the poster that said he'd wait and see how the new Greyhawk material pans out. If it's good, great. If not, he'll ignore it. My agreement that he should make up his own mind isn't gaslighting at all...
But you go on with your narrative...
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
That is because wotc can not do anything right. They are compelled to fuck it up some how some way.
And if by miracle they do it right. They are then doubly compelled to fuck it up.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 19, 2024, 01:41:21 PMQuote from: 1stLevelWizard on May 17, 2024, 10:44:20 AMI'd always assumed Greyhawk was too "problematic" for Wizards to begin with. I won't be surprised if the setting gets altered beyond recognition.
Out of curiosity, why? Greyhawk is probably the one I'm least familiar with out of the high-profile D&D settings, but it never seemed to be any edgier than Forgotten Realms.
If anything I am surprised they did not latch onto Greyhawk sooner. One of the prominent races is dark skinned and a few others are too. Mediterranean and more depending on the edition. But the woke screeched that "Thats not POC!" because you are only POC or a minority when it is convenient to their narrative today.
Quote from: Omega on May 19, 2024, 05:52:05 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
That is because wotc can not do anything right. They are compelled to fuck it up some how some way.
And if by miracle they do it right. They are then doubly compelled to fuck it up.
Thank you for supporting my point.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 05:35:49 PMI'm saying that for many (possibly most) of the people on this board, it must be shit or else their little worlds will implode. That's not me gaslighting, that's the effects of the continuous bombardment of anti-WotC posts on this site (and, yes, elsewhere too).
I can only speak for myself on this point, but the eventual quality of the OneD&D (or whatever they're calling it these days) DMG is largely moot to me. WOTC is one of two companies (along with Disney) where I have chosen to no longer give them any of my money, as a point of principle. In both cases, that is due to repeated acts of cultural vandalism and willful disrespect of the artistic works they hold the license to. Separate to the moral point, I also have no interest in either 5th edition or a prospective new edition of D&D.
Let's imagine the best case scenario, here: a competent, complete and tonally faithful explication of the Greyhawk setting, with the thoroughness and polish of the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. Let's go a step further and say that it's attached to a new edition of D&D so brilliantly designed that it instantly makes obsolete all the prior editions, the OSR, and every other fantasy RPG on the market. I would be surprised, to say the least, but it would only be a step in the right direction. It'd take several years of sensible, high quality products, sold at fair prices, and in the absence of slimy anti-consumer practices to get WOTC off of my personal shit-list.
Is all of that possible? Yes. Would I like to see it happen? Yes, actually. Unlike some other posters, WOTC is a company I used to like. But anyone whose brain is capable of pattern recognition wouldn't be holding their breath waiting for it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 19, 2024, 08:10:14 PMBut anyone whose brain is capable of pattern recognition...
Well, that just ruled out HappyDerp. His argument basically involves completely ignoring the entire history of WotC. Predictions based on past behavior are "narratives" to this buffoon.
Imagine that your girlfriend had cheated on you six or seven times. She tells you she's going out to a bar with friends and doesn't come home that night. HappyDerp would be telling you that there was no reason to be suspicious. Any apprehension over her behavior is just you trying to justify a "narrative."
Really, you shouldn't even dignify his statements with a response, because he's just gaslighting everyone. He's accusing others of inventing some kind of narrative when that's exactly what he's doing. The woke always project...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 19, 2024, 11:19:53 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 19, 2024, 08:10:14 PMBut anyone whose brain is capable of pattern recognition...
Well, that just ruled out HappyDerp. His argument basically involves completely ignoring the entire history of WotC. Predictions based on past behavior are "narratives" to this buffoon.
Imagine that your girlfriend had cheated on you six or seven times. She tells you she's going out to a bar with friends and doesn't come home that night. HappyDerp would be telling you that there was no reason to be suspicious. Any apprehension over her behavior is just you trying to justify a "narrative."
Really, you shouldn't even dignify his statements with a response, because he's just gaslighting everyone. He's accusing others of inventing some kind of narrative when that's exactly what he's doing. The woke always project...
All you have are these weak personal attacks...and, of course, your delusional all-inclusive culture war narrative. But, if that narrative had any truth to it, how does it feel for you to be losing?
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 05:08:45 PMIf you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Your taste is totally valid - if you hated the past 15 years of D&D (4th ed and 5th ed), that's fine.
I recently wrapped up my D&D(5th) campaign of the last 1.5 years, and I'll be taking a break from D&D for a while. I haven't bought any WotC product for over a year, and I won't be getting the next edition.
---
However, having been on this board a while, I remember how RPGPundit consulted for and endorsed 5th edition - even including explicitly endorsing the LGBT inclusion paragraph in the Player's Handbook. He wasn't alone in this. D&D5 has been massively successful commercially and seen a huge increase in visibility of D&D in television, movies, and online. It is also the second longest-lived of D&D's twelve editions - except only AD&D1.
D&D5 book sales have dropped recently as the new edition was announced, but every edition has seen sales drop in the years after a new edition. Eight years after AD&D1 was released, TSR was bankrupt with massive debt and laid off 75% of its employees.
This doesn't obligate anyone to like 5th ed, but it makes it hard to claim that WotC is an objective failure that hates its players. I think it's a soulless money-grubbing corporation, but that's true of most big companies eventually.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 07:17:25 PMThank you for supporting my point.
Thank you for proving mine.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 19, 2024, 08:10:14 PMI can only speak for myself on this point, but the eventual quality of the OneD&D (or whatever they're calling it these days)
They are now insisting it will still be 5e.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 12:57:20 AMAll you have are these weak personal attacks...and, of course, your delusional all-inclusive culture war narrative. But, if that narrative had any truth to it, how does it feel for you to be losing?
No. We have 24 years of wotc fucking things up. Pulling one dirty deal after another. Chasing agendas. Treating employees like dirt. Ripping off people and more.
They are opening with a 50th Aniversary book where they brag about how "problematic" OD&D is because the designers were "White and Male" in their own damn promotional video. Perkins has noted on video what he plans to go into the 5e DMG and junk. And he lies about this new edition not being a new edition.
The idea that they are not going to fuck this up is idiocy.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 05:35:49 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 05:08:45 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
You're really going to try and claim to be one of their customers? My point is that most of the posters here have totally written them off and are not their customers, which you either missed or...well, you do have your narrative to stick to don't you?
Well, you are right, I am not one of their customers. I wrote off WotC back when 4E came out because they delivered a shit sandwich of a game and claimed it was filet mignon. Then when customers weren't buying the crap they produced, they blamed the poor taste and the grognardism of those same customers.
Kinda like what you are setting people up for here.
If you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Fuck off and go try to gaslight someone else with your bullshit.
You're not at all following what I'm saying. I'm not saying it will be good (though it might be), I'm saying that for many (possibly most) of the people on this board, it must be shit or else their little worlds will implode. That's not me gaslighting, that's the effects of the continuous bombardment of anti-WotC posts on this site (and, yes, elsewhere too).
I agreed with the poster that said he'd wait and see how the new Greyhawk material pans out. If it's good, great. If not, he'll ignore it. My agreement that he should make up his own mind isn't gaslighting at all...
But you go on with your narrative...
That bolded part is you continuing to try and gaslight....
Quote from: jhkim on May 20, 2024, 02:19:00 AMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 05:08:45 PMIf you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Your taste is totally valid - if you hated the past 15 years of D&D (4th ed and 5th ed), that's fine.
I recently wrapped up my D&D(5th) campaign of the last 1.5 years, and I'll be taking a break from D&D for a while. I haven't bought any WotC product for over a year, and I won't be getting the next edition.
---
However, having been on this board a while, I remember how RPGPundit consulted for and endorsed 5th edition - even including explicitly endorsing the LGBT inclusion paragraph in the Player's Handbook. He wasn't alone in this. D&D5 has been massively successful commercially and seen a huge increase in visibility of D&D in television, movies, and online. It is also the second longest-lived of D&D's twelve editions - except only AD&D1.
D&D5 book sales have dropped recently as the new edition was announced, but every edition has seen sales drop in the years after a new edition. Eight years after AD&D1 was released, TSR was bankrupt with massive debt and laid off 75% of its employees.
This doesn't obligate anyone to like 5th ed, but it makes it hard to claim that WotC is an objective failure that hates its players. I think it's a soulless money-grubbing corporation, but that's true of most big companies eventually.
If you think that the only reason that D&D book sales has dropped is because a new edition is coming out and not that the OGL has been threatened by WotC, that the latest modules were pandering crap (magical coffee shop? WTF?), that what was a game is now being pushed as a lifestyle brand (D&D fashion and shoes anybody?), that the company holding the IP views its customers as just paychecks to be looted, that any legacy product must be changed for "modern audiences" (that iconic male fighter facing a dragon was actually a woman! tits!), and is willing to send thugs to reviewers homes (Pinkertons for MtG!); then you are not just being willfully ignorant, but gaslighting as much as HippyDerp is trying to. Fuck off already.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 19, 2024, 08:10:14 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 05:35:49 PMI'm saying that for many (possibly most) of the people on this board, it must be shit or else their little worlds will implode. That's not me gaslighting, that's the effects of the continuous bombardment of anti-WotC posts on this site (and, yes, elsewhere too).
I can only speak for myself on this point, but the eventual quality of the OneD&D (or whatever they're calling it these days) DMG is largely moot to me. WOTC is one of two companies (along with Disney) where I have chosen to no longer give them any of my money, as a point of principle. In both cases, that is due to repeated acts of cultural vandalism and willful disrespect of the artistic works they hold the license to. Separate to the moral point, I also have no interest in either 5th edition or a prospective new edition of D&D.
Let's imagine the best case scenario, here: a competent, complete and tonally faithful explication of the Greyhawk setting, with the thoroughness and polish of the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. Let's go a step further and say that it's attached to a new edition of D&D so brilliantly designed that it instantly makes obsolete all the prior editions, the OSR, and every other fantasy RPG on the market. I would be surprised, to say the least, but it would only be a step in the right direction. It'd take several years of sensible, high quality products, sold at fair prices, and in the absence of slimy anti-consumer practices to get WOTC off of my personal shit-list.
Is all of that possible? Yes. Would I like to see it happen? Yes, actually. Unlike some other posters, WOTC is a company I used to like. But anyone whose brain is capable of pattern recognition wouldn't be holding their breath waiting for it.
Greetings!
I agree, ForgottenF!
I am certainly not holding my breath. I don't really care at all what WOTC does. Being forsworn from them as a customer and fan, it is liberating, but also melancholy to have thus gained a feeling of emotional distance. I have moved on, gaming with OSR games, and the 5E set that I already own.
Whatever WOTC does currently or in the future, to me, is no longer relevant. I refuse to support a company that hates me, and the long-standing traditions of the game. Other companies, other rule sets, have gone on to carry that banner faithfully, and with genuine respect, loyalty, and talent.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 05:08:45 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
You're really going to try and claim to be one of their customers? My point is that most of the posters here have totally written them off and are not their customers, which you either missed or...well, you do have your narrative to stick to don't you?
Well, you are right, I am not one of their customers. I wrote off WotC back when 4E came out because they delivered a shit sandwich of a game and claimed it was filet mignon. Then when customers weren't buying the crap they produced, they blamed the poor taste and the grognardism of those same customers.
Kinda like what you are setting people up for here.
If you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Fuck off and go try to gaslight someone else with your bullshit.
Greetings!
Good stuff, Jeff! Yeah, 4E was fucking BS. I refused to buy any of 4E, or play that dogshit set of game books.
I returned to 5E D&D, because I felt that the developers at WOTC had turned their backs on the BS of 4E, and seemed to have a kind of epiphany, in seeking to return the D&D game to more or less its cherished "Old School" roots. Most of my gaming friends also agreed, and were all eager to embrace 5E and give WOTC a second chance after the disaster of 4E. Having design consultants like RPG Pundit, Zak S, S. John Ross, and others, that I all knew and was familiar with their quality, likewise inspired my hope and a renewed sense of faith.
The early years of 5E were solid, and good. My only major complaints of the early 5E was the internal dynamic of promoting the Player Characters as being more like superheroes than medieval fantasy champions. Gradually, however, as you well know my friend, the Woke morons gained ever more control within the halls of WOTC, and the stupid train started rolling. The shitty, Woke books, the anti-White racism, the terrible tweets and other social media posts, the fucked up interviews, culminating with WOTC's attempt at reneging on the OGL, well, that was the proverbial "Straw that Broke the Camel's Back" for myself.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I can't say that I ever particularly cared about Greyhawk or found it's flavor of kitchen sink D&D fantasy to be all that different from Forgotten Realms at the table. The gods had different names but that didn't actually make any difference in play. I used Greyhawk back in the 1st edition AD&D days because that's what I had. Later, while running 2nd edition AD&D, I switched to Forgotten Realms because that's what a lot of the source material was for. I also used other settings like Dark Sun but FR was my default setting because you could run any sort of D&D campaign somewhere in it. You can do the same in Greyhawk. They will probably mess up Greyhawk and I just don't care.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 19, 2024, 11:19:53 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 19, 2024, 08:10:14 PMBut anyone whose brain is capable of pattern recognition...
Well, that just ruled out HappyDerp. His argument basically involves completely ignoring the entire history of WotC. Predictions based on past behavior are "narratives" to this buffoon.
Imagine that your girlfriend had cheated on you six or seven times. She tells you she's going out to a bar with friends and doesn't come home that night. HappyDerp would be telling you that there was no reason to be suspicious. Any apprehension over her behavior is just you trying to justify a "narrative."
Really, you shouldn't even dignify his statements with a response, because he's just gaslighting everyone. He's accusing others of inventing some kind of narrative when that's exactly what he's doing. The woke always project...
Greetings!
Preach On, my friend!
Yeah, it is strange that HappyDerp claims that people here are somehow "following a narrative." WTF? You, myself, hell, many of the people here have been fans and customers of WOTC *For Decades*. Over the last several years, especially, we have all witnessed the constant erosion of WOTC as they wallow further into shit and the Stupid Train. We have all more or less gradually arrived at the place of telling WOTC to go fuck themselves. And, indeed, as WOTC is the D&D brand flagship, I know that many of us here have not been overjoyed to face up to the harsh truth that WOTC is a shitty, terrible company. However, one by one, most of us here have all gradually gotten off the WOTC train. WOTC is such a corrupt, terrible company, most of us can clearly see it, and have done so for some time now.
That does not seem to be a "Narrative' to me, as we have all purchased most of the game books. We have seen the videos, the social media screen caps, the terrible interviews with these jackasses spewing anti-White racism, and eagerly and openly embracing and celebrating corruption and degeneracy within the game.
We have all seen more than enough BS from WOTC.
Woke fucking morons though, love what WOTC is doing. The Woke morons celebrate the Stupid Train.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Omega on May 20, 2024, 03:09:48 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 12:57:20 AMAll you have are these weak personal attacks...and, of course, your delusional all-inclusive culture war narrative. But, if that narrative had any truth to it, how does it feel for you to be losing?
No. We have 24 years of wotc fucking things up. Pulling one dirty deal after another. Chasing agendas. Treating employees like dirt. Ripping off people and more.
They are opening with a 50th Aniversary book where they brag about how "problematic" OD&D is because the designers were "White and Male" in their own damn promotional video. Perkins has noted on video what he plans to go into the 5e DMG and junk. And he lies about this new edition not being a new edition.
The idea that they are not going to fuck this up is idiocy.
Greetings!
Yep! Very true, Omega!
It is sad seeing the Stupid Train that WOTC has been on. Eventually, though, most of us have reached a point where enough is enough. Fuck 'em, you know? And I have enjoyed 5E, especially the early years. I have defended 5E from the haters, as well. Unfortunately, though, as you well note, year by year, episode after episode, WOTC has become more Woke and more fucking stupid and terrible. So, yeah. Fuck them. They can wallow in napalm now.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I have been a fan of Greyhawk since I got the gold box back in the 1980s. I have absolutely zero faith that WotC won't fuck it up. They already did so in 3E by taking what was a post-apocalyptic Swords & Sorcery setting, with a dash of High Fantasy, and turn it upside down. It wasn't JUST the ridiculous inflation of population of the Flanaess, but as time went on they kept shitting on the setting's lore, like the merging of Natasha the Dark, Tasha the Laughing Mage and The Witch-Queen of Perrenland Iggwilv instead of having 3 separate and distinctive characters (as they had always been). Then claiming 'its always been that way' when it was really them cribbing a piss poor, badly researched, low effort and moronic fanfic from the CanonFire! boards.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 20, 2024, 11:32:04 AMThen claiming 'its always been that way' when it was really them cribbing a piss poor, badly researched, low effort and moronic fanfic from the CanonFire! boards.
Please expound on this...I am curious.
Quote from: Brad on May 20, 2024, 11:43:00 AMPlease expound on this...I am curious.
One of the GreyTalk (not CanonFire!, sorry, misspoke) contributors wrote a piece wherein he merged the 3 different wizards. I don't have the original thread but chatdemon at CanonFire! at least attempted to do a follow up that corrected Tasha the Grinning Mage (a relative of Zagig Yragerne, but he screwed up by making her her only 9th lvl whereas her tome
The Lore of Subtle Communication, from Dragon #82, has Legend Lore in it, meaning she has to 12th lvl at minimum).
Natasha the Dark was a dual-classed Illusionist/Mage 7th/15th lvl from the Roger E. Moore adventure
The Dancing Hut in Dragon #83. Natasha the Dark's spellbook isn't listed and if Moore (who didn't create Tasha, Gygax did) had intended for them to be the same, he would have put SOMETHING in the adventure to denote that, specifically Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter.
Iggwilv is (according to Gygax) at least 23rd lvl and because of her
Demonomicon of Iggwilv includes
Henley's Digit Disruption (a 7th lvl Cleric spell), she has to be at least a 16th lvl Cleric. We know she's also a Mage because the Demonomicon has Mage spells, the highest of which is
Banishment which is an 8th lvl spell, so she has to be at minimum a 16th lvl Mage as well. Iggwilv was inspired by the Finnish crone Louhi. Further, in the 2nd
Gord the Rogue novel, which was published by TSR, we get a description of Iggwilv's 'original' non-crone form:
'Iggwilv shook her head. "Not so fast, my prodigal. Is that any way for a devoted son to speak to his Dear Mother?" Even as she uttered this admonition, the ancient crone, one who had appeared a parody of every child's nightmare of a wicked witch, changed. Her features flowed and changed as her body grew and straightened. Scraggly, gray locks became flowing tresses of hair like spun gold, and face and form matched the radiance of this golden head.' -
Artifact of Evil, p. 263
Given Iggwilv's power, and the fact she is forbidden from interfering in the mortal realm (
WG6: Isle of the Ape), she would have to be a Lesser Goddess in status by CY576. Only those of that rank and higher cannot interact directly with mortals other than granting spells. This fits with her being inspired by Louhi. It also helps to explain how her son, Iuz the Old, came by his semi-divine status (he likely followed her path to achieve demigod status). Also, given the timescales necessary to do that, Iggwilv is WAY older than Zagyg and could never have been his apprentice.
Natasha the Dark, on the other hand, is described thusly: 'A beautiful woman with alabaster skin and smoky black hair'.
Tasha, Natasha the Dark and Iggwilv all have to be different people simply from the fact Iggwilv and Natasha aren't even the same kind of Dual-classed Mages. Furthermore, if Natasha the Dark was Tasha the Grinning Mage, why wouldn't she have the spell Tasha was most famous for creating?
The worst part of this? Asshole leftard scum started dragging Gygax on Twitter after
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything was published because of the backstory of how Tasha the Grinning Mage came to exist. Namely, a young girl wrote a letter to Gary (in crayon) wanting a spell to make her enemies laugh. Thus he created Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter. But the assholes at WotC, following through on linking Tasha, Iggwilv and Natasha couldn't help but increase the sleaze factor because Natasha the Dark was drawn in very skimpy clothing.
The whole debacle is a lazy, nonsensical and creatively bankrupt attempt to do the least work possible and in the process fuck up 1 of the most powerful and interesting enemies in Greyhawk (Iggwilv) as well as do absolutely nothing with Natasha the Dark, let alone Tasha the Grinning Mage. And the cherry on top of the shit sundae is the claim that Tasha and Natasha HAVE to be the same because there can't be 2 famous Mages with names so similar in Greyhawk.
The only other thing is that there is a portrait in Rob Kuntz's The Original Bottle City of Ashat the Laughing Witch, so perhaps there was a Tasha who was a companion of Zagig at some point.
Quote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 07:16:57 AMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 05:08:45 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 19, 2024, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 19, 2024, 02:29:09 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 09:50:20 PMQuote from: Votan on May 18, 2024, 03:28:27 PMQuote from: Omega on May 17, 2024, 02:51:52 PMConsidering how much they despise Gygax and co for being "White and Male"... The odds of them handling Greyhawk with nay respect approaches zero.
Fair. But here is the thing, if it is done well then we can use the awesome stuff. If it is done poorly, it can be easily ignored. All real play settings must diverge from the cannon setting, anyway, because at some point the world events will be different or an area that the DM fleshed out will be done differently. So it is probably a net positive.
That's not a bad take on it, but you won't find too many here that are willing to give it a fair chance. Even if it is good, they'll have to reject it to follow their narrative.
Nice No Win Scenario you created, you get the Kobiyashi Maru Award for blaming the customer. Wear it with pride.
You're really going to try and claim to be one of their customers? My point is that most of the posters here have totally written them off and are not their customers, which you either missed or...well, you do have your narrative to stick to don't you?
Well, you are right, I am not one of their customers. I wrote off WotC back when 4E came out because they delivered a shit sandwich of a game and claimed it was filet mignon. Then when customers weren't buying the crap they produced, they blamed the poor taste and the grognardism of those same customers.
Kinda like what you are setting people up for here.
If you think that the Greyhawk material will be woke shit, for you it means that people with that opinion will be "following the narrative" because they can't possibly look at the past decade and a half of WotC pushing some of the lamest crap out under the aegis of the D&D IP with older material changed to conform to "modern audiences" and predict that this will be more of the same. Instead, it has to be because the customers who don't hand over their paychecks for more WotC crap must be brainwashed sheep.
Fuck off and go try to gaslight someone else with your bullshit.
Greetings!
Good stuff, Jeff! Yeah, 4E was fucking BS. I refused to buy any of 4E, or play that dogshit set of game books.
I returned to 5E D&D, because I felt that the developers at WOTC had turned their backs on the BS of 4E, and seemed to have a kind of epiphany, in seeking to return the D&D game to more or less its cherished "Old School" roots. Most of my gaming friends also agreed, and were all eager to embrace 5E and give WOTC a second chance after the disaster of 4E. Having design consultants like RPG Pundit, Zak S, S. John Ross, and others, that I all knew and was familiar with their quality, likewise inspired my hope and a renewed sense of faith.
The early years of 5E were solid, and good. My only major complaints of the early 5E was the internal dynamic of promoting the Player Characters as being more like superheroes than medieval fantasy champions. Gradually, however, as you well know my friend, the Woke morons gained ever more control within the halls of WOTC, and the stupid train started rolling. The shitty, Woke books, the anti-White racism, the terrible tweets and other social media posts, the fucked up interviews, culminating with WOTC's attempt at reneging on the OGL, well, that was the proverbial "Straw that Broke the Camel's Back" for myself.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hey, SHARK!
I was hopeful during the 5E play test. I was even willing to overcome my dislike of the short rest/long rest stuff in the rules. Then I just took a hard look at how toxic and woke the organized play program of DnD was, and how WotC encouraged that toxicity. I also remembered the huge amount of money I had invested in 3.x (over $8000) that WotC wanted me to ignore in favor of 4E, which would have to have been ignored in favor of 5E. I can't afford to throw out the monetary equivalent of a newer used car every eight year just to chase my hobby. The clusterfuck cavalcade by WotC which followed is a justification of my decision IMHO.
I absolutely love Traveller, but even My Favorite Game has got some fuck-ups in its past that I won't buy.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 20, 2024, 04:08:25 AMIf you think that the only reason that D&D book sales has dropped is because a new edition is coming out and not that the OGL has been threatened by WotC,
that the latest modules were pandering crap (magical coffee shop? WTF?),
that what was a game is now being pushed as a lifestyle brand (D&D fashion and shoes anybody?)
1: Sales have dropped for alot of reasons. The OGL blowup is a footnote now. Poor product is a more telling problem.
2: There is no such module other than what ammounts to a fan made one by one of the staff. Theres alot worse on DM's Guild and people think ALL of that is "official". The problem is sadly more mundane. wotc writers are fucking lazy and cant be dicked to actually do the job they were hired for. Graduates from the White Wolf school of failure. "oh we didnt bother to write that rule. The players will do it for us!"
3: This again? No. wotc is not pushing D&D as a lifestyle. They are too incompetent for that. Fan made mercandise and 3rd party items have been around since the TSR days. D&D WOODBURNING SET? D&D CANDY? O-M-G!!! TSR is for making teh Lifestylez!!!111!!!. wotc has done just short of nothing aside from trying to monetize fan crafts.
x: wotc has put out one lacklustre product after another Spelljanner bombed, barely anyone is talking about Planescape, the last few modules aside from Wild Beyond the Witchlight have been messes and even Witchlight needs work because the writers couldnt be dicked to do their job. Then there's Phandelver and Below which is so fucking incoherent I'm surprised anyones actually been able to run it.
And now apparently they want to mess with D&D Beyond and just this month removed the ability to buy single items from a book instead of the whole book. This on top of them removing older books from the shop. Rumor is that next to go will be the ability to post and share your own works.
Add on an unwanted new edition that wotc insists is really real not a new edition! A new edition that looks to totally overhaul things and relegate the DM to storytelling slaves.
Is it any wonder sales are down?
Quote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 07:38:18 AMQuote from: Omega on May 20, 2024, 03:09:48 AMNo. We have 24 years of wotc fucking things up. Pulling one dirty deal after another. Chasing agendas. Treating employees like dirt. Ripping off people and more.
It is sad seeing the Stupid Train that WOTC has been on. Eventually, though, most of us have reached a point where enough is enough. Fuck 'em, you know? And I have enjoyed 5E, especially the early years. I have defended 5E from the haters, as well. Unfortunately, though, as you well note, year by year, episode after episode, WOTC has become more Woke and more fucking stupid and terrible.
I don't think you're actually agreeing. Omega said that WotC have been fucking up for 24 years (since 3E launched). jeff37923 said that WotC has been fucking up for 15 years (since the launch of 4E). You're only saying that WotC has been getting more stupid the past 5-6 years.
Personally, I liked the 5E core - it's my favorite edition for core rules. However, I hated the early 5E adventures, and was mixed about supplements.
I'd been lukewarm to WotC for a while, though. I remember warning about the OGL back in 2000 -- noting that WotC was actually claiming more than what copyright gave them a right to. I gave the 3E rules a fair shot - reading and breaking down the rules, and played in a short campaign. But I quit it by 2003, completely ignored 3.5E and only played a bit of 4E because my nephews wanted to play.
---
To SHARK - do you think you were hoodwinked earlier and that WotC was terrible all along and you just didn't see? Or do you stand by your assessment of the 5E core and early books?
Quote from: yosemitemike on May 20, 2024, 07:23:55 AMI can't say that I ever particularly cared about Greyhawk or found it's flavor of kitchen sink D&D fantasy to be all that different from Forgotten Realms at the table.
I have the World of Greyhawk box and it is not even a tenth as fantasy kitchen sink as Forgotten Realms. It has a defined structure and theme where FR totally lacks any such thing. Mystara is closer to FR in that respect.
Quote from: Omega on May 20, 2024, 02:39:31 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on May 20, 2024, 07:23:55 AMI can't say that I ever particularly cared about Greyhawk or found it's flavor of kitchen sink D&D fantasy to be all that different from Forgotten Realms at the table.
I have the World of Greyhawk box and it is not even a tenth as fantasy kitchen sink as Forgotten Realms. It has a defined structure and theme where FR totally lacks any such thing. Mystara is closer to FR in that respect.
Maybe so, but the new version will be specifically written to include every "D&D"ism in the core books.
In the end it will be just another kitchen sink 5e setting with a "Greyhawk" veneer.
Personally I can care less, because in my opinion even the original Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are bad examples of fantasy worldbuilding.
But for those that do care, there is no reason to hope that wotc won't turn your setting into a skinsuit of itself like they have done for everything else that they have "updated"...
Quote from: Man at Arms on May 19, 2024, 02:46:17 PMIs it possible; that WOTC will try to turn Greyhawk, into Gayhawk?
It's not just possible.
The sodomites in charge of D&D are on the record specifically stating that is exactly what they will do with everything D&D going forward:
QuoteJeremy Crawford on the future of D&D:
https://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117
In the Dungeons & Dragons adventure Storm King's Thunder, which Crawford helped publish in 2016, three enormous rocks have crushed the Osstra family's farm in the abandoned village of Nightstone, spurring them to flee the town. ... If players choose to rescue Nightstone's villagers, they'll meet the 52-year-old wheat farmer Thelbin Osstra, his husband Brynn, and Brynn's adopted nephew Broland.
"That was a nod specifically to our household," Crawford said of himself, his husband, and his nephew, who lived with them in 2016 when Storm King's Thunder was in development.
Crawford told me that publisher Wizards of the Coast is making D&D more gay, and why that's a great thing.
"Ever since we brought our adventure design fully back in-house," he said, "all of our new adventures contain LGBT characters. This is true of our next adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, and it will be true of our stories after that."
"It's important to many of us personally in the company for the game to acknowledge our existence," Crawford said of publisher Wizards of the Coast,
Chris Perkins backs him up:
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/06/inside-dungeons-dragons-chilling-new-adventure-rime-of-the-frostmaiden/
"..."As people have grown accustomed to seeing in our books, you're going to get to see the art people of all sorts from many different backgrounds," Crawford, himself not just an openly gay man, but a champion for diversity and LGBTQ representation at Wizards, concluded. "And then also in the story, you're going to get to meet people and help people who reflect the wonderful diversity of people in our world."
"One example I love that Chris put in and he basically it was a pleasant, pleasant surprise when I came through [Frostmaiden], is you get to help a scrimshander [someone, typically a sailor, who whittles handicrafts using materials gathered on their voyages] and his husband for one of those as standalone quests," Crawford said. "We now consider this to be a core, non-optional part of our work. And I love that, basically, if you come to one of our adventures, you're going to see a wonderful spectrum of humanity represented there."
It is hardly a "woke narrative" when they openly admit to a what they are doing.
There is no reason not to take the people at wotc at their word.
We've got the receipts.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 06:32:31 PMQuote from: Omega on May 20, 2024, 02:39:31 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on May 20, 2024, 07:23:55 AMI can't say that I ever particularly cared about Greyhawk or found it's flavor of kitchen sink D&D fantasy to be all that different from Forgotten Realms at the table.
I have the World of Greyhawk box and it is not even a tenth as fantasy kitchen sink as Forgotten Realms. It has a defined structure and theme where FR totally lacks any such thing. Mystara is closer to FR in that respect.
Maybe so, but the new version will be specifically written to include every "D&D"ism in the core books.
In the end it will be just another kitchen sink 5e setting with a "Greyhawk" veneer.
Personally I can care less, because in my opinion even the original Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are bad examples of fantasy worldbuilding.
But for those that do care, there is no reason to hope that wotc won't turn your setting into a skinsuit of itself like they have done for everything else that they have "updated"...
Quote from: Man at Arms on May 19, 2024, 02:46:17 PMIs it possible; that WOTC will try to turn Greyhawk, into Gayhawk?
It's not just possible.
The sodomites in charge of D&D are on the record specifically stating that is exactly what they will do with everything D&D going forward:
QuoteJeremy Crawford on the future of D&D:
https://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117
In the Dungeons & Dragons adventure Storm King's Thunder, which Crawford helped publish in 2016, three enormous rocks have crushed the Osstra family's farm in the abandoned village of Nightstone, spurring them to flee the town. ... If players choose to rescue Nightstone's villagers, they'll meet the 52-year-old wheat farmer Thelbin Osstra, his husband Brynn, and Brynn's adopted nephew Broland.
"That was a nod specifically to our household," Crawford said of himself, his husband, and his nephew, who lived with them in 2016 when Storm King's Thunder was in development.
Crawford told me that publisher Wizards of the Coast is making D&D more gay, and why that's a great thing.
"Ever since we brought our adventure design fully back in-house," he said, "all of our new adventures contain LGBT characters. This is true of our next adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, and it will be true of our stories after that."
"It's important to many of us personally in the company for the game to acknowledge our existence," Crawford said of publisher Wizards of the Coast,
Chris Perkins backs him up:
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/06/inside-dungeons-dragons-chilling-new-adventure-rime-of-the-frostmaiden/
"..."As people have grown accustomed to seeing in our books, you're going to get to see the art people of all sorts from many different backgrounds," Crawford, himself not just an openly gay man, but a champion for diversity and LGBTQ representation at Wizards, concluded. "And then also in the story, you're going to get to meet people and help people who reflect the wonderful diversity of people in our world."
"One example I love that Chris put in and he basically it was a pleasant, pleasant surprise when I came through [Frostmaiden], is you get to help a scrimshander [someone, typically a sailor, who whittles handicrafts using materials gathered on their voyages] and his husband for one of those as standalone quests," Crawford said. "We now consider this to be a core, non-optional part of our work. And I love that, basically, if you come to one of our adventures, you're going to see a wonderful spectrum of humanity represented there."
It is hardly a "woke narrative" when they openly admit to a what they are doing.
There is no reason not to take the people at wotc at their word.
We've got the receipts.
The presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it is disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Do you feel this way about representation of other peoples, or just of gay people?
And you saying that they hate you doesn't make it so, they more likely just find your homophobia abhorrent.
As for not giving them your money, that's your choice. Ultimately, they probably are not worried about losing you as a customer.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMDo you feel this way about representation of other peoples, or just of gay people?
DEI, ESG, and any other type of woke "representation", inclusion and diversity is also fake and gay.
But if you like all your RPG settings to look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade; You do you.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMAnd you saying that they hate you doesn't make it so, they more likely just find your homophobia abhorrent.
(https://media.tenor.com/9TAVUk27odIAAAAM/jeremy-clarkson-laughing.gif)
Disgust is not fear.
Calling someone a "homophobe" is just an attempt at rhetorically framing normal people that still have a disgust reflex into "bad guys".
And yes, they hate me.
The pro-sodomy groomer brigade is very open about their feelings towards those that don't agree with them.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMAs for not giving them your money, that's your choice. Ultimately, they probably are not worried about losing you as a customer.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/7k2LoEykY5i1hfeWQB/200w.gif?cidu003d6c09b952vr5mika7v2nqlkzx942j7x567etbpyuioneoirmou0026epu003dv1_gifs_searchu0026ridu003d200w.gifu0026ctu003dg)
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Tell it!!!
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 08:00:44 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMDo you feel this way about representation of other peoples, or just of gay people?
DEI, ESG, and any other type of woke "representation", inclusion and diversity is also fake and gay.
But if you like all your RPG settings to look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade; You do you.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMAnd you saying that they hate you doesn't make it so, they more likely just find your homophobia abhorrent.
(https://media.tenor.com/9TAVUk27odIAAAAM/jeremy-clarkson-laughing.gif)
Disgust is not fear.
Calling someone a "homophobe" is just an attempt at rhetorically framing normal people that still have a disgust reflex into "bad guys".
And yes, they hate me.
The pro-sodomy groomer brigade is very open about their feelings towards those that don't agree with them.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMAs for not giving them your money, that's your choice. Ultimately, they probably are not worried about losing you as a customer.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/7k2LoEykY5i1hfeWQB/200w.gif?cidu003d6c09b952vr5mika7v2nqlkzx942j7x567etbpyuioneoirmou0026epu003dv1_gifs_searchu0026ridu003d200w.gifu0026ctu003dg)
Having a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMHaving a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Out of curiosity, is there any objection to a married gay couple in a D&D module that you would accept as not being homophobic and/or "hateful"?
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 20, 2024, 10:53:11 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMHaving a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Out of curiosity, is there any objection to a married gay couple in a D&D module that you would accept as not being homophobic and/or "hateful"?
Probably not, but what's your hypothetical objection? I'm willing to discuss it.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Greetings!
Yes, my friend, you are quite right. It is very disgusting. Corrupt, filthy degeneracy should not be promoted or celebrated, but steadfastly and ruthlessly condemned.
WOTC and sodomites like Crawford are continually committed to and seeking to normalize their corrupt degeneracy through what they include in the game books, and how they go about framing it. WOTC and degenerates should be opposed and criticized everywhere, tirelessly. Let the degenerates burn! The groomers are coming out everywhere in society, seeking to promote their disgusting, degenerate ways.
And, of course, we can see the reprobate jello-brained helpers that eagerly seek to provide support for the degenerates.
WOTC will obviously fill Greyhawk with corruption and degeneracy. Crawford has as much explicitly said so. That is what WOTC does now. That is who WOTC is.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 11:07:11 PMQuote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Greetings!
Yes, my friend, you are quite right. It is very disgusting. Corrupt, filthy degeneracy should not be promoted or celebrated, but steadfastly and ruthlessly condemned.
WOTC and sodomites like Crawford are continually committed to and seeking to normalize their corrupt degeneracy through what they include in the game books, and how they go about framing it. WOTC and degenerates should be opposed and criticized everywhere, tirelessly. Let the degenerates burn! The groomers are coming out everywhere in society, seeking to promote their disgusting, degenerate ways.
And, of course, we can see the reprobate jello-brained helpers that eagerly seek to provide support for the degenerates.
WOTC will obviously fill Greyhawk with corruption and degeneracy. Crawford has as much explicitly said so. That is what WOTC does now. That is who WOTC is.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK again shows his lack of Christian values and failed committment to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of whether they are different from him.
Gay people that make games want to put gay characters into their products of their make-believe game worlds. Somehow, internet tough guys everywhere are threatened and have to buck up to protect...somebody...from this great evil.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 06:32:31 PMMaybe so, but the new version will be specifically written to include every "D&D"ism in the core books.
"Ever since we brought our adventure design fully back in-house," he said, "all of our new adventures contain LGBT characters. This is true of our next adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, and it will be true of our stories after that."
1: They already tried that and mostly failed with Ghosts of Saltmash. The 5e Greyhawk module.
2: Except that it was so feeble and meaningless. Its a throwaway sentence in a single paragraph that you can easily miss.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
It is not the presence that is the problem. Its the agenda behind it being there.
Same with minorities and combat wheelchairs. No one would give a flying fuck if it was being done for anything other than the woke agenda.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 10:59:33 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 20, 2024, 10:53:11 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMHaving a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Out of curiosity, is there any objection to a married gay couple in a D&D module that you would accept as not being homophobic and/or "hateful"?
Probably not, but what's your hypothetical objection? I'm willing to discuss it.
I object when it is just there to check a box on a score card. Its fucking demeaning.
I object when it is there to push a false agenda. Also demeaning.
I object when it is just a meaningless insertion.
I object when it is a ham-handed insertion.
If you think any of that makes me a homophobe then maybe you need to look in a mirror.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 11:19:37 PMQuote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 11:07:11 PMQuote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Greetings!
Yes, my friend, you are quite right. It is very disgusting. Corrupt, filthy degeneracy should not be promoted or celebrated, but steadfastly and ruthlessly condemned.
WOTC and sodomites like Crawford are continually committed to and seeking to normalize their corrupt degeneracy through what they include in the game books, and how they go about framing it. WOTC and degenerates should be opposed and criticized everywhere, tirelessly. Let the degenerates burn! The groomers are coming out everywhere in society, seeking to promote their disgusting, degenerate ways.
And, of course, we can see the reprobate jello-brained helpers that eagerly seek to provide support for the degenerates.
WOTC will obviously fill Greyhawk with corruption and degeneracy. Crawford has as much explicitly said so. That is what WOTC does now. That is who WOTC is.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK again shows his lack of Christian values and failed committment to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of whether they are different from him.
Gay people that make games want to put gay characters into their products of their make-believe game worlds. Somehow, internet tough guys everywhere are threatened and have to buck up to protect...somebody...from this great evil.
Greetings!
Yeah, I am not a Rainbow Barney-kind of heretic "Christian" popular in many apostate churches nowadays. I'm the Old School kind of Christian. DEUS VULT.
The gays have Thirsty Sword Lesbians! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:05:40 AMQuote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 06:32:31 PMMaybe so, but the new version will be specifically written to include every "D&D"ism in the core books.
"Ever since we brought our adventure design fully back in-house," he said, "all of our new adventures contain LGBT characters. This is true of our next adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, and it will be true of our stories after that."
1: They already tried that and mostly failed with Ghosts of Saltmash. The 5e Greyhawk module.
2: Except that it was so feeble and meaningless. Its a throwaway sentence in a single paragraph that you can easily miss.
Greetings!
Yeah, Omega. Ghosts of Saltmarsh was pretty minimalistic. I highly doubt that WOTC is going to do anything more than a token effort. If they somehow manage to do more, they will of course seek to fuck it up entirely, just like Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Dragonlance. Hell, they have even fucked up Forgotten Realms! *Laughing* As wacky as Forgotten Realms has been forever, WOTC said, "Hold my beer!"
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:29:20 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
It is not the presence that is the problem. Its the agenda behind it being there.
Same with minorities and combat wheelchairs. No one would give a flying fuck if it was being done for anything other than the woke agenda.
So you oppose their motivations (which you may not completely understand) by opposing their actions (which you concede are not a problem).
Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:36:40 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 10:59:33 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 20, 2024, 10:53:11 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMHaving a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Out of curiosity, is there any objection to a married gay couple in a D&D module that you would accept as not being homophobic and/or "hateful"?
Probably not, but what's your hypothetical objection? I'm willing to discuss it.
I object when it is just there to check a box on a score card. Its fucking demeaning.
I object when it is there to push a false agenda. Also demeaning.
I object when it is just a meaningless insertion.
I object when it is a ham-handed insertion.
If you think any of that makes me a homophobe then maybe you need to look in a mirror.
How many LGBTQ people have you spoken to about this (FWIW, I've only spoken to three in person)? How do they view it? From your perspective, it is demeaning or meaningless, but you are not likely to be one of the ones they are doing it for. Even taking a cynical view, they (the writers) are doing it for themselves, and yet it still doesn't meaningfully damage the "D&D-ness" of the product. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I don't care for in D&D (any version), but the presence of a married gay couple is nowhere on my list because it doesn't alter the gameplay one bit.
Quote from: SHARK on May 21, 2024, 12:38:16 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 11:19:37 PMQuote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 11:07:11 PMQuote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Greetings!
Yes, my friend, you are quite right. It is very disgusting. Corrupt, filthy degeneracy should not be promoted or celebrated, but steadfastly and ruthlessly condemned.
WOTC and sodomites like Crawford are continually committed to and seeking to normalize their corrupt degeneracy through what they include in the game books, and how they go about framing it. WOTC and degenerates should be opposed and criticized everywhere, tirelessly. Let the degenerates burn! The groomers are coming out everywhere in society, seeking to promote their disgusting, degenerate ways.
And, of course, we can see the reprobate jello-brained helpers that eagerly seek to provide support for the degenerates.
WOTC will obviously fill Greyhawk with corruption and degeneracy. Crawford has as much explicitly said so. That is what WOTC does now. That is who WOTC is.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK again shows his lack of Christian values and failed committment to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of whether they are different from him.
Gay people that make games want to put gay characters into their products of their make-believe game worlds. Somehow, internet tough guys everywhere are threatened and have to buck up to protect...somebody...from this great evil.
Greetings!
Yeah, I am not a Rainbow Barney-kind of heretic "Christian" popular in many apostate churches nowadays. I'm the Old School kind of Christian. DEUS VULT.
The gays have Thirsty Sword Lesbians! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Really? You're going to throw out
Deus vult--a line now strongly associated with white supremacy and hate groups--as your response?
OK, so you're that type of Christian...
You just keep on wondering why so many of the sensible Christians fall into your "apostates" box as you go further down your crazy-ass rabbit hole.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMHaving a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
All part and parcel of the postmodern cultural marxist ideology that has been infecting western civilization for decades.
We have not failed to notice that DEI, ESG,"representation", inclusion, diversity, and the LGBTQP groomer movements are all supported hand in glove by the same groups.
And I simply cannot take any statement about having a
"warped view of reality" seriously from someone with no disgust reflex.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMDisgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals.
Sorry, your postmodern Foucaultian word salad will not work here. You don't get to change the meaning of words.
Phobia
noun
1: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.The
normal disgust towards homosexuality is literally like seeing maggots:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-34532-001
Being disgusted at seeing maggots is neither extreme nor irrational. It is a normal and
healthy reaction of wanting nothing to do with gross maggots. Or faggotry.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMAnd yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on being hateful.
Like clockwork, class will tell.
Constantly using rhetoric to frame those that disagree with you as somehow fearful and hateful people simply proves my point...
You make no secret of what you really think.
What I really feel is a Great Sadness.
That entire generations of people have been robbed of the mental and spiritual help that they needed all because much of our our wider culture has turn its back on Christian morality, and instead embraced decadence and depravity as its cardinal virtues.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 11:19:37 PMSHARK again shows his lack of Christian values and failed commitment to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of whether they are different from him.
You know nothing of Christian values.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a choose your own adventure novel. And God is
very clear on the subject of homosexual relations.
Also - Look kids, a leftist is trying to use the phrase:
"...failed commitment to protect the rights of all Americans" as a rhetorical hammer...
(https://media.tenor.com/HxeSO1yA-gIAAAAM/goodfellas-wiseguys.gif)
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 11:19:37 PMGay people that make games want to put gay characters into their products of their make-believe game worlds.
They are free to do so.
Others are also free to point out degeneracy when they see it.
That is how freedom works.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 11:19:37 PMSomehow, ... guys everywhere ... have to buck up to protect...from this great evil.
*FIST BUMPS SHARK*
Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:05:40 AM1: They already tried that and mostly failed with Ghosts of Saltmash. The 5e Greyhawk module.
2: Except that it was so feeble and meaningless. Its a throwaway sentence in a single paragraph that you can easily miss.
That's how incremental entryism works. At first it is something "meaningless", that you can just ignore. Then it will be something else small, and so on.
It may take some time, but they have not only shown that they will keep trying; They have openly said so.
Wotc is a lost cause. Anyone hoping for change there is delusional.
Luckily there are plenty of ways to play "D&D" without giving money to people that hate you.
Quote from: Omega on May 20, 2024, 02:35:39 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 20, 2024, 04:08:25 AMIf you think that the only reason that D&D book sales has dropped is because a new edition is coming out and not that the OGL has been threatened by WotC,
that the latest modules were pandering crap (magical coffee shop? WTF?),
that what was a game is now being pushed as a lifestyle brand (D&D fashion and shoes anybody?)
1: Sales have dropped for alot of reasons. The OGL blowup is a footnote now. Poor product is a more telling problem.
2: There is no such module other than what ammounts to a fan made one by one of the staff. Theres alot worse on DM's Guild and people think ALL of that is "official". The problem is sadly more mundane. wotc writers are fucking lazy and cant be dicked to actually do the job they were hired for. Graduates from the White Wolf school of failure. "oh we didnt bother to write that rule. The players will do it for us!"
3: This again? No. wotc is not pushing D&D as a lifestyle. They are too incompetent for that. Fan made mercandise and 3rd party items have been around since the TSR days. D&D WOODBURNING SET? D&D CANDY? O-M-G!!! TSR is for making teh Lifestylez!!!111!!!. wotc has done just short of nothing aside from trying to monetize fan crafts.
x: wotc has put out one lacklustre product after another Spelljanner bombed, barely anyone is talking about Planescape, the last few modules aside from Wild Beyond the Witchlight have been messes and even Witchlight needs work because the writers couldnt be dicked to do their job. Then there's Phandelver and Below which is so fucking incoherent I'm surprised anyones actually been able to run it.
And now apparently they want to mess with D&D Beyond and just this month removed the ability to buy single items from a book instead of the whole book. This on top of them removing older books from the shop. Rumor is that next to go will be the ability to post and share your own works.
Add on an unwanted new edition that wotc insists is really real not a new edition! A new edition that looks to totally overhaul things and relegate the DM to storytelling slaves.
Is it any wonder sales are down?
Omega, WotC has made intellectual property icon use contracts with Converse and LEGO. That is significantly more than just monetizing fan crafts.
Hell, I'll just let Morrus and Scott Kurtz say it along with Clownfish TV.
https://x.com/Morrus/status/1735811716909277209 (https://x.com/Morrus/status/1735811716909277209)
Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:29:20 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
It is not the presence that is the problem. Its the agenda behind it being there.
Same with minorities and combat wheelchairs. No one would give a flying fuck if it was being done for anything other than the woke agenda.
Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:36:40 AMI object when it is just there to check a box on a score card. Its fucking demeaning.
I object when it is there to push a false agenda. Also demeaning.
I object when it is just a meaningless insertion.
I object when it is a ham-handed insertion.
If you think any of that makes me a homophobe then maybe you need to look in a mirror.
^^This^^
It isn't that there are gay characters or different races. It is that they are being inserted as part of some woke DEI strategy to appease the shareholders of Hasbro so that Blackrock favors them with investment.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 01:22:49 AMSorry, your postmodern Foucaultian word salad will not work here. You don't get to change the meaning of words.
Phobia
noun
1: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
Educate yourself so you don't look foolish: Search for the definition of homophobia.
Here are some results:
Merriam-Webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Dictionary.com: an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of gay sexual orientation or gay people.
Caimbridge Dictionary: harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of gay people or queer people
Oxford Reference: Negative attitudes towards homosexual people and homosexuality which may be manifested in discrimination, hostile behaviour, or hate crimes. The term was adopted in 1972 by George Weinberg (b.1935), an American psychologist. The use of 'phobia' has been criticized as implying a pathological and irrational fear rather than a form of prejudice analogous to racism.
Did you notice that last part? Homophobia is NOT a phobia as the term is used in psychology, much as hydrophobic substances are not afraid of water.
So, looking at how the word homophobic is actually meant to be used, look back at your posts and understand why you come off as homophobic.
Now, on Christian values, we can have a long talk. Love, compassion, peace, and kindness are among the most important values, and homophobia is opposed to all of these values.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:42:12 AMQuote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 01:22:49 AMSorry, your postmodern Foucaultian word salad will not work here. You don't get to change the meaning of words.
Phobia
noun
1: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
Educate yourself so you don't look foolish: Search for the definition of homophobia.
Here are some results:
Merriam-Webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Dictionary.com: an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of gay sexual orientation or gay people.
Caimbridge Dictionary: harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of gay people or queer people
Not relevant when discussing words invented for political purposes. "Xphobia" means "fear of X", and applying certain political concepts there is an failed attempt to create a false definition that opposition to whatever X is being pushed is a character flaw (specifically, irrational fear of). That's why these terms were chosen.
This is the truth, no matter how many communists, professors, media experts, or dictionaries say otherwise. That's just a pile of liars, and it doesn't matter how decorated they are or how many bullets they'll shoot you with for pointing it out. A is A.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Your personal weirdness isn't everyone else's issue. America, and most modern nations, do not have that "it's disgusting" hangup you have about this issue. There are nations which mirror your view better, like some Islamic extremist ones, but the US isn't one of them and WOTC is in the US and selling to a primary US audience. So they, and we, don't need to worry about your weird hangups about the gender that people are attracted to.
Quote from: Venka on May 21, 2024, 01:49:51 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:42:12 AMQuote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 01:22:49 AMSorry, your postmodern Foucaultian word salad will not work here. You don't get to change the meaning of words.
Phobia
noun
1: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
Educate yourself so you don't look foolish: Search for the definition of homophobia.
Here are some results:
Merriam-Webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Dictionary.com: an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of gay sexual orientation or gay people.
Caimbridge Dictionary: harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of gay people or queer people
Not relevant when discussing words invented for political purposes. "Xphobia" means "fear of X", and applying certain political concepts there is an failed attempt to create a false definition that opposition to whatever X is being pushed is a character flaw (specifically, irrational fear of). That's why these terms were chosen.
This is the truth, no matter how many communists, professors, media experts, or dictionaries say otherwise. That's just a pile of liars, and it doesn't matter how decorated they are or how many bullets they'll shoot you with for pointing it out. A is A.
You're not arguing against something brand new here. The definition was given from 1972 (and arguably as early as 1965). You've had more than a half-century to come to terms with it.
Check it out, on the left is 1E Greyhawk and on the right is new and improved 6E Greyhawk! See, WotC is trying, everyone give WotC a hug and a cookie as they cross the finish line with the other retards.
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/3wevGF_7BLWpQIcfV4y0qDLCZVmNbBGBTRTDAWdlj7U/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9ueXBv/c3QuY29tL3dwLWNv/bnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fk/cy9zaXRlcy8yLzIw/MTYvMDMvMi1waG90/b3MxMy5qcGc_cXVh/bGl0eT03NSZzdHJp/cD1hbGwmdz03NDQ)
FYI: There is a Quote Selected text function now guys.
Highlight the text by dragging over it, and the option appears by the quote function.
Just throwing that out there...
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:42:12 AMEducate yourself so you don't look foolish: Search for the definition of homophobia.
LOL.
You tried to say that this definition was not really correct:
Phobia
noun
1: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.Literally the first "counter example" you posted:
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:42:12 AMHere are some results:
Merriam-Webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
This is not even a challenge.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:42:12 AMSo, looking at how the word homophobic is actually meant to be used, look back at your posts and understand why you come off as homophobic.
I don't care.
Because all I'm doing is pointing out your use of the word "Homophobic" is just rhetorical framing to paint those that disagree with you as fearful and hateful Bad People.
Your Foucaultian semantics aren't fooling anyone.
People that reject homosexuality are not in the wrong.
Those that promote it are.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:42:12 AMNow, on Christian values, we can have a long talk. Love, compassion, peace, and kindness are among the most important values, and homophobia is opposed to all of these values.
ROTFL!! You put this out there like I've never seen this tactic before.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a choose your own adventure novel.
God is very clear on the subject of homosexual relations:
QuoteLeviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The new Testament backs this up:
QuoteMatthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God a gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural
use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their a lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Timothy 1:10
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Corinthians 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Christianity completely rejects homosexual behavior as it is an
Unnatural Sin.
Thus, by your own standards, Christianity is "homophobic":
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 10:59:33 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 20, 2024, 10:53:11 PMOut of curiosity, is there any objection to a married gay couple in a D&D module that you would accept as not being homophobic and/or "hateful"?
Probably not, but what's your hypothetical objection? I'm willing to discuss it.
To bring this back to RPG's:
How does having gay NPC's presented as a good and normal thing hurt the product?
1: It's gross. Which is the healthy, natural, and normal response.
2: Because Wotc is openly trying to normalize an Unnatural Sin as a good and acceptable lifestyle.
So it is only natural that I would object to having content in my game books whose explicit purpose is to normalize an unnatural sinful lifestyle as something normal and good, when it most certainly is neither.
As SHARK has said:
Quote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 11:07:11 PMWOTC and sodomites like Crawford are continually committed to and seeking to normalize their corrupt degeneracy through what they include in the game books, and how they go about framing it.
Thus it is morally good and right that we object to ideologically degenerate content being put into gaming books.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 04:33:36 PMFYI: There is a Quote Selected text function now guys.
Highlight the text by dragging over it, and the option appears by the quote function.
Just throwing that out there...
Hey cool, I didn't know that. Thanks!
Quote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 04:33:36 PMTo bring this back to RPG's:
How does having gay NPC's presented as a good and normal thing hurt the product?
1: It's gross. Which is the healthy, natural, and normal response.
2: Because Wotc is openly trying to normalize an Unnatural Sin as a good and acceptable lifestyle.
So it is only natural that I would object to having content in my game books whose explicit purpose is to normalize an unnatural sinful lifestyle as something normal and good, when it most certainly is neither.
That quote selected text thing is nice!
So, you're willing to let your homophobia fly freely and that's your sole objection for point 1.
As for point 2, it's not WotC trying to normalize anything. Much of modern society has already accepted this behavior as normal, aside from neanderthals like yourself. Well, we all know how the neanderthals are doing these days. You might want to call Geico and see if they have a preserve for your people.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 03:40:32 PMYou're not arguing against something brand new here. The definition was given from 1972 (and arguably as early as 1965). You've had more than a half-century to come to terms with it.
I'm aware it's not new. Being old doesn't make something correct. The term is a lie. It's incorrect. I'm not "coming to terms" with a lie, because that would be dumb. It's never gonna be right, no matter how many people are shot over the lie, no matter how many dictionaries parrot the lie, no matter how many politicians smile and repeat the lie.
Being opposed to a political agenda isn't a "phobia". Having opinions about morality isn't a "phobia". If anyone wanted to make up a neutral word for those terms so that they could be discussed, they are welcome to do so, but it wouldn't involve the word "phobia". The entire purpose of the word wouldn't be to attack those described with it. "Homophobic" is a slur.
Here's an example. Lets say I define everyone who disagrees with me on anything as "truthophobic". I somehow force your dictionaries to agree with me and print my definition.
I do this today, or I do this tomorrow, or I do this in 1965. Does the time I did it matter? How much force must someone apply or threaten before they become correct? If I have the power to cause stars to go nova simply with my thoughts, how many stars would I need to destroy before one plus one equals three? Answer quick, truthophobe!
Consensus, tradition, force- none of these make something true.
Quote from: Venka on May 21, 2024, 06:00:53 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 03:40:32 PMYou're not arguing against something brand new here. The definition was given from 1972 (and arguably as early as 1965). You've had more than a half-century to come to terms with it.
I'm aware it's not new. Being old doesn't make something correct. The term is a lie. It's incorrect. I'm not "coming to terms" with a lie, because that would be dumb. It's never gonna be right, no matter how many people are shot over the lie, no matter how many dictionaries parrot the lie, no matter how many politicians smile and repeat the lie.
Being opposed to a political agenda isn't a "phobia". Having opinions about morality isn't a "phobia". If anyone wanted to make up a neutral word for those terms so that they could be discussed, they are welcome to do so, but it wouldn't involve the word "phobia". The entire purpose of the word wouldn't be to attack those described with it. "Homophobic" is a slur.
Here's an example. Lets say I define everyone who disagrees with me on anything as "truthophobic". I somehow force your dictionaries to agree with me and print my definition.
I do this today, or I do this tomorrow, or I do this in 1965. Does the time I did it matter? How much force must someone apply or threaten before they become correct? If I have the power to cause stars to go nova simply with my thoughts, how many stars would I need to destroy before one plus one equals three? Answer quick, truthophobe!
Consensus, tradition, force- none of these make something true.
You are being deliberately obtuse. The world today uses the term homophobic as I have described. You are not "correct" to deny this reality.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 05:02:37 PMThat quote selected text thing is nice!
So, you're willing to let your homophobia fly freely and that's your sole objection for point 1.
As for point 2, it's not WotC trying to normalize anything. Much of modern society has already accepted this behavior as normal, aside from neanderthals like yourself. Well, we all know how the neanderthals are doing these days. You might want to call Geico and see if they have a preserve for your people.
Imagine believing that societies and empires of the past haven't reached similar levels of immoral decadence, normalizing abnormal sexual behavior, before collapsing, then reality and hardship kicks in and the people return to normal.
I, for one, am looking forward to WotC rebooting The Scourge of the Slavelords in the Greyhawk setting, from a woke perspective.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on May 21, 2024, 08:36:19 PMImagine believing that societies and empires of the past haven't reached similar levels of immoral decadence, normalizing abnormal sexual behavior, before collapsing, then reality and hardship kicks in and the people return to normal.
These are the same people -- or at least, ideologically adjacent to them -- who think they will be the ones to make communism work, because "real communism has never been tried before," or whatever other pathetic excuse they're pushing these days.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 04:33:36 PMChristianity completely rejects homosexual behavior as it is an Unnatural Sin.
Thus, by your own standards, Christianity is "homophobic"
Quote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 04:33:36 PMTo bring this back to RPG's:
How does having gay NPC's presented as a good and normal thing hurt the product?
1: It's gross. Which is the healthy, natural, and normal response.
2: Because Wotc is openly trying to normalize an Unnatural Sin as a good and acceptable lifestyle.
Jaeger -- I'm not sure about your point regarding Christianity. Do you think that D&D should only portray strict Christian virtues in the normal and heroic people portrayed. i.e. Only married couples in relationships, good heroes still loving their enemies, turning the other cheek and devoting themselves to peace-making, giving 10% of their money to the poor, etc.
I consider myself a Christian, but I'll go on record that I had sex with my wife long before we were married. That is clearly described as sin, but I don't lose any sleep over it.
I tend to have games that are generally in line with my values, but that doesn't mean my fictional worlds all have to conform to Christian laws. I can have fictional pagan gods and more, because it's just a frickin game.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 12:54:21 AMQuote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:36:40 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 10:59:33 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 20, 2024, 10:53:11 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMHaving a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Out of curiosity, is there any objection to a married gay couple in a D&D module that you would accept as not being homophobic and/or "hateful"?
Probably not, but what's your hypothetical objection? I'm willing to discuss it.
I object when it is just there to check a box on a score card. Its fucking demeaning.
I object when it is there to push a false agenda. Also demeaning.
I object when it is just a meaningless insertion.
I object when it is a ham-handed insertion.
If you think any of that makes me a homophobe then maybe you need to look in a mirror.
How many LGBTQ people have you spoken to about this (FWIW, I've only spoken to three in person)? How do they view it? From your perspective, it is demeaning or meaningless, but you are not likely to be one of the ones they are doing it for. Even taking a cynical view, they (the writers) are doing it for themselves, and yet it still doesn't meaningfully damage the "D&D-ness" of the product. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I don't care for in D&D (any version), but the presence of a married gay couple is nowhere on my list because it doesn't alter the gameplay one bit.
Honestly, if your answer is "probably not", then the conversation is probably not worth having, but what the hell? Someone else might find it engaging.
My way of looking at the issue is broadly similar to SHARK's, but I'd phrase most of the points differently for greater nuance. Also, I'm not a Christian, so the moral questions probably operate differently for me.
I have a multiple question test I apply to any kind of diversity inserted into a product where it seems not to belong. A tickmark in any of the boxes is good grounds to consider a work objectionable, but the severity of each violation should be considered.
First, general questions:
1) Does it violate the setting? I.e., is the insertion so incongruous or implausible within the established tone, time, place, etc. that it "bumps" the reader, thereby harming immersion and worsening the work.
2) What motivated this? Sometimes the motivation is spiteful, which obviously diminishes the product. More often the motive is propagandistic and/or corporate. Both propaganda and obvious corporate interference can have the same "bumping" effect that violating the setting does, and should generally be disdained as being without artistic merit.
Then there are specific-case questions:
3. Does it violate the artistic intent of the original creator? This one is unique to intellectual properties that have been handed off to new authors due to corporate or business transactions, but I absolutely hate the continual disrespect of artists by corporate actors who have no right to do so other than working for a company which has purchased the legal ownership of the work.
4. At whom is this targeted? This is almost, but not entirely, exclusive to the insertion of sexual issues or content into a work. There are very good reasons to be cautious with the pace and context in which children and adolescents are exposed to sexual content during their development.
All of these are outside of the consideration of pure personal preference, of course. That's a thorny question all on its own. I'm not going to be the guy who says everyone has to like what I like, but I'm also Not going to pretend that someone's taste in fiction doesn't frequently say quite a lot about their character. At the end of the day, you can't argue someone out of their personal tastes, and there isn't much point in a conversation where "I like it" is countered with "I don't". The point of the above test is to have a way of going beyond personal taste and having some semi-objective criteria to discuss.
A particular work can pass all of the above tests and still be something I don't like. The play/film "Rent" is the example that popped into my mind. I absolutely hated it, but it's an original work, clearly targeted at adults, and all of the content included in it fits the setting. You could potentially argue that its intent is propagandistic, but I think it's equally likely that was a story the writer just wanted to tell, and the political point-making was incidental.
Another separate issue is what moral/message/theme (if any) is a work pushing? This isn't a diversity question at all, but if a work is pushing a despicable moral stance, then in most cases it should be objected to in the strongest possible terms. I don't really remember "Rent" pushing much in the way of a moral or message other than "Isn't AIDs sad?", but it's been a very, very long time since I saw it.
Either way, I still hate "Rent", but I'm mostly content to write that hatred off as owing to it running thoroughly counter to my personal tastes.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PMI have a multiple question test I apply to any kind of diversity inserted into a product where it seems not to belong.
If you're going to be objective on your 4 questions, you first need to back up and figure out why it "seems not to belong" and do so objectively.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM1) Does it violate the setting? I.e., is the insertion so incongruous or implausible within the established tone, time, place, etc. that it "bumps" the reader, thereby harming immersion and worsening the work.
This part I can get behind to some degree, but I only really apply it to historical (or, to a lesser degree, pseudo-historical) settings. If you're talking about something like Lion & Dragon, then the point is to play up the historical accurracy. If you're playing L5R, the point is to play up the "sorta-but-not-entirely-mystic/feudal-Japan," but this gives more room than the first example. If you're playing Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk D&D, then the barriers are all but non-existent in my eyes as damn near anything can fit into these settings.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM2) What motivated this? Sometimes the motivation is spiteful, which obviously diminishes the product. More often the motive is propagandistic and/or corporate. Both propaganda and obvious corporate interference can have the same "bumping" effect that violating the setting does, and should generally be disdained as being without artistic merit.
This one doesn't have much pull with me. Inclusion of people and their ideas is inherently a good thing. Gatekeeping is the path of the asshole, and this includes gatekeeping against LGBTQ representation in fantasy worlds.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM3. Does it violate the artistic intent of the original creator? This one is unique to intellectual properties that have been handed off to new authors due to corporate or business transactions, but I absolutely hate the continual disrespect of artists by corporate actors who have no right to do so other than working for a company which has purchased the legal ownership of the work.
This means almost nothing to me. The original version belongs to the original creator, not necessarily everything that comes from it later. I do appreciate the work put in by originators, but new versions need to be free to take new paths. As an example, consider that the Old Testament largely belongs to Jews, but they don't get a claim on Christian Bibles that pick up on their material and go on from there. As for D&D, Greyhawk in particular, the "artistic intent" was to have a setting for all those dungeons to occupy for those that liked more continuity in their D&D. The new version will certainly have that goal.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM4. At whom is this targeted? This is almost, but not entirely, exclusive to the insertion of sexual issues or content into a work. There are very good reasons to be cautious with the pace and context in which children and adolescents are exposed to sexual content during their development.
I am willing to agree on this point, but mostly when it comes to obscenity and overtly sexualized materials. WotC has not done this, for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. If they did, I would be opposed to either/both appearing in general release game books. I do not think that anyone capable of reading and understanding a D&D Players Handbook is too young/immature to handle the idea of a homosexual couple that appear fully clothed going about their daily work.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PMAll of these are outside of the consideration of pure personal preference, of course. That's a thorny question all on its own. I'm not going to be the guy who says everyone has to like what I like, but I'm also Not going to pretend that someone's taste in fiction doesn't frequently say quite a lot about their character. At the end of the day, you can't argue someone out of their personal tastes, and there isn't much point in a conversation where "I like it" is countered with "I don't". The point of the above test is to have a way of going beyond personal taste and having some semi-objective criteria to discuss.
This goes back to answering how you ojectively determine what constitutes "any kind of diversity inserted into a product where it seems not to belong." Until you can do so, it does indeed seem as though it's being done entirely from your "pure personal preferences."
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PMEither way, I still hate "Rent"
Me too.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 11:04:31 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PMI have a multiple question test I apply to any kind of diversity inserted into a product where it seems not to belong.
If you're going to be objective on your 4 questions, you first need to back up and figure out why it "seems not to belong" and do so objectively.
There's a reason I said "semi-objective" above. Any attempt at a purely objective standard when discussing either art or morals is always going to be a dead end. We're dealing with intangibles here, so an element of intuition will always be involved. Anyone who tells you otherwise is engaging in sophistry, usually because they're trying to score rhetorical points or make themselves look smarter than you. Engaging in this kind of conversation in anything approaching good faith requires a willingness to try and see the other person's point of view, or at minimum a willingness to grant their intuitions the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 11:04:31 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM1) Does it violate the setting? I.e., is the insertion so incongruous or implausible within the established tone, time, place, etc. that it "bumps" the reader, thereby harming immersion and worsening the work.
This part I can get behind to some degree, but I only really apply it to historical (or, to a lesser degree, pseudo-historical) settings. If you're talking about something like Lion & Dragon, then the point is to play up the historical accurracy. If you're playing L5R, the point is to play up the "sorta-but-not-entirely-mystic/feudal-Japan," but this gives more room than the first example. If you're playing Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk D&D, then the barriers are all but non-existent in my eyes as damn near anything can fit into these settings.
I intentionally declined to apply these rules to the module discussed above, because I have neither read the module nor paid any attention to the Forgotten Realms in the last decade. I don't really feel qualified to speak on the cultural context of the FR, much less Greyhawk (which I know even less about). I'll use the example of the Warhammer Old World, instead. In that setting, gay marriage would absolutely be out of place, at least in the Empire. The Warhammer Empire is certainly a "pseudo-historic" representation of Renaissance central Europe, with the primary cultural difference being that it is if anything, more religiously conservative.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 11:04:31 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM2) What motivated this? Sometimes the motivation is spiteful, which obviously diminishes the product. More often the motive is propagandistic and/or corporate. Both propaganda and obvious corporate interference can have the same "bumping" effect that violating the setting does, and should generally be disdained as being without artistic merit.
This one doesn't have much pull with me. Inclusion of people and their ideas is inherently a good thing. Gatekeeping is the path of the asshole, and this includes gatekeeping against LGBTQ representation in fantasy worlds.
And that argument doesn't have much pull with me. Separate representation from inclusion, because the two aren't synonymous, and conflating them clouds the issue. I've yet to see a persuasive case made that representation, in and of itself, confers any material benefit worth compromising an existing artistic work for.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 11:04:31 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM3. Does it violate the artistic intent of the original creator? This one is unique to intellectual properties that have been handed off to new authors due to corporate or business transactions, but I absolutely hate the continual disrespect of artists by corporate actors who have no right to do so other than working for a company which has purchased the legal ownership of the work.
This means almost nothing to me. The original version belongs to the original creator, not necessarily everything that comes from it later. I do appreciate the work put in by originators, but new versions need to be free to take new paths. As an example, consider that the Old Testament largely belongs to Jews, but they don't get a claim on Christian Bibles that pick up on their material and go on from there. As for D&D, Greyhawk in particular, the "artistic intent" was to have a setting for all those dungeons to occupy for those that liked more continuity in their D&D. The new version will certainly have that goal.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. I clearly consider it a greater disrespect to art to contradict the values or intent of a work in what is supposed to be a version of it, but I do count it as a mitigating factor if the new property makes it clear that it is intended as a different spin on the original, rather than a continuation or replacement of it. I suppose that gets back to the question of malicious intent. A remake that inverts all the values of the original out of spite for those values is a lot more offensive to me than a good-natured parody or an honest attempt to do a new take on a story. I'm not going to get upset about
10 things I Hate About You because Shakespeare didn't intend
The Taming of the Shrew to be set in a California high school, but a James Bond film which makes Bond into an incompetent boob and mocks him for being a misogynistic dinosaur, or replaces him with a preachy feminist Jane Bond, would be a (probably intentional) insult not only to Ian Fleming and Albert Broccoli, but to anyone who likes the original James Bond books/movies.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 11:04:31 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 21, 2024, 09:57:40 PM4. At whom is this targeted? This is almost, but not entirely, exclusive to the insertion of sexual issues or content into a work. There are very good reasons to be cautious with the pace and context in which children and adolescents are exposed to sexual content during their development.
I am willing to agree on this point, but mostly when it comes to obscenity and overtly sexualized materials. WotC has not done this, for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. If they did, I would be opposed to either/both appearing in general release game books. I do not think that anyone capable of reading and understanding a D&D Players Handbook is too young/immature to handle the idea of a homosexual couple that appear fully clothed going about their daily work.
I might be prepared to agree with you there (with the qualifier that we probably disagree on the definition of "overtly sexualized"), but I'd have to put some serious thought into what the youngest age someone can reasonably be expected to get into D&D is. The D&D "educator resources" program offers programs for "grades 4-6 and 6-8", which is quite a broad range, and I don't know what content is included in that program. I will say that at the young end of that range is too young to be introducing kids to questions of gender/sexual identity, though the old end of the range probably isn't. It's always going to be difficult to draw that line, though, because of the different ages at which different children mature and hit puberty.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 22, 2024, 12:11:08 AMI might be prepared to agree with you there (with the qualifier that we probably disagree on the definition of "overtly sexualized"), but I'd have to put some serious thought into what the youngest age someone can reasonably be expected to get into D&D is. The D&D "educator resources" program offers programs for "grades 4-6 and 6-8", which is quite a broad range, and I don't know what content is included in that program. I will say that at the young end of that range is too young to be introducing kids to questions of gender/sexual identity, though the old end of the range probably isn't. It's always going to be difficult to draw that line, though, because of the different ages at which different children mature and hit puberty.
I feel that if a player is old enough to engage in "killing and taking other people's stuff" in their fantasy world, they can probably handle a family with a kid and two dads in that same world. Again, I'm talking about a non-sexualized (non-prurient) portrayal. If Christian kids can handle the idea of the immaculate conception from a young age, this shouldn't be any harder to grasp.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 22, 2024, 12:28:08 AMI feel that if a player is old enough to engage in "killing and taking other people's stuff" in their fantasy world, they can probably handle a family with a kid and two dads in that same world.
Nope.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 12:49:32 AMQuote from: Omega on May 21, 2024, 12:29:20 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
It is not the presence that is the problem. Its the agenda behind it being there.
Same with minorities and combat wheelchairs. No one would give a flying fuck if it was being done for anything other than the woke agenda.
So you oppose their motivations (which you may not completely understand) by opposing their actions (which you concede are not a problem).
Well apparently I understand it better than you ever will?
I am not conceding anything. wotc has stated they have an agenda. Im just pointing out how inept they have been at actualizing it.
They make these claims left and right and then time and again either feeble it, or dont actually do anything at all. This is a company that lies.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 12:54:21 AMHow many LGBTQ people have you spoken to about this (FWIW, I've only spoken to three in person)? How do they view it? From your perspective, it is demeaning or meaningless, but you are not likely to be one of the ones they are doing it for.
I've talked to far far more people than you. And NO they do not like being exploited. That you can not grasp that treating people as checkboxes is wrong is telling.
But keep struggling.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 21, 2024, 01:30:52 AMOmega, WotC has made intellectual property icon use contracts with Converse and LEGO. That is significantly more than just monetizing fan crafts.
Lego toys does not a lifestyle make. Especially when its shuttered behind a 300$ price tag. TSR did this stuff long before wotc.
Despite their claims to be moving in-house more. They outsource and monetize via licensing more than they actually produce. They dont even have a printing arm anymore. They axed that when 5e came out and outsourced the books even.
Quote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 04:33:36 PMFYI: There is a Quote Selected text function now guys.
I've been using it. But its buggy as hell.
Back on topic. Thinking on this. Best case scenario is a repeat of how they did it in the PHB. Just some footnoted about the gods, maybe a mention some place names.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 21, 2024, 01:01:19 AMQuote from: SHARK on May 21, 2024, 12:38:16 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 11:19:37 PMQuote from: SHARK on May 20, 2024, 11:07:11 PMQuote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 07:28:37 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 06:37:00 PMThe presence of explicitly gay characters in a D&D setting does not make it "Not D&D" in any appreciable way. How does having them in there hurt the product?
Because it's disgusting.
Why would anyone want disgusting content in their rpg?
The people at wotc hate everyone that does not like the continual insertion of disgusting gay content in rpg's.
And I won't give money to people that hate me.
Greetings!
Yes, my friend, you are quite right. It is very disgusting. Corrupt, filthy degeneracy should not be promoted or celebrated, but steadfastly and ruthlessly condemned.
WOTC and sodomites like Crawford are continually committed to and seeking to normalize their corrupt degeneracy through what they include in the game books, and how they go about framing it. WOTC and degenerates should be opposed and criticized everywhere, tirelessly. Let the degenerates burn! The groomers are coming out everywhere in society, seeking to promote their disgusting, degenerate ways.
And, of course, we can see the reprobate jello-brained helpers that eagerly seek to provide support for the degenerates.
WOTC will obviously fill Greyhawk with corruption and degeneracy. Crawford has as much explicitly said so. That is what WOTC does now. That is who WOTC is.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK again shows his lack of Christian values and failed committment to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of whether they are different from him.
Gay people that make games want to put gay characters into their products of their make-believe game worlds. Somehow, internet tough guys everywhere are threatened and have to buck up to protect...somebody...from this great evil.
Greetings!
Yeah, I am not a Rainbow Barney-kind of heretic "Christian" popular in many apostate churches nowadays. I'm the Old School kind of Christian. DEUS VULT.
The gays have Thirsty Sword Lesbians! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Really? You're going to throw out Deus vult--a line now strongly associated with white supremacy and hate groups--as your response?
OK, so you're that type of Christian...
You just keep on wondering why so many of the sensible Christians fall into your "apostates" box as you go further down your crazy-ass rabbit hole.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Well, you see, unlike you, I take the Scriptures seriously. The "Sensible Christians" that you speak of are not typically "Sensible" at all--nor are they genuine, Bible-believing Christians. They are wicked, degenerate rebels that hate God. They hate righteousness and truth. They hate sound doctrine. The Scriptures talk about these kinds of "Sensible Christians." They are actually of the world, and enemies to Christ. They go after seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. They eagerly seek to have their ears tickled. They stand in the gate, and rejoice in the approval and favour of THE WORLD. They not only seek to wallow in their own depravity, and exalt their own pride, sin, and wickedness, but they also heartily approve of others that are even more depraved and degenerate than they themselves. They scorn righteousness and sound doctrine, preferring lies and corruption. We can see this everywhere in society today--"They shall call what is Good, Evil, and what is Evil, Good. They are heretics, and they are doomed to be judged in wrath and fire, unless they repent of their sin and throw themselves at Christ's feet and beg forgiveness.
Going down rabbit holes? *Laughing* Well, that is far better than going down the road to Hell, like these heretics. The worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment. The fake, heretic churches in the Letters to the Churches are where their sins and wickedness is exposed. One of these kinds of corrupt, heretic churches, is the church that exalts "Love". It is not true love, and they reject God's discipline, wrath, and justice. "Love is Love!" and "All is LOVE!"--such expressions are actually heresy, and mocking God's truth. Such ideologies and doctrines promoted by these corrupt, heretic churches are distortions and evil, seeking to twist and contort God's Word into being a sweet thing that is acceptable and approved of by the World. So, these "Sensible Christians" are not truly Christians at all, but are heretics. They are fools, thinking themselves wise, but they are doomed to the fires of Hell.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Omega on May 22, 2024, 05:45:37 AMQuote from: Jaeger on May 21, 2024, 04:33:36 PMFYI: There is a Quote Selected text function now guys.
I've been using it. But its buggy as hell.
Back on topic. Thinking on this. Best case scenario is a repeat of how they did it in the PHB. Just some footnoted about the gods, maybe a mention some place names.
Greetings!
Yes, I suspect that this is the approach that WOTC is likely to take. *Laughing* It is a low effort level, and well, we have seen them do precisely this kind of minimalist effort before, like with 3E.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:25:36 AMGreetings!
*Laughing* Well, you see, unlike you, I take the Scriptures seriously. The "Sensible Christians" that you speak of are not typically "Sensible" at all--nor are they genuine, Bible-believing Christians. They are wicked, degenerate rebels that hate God. They hate righteousness and truth. They hate sound doctrine. The Scriptures talk about these kinds of "Sensible Christians." They are actually of the world, and enemies to Christ. They go after seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. They eagerly seek to have their ears tickled. They stand in the gate, and rejoice in the approval and favour of THE WORLD. They not only seek to wallow in their own depravity, and exalt their own pride, sin, and wickedness, but they also heartily approve of others that are even more depraved and degenerate than they themselves. They scorn righteousness and sound doctrine, preferring lies and corruption. We can see this everywhere in society today--"They shall call what is Good, Evil, and what is Evil, Good. They are heretics, and they are doomed to be judged in wrath and fire, unless they repent of their sin and throw themselves at Christ's feet and beg forgiveness.
Going down rabbit holes? *Laughing* Well, that is far better than going down the road to Hell, like these heretics. The worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment. The fake, heretic churches in the Letters to the Churches are where their sins and wickedness is exposed. One of these kinds of corrupt, heretic churches, is the church that exalts "Love". It is not true love, and they reject God's discipline, wrath, and justice. "Love is Love!" and "All is LOVE!"--such expressions are actually heresy, and mocking God's truth. Such ideologies and doctrines promoted by these corrupt, heretic churches are distortions and evil, seeking to twist and contort God's Word into being a sweet thing that is acceptable and approved of by the World. So, these "Sensible Christians" are not truly Christians at all, but are heretics. They are fools, thinking themselves wise, but they are doomed to the fires of Hell.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Refresh yourself on scripture. Read Romans 14: 10-13 and recognize that your false pride is not a good thing.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on May 21, 2024, 08:38:06 PMI, for one, am looking forward to WotC rebooting The Scourge of the Slavelords in the Greyhawk setting, from a woke perspective.
TSR's first reboot was bad enough. WotCs will have all the slaves be natives from the Amedio Jungle and Hepmonaland. And the Commander of the Hill Fort (A2), Icar, will be made a white man cause 'black men cannot be slavers'.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 22, 2024, 10:42:17 AMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:25:36 AMGreetings!
*Laughing* Well, you see, unlike you, I take the Scriptures seriously. The "Sensible Christians" that you speak of are not typically "Sensible" at all--nor are they genuine, Bible-believing Christians. They are wicked, degenerate rebels that hate God. They hate righteousness and truth. They hate sound doctrine. The Scriptures talk about these kinds of "Sensible Christians." They are actually of the world, and enemies to Christ. They go after seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. They eagerly seek to have their ears tickled. They stand in the gate, and rejoice in the approval and favour of THE WORLD. They not only seek to wallow in their own depravity, and exalt their own pride, sin, and wickedness, but they also heartily approve of others that are even more depraved and degenerate than they themselves. They scorn righteousness and sound doctrine, preferring lies and corruption. We can see this everywhere in society today--"They shall call what is Good, Evil, and what is Evil, Good. They are heretics, and they are doomed to be judged in wrath and fire, unless they repent of their sin and throw themselves at Christ's feet and beg forgiveness.
Going down rabbit holes? *Laughing* Well, that is far better than going down the road to Hell, like these heretics. The worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment. The fake, heretic churches in the Letters to the Churches are where their sins and wickedness is exposed. One of these kinds of corrupt, heretic churches, is the church that exalts "Love". It is not true love, and they reject God's discipline, wrath, and justice. "Love is Love!" and "All is LOVE!"--such expressions are actually heresy, and mocking God's truth. Such ideologies and doctrines promoted by these corrupt, heretic churches are distortions and evil, seeking to twist and contort God's Word into being a sweet thing that is acceptable and approved of by the World. So, these "Sensible Christians" are not truly Christians at all, but are heretics. They are fools, thinking themselves wise, but they are doomed to the fires of Hell.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Refresh yourself on scripture. Read Romans 14: 10-13 and recognize that your false pride is not a good thing.
Greetings!
Yes, Romans 14: 10-13 concerns various attributes of fellow Christians, whether some observe various festival days, the eating of different meats, and so on. There is liberty in Christ. The verses of Romans do not support fellow Christians to embrace heresy, and doctrines of seducing spirits and demons. As several excellent preachers have described such heretic, fake "Christians" as "Preaching a different Gospel," and of "Following after a different Christ." The Scriptures, as I alluded to several, strongly condemn such heretics.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 12:18:36 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 22, 2024, 10:42:17 AMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:25:36 AMGreetings!
*Laughing* Well, you see, unlike you, I take the Scriptures seriously. The "Sensible Christians" that you speak of are not typically "Sensible" at all--nor are they genuine, Bible-believing Christians. They are wicked, degenerate rebels that hate God. They hate righteousness and truth. They hate sound doctrine. The Scriptures talk about these kinds of "Sensible Christians." They are actually of the world, and enemies to Christ. They go after seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. They eagerly seek to have their ears tickled. They stand in the gate, and rejoice in the approval and favour of THE WORLD. They not only seek to wallow in their own depravity, and exalt their own pride, sin, and wickedness, but they also heartily approve of others that are even more depraved and degenerate than they themselves. They scorn righteousness and sound doctrine, preferring lies and corruption. We can see this everywhere in society today--"They shall call what is Good, Evil, and what is Evil, Good. They are heretics, and they are doomed to be judged in wrath and fire, unless they repent of their sin and throw themselves at Christ's feet and beg forgiveness.
Going down rabbit holes? *Laughing* Well, that is far better than going down the road to Hell, like these heretics. The worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment. The fake, heretic churches in the Letters to the Churches are where their sins and wickedness is exposed. One of these kinds of corrupt, heretic churches, is the church that exalts "Love". It is not true love, and they reject God's discipline, wrath, and justice. "Love is Love!" and "All is LOVE!"--such expressions are actually heresy, and mocking God's truth. Such ideologies and doctrines promoted by these corrupt, heretic churches are distortions and evil, seeking to twist and contort God's Word into being a sweet thing that is acceptable and approved of by the World. So, these "Sensible Christians" are not truly Christians at all, but are heretics. They are fools, thinking themselves wise, but they are doomed to the fires of Hell.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Refresh yourself on scripture. Read Romans 14: 10-13 and recognize that your false pride is not a good thing.
Greetings!
Yes, Romans 14: 10-13 concerns various attributes of fellow Christians, whether some observe various festival days, the eating of different meats, and so on. There is liberty in Christ. The verses of Romans do not support fellow Christians to embrace heresy, and doctrines of seducing spirits and demons. As several excellent preachers have described such heretic, fake "Christians" as "Preaching a different Gospel," and of "Following after a different Christ." The Scriptures, as I alluded to several, strongly condemn such heretics.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For Example - If you do not think that there is a special place in Hell waiting for Joel Olsteen, then you may need to reassess your Christianity....
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:25:36 AMThe worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment.
Add Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Lutherans to that list, at the very least. I grew up in the 1970s with a woman pastor in my Presbyterian church.
I'd add that I regularly go to interfaith events, and my UU church has gotten along quite well with synagogues, Latter Day Saints, Catholics, and others. Even though we have doctrinal differences, they have welcomed us and been happy to have us there - singing songs, praying, food distribution, etc.
Just this week I interviewed for a job at a Catholic school, and they emphasized building moral character in the kids. I asked if there was any potential clash between my being an active UU and that, and they said no.
These differences are small compared to encouraging loving thy neighbor as thyself - bringing peace, caring, and understanding to the world. SHARK, you frequently call for your enemies to be bathed in napalm - whereas most of the churchgoing Christians I meet in real life find that sort of talk repellent.
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:28:42 AMYes, I suspect that this is the approach that WOTC is likely to take.
5-10 years ago I'd think so. But wotc has become increasingly insane and if even a tenth of the things they have talked about for fake 5e see print. Greyhawk will be the absolute least of our worries.
Quote from: jhkim on May 21, 2024, 09:44:12 PMJaeger -- I'm not sure about your point regarding Christianity. Do you think that D&D should only portray strict Christian virtues in the normal and heroic people portrayed.
You're smarter than this John.
Quote from: jhkim on May 21, 2024, 09:44:12 PMI consider myself a Christian, but I'll go on record that I had sex with my wife long before we were married. That is clearly described as sin, but I don't lose any sleep over it.
You show that you already get it.
Because as much as you may try to equivocate, you know the truth in your heart; and you are not presenting your past sins as a something that should be seen as a universal good and normalized.
Quote from: jhkim on May 21, 2024, 09:44:12 PMI tend to have games that are generally in line with my values, but that doesn't mean my fictional worlds all have to conform to Christian laws. I can have fictional pagan gods and more, because it's just a frickin game.
In the normal course of things this is true.
We know the in-game pagan gods are not real, and no one is trying to pass off in-game amorality as something normal and good.
But Wotc has put themselves on the record that they are explicitly going to do just that: Present homosexuality,
a sin, as something that is both
normal and good.
Receipts given in a previou post:
"Crawford told me that publisher Wizards of the Coast is making D&D more gay, and why that's a great thing."No, the
normalization of sin is not a great thing. It is empirically a Bad thing.
It is explicitly antithetical to Christian Morality.
So it is only natural and good for those that consider themselves Christians to be opposed to LGBTQP normalization propaganda being intentionally inserted into RPG's.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 22, 2024, 01:31:09 PMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 12:18:36 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 22, 2024, 10:42:17 AMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:25:36 AMGreetings!
*Laughing* Well, you see, unlike you, I take the Scriptures seriously. The "Sensible Christians" that you speak of are not typically "Sensible" at all--nor are they genuine, Bible-believing Christians. They are wicked, degenerate rebels that hate God. They hate righteousness and truth. They hate sound doctrine. The Scriptures talk about these kinds of "Sensible Christians." They are actually of the world, and enemies to Christ. They go after seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. They eagerly seek to have their ears tickled. They stand in the gate, and rejoice in the approval and favour of THE WORLD. They not only seek to wallow in their own depravity, and exalt their own pride, sin, and wickedness, but they also heartily approve of others that are even more depraved and degenerate than they themselves. They scorn righteousness and sound doctrine, preferring lies and corruption. We can see this everywhere in society today--"They shall call what is Good, Evil, and what is Evil, Good. They are heretics, and they are doomed to be judged in wrath and fire, unless they repent of their sin and throw themselves at Christ's feet and beg forgiveness.
Going down rabbit holes? *Laughing* Well, that is far better than going down the road to Hell, like these heretics. The worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment. The fake, heretic churches in the Letters to the Churches are where their sins and wickedness is exposed. One of these kinds of corrupt, heretic churches, is the church that exalts "Love". It is not true love, and they reject God's discipline, wrath, and justice. "Love is Love!" and "All is LOVE!"--such expressions are actually heresy, and mocking God's truth. Such ideologies and doctrines promoted by these corrupt, heretic churches are distortions and evil, seeking to twist and contort God's Word into being a sweet thing that is acceptable and approved of by the World. So, these "Sensible Christians" are not truly Christians at all, but are heretics. They are fools, thinking themselves wise, but they are doomed to the fires of Hell.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Refresh yourself on scripture. Read Romans 14: 10-13 and recognize that your false pride is not a good thing.
Greetings!
Yes, Romans 14: 10-13 concerns various attributes of fellow Christians, whether some observe various festival days, the eating of different meats, and so on. There is liberty in Christ. The verses of Romans do not support fellow Christians to embrace heresy, and doctrines of seducing spirits and demons. As several excellent preachers have described such heretic, fake "Christians" as "Preaching a different Gospel," and of "Following after a different Christ." The Scriptures, as I alluded to several, strongly condemn such heretics.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For Example - If you do not think that there is a special place in Hell waiting for Joel Olsteen, then you may need to reassess your Christianity....
Greetings!
*Laughing*! Yes, very true, brother! Sad, Olsteen is such a Charlatan! Slick, huge smile, always preaching sugar. It is like he is totally given over to "Tickling the congregation's ears." Exactly like I was referencing, brother. These kinds of False Preachers are careful to never preach anything about the truth of Scripture. They cherry-pick only the lightest, easiest verses in Scripture, then wrap it up in corruption, and preach only what is pleasing to the congregation. Of course Charlatans like him never preach anything that offends anyone. They preach a Rainbow Barney Gospel. Just like that stupid Purple Dinosaur. And the money keeps rolling into his bank accounts.
We see so many of the churches embracing filthy heresy nowadays. You see splits going on everywhere. Like I have told several of my friends, yes, expect divisions! Expect scandals and biting! You will see fighting break out, as just about all of these denominations--all of them, really--will all come to a point, where they will eagerly embrace the heresy of The World. They embrace a Barney Christianity, where LGBTQ is embraced, where women priestesses and feminism is embraced, where abortion is embraced, divorce, and on and on. Look at them! Watch how they all compromise, and justify their wicked, false gospel! As they do this, yes, there are also some conservative remnant that breaks away, and says "NO" to embracing the worldly philosophy of the age, and of heresy. The faithful remnant that seeks to stay true to the Scriptures, and the Lord. The stampede is on now, as all of these evil cattle, eagerly gather together to bow down to Satan. They are worshipping a "Different Christ". They are following a Barney Christianity.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:19:35 PMQuote from: jeff37923 on May 22, 2024, 01:31:09 PMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 12:18:36 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 22, 2024, 10:42:17 AMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:25:36 AMGreetings!
*Laughing* Well, you see, unlike you, I take the Scriptures seriously. The "Sensible Christians" that you speak of are not typically "Sensible" at all--nor are they genuine, Bible-believing Christians. They are wicked, degenerate rebels that hate God. They hate righteousness and truth. They hate sound doctrine. The Scriptures talk about these kinds of "Sensible Christians." They are actually of the world, and enemies to Christ. They go after seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. They eagerly seek to have their ears tickled. They stand in the gate, and rejoice in the approval and favour of THE WORLD. They not only seek to wallow in their own depravity, and exalt their own pride, sin, and wickedness, but they also heartily approve of others that are even more depraved and degenerate than they themselves. They scorn righteousness and sound doctrine, preferring lies and corruption. We can see this everywhere in society today--"They shall call what is Good, Evil, and what is Evil, Good. They are heretics, and they are doomed to be judged in wrath and fire, unless they repent of their sin and throw themselves at Christ's feet and beg forgiveness.
Going down rabbit holes? *Laughing* Well, that is far better than going down the road to Hell, like these heretics. The worldly, all-accepting, spineless, inoffensive heretic "Christian" that has gained the praise and approval of the World are rebels against God, and God shall judge them in wrath, fire, and vengeance. Revelations discusses the heretic churches--just like all of these fake, heretic "Christians" that reject sound doctrine and Biblical truth, as they exalt women as priestesses, promote abortion, celebrate divorce and feminism, and LGBTQ+alphebet soup agendas. This is clearly seen with the Methodists in America. Or the Unitarians. They are all corrupt heretics, and will be damned by God's wrath and judgment. The fake, heretic churches in the Letters to the Churches are where their sins and wickedness is exposed. One of these kinds of corrupt, heretic churches, is the church that exalts "Love". It is not true love, and they reject God's discipline, wrath, and justice. "Love is Love!" and "All is LOVE!"--such expressions are actually heresy, and mocking God's truth. Such ideologies and doctrines promoted by these corrupt, heretic churches are distortions and evil, seeking to twist and contort God's Word into being a sweet thing that is acceptable and approved of by the World. So, these "Sensible Christians" are not truly Christians at all, but are heretics. They are fools, thinking themselves wise, but they are doomed to the fires of Hell.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Refresh yourself on scripture. Read Romans 14: 10-13 and recognize that your false pride is not a good thing.
Greetings!
Yes, Romans 14: 10-13 concerns various attributes of fellow Christians, whether some observe various festival days, the eating of different meats, and so on. There is liberty in Christ. The verses of Romans do not support fellow Christians to embrace heresy, and doctrines of seducing spirits and demons. As several excellent preachers have described such heretic, fake "Christians" as "Preaching a different Gospel," and of "Following after a different Christ." The Scriptures, as I alluded to several, strongly condemn such heretics.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For Example - If you do not think that there is a special place in Hell waiting for Joel Olsteen, then you may need to reassess your Christianity....
Greetings!
*Laughing*! Yes, very true, brother! Sad, Olsteen is such a Charlatan! Slick, huge smile, always preaching sugar. It is like he is totally given over to "Tickling the congregation's ears." Exactly like I was referencing, brother. These kinds of False Preachers are careful to never preach anything about the truth of Scripture. They cherry-pick only the lightest, easiest verses in Scripture, then wrap it up in corruption, and preach only what is pleasing to the congregation. Of course Charlatans like him never preach anything that offends anyone. They preach a Rainbow Barney Gospel. Just like that stupid Purple Dinosaur. And the money keeps rolling into his bank accounts.
We see so many of the churches embracing filthy heresy nowadays. You see splits going on everywhere. Like I have told several of my friends, yes, expect divisions! Expect scandals and biting! You will see fighting break out, as just about all of these denominations--all of them, really--will all come to a point, where they will eagerly embrace the heresy of The World. They embrace a Barney Christianity, where LGBTQ is embraced, where women priestesses and feminism is embraced, where abortion is embraced, divorce, and on and on. Look at them! Watch how they all compromise, and justify their wicked, false gospel! As they do this, yes, there are also some conservative remnant that breaks away, and says "NO" to embracing the worldly philosophy of the age, and of heresy. The faithful remnant that seeks to stay true to the Scriptures, and the Lord. The stampede is on now, as all of these evil cattle, eagerly gather together to bow down to Satan. They are worshipping a "Different Christ". They are following a Barney Christianity.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You see a female pastor you get the hell out of that church before the blasphemy begins. The worst blasphemy I've seen 9 times out 10, female pastors. Here is this little nugget of disgust to enjoy:
To which the reply from the congregation should be: Bitch, Deuteronomy 22:5 (https://app.logos.com/books/LLS%3A1.0.30/references/bible%2Bnkjv.5.22.5?registration_source_host=biblia.com)
Rather than creating their own new pagan church, they take down a church that was paid for by christians and turn it into a scum sucking hole in the ground while the parishioner's leave.
Not really sure how things in this thread came to an off-topic rejoicing in the alleged hellfire soon to be experienced by other congregations and Christian sects. What I will say about that from my own personal perspective, is that if one accepts Christ as their savior and sincerely tries to follow His way and example, minor doctrinal errors seem unlikely to be as important as what is sacrificed in an attempt to aid others and affirm fellowship and obeisance to the Trinity. The Pharisees and similar teachers of the law may have understood and followed the law God had indeed to some solid extent given them. But ultimately it was shown that they as humans could not be truly righteous themselves, nor save themselves fully from sin through action under said law. Our devotion and commitment to the living God is what ultimately matters most. I'm not the best theologian out there, but that's my two cents on that.
So even though I'm more conservative than many within the Methodist church I am part of in my understanding of God's law, I would argue that what will actually determine where they and I wind up respectively... is far more likely our devotion to Christ, personal faith in and connection to God, and willingness to do His will, especially when called to it. I do believe in God's justice just as much as His love, but I also don't think that as followers of Christ we should ever gloat when we think others within the flock have stumbled. Nor that we should assume our understanding of the law, even as presented by our understanding of the Bible, is more important than trying to follow Christ and give obeisance to the divine. Salvation comes by Grace and by openness to doing God's will even at personal cost, not by our own personal knowledge and goodness.
I think therefore that everyone here who believes in Christ and sincerely acts within their daily lives in the matter they feel honors him and his principles will go to heaven. Even if we may disagree at times as to some of the particulars.
Guys, if you keep discussing your religion without anything about RPGs, you risk Pundit banning your ass. What part of this warning was unclear? (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/general-warning-off-topic-political-posts-on-this-subforum/)
I really should have noticed and asked this before, but is it that you get one warning wherein you are thread banned, and then if you are thread banned elsewhere you're permabanned?
Also, to get back to the topic at hand, how much Greyhawk-specific setting content do we think will actually make it into the DMG and its rules specifically? I'm betting little, and that most of it will be performative or revisions. Partly because I had heard the new version was scrapping alignment among other things.
Quote from: Omega on May 22, 2024, 03:13:03 PMQuote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 06:28:42 AMYes, I suspect that this is the approach that WOTC is likely to take.
5-10 years ago I'd think so. But wotc has become increasingly insane and if even a tenth of the things they have talked about for fake 5e see print. Greyhawk will be the absolute least of our worries.
Greetings!
Yeah, Omega. My hopes are not high for Greyhawk concerning WOTC. WOTC will corrupt it entirely if they put any real effort into including the setting. Furthermore, I don't like the whole Woke Seattle ideology in games, because they actually destroy the game environment. Every town, every city, becomes this terrible copy of modern, Woke Seattle. The NPC's all remind me of the zombie-like Pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. (With Donald Sutherland).
Plus, there are other, non-WOTC resources that present Greyhawk stuff that doesn't try to insult all the Greyhawk fans, and while periodically developing something new, seeks to always remain solidly faithful to the traditional Greyhawk world.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 22, 2024, 07:00:28 PMNot really sure how things in this thread came to an off-topic rejoicing in the alleged hellfire soon to be experienced by other congregations and Christian sects. What I will say about that from my own personal perspective, is that if one accepts Christ as their savior and sincerely tries to follow His way and example, minor doctrinal errors seem unlikely to be as important as what is sacrificed in an attempt to aid others and affirm fellowship and obeisance to the Trinity.
Thanks, KindaMeh. I appreciate the sentiment here, and agree. I hope there's at least some fellowship for Unitarians who don't believe in the Trinity, but still try to follow in Christ's way. I'd go so far as to feel fellowship with Jewish people, atheists, and others who still believe in good works and loving thy neighbor as thyself.
---
Quote from: Jaeger on May 22, 2024, 04:19:00 PMQuote from: jhkim on May 21, 2024, 09:44:12 PMI consider myself a Christian, but I'll go on record that I had sex with my wife long before we were married. That is clearly described as sin, but I don't lose any sleep over it.
You show that you already get it.
Because as much as you may try to equivocate, you know the truth in your heart; and you are not presenting your past sins as a something that should be seen as a universal good and normalized.
Sorry if this wasn't clear. It's not that I consider my premarital sex to be a past sin that has been forgiven. It's that I don't regret it and would do it again. As a fifty-something divorcee, I felt no guilt whatsoever in having sex with my girlfriend, even before we were engaged.
I believe many of the specific statements in the Bible - including the New Testament - are for people in that society, not a universal commandment. In 1st Century, society was very different than today. There was no reliable contraception, marriages were arranged early in life, and childbearing was often lethal.
In terms of stance - I am not opposed to premarital sex, or women pastors, or IVF (among other issues). And yes, I'm also not opposed to homosexual behavior and have no problem with homosexual characters appearing in RPG modules. A gay friend of my wife's sang the processional at my wedding last month, and attended with his partner.
I'm fine to discuss religious reasons behind these individually, but obviously each of them could be a whole topic.
Quote from: jhkim on May 22, 2024, 09:32:03 PMThanks, KindaMeh. I appreciate the sentiment here
What part of 'take that shit somewhere else' did you not grasp? Some of us would like to discuss Greyhawk without you fucking the convo up for the rest of us.
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 09:08:36 PMYeah, Omega. My hopes are not high for Greyhawk concerning WOTC. WOTC will corrupt it entirely if they put any real effort into including the setting.
They already started fucking it up in 3E. What's sort of ironic is they didn't EXACTLY do that when they started with the last 2E Greyhawk products back in the late 90s (
The Adventure Begins, Return of the 8, Slavers, etc). The setting was always supposed to be post-apocalyptic, where humanity in the Flanaess is holding on by its fingertips, to just another garbage High Fantasy setting that morons think is indistinguishable from Faerun.
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 22, 2024, 07:00:28 PMNot really sure how things in this thread came to an off-topic rejoicing in the alleged hellfire soon to be experienced by other congregations and Christian sects.
Its usually the same 3 or 4 detailing about any anti-woke thread any way any how. And about any other thread if they can hallucinate hard enough.
Back on topic.
If wotc does anything bigger with Greyhawk I suspect they will try to move it away from its mostly humanocentric mid to low fantasy theme and try to turn it into Forgotten Realms 2.0.
Quote from: Omega on May 23, 2024, 01:55:16 AMIf wotc does anything bigger with Greyhawk I suspect they will try to move it away from its mostly humanocentric mid to low fantasy theme and try to turn it into Forgotten Realms 2.0.
Which version of Greyhawk was "mid to low fantasy" in your eyes? Because I remember a big ass demon invasion, a demonic demigod ruling a (shithole) nation, the Great Kingdom having all sorts of undead 'animus' nobles, a gunslinger quasi-diety, Castle Greyhawk (totally nuts!), a huge hidden cult of xenophobic racists that like the color red and plot to take over everything, a massive giant problem in the west, and lost more high fantasy stuff.
Sure, it has been humanocentric, but a new version doesn't necessarily need to be beholden to that. If they move the timeline forward, a lot can change. It's even possible that humans are no longer the majority race.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 02:19:26 AMSure, it has been humanocentric, but a new version doesn't necessarily need to be beholden to that. If they move the timeline forward, a lot can change. It's even possible that humans are no longer the majority race.
Well then it's not Greyhawk, numbnuts.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 01:23:39 AMQuote from: jhkim on May 22, 2024, 09:32:03 PMThanks, KindaMeh. I appreciate the sentiment here
What part of 'take that shit somewhere else' did you not grasp? Some of us would like to discuss Greyhawk without you fucking the convo up for the rest of us.
Quote from: SHARK on May 22, 2024, 09:08:36 PMYeah, Omega. My hopes are not high for Greyhawk concerning WOTC. WOTC will corrupt it entirely if they put any real effort into including the setting.
They already started fucking it up in 3E. What's sort of ironic is they didn't EXACTLY do that when they started with the last 2E Greyhawk products back in the late 90s (The Adventure Begins, Return of the 8, Slavers, etc). The setting was always supposed to be post-apocalyptic, where humanity in the Flanaess is holding on by its fingertips, to just another garbage High Fantasy setting that morons think is indistinguishable from Faerun.
Greetings!
Yes, Insane Nerd Ramblings, I agree. I enjoyed 3E, though even then, WOTC had no real love for Greyhawk. I can imagine creating a supplement that translates old mechanics to using 3E for Greyhawk is fine though. After all, even 5E D&D can be run in Greyhawk. I don't believe that it is precisely the *Mechanics* per se within Greyhawk that make Greyhawk, Greyhawk. It is much more so the tone, and the foundational ideas determined by the miliue itself. The Campaign Milieu. Before a single dice is rolled to create a Character, there are identifiable and noteworthy attributes that shape the tone of a Greyhawk Campaign.
I think that people especially that do not like such a tone in Greyhawk, definitely should not be ever involved in working on anything to do with Greyhawk. But, I also think having to even say that concerning WOTC is in many ways entirely premature, and misplaced.
There is no one at WOTC that loves and respects Greyhawk.
Honestly, the people that truly love and respect Greyhawk, well, are all long gone from anywhere near WOTC. Rob Kuntz, Jim Ward, Tim Kask, and more. As far as new material, or inspiration for playing in Greyhawk, I think that Joseph Bloch, The Greyhawk Grognard, is probably the best resource from a current standpoint. Alan Groh no doubt has genuine love for Greyhawk as well.
New material for Greyhawk could be created and produced. There is always room for that. Some people give the impression that there isn't. I think that there certainly is scope for new material, but it must be done with the proper regard for the foundations of Greyhawk and the Greyhawk Tone.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Even just taking it from a purely commercial point of view, It'd be in WOTC's best interest to differentiate Greyhawk from Forgotten Realms, because unless you're pretty intimate with both settings, they don't look all that different. I mean, this may be hearsay, but didn't TSR seek out Ed Greenwood to make FR an official setting precisely because they were on the outs with Gygax and wanted to replace Greyhawk? You can't really blame a newer player for looking at Greyhawk and just seeing a less famous Forgotten Realms with less material published for it.
If you're a DM who got started with the game any time after about 1995, you're probably a Faerun guy (assuming you're still playing official D&D at all). That guy's going to look at Greyhawk and ask "what can I do with this, that I couldn't just do with the setting I already know?". Selling it as a grittier, lower-fantasy, more political setting, whether or not that's what it originally was, would give Greyhawk that all-important "unique selling point". Without something like that, Greyhawk doesn't really serve a purpose for WOTC other than nostalgia-bait, which is probably why they never pay it more than lip-service in their books.
EDIT: All of that is of course assuming that WOTC actually has any interest in publishing settings anymore, which is not certain. For all their pushing of Forgotten Realms in 5e, they never published an actual Faerun worldbook. If memory serves, the Ravenloft book sort of was an actual campaign book, but not really. The way they did Spelljammer kind of hearkened back to the old TSR boxed sets, but that was also a disaster for them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they never do it again. It's probably safe to say we're never getting anything like the multiple Faerun sourcebooks we got in 3rd edition or the BECMI Gaz line from official D&D ever again.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 23, 2024, 06:34:39 AMSelling it as a grittier, lower-fantasy, more political setting, whether or not that's what it originally was, would give Greyhawk that all-important "unique selling point". Without something like that, Greyhawk doesn't really serve a purpose for WOTC other than nostalgia-bait, which is probably why they never pay it more than lip-service in their books.
I mean, WotC's 4E 'Points of Light' setting was Greyhawk with the serial numbers filed off. It's why I get irked when people say Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are basically the same setting. They're as different as night and day in many regards.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 06:47:04 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 23, 2024, 06:34:39 AMSelling it as a grittier, lower-fantasy, more political setting, whether or not that's what it originally was, would give Greyhawk that all-important "unique selling point". Without something like that, Greyhawk doesn't really serve a purpose for WOTC other than nostalgia-bait, which is probably why they never pay it more than lip-service in their books.
I mean, WotC's 4E 'Points of Light' setting was Greyhawk with the serial numbers filed off. It's why I get irked when people say Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are basically the same setting. They're as different as night and day in many regards.
Huh. I completely missed 4th edition, but I'd always heard that points of light was based on Mystara.
Quote from: RNGm on May 15, 2024, 08:25:03 PMThe important thing is that Mordekainen can finally be zim/zir true authentic self as a disabled rainbow birthing elf of color and there is nothing you bigots can do about it!
Is this sarcasm? Please tell me this is sarcasm...
TO paraphrase that sage of knowledge and wit Borat:
"Giving Greyhawk campaign material to Wizards to rework is like giving a gun to a monkey...and we stopped doing that since the Great Zoo Massacre of '91."
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 23, 2024, 06:34:39 AMEDIT: All of that is of course assuming that WOTC actually has any interest in publishing settings anymore, which is not certain. For all their pushing of Forgotten Realms in 5e, they never published an actual Faerun worldbook. If memory serves, the Ravenloft book sort of was an actual campaign book, but not really. The way they did Spelljammer kind of hearkened back to the old TSR boxed sets, but that was also a disaster for them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they never do it again. It's probably safe to say we're never getting anything like the multiple Faerun sourcebooks we got in 3rd edition or the BECMI Gaz line from official D&D ever again.
They published Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide fairly early on. As setting books go, Tal'Dorei was better. To clarify, I had not yet heard of Critical Role when I bought the Tal'Dorei book as an impulse buy, so I'm not a fan.
They published Ravnica, Eberron, Theros, and Wildemount. They also had mini pdf setting books for several of their Magic: the Gathering worlds. I always thought they should have given Dominaria the full setting treatment. It was already fully fleshed out twenty years ago, and is perfectly functional the way original Greyhawk was as a place to stick adventure modules.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 03:10:44 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 02:19:26 AMSure, it has been humanocentric, but a new version doesn't necessarily need to be beholden to that. If they move the timeline forward, a lot can change. It's even possible that humans are no longer the majority race.
Well then it's not Greyhawk, numbnuts.
It's not what Greyhawk
was, but it can still be Greyhawk. Stagnation and regurgitation of what was without adding/changing anything is pointless.
RIP Greyhawk
I feel like mechanically a lack of alignment would make being a cleric of good a no-go. Maybe they'll make clerics able to have no deity and operate off of ideals or something like Paladins, but with less mechanical restrictions or interfacing? Likewise, if they bring in iconic characters of Greyhawk I can't see them not revising large sections of their lore to fit with modern woke ideology. Even the setting's focus on greed and adventure as the primary PC and NPC motivations seems unlikely to be left untouched. I can't see the churches of good folks not like Iuz and the like being set up as still a primary positive influence on the setting, likewise. Wherefore then is the setting still demonstrably Greyhawk, apart from a map and some names?
Also, I'm calling it now, Wastri will be the setting's big bad or something, and responsible for humanocentric oppression either now or in the past. My tinfoil hat is on, but perhaps not undeservedly.
Mystara is fantasy Cold War, with powerful empires in an uneasy cease-fire. There are a variety of nations, each with a theme, more or less. Adventure is found on the frontiers, to begin with.
In the Nentir Vale, there is no empire. There used to be an empire, and life was pretty good while it existed, but the Ruler of Ruin and his gnoll hordes destroyed it. Around a century ago, the vale, itself, was overrun by rampaging orcs.
Now, life is hard. Civilization barely survives in a few small towns and villages. The landscape is littered with abandoned manor houses, potentially filled with treasure, and certainly infested with monsters. Opportunities for adventure abound.
I don't know much about Greyhawk, but I get the impression it is similar to the Nentir Vale.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 10:49:03 AMIt's not what Greyhawk was, but it can still be Greyhawk. Stagnation and regurgitation of what was without adding/changing anything is pointless.
God willing, they'll never let a fucking dumbass like you near it.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 12:29:32 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 10:49:03 AMIt's not what Greyhawk was, but it can still be Greyhawk. Stagnation and regurgitation of what was without adding/changing anything is pointless.
God willing, they'll never let a fucking dumbass like you near it.
Unfortunately, you're praying to an angry and vengeful god that you've clearly offended somehow, because that's exactly who's got their hands on Greyhawk right now.
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 23, 2024, 12:04:03 PMAlso, I'm calling it now, Wastri will be the setting's big bad or something, and responsible for humanocentric oppression either now or in the past. My tinfoil hat is on, but perhaps not undeservedly.
The Scarlet Brotherhood already has that one, and they're not gods. It takes mortal people to really be total shits.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 12:29:32 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 10:49:03 AMIt's not what Greyhawk was, but it can still be Greyhawk. Stagnation and regurgitation of what was without adding/changing anything is pointless.
God willing, they'll never let a fucking dumbass like you near it.
Personal attacks aside, I'll be as near to it as you are, which is to say I may or may not buy it and make personal use of it. Even if I do buy it, I am very likely to make changes that best suit the game I want to run. You have the same options.
Quote from: cavalier973 on May 23, 2024, 12:09:03 PMMystara is fantasy Cold War, with powerful empires in an uneasy cease-fire. There are a variety of nations, each with a theme, more or less. Adventure is found on the frontiers, to begin with.
In the Nentir Vale, there is no empire. There used to be an empire, and life was pretty good while it existed, but the Ruler of Ruin and his gnoll hordes destroyed it. Around a century ago, the vale, itself, was overrun by rampaging orcs.
Now, life is hard. Civilization barely survives in a few small towns and villages. The landscape is littered with abandoned manor houses, potentially filled with treasure, and certainly infested with monsters. Opportunities for adventure abound.
I don't know much about Greyhawk, but I get the impression it is similar to the Nentir Vale.
Using your own terms, Greyhawk is much more like fantasy Cold War (and eventually, fantasy World War). There are powerful nations with themes and alliances, before during, and after the wars. It never gets to the total breakdown of nations that Nentir Vale had, except in some isolated areas. Adventurers can fit in almost anywhere.
This of course refers to Greyhawk of 25+ years ago. If they choose to advance the timeline, perhaps it does become more like Nentir Vale.
In general, it sounds like they won't be doing much of anything to Greyhawk, because it will just be an example of worldbuilding in the DMG. So they'll use the map and have a few scattered details about different countries and points of interest. None of that is particularly political.
I think they'll keep on having side settings like Ravenloft, but keep the core as Faerun but not detailing it much, leaving it open as a place to stick adventures.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 10:49:03 AMQuote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 03:10:44 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 02:19:26 AMSure, it has been humanocentric, but a new version doesn't necessarily need to be beholden to that. If they move the timeline forward, a lot can change. It's even possible that humans are no longer the majority race.
Well then it's not Greyhawk, numbnuts.
It's not what Greyhawk was, but it can still be Greyhawk. Stagnation and regurgitation of what was without adding/changing anything is pointless.
I personally like reprints of old games and settings - and would be fine to have a version of original Greyhawk as a setting with current edition rules. Neither settings, nor rules, go bad per se. I've enjoyed playing the Royal Game of Ur - a board game that is 5000 years old.
That said, I also love lots of newer games - and the market is changing, so to be commercially relevant, some sort of update is generally required. Even the OSR tends to have a lot of updates, and often streamlining of rules, rather than just being reprints of old games.
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 23, 2024, 12:04:03 PMI feel like mechanically a lack of alignment would make being a cleric of good a no-go. Maybe they'll make clerics able to have no deity and operate off of ideals or something like Paladins, but with less mechanical restrictions or interfacing?
I don't see why ideals like Paladins means no deity. The ideals could represent the specific doctrines of a specific deity. That said, D&D has never had deity-specific cleric rules, and I doubt that WotC would want to change that. They prefer the rules to be generic across settings, just like TSR did.
Quote from: KindaMeh on May 23, 2024, 12:04:03 PMLikewise, if they bring in iconic characters of Greyhawk I can't see them not revising large sections of their lore to fit with modern woke ideology. Even the setting's focus on greed and adventure as the primary PC and NPC motivations seems unlikely to be left untouched. I can't see the churches of good folks not like Iuz and the like being set up as still a primary positive influence on the setting, likewise. Wherefore then is the setting still demonstrably Greyhawk, apart from a map and some names?
My copy of original World of Greyhawk (1980) has very little on churches or religion. It mentions three theocracies - the Archclericy of Veluna, the See of Medegia and the Theocracy of the Pale (which is noted as religiously intolerant). Secular states have virtually no mention of religion, though.
Gygax was a Christian and sometimes had pseudo-Christian elements in D&D, but he avoided putting Christianity per se into it. D&D and Greyhawk have thus always been officially pagan.
WotC has kept clerics as a core class, and had lots of good clerics, gods, and temples. I don't see that changing. I don't think pagan gods and clerics are controversial to the current D&D base.
Came across this piece of art that Wotc has previewed for one of their upcoming 50th anniversary products.
I just started laughing...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNL_FUZWAAAbRZ-?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: Jaeger on May 23, 2024, 04:24:13 PMCame across this piece of art that Wotc has previewed for one of their upcoming 50th anniversary products.
I just started laughing...
Yeah not happy with that one. I have no issues with people being gay like you do, but I don't think that's a wise direction to take these two infamous NPCs.
Quote from: Mistwell on May 23, 2024, 04:30:14 PMRemains unclear if that was an official WOTC thing. Showed up on ENWorld, spread to Twitter. Could be real.
You just can't help yourself, ROTFL!!!
16:43 in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv2Rfvmvpkg
Literally pulled from the adventure. (And they are already retconning lore...)
The laughter continues...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNL_FUZWAAAbRZ-?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: Jaeger on May 23, 2024, 04:49:31 PMQuote from: Mistwell on May 23, 2024, 04:30:14 PMRemains unclear if that was an official WOTC thing. Showed up on ENWorld, spread to Twitter. Could be real.
You just can't help yourself, ROTFL!!!
16:43 in:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/vecna-eve-of-ruin-everything-you-need-to-know.702870/page-38
Literally pulled from the adventure.
The laughter continues...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNL_FUZWAAAbRZ-?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. Kas and Vecna, the infamous and powerful arch-villains, are now gay. The Woke Stupid Train just keeps rolling on!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 23, 2024, 05:11:04 PMQuote from: Jaeger on May 23, 2024, 04:49:31 PMQuote from: Mistwell on May 23, 2024, 04:30:14 PMRemains unclear if that was an official WOTC thing. Showed up on ENWorld, spread to Twitter. Could be real.
You just can't help yourself, ROTFL!!!
16:43 in:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/vecna-eve-of-ruin-everything-you-need-to-know.702870/page-38
Literally pulled from the adventure.
The laughter continues...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNL_FUZWAAAbRZ-?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Greetings!
Ahh, yes. Kas and Vecna, the infamous and powerful arch-villains, are now gay. The Woke Stupid Train just keeps rolling on!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Needs a chick in it. It's already lame and gay.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 10:49:03 AMQuote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 03:10:44 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 23, 2024, 02:19:26 AMSure, it has been humanocentric, but a new version doesn't necessarily need to be beholden to that. If they move the timeline forward, a lot can change. It's even possible that humans are no longer the majority race.
Well then it's not Greyhawk, numbnuts.
It's not what Greyhawk was, but it can still be Greyhawk. Stagnation and regurgitation of what was without adding/changing anything is pointless.
By any other name would something beloved shat upon not smell as bad?
(Apologies to Shakespeare)
Quote from: Jaeger on May 23, 2024, 04:49:31 PMQuote from: Mistwell on May 23, 2024, 04:30:14 PMRemains unclear if that was an official WOTC thing. Showed up on ENWorld, spread to Twitter. Could be real.
You just can't help yourself, ROTFL!!!
16:43 in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv2Rfvmvpkg
Literally pulled from the adventure. (And they are already retconning lore...)
The laughter continues...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNL_FUZWAAAbRZ-?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Sooooo.....
Only gay white males can become infamous undead villain gods.....
And they dare to call US homophobic....
Quote from: Jaeger on May 23, 2024, 04:49:31 PMQuote from: Mistwell on May 23, 2024, 04:30:14 PMRemains unclear if that was an official WOTC thing. Showed up on ENWorld, spread to Twitter. Could be real.
You just can't help yourself, ROTFL!!!
What, did you hit quote and leave your screen open for a half hour or something? I changed what I wrote almost immediately - well before your time stamp.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Forgotten_Realms/comments/1cz5zc3/hasbro_ceo_meeting_follow_up/?utm_source=embedv2&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_content=whitespace
Hasbro CEO Meeting - Follow Up
Last week I asked the FR community what I should ask Chris Cox, CEO of Hasbro, in a small group meeting I had with him this week, and received many thoughtful suggestions. As promised, following up with how it went.
Knowing nothing about him before this meeting, I'd say he completely won me over. While most of the meeting focused on many of Hasbro's other properties, during which time he admitted to being a huge nerd and loving the X-Men '97 series, there was a brief moment where everyone's questions had been answered and I jumped in asking if he knew of the Forgotten Realms, explaining i was a super-fan. He said of course, loves the setting and will be playing that night with friends in a campaign set in Kara-Tur. Was very interested to hear the feedback from this community, and I basically said we want more. Specifically I raised the concerns of those in LatAm who had trouble getting their hands on Spanish-language printed books, to which he acknowledged and said it had to do with some distribution issues with former licensing agreements in that region (though didn't commit to fixing it), and I also suggested he make the out-of-print novels available for download (he asked, Drizzt? and i said no, like all of them, Harpers, etc.), to which he said that's worth thinking about. He said expect more video games to be coming that are set in FR (said they won't make mobile games themselves but could partner with someone to do it), and that he personally would like to see Kara-Tur explored further. That's great I said, but we also want more of the Western realms, and he said they just released a Vecna adventure, i quickly cut him off saying Vecna is not part of the realms, and he said yes well the adventure begins in the realms and is more a nod to the multi-verse.
At this point the CFO jumped in to point out that literally nobody else in the meeting understood a word of what we were talking about (6 or 7 people in total i think) and there was a good laugh. The meeting ended there and on the way out both execs said they were very happy to meet a super fan in one of these investor meetings, apparently it had never happened before. Not sure if any of this will make a difference but it certainly did no harm, and i think it's likely i'll be able to do this meeting again next year.
Thanks again to everyone who provided thoughts and suggestions, fwiw I think the brand could be in a lot worse hands than Chris Cox, who seems to genuinely love FR.
Quote from: Corolinth on May 23, 2024, 12:52:17 PMUnfortunately, you're praying to an angry and vengeful god that you've clearly offended somehow, because that's exactly who's got their hands on Greyhawk right now.
Well those were certainly all words.....
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 23, 2024, 06:34:39 AMEven just taking it from a purely commercial point of view, It'd be in WOTC's best interest to differentiate Greyhawk from Forgotten Realms, because unless you're pretty intimate with both settings, they don't look all that different. I mean, this may be hearsay, but didn't TSR seek out Ed Greenwood to make FR an official setting precisely because they were on the outs with Gygax and wanted to replace Greyhawk? You can't really blame a newer player for looking at Greyhawk and just seeing a less famous Forgotten Realms with less material published for it.
They are totally different. FR is high fantasy throw in everything and then throw in some more. Greyhawk is more mid to low fantasy. Set after a magical nuclear war. Theres alot more wilderness and alot less civilization.
According to notes TSR kept the rights to Greyhawk and put out a Greyhawk book for 2e. There were also a few more novels set there. Gygax retained the rights to very little of the setting, just some characters if recall right.
Quote from: Omega on May 24, 2024, 03:45:02 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on May 23, 2024, 06:34:39 AMEven just taking it from a purely commercial point of view, It'd be in WOTC's best interest to differentiate Greyhawk from Forgotten Realms, because unless you're pretty intimate with both settings, they don't look all that different. I mean, this may be hearsay, but didn't TSR seek out Ed Greenwood to make FR an official setting precisely because they were on the outs with Gygax and wanted to replace Greyhawk? You can't really blame a newer player for looking at Greyhawk and just seeing a less famous Forgotten Realms with less material published for it.
They are totally different. FR is high fantasy throw in everything and then throw in some more. Greyhawk is more mid to low fantasy. Set after a magical nuclear war. Theres alot more wilderness and alot less civilization.
According to notes TSR kept the rights to Greyhawk and put out a Greyhawk book for 2e. There were also a few more novels set there. Gygax retained the rights to very little of the setting, just some characters if recall right.
They're both medieval-ish fantasy settings with elves, dwarfs, halflings, gnomes, knights, wizards, the same magic system, many of the same monsters, and close enough to the same cosmology. Reductive maybe, but that's how a large percentage (possibly the majority) of the D&D audience looks at it. Players just want to know what kind of character they can play, and DMs are either going to buy modules or insert their own scenarios. In actual play, a lot of the lore and nuance gets lost. The level of fantasy from low to high is always going to be determined more by the rules than anything else. If you run Greyhawk with as-written 5e, it'll be just as high fantasy as Forgotten Realms currently is.
As far as TSR vs. Gygax, I didn't mean they didn't have the rights to Greyhawk, so much as they made an active choice to sideline it in favor of Forgotten Realms being the flagship setting for 2nd edition.
Also, lots of people are citing Greyhawk as a post-apocalyptic setting. Is that original to it, or is it just after the Greyhawk Wars and the Rising From the Ashes set?
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 25, 2024, 01:38:31 PMIn actual play, a lot of the lore and nuance gets lost. The level of fantasy from low to high is always going to be determined more by the rules than anything else. If you run Greyhawk with as-written 5e, it'll be just as high fantasy as Forgotten Realms currently is.
^This^
5e neu-greyhawk will have to accomodate all the D&Disms in the three core books. Especially all the available PC races.
There will be little to no curation for the setting, with other small retcons and "throwaway" inclusiveness added as Wotc sees fit.
In actual play any remaining differences in tone and lore will just be a distinction without a difference.
The notion that Wotc is just going to use Greyhawk as a bare bones example setting in the DMG is literally the best case scenario that fans of OG Greyhawk can hope for.
Gygax's Greyhawk was a post-apocalyptic setting because it is set after the Suel-Banklunish war that led to the Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colorless Fire that eradicated the Suel Imperium. This devastation created the vast Sea of Dust to the west of the Flanaess. In addition, artifacts like Heward's Mystical Organ hint that the former age was a period of higher magic and mystical technology.
The Greyhawk Wars were not an apocalypse as such, although I think Carl Sargent made major mistakes in making Iuz's victory too complete. From the Ashes was, at least, in line with what Gygax was hinting at in Dragon magazine.
In my view early WOTC under Sean Reynolds ruined much of the feel of Greyhawk by making it too much like the FR - for example, every village seemed to be fully lit by continual light spells due to the presence of a retired 12th level wizard. Some of Reynold's stuff was good, but most of it felt too FR and wrong for Greyhawk.
Clearly WOTC have no inclination to do Greyhawk in the Gygaxian style.
Quote from: El-V on May 25, 2024, 05:50:37 PMIn my view early WOTC under Sean Reynolds ruined much of the feel of Greyhawk by making it too much like the FR - for example, every village seemed to be fully lit by continual light spells due to the presence of a retired 12th level wizard. Some of Reynold's stuff was good, but most of it felt too FR and wrong for Greyhawk.
Clearly WOTC have no inclination to do Greyhawk in the Gygaxian style.
Post-Gygax TSR did that to about every setting eventually. BX's Known World exploded into Mystara where every hex was filled in and the magic gradually escalated. Forgotten Realms became increasingly higher fantasy and more and more of the map filled in. Greyhawk, even Gamma World and Zebulonns Guide.
DMG cover
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/staying-in/article32900110.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/1_R5E_DMG_CvrTrad_FullCvr_052124.jpg)
From the interview with the art director:
"Going with that theme we have multiple layers of villains and monsters on this cover, from the lowly skeletons or "grunts" that you may face often- emerging from the water after a necromantic spell was cast, to the mid-level mini-bosses in classic characters like Skylla and Warduke (who have been featured in past editions, toys, and most recently in Wild Beyond the Witchlight), up to an iconic campaign level villain in Venger (from the cartoon series) who is very capable of taking the spotlight for himself."
"But of course, behind all of that (in classic D&D style) we have a lurking Dracolich who may have actually been the mastermind working from behind the scenes all along, and is just beyond view."
"We wanted this to be something that would let players SEE the options that this book presents them. Yes, DM'ing is more than just monsters and combat, but it's a really fun part of being a DM"
"The back cover has an ancient Mind Flayer temple, with an adventuring party in the distance exploring this huge dungeon. We wanted a scene that would show that sometimes D&D is about exploration, but also wanted to add a bit of mystery and storytelling with some of the things in the foreground and background.!"
Quote from: Omega on May 26, 2024, 11:17:48 PMPost-Gygax TSR did that to about every setting eventually. BX's Known World exploded into Mystara where every hex was filled in and the magic gradually escalated.
And it sucks, honestly. While I LIKE Mystara, the world implied in BX, B1, and B2 is definitely a "points of light" setting for sure. I had all sorts of weird thoughts about Wereskalot when it turns out it's just a lame halfling village. They kinda fucked up the frontier setting and turned it into a veritable metropolis with an actual magocracy.
Oh well...
Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 06:41:02 PMQuote from: Omega on May 26, 2024, 11:17:48 PMPost-Gygax TSR did that to about every setting eventually. BX's Known World exploded into Mystara where every hex was filled in and the magic gradually escalated.
And it sucks, honestly. While I LIKE Mystara, the world implied in BX, B1, and B2 is definitely a "points of light" setting for sure. I had all sorts of weird thoughts about Wereskalot when it turns out it's just a lame halfling village. They kinda fucked up the frontier setting and turned it into a veritable metropolis with an actual magocracy.
Oh well...
Part of why I skipped BECMI till years later. It would have been better as a new world. Not to mention its a MAMMOTH hollow world. Its what? The size of Jupiter?
Alt DMG cover is Lloth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GO2MIKwXcAA0EwD?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: Mistwell on May 30, 2024, 04:25:16 PMAlt DMG cover is Lloth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GO2MIKwXcAA0EwD?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I thought the purpose of the alternate cover was to make you want to buy it, too?
That cover is trash.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 30, 2024, 04:58:12 PMI thought the purpose of the alternate cover was to make you want to buy it, too?
That cover is trash.
Grognads bitched about Elmore replacing Easely and Otus. Now we get this.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 30, 2024, 04:58:12 PMQuote from: Mistwell on May 30, 2024, 04:25:16 PMAlt DMG cover is Lloth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GO2MIKwXcAA0EwD?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I thought the purpose of the alternate cover was to make you want to buy it, too?
That cover is trash.
I prefer the primary cover but a bunch of people seem over the moon about this cover so I shrug. Different people, different tastes. To me this is boring.
Quote from: Brad on May 30, 2024, 05:17:07 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on May 30, 2024, 04:58:12 PMI thought the purpose of the alternate cover was to make you want to buy it, too?
That cover is trash.
Grognads bitched about Elmore replacing Easely and Otus. Now we get this.
You are comparing Elmore and Easely to
that cover? You need an optometrist...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 30, 2024, 05:23:11 PMYou are comparing Elmore and Easely to that cover? You need an optometrist...
Haha, no way man. I was making a joke about how people complained about Elmore when you get THIS. It's like saying you can't believe someone got vanilla over chocolate ice cream then a dude shows up with dog shit flavor.
Quote from: Brad on May 30, 2024, 05:28:42 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on May 30, 2024, 05:23:11 PMYou are comparing Elmore and Easely to that cover? You need an optometrist...
Haha, no way man. I was making a joke about how people complained about Elmore when you get THIS. It's like saying you can't believe someone got vanilla over chocolate ice cream then a dude shows up with dog shit flavor.
My bad! I couldn't fathom that you were serious... and you weren't. So that's me too quick on the trigger.
Quote from: Mistwell on May 30, 2024, 04:25:16 PMAlt DMG cover is Lloth
Llolth has now anime elf ears?! Maybe I am wrong and there's prior western art showing elves with such ears, but my brain associates with anime. It could be something out of Sword World.
Quote from: zer0th on June 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMQuote from: Mistwell on May 30, 2024, 04:25:16 PMAlt DMG cover is Lloth
Llolth has now anime elf ears?! Maybe I am wrong and there's prior western art showing elves with such ears, but my brain associates with anime. It could be something out of Sword World.
I'm more concerned with the bones of her forearms showing through. She needs to eat more (and keep it down).
Quote from: zer0th on June 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMLlolth has now anime elf ears?! Maybe I am wrong and there's prior western art showing elves with such ears, but my brain associates with anime. It could be something out of Sword World.
Well, Sword World (Forcelia) was always technically manga/anime-style.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 09:54:05 PMQuote from: Jaeger on May 20, 2024, 08:00:44 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMDo you feel this way about representation of other peoples, or just of gay people?
DEI, ESG, and any other type of woke "representation", inclusion and diversity is also fake and gay.
But if you like all your RPG settings to look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade; You do you.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMAnd you saying that they hate you doesn't make it so, they more likely just find your homophobia abhorrent.
(https://media.tenor.com/9TAVUk27odIAAAAM/jeremy-clarkson-laughing.gif)
Disgust is not fear.
Calling someone a "homophobe" is just an attempt at rhetorically framing normal people that still have a disgust reflex into "bad guys".
And yes, they hate me.
The pro-sodomy groomer brigade is very open about their feelings towards those that don't agree with them.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 20, 2024, 07:34:02 PMAs for not giving them your money, that's your choice. Ultimately, they probably are not worried about losing you as a customer.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/7k2LoEykY5i1hfeWQB/200w.gif?cidu003d6c09b952vr5mika7v2nqlkzx942j7x567etbpyuioneoirmou0026epu003dv1_gifs_searchu0026ridu003d200w.gifu0026ctu003dg)
Having a married gay couple does not make a setting "look like a combination of Downtown L.A., and an SF pride parade" unless you already have a very warped view of reality.
Disgust is not fear, but there are close associations in how the brain processes the two. However, that's a moot point because the common use of the term homophobia is not specifically tied to fear, but to a range of prejudicial behaviors against homosexuals. And yes, by your own words, you appear quite homophobic to me. Beyond that, you seem to be the one with a fixation on beig hateful.
Isn't that cute. You think you're a psychologist. How quaint.
Now to the point: why is it so fucking important to make them gay? To what end does it play into the overall campaign?
Answer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
Virtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT's like they're putting big neon red arrow over them saying "LOOK! THE CHARACTERS ARE GAY! WOW! HOW PROGRESSIVE WE ARE! WE'RE AN ALLY! SEE! SEE!"
IT's pathetic and meaningless.
Quote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMIsn't that cute. You think you're a psychologist. How quaint.
Now to the point: why is it so fucking important to make them gay? To what end does it play into the overall campaign?
Answer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
Virtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT's like they're putting big neon red arrow over them saying "LOOK! THE CHARACTERS ARE GAY! WOW! HOW PROGRESSIVE WE ARE! WE'RE AN ALLY! SEE! SEE!"
IT's pathetic and meaningless.
Greetings!
Well, yes, my friend. That is all very true--to an extent.
However, the "Elephant In The Room" so to speak is the
deeper purpose and motive for them doing so, which is what primarily motivates them to begin with. It is not meaningless, or frivolous.
It is designed with three primary goals in mind;
(1) Encourage all of the groomer rainbow degenerates in their degeneracy and perversion.
(2) Demoralize and purposely offend all of the normal majority, by constantly assaulting them with such degeneracy, and to inspire them with despair and hopelessness.
(3) The third main goal is to promote the degeneracy, and to make rainbow perversion normalized, within society. This constant propaganda proceeds to worm its way into the consciousness of the audience, and inspiring new converts to embrace the degeneracy, and to further corrupt normal people's moral revulsion, disgust, and disapproval of the degenerate rainbow lifestyle.
Thus, constantly including rainbow degeneracy in every book and module does indeed very much have a purpose. It does not matter how "minor" or "insignificant" that some people may choose to interpret these additions. They are all part of the ants biting the elephant, one bite at a time--with the goal of devouring the elephant, and achieving victory.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2024, 03:53:07 PMQuote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMIsn't that cute. You think you're a psychologist. How quaint.
Now to the point: why is it so fucking important to make them gay? To what end does it play into the overall campaign?
Answer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
Virtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT's like they're putting big neon red arrow over them saying "LOOK! THE CHARACTERS ARE GAY! WOW! HOW PROGRESSIVE WE ARE! WE'RE AN ALLY! SEE! SEE!"
IT's pathetic and meaningless.
Greetings!
Well, yes, my friend. That is all very true--to an extent.
However, the "Elephant In The Room" so to speak is the deeper purpose and motive for them doing so, which is what primarily motivates them to begin with. It is not meaningless, or frivolous.
It is designed with three primary goals in mind;
(1) Encourage all of the groomer rainbow degenerates in their degeneracy and perversion.
(2) Demoralize and purposely offend all of the normal majority, by constantly assaulting them with such degeneracy, and to inspire them with despair and hopelessness.
(3) The third main goal is to promote the degeneracy, and to make rainbow perversion normalized, within society. This constant propaganda proceeds to worm its way into the consciousness of the audience, and inspiring new converts to embrace the degeneracy, and to further corrupt normal people's moral revulsion, disgust, and disapproval of the degenerate rainbow lifestyle.
Thus, constantly including rainbow degeneracy in every book and module does indeed very much have a purpose. It does not matter how "minor" or "insignificant" that some people may choose to interpret these additions. They are all part of the ants biting the elephant, one bite at a time--with the goal of devouring the elephant, and achieving victory.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I do agree that there are those within WoTC who are true believers of the woke agenda (D.E.I) and thus their motivation. But, I also think they have their "useful idiots" who are just virtue signaling.
Quote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMAnswer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
You seem to care. If it really didn't matter to you, why EXPICITLY SAY IT?
Quote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMVirtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
Vice signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on June 05, 2024, 03:52:17 AMQuote from: zer0th on June 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMLlolth has now anime elf ears?! Maybe I am wrong and there's prior western art showing elves with such ears, but my brain associates with anime. It could be something out of Sword World.
Well, Sword World (Forcelia) was always technically manga/anime-style.
They actually did not start quite that way. But kind of evolved artistically over the course of the original Development. Deed had long ears. But they were up and back-swept initially in the original replay article art.
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 06, 2024, 11:14:03 AMQuote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMAnswer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
You seem to care. If it really didn't matter to you, why EXPICITLY SAY IT?
Quote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMVirtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
Vice signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
When your rebuttal reduces down to childish twisting of words, you have no argument and therefore cannot rebut what I've said. I'm done with you.
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 06, 2024, 11:14:03 AMQuote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMAnswer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
You seem to care. If it really didn't matter to you, why EXPICITLY SAY IT?
Quote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMVirtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
Vice signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I remember supporting the live and let live paradigm before it was cool, back when evangelical christians held a lot more cultural power. I had friends "come out of the closet" back when gay people actually risked losing friends for that. Those days are long gone in the English-speaking world. Our societies haven't been like that for a long time. I'm not going to pretend that they are just so that someone can feel good about themselves for putting a rainbow flag in their Twatterz profile. You're not an "ally". You're some Johnny-come-lately who wants everybody to clap about how accepting you are long after the world changed.
You're too late to be a hero, and too late to be cool. It's the 2020s version of all the white boomer liberals who want everyone to think they're some kind of civil rights legends, when the reality is they were all in high school or younger, and their parents never would have let them out of the house to travel hundreds of miles and march with Martin Luther King Jr.
Quote from: SHARK on June 05, 2024, 03:53:07 PMQuote from: blackstone on June 05, 2024, 03:00:12 PMIsn't that cute. You think you're a psychologist. How quaint.
Now to the point: why is it so fucking important to make them gay? To what end does it play into the overall campaign?
Answer: it's not important because is contributes ZERO to the overall campaign. It's meaningless. Nobody gives a fuck if they are gay or not, so why EXPLICTILY SAY IT?
Virtue signaling, that's why. IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT's like they're putting big neon red arrow over them saying "LOOK! THE CHARACTERS ARE GAY! WOW! HOW PROGRESSIVE WE ARE! WE'RE AN ALLY! SEE! SEE!"
IT's pathetic and meaningless.
Greetings!
Well, yes, my friend. That is all very true--to an extent.
However, the "Elephant In The Room" so to speak is the deeper purpose and motive for them doing so, which is what primarily motivates them to begin with. It is not meaningless, or frivolous.
It is designed with three primary goals in mind;
(1) Encourage all of the groomer rainbow degenerates in their degeneracy and perversion.
(2) Demoralize and purposely offend all of the normal majority, by constantly assaulting them with such degeneracy, and to inspire them with despair and hopelessness.
(3) The third main goal is to promote the degeneracy, and to make rainbow perversion normalized, within society. This constant propaganda proceeds to worm its way into the consciousness of the audience, and inspiring new converts to embrace the degeneracy, and to further corrupt normal people's moral revulsion, disgust, and disapproval of the degenerate rainbow lifestyle.
Thus, constantly including rainbow degeneracy in every book and module does indeed very much have a purpose. It does not matter how "minor" or "insignificant" that some people may choose to interpret these additions. They are all part of the ants biting the elephant, one bite at a time--with the goal of devouring the elephant, and achieving victory.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I can make it even simpler in terms of their purpose; they're no talent hacks incapable of creating anything of worth so, out of envy, they seek to destroy everything good that others have created so that it becomes as awful as their own "creations."
That's why they can't leave the past alone; they must defile the past so general audiences hate it as much as they do. They steal the work of others and warp it into something that makes you see the original as lesser than it was.
They're vandals and should be treated as such.
Since they are pushing the D&D Cartoon characters. Will this mean the kids get translated to Greyhawk now?
That will place them in all the major D&D settings other than Eberron.
Do dildos have weapon speed factors ya reckon?