Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2024, 10:04:01 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 14, 2024, 05:17:12 PMI don't mind if people like it or think the tone is fine (D&D has had all kinds of tones over the years). What bothers me is people get outraged if you think things look a bit out of place. And for me, I think it just comes back to that mall food court look.

Also I don't know why people get so defensive about this stuff. I love the 2E art (especially early 2E), but if someone says the images looking posed for a group photo bothers them, or the aquanet hairdos bother them, I get what they are bothered by and it is just a simple difference of taste.

I agree. It should be fine to differ on taste. There can be some people who like it, some people who don't, and some people who are neutral or undecided - especially because they haven't seen it yet. It isn't even in general release to buy until Sep 17th.

But some people say that you must have an opinion about it as a matter of politics, and if you have the wrong opinion - or if you say that it's just a matter of taste - then you're a fascist or Marxist. cf. https://www.therpgsite.com/index.php?msg=1291346

It may not be out but WOTC has been giving a lot of previews and talking a lot about their design choices, plus they have been releasing a lot of products people have strong opinions about in the last several years, so I think most people have a good sense of whether the next set of books is for them or not. I usually still end up buying things and checking them out. I bought Van Richter's guide to Ravenloft even though I knew the creative choices were not what I was looking for in the setting for example. I still wanted to give it a fair shake

I don't know anything about Shadowdark and I don't really have an interest in getting into the rabbit hole of previous conversations people have been having with one another (that is too much in the realm of 'look at what this person posted!' territory for me). Generally speaking though, I don't assume peoples politics based on their gaming opinions. Even if they are inserting politics, I try not to assume too much else beyond what they specifically include in their posts (and I generally don't keep track of what political positions people have taken when evaluating current posts: just not particularly interested in other gamer's politics anymore)

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2024, 09:40:47 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good, or the old "it's fantasy so it doesn't need to make sense" is left leaning, while everyone saying no it's stupid and even fantasy worlds need to have logical basis to feel "real" is not.

As media has gotten more politicized, I think it is true that peoples politics inform their opinions about these things more, and they also inform design choices more and more. That has always been true to a degree. It isn't like political messages in media are a new thing. But we are at a point now where you can almost predict a person's political positions based on their media criticisms. So I am not naive that this is grounded in a growing reality. That said, it is very frustrating if your opinion isn't based on politics to get labeled as one thing or another because other people are taking the political arena to film or games. Also when everything is political, people lie about their real feelings because they just want to put out the political message they agree with (i.e. "More tacos in D&D please!"). Personally I would rather not read peoples political positions into their views on the aesthetics of a movie or the art for a game. Obviously if they are making directly political statements while doing it, then that is a different story. People should just be honest with themselves about whether they like something, whether they think a choice designers/artists made is really good or really stupid, and we should be able to leave it as a debate about the content of what we are looking at. When I but a game or watch a movie, I don't make sure the director/designer's politics match my own before doing so.

Also it isn't like either side in these debates is going anywhere. This kind of discussion has been happening now for like ten years at least. 

Ehhh, I don't completely disagree with you, but I think the real issue is not in the "labeling" of the media/art, but in what the politicization of media/art is doing to the quality of it.  When you look at the art in the new PHB, it has been chosen to present an idea of what "good" D&D is, gay dwarves in a bakery with female Asian dwarves running the forge.  It's a very modern, cosmopolitan view of the game.  The real problem is that most folks who are trying to "avoid the politics" really aren't.  What they are doing is trying to either assert that their politics aren't politics, while yours are, or they are asserting that both sides are equally responsible for it, and they are somehow better or superior by being above the fray.

Both of theses are objectively wrong.  "Inclusive" art (i.e. art that is chosen for a political purpose such as promoting diversity) is by its very nature political.  I'm tired of the buffoons who chant, "Your politics is politics; mine is human rights."  It's like appealing to the Bible; it's intended to end discussion by rhetorical force, not expand discussion.

On the other hand, the whole "I'm above politics; therefore, both sides are wrong here" is also a dodge.  It is purposely warping what is happening in the industry to try and avoid having to take a stand (or because you actually support the politics and don't want to give your opponents a space to voice their disapproval).  It's what jhkim is doing with his:

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2024, 10:04:01 PMI agree. It should be fine to differ on taste. There can be some people who like it, some people who don't, and some people who are neutral or undecided - especially because they haven't seen it yet. It isn't even in general release to buy until Sep 17th.  (My note - This is false, as anyone who preordered at the right tier had it on DNDBeyond for weeks, and a friend's hardcopy ordered from WotC got here two days ago.)

But some people say that you must have an opinion about it as a matter of politics, and if you have the wrong opinion - or if you say that it's just a matter of taste - then you're a fascist or Marxist. cf. https://www.therpgsite.com/index.php?msg=1291346

(See, jhkim?  That's how you call out so that the person you are criticizing has an opportunity to respond.  Not a cowardly, anonymous link...)

This is false because the disagreement isn't about "taste."  It's not about good art or bad.  It's about one side of the debate thinking that the art in the PHB should be used to reflect their political positions on who and how the game should be played, and trying to dismiss criticisms of that under the guise of "taste."

Oh, and another unrelated thing.  Anyone else notice how Mistwell made all of these accusations against Pundit an others about the art, yet when I and others who have the book went through and detailed the problems with the art, he vanishes?  Do you want to argue the purpose and effect of the art now, or have you shilled enough, Mistwell?

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

So do you not feel that those things should make logical sense for the world to feel alive rather than a hodgepodge of just tropes?  For example, WHY should there be racially diverse vikings when they don't exist in a climate that would give them darker skin tones, because the "traditional" climate of Vikings has less UV radiation (which is why in the real world Africans have darker skin than Europeans)?

Having one or two might be interesting characters if they have a reason (brought there as a slave, got lost on a caravan from the east, etc.) to be there and be different.  But most people seem to just ignore any logic and say "it's fantasy so why not have subsaharan African vikings?"

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 15, 2024, 10:15:49 AMOn the other hand, the whole "I'm above politics; therefore, both sides are wrong here" is also a dodge.  It is purposely warping what is happening in the industry to try and avoid having to take a stand (or because you actually support the politics and don't want to give your opponents a space to voice their disapproval).  It's what jhkim is doing with his:

I am not saying I am above politics and I am not saying both sides are wrong. I am saying I don't read peoples politics into their views on media, art and games, because I can't stand it when someone assumes mine for something like not liking some of the creative choices in Van Richter's Guide to Ravenloft. And I am not saying these choices aren't guided by politics. They often are. On that I am of two minds: A) something can still be good even though it has a political point of view (Dirty Harry and Robocop are both really great films that have political messages in them) B) a lot of stuff that is coming out lately so heavily prioritizes the political message that the quality suffers and the audience isn't really being served. For instance many of the design choices being debated for the new edition of D&D were mired in political concerns. And I think they would have been better off not even worrying about that stuff.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

I don't particularly care about the racial make up of a fantasy setting. It is fantasy after all, so vikings don't have to be nordic. That is why I like the art for the 3E monk. And I think it is not bad to have a wider range of character types, ethnicities and races in a setting in general (not every setting needs to be western or northern Europe). That said, I think criticizing a game that does this in a way where the setting loses believability (i.e. a viking encampment that looks like a modern cosmopolitan city) isn't an issue. It is a legitimate criticism for people to raise. Too often a criticism like that will get a person labeled racist, when they are really just concerned about the logic of the setting and the feel of the setting.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2024, 11:17:06 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

I don't particularly care about the racial make up of a fantasy setting. It is fantasy after all, so vikings don't have to be nordic. That is why I like the art for the 3E monk. And I think it is not bad to have a wider range of character types, ethnicities and races in a setting in general (not every setting needs to be western or northern Europe). That said, I think criticizing a game that does this in a way where the setting loses believability (i.e. a viking encampment that looks like a modern cosmopolitan city) isn't an issue. It is a legitimate criticism for people to raise. Too often a criticism like that will get a person labeled racist, when they are really just concerned about the logic of the setting and the feel of the setting.

Exactly.  Settings that have variety of ethnicities usually have them make sense (human civilizations in the desert will be more or less Middle Eastern, etc) not just randomly throwing them in; when they appear in other cities it's because they/their ancestors traveled there so nobody bats an eye because it's logical.  Demihumans become the problem because they get treated like humans when they're not.  Elves, dwarfs, gnomes, etc. shouldn't have the same skintones as humans do unless they live in the same areas (and even then debatable as they're not humans so may not have the same physiology).  Elves living in a forest in a temperate area shouldn't have black or asian skin tones because it's not logical why.  But elves living in a desert (Eberron has this IIRC) might be darker skinned.

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 11:12:04 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

So do you not feel that those things should make logical sense for the world to feel alive rather than a hodgepodge of just tropes?  For example, WHY should there be racially diverse vikings when they don't exist in a climate that would give them darker skin tones, because the "traditional" climate of Vikings has less UV radiation (which is why in the real world Africans have darker skin than Europeans)?

Having one or two might be interesting characters if they have a reason (brought there as a slave, got lost on a caravan from the east, etc.) to be there and be different.  But most people seem to just ignore any logic and say "it's fantasy so why not have subsaharan African vikings?"

Travel in D&D is easy. In Forgotten Realms, you can find Calishites in Icewind Dale and Thayan Red Wizards frequently show up in Baldur's Gate. Greyhawk as a setting paid much more attention to racial/ethnic movements, but not really much has been made of it in decades. Eberron has intermixed people from multiple continents since it appeared 20 years ago. None of these is ignoring logic...the settings just don't match the logic of medeival Europe.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 11:21:10 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 11:12:04 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

So do you not feel that those things should make logical sense for the world to feel alive rather than a hodgepodge of just tropes?  For example, WHY should there be racially diverse vikings when they don't exist in a climate that would give them darker skin tones, because the "traditional" climate of Vikings has less UV radiation (which is why in the real world Africans have darker skin than Europeans)?

Having one or two might be interesting characters if they have a reason (brought there as a slave, got lost on a caravan from the east, etc.) to be there and be different.  But most people seem to just ignore any logic and say "it's fantasy so why not have subsaharan African vikings?"

Travel in D&D is easy. In Forgotten Realms, you can find Calishites in Icewind Dale and Thayan Red Wizards frequently show up in Baldur's Gate. Greyhawk as a setting paid much more attention to racial/ethnic movements, but not really much has been made of it in decades. Eberron has intermixed people from multiple continents since it appeared 20 years ago. None of these is ignoring logic...the settings just don't match the logic of medeival Europe.

All of those make logical sense.  There aren't "black vikings" but there might be a Calishite in Icewind Dale traveling or settled there; they won't look and behave like a Viking.

You're actually arguing that those things ARE logical, when so many things don't even take the time to do that.  This is why nobody complains about that, but like people complained about taking a real-life viking king (in the netflix show?) and making it a black woman, or having a random elf or dwarf in Rings of Power be black for no other reason than "we can't have them all be white, that's racist"

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 15, 2024, 10:15:49 AMBoth of theses are objectively wrong.  "Inclusive" art (i.e. art that is chosen for a political purpose such as promoting diversity) is by its very nature political.  I'm tired of the buffoons who chant, "Your politics is politics; mine is human rights."  It's like appealing to the Bible; it's intended to end discussion by rhetorical force, not expand discussion.

I am not bothered by an Asian dwarf. Just like I wasn't bothered by Rose Tico in the Last Jedi (I thought she was a good character, even though I think the film had a lot of other serious problems). Where the D&D art loses me here, and where I tend to agree with you, is it so heavy handed in its push for these things, it starts to feel artificial or very non-sincere. I am totally fine with gay characters, characters from different racial backgrounds etc. I love movies with female action heroes. But one example of the try hard approach to this is the Van Richter book where they made changes to Alanik Ray that just threw everything into a blender (he is gay, he is in a wheel chair and in an interracial relationship). I don't have an issue with any of those things showing up in a game, but this felt like someone checking of boxes rather than fleshing him out as a more interesting character.

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good, or the old "it's fantasy so it doesn't need to make sense" or, worse, the "You can accept halflings and elves and dragons but draw the line at tacos?" is left leaning, while everyone saying no it's stupid and even fantasy worlds need to have logical basis to feel "real" is not.

It's dawned on me that a vast number of modern "gamers" is imaginitively bankrupt.  They can't understand that things have to make sense in the world they exist in, you can't jus have nonsense like modern day food or 1 in every 10 vikings be black because "it's fantasy".  They don't understand how cultures develop, just think it's okay to do whatever and handwave it as "magic" while calling anyone who says that fantasy worlds still need a logical foundation as being "racists".

I know (and am friends with) at least two leftists that agree fantasy worlds should have an internal logic and be internally consistent to be believable.

IMHO it's more Woke vs Non-Woke, and while most of the left has either turned woke or bend the knee not to be cancelled not all of them are indeed woke.

Citing ONE world to justify having X in a different one is disingenuous at least.

So, intercontinental/planar travel is so cheap and common place as to have hard shell tacos (a 20th century American invention), Sushi, etc and multi-ethnic dwarves, elves, etc.

Yet, disabled people is still a thing...

Either magic is very cheap and common place or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Finding a crashed space ship might be explained away, having the PCs just fix it and pilot it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

"Because Dragons!" isn't an argument, it's a thought terminating mantra.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2024, 11:23:39 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 15, 2024, 10:15:49 AMBoth of theses are objectively wrong.  "Inclusive" art (i.e. art that is chosen for a political purpose such as promoting diversity) is by its very nature political.  I'm tired of the buffoons who chant, "Your politics is politics; mine is human rights."  It's like appealing to the Bible; it's intended to end discussion by rhetorical force, not expand discussion.

I am not bothered by an Asian dwarf. Just like I wasn't bothered by Rose Tico in the Last Jedi (I thought she was a good character, even though I think the film had a lot of other serious problems). Where the D&D art loses me here, and where I tend to agree with you, is it so heavy handed in its push for these things, it starts to feel artificial or very non-sincere. I am totally fine with gay characters, characters from different racial backgrounds etc. I love movies with female action heroes. But one example of the try hard approach to this is the Van Richter book where they made changes to Alanik Ray that just threw everything into a blender (he is gay, he is in a wheel chair and in an interracial relationship). I don't have an issue with any of those things showing up in a game, but this felt like someone checking of boxes rather than fleshing him out as a more interesting character.

In a world where Dwarves are real, and with a pseudo-Asian continent one would expect some Dwarves to live there (unless you have an internally consistent reason as to why they don't [some "Asian" monster ate them all, they are banned from the Empire, etc.])... Now, should those "Asian" Dwarves have the same facial features and skin tones as those found in Earth's Asian peoples?

I say no, if someone wants to do it in their table go ahead, but it makes the Dwarves in that place feel less Dwarvish to me. IF anyone wants an Asian fantasy race why not take one from their myths? It's not like they don't have their own cultures.

Take my Mayan inspired setting/game, I have fantasy races based on Mayan myths (very loosely based), for instance talking monkey people, clay people and plant people, because just inserting Halflings, Dwarves and Elves is not only lazy but IMHO breaks the internal consistency of the setting. None of them are just X with a different name either, they have mechanical differences too.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2024, 11:23:39 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 15, 2024, 10:15:49 AMBoth of theses are objectively wrong.  "Inclusive" art (i.e. art that is chosen for a political purpose such as promoting diversity) is by its very nature political.  I'm tired of the buffoons who chant, "Your politics is politics; mine is human rights."  It's like appealing to the Bible; it's intended to end discussion by rhetorical force, not expand discussion.

I am not bothered by an Asian dwarf. Just like I wasn't bothered by Rose Tico in the Last Jedi (I thought she was a good character, even though I think the film had a lot of other serious problems). Where the D&D art loses me here, and where I tend to agree with you, is it so heavy handed in its push for these things, it starts to feel artificial or very non-sincere. I am totally fine with gay characters, characters from different racial backgrounds etc. I love movies with female action heroes. But one example of the try hard approach to this is the Van Richter book where they made changes to Alanik Ray that just threw everything into a blender (he is gay, he is in a wheel chair and in an interracial relationship). I don't have an issue with any of those things showing up in a game, but this felt like someone checking of boxes rather than fleshing him out as a more interesting character.

In a fantasy world, I'm okay with a range of character types being depicted, whether it's Sexes, Races, Ethnicities within Races, Cultures, Professions/Classes. Whatever. I want cool imaginative stuff.

What sucks is when you open up a book about a fantasy world and the book is SO FUCKING POLITICAL that the only thing you can reasonably see is a desperate attempt to shoehorn in representation of real world politics via sex/race/ethnicity composition of the artwork. They're not trying to imagine new stuff. This isn't an organic attempt to creatively interpret real world cultures and translate that into some fantasy milieu. It's all about Representation™ and nothing more.

And we don't need to speculate this is what happening by poring over the artwork and counting characters. WOTC literally tells us they do this. It's not a secret, people make money doing it, it's in the budget & marketing. They brag about it.

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 11:12:04 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 15, 2024, 10:52:09 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on September 15, 2024, 09:32:06 AMI would bet money that basically everyone saying the Heroes Feast art is good

I have never said that the Heroes' Feast art is good. I have repeatedly said that I don't care for most of the art in the 2024 PHB because of what I consider to be a "whimisical Willy Wonka meets Tim Burton" feel that I get from it. I have also said that I don't mind sushi and tacos being in D&D (nor would I oppose racially diverse vikings in the same) because most D&D worlds these days (meaning for the last 30 years) are far more cosmopolitan than they are authentically medieval European.

So do you not feel that those things should make logical sense for the world to feel alive rather than a hodgepodge of just tropes?  For example, WHY should there be racially diverse vikings when they don't exist in a climate that would give them darker skin tones, because the "traditional" climate of Vikings has less UV radiation (which is why in the real world Africans have darker skin than Europeans)?

Having one or two might be interesting characters if they have a reason (brought there as a slave, got lost on a caravan from the east, etc.) to be there and be different.  But most people seem to just ignore any logic and say "it's fantasy so why not have subsaharan African vikings?"

What is logical or not depends immensely upon the setting.

For example, nearly all the fantasy worlds I run are post-post-apocalyptic Earths* where magic (and magical races) has returned akin to Thundarr the Barbarian (except more like 200 rather than 2000 years after the Apocalypse) so mixed human races and foods resembling modern foodstuffs makes absolute sense when your primary campaign region is the former East Coast region of the United States (specifically NYC through DC as those have some very recognizable landmarks to riff off... even if many of them should have rightly collapsed due to age and neglect) circa AD 2250.

This isn't to say every campaign has those conditions, just that those conditions are not impossible.

This also isn't to say I like the Heroes' Feast image. In fact I very much dislike its composition, poor quality (apparently orc teeth now protrude THROUGH their lips if the art is to be believed) and lack of cohesion (if the food was entirely TexMex fair like Tacos, TacoBowls, Burritos and the like instead of the multiethnic Tacos + Sushi + Hamburgers + Thanksgiving centerpieces mess we got it would not be nearly so annoying to me)... but that lack of cohesion could have fixed with better composition and quality so even it is more a symptom than the root cause.

* not least of which is that accurate and realistic maps are readily available).

Quote from: Zelen on September 15, 2024, 12:39:44 PM

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2024, 11:23:39 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 15, 2024, 10:15:49 AMBoth of theses are objectively wrong.  "Inclusive" art (i.e. art that is chosen for a political purpose such as promoting diversity) is by its very nature political.  I'm tired of the buffoons who chant, "Your politics is politics; mine is human rights."  It's like appealing to the Bible; it's intended to end discussion by rhetorical force, not expand discussion.

I am not bothered by an Asian dwarf. Just like I wasn't bothered by Rose Tico in the Last Jedi (I thought she was a good character, even though I think the film had a lot of other serious problems). Where the D&D art loses me here, and where I tend to agree with you, is it so heavy handed in its push for these things, it starts to feel artificial or very non-sincere. I am totally fine with gay characters, characters from different racial backgrounds etc. I love movies with female action heroes. But one example of the try hard approach to this is the Van Richter book where they made changes to Alanik Ray that just threw everything into a blender (he is gay, he is in a wheel chair and in an interracial relationship). I don't have an issue with any of those things showing up in a game, but this felt like someone checking of boxes rather than fleshing him out as a more interesting character.

In a fantasy world, I'm okay with a range of character types being depicted, whether it's Sexes, Races, Ethnicities within Races, Cultures, Professions/Classes.......

What sucks is when you open up a book about a fantasy world and the book is SO FUCKING POLITICAL that the only thing you can reasonably see is a desperate attempt to shoehorn in representation of real world politics via sex/race/ethnicity composition of the artwork. They're not trying to imagine new stuff. This isn't an organic attempt to creatively interpret real world cultures and translate that into some fantasy milieu. It's all about Representation™ and nothing more.

This is why I mentioned the Van Richter treatment of Alanik Ray. I am totally fine with all kinds of elements in a fantasy setting, and when it comes to movies, I don't mind things like color blind casting if it leads to the right actor being in a role. But I think when it feels like a committee checking off boxes or a corporate directive, and creative decision making is giving way to a list of political concerns, then I get annoyed as a reader/gamer. I think part of the issue with how things have been going at WOTC is both fad and politics have collided in a way where it does not feel organic or sincere (it just seems like they are reacting to things in the online discussion and getting deep into fairly obscure academic takes on race, media, etc: which is outside the experience of most gamers anyways)