Quote from: Rox on June 09, 2024, 07:23:20 AMNot sure if this is thread for that, but I would like to suggest to the guy who is still maintaining this list in Google Docs to put a bit more details about WotC, preferably with links to evidence. Although Wizards itself would deserve an entire document listing all their bad decisions, both the woke ones and the ones from pure greed and/or incompetence.

What is it missing that can't be googled for on the internet in 20seconds?

Quote from: THE_Leopold on June 10, 2024, 07:30:38 PM

Quote from: Rox on June 09, 2024, 07:23:20 AMNot sure if this is thread for that, but I would like to suggest to the guy who is still maintaining this list in Google Docs to put a bit more details about WotC, preferably with links to evidence. Although Wizards itself would deserve an entire document listing all their bad decisions, both the woke ones and the ones from pure greed and/or incompetence.

What is it missing that can't be googled for on the internet in 20seconds?

Who knows how much of it Google will purge?

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 10:09:26 PM

Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 06:12:31 PMRace, Ancestry, Heritage, Ethnicity, yadda yadda - I couldn't care less. They're all synonyms referring to different variations within a species, or what would be breeds if we were talking about animals.

Then why change it?

One reason to change it is to open up a distinction between "things that are based on your biology" and "things that are based on your upbringing." Pathfinder was doing that, and I thought it was a good idea.

To make this point, let's look at lizardfolk that get several abilities that might either be due to their heritage or due to their ancestry.

Quote from: D&D5edHunter's Lore
You gain proficiency with two of the following skills ...cut...

I mean, this feels like heritage. If you are a human that was raised by only lizardfolk, feels like you should also get this. If you were a lizardfolk raised by only humans, then you should not.

Compare it to this:

Quote from: D&D5edBite
Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. ...cut...

There you go, this is a fact of biology, so this should be an ancestry sort of thing.

Why does it matter?  Well, first off, you have half-races as well as those "halfling raised by orcs" sort of situation, so it helps you come up with interesting mixes.

But it also helps in situations like this, the old Lizardfolk had the ability to turn corpses into things:

Quote from: D&D5edHold Breath
You can hold your breath for up to ...cut...

Is this an ancestry thing? Is the biology why they can do this? Or is this something that every lizardfolk gets training in, so it's about how you were raised.

(and never mind the old "Cunning Artisan" which I always found funny, my human raised by lizardfolk can't do it, must mean that lizardfolk use a hidden bit of anatomy to do it that we just have yet to hear about.)

Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 06:12:31 PMRace, Ancestry, Heritage, Ethnicity, yadda yadda - I couldn't care less. They're all synonyms referring to different variations within a species, or what would be breeds if we were talking about animals.

Species is a scientific term indicating a unique genome with implications for members of different species' ability to produce viable, fertile offspring. I hate when games misapply that scientific term as 2024 DnD appears poised to do.

Personally I find Race vs. Ancestry a strange hill to die on, but hey that's the beauty of America - to each their own.

It is not the words themselves. Its the intent behind the use, or more often the change of use. Always to virtue signal.

Quote from: Rox on June 09, 2024, 07:23:20 AMNot sure if this is thread for that, but I would like to suggest to the guy who is still maintaining this list in Google Docs to put a bit more details about WotC, preferably with links to evidence. Although Wizards itself would deserve an entire document listing all their bad decisions, both the woke ones and the ones from pure greed and/or incompetence.

Evidence with wotc is in about every other press statement they make and right there in the 50th anniversary book interview where they state that OD&D would never pass their sensitivity censors because the writers were "White and Male"

Quote from: hoshisabi on June 11, 2024, 02:28:22 AMOne reason to change it is to open up a distinction between "things that are based on your biology" and "things that are based on your upbringing." Pathfinder was doing that, and I thought it was a good idea.

Race and background already serve that purpose.

Yeah the woke cunts invented a problem (race=bad) and then conveniently sold you the solution(ancestry=good).

Now apply that loop to every other non-issue the nonsensical "progressives" have smeared upon every other aspect of not only ttrpgs, but the geek hobby sphere as a whole.

I mean we can't have an entire industry of "sensitivity readers" and DEI consultants if there isn't a steady supply of "problematic" issues that only the can solve (for a large fee of course!).

Fuck all the tourists and cultural carpetbaggers that infected this hobby for no other reason but to appropriate the culture of something they had no hand in building.

They're the Alt-Left and should be referred to as such going forward. Alt-Left should carry with it the same venom that Alt-Right does but will actually be used in an accurate manner.

The rot has captured almost all the left. There's no alt to it.

Quote from: Monero on June 13, 2024, 01:48:46 AMThey're the Alt-Left and should be referred to as such going forward. Alt-Left should carry with it the same venom that Alt-Right does but will actually be used in an accurate manner.

I believe they're usually called the Ctrl-Left.

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 12, 2024, 03:31:07 PM

Quote from: hoshisabi on June 11, 2024, 02:28:22 AMOne reason to change it is to open up a distinction between "things that are based on your biology" and "things that are based on your upbringing." Pathfinder was doing that, and I thought it was a good idea.

Race and background already serve that purpose.

The difficulty is that peeling away bits of an old concept and reusing the name leads to confusion. And, you end up having to figure out, what part of an old race should be shuffled off into the background, and which part of the old race should be still a "race."

That's why I am in favor of splitting the old concept into two new things, so that you know "race is the thing that included both, but in the future, instead you take these two things."  Those folks that are too stubborn to let go of the old concept can just be informed "race is now defined by these two separate things."

I'm a fan of keeping old things relatively the same, but when you make a change, you highlight it so that it's obvious. That way you avoid the situation we have now where some backgrounds have feats and some backgrounds don't, but the new book talks about the old backgrounds and says "You can take the skilled feat." But that's not in the old books so a player with just the PHB doesn't know about it.

For example, "wildspacer" (from spelljammer) includes a feat... but "acolyte" (from the PHB) doesn't say it does, but in the chapter where they introduce WILDSPACER it gives the option to folks with acolyte to pick up the "Tough" feat. But, would you have looked there if you picked Acolyte?! That's just not user friendly.  It would have been better to introduce that "free feat" as an option for the "campaign" or some new concept, rather than reuse the background concept and just ... confuse things.

It's kind of similar to the deal they have with "legacy races" and the new races. Legacy races are the term they're using for the ones that include required stat bonuses, and the new "races" have the new option to just use whatever you want. That's just confusing because if they say they are playing a "kobold" you don't know if it's the legacy kobold (which has different abilities) or the new kobold, because the old book never used the term "legacy."

You just can't reprint those old books, it's better to make a new term to avoid that term being overloaded.

So that's why I'm in favor of making new terms when you come up with big changes to old concepts.

If you just make the new term, you save everyone confusion. If a person talks about their race, they're talking the old concept, if they talk about their ancestry and heritage, they're using the new concept. Nice and clear.

Granted, I've talked before about my viewpoint is colored by running for organized play. I deal with more new characters than a DM who has a consistent campaign with folks that are the same every week. So my problems might not be ones that most people run into.

You do understand that the point is to delete the "old" concepts and deliberately create confusion, so people who speak out about the confusion can be identified, and are labeled as reactionary/bigoted.

Quote from: hoshisabi on June 14, 2024, 02:12:24 AMGranted, I've talked before about my viewpoint is colored by running for organized play.

Organized play has a document that tells you exactly what the current version of the rules used in organized play is.  There's no confusion.  Just have players read it.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on June 14, 2024, 07:36:30 AMYou do understand that the point is to delete the "old" concepts and deliberately create confusion, so people who speak out about the confusion can be identified, and are labeled as reactionary/bigoted.

Uh, no. There was never a need to introduce anything to label people as "Reactionary." Most folks that hold these opinions will gladly share them given the chance. I apologize if that sounds snarky or hostile, but you have to admit ... No one has to trick someone who uses "woke" as a pejorative into revealing that fact.

And speaking as a dude who is frequently called "woke" or insulted on these forums, I've personally not had to dig to find that out about people... But I often find that I can share my opinion and reasoning, and I generally keep things civil at my games despite very differing opinions.

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 14, 2024, 07:41:52 AM

Quote from: hoshisabi on June 14, 2024, 02:12:24 AMGranted, I've talked before about my viewpoint is colored by running for organized play.

Organized play has a document that tells you exactly what the current version of the rules used in organized play is.  There's no confusion.  Just have players read it.

Yes, I know, but I also introduce new players constantly. And despite the documents saying things quite clearly, I need to say things like "I'm sorry, Silvery Barbs is not allowed because of this document."  Or, "You can not roll for stats, we use the point buy method" or "You need to have a character that starts at level 1."

So the idea that there's no "confusion" is definitely not the case.

It doesn't help that sometimes AL does things that almost feel like they're intentionally CAUSING confusion. They had the concepts of "Seasonality" at one point that required a flowchart to explain, I'm not even kidding about that. Luckily they dropped that, but the new system of campaigns is getting confusing.

Right now, a character made using the Eberron rules can play Eberron adventures (Oracle of War series, I'mt not even sure about the Embers of War series), Eberron Dungeoncraft, the new Vecna book, the Radiant Citadel adventure, and probably a few others.

A character made using Ravenloft can play Season 4, Curse of Strahd, any of the Ravenloft mist hunters adventures, the new Ravenloft DCs, and also the new Vecna book and the Radiant Citadel.

Can they play together?  Well, forgotten realms can play with Ravenloft in some of those, but not others, can play with Eberron in some but not others. I always need to recheck the document.

And it's worse with the new Planescape rules where you make a character with special rules. After you finish the book, you suddenly become a Forgotten Realms character. What happens if your DM quits in the middle of the book?  Unknown still.

Rant rant rant, I know.  But, I have enough trouble trying to explain how there's no flanking allowed in the AL tables, or even weirder, "Even though they use a potion as a bonus action in critical role, that's not the rules here."

Quote from: hoshisabi on June 18, 2024, 03:30:05 PMYes, I know, but I also introduce new players constantly. And despite the documents saying things quite clearly, I need to say things like "I'm sorry, Silvery Barbs is not allowed because of this document."  Or, "You can not roll for stats, we use the point buy method" or "You need to have a character that starts at level 1."

So the idea that there's no "confusion" is definitely not the case.

That's not confusion.  It's laziness.

Quote from: hoshisabi on June 18, 2024, 03:30:05 PM

QuoteYou do understand that the point is to delete the "old" concepts and deliberately create confusion, so people who speak out about the confusion can be identified, and are labeled as reactionary/bigoted.

Uh, no. There was never a need to introduce anything to label people as "Reactionary." Most folks that hold these opinions will gladly share them given the chance. I apologize if that sounds snarky or hostile, but you have to admit ... No one has to trick someone who uses "woke" as a pejorative into revealing that fact.

And speaking as a dude who is frequently called "woke" or insulted on these forums, I've personally not had to dig to find that out about people... But I often find that I can share my opinion and reasoning, and I generally keep things civil at my games despite very differing opinions.

Spot on and right there with you.

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 18, 2024, 05:57:05 PMThat's not confusion.  It's laziness.

Nah, when you're talking about a new player who likely created their character on D&D Beyond with a bunch of assets shared with them by a friend - and they've never bought or read any rules let alone the AL documents - it's confusion. Their whole experience of the game at that point is using an online tool and choosing cool sounding things from a list of options presented, without understanding that those options are drawn from different sources. "If it's not allowed, then why did the website let me pick it?"