Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

So, basically, stupid decisions from 2014 are now being extended to make them even more stupid.  Not a great argument there...

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 04:15:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

You know, if you weren't so wrapped up in your narrative, you might actually understand the argument a little.  I haven't seen any majority argument that removing orcs from the MM somehow invalidates alignment (you can always find one or two randos on the forum to make any stupid argument; that doesn't make that argument the point).  What I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

WotC wants the default for player character "races" to be just humans with masks.  They are all in on the "orcs were coded as black people" kind of nonsense, so this reaction (and the removal of half-races) is a political decision to set the default expectations of character races ("All races are equal and the same!  No race is better or worse at anything than any other.  All hail the Supreme Soviet!").  The WotC-defenders on here are just trying to stir up irrelevant arguments to obfuscate (like they normally do).  The question here is, "Are races fundamentally, biologically and socially, different?  Or are they all just colorful instances of the same thing?"  Putting the races in the MM reinforces the concept that they are different from each other, which is why they had to go...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:52:35 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 04:15:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

You know, if you weren't so wrapped up in your narrative, you might actually understand the argument a little.  I haven't seen any majority argument that removing orcs from the MM somehow invalidates alignment (you can always find one or two randos on the forum to make any stupid argument; that doesn't make that argument the point).  What I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

WotC wants the default for player character "races" to be just humans with masks.  They are all in on the "orcs were coded as black people" kind of nonsense, so this reaction (and the removal of half-races) is a political decision to set the default expectations of character races ("All races are equal and the same!  No race is better or worse at anything than any other.  All hail the Supreme Soviet!").  The WotC-defenders on here are just trying to stir up irrelevant arguments to obfuscate (like they normally do).  The question here is, "Are races fundamentally, biologically and socially, different?  Or are they all just colorful instances of the same thing?"  Putting the races in the MM reinforces the concept that they are different from each other, which is why they had to go...

Greetings!

Exactly, my friend. Whatever TSR did in the past or in Dragon Magazine, none of that is relevant. That was all normal hobby stuff. What the WOTC fucksticks are engaged with in recent years is all absolutely political and ideological. It's all Commie, racist, DEI, Woke Feminist BS. That is a huge difference, and some people do not want to confront that reality and come to the truth.

This entire scenario is not "Business as usual". It reflects a Marxist, Woke activist political takeover and corruption of WOTC as a company, Hasbro, and the industry as a whole. That truth, that reality makes some people uncomfortable and squeamish to admit, because of some weakness within them, or their own personal compromises they have made.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

First of all, about SHARK's REE REE communist DEI talk...

I think WotC is a soulless corporation that will mouth any words for a potential sale, who don't care about disabled people or black people any more than they care about Christians or patriots. I am happy to throw them under the bus.

What I do care about is actual gamers completely changing around their gaming on the basis of whatever WotC is doing, either way. It's bad if gamers think that WotC is pure good, and change their games to follow whatever WotC says. It's also bad if gamers suddenly upend logic and change their games because whatever WotC says is now verboten communism.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

So, basically, stupid decisions from 2014 are now being extended to make them even more stupid.  Not a great argument there...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:52:35 AMWhat I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

In all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

As far as I can recall, prior to 2024 no one - including all the posters on theRPGsite - actually complained  that 5E had ruined races by removing the "Dwarf" and other PC race entries from the Monster Manual. Somehow even though it was stupid and ruined all the races, no one mentioned this awful thing that 5E had done.

As I mentioned, it made zero difference in my campaigns. I had dwarves as opponents and allies in 5E games. They either used the NPC templates or were made using the PC rules.

Speaking strictly from a design perspective, it's not necessarily bad to have a generic "humanoid" statblock for various professions, from which you can then lay a racial template over. This would be a very quick and convenient way to handle a large group of disparate mooks.

Suppose the party stumbled upon a bandit camp comprised mostly of humans and half-orcs, with the occasional dwarf and half-elf for good measure. Having one location in the MM listing stats for scouts, hedgemages, toughs, etc. (which can be easily adjusted on-the-fly with a couple modifiers) is a huge timesave.

However, from what my research has gathered, WotC even failed there since EVERY ENTRY in the new MM is now listed alphabetically, rather than being grouped under sub-headings. So your Orc Raiding Party (tm) consisting of scouts, toughs, and shamans (i.e. "cultish fanatic") now requires the GM to flip back and forth through several sections of the book.

Of course, the GM could have the foresight to write all the stats on a piece of paper, but they shouldn't have to do that when the fukken book is right in front of them.

On the topic of removing dwarf/elf/orc entirely from the MM, that's such a stupid decision. It forces Gamemasters to take the extra step of referencing the PHB to add flavor to the otherwise generic entries of "scout" or "tough." A significant portion of players aren't likely to do that, opting to simply run the encounter with the base stats and a skinsuit. It means the orcs aren't going to be any different from the lizardmen, who won't be any different from the drow. How. Fukken. Boring...

In summary, I don't really hate what WotC are attempting to do here, but I absolutely hate the implementation and execution of it (doubly so for the perceived political reasoning behind it).

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMIn all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

Except I don't believe you.  And even if I did, it wouldn't matter.  What happens in the handful of games that you play in is irrelevant to the overall structure or interpretation of D&D, especially by new players.  Grognards play dwarves as dwarves, because we have decades and editions of experience.  The students who are new to the game (50+ per year) that I see don't have that background or experience.  So they follow what's in the books (at least until I can show them that other ways exist).  So The fact that you "haven't seen" it doesn't mean squat.  You really have nothing without your anecdotes, do you?

It's the principle of the change (I know, "principle" is not a term you are very familiar with...), and what it says about the default expectations for races.  And, by removing ability score boosts, removing races from the MM, etc., WotC is declaring that "race" or culture isn't an important indicator of anything.  It's just like living in Seattle!

So, if you choose to respond to this, how about responding with a discussion of principle and first-causes?  Your inability to conceive of anything outside your own experience is common among leftists, but it isn't adding anything to this discussion.  I know it's hard to fathom, but it isn't all about you...

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 14, 2025, 09:47:05 AMI stopped watching Extra Credits when he had his horribad "You're a real life nazi if you play as a nazi in games!" hot take whereas previously I really enjoyed his scifi, fantasy, and historical retrospectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if he went full 'tard yet again with a brain fart on the reasons for the removal of fantasy creatures in a fictional setting as monsters.

That's "Evil Races are Bad Game Design" four years ago, right? Yeah, I disagreed hard with that, as we discussed back then.

What pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Orcs are fictional. I can have a game where orcs are evil spirits that inhabit dead bodies, or I can have a game where orcs are good-hearted salt-of-the-earth farmers, or any number of other variations. There's no reason I should have to conform to any particular version of orc.

You can do that the same way you can write a book where vampire skin sparkles in the sunlight. It doesn't mean anything about the thing itself or what it really is or where it comes from. If you change it that much then it's not really an orc at all and you're just using the name, which understandably makes people irritated when you try to say that's just as "valid" or more valid/less offensive than the real thing.

Quote from: Omega on February 19, 2025, 04:15:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2025, 12:20:47 PMWhat pisses me off is doing the same in reverse. Some posters take the same attitude of judging real-life gamers as evil unless they have the correct version of orcs. "You're an evil SJW if your orcs are (blah)."

Its worse than that. Some here are willfully ignoring the fact that Orcs and later many other monsters were not evil only. And Gygax himself depicted monsters acting atypically.

But no no no! That neeeever happened. Orcs is teh evulzzz forwever!!!

Orcs were invented in the Lord of the Rings. They did not exist before that. Within that depiction they're all evil, however you may feel about that. Later on some people made ones that weren't evil, mainly so they could be used as player characters in games. That's okay but it's not as though that's more true to the original concept than the original concept itself.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on February 18, 2025, 12:35:01 PMOh the inhumanity! Not only are orcs treated as full on people, the other humanoids have had their personhoods stripped away.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 05:08:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMIn all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

Except I don't believe you.  And even if I did, it wouldn't matter.  What happens in the handful of games that you play in is irrelevant to the overall structure or interpretation of D&D, especially by new players.  Grognards play dwarves as dwarves, because we have decades and editions of experience.  The students who are new to the game (50+ per year) that I see don't have that background or experience.  So they follow what's in the books (at least until I can show them that other ways exist).  So The fact that you "haven't seen" it doesn't mean squat.  You really have nothing without your anecdotes, do you?

Anecdotes are how both you and I understand what D&D is like as it is actually played. The opposite to this is "white room" arguments like Opaopajr in #203, where he suggests that because there is no "Dwarf" entry in 2014 Monster Manual, that this means that dwarves cannot be hurt and so you can strap them on like armor to be nigh-invulnerable. We all know that's fucking stupid. People have been actually playing 5E for over ten years, and no DM has actually run it like this.

I just clearly said that players do follow what's in the book about dwarves -- by which I mean the Player's Handbook. The Player's Handbook info on dwarves is more detailed than the Monster Manual entry, and it's the primary source for both PCs and NPCs. The MM "Dwarf" entry is a fifth wheel that the DM may use for stats in fighting a random dwarf, but doesn't change anyone's understanding of what dwarves fundamentally are.

If, in your experience, people have changed their view of what dwarves are like based on the MM entry, then tell me about it. What is the important stuff in the MM (but not the PH) that made such a difference?

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 06:19:06 PMIf, in your experience, people have changed their view of what dwarves are like based on the MM entry, then tell me about it. What is the important stuff in the MM (but not the PH) that made such a difference?

Reading is fundamental.  I didn't say anywhere that people are changing their view.  In fact, I said the opposite.  Those of us with experience aren't changing our views.  Those new to the game don't have views to change.  They are the ones who are intended to see orcs, dwarfs, elves, as just funny-looking humans.  They are the ones that are supposed to see "race" as just badging.  Lots of modern companies have attempted to create new consumers to replace the consumers that they disagree with politically or socially (Disney, Bud Light, et al.).  Doesn't work out to well for them.

You want to know what piece of information in the MM makes a difference?  The word "Dwarf" (or "Orc").

Quote from: jhkim on February 19, 2025, 01:16:14 PMFirst of all, about SHARK's REE REE communist DEI talk...

I think WotC is a soulless corporation that will mouth any words for a potential sale, who don't care about disabled people or black people any more than they care about Christians or patriots. I am happy to throw them under the bus.

What I do care about is actual gamers completely changing around their gaming on the basis of whatever WotC is doing, either way. It's bad if gamers think that WotC is pure good, and change their games to follow whatever WotC says. It's also bad if gamers suddenly upend logic and change their games because whatever WotC says is now verboten communism.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:36:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 18, 2025, 12:15:41 PMOrcs are now being treated exactly the same as how other PC races were treated in the 2014 edition.

So, basically, stupid decisions from 2014 are now being extended to make them even more stupid.  Not a great argument there...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 09:52:35 AMWhat I have seen, and agree with, is that removing playable races from the MM has changed the default perception of what a "race" is in D&D.  By cataloguing the difference between races in the MM, you set the default expectations for culture, behavior, attitudes, abilities, etc.  Setting the default is not restrictive or exclusive.  The default poster here is pretty rational and insightful.  That doesn't preclude jhkim or HappyDaze from posting stupid stuff, or prevent you from obsessing over whatever.  It's a default.

In all the D&D games I've been in, the default perception of dwarves has squarely been from what is in the Player's Handbook. After that, it's been from what the DM says is specific to the campaign world. The details of the "Dwarf" entry in the Monster Manual never comes up.

As far as I can recall, prior to 2024 no one - including all the posters on theRPGsite - actually complained  that 5E had ruined races by removing the "Dwarf" and other PC race entries from the Monster Manual. Somehow even though it was stupid and ruined all the races, no one mentioned this awful thing that 5E had done.

As I mentioned, it made zero difference in my campaigns. I had dwarves as opponents and allies in 5E games. They either used the NPC templates or were made using the PC rules.

Greetings!

I'm not "Ree Reeing" about anything, Jhkim. What I discussed is an accurate, factual description and analysis of what has become of the leadership and the most prominent writers and developers that work at WOTC and control the D&D brand.

All of the WOTC interviews as well as X and other interweb quotations from statements that WOTC designers have made, you don't think then is an accurate assessment of what has become reality at WOTC?

Where the fuck have you been, man?

I'm not going to hunt and copy/paste the HUGE amount of evidence. I'll just refer you--as well as any interested members--to Pundit's own NUMEROUS videos where he discusses this reality. Beyond that, the program Diversity & Dragons has numerous program episodes where the RECEIPTS ARE SHOWN, from WOTC's own fucking mouths.

So, yes. WOTC has become entirely corrupted by Communism, DEI, and WOKE BS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 19, 2025, 07:59:40 PMI'm not "Ree Reeing" about anything, Jhkim. What I discussed is an accurate, factual description and analysis of what has become of the leadership and the most prominent writers and developers that work at WOTC and control the D&D brand.

SHARK, as I understand it, you have run a lot of games using the 2014 D&D 5E rules. Right?

Do you think that the 2014 game - as published - is fundamentally broken as far as race because it doesn't have a "Dwarf" (or "Elf" etc.) entry in the Monster Manual? Have you had any problem with that lack?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 19, 2025, 06:29:28 PMThose of us with experience aren't changing our views.

Nothing like stagnation to stoke the imagination...