Quote from: Shasarak on February 11, 2021, 02:45:09 PM

Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.

And here you put words in my mouth again...

It seems you read what you want and not what is actually written.

Let's look at what was actually said back on page 6:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Note I was talking about the cultural shift that occurred in the game from 3.x on, resulting in the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard in D&D.

Becoming: the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.


Your reply to moonsweeper where you used his choice of wording to prop up a false inference:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM
You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  ...

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You'll notice it was moonsweeper that said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  ...

In my reply I acknowledged that there was a past history of supplemental material that gave the option to play monster races:
"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere. ..."

My intent was to clarify moonsweepers meaning because I recognized that the use of the word 'started' was not the best word choice, and would give you a pedantic nail to hang your false inference on while ignoring the actual claim. The nuance was lost on you. You saw your nail and clung to it for dear life.

You seem to believe we said no one could, or did play a monster PC race pre 3e. Even though it was not a claim either moonsweeper or I ever made.

You then rattle off many posts showing the supplemental material offered so people could play monster race PC's in past editions. Which no one was claiming didn't happen.

My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: "the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard".

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet telling real world mythology to kick rocks: on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM
"...But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player's Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. ..."

Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

Because as has D&D became more self-referential, the more it has watered down the grounding the game had in actual myth and legend where monsters are allegorical representations of corruption and evil.

Instead, it has relied more on its own weak worldbuilding in trying to account for every kitchen sink element in one setting. And as the mythological underpinnings of the monster races have become watered down, it makes less and less sense to deny the segment of players that want to have monster pc's to be a standard element of play. As a result they have been accommodated to a degree in D&D's standard PHB that wasn't done before.

This has been empirically shown to be true when looking at the increase in monster races offered as standard PC option's, starting with the return of the Half-Orc in the 3e PHB, and growing steadily with each successive edition: 4e and 5e. Which I have already highlighted in list form in a past post.

How when I said: " I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on..."

You found your way to: "No one could play monsters races in D&D before 3e. " I do not know. Virtually no one else but you took that from what was being discussed.

You completely missed the point I was making, and have since just been spamming counterpoints to a claim no one made.

In fact one could argue that as D&D has become more self-referential and divorced itself from its mythological roots that the people working on D&D itself no longer understand themselves what monster races in myth and legend were symbolically representing, and have released nonsense statements displaying their ignorance such as this:

"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That's just not right, and it's not something we believe in. ..."




As for referencing for goal posts...

Let's look back Where you said:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 03:21:50 PM
The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Then I said:

Quote from: Jaeger on February 10, 2021, 06:25:28 PM
Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

Then you said:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 06:59:32 PM
My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

"...walk those goal posts back." Indeed!

Quote from: Jaeger on February 15, 2021, 03:57:23 AM
Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.

Indeed the 3e Core rules had no more or less monster races then there were in the original ADnD rules written thirty years previously.

Even the revised 3.5 Core rule books had no extra monster races.

So where did this so called "cultural shift" come from when there seems to be no evidence of there being any such "shift".

Greetings!

Well, it is certainly true that the game offered various monster races through Dragon Magazine, various Adventure Modules, and game supplements for the many years before 3.0 D&D. However, as mentioned earlier, such contributions were more or less optional, and often relegated to the fringes of the different supplements or Dragon articles. I heard them occasionally brought up or referenced by players, but again, most people in groups that I experienced were decidedly in favour of the traditional, standardized races, Human, Elf, Half Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, and Half Orc. Occasionally, someone would allow a Lizardman, a Minotaur, or a Half Ogre, which all three seemed to have some definite appeal. Still, the traditional races noted predominated in actual groups I played with, and much of beyond.

Somewhere along the way in D&D 3.0, though not initially, I would think, the cultural shift gained momentum and rose to prominence. Some exact point? No, I don't think so. Is their court-sanctioned "evidence"? Well, yeah, there is such evidence sufficient for many people in embracing such a position, but it really isn't important if an individual "sees it" or not. The evidence is all around, and obvious for those willing to see. For those that aren't, no amount of such evidence or references would be sufficient. Somewhere in later 3.0 going into 3.5, the whole tendency of, "I was playing my Half-Dragon/Half Elf/Sparkle Vampire with the Laughing Rainbow Template!" became a recurring desire, even surfacing within some of the groups I played in at the time. This happened from a variety of "Streams of Influence"--the shifting culture which embraced more video games, MMORPGS--like World of Warcraft--Anime, movies, as well as books, I'm sure. It all flows into changing the cultural tone, and the tone within gaming. There's elements of this also seen in the game books and modules at the time, which were also then influential in changing people's attitudes and conceptions.

All of these "Streams of Influence" contributed to transforming the gaming landscape by the end of D&D 3.5, where playing crazy monstrous races were now the main desire, expectation, and thrill of perhaps a majority of players. Even many DM's, too, joined in, as they became seduced by the luminous allure of creating some ultimate Rainbow Sparkle NPC Villain that would titillate and wow the players and fellow DM's alike. It became almost a "mini-game" in its own way to come up with the most fantastic hybrid monstrosity of a race as possible. And, all of that momentum, brought on by the different streams of influence, has not dissipated, but has intensified in every way to the current D&D 5E.

Now, as I have previously mentioned, in groups I have seen--which there have been many over the recent years--standard, traditional races for characters are often the minority in a part composition. Crazy, Rainbow Freak monster races are the norm now. And, as someone mentioned about preferring Science Fiction games because they provide more diversity--indeed, that is quite true. Design-wise, and tone-wise, the more crazy Monster races get allowed into the game, the more like a Science Fiction game D&D can seem to become--and divorced and separated from it's mythological, historical, and medieval roots. If one views such a dynamic as a spectrum, for many people, the more of one thing therefore reduces the other, and that, ultimately, is at the heart of the conflict.

That's my perspective on it.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

What about the Complete book of Sparkling Vampires in 2e?

Well my DM never let me use it.

I'd say it was also aligned with turning from more survivalist tones of older D&D to Big Fucking Heroes of later ones. So not only sci-fi and anime, but also superhero element plays roles, with all wacky beings from comics. Now I must say as much as running post 5 lvl D&D can be bit of chore - and more than bit - it was sort of fan to product advanced awakened dread wight half-black dragon dire bat possessed by balor or nosferatu troglodyte ninja .

But now looking at this half of century of D&D behind us - if I would want medieval mythical historical roots, then still OD&D would be far from my choice.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 15, 2021, 03:57:23 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 11, 2021, 02:45:09 PM

Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.

And here you put words in my mouth again...

It seems you read what you want and not what is actually written.

Let's look at what was actually said back on page 6:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Note I was talking about the cultural shift that occurred in the game from 3.x on, resulting in the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard in D&D.

Becoming: the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.


Your reply to moonsweeper where you used his choice of wording to prop up a false inference:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM
You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  ...

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You'll notice it was moonsweeper that said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  ...

In my reply I acknowledged that there was a past history of supplemental material that gave the option to play monster races:
"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere. ..."

My intent was to clarify moonsweepers meaning because I recognized that the use of the word 'started' was not the best word choice, and would give you a pedantic nail to hang your false inference on while ignoring the actual claim. The nuance was lost on you. You saw your nail and clung to it for dear life.

You seem to believe we said no one could, or did play a monster PC race pre 3e. Even though it was not a claim either moonsweeper or I ever made.

You then rattle off many posts showing the supplemental material offered so people could play monster race PC's in past editions. Which no one was claiming didn't happen.

My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: "the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard".

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet telling real world mythology to kick rocks: on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM
"...But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player's Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. ..."

Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

Because as has D&D became more self-referential, the more it has watered down the grounding the game had in actual myth and legend where monsters are allegorical representations of corruption and evil.

Instead, it has relied more on its own weak worldbuilding in trying to account for every kitchen sink element in one setting. And as the mythological underpinnings of the monster races have become watered down, it makes less and less sense to deny the segment of players that want to have monster pc's to be a standard element of play. As a result they have been accommodated to a degree in D&D's standard PHB that wasn't done before.

This has been empirically shown to be true when looking at the increase in monster races offered as standard PC option's, starting with the return of the Half-Orc in the 3e PHB, and growing steadily with each successive edition: 4e and 5e. Which I have already highlighted in list form in a past post.

How when I said: " I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on..."

You found your way to: "No one could play monsters races in D&D before 3e. " I do not know. Virtually no one else but you took that from what was being discussed.

You completely missed the point I was making, and have since just been spamming counterpoints to a claim no one made.

In fact one could argue that as D&D has become more self-referential and divorced itself from its mythological roots that the people working on D&D itself no longer understand themselves what monster races in myth and legend were symbolically representing, and have released nonsense statements displaying their ignorance such as this:

"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That's just not right, and it's not something we believe in. ..."




As for referencing for goal posts...

Let's look back Where you said:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 03:21:50 PM
The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Then I said:

Quote from: Jaeger on February 10, 2021, 06:25:28 PM
Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

Then you said:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 06:59:32 PM
My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

"...walk those goal posts back." Indeed!

Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. So what? The reason the SJWs complain is because they think this causes players to develop racist attitudes, but in the absence of scientific studies we don't actually know if there's any weight to their arguments. We currently don't have any evidence that violent media necessarily increases the prevalence of violent crime, for comparison.

Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 15, 2021, 03:57:23 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 11, 2021, 02:45:09 PM

Always good to see posters walk those goal posts back.

"I didnt mean 'started' " indeed.

And here you put words in my mouth again...

It seems you read what you want and not what is actually written.

Let's look at what was actually said back on page 6:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Note I was talking about the cultural shift that occurred in the game from 3.x on, resulting in the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard in D&D.

Becoming: the process of coming to be something or of passing into a state.


Your reply to moonsweeper where you used his choice of wording to prop up a false inference:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM
You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  ...

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993

But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You'll notice it was moonsweeper that said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  ...

In my reply I acknowledged that there was a past history of supplemental material that gave the option to play monster races:
"You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere. ..."

My intent was to clarify moonsweepers meaning because I recognized that the use of the word 'started' was not the best word choice, and would give you a pedantic nail to hang your false inference on while ignoring the actual claim. The nuance was lost on you. You saw your nail and clung to it for dear life.

You seem to believe we said no one could, or did play a monster PC race pre 3e. Even though it was not a claim either moonsweeper or I ever made.

You then rattle off many posts showing the supplemental material offered so people could play monster race PC's in past editions. Which no one was claiming didn't happen.

My argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: "the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard".

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet telling real world mythology to kick rocks: on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM
"...But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player's Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. ..."

Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

Because as has D&D became more self-referential, the more it has watered down the grounding the game had in actual myth and legend where monsters are allegorical representations of corruption and evil.

Instead, it has relied more on its own weak worldbuilding in trying to account for every kitchen sink element in one setting. And as the mythological underpinnings of the monster races have become watered down, it makes less and less sense to deny the segment of players that want to have monster pc's to be a standard element of play. As a result they have been accommodated to a degree in D&D's standard PHB that wasn't done before.

This has been empirically shown to be true when looking at the increase in monster races offered as standard PC option's, starting with the return of the Half-Orc in the 3e PHB, and growing steadily with each successive edition: 4e and 5e. Which I have already highlighted in list form in a past post.

How when I said: " I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on..."

You found your way to: "No one could play monsters races in D&D before 3e. " I do not know. Virtually no one else but you took that from what was being discussed.

You completely missed the point I was making, and have since just been spamming counterpoints to a claim no one made.

In fact one could argue that as D&D has become more self-referential and divorced itself from its mythological roots that the people working on D&D itself no longer understand themselves what monster races in myth and legend were symbolically representing, and have released nonsense statements displaying their ignorance such as this:

"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That's just not right, and it's not something we believe in. ..."




As for referencing for goal posts...

Let's look back Where you said:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 03:21:50 PM
The only reason that Half-Orc was dropped from 2e was the Woke scalds that were coming after DnD during the Satanic Panic caused the neck beards designing 2e to pull all risque material from DnD.  So bye bye Assassin, Devils, Demons and yes Half-Orcs.

Then I said:

Quote from: Jaeger on February 10, 2021, 06:25:28 PM
Yet somehow, according to your own posts, they managed to release a good amount of material in that era that gave players options to play many different monster PC races...

Obviously their fear of the Woke scalds knew no limit.

Then you said:

Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 06:59:32 PM
My guess is that she-who-must-not-be-named liked money more then she hated "bad" publicity because by the time 2.5e rolled around they had no problem building monster PC races directly into the core rules.

"...walk those goal posts back." Indeed!

Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. So what? The reason the SJWs complain is because they think this causes players to develop racist attitudes, but in the absence of scientific studies we don't actually know if there's any weight to their arguments. We currently don't have any evidence that violent media necessarily increases the prevalence of violent crime, for comparison.

Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

It's interesting the way these ideas have changed over time.

In the 90s and early 2000s there was some discussion of what fantasy would look like if written from a more left wing perspective.  This was less about condemning what had gone before, but more about writers considering what fantasy would look like if it better reflected their values.   China Mieville's writing was an example of this.  There's nothing really wrong with this - after all it's a call for more intellectual diversity - not less.

At the same time there was a more academic recognition that you could analyse a lot of texts and see how they reflected their times.  This does not mean you would look at Tolkien and condemn him as a racist, but more that you would look at his writing as taking place in a certain context and being placed within a certain time.  Again, done with nuance, there's nothing wrong with this, and the people initially doing this were probably people who loved Tolkien - why spend so much time analysing something you hate?

But somewhere along the line there has been a kind of coalescence and an immense dumbing down. 

You can tell the keep absence of any intellectual engagement by the vastly overinflated use of the concept of 'harm' which is never clearly explained or defined.

Thats because eventually all definitions become practically "everything on earth".

This is why they push fake ideas like "systemic racism" where EVERY white person is pretty much born racist. Or why they try to redefine what an RPG is to really mean "everything on earth". Or rape, or harrassment, or anything really. They can and will eventually keep broadening the term to encompass more and more.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 15, 2021, 02:47:23 PM

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.
.... .

Except I did.

Quoting Johnathan Tweet's own words twice on the subject, and explaining my reasoning at length.

You choose to ignore it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM

Maybe the D&D races did have parallels to racist propaganda. ...

I would say no. They were all originally based on myth and legend. And were allegorical representations of human vices.

Racist propaganda usurped the language of myth and legend in order to try and dehumanize specific groups of people.

Similar to the way SJW's try and usurp history to fit their narrative of systematic racism.

Anyone who says D&D races = Racist caricature, Is actually parroting the racist worldview. They actually believe the racist propaganda.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM
Tolkien thought the concept of inherently evil races didn't make sense. If you look at the supposed origins of the orcs as being elves tortured and indoctrinated by Morgoth, then the closest real world parallel isn't people of color: it's child soldiers.

True, but going with Tolkien's actual concepts would not allow them to shame-leverage the control over mainstream 5e Lore the way that screeching Orcs=Blacks does.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:10:56 PM

Yes, the monsters of myth and folklore were allegorical. It was D&D that made them increasingly more like Star Trek humanoid aliens with every edition.

Exactly. As D&D has gotten more and more self-referential, losing its connections to actual myths and legends, the game designers rob themselves and players of the allegorical archetypes the creatures represented.

And so as they design new "races" they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is "Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!"

Quote from: Jaeger on February 22, 2021, 08:15:49 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 15, 2021, 02:47:23 PM

And yet you still, until now, have no evidence that there was any such "cultural shift" starting with 3e.
.... .

Except I did.

Quoting Johnathan Tweet's own words twice on the subject, and explaining my reasoning at length.

You choose to ignore it.

Ok, lets look at your quote:

QuoteMy argument claimed that there was a cultural shift that took place in the D&D game once WOTC took over which led to: "the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard".

Standard; as in not something out of a supplement, but something available from the get go. Most other posters in this thread seem to get what I am saying.

And I quoted Johnathan Tweets own words where he admits that they were intentionally changing the tone of the game compared to past editions:

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet telling real world mythology to kick rocks: on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM

    "...But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player's Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology. ..."


Hence my claim of the cultural shift in D&D that took place with 3e.

As I understand what Mr Tweet is saying, he basically used DnD as its own source using Monks not because they were a new idea or because they were Medieval authentic but because they were an existing part of DnD Lore.  Likewise Gnomes were not meant to be representative of "real" world mythology, they were supposed to be DnD Gnomes.

Looking at your example of including Half-Orcs in the PHB.  What reason could Mr Tweet have had to include them?  One reason could have been that he saw a cultural shift towards playing "monstrous characters"  However my contention is that it would be  more accurate to state the real reason was because, like Gnomes, Half-Orcs were already an existing part of DnD Lore.

Therefore, there was no cultural shift with 3e.  3e was designed to be as DnD as possible using all of the accumulated DnD Lore which as I have shown includes monstrous characters.  3e Players were not making Half-Orc or Tiefling Characters because of some culture shift, they were making Half-Orc or Tiefling Characters because DnD Players have always made Half-Orc or Tiefling Characters.  As Mr Tweets quote states 3e is completely self referential to the existing DnD Lore.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 22, 2021, 08:15:49 PM
And so as they design new "races" they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is "Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!"

Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

At this point it's best to walk away. Their is no real productive way to deal with the stubbornly stupid at this point. He insists on trying to convince everyone and anyone that 2+2=5 and nothing anyone or everyone says to the negative will change his mind.

It's the start of new week spend it doing much more enjoyable and productive things. As you or I or anyone else are going to round and round to no end. No amount of opinion or even proof is going to change the narrative.

Quote from: sureshot on February 23, 2021, 08:33:37 AM
At this point it's best to walk away. Their is no real productive way to deal with the stubbornly stupid at this point. He insists on trying to convince everyone and anyone that 2+2=5 and nothing anyone or everyone says to the negative will change his mind.

Best way I've found to convince people that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 is to ask them if you can trade them some ones for a five, give them $2, then another $2 and then ask your $5. 

On topic, there have been a LOT of fantasy stories with various monsters in the role of a protagonist; though due to production budgets there's usually only one of them for flavor. That reason alone is enough to make them available and leave it the GM to decide what, if any, limits to place on PCs.

Hell, a game might be set on something like John Carter's Mars where there's only one HUMAN allowed in the adventuring party.

Quote from: sureshot on February 23, 2021, 08:33:37 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM
Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

At this point it's best to walk away. Their is no real productive way to deal with the stubbornly stupid at this point. He insists on trying to convince everyone and anyone that 2+2=5 and nothing anyone or everyone says to the negative will change his mind.

It's the start of new week spend it doing much more enjoyable and productive things. As you or I or anyone else are going to round and round to no end. No amount of opinion or even proof is going to change the narrative.

Agreed and seconded.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 09:45:41 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 22, 2021, 08:15:49 PM
And so as they design new "races" they lack the understanding to give the new race a proper mythological grounding. So instead of providing a classical archetype for players to riff off of - all we get is "Me so special with blue skin! Squeee!!"

Ha, Drow Rangers are so 80s.

Wait that does not fit your narrative!

And Drow Chavaliers! And Drow Acrobats!

No. None of this fits the near cult-like idiot ball narrative imperative need to blame WOTC for every hallucinated evil.

Eventually we will have come full circle and become the new SJWs hallucinating new atrocities around every corner.

Oh wait. We allready are.

Go after WOTC for all the dirty things they HAVE done as these imaginary wrongs just undermine any attempts to call them out.

"WOTC is declaring all older books wacist!"
"Oh you mean like how you told us WOTC invented monster PC races to undermine "true D&D" play? Yeah riiiiight."