I remember reading through the 5e core books upon release in 2014 and thinking they were pretty good. What was the turning point where wokeness started to ruin the game?
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Yep. As a result that was the last D&D book I ever bought. Kinda saw where things were headed.
Was that the only offending part of the core rulebooks?
As with a lot of such ideological takeovers, it happens quietly at first, then slowly, then seemingly all at once. That's because all the people involved, and their fellow travelers, will habitually pretend they aren't doing what they are doing until they get control, then it accelerates.
A great deal of change, took place in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. The change there, was much greater than that witnessed in the previous core books and splat books. After the core 3 books, you saw splat books go off into 2 primary directions.
Volo's Guide to Monsters, expanded upon the previous Monster Manual offerings; and it also included additional playable races to those found in the PHB. Then Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, followed in the footsteps of Volo's.
The other type of splat, came in the form of Xanathar's Guide to Everything; and then later, Tasha's Guide to Everything. These books were an expansion of content found in the PHB and the DMG.
*More recently; Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, is a replacement for both Volo's and the previous Mordenkainen's volume. This was a do-over, which allowed WOTC to continue to go woke; by re-releasing previously released material.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
^^THIS^^
DnD5e has always been woke.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:52:28 PM
Was that the only offending part of the core rulebooks?
Important Note here -
Yes, it was offensive. The important reason is WHY. The statement was offensive because that has always been how the game was played since its inception without some ham-fisted author's note saying so. You could play anything you wanted as a character and nobody cared. The only exception to that were people who used it to be an asshole at the table hiding behind the excuse of, "My character was created that way and so must be shitty to everyone!"
In the hail of screams about how "stunning and brave" that statement was, people forgot that it had always been that way, just unstated because it was obvious.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:52:28 PM
Was that the only offending part of the core rulebooks?
AFAICR yes, though I can only speak to the PH because I didn't buy the other books.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
I'd agree that it's woke, but I don't think it undermines DM authority any more than any other statement in the rulebook saying "You can do X". There are a lot of parts of the rules - like equipment, language, and backgrounds - that depend on setting, and need to be altered if different from the default setting. In 5E, the default setting is the Forgotten Realms, which were established back in the 1980s by their original author, Ed Greenwood, as being typically inclusive of LGBT identities.
So, I'd agree that it's a marker for "woke" - but it isn't opposed to DM authority and it fits with the original vision of the Forgotten Realms.
Also, that paragraph at least partly due to Pundit's influence, according to him. As he put it,
QuoteI was completely and explicitly in favor of Wizards including that, just as they did. Contrary to what you have implied I have never and would never be opposed to inclusion on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. I have always been firmly in support of gay rights; I have had gay and bisexual players in my gaming groups, my wife (The Wench) and I lived for many years with a gay couple renting our spare bedroom, I have been a supporter of LGBT rights in Uruguay (which is one of the most progressive countries in South America on that note, where not only has gay marriage and adoption been legalized but anyone from the age of 12 onwards has a right to choose the gender stated on their identity card), and to my knowledge (maybe someone can point me to a pre-existing work that proves otherwise, but if so I did not hear of it) my Arrows of Indra is the first RPG to feature a transgendered character on the cover.
Source: http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/07/if-youre-going-to-hate-me-at-least-do.html
Quote from: jhkim on January 08, 2023, 12:01:24 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
I'd agree that it's woke, but I don't think it undermines DM authority any more than any other statement in the rulebook saying "You can do X". There are a lot of parts of the rules - like equipment, language, and backgrounds - that depend on setting, and need to be altered if different from the default setting. In 5E, the default setting is the Forgotten Realms, which were established back in the 1980s by their original author, Ed Greenwood, as being typically inclusive of LGBT identities.
So, I'd agree that it's a marker for "woke" - but it isn't opposed to DM authority and it fits with the original vision of the Forgotten Realms.
Also, that paragraph at least partly due to Pundit's influence, according to him. As he put it,
QuoteI was completely and explicitly in favor of Wizards including that, just as they did. Contrary to what you have implied I have never and would never be opposed to inclusion on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. I have always been firmly in support of gay rights; I have had gay and bisexual players in my gaming groups, my wife (The Wench) and I lived for many years with a gay couple renting our spare bedroom, I have been a supporter of LGBT rights in Uruguay (which is one of the most progressive countries in South America on that note, where not only has gay marriage and adoption been legalized but anyone from the age of 12 onwards has a right to choose the gender stated on their identity card), and to my knowledge (maybe someone can point me to a pre-existing work that proves otherwise, but if so I did not hear of it) my Arrows of Indra is the first RPG to feature a transgendered character on the cover.
Source: http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/07/if-youre-going-to-hate-me-at-least-do.html
That bolded part will be the end of the LGBT movement. That's not something I'm too happy about in the slightest.
Throwaway lines about trans characters being allowed don't ruin the game IMO, I'm thinking more about stuff like eliminating bonuses/differentiating features for PC species or no longer portraying monsters as inherently evil. Things that change the way the game is played.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 12:20:42 AM
Throwaway lines about trans characters being allowed don't ruin the game IMO, I'm thinking more about stuff like eliminating bonuses/differentiating features for PC species or no longer portraying monsters as inherently evil. Things that change the way the game is played.
There are a handful books where WotC didn't include alignment info, as they were moving away from alignment - notably Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. However, I don't think that affects game play much. There are still evil monsters in Richten's, they just don't have "alignment: lawful evil" in their stat block. WotC later reversed that policy, and began including alignment stats again, with slightly changed verbiage.
They have stuck with removing race-specific stat modifiers, which lessens optimized race/class combos. That has some effect compared to original 5E, but it's pretty marginal. It's a shift of 1 or 2 attribute points around. It mostly influences those players really trying to maximize optimization.
I think 2015 was the year wokeness hit critical mass in our culture, I guess it's a blessing that 5e core hit in 2014. I can only imagine what OneD&D will bring...
Let's be honest here: that line about not sticking to a gender binary was pure virtue signalling. It has zero impact on the rules and almost no effect on the setting unless a player/GM wants to draw attention to it. As Jeff pointed out, you have ALWAYS been able to describe your character however you wanted. The book did not need to give players explicit permission. What that sentence DOES do, however, is alienate players that aren't comfortable with having gender-non-conforming character (either out of a bias or perhaps simply because the setting doesn't allow it).
The biggest misconception people have with "fantasy" is they think it means "anything goes," when what it actually means is that the fantasy world does not necessarily comport to our reality. It is entirely within the realm of "fantasy" to have a world where genders exist on a strict binary (not only physically/biologically, but socially as well). Sure, one can make the argument that the core D&D books default to Forgotten Realms, which was allegedly design purposely to be inclusive to other lifestyles, but the core books are also intended to be toolkit. You don't NEED to include halflings or dragonborn or druids or certain Feats, etc. And, yes, that also means you can ignore that sentence about gender identity too. But here's the test... try writing a setting for D&D that explicitly sets down a gender binary, then count the seconds before you get called an istophobe and have your licensing rights revoked.
Did Monsters of the Multiverse make any egregious changes to the books it's based on?
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 02:36:40 AM
Did Monsters of the Multiverse make any egregious changes to the books it's based on?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQ5p56FC/Neogi-redacted.png)
That is how much of the text description they redacted from the Neogi from Mords. Does it look like the CIA's files they will release on the CIA's involvement with the Kennedy Assasination or D&D 5E content? Hard to tell the difference isn't it. For multiverse they pulled all world lore that was included on races, monsters and demons across Mords and Volo's, they ripped it out.
When 5E fired Mearl's, any sense of adult control of D&D went away. As soon as Winninger was hired, 5E went to shit. Winninger put in the racist/sexist warning on all prior 4E and earlier content, the combat wheelchair with the dudes black boyfriend in a world where heal/greater restoration/regeneration/reincarnation/resurrection exists all of which would fix that - for under 3K gp, lets spend 500Kgp and make a flying gold wheel chair, Ravenloft rewrite, Von Richten's guide with no alignment for evil monsters, Tasha's breaking the power balance to the point where if you use their crap it breaks bards, clerics, magic items and offers very little of anything else but a player power grab etc. The art has been fairly woke with no one allowed to show much if any secondary sexual characteristics. In the PHB Ch4 goes heavy into intersectionality claptrap, its the shit you'd hear from someone who didn't protect their kids from that poison.
The game mechanics, monsters, classes and spells are good for 5E. Just drop any and all culture from 5E. Ignore everything WotC puts out. Don't buy their world building or character classes. User older content and third party content and you'll have a better campaign with happier people.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:49:28 AM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 02:36:40 AM
Did Monsters of the Multiverse make any egregious changes to the books it's based on?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQ5p56FC/Neogi-redacted.png)
That is how much of the text description they redacted from the Neogi from Mords. Does it look like the CIA's files they will release on the CIA's involvement with the Kennedy Assasination or D&D 5E content? Hard to tell the difference isn't it. For multiverse they pulled all world lore that was included on races, monsters and demons across Mords and Volo's, they ripped it out.
That seems like it might actually be an improvement to me. I generally hate lore/fluff in WotC books because it's almost never done well, so I'd rather just come up with my own background info and use the provided stats.
Which books would you say are the ones that are high quality? Were there any errata reprints that made books worse?
If you're wondering if any of the books are worth buying, my opinion is No. Not because of any woke claptrap or shoddy mechanics (though those exist), but because WotC is not a company worthy of supporting. If you don't goosestep in line with their politics, they don't want you as a customer anyway.
The 5e Basic rules are free. The SRD is free. You don't need any of the filler unless you really want to play in the Forgotten Realms. It'll take a little effort to flesh out the subclasses you don't get access to, but I honestly found most of the official subclasses to be boring and unimaginative (with so much crossover with other classes I seriously thought the writers forgot multiclassing was a thing). If you already own the PHB, stop there. Most of the other books are disappointing, adding nothing but bloat and broken mechanics. If you are interested, though, yo ho me hearties, hoist the colours high!
When? I'd say it was a process that took place from 2015-2020, peaking around 2018/19. Major milestones including taking Mearls, basically a traditional non-SJW left-liberal, off D&D, installing Crawford in charge, and arguably Winniger, of whom I know little. I'd say by 2020 they were fully Converged.
The 2014 PHB's brief discussion of sex & gender was attacked as much by the SJW Left as by the Deplorable Right. I found it mildly annoying, but I don't think it's comparable to the stuff you start seeing from 2018 onwards. Unlike say the Gnay Gnome Knings of the 2019 Essentials Kit adventure, it doesn't interfere with running or playing the game.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 03:00:28 AM
The art has been fairly woke with no one allowed to show much if any secondary sexual characteristics.
There was definitely a striking prudery in the 5e art. Even the white male human barbarian is always fully clothed. There is barely any skin showing, and the iconic knight/paladin type character is hard to tell if male or female - I'm guessing female. Apparently there is not a single belly button in all of 5e art.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:19:17 PM
I remember reading through the 5e core books upon release in 2014 and thinking they were pretty good. What was the turning point where wokeness started to ruin the game?
On Day One, when they added "Choose your character's sexual orientation."
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 06:04:03 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
A lot of 5E players have been conditioned with that opinion. While you can just refuse to GM for them, a GM without players isn't much use.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 06:04:03 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
A lot of 5E players have been conditioned with that opinion. While you can just refuse to GM for them, a GM without players isn't much use.
That would be fine by me. I would rather not run a game than run one with that kind of player. And players aren't much use without a GM.
YMMV.
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 08:10:42 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 06:04:03 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
A lot of 5E players have been conditioned with that opinion. While you can just refuse to GM for them, a GM without players isn't much use.
That would be fine by me. I would rather not run a game than run one with that kind of player. And players aren't much use without a GM.
YMMV.
The inverse of GM's needing players is so obvious that it didn't even require stating, and changes nothing.
Of course GM's and players can cut off their own noses to spite the other, but I'd prefer the de facto gateway RPG not program all new players to be spoiled, selfish shits that treat GM's as servants.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 08:10:42 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 06:04:03 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
A lot of 5E players have been conditioned with that opinion. While you can just refuse to GM for them, a GM without players isn't much use.
That would be fine by me. I would rather not run a game than run one with that kind of player. And players aren't much use without a GM.
YMMV.
The inverse of GM's needing players is so obvious that it didn't even require stating, and changes nothing.
Of course GM's and players can cut off their own noses to spite the other, but I'd prefer the de facto gateway RPG not program all new players to be spoiled, selfish shits that treat GM's as servants.
Indeed.
Sometimes the Freedom of Association and the Lack of Entitlement to Another's Labor is worth repeating. ;) Especially when 'the sauce for the goose is good for the gander'. It helps keep relations cordial when one is reminded 'the phone works both ways'.
Consideration & Reciprocity, good stuff. Having demands thrown back in the narcissist's face clearly stating no special treatment here, healthy boundaries. Disengaging from 'Cluster Bees :o ' who'll never be satisfied until you are ground down under their heel forever, best safe practice. :)
This is a shared game of pretend with asymmetrical powers and responsibilities, but that still expects a baseline of maturity and mutual respect. If you cannot abide, best to do some other activity. Thankfully, The Dude Abides. 8)
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 04:13:42 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:49:28 AM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 02:36:40 AM
Did Monsters of the Multiverse make any egregious changes to the books it's based on?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQ5p56FC/Neogi-redacted.png)
That is how much of the text description they redacted from the Neogi from Mords. Does it look like the CIA's files they will release on the CIA's involvement with the Kennedy Assasination or D&D 5E content? Hard to tell the difference isn't it. For multiverse they pulled all world lore that was included on races, monsters and demons across Mords and Volo's, they ripped it out.
That seems like it might actually be an improvement to me. I generally hate lore/fluff in WotC books because it's almost never done well, so I'd rather just come up with my own background info and use the provided stats.
Which books would you say are the ones that are high quality? Were there any errata reprints that made books worse?
So you like the Neogi portrayed as Vulcans for Multiverse then. Well have fun with that, I'm out.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 08:10:42 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 06:04:03 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
A lot of 5E players have been conditioned with that opinion. While you can just refuse to GM for them, a GM without players isn't much use.
That would be fine by me. I would rather not run a game than run one with that kind of player. And players aren't much use without a GM.
YMMV.
The inverse of GM's needing players is so obvious that it didn't even require stating, and changes nothing.
Of course GM's and players can cut off their own noses to spite the other, but I'd prefer the de facto gateway RPG not program all new players to be spoiled, selfish shits that treat GM's as servants.
I agree.
I believe that some of this also goes back to that many in the current player population come from the computer games population, where:
* the game is specifically defined by rules and what actions can be taken are limited to what is specified by the rules;
* the goal of the game is to win, rather than to play.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 04:13:42 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:49:28 AM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 02:36:40 AM
Did Monsters of the Multiverse make any egregious changes to the books it's based on?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQ5p56FC/Neogi-redacted.png)
That is how much of the text description they redacted from the Neogi from Mords. Does it look like the CIA's files they will release on the CIA's involvement with the Kennedy Assasination or D&D 5E content? Hard to tell the difference isn't it. For multiverse they pulled all world lore that was included on races, monsters and demons across Mords and Volo's, they ripped it out.
That seems like it might actually be an improvement to me. I generally hate lore/fluff in WotC books because it's almost never done well, so I'd rather just come up with my own background info and use the provided stats.
The problem is, if the fluff/lore is in the book, you can just ignore it. People that like it can't make it materialize by wishing for it.
So the old way did no more than, at most, mildly inconvenience you; whereas removing the fluff/lore screws many enthusiasts.
The paragraph in Basic/the PHB was the first sign of the game explicitly promoting the New Order, and you could find similar flags and signals in subsequent products, but as I understand it, it didn't start really picking up speed until Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, which made Waterdeep sound like Fantasy Seattle. (The only 5E product I ever owned was Curse of Strahd, and I've sold it off.)
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 08, 2023, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 04:13:42 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 02:49:28 AM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 08, 2023, 02:36:40 AM
Did Monsters of the Multiverse make any egregious changes to the books it's based on?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQ5p56FC/Neogi-redacted.png)
That is how much of the text description they redacted from the Neogi from Mords. Does it look like the CIA's files they will release on the CIA's involvement with the Kennedy Assasination or D&D 5E content? Hard to tell the difference isn't it. For multiverse they pulled all world lore that was included on races, monsters and demons across Mords and Volo's, they ripped it out.
That seems like it might actually be an improvement to me. I generally hate lore/fluff in WotC books because it's almost never done well, so I'd rather just come up with my own background info and use the provided stats.
The problem is, if the fluff/lore is in the book, you can just ignore it. People that like it can't make it materialize by wishing for it.
So the old way did no more than, at most, mildly inconvenience you; whereas removing the fluff/lore screws many enthusiasts.
The lore section is what gives you the understanding of the concept of good and evil. Anything that depicts good or evil actions by a race are removed by Seattle D&D. They do that so when their political allies do evil, people won't have a moral compass to understand what is being done is arguably evil. It takes a while to change a people to an entities liking but you do it through their culture, myth and religion and D&D is part of culture. Do you think a communist likes being aligned with Lawful Evil by D&D's alignment system, no so get rid of the alignment system so that analogy can't be made.
The crap we are seeing in D&D is just a symptom and its prevalent in a lot of other media and entertainment. If it was just a one off, no big, but its in most companies now and they are making financial decisions that costs them $100M's+ to promote this narrative while the public refuses to buy it. D&D is an avenue where they aren't losing as much because they get them subconsciously as kids 12+ and most parents don't have a reference point. Meanwhile, "Strange Worlds" going gay, a lot of parents are aware and they can chose not to take their kids to see if it is something they don't want to expose their 12 years old to.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 10:10:48 AMDo you think a communist likes being aligned with Lawful Evil by D&D's alignment system, no so get rid of the alignment system so that analogy can't be made.
As we're still in the revolutionary stage, I'd argue that the rank and file useful idiots are Chaotic Evil. Only the puppet masters are Lawful Evil.
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2023, 06:04:03 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Only if you think that the DM cannot override any rule in the book.
By that logic no game can ever be woke because the DM can just override all the woke parts. And if that's the standard what's the point of even talking about a game?
Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 05:56:18 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 03:00:28 AM
The art has been fairly woke with no one allowed to show much if any secondary sexual characteristics.
There was definitely a striking prudery in the 5e art. Even the white male human barbarian is always fully clothed. There is barely any skin showing, and the iconic knight/paladin type character is hard to tell if male or female - I'm guessing female. Apparently there is not a single belly button in all of 5e art.
The art for 5e has been kind of "blech" across the board, and it's not just the lack of blood and boobies. Generally the poses are boring or nonsensical, the colors are washed out, the details are blurry, and a lot of the characters are just ugly. It's not that the artists for 5e are necessarily without skill, but it feels like there's been a mandate from day 1 to maintain the most mild and inoffensive art style possible in all illustrations.
Though it turns out that the strange case of the androgynous paladin goes back to at least 3rd edition:
(https://i.postimg.cc/44QSBPxW/30-Paladin.jpg)
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 08, 2023, 11:23:22 AM
Quote from: S'mon on January 08, 2023, 05:56:18 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 03:00:28 AM
The art has been fairly woke with no one allowed to show much if any secondary sexual characteristics.
There was definitely a striking prudery in the 5e art. Even the white male human barbarian is always fully clothed. There is barely any skin showing, and the iconic knight/paladin type character is hard to tell if male or female - I'm guessing female. Apparently there is not a single belly button in all of 5e art.
The art for 5e has been kind of "blech" across the board, and it's not just the lack of blood and boobies. Generally the poses are boring or nonsensical, the colors are washed out, the details are blurry, and a lot of the characters are just ugly. It's not that the artists for 5e are necessarily without skill, but it feels like there's been a mandate from day 1 to maintain the most mild and inoffensive art style possible in all illustrations.
Though it turns out that the strange case of the androgynous paladin goes back to at least 3rd edition:
(https://i.postimg.cc/44QSBPxW/30-Paladin.jpg)
The original D&D art was amateurish, but with heart.
AD&D was was both professional, and beautiful, a true high water mark. I'd happily hang AD&D art on my wall.
3.5 was blandly professional, with ups and downs.
5e is designed by people that dislike beauty and the human form.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:19:17 PM
I remember reading through the 5e core books upon release in 2014 and thinking they were pretty good. What was the turning point where wokeness started to ruin the game?
I'd say it started with
Storm King's Thunder in 2017, which was (to my knowledge) the first adventure to introduce a gay character, a black lesbian who runs an inn in the village of Triboar. Then
Ghosts of Saltmarch introduced a "hardened" group of marine veterans run by Tom and Will Stoutly, a married gay couple. I presume things have only gotten worse since then, but I stopped consuming WotC products at that point, so I wouldn't know.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with playing in a setting where non-standard sexual preferences are a behind closed doors thing? Why the need to turn essentially medieval settings in to Portland?
How can you roleplay challenging stereotypes when everyone accepts you? How can you overcome handicaps when you have a magic wheelchair? Woman in a man's world proving her worth? Oh, the captain of the royal guard is a woman.
No challenges, roleplaying or mechanically. Just an auto-win setting where people can roleplay fetishes and talk about food.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7QXk-xbRgSg/maxresdefault.jpg)
ADDENDUM: I focus on sex preference, because that's what we hear 24/7, but if I played a European in 17th century Japan, I'd accept being treated like a circus freak. If I played a black cowboy, I'd know I'd get treated badly by some npc's.
If I was in sci-fi, and crash landed on a Matriarchal world and they enslaved me, I wouldn't throw a shit-fit.
Quote from: Horace on January 08, 2023, 12:34:05 PM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:19:17 PM
I remember reading through the 5e core books upon release in 2014 and thinking they were pretty good. What was the turning point where wokeness started to ruin the game?
I'd say it started with Storm King's Thunder in 2017, which was (to my knowledge) the first adventure to introduce a gay character, a black lesbian who runs an inn in the village of Triboar. Then Ghosts of Saltmarch introduced a "hardened" group of marine veterans run by Tom and Will Stoutly, a married gay couple. I presume things have only gotten worse since then, but I stopped consuming WotC products at that point, so I wouldn't know.
The only people who have to read that shit are the DM's if they are using WotC material. Even then, just throw out the perversion and replace their shit. You don't have to spread the degeneracy to people. My suggestion is use 4E content and ignore 5E lore/writing completely.
5E went woke somewhere in 3E when they started using female pronouns exclusively or using the "White male" fighter character as the running joke/dead body in all the art.
Quote from: Zelen on January 08, 2023, 02:17:42 PM
5E went woke somewhere in 3E when they started using female pronouns exclusively or using the "White male" fighter character as the running joke/dead body in all the art.
This is true. From what I recall, the designers were actually mad that the marketers prominently used the white male fighter in the artwork. Or maybe they were mad that the fighter even was a white male. I don't remember the specifics. All I remember is that 3E D&D was super-woke for its time -- just slightly more reined in than what we have today.
I actually stopped playing D&D during the 3E playtest because of things like this. What really got to me, though, besides the terrible artwork (sorry, completely impractical and ahistorical spiky-armor Emo-goth fans) was the removal of class/race restrictions. Apparently that was supposed to be some sort of selling point at the time ("You can play a gnome paladin! Hurray!") but it was an abomination to me. That's when I decided that D&D wasn't a game I wanted to play and its fans were not people I wanted to associate with.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
That's why I did not buy ANY 5e book at all. I could see where it was going right at that moment.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: Horace on January 08, 2023, 12:34:05 PM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:19:17 PM
I remember reading through the 5e core books upon release in 2014 and thinking they were pretty good. What was the turning point where wokeness started to ruin the game?
I'd say it started with Storm King's Thunder in 2017, which was (to my knowledge) the first adventure to introduce a gay character, a black lesbian who runs an inn in the village of Triboar. Then Ghosts of Saltmarch introduced a "hardened" group of marine veterans run by Tom and Will Stoutly, a married gay couple. I presume things have only gotten worse since then, but I stopped consuming WotC products at that point, so I wouldn't know.
The only people who have to read that shit are the DM's if they are using WotC material. Even then, just throw out the perversion and replace their shit. You don't have to spread the degeneracy to people. My suggestion is use 4E content and ignore 5E lore/writing completely.
Don't give your money to them in the first place. Your money is what is helping to enable/spread it.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 08, 2023, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: Horace on January 08, 2023, 12:34:05 PM
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:19:17 PM
I remember reading through the 5e core books upon release in 2014 and thinking they were pretty good. What was the turning point where wokeness started to ruin the game?
I'd say it started with Storm King's Thunder in 2017, which was (to my knowledge) the first adventure to introduce a gay character, a black lesbian who runs an inn in the village of Triboar. Then Ghosts of Saltmarch introduced a "hardened" group of marine veterans run by Tom and Will Stoutly, a married gay couple. I presume things have only gotten worse since then, but I stopped consuming WotC products at that point, so I wouldn't know.
The only people who have to read that shit are the DM's if they are using WotC material. Even then, just throw out the perversion and replace their shit. You don't have to spread the degeneracy to people. My suggestion is use 4E content and ignore 5E lore/writing completely.
I would be interested to find out what was said about the innkeeper in Triboar in a 1e/2e/3e product and see what was mentioned. I'm betting that if *any* hint of the sexual orientation exists in older product, it would have been subtle and easily ignored. Greenwood was never shy about sexuality, but never in your face. The 5e writers are nowhere near as talented - so any blatant mention of orientation is a combo of wokeness *and* lack of talent.
As to 4e lore? No thanks. Hated it. I'll stick to 1e and 2e with 3e to fill in the blanks.
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 08, 2023, 09:16:00 PMI would be interested to find out what was said about the innkeeper in Triboar in a 1e/2e/3e product and see what was mentioned. I'm betting that if *any* hint of the sexual orientation exists in older product, it would have been subtle and easily ignored.
Storm King's Thunder just says that the innkeeper has a wife who went missing several years ago, so her sexuality actually is pretty subtle and easy to ignore. But that was 5 years ago, and things have only gotten worse since then. As far as I can tell, the Forgotten Realms is now a land of love and rainbows and nonsensical social dynamics.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:23:16 PM
Easy, the paragraph in chapter 4 that says, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."
This set the precedent that the DM cannot veto a player's character concept no matter how much that concept doesn't fit into the game's setting. It was all downhill from there.
Uh. No. Thats not true. It just says you can play any gender or combo. It does not say the DM is forced to accept this.
D&D's had stuff like this in the core books before. Usually squirrelled away in the gameplay example or sometimes the chargen example.
Difference is that wotc was not doing it just for fun. They did it for the agenda.
Quote from: RabidWookie on January 07, 2023, 09:52:28 PM
Was that the only offending part of the core rulebooks?
It is not offensive so much as just vexing. Even if Pundit thought it was ok. wotc did not put it in there for altruistic reasons.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 08, 2023, 10:01:31 AM
The paragraph in Basic/the PHB was the first sign of the game explicitly promoting the New Order, and you could find similar flags and signals in subsequent products, but as I understand it, it didn't start really picking up speed until Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, which made Waterdeep sound like Fantasy Seattle. (The only 5E product I ever owned was Curse of Strahd, and I've sold it off.)
Of the stuff I have.
Curse of Strahd has a few insertions. One so throwaway it might as well not exist.
Tomb of Annihilation has st least two insertions, one of which is another throwaway.
Essentials has the infamous Gnay Gnomes.
Forget which book but one of them added that all elves can now change gender after a long rest. And THAT is in the Adventurers League rules
And so on.
Quote from: Omega on January 09, 2023, 03:16:22 AM
Forget which book but one of them added that all elves can now change gender after a long rest. And THAT is in the Adventurers League rules
I'm not particularly fond of it, but this is false. What the Tome of Foes added (box on pg 45) is that very rare elves are androgynous, and very rare among those are some who can change their sex after long rests, and then it explicitly says
The DM decides whether an elf can manifest this miracle.Which all does tie into the standard Corellon Larethian lore going back to Deities & Demigods and the original Greyhawk, if I recall correctly.
Found my book and you are mostly right. According to the entry All elves had this once and lost it. Most clerics of Correlon have it, and about anyone, even Drow, can get it. But is optional and up to the DM.
In the Adventurers League Players Guide taking this feature overrides the PHB+1 rule. And not optional far as I can tell.
Quote from: Horace on January 08, 2023, 10:19:51 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on January 08, 2023, 09:16:00 PMI would be interested to find out what was said about the innkeeper in Triboar in a 1e/2e/3e product and see what was mentioned. I'm betting that if *any* hint of the sexual orientation exists in older product, it would have been subtle and easily ignored.
Storm King's Thunder just says that the innkeeper has a wife who went missing several years ago, so her sexuality actually is pretty subtle and easy to ignore. But that was 5 years ago, and things have only gotten worse since then. As far as I can tell, the Forgotten Realms is now a land of love and rainbows and nonsensical social dynamics.
"Subtle" would be using the word "spouse." Specifically stating "wife" is unnecessary unless it's center to the plot (the Evil Cult of Evil is kidnapping "the gay" and extracting their precious bodily flooo-ids to make cologne.)
If my response as an adult with a sick sense of humor to the gratuitous inclusion of something is "That's... That's not necessary," then it really doesn't need to be forced upon younger kids just starting out playing the game (or DMing the game).