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?

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?

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  ' 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. 

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?

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.