Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 20, 2022, 09:00:37 PM
  Under current circumstances, I'd be hesitant to run D&D with an unvetted group in public, much less put something out there for worldwide consumption, so this may not be bad advice for avoiding the Perpetually Outraged.

Except that there is literally nothing you can do that they can not somehow, some way, hallucinate is offensive.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 20, 2022, 09:00:37 PM
  Under current circumstances, I'd be hesitant to run D&D with an unvetted group in public, much less put something out there for worldwide consumption, so this may not be bad advice for avoiding the Perpetually Outraged.

If someone were to violate all those "guidelines" and stream their game on rumble...
I'd think it was a hoot.

So a manufacturer is declaring how their product maybe portrayed on platforms they do not control? What next, review guidelines that specify their product may not be criticized?

Again with a tool analogy, "this saw may not be used in any video production that includes pressure treated wood." 

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2022, 10:39:47 PM

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on July 20, 2022, 10:43:51 AMor how not all Vistani are evil

(And after some of the emotional outbursts I've seen regarding Fate of Cthulhu and the Ravenloft Campaign guide, I feel like there can be as much over reactionary screeching from the grognards as there is from the danger hairs.  "See this molehill!!!  It's massive!  Massive!"  Beam in your own eye battling with monsters and all that.)

1: This is one of the more crackheaded complaints and kowtowing. Why? Because originally the Vistani were presented as mostly nice welcoming folk. In the 2e Boxed set they are just kinda there and not presented as evil. Ruthlessly strict about maintaining racial purity. And bartering information with darklords. But not evil. Same on the White Wolf 3e version.

    This is true, but it should be noted that the gypsies of I6 are evil, and that module holds an outsized influence on people's perceptions of the overall setting, especially given how many times TSR and WotC have gone back to that well.

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2022, 10:58:18 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 20, 2022, 09:00:37 PM
  Under current circumstances, I'd be hesitant to run D&D with an unvetted group in public, much less put something out there for worldwide consumption, so this may not be bad advice for avoiding the Perpetually Outraged.

Except that there is literally nothing you can do that they can not somehow, some way, hallucinate is offensive.

  Hence why I'd be hesitant to run D&D with an unvetted group in public. To clarify, 'unvetted' not for fear that one of the players might do something offensive, but that one of the players might be the sort to take offense.

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2022, 10:43:49 PM

Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:14:08 PM
You mean like in the Menzoberanzzan Boxset where the Drow were colored a nice chocolate brown?

I miss the blueberry and grape flavoured drow... 

As I've said before, flat black is boring as fuck to draw as well as painful to look at. So I could live with shades of gray, dark blue, and dark violet.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 21, 2022, 11:14:23 AM

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2022, 10:43:49 PM

Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:14:08 PM
You mean like in the Menzoberanzzan Boxset where the Drow were colored a nice chocolate brown?

I miss the blueberry and grape flavoured drow... 

As I've said before, flat black is boring as fuck to draw as well as painful to look at. So I could live with shades of gray, dark blue, and dark violet.

I've actually seen a couple of black drow art that came out nice, but agree that's typically not the case and they're usually hard to make out if pure black. I hate other colors, though, specially light shades of purple (which I know you didn't mention, but that's the one they usually use for Drizzt). I guess I could live with blueish gray, but chocolate brown is the one I use for my main drow character from back in the 90s, who I've recreated a bunch of times in various video games, as well as 3e and 5e pnp D&D.

I love me some sexy ass chocolate brown drow, "canon" be damned. I've always included them in my games.

I'll portray them as I want to and fek what anyone else thinks...

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 21, 2022, 11:37:44 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 21, 2022, 11:14:23 AM

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2022, 10:43:49 PM

Quote from: tenbones on July 20, 2022, 12:14:08 PM
You mean like in the Menzoberanzzan Boxset where the Drow were colored a nice chocolate brown?

I miss the blueberry and grape flavoured drow... 

As I've said before, flat black is boring as fuck to draw as well as painful to look at. So I could live with shades of gray, dark blue, and dark violet.

I've actually seen a couple of black drow art that came out nice, but agree that's typically not the case and they're usually hard to make out if pure black. I hate other colors, though, specially light shades of purple (which I know you didn't mention, but that's the one they usually use for Drizzt). I guess I could live with blueish gray, but chocolate brown is the one I use for my main drow character from back in the 90s, who I've recreated a bunch of times in various video games, as well as 3e and 5e pnp D&D.

I love me some sexy ass chocolate brown drow, "canon" be damned. I've always included them in my games.

At least they put a dark skin color on Drizzt there. A number of the covers for Drizzt's books give him pale skin and a weird gold skullcap.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 20, 2022, 01:13:39 PM
The combat wheelchair thing is a tempest in a teapot. It's a niche idea that spun some drama that got blown out of all proportion.

Indeed

However if you don't believe its creator was doing it for clout you're definitely kidding yourself.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 20, 2022, 01:13:39 PM
Candlekeep has one dungeon that uses ramps instead of stairs. It also has a chamber where gravity doesn't apply, so you can float. The adventure includes a lot of mild body horror type stuff. There is no mention of wheelchairs or why ramps instead of stairs. It was written by someone who uses a wheelchair. Big woop. If you ran this adventure without knowing of the "controversy" you'd be hard-pressed to notice that the dungeon was wheelchair accessible.

Also indeed.

However both sides involved made damn sure you weren't going to miss it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 20, 2022, 01:30:49 PM
It cuts the other way, too. WotC got a widely disseminated puff piece about the "wheelchair accessible dungeon" that no doubt helped promote Candlekeep. They were perfectly happy to promote the book based on notions of inclusion, but the follow through was entirely different (no mention of wheelchairs or the reason for the ramps in the book itself). It turned out to be empty tokenism for promotional purposes only.

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2022, 02:26:15 PM
The author of that dungeon did claim that it was wheelchair accessible prior to publication. As published, though, the dungeon is accessed by a ladder. That may have been a later editorial change.

#QED

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2022, 02:26:15 PMWhile Polygon (among others) did tout the wheelchair accessibility of this 1 out of 17 dungeons, Pundit's claims went way beyond what was claimed there - saying that every dungeon since was wheelchair accessible, and that Sara Thompson's homebrew "combat wheelchair" was in the book. Polygon mentioned the combat wheelchair, but didn't claim it was in Candlekeep or any other WotC book.

Shocking how both sides go to extremes.

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2022, 08:07:40 PM
OK, I've picked up Radiant Citadel. The quotes that Pundit is using are close to the text - but first of all, the missing context is that all of what he quotes is from a subsection clearly entitled "Online and Streamed Games". I take it this isn't advice for D&D games in general, but for D&D games made public over Youtube like Critical Role, Drunks & Dragons, and so forth. Those shows are a public face of the game, and a number of them do feature players in costume, doing make-up and/or accents, and so forth.

He has some minor misquotes at a few points. He skips over "take care to portray characters as three-dimensional people with relatable desires and fears" and instead jumps to the next paragraph. He quotes "Do not lean into stereotypes or clothing with real-world significance" - but the actual sentence is "Avoid leaning into stereotypes or clothing with real-world *religious* significance".

Here's the full subsection:

QuoteOnline and Streamed Games. Just as you don't have to breathe fire in real life to play a dragonborn in D&D, you don't need to be from the cultures that inspired the adventures in this book to play characters from them. However, take care to portray characters as three-dimensional people with relatable desires and fears.

One person's culture isn't another's costume. If you dress up, simple outfits are best. Avoid leaning into stereotypes or clothing with real-world religious significance. Instead, focus on "everyday wear" from the cultures you're exploring. Don't change your skin color, alter your features, or emulate hair styles you wouldn't normally have to appear like a different real-world ethnicity. Similarly, avoid mocking real-world accents in your role-play.

Overplayed as usual.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 20, 2022, 09:00:37 PM
Under current circumstances, I'd be hesitant to run D&D with an unvetted group in public, much less put something out there for worldwide consumption, so this may not be bad advice for avoiding the Perpetually Outraged.

Not wrong.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 19, 2022, 09:54:12 PM
This is a great analogy that illustrates the brainwashing at hand.

Label on the saw: Dear Saw Owner: This saw will safely cut ash, pine, and beech.

Experienced saw owner: Hmm. That's a weird thing to say. I know this saw has 1 mm coined carbide teeth, so it should cut oak just fine. Here goes.

Novice saw owner: There must be a good reason for this, so let's do what it says.

It's a subtle usurpation of authority. It raises doubt in young minds.

Perhaps the saw maker wants to sell a special oak saw to people who don't know any better.

Perhaps WotC wants to position themselves as the "safe" option and cast doubt on other games. Or perhaps they're just woke wankers.

Also perfect example of how authoritarian thinking is intellectually bankrupt.

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2022, 10:54:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2022, 08:07:40 PM
OK, I've picked up Radiant Citadel.

I hope you didnt buy the book just to find out what it was about?

I bought the book because I was curious. In general, I tend to like anthology adventure collections more than adventure paths. I disliked the early 5E adventures that I tried - Horde of the Dragon Queen, Out of the Abyss, and Dragon of Icespire Peak. I found them clunky and dull. Horde felt paint-by-numbers with main quest and side quests. Out of the Abyss had interesting material - but it was almost all a ton of background that players could do little to influence. And Icespire Peak was a mix. But I thought Candlekeep Mysteries was much better - there were some really interesting and fun scenarios. I liked the mystery aspect to them.

Thus far, I'm liking Radiant Citadel less, but it's still got interesting material in the mini-settings and the adventures, though the quality of those vary. I like Shadow of the Sun the best so far.

So they tell us that we can play a PC of a different "culture, aka Race" but we can't portray them in any way stereotypical nor can we play them as culturally authentic as possible... So the only way we can play them is as if they weren't from their own culture so we can only play them as if they are from our own culture, which is us stripping away from them what makes them culturally them.

So it's all about homogeneous gameplay... Every race is the same, there are no distinctions, no stereotypes but no uniqueness either. But it's only about skin color, right? Or does this also extend to nonhuman races as well as following these new guidelines also makes every nonhuman race just another flavor of humanity.

Quote from: RebelSky on July 21, 2022, 09:51:57 PM
So they tell us that we can play a PC of a different "culture, aka Race" but we can't portray them in any way stereotypical nor can we play them as culturally authentic as possible... So the only way we can play them is as if they weren't from their own culture so we can only play them as if they are from our own culture, which is us stripping away from them what makes them culturally them.

So it's all about homogeneous gameplay... Every race is the same, there are no distinctions, no stereotypes but no uniqueness either. But it's only about skin color, right? Or does this also extend to nonhuman races as well as following these new guidelines also makes every nonhuman race just another flavor of humanity.

What they actually say is that, if you're playing a public or online game, have some self-awareness so that you're not unintentionally offensive. They don't bother to tell you not to be intentionally offensive, because if that's your bag, then you do you.

So, ...wait - what is the core problem here?

Are they saying they don't want DMs to d accents or even silly accents when portraying NPCs?

Well thats not cool.!!

Thats half the fun of being a DM.

A Dwarf can sound like a drunken Scotsman or an inebriated southerner with a Cajun accent.
An Elf could sound like a snooty Frenchman

A random villager or townsfolk might have a cockney accent

That sort of thing....
-Ed C.

WotC hasn't had any relevance or influence on my gaming in years. :shrugs: