by jordanpg on 12/30/24, 2:16 PM with 182 comments
by jprd on 12/30/24, 2:21 PM
by techwizrd on 12/30/24, 3:00 PM
Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. We're more concerned with improving the mechanics and speed of gameplay, balancing martials and casters, improvements to the core books, backgrounds, bastions, and impactful changes.
We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. I think Crawford in the article puts it well: “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
by nerdjon on 12/30/24, 8:54 PM
That being said, I don't really understand the push to remove species benefits from games (not just D&D) and instead just do a name change? It makes sense that in a fictional world that different species would have their strengths and weaknesses just for biological reasons.
Or story reasons like in Mass Effect where the Asari live to around 1000 or more (I don't remember exactly) and have a very natural benefit for biotic abilities.
I understand the concern that some of these traits were originally racially fueled, but it makes sense for there to be differences of some sort.
by netbioserror on 12/30/24, 8:34 PM
Really jogs the noggin.
by hooverd on 12/30/24, 2:53 PM
This got a lot of flak. But I can see why they did it. Many such cases of DMs, especially the game store kind, using DnD as their own sexual assault simulator. RPGHorrorStories has a lot.
by stolenmerch on 12/30/24, 4:21 PM
by wtcactus on 12/31/24, 4:45 AM
I’m glad they fixed that obvious shortcoming of the game. I’m sure too buy the new edition materials now.
by doesnt_know on 12/30/24, 8:55 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons...
by bjourne on 12/30/24, 9:55 PM
Eventually, as more and more players quit the game the gender differences were dropped. Before that I used to play some female characters to get access to the op mage bonuses. But damn, there were so many creeps who thought i was a "real" girl.
by turtleyacht on 12/30/24, 2:34 PM
Usually everyone forgets until vision and sight matter (boss fight, in a fog, or down to the wire).
by mcphage on 12/30/24, 2:45 PM
Clearly a lot of people like this change—and it's a great change! Yet the authors didn't feel like talking to any of those people, instead repeatedly coming back to Musk's whining. Great journalism 10/10 no notes.
by lofaszvanitt on 12/31/24, 10:35 AM
by like_any_other on 12/31/24, 2:10 AM
by torginus on 12/30/24, 3:31 PM
I'm fully in agreement with this statement. This is like human group dynamics 101, which underlies all social interaction. You figure out what sort of people you are playing with, how familiar you are with each other, and what sort of fun you want to have together. If unsure, err on the side of tameness. This has many-many dimensions besides the ones about taboo topics mentioned in the article.
Handling this through a form feels incredibly insincere and performative, and insinuates that people (including me) are not to be trusted. If you don't trust the people you're playing with, you shouldn't be playing in the first place.
That being said, this is 100% manufactured controversy. It's virtue signaling from Hasbro (possibly ESG dollar sign motivated) as well as pearl clutching from right wingers. How tabletop works is you ignore all the stuff you don't like or don't care about. I have played with quite a few parties, some of them consisting of people who were complete strangers at first, and also quite socially heterogenous.
I have never seen such a form in my life, and yet despite that, none of our campaigns turned into the pen-and-paper version of Blood Meridian.
by LeroyRaz on 12/31/24, 11:59 PM
by lisardo on 12/31/24, 1:50 AM
by M0nkeyL1ce on 12/31/24, 7:05 PM
by mnky9800n on 12/30/24, 10:50 PM
by syngrog66 on 12/30/24, 9:57 PM
Thankfully individual DMs and players are free to keep WOTC's "liberal" politics trend out of their own gaming experiences if they wish. Everyone is free to use their own terms and house rules to tailor the base game to taste.
by mmooss on 12/30/24, 8:49 PM
by infinitezest on 12/30/24, 5:44 PM
There's a part of me that understands where the pushback on these changes is coming from (some people are narcissistic and could abuse these tools), but ultimately it seems like a good thing to have in the book for groups that aren't already friends. If you don't need em, just don't use em.
As an aside, I would encourage anyone that's just getting into the hobby now, not to give WotC any money. There's a ton of other RPGs out there that are just as good if not better and aren't accompanied by grotesque profit maximizing. But either way, just make sure everyone is having fun.
by zzo38computer on 12/30/24, 10:44 PM
> “Races” are now “species.”
I think neither word is really "proper", but "race" is shorter. (I am not really either for or against this change, and I don't really mind this, much.)
They mention that Paizo preferred "ancestry", and that does seem better to me than iehter "race" or "species". (However, I think it is not really that much of a significant issue, anyways.)
> Some character traits have been divorced from biological identity; a mountain dwarf is no longer inherently brawny and durable, a high elf no longer intelligent and dexterous by definition
I think that is not quite right. On average, a mountain dwarf might be brawny and durable, but individual characters should be allowed to be difference from averages in many ways; it should not require you to be average or above average according to your character's race/species/gender/etc, because you can have more diversity. But, "diversity" should not mean that such biological traits do not apply at all; that is the wrong way to do it.
Also, such things as "intelligence" is not so simply explained by a single number anyways; it is more complicated than that. Strength is less so, but still can be not so simple, too.
(An example which is separate from the ones mentioned above: If your character has hands like scorpion, then there are bonuses to some things and penalties to other things, and you might be able to grapple by hand as though it is bite, and some tasks that would normally only need one hand will now require two hands, etc. So, many traits will have advantages and disadvantages. And, if you have wings to fly then you can fly; if your character is small then can fit into smaller spaces but cannot easily reach the stuff in the high shelf (nor attack a taller character's head as easily); etc.)
> Robert J. Kuntz, an award-winning game designer who frequently collaborated with Gary Gygax, a co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, said he disliked Wizards of the Coast’s efforts to legislate from above rather than provide room for dungeon masters — the game’s ringleaders and referees — to tailor their individual campaigns.
I think they are right; the game should be individual. You can decide if you want to use any rule variants, etc; such a thing is common enough anyways. WotC cannot (and should not attempt to) control everything.
> In addition to its species, each character in Dungeons & Dragons is assigned a class such as bard, druid, rogue or wizard.
I would prefer a skill-based system, although D&D is a class-based system. (This is not a complaint; people who do like a class-based system might prefer D&D.)
> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice,” Crawford said, adding, “They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”
Even if it is not the best combination, it should still be a playable character. Sometimes you might want a suboptimal choice, but it is not only that. There should be other things that can be defined as well, such as skills, etc. You can have the advantages and disadvantages of each, in order to make up the character like you like to do it.
(Another example would be: A wizard that likes to carry a lot of spell books should have enough strength to carry them. Having good strength is also helpful in case you run out of spells and want to fight by hand, but then you should also need a skill in fighting by hand; this is why I like skill-based systems.)
> There was also a tabaxi, a creature with the feline appearance and night vision that one would expect of a species created by the Cat Lord. “He’s a tabaxi adopted into an elven family,” said Kyle Smith, who created the character, Uldreyin Alma Salamar Daelamin the Fifth, for this campaign. “He’s also a sorcerer — the magic is innate to that. He’s deciding between who he is and what he was raised in.”
This is something that you should be allowed to have. In this way, you will be tabaxi (and therefore, have night vision), but you had learned elven things (e.g. perhaps elven languages). And, is also a sorcerer (so you can cast spells). So, that is good that your character is not only one thing. However, you should not have to decide between them; you are all of them, isn't it?
> Smith added, “If being a tabaxi didn’t matter, then who cares?” “He’d just be a fuzzy elf,” Cutler chimed in.
It would seem that the rule changes would make that problem. I agree it is no good and I explained above.
by TacticalCoder on 12/30/24, 10:52 PM
The worst they did is the LoTR Magic The Gathering card series. They managed to create black Aragorn and asian Gandalf. And they turned Goldberry into a fat woman. I'm sorry but that's simply not what the book depicts.
It's not done to unite people. It's not done out of good intentions. It's done because there's a very woke political agenda behind this.
It's not harmless: it's history rewriting. It's propaganda at work.
by M0nkeyL1ce on 12/31/24, 7:09 PM
The only people who seem to be bent about it are the basement-dwelling incels that fueled things like Gamergate.
by drivingmenuts on 12/30/24, 9:05 PM
Honestly, the "species" thing has bothered me for years. I'm not sure I'd agree with divorcing physical traits completely, but that's easy enough to house-rule, as is everything else about the game. I feel sure that anyone getting upset is doing so performatively, not because it's actually a problem.