13 ms·

Dungeons and Dragons rolls the dice with new rules about identity

66 points by jordanpg 2y ago

jprd 2y ago
https://archive.md/z2q8s https://archive.md/z2q8s
turtleyacht 2y ago
Does anyone play a human constantly holding a torch? Usually everyone forgets until vision and sight matter (boss fight, in a fog, or down to the wire).
- ryoshu 2y ago
  Haven't seen it in a long time. Generally one or two characters will cast a Light spell on something like a shield or holy symbol. Dark vision/devil sight will cover the rest of the party. Foundry has really nice lighting effects using shaders for VTT play.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    Yep. So many races/species have darkvision, and so many people prefer playing non-humans, that it usually doesn't matter, and a single Cleric will typically have Light prepared anyway. I should really start running more sessions in a dark place, where stealth matters.
  - techwizrd 2y ago
    This is one of the changes I like the most about Shadowdark. None of the players have darkvision, but all of the monsters do. Combat is unpredictable and dangerous, and darkness is a real threat. And Torches are finite resources that last 60m of IRL time, so there is an in-game impact to dilly-dallying, endless debates, and rules-lawyering.
- valbaca 2y ago
  I'm playing a human warlock with a Genie patron...so yes, I always have a lamp ha
mcphage 2y ago
Wonderful piece—tons of interviews with people complaining about the changes, yet no interviews with people in support. And yet the authors mention (almost embarrassedly) that it's the fastest selling title in WotC's history. 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I would argue that likely the sales are despite this. Not because of this. Could be there would be lot more sales if these weren't in place. In general RPGs have gained lot more popularity and visibility and thus are more popular. And DnD is most well known system.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > I would argue that likely the sales are despite this. Not because of this. Unless you have evidence, you could argue anything. The evidence is that it's selling really well with these rules.
    - bloqs 2y ago
      literally just presented some in the post
      - mmooss 2y ago
        There is no evidence in the GGP, just speculation. If there is, could you quote it? Sales data is objective evidence. 'It could be' are just some bytes on the Internet.
hooverd 2y ago
> The company now suggests that extended Dungeons & Dragons campaigns begin with a session in which players discuss their expectations and list topics to avoid, which could include sexual assault or drug use. Dungeon masters are encouraged to establish a signal that allows players to articulate their distress with any subject matter and automatically overrule the dungeon master’s own story line. 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.
- caeril 2y ago
  > > which could include sexual assault or drug use Wouldn't any potion, including potions of healing, be considered "drug use"? Howabout excessive drinking by dwarves at a tavern in the canonical DM party formation ritual?
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    In the western world, a potion of healing is more akin to taking antibiotics, and imbibing alcohol has been agreed to be just a Regular Thing People Do, not a drug thing. And in any case, yeah! This is why you talk things out in a session zero! If a player at a table is an alcoholic, they might not want to play in a campaign where other PCs regularly binge-drink. It doesn't necessarily mean the other players aren't allowed to do this, it might just mean that this isn't the right table for the player, or it might mean that the DM has to scratch out "alcoholic" as a trait for an NPC and replace it with something else.
    - nothercastle 2y ago
      If you need to go through a HR exercise at the beginning of a game perhaps you need to find a different group of people to play with.
      - pavel_lishin 2y ago
        Why do you frame it as an "HR exercise" when it's just the people who are about to play a game talking about what they expect out of it? And how would I find a group of people whose playstyle is compatible with what I'm looking for without actually talking to them?
techwizrd 2y ago
Why interview solely the grognards? Even OSE options like Shadowdark have adopted terms like ancestry over race. It sorta feels like this article is trying to create an issue where none exists. 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.”
- jltsiren 2y ago
  I'm kind of surprised that optimized builds even exist, at least outside competitive games. Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not. Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.
  - caeril 2y ago
    It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste. It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).
    - brightball 2y ago
      This is a valid point and it's honestly one of the things that I really enjoy about the Dungeon Crawler Carl series. One of the main character's best weapons is charisma. Multiple different types of spells or abilities are modified by secondary stats, like charisma with charm or illusion spells. I haven't played D&D in, like 30 years, but I don't ever remember those types of game mechanics being involved. If they are now it would make for some great potential combinations. If a dwarf gets -1 INT and +1 CON, but certain types of spells use CON as a modifier then it creates an interesting combination.
torginus 2y ago
> Kuntz, the designer and Gygax collaborator, said that while some topics ought to be considered off-limits, it was a mistake to interfere with the implicit social contract that has sustained Dungeons & Dragons for decade. 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.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  > 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. Yes. And you figure this out with a new group by using the new tools during a session zero :)
  - torginus 2y ago
    The problem with session zero imo, is that the vast majority of campaigns you play with strangers/non-close acquaintances only lasts 2-3 sessions in my experience. Dedicating one session to just setup is not really feasible. If you're playing a long campaign, you're playing with friends and you probably already know each other well enough to know what flies and what doesn't. I just don't see how it's a good solution for anyone, but all human interaction is messy, and the problem they are trying to solve definitely exists, so they couldn't have just ignored the problem, so they offered a one size fits all solution that's ideal for probably no one.
stolenmerch 2y ago
A problem with the X-Card concept is that it can only be used within the pre-existing Overton Window of the group anyway, so you might as well ditch it in favor of normal social negotiation. For example, X-Card guidelines always tell players they can use it to block anything they're uncomfortable with. However, you'll quickly learn you can't use it to block political ideology from the DM, even if you legitimately find it triggering and distressing.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  The general point makes sense, the GM is has a lot of social power and there are risks to publicly calling them out on anything really. But I'm having a hard time imagining this specific example. What would be an example of political ideology from the GM that you'd want to block?
  - stolenmerch 2y ago
    Mostly political agendas that spill over from the real world, often surrounding themes of social justice and left-wing activism but sometimes right wing fascist themes as well. I just find it infuriating to have the DM shoehorn their extremist political views into a game. Especially with the leftist DMs, I've found that I'm usually expected to reinforce their beliefs and not question them, even with provided X-Cards or the like.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      But what is an example of this in a game? How would this come up in a way that you'd feel uncomfortable with? I'm just struggling to see concretely what this would look like. Examples elsewhere in this comment section like eg sexual assault I can easily see how that would both come up in a game and interact with player experience to make them uncomfortable in a way they may not want to have to explain in the middle of a session.
      - stolenmerch 2y ago
        I'm getting downvoted simply for giving examples, thus proving my point. But if you need a concrete example, I once had a DM include a drag show in-game.
infinitezest 2y ago
Isn't this just WotC catching up to 90% of other TTRPGs? 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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
netbioserror 2y ago
Adding meaningless chaff like this to the rulebook has a near 1.0 correlation with entirely in-module railroad campaigns, avoidance of house rules and homebrewing, and by-the-book rules play. The new D&D audience only knows how to color inside the lines. Case in point: Celebration and debate over tiny rules changes any group could have made themselves. Really jogs the noggin.
- zanderwohl 2y ago
  It's nice to have a better core game. D&D is perhaps the only TTRPG known to have such sparse content that players have to fix the rules themselves to make the game playable.
  - mnky9800n 2y ago
    I gave up learning new systems after I spent lots of money on 3.5e books and then 4e came out. It wasn’t that I didn’t want to spend money it just seemed that another big overhaul of all the rules felt like the beginning of the end for the game being anything more than cardboard and paper for sale. My imagination seemed to be able to fill in any gaps that wizards of the coast seemed intent on selling me.
    - herewulf 2y ago
      I have a vast library of 2e books that I promise you are still "good enough". WotC is good at churning out paper but it's certainly in the interest of that particular entity's continued existence. Debatable if it is for anyone else but I'm sure that anyone consistently playing simply gets dragged along with the trend of "the new shiny".
      - mnky9800n 2y ago
        I always thought the writing was better in 2e but the mechanics were better in 3.5e. But 4e just seemed like the mechanics were different but not better for some reason other than they could sell new books to old players.
mmooss 2y ago
I have no idea about the current rules, but haven't they always been separate species? Can an elf and a dwarf make a fertile child?
- bena 2y ago
  I don't know about elves and dwarves, but just about every race could be a human hybrid. But it came with stat hits. Half-elves were more like humans than elves, etc. And from what it seems, they're separating stats from race/species. Which is probably an overall good. I'm going to use the older terminology as this was the issue with the older game. If you wanted to be a wizard, you should be an elf. If you wanted to be an elf, you should be a wizard. And things like that. Certain classes just worked better with certain races. But now, if I want to be an elf barbarian, that's better supported. I'm not fighting the game rules to play the role I want to.
  - JamesBarney 2y ago
    You're right it's not ideal that races shoehorn you into certain classes, but on the other hand you don't want someone's race to be flavortext. I think there's a balance to be struck. I doubt DnD will find it on the first shot, but I'm looking forward to what it looks like for the version after next.
    - bena 2y ago
      Elves and dwarves still keep their night vision, elves don’t sleep, dwarves have a better save vs poison (IIRC). I do like how they’ve opened up the species in general. I have a character in a campaign that is essentially based on my cat, a tabaxi rogue with impulse control issues.
nerdjon 2y ago
I will likely do some searching on this later, but I am curious how "race" ever came to be the word we use instead of "Species" in nearly every video game I know of that has a character creator (at least until recently)? I know I have struggled to not say race when I really mean species just out of many years of habit. 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.
- bena 2y ago
  I think the main reason is that it kind of pigeon-holed certain races and classes. There were just objectively correct choices. In a game where there should be no "correct" choice. And it was mostly benefit, very few drawbacks. And the drawbacks that existed could easily be circumvented.
- object-a 2y ago
  One thing I like about the new rules: they let users create their own unique species/class combinations, without feeling like the game's rules are limiting you. For example, a Barbarian gnome or Half-orc wizard can be fun choices from a role playing perspective, but suboptimal in combat or gameplay. Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
  - Teckla 2y ago
    Speaking as both a D&D DM and player, the "sub-optimal game play" makes the campaign more fun, more diverse, and offers more thoroughly enjoyable role-playing and problem solving opportunities. It doesn't make it less fun. Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them. The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.
doesnt_know 2y ago
Here's my gift link for the full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons-rule-changes-race-species.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lU4.8jaI.n6NSPY777uSU&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons...
drivingmenuts 2y ago
I'd bet Melon Husk hasn't played D&D in years … I doubt he'd be able to even find a table that didn't bow to his every whim. 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.
bjourne 2y ago
For the longest time a mmorpg I used to play used to have gender-based bonuses an maluses. So a woman would make a shitty warrior and a man an under-powered mage. On the game's boards this was argued about forever because many girls wanted to play warriors. The guardians of the game were not relenting. Females as strong as males were "unrealistic"... In a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead.... 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.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Women are generally weaker than men, and even in the situation that you're explaining, women with a strength penalty could still end up stronger than men within the game. The insistence that acknowledging that women are weaker than men is some sort of bigotry is deeply misogynistic. If fantasy women are just as strong as men, then real women just need to work harder to live up to the standards of men. If women in fantasy are as strong as men, then women in reality aren't being allowed to see themselves in fantasy. The repeated justification that women in a fantasy world shouldn't resemble women, or "...in a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead..." is silly. Women in a game can also get magic powers that make them stronger. Erasing female physicality is erasing women, and replacing them with men playing women.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    In real life, the kind of women who are warriors are generally stronger than most men, including the kind of men who want to be warriors.. Gwendolyn Christie (of GOT fame) is 6'3" and can bench press you without breaking a sweat. Gina Carano (of UFC fame) can squat 530 pounds and deadlift 450 pounds. Preventing someone from playing as a strong warrior woman based on incorrect assumptions about female physicality would erase women who actually exist.
    - 2y ago
syngrog66 2y ago
in D&D race always meant species. No real change there. But the idea that there are no common "baseline" traits based on species is obviously nuts and contradicted by plenty of real world examples. 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.
mnky9800n 2y ago
I just want to find a good living world game that is 3.5e and not on discord. I would wish for a Star Wars saga edition game but that is probably asking too much.
zzo38computer 2y ago
My opinion is that this is not the way to do it. > “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.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
WoTC bought D&D so it's no surprise. 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.
- blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  Rewriting what history, exactly? Don’t forget, but this is all made up. None of this is real, buddy.
  - bloqs 2y ago
    Lord of the Rings, much like any folk tale, story or even a book you were brought up with, is a considerable cultural and historical artifact, particularly in the UK. Trying to use it to export US culture wars is just fairly short sighted and pretty insulting to the authors creation. It came from a different time. If you want change, write something new, you know?
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      I disagree with exporting US culture wars, but the correct response to that is an eyeroll, perhaps a witty comment, and then moving on because it doesn't actually affect the game. The correct response is not to import the reactionary responses from those same culture wars: that is active participation in the culture war you claim is short-sighted. For witty comments, I suggest an observation on how the response to "we have invented highly-artificial racial categories so we can maintain a system of structural oppression" is "members of all racial categories are equal, so let's make sure we hit quota in our mass media!" – though you might prefer something about cultural appropriation, or reading comprehension (maybe a dig at the US literacy rate, if you're feeling edgy and snobbish). A good witty comment reminds you, and those around you, that our problems are not their problems: to look at the problems we actually have, and try to address those, rather than export (harmful) solutions that address (admittedly, worse) problems we don't have. Racism in the UK is bad enough, without adding US-style racism to the mix as well – and most reactionary responses to US-style antiracism are US-style racism. Don't play the game.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
lisardo 2y ago
That really doesn’t matter. What really matter is they fixed Ranger and Paladin is no longer MAD.
like_any_other 2y ago
An educational microcosm example of totalitarianism - everybody is equal, and even fictional settings where that is not the case cannot be tolerated.
gooobz 2y ago
[flagged]
gooobz 2y ago
[flagged]
gooobz 2y ago
[flagged]
gooobz 2y ago
[flagged]
wtcactus 2y ago
Well, we’re almost in 2025. I found it preposterously offensive that D&D was trying to tell us that a 25 Kg, 1.10 meter gnome, couldn’t be as good as a fighter as a 150 Kg, 2.20 meter Orc. I’m glad they fixed that obvious shortcoming of the game. I’m sure too buy the new edition materials now.
gooobz 2y ago
[flagged]
lofaszvanitt 2y ago
D&D is old, outdated, the new mechanics are ridiculous. Pathfinder is even more elaborate, overly complicated and therefore useless, out of touch with reality. The whole D&D is a dead thing. And with these brainwashed additions I'm sure Gary Gygax is turning in his grave... someone should cast a resurrect spell on him and let him decide whether to cast a fireball on WoTC or an ice storm.
M0nkeyL1ce 2y ago
As a DM since White Box, I have absolutely no problems with D&D being more inclusive. I think it is primarily a bunch of basement-dwelling incels that seem to be upset about it.
M0nkeyL1ce 2y ago
As a DM since White Box, I have no problem with D&D becoming more inclusive. Obviously, DMs are free to change anything they don't like, but I think a default of PCs having more options (they are exceptional heroes, after all, so most norms wouldn't need to apply) is good. You can be the rare half-orc wizard on an equal footing with the elf. The only people who seem to be bent about it are the basement-dwelling incels that fueled things like Gamergate.
ClanPsi 2y ago
[dead]
swagv 2y ago
[dead]
LeroyRaz 2y ago
How is it sensitive or even reasonable that all fantasy species are equally capable? That just seems bizarre. It's core to fantasy tropes that Elves are long lived, magical and intelligent. And that Orcs are stronger than humans. Absolutely bizarre to make changing that anything to do with inclusivity...

66 points by jordanpg 2y ago

jprd 2y ago

https://archive.md/z2q8s https://archive.md/z2q8s

Does anyone play a human constantly holding a torch? Usually everyone forgets until vision and sight matter (boss fight, in a fog, or down to the wire).

ryoshu 2y ago
Haven't seen it in a long time. Generally one or two characters will cast a Light spell on something like a shield or holy symbol. Dark vision/devil sight will cover the rest of the party. Foundry has really nice lighting effects using shaders for VTT play.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  Yep. So many races/species have darkvision, and so many people prefer playing non-humans, that it usually doesn't matter, and a single Cleric will typically have Light prepared anyway. I should really start running more sessions in a dark place, where stealth matters.
- techwizrd 2y ago
  This is one of the changes I like the most about Shadowdark. None of the players have darkvision, but all of the monsters do. Combat is unpredictable and dangerous, and darkness is a real threat. And Torches are finite resources that last 60m of IRL time, so there is an in-game impact to dilly-dallying, endless debates, and rules-lawyering.
valbaca 2y ago
I'm playing a human warlock with a Genie patron...so yes, I always have a lamp ha

mcphage 2y ago

Wonderful piece—tons of interviews with people complaining about the changes, yet no interviews with people in support. And yet the authors mention (almost embarrassedly) that it's the fastest selling title in WotC's history. 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.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Ekaros 2y ago
I would argue that likely the sales are despite this. Not because of this. Could be there would be lot more sales if these weren't in place. In general RPGs have gained lot more popularity and visibility and thus are more popular. And DnD is most well known system.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > I would argue that likely the sales are despite this. Not because of this. Unless you have evidence, you could argue anything. The evidence is that it's selling really well with these rules.
  - bloqs 2y ago
    literally just presented some in the post
    - mmooss 2y ago
      There is no evidence in the GGP, just speculation. If there is, could you quote it? Sales data is objective evidence. 'It could be' are just some bytes on the Internet.

hooverd 2y ago

> The company now suggests that extended Dungeons & Dragons campaigns begin with a session in which players discuss their expectations and list topics to avoid, which could include sexual assault or drug use. Dungeon masters are encouraged to establish a signal that allows players to articulate their distress with any subject matter and automatically overrule the dungeon master’s own story line. 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.

caeril 2y ago
> > which could include sexual assault or drug use Wouldn't any potion, including potions of healing, be considered "drug use"? Howabout excessive drinking by dwarves at a tavern in the canonical DM party formation ritual?
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  In the western world, a potion of healing is more akin to taking antibiotics, and imbibing alcohol has been agreed to be just a Regular Thing People Do, not a drug thing. And in any case, yeah! This is why you talk things out in a session zero! If a player at a table is an alcoholic, they might not want to play in a campaign where other PCs regularly binge-drink. It doesn't necessarily mean the other players aren't allowed to do this, it might just mean that this isn't the right table for the player, or it might mean that the DM has to scratch out "alcoholic" as a trait for an NPC and replace it with something else.
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    If you need to go through a HR exercise at the beginning of a game perhaps you need to find a different group of people to play with.
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      Why do you frame it as an "HR exercise" when it's just the people who are about to play a game talking about what they expect out of it? And how would I find a group of people whose playstyle is compatible with what I'm looking for without actually talking to them?

techwizrd 2y ago

Why interview solely the grognards? Even OSE options like Shadowdark have adopted terms like ancestry over race. It sorta feels like this article is trying to create an issue where none exists. 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.”

jltsiren 2y ago
I'm kind of surprised that optimized builds even exist, at least outside competitive games. Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not. Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.
- caeril 2y ago
  It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste. It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).
  - brightball 2y ago
    This is a valid point and it's honestly one of the things that I really enjoy about the Dungeon Crawler Carl series. One of the main character's best weapons is charisma. Multiple different types of spells or abilities are modified by secondary stats, like charisma with charm or illusion spells. I haven't played D&D in, like 30 years, but I don't ever remember those types of game mechanics being involved. If they are now it would make for some great potential combinations. If a dwarf gets -1 INT and +1 CON, but certain types of spells use CON as a modifier then it creates an interesting combination.

torginus 2y ago

> Kuntz, the designer and Gygax collaborator, said that while some topics ought to be considered off-limits, it was a mistake to interfere with the implicit social contract that has sustained Dungeons & Dragons for decade. 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.

pavel_lishin 2y ago
> 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. Yes. And you figure this out with a new group by using the new tools during a session zero :)
- torginus 2y ago
  The problem with session zero imo, is that the vast majority of campaigns you play with strangers/non-close acquaintances only lasts 2-3 sessions in my experience. Dedicating one session to just setup is not really feasible. If you're playing a long campaign, you're playing with friends and you probably already know each other well enough to know what flies and what doesn't. I just don't see how it's a good solution for anyone, but all human interaction is messy, and the problem they are trying to solve definitely exists, so they couldn't have just ignored the problem, so they offered a one size fits all solution that's ideal for probably no one.

stolenmerch 2y ago

A problem with the X-Card concept is that it can only be used within the pre-existing Overton Window of the group anyway, so you might as well ditch it in favor of normal social negotiation. For example, X-Card guidelines always tell players they can use it to block anything they're uncomfortable with. However, you'll quickly learn you can't use it to block political ideology from the DM, even if you legitimately find it triggering and distressing.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
The general point makes sense, the GM is has a lot of social power and there are risks to publicly calling them out on anything really. But I'm having a hard time imagining this specific example. What would be an example of political ideology from the GM that you'd want to block?
- stolenmerch 2y ago
  Mostly political agendas that spill over from the real world, often surrounding themes of social justice and left-wing activism but sometimes right wing fascist themes as well. I just find it infuriating to have the DM shoehorn their extremist political views into a game. Especially with the leftist DMs, I've found that I'm usually expected to reinforce their beliefs and not question them, even with provided X-Cards or the like.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    But what is an example of this in a game? How would this come up in a way that you'd feel uncomfortable with? I'm just struggling to see concretely what this would look like. Examples elsewhere in this comment section like eg sexual assault I can easily see how that would both come up in a game and interact with player experience to make them uncomfortable in a way they may not want to have to explain in the middle of a session.
    - stolenmerch 2y ago
      I'm getting downvoted simply for giving examples, thus proving my point. But if you need a concrete example, I once had a DM include a drag show in-game.

infinitezest 2y ago

Isn't this just WotC catching up to 90% of other TTRPGs? 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.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

netbioserror 2y ago

Adding meaningless chaff like this to the rulebook has a near 1.0 correlation with entirely in-module railroad campaigns, avoidance of house rules and homebrewing, and by-the-book rules play. The new D&D audience only knows how to color inside the lines. Case in point: Celebration and debate over tiny rules changes any group could have made themselves. Really jogs the noggin.

zanderwohl 2y ago
It's nice to have a better core game. D&D is perhaps the only TTRPG known to have such sparse content that players have to fix the rules themselves to make the game playable.
- mnky9800n 2y ago
  I gave up learning new systems after I spent lots of money on 3.5e books and then 4e came out. It wasn’t that I didn’t want to spend money it just seemed that another big overhaul of all the rules felt like the beginning of the end for the game being anything more than cardboard and paper for sale. My imagination seemed to be able to fill in any gaps that wizards of the coast seemed intent on selling me.
  - herewulf 2y ago
    I have a vast library of 2e books that I promise you are still "good enough". WotC is good at churning out paper but it's certainly in the interest of that particular entity's continued existence. Debatable if it is for anyone else but I'm sure that anyone consistently playing simply gets dragged along with the trend of "the new shiny".
    - mnky9800n 2y ago
      I always thought the writing was better in 2e but the mechanics were better in 3.5e. But 4e just seemed like the mechanics were different but not better for some reason other than they could sell new books to old players.

mmooss 2y ago

I have no idea about the current rules, but haven't they always been separate species? Can an elf and a dwarf make a fertile child?

bena 2y ago
I don't know about elves and dwarves, but just about every race could be a human hybrid. But it came with stat hits. Half-elves were more like humans than elves, etc. And from what it seems, they're separating stats from race/species. Which is probably an overall good. I'm going to use the older terminology as this was the issue with the older game. If you wanted to be a wizard, you should be an elf. If you wanted to be an elf, you should be a wizard. And things like that. Certain classes just worked better with certain races. But now, if I want to be an elf barbarian, that's better supported. I'm not fighting the game rules to play the role I want to.
- JamesBarney 2y ago
  You're right it's not ideal that races shoehorn you into certain classes, but on the other hand you don't want someone's race to be flavortext. I think there's a balance to be struck. I doubt DnD will find it on the first shot, but I'm looking forward to what it looks like for the version after next.
  - bena 2y ago
    Elves and dwarves still keep their night vision, elves don’t sleep, dwarves have a better save vs poison (IIRC). I do like how they’ve opened up the species in general. I have a character in a campaign that is essentially based on my cat, a tabaxi rogue with impulse control issues.

nerdjon 2y ago

I will likely do some searching on this later, but I am curious how "race" ever came to be the word we use instead of "Species" in nearly every video game I know of that has a character creator (at least until recently)? I know I have struggled to not say race when I really mean species just out of many years of habit. 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.

bena 2y ago
I think the main reason is that it kind of pigeon-holed certain races and classes. There were just objectively correct choices. In a game where there should be no "correct" choice. And it was mostly benefit, very few drawbacks. And the drawbacks that existed could easily be circumvented.
object-a 2y ago
One thing I like about the new rules: they let users create their own unique species/class combinations, without feeling like the game's rules are limiting you. For example, a Barbarian gnome or Half-orc wizard can be fun choices from a role playing perspective, but suboptimal in combat or gameplay. Removing species-specific ability score increases lets players create non-standard combinations without weakening the party.
- Teckla 2y ago
  Speaking as both a D&D DM and player, the "sub-optimal game play" makes the campaign more fun, more diverse, and offers more thoroughly enjoyable role-playing and problem solving opportunities. It doesn't make it less fun. Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them. The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.

doesnt_know 2y ago

Here's my gift link for the full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons-rule-changes-race-species.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lU4.8jaI.n6NSPY777uSU&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/arts/dungeons-and-dragons...

drivingmenuts 2y ago

I'd bet Melon Husk hasn't played D&D in years … I doubt he'd be able to even find a table that didn't bow to his every whim. 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.

bjourne 2y ago

For the longest time a mmorpg I used to play used to have gender-based bonuses an maluses. So a woman would make a shitty warrior and a man an under-powered mage. On the game's boards this was argued about forever because many girls wanted to play warriors. The guardians of the game were not relenting. Females as strong as males were "unrealistic"... In a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead.... 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.

pessimizer 2y ago
Women are generally weaker than men, and even in the situation that you're explaining, women with a strength penalty could still end up stronger than men within the game. The insistence that acknowledging that women are weaker than men is some sort of bigotry is deeply misogynistic. If fantasy women are just as strong as men, then real women just need to work harder to live up to the standards of men. If women in fantasy are as strong as men, then women in reality aren't being allowed to see themselves in fantasy. The repeated justification that women in a fantasy world shouldn't resemble women, or "...in a game where you can shoot fireballs, travel through dimensions, go back in time, and resurrect the dead..." is silly. Women in a game can also get magic powers that make them stronger. Erasing female physicality is erasing women, and replacing them with men playing women.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  In real life, the kind of women who are warriors are generally stronger than most men, including the kind of men who want to be warriors.. Gwendolyn Christie (of GOT fame) is 6'3" and can bench press you without breaking a sweat. Gina Carano (of UFC fame) can squat 530 pounds and deadlift 450 pounds. Preventing someone from playing as a strong warrior woman based on incorrect assumptions about female physicality would erase women who actually exist.
  - 2y ago

syngrog66 2y ago

in D&D race always meant species. No real change there. But the idea that there are no common "baseline" traits based on species is obviously nuts and contradicted by plenty of real world examples. 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.

mnky9800n 2y ago

I just want to find a good living world game that is 3.5e and not on discord. I would wish for a Star Wars saga edition game but that is probably asking too much.

zzo38computer 2y ago

My opinion is that this is not the way to do it. > “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.

TacticalCoder 2y ago

WoTC bought D&D so it's no surprise. 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.

blackqueeriroh 2y ago
Rewriting what history, exactly? Don’t forget, but this is all made up. None of this is real, buddy.
- bloqs 2y ago
  Lord of the Rings, much like any folk tale, story or even a book you were brought up with, is a considerable cultural and historical artifact, particularly in the UK. Trying to use it to export US culture wars is just fairly short sighted and pretty insulting to the authors creation. It came from a different time. If you want change, write something new, you know?
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    I disagree with exporting US culture wars, but the correct response to that is an eyeroll, perhaps a witty comment, and then moving on because it doesn't actually affect the game. The correct response is not to import the reactionary responses from those same culture wars: that is active participation in the culture war you claim is short-sighted. For witty comments, I suggest an observation on how the response to "we have invented highly-artificial racial categories so we can maintain a system of structural oppression" is "members of all racial categories are equal, so let's make sure we hit quota in our mass media!" – though you might prefer something about cultural appropriation, or reading comprehension (maybe a dig at the US literacy rate, if you're feeling edgy and snobbish). A good witty comment reminds you, and those around you, that our problems are not their problems: to look at the problems we actually have, and try to address those, rather than export (harmful) solutions that address (admittedly, worse) problems we don't have. Racism in the UK is bad enough, without adding US-style racism to the mix as well – and most reactionary responses to US-style antiracism are US-style racism. Don't play the game.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

lisardo 2y ago

That really doesn’t matter. What really matter is they fixed Ranger and Paladin is no longer MAD.

like_any_other 2y ago

An educational microcosm example of totalitarianism - everybody is equal, and even fictional settings where that is not the case cannot be tolerated.

gooobz 2y ago

[flagged]

gooobz 2y ago

[flagged]

gooobz 2y ago

[flagged]

gooobz 2y ago

[flagged]

wtcactus 2y ago

Well, we’re almost in 2025. I found it preposterously offensive that D&D was trying to tell us that a 25 Kg, 1.10 meter gnome, couldn’t be as good as a fighter as a 150 Kg, 2.20 meter Orc. I’m glad they fixed that obvious shortcoming of the game. I’m sure too buy the new edition materials now.

gooobz 2y ago

[flagged]

lofaszvanitt 2y ago

D&D is old, outdated, the new mechanics are ridiculous. Pathfinder is even more elaborate, overly complicated and therefore useless, out of touch with reality. The whole D&D is a dead thing. And with these brainwashed additions I'm sure Gary Gygax is turning in his grave... someone should cast a resurrect spell on him and let him decide whether to cast a fireball on WoTC or an ice storm.

M0nkeyL1ce 2y ago

As a DM since White Box, I have absolutely no problems with D&D being more inclusive. I think it is primarily a bunch of basement-dwelling incels that seem to be upset about it.

M0nkeyL1ce 2y ago

As a DM since White Box, I have no problem with D&D becoming more inclusive. Obviously, DMs are free to change anything they don't like, but I think a default of PCs having more options (they are exceptional heroes, after all, so most norms wouldn't need to apply) is good. You can be the rare half-orc wizard on an equal footing with the elf. The only people who seem to be bent about it are the basement-dwelling incels that fueled things like Gamergate.

ClanPsi 2y ago

[dead]

swagv 2y ago

[dead]

LeroyRaz 2y ago

How is it sensitive or even reasonable that all fantasy species are equally capable? That just seems bizarre. It's core to fantasy tropes that Elves are long lived, magical and intelligent. And that Orcs are stronger than humans. Absolutely bizarre to make changing that anything to do with inclusivity...