DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
It will then ease your mind to know that I'm staying away from this thread, even though I have counterpoints to just about all of what the new guy is saying.
5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong
- Thread starter DangerousPuhson
- Start date
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
That makes total sense to me. Sounds like a good houserule.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Some of the Appendix N stuff is pretty bad, but I wouldn't want to discuss it here either. If PoN is online he will probably poke that bear and it could get ugly.
TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
Despite the edition-warring, I do quite like this forum and value hearing other folks' viewpoints.
If anyone wants to get into the culture war, can we PLEASE PLEASE either:
1) just notand say we did? or
2) keep it to a particular sub-forum/thread so the damage can be at least contained??
If anyone wants to get into the culture war, can we PLEASE PLEASE either:
1) just notand say we did? or
2) keep it to a particular sub-forum/thread so the damage can be at least contained??
TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
This fact surprised me as well Malrex: in 5e, the quarterstaff is listed as 'versatile' which means it can be used 1-handed (1d6) or 2-handed (1d8). So it can therefore be used with a shield to do the same damage as a mace. I'm not sure how I feel about a 6 foot pole weapon being used in one hand, but that's what the book says. Since it costs 2 sp instead of a mace's 5 gp, it is (if you only look at the chart, anyway) flat-out better.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Oh...hmm...that's really weird. I actually hate that.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Well, I'd love to have a civil conversation about it, so feel free to private message me if you wish Logruspattern.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
A what conversation? Oh, I remember those...
L
logruspattern
Guest
I agree that player's can come up with uses. I've houseruled them in 5e as well so that they are necessary to gain the benefits of a long rest. That one sentence satisfied me. So if it was so easy, I ask myself why 5e doesn't have that as a rule either? In my mind, if we are going for simplicity and optimization, then either strike it from the equipment list or make a simple rule for it that is plausible enough for the purposes of the game.
As an aside I doubt my notion fits someone's definition of "rulings not rules" but that comes across to me as a buzzword like "leadership" or "gentrification". My eyes glaze over and there is white noise in my brain in the place of understanding.
I generally don't write with strangers on the internet. It's just not for me. I have broken that rule and am really going nuts with the new forum account today. That probably won't last. But I still find it pointless to argue on the internet. By argue, I mean any discussion with opposing viewpoints that has more vitriol than, "Here is my opinion. Take it or leave it. It doesn't matter to me." I hope it is believable when I say I didn't come here to crash some people's forum and jump in on an edition war or culture war. Hell, I'm not even here to convince anyone. I didn't even try to convince my D&D group when most of them abandoned my new sandbox 5e campaign. I'm willing to entertain several reasons why, even the painful possibility it might be that I'm a shitty DM. In the end, it's they're free time and I have no say over how they spend it.
It more has to do with me being very excited to have discovered old school D&D and finally understanding what was going on in AD&D. Something I didn't touch on is that I find the DIY D&D scene exciting not just because it seems to be where the most interesting D&D is, but also what it says in a minuscule way about democracy and authority, corporate vs public ownership, and professional vs amateur creativity. I know. I've overthought this. So on one hand having to sit down and craft a response makes me walk through my own ideas and test them before anyone else even responds to them. And that's the most important test of all in determining whether someone's mind is going to change about something. On the other hand, my associates just think I'm a nerd or crazy person when I talk about this in person and chewing over stuff with strangers is sometimes easier.
Besides, I agree with your beginning premise that 5e doesn't suck and that it is a mistake to dismiss an edition out of hand based on the mediocrity of the adventure content produced for it. Whether the rule set of the edition is in part responsible for the quality of adventure content being produced for it is another discussion. Sure, I have an opinion. I would assume most people here do. But we'd never get beyond opinions to facts, so the discussion is not worth having. There are no facts to be said about it.
In any case, my position as stated here is pretty much summarized as "All editions matter. All editions can be critiqued". (Note: make no inferences to my character or views outside of D&D from that formulation.) I think that view is about as unique around here as yours. Yet it's also not bold or objectionable. There's nothing there to argue with.
L
logruspattern
Guest
Here's how I'll avoid the "culture war" but still respond to this: I'll limit myself to one post about this, like a gambler setting a budget, and then I'll leave it at that. So there will be no responses from me on the topic hereafter. Also I will admit up front that:
1. I approach the topic from a point of ignorance myself. You're not going to draw much from this well;
2. As such, I probably have nothing worthwhile to say about it.
I also have no idea how someone who has black skin, dark skin, who is LGBTQ, or who has a different sex or gender, or any other identity approaches the game. On the other hand I do try to be so humble so as to speak only for myself on any topic unless given permission by someone else to represent him or her or them. Because in turn it really burns me when people think they can speak for me. It is disrespectful.
So one has to to ask someone qualified to talk about it if one wants to learn anything meaningful on the subject. For the sake of authenticity, one might ask said person to prove his or her or their identity credentials, as much as that were possible and respectful, since this is the internet and people can say whatever they want (depending on your country of inhabitance, your mileage may vary). So ideally one could have this conversation with someone in person.
Do aspects of the game drive people away because they consider them racist or hostile? I don't know. I may however infer from the fact that I can't have this conversation with a qualified person in my game group or circle of associates about this topic, that perhaps it does. So when someone says D&D has problematic themes, I am willing to entertain the possibility.
My personal cringe about 'race' in D&D: probably best for a private message, but as I said my view on the matter is currently of little import.
I have however read other people's essays on the matter. I don't have links but I think it was 1 or 2 months ago that two big threads with links appeared on the OSR reddit. People interested in reading about it could begin there. I'll briefly summarize one essay as best I remember.
Racist themes: PC character races and their mechanics (bonuses, maluses); monster races as stand ins for human stereotypes.
Misogynist: I don't recall as much but I think maybe the AD&D strength issue was involved? Or maybe the lack of female designers and writers and players?
Colonialist: The adventuring premise of making monsters out of another group of intelligent creatures and using it as justification / motivation to kill them and take their stuff. Especially nonsensical for good-aligned PCs to be able to do this.
I recall the author saying, and I agree, that nobody is saying Gary and Dave are racists or that they set out to make a racist game. But viewed from another perspective, there are things people may find problematic with the game. Maybe we can make a better game without them? I think the idea has merit.
On the other hand, killing monsters and taking their stuff is pretty central to the game. If there is no possibility of brutal and violent combat, then I'm probably going to lose interest. I am fully willing to acknowledge that my PC is not good, and that he is a ruthless colonialist invader. That, perhaps, he is the bad guy. I am willing to believe that I personally as a player am a bad person because I accept these problems in the game and play it despite that. I wasn't aiming for the Nobel prize, sainthood, or a spot in heaven anyway.
Lastly I think it's been written about ad nauseum online that Howard and Lovecraft were overtly racist in their lives and in their work. Are Conan and Cthulhu still on my bookshelf? Yes. Does the racism make me cringe when I read them? Yes. Would I be a better person if I tossed their books and / or diversified my bookshelf? Maybe.
I don't read Howard, Lovecraft, or any author because they are racist. If there is otherwise value to reading an author, I might cringe through problematic writing despite the racism. But I'm also not advocating for doing a deep dive through Mein Kampf in order to find something redeeming about Hitler. I personally am not going to join a white supremacist group because I read Conan in the past. A more likely possibility is that I will mistreat someone else because I have unconsciously internalized attitudes present in the pulp fantasy I have read. But I hope the strength of my personal egalitarian, democratic, anti-racism convictions prevent me from mistreating someone else, or tolerating someone else's mistreatment. If my convictions can't survive contact with the enemy, such as racist ideas in a book, then that is troubling to say the least.
And with that, I have broken most of my rules for writing with strangers on the internet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
Yeah, one thing that may not be apparent unless you've read both newer and older versions of the game is how racial alignments have been firmed up, made more rigid in interpretation and far-reaching in application, and paired with a bunch of explanations for why they exist and are so rigid. These explanations draw firmly on racialist, bioessentialist explanations draw from RW racism that are then applied in a fantastic context.
This is paired with the emphasis on set-piece combat where enemies are automatically hostile (no reaction rolls), almost never flee (no morale), and XP is gained almost solely through murdering them to create a default playstyle where the DM is expected to rationalise genocide with a bunch of metaphysical nonsense.
IMHO this style really begins with Dragonlance in 1982 and becomes the dominant playstyle during 2e and 3.x, with 2e throwing out (or rendering optional and discouraged) most of the mechanics that disincentivise mass murder and replacing them with e.g. murder XP. 3.x is where the "thermian" explanations take off, partially in the form of crude roleplaying advice for the abundance of different species, but also just due to its general desire to present a consistent D&D non-setting. 4e tried to change this but was obviously super unpopular for other reasons, so 5e went back to the 3.x system of rationalising. As a result, the game is littered with various goofy, shitty "canon" explanations in the reference books for why orcs are unable to control their emotions or behaviour, etc.
This is paired with the emphasis on set-piece combat where enemies are automatically hostile (no reaction rolls), almost never flee (no morale), and XP is gained almost solely through murdering them to create a default playstyle where the DM is expected to rationalise genocide with a bunch of metaphysical nonsense.
IMHO this style really begins with Dragonlance in 1982 and becomes the dominant playstyle during 2e and 3.x, with 2e throwing out (or rendering optional and discouraged) most of the mechanics that disincentivise mass murder and replacing them with e.g. murder XP. 3.x is where the "thermian" explanations take off, partially in the form of crude roleplaying advice for the abundance of different species, but also just due to its general desire to present a consistent D&D non-setting. 4e tried to change this but was obviously super unpopular for other reasons, so 5e went back to the 3.x system of rationalising. As a result, the game is littered with various goofy, shitty "canon" explanations in the reference books for why orcs are unable to control their emotions or behaviour, etc.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I guess I always saw the PC character races and their mechanics as just giving some variety to the game, so you can imagine better playing something different. That variety makes things more fun when doing teamwork as races have strengths and weaknesses. I view the races the same as I view classes...a mix is better and may make the party more successful or may present different roleplay opportunities. Being offended that a gnome gets a minus to their wisdom or that a halfling is short and moves slower....I just don't understand. Sorry. How does this relate to real life?--I'm willing to hear out the logic and have my mind changed, but I've always seen it as a positive, rather than a negative, and provides more variety and options to the game.
As for monster races as stand-ins for human stereotypes--I....honestly have never made a comparison of that. When I interact with a orc, I've never thought about it being portrayed or having similar traits as someone of a different race in real life...I'm a little dumbfounded on that if I'm honest and perhaps ignorant but I only speak from my own experience and have never heard any complaints from my group who has some "qualified members" that attend.
Misogynist--I could see that.
Colonialist--sure.
Most games, and could include some sports perhaps, have problems, competition, violence, differences, lack or fight of/for resources, or some other issue to create interaction. So sure, D&D could be viewed as colonialist I suppose depending how you play at your table. I think there is a lot of board games, in their attempt to bring interaction, that could be analyzed to be offensive to someone or some group as well. I guess I've been too busy just playing the game, trying to win, survive, find solutions, etc. than critically analyzing it in how it compares to real life. I usually play games to avoid or take a break from real life.
Anyways, it sucks that people are offended or hurt or don't feel comfortable playing a game. Everyone who shows respect to everyone at the table is welcome at my table. But this game has books full of guidelines....the players play how they want. Everything can be changed.
And Pseudoephedrine has a good point to show my ignorance--I haven't really delved into 5e so don't what it's all about. I'm just coming at it from my experience with 1e and 2e.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I wonder. I think you could probably blame this on WoW. The various races in that game are informed by real world cultures, ie troll=Blacks, Tauren=Native American, Night Elves=Korean, etc.
In D&D such a correlation was never made. Orcs were orcs, goblins were goblins, etc.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
Dragonlance was a huge influence on 2e in a variety of ways. One of the worse influences it had was its focus on a cosmic battle between good and evil where the orc-equivalents (draconians) were innately and irremediably evil due to dark magic being used on them while they were still eggs (there were other villains who were not innately evil but much less distinctive and associated with the overall plot of the modules). So you could kill them without worry because there was no other option for the triumph of good but their eradication.
As for the bioessentialism thing, the more "races" come to mean "people in funny hats / rubber masks" and less totally alien beings, the more you're going to have people scrutinising the rationale for some of them to have INT penalties or whatever. The more scrutiny it gets, the easier it is to point out that the rationales are mostly stupid, and draw on folk beliefs about human capacity that are themselves mostly stupid.
I think the moderate position for most people making this claim is that bonuses and penalties to physical attributes are generally tolerable with the "different species" rubric, but that social and intellectual penalties between humanoid species are very difficult to rationalise within it, and the rationalizations mostly echo, whether the writers know it or not, racist justifications given for why Africans, Asians, and Indigenous peoples were not as smart as Europeans. Obviously people who have had these sorts of rationalizations deployed against them IRL often aren't thrilled about encountering them in their escapist fantasy game, especially when they're written in the core rulebooks that are constantly consulted at the table instead of a less prominent place.
As for the bioessentialism thing, the more "races" come to mean "people in funny hats / rubber masks" and less totally alien beings, the more you're going to have people scrutinising the rationale for some of them to have INT penalties or whatever. The more scrutiny it gets, the easier it is to point out that the rationales are mostly stupid, and draw on folk beliefs about human capacity that are themselves mostly stupid.
I think the moderate position for most people making this claim is that bonuses and penalties to physical attributes are generally tolerable with the "different species" rubric, but that social and intellectual penalties between humanoid species are very difficult to rationalise within it, and the rationalizations mostly echo, whether the writers know it or not, racist justifications given for why Africans, Asians, and Indigenous peoples were not as smart as Europeans. Obviously people who have had these sorts of rationalizations deployed against them IRL often aren't thrilled about encountering them in their escapist fantasy game, especially when they're written in the core rulebooks that are constantly consulted at the table instead of a less prominent place.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
It's interesting that you say that. One of the things I liked about 3rd edition was that they negated a bit of that essentialism with the alignment qualifiers in the Monster Manual. Orcs were now "Often" Chaotic Evil, for instance. I was happy when they did this.
Maybe I'm a softie, or maybe it was because of my Christian upbringing <ed. note: It was both, it was both>, but most of my campaigns have involved the redemption of evil humanoids.
Sweet! Thanks for introducing me to a new term. As for that video, well, no thanks. I'm not going to feel bad about myself for using orcs that are predominately evil in alignment. Orcs were invented by Tolkien (well, I think they were, is there an earlier source for the word?), and his thermian explanation of them is good enough for me. To quote Tori Amos, I'm never going back to crucify myself.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
What, you were going to turn it into a culture war? Did you mean edition war instead?
TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
Blake uses the word Orc for a character in two of his epic poems. Although it refers to an individual, not a race or species. I have wondered more than once if that's where Tolkien got it, or what.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yes, having different mechanics for different races is problematic, particularly since race is more and more being recognized as a social construct with no real basis in biology. It would be less problematic, and probably more accurate, to define them as different species.
The basics of 1e domain play - go find "unoccupied" land, kill or drive off the humanoids who live there, and invite in settlers of your "race" or other acceptable "races" - is overtly colonial. Note the acceptable races are all generally light skinned, and the evil humanoids are yellow (bugbears, goblins), brown (bugbears, orcs), red (goblins, hobgoblins), or black (hobgoblins). At least orcs are sometimes green, but they are never white or pink.
I remember Gygax' rants in Dragon. He was plainly sexist. His portrayal of the indigenous populations in Isle of the Ape is problematic. Moldvay and Cook's portrayal of indigenous populations in Isle of Dread is even worse. I don't recall that the employees of TSR or WotC were particularly diverse, so there would have been no pressure against this sort of thing - and the treatment of Jean Wells would certainly have discouraged anyone from speaking out in the TSR days.
The reason members of minority groups can react strongly to negative tropes, even those made by people who mean no harm, is that the tropes that we all consumed as entertainment back in the day were also used by people who stood to profit from the oppression of minorities as a marketing ploy to allow them to take land, or pay lower wages, for example. And the impact of that imagery on normal idiots' attitudes towards minority groups causes serious problems.
Take for instance the portrayal of First Nation women, with them being portrayed as worthless on the one hand, and sexualized with the "Indian Princess" trope on the other. Pound that into the head of your average proto-incel meathead, and you end up having to have an Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women because the problem has become so bad it can't be ignored any longer. So when indigenous women see those tropes it is extremely painful to them, not just because they deal with the prejudice every day, but because they are aware of what it has cost them, and their families, and how much more dangerous the world is for them than it is for men, or for non-indigenous women (which is not to say that the world is safe for non-indigenous women).
I mean, can you imagine being black, or indigenous, and playing Isle of Dread?
The basics of 1e domain play - go find "unoccupied" land, kill or drive off the humanoids who live there, and invite in settlers of your "race" or other acceptable "races" - is overtly colonial. Note the acceptable races are all generally light skinned, and the evil humanoids are yellow (bugbears, goblins), brown (bugbears, orcs), red (goblins, hobgoblins), or black (hobgoblins). At least orcs are sometimes green, but they are never white or pink.
I remember Gygax' rants in Dragon. He was plainly sexist. His portrayal of the indigenous populations in Isle of the Ape is problematic. Moldvay and Cook's portrayal of indigenous populations in Isle of Dread is even worse. I don't recall that the employees of TSR or WotC were particularly diverse, so there would have been no pressure against this sort of thing - and the treatment of Jean Wells would certainly have discouraged anyone from speaking out in the TSR days.
The reason members of minority groups can react strongly to negative tropes, even those made by people who mean no harm, is that the tropes that we all consumed as entertainment back in the day were also used by people who stood to profit from the oppression of minorities as a marketing ploy to allow them to take land, or pay lower wages, for example. And the impact of that imagery on normal idiots' attitudes towards minority groups causes serious problems.
Take for instance the portrayal of First Nation women, with them being portrayed as worthless on the one hand, and sexualized with the "Indian Princess" trope on the other. Pound that into the head of your average proto-incel meathead, and you end up having to have an Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women because the problem has become so bad it can't be ignored any longer. So when indigenous women see those tropes it is extremely painful to them, not just because they deal with the prejudice every day, but because they are aware of what it has cost them, and their families, and how much more dangerous the world is for them than it is for men, or for non-indigenous women (which is not to say that the world is safe for non-indigenous women).
I mean, can you imagine being black, or indigenous, and playing Isle of Dread?
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Now this I can plainly see.
I always have to look that up when painting mini's and most of the time my goblins and orcs are always green and hobgoblins a dark red to orange. I always thought bugbears were just covered in fur...been awhile since I read the MM. But you bring up a good point and one I have never connected the dots.
Wind River was a pretty eye-opening movie about that issue. It's horrible.
I haven't read Isle of Dread since 3rd grade, maybe I'll take another look.
Did a quick 2 min research before bed here...sounds like species doesn't necessarily work either though in this case. Anyways, interesting discussion.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I think this a particularly good point. Bryce makes it too---saying that the original D&D game had a more "winning" or "game-y" mentality. It took me a long time to connect what he was saying with the notion of being OK with D&D as a game rather than an immersive experience (because I never played it in the post 1e way). Also, hearkens back to my old-saw (argument with Malrex) about character over fetish-ization.
EDIT: Sorry. Replied to this before seeing that the discussion had clearly moved in another direction.
Playing with my daughters, our D&D tends to stay pretty PG-rated. The name of the Inn of the Welcoming Wench in T1 was changed at my wife's insistence. It's simple enough to edit that stuff out and introduce a few strong female role-model NPCs.
However, when the party tried befriending a goblin guide, I made it clear there was no bridging that gap. These are not indigenous humans---these are goblins-as-fey---with wild chaotic habits, believers in might-makes-right, like to steal and eat human babies, and who cannot be trusted (even amongst themselves). They are the distillation of our worst primal impulses, and completely without redemption. They are the Beast in Lord of the Flies. The Other. The antithesis of civilization.
The big baddies (Sauron level) like demons and their ilk are, of course, far, far worse. More than just wild agents of chaos, they want to devour the world.
For the evil humans, it helped me to recall that Pride is the Cardinal Sin---the one from which all others are derived. The desire to be-as-gods is what motivates the fallen souls.
A protagonist needs an antagonist for the game to work. Simple as that. Sorry.
The notion that civilization is under attack from all sides and will suffer a slow defeat unless the forces of good are rallied to defeat an organized, and determined aggressor, defuses the colonialism for me. Humanity/Law is the small bright spark in an ocean of violent chaotic darkness.
These are our stories, we need some freedom to write the narrative.
Last edited: