D&D 6th Edition announced (but they're calling it One D&D for now)

[Ubiquitous]

Today at Wizards Presents, Wizards of the Coast announced that the next
generation of Dungeons & Dragons(opens in new tab) is on its way via a
massive public playtest called One D&D. This will include a revision of
the core rulebooks: The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and
Monster Manual. This update will come alongside an offical digital
toolset and virtual tabletop for D&D.(opens in new tab)

The new rules will be backwards compatible with 5th Edition, or 5E, the
current version of the D&D rules. These have been around since 2014 and
are probably the ones you play, statistically speaking. Don't panic: We
knew this would come. It's not that drastic, and it has happened
before.

Wizards of the Coast isn't calling the new ruleset D&D 6th Edition, but
that's really what it is. If it doesn't pick an official name other
than One D&D, players will call it 6E, or maybe 5.5. Trust me: Wizards
tried to make 5E just "Dungeons & Dragons" for years, but we all called
it 5th Edition anyway... and now Wizards itself calls it that. The "One
D&D" thing won't last.

"One D&D is the codename for the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons
that brings together updated rules, backwards compatible with 5th
Edition, D&D Beyond as the platform for your D&D experience, and an
early-in-development D&D digital play experience that will offer
players and Dungeon Masters full immersion and rich 3D creation tools,"
Wizards said in a press release.

"We did a smart thing with 5th edition by listening to the fans," said
D&D designer Chris Perkins, "and what came out of that process was a
system that is stable, that is well-loved, that incorporates the best
elements of earlier editions. Now that we have that we are no longer in
the position where we think of D&D as an edition. It's just D&D."

Wizards tried to be very clear in their presentation that their plans
for changes to D&D weren't about "taking anything away" from D&D
players or "changing that stuff you love." As a D&D veteran who went
from 3rd Edition D&D to its evolution D&D 3.5, then 4th Edition to 4E
Essentials, I can comfortably say that's going to be... partly true,
probably.

This 5th edition update has a lot of development time behind it, and a
lot of play experience with D&D 5E. Subtle rules updates have happened
in the last eight years, as has game design philosophy. It'll also
benefit, at least in part, from the knowledge gained in those earlier
game updates.

But will the thing you like most get changed in the official printing?
Maybe. Fundamental core rules are altered in the first document: A
natural 20 is now always a success, while a natural 1 is always a
failure. That change was made, said D&D's game design architect Jeremy
Crawford, because the vast majority of people were playing the game
that way whether it was the official rules or not.

Which, if you've done this before, is actually kind of refreshing.

The first playtest focuses on Race and Background, giving an evolved
version of previous rules that's still pretty simple and familiar. It
also introduces a new celestial opposite of the Tiefling: The animal-
headed Ardlings. It also collapses spell lists into three simple,
separate Arcane, Divine, and Primal lists.

Then there are much larger changes: Critical hits are seemingly now
only for player characters, not for NPCs. That's huge! Some people will
hate it.

In short?

An image from movie The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. Two men are being
hanged. One is weeping. The second looks at him and asks "First time?"

In many ways, this is the natural evolution of things. Having acquired
D&D Beyond, Wizards of the Coast now has, for the first time, a single
common platform on which to distribute digital content for D&D—
including what sounds like living rules updates over the next several
years ahead of those new core rulebooks. (And it's also making an
official 3D virtual tabletop tool.)

That was the plan from the start with 5th Edition, but you can forgive
us for being surprised that it's still true in the corporate
environment of Wizards of the Coast.

If you're interested in the future of Dungeons & Dragons, you can sign
up for the One D&D public playtests at dndbeyond.com(opens in new tab).
Oh, they've also announced the 2023 D&D release schedule, including
Planescape.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 21:07:13 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:

>Today at Wizards Presents, Wizards of the Coast announced that the next
>generation of Dungeons & Dragons(opens in new tab) is on its way via a
>massive public playtest called One D&D. This will include a revision of
>the core rulebooks: The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and
>Monster Manual. This update will come alongside an offical digital
>toolset and virtual tabletop for D&D.(opens in new tab)

Well, aside from the stupid name (right up there with Microsoft's
"XBox One" and the problems they've had since differentiating the
'original' XBone with its successors), I've no problem with this. As
pointed out, it's not our first rodeo with regards to new editions
(it's not even our sixth; what is it really, the tenth?*)

Anyway, it's too early to judge the merits of this new edition - will
it be an exciting revival (and arguable improvement) like 3rd, or more
like the much maligned and forgotten 4th edition? We'll find out, but
until its out it's all a moot point anyway.

And it's not like I just won't keep using an older edition anyway. ;-)

Though, really... "D&D One"? What's wrong with 6th Edition, Wizards?
Don't be ashamed of your heritage!


* White Box, Basic, BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5th, 4th, 5th, 6th)

[iron...@gmail.com]

Someone on Instagram asked how folks felt about the announcement. And I replied, 'Indifference?'. I've read 5th and it left me cold. Stat caps? Really? 3.5 is still my favorite official edition of D&D. But my preference for high fantasy is Pathfinder 1st edition followed by Radiance and Everstone (BESM D20). I'm sure I'll look at One at some point.

[David Chmelik]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:33:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> [...]

> Well, aside from the stupid name (right up there with Microsoft's "XBox
> One" and the problems they've had since differentiating the 'original'
> XBone with its successors), I've no problem with this. As pointed out,
> it's not our first rodeo with regards to new editions (it's not even our
> sixth; what is it really, the tenth?*)

> [...]

> * White Box, Basic, BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5th, 4th, 5th, 6th)

Weren't there initially four to seven that included basic: original brown
and maybe white boxes (with JRR Tolkien's material), white box (without
JRR Tolkien), blue basic book, another blue basic book/box, (one had chits
and another had dice), first red basic book (followed by first blue
expert, B/X), second red basic book/box (and second blue expert) starting
BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia? Of course original/brown/white boxes had same
rules (just names changed) and the second (blue) rules probably are same
(just changed randomizer) but there were two distinct B/X sets with
different rules (first denoted B/X, second starting BECMI) and BECMI was
altered by Rules Cylcopedia (so all these are different editions). After
that (while AD&D was switching from 1st to 2nd ed) there were a few more
beginner plain & advanced sets though maybe didn't change rules.
Wikipedia.org has a list of editions somewhere but can't always be
trusted.

Ignoring name changes from JRR Tolkien's to generic, it seems to me more
like minimum 11 editions exist (6th might be 12th). Some people also
count AD&D 2.5 ed (because though was backwards-compatible new rules, not
everyone switched).

What I like about the borwn/white, blue, B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia,
AD&D 1st & 2nd ed sets is they're all backwards-compatible with minimal
changes and don't remove much/anything with maybe sole exception AD&D 2nd
ed started removals by removing monk, etc... 3rd ed copied simplistic
video-games and removed most professions/skills (though I've heard may be
backwards-compatible through 3.5 ed) so I doubt I ever played it and
don't plan to play anything newer (though 3rd ed was interesting by making
two parts of ability scores so may be nice to get core books anyway but
besides additions mostly use old rules).

What I mean by backwards-compatible is for example you could choose a
plain D&D elf class in AD&D, which would be almost identical to fighter/
magician elf except advance different rates, but faster-advancing one also
gets disadvantages. This is how old editions were designed (I'm not
talking about obvious stuff like plain D&D vs AD&D armour class differed
by one which is trivial) but later editions aren't as backwards-
compatible. There are entire articles on backwards-compatibility
somewhere on WWW, and friends and I used the feature in 1990s.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 03:36:26 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 15:33:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> [...]
>> Well, aside from the stupid name (right up there with Microsoft's "XBox
>> One" and the problems they've had since differentiating the 'original'
>> XBone with its successors), I've no problem with this. As pointed out,
>> it's not our first rodeo with regards to new editions (it's not even our
>> sixth; what is it really, the tenth?*)
>> [...]
>> * White Box, Basic, BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5th, 4th, 5th, 6th)

Heheh. I knew that comment would start a discussion! ;-)

>Weren't there initially four to seven that included basic: original brown
>and maybe white boxes (with JRR Tolkien's material), white box (without
>JRR Tolkien), blue basic book, another blue basic book/box, (one had chits
>and another had dice), first red basic book (followed by first blue
>expert, B/X), second red basic book/box (and second blue expert) starting
>BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia? Of course original/brown/white boxes had same
>rules (just names changed) and the second (blue) rules probably are same
>(just changed randomizer) but there were two distinct B/X sets with
>different rules (first denoted B/X, second starting BECMI) and BECMI was
>altered by Rules Cylcopedia (so all these are different editions). After
>that (while AD&D was switching from 1st to 2nd ed) there were a few more
>beginner plain & advanced sets though maybe didn't change rules.
>Wikipedia.org has a list of editions somewhere but can't always be
>trusted.

>Ignoring name changes from JRR Tolkien's to generic, it seems to me more
>like minimum 11 editions exist (6th might be 12th). Some people also
>count AD&D 2.5 ed (because though was backwards-compatible new rules, not
>everyone switched).

Where you draw the distinction between editions is a something on
which people will all have different opinions. I - for instance -
wouldn't consider the OD&D print-runs to be separate, although
"Supplement 3: Blackmoor" added enough new material (Clerics, Thieves,
changes to levels, hit locations, new monsters, and the whole concept
of published adventures that was missing from the original rules) that
there is arguable cause to do so (call it 0.5 Edition). And even
before that, we have "Chainmail", to which D&D owes so much; do we
count that as the -1 Edition? ;-P

Basic/BECMI is another entire can-of-worms. I consider Holme's
original B/X version distinct enough from Moldavay's version, but
roll-up Moldavay's original version into BECMI even though he had
nothing to do with the Companion, Master & Immortal Sets. Similarly, I
don't see the Rules Cyclopedia as different enough; for the most part
it is a streamlining and clarification of existing rules.

AD&D is a bit more straightforward, although some see "Unearthed
Arcana" as AD&D v1.5. Still, it does require the original 1E books to
play, so it isn't really so new. A similar thing happened with AD&D
2nd Ed, with the changes in its 'revised' edition, although - again -
that was mostly just repackaging material already introduced in
previous PHBR and DMGR supplements. Indeed, the largest changes were
in the new "Players Options" supplements, which still required the 2E
PHB and DMG (original or revised) to play. So are they really new
editions? I don't think so.

And we're not even out of the TSR era! Where do we classify things
like "The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game Box Set", the "New Easy to
Master Dungeons & Dragons Game" or even "First Quest" and the "Fast
Play" rules, each of which were slightly modified versions of existing
rules? I personally roll them up into either Basic or AD&D 2nd Ed. for
simplicity's sake.

Wizards of the Coast kept things slightly simpler, but even there we
have complications. 3.5E is officially considered a distinct from 3E,
even though it's largely a tweaking and rebalancing of existing rules.
Was the "D&D Miniatures Game" part of 4E, its own edition, or a
spin-off? I vote the latter but there's argument to be made for each
option. Meanwhile, their various 'starter' editions often tweaked the
rules to make the game easier for new users to grasp and thus could -
by the pedantic - be seen as games separate unto themselves. And there
have been a lot of starter sets...

I'm generally happy with my count of ten editions (including 6E); if
you think 12 is more accurate, that's fine too. But between the two of
us we've pointed out enough differences that could arguably push that
number upwards of 20... and I'm sure that some people might argue for
more. Just the fact that players (and even the publisher!) have
decimalized their counts of the edition shows how complicated the
whole situation has become and how there is no real 'right' answer...

... except that it definitely wasn't just six ;-)

[azothath]

that's nice.
Pathfinder did a second edition (PF2) and it is a different model with a more game play focused mechanics than trying to model anything realistic.
WotC pays better than Paizo so it should keep game designers busy and employed which is a good thing creating new and better products for you to purchase.

[kyonshi]

Considering Hasbro seems to struggle one has to hope that doesn't spell
something bad for DND

[azothath]

no, IMO they are really developing their own online format so they can offer a subscription service for a virtual tabletop and possibly auto-GM tool... who knows. Paizo attempted this. They look at the success of World of Warcraft etc and wonder why they didn't do it.

[kyonshi]

On 01/12/2022 06:08, azothath wrote:

> no, IMO they are really developing their own online format so they can offer a subscription service for a virtual tabletop and possibly auto-GM tool... who knows. Paizo attempted this. They look at the success of World of Warcraft etc and wonder why they didn't do it.

Because so far they did not really have much success with it. They have
been dipping their toes into it since at least 3.5. But World of
Warcraft is far from being as successful as it is right now, and I don't
think an auto-GM tool ever could work like players actually would want
it to work.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tm9u7v$2pb3h$1...@dont-email.me:

Neverwinter Nights had some success in its day.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Zaghadka]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:08:37 -0800 (PST), in rec.games.frp.dnd, azothath
wrote:

Yeah. I think they saw the success of things like Roll20 during the
pandemic and wanted a piece.

The thought being "We can do this better."

And they can. I look forward to never having to align another combat grid
again, comms that work, and D&D Beyond character sheets instead of
crappy, cobbled together community sheets.

Of course, it's going to cost a lot more money, too. They'll charge for
everything they can. And they probably won't include old editions. So I
may stick with Roll20 anyway.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[Justisaur]

I think there was some talk of them including old editions somewhere
I saw.

I'm not entirely sure how probable that would be as there's no agreement
on how almost anything works in 1e. Though the SSI gold box games
did a decent job for computer games.

I don't like the model they have, have given up on 5e, and don't like what
I'm hearing for 6e, excuse me D&D One.

- Justisaur

[Zaghadka]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 11:58:55 -0800 (PST), in rec.games.frp.dnd, Justisaur
wrote:

No kidding. They'll have to stick to some semblance of core rules to make
that workable. Problem is, as you imply, 1e had no core rules. It had a
core set of reference books that everyone cherry picked their house rules
from. 2e and 3.5e have cores, but so many supplementals that no one will
be happy with the hatchet job that will need to be taken to them.

Even if they do it, I don't want it.

>I don't like the model they have, have given up on 5e, and don't like what
>I'm hearing for 6e, excuse me D&D One.
>

Calling it "D&D One" just feels wrong. D&D was based in Tolkien, right
down to the original "racial hatred" rules and classes like the Ranger.
To come full-circle to "One D&D to rule them all" just feels very, very
weird.

You'd almost think it was deliberate irony. ;^)

[kyonshi]

One D&D will also mess up with searches as I bet people will call it
ODnD and nobody will remember that original DnD was called that already.

[Justisaur]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 04/12/2022 07:08, Zaghadka wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 11:58:55 -0800 (PST), in rec.games.frp.dnd, Justisaur

> >> I don't like the model they have, have given up on 5e, and don't like what
> >> I'm hearing for 6e, excuse me D&D One.
> >>
> > Calling it "D&D One" just feels wrong. D&D was based in Tolkien, right
> > down to the original "racial hatred" rules and classes like the Ranger.
> > To come full-circle to "One D&D to rule them all" just feels very, very
> > weird.
> >
> > You'd almost think it was deliberate irony. ;^)
> >
> One D&D will also mess up with searches as I bet people will call it
> ODnD and nobody will remember that original DnD was called that already.

Damn, I hadn't even thought of that. That's horrible. Also probably deliberate.

- Justisaur

[Spalls Hurgenson]

I doubt it. They're more likely pushing the idea of one unifying
system, /the/ game you play if you want to experience role-playing.
Plus, they've probably an idea that this will be the 'last' D&D in the
same way 'Windows 10' was supposed to be the 'last' version of
Windows; coupled with the idea that "customers are afraid of products
with big numbers" that has forced countless revisions to franchise
numbering (Friday the 13th, the nvidia GPUs, Microsoft's XBox) over
the years.

It's stupid, customers see right through it, and causes nothing but
confusion, but marketing companies make money off of big re-brandings,
so it keeps happening.

Anyway, I'll just be calling it D&Done :)

[kyonshi]

I bet what will happen is that the next iteration after 6e will split
into multiple parts. Some people were quite fond of 4e, but most seemed
to think it would have been better of as a tactical spin off. I also
think that a more basic and a more narrative version would be a better
way to satisfy different demographics.
So seperate but compatible might be the way to go for them.
Many people who play DnD already are not actually that fond of the
system. I mean, they are fond of some parts, but it's difficult to strip
out some parts without messing up others.
(they could just play a different game than DnD, but that's not gonna
happen in 80% of cases. Lots of people don't play RPGs, they play DnD)

[Justisaur]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:05:56 AM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2022 06:35:11 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
> <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> ODnD and nobody will remember that original DnD was called that already.

> Anyway, I'll just be calling it D&Done :)

Lol! Maybe that'll get them to end the stupidity. (No, I know, nothing ever stops
the stupidity until it's far too late.)

D&Done it is.

- Justisaur

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bf0df653-50da-424b...@googlegroups.com:

Some of us have been done with D&D for a long, long time.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2022 08:35:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:bf0df653-50da-424b...@googlegroups.com:
>> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:05:56 AM UTC-8, Spalls
>> Hurgenson wrote:
>>> >On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8,
>>> >gmk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> >> ODnD and nobody will remember that original DnD was called
>>> >> that already.

>>> Anyway, I'll just be calling it D&Done :)

>> D&Done it is.

>Some of us have been done with D&D for a long, long time.

Well, I'm glad you came to a D&D newsgroup to tell us that ;-)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b68soh9ahii306h2g...@4ax.com:

There's more non-D&D traffic here than in all the non-D&D newsgroups
combined.

[kyonshi]

On 05/12/2022 19:07, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:b68soh9ahii306h2g...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2022 08:35:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:bf0df653-50da-424b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:05:56 AM UTC-8, Spalls
>>>> Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8,
>>>>>> gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> ODnD and nobody will remember that original DnD was called
>>>>>>> that already.
>>
>>>>> Anyway, I'll just be calling it D&Done :)
>>
>>>> D&Done it is.
>>
>>> Some of us have been done with D&D for a long, long time.
>>
>> Well, I'm glad you came to a D&D newsgroup to tell us that ;-)
>>
> There's more non-D&D traffic here than in all the non-D&D newsgroups
> combined.
>

bit of a chicken/egg situation

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tmmugc$6mmp$2...@dont-email.me:

And a "usenet is dead" situation.

[azothath]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 11:09:20 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tmmugc$6mmp$2...@dont-email.me:
> > On 05/12/2022 19:07, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:b68soh9ahii306h2g...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2022 08:35:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:bf0df653-50da-424b...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:05:56 AM UTC-8, Spalls
> >>>>> Hurgenson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8,
> >>>>>>> gmk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> ODnD and nobody will remember that original DnD was
> >>>>>>>> called that already.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, I'll just be calling it D&Done :)
> >>>
> >>>>> D&Done it is.
> >>>
> >>>> Some of us have been done with D&D for a long, long time.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I'm glad you came to a D&D newsgroup to tell us that ;-)
> >>>
> >> There's more non-D&D traffic here than in all the non-D&D
> >> newsgroups combined.
> >>
> >
> > bit of a chicken/egg situation
> >
> And a "usenet is dead" situation.
>

> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

c'mon, everyone luvs floggin a dead horse...

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

azothath <azot...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1a73d043-74a7-4faf...@googlegroups.com:

Until all that's left is a grease spot on the sidewalk.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

[Hollowone PL]

I don't know.. I'm still stuck somewhere between 2e and older and sometimes look into a bunch of 3e books that satisfy me better than all this 5e+ which way too much focused on corporate communication than leaving me with a fine product without corporate policy incorporated in so many discussions. Orc is a freaking race at the end.. no shame to call it as such...

Games should be focused on gaming, not fixing real-life problems.

/h1

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 04:01:42 -0800 (PST), Hollowone PL
<hollo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Orc is a freaking race at the end.. no shame to call it as such...

<snark mode on>

But "Orc" would more properly be defined as a species, not a race,
wouldn't it?

;-)

[iron...@gmail.com]

Minority groups in the real world have pointed out that using the term 'race' in a game is problematic. They can't fix the real world issue easily, because they didn't create those issues. But it's really simple for people to stop being problematic in a *game*. Maybe we should listen to the real world minority groups and not make their lives worse. In a fictional *game*. I'm not sure how I can explain that we should be decent to people.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a942b0c4-3f4d-4155...@googlegroups.com:

> I'm not sure how I can explain that we should
> be decent to people.
>

Except for people who find woke language nazis objectionable. We
should be assholes to them.

[iron...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:35:11 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:a942b0c4-3f4d-4155...@googlegroups.com:
> > I'm not sure how I can explain that we should
> > be decent to people.
> >
> Except for people who find woke language nazis objectionable. We
> should be assholes to them.

The US had a really solid solution to the Nazi problem back in the 1940s.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

"iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a8c92ca0-6f76-42d3...@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:35:11 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:a942b0c4-3f4d-4155...@googlegroups.com:
>> > I'm not sure how I can explain that we should
>> > be decent to people.
>> >
>> Except for people who find woke language nazis objectionable.
>> We should be assholes to them.
>
> The US had a really solid solution to the Nazi problem back in
> the 1940s.

A lot has changed in 80 years. As things do.

[Hollowone PL]

piątek, 6 stycznia 2023 o 23:25:17 UTC+1 Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha napisał(a):
> "iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:a8c92ca0-6f76-42d3...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:35:11 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> "iron...@gmail.com" <iron...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:a942b0c4-3f4d-4155...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > I'm not sure how I can explain that we should
> >> > be decent to people.
> >> >
> >> Except for people who find woke language nazis objectionable.
> >> We should be assholes to them.
> >
> > The US had a really solid solution to the Nazi problem back in
> > the 1940s.
> A lot has changed in 80 years. As things do.

Are we still talking about worlds of fiction?

[iron...@gmail.com]

I'm not. F*** fascists.

[Hollowone PL]

> > > A lot has changed in 80 years. As things do.
> > Are we still talking about worlds of fiction?
> I'm not. F*** fascists.

Well, I am; and I'm not interested in blending reality and fantasy, that's is a job for psychiatrist, not an internet forum.

Get some Xanax boy as this kind of bollocks were already part of the D&D ecosystem, back in the 80s when kids who blended worlds of fiction and reality too much killed each other and their desperate parents blamed the game and its satanic practices built into the manuals as obvious explanation. Now books describing fantasy worlds are to blame for racism of the real, ignorant people, who did not even hear the name of the game, nor it will impact any change on their ignorant behaviour.

Good luck crucifying fiction.

Many things have changed since 80s, indeed, but some are exactly the same.. people should be fixing they own mental problems outside the game.

[Zaghadka]

That's what they're going to, but it was all based on Tolkien, so they're
going to have a hard time freeing grognards from the "elven race," etc.

[Zaghadka]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 13:35:17 -0800 (PST), in rec.games.frp.dnd,
iron...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:01:43 AM UTC-5, hollo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I don't know.. I'm still stuck somewhere between 2e and older and sometimes look into a bunch of 3e books that satisfy me better than all this 5e+ which way too much focused on corporate communication than leaving me with a fine product without corporate policy incorporated in so many discussions. Orc is a freaking race at the end.. no shame to call it as such...
>>
>> Games should be focused on gaming, not fixing real-life problems.
>>
>> /h1
>
>Minority groups

See, this is the problem. Minority groups are not homogenous. The folks
asking for the changes are particularly sensitive to the word, because
they study it and understand the full implications, and because the
flavor of the week in those political circles is that changing words
changes thought and therefore solves problems.

As someone who has studied language all his life, and has studied
attempts like this going back as far as French monarchs trying to get
monosyllabic, vile Saxon words out of English, this is patently false.
This is why you "take a shit" or "a crap" instead of "expel manure" or
"defecate." Also why shit is a "curse word." Sociological changes cause
language changes, not the other way around. Sometimes the stigma it
creates lasts, but the usage never dies. "Approved" usages die.

I suspect the fact is that most people in the "minority groups" do not
care. In fact, some in the groups who are D&D players might even be
offended. If the bulk of a group isn't using it, or doesn't care, and
remember they are all *different* people, the change will not happen.

cf: LatinX, which is pronounced with an English "X," not as
"lah-teen-ehh-keys," which would at least be linguistically respectful.
Voto Latino has told those proponents to go pound sand, as has most of
the Latino community in a position to care. Because minority groups are
diverse, and don't appreciate an English "x" added to the end of their
long fought-for Latin Spanish word.

Please do not mistake a vocal few who *want* to be spokespeople for a
group as *actual* spokespeople. Most demographic groups only have the
former, and not the latter. If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard,
"but it comes from the community" only to find out that the community was
a couple hundred people out of thousands if not millions, well... I'd be
a super rich man. Lots of people claim to be "the community." It is not a
claim an individual or an oligarchy can make.

There's a reason every word for black person, from "Negro" to "Colored"
to even "Black" has been deemed a pejorative that activists want to do
away with.

It's because the racism is the cause of the pejorative usage, and the
word change never had a chance of fixing it. Fix the racism, not the
nomenclature. That's the way real language change is effected, from the
bottom up.

[iron...@gmail.com]

I lived through the Satanic Panic. Fictional worlds can allow real bigots to escape notice. Look at Tolkien and Lovecraft. But out here in the real world the fascists are rewriting what is and isn't free speech. What will and will not be protected. Hint, 'woke' means black. And they are overtly anti-black. I don't say this as a white guy, I say it because the black people are and I strive to be an ally. There are people that will listen to me, a white guy that won't listen to black people.

And I can live without the concern trolling.

[Hollowone PL]

If trolling is about my posts, then apologies.

My intention was not trolling, just to state and perhaps add difficult comment/question to the discussion, important to me being a D&D sentimentalist, and being more emotionally attached to older and more Tolkienish descriptions as direct association with the D&D line of products.

I just personally separate conflicting words used in the context of D&D terminology and real world problems. I don't find "race" and I believe "gender/sex" right after to follow, used in the context of fantasy fiction and fantasy creatures, a real world problem. Nor I believe it will change anything regarding real world problems, so I don't mix it.

I perceive Wizards' effort just as PR supporting their CSR policies, thus just simple marketing with words. Their products are described by words, so they know how to use them to empower their marketing.. but it is still just marketing that in my humble opinion will change nothing with the core problem.

Considering it, I just don't waste time for this topic on such ground. I rather prefer showing the difference where actually I can make the difference. Like raising my kids among other kids with tolerance and acceptance as part of the core principle. Like confronting real people with this problem, rather than eluding myself with the words of fiction. Both extremely difficult to do in a constructive way. Escapism is easier and common these days.. but it changes absolutely nothing.

If core principles that come from parents, education and the right force from local communities did better job, we'd not need to have this conversation in the first place, nor any governed policies would be truly needed here.

Unfortunately, never in the history of the world, equality was shaping it and as current news show, we as "civilization" rather opt for another global war rather than finding each other equal and respected... which is sad.

-h1