| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1setiJul 27, 2014 19:54:09 | Hi.
I think WotC should put a paragraph at the beginning of the free 5e Basic PDF stating that all previous editions of D&D are beautiful, awesome, proper, and none are the wrong way to play or enjoy the game. You know; in the spirit of promoting tolerance, understanding, and general decency among the fanbase, and the larger world.
I'll even draft such a statement. But, not right now. I'm fighting apartment-invading feyrs with my cat; and it's getting pretty hectic. We got it, though.
Thoughts? |
| #2TiaNadiezjaJul 27, 2014 20:06:30 | My thoughts are that I'm less concerned with tolerance for games than tolerance for people.
No, not tolerance. Acceptance. Settling for tolerance was never something anyone should have done. |
| (Reply to #2)JC999 |
|
| #4TiaNadiezjaJul 27, 2014 20:12:09 |
|
| #5ClockworkNecktieJul 27, 2014 20:50:03 | Does anyone who has actually played D&D before read those intro sections for advice, rather than to nitpick them like we do?
New players probably need to know that the default D&D world is full of diverse people, attitudes, sexualities, etc. because that isn't necessarily obvious to a newbie only familiar with Tolkien and European medieval history. They don't really need to hear about how past versions were played because, obviously, they didn't play them. |
| #6souldoubtJul 27, 2014 20:52:08 |
|
| #7FallingIcicleJul 27, 2014 20:53:31 |
|
| (Reply to #7)CCS |
|
| (Reply to #5)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #10setiJul 28, 2014 3:05:16 | I think it should be stated not because people on boards/forums like this will listen; but rather because it needs to be said.
Too many of you (and me) sometimes are jerks to others' favorite rulesets and playstyles.
This is not cool. We're a small group who likes TTRPGs. Warring from within ruins the hobby for curious newcomers, and ruins the hobby in general.
I also don't like editions and playstyles not officially acknoledged as valid by the company who created them. |
| #11GrazelJul 28, 2014 4:00:07 | I don't think that's needed because the books are for and about 5e only. They aren't about the older editions and if it's a new player they're not going to be using those older systems most likely.
As I assume this is in reference to the paragraphs in the character creation section those are there because they pertain to 5e and character creation in general (no matter what TTRPG you're playing, or even MMOs should you get into RP on them instead of just macro'ing raid combos). While tolerance of multiple editions would be nice it's not likely to come up during a game of 5e but instead be seen on these forums or elsewhere on the 'net. The paragraphs on page 33 though can have an impact at the game table during game play . Even if the topic of one's sexual orientation never comes up during play having thought about it during creation can help flesh out the character overall and make them more 'three dimensional' and less of a carboard cutout. Those choices can impact other aspects of character creation that do get brought up in play and anything that builds the character can have impact beyond the direct referencing of that choice. |
| #12UchawiJul 28, 2014 4:33:18 | I think it is wasted page space, or may ring hollow, as the game will speak for itself at this point in reference to tolerance, or more importantly considering what people liked from the various editions. |
| #13BrimleydowerJul 28, 2014 6:17:58 | I'd prefer radio silence. People can decide for themselves what editions they do or don't like. Let the edition warriors perish in the flames of a well designed game instead. |
| #14Kiraya_TiDrekanJul 28, 2014 6:25:09 | I think the same general point can be made by talking about playstyles, something along the lines of...
"D&D is versatile enough to encompass in-depth storytelling, tactical combat, intense roleplaying, laid-back dungeon-crawling, or any combination of playstyles." |
| #15DemoMonkeyJul 28, 2014 7:48:47 | I think it's a good idea. One of the stated purposes of 5E was to reunite the player base; a way to assure people that the game is open to everyone regardless of their edition-identification or gamestyle preference (which are not the same thing) would help accomplish that goal. |
| #16autolycusJul 28, 2014 8:27:25 | Writing in the rules telling people that they should be tolerant would create exactly the opposite trend.
Best to just make a non-issue of it and simply have D&D Next rules be D&D Next rules and nothing else.
|
| #17QmarkJul 28, 2014 9:29:54 |
|
| (Reply to #2)Fallen_Star_02 |
|
| #19DemoMonkeyJul 28, 2014 9:55:18 | "Writing in the rules telling people that they should be tolerant would create exactly the opposite trend."
Funny. There's a very long and exquisitely curated thread around here that starkly disagrees with that philosophy. |
| #20autolycusJul 28, 2014 10:47:33 |
|
| #21SturmunddrangJul 28, 2014 11:14:02 |
|
| #22autolycusJul 28, 2014 11:18:42 |
|
| #23sleypyJul 28, 2014 11:30:24 | OP. I am pretty sure that every DMG WoTC has been responsible for has had words talking about different types of players and playstyles. I know 4e did and I am almost certain I have read a similar section in 3e DMG. (I'm less certain about the Essentials or 3.5.) I hope they continue the trend because no one agrees about everything 100% of the time. Regardless of how large or small the difference are, acceptence is important topic when playing a social game like D&D. |
| (Reply to #40)Cennedi |
|
| #43QmarkJul 28, 2014 23:45:15 |
|
| #44rethgrynJul 28, 2014 23:44:07 |
|
| #45TiaNadiezjaJul 28, 2014 23:45:17 |
|
| #46rethgrynJul 28, 2014 23:47:26 | He's here to pick a fight. Don't engage with him. |
| #47QmarkJul 28, 2014 23:49:49 |
|
| #48ankiyavonJul 28, 2014 23:49:51 |
|
| (Reply to #41)Cennedi |
|
| (Reply to #43)Cennedi |
|
| #51strider13xJul 28, 2014 23:56:21 | Tia-
I'm with you on the full rights under the law part of your argument, but what everyone has to accept (yes, even you) is that we all have the right in our society to disagree with others lifestyle. Welcome to America and the Pursuit of Happiness. You obviously disagree with certain religious affiliations, so are you bigoted towards them? You are the one saying you are willing to fight over the matter. At what point is either side taking this issue to far? Best to take a more even handed approach than to shove back, turn the other cheek and all. Are you being accepting of others when you fight them? You can't win them all over, just as they can't save every soul. |
| #52QmarkJul 28, 2014 23:56:33 |
|
| #53TiaNadiezjaJul 28, 2014 23:57:24 |
|
| (Reply to #51)Cennedi |
|
| (Reply to #53)Cennedi |
|
| #56strider13xJul 29, 2014 0:09:18 | As to marriage paint me Libertarian on that one. Government has no right to demand permission from anyone to marry. If anyone truly wants equality then this should be their position. I'm not married nor ever have been, why am I treated differently under the law than a married couple? How equal is that? |
| (Reply to #56)Cennedi |
|
| #58TiaNadiezjaJul 29, 2014 0:11:19 |
|
| (Reply to #58)Cennedi |
|
| #60QmarkJul 29, 2014 0:14:48 |
|
| #61emwasickJul 29, 2014 0:20:00 |
|
| (Reply to #60)Cennedi |
|
| #63GrazelJul 29, 2014 0:27:44 | I'm seeing a trend here that certain posts get derailed by certain posters whenever the topic of tolerance, acceptance, or equality come up. This started as a thread about edition wars and at this point (prior to any moderator clean up which I suspect is coming) is more about theological arguments for a religion that isn't even represented in ANY edition of D&D and therefore should have no bearing on what is and isn't presented in D&D.
To try to get things back on track I don't feel that the text the OP suggested needs to be in the PHB or Basic rules anywhere, as like the religious debates it's not directly relevant to the current edition. Those who get 5e will like it or not, they may like or dislike various previous editions. There's no need to force them to like (which is stronger than accept) older editions in order to play 5e. The rules seem to already give nods to many editions (including the apparently controversial return of intersexed, androgynous, pansexual elven deities) and will have modules and text about converting from older editions. I think those go much further to adressing the OP's concern of "edition tolerance" than a sentence or too in the introduction section of a pdf that most players probably won't ever see or reference once a game starts. |
| #64CennediJul 29, 2014 0:34:17 | Like most conversations we seem to be all over the place. Nothing wrong with that. |
| #65TiaNadiezjaJul 29, 2014 0:45:10 |
|
| #66QmarkJul 29, 2014 0:50:40 | Here's a "tolerance" catch-all: "Occasionally, a player may have a character concept you don't like. As a player you have no say whatsoever over what another player does. As a DM, you had better have a damn good reason for saying 'no', other than 'I don't like that'." |
| #67emwasickJul 29, 2014 0:53:13 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Cennedi |
|
| #69TiaNadiezjaJul 29, 2014 0:58:33 |
|
| #70Caliburn101.Jul 29, 2014 2:08:21 | Do a litmus test.
We are on an RP site after all.
Play Elder Scrolls Online and gauge your reaction when you come across the various gay males and females of various races who make up some of the NPCs, questgivers and vendors.
If that makes you smile - great.
If you find that it's more ok than you thought it would be, then give yourself a cookie, that's progress...
... if it makes you want to put the game down, then my advice would be that you don't subsequently make an issue of it here, or indeed anywhere.
All religions, regardless of the intentions of those who inspire or found them, always, always get modified by interest groups who fold their own agendas into the main body of scripture, tradition etc.. There are simply no exceptions because of the vagaries of time and of course human nature being less than perfect... a point all religions agree on, ironically...
After centuries of existence, it is extraordinairily difficult to differentiate the founding intent and/or principles from the 'additions' and therefore wrong to base bigotry from this or that part of the litany of a religion. Sects and different Churches or whatever they get called are all expression of the drift in interpretation and perceived meaning.
This is why secular, liberal progressive law makes open expressed hatred based on religious doctrine (amongst other drivers) illegal and why international law and the Court of Human Rights tackles many of its less fortunate manifestations.
The point is - all of this is bound to come out in some game, at some point in any one of a vast number of expressions.
There is now a principle within the game about bias against sexual orientation being against the rules.
In essence this makes 5th. Edition the first extant liberal, progressive version of the game, and if you don't like that it is, then you are perhaps playing the wrong game. |
| (Reply to #70)Cennedi |
|
| #72Caliburn101.Jul 29, 2014 2:26:58 |
|
| #73CennediJul 29, 2014 2:39:21 | I am totally not saying you should not speak your peace brother, just trying to keep this rather touchy subject light and playful. Lots of heated words and hurt feeling over the last few days for which I take my share of responsibility. I am not actually offended by the paragraphs at all, just concerned at how many people could react and really wanting this edition to regain the title.
I was a little concerned about Mearls comments. they were "unfortunant" and inflamed passions on both sides.
At this point i am over it. I said what I needed to say and i think a few people heard me and I hope they will respect my right to my beliefs and I will respect theirs. |
| (Reply to #49)1eejit |
|
| #75Caliburn101.Jul 29, 2014 3:09:55 |
|
| (Reply to #75)Cennedi |
|
| (Reply to #74)Cennedi |
|
| #78Caliburn101.Jul 29, 2014 3:50:39 |
|
| (Reply to #29)Gunthar |
|
| #80mrsrockguruJul 29, 2014 4:08:55 |
|
| (Reply to #42)Gunthar |
|
| #82ArithezooJul 29, 2014 5:39:32 | Has anyone ever met someone in real life who was hostile toward people simply because they enjoyed playing a certain version of D&D? I certainly haven't. It seems to be something unique to the internet, probably due to the fact that there are no social consequences for being a jerk.
In real life, I have met people who are fans of every edition, and people who have said that one or more editions are not fun for them. None of these people were contemptuous in the slightest toward people who liked different edtions, even when I mentioned that I was a fan of an edition they didn't like. On the contrary, we were always able to have a nice conversation about (shocker) D&D, about the things we both liked, about things we both disliked, and even about stuff that we disagreed about...without resorting to name calling, condescending insults, etc.
So if you, like me, want these boards to be a better place, here is my advice: ignore. Remember that there are no social consequences for being a jerk here, so don't engage. Voice your disapproval by simply ignoring, because any response simply serves to feed the troll. If enough of us do this, the jerks will slowly but surely disappear, because they post in order to get a response.
WotC has made it abundantly clear that ALL editions are TRUE D&D, all editions are equally fantastic. Now it is time for US to help out too, by ignoring those who refuse to get the message. |
| #83DemoMonkeyJul 29, 2014 6:25:29 | "If enough of us do this, the jerks will slowly but surely disappear, because they post in order to get a response."
People have been saying this for as long as there has been an internet. I no longer believe it's true. The trolls are never, ever, ever going away. They cannot be starved, they cannot be ignored, they cannot be intimidated.
The best way to respond to them- really, the best way to respond period - is unrelenting non-sequiturs.
In closing, tulip eventful chair, le mort aluminum harmony circa. |
| #84Caliburn101.Jul 29, 2014 8:54:17 |
|
| #85RottleJul 29, 2014 9:19:39 |
|
| #86Orc_BarronsJul 29, 2014 9:29:36 | This topic has been locked for violating the Code Of Conduct until further notice.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
|