This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons  (Read 19005 times)

Kerstmanneke82

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 98
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #150 on: September 26, 2022, 11:07:37 AM »

Sent the author a link to my blog as well. Got blocked, but used my other twitter-account to check on her status, wherein she says, I quote: "got sent three whole Wordpress blogs over the past week, all of which displayed an impressive command of ad hominem attacks and a complete lack of critical thinking or creativity." End quote.  I guess you and I are two out of three.

The author of that article reminds me of video game critic Anita Sarkeesian, who calls anyone who points out her obvious lies as trolls and claims they are attacking her.   Doesn't want to hear alternite points of views and doesn't want anyone to point out her obvious lies and the fact she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about.

For what it's worth, here's a link to my blog. Maybe I may have used some ad hominems but at the end of the day, I think I have been *very* polite. Keep in mind though that English is not my maternal language so mistakes were made perhaps.

https://detaveerne.wordpress.com/2022/09/21/in-defence-of-race/

Osman Gazi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #151 on: September 26, 2022, 12:19:31 PM »

Sent the author a link to my blog as well. Got blocked, but used my other twitter-account to check on her status, wherein she says, I quote: "got sent three whole Wordpress blogs over the past week, all of which displayed an impressive command of ad hominem attacks and a complete lack of critical thinking or creativity." End quote.  I guess you and I are two out of three.

The author of that article reminds me of video game critic Anita Sarkeesian, who calls anyone who points out her obvious lies as trolls and claims they are attacking her.   Doesn't want to hear alternite points of views and doesn't want anyone to point out her obvious lies and the fact she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about.

For what it's worth, here's a link to my blog. Maybe I may have used some ad hominems but at the end of the day, I think I have been *very* polite. Keep in mind though that English is not my maternal language so mistakes were made perhaps.

https://detaveerne.wordpress.com/2022/09/21/in-defence-of-race/

From your linked blog--maybe I don't understand your terminology (heck, there were decades that I haven't played, and only recently started getting interested again), but I don't think this claim isn't exactly true:

Quote
Race as a whole in RPGs has always been there. In a way. In the first iteration of D&D Elves and Dwarves were classes, not races.

In OD&D and 1st Ed AD&D, race and classes were separate, and Elves and Dwarves were races, not classes.  They had limitations on what classes they could be, and their maximum levels for those classes.  In addition, they had racial bonuses and maximum and minimum scores for certain attributes for both classes and races.  And frankly, racial maximums and minimums make a ton of sense, with Pixies never being as strong as Giants or Trolls being as clever as Elves.

Otherwise, I think you have a good take on it.  On the balance, I do like 5e, though I have to roll my eyes at some of the SJW stuff inserted in it on occasion.  But because of the direction WoTC is moving--and the speed of that movement--I dread a 6e.

Kerstmanneke82

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 98
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #152 on: September 26, 2022, 12:28:47 PM »
Hmm, then I must have interpreted it wrong. I have always been under the impression that Dwarf and Elf were classes in and of themselves. However, if I stand corrected, I stand corrected.

Osman Gazi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #153 on: September 26, 2022, 01:08:38 PM »
Hmm, then I must have interpreted it wrong. I have always been under the impression that Dwarf and Elf were classes in and of themselves. However, if I stand corrected, I stand corrected.

No problem.

FWIW, here's from OD&D:

Quote
Dwarves: Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class, and they may never progress
beyond the 6th level (Myrmidon). Their advantages are: 1) they have a high
level of magic resistance, and they thus add four levels when rolling saving throws
(a 6th-level dwarf equals a 10th-level human); 2) they are the only characters able
to fully employ the +3 Magic War Hammer (explained in Book II); 3) they note
slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings;
and 4) they are able to speak the languages of Gnomes, Kobolds and Goblins
in addition to the usual tongues (see LANGUAGES in this book).

Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch
class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the
course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may
use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-
Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero)
nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock). Elves are more able to note secret and hidden
doors. They also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when
fighting certain fantastic creatures. Finally, Elves are able to speak the languages
of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own (Elvish) and the other
usual tongues.
Halflings: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-
Men class as a halfling. Halflings cannot progress beyond the 4th level (Hero),
but they will have magic-resistance equal to dwarves (add four levels for saving
throws), and they will have deadly accuracy with missiles as detailed in
CHAINMAIL.
Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to
play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to
the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say,
a “young” one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined
by the campaign referee.

Keep in mind, there were only 3 classes then--Fighting Men, Magic Users, and Clerics.  Even Thieves had to wait until Greyhawk, the first Supplement...which I thought was weird, given how Tolkeinesque OD&D was (they even said "Hobbits" instead of "Halflings" in the first printings)...you couldn't be the iconic Hobbit Thief.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #154 on: September 26, 2022, 02:04:38 PM »
For what it's worth, here's a link to my blog. Maybe I may have used some ad hominems but at the end of the day, I think I have been *very* polite. Keep in mind though that English is not my maternal language so mistakes were made perhaps.

https://detaveerne.wordpress.com/2022/09/21/in-defence-of-race/

You're mistaken about D&D. You say that elves and dwarves started out as classes, which is wrong. Elves and dwarves started out as being restricted in class in "Men and Magic" (original D&D). Dwarves could only choose the Fighting Man class, while elves could be Fighting Men or Magic-Users. AD&D was published next, which introduced many more classes and more detailed race descriptions. The Basic Set came after AD&D, and that was when race-as-class was introduced.

You're also hitting pretty broadly about preferences. I've played Fantasy Hero since the 1980s, which was when I was introduced to character design - where ability scores aren't tied to race. Racial ability modifiers introduce more min-maxing. If I want to make a top-strength barbarian like Conan or Imaro, then I can get total better stats by going with a strength-boosting race instead of human. I prefer it to be even-handed.

I don't agree with everything that the post from the OP says, but you're hitting broadly that somehow my preference to reduce min-maxing is destroying RPGs.

EDITED TO ADD: cross-posted with the other correction

Kerstmanneke82

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 98
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #155 on: September 26, 2022, 02:28:26 PM »
I have also stated I stood corrected ;) I've only been following TTRPGs for a short period of time, since the early nineties and in Belgium at that, so, can't know everything and I'm glad I keep learning.

Kerstmanneke82

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 98
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #156 on: September 26, 2022, 02:30:15 PM »
Hmm, then I must have interpreted it wrong. I have always been under the impression that Dwarf and Elf were classes in and of themselves. However, if I stand corrected, I stand corrected.

No problem.

FWIW, here's from OD&D:

Quote
Dwarves: Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class, and they may never progress
beyond the 6th level (Myrmidon). Their advantages are: 1) they have a high
level of magic resistance, and they thus add four levels when rolling saving throws
(a 6th-level dwarf equals a 10th-level human); 2) they are the only characters able
to fully employ the +3 Magic War Hammer (explained in Book II); 3) they note
slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings;
and 4) they are able to speak the languages of Gnomes, Kobolds and Goblins
in addition to the usual tongues (see LANGUAGES in this book).

Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch
class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the
course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may
use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-
Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero)
nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock). Elves are more able to note secret and hidden
doors. They also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when
fighting certain fantastic creatures. Finally, Elves are able to speak the languages
of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own (Elvish) and the other
usual tongues.
Halflings: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-
Men class as a halfling. Halflings cannot progress beyond the 4th level (Hero),
but they will have magic-resistance equal to dwarves (add four levels for saving
throws), and they will have deadly accuracy with missiles as detailed in
CHAINMAIL.
Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to
play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to
the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say,
a “young” one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined
by the campaign referee.

Keep in mind, there were only 3 classes then--Fighting Men, Magic Users, and Clerics.  Even Thieves had to wait until Greyhawk, the first Supplement...which I thought was weird, given how Tolkeinesque OD&D was (they even said "Hobbits" instead of "Halflings" in the first printings)...you couldn't be the iconic Hobbit Thief.

To my shame, I know all of this AND I own the books. As I have stated in another (new) blog post, everything else I stand by. Can't all be the same and that's good.

Osman Gazi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #157 on: September 26, 2022, 03:40:47 PM »
Hmm, then I must have interpreted it wrong. I have always been under the impression that Dwarf and Elf were classes in and of themselves. However, if I stand corrected, I stand corrected.

No problem.

FWIW, here's from OD&D:

Quote
Dwarves: Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class, and they may never progress
beyond the 6th level (Myrmidon). Their advantages are: 1) they have a high
level of magic resistance, and they thus add four levels when rolling saving throws
(a 6th-level dwarf equals a 10th-level human); 2) they are the only characters able
to fully employ the +3 Magic War Hammer (explained in Book II); 3) they note
slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings;
and 4) they are able to speak the languages of Gnomes, Kobolds and Goblins
in addition to the usual tongues (see LANGUAGES in this book).

Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch
class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the
course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may
use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-
Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero)
nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock). Elves are more able to note secret and hidden
doors. They also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when
fighting certain fantastic creatures. Finally, Elves are able to speak the languages
of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own (Elvish) and the other
usual tongues.
Halflings: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-
Men class as a halfling. Halflings cannot progress beyond the 4th level (Hero),
but they will have magic-resistance equal to dwarves (add four levels for saving
throws), and they will have deadly accuracy with missiles as detailed in
CHAINMAIL.
Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to
play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to
the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say,
a “young” one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined
by the campaign referee.

Keep in mind, there were only 3 classes then--Fighting Men, Magic Users, and Clerics.  Even Thieves had to wait until Greyhawk, the first Supplement...which I thought was weird, given how Tolkeinesque OD&D was (they even said "Hobbits" instead of "Halflings" in the first printings)...you couldn't be the iconic Hobbit Thief.

To my shame, I know all of this AND I own the books. As I have stated in another (new) blog post, everything else I stand by. Can't all be the same and that's good.

No worries...you probably are remembering Basic, where it was the case.  At my age, it's a chore to keep anything straight.   ;D

Effete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #158 on: September 28, 2022, 07:10:24 AM »
No worries...you probably are remembering Basic, where it was the case.  At my age, it's a chore to keep anything straight.   ;D

They make a pill for that.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #159 on: September 28, 2022, 08:43:24 AM »
In defense, my first exposure to D&D was Mentzer Red Box (BECMI) so I can understand the error as well :)


Tasty_Wind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 92
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #160 on: September 28, 2022, 09:51:00 AM »
I don’t understand this whole push to swap the term “race” with “ancestry” or “heritage”. They say it’s because “race” has too much real world baggage, but then replace it with synonyms.
It’s like how “colored people” is racist, but “people of color” isn’t. Then again, consistency has never been these people’s strength.

Dropbear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #161 on: September 28, 2022, 12:21:42 PM »
I don’t understand this whole push to swap the term “race” with “ancestry” or “heritage”. They say it’s because “race” has too much real world baggage, but then replace it with synonyms.
It’s like how “colored people” is racist, but “people of color” isn’t. Then again, consistency has never been these people’s strength.

I think Ancestry is fine. But I have been playing Shadow of the Demon Lord more frequently than D&D for many years now and I believe it was the first RPG (well before Pathfinder 2E started popularizing it) to actively use that term.

Heritage seems to be too much of a conglomerated term to me.

Tasty_Wind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 92
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #162 on: September 28, 2022, 12:48:26 PM »
I don’t understand this whole push to swap the term “race” with “ancestry” or “heritage”. They say it’s because “race” has too much real world baggage, but then replace it with synonyms.
It’s like how “colored people” is racist, but “people of color” isn’t. Then again, consistency has never been these people’s strength.

I think Ancestry is fine. But I have been playing Shadow of the Demon Lord more frequently than D&D for many years now and I believe it was the first RPG (well before Pathfinder 2E started popularizing it) to actively use that term.

Heritage seems to be too much of a conglomerated term to me.

/quote]
SotDL is the first place I saw it as well, but it still made me scratch my head. A white guy from Sweden, a black guy from Botswana, and an Asian woman from Laos all have different ancestries, but they’re all still human. Now compare any three of those people to a goblin or a clockpunk robot powered by the souls of the damned, and that’s where the fuzziness starts.
I don’t think the term “race” should be replaced in ttrpgs, but it is has the be,  something like “Species” would be more accurate.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #163 on: September 28, 2022, 12:56:53 PM »
I don’t understand this whole push to swap the term “race” with “ancestry” or “heritage”. They say it’s because “race” has too much real world baggage, but then replace it with synonyms.
It’s like how “colored people” is racist, but “people of color” isn’t. Then again, consistency has never been these people’s strength.

I think Ancestry is fine. But I have been playing Shadow of the Demon Lord more frequently than D&D for many years now and I believe it was the first RPG (well before Pathfinder 2E started popularizing it) to actively use that term.

Heritage seems to be too much of a conglomerated term to me.
SotDL is the first place I saw it as well, but it still made me scratch my head. A white guy from Sweden, a black guy from Botswana, and an Asian woman from Laos all have different ancestries, but they’re all still human. Now compare any three of those people to a goblin or a clockpunk robot powered by the souls of the damned, and that’s where the fuzziness starts.
I don’t think the term “race” should be replaced in ttrpgs, but it is has the be,  something like “Species” would be more accurate.

For me, I want the term to describe what generally what it is, without getting hyper-pedantic about it.  I don't mind "race" as a more general, archaic nod to "species" in a typical fantasy game.  Historically, "race" is an imprecise term, and in something like D&D, it's tied to an imprecise concept.

"Ancestry" or "Heritage" or even "Blood Line" could more accurately portray the spirit of the game/setting if, for example, all the various entities are human variants put through the fantastical wringer.  Say, elves are just humans that split off ages ago, and now seem that much different. 

If the game is more precise about such things, it needs the terms to convey that.  If it's not, then any term is going to be somewhat misleading.  Switching one vague term for another vague term in a system with vague applications merely confuses the issue for no good reason.

Of course, when confusing the issue is your goal ...

Kerstmanneke82

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • K
  • Posts: 98
Re: Another hit piece against Dungeons & Dragons
« Reply #164 on: September 28, 2022, 01:13:05 PM »
No worries...you probably are remembering Basic, where it was the case.  At my age, it's a chore to keep anything straight.   ;D

They make a pill for that.

It works wonders.

So they say.