Or knowing if I buy like tashas it’s gonna be full of woke bullshit
Maybe we have very different tolerance for bullshit, but "full of woke bullshit" feels like a massive exaggeration to me. Or are we triggered by the word "trigger"?
Looking in Tasha's, which is 192 pages, I'm hardly finding any wokeness:
- Are we considering allowing PCs to change racial ability score increases (pg 7) "woke"? I don't like it, it doesn't fit the kind of game I want to play, but it is very clearly motivated with "PCs are exceptional individuals who don't have to conform to the racial archetypes at all". The race still has those archetypes.
- Ditto allowing PCs to change languages or cultural proficiencies (pg 7) or personality (pg , although both ought to be changed if you're running in a thickly-detailed world.
- Chapter 4 talks about Session Zero, so there's encouragement to explicitly discuss hard & soft limits on pg 141. I suspect some of the posters on here would find a couple of those paragraphs overly solicitous of player concerns.
That's everything I can find?
Personally, I'm not offended by any of that, even though I don't want to use all of them; I'm far more offended by the wastes of space from poor editing and from a house style that seems to be aimed at readers instead of gamers. There are far more pages spent on Artificers - 15! - or various sub-classes who don't fit into most of the game-worlds I want to run, than on overwritten restatements of "PCs might not be normal" or "you should plan the kind of game your players want to play".
Page 4: "Everything in this book is optional. Each group, guided by the DM, decides which of these options, if any, to incorporate into a campaign."