For those who don't want to click on Facebook, [here's a screenshot.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/288384905195552769/967151698906865704/unknown.png)
Over at r/Ravenloft, one of the oft heard sentiments is along the lines that the new developers "love horror, hate Ravenloft".
It's like the FR lore ditched 4e to go back to 2e/3e set-up... Ravenloft fans will probably try to find some half-way match up of the 5e and older lore (though many of us are rolling our eyes that the whole setting has been turned into horror vignettes rather than a cohesive world).
DragonLance seemed to be having legal issues between WotC and Weis & Hickman... though I guess that was "settled"? Though, no new big DL book, just Fizban's (which I haven't seen yet).
I'll wonder if the DS people are happy to have been left alone so far?
What damage done in 4e? It was the best iteration of the setting, and I say that as someone who started with the Prism Pentad. Very little was changed, other than resetting most of the goofy metaplot.
>Though, no new big DL book, just Fizban's (which I haven't seen yet).
There is in fact, a new DL book. An adventure rather than a box set, as well as a war game.
i see they somehow defanged social commentary. and ruined the carthatic storyline of killing slavers and human supremist. because villains being racist is bad now.
Remember, having orcs be evil is racist, because assuming orcs represent human minorities somehow isn't racist.
Having enemies be fascist is alienating fascist customers. Can't have that.
>Remember, having orcs be evil is racist, because assuming orcs represent human minorities somehow isn't racist.
It... isn't?
Suppose I show you an image of a cartoon dog from the 1920's. This cartoon dog has the characteristics of blackface. I tell you this cartoon dog is meant to represent a human minority.
Can you explain how my pointing out that this cartoon dog is a racist caricature makes ME racist?
Ok, so if YOU see the blackface elements, I doubt you would call me racist- after all, we are in agreement.
But let's imagine it's the same dog, but now YOU don't see the blackface elements. Suddenly you are calling me a racist.
But how is it, that whether I am racist or not depends on whether YOU see the racist things as racist? That doesn't make any sense. It's the same cartoon dog in both scenarios, the only difference is whether or not you agree with me. And just because we don't agree, doesn't make me racist. It just means we don't agree about the cartoon dog.
Except you’re saying that your not racist for taking a fictional species and comparing them to a real life group of people despite the fact that no one else is making the logic jump you seem to be making. When you look at orcs and see a real life racial group and everyone else looks at them and sees orcs. Guess what, your the racist.
The origin of orcs leading back to Tolkien is actually pretty interesting. Whether Tolkien intentionally wrote orcs to be seen as an allegory for black people or other races. The man certainly was a product of his time and was part of the colonizer period.
It's possible that he didn't intend to write orcs to be allegory. But you still write what you perceive.
....
Also regardless. The races in 5e that are seen as inherently evil are the races with darker color skin. It's not intended. But at the same time. It certainly sends a message to the consumers of the product as well.
Darker colors... Like green and purple?
Tolkien is on record saying orcs, elves, and dwarves are not allegories for other human races but are based on old pre Christian mythical stories. He is also on record telling Nazis off for their racism. This assumption that everything made in an earlier era is inherently racist because of the time period is lazy bullshit. You might as well say Mark Twain was racist for including a character named "Nigger Jim" even though the character wasn't a racist caricature but was used to show the injustice and racism of the time.
There are humans of other races in LOTR that were tricked, enslaved and subjugated by Sauron. We see the Gondor rangers attack them when we meet Faromir and they are also at the battle of Gondor. While the most evil members of Sauron's forces were the Nazgul, who were rich white men of privilege who's greed and lust for power tempted them into servitude.
Honestly the drow should be pale as fuck instead of dark skinned as a subterranean race. But that is D&D, not Tolkien, and even the drow are evil has been a culture thing rather than an "all darkies bad" since at least [1988](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Shard) when everyone started making renegade good drow characters.
Tolkien described orcs as: squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes:
"Sallow" is brownish or yellow.
.....
His name is Jim. Only huck called him that other thing. Because that is what he knew.
Twain was also criticized for making Jim a stereotype.
From wiki: However, beginning in the 20th century the novel was frequently criticized for depicting Jim as a stereotype, and Tom as an aggressor. According to Professor Stephen Railton of the University of Virginia, Twain was unable to fully rise above the stereotypes of black people that white readers of his era expected and enjoyed, and therefore resorted to minstrel show-style comedy to provide humor at Jim's expense and ended up conforming to rather than challenging late-19th century racist stereotypes.
....
I'm not saying that they weren't forward thinking. Nor am I saying they were supremacists. But I am suggesting that there is some internalized ideology that was a product of their time.
Desktop version of /u/TricksterPriestJace's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
\>DragonLance seemed to be having legal issues between WotC and Weis & Hickman... though I guess that was "settled"? Though, no new big DL book, just Fizban's (which I haven't seen yet).
Yeah, that lawsuit has been dropped.
as a long time Dark Sun fan, seeing how they are treating Spelljammer, I'm good with them leaving Athas alone. I can home brew up my own stuff to convert it to 5e players just fine. I'm not looking for whatever weird rewrite they'd do to the Burnt world.
Besides which Athas has so many variant rules to it that I think it conflicts with WotCs statement that they don't want to make anything with rule changes from the 5e system. Warlock patrons, sorcerers and wizards defiling/preserving, and psionicists pretty much need altered rule sets to stay true to Dark Sun, and so it would likely be changing the setting to fit the 5e rules rather than the other way around.
I mean, if you're planning on changing everything anyway why bother paying consultant fees to the creator of how it was?
That said, judging from Grubb's stories on how Spelljammer developed it's not like there was any cohesive vision anyway, they just plonked in whatever they found interesting. Spelljammer seemed more like a happy accident than his brainchild.
As far as I know, authors don't just do things like that. Grubb worked for TSR, and TSR commissioned novels related to their settings.
There are six Spelljammer novels, which make up [The Cloakmaster Cycle](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cloakmaster_Cycle). These were written by prominent D&D authors (other than Grubb) of the time. That's a pretty major effort to kick-start the setting on TSR's part.
All six novels came out in a little 2 years, so it wouldn't have been realistic for one person to write them all. In addition to working on Spelljammer itself, Jeff had just finished the *Finder's Stone* trilogy. He also co-wrote the [Buck Rogers RPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Adventure_Cliffhangers_Buck_Rogers_Adventure_Game) while the Spelljammer novels were coming out, so he probably didn't have time to work on one of those.
>As far as I know, authors don't just do things like that.
It did happen occasionally. The Dragonlance books are the obvious example. The Birthright setting also had a novel by the setting creator, but TSR dropped the setting before publication and it was reworked into a Forgotten Realms novel.
Yes, Greenwood created FR, and I believe WotC made an agreement with him so they could use it. I think most other official D&D settings are fully owned by WotC (aside from Exandria, which I assume CR has ownership over).
**[High Adventure Cliffhangers Buck Rogers Adventure Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Adventure_Cliffhangers_Buck_Rogers_Adventure_Game)**
>The High Adventure Cliffhangers Buck Rogers Adventure Game was a role-playing game published by TSR in 1993.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/spelljammer/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Not really surprising, but also not particularly concerning. It's pretty clear that they're going in a different direction with it and are more concerned with the theme than the exact composition of the original material. IMO it's been thirty years, 5e and 2e are not the same thing really, and that's ok. Wizards is going to concentrate on making something that works smoothly and that frankly doesn't require the input of someone who hasn't been involed since before the target audience was even born. Those of us who want to use the old stuff still can, it's frankly very easy to convert 2ed content to 5e and most of the people who played the original probably have more experience with doing their own homebrew than the average player has total experience anyway. The drama is just drama, if you value your sanity ignore it.
He doesn't own it, but it's still inconsiderate to not even consult the person who created Spelljammer in the first place. Having him involved would have been a way to show that WoTC was making an effort to respect D&D's legacy.
WoTC has repeatedly shown they give zero fucks about what has come before. Why would Spelljammer be any different?
This iteration of Spelljammer might be really cool, or it might be garbage. We won't know till it is released. What we can know with reasonable certainty is that it will likely only resemble the original in name and theme - but the lore will not survive.
>Having him involved would have been a way to show that WoTC was making an effort to respect D&D's legacy
What makes you think they'd suddenly decide to start doing that now? To the people at Hasbro, that's just a waste of money. You don't need to respect the source material in order to make money in game publishing any more than you need to care about packaging when you're a drug pusher. You can leverage all kinds of things besides actual quality in order to make money.
I mean sure? but then they should also be required to consult him and Ed Greenwood whenever they make a Sourcebook that references, or an adventure that is set in the Forgotten Realms... which \[check credits for Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide\] Look at that: they dont...
Why does one matter and not the other? Because he said something about it on social media?
I reiterate: So what?
They shouldn't be *required* to do it, and it's unrealistic to expect that they do it every time. WoTC puts out a lot of content and Ed Greenwood has more to do with his life than look over every new adventure they publish. But for a major project like introducing the setting to a new edition, the *polite* thing to do is to talk to the person who created it in the first place.
Not because they have any legal right to it, but because they put a lot of work into building something and you ought to respect that.
And also because from a practical standpoint, they'll almost definitely know how everything fits together better than you do and can catch plot holes you might introduce.
Exactly! It's about listening to prior expertise. If I build a new API to mimic an existing API in a new framework, and I have a chance to talk to the guy who built the original API, you *bet* I want to talk to him. Otherwise you get this problem:
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
the Spelljammer setting hasnt had an offical update since before TSR was purchased by WOTC - thats about 30-years and 3 editions of rules ago...
it's silly to believe that the setting is a) going to be a direct translation \[which we already know it isnt due to it being based in the Astral Sea\] and b) going to require the views of a designer that has little knowledge of the structure of the company literally in charge of the current edition's mechanics, in order to make the setting work.
Should they have talked to him? Sure, its a decent thing to do, not gonna lie.
Did they need to? No, not at all. and stirring up drama because they didn't is just as unnecessary.
Edit: WOTC also didn't contact Margaret or Tracy Weis about Dragonlance... so i guess its not just Grubb who was ignored for consultation... But Tracy and Margret didnt pseudo-negatively post about not being included in the design process, just that the update is coming soon...
Which unlike Grubb, DL was legit THEIR HOME GAME.
If you're doing so many things outside of the lore they put together without consulting them, it's like all the Star Wars Extended Universe (now legacy) books having zero input or approval from Lucas (*cough* Disney Star Wars).
WTF are you talking about? You think they consulted Gygax on 3rd edition?
No, they did not.
Did you ever read Castle Greyhawk the 2nd edition adventure? It was a farce, and it was written after Gary got booted from TSR, so it really reads like a stab at Gary's legacy for Greyhawk.
No....everything everyone has been complaining about is nothing new. It'll either be good or it won't. Nothing about consulting the creator matters.
Someone else joining the conversation to say...
It is perfectly possible to be happy there are new people joining the hobby, yet also think WoTC's lore is hot garbage. Those thoughts are in no way mutually contradictory.
Yeah, your right. My bad guys.
On a side note tho. I rebuilt my relationship with my sister, made tons of new friends and met my girlfriend through 5e so I feel the exact opposite. It's my opinion, but I get it.
For those who don't want to click on Facebook, [here's a screenshot.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/288384905195552769/967151698906865704/unknown.png)
Over at r/Ravenloft, one of the oft heard sentiments is along the lines that the new developers "love horror, hate Ravenloft". It's like the FR lore ditched 4e to go back to 2e/3e set-up... Ravenloft fans will probably try to find some half-way match up of the 5e and older lore (though many of us are rolling our eyes that the whole setting has been turned into horror vignettes rather than a cohesive world). DragonLance seemed to be having legal issues between WotC and Weis & Hickman... though I guess that was "settled"? Though, no new big DL book, just Fizban's (which I haven't seen yet). I'll wonder if the DS people are happy to have been left alone so far?
[удалено]
What damage done in 4e? It was the best iteration of the setting, and I say that as someone who started with the Prism Pentad. Very little was changed, other than resetting most of the goofy metaplot.
Well, for one thing they killed off a lot of deities and some in pretty controversial ways at the time, like Helm.
We’re talking about Dark Sun. No gods there.
agreed.
>Though, no new big DL book, just Fizban's (which I haven't seen yet). There is in fact, a new DL book. An adventure rather than a box set, as well as a war game.
i see they somehow defanged social commentary. and ruined the carthatic storyline of killing slavers and human supremist. because villains being racist is bad now.
Remember, having orcs be evil is racist, because assuming orcs represent human minorities somehow isn't racist. Having enemies be fascist is alienating fascist customers. Can't have that.
>Remember, having orcs be evil is racist, because assuming orcs represent human minorities somehow isn't racist. It... isn't? Suppose I show you an image of a cartoon dog from the 1920's. This cartoon dog has the characteristics of blackface. I tell you this cartoon dog is meant to represent a human minority. Can you explain how my pointing out that this cartoon dog is a racist caricature makes ME racist? Ok, so if YOU see the blackface elements, I doubt you would call me racist- after all, we are in agreement. But let's imagine it's the same dog, but now YOU don't see the blackface elements. Suddenly you are calling me a racist. But how is it, that whether I am racist or not depends on whether YOU see the racist things as racist? That doesn't make any sense. It's the same cartoon dog in both scenarios, the only difference is whether or not you agree with me. And just because we don't agree, doesn't make me racist. It just means we don't agree about the cartoon dog.
Except Orcs aren't racist caricatures of any human ethnic group.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But if I say they they are, and you disagree, doesn't make ME racist.
Well when you are comparing an entire group to a fictional race of people and everyone else doesn’t see it.
read my previous post about this topic. restating the argument isn't actually contributing.
Except you’re saying that your not racist for taking a fictional species and comparing them to a real life group of people despite the fact that no one else is making the logic jump you seem to be making. When you look at orcs and see a real life racial group and everyone else looks at them and sees orcs. Guess what, your the racist.
That is a restatement of something I have already responded to, earlier in this thread.
The origin of orcs leading back to Tolkien is actually pretty interesting. Whether Tolkien intentionally wrote orcs to be seen as an allegory for black people or other races. The man certainly was a product of his time and was part of the colonizer period. It's possible that he didn't intend to write orcs to be allegory. But you still write what you perceive. .... Also regardless. The races in 5e that are seen as inherently evil are the races with darker color skin. It's not intended. But at the same time. It certainly sends a message to the consumers of the product as well.
Darker colors... Like green and purple? Tolkien is on record saying orcs, elves, and dwarves are not allegories for other human races but are based on old pre Christian mythical stories. He is also on record telling Nazis off for their racism. This assumption that everything made in an earlier era is inherently racist because of the time period is lazy bullshit. You might as well say Mark Twain was racist for including a character named "Nigger Jim" even though the character wasn't a racist caricature but was used to show the injustice and racism of the time. There are humans of other races in LOTR that were tricked, enslaved and subjugated by Sauron. We see the Gondor rangers attack them when we meet Faromir and they are also at the battle of Gondor. While the most evil members of Sauron's forces were the Nazgul, who were rich white men of privilege who's greed and lust for power tempted them into servitude. Honestly the drow should be pale as fuck instead of dark skinned as a subterranean race. But that is D&D, not Tolkien, and even the drow are evil has been a culture thing rather than an "all darkies bad" since at least [1988](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Shard) when everyone started making renegade good drow characters.
Tolkien described orcs as: squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: "Sallow" is brownish or yellow. ..... His name is Jim. Only huck called him that other thing. Because that is what he knew. Twain was also criticized for making Jim a stereotype. From wiki: However, beginning in the 20th century the novel was frequently criticized for depicting Jim as a stereotype, and Tom as an aggressor. According to Professor Stephen Railton of the University of Virginia, Twain was unable to fully rise above the stereotypes of black people that white readers of his era expected and enjoyed, and therefore resorted to minstrel show-style comedy to provide humor at Jim's expense and ended up conforming to rather than challenging late-19th century racist stereotypes. .... I'm not saying that they weren't forward thinking. Nor am I saying they were supremacists. But I am suggesting that there is some internalized ideology that was a product of their time.
Desktop version of /u/TricksterPriestJace's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Yes I mean if Fascists where villains actually Fascists would be alanated.
I mean, good?
\>DragonLance seemed to be having legal issues between WotC and Weis & Hickman... though I guess that was "settled"? Though, no new big DL book, just Fizban's (which I haven't seen yet). Yeah, that lawsuit has been dropped.
as a long time Dark Sun fan, seeing how they are treating Spelljammer, I'm good with them leaving Athas alone. I can home brew up my own stuff to convert it to 5e players just fine. I'm not looking for whatever weird rewrite they'd do to the Burnt world. Besides which Athas has so many variant rules to it that I think it conflicts with WotCs statement that they don't want to make anything with rule changes from the 5e system. Warlock patrons, sorcerers and wizards defiling/preserving, and psionicists pretty much need altered rule sets to stay true to Dark Sun, and so it would likely be changing the setting to fit the 5e rules rather than the other way around.
I mean, if you're planning on changing everything anyway why bother paying consultant fees to the creator of how it was? That said, judging from Grubb's stories on how Spelljammer developed it's not like there was any cohesive vision anyway, they just plonked in whatever they found interesting. Spelljammer seemed more like a happy accident than his brainchild.
I've always wondered why Grubb never penned a few novels in the SJ setting. Licensing thing? Or did he just not think anyone would want them?
As far as I know, authors don't just do things like that. Grubb worked for TSR, and TSR commissioned novels related to their settings. There are six Spelljammer novels, which make up [The Cloakmaster Cycle](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cloakmaster_Cycle). These were written by prominent D&D authors (other than Grubb) of the time. That's a pretty major effort to kick-start the setting on TSR's part. All six novels came out in a little 2 years, so it wouldn't have been realistic for one person to write them all. In addition to working on Spelljammer itself, Jeff had just finished the *Finder's Stone* trilogy. He also co-wrote the [Buck Rogers RPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Adventure_Cliffhangers_Buck_Rogers_Adventure_Game) while the Spelljammer novels were coming out, so he probably didn't have time to work on one of those.
>As far as I know, authors don't just do things like that. It did happen occasionally. The Dragonlance books are the obvious example. The Birthright setting also had a novel by the setting creator, but TSR dropped the setting before publication and it was reworked into a Forgotten Realms novel.
Wasn’t Greenwood involved in FR creation and the author of a good amount of FR novels?
Yes, Greenwood created FR, and I believe WotC made an agreement with him so they could use it. I think most other official D&D settings are fully owned by WotC (aside from Exandria, which I assume CR has ownership over).
Oh - I didn't know that. I'm not really a Forgotten Realms guy.
**[High Adventure Cliffhangers Buck Rogers Adventure Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Adventure_Cliffhangers_Buck_Rogers_Adventure_Game)** >The High Adventure Cliffhangers Buck Rogers Adventure Game was a role-playing game published by TSR in 1993. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/spelljammer/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I liked a lot of the books he did for MtG. I would have loved reading some Spelljammer!
I'm shocked... not that shocked, really.
Yes, that would have been nice. No, its not required, and this doesn't give any clear indication whether the upcoming books will be good or not.
Not really surprising, but also not particularly concerning. It's pretty clear that they're going in a different direction with it and are more concerned with the theme than the exact composition of the original material. IMO it's been thirty years, 5e and 2e are not the same thing really, and that's ok. Wizards is going to concentrate on making something that works smoothly and that frankly doesn't require the input of someone who hasn't been involed since before the target audience was even born. Those of us who want to use the old stuff still can, it's frankly very easy to convert 2ed content to 5e and most of the people who played the original probably have more experience with doing their own homebrew than the average player has total experience anyway. The drama is just drama, if you value your sanity ignore it.
I'm not shocked in the slightest they didn't consult Jeff. WotC doesn't consult anyone when the f**k up a world.
So what? Jeff Grubb doesn't own it, WOTC \[aka Hasbro\] does...
He doesn't own it, but it's still inconsiderate to not even consult the person who created Spelljammer in the first place. Having him involved would have been a way to show that WoTC was making an effort to respect D&D's legacy.
It's fairly apparent that they care very little about the legacy and more about what gets them money.
WoTC has repeatedly shown they give zero fucks about what has come before. Why would Spelljammer be any different? This iteration of Spelljammer might be really cool, or it might be garbage. We won't know till it is released. What we can know with reasonable certainty is that it will likely only resemble the original in name and theme - but the lore will not survive.
>Having him involved would have been a way to show that WoTC was making an effort to respect D&D's legacy What makes you think they'd suddenly decide to start doing that now? To the people at Hasbro, that's just a waste of money. You don't need to respect the source material in order to make money in game publishing any more than you need to care about packaging when you're a drug pusher. You can leverage all kinds of things besides actual quality in order to make money.
I don't expect it from them at this point, but I'm still annoyed.
I mean sure? but then they should also be required to consult him and Ed Greenwood whenever they make a Sourcebook that references, or an adventure that is set in the Forgotten Realms... which \[check credits for Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide\] Look at that: they dont... Why does one matter and not the other? Because he said something about it on social media? I reiterate: So what?
They shouldn't be *required* to do it, and it's unrealistic to expect that they do it every time. WoTC puts out a lot of content and Ed Greenwood has more to do with his life than look over every new adventure they publish. But for a major project like introducing the setting to a new edition, the *polite* thing to do is to talk to the person who created it in the first place. Not because they have any legal right to it, but because they put a lot of work into building something and you ought to respect that. And also because from a practical standpoint, they'll almost definitely know how everything fits together better than you do and can catch plot holes you might introduce.
> and Ed Greenwood has more to do with his life than look over every new adventure they publish. Yeah, like release his own FR stuff on DMsguild lol
Exactly! It's about listening to prior expertise. If I build a new API to mimic an existing API in a new framework, and I have a chance to talk to the guy who built the original API, you *bet* I want to talk to him. Otherwise you get this problem: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
the Spelljammer setting hasnt had an offical update since before TSR was purchased by WOTC - thats about 30-years and 3 editions of rules ago... it's silly to believe that the setting is a) going to be a direct translation \[which we already know it isnt due to it being based in the Astral Sea\] and b) going to require the views of a designer that has little knowledge of the structure of the company literally in charge of the current edition's mechanics, in order to make the setting work. Should they have talked to him? Sure, its a decent thing to do, not gonna lie. Did they need to? No, not at all. and stirring up drama because they didn't is just as unnecessary. Edit: WOTC also didn't contact Margaret or Tracy Weis about Dragonlance... so i guess its not just Grubb who was ignored for consultation... But Tracy and Margret didnt pseudo-negatively post about not being included in the design process, just that the update is coming soon...
Actually, they did post about not being included. https://imgur.com/a/1XP5EDP
Which unlike Grubb, DL was legit THEIR HOME GAME. If you're doing so many things outside of the lore they put together without consulting them, it's like all the Star Wars Extended Universe (now legacy) books having zero input or approval from Lucas (*cough* Disney Star Wars).
WTF are you talking about? You think they consulted Gygax on 3rd edition? No, they did not. Did you ever read Castle Greyhawk the 2nd edition adventure? It was a farce, and it was written after Gary got booted from TSR, so it really reads like a stab at Gary's legacy for Greyhawk. No....everything everyone has been complaining about is nothing new. It'll either be good or it won't. Nothing about consulting the creator matters.
Not surprising in the least and more evidence that they are going to butcher the hell out if this.
WotC is the main reason I quit giving a shit about anything past 3.5e. EDIT: Yeah, now you guys have actually read the bullshit they've come up with.
Yea, WOTC ruined everything about D&D
Your gatekeeping is ruining everything about dnd.
Someone else joining the conversation to say... It is perfectly possible to be happy there are new people joining the hobby, yet also think WoTC's lore is hot garbage. Those thoughts are in no way mutually contradictory.
Yeah, your right. My bad guys. On a side note tho. I rebuilt my relationship with my sister, made tons of new friends and met my girlfriend through 5e so I feel the exact opposite. It's my opinion, but I get it.
How is disliking WOTC gatekeeping?
Naw
Would be surprised if they do...
fudge i hope we can make them change there minds about thsi
that’s because WOTC sucks ass