It is back!!! What we do know about VR Guide to Ravenloft?

[Matthew L. Martin]

This Reddit post describes the metaplot of 5e Ravenloft.

Worst thing they’ve done? Defined the Dark Powers.

I brought this up on EN World, and it sounds like it's a case of the monster description doing one thing while the main text does another and leaves the Dark Powers ambiguous. I'm still not buying the book for a host of reasons, but they did at least avoid this misstep.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

It's quite remarkable that a short sentence and one illustration have generated two pages of discussion.

Welcome to Fandom.

Interesting that he fell off a building. Was it the Reichenbach Hall, perhaps?

[Five]

If you'll allow me to walk the ditch here for a bit...

Gender-flipping/balancing, wheelchair NPCs, sexual openness/all-inclusiveness, skin tone, cultural sensitivity...

Can anybody out there definitively say how effective this politically correct approach to Dungeons and Dragons is in drawing in such targeted groups?

Is there actually a large body of people out there that sit on the fence in regards to whether or not they want to play D&D but decide to jump in when and only when they see themselves, their personal lives etc, represented in print (through art, descriptive text, NPCs, etc)?

There are, seemingly, more female roleplayers these days, as an example, but have they decided to play because of current representation efforts of Wizards? Out of spite of lack of representation? Because of online visual media?

Times have changed, and the faces of D&Ders have definitely blurred, in a good way, to that of a metro sidewalk, but is this truly due to efforts to include them, or more from a natural shift in social mentality?

These groups, did/do they really think the game was beyond them to the point where they felt they weren't welcome?

That's a pitch I don't buy personally. If anything, the game is innocent of all charges. It's the tables with small minds, those few rotten some-odd percenters, that are to blame.

Regardless, the question remains: how effective are these superficial changes in D&D products in welcoming these people to the game?

Or are these changes themselves superficial appeasement of superficially-minded folk? Take that negative if you want, but I say it with a got-nothing-to-gain observer's neutrality. Call it "wakeboarding the social trend" if it helps keep your thoughts and words on topic, or, keeping with my legit question of effectiveness of PC material in reaching and stimulating a greater number of minds.

My own thoughts, outside of these written ones, are much too blunt for a meaningful discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

And as for Ravenloft in particular, a PC approach to horror is an interesting choice. It's unusual, so I'll be watching for how that's taken by fans and how that's applied. I just hope the tools for horror, in RL and without, are fittingly robust, and not lost in translation.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Can anybody out there definitively say how effective this politically correct approach to Dungeons and Dragons is in drawing in such targeted groups?

I don't know whether we can. The efforts are still relatively new, and the effect would never be like turning on a switch. It's going to be a gradual change at best. I know that anecdotally, I've read words of thanks and praise from people upon seeing representation in various places. (Mainly in the M:tG world, because that's where I hang out aside from here.) Is the happiness of those people quanitfy-able? vs. the unhappiness that other people get from the same inclusions? You can be darn sure that WotC is doing market research, focus groups, surveys, etc. to see what the effect is on the bottom line. Given that, I have to believe it's working, or they wouldn't keep doing it. "virtue signaling" alone doesn't enrich shareholders, and the authors are surely not given carte blanche to push their own agendas, so it's receiving the blessing of the higher-ups who care about profits and share price.

[Igor the Henchman]

Take that negative if you want, but I say it with a got-nothing-to-gain observer's neutrality.

Apparently "observer's neutrality" in this context assumes that being straight, white, and able-bodied is the "baseline", and having established NPCs suddenly deviate from that mold is a strange "addition" that merits scrutiny and debate.

By all means, let's discuss some more why the writers decided that a monster hunter in Ravenloft sustained a permanent injury on the job, or why the illustrator used a slightly darker skin tone for his partner, whose appearance was never previously described.

You ask if "cultural sensitivity" proves effective in drawing in "targeted" groups? As opposed to just have D&D characters be as varied as people are in real life? I don't know. But let's assume it doesn't. Does it mean we should return to the good old days when playing with a couple of pronouns in Hazlik's bio was considered risqué, and "like Strahd, but dark-skinned" was considered a distinctive darklord description?

Guys, they've retconned Anton Misroi to be a prison warden, turned Darkon into apocalypse-land, split Jander Sunstar into a bunch of clones, redefined the nature of the Dark Powers, and this is what we're discussing?

[Five]

Can anybody out there definitively say how effective this politically correct approach to Dungeons and Dragons is in drawing in such targeted groups?

I don't know whether we can. The efforts are still relatively new, and the effect would never be like turning on a switch. It's going to be a gradual change at best. I know that anecdotally, I've read words of thanks and praise from people upon seeing representation in various places. (Mainly in the M:tG world, because that's where I hang out aside from here.) Is the happiness of those people quanitfy-able? vs. the unhappiness that other people get from the same inclusions? You can be darn sure that WotC is doing market research, focus groups, surveys, etc. to see what the effect is on the bottom line. Given that, I have to believe it's working, or they wouldn't keep doing it. "virtue signaling" alone doesn't enrich shareholders, and the authors are surely not given carte blanche to push their own agendas, so it's receiving the blessing of the higher-ups who care about profits and share price.

That's the other side of the question really: if the surge of 5E's popularity (and sales) is pre-effort (of inclusiveness), then is this focus of effort truly necessary?

The game is the game and is mechanically unaffected by the injection, players are playing the game regardless of said injection (CoS and it's claims of being culturally insensitive didn't stop sales, though I am ignorant of details), and that leaves us standing in the realm of irrelevance. Well, irrelevance outside of public relations...

I don't get the hype outside of the hype.

Just me putting some questions out there is all. To each their own.

[Joël of the FoS]

There are, seemingly, more female roleplayers these days, as an example, but have they decided to play because of current representation efforts of Wizards? Out of spite of lack of representation? Because of online visual media?

Third edition main books, especially the PHB, added a lot of female characters images, and then at least three iconic class NPCs in Paizo 3e+ books are women.

Yes I think it did change things. Indeed, there are many more ladies playing D&D than there was when I started (1981). Great thing.

Things changed on that matter in late 2000's, with the added female positive NPC images of the 3e/3.5e books. These were believable and interesting NPC choices, opposed to the usual clichés of woman in D&D of before: damsel in distress, or in bikini chainmail.

Things changes but it takes time. Some of the efforts may seem strange at first (remember the he/she pronoun changes in the 3e class description with each paragraph?), but I think it's great in the long term.

So far, without having read the new book, I'm enclined to think positively of these.

[Five]

Take that negative if you want, but I say it with a got-nothing-to-gain observer's neutrality.

Apparently "observer's neutrality" in this context assumes that being straight, white, and able-bodied is the "baseline", and having established NPCs suddenly deviate from that mold is a strange "addition" that merits scrutiny and debate.

By all means, let's discuss some more why the writers decided that a monster hunter in Ravenloft sustained a permanent injury on the job, or why the illustrator used a slightly darker skin tone for his partner, whose appearance was never previously described.

You ask if "cultural sensitivity" proves effective in drawing in "targeted" groups? As opposed to just have D&D characters be as varied as people are in real life? I don't know. But let's assume it doesn't. Does it mean we should return to the good old days when playing with a couple of pronouns in Hazlik's bio was considered risqué, and "like Strahd, but dark-skinned" was considered a distinctive darklord description?

Guys, they've retconned Anton Misroi to be a prison warden, turned Darkon into apocalypse-land, split Jander Sunstar into a bunch of clones, redefined the nature of the Dark Powers, and this is what we're discussing?

Easy son...

Superficial there means little-to-zero impact on the game itself; a focus on said small details by those looking to focus on small details, etc.

Baseline D&D is what the table makes of it. It's imagination in play. Nothing more or less than that.

Don't put **** in my mouth and call me a ****mouth. If you need clarity from a statement I make, then ask for clarity. If you want to go on the offensive, then expect offensive retaliation. I'm game for whatever. Though I prefer to talk questions like that out, not only for myself, but for others to weigh in on and from all angles...

[Jester of the FoS]

Can anybody out there definitively say how effective this politically correct approach to Dungeons and Dragons is in drawing in such targeted groups?

Is there actually a large body of people out there that sit on the fence in regards to whether or not they want to play D&D but decide to jump in when and only when they see themselves, their personal lives etc, represented in print (through art, descriptive text, NPCs, etc)?

D&D is much more popular than it's ever been, with a full 40% being under 25 and the majority under 35. And gender has been boosted to 60/40.

But it's not about massively boosting the audience. The "large body of people" you spoke of. Because there's not that many people with disabilities, people of colour, and the like in North America. In terms of numbers, for every African American you can attract into D&D there's six white Americans.
But you don't grow D&D by just focusing on the one audience. Because it's not like there's "a large body of white people out there that sit on the fence in regards to whether or not they want to play D&D." That audience has been tapped.
You grow D&D by reaching out to everyone else. By showing diversity and that everyone is welcome in D&D (and not just by saying it but showing it in the books) that encourages them and their friends to come. Which draws positive press to the game, which increases word of mouth.


And, at the end of the day, it's less about numbers and more about positively impacting an underserved minority. It's about that person in a wheelchair who has never seen anyone like themselves in video games or roleplaying games opening a D&D book and seeing a character like them. Someone they identify with. And that means the world to them.


It's also worth noting that 40 years ago a "politically correct approach to Dungeons and Dragons" was not having gender based ability score minimums and maximums. Not capping female characters at lower Strength than male characters.
That seems ridiculous now. And the concerns about flipping ethnicity and adventurers with disabilities will probably seem equally ridiculous in forty years.

[Jester of the FoS]

Take that negative if you want, but I say it with a got-nothing-to-gain observer's neutrality.

Apparently "observer's neutrality" in this context assumes that being straight, white, and able-bodied is the "baseline", and having established NPCs suddenly deviate from that mold is a strange "addition" that merits scrutiny and debate.

By all means, let's discuss some more why the writers decided that a monster hunter in Ravenloft sustained a permanent injury on the job, or why the illustrator used a slightly darker skin tone for his partner, whose appearance was never previously described.

You ask if "cultural sensitivity" proves effective in drawing in "targeted" groups? As opposed to just have D&D characters be as varied as people are in real life? I don't know. But let's assume it doesn't. Does it mean we should return to the good old days when playing with a couple of pronouns in Hazlik's bio was considered risqué, and "like Strahd, but dark-skinned" was considered a distinctive darklord description?

Guys, they've retconned Anton Misroi to be a prison warden, turned Darkon into apocalypse-land, split Jander Sunstar into a bunch of clones, redefined the nature of the Dark Powers, and this is what we're discussing?

Easy son...

Superficial there means little-to-zero impact on the game itself; a focus on said small details by those looking to focus on small details, etc.

Baseline D&D is what the table makes of it. It's imagination in play. Nothing more or less than that.

Don't put **** in my mouth and call me a ****mouth. If you need clarity from a statement I make, then ask for clarity. If you want to go on the offensive, then expect offensive retaliation. I'm game for whatever. Though I prefer to talk questions like that out, not only for myself, but for others to weigh in on and from all angles...

Moderator
First, language. Grandmother rule is still in effect.

This is a potentially heated topic. You yourself said "If you'll allow me to walk the ditch here for a bit..."
If you think someone is being unfair to you, report the post and let moderators handle it.
Please don't escalate.

[Five]

Moderator

This is a potentially heated topic. You yourself said "If you'll allow me to walk the ditch here for a bit..."
If you think someone is being unfair to you, report the post and let moderators handle it.
Please don't escalate.

Jester, I can and will defend myself. Thank you all the same. Things like twisting of words need a direct approach if the conversation is to continue. I like to think I made myself clear to that individual in that regard. And my response, which lacked offense, was an effort to pull it all back down. I'm not escalating anything (though I did let them know I'd go there if they wanted to keep pushing it), just setting **** straight.

Besides, things are all said from my end now. My questions are now out there. I'm back to read mode.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Jester, I can and will defend myself. Thank you all the same.

Elsewhere, you are welcome to. Here we have repeatedly asked people not to do so. Our house, our rules. Please abide by them. Thank you.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I’ve been playing since I was 14 and came out at the 16, I’ve played with men, women, trans-people, people of colour, disabled people, old people and young people. And they all played because they wanted to, and it’s never stopped them playing because they didn’t see themselves in the books, because 90% of the books are words and the pictures are secondary to the game.

This drive for diversity isn’t being done to bring people in, it’s being done as Gatekeeping. D&D was always the geek’s game, the loser’s game. Then shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things made it popular. Suddenly the people who bullied the players of old wanted to play because it’s the “cool” thing. They invented stories of not playing in their youth because the big bad geeks bullied them and wouldn’t let them join in.

Then, as they’ve done with video games and comics, the fake progressives move in with their “nice game you’ve got here, sure would be a shame if someone called you a bigot” tactics. Then these people hire their friends to work for the company and it eventually falls apart (BioWare, Marvel Comics). And then they blame long term fans for the failure and call us bigots for not liking their changes. Look up the story of Orion Black and how they felt like a token hire to have a black face in the WotC office.

They feed on the good intentions of genuinely progressive people in the search of making money.

Fortunately, there seems to be pushback against this book not just here, but Reddit, EN world and other sites. It might be that what I’ve been calling performative wokeness has gone too far here, because underneath the race swapping and gender flipping, people are seeing a lack of respect and care for the setting.

[Zilfer]

I'd say things like Geek & Sundry and Critical Role have probably done more to boost DnD's popularity in recent years. (If their kickstarter for example is anything to go by they hold massive sway in the community at large)

[Rock of the Fraternity]

I'd also point to the Dungeons & Dragons-cartoon drumming up some interest, and that aired long before those television shows.

Heck, E.T. may have brought some positive vibes.