Café de Nuit

But nothing like Stranger Things and the Big Bang Theory. They made it "cool" to play D&D.

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote: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.

People who played didn't feel stopped from playing is kind of a tautology, no? If they had been stopped from playing, you wouldn't have known about them.

Igor the Henchman wrote:

Manofevil wrote:This is another case of 'How well did the writers do this?'

They did it barely at all, really. There's a short sentence about Alanik's legs being paralyzed after he once fell off a roof. That's it. It's quite remarkable that a short sentence and one illustration have generated two pages of discussion.

In fact, from a review I read on Enworld, it actually is a very sensible progression. He got paralyzed in a fight that went south, and felt that since he was already primarily a detective, it wasn't cost-effective to pay to restore the use of his legs and got the chair instead. It's also explicit he married Sedgewick after this happened, so the subtext is that he became a lot more aware of his own mortality and decided it was best to admit his feelings, and it worked out pretty well.

Said review also spoiled Kalakeri a bit, and Arijani is still in - the new darklord (Ramya) is one of his two sisters, and given how she is a death knight (which is not something I expected in an Indian domain, but it's hardly out of theme), it's easy to say, if fusing settings, she renamed Sri Raiji to Kalakeri after usurping control. Canonically, it relies a bit more on Hindu myths than that; Arijani was entirely human, but his sister murdering him was so traumatic he retained memory of it across reincarnations, and he sought out his other sister to start a rebellion (or started his own rebellion concurrently with her, it wasn't clear) against her. Hardly something that needs that much change to merge with old Sri Raiji (his siblings just revived a bit after he became darklord, and started a nasty civil war).

Edit: Forgot to link: https://www.enworld.org/threads/van-ric ... ew.680075/

Leliel wrote: Said review also spoiled Kalakeri a bit, and Arijani is still in - the new darklord (Ramya) is one of his two sisters, and given how she is a death knight (which is not something I expected in an Indian domain, but it's hardly out of theme), it's easy to say, if fusing settings, she renamed Sri Raiji to Kalakeri after usurping control.

Having perused most of the domains by way of flip-through videos on Youtube, I thought that Kalakeri is one of the more well-executed ones: a deceptively beautiful land plunged into never-ending war between two siblings, one a ruthless undead general, the other a master of illusion and deception. Newcomers can expect to be courted by both sides, and the book provides examples of missions and rewards depending who the PCs choose to ally with, which is very helpful. Though I gotta say I'm surprised that they made Ramya the Darklord. I thought Reeva seems more fitting for the role, since she's the one whose manipulations are keeping the conflict going behind the scenes. I also like the detail that the darklord can't bring herself to stop loving her siblings deep down, despite their ongoing feud.

While we're on the subject of the domains, another personal favorite for me was Richemulot, probably because it hasn't changed too drastically. It's basically the same as before, but there's also a plague going on, which Jacqueline Renier uses as an excuse to never relinquish her "temporary" grip on power. Her background has gotten a lot more sinister, being a disgraced noble who instead of accepting her loss of status, chose to avenge herself by spreading a deadly plague across the land.

My least favorite darklord in the book is probably Viktra Mordenheim, whose background, despite my initially high hopes, turned out to be extremely bland. Basically, she became a scientist at a young age, then started doing evil science, then progressively more evil science, until she was cursed into doing evil science for eternity, which she probably would've done anyway. I'm skipping a few details, but that's basically the gist of it.

Rock wrote: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.

Dungeons & Dragons-cartoon was a disgrace in my humble opinion... I started playing Ad&d when I was 11 and around that time the animation was broadcasted on TV here, although it was made a bit earlier between 1983-1985.

Me and my gaming friends never liked it, we never liked the characters, Venger as a recurring villain was awful and when we figured out, since it was dubbed, that the groups mentor was named DM, I think it was the last time we saw it

Igor the Henchman wrote: My least favorite darklord in the book is probably Viktra Mordenheim, whose background, despite my initially high hopes, turned out to be extremely bland. Basically, she became a scientist at a young age, then started doing evil science, then progressively more evil science, until she was cursed into doing evil science for eternity, which she probably would've done anyway. I'm skipping a few details, but that's basically the gist of it.

I don't suppose you could give thoughts as to the direction you were hoping it might go? Just for my own curiosity?

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote: Look up the story of Orion Black and how they felt like a token hire to have a black face in the WotC office.

That explains a lot.

Mephisto wrote:

Rock wrote: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.

Dungeons & Dragons-cartoon was a disgrace in my humble opinion... I started playing Ad&d when I was 11 and around that time the animation was broadcasted on TV here, although it was made a bit earlier between 1983-1985.

Me and my gaming friends never liked it, we never liked the characters, Venger as a recurring villain was awful and when we figured out, since it was dubbed, that the groups mentor was named DM, I think it was the last time we saw it

Incidentally when Wizards released the collector boxed set thst came with an adventure that goes between episodes and some stat blocks, Venger's stat block is not legal, he didn't qualify for his prestige class.

Zilfer wrote:I don't suppose you could give thoughts as to the direction you were hoping it might go? Just for my own curiosity?

I don't know what I expected exactly, but at a minium for Mordenheim to have a reason to pursue her research other than just thinking evil science is cool? Maybe some sort of love-hate relationship between the creator and the created could be used as a theme? As it is, the doctor and the golem's attitude towards each other is strangely not discussed at all, other than saying that the former is trying to capture the latter to figure out how her heart (a unique artifact) works, and the latter not being OK with that plan.

Igor the Henchman wrote:

Zilfer wrote:I don't suppose you could give thoughts as to the direction you were hoping it might go? Just for my own curiosity?

I don't know what I expected exactly, but at a minium for Mordenheim to have a reason to pursue her research other than just thinking evil science is cool? Maybe some sort of love-hate relationship between the creator and the created could be used as a theme? As it is, the doctor and the golem's attitude towards each other is strangely not discussed at all, other than saying that the former is trying to capture the latter to figure out how her heart (a unique artifact) works, and the latter not being OK with that plan.

Not so much of a tragic story as the old version.

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote: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.

Emphasis added. Because, ironically, to me this post reads to me as gatekeeping. The idea that "real" D&D players were geeks and losers and now there's cool people playing. Fake geeks that aren't as worthy to be D&D fans.
Which isn't true. And has never been true. Joe Manganiello is an old school D&D fan. So is Vin Diesel.
D&D has always appealed to a wide variety of people. And even if it didn't, the newcomers have just as much right to the game as nerds from the '80s.

I tend to refer to this as the "hipster's paradox." We liked D&D before it was cool.
Because hipsters and scensters find a band and follow them around. They feel special because they're part of this indy scene and supporting this niche sound. But then the band blows up and the old fans can't see the band in small clubs anymore and there's all these younger fans. The band might even change their sound. It's less intimate and special. But at the same time something you loved is now adored by a much larger audience. But you also have to share it.
It's hard.
I know it's rough seeing D&D grow and become more than it was. But I don't think I want to return to 2005 when D&D was gradually shrinking and RPGs were this greying hobby that would slowly die as its current players passed on.

I also feel called out because I've been a big proponent on progressive attitudes in D&D. Pushing ethnicity and gender diversity in the game.
D&D has to change with the times. Because it's not 1985 anymore and the game can't just pretend minorities don't exist. You can't just reprint Dragonlance and the dozen Heroes of the Lance who include four women and no people of colour. Ravenloft can't get by with the single black character. Even in the 3e days this was changing with S being a woman and Hazlik being gay. (Which were controversial and hotly debated here.)
Black people play D&D. Women play D&D. Gay people play D&D. And they always have. And they should be reflected in the art and characters in the game.

Unrelated to D&D:

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote: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)

The failures of Marvel and BioWare are unrelated to "progressives".

BioWare "failed" because EA kept insisting on incorporating Live Service and multiplayer elements to their game and changed the ending of ME3 after the original ending leaked. And because of failures of management with Andromeda and Anthem where the leadership was too busy dreaming up features and concepts and didn't settle down to actually MAKE the game. And because they bought into their own reputation; because they'd always managed to pull a successful game out of their butt despite troubled production they never doubted people would love their new games and dismissed criticism.
That there was gay romance options in ME3 or a trans character in Inquisition weren't even in the top ten most problematic aspects of those games.

Marvel "failed" because they (and DC) got stuck with Diamond and are only distributed to comic stores, and are no longer found in grocery or convenience stores, heavily limiting their audience. Comic stores are fun, but they're less common than 7-11s and often not appealing to enter. (And frequently poorly managed, being run by comic fans and not people with a BBA.)
And also because they've focused heavily on older and older fans who aged up with comics in the '80s and '90s rather than focusing on new reader acquisition and kids. In general, comics have become increasingly dark and mature since the late '80s, which has made it difficult to bring in new readers, and have focused again and again on reboots and events to drive up readership, which just pushes away existing readers who view the reboots and opportunities to stop.

Comics are actually having a renaissance right now. Sales are higher than they've been since the '80s. But it's all young reader graphic novels. Bone and Dog Man and Raina Telgemeier's Smile stuff. Scholastic books' content. Kids titles account for 1/3rd of comic sales with another third being Manga. The remaining third is split between DC, Marvel, Archie, Image, and creator owned stuff.
It's no coincidence that Scholastic is kicking DC and Marvel's butts (combined) because they're focusing on an underserved market: kids and women. And heavily focusing on diversity content. Normally ignored audiences who are happy to throw their money at books.

So, as I mentioned on the Discord, the new Ravenloft book is being written by F. Wesley Schneider.
It's a heavy revision and breaks from the tone of the past in favour of his own vision for the setting.

Which would make it the... *dramatic pause* Schneider-verse.

Andromeda was the game which handled a trans character so badly they had to have their dialogue altered with in a patch.

I’m not gatekeeping because I’m not excluding anyone, I love meeting new players and involving them in a game. What I’m saying is the creative parasites who come in and change a game are gatekeepers because they want to exclude people and keep the game for themselves.

Is it me? or is there a misconception in this image from the new book.
The Keepers of the Feather aka The Keepers of the Black Feather have apparently got their hands on The Holy Symbol of Ravenkind...
As for Beadle & Grimm's version of The Holy Symbol of Ravenkind, I have acquired one and I have to say I expected it larger, something closer to the proportions given in this image, (unless if the guy holding it is a halfling...)

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote:Andromeda was the game which handled a trans character so badly they had to have their dialogue altered with in a patch.

Of the three or four dozen reasons Andromeda failed, the trans character was one. But it was waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the list.

I'm an Edmontonian who knows people who work at BioWare. I've gotten drunk with the head programmer of DragonAge and swapped stories. There's so very many reasons Andromeda was train-wreck. Diversity wasn't one of them.

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote:I’m not gatekeeping because I’m not excluding anyone, I love meeting new players and involving them in a game. What I’m saying is the creative parasites who come in and change a game are gatekeepers because they want to exclude people and keep the game for themselves.

I'm not a fan of cancel culture. Or catering to overt critics of the game.

But as much a I want the past to be respected, some change and progress is required.
I think VRGtR went too far. It overcompensated. It's accommodation to diversity veered into comedic territory.
But that was done with good intentions. In much the same way the writers of the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms changed that setting.

It's less "creative parasites" and more ego. The new designers had carte blanche to redesign the setting... so they did. They assumed everyone would like their changes. But that wasn't the case.