Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The argument against evil races is that some/most races draw their inspiration from real-world cultures and depicting them as being inherently evil is racist.

Not D&D, but an older example would be the Calormenes of Chronicles of Narnia being ostensibly similar to Muslims and they are depicted as being less moral than the white protagonists.

Slipspace wrote:

See, those points just seem either extremely reductionist or way overblown to me.

YMMV, I don't care and don't really want to go into it. Some of the reductionism is entirely me, because a) I'm summarizing, and b) I really despise Dragonlance on a lot of levels (setting integrity, committee based design, tropes, views on religion, how non-functional it is as a D&D setting despite being specifically designed for D&D, etc)
You asked for what the 'sensitive content' was, and there's a list.
I even left out the native people's expy problem (complete with the White Heroes that elevate them from, as the books describe it, their 'savage' state.)

I guess I must just be out of touch if these are the kinds of things considered taboo nowadays (note there's no sarcasm there - I probably am). The Cataclysm was always problematic to me because of how little damn sense it made, rather than the idea that the gods of Good could be capricious and genocidal.

Oh, yeah, the Cataclysm was a problem from the get go, but it got worse as things went on, to the point that 2001-2003 trilogy was an outright justification as to why the Lawful Good Kingpriest of Istar was embarking on genocidal campaigns and why the gods of good were absolutely justified in letting millions of innocents die because one man (and his government) overreached himself, and another man (Soth) didn't stop him because he was worried his wife was unfaithful, and that was the 'last chance' to show... faith and trust in the gods... or something.

One of the later setting books (that I think Weiss was involved in) was hilarious because part of the 'justification' for the Cataclysm was that man 'turned their back on the gods.' Somehow.
Yet in the setting book that she co-wrote and approved, the 'gods turning their backs on man' appeared at least 22 times. It was unintentionally hilarious how muddled the religious aspect of DL gets

Slipspace wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

But to the subject of this thread, I wonder if the lawsuit will cause any disruption in potential plans. 3 new setting books are supposed to be released next year. Major contenders include dragonlance and spelljammer/planescape. Could this lawsuit jeopardize a Dragonlance release? I hope not, but probably.

Technically this lawsuit doesn't jeopardize a Dragonlance setting book. WotC own the IP to Dragonlance so they can continue to produce whatever they want using that IP - setting books, movies, comic books, etc. Given the generally negative response to their conduct WotC might find a lot of fans aren't too receptive to the new material, though. There's also the possibility that the original plan was to tie-in some new D&D material with the new Dragonlance novels, which now won't happen within the original timeframes, which could delay or even cancel any project that was looking at producing new Dragonlance material.

apparently the rights to dragonlance only exist so long as a contract exists with Weis/Hickman. so the rights are going to be reverting back to them. I can belive this as I know for a fact Ed Greenwood's got some contract percularies for forgotten realms where if they're not met the rights revert to him (one of those is apparently a book option every x period of time)

That needs some explanation, because it sounds like nonsense. (At least for Dragonlance, Greenwood did create FR and got wooed into a deal years after he started his little playground)

Dragonlance was written by a TSR committee- half a dozen or so people in a room in Wisconsin back in the day. (There are several publications that talk about the process). The first Weiss and Hickman novel is a write up of notes based on the playtest of the first two adventure modules, it isn't an individual, independent creation.

They aren't the owners/creators of Dragonlance. There isn't any reason any rights would devolve to them.
Especially with how infamously covetous TSR's contracts were back in the day. They managed to take Gygax's next game away from him, because he admitted to writing parts of it on company time.

Yeah, the licence doesn't "revert" to Weis/Hickman. It's wholly owned by WotC and always has been. That's why Weis and Hickman had to negotiate the contract that's caused all these issues in the first place.

I believe Hickman's website has more details on this but basically he calls it a terrible deal on the author's part and is very clear that Weis and Hickman do not own the rights and never have. I imagine he probably got annoyed answering questions about why there hasn't been a Dragonlance novel in decades.

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?

And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.

This is fundamentally wrong. People will stop playing D&D if those basic rules are changed. Why? Because people enjoy them and they will quit if the rules are changed. You don't have to go far to see that. Look at Pathfinder. When D&D went to 4th ed, people didn't like the new rules and an entire company emerged from that intense dislike.

The rules are a part of D&D. The thing that is less a part of D&D are the settings. Most people don't really care about them.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?

And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.

This is fundamentally wrong. People will stop playing D&D if those basic rules are changed. Why? Because people enjoy them and they will quit if the rules are changed. You don't have to go far to see that. Look at Pathfinder. When D&D went to 4th ed, people didn't like the new rules and an entire company emerged from that intense dislike.

The rules are a part of D&D. The thing that is less a part of D&D are the settings. Most people don't really care about them.

the fact that he falls back onto things the designers said about D&D 4th edition which actually ttied to get rid of the spellcasting system of d&d and was rejected by many longtime fans, in favor of pathfinder, says well.. tons.

to be brutally honest I find most people who insist on D&D changing everything mostly just wanna play a differant RPG all together but the rest of their group is like "no thanks, we LIKE D&D. we don't like Shadowrun/Mechwarrior/warhammer fantasy/whatever RPG you're peddling this week as the 'perfect rpg'.

because I've known people like that, rather then accept the game system as it is, and have fun within it, while aknowlging that the joy of RP is typically best experianced with a good group and mechanics are second to that, they focus on finding the "perfect system" and are NEVER happy because, it doesn't exist.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?

And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.

This is fundamentally wrong. People will stop playing D&D if those basic rules are changed. Why? Because people enjoy them and they will quit if the rules are changed. You don't have to go far to see that. Look at Pathfinder. When D&D went to 4th ed, people didn't like the new rules and an entire company emerged from that intense dislike.

The rules are a part of D&D. The thing that is less a part of D&D are the settings. Most people don't really care about them.

the fact that he falls back onto things the designers said about D&D 4th edition which actually ttied to get rid of the spellcasting system of d&d and was rejected by many longtime fans, in favor of pathfinder, says well.. tons.

to be brutally honest I find most people who insist on D&D changing everything mostly just wanna play a differant RPG all together but the rest of their group is like "no thanks, we LIKE D&D. we don't like Shadowrun/Mechwarrior/warhammer fantasy/whatever RPG you're peddling this week as the 'perfect rpg'.

because I've known people like that, rather then accept the game system as it is, and have fun within it, while aknowlging that the joy of RP is typically best experianced with a good group and mechanics are second to that, they focus on finding the "perfect system" and are NEVER happy because, it doesn't exist.

I have a friend like that. He doesn't play D&D and if you suggest playing D&D with him, he groans until you just uninvite him from the situation. Same with Pathfinder. But he ALWAYS wants to play something like GURPS or some other really terrible system nobody else in the group has played or DMed, then doesn't want to DM it.

There are no perfect systems. Chasing one is a fools dream. There ARE good systems and bad systems though. Settings are irrelevant, I have only ever played in Homebrew campaigns.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?

And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.

This is fundamentally wrong. People will stop playing D&D if those basic rules are changed. Why? Because people enjoy them and they will quit if the rules are changed. You don't have to go far to see that. Look at Pathfinder. When D&D went to 4th ed, people didn't like the new rules and an entire company emerged from that intense dislike.

The rules are a part of D&D. The thing that is less a part of D&D are the settings. Most people don't really care about them.

the fact that he falls back onto things the designers said about D&D 4th edition which actually ttied to get rid of the spellcasting system of d&d and was rejected by many longtime fans, in favor of pathfinder, says well.. tons.

to be brutally honest I find most people who insist on D&D changing everything mostly just wanna play a differant RPG all together but the rest of their group is like "no thanks, we LIKE D&D. we don't like Shadowrun/Mechwarrior/warhammer fantasy/whatever RPG you're peddling this week as the 'perfect rpg'.

because I've known people like that, rather then accept the game system as it is, and have fun within it, while aknowlging that the joy of RP is typically best experianced with a good group and mechanics are second to that, they focus on finding the "perfect system" and are NEVER happy because, it doesn't exist.

I have a friend like that. He doesn't play D&D and if you suggest playing D&D with him, he groans until you just uninvite him from the situation. Same with Pathfinder. But he ALWAYS wants to play something like GURPS or some other really terrible system nobody else in the group has played or DMed, then doesn't want to DM it.

There are no perfect systems. Chasing one is a fools dream. There ARE good systems and bad systems though. Settings are irrelevant, I have only ever played in Homebrew campaigns.

I think a good fun setting can make an otherwise forgettable RPG partiuclarly intreasting, and sometimes you need to tie your mechanics in a setting but yeah I agree chasing the perfect system is a fool's dream, especially as gaming systems is always a constant battle between simplicity and providing options/realism etc. funny you mention GURPs as I had someone in my D&D group who'd often speak about GURPs. Turns out what he loved was the active defences of GURPs. which... you COULD do in D&D they just average it out for the ease of simplicity (notice that AC is 10 + modifiers? )

Quick update to this: looks like the case has been settled out of court with signs pointing to the trilogy probably being released at some point. That would line up with what a couple of legal channels on YT said was the likely outcome at the time the case was first brought.

 chromedog wrote:
You do realise it's Hasbro at the top, right?

Hasbro owns D&D, and MTG. Their interest is in making craploads of moola from nerds, by owning all the stuff that nerds obsess over.

While true, WOTC specifically has been called out numerous times in recent years for harassment, sexism and racist practices by current and former employees, as well as having had a lot of backfire from numerous scandals. That's all on WOTC, not Hasbro.