Greetings DnD, @Devil_Master and I are bringing this topic to the community as a whole for discussion rather than making an executive decision like we had to on Piracy.

• The Question

While this has not become an issue yet, it would be a good idea to start this discussion now rather than later. So, the question is, where will we as a community draw the line between OC and Homebrew posts, and advertising.

• Why This is an Issue

This community is an open space for everyone to share their ideas, questions, stories, art, maps, homebrew, ANYTHING relating to Dungeons and Dragons (within the rules). We do not want to discourage anyone from posting, BUT we have to draw this line because no one wants to be spammed with advertisements.

That being said, there are those who create content for sale on various platforms, which is by no means a bad thing and entirely expected when someone puts their heart and soul into OC content. For example I am talking about OC art prints, OC modules, OC maps, OC homebrew, etc. These things take enormous amounts of time and talent to create and it is completely within those content creator’s rights to ask for payment for their product.

What we as a community need to decide on, is how to define when something goes from content sharing here, to advertising.

• Solution for Discussion

OC content MUST be posted in a way that is freely accessible by users of this community regarding the specific thing posted.

1. Artwork - OC Artwork must be viewable here, without paywall, but may be linked in the body text to payable prints, higher resolutions for sale, etc.. No comment spam, No reply spam, just a single link in the body text of your post.

2. Battlemaps - OC battlemaps must be viewable here, without paywall, in a usable and not excessively downgraded state but may be linked to a payable version of a higher resolution/quality/detail etc.

3. Homebrew* - OC Homebrew Content must be posted in a viewable, usable, and not excessively downgraded state but may be linked to a payable version that has higher detail/quality/etc.

*Clarification - Say you have a homebrew race. You can post here at the bare minimum, a basic framework of the race, how to use them, how to create a character with them, etc. and then you may link to a PAID version where maybe you have more details, lore, art, formatted in a way you’d see in official books etc.

Looking forward to the community's ideas on this topic and establishing a rule set for this in the near future. I think it also goes without saying this will be a living rule set and will be amenable in the future.

Edit: We have also considered the idea of implementing post limits if that becomes an issue, for example if someone wants to show off their art work and link to their site, they can only do so once per week to cut down on the spam.

We take a look at a workflow you can use to make running a campaign with multiple factions more manageable. We implement the concept of user stories, story mapping, and backward planning to create an evolving and flexible campaign.

It's a long one so grab a snack and something to drink. Feel free to use it to help you fall asleep :)

Hey folks! What's better than having a party of optimized characters? Having a party of optimized characters that work well together! Let's look at the concept of T-shaped individuals and how they can help us create parties that are resilient, and can do anything.

Players who only have access to the 2014 Player’s Handbook will maintain their character options, spells, and magical items in their character sheets. Players with access to the 2024 and 2014 digital Player’s Handbooks can select from both sources when creating new characters.

Running Ghosts of Saltmarsh

I will try and dm Ghosts of Saltmarsh in a some weeks. To ad a twist and some flavour, i thought bringing in a bbeg who controls all three of the factions. I just need some ideas to weave it together. Any tipps and ideas on how to do this? @[email protected]

Hey folks! Conflicts between player characters are very interesting when it comes to the narrative, but can be dangerous to the health of your gaming group. If you want PvP in your games, you best know how to do it safely. In this video we discuss some strategies to do just that. How do you navigate inter-party conflicts for drama that does not make your group implode?

Hey folks! Here's an approach to roleplaying / finding your character's motivation that you've probably not seen in a D&D or TTRPG setting before. A lot of us, I think, could fall into the skyrim stealth archer trap. We start our campaigns thinking we're gonna play a PC that's unique. But as the sessions go by, we find out that we've been "roleplaying" ourselves after all. With this approach, we learn about the CHAMPFROGS - ten moving motivators that make up most people. With them, we can hopefully stop roleplaying ourselves, and instead graduate to Capital R roleplaying (if that's what we want to do of course - you're not doing it wrong if you're having fun).

Hi friends!

I wanted you to know about the City of Arches Kickstarter going on right now!

The City of Arches is a 160 page PDF and hardcover high-fantasy city sourcebook built for Lazy DMs and usable with any version of 5e or other fantasy tabletop RPGs. In this book you’ll find

• a high fantasy city setting surrounded by countless adventure locations.
• a setting easily dropped into any existing published or homebrewed campaign world.
• a setting where any race, species, origin, heritage, and culture makes sense.
• over a dozen adventure “biomes” with hundreds of adventure locations.
• three 1st to 20th level campaign arcs.
• an intro scenario, three adventures, and an adventure toolkit for building your own heist or infiltration adventure.
• beautiful full-color art, dungeon maps, and overland maps.
• a player’s guide with background hooks and setting-specific backgrounds.

Download the free 42 page preview on the Kickstarter page! I hope you’ll back this fantastic new book.

Thank you so much!

Tryjng to create a character

@[email protected] I try to build a Brooklyn 99 character, I think i will try an go for Rosa Diaz

As class i will go for a fighter/warlock multiclass..any tipps for subclasses?

Hey folks! We often praise our DMing heroes for their many skills like improv, enhancing immersion, compelling roleplay of believable NPCs, and the like. There are resources aplenty for how to speak in accents, how to not use accents but still have distinct voices, how to plan campaigns, or speed up combat encounters. But are these skills really what make our favorite DMs great? I argue no. I believe great DMs begin with a foundation of values that guide how they use their skills, and I discuss my version of those values here.

Hey folks! This week we explore a potentially controversial topic: Is your D&D Group dysfunctional? If you have that nagging feeling that something is not working well in your gaming group, but you can't quite put your finger on what it is, then this video will hopefully expand your vocabulary and set you on the path to making things better.

I say it in the video, but I will also write it down here explicitly. A dysfunctional group does not mean it's a group made of bad people. It's just a group that does not function as well as it should.

Hey folks, here's a different way of organizing your notes for your campaigns. It actively helps you run the game, rather than just being a big document for you to read. The system only has two rules to follow, but you would be surprised at how much it helps when it's time to actually play. The method itself is also quite powerful when you use it to organize your to do list, especially during the times in your life when things get a bit hectic and overwhelming. I hope it helps!

Hello Everyone! Long term Dungeon Master Lazorne here and also maintainer of RetroDECK😅

Several members of the RetroDECK team are members of the D&D community.

As we are finishing up the RetroDECK Logo but we still have about 26 hours remaining I thought we can do something more with the D20 and the RetroDECK logo to make them blend more.

Now I'm no pixelartist but I know the D&D Community (that I'm also a part of) has some.

My suggestion is:

Where the face of the D20 hits the RetroDECK logo on the right side (where the 20 is), parts of the RetroDECK logo breaks as being hit by a critical hit.

This is our current template:

RetroDECK Template

If someone can make them blend more together we can make it even better in the final 24 hours!

Here's part 2 of my tactician series, now about generating buy-in. I use these techniques for work. There were times when I caught myself treating my work colleagues better than my friends with whom I play d&d, especially when my tactician tendencies bubbled up. It seems the things I do on the job translate well to my gaming tables, and I hope they can serve you too.

From a blog post by Ben Riggs. I thought it was interesting. \------------

“Damn right I am a sexist. It doesn’t matter to me if women get paid as much as men… They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care.” -Gary Gygax, EUROPA 10/11 August-September 1975

Do TTRPG Historians Lie?

The internet has been rending its clothes and gnashing its teeth over the introduction to an instant classic of TTRPG history, The Making of Original D&D 1970-1977. Published by Wizards of the Coast, it details the earliest days of D&D’s creation using amazing primary source materials. Why then has the response been outrage from various corners of the internet? Well authors Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro mention that early D&D made light of slavery, disparaged women, and gave Hindu deities hit points. They also repeated Wizards of the Coast’s disclaimer for legacy content which states:

“These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.”

— Making OD&D

In response to this, an army of grognards swarmed social media to bite their shields and bellow. Early D&D author Rob Kuntz described Peterson and Tondro’s work as “slanderous.” On his Castle Oldskull blog, Kent David Kelly called it “disparagement.” These critics are accusing Peterson and Tondro of dishonesty. Lying, not to put too fine a point on it.  So, are they lying? Are they making stuff up about Gary Gygax and early D&D?

Is there misogyny in D&D?

Well, let's look at a specific example of what Peterson and Tondro describe as “misogyny “ from 1975's Greyhawk. Greyhawk was the first supplement ever produced for D&D. Written by Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz, the same Rob Kuntz who claimed slander above, it was a crucial text in the history of the game. For example, it debuted the thief character class.  It also gave the game new dragons, among them the King of Lawful Dragons and the Queen of Chaotic Dragons. The male dragon is good, and female dragon is evil. (See Appendix 1 below for more.) It is a repetition of the old trope that male power is inherently good, and female power is inherently evil. (Consider the connotations of the words witch and wizard, with witches being evil by definition, for another example.)

Now so-called defenders of Gygax and Kuntz will say that my reading of the above text makes me a fool who wouldn’t know dragon’s breath from a virtue signal. I am ruining D&D with my woke wokeness. Gygax and Kuntz were just building a fun game, and decades later, Peterson and Tondro come along to crap on their work by screeching about misogyny. (I would also point out that as we are all white men of a certain age talking about misogyny, the worst we can expect is to be flamed online. Women often doing the same thing get rape or death threats.) Critics of their work would say that Peterson and Tondro are reading politics into D&D.

Except that when we return to the Greyhawk text, we see that it was actually Gygax and Kuntz who put “politics” into D&D. The text itself comments on the fact that the lawful dragon is male, and the chaotic one is female. Gygax and Kuntz wrote: “Women’s Lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing.”

The intent is clear. The female is a realm of chaos and evil, so of course they made their chaotic evil dragon a queen. Yes, Gygax and Kuntz are making a game, but it is a game whose co-creator explicitly wrote into the rules that feminine power—perhaps even female equality—is by nature evil. There is little room for any other interpretation. The so-called defenders of Gygax may now say that he was a man of his time, he didn’t know better, or some such. If only someone had told him women were people too in 1975! Well, Gygax was criticized for this fact of D&D at the time. And he left us his response.

I can’t believe Gary wrote this

:(

Writing in EUROPA, a European fanzine, Gygax said,

“I have been accused of being a nasty old sexist-male-Chauvinist-pig, for the wording in D&D isn’t what it should be. There should be more emphasis on the female role, more non-gendered names, and so forth. I thought perhaps these folks were right and considered adding women in the ‘Raping and Pillaging[’] section, in the ‘Whores and Tavern Wenches’ chapter, the special magical part dealing with ‘Hags and Crones’, and thought perhaps of adding an appendix on ‘Medieval Harems, Slave Girls, and Going Viking’. Damn right I am sexist. It doesn’t matter to me if women get paid as much as men, get jobs traditionally male, and shower in the men’s locker room. They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care. I’ve seen many a good wargame and wargamer spoiled thanks to the fair sex. I’ll detail that if anyone wishes.”

— -Gary Gygax, EUROPA 10/11 August-September 1975

So just to summarize here, Gygax wrote misogyny into the D&D rules. When this was raised with him as an issue at the time, his response was to offer to put rules on rape and sex slavery into D&D.

Peterson & Tondro are truth-tellers

The outrage online directed at Peterson and Tondro is not only entirely misplaced and disproportional, and perhaps even dishonest in certain cases, it is also directly harming the legacies of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz and the entire first generation of genius game designers our online army of outraged grognards purport to defend.  How? Let me show you.

That D&D is for Everyone Proves the Brilliance of its Creators

The D&D player base is getting more diverse in every measurable way, including age, gender, sexual orientation, and race. To cite a few statistics, 81% of D&D players are Millenials or Gen Z, and 39% are women. This diversity is incredible, and not because the diversity is some blessed goal unto itself. Rather, the increasing diversity of D&D proves the vigor of the TTRPG medium. Like Japanese rap music or Soviet science fiction, the transportation of a medium across cultures, nations, and genders proves that it is an important method for exploring the human condition. And while TTRPGs are a game, they are also clearly an important method for exploring the human condition. The fact the TTRPG fanbase is no longer solely middle-aged Midwestern cis men of middle European descent, the fact that non-binary blerds and Indigenous trans women and fat Polish-American geeks like me and people from every bed of the human vegetable garden find meaning in a game created by two white guys from the Midwest is proof that Gygax and Arneson were geniuses who heaved human civilization forward, even if only by a few feet.

So, as a community, how do we deal with the ugly prejudices of our hobby’s co-creator who also baked them into the game the world loves?

We could pretend there is no problem at all, and say that anyone who mentions the problem is a liar. There is no misogyny to see. There is no shit and there is no stink, and anyone who says there is shit on your sneakers is lying and is just trying to embarrass you. I wonder how that will go? Will all these new D&D fans decide that maybe D&D isn’t for them? They know the stink of misogyny, just like they know shit when they smell it. To say it isn’t there is an insult to their intelligence. If they left the hobby over this, it would leave our community smaller, poorer, and suggest that the great work of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, and the other early luminaries on D&D was perhaps not so great after all… We could take the route of Disney and Song of the South. Wizards could remove all the PDFs of early D&D from DriveThruRPG. They could refuse to ever reprint this material again. Hide it. Bury it. Erase it all with copyright law and lawyers. Yet no matter how deeply you bury the past, it always tends to come back up to the surface again. Heck, there are whole podcast series about that. And what will all these new D&D fans think when they realize that a corporation tried to hide its own mistakes from them? Again, maybe they decide D&D isn’t the game for them.

Or maybe when someone tells you there is shit on your shoe, you say thanks, clean it off, and move on.

We honor the old books, but when they tell a reader they are a lesser human being, we should acknowledge that is not the D&D of 2024. Something like, “Hey reader, we see you in all your wondrous multiplicity of possibility, and if we were publishing this today, it wouldn’t contain messages and themes telling some of you that you are less than others. So we just want to warn you. That stuff’s in there.” Y’know, something like that legacy content warning they put on all those old PDFs on DriveThruRPG.  And when we see something bigoted in old D&D, we talk about it. It lets the new, broad, and deep tribe of D&D know that we do not want bigotry in D&D today. Talking about it welcomes the entire human family into the hobby.    To do anything less is to damn D&D to darkness. It hobbles its growth, gates its community, denies the world the joy of the game, and denies its creators their due. D&D’s creators were visionary game designers. They were also people, and people are kinda fucked up.   So a necessary step in making D&D the sort of cultural pillar that it deserves to be is to name its bigotries and prejudices when you see them. Failure to do so hurts the game by shrinking our community and therefore shrinking the legacy of its creators.

Appendix 1

Yeah, I know Chaos isn’t the same as Evil in OD&D. But I would also point out as nerdily as possible that on pg. 9 of Book 1 of OD&D, under “Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures,” Evil High Priests are included under the “Chaos” heading, along with the undead. So I would put to you that Gygax did see a relationship between Evil and Chaos at the time.

Page 9 of Book 1 of OD&D. Note that the “Evil High Priests” are also chaotic.

\--------------

Additional Note from me: Images where he sourced the original quotes are in the blog post. They didn't copy over right.

As a DM or a Player, I find tactician players are awesome. However, they seem to have a bad reputation as disruptive, bossy, no-fun party members. In this video I share why I think they are awesome, and instead of giving advice for how everyone else should deal with them, I try to give tips for how the tacticians themselves can get better at tacticianing.

This is part 1 of a loveletter to my older self, in whom I saw tactician tendencies and may have behaved suboptimally from time to time. But when I recognized a few of these things, I've not had bad table relationships since.

Do you have any thoughts on the topic of tactician type players? Do you think the approach I described would help the problematic tacticians you've encountered before?

Good Archfey patron for a warlock?

@dnd

I have made a Jorasco halfling warlock who is a priest of Kor Korron, which I will be playing in an #eberron campaign. (Specifically, he is a priest of Kor Korron, pretends to be a wizard among his peers, but likes to pass himself off as a cleric in public.) I am not very familiar with Thelanis, but I understand there is a fae court there. Do any of you have ideas for which archfey I should suggest to my #DM?

\#dnd #ttrpgs #rpgs #ttrpg #rpg #roleplaying

Here I share the concept of backward planning which, when combined with Story Mapping, allows you to drive towards your singular inspiration without resorting to railroading your players. I hope it helps anyone struggling.

Edit: It seems I never spelled out what my issue with 5e was. My grievance is that as a player the game doesn't empower me to do what I feel is the core fantasy of most classes. I can't fault the DMs for forgetting to include spell scrolls as loot or not do overland travel or whatever, they are small easy-to-forget things. It just gets frustrating when I ask the DM to give out a certain kind of loot or let me interact with other druids to do Druid things and then they (understandably) forget.

------

A while back, I got into a heated argument with a friend about 5e; I wanted to play a new system becuase I was getting tired of how generic 5e is, but my friend insisted that i could hombrew 5e to create any style of play i wanted. This was back in 2017 and we have not been friends for a while now, but I've been pondering how to homebrew 5e into a shape that encourages a specific style of play.

My main issue with 5e after all this time is that I don't feel like the classes actually encourage you to behave like your class. Druid is personally my favorite class because it's the exception (i liek da aminals) but every other class is at best somewhat samey and at worst actively frustrating (looking at you, PHB ranger).

Here's my thoughts about what I think the core fantasy of each class SHOULD be. Lmk what you think. I want to know if I am really off-base with these.

Bard: I think you play a Bard to be a drama queen and an artist.

Barbarian: s t r o n k

Cleric: The main appeal of being a cleric, for me, is promoting a god, proselytizing, doing outreach, building a temple, and most importantly asking the DM very specific questions about their setting and making them very happy. It's all about that faith babyyyy.

Druid: i liek da aminals. (fr, the actual appeal for me is similar to cleric but with Druid stuff)

Fighter: the only reason for me to play Fighter is the Battlemaster Archetype, so I can play 5e like the wargame it sometimes seems like it wants to be. I also like the Champion for the expanded crit range, but if you like being stronk like bull you could just play barbarian? (Starting to think that Barbarian should have been a Fighter subclass).

Monk: wuxia/xianxia. Kinda out of place, but I can dig it. They should have leaned more into that.

Paladin: The only class that I think was incredibly damaged by WotC's decision to make alignment not matter mechanically. IMHO, the concept of Oaths should have been more fleshed out, and there should have been consequences for breaking your oath included in the rules.

Ranger: the one time I played a ranger, I worked with the dm to homebrew some cool stuff for traveling so I could be the ultimate master of the wilderness. (We then went into a dungeon and spent the rest of the mini-campaign there.) I think a better ranger would have more cool stuff for traveling, and maybe let you make more animal friends.

Rogue: Stabby glass cannon skill monkey. 5e's rogue knows what it wants to be and it is very good at being its best self. I have never played a rogue, but I totally get the appeal. IMHO, best class in the game. I think the only way to improve the rogue would be to make skills better.

Sorceror: I have mixed feelings about the Sorceror. I like sorcery points, and I like being able to do more with a limited spell list. That said, if I want to play as a magical boy who casts spells as easily as breathing, I think there should be a way to slam together a spell-like effect on the spot with nothing but your Wits.

Warlock: My favorite misfit child. As a DM, I love how I can use this class to yank a player around my cool setting under the threat of [REDACTED]. However, I have noticed multiple players seem thrown off by this. As a player, I love using my Warlock pact to exploit the hell out of the setting for my own game, but the way it's spellcasting works runs completely counter to how every other class works. Ultimately, could be a better power fantasy, all things considered.

Wizard: I have a bone to pick with this class. Yes, this class offers a path to ultimate power. However, the main way you do this is by shoving spell scrolls into your spellbook like a kid on Halloween grabbing fistfuls of candy from a bowl labeled "Please Take 1". This means going into dungeons to find them, and hopefully also the gold to copy them into your spellbook. However, every DM I have played with seems to forget that spell scrolls, especially Cantrip spell scrolls, are a thing that exist and can be found as loot. More importantly, we rarely even go into the dungeons that these scrolls are in! In my opinion, the best way to make wizards playable is to make 2 changes to all or most of the other classes:

> 1. Give the other classes abilities that similarly depend on the Dungeon. Maybe give them stuff to spend copious amounts of money on?

>

> 2. Give some of the other spellcasters spellbooks so more people are hungry for scrolls. (Bard could definitely use a spellbook, since they are kinda like music wizards.) Then, all you would need to do is give the wizard some tiny boons to their spellbook usage to make it slightly more efficient than the other classes.

Artificer: Inventing stuff is cool! I just wish that WotC wasn't so scared of giving players the freedom to customize stuff. Maybe in another timeline we could have gotten an Artificer that functions like the PF1 Summoner. Also, guns. Not sure why they are so afraid of guns. Any table that bans Artificer is also going to ban guns, and any table that really wants guns will also really want Artificer. The venn diagram of Artificer enthusiasts and people who want guns in D&D is a circle.

Here's my thoughts on what I would need to do to make 5e conform to a style of play I like:

1. Cull the redundant classes so my work is a bit easier. Barbarian and Paladin become Fighter subclasses. Druid becomes a Cleric subclass. Eliminate Sorceror, Monk, Warlock, and Artificer until I know what to do with them. This leaves Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.
2. Rework the lower levels to incentivise the core fantasy of each class.
3. At higher levels, give each class ludicrously expensive stuff to buy so they still want to go into the dungeons and get loot. Move the currency system to be based around copper pieces so I can more easily deploy the overcomplicated currency systems that make me happy.
4. Make skills a little more fun to work with. For example, maybe whenever you use a skill successfully yoh can increase your proficiency with that skill by 1?
5. Circle back to Sorceror, Warlock, Monk, and Artificer. Make new classes to replace them. Artificer gets a whole framework for fully custom inventions. Monk gets proper cultivation genre mechanics, diving deep into eastern alchemy on top of the standard martial arts flair. Sorceror has spellcasting, but also gets a toolkit for slapping together spell effects on the fly. Warlock gets a full point-buy system with their pact boons. I do not think this is very doable, though.

Lmk if I am completely off-base.