And, of course, "death of the author" was an analytical proposition, not an excuse to empower a bigot with your money.

"Have you heard of this cool game we-" "I have 167 hours on it." "There's DLC you can-" "Yeah I got it." "We have a new update!" "Yes I see that in my Steam feed, looks great, thanks."

Remembering when I named a superhero character Mockingbird, people are like "well there was a Marvel character named that" and I was like "It's fine, she's been dead for like fifteen years, it's not a big deal" and then two months later she gets brought back from the dead.

You only say that because it's true.

It's an assertion that also presumes that your work will and should be training data for an LLM.

If environmental concerns were the breaking point for these folks, we wouldn't be here in the first place. 😑

There is a *lot* of DM's Guild content that would have been just somebody's house rules now, more than any other edition, since it can interface with expansion material (unlike d20, which was very limited in what it could use, or had to do so slyly).

Just a lot of stuff that feels more like tinkering under the existing hood rather than trying to establish its own identity (which, to be fair, you have a *lot* of add-ons that are more akin to total conversions in the broader 5e SRD landscape).

Nah, just having more "modular" content like a half-dozen different takes on how to rebalance, expand, or improve a given adventure book; something that wouldn't have been possible in the d20 era, or just the increased commonality of "micro" or piecemeal content that just adds a subclass, etc.

There's just a litany of content trying to "fix" elements of 5e, like complete adventure overhauls, subsystems, huge magic addons, etc., moreso than the d20 era which tended to resemble more conventional expansions and supplements.