D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[hawkeyefan]

Doesn't anyone roll anymore?

My group, consisting of players going back to first edition, only just started point buy. And as the primary DM, I can say I am happy about it.

When we rolled, there was so much fudging of the dice and re-rolling and scrapping one set of stats in favor of another that every character was a superhero. Now it's a more level playing field, and the point buy keeps people honest and keeps them within set boundaries.

Unfortunately, I think you and I (and our respective tables) are the last.

I am constantly on the alert for the Red Bull coming to take me away.

Ha I remember wondering how one of my players' barbarian character had so many HP (this was in Pathfinder). I calculated all the fears and bonus HP and levels and Con bonuses, and it turned out that he would have had to roll max HP almost every single level to have the total he had.

That was the final straw. I made a real push for point buying stats and using Average HP after that and slowly convinced my group.

 

[steeldragons]

My group, consisting of players going back to first edition, only just started point buy. And as the primary DM, I can say I am happy about it.

When we rolled, there was so much fudging of the dice and re-rolling and scrapping one set of stats in favor of another that every character was a superhero. Now it's a more level playing field, and the point buy keeps people honest and keeps them within set boundaries.

Ha I remember wondering how one of my players' barbarian character had so many HP (this was in Pathfinder). I calculated all the fears and bonus HP and levels and Con bonuses, and it turned out that he would have had to roll max HP almost every single level to have the total he had.

That was the final straw. I made a real push for point buying stats and using Average HP after that and slowly convinced my group.

 

[MG.0]

Everything about a sword & sorcery fantasy game is nigh near ludicrous. Why is applying modern sensibilities more ludicrous than applying, say, magic? Or elves? Or hit points? Or anything else? What's so special about modern sensibilities that only they are ludicrous?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's not a historical simulator; it is, as you say, a fantasy game.

It's fantasy, so sure you can play anything you like. It's not so much applying what you like to the game that is silly, it's the *debate* regarding such things that's ludicrous.

That said, I do prefer a certain style to my games:

Most poeple play some facsimile of a medieval setting with feudal governments, tyrannical empires, etc. with limited technology. In such an environment "law and order" would likely not extend much past the point of a sword or perhaps a bowshot, and justice would be delivered swiftly and harshly not necessarily because of cultural issues but rather as a matter of practicality. If I played in a game where that was not the case, I'd want an explanation as to exactly how it works. I like my worlds to be internally consistent. A lot of DM's are really bad at that. It doesn't have to be historically accurate to be believable.

Personally I find the whole "orcs are people too" playstyle silly (to each his own). I find debate over such even more so. As if we might offend any actual orcs. If you accept that orcs are people too, then surely trolls are as well? Are ogres (even though they eat elves)? Cyclops? Gelatinous cube? They're stupid, but rare, so they're probably endangered so killing them should be a crime. See how silly that gets? In my games orcs are born animalistic, and mean. As they get older they become even more so.

I find this whole thread rather ludicrous.

 

[Hussar]

I find this whole thread rather ludicrous.

Just picking out the latest example although, this has certainly been a running element throughout this thread that somehow bringing in modern sensibilities to the way we write rules is a bad thing. AFAIK, no one is talking about the "in game" fiction. That's totally up to your group. What's been talked about is the fact that the rules are written, in this case, the word "race", in such a way that they may be construed as exclusionary.

Fantasy as a genre hasn't exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to being inclusive. Everyone knows this. And, looking at D&D player demographics, it shows. Overwhelmingly white male. So, anything that might be changed to make the game more appealing to other groups, maybe isn't such a bad idea.

 

[epithet]

Everything about a sword & sorcery fantasy game is nigh near ludicrous. Why is applying modern sensibilities more ludicrous than applying, say, magic? Or elves? Or hit points? Or anything else? What's so special about modern sensibilities that only they are ludicrous?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's not a historical simulator; it is, as you say, a fantasy game.

I can imagine a world with elves, a world with magic, etc.

I can deal with hit points as an abstraction of endurance, durability, health, and damage.

I cannot imagine a world where "political correctness" isn't annoying.

We're talking about a game that uses "race" in the context of letting you pick any one of the fictional fantasy race options, all of which are roughly equivalent in ability. Similarly, you can pick your gender--they're equal, too. If someone finds the simple use of the word "race" or "gender" to be offensive, well... I'm sorry, but that's well over the line of being anyone else's problem. I mean, that's the real problem with "modern sensibilities," isn't it? It's not enough to have a live-and-let-live attitude where you pleasantly and equitably tolerate anyone who isn't actually harming you. No, modern sensibilities suggest that we all have an affirmative duty to change the world to make other people feel better about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making the world a better place and increasing the global happiness index, but people who commit themselves to doing that are going above and beyond--it's not mandatory.

 

[MG.0]

Just picking out the latest example although, this has certainly been a running element throughout this thread that somehow bringing in modern sensibilities to the way we write rules is a bad thing. AFAIK, no one is talking about the "in game" fiction. That's totally up to your group. What's been talked about is the fact that the rules are written, in this case, the word "race", in such a way that they may be construed as exclusionary.

Pressed for time, so this will ramble a bit:

If you look at my post that mentions "modern sensibilities" it was specifically about in-game character behavior with regards to legality. It stemmed from another poster's link to Power Kill: which to me represents a very distorted viewpoint on how RPG gamers play, reminiscent of the kooky anti-D&D religious nutbags of the 80's. People starting RPG's in the 90's and up have no idea how much of a negative connotation there was with respect to D&D, just because it didn't fit into other people's ideas of "proper". I am staunchly opposed to any form of censorship, even self-censorship in the name of political correctness.

I am firmly of the opinion that "race" itself is a non-discriminatory term. I mean we openly talk about "race-relations" in politics. Health issues can be racial in nature. There are many other examples. I think people looking for things to be offended by will always find something. As has been pointed out on this thread, no matter what word you use in place of race would be vulnerable to the same connotations. The problem isn't with the word, but rather the attitude of those reading it. Some people won't be happy until you remove all distinctions whatsoever and everyone gets to play a completely non-descript character completely undifferentiated from everyone else in the game world. Not wanting that is not racism, it's variety. Some people don't understand the difference.

Fantasy as a genre hasn't exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to being inclusive. Everyone knows this. And, looking at D&D player demographics, it shows. Overwhelmingly white male. So, anything that might be changed to make the game more appealing to other groups, maybe isn't such a bad idea.

So what if it has traditionally been mostly white male? The so called "barriers" to other groups are illusory and always have been. My current group is over 50% female. Even in the 80's my groups typically had a few girls. Were they freaks that were not bothered by all the "exclusionary" stuff in D&D, or is it perhaps that the exclusionary nature of D&D is a bunch of BS that never really existed, except in some peoples' minds. Sure there were people who behaved in an exclusionary way. There still are. They will always be there. The solution is "don't play with s", not "make the wording of the rules less exclusionary", because they never were.

 

[Mistwell]

I can imagine a world with elves, a world with magic, etc.

I can deal with hit points as an abstraction of endurance, durability, health, and damage.

I cannot imagine a world where "political correctness" isn't annoying.

We're talking about a game that uses "race" in the context of letting you pick any one of the fictional fantasy race options, all of which are roughly equivalent in ability. Similarly, you can pick your gender--they're equal, too. If someone finds the simple use of the word "race" or "gender" to be offensive, well... I'm sorry, but that's well over the line of being anyone else's problem. I mean, that's the real problem with "modern sensibilities," isn't it? It's not enough to have a live-and-let-live attitude where you pleasantly and equitably tolerate anyone who isn't actually harming you. No, modern sensibilities suggest that we all have an affirmative duty to change the world to make other people feel better about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making the world a better place and increasing the global happiness index, but people who commit themselves to doing that are going above and beyond--it's not mandatory.

Yeah I feel like this thread is akin to Chris Rock at a college campus.

 

[Uller]

Just picking out the latest example although, this has certainly been a running element throughout this thread that somehow bringing in modern sensibilities to the way we write rules is a bad thing. AFAIK, no one is talking about the "in game" fiction. That's totally up to your group. What's been talked about is the fact that the rules are written, in this case, the word "race", in such a way that they may be construed as exclusionary.

In what way, exactly is using the word "race" exclusionary to any one other than someone who allows it to be? And, let's say the rules are rewritten to not ever use the "r-word"...but you still have elves, dwarves, etc. It's not just a meta term like feat, class and level. It has an in-game meaning. So unless you are talking about in-fiction, the r-word is still there (or some synonym that is functionally the same). Are we really to have characters say in-game "Bioform" in a medieval setting? "All the Bioforms of Krynn! Unite against your draconic oppressors!"

No thanks...

Fantasy as a genre hasn't exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to being inclusive. Everyone knows this. And, looking at D&D player demographics, it shows. Overwhelmingly white male. So, anything that might be changed to make the game more appealing to other groups, maybe isn't such a bad idea.

So what? Different people make different choices.

My daughter has played ice hockey on boys' teams since she was very young. When she tried playing on a girls team, she was not impressed. The atmosphere was much less competitive, the girls and the parents were more focused on the social aspects of the team rather than in excelling at the sport. She felt "excluded" I suppose and moved on. But so what? The girls on the team were happy and were not intentionally leaving her out (and as she got older she found girls teams got much more competitive and is now happily playing on both a girls team and a boys team). What we didn't do was try to change the teams she didn't like. We found teams she did.

My point is, going around telling people who are harming no one and not intentionally leaving anyone out but are just doing what is fun for them is bad/wrong/fun is, in it's own way, oppressive.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ha I remember wondering how one of my players' barbarian character had so many HP (this was in Pathfinder). I calculated all the fears and bonus HP and levels and Con bonuses, and it turned out that he would have had to roll max HP almost every single level to have the total he had.

Depending on which books you're using, Pathfinder allows you to re-train your Hit Dice. With sufficient time and/or cash, every character should always end up with the maximum HP they could have possibly rolled.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Depending on which books you're using, Pathfinder allows you to re-train your Hit Dice. With sufficient time and/or cash, every character should always end up with the maximum HP they could have possibly rolled.

Wow. Well, we were not using whatever books allow that. It was definitely a case of him fudging the numbers.

On topic, I have to agree with folks saying that the word race is not in and of itself offensive. At least not how it's used in DnD and similar games. I don't see the need for a change to the wording in the books. If it's that offensive to someone, they can simply house rule it that same way they would anything else they don't like about the game.