D&D (2024) How to import "race" flavor into D&D 2024 inclusively

[Scott Christian]

To make an individual develop abilities based on personal experience is learning and advancement.

To make an entire "race" inferior or superior is fantasy racism, but still literally racism.

That said. It is still possible to continue storytelling archetypes and tropes in the context of personal development, instead of racist stereotypes.

If a player wants to play a dumb brute, that can be fun, and this brute can be an Orc or an Elf or a Human. There is no racism. Being dumb is equal opportunity.

(Apparently an elven dumb brute is called an "oaf".)

I hear you. But your own example stemmed from a culture. A background based around a dwarven racial stereotype.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I would also argue it allows for variation within races and cultures in ways that deal with the mishmash of tropes more effectively: elves usually get both the archer/sword and magic-user thing, but there's a bit of tension because other characters are depicted as specialized. There's famous elven mages, there's famous elven warriors, and you would expect that an elf who trained in the "warrior track" would get the Dex bonus and an elf who trained in the "mage track" would get an Int or Wis or Cha bonus instead, so that the trained warrior is more Dextrous than the trained mage and vice-versa.

 

[Yaarel]

I hear you. But your own example stemmed from a culture. A background based around a dwarven racial stereotype.

Yes. And that is the point of this thread. And it is somewhat surprising.

With the 2024 sensitivity in mind, you can keep the racist stereotypes of earlier D&D, ... as long as they are no longer racist.

Then they are just archetypes. Not stereotypes.

The context of where to find these traditional character concepts changes everything.



With regard to the tough taciturn miner (formerly the Hill Dwarf subrace), pick the Great Rift Miner. Most Dwarves arent these miners. Most Hill Dwarves arent these miners. Meanwhile Humans, Elves, Orcs, Goliaths, Dragonborn, Tieflings, might also be these miners.

The racism is gone.

 

[Yaarel]

An other advantage of switching abilities to backgrounds: worldbuilding flexibility.

A DM can conveniently − and legally − say, "Well, those arent my elves".

A DM applies the same core legal Elf species and articulates the culture for it. These elves that do this are like super strength Grugach. These other elves that do that are like super wise M:TG elves. These elves are like super smart Grey Elves. These elves are like super charismatic 4e Eladrin Elves. Great! All of this is 100% Core Rules-As-Written.

Worldbuilders can go nuts. The DM has a legally free hand to paint a picture.

Players who customize their characters have fun.

Storytelling power personalizes, widens, and deepens. Because background determines abilities.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, I really don't agree. I like the way 5e does it, because you're choosing to spend your downtime training in different ways.

No, you are just talking about preference. You miss the actual reasons it's the worst of both. By making ability scores matter like 3.x players face strong pressure to minmaxing the perfect attribute distribution &rush it to 20 rather than feeling like they have choices. By using 2e style attrib=19 with those 3.x super important drip fed attribute bumps rather 3.x style attrib+n or 2e style not too important attributes the other side of the GM screen (the gm) has little freedom to use actually reward players with those items without or use a desire to improve attributes as incentive for player investment in the world/plot/adventuring motivation. Worse still for the gm actually rewarding those items in a way any player might care about creates extra work for them in the form of needing to adjust monsters to compensate unless the item is useless (ie int=19 on a fighter/str=19 on a wizard).

All out together 5e style is the worst combo for both sides of the gm screen

 

[CreamCloud0]

By contrast, the racist stereotype ability scores improvement is too much of a narrative straight jacket.

Example, if "every" Elf is high Dexterity, what is the point?

i read this in the same way as 'if every bear was strong that's too much of a narrative straightjacket, what's the point'

and it's not like you can't have a weak bear, but a weak bear is still going to be stronger than a weak badger.

 

[Yaarel]

i read this in the same way as 'if every bear was strong that's too much of a narrative straightjacket, what's the point'

and it's not like you can't have a weak bear, but a weak bear is still going to be stronger than a weak badger.

Bears dont have humanlike cultures. The character concept of a "bear" is straitjackety.

Every Human was forced to be a Bear. That would suck.

If every Elf was forced to be a Bear. That would suck.

If every Orc was forced to be a Bear. That would suck.


I am open to the idea that "size" is culturally neutral. And there can be rules for size that have verisimilitude. We know Halfling and Size is an ongoing pain point. But perhaps there is a way to navigate these conflictive needs.

Clearly, a character can have high Strength in the sense of Athletics and combat training, without being larger with a higher carrying capacity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Bears dont have humanlike cultures. The character concept of a "bear" is straitjackety.

they could if you gave them one

Every Human was forced to be a Bear. That would suck.

If every Elf was forced to be a Bear. That would suck.

If every Orc was forced to be a Bear. That would suck.

no, it wouldn't suck? what would suck is if there was no meaningful difference between your strengths if you were a human, an elf or an orc.

or are you just saying it would suck because as a species which is biologically optimised towards certain traits and therefore aren't a bland nothing blank slate with no defined strengths that can be turned into anything equally, because having predefined strengths doesn't stop you from being turned into anything, just that you are fundamentally predisposed to be better at certain things

even as a sapient species our fundamental biology determines alot about ourselves we just don't have another sapient species to compare ourselves to and so we don't consider any of those traits as potentially stronger or weaker than what they might be compared to, i can compare a bear and a horse, the bear might have denser muscle mass and the horse might have better stamina reserves, and that would remain accurate even if they were sapient species with societies

I am open to the idea that "size" is culturally neutral. And there can be rules for size that have verisimilitude. We know Halfling and Size is an ongoing pain point. But perhaps there is a way to navigate these conflictive needs.

 

[Yaarel]

they could if you gave them one

no, it wouldn't suck? what would suck is if there was no meaningful difference between your strengths if you were a human, an elf or an orc.

It is easy to explain how every "Humanoid" creature type is, by definition, comparable to a Human. Learning trumps instinct.

In the cases of Elf and Orc specifically. They are humanlike.

An Elf is a shapechanger who chose to become a Human.

It is unclear what an Orc is. A kind of Giant? A kind of Fiend? A kind of modified Elf? A kind of Human prehistoric hominid? Whatever an Orc is, it happens to be comparable to a Human, which is why it is a Humanoid, and why it is a core playable character.


Also, in my eyes, all of these longings for racism seem more about "size", not Strength. A Strength boost is kinda irrelevant.

The bear differs from the badger because of Size. The elephant differs from the mouse because of Size.

A rabbit who can "jump" extremely actually has high Strength.

The rabbit lacks a high carrying capacity because it is Strong, Athletic, but Tiny.


To assume everything Large is necessarily high Strength doesnt make sense either. Because Strength checks = Athletics. Thus every Large creature is amazingly agile and able to leap incredible distances ... like Elephants can, lol. There is no such thing as a lumbering Giant!

or are you just saying it would suck because as a species which is biologically optimised towards certain traits and therefore aren't a bland nothing blank slate with no defined strengths that can be turned into anything equally, because having predefined strengths doesn't stop you from being turned into anything, just that you are fundamentally predisposed to be better at certain things

That too. A species that must be strong is always boring and straitjacketed.

If the argument says, well, they dont have to be strong, put the low score in Strength, then that is like saying, the racist ability scores improvement only works if DMs and players ignore it.

even as a sapient species our fundamental biology determines alot about ourselves we just don't have another sapient species to compare ourselves to and so we don't consider any of those traits as potentially stronger or weaker than what they might be compared to, i can compare a bear and a horse, the bear might have denser muscle mass and the horse might have better stamina reserves, and that would remain accurate even if they were sapient species with societies

Humanoid means humanlike. It is a species that players can easily relate to.


Again, the "denser muscle" is irrelevant. Because it isnt what "D&D Strength" means.

This "muscle mass" is describing "D&D Size".

 

[Vikingkingq]

No, you are just talking about preference.

Yes, because I was stating a preference…