D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[TheSword]

Why not both. Fight for people in both worlds.

I think the appropriate quote was...
“Be the change you want to see in the world.”
- Ghandi
Change comes from people, not from institutions.

Another appropriate quote for this discussion
“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”
- Michael Corleone.

Lol.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How about Jack Chick-style Christians offended by demons & devils in D&D? In your view are we obligated to change the game to appease them as well? If not, why not? Their offense is surely real and intensely felt.

First, that's different, they were an outside group that knew near-to-nothing about D&D. Second, their offense was ridiculous and had no base. Third, we're not changing the game, we're adding optional rules to make the game more versatile with optional rules. Fourth, we're not asking for the destruction of D&D, the satanic panic was.

 

[Todd Roybark]

@Bawylie has the right view and solution, in my estimation.
Explicitly separate the game system from settings.

Settings, like Sci-fi/Fantasy stories, should allow for Thought Experiments and exploration of ideas.

We, on ENworld have, seemingly been having this same sort of argument for months...from threads about is Animating the Dead always evil by RAW, and so on and so forth.
RAW is for mechanics, not flavor, not setting. (IMHV)

As for heritage the lasting impact of the 2e Ranger must go. The Ranger class was designed around legacy mechanics and thus failed to inspire.

I feel the same about the Warlock class. Hexblade is the “Magic Warrior”...akin to the Green Knight of UK-Lore...yet the Paladin already can cover the archetype. The Warlock is a toe stepping class...it borrows archetypes, but does not develop them further.

 

[TheSword]

I'm curious... what exactly do you want to change their minds about?

That you can show empathy to someone without having experiencing the same as them.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I'm taking bets on if this thread will last another day. I'll wager 10 likes that it won't.

Back to the OP's topic, I've laid out the process highlights of how I'd like to see D&D races changed.
1. Leave anything already established alone.
2. Put Alternate Races in a setting books, a new edition, a setting supplement or even an alternate race handbook.
3. Put well reasoned thoughts into actually making the races better instead of just taking some whiteout to the current descriptions.

I am all for changing the races to make them better.

 

[FrogReaver]

That you can show empathy to someone without having experiencing the same as them.

Everyone here does that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Third, we're not changing the game, we're adding optional rules to make the game more versatile with optional rules.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. My understanding has been that new race rules will be full on replacements instead of alternate optional rules. If this is true it alleviates a lot of my concerns. I've not been arguing against optional race rules at all. I don't think anyone else has been either.

 

[TheSword]

Everyone here does that.

No, but most people do.

If you had read the threads and seen the bannings as they happened you would know there are a lot of people that don’t care a jot.

Just because you may not recognize what you said... heat of the discussion etc.

Others on your ‘side’ have made the comparison of being a person of colour with having a rare form of colour blindness. That’s not empathy. [Edited to be clear that you didn’t make that point]

Neither is telling someone who is affected by something that they should learn not to be affected by things. That’s a pretty intransigent point of view there fella that is they totally opposite of empathy.

You’ve also said you don’t see the reasons yourself and have cast this as an oppositional argument with sides. Rather than as a community trying to find a way through this mess.

Just correcting your statement that everyone empathizes.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I've seen this mentioned a few times. My understanding has been that new race rules will be full on replacements instead of alternate optional rules. If this is true it alleviates a lot of my concerns. I've not been arguing against optional race rules at all. I don't think anyone else has been either.

Your understanding is incorrect, then.
Why would they replace the original rules? They've been pretty careful throughout the years that they don't want to invalidate any existing books. The Revised Ranger was dropped, and kind of turned into the Ranger Class Feature Variants, which are variant. These features that they mention that will allow you to choose other ability score improvements other than the regular will probably be variant as well.

Also, even if it is a replacement for the original rules, which it won't, in your campaigns you can just ignore that. The DM determines the rules at their table.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why would they replace the original rules? They've been pretty careful throughout the years that they don't want to invalidate any existing books. The Revised Ranger was dropped, and kind of turned into the Ranger Class Feature Variants, which are variant. These features that they mention that will allow you to choose other ability score improvements other than the regular will probably be variant as well.

I just want to point out that no one has an issue with that.

Also, even if it is a replacement for the original rules, which it won't, in your campaigns you can just ignore that. The DM determines the rules at their table.

I do have a problem with that. I should also note that the DM determines the rules at their table is pretty much justification for changing/not changing anything.