D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[DEFCON 1]

Which is why I wonder why anyone has a problem with bonuses.

I don't have a problem with them per se... I just don't find them necessary and they don't actually accomplish what people think they are supposed to do (as @Ruin Explorer explained about all races getting Max 20s and such.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Since when did the game become only for hetero white males? Because I missed that memo and need to drop half my group.

It didn't "become" it... it's been written from that perspective from the beginning. It was written by hetero-white-males for an audience that was primarily at the time hetero-white-males, and thus everything in it is geared towards the examples and understandings of hetero-white-males. Now other people could and certainly did absolutely play it, but it wasn't written to be representative for them necessarily.

Granted, this is all under the surface of the game and was never intentionally meant to be exclusionary by any means... but it's certainly a case of "You write what you know." Did Gygax et. al. know anything about the LGBTQIA experience back in the 70s when they wrote the game? My guess is probably very little. And thus little to nothing was written in the game that detailed or was representative of that experience. It's nothing to blame them for by any means... like I said, you write what you know. But it doesn't mean we can't now look at the game over the last 40 years with a critical eye and see where it wasn't representative of all types of people.

So if the game has steadily moved to be more representative over the years and editions... changing or adding new types of art, adding in characters from all parts of life, adjusting language that does not assist in being representative of all people... those will all move the identity away from how the beginnings of the game were written. In other words... away from the standard format that hetero-white-males have always seen written from their perspective. The game's identity WILL change from what players of the last 40 years will be used to. But hey... that's life.

 

[Oofta]

Personally, I fear that a lot of the recent discussion is striking at the heart, the identity, of the game. The discussion of inclusion goes beyond x or y setting or A, B, and C options, but to things iconic to the game. Races. Classes. Alignment. Ability Scores. The very description of elves, orcs, and other creatures. And while complaints about said things have existed for quite a while, the current climate we find ourselves in has raised the volume and forced WotC to have to respond to these complaints in a much more vocal manner. For now, WotC will play damage control; point to Wildemount or Eberron as examples of PC orcs, pull alignment from generic humanoid stat-blocks, clean up some problematic text via errata, or add an optional rule in a new tome (only $49.99!) to fix ability score complaints. And that will work, in the short run. but 5e was supposed to be thier "evergreen" edition and increasingly, while the mechanics of 5e might more-or-less be evergreen, I think there will be significant pressure to "update" the game to remove the problematic elements entirely, and that will mean a new edition with a different tone.

And it's what that will look like that gives me pause. D&D has changed before (I can recall the days dwarves couldn't be wizards), but the core components have remained. What will "race" look like once the term is gone and the concept revised? Will classes like monk and barbarian remain or are they too problematic? Will WotC change ability scores to be less ableist? Will Alignment as a concept survive? Do orcs, goblinoids, and the like enter the PHB? If they do too much, they risk alienating their base (like 4e did), change too little we'll be doing this again in five years. It's not an envious position to be in.

Perhaps it is the fear of the unknown that causes these fears. I like 5e as it stands. I personally see little wrong with it. But my opinion as a hetero-white-male isn't what is being considered. The game will grow and evolve, but I can't help but worry that it will grow past me...

Sums up my thoughts as well. I will say that there have always been and will always be some people that complain about some aspect of D&D and have a grand plan to fix it.

Yet 5E is selling incredibly well, the majority of players are now the next generation. That's a good thing, but it's also counter to the narrative going around that we must make dramatic and drastic changes. There have been and always will be things that could be improved and done better. Diversity of thoughts, opinions and points of view should be welcome.

But getting rid of ability scores? Completely eliminating alignment instead of just making it a general descriptor like it is in 5E? Making all humanoids just a sub-race of human while just shifting evil to the real world analog of culture and religion?

That's changing some of the foundational aspects of the most popular TTRPG ever developed. Maybe it would be a better game, maybe it wouldn't. I just hope we don't over-correct like they did with the response to the Satanic Panic.

 

[Derren]

People really love that hyperbole, huh?

Not having racial stat bonuses is obviously not remotely the same as "everyone playing a human". You pick strength an example, but you do that because it's the only example where it seems safe. And 5E already doesn't really go with races being "stronger because of biology". A human and a halfling both have the same STR range, for example. Being a 7' Goliath still limits you to the same 20 STR as said Halfling, you just get there sooner. So you're essentially closing the barn door about six years after the horses bolted.

Strength-wise, you can still have stuff like the increased carry/lift/drag capacity of Goliaths and the like, it's just that players can now choose their race without having to sort through all the modifiers. By and large, I expect players will hew to the same standards - most people who want to play agile characters will pick traditionally agile races, and so on. You're not losing anything.

A race is not traditionally agile when it is not more agile than everyone else.
Why should a gnome not be more intelligent than most others? Or a kobold weaker than most? Or yes, the orc be on average less intelligent? That is part of biology the same as having darkvision or not (imo it was a mistake to begin with to not have negative ability adjustments in the first place). Either you argue that races should have biological differences, then they should also have different attributes, or all races must be the same and thus essentially humans.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A race is not traditionally agile when it is not more agile than everyone else.
Why should a gnome not be more intelligent than most others? Or a kobold weaker than most? Or yes, the orc be on average less intelligent? That is part of biology the same as having darkvision or not (imo it was a mistake to begin with to not have negative ability adjustments in the first place). Either you argue that races should have biological differences, then they should also have different attributes, or all races must be the same and thus essentially humans.

For NPC/Monster stat blocks? Sure. Give all those modifiers because those are meant to represent the typical creature. But PCs? don't need racial modifiers because PCs aren't the typical representation. Also:

Even if it means an 18 INT orc

 

[Derren]

For NPC/Monster stat blocks? Sure. Give all those modifiers because those are meant to represent the typical creature. But PCs? don't need racial modifiers because PCs aren't the typical representation. Also:

Typical or not, they are still representation of that race which among things like darkvision includes increased and decresed attributes. What makes them atypical are the point buy stats on top of them. But the fact remains that a PC orc is still an orc which is not as intelligent as others who are equally gifted. The same way a dexterous dwarf is still less dexterous than a dexterous halfling.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Typical or not, they are still representation of that race which among things like darkvision includes increased and decresed attributes. What makes them atypical are the point buy stats on top of them. But the fact remains that a PC orc is still an orc which is not as intelligent as others who are equally gifted. The same way a dexterous dwarf is still less dexterous than a dexterous halfling.

I think the difference is that every orc has darkvision. It's something true always, barring a genetic mutation. Like how humans can see in color. But attributes? Those vary from person to person. Strength, intelligence, etc, are all varying. That's the difference.

 

[clearstream]

Over just the past week or so, we've seen threads about how WoTC is rethinking alignment, shelving Oriental Adventures, etc. With everything going on in society in general, it makes complete sense that companies are also evaluating how they approached certain related topics in the past.

Several folks are happy. Some are upset. Some are relieved, while others disappointed. But here's the thing: we always have a choice. We always have. Ideals, assumptions, stereotypes, cultural sensitivity, progression, regression, they all happen in an ever changing environment. The game doesn't remain static like Uno. It changes not only mechanically, but philosophically with each revision.

And we as consumers have the choice to play it or not. This is not a new thing. We all still have our favorite editions, and no one has come, or will come, to take those away. When WotC took over, I wasn't a big fan, and didn't play 3e all that much. When 4e came out, I really didn't like the direction they went and still played AD&D. When 5e came out, I was brought back in. We can talk about it on forums, and voice our opinion at WoTC, but ultimately the only power we have is to choose to play or not, and choose to play the way we want or not. Trying to force others to play how we want is when it becomes problematic, especially when those changes are to bring in other types of players. AFAIC, I got my game, and if some things change about it that I might not be a fan of, I still have my game, so why not let others have theirs too?

So if WoTC refines alignment, gets rid of making all orcs evil, shelves OA, removes references to gypsies, and hires cultural writers, you can either keep playing the game how you want to play it, or don't and stick to whatever you game you do want. The times are a changing. No one is forcing anyone to stay on the train if you don't want. And even if you get off, you can always get back on. Trust me, that's what I did, and it's entirely possible. But all this arguing back and forth about how YOU ARE WRONG with a half dozen threads about the same topic isn't all that productive.

Is nothing sacrosanct?

 

[Derren]

I think the difference is that every orc has darkvision. It's something true always, barring a genetic mutation. Like how humans can see in color. But attributes? Those vary from person to person. Strength, intelligence, etc, are all varying. That's the difference.

Even eye vision differs depending on the individual, including how well someone sees in the dark (Nyctalopia - Wikipedia)
Or just look at the difference in muscle mass between males and females. Yes, there are strong females out there who train a lot and are stronger than most males, but compared to males who also train their strength equally she will still be weaker. The difference between sexes is ignored in D&D but for races the same would apply.
A genius orc would be smarter than most others, no matter the race, but he would not be equal to a genius gnome. Thats simply biology, the same way as the ability to breath fire or see in the dark is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Even eye vision differs depending on the individual, including how well someone sees in the dark (Nyctalopia - Wikipedia)
Or just look at the difference in muscle mass between males and females. Yes, there are strong females out there who train a lot and are stronger than most males, but compared to males who also train their strength equally she will still be weaker. The difference between sexes is ignored in D&D but for races the same would apply.
A genius orc would be smarter than most others, no matter the race, but he would not be equal to a genius gnome. Thats simply biology, the same way as the ability to breath fire or see in the dark is.

Gnomes aren't real. That's a ridiculous analogy. They are as smart as the person writing them wants to be, that's it. And if the writer doesn't want racial modifiers, then end of story. Which of course, again, all of that ignores how PCs are not a typical representation of their species anyway. Unless you can point me to a typical human that can take on a dragon with a dagger and have a good chance of winning...

also, the differences between the variation of the typical human being able to see color as opposed to the differences in variations between strength, intelligence, etc, is vastly different. Talk about a false equivalency.


But it's nice to see you're falling back on the same argument in the early 80s to justify why female PCs should have a strength cap. Noted.