D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

In a vacuum, I'd say Exandria, as it mostly* keeps the standard fantasy-kitchen-sink fare of previous default settings, but lacks the outdated concepts or other lore baggage of those settings, by virtue of the recency of its creation: its lore isn't entrenched nearly as deeply as the FR's is, so there's much more room to tweak stuff if necessary. Same concept, newer model, basically.

The issue there is that the Critical Role company might own Exandria as an IP - collaborations are one thing, but I doubt WotC would want its game's central setting to be one that somebody else owns if it has other options at its disposal. Whether that matters to this thread depends on whether it's about what we want out of 6E, or what we might expect. If it's the former, then hypothetical legal quandaries are irrelevant.

(Eberron would also be fine: the only theoretical issue I can see would be that the feel of the world seems a bit further from D&D default: since the other intended changes would topple a few sacred cows already, keeping other stuff mostly the same might make those changes a bit easier to swallow for some.)

*The one major exception being the increasingly-widespread existence of firearms: an edition with Exandria as the default setting would probably be an edition that treats the presence of firearms as the default. Though I suppose the same might be true of Eberron, so maybe it's a wash there...

Yeah. Wildemount is similar enough to Forgotten Realms to not be such a jarring change if they were to choose it as the default world of 5e, but that would be problematic with Critical Role owning Exandria.

 

[Azzy]

I commend to your attention the section of EnWorld's Terms and Rules headed Be Polite.

To whom am I being impolite to in this statement? I made no accusation of anyone here being a bigot (see my response to Oofta if you need clarification on that point). That some have taken it as such is surprising, to say the least. My post was to answer the question of to whom we should be inclusive of if we can't be realistically be inclusive of everyone—we should be inclusive of those that want to be inclusive of others. If we have to draw the line on peoples that we cannot include (because some people can't accept others that are different from themselves), then we should err on the side of not being inclusive to people that are intolerant and don't want to be inclusive of other (i.e., bigots). I do not see how this is at all a controversial statement. To reiterate, I am not calling anyone here a bigot. If you disagee about the specifics of how D&D should aim to be more inclusive, that's cool—we all approach things differently—give your ideas of how we can improve our hobby and be more inclusive. Anyone that took this as a barb against them, I'm sorry.

 

[Azzy]

“Bigot - A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”

I’d say that makes every honest person a self proclaimed bigot. I mean aren’t we all prejudiced against rapists? But if we are all bigots then the accusation of bigotry kind of loses its sting.

I'm sorry, but that's just sophistry for the sake of being contrarian. Let's not falsely equate peoples of differening religions, races/ethnicities, genders, gender identities, sexual orientations, nationalities, and such with rapists. That's just gross.

 

[Hussar]

The one thing that I have learned in the past couple of weeks with these threads is that the changes needed are really rather minor.

We're not talking about massive overhauls or rewrites for the most part. Mostly it's snipping a couple of words here or there or editing a couple of sentences.

You'd think with the uproar and length of threads on the topic that people were advocating rebuilding the game from the ground up. Instead, most people are perfectly reasonable and coming to something approaching consensus on most of these issues wasn't that difficult. It really is nice to see.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah. It is a lot different from the other D&D settings. Do you think that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base, or change to a different setting?

I don't have a strong opinion. I have nothing at all against FR. But I don't really have an attachment to it, either.

 

[Azzy]

More in the thread topic, I want to see some Real world religious inclusivity in d&d. I’m not sure what that looks like though. Any ideas?

I have no clue. Maybe put a blurb in the PHB (and expand in the DMG, which I believe is already there) about how clerics (and other divine types) and otherwise religious characters don't have to follow the polytheistic/henotheistic default that is common in the official settings, and point out that monotheism, animism, shamanism, etc. are all worthy alternatives when creating religions and characters for your own setting). Maybe, if necesary and not self-evident, make extra effort to note that the gods presented in the D&D settings are fictional even when the share similar characteristics or names to real world deities and that gods whorshipped by a player's character are not actually worshipped by the player. That's just me spit-balling, though—I've never felt not included because of my religion, so I'm not the best person answer this.

 

[Azzy]

"Object" is a strong word.

Eberron is rather steampunky. But the steampunk fad is well past its peak. Shifting your default to an aesthetic and themes that are a bit passe is probably not wise.

Agreed. While I love Eberron, I also don't think it should be the default. Eberron tried to subvert the traditional ideas of what D&D-style fantasy is. If it was the default, it wouldn't be able to do that. So, I believe D&D needs something more traditional (even if we have to make adjustments to that) as its default. I don't think that Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc. need much (if any) significant alteration to be more inline with the goal of inclusivity.

 

[Umbran]

“Bigot - A person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”

So, short definitions are handy, but they lose connotation. Lets try to find it, since you seem to have left it lying on the floor back there somewhere.

"bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. "

The extra qualifiers and examples make a difference.

That "such as" contains an inkling of the connotation. In general, membership in a racial or ethnic group does not actually imply having done anything wrong. Being a rapist very much does mean you've done something wrong. Having hatred for folks who haven't done any wrong is not the same as having a negative opinion of someone who has committed violent crimes.

And, further, a reasonable person might have a negative general opinion of folks who have spent time in jail, but may be willing to reconsider that when given exposure to, say, folks who were convicted and are now honestly trying to be good and honest citizens. A bigot will not move their opinion, even when given relevant evidence to the contrary.

 

[Xeviat]

I think a new setting is due, and then use that as the default setting in 6E for the 50th Anniversary.

For rules changes, largely divorcing ability score adjustments from whatever race ends up being called feels like a given. I'd couple that with divorcing ability scores from a direct influence on attack/saving throw DCs, and just set attack/save DCs with level (so you can be a smart fighter, a strong fighter, or a tough fighter, and you could be a fast rogue or a charming rogue). This would keep any change to ability score adjustments on races from hurting the mechanics of the game, and also diversify the characters people can build.

 

[Cadence]

For rules changes, largely divorcing ability score adjustments from whatever race ends up being called feels like a given. I'd couple that with divorcing ability scores from a direct influence on attack/saving throw DCs, and just set attack/save DCs with level (so you can be a smart fighter, a strong fighter, or a tough fighter, and you could be a fast rogue or a charming rogue). This would keep any change to ability score adjustments on races from hurting the mechanics of the game, and also diversify the characters people can build.

I don't need a lot of immersion in my game, but some of that annoys me.

You can already be a really strong Halfling (compared to the vast majority of humanoids) - but why does a Halfling that maxed out strength need to be as strong as a Half-Orc or Dragonborn that maxed out strength? You can already be a charming rogue instead of a dexterous rogue - but why does the charming rogue get to be as good at sword play or shooting the hand cross-bow?

If you're going the route of divorcing abilities from anatomy and from attacks and saves, then why have abilities connected to anything mechanical in the game? Why would dexterity help you jump if it doesn't help you shoot? Or strength help you climb if it doesn't help you jump? Or constitution help you run longer but not resist more damage?

At some point it feels like a push to change D&D into having a bunch of different skins they can slap on the characters, but where the skins don't have any effect on the game play except the words you to describe things. (Some parts of 4e felt that way a bit to me).