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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

They can add an unreliable narrator to the race section, maybe even dueling narrators. So Volo can go "everyone knows dwarves are hard working people who live underground....." and then Elminister can say "well, except for the above ground living dwarves on the tropical island of _____ who live a life of island tranquility....." For the cost of an extra page per race, you could have 4 or 5 narrators (possibly from different campaign worlds) giving a short description.

Edit: come to think of it, that might be a good thing for class descriptions too. 4 or 5 narrators with different examples of "when I think of a X, I think of...."

I'm glad to see my idea is catching on.

 

[Hussar]

It is a cool idea.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yep. I'm not meaning to be negative, I apologize if I came off that way. I'm just skeptical that those changes would help. For realism's sake, I don't personally want to remove the connection between strength and the power of your punches. I also think that certain classes and subclasses should be focused on specific ability scores just to make classes have meaning.

I think that we're already messing with realism when we decide that Halflings are on average as strong as Half-orcs. Everyone draws the line between realism and the ability to optimise more diverse character concepts in a different place.

I think paladins should have a distinct image. Removing Charisma from them would make them less unique, and make them seem meaningless.

(It has occurred to me that these are similar arguments to those arguing against removing racial ability scores. Classes and Races are different. Arguably, class is more important to character identity than race.)

I don't know if I personally would agree with this, but thanks for contributing. I think if you were to remove the differences between ability scores and armors that wouldn't promote creativity, and instead would result in more bland characters.

The weapons thing is again, character concept and image. - Maybe the poster has in mind a quick, dextrous character that uses a greataxe or something else that doesn't fall into the usual tropes that 5e optimises for.
(Note: I don't share the views of that poster. I was just trying to clarify given my understanding of what they were getting at.)

I think Eberron could work fairly well as a default setting as well. It has a lot of lore, but nowhere as much as Forgotten Realms. It seems well liked by a lot of the community, and everyone I know who thought they wouldn't like Eberron has changed their mind after learning more about it.

Does anyone here object to making eberron the default? If so, which setting do you think should be the default?

(Also, I personally don't think the core rulebooks should be based on any default setting, but they would need a base setting for new players and DMs.)

Forgotten Realms is problematic given that many of its cultures and religions are literally real-life ones that came over when Toril and Earth were linked.
Eberron however is a bit far from the "default D&D assumptions" of races etc. It has a distinct style not shared by Greyhawk, FR etc, so might not work as well as a starting point. Also, most Eberron races have at least two different cultures.

I'm glad to see my idea is catching on.

They can add an unreliable narrator to the race section, maybe even dueling narrators. So Volo can go "everyone knows dwarves are hard working people who live underground....." and then Elminister can say "well, except for the above ground living dwarves on the tropical island of _____ who live a life of island tranquility....." For the cost of an extra page per race, you could have 4 or 5 narrators (possibly from different campaign worlds) giving a short description.

Edit: come to think of it, that might be a good thing for class descriptions too. 4 or 5 narrators with different examples of "when I think of a X, I think of...."

Maybe instead of Elminster and Volo, they could do Volo, and Astinus of Palanthas, and Professor Vii of Korranberg, and Mordenkainen etc?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Maybe instead of Elminster and Volo, they could do Volo, and Astinus of Palanthas, and Professor Vii of Korranberg, and Mordenkainen etc?

Why not? The more the better.

 

[jasper]

But it is still in the base rules. I think making it an optional rule like flanking or multiclassing would be a good idea.

Why does the next edition need a base setting in the PHB? Sure, it will help new players, but they could always just put it in the DMG.

Also, why does it need to be the Forgotten Realms? It seems like an increasing number of people don't like the Forgotten Realms, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if they changed the base setting to Exandria or Eberron.

They're already changing this in 5e, so they're probably (if not definitely) going to make the same change in a 6e.

So, you think that Orcs and Drow should still be evil in the Forgotten Realms, and that they should keep Forgotten Realms as the base setting, and still base all the rules off of the setting? How are any of these changes? I just seems like it's a small clarification that largely ignores the issues.

I think this could work. At the end of Explorer's Guide to Wildemount they have a Glossary of sorts. If they had this in the MM, PHB, or DMG that could help with things.

I fail to see the relevance. Please clarify, and I mean no disrespect. I am a bit dense.

To sum up. NO changes are needed.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

To sum up. NO changes are needed.

Okay, want to give your argument for this? If you think absolutely nothing should change from 5e to 6e to promote inclusivity, please explain why.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

I would like to see a new setting, but I don't know if WotC would do it. It's been awhile since they've made a new setting (Eberron and Nentir Vale, right?).
There's also the problem of making the new setting the default. They'd probably have to publish it in 5e so people have time to get used to it before they suddenly shift to a whole new setting for the base game.

 

[GreenTengu]

Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.

To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.

But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.

Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.

But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.

But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.

I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.

Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.

To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.

But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.

Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.

But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.

But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.

I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.

Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.

I get that you want a rules light game with basically no simulationism and that is a valid thing to want but has absolutely nothing to do with being inclusive unless we understand 'inclusiveness' to mean 'I want my specific game design preferences to be catered to.'

I really wish people would stop trying to justify their personal preferences with inclusiveness. It is a serious and important topic and doing that is just disrespectful. And while we are at disrespectful, your post was very ageist and condescending.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Given the rather hostile reaction I got to my ideas, I am thinking there is no possible way to fix D&D so that people can play whatever character concept they want and still have a positive experience and contribute meaningfully to the party's success. The whole culture of munchkin min-maxers and those who have a personal favorite character build and expect to be catered to and be superior to the rest of the party is just too strong within the D&D community.

To me, it really seems that if one wants to play a Rogue of any race, use whatever weapon you think exemplifies your character concept, be an acrobat or a suave seductress or a discerning detective or a clever scholar-- your level and class alone is what determines what you roll for attack rolls and damage rolls and for your class specific battle abilities. The race, the theme of your character-- that comes into play when it comes to skill challenges in specific regions and specific situations.

But it seems like there are those who are far too attached to the idea that there should be One True Build and, if you aren't that one build, you need to suck and feel terrible about yourself. There are those who are violently hostile to the idea of people playing characters with green skin and tusks or red skin and cat-like eyes or dark skin at all.

Honestly, I would even be satisfied with the idea that one goes back to a "basic D&D" and an "advanced D&D" where the basic version is for narrative play and you are free to play any sort of character concept you like because the game is super mechanically light and the advanced version caters to those who want to create a munchkin build by finding the loophole the designers accidentally left in the character creation process that allows them to be super powered while the rest of the party can suck it for not abusing rule loopholes and rule lawyering-- and those 50+ year olds who are hostile to anyone playing any character who is not precisely like a character who was a featured protagonist in Lord of the Rings.

But maybe those of us who want a more inclusive game should just create a new RPG and let the Grognards drive the name of Dungeons and Dragons into the grave. Really, I can't help but feel more and more ashamed about the attitudes of so many players who are in the hobbies I enjoyed. It is hard to really understand why what always struck me as the hobbies of the outsiders became the realm of well.... disclusionary people. In the very least, I thought those people peeled off long ago to be funneled into various OSR games.

But maybe what we need is the opposite of an OSR game. I have seen 13th Age and Dungeon World make steps in the right direction, though I cannot say I totally agree with everything they have done. Even Pathfinder 2 seems to be ahead of Dungeons and Dragons in fixing the worst aspects.

I understand that we are all attached to the D&D name and concept but... maybe it is time to let it go. Maybe it is time to let it crash and burn. It was the first, and for that it deserves respect, but by being the first it seems that it attracted and attached to itself far too many people who, after being mistreated by others, desire nothing more than to pass that mistreatment onto other people so as to feel superior. And maybe it is theirs-- they can have it and bring it down with them. And all those 55+-year old people can drag the whole D&D name with them into the sea and drown it as they all die away.

Maybe a new game entirely needs to replace D&D.

Wait, since people were hesitant about making ability scores practically not matter anymore (which I don't feel like I was hostile, more skeptical if anything), you think we're people who want to exclude creativity from the game. I think you should obviously be able to play any race as any class well, but that can be done as simply as removing the racial ability scores from the game.

I just didn't think that making classes no longer be focused on any one ability score made sense, and was too rules-lite. I still think if you want to play a Wizard, you need to be intellectually smart as a character. If a character wants to max out Strength and use that as their ability score to cast Wizard spells, I would immediately say no, because that makes absolutely no sense. I understand this is a fantasy game, but I do personally prefer when things can make sense in my games.

Also, you're saying it's min-maxers who don't like your idea, right? How does that make sense? You idea would promote min-maxing more than anything I've recommended. Suddenly, every person in the game would be a Yuan-Ti Pureblood, maxing Constitution to use it as a spellcasting ability for Druids, Bards, or Clerics.

If you make everyone have the same bonuses to hit and same bonuses for damage, that doesn't promote inclusivity, that diminishes the importance of player choice when they make a character.

I don't want a new game. I like the current game, but would like some possible minor changes in an edition shift. (Also, I am not a grognard. 5e is my first edition of D&D. The entire edition of 3e is older than I am.)

Also, your post was a bit rude. This discussion is meant to be productive and polite. Please continue being so.