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

[Sadras]

Why would you expect the base rules to cover settings and cultures that are well outside the presumed genre of the game?

That is my thinking, hence I said perhaps the class has not been created (at least in 5e).

 

[Azzy]

D&D may not be "limited" to medieval fantasy, but, let's be honest, that's where about 90% of it lives.

Whether you're talking about the Sword Coast or Icewind Dale, or Dragonlance, or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, the baseline assumptions of D&D is medieval at the very least, and probably Eurocentric. Asking what classes should be used to emulate First Nations people is like asking what classes should be used to emulate accountants. They are both about equally far removed from the baseline. Why would you expect the base rules to cover settings and cultures that are well outside the presumed genre of the game?

While D&D started as very Eurocentric (something that is still reflected in the game to some degree to this day), I think you overstate it. In the two oldest settings published by TSR, Greyhawk and the Known World (later Mystara) included various non-European cultures. In Greyhawk, the Baklunish West is very Arabian and Persian inspired with some Eurasian Khanates thrown in for good measure, while the Rovers of the Barrens and other Flan have a bit of a Native American influence. The Known World has several non-European lands (such the Native American-inspired Atruaghin Clans, the Ethengar Khanate, the very Arabic Emirates of Ylaruam, Mughal Indian-inspired Sind, etc.). The Forgotten Realms included several non-European cultures as well right from the start (and then Kara-Tur, Zakhara, and Maztica came later). So, yes, I do think that D&D should support playing in the various non-European cultures that it has included in its settings since at least the split of D&D and AD&D.

 

[Azzy]

For me as a non native speaker when I first heard the term (without having read it before) I thought of something totally different (think something dirty that really sounds alike) and wondered why they would talk such nonsense on MTV while keeping their face totally serious.

I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?

Well, we can also look at the term "Dungeon Master" in that light, too. Sounds very BDSM.

 

[Flamestrike]

I agree Flamestrike. Most of us, at each of our tables have not struggled with this topic at all for decades. This is a PR reaction for WotC much more than it is an actual game issue, and it has not really much to do with social justice, just so we're clear.

Mate, its just how people are these days. See the negative reaction to The Last of Us 2, which in many cases is driven by the same divisive politics that caused Gamergate and so much of the naughty word you see on the news and on social media and the comments section of websites these days.

All you can do is shake your head, and wait for the Doomsday clock to hit midnight.

We're 100 seconds away from midnight at the moment, and it was set there BEFORE 2020 turned everything pearshaped.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I never understood why the Americans (btw. is it the British also?) had to define one of the bedrooms in their kip as the "master bedroom". I mean is there a master toilet also? Or a master kitchen?

"Master" in this case is a synonym for "main" or "best". See also: "master key". You should find that in a thesaurus. It is used in British English.

 

[roger semerad]

If you want to be a furry, buy yourself a Hat of Disguise and activate your fursuit whenever you want too. Pick whatever race and class you want. The rest is anxiety about powergaming.

You may not be aware of it, but there are two things in that statement that are offensive. First you group all furries into a narrow stereotype ( fursuiters ), and then dismiss their concerns as frivolous and unimportant. I don't blame you, there are very few furries actually talking to people about themselves. Most reflexively cringe every time the topic is brought up outside furry circles, no news is good news most of the time.

There's actually very little you can say about furries as a whole. Basically just that we all like the idea of human/animal hybrids to some degree. Some see their furry forms ( called a fursona ) as their real selves, others see a fursona as a symbol, and others don't even have a fursona. Some fursona's are very deferent from the real person, others aren't deferent at all. Some have sexual feelings about furries, others don't. Some think they're reincarnations of animal spirits. Some would welcome the ability to actually become their fursona, others only think of it as a fantasy. Fursuiters are little deferent than cosplayers. They're a vibrant part of the furry community, but just that - a part. Some that put on a fursuit feel a spiritual connection, others just see it as a costume.

As to what being a furry means to me, it's complicated. I see tigers as a strong symbol of my perfect self. Strong, curious, independent, fearsome, and beautiful. There is also a bit of a notion that this is the form I'd chose for myself, birth made me one thing but this is what I'd chose. I don't think about it too often as changing your species is a long way off, but I would like to see us get there. So there is a bit of transhumanism in there too. I also am not a costume person, I don't see the point. They don't look real and they are very uncomfortable. I seek out games that let me carry out this fantasy. When I'm playing one, like the Elder Scrolls, I feel comfortable and happy. It welcomes me in and lets me feel like the real me. So having a cat race in D&D is a big reason why I'd play in the first place, and being cat-like is the whole point. So reskinning another race wouldn't work.

D&D is a combat heavy game by default, so survivability is an important consideration. No one wants to play a game where you feel like you're being handicapped. Lessening the impact of ability scores is the easiest way to do that, which is why it's being brought up. It's not my ideal though, that would be having every ability score equally contributing to your survivability, but in a deferent way. That would make any combination of ability scores viable, even an even spread between all of them. It's just that it would require a real heavy rethinking of ability scores in D&D to make that happen, and I don't think there is a will to do that.

Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.

 

[TheSword]

You may not be aware of it, but there are two things in that statement that are offensive. First you group all furries into a narrow stereotype ( fursuiters ), and then dismiss their concerns as frivolous and unimportant. I don't blame you, there are very few furries actually talking to people about themselves. Most reflexively cringe every time the topic is brought up outside furry circles, no news is good news most of the time.

There's actually very little you can say about furries as a whole. Basically just that we all like the idea of human/animal hybrids to some degree. Some see their furry forms ( called a fursona ) as their real selves, others see a fursona as a symbol, and others don't even have a fursona. Some fursona's are very deferent from the real person, others aren't deferent at all. Some have sexual feelings about furries, others don't. Some think they're reincarnations of animal spirits. Some would welcome the ability to actually become their fursona, others only think of it as a fantasy. Fursuiters are little deferent than cosplayers. They're a vibrant part of the furry community, but just that - a part. Some that put on a fursuit feel a spiritual connection, others just see it as a costume.

As to what being a furry means to me, it's complicated. I see tigers as a strong symbol of my perfect self. Strong, curious, independent, fearsome, and beautiful. There is also a bit of a notion that this is the form I'd chose for myself, birth made me one thing but this is what I'd chose. I don't think about it too often as changing your species is a long way off, but I would like to see us get there. So there is a bit of transhumanism in there too. I also am not a costume person, I don't see the point. They don't look real and they are very uncomfortable. I seek out games that let me carry out this fantasy. When I'm playing one, like the Elder Scrolls, I feel comfortable and happy. It welcomes me in and lets me feel like the real me. So having a cat race in D&D is a big reason why I'd play in the first place, and being cat-like is the whole point. So reskinning another race wouldn't work.

D&D is a combat heavy game by default, so survivability is an important consideration. No one wants to play a game where you feel like you're being handicapped. Lessening the impact of ability scores is the easiest way to do that, which is why it's being brought up. It's not my ideal though, that would be having every ability score equally contributing to your survivability, but in a deferent way. That would make any combination of ability scores viable, even an even spread between all of them. It's just that it would require a real heavy rethinking of ability scores in D&D to make that happen, and I don't think there is a will to do that.

Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.

Your expectation of a canine playable race raises an interesting point. At what point should it be a reasonable expectation that a person’s preferred race should be made available to them because of inclusivity.

If dog humanoids don’t exist in common literature, film, or myth, should the writers be expected to conjure them fresh from the ether.

Maybe it’s better that if it feels that important to you, someone could easily publish a canine, vulpine or bovine race on DM Guild. Or maybe play a toned down lycanthrope.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

 

[Derren]

Funny how inclusiveness has become a codeword for minmaxing and how not having a 20 strength fighter is racism.

 

[Hussar]

I agree Flamestrike. Most of us, at each of our tables have not struggled with this topic at all for decades. This is a PR reaction for WotC much more than it is an actual game issue, and it has not really much to do with social justice, just so we're clear. Each table, whoever wonderful and diverse is sitting there playing with their friends, has worked these things out in a better fashion over the last 40+years than any edited 5e+ or press release from THE CORPORATION could ever do. We all have, and have had the freedom at our tables to make it so for Pete's Sake!

I'll just say it. I haven't seen any hate or prejudice implicit in the game's design, black elves and all. We all need to recognize just how inclusive this game has been and already is, and not cow-tow to the day's narrative screaming that rights need to be wronged at the gaming table. That's rubbish. I am perfectly fine with racism between actual races in a fantasy genre. I am anti-racist in my views of American culture in the real world. But playable races in a make-believe world are not different cultures. They are, in fact, different races/species.

I'm sorry, but, this is easily disproven.

Prior to 2015 and the release of 5e, the demographics of D&D was virtually entirely white, male and young. This wasn't something that people made up. It is a fact.

Now, after 2015, we see a massive surge in female gamers for the first time in the games history. We see a surge in various minorities playing the game. To the point where last I heard, we're about 40% female gamers now? Something to that effect.

So, if the game was so welcoming to outsiders, so completely without hate or prejudice, how do you explain that for the first forty-five years of its history, until the publishers actively started honestly changing the books to be more welcoming and less offensive, the hobby was overwhelmingly white and male?

Oh, and it's spelled kow tow. We're not pulling bovines.