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

[Chaosmancer]

Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?

Bridges to be crossed when DnD Future-Tech comes out.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To keep things on-topic, and out of some genuine curiosity, does anyone have any good ideas regarding differently abled people as Player Characters?

Ableism is something very close to a friend of mine's heart and we recently stumbled upon a thread on a different site with some.... horrendously tone-deaf content. But, it got me thinking... is there any good content for that sort of thing for DnD?

I have no ideas, and I don't know how something like that could be portrayed in a respectful manner, but it is one section of the discussion that rarely if ever gets touched upon.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Bridges to be crossed when DnD Future-Tech comes out.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To keep things on-topic, and out of some genuine curiosity, does anyone have any good ideas regarding differently abled people as Player Characters?

Ableism is something very close to a friend of mine's heart and we recently stumbled upon a thread on a different site with some.... horrendously tone-deaf content. But, it got me thinking... is there any good content for that sort of thing for DnD?

I have no ideas, and I don't know how something like that could be portrayed in a respectful manner, but it is one section of the discussion that rarely if ever gets touched upon.

I can only comment on a narrow example, but having a blind dm for 20 years now - the one trope he hates is blind characters getting super-hearing instead. Any "alternative sense" dismisses the difficulties he faces in his day to day life. so he, for one, would rather you not do that. If you want to chose to play a blind character, just be blind and figure out how to be an adventurer anyways.

But where I think the biggest issue lies is that in most DnD settings, there are magical solutions to many physical disabilities, and there's not a lot of reason why people with those disabilities wouldn't use said magic if they could afford it. Of course you'd get your eyes regenerated.

Now, the only thing I'll say about mental conditions is that the above does not apply.

The presence of magic also makes transgender characters a bit odd - the magic is a lot harder in newer editions since they (thankfully) got rid of the girdle of gender reversal, but lots of magical options get pretty close and if you demand perfection in your transition, wishes are a thing in the world.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I'm not sure your point actually bolsters the argument FOR barbarians the same way you think it does.

Clearly, the Barbarian class is supposed to represent more than Viking Berserkers, because that is a ridiculously narrow archetype for a class. What IS the class supposed to represent us not many types of primitive warrior tropes? Why was it included in 3.5 Oriental Adventures if they primarily represent European berserkers? If all those groups you suggest are not representative of the Barbarian class, what does that class represent and why does it need a full 20 level class to do it? Samurai and cavalier fit into a fighter sub, after all.

I don't see how moving Barbarian from "possibly racist trope" to "extremely narrow European origin trope" improves it's position much.

Need I keep reminding people of this?

Barbarians are Melee Fighters With Big Dumb Super Modes. "Barbarian" is just the easiest and most on theme (medieval fantasy) name for that archetype.

 

[MGibster]

To keep things on-topic, and out of some genuine curiosity, does anyone have any good ideas regarding differently abled people as Player Characters?

That's a tough pickle because D&D really wasn't designed for that kind of thing. A player could role play mental illnesses and for physical disabilities probably work something out with the DM. I once had a pirate captain and I asked the DM if I could have a hook for a hand. It wasn't a problem save for when I did certain things that required both hands to do. A player could explain an attribute as the result of a disability of some kind. A Strength of 8 might represent underdeveloped limbs due to polio, a Charisma of 8 might represent a severe social anxiety disorder, and a low Constitution might be tuberculosis.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Also, on the current track of racial bonuses:

I feel like taking racial bonuses out takes something that I feel is important out. It removes the identity from the races and just makes Elves and Dwarves into Tall Pointy-Eared Human and Short, Hairy Human. I mean, yeah, they're related, but they aren't the same. Say for example we have an RPG where the primary races are all based on dogs, would a Great Dane and a Corgi having the same stat bonuses make sense and add to the game? I don't really think so. I do get and sympathize with people saying that picking Elf pigeon holes them too much into the dex-y classes, so I could see them adding essentially a floating modifier to them. Like, for example "As an elf, you have the choice to add +2 to DEX, INT, or CHA, and +1 to another of those stats that wasn't the one you put +2 into". They'd still have a gameplay niche, while also being more flexible to other ideas rather than just the DEX-y characters. I also like the idea of making racial traits a "point buy" of sorts, where you have a group of points (that would be the same across every race) to buy certain racial traits you'd like for your character, with a sidebar saying that, if the list of racial traits for that race doesn't fit your idea for your character or your world, you can always just grab other racial traits if your DM gives the OK.

Maybe this is focusing mostly on the gameplay side of things, but that's just the thing I'm looking at the most here, because that's what my brain focuses on. I'm also white so I'm completely blind to the opinions of minorities, especially on their grievances.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Now, the only thing I'll say about mental conditions is that the above does not apply.

I have autism. Though I am not the voice for everyone who has autism, I don't know or have any ideas for what D&D could do to include characters or anything about autism in their games. (I personally don't think anything needs to be done, but again, others may disagree.)

I do know that WotC should definitely not make templates or rules for this kind of thing. If you want to play a character with a mental condition, do so respectfully and actually research the condition. Don't just base it off of whatever stereotype exists of that condition, or any stigmas that may exist about it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can only comment on a narrow example, but having a blind dm for 20 years now - the one trope he hates is blind characters getting super-hearing instead. Any "alternative sense" dismisses the difficulties he faces in his day to day life. so he, for one, would rather you not do that. If you want to chose to play a blind character, just be blind and figure out how to be an adventurer anyways.

But where I think the biggest issue lies is that in most DnD settings, there are magical solutions to many physical disabilities, and there's not a lot of reason why people with those disabilities wouldn't use said magic if they could afford it. Of course you'd get your eyes regenerated.

Now, the only thing I'll say about mental conditions is that the above does not apply.

The presence of magic also makes transgender characters a bit odd - the magic is a lot harder in newer editions since they (thankfully) got rid of the girdle of gender reversal, but lots of magical options get pretty close and if you demand perfection in your transition, wishes are a thing in the world.

It's worth remembering, though, that the vast majority of people in a by the book 5e dnd world wouldn't have access to any of that, except maybe the magical prosthetic. I can tell you for certain that a hat of disguise isn't gonna satisfy most trans people.

Still, what, if any disabilities are technically diseases or caused by a disease? Is it ablest to have an effect that removes or cures a disease remove or cure a disability?

How can we look at Eberron, and actually consider disabled folks when thinking about what sorts of wide magic inventions would exist?

 

[Derren]

I suppose Commander Spock from Star Trek is also not to be considered "a person"? Or is he only half a person? How about Lt. Commander Data? Just property, just an object I suppose.

Moving the goalposts I see....
So was Spock/Vulcans or Data exactly the same as humans, meaning as intelligent with the same constitution? No, they were not. The show was pretty clear about that especially in the case of Data but also Vulcans.
But if translated to D&D the demand would be that those have the same abilities as a normal human or klingon or any other race would as "everyone is equal". And thats simply nonsense.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Another serious question: Which groups should WotC be responsible for actively including?

Certainly they are responsible for making sure that members of percieve racial groups do not feel like outsiders. At the same time, I'm not sure they are responsible to groups demanding demons and devils be excised from the game - as fighting demons and devils is one aspect of the game's core identity (see the image of "A Paladin in Hell" in the AD&D PHB).

 

[GreenTengu]

I think that you really need to read back on the conversation you just stepped in on. It was a discussion about physical differences (or, I suppose predilection of phenotypic expressions within ethnic/species groupings.)
Claiming that someone pointing out the differences in size and strength that exist within some demographics is arguing that those differences make them less deserving as a person is a deeply, deeply unpleasant misattribution of their position.

What I read was that, if elves and dwarfs existed, they wouldn't qualify as people because they wouldn't technically be human. But all these sci-fi and fantasy peoples are virtually always understood to be just humans with some exaggerated traits. By making them "not technically human" people, they can be given abilities beyond the keen of humanity or an exaggerated version of some human culture.

And-- really-- history has shown that if you actually had all these peoples occupying the same land for 10,000 years-- there would be no more Orcs or Elves or Halflings or Goblinoids or Dwarfs or Gnomes-- or even half ones. What you'd probably actually end up having is just "humans" only those "humans" would have 1-2% genes from all of those other extinct people and would express some of those phenotypes.

The idea that a world could support dozens of species simultaneously occupying the same ecological niche without one out competing the other or just merging together into a single species over the lengths of histories these fantasy worlds have is itself quite unrealistic.

And that is just one fundamental aspect of the D&D settings that is so wildly unrealistic that it seems odd to me that people cannot suspend their disbelief to allow for other things.

I don't know if making it so that every size and shape of people in D&D can have the maximum allowable stat in every attribute is necessarily the answer-- but if anyone has a better idea how to make it so that the Dwarf Rogue is not massively disadvantaged to the point of not being at all functional next to the Elf Rogue without having Dwarfs with Dexterity 20, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Because so long as there exists the issue that there are race/class builds that should absolutely exist and yet are so bad mechanically that one is massively hampering themselves and their entire party if they try to play one-- its just not working.