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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I really don’t think it’s fair to argue against inclusivity on the basis of literally not being able to include everything in a book. And to be fair, nobody has made an argument that you must throw everything and the kitchen sink into the PHB.

I'm not arguing that 6e shouldn't be more inclusive. That's fine. I simply want to understand the vision of an inclusive PHB, taken from the abstract to the concrete. One of the challenges will be page count.

 

[Aldarc]

It be really cool of you to answer his question rather than beg it.

No. Begging the question is asking "But where do you draw the line?" as this often has a presumed answer. Asking "what should we include in our 6e PHB" is called 'publishing.' It's more complicated than just writing a wishlist of things that we might want included or believe should be included.

That's a start. You?

I don't know. This is me being honest. I don't know what I would include. I don't know what I believe should be included. I don't think that arguing more generally against the fallacious question of "where do we draw the line?" requires that I have a hard answer for "what is your list of things we should include in the 6e PHB?".

According to your standards. Certainly you have some suggestions so that we can all approach a satisfactory solution.

My purpose is not to provide suggestions about what should be included, but to challenge the validity of the question "but where do we draw the line in the sand?"

What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?

Actually knowing or having an adequate answer for what I believe should be included in the PHB for starters. It seems like asking me, "what should be included in your unwritten novel?"

IMO. No one is doing that. What is being argued against is trying to fit infinite inclusivity into a finite book.

No one is doing that either. So what are you really arguing against?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

No. Begging the question is asking "But where do you draw the line?" as this often has a presumed answer. Asking "what should we include in our 6e PHB" is called 'publishing.' It's more complicated than just writing a wishlist of things that we might want included or believe should be included.

What is your wishlist of things that you might want included or believe should be included in the 6e PHB what would satisfy your standards of inclusivity?

 

[Sadras]

There are people who like to critique without offering real solutions or ideas themselves (for whatever reason) and there are those that critique and provide something tangible to discuss or debate over. I prefer the latter.

 

[Derren]

What is your wishlist of things that you might want included or believe should be included in the 6e PHB what would satisfy your standards of inclusivity?

I think by now its obvious that many (most? all?) people who argue here for a more inclusive 6E do so to elevate themselves as they are fighting for inclusion and not because they have actual issues with how inclusive D&D is. Thats why they can't answer what 6e should do different.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are people who like to critique without offering real solutions or ideas themselves (for whatever reason) and there are those that critique and provide something tangible to discuss or debate over. I prefer the latter.

What’s more is that abstract ideas are fluid. They can take any sort of shape. In a sense they are chaos. A concrete idea is solid. It’s order.

there’s no wonder that those with only an abstract idea of inclusiveness views those trying to turn that into a concrete idea as being against inclusiveness - because to them inclusiveness is an abstract idea that can take any shape and turning it into a concrete idea takes away a fundamental quality of that abstract idea. That’s why discussion about turning it into a concrete idea of “this is what should be included” is viewed by some ad being against inclusivity. IMO

 

[Remathilis]

Actually knowing or having an adequate answer for what I believe should be included in the PHB for starters. It seems like asking me, "what should be included in your unwritten novel?"

Yes, writers sit down all the time and start writing without any idea of what should be in the novel. No plan, no theme, no guide other than put words on the page hope you get Shakespeare. [emoji849]

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

What’s more is that abstract ideas are fluid. They can take any sort of shape. In a sense they are chaos. A concrete idea is solid. It’s order.

there’s no wonder that those with only an abstract idea of inclusiveness views those trying to turn that into a concrete idea as being against inclusiveness - because to them inclusiveness is an abstract idea that can take any shape and turning it into a concrete idea takes away a fundamental quality of that abstract idea. That’s why discussion about turning it into a concrete idea of “this is what should be included” is viewed by some ad being against inclusivity. IMO

That one of the questions I'm trying to pose: Does the abstract nature of inclusiveness in D&D make a concrete, but still inclusive, PHB impossible?

If it's impossible, inclusiveness is not worth perusing.
If it's not impossible, I want to find common ground.

 

[Remathilis]

That one of the questions I'm trying to pose: Does the abstract nature of inclusiveness in D&D make a concrete, but still inclusive, PHB impossible?

Well, it depends.

If inclusive means "use better language to describe orcs" then it's not.
If inclusive means "has rules for every conceivable thing a player would want to play" then yes.

That's the problem: people are mixing up out-of-game inclusivity (all players should be welcomed and not have hateful words spoil it) with in-game inclusively (any option people want to pretend to be should be validated).

Nobody here is advocating out-of-game inclusively is bad. They're are lots of opinions on in-game inclusivity ranging from status quo to let it all hang out. But it's easy to argue for in game using out of game as a shield and vice versa.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, writers sit down all the time and start writing without any idea of what should be in the novel. No plan, no theme, no guide other than put words on the page hope you get Shakespeare. [emoji849]

And don't forget Shakespeare's motto: "But where do I draw the line?"

What is your wishlist of things that you might want included or believe should be included in the 6e PHB what would satisfy your standards of inclusivity?

I'm still not sure if this is the appropriate question to ask, because this question seems to presume a radically different sense of "inclusivity" than the OP's use of the word, and we should probably avoid any potential pitfalls that comes from equivocating between these two diverging senses.

FWIW, I don't think that saying "Hey, we should include at least include a fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard in PHB 6e" actually engages the OP's premise regarding making 6e inclusive at all. IMHO, making 6e more inclusive is more about the intersection between the rules and flavor text of the game with how the game represents diverse genders, sexualities, ethnicities, cultures, disabilities, bodies, creeds, and so forth. In some regards, it is less about the list of PC archetypes we include and more about how we depict/write about the things we do choose to include. Simply including a shaman class, for example, is meaningless and antithetical to "inclusivity" if the game fiction frames it in a negative light or using harmful stereotypes. The orc has obviously been included in the 5e MM, but the issue of inclusivity is not in reference to its incorporation into the book but, rather, in reference to the rhetoric that frames it therein.