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

[CleverNickName]

Sheesh. That's a lot of red text and mod warnings for an edition of D&D that isn't even being written yet.

I think that in future editions of the game, "race" and "racial adjustments" will go the same route that gender adjustments went: they will be considered outdated and unnecessary. Then, the rules and game mechanics will be revised accordingly. It's pretty much inevitable considering the way that public opinion on racial matters has shifted in recent years.

I mean, pretend you are the game designer. Your boss sends you an e-mail one morning, saying that the development team and marketing department have decided that all racial bonuses to ability scores will not be used in the game anymore, and you are to carry that change through the rules.

So. Would you remove all ability score bonuses at 1st level and re-balance the game so that they aren't needed? Or would you move them to some other place in the game, like Background or Class? Would you adjust the way ability scores are generated, so that those now-missing ability score bonuses are baked in? Or something else?

Personally, I'd go with the second option because it's easier...just take those +2/+1 adjustments and move them to the class and subclass, or the Background, and call it a day. But one thing I definitely wouldn't do is refuse to do it until the need for the change had been explained to my satisfaction. (Unless I had already received an offer letter from another game design company, I mean.)

 

[Azzy]

Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?

What do you mean by "standard"? If you mean "in the PHB", then no, I don't think so. If you instead mean, "not presented as PC races at all", then that's be varying degrees of yes (depending on the individual). Fortuately, we already hace PC orcs (in verious products—the Volo's version is likely to be errataed to be the same as Eberron's and Wildmounte's). We have a few anthropomorphic "furry" races (tabaxi, kenku, leonid, tortle, and probably something else that I can't remember off the top of my head) in 5e, and it would be easy to add others from previous editions (like lupin, hengeyouki, etc.). While there's only so much space in the PHB for the races that could theretically be added to it without impacting other material, rules expansions and setting sourcebooks are a great means to expand the catalog of available races that can appeal to a wider audience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Both of these concepts reinforce how unnatural they are.

Just want to point out that this isn't actually true for shifters. They are explicitly natural. Lycanthropes are a perversion of nature, but shifters are part of nature.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sheesh. That's a lot of red text and mod warnings for an edition of D&D that isn't even being written yet.

I think that in future editions of the game, "race" and "racial adjustments" will go the same route that gender adjustments went: they will be considered outdated and unnecessary. Then, the rules and game mechanics will be revised accordingly. It's pretty much inevitable considering the way that public opinion on racial matters has shifted in recent years.

I mean, pretend you are the game designer. Your boss sends you an e-mail one morning, saying that the development team and marketing department have decided that all racial bonuses to ability scores will not be used in the game anymore, and you are to carry that change through the rules.

So. Would you remove all ability score bonuses at 1st level and re-balance the game so that they aren't needed? Or would you move them to some other place in the game, like Background or Class? Would you adjust the way ability scores are generated, so that those now-missing ability score bonuses are baked in? Or something else?

Personally, I'd go with the second option because it's easier...just take those +2/+1 adjustments and move them to the class and subclass, or the Background, and call it a day. But one thing I definitely wouldn't do is reply to that e-mail and refuse to do it until the need for the change had been explained to my satisfaction. (Unless I had already received an offer letter from another game design company, I mean.)

there are ways most any point can be brought up that doesn’t amount to telling your boss no you won’t do the thing they want you to do.

though I am probably one of the few that have challenged those having more authority than me and I was ultimately deemed correct. It was an ethical issue, one I would consider fairly minor but in a heavily regulated industry.

Basically there are times and places to do what is right and there are times and places to do what your boss says.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Personally, I'd go with the second option because it's easier...just take those +2/+1 adjustments and move them to the class and subclass, or the Background, and call it a day. But one thing I definitely wouldn't do is refuse to do it until the need for the change had been explained to my satisfaction. (Unless I had already received an offer letter from another game design company, I mean.)

If the goal is to offer a houserule for 5e in the interest of letting players make their game more inclusive (and promoting character variety), this is one of the easiest options.

If the goal is to make 6e mostly a revision of 5e while being fundamentally the same (like the relationship between 2e and 1e), then it's worth considering, but it would probably behoove the dev team to consider things like more generous point buy or tweaking the DCs down to keep character creation simple.

 

[Azzy]

Nah. Core mechanic in 6e. It's time to revive Player's Option: Skills and Powers give it it's due.

On a serious note, that wouldn't be a bad idea... I wouldn't put it in the PHB and instead leave as an expansion that can be opted into or out of. I would also make sure that it was done during the developement of the core rules instead of being a retroactive add-on like PO:S&P was. That way it would be less likely to be open to abuse since the system would already be specifically designed to handle it.

 

[Umbran]

that’s a request for concrete things they want to see. That is what this discussion is about.

A specific concrete list is designing the next edition.

We can talk about possibilities and examples without trying to pin people to "concrete lists".

 

[CleverNickName]

there are ways most any point can be brought up that doesn’t amount to telling your boss no you won’t do the thing they want you to do.

though I am probably one of the few that have challenged those having more authority than me and I was ultimately deemed correct. It was an ethical issue, one I would consider fairly minor but in a heavily regulated industry.

Basically there are times and places to do what is right and there are times and places to do what your boss says.

My point was that it's silly to challenge your boss by refusing to do what the boss is paying you to do...just as it would be silly for your boss to try to change public perception by refusing to give the public what it wants. Your boss will simply hire someone else to do what they ask, and the public will simply find another product that gives them what they want.

The goal is to design a product that the public is willing to spend time and money on. And the public is always a moving target.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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).

No one that I've ever seen has demanded that demons and devils be removed from the game. Though you're clearly referring to the Satanic Panic, that is not what they were calling for. They were calling for the destruction of D&D.

D&D should be inclusive to all racial groups, people of all sexualities, and all conditions, mental or physical. The part you're referring to is not needed to be changed. If people don't like Devils or Demons, they can just not include them in their games.

 

[Campbell]

I mean we have already seen what a more inclusive version of D&D might look like.

Obviously the individual solutions Wizards end up taking will likely be different, but we have already seen that you can make a genuine effort at this stuff without radically changing the game.