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

[Azzy]

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.

Considering that many of us have already shared our ideas on the matter. methinks your comment is a tad spurious. If you may have missed what people have been suggesting (since the very first thread), then I suggest that you actually read the thread instead of commenting from ignorance.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

How will the publishing industry change in the next ten years? Will digital printing obviate the need for page counts? In the world where Google Glass finally succeeds and everyone has constant 5g internet access, does having a wiki page spread make more sense than a physical text book?

Predicting the future it hard, especially as the entire world is arcing towards a "new normal" right now.

Well I feel that's fairly simple, the other racial traits you get from them. Which, to be fair, I did say you can pick an choose if you ask your DM, but I also said you have to ask your DM and maybe you could add a hard limit to how many you can grab from another race, like around 2 alternate traits or so. Remember this is just a non-game designer spitballing ideas, so don't expect them to be perfect and balanced.

Plus, there are things that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi do that aren't DEX-y. Simple example, but you could make a Tabaxi that's more of a lion than a jaguar, and you could say that Tabaxi gets +2 STR, +1 DEX. (heck, you could do this currently, if you have a player who wants to play a lion based tabaxi, just tell them to use the Bugbear's racial abilities. they fit pretty well, IMO.)

I agree, but I think I might have been unclear because I was rushing, or maybe I misunderstood.

There is an argument I keep seeing that if you remove the +2 Dex from Elves, then they become nothing more than "a human in a rubber mask", but this argument seems to ignore that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi all have that same +2.

So, if the other racial traits are enough to seperate an elf from a Tabaxi from a Halfling, then why isn't it enough for an elf to keep their identity without the +2?

There are some furries that really like the lycanthrope idea, but for most ( myself included ) it's kinda worst than no option at all. There are two core ideas to the archetype of Lycanthropes and Shifters. The first is a duality of mind/soul. They're not a singular being, they're an sentient being and an animal forcibly inhabiting the same body. There is always a war between the two, at best a shifter simply finds a balance between the two. Second, they are shapeshifters. As shapeshifters they have no one natural form. On top of that Shifters only exhibit their more animal like features for very short durations. Both of these concepts reinforce how unnatural they are. They're not one harmonious normal being, they're multible things at once. A furry usually wants their furry form to be a normal part of the world.

Ah, I always forget that the Shifters are connected to Lycanthropes.

I can see your point about dual-natured versus single-natured, I wasn't thinking of it that way, and picture it more as a blending of different elements into a cohesive whole.

I also tend to think of human psyche's as somewhat fractious, so the idea of being multiple things at once is more natural to me than a single thing.

Still, thank you for the discussion.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Now imagine a furry comes to a gaming group and the race they want to play is in a supliment, or worse needs to be home-brewed, and naturally the group asks why they want to play that. Right there in session zero, with people you might not know, you face the choice to have the conversation about being a furry. If a furry race is allowed by default, there is less of a chance that you'd have to justify why you want to play it. Leaving the furry conversation to a later date when you have built a rapport with that group and feel comfortable. It wouldn't be guaranteed, the group might still be playing in a setting where they're not present, but what's in the Player's handbook moves the needle about what's a normal part of the game.

Interesting. I think that makes sense. Thanks for taking the question seriously.

If you create a new default setting for the 6th edition Player's Handbook it wouldn't be difficult to have a large number of races included. Currently the race entries spend a lot of words describing the history of that race and it's place in the world. That's all information that could be shifted to a culture entry instead. This would mean that the default setting would have to have cultures and nations made up of many different races, so no more exclusively elvish kingdoms and so forth. Then you could have about 6 different cultures detailed in the book that any race could belong to, with about 3 pages dedicated to each explaining their history and beliefs, and any mechanical benefits that culture provides. Each race entry could then be fitted maybe 2 to one page, maybe more. That would make it pretty easy to include up to 20 different races.

That's for presenting your ideas in positive terms (I would like) instead of negative terms (I think _____ is problematic). That was very helpful.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

How will the publishing industry change in the next ten years? Will digital printing obviate the need for page counts? In the world where Google Glass finally succeeds and everyone has constant 5g internet access, does having a wiki page spread make more sense than a physical text book?

Predicting the future it hard, especially as the entire world is arcing towards a "new normal" right now.

I know I refuse to pay for digital things. If it isn't a physical product I can resell when I'm finished, it doesn't get my money. I'm probably not the only one who feels that way.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

That was me trying not to be banned for talking about politics. I have learned that the mods and I have very different view on what qualifies as "talking about politics," so I've been trying to use more absurd examples.

 

[Cadence]

I know I refuse to pay for digital things. If it isn't a physical product I can resell when I'm finished, it doesn't get my money. I'm probably not the only one who feels that way.

I pay, but expect to pay less. If you were only going to get 50% of your money back when selling it, and only consider 20% of the enjoyment of reading from having a physical copy, then isn't the digital still worth 40% of the print cost? (If you got 60% back and 25% of the value from holding, then 30%?).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That was me trying not to be banned for talking about politics. I have learned that the mods and I have very different view on what qualifies as "talking about politics," so I've been trying to use more absurd examples.

I guess I'm not going to engage in absurd examples, then. If you have a real scenario that you would like answered, I'd be willing to try to discuss that, if appropriate.

 

[TheSword]

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

View attachment 124493

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.

I’m a big fan of Paizo and love the world building, however let’s be clear they approach inclusivity in a very similar way to D&D.

- Yes they changed the term race to ‘ancestry’ for PF2 but they have kept racial modifiers (with one additional floating modifier). Ancestry is used to mean exactly the same thing as race effectively in the game.

- They have post colonial lands. There really isn’t a lot of difference between the Mwangi expanse and Chult.

- They have monstrous humanoid creatures defaulting to evil.

- they have elves that actually spontaneously gain dark skin when they become evil.

- The have many, many, many tribal folk. From Nomen centaurs, to Khellid barbarians. These do have shaman and follow the regular stereotypes you would expect.

- They expressly detail cultures based on real world cultures - Osirion is Egypt, Galt is revolutionary France, Minkai is a China/japan hybrid. Etc etc. These also follow the regular stereotypes you would expect.

In essence, a lot of the things D&D are being criticized for are also a normal part of Golarion.

I love Paizo but they fundamentally aren't any different in what they publish than WOC. Which is unsurprising when so many people have written for both. I also personally don’t see some of the things above as problems if done well... I just know some people do seem to disapprove of them.

 

[Umbran]

I know I refuse to pay for digital things. If it isn't a physical product I can resell when I'm finished, it doesn't get my money. I'm probably not the only one who feels that way.

That may hold for gaming things. But, the number of people who restrict themselves to that overall.. on an internet site, is probably slim.

Because that would mean you never went to the movies, didn't pay for cable or any streaming services. I can't say I know anyone who's restricted themselves to airwave broadcasts (free) or DVD/Blu-Ray (pay for a physical item) for media.

 

[Campbell]

@TheSword

They are making a genuine effort to try to do a better job. That's all I expect.