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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It seems you’ve assigned me a position I didn’t actually post and don’t actually hold.

my post unequivocally was in support of female characters being just as strong as male ones.

the only question was about whether that was actually about inclusivity or player advocacy for their characters.

Ah, I must have misunderstood that then. Sorry.

It's definitely about inclusivity. It makes women feel more welcome and less restricted in their player options.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, I must have misunderstood that then. Sorry.

It's definitely about inclusivity. It makes women feel more welcome and less restricted in their player options.

you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.

It does the same to me, but that might be because pretty much all the cool art I find that inspires me is of women.

No clue idea why, and it honestly frustrates me sometimes.

 

[Cadence]

I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made. The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it. Why is this? Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones. None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male. I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity. It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.

Part of why this might not be a thing is that the level of versimilitude fail seems very small relative to how the numbers are used.

The difference in Str bonus between a Halfling and the typical Human is only a +1 in 5e. In PF it was +2 5/6th of the time and +4 the other 1/6th. The halfling doesn't even get the 3/4 multiplier for carrying capacity for being small in 5e. If the ability difference between a typical 3 foot, 40lb. halfling and a human adult is only represented by a +1 (or +2) - and there is nothing at all about how size variations within male humans affects things, for example - then how small should the difference be between an average human female 5'4" and 170 lbs and average human male 5'9" and 197 lbs (using American averages google spit out).

I imagine if the sexual dimorphism was as large as in gorillas (m/f weight ratio of 2.37) then it might be a thing. Or similarly, if you were doing a simulator of Olympic medalists in various sports like track or swimming, then separate stat distributions would be a thing. Of course in that case there'd be a huge effect by birth year too over the past century+.

As far as Str and verisimilitude, I'm still stuck on an Str 10 being able to carry 150 pounds just as easily as they would 0 pounds in 5e.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

you say that... But I’m a man and it makes me feel less restricted in my player options as well.

It does make it more open to play female characters in general, whether the player is male, female, or non-binary.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a difference between discussing "what sorts of things" broadly, perhaps with possible examples, and demanding folks commit to a specific set of things - the latter is designing 6e, and does seem to have been what was being asked.

I didn't get "demanding folks commit to a specific set of things" to be in 6e. What I got from that statement was more of, "What sorts of things would you like to see in 6e?" That's not a demand for commitment, but rather a request for the possible examples you mention. The whole point of this thread is to state and discuss possible examples of what you'd like to see in 6e. I don't think anyone here expects what we talk about in this thread to be 6e design.

 

[Maxperson]

Where do you draw the line? Where is the end to that slippery slope? Are alligators potentially explosive?

It seems that you might be drawing the line here at a Strawman. Drawing the line isn't about slippery slopes of any kind. I have a 6 year old and when he gets upset with me I tell him it's okay to be upset, and even to show that he's upset. I draw the line at throwing things, though. No slippery slope involved. When it comes to him being upset, A, B, C and D are fine, but X, Y and Z are not, because they cross the line I've drawn.

Lines are an extremely common thing. As humans we have them all over the place. This we are okay with, that crosses our line. Asking someone where they draw the line on this topic isn't engaging a slipper slope. It's simply asking them to state where their personal line is drawn regarding the topic. Nothing more.

 

[Eltab]

Not everything has a "neutral". But in general, yes, I believe the core rules should be fairly neutral or generic. For me, that's less about inclusivity and more about the D&D core being the basis that all the other settings are based off of. WotC should promote the settings that sell best.

Everybody who cannot stand Forgotten Realms is going to give you a nasty glare.

The "starter adventure" for such a description might be inspired by Keep on the Borderlands (with something else - bandits? - replacing the Orcs).

 

[jmartkdr2]

It does the same to me, but that might be because pretty much all the cool art I find that inspires me is of women.

No clue idea why, and it honestly frustrates me sometimes.

I'm in that same boat.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, this is not at all the case. To be frank, you seem to do this a lot, declare your opinion to be the consensus and ignore the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And I say this even though I agree with you on what should be done with this issue.

But the more radical opinions are not strawmen or whataboutism. Do you have half of the forum on ignore? A lot of posters are actually arguing for removal of racial bonuses or even more radical changes in the name of inclusivity. You can't just pretend that they don't exist. @Remathilis described the situation absolutely perfectly.

No, no. You would be mistaken. I can, and do, ignore a number of posters who have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be constructive. Not that I have them on ignore lists (although a couple are) but mostly, because it's easy to spot those who are just engaging in argument for the sake of arguing. See, the racial bonuses stuff, for example, as @Remathilis correctly points out, is about in-game inclusivity - the notion that any character concept must be equally viable. Which, frankly, has nothing whatsoever to do with inclusivity, so, is very easily ignored.

Like I said, once you strip away all the hoopla, over reaction, hyperbole, outright insults and attacks, and sidebars into la la land, achieving consensus is relatively easy. Most of the needed changes to increasing inclusivity of D&D can be done pretty simply, quickly and easily. All this other noise is just that - noise trying to distract from the real issues at hand. And, once the noise reaches a certain level, you see people proclaiming that no changes can be made because people don't know what changes they want.

I mean, the playbook couldn't possibly be clearer. This same rhetorical song and dance has been going on for decades. Fortunately, you have folks that quietly beaver away, do the job that needs to be done, and things get done despite all the noise and distraction. Certainly not because of it.