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

[Hussar]

@TheSword

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

And this needs repeating. No, this is not a one and done thing. This will come back again and again and again. Of course it will. It's an ongoing discussion. It's a discussion that has been ongoing for a long time. And, every time, you'll have the same sorts of people proclaiming that there really isn't any problem here at all and folks are just doing it to make themselves feel better, you'll have folks who refuse to accept any change, regardless of how minor, you'll have folks who will argue until their nose falls off that THIS TIME IT'S GONE TOO FAR.

And then more reasonable heads will prevail, changes will be made and we move on and accept the changes as a good idea.

How do I know? Because I can look at the history of our countries for the past century or more and see it happen, again and again and again. It just takes time and patience.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

would go so far as to say we shouldn't try to be inclusive of Muslims per se - we should try to be inclusive of Arabs and South Asians and Indonesians (etc).

Well, we should do, by making sure that when we have cultural influences that are deeply important to Muslims around the world in the game, we do so respectfully.

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

That has nothing todo with whether or not it lends to inclusiveness for women and girls. It very much does.

I'm in that same boat.

Yeah same here. Doesn’t help that Laurana (Dragonlance) was my first D&D hero that I looked up to, or that I wanted to be cool like Kitiara. And the best fantasy art seems to be female centered, and the female models in most games are much better done.

 

[Deset Gled]

This one always strikes me as a bit odd. I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up. There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art. I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.

Because (IMNSHO) this is one of the areas I alluded to earlier where there is no real neutral position, other than simply not including it at all. There are multiple reasons for this. First, it would be nearly impossible to accurately and respectfully include all religions, so you would have to pick and choose which ones to include. Second, many real-world religions are antithetical to each other, so it's impossible to represent one without excluding another. Third, there are some religions that find less accurate presentations of their important figures to be blasphemous. Fourth, there are many standard mechanics in D&D that are more-or-less incompatible with various real religions (e.g. all the coming back from the dead, talking with gods, polytheism, etc).

Also, let's not forget that time in the 1980's when some people believed monsters in D&D were representative of real world religious characters. It didn't exactly help the hobby. I say it's best to just stay as far away from repeating that as possible.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not really sure why you would include real world religious iconography in the game. We used to. Go back to early Moldvay books and you'll see clerics holding crosses for example. But, that's pretty jarring. Why would a cleric of Pelor be holding a cross?

I get the sense that @FrogReaver , you're alluding to the fact that we are being inclusive to real world ethnic groups, so, why not include real world religions. But, there's a problem here. We're not actually including real world peoples into the game. Depicting an NPC with dark skin doesn't mean that that NPC comes from Nigeria. It's simply that we want the art to reflect the players. There's no reason whatsoever that any human in our fantasy game is any particular color. They could be pretty much anything. However, for most of the history of the game, it was kind of like the old saw about Model T Fords - you could have any color as long as you wanted basic black. You could have any color NPC in game art, so long as you wanted white NPC's.

But, including different skin tones in the art doesn't mean that we're reflecting any specific real world ethnic group. Including real world religious iconography would be injecting real world elements into the game world that have zero reason for being there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I agree that it has nothing to do with inclusivity but the the people who are arguing for it disagree. You cannot just ignore people you disagree with (especially as there is significant amount of them) and devlare that consensus has been reached.

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.

I have seen very few people saying that no changes should or could be made. People are simply disagreeing about the amount of changes that are needed.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

@FrogReaver , @Hussar
As someone who uses Christianity as the major religion in his games, I'm convinced world religious symbology has no place whatsoever in the core rules. Using Christianity in my world makes many players incredibly uncomfortable. They generally feel unsettled, nervous, and on edge when interacting with members of the clergy (which is exactly what I want).

 

[Jeff Albertson]

We're not actually including real world peoples into the game.

Bingo (but probably not for the reasons people such as yourself think of as reasons)!

 

[Aldarc]

Bingo (but probably not for the reasons people such as yourself think of as reasons)!

I suspect that your “gotcha!” is as substantive as when my cats “catch” the little red laser pointer light.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

I suspect that your “gotcha!” is as substantive as when my cats “catch” the little red laser pointer light.

Gross.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Your post here could have been written without the personal attack, limiting yourself to simply raising the counterpoint. Continuing to post like that can earn you an involuntary vacation.