D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Crimson Longinus]

That’s easy. Because they’re cool.

How? What makes them cool if they're identical to humans? I mean humans can be cool, but what do these non-humans bring that humans already can't do.

Human stories. As all stories are.

So why not tell human stories with humans?

 

[Malmuria]

This gets at the heart of what I feel is often missed in these discussions vis-a-vis racism being depicted through nonhuman races. They're not human. I know, we get the "humans with pointed ears" argument trotted out all the time when people argue that it's impossible to rp a nonhuman... to which I call BS. Sure, your roleplaying will come from a human place, since we're all human, but that doesn't mean you can't pretend to be Something Else. And sometimes you can do a fine job of it. I'm sure we have all read at least one alien viewpoint character who came across as profoundly nonhuman, even though it was written by a human. Likewise, I've seen plenty of actors portray things that weren't human and do it well. So yeah, I find that argument suspect. Personally, I prefer the opposite approach to dealing with the racist elements in the game from what has been taken over the last couple of years: Lean into the inhumanity of nonhumans, not away from it. Don't make other races more human-like; make them more alien. Don't try to wipe out what makes (f'rex) a kobold not-like-a-human; accentuate it. You wouldn't call it racist if I were to say that humans are smarter than bees, or that wasps are foul-tempered and aggressive.

This tack is a bit of a cop out for a few reasons.
One, in terms of mechanics, racial asi in 5e does very little work in creating the distinctiveness you are talking about. All characters have ability scores ranging from 3 to 20, and most the variation comes in how you initially generate those stats and ASI from class progression. If it makes your mountain dwarf feel more distinctive because they got a bonus to str at character creation, that's fine, but at the table the halfling fighter next to you may have rolled an 18 str to begin with and then got that to 20 at 4th level, and by that point where the asi came from washes out in play.

Two, in terms of the implied fiction, humans, elves, dwarves and the like are all classified as humanoid (or as demihuman in earlier editions). This suggests a certain likeness or family resemblance, and is emphasized by the fact that there are more creature types to indicate beings that are unlike humanoids: monstrosities, outsiders, fey, elementals, who are all more truly different from humanoids (and generally not available as PC options for that reason).

Three, whether the various humanoid beings are truly alien from one another is highly setting dependent. But, for the most part, humanoid beings have societies, languages, customs just like real world human societies. They trade with each other and have offspring and live together in big cities like waterdeep. For most dnd games, there is not much to suggest that elves are as alien-seeming to humans compared to, say, beholders.

Four, and most important, the in-game fiction, whatever that is (species? magical creation?), is not really what we are talking about. The idea that the different societies and peoples in the real world are not actually or fully human was and is a core fantasy of the racist worldview. It's this dehumanization that allowed for and justified so much violence. So I don't think it's a good idea for an author or in this case game designers to uncritically replicate this dynamic and especially the specific language of that dehumanization (as it has been used historically) when creating a fantasy world.

 

[Charlaquin]

How? What makes them cool if they're identical to humans? I mean humans can be cool, but what do these non-humans bring that humans already can't do.

They are not identical to humans.

So why not tell human stories with humans?

Because sometimes you want to exaggerate some aspect of humanity, or hilight a feature of humanity by showing an otherwise mostly human character who lacks it. This practice is older than the written word, it’s part of human nature to anthropomorphise.

 

[Scribe]

All characters have ability scores ranging from 3 to 20, and most the variation comes in how you initially generate those stats and ASI from class progression. If it makes your mountain dwarf feel more distinctive because they got a bonus to str at character creation, that's fine, but at the table the halfling fighter next to you may have rolled an 18 str to begin with and then got that to 20 at 4th level, and by that point where the asi came from washes out in play.

Exactly why we need negative modifiers, and caps to be put on ability scores, like we used to have.

 

[Maxperson]

If one player does this for a character at their own table, no.

If a widely distributed work, for decades supports the idea that, "People like this are strong," and, "people like this are stupid," and, "people like this are ugly," and so on, we start to have difficulties.

There have been studies done. Violence in games doesn't influence people to be more violent in real life. People understand that games are not real life. A racial bonus in strength for a strong race doesn't in any way, other than gameplay, affect real life. It doesn't encourage anyone to stereotype a race in real life.

It may be difficult to see, if you are in a demographic that's been more on the giving end than the receiving end of such stuff. But the minorities among us have been subject to, "people like that are..." for a long, long time. So, repeating that pattern looks like symbolically repeating the thing done to them, and enjoying it.

I'm a member of one of those minorities and I've encountered racism more times than I can remember. Never once has racism in a game against a race that is nothing like mine had any sort of negative impact on me. I understand that a game with pretend races that don't correspond to any real life group has no connection to my real life experiences.

Now, one might want to argue that this is only gaming, even the biggest game doesn't really impact culture as a whole. To which I point out that almost every subset of culture can say that. And if they all do, then the entire culture fails to change. Plus, with the explosive growth of the game, the higher public visibility with actual play shows, and a major motion picture coming, the placement of gaming in culture seems on the rise.

I disagree. A many subcultures are intermixed with other subcultures and have an actual very real impact on them. There are very few such connections between fictional cultures and real ones, though. The Vistani being the most notable exception I can think of in D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They are not identical to humans.

Because sometimes you want to exaggerate some aspect of humanity, or hilight a feature of humanity by showing an otherwise mostly human character who lacks it. This practice is older than the written word, it’s part of human nature to anthropomorphise.

Please reread the entirety my post that started this tangent. (Post #129) Your stance requires non-humans to be different to humans which is biological essentialism and stereotyping. My question was what we do if they can't be different? What is their purpose then?

 

[abirdcall]

So I don't think it's a good idea for an author or in this case game designers to uncritically replicate this dynamic and especially the specific language of that dehumanization (as it has been used historically) when creating a fantasy world.

And in your mind removing an ability bonus will do that?

Or do you suggest removing all abilities?

Should races only have cosmetic differences?

What is the ideal here?

 

[Charlaquin]

Please reread the entirety my post that started this tangent. (Post #129) Your stance requires non-humans to be different to humans which is biological essentialism and stereotyping.

The notion that any differences at all are biological essentialism is patently absurd. You can tell the difference between “this race is smarter than other races” and “this race has wings” and pretending you can’t comes across as really disingenuous.

My question was what we do if they can't be different? What is their purpose then?

They are different. We just don’t want them to be different in ways that echo the ways bigots try to dehumanize real people.

 

[mrpopstar]

There have been studies done. Violence in games doesn't influence people to be more violent in real life. People understand that games are not real life. A racial bonus in strength for a strong race doesn't in any way, other than gameplay, affect real life. It doesn't encourage anyone to stereotype a race in real life.

I'm a member of one of those minorities and I've encountered racism more times than I can remember. Never once has racism in a game against a race that is nothing like mine had any sort of negative impact on me. I understand that a game with pretend races that don't correspond to any real life group has no connection to my real life experiences.

Thank you for sharing this!

I disagree. A many subcultures are intermixed with other subcultures and have an actual very real impact on them. There are very few such connections between fictional cultures and real ones, though. The Vistani being the most notable exception I can think of in D&D.

Yeah, the Vistani were a notable misstep. But steps have been taken in the right direction to right the wrong, so there's something we can cheer about.

 

[ReshiIRE]

So why not tell human stories with humans?

Because humans really, really suck as a species and from my eye it's easier to show how we could be better (and also how we could be worse) using creatures that don't look like us and may not necessarily think like us.

That and I like my god damn dragonborn and lizardfolk.