D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Scribe]

So I've trained with a guy with some level of cognitive issue.

Handsome, self sufficient, strong as a freaking bull, dexterous, kind, funny.

Great guy.

He just doesn't pick up new concepts. He doesn't understand basic instructions until the 5th or 6th go around and his file at the gym notes that he's not to participate in things like full contact sparring as he doesn't get it that he can hurt people.

Pretty stereotyped.

Would I roll play 'him' if he was at the table?

Absolutely not.

 

[Charlaquin]

They didn't get that way from playing a PC as dumb or smart, though.

No, they probably got that way from an intersection of complex factors related to the material conditions of their lives. But the hobby got to be a refuge for them and others like them by being tolerant of such behavior.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I wouldn't call it a "critique" exactly -- the OP makes a lot of assertions and demands, and is signalling they they support a popular political position in which it's considered virtuous to scold people for being "ableist".

Mod Note:

Please review our Inclusivity Policy in the EN World Terms and rules. Dismissing someone's views on inclusion as "political" or as virtue signalling is not acceptable here. If you wish to address the matter, do not suggest someone's stance is mere signalling without substance, or taken for political ends instead of a sincere belief.

 

[Maxperson]

No, they probably got that way from an intersection of complex factors related to the material conditions of their lives. But the hobby got to be a refuge for them and others like them by being tolerant of such behavior.

No. Individual tables are tolerant or not. The hobby itself is neutral. It takes people, not games to perpetuate stuff.

A reasonable D&D group can have a player roleplaying a stupid or smart PC without perpetuating anything. It doesn't go beyond the game and nobody is hurt by it.

 

[ad_hoc]

I go by the original idea that a non-extreme Int score vaguely equates to an IQ score divided by ten. Thus, Int 8 represents an IQ in the high 70s or low 80s. Play that as you will.

IQ is complete nonsense.

Like phrenology, it is outdated and bogus.

 

[aco175]

My initial gut feeling when reading the OP was, "Hey, that's an idea that deserves some deeper thought, because we often do thing we don't realize are ableist, or exclusive to people not like us."

But I also recognize the slippery slope. If you shouldn't play low INT PCs because that's ableist, would that also be true of low STR (weak), DEX (clumsy), or CON (frail or immucompromised) characters too? So we shouldn't ever play a PC with a lower than average stat in any area?

And that, I think, is up to each table, and what session zero is for, rather than take an blanket "don't play X because you're doing bad things if you do."

Edit I absolutely believe that if you want a D&D game where no PC has a stat lower than average, that's totally legit and a fine way to play. But it should be done at an individual table. Some of my fondest memories are with a PC with low stats overcoming challenges against the odds. As long as you play them respectfully, I don't see why it should be prohibited. Especially when we then bring up the DM, and how is the DM supposed to play since many monsters have low scores. That opens up an entirely new discussion.

I was going to say something similar to this. The OP does come across as more demanding when I first read it instead of more bringing up something for discussion.

 

[ad_hoc]

My initial gut feeling when reading the OP was, "Hey, that's an idea that deserves some deeper thought, because we often do thing we don't realize are ableist, or exclusive to people not like us."

That's it. We've all been taught lots of things and have had other things reinforced to use through the culture we live in.

Some of those things are wrong and harmful. Many of them are either taken for granted or thought of as laws of the universe when they're just cultural constructs.

But I also recognize the slippery slope. If you shouldn't play low INT PCs because that's ableist, would that also be true of low STR (weak), DEX (clumsy), or CON (frail or immucompromised) characters too? So we shouldn't ever play a PC with a lower than average stat in any area?

It's fine to play a PC with a low Int, Wis, or Cha (same as ones with high stats). It's just a matter of what those things are interpreted as being.

The colloquial concept of 'intelligence' in Global North culture is wrong. In D&D 5e it basically just means ability to memorize facts and the gradations are minor. Because it is called Intelligence in D&D it is not surprising that people map their idea of intelligence onto it.

It's often taken for granted that the 3 mental stats make up the entirety of the character's mental abilities and traits. They don't. There is so much more to our brain and cognition than is contained in the simplified concepts of those 3 abilities.

 

[cowpie]

No. Individual tables are tolerant or not. The hobby itself is neutral. It takes people, not games to perpetuate stuff.

A reasonable D&D group can have a player roleplaying a stupid or smart PC without perpetuating anything. It doesn't go beyond the game and nobody is hurt by it.

Sorry all for succumbing to a bit a hyperbole in my earlier posts.

This is exactly the main point I was making -- D&D is a hobby that we play with small groups of people who usually all know each other, get along with, and are having escapist fun with. What we do in a game, in the privacy of our own homes, isn't going to affect the world outside of that table. It's only a game of make believe.

 

[ad_hoc]

I was going to say something similar to this. The OP does come across as more demanding when I first read it instead of more bringing up something for discussion.

Some things are not up for 'discussion'.

We can have a discussion about how pervasive ableism is both in our hobby and our culture in general and how we can learn to identify problems and portray characters in more inclusive and healthier ways.

What is not okay to discuss is whether ableism is okay. It isn't. No discussion.

 

[cowpie]

Some things are not up for 'discussion'.

We can have a discussion about how pervasive ableism is both in our hobby and our culture in general and how we can learn to identify problems and portray characters in more inclusive and healthier ways.

What is not okay to discuss is whether ableism is okay. It isn't. No discussion.

Isn't the point of a forum to have discussions?