D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Bedrockgames]

OK then, apologies. Allow me to reread it.

What you're saying is that you don't like them removing things you like, no matter how harmful they may be to others.

Again, why the reframing of what a poster says in the worst possible light? I am saying a lot people feel things are being taken out of the game that they like and are parts of what make the game good, because they are being overly cautious about that. Look, I can 100% accept that you are coming from where you are, because you believe this is reducing harm to other people. But I would ask that you also try to understand I am not coming from a position of desiring harm to people or not caring how much people are harmed. We have fundamental differences on how tropes impact the world and what kind of harm they cause. That doesn't mean ether of us don't care about people or don't care about the game being good. This is a difficult issue too because it isn't as simple as pick one thing you want to prioritize that is important and good, because a lot of good things (i.e. tropes that resonate with people who feel like outsiders, freedom of expression, creativity, the desire to protect peoples feelings, etc) are being balanced and prioritized differently. It isn't as simple as "the person who wants these tropes is bad" or "the person who doesn't want them is bad".

 

[Alzrius]

It's partially bad science.

No, it's not. Even if we accept your unsourced assertion that it's incomplete, that doesn't make it bad.

Women have more endurance and are often healthier, so it doesn't matter if a man can deadlift more if the woman can deadlift less for a lot longer.

Leaving aside that "it doesn't matter" is an opinion, and that "often healthier" looks to be a reference to environment and upbringing more than biology, the assertion that women have better endurance (which is far less straightforward than you're making it out to be) is an issue of Constitution, not Strength. You can say that there should have been differences with regard to maximum Constitution differences for male and female characters, but male characters having a higher Strength cap than female characters is not, in any way, shape, or form, based on "bad science," partially or otherwise.

 

[MGibster]

Presenting the premise that it’s okay to describe people (yes, including fictional people) as savages because they live differently from our preferred model of civilized urbanized living, is a bad thing to do. It makes people uncomfortable and feel unwelcome in the space where this language is being used.

It's okay to call them savages if their preferred model of living is to scale my walls, steal my stuff, and kill my family, right?

 

[Faolyn]

Again, why the reframing of what a poster says in the worst possible light? I am saying a lot people feel things are being taken out of the game that they like and are parts of what make the game good, because they are being overly cautious about that. Look, I can 100% accept that you are coming from where you are, because you believe this is reducing harm to other people. But I would ask that you also try to understand I am not coming from a position of desiring harm to people or not caring how much people are harmed. We have fundamental differences on how tropes impact the world and what kind of harm they cause. That doesn't mean ether of us don't care about people or don't care about the game being good. This is a difficult issue too because it isn't as simple as pick one thing you want to prioritize that is important and good, because a lot of good things (i.e. tropes that resonate with people who feel like outsiders, freedom of expression, creativity, the desire to protect peoples feelings, etc) are being balanced and prioritized differently. It isn't as simple as "the person who wants these tropes is bad" or "the person who doesn't want them is bad".

But see, you may not mean harm, you may not have a harmful bone in your body, but the things you're liking still can be harmful.

And you can still keep those tropes in your own game, because it's your game, but there's no reason the official game to use them. People are smart enough and creative enough to come up with their own ideas without the game saying "this race is discriminated against."

 

[Faolyn]

It's okay to call them savages if they're preferred model of living is to scale my walls, steal my stuff, and kill my family, right?

So... adventurers, right?

 

[Scribe]

So... adventurers, right?

One man's freedom fighter, yes?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's okay to call them savages if their preferred model of living is to scale my walls, steal my stuff, and kill my family, right?

Historically, you call them savages when you're getting ready to do that to them.

 

[MGibster]

So... adventurers, right?

You're out of line, but you're right!

 

[Faolyn]

No, it's not. Even if we accept your unsourced assertion that it's incomplete, that doesn't make it bad.

Leaving aside that "it doesn't matter" is an opinion, and that "often healthier" looks to be a reference to environment and upbringing more than biology, the assertion that women have better endurance (which is far less straightforward than you're making it out to be) is an issue of Constitution, not Strength. You can say that there should have been differences with regard to maximum Constitution differences for male and female characters, but male characters having a higher Strength cap than female characters is not, in any way, shape, or form, based on "bad science," partially or otherwise.

It's bad science because science has very little place in a fantasy world where real-world physical limitations are a mere suggestion. Having Strength caps on women makes as much sense as having dragons that weigh many tons but can still fly. If you can allow for the latter, you can allow for the former.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But see, you may not mean harm, you may not have a harmful bone in your body, but the things you're liking still can be harmful.

But this is the point of disagreement. And it can be reversed. I could say you may not mean to but the way you are going about this is producing resentment that is dangerous and ultimately harmful to the people you say you want to protect. I do think that is a potential outcome of these kinds of efforts, but I also think there can be genuine disagreement because I may be wrong about that, just like you may be wrong about whether these things are causing harm. That is why it is important for us to continue having conversations.

And you can still keep those tropes in your own game, because it's your game, but there's no reason the official game to use them. People are smart enough and creative enough to come up with their own ideas without the game saying "this race is discriminated against."

Again this isn't about people lacking creativity. This is about something that people think makes the game better, and gives it important flavor. If I wanted D&D to be the game where that stuff is more customizable, I'd play GURPS or something with better character building rules. And I do mostly play these other games. But when I come to D&D, what I look for are things like what we are debating over now