D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[FitzTheRuke]

100% Spock and other similar characters were a big influence on the popularity of Half-Elves and the like.

It does mean it inherently can't in 5E, because a background controls what three stats you're allowed to put your starting +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 into, and if someone has assigned "Between two worlds" WIS, CHA, and CON, say, you're pretty much stuffed if you want to play a martial character and not be actually noticeably sub-optimal (+1 is absolutely noticeable, from my experience with 5E, esp. when it applies to both attack AND damage - it comes out to significantly more than 5% in real terms).

If you gave it a unique "Choose any three stats" though (which, frankly, all background should have, but w/e), then sure it's fine.

Yeah, I'd hit that problem from two angles. 1) Take the stats you choose and explain why they make your character who they are, and what the character did in their past that made those stats "go up". 2) If I REALLY can't think of why or what, for a specific character when it comes to a specific stat, I'd ignore the rules and pick a different stat instead.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I don't have my own copy of the 5E 2024 PHB yet - does it cover mixed-species characters at all? (To be clear I've read it a lot but didn't think to check for this.)

Nope, they're gone completely. Even the sidebar from the OneDnD playtest didn't get added.

So if you're using 2024 onwards content only, playing as a mixed species is no longer allowed RAW.

When combined with how they've retconned existing mixed species characters into being single species in more recent books, it's clear they they've decided that they no longer exist in DnD.

 

[Pedantic]

In fairness to artists (and this is certainly true of writers as well), but the market for erotica means it's a great way to pay the bills.

Yeah, I think really the issue is that should be a whole separate space from gaming, by default. No one should be made to feel objectified or unwelcome by a game product, and no one is entitled to casual gratification in their gaming products. There's similar conversations happening in board games, especially miniatures wargaming.

On the other hand, I'm all for explicit specialty products and obviously people can and should use whatever elements they like in their personal role-playing. It's very different when something is casually pervasive through the whole space, instead of present in a clearly delineated opt-in portion of it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't have my own copy of the 5E 2024 PHB yet - does it cover mixed-species characters at all? (To be clear I've read it a lot but didn't think to check for this.)

I don't think that it says anything at all. I suspect that it's something that they never figured out in time for publication, and that we'll see them return to the concept in the future.

I think that they better.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, I'd hit that problem from two angles. 1) Take the stats you choose and explain why they make your character who they are, and what the character did in their past that made those stats "go up". 2) If I REALLY can't think of why or what, for a specific character when it comes to a specific stat, I'd ignore the rules and pick a different stat instead.

Which is ok but it's explicitly going against 5E 2024's rules in either case, unfortunately.

They should have stuck to what got like 80% votes for in the playtest, which was allowing you to customize any background with any stats, skills, or feat you liked. No idea why they abandoned that, and they've never even attempted to explain it.

Doesn't seem to even come up at all.

So if you're using 2024 onwards content only, playing as a mixed species is no longer allowed RAW.

Oh boy. That seems... not great. I'd love to see Crawford explain his thinking there in an interview, but unfortunately WotC only seems to take live interview questions from tame interviewers.

Daggerheart explicitly lets you combine any two species, I note.

I think that they better.

Doesn't seem like a long-term sustainable position, yeah.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's clear they they've decided that they no longer exist in DnD.

I think that this is entirely untrue.

It's much more likely that they just didn't figure out a way to square the box in time for this particular publication.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Which is ok but it's explicitly going against 5E 2024's rules in either case, unfortunately.

I'm not sure how 1) is going against any rules. In that case you're just using story to explain choices, which to me, is just how you play D&D.

They should have stuck to what got like 80% votes for in the playtest, which was allowing you to customize any background with any stats, skills, or feat you liked.

I agree.

No idea why they abandoned that, and they've never even attempted to explain it.

Honestly? I think that it's because they can't figure out how to implement it on D&D Beyond.

Seriously. It's a pathetic answer, but I think that it's true. On Beyond, you need to build a custom background from scratch if you want to change much about it, so they just made that the rule, rather than fixing Beyond so that you can swap stuff around.

That's a theory, anyhow.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some moral panics are grounded in reality, some aren't. You can start with a legitimate concern and it can reach a point where we read everything through the prism of that concern

Good thing that hasn’t happened with over sexualized art of women in fantasy roleplaying.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is where I would disagree. If the art itself is fine, then I don't think the problem you are finding surround it should apply. If there is a movement of crude film makers making types of movies you find disgusting, but there is a brilliant film that doesn't disgust you, but is either lumped in with them due to shared aesthetics or emerges in some way from that movement's influence, I don't see why we ought to judge that piece so harshly (also I am generally pretty forgiving of artistic intent, because I think people frequently misread the messaging of art, especially around these kinds of issues)

Ever heard the phrase “too much of a good thing”? Even if every single individual piece of cheesecake art was top-notch, 11/10, zero complaints, it would still get tiring if there was no non-cheesecake art. It’s not a matter of judging individual pieces harshly, or at all. It’s a matter of noting a trend that’s having a negative effect on the hobby’s reception and saying, “hey, maybe let’s stop making this be a trend, yeah?”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's a really good question because a lot of people (including me some of the time) absolutely feel attached to more outsider-y characters, and when all characters are being depicted as Jolly Insiders with Happy Families and Healthy Friendships, I see how that's cool, but it's also kind of... narrow. I think background options might be good but 5E made them a major locus of character power, unfortunately.

I've said this before, but I really think tieflings should remain as the "mistrusted outsiders" choice. That's like the big part of their appeal, and if you cannot play that trope as a literal devil spawn, then I feel things have gone a bit wrong.