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

[Maxperson]

Of course, at this point in the debate I don’t expect anybody who is determined to defend fixed ASIs at all costs to acknowledge this point. Better to engage in semantic contortionism than to concede any point, right?

Preemptively attacking anyone who might disagree with you by belittling any possible disagreement is the hallmark of an argument that can't stand on its own. Not cool.

 

[Lyxen]

I disagree. I think the whole point is to get away from the same old cliche character builds and encourage more exploration in character concepts.

And I maintain that all these character concepts existed before, and that the only thing preventing some players from exploring them was the fear of being underpowered (as we have explored a number of them at our tables without any problem in the past 7 years).

It is therefore a powergaming option for these concepts, which in itself does not make it bad (see my other post about play styles, this is not saying that it's a wrong or inferior playstyle), but it would be nice that it is acknowledged as such, and not a radical concept allowing concepts that did not exist before, because that is simply untrue.

 

[Yaarel]

So you're seriously arguing that the devil flavor goes away with the +2 charisma bonus? That the demonizing trope goes away from the race with devil horns and a heritage from literal hell?

It seems to me, D&D products have never intentionally propagated hated speech.

At the same time, D&D has borrowed heavily from literary sources that are concerning or even disreputable.

Unfortunate tropes happen. Normally because of being unaware of the source or not realizing the accidental context in which it appears alongside other tropes.

One problem with ability stereotypes is that they tend to mechanically lock these unfortunate tropes into place within the D&D tradition.

A more fluid approach to race design allows WotC to maneuver more easily away from any unfortunate tropes that do happen to appear.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think the goal is to eliminate a real life racial trope but making comfortable people who are not comfortable with it being present in the game rules.

See this I agree with and is one of the reasons why 1) I think floating ASIs should remain as an optional rule, and 2) any group needs to be aware of those within it for possible accommodations that need to be made.

Should there be a need to get rid of racial ASIs for a specific gaming group, the group can and should decide to get rid of them. I've yet to be in a single group in my RPG lifetime(since 1983) where this has been the case(including minorities of all sorts), though, so it can't be something that is common enough to require an absolute change to the system. An optional rule to be used is sufficient, and I say that as a member of a minority group who has experienced racism many times.

Much like there would be a pushback if the example about inspiration given for a cool roleplaying scene involved the character described as raping the beheaded body of his opponent: it might be more descriptive and creative than "I attack kobold #3" but it wouldn't... fly with many customers.

I agree, and if I had a rape or sexual assault victim of any kind in my group, that sort of description wouldn't be used or allowed in the game. Those sorts of things are better served being handled at the group level, though, not the game level. They are very specific and general rules don't handle specific circumstances well.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm sorry, but isn't this ageism ? I'm really sorry to point this out, but you should really be careful here.

Not exactly. There are young people who still subscribe to old school sexism and racism, and elder people who have zero patience with it. But the trend is clear with younger people having less and less tolerance for intolerance.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think the goal is to eliminate a real life racial trope ... but making comfortable people who are not comfortable with it being present in the game rules.

Yes, this.

Floating the race ability improvement as the default, empowers the PLAYER who finds a trope objectionable to easily avoid it.

 

[Maxperson]

It seems to me, D&D products have never intentionally propagated hated speech.

At the same time, D&D has borrowed heavily from literary sources that are concerning or even disreputable.

So long as it is not actively supporting the disreputable portions in the game, there's nothing wrong with D&D borrowing from those sources. Hammers have been used in hundreds of murders. I can borrow a hammer without associating myself with murder. Hell, I can even use a hammer that was used in a murder without associating myself with that murder. In my hands it would just be a simple tool to pound nails into wood or a wall.

 

[Lyxen]

So long as it is not actively supporting the disreputable portions in the game, there's nothing wrong with D&D borrowing from those sources.

For once, I agree with you. As an example see how Chaosium has handled their CoC line despite the Lovecraft effect.

Or see how Runequest has absolutely zero problem with the Elves (Aldryami) rolling intelligence on 3d6+6 compared to most other races that roll on 2d6+6, even in their latest edition (and I'm not even speaking of the trollkins who roll on 2d6+3, and are used for Trollball - as balls).

This is also why I don't like this specific focus on D&D (compared to other products), on some sources (compared to other sources), and specifically on Ability Scores (when there are many more subjects like description, inherent evilness, etc.). It's mixing too many things and therefore detracts from the issues rather than serving their advancement.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It seems to me, D&D products have never intentionally propagated hated speech.

At the same time, D&D has borrowed heavily from literary sources that are concerning or even disreputable.

Yes, I think this is both an essential point and a poorly understood one.

Let's say an author use tropes of stupidity, promiscuity, and ugliness in order to convey to readers a sense that the people he is describing are sub-human savages. The reason they use those images is because people in our culture (maybe all cultures?) make that association.

But the reason we make that association is that those connotations were very intentionally used for centuries (millennia?) to justify atrocities. So the author's use may have been innocent, but the story-telling technique they are using is one built on racist foundations. And for people who are aware of the history of those images...especially those who continue to suffer from the damage it caused and continues to cause...are (in my book) pretty justified in saying, "Hey, I don't really feel welcome here."

 

[Scribe]

Of course, at this point in the debate I don’t expect anybody who is determined to defend fixed ASIs at all costs to acknowledge this point.

I've done so, I disagree with your conclusion.