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

[Bolares]

It's ridiculous of you to expect people to make thorough arguments about anything they talk about.

Okay then.
Edit: Actually no, it’s not okay. I’m not asking you to make thorough arguments about anything you talk about. That’s an absurd misrepresentation of what I was saying. If you are going to make arguments about a group that suffers a lot of prejudice, in the context where they suffer said prejudice then yes, you are expected to be thorough in your arguments.

 

[Bolares]

Interesting. By another game you mean another TTRPG? Something more grim and less heroic?

Yeah, in a game where you are supposed to be a monster for an example. And even then I’d have a conversation with the table about it to make sure everyone is okay with it and to make clear why and how the character would be played there.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, like I said, I have never seen a player actually play something like this. But I have seen a DM. Mostly, they are highlighting a character trait. They also highlight other traits. I have honestly never seen it done maliciously. It's always been here is a character with a specific trait.

I have, although fortunately not since college. But see, it's generally not done "maliciously," in the sense that the player is thinking "these people are bad or inferior so I'm going to make fun of them." It's done because they think it's the mannerism is funny, or because they really think that's how people in the group act.

 

[Argyle King]

After 22 pages, I'm still not sure that I understand the point of this thread.

I understand how various "-isms" are bad.

At the same time, I'm confused by bringing up a topic in a public forum and then saying that others shouldn't discuss said topic.

What is the desired end result?

 

[Faolyn]

Did Ad_hoc actually block me? Wow. OK then.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think you are misunderstanding me a bit.
There is a stark difference between:
"LOL! Stupid characters are hilarious!"
..and...
"LOL! Stupid people are hilarious!"

The point is there isn't.

Mocking a character who has certain traits FOR having those traits is normalizing mocking anyone who has those traits. That's the point.

 

[Charlaquin]

The whole post is about not playing stupid characters and here are some things you can play instead of doing that depending on what your actual goal is.

If you want to play a character who lacks knowledge relevant to the world they find themselves in and has trouble communicating you could play a foreign character.

I say 'don't play a stupid character' and then say you could do this instead and that means that I said foreigners are stupid?

Yes, because you’re presenting playing foreignness as a viable alternative to playing stupidity. The implication is that the way someone is playing the character isn’t a problem, as long as their character is foreign. Which I understand is not what you meant but it is what it looks like you were saying.

 

[Ace]

I'm not sure who ad-hoc is gaming with but in decades of gaming I've seen odious gamers very rarely except among young male teens where all of us thought it was the height of humor.

These days I'm not interested in playing with gross or rude people either but on the very rare occasion it happened it was the fault of the DM and other players for not making things clear and upfront. Communicating like grownups is they key to good gaming.

That said nobody get tell other people how to play their games Its not their business and if they don't like what they are doing , they can play with someone else. Its a big hobby with rooms for jerks and nice people alike.

The exceptions public games cons and game shops in which case, good communication solves that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So after finally breaking down and actually clicking on this thread I found I more or less agreed with most things in the original post, but had spent the last couple days eying the thread title with resentment and dread as the number of posts steadily increased. So my criticism would be that:

"Don't do X. It is [some sort of "-ist" nobody wants to be]."

... is a problematic format for a thread title. It manages to be divisive by being overbroad, accuses anyone who has fallen within its overbroad ambit of a moral failing, when you use a more recently identified -ism practically begs a culture wars battle, and starts the conversation with a bunch of folks already called out and on the defensive for behavior you didn't necessarily mean to call out.

If this issue has been litigated in the proceeding 400+ posts I apologize. I did not read far.

I’ll agree that a thread title such as “Are simplistic portrayals of low Int scores ableist?” might have been a better title.

But, honestly, getting all hot and bothered by the imperative case and whining about being commanded to play in a certain why strikes me as silly*. If the OP had any actual authority over them/you/me/us it might be another thing. But they don’t. So, uh, take an Internet post for what it’s worth, maybe?

*Not that you are. I’m just commenting on the trajectory of the thread.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Did Ad_hoc actually block me? Wow. OK then.

Same here, I think. Which seems strange because I’m largely in agreement. /shrug