D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Cap'n Kobold]

For more than half my life, I have wanted to play as a goblinoid race simply because I thought they looked like a fun extension of humanity without facing discrimination, but never have.

Every edition there is screwed me over in my desire to play a goblinoid character and told me that I am unwelcome. Never the players at the table, always the DM.

Not fully connected to the thread, but do you have access to the two Eberron books?
They have some better racial stats for goblinoids and orcs, since they play a major part in the setting, not just as hostile antagonists.

 

[GreenTengu]

Not fully connected to the thread, but do you have access to the two Eberron books?
They have some better racial stats for goblinoids and orcs, since they play a major part in the setting, not just as hostile antagonists.

A few D&D settings have ways to allow for human-friendly goblinoids and orcs written into their core. It was perfectly possible and reasonable to see in Forgotten Realms since the settings inception. In Al-Qadim, they were just regular citizens like everyone else. In Kingdoms of Kalamar, there were even half-Hobgoblins. I don't even think Gruumish nor Maglibiyet exist in Nentir Vale and so they worship the same gods as everyone else. Plainscape allows for just about everything. And even in GreyHawk, you could find yourself reincarnated as a goblinoid or orc or pick up followers of those races who could, presumably, go on to be adventurers of their own.

The thing is, you actually try to play one though, and you will get handed a set of half-baked stats that can't really be used to make a functional character outside of maybe one or two very specific class builds. And even then they are generally considered unofficial and unsanctioned.

 

[TheSword]

I think it is no longer so much in vogue as it was 10 years ago.
In the 1980s, Dune and Mad Max were popular so Dark Sun was most relevant. There were also Saturday morning cartoons then and so Dragonlance, which very much had the feel of one with very cartoony characture races and a strong overall metaplot, was very much relevant. Mystara seems to have been inspired by adventure movies like the Goonies and Indiana Jones, and was most themed to explore forgotten areas of the world more than any other setting (it was also the setting for basic D&D, so the setting, like the system, was fairly simple.) The samurai craze of the late 1980s to mid 1990s is what prompted the Oriental Adventures setting.
In the 1990s Disney put out Aladin and TSR responded by putting out the Al-Qadim setting. When Jurassic Park came out and dinosaurs were in vogue, Forgotten Realms was sold as the dinosaur setting (once WotC took over though, the Drizzt series had taken off and the setting was rebranded). There was a monster/vampire craze from the late 1980s through the 1990s which is when Ravenloft was most relevant, and that was also the vibe that the World of Darkness games picked up on.
The 2000s was when Steampunk, Noir and Mystery were most in vogue, so that's why Eberron was chosen to be the "new D&D setting" near the end of 3.5. It was also the era of peak the MMORPG which is why Nentir Vale was created the way it was.

Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s. I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.

And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.

So I hate to break it to you but your causality is so mixed up it’s painful. I can only assume your references were based on a hunch as even a cursory look at dates show this is wrong.

Mad Max was 1979, 81 and 85, Dune was 1985. Yet Dark Sun wasn’t released until six years later in 1991. There were also re-releases of Darksun in 2010.

Al Quadim was released in 1992 whereas Aladdin wasn’t released until November that same year... even faster writing!

Mad Max was 1979, 81 and 85, Dune was 1985. Yet Dark Sun wasn’t released until six years later in 1991. There were also re-releases of Darksun in 2010. Without any more Dune or Mad Max.

Jurassic Park was released in 1993, whereas the saurials were featured in 1988 with Curse of the Azure bonds and Chult’s dinosaurs were detailed in Ring of Winter 1992.

Hammer Horror films ran through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and horror is just as popular now as it’s always been. Ravenloft was first published in 1983 and has existed in some form or other for every edition bar 4th.

The samurai craze of the 80’s and mid 90’s? Crouching Tiger 2000, Hero 2002, Last Samurai 2003, and House of Flying Daggers 2004 are the biggest historical/fantasy films featuring East Asia in the last 40 years as best as I recall.

Eberron in 2004 was influenced by Pulp Noir, among a wide range of things. Some of the influences were mentioned in 3e campaign setting book... the one I always remember is The Maltese Falcon (1941) Steam punk had been going strong since the late 1980s with studio Ghibli and a host of novels like Infernal Devices. So saying that it was a 2000’s steam punk craze that made Eberron popular is odd.

It’s not that you’re wrong that D&D is influenced by culture. Of course d&d is derivative, but you’re just plain wrong about the simplicity of the influences. There is a huge body of fiction, myth, art, tv and film that have influenced d&d. Some of it like the Arabian Nights, The art of Brom, or the novels of Troy Denning, or Ed Greenwood. You’re ignoring the popularity of vintage, or the fact that as adults we often want to write about what we enjoyed as kids.

Ironically the edition most derivative of its time and dismissive of other times was 4e when it jumped on the MMORG band wagon forgetting the rich history and influences that went before it, much to the chagrin of D&Ds fans... particularly the forgotten realms. With the loss of popularity of MMORG the 4e experiment died a death. The other editions and settings seem to be eternal whereas Nentir Vale is a footnote.

I’d be grateful if you could tell me what the Zeigtgeist for 2010s is. So far it appears to be nostalgic referencing of earlier ideas (stranger things), TV of books from the 90’s (Game of Thrones) and film adaptions from previous decades comic books, music remixes, Disney live action releases. Etc etc etc.

That seems to be exactly was WOC is doing now... sounds like a good strategy to me.

 

[Cadence]

A few D&D settings have ways to allow for human-friendly goblinoids and orcs written into their core. It was perfectly possible and reasonable to see in Forgotten Realms since the settings inception. In Al-Qadim, they were just regular citizens like everyone else. In Kingdoms of Kalamar, there were even half-Hobgoblins. I don't even think Gruumish nor Maglibiyet exist in Nentir Vale and so they worship the same gods as everyone else. Plainscape allows for just about everything. And even in GreyHawk, you could find yourself reincarnated as a goblinoid or orc or pick up followers of those races who could, presumably, go on to be adventurers of their own.

The thing is, you actually try to play one though, and you will get handed a set of half-baked stats that can't really be used to make a functional character outside of maybe one or two very specific class builds. And even then they are generally considered unofficial and unsanctioned.

In 3.5, the monsters as characters are right in the SRD. That feels pretty sanctioned. I can see some DMs not wanting them if they don't fit the milieu of the game they're running, but it feels like a DM running one of the settings you mention above might be unreasonable for not letting you play one - I'd be curious what they're reasoning was. On the other hand, I've also seen games that didn't have some (or even any) of the PhB non-human races because they didn't fit a particular world.

In 3.5, relative to each other, the
Goblin gets: +10 movement rate, Darkvision, +2 on Move Silently, +4 Ride
Halfling gets: +2 Chr, +2 Climb, Jump, Listen, +1 Saves, +2 saves on Fear, +1 Sling

So in 3.5 the Goblin is sub-optimal for the Bard, Paladin, and Sorcerer in terms of Charisma, but doesn't seem particularly off for me on the other eight classes. I'm missing how that makes them not a functional character outside of one or two very specific class builds. How much needs to change about the Goblin to make it just as "half-baked" as the other PC races?

I don't have the Volo's Guide for 5e, how do they work there? The reviews for the Goblins seem mixed for power level? Having a Volo's Guide on it, again, feels pretty sanctioned in any case (especially if I'm correct that they're officially allowed in Adventurer's League games).

In 3.5, the Orc is definitely shoe-horned away from the Int/Wis/Chr classes - but that seems to fit with their description in the MM. They have the same net -2 as all the other races, nothing particularly great, and daylight sensitivity. That one does feel sad as a PC race. The reviews for 5e don't seem particularly great for them either.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd also humbly suggest that if you think that class names and archetypes were the problems with OA and orcs, you may have missed the point.

The primary issue with OA is othering but, also, the fact that EVERY element of the area that OA was supposed to cover was boiled down to a single culture - Japan. Having a samurai class in the game isn't the problem. Having every class based on Japanese culture, every piece of equipment based on Japanese culture and actually USING Japanese language to describe setting elements, while completely ignoring the rest of the cultures that the setting book was supposed to draw from was the problem.

The problem with orcs isn't that they are evil. That was never the problem. The problem is that orc descriptions use language that mirror real world writing on issues like race and eugenics. Strip that out and orcs are fine as is. It takes removing about three sentences from orcs to fix orcs.

The real problem here is that folks are unwilling to accept that those are the issues and are insisting on inventing issues that don't actually exist.

No, I'm suggesting that they raise similar issues with language used to describe them. Barbarians are savage, primal, emotional, full of rage and uncivilized, similar racial tropes to what orcs get (no wonder what a archetypal half-orc PC is). Monks on the other hand are exoticized as being the only class that fights using martial arts, has pseudo-Magical ki abilities, and tends to fight with "Asian" weapons like bo staves and nunchucks.

I'm saying they aren't there same, but they may raise similar concerns and might need to be addressed while we are doing a wholesale review of the game for the next edition.

Then again, if no party is raising objection, maybe nothing need be done and we can keep the names and classes as they are (save for revised mechanics like all editions get). I'd just like to see it looked at before we're five years into 6th edition and social media is posting about how Barbarian, Monk, Druid and Warlock are Problematic and should have been changed...

 

[TheSword]

No, I'm suggesting that they raise similar issues with language used to describe them. Barbarians are savage, primal, emotional, full of rage and uncivilized, similar racial tropes to what orcs get (no wonder what a archetypal half-orc PC is). Monks on the other hand are exoticized as being the only class that fights using martial arts, has pseudo-Magical ki abilities, and tends to fight with "Asian" weapons like bo staves and nunchucks.

I'm saying they aren't there same, but they may raise similar concerns and might need to be addressed while we are doing a wholesale review of the game for the next edition.

Then again, if no party is raising objection, maybe nothing need be done and we can keep the names and classes as they are (save for revised mechanics like all editions get). I'd just like to see it looked at before we're five years into 6th edition and social media is posting about how Barbarian, Monk, Druid and Warlock are Problematic and should have been changed...

Barbarians with their rage are first and foremost based on northern Europeans, Danes, Saxons, Vikings, Northmen, Frisians, Celts, Goths, Vandals, Huns. Whatever you want to call them throughout history they were hardly an oppressed category, they gave the Romans a run for their money.

This is the problem where people try to make assumptions about influence and then because of those assumptions say something is bad/wrong/fun. You should be letting real harm be the thing that drives change, not tautological arguments.

“Social Media” is a bad reason to do anything of substance.

 

[TheSword]

Alignment has nothing to do with inclusiveness or exclusiveness. It’s just a less specific and more ephemeral version of factions.

People make choices that may be anti-inclusive - like evil orcs - but that is not a result of the alignment system. It’s due the writers’ view on Orcs.

It’s not bigoted to make that point, and by lumping everything in together and calling those that disagree bigots, or excluding them from the conversation you undermine the overall argument.

The premise is good, that progress is on the whole needed and a lot of the suggestions are sensible.

Add positive examples and only subtract where things are gratuitous.

 

[Maxperson]

Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s. I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.

And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.

New(4e) had been soundly rejected and they apparently did something right, because 5e is very successful.

 

[Remathilis]

Barbarians with their rage are first and foremost based on northern Europeans, Danes, Saxons, Vikings, Northmen, Frisians, Celts, Goths, Vandals, Huns. Whatever you want to call them throughout history they were hardly an oppressed category, they gave the Romans a run for their money.

This is the problem where people try to make assumptions about influence and then because of those assumptions say something is bad/wrong/fun. You should be letting real harm be the thing that drives change, not tautological arguments.

“Social Media” is a bad reason to do anything of substance.

Sure, the concept of wild raging barbarians can represent the European tribes like Vikings, but the same tropes used to describe them were used to describe the Huns, or "headhunter" tribes of Africa, or Native Americans in the old West. "The natives are restless tonight." Isn't just describing the Visigoths!

That said, you may be right, it's a mountain out of a molehill. I'd would have said the same thing about orcs until two months ago. Then a lot of digital ink got poured on race, always evil monsters, OA, etc. It didn't take very long to go from praise of the PHB's inclusive artwork and stance on gender to people criticizing it as perpetuating racist/sexist/ableist tropes and calling for boycotts on future products.

The world is changing faster than most thought possible, and media is being held to account for it's role in the old regime. It's happening in music, movies, tv, comics, novels, and video games, and it is happening in table top games as well. The question is if we are going to be proactive and look for the problems or reactive and keep changing things only when the outcry is deafening?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it is no longer so much in vogue as it was 10 years ago.
In the 1980s, Dune and Mad Max were popular so Dark Sun was most relevant. There were also Saturday morning cartoons then and so Dragonlance, which very much had the feel of one with very cartoony characture races and a strong overall metaplot, was very much relevant. Mystara seems to have been inspired by adventure movies like the Goonies and Indiana Jones, and was most themed to explore forgotten areas of the world more than any other setting (it was also the setting for basic D&D, so the setting, like the system, was fairly simple.) The samurai craze of the late 1980s to mid 1990s is what prompted the Oriental Adventures setting.
In the 1990s Disney put out Aladin and TSR responded by putting out the Al-Qadim setting. When Jurassic Park came out and dinosaurs were in vogue, Forgotten Realms was sold as the dinosaur setting (once WotC took over though, the Drizzt series had taken off and the setting was rebranded). There was a monster/vampire craze from the late 1980s through the 1990s which is when Ravenloft was most relevant, and that was also the vibe that the World of Darkness games picked up on.
The 2000s was when Steampunk, Noir and Mystery were most in vogue, so that's why Eberron was chosen to be the "new D&D setting" near the end of 3.5. It was also the era of peak the MMORPG which is why Nentir Vale was created the way it was.

Pretty much every D&D setting was a response to the cultural zeitgeist at the time. It is actually a bit odd that 5E decided to go back and revisit a number of these instead of reacting to what was in the cultural zeitgeist for the 2010s. I would have thought for sure we would have gotten a proper pirate setting. But, I suppose, because 5E from the start has been an over-reaction to people rejecting 4E, the team decided to simply cater to the older fans instead of creating something new.

And I do know that once something has been in the cultural zeitgeist during a person's lifetime, for some people that's just always going to be their most favorite thing. (Sometimes it is even something that was popular for their parents and so their parents passed on a bunch of stuff to the kids.) I probably wouldn't go as far to say that any of these are entirely passe and not worth engaging in-- but its just that the peak has sort of passed by.

I’m saying Eberron isn’t Steampunk.