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

[FrogReaver]

I think people are mixing up inclusiveness (be accepted for your differences) with homogeny (everyone being equally good at all things). It's ok if dwarves are better fighters than elves or halflings are stealthier than orcs if they all have a niche. It's quite another to say orcs are inferior to dwarves, elves, and halflings in all things but destruction.

LOL. I don’t think you fully grasp what inclusiveness means these days.

 

[Remathilis]

LOL. I don’t think you fully grasp what inclusiveness means these days.

Enlighten?

 

[MGibster]

Enlighten?

The idea of attribute bonuses for races is one rooted in colonialism and modern pseudo scientific racism.

 

[Remathilis]

The idea of attribute bonuses for races is one rooted in colonialism and modern pseudo scientific racism.

Did I specify ability bonuses? Or is elves having an extra cantrip, dwarves getting extra hp, halflings hiding under larger creatures and orcs having extra move before an attack also rooted in colonialism and racist pseudoscience?

 

[FrogReaver]

Enlighten?

All people are equal. To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done. This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them. That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All people are equal. To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done. This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them. That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.

This is an extreme reading that is inconsistent with what actual inclusivity advocates are calling for.

 

[Remathilis]

All people are equal. To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done. This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them. That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.

So remove all racial traits then. Make race/species/ancestry purely cosmetic. Why should one race see in the dark better than another or have more HP or move faster or resist fire damage better than any other?

 

[FrogReaver]

This is an extreme reading that is inconsistent with what actual inclusivity advocates are calling for.

You have a terrible habit of stating something contrarian with no elaboration. Please be more polite and elaborate on why instead of just saying “an your wrong”.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's a great example (and I'm embarrassed for not having though of it). Thank you!

If nothing else that would make a great explanation if someone wanted to have a race that was small but super strong in general (say you wanted super-strong goblins in your world, but not due to magic).

It still feels a bit odd to think of just one having that though. I'm picturing a twilight zone or looney tunes episode or something where someone's 1st grade child has the strength of an adult chimpanzee. It would certainly be the stuff of legends.

So, after the halfling sized character says they want a strength bonus because they're like a chimpanzee, can the dragonborn or half-orc as for an even bigger bonus because they're like a gorilla?

Why do they need a bigger bonus? Ape's are strength 16, they are already as strong as a Gorilla.

And honestly, gnomes and halflings would already be insane to witness in real life. Strength 12 isn't unreasonable with the standard array. It lets you carry 180lbs. Your typical gnome or halfling weighs 40lbs. They are capable of carrying four times their body weight without struggle. Up to nine times if they push. They can leap nearly four times their own height.

What happens if they decide to climb something, or swing themselves from rafters?

And this seems "looney toons" because you are picturing a 1st grade child, but it isn't a first grade child, it is a grown adult with wiry musculature who is just as agile and cooridinated as a human.

Eh, I kinda see what you mean with this, but also kinda disagree. "Master" was historically masculine, but in modern terms has become non-gendered. I posted a list earlier of modern uses of the term "master", and all of them would be applied to females without switching to "mistress". "Mistress" has really become a completely separate term in modern usage.

Maybe in general, but it definitely bothered my DM a bit, enough so that she still has not changed her title back from Dungeon Manager and probably will keep it going forward.

For me then, changing Dungeon Master to something Dungeon Manager has nothing to do with "master/slave" stuff and is far more like changing "Fireman" to "Firefighter" by removing the implicit gendering. (Also, while I skimmed your list, many of the words I remember were applied to rooms or objects, which removes a gendering bias generally)

Well, we can also look at the term "Dungeon Master" in that light, too. Sounds very BDSM.

Also very true, there is a DnD stageplay ("She slays Monsters" I think) where that exact misunderstanding is played for laughs. I think it is more amusing than anything else, but it is there.

D&D is a combat heavy game by default, so survivability is an important consideration. No one wants to play a game where you feel like you're being handicapped. Lessening the impact of ability scores is the easiest way to do that, which is why it's being brought up. It's not my ideal though, that would be having every ability score equally contributing to your survivability, but in a deferent way. That would make any combination of ability scores viable, even an even spread between all of them. It's just that it would require a real heavy rethinking of ability scores in D&D to make that happen, and I don't think there is a will to do that.

I'm not going to comment too much on the furry aspect. I don't consider myself one, but I also find Anthro characters fascinating and deeply compelling from a multitude of angles, and often end up including elements of that in various stories. (Honestly, a "beast-men" race is generally one of the first things I add to a fantasy setting if they don't have one)

I will agree on this point though. And frankly, no one should really be surprised. It has been known for decades that DnD is very combat heavy, which makes combat effectiveness a big issue, and drives people to want to survive, and therefore be good at combat, so the DM makes them fight more, because they have all these combat abilities that they need to use, and it cycles.


But, it is a tough balance issue. Rogues, Rangers and Bards are partially in this section of supposedly being great for out of combat things, while the fighter and barbarian are supposed to be more heavily combat focused. And making everyone good at everything doesn't feel right, but making people who are bad at combat is nearly unthinkable.

Also, while I'm talking about being welcoming to furries, it would really help if there was a canine race. The most plentiful types of furries are canines and felines, so having those two represented would be great. Having an open ended animal/person race that let you pick from a list of features to make any type of animal person would be ideal, but just a canine and feline race is a good start.

Again, they aren't perfect, but Shifters have both the Wildhunt and Longtooth, which are more canine in appearance and ability. Far from perfect, but they are there.

 

[Maxperson]

You have a terrible habit of stating something contrarian with no elaboration. Please be more polite and elaborate on why instead of just saying “an your wrong”.

You have to remember, he doesn't believe that he has to back up his claims. That's your job..........in a library.