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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

What I read was that, if elves and dwarfs existed, they wouldn't qualify as people because they wouldn't technically be human. But all these sci-fi and fantasy peoples are virtually always understood to be just humans with some exaggerated traits. By making them "not technically human" people, they can be given abilities beyond the keen of humanity or an exaggerated version of some human culture.

And-- really-- history has shown that if you actually had all these peoples occupying the same land for 10,000 years-- there would be no more Orcs or Elves or Halflings or Goblinoids or Dwarfs or Gnomes-- or even half ones. What you'd probably actually end up having is just "humans" only those "humans" would have 1-2% genes from all of those other extinct people and would express some of those phenotypes.

The idea that a world could support dozens of species simultaneously occupying the same ecological niche without one out competing the other or just merging together into a single species over the lengths of histories these fantasy worlds have is itself quite unrealistic.

And that is just one fundamental aspect of the D&D settings that is so wildly unrealistic that it seems odd to me that people cannot suspend their disbelief to allow for other things.

I don't know if making it so that every size and shape of people in D&D can have the maximum allowable stat in every attribute is necessarily the answer-- but if anyone has a better idea how to make it so that the Dwarf Rogue is not massively disadvantaged to the point of not being at all functional next to the Elf Rogue without having Dwarfs with Dexterity 20, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Because so long as there exists the issue that there are race/class builds that should absolutely exist and yet are so bad mechanically that one is massively hampering themselves and their entire party if they try to play one-- its just not working.

Which is why I suggested WotC make two race systems, each presented on par with each other. Each group could then decide which system worked best for them.

System B (Yes I'm starting with System B) would be a point buy, in which players could buy racial abilities and create their own race. Some of those would be certain type of vision, others would be ability score bonuses, etc.

System A would use that point buy system to present standards humans, dwarves, elves, etc. for players to choose from.

So if a player (using system B) wanted to play a halfling with a Strength bonus, that player could simply recreate the standard halfling in the point buy, but purchase a Strength bonus instead of a Dexterity bonus.

That way, more and less traditional tables will both be happy.

 

[Hussar]

Moving the goalposts I see....
So was Spock/Vulcans or Data exactly the same as humans, meaning as intelligent with the same constitution? No, they were not. The show was pretty clear about that especially in the case of Data but also Vulcans.
But if translated to D&D the demand would be that those have the same abilities as a normal human or klingon or any other race would as "everyone is equal". And thats simply nonsense.

Absolutely right.

Good thing no one is actually advocating for that.

 

[Sadras]

I can only comment on a narrow example, but having a blind dm for 20 years now - the one trope he hates is blind characters getting super-hearing instead.

Bold emphasis mine. I cannot believe everyone just seemed to skip over this.
I'm genuinely curious - how does that work? Rules wise, monster stat wise, designing encounters...has he read everything in braille?
I found this site from a quick and dirty google - looks like the person uses some sort of screenreading software (which is fantastic - first I have heard of it)

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Absolutely right.

Good thing no one is actually advocating for that.

Then what does "everyone is equal" even means if it does not mean that everyone is actually equal?

 

[Aldarc]

The problem is:
Where do you draw the line...

Line-drawing is often presented as a problem but it really isn’t because we shouldn’t be trying to draw artificial lines in the first place. Asking for lines in the sand often tries to present complex situations with cut and dried solutions, with lines in the sand acting as lines where people can safely hide behind, but this often strips these situations from their context.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Line-drawing is often presented as a problem but it really isn’t because we shouldn’t be trying to draw artificial lines in the first place. Asking for lines in the sand often tries to present complex situations with cut and dried solutions, with lines in the sand acting as lines where people can safely hide behind, but this often strips these situations from their context.

Line drawing is eventually necessary. At some point D&D 6e will become a physical product. It will exclude people - as a matter of page space, if nothing else. Someone has to decide which groups should be included and which excluded.

Take a furry-enthusiast, a goblin-lover, a orc-fan, and thea dragonborn-nut. If there is only space for 8 seeds (we can't use the word race anymore) in the player's handbook, which 8 seeds do we choose? Some will be left out. Likewise, the book won't have an unlimited number of illustrations in include members of every conceivable group.

At some point, choices must be made. People can complain about problems, but everyone can complain about problems. I want to see solutions (and I've suggested several). But no solution will be completely inclusive of all groups.

Furthermore, inclusivity toward all groups will drive down sales. No one wants to see pictures of heroic exhibitionist paladins. What if the exhibitionist paladin is an white human? Does that exclude black exhibitionists? If the exhibitionist paladin is black, does that imply WotC thinks all blacks are exhibitionists? Or that blacks have a greater tendency to become subjects of voyeurism than whites?

More importantly, including images of heroic exhibitionist paladins - regardless of skin pigmentation - will exclude those who would rather not see penises in their Player's Handbook.

Likewise, I don't think we need illustrations of heroic drug-dealing sorcerers - yet that might make drug dealers feel excluded. I'm OK with that.

Now, those are absurd examples. I'm attempting to use absurdity in order not to break the rules of the forum. Nevertheless, tough choices will have to be made. Deigning that is simply idealism.

 

[Aldarc]

Line drawing is eventually necessary.

Not really.

 

[Sadras]

Furthermore, inclusivity toward all groups will drive down sales. No one wants to see pictures of heroic exhibitionist paladins. What if the exhibitionist paladin is an white human? Does that exclude black exhibitionists? If the exhibitionist paladin is black, does that imply WotC thnks all blacks are exhibitionists? Or that blacks have a greater tendency to become subjects of voyeurism than whites?

More importantly, including images of heroic exhibitionist paladins - regardless of skin pigmentation - will exclude those who would rather not see penises in their Player's Handbook.

Well that settles it, only female paladin exhibitionists for me thanks, but they better be full blown exhibitionists because bikini mail offends me.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Not really.

I think it will be helpful if you explained in a little more detail. If you were to organize the 6e PHB, what would not drawing a line in the sand look like?

 

[Aldarc]

I think it will be helpful if you explained in a little more detail. If you were to organize the 6e PHB, what would not drawing a line in the sand look like?

I suspect that a beach without a line drawn in the sand would look like a beach without a line drawn in the sand. And when asked what organizing a 6e PHB without a line drawn in the sand would look like, I likewise say that I suspect that it would look a Nine Hells of lot like organizing a 6e PHB.