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

[Hussar]

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

Equal does not mean identical.

By and large, all the classes in 5e are equal. Or, at least, there isn't that much range from top to bottom. Does that mean all the classes are identical?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

This is part of the reason I find it so far to take the inclusivity argument seriously. I'm trying to understand the vision the inclusivity crowd has of the world, but I'm so often written off. If a crowd want the PHB to be more inclusive and several members presents their ideas for the 6e PHB, maybe we can all find some common ground. Maybe we can find some territory where both more traditional players and more inclusive players can both happily play together.

 

[Hussar]

This is part of the reason I find it so far to take the inclusivity argument seriously. I'm trying to understand the vision the inclusivity crowd has of the world, but I'm so often written off. If a crowd want the PHB to be more inclusive and several members presents their ideas for the 6e PHB, maybe we can all find some common ground. Maybe we can find some territory where both more traditional players and more inclusive players can both happily play together.

Take a look through the orc, shaman and other threads. You'll find, at about page 20 or so, the consensus view of what needs to be changed. The other 50 or so pages of each thread is filled with people derailing the issue with endless hypotheticals that no one is actually arguing.

The orc issue requires about three sentences to be changed.
Shaman - increase the amount of lore in the game related to shamans so that more than just one kind of creature is presented with shaman.
Drow - A slight editing of the drow origin story and maybe a couple of other minor snips here and there.
Oriental Adventures and other older material - add a disclaimer to the pdf. Done.

See, I'd flip it over the other way. It's so hard to take those opposed to inclusivity seriously when, despite repeated, (and I do mean REPEATED) statements of what needs to change and what is actually being discussed, we see folks endlessly painting the situation as this massive change that will forever rewrite the game. It's not. It's a couple of minor edits and we're done.

Thing is, I've been through all this already. I work in ESL and have done so for a long time. Cultural imperialism is a major issue in textbook writing. So, every year, for the past twenty years or so, I've attended seminars, watched and given presentations, edited texts, written texts, written syllabi and whatnot all revolving around these same issues. And, I can tell you from experience that it's nowhere near as difficult or as earth changing as those who oppose it make it seem.

Think about it this way. How much has the game changed when the industry decided to not use cheesecake art anymore? Has that had a radical change on your table? Have you seen any real difference in how people play the game now that we no longer have scantily clad chainmail bikinis on the covers of our game books? No? Then why do you think that continuing the tradition of opening the game to be more inclusive is going to change the game that much?

Or, is it perhaps more likely that there is a small group of gamers who just cannot understand that no, we're not rewriting the game or the hobby. That there is a small group of gamers who are very loud, because they cannot wrap their heads around the idea that making the game more inclusive doesn't actually mean what they think it means because they've spent so many years building this bogeyman in their head of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" and whatnot, that is fed by certain political strains. And any admission that the changes are actually fairly minor, logical and frankly easy, means that their whole political house of cards framework that they've built in their heads is just so much smoke and mirrors.

And, it's EXTREMELY difficult to get people to admit that their interpretation of the world is flawed regardless of how much evidence you can produce.

 

[Remathilis]

I think part of the problem comes down to there are several factions of people arguing like there is only two: pro- and anti - inclusivity. In reality, there are:

• People who think things are fine as they are (status quo)
• People who think the rules are mostly fine, but a little more sensitivity of needed in the lore. (All orcs are born evil)
• People who think certain mechanical elements (or ability score mods) are similarly problematic and need changing.
• People who think some elements (ie half-orcs) are too problematic to fix and need to be removed.
• People who think whole system components (ie monocultural races with cultural racial traits) are bad and the whole component needs to be replaced with something more appropriate.
• People who think major parts of the system (ie ability scores) are unfixable and need to be removed altogether.
• People who believe the whole premise of the game is fundementaly flawed (colonialist tropes of conquest and violence) and maybe the best approach is to scrap it and start over.

Where ever you stand in this scale, you tend to view those above you in it as non-inclusive and those below you as "taking it too far" or straw men created by the other side too demonize you.

It gets really hard to reach consensus when someone from one group says something, another reacts, and the third says the second is overreacting because they didn't say what the first said and quit assuming that is what they meant.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And, it's EXTREMELY difficult to get people to admit that their interpretation of the world is flawed regardless of how much evidence you can produce.

Well, your position seems completely reasonable. The smallest possible to change to fix major problems. Wonderful.

Unfortunately the poster I was quoting seemed (perhaps I'm wrong) to believe that no line should ever be drawn in the sand and all groups must be included. I was confused. I didn't see how this is possible within a limited page count. I brought up this fact and asked him to explain. He/She told me:

"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."

That comment confused me. I and want to understand his/her perspective, and I'm sure I can find some common ground with this poster.

Personally, I don't think any changes are necessary, but others believe they are. Some changes, like the ones you pointed out, are very reasonable ideas and can be incorporated without difficulty. Others are more difficult for me to understand (e.g. said poster's "no line in the sand" comment).

 

[Aldarc]

“Where do we draw the line?” is more often than not a red flag for a continuum fallacy. It seems easier for us to engage the subject matter of how should we organize a PHB without having to first engage the line-drawing fallacy. Saying that we should not draw the line is not the same position as arguing that we should include everything. It’s simply criticizing the value, purpose, and what not of any question about the position of artificially drawn lines.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

It gets really hard to reach consensus when someone from one group says something, another reacts, and the third says the second is overreacting because they didn't say what the first said and quit assuming that is what they meant.

I disagree. All three discussions I participated in - the orcs, the drow and the shaman discussions, all reached a consensus point. Fairly quickly. Reaching a reasonable consensus takes about five or ten pages.

It's the other 50 pages of "whataboutit's" that cloud the issue. Once you can reduce the noise to signal ratio down to a reasonable level, reaching a consensus has been pretty simple and relatively easy.

Like I said, it's 10 pages of reaching a consensus, 40 pages of fairly pointless "whataboutit's" and 10 pages of people who cannot be bothered reading the thread or doing their own research asking for the proofs to yet again be brought forward for examination resulting in yet again a round of the same questions that had already been answered.

Strip away all that cruft? Consensus is rather easy.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

“Where do we draw the line?” is more often than not a red flag for a continuum fallacy. It seems easier for us to engage the subject matter of how should we organize a PHB without having to first engage the line-drawing fallacy. Saying that we should not draw the line is not the same position as arguing that we should include everything. It’s simply criticizing the value, purpose, and what not of any question about the position of artificially drawn lines.

Yes. Continuum fallacy exists. However, physics solves that conceptually using field theory. At some point a PHB must be made. It will have a limited page count. It will not be completely inclusive. Someone has to decide what does in the physical book and what does not. Instead of pointing out problematic things, it's much more useful to present answers to the question: What goes into the 6e PHB, DMG, and MM?

In other words, I don't care if orcs can be construed as victims of colonial oppression. I care about what the MM/PHB entry says and how it affects the game I play at my table.

 

[Aldarc]

And as I have been saying, you can do all of that without asking silly questions like “where do you draw the line?”

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And as I have been saying, you can do all of that without asking silly questions like “where do you draw the line?”

I see no reason why that metaphor doesn't fit. There is a very clear line that divides the two categories: "things that end up in the PHB" and "things that don't end up in the PHB."