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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And don't forget Shakespeare's motto: "But where do I draw the line?"

I'm still not sure if this is the appropriate question to ask, because this question seems to presume a radically different sense of "inclusivity" than the OP's use of the word, and we should probably avoid any potential pitfalls that comes from equivocating between these two diverging senses.

FWIW, I don't think that saying "Hey, we should include at least include a fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard in PHB 6e" actually engages the OP's premise regarding making 6e inclusive at all. IMHO, making 6e more inclusive is more about the intersection between the rules and flavor text of the game with how the game represents diverse genders, sexualities, ethnicities, cultures, disabilities, bodies, creeds, and so forth. In some regards, it is less about the list of PC archetypes we include and more about how we depict/write about the things we do choose to include. Simply including a shaman class, for example, is meaningless and antithetical to "inclusivity" if the game fiction frames it in a negative light or using harmful stereotypes. The orc has obviously been included in the 5e MM, but the issue of inclusivity is not in reference to its incorporation into the book but, rather, in reference to the rhetoric that frames it therein.

No. That's exactly what I'm asking. What does that look like? I see a lot of "does not include [colonialism/disrespect/harmful stereotypes/etc.", but very little explanation as to how that goal is realized.

I see a lot of deconstruction - which is fine. Deconstruction is a useful too. But in order for deconstruction to be meaningful and productive, it must also lead to construction. The forum has done a lot of the former (deconstruction), now I think it's time to move onto the latter (construction).

 

[Remathilis]

And don't forget Shakespeare's motto: "But where do I draw the line?"

Well, Shakespeare certainly drew the line at criticizing the current monarch, less the line be drawn over his neck. He also drew the line at being too progressive, despite Shylock and Othello. All writing has boundaries.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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)

He has a special device that works like a laptop/tablet, but in Braille and without a screen. His new one is way better than his old one, but it's a niche market so improvements happen in fits and starts. We run mostly theater of the mind, and he's very good at describing things - even visually, although I can sometimes tell which book he pulled the description from. Using a map is... trickier, since we need to recap the relative position of everyone to the dm, which takes time, but it's not a fast-paced game in general, and frankly that's why we avoid maps unless all eight of us are present for a session. We usually roll dice for him.

And the screenreading software (on his phone, usually, for live sessions in the Before Time) seems pretty good - it talks to fast for me to follow, but it can read dang near any digitized document.

Honestly the only downside to having him as a dm is the rather excessive number of dogs that want to hang out with us in relatively small rooms.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, Shakespeare certainly drew the line at criticizing the current monarch, less the line be drawn over his neck. He also drew the line at being too progressive, despite Shylock and Othello. All writing has boundaries.

Which is less about imaginary hard lines drawn in the sand and more about particular contexts. Again, what I would like to avoid is the fallacy that arguing against the question "where do we draw the line?" is tantamount to arguing for "everything is/should be permitted."

No. That's exactly what I'm asking. What does that look like? I see a lot of "does not include [colonialism/disrespect/harmful stereotypes/etc.", but very little explanation as to how that goal is realized.

I see a lot of deconstruction - which is fine. Deconstruction is a useful too. But in order for deconstruction to be meaningful and productive, it must also lead to construction. The forum has done a lot of the former (deconstruction), now I think it's time to move onto the latter (construction).

I can't list everything, but I can list some things. Are you okay with that?

Art direction, IMHO, is a key aspect regarding who gets depicted and how. It's one concrete positive step, for example, that D&D made to tackle misogyny: i.e., the end of what @Hussar calls 'cheesecake art.' D&D has been getting progressively better, overall, with this and ethnicity, and this is something that I would like to see continue and improved upon in 6e. But it can also depict the gender queer, people with different body types, or even disabilities.

Art also plays a role in how we culturally read certain monsters. For example, if hobgoblins are primarily dressed as samurai or with vaguely Japanese aesthetics, then that subtly guides our reading of hobgoblins as Japanese. Or if lizardfolk are dressed as a clear stereotype of American Indian regalia - not saying that they are - that also shapes how we think about both lizardfolk and American Indians. So we should be mindful of how art shapes the fiction.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That one of the questions I'm trying to pose: Does the abstract nature of inclusiveness in D&D make a concrete, but still inclusive, PHB impossible?

If it's impossible, inclusiveness is not worth perusing.
If it's not impossible, I want to find common ground.

It's only impossible if we assume absolute inclusiveness is 1) a goal and 2) the only goal.

I'd debate that even #1 is a goal - I don't feel the need to tolerate intolerance or categories of people defined by how they harm others, so I'm already not aiming for absolute inclusiveness. And #2 would be saying "fun to play" isn't a design goal for a game, which is almost tautologically false.

I just want to make the game more inclusive (or, more accurately, less exclusive), without doing so at an unreasonable cost.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Rushing right now, so still two pages back in my responses.

Also, on the current track of racial bonuses:

I feel like taking racial bonuses out takes something that I feel is important out. It removes the identity from the races and just makes Elves and Dwarves into Tall Pointy-Eared Human and Short, Hairy Human. I mean, yeah, they're related, but they aren't the same. Say for example we have an RPG where the primary races are all based on dogs, would a Great Dane and a Corgi having the same stat bonuses make sense and add to the game? I don't really think so. I do get and sympathize with people saying that picking Elf pigeon holes them too much into the dex-y classes, so I could see them adding essentially a floating modifier to them. Like, for example "As an elf, you have the choice to add +2 to DEX, INT, or CHA, and +1 to another of those stats that wasn't the one you put +2 into". They'd still have a gameplay niche, while also being more flexible to other ideas rather than just the DEX-y characters. I also like the idea of making racial traits a "point buy" of sorts, where you have a group of points (that would be the same across every race) to buy certain racial traits you'd like for your character, with a sidebar saying that, if the list of racial traits for that race doesn't fit your idea for your character or your world, you can always just grab other racial traits if your DM gives the OK.

Maybe this is focusing mostly on the gameplay side of things, but that's just the thing I'm looking at the most here, because that's what my brain focuses on. I'm also white so I'm completely blind to the opinions of minorities, especially on their grievances.

My issue with this is two-fold.

1) We are all humans anyways behind the sheet

2) Then what makes an Elf, Tabaxi and Halflfing different from each other? If removing the +2 Dex means that the elf is now indistinguishable from a human (and by the way, a variant human can trivially get a +2 Dex) then what makes the +2 Dex races distinguishable?

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's worth remembering, though, that the vast majority of people in a by the book 5e dnd world wouldn't have access to any of that, except maybe the magical prosthetic. I can tell you for certain that a hat of disguise isn't gonna satisfy most trans people.

Still, what, if any disabilities are technically diseases or caused by a disease? Is it ablest to have an effect that removes or cures a disease remove or cure a disability?

How can we look at Eberron, and actually consider disabled folks when thinking about what sorts of wide magic inventions would exist?

I would say that how well these ideas are handled is more a factor of the story being told about the character with the disability. And DnD has never been a game to dictate how stories are told.

So I would probably say the answer to disabilities is to not include mechanics, but a sidebar in the PHB and/or DMG about how to handle these ideas with sensitivity as a character arc.

 

[Umbran]

I think by now its obvious that many (most? all?) people who argue here for a more inclusive 6E do so to elevate themselves ...

Mod Note:

It is obvious that you should not be in this discussion any more.

Welcome to your week away from EN World.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?

It should be a process undertaken with extensive playtesting and community feedback. Any answer from one of us is wholly useless.

 

[Umbran]

What’s so hard about answering the question about what you believe should be included in the PHB?

Mod Note:

Please stop badgering people. You are not entitled to any particular response from another user.