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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

That may hold for gaming things. But, the number of people who restrict themselves to that overall.. on an internet site, is probably slim.

Because that would mean you never went to the movies, didn't pay for cable or any streaming services. I can't say I know anyone who's restricted themselves to airwave broadcasts (free) or DVD/Blu-Ray (pay for a physical item) for media.

Where I live, we have free (legal) streaming of all TV shows, movies, and books.

 

[Umbran]

Where I live, we have free (legal) streaming of all TV shows, movies, and books.

"Free", except you pay taxes that cover all that, don't you?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

"Free", except you pay taxes that cover all that, don't you?

Not really. We have a flat 20% tax dividend and salary. What we don't have is well-crafted IP laws. There's no law to make streaming illegal so long as the site cannot be accessed internationally.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I guess I'm not going to engage in absurd examples, then. If you have a real scenario that you would like answered, I'd be willing to try to discuss that, if appropriate.

I'm trying to find common ground between more traditional groups and groups that want to be more inclusive. So far, I've seen some good suggestions in this thread once I started asking better questions.

I'm honestly curious what a more inclusive PHB would look like. I see a lot of arguments about why the current game is problematic. Which is fine, but it's only half the job. Telling me that D&D tropes are problematic because they reflect colonialism does not tell me what an improvement would constitute and look like.

I'm trying to better understand.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I agree, but I think I might have been unclear because I was rushing, or maybe I misunderstood.

There is an argument I keep seeing that if you remove the +2 Dex from Elves, then they become nothing more than "a human in a rubber mask", but this argument seems to ignore that Elves, Halflings, and Tabaxi all have that same +2.

So, if the other racial traits are enough to seperate an elf from a Tabaxi from a Halfling, then why isn't it enough for an elf to keep their identity without the +2?

Keep in mind, there are other stats that you could put the +2 into like INT or CHA (or whatever the designers feel that Elves could be really good at) as well as the other races +2, which for Halflings I would say +2 CON or CHA and with Tabaxi you could say +2 to DEX, CHA, and STR. Again, might not be a lot to differentiate them, but A: that's what the other racial traits are for (Skill Proficiencies are the simple ones, but also other biological stuff like claws or advantages on saving throws against poison, as well as cultural stuff.) and B: This is just one idea for how they could do it from someone who is not a professional game designer. Other ideas do exist, we just haven't heard of them yet.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm trying to find common ground between more traditional groups and groups that want to be more inclusive. So far, I've seen some good suggestions in this thread.

I'm curious what a more inclusive PHB would look like. I see a lot of arguments about why the current game is problematic. Which is fine, but it's only half the job. Telling me that D&D trope are problematic because they reflect colonialism does tell me what an improvement would constitute and look like.

I'm trying to better understand.

Okay. So, let's go back to the OP:

• Alignment removed from humanoids at the very least. Possibly removed from dragons and other "monsters" but the extent to this is up for debate here.

So, this would make the races not have any alignment attached to them in a 6e PHB. Setting Books could assign general alignments to the races, but still be clear that PCs are outliers, and you can be any alignment you want. (A Monster Manual might have less alignment in the Monster Stat blocks, but you were asking specifically about the PHB)

• Possibly remove alignment in its entirety. I personally don't think we should be getting rid of it altogether, but to keep it mainly for fiends, celestials, and the other otherworldly creatures.

This to an extent. A 6e PHB, in my vision, would either get rid of alignment entirely, or still have it, but as a variant rule to the standard. It could possibly be moved the the DMG as an optional rule, like flanking.

• Setting determining the culture and descriptions of the races, and not the base rules.

So, how this would play out is that the Race section of the PHB wouldn't list the culture of the races, just their normal physical appearance and mechanical traits. This isn't a major change, just removing the flavor paragraphs from the Races. This would make more room to fill the book with more races, so players get more options from the PHB. The DMG, Basic Rules, or an Appendix in the PHB would list the features of the races in the main setting that 6e is designed around. This isn't a major change, but is just a shift in where things are described.

• Ability Scores being detached from races. There have been many suggestions for this, linking it to background or class, but I personally don't like this. I think allowing a player to choose the bonus to ability scores completely detached from race or any other choice would allow for more player freedom, and support creativity.

This would make it so the race doesn't get Ability Scores attached to it. (Hey, everyone, no one in particular. Don't get mad at me for mentioning this, or tell me this has nothing to do with inclusion. It's been discussed in the inclusion threads, mentioned by WotC in their Inclusivity statement, and I am just listing what a 6e PHB might look like.)

• Cause there to be less of a link between shamanism and the more evil races. This could be mostly solved by either making a shaman class and adding more shamans for more races, or just getting rid of evil races.

Basically, make Shaman a class. I think a PHB 6e will have to consider which classes fill large enough niches to be considered their own unique classes. If 6e has Druids, they should also have Shamans, IMHO. They should be distinct, so it's clear what shamans are.

• Possibly changing the word "race" to Ancestry, Species, Heritage, Folk, People, Lineage, etc.

This is simple. Just change the name of Race to Ancestry, Species, or any other word that would better describe it. This has been mentioned on several occasions, and is a minor change.

• Possibly rename certain classes (Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Monk, Warlock)

Then, this one is also simple. If there are any names of classes that are problematic, they might want to consider renaming them. Barbarian to Berserker, Paladin to Knight, and so on.

Overall, these are very minor changes, and wouldn't effect the book that much. Most of it is renaming, moving around text, and allowing for more character freedom when it comes to races. These changes aren't major, are not a huge deal to execute correctly, and are what I specifically think would work in a 6e PHB.

Does this clear things up?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Keep in mind, there are other stats that you could put the +2 into like INT or CHA (or whatever the designers feel that Elves could be really good at) as well as the other races +2, which for Halflings I would say +2 CON or CHA and with Tabaxi you could say +2 to DEX, CHA, and STR. Again, might not be a lot to differentiate them, but A: that's what the other racial traits are for (Skill Proficiencies are the simple ones, but also other biological stuff like claws or advantages on saving throws against poison, as well as cultural stuff.) and B: This is just one idea for how they could do it from someone who is not a professional game designer. Other ideas do exist, we just haven't heard of them yet.

I think we are talking past each other. You seem to be agreeing with me that the +2 does not help define the race.

 

[Deset Gled]

Another serious question: Which groups should WotC be responsible for actively including?

It's important to note that different groups are "included" by handling them in very different ways. Generally speaking, I don't think WotC is responsible for adding content to be inclusive of any specific group. Rather, WotC is responsible for making sure the core rules are open to add content, and don't penalize or single out any group. Specifically...

D&D should be gender inclusive. Generally, this means not having bonuses, penalties, or mechanics for specific genders.

D&D should be sexually inclusive. IMNSHO, D&D should also be PG. This means sexuality should rarely come up in the rules; when it does, the mechanics should not be based on a specific sexuality.

D&D should be racially inclusive. Generally, this means not having bonuses or penalties for real-world races. It also means not having fantasy races/species that are expys of real-world races.

D&D should be culturally inclusive. This means that if/when real-world cultures are referenced, they are used in a non-offensive way.

D&D should be disability inclusive. This means it should be playable by people with disabilities.

D&D should be religiously inclusive. Because D&D is a fantasy game, this means it should not include real world religions or expys of real world religions in the mechanics.

Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts. Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts. Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.

Thanks for your comments.

Would making the PHB, MM, and DMG as setting neutral as possible fix that problem? Or, to your mind, should the game actively promote more inclusive settings?

 

[FrogReaver]

It's important to note that different groups are "included" by handling them in very different ways. Generally speaking, I don't think WotC is responsible for adding content to be inclusive of any specific group. Rather, WotC is responsible for making sure the core rules are open to add content, and don't penalize or single out any group. Specifically...

D&D should be gender inclusive. Generally, this means not having bonuses, penalties, or mechanics for specific genders.

D&D should be sexually inclusive. IMNSHO, D&D should also be PG. This means sexuality should rarely come up in the rules; when it does, the mechanics should not be based on a specific sexuality.

D&D should be racially inclusive. Generally, this means not having bonuses or penalties for real-world races. It also means not having fantasy races/species that are expys of real-world races.

D&D should be culturally inclusive. This means that if/when real-world cultures are referenced, they are used in a non-offensive way.

D&D should be disability inclusive. This means it should be playable by people with disabilities.

D&D should be religiously inclusive. Because D&D is a fantasy game, this means it should not include real world religions or expys of real world religions in the mechanics.

Obviously, it's the details that go beyond the "general" stuff above that are the hard parts. Also, specific settings in D&D have a lot more issues to deal with (e.g. how a fantasy culture might handle sexuality), but those are issues that shouldn't affect the mechanics of the core game.

imo this is the best post of the thread so far