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

[Deset Gled]

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?

Not everything has a "neutral". But in general, yes, I believe the core rules should be fairly neutral or generic. For me, that's less about inclusivity and more about the D&D core being the basis that all the other settings are based off of. WotC should promote the settings that sell best.

 

[TheSword]

@TheSword

They are making a genuine effort to try to do a better job. That's all I expect.

I think WOC are too

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

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

Yeah, which is why the +1 and the other racial bonuses exist. I just didn't elaborate on those because A: too much work and B: I think a lot of the focus has been on the bonuses to the main stats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So is Oriental Adventures.

I think there would be a problem not handling a 1001 nights setting (in the right way).
I mean, you just have to be careful to make sure that everything in it is as accurate as medieval fairytales with kings and knights and dragons.

 

[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.

I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made. The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it. Why is this? Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones. None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male. I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity. It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.

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.

Kind of agree. I don't think this is actually a topic that can be discussed in enough detail on this forum to make a conversation on it worthwhile.

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.

100% Agreed. Though I want to add that we should probably be able to hear about and maybe even see some prominent D&D characters of various races in settings, campaigns, art etc.

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

100% Agreed.

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

100% Agreed.

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.

This one always strikes me as a bit odd. I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up. There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art. I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.

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.

Yea, the details are difficult and depending on those exact details many could come out against what you refer to as inclusiveness and not necessarily because they are being uninclusive. That makes it very hard indeed.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made. The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it. Why is this? Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones. None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male. I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity. It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.

It doesn't matter about the real world, though. D&D is a fantasy game. Even if females are normally physically weaker than males (I'm male, and am definitely weaker than the average female my age), D&D is the game where anyone can play anything. IMO, no punishments should be given to you based on race or sex in D&D. The general D&D community agrees with me. Previous editions had strength caps for women, and that does not bode well. It is uninclusive to suggest that this is a good idea.

This one always strikes me as a bit odd. I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up. There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art. I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.

I'll just quickly point out that @Umbran said not to discuss this. Religion is a touchy subject, and if real world religions were included/represented in D&D, that would be heavily and extremely problematic.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I hope it's not deemed uninclusive to make this point because I think it's an important one that needs to be made. The most interesting part of this one to me is that statistically women are physically weaker than men in upper body strength and yet we have all happily rejected that fact needing to be be mechanically defined in our games and not even verisimilitude itself is a reasonable argument against it. Why is this? Because we all want to see our female characters just as capable as our male ones. None of us want to be told we must be inferior in any respect just because we may chose to play a female instead of a male. I'm not sure that reason truly qualifies as inclusivity. It feels more to me like a form of advocacy for our characters than inclusiveness.

Inclusivness often just mean not excluding - and in this case, it means not making women and girls feel unwelcome. Telling them that if they want to be as strong as the other characters they have to play a man is pushing them out, because it's the game itself telling them they are inferior.

Nobody wants that.

This one always strikes me as a bit odd. I agree in many ways but have one point to bring up. There's a desire by many to have people like them represented in the game products and art. I'm not sure why real world religious people get excluded from that same kind of representation.

Religion generally doesn't expect explicit representation; you can see yourself as the hero even if they don't go to the same church as you (or go to church at all), so religious issues are generally best handled by not including real-world religions. When you do, it's important to do so sensitively, but that's a long thread.

Put it another way: I don't think anyone has ever argued that DnD isn't inclusive of Catholics, even though there are no Catholics in the Forgotten Realms. There just aren't any offensive parodies of the Church, and that's enough.

I would go so far as to say we shouldn't try to be inclusive of Muslims per se - we should try to be inclusive of Arabs and South Asians and Indonesians (etc).

Yea, the details are difficult and depending on those exact details many could come out against what you refer to as inclusiveness and not necessarily because they are being uninclusive. That makes it very hard indeed.

Part of the reason we go for the easy stuff first is the more the basics are dealt with the clearer other issues become.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, which is why the +1 and the other racial bonuses exist. I just didn't elaborate on those because A: too much work and B: I think a lot of the focus has been on the bonuses to the main stats.

Okay, but, for example, Both Half-Orcs and Goliaths get +2 Strength and +1 Con. Same exact array. Are they identical though as PC races?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Okay, but, for example, Both Half-Orcs and Goliaths get +2 Strength and +1 Con. Same exact array. Are they identical though as PC races?

No.

They get the other stuff, like Proficiency in Intimidate and Brutal Critical for Half-Orcs, and Proficiency in Athletics and Stone's Endurance for Goliaths.

Granted, that's not the most differences, but that's what both the other racial bonus are for (for H-orcs, I'd say Charisma for the same reason Tieflings get it, and Goliaths get Wisdom, because I feel like that fits.)

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't matter about the real world, though. D&D is a fantasy game. Even if females are normally physically weaker than males (I'm male, and am definitely weaker than the average female my age), D&D is the game where anyone can play anything. IMO, no punishments should be given to you based on race or sex in D&D. The general D&D community agrees with me. Previous editions had strength caps for women, and that does not bode well. It is uninclusive to suggest that this is a good idea.

It seems you’ve assigned me a position I didn’t actually post and don’t actually hold.

my post unequivocally was in support of female characters being just as strong as male ones.

the only question was about whether that was actually about inclusivity or player advocacy for their characters.