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

[Azzy]

I always kinda wondered about that.

D&D has never dealt with insanity very well. Characters are almost never challenged that way - nobody has PTSD or whatever - unless it's some sort of "curse" or, more commonly, magical effect.

OTOH, do we want that much realism in our fantasy supers game?

I can't speak for others on this, but for me... No.

To give an example (and a poor one at that), I recently cursed a couple of PC's in my Saltmarsh game. They bathed in pools devoted to Baphomet, twice willingly and once coerced through a charm, and I handed them a curse. The curse was that they were now tainted by Baphomet. The taint did not mean that their behavior had to change in any way. They were still perfectly free to do anything they wanted, except for one thing, they were not horrified by the taint, but, rather saw it as a blessing. That was the sum total of the "insanity" I inflicted on the players.

Two of the players (one who was infected and one who wasn't) absolutely lost their collective naughty word. How DARE I remove player agency. How DARE I inflict a curse without warning. On and on. To the point, where it became the straw the broke the camels back and I stopped DMing for that group. Just ruined any fun I was having. ((Note, there were other issues as well. Those are not pertinent to the discussion at hand))

But, that's the reaction of some players to the notion of adding an insanity to the characters. Absolutely refused to go with it. Hated it with a passion.

I very, very much don't have an answer here.

I think that maybe Ravenloft had the right idea. Instead of using sanity, like CoC, it used fear and horror checks.

 

[Wishbone]

If the game mentions insanity or mental illness in any way, the designers have social responsibility to do so accurately and sensitively.

No less than for the financial reason that there may be employees, customers, or potential customers they're disrespecting by doing otherwise.

I think that maybe Ravenloft had the right idea. Instead of using sanity, like CoC, it used fear and horror checks.

Charisma or Wisdom saving throws for fear and horror saves representing sense of self or force of will?

 

[Hussar]

5e currently leaves things like Horror or Sanity checks as an optional rule in the DMG. Honestly, I think that's probably where it should stay. D&D isn't really a game about dealing with the horrors of medieval life. The average adventurer should be gibbering in the corner by about level 5 considering the horrors that that character has seen.

This is one spot where I do think that DM's Guild is a better place to handle it. Those that want more "realistic" or comprehensive rules can get them, and those that don't want to deal with those themes aren't forced to.

It's a touchy subject filled with LOTS of pitfalls. I'm not entirely convinced that it has a place in the core game.

 

[Raduin711]

Well the point was to make inclusive names and class features for the classes.

The goal is to

1. Create a generic form of the Barbarian and convert the Barbarian and Berserker to subclasses in other to be inclusive to other types of "Wild Warriors" around the world. I suggested that the class be changed to the Champion and simply get Super Mode
   1. The Barbarian would get Rage
   2. The Berserker would get Frenzy
   3. The Zealot would get Zeal
   4. The Madman would get Madness
   5. Totem Warrior would get Spirit Trance

I would avoid madness entirely, as this may link mental illness with violence, which can be a harmful stereotype. And kid's gloves with the Totem Warrior, make sure that it is run by a sensitivity reader. Totems are a source of consternation for some first nations peoples, like mana and shamanism.

 

[Wishbone]

5e currently leaves things like Horror or Sanity checks as an optional rule in the DMG. Honestly, I think that's probably where it should stay. D&D isn't really a game about dealing with the horrors of medieval life. The average adventurer should be gibbering in the corner by about level 5 considering the horrors that that character has seen.

This is one spot where I do think that DM's Guild is a better place to handle it. Those that want more "realistic" or comprehensive rules can get them, and those that don't want to deal with those themes aren't forced to.

It's a touchy subject filled with LOTS of pitfalls. I'm not entirely convinced that it has a place in the core game.

Now I'm imagining how jaded and disaffected the commoner who kept making their saves against random monsters coming from the forest to raid the village would be.

 

[MGibster]

5e currently leaves things like Horror or Sanity checks as an optional rule in the DMG. Honestly, I think that's probably where it should stay. D&D isn't really a game about dealing with the horrors of medieval life. The average adventurer should be gibbering in the corner by about level 5 considering the horrors that that character has seen.

I agree, that's where it should stay. D&D has always taken the Conan route when it comes to unfathomable horrors. Just hit it with your axe.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Declaring it so doesn't make it so. But it does demonstrate you don't believe in persuading people and changing hearts and minds. This is not the sort of retort which can accomplish either.

I cannot imagine how you think calling the art of persuasion "nonsense" and "dangerous" is a wise course?

Are you kidding? You said,

By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power

And I quote that specific statement.

And now you’re trying to act as though I called the “art of persuasion”(which sounds creepy as hell) dangerous nonsense? LOL

edit: spoilered the rest. Back to the topic.

Spoiler

The statement I quoted is dangerous nonsense.

The marketplace of ideas is fine, as far as it goes, though it has limits of efficacy.

The idea that it is always the best tool, and that it is safe and effective as a tool against fascists and bigots is dangerous nonsense.

it is irresponsible in the extreme to socially allow bigots a platform. Platforms contribute to the spread of neo nazi and other white supremacist rhetoric and recruiting when they allow their platform to be used by these groups. The open forum of the internet has not helped decrease the prevalence of bigotry in our societies, it has allowed them the room to flourish.

 

[Imaculata]

I thought of one other thing I'd like to see, motivated by the large amount of discussion of Lovecraft. While many people on this thread have noted HPL's racism, there's one other non-inclusive thing that often shows up in works inspired by Lovecraft: the conflation of mental illness/"madness" with "evil." Some iterations of D&D have used CoC-inspired "sanity" scores as optional rules, which essentially conflates lack of "sanity" with being evil. Pathfinder 1 does this too. If 6e ever includes mention or discussion of mental illness, they ought to avoid doing it like CoC.

I have never seen lack of sanity be conflated as evil in the works of Lovecraft, or in any of the roleplaying games inspired by his works, including Pathfinder. Where do you get this idea? If anything, sanity is depicted as a 2nd health bar. A way to indicate mental wounds in addition to physical wounds.

The Great Old Ones and their monstrous servants affect the sanity of simple mortals when looked upon, or fully understood. So people who serve these ghastly horrors are often insane to some degree as well. However, I don't see that as conflating madness with evil. The cultists that the heroes in these stories deal with were very much evil before they went mad.

I agree, that's where it should stay. D&D has always taken the Conan route when it comes to unfathomable horrors. Just hit it with your axe.

I strongly disagree. D&D is well suited for Lovecraftian horror. There are many ways to run a campaign, and while the default will always be classic swords and sorcery, the Lovecraftian horror approach is a ton of fun.

In my current D&D campaign I have on occasion flirted with Lovecraftian influences akin to Cthulhu. My players face an unknowable cosmic evil from the depths of the sea, whose mere depiction inspires terror in those who look upon such depraved imagery. It should go without saying that this can add a ton of atmosphere to a campaign.

 

[Minigiant]

I would avoid madness entirely, as this may link mental illness with violence, which can be a harmful stereotype. And kid's gloves with the Totem Warrior, make sure that it is run by a sensitivity reader. Totems are a source of consternation for some first nations peoples, like mana and shamanism.

D&D already links anger to violence.

I was more thinking someone turning their brain off and attacking heedlessly, from irrational angles, and with strange rhythms. I choose not to use Maniac for obvious reasons. I pondered Wild Man but that is much like Barbarian and hinted that foreigners are brainless and driven by anger. Same with Savage.

Totem warrior would need a sensitivity ready.

The point is to offer more versions of the Super Mode while neither tying in to stereotypes of other cultures and less association to Rage.

Berserkers, zealots, sadistic killers, blood knights...

 

[Raduin711]

D&D already links anger to violence.

I wasn't talking about anger. I was talking about madness, that is to say, mental illness.