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

[jmartkdr2]

Yes. But you can’t be inclusive to every player. Ideologies and opinions do and will clash.

If you set the goal at "absolutely inclusive of every person in the world" then yes, that's impossible.

But being more inclusive is still a good thing to aim for, even if perfection can't be reached. And we do that by finding the barriers, and determining if they serve a worthwhile purpose. If not, we remove them. If so, we consider if there's a better way to serve that purpose. (And often the answer is 'not really' so we leave it be.)

 

[FrogReaver]

If you set the goal at "absolutely inclusive of every person in the world" then yes, that's impossible.

But being more inclusive is still a good thing to aim for, even if perfection can't be reached. And we do that by finding the barriers, and determining if they serve a worthwhile purpose. If not, we remove them. If so, we consider if there's a better way to serve that purpose. (And often the answer is 'not really' so we leave it be.)

Sure. But you do have to rate the importance of the groups you may include.

Do you want to include certain religious groups or groups they oppose? Do you want to include those that like evil orcs or those that find them offensive. Etc.

The suggestions that include some of those groups inevitably exclude others. Some guidance on what this thread means to include is all I was asking for.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If you set the goal at "absolutely inclusive of every person in the world" then yes, that's impossible.

But being more inclusive is still a good thing to aim for, even if perfection can't be reached. And we do that by finding the barriers, and determining if they serve a worthwhile purpose. If not, we remove them. If so, we consider if there's a better way to serve that purpose. (And often the answer is 'not really' so we leave it be.)

Exactly. @FrogReaver, the goal isn't to satisfy literally every single person who plays the game. I am sure that in the millions of people who play the game there are plenty of different ideologies and opinions that would clash, but that's not the issue at hand. If inclusivity clashes with their ideologies or opinions, you don't have to be inclusive to them or listen to their suggestions to make the game less inclusive.

I don't want this thread to become a discussion of the definition of inclusion, but debates like this in the thread are inevitable. Let's not derail the topic, but feel free to stay if you're discussing specific recommendations.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly. @FrogReaver, the goal isn't to satisfy literally every single person who plays the game. I am sure that in the millions of people who play the game there are plenty of different ideologies and opinions that would clash, but that's not the issue at hand. If inclusivity clashes with their ideologies or opinions, you don't have to be inclusive to them or listen to their suggestions to make the game less inclusive.

I don't want this thread to become a discussion of the definition of inclusion, but debates like this in the thread are inevitable. Let's not derail the topic, but feel free to stay if you're discussing specific recommendations.

No problem. I’ve said my thoughts. Thanks for allowing them. Hope you get some good recommendations.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Do you want to include certain religious groups or groups they oppose? Do you want to include those that like evil orcs or those that find them offensive. Etc.

If the game is more inclusive, it will be just as easy to have evil orcs as it will to have non-evil orcs. Inclusivity does not equal exclusion of certain people. They'd still be as free to play the game as anyone else.

 

[TheSword]

If my knowledge of internet language serves me correctly, it means a positive discussion.

(Can anyone who is more fluent in internet jargon than I verify this? I'm not great at describing this kind of thing.)

Ah cool. Don’t worry I won’t touch this with a 10ft pole. I leave you to the echo chamber.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Ah cool. Don’t worry I won’t touch this with a 10ft pole. I leave you to the echo chamber.

(emphasis mine)

I feel like that wasn't necessary. Is there anything inherently wrong with an echo chamber? This website is an echo chamber for nerds who like Tabletop RPGs.

I understand the fact that other views are important, but there's already been heavy discussion on this topic throughout the threads of this website. I have stated that debate is welcome, but I don't want this to become the verbal/digital slugfests that the other threads were.

If you have nothing to say, don't say it. If all you've got to say is a quick, snide comment, don't say it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing that might help new players get into the game is better scaling of complexity - for your first game, it would be pretty helpful to have highly simplified rules. Something like a design goal where you only need your ability scores and hit points and you technically have enough to start playing. The champion fighter is probably a more realistic version of this idea.

Of course I think staying at that level of complexity is going to get boring for some players (a frequent complaint with the champion) so you'd want to build in a way to smoothly add complexity over time if you want to as a player.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

They can add an unreliable narrator to the race section, maybe even dueling narrators. So Volo can go "everyone knows dwarves are hard working people who live underground....." and then Elminister can say "well, except for the above ground living dwarves on the tropical island of _____ who live a life of island tranquility....." For the cost of an extra page per race, you could have 4 or 5 narrators (possibly from different campaign worlds) giving a short description.

Edit: come to think of it, that might be a good thing for class descriptions too. 4 or 5 narrators with different examples of "when I think of a X, I think of...."

 

[jgsugden]

I am against a 6E at this time, but this is how I'd do the changes to account for modern social visions.

1.) Each PC would select a Humanoid Type, a Class, a Background, and a Profession.
2.) Humanoid type would provide you some purely physical characteristics tied to the form of the humanoid type. It would also give you points to spend in your background and profession. A race like aarakocra would get fewer points to spend elsewhere because it gains a power ability through the humanoid type.
3.) Class would be much as it is now, but would also include a bonus to the prime attribute of the class.
4.) Backgrounds would be much as they are now, but would you'd spend points from the pool provided by your humanoid type to obtain features from the background, like proficiencies, special abilities, tool proficiencies, etc... You would get an ability score bonus from your background choice.
5.) Your profession would be what you currently do as a newly heroic figure. While background looks at where you were, profession would look at where you are. Many of them would be tied directly to combat, but some options would focus on social or exploration abilities. Again, you could use points from your humanoid type to buy abilities in your profession. You would also get one ability score bonus from your profession. You'd be able to choose a second background as your profession, or something more focused on adventuring that was only available as a profession.
6.) If all three ability score bonuses (class, background and profession) are in the same attribute, you move one to an attribute of your choice.
7.) We'd establish that only humanoids have free will. Everything else, in the standard setting, is guided by directives put into them by the Gods or other forces. They have personalities, but they are programmed to be a certain way, and are not allowed to deviate without magic.
8.) However, these directives would not be alignments. Alignment would be removed from the game. Instead, these directives would be rules that the creatures without free will must follow and believe - and have no choice but to follow and believe. A red dragon would inherently value wealth, despise those weaker than it, and enjoy cruelty. You could shape the rest of their personality when one is met, but all red dragons would share the same core rules of belief and nature.
9.) As mentioned - no alignment. Instead, we'd focus on shared belief structures. Instead of a magic sword only being useful to good PCs, it would only be useful to one that was blessed by a certain deity. Instead of having spirit guardians dealing damage type based on alignment, it would be a choice.