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

[Wishbone]

Doing harm is a self-defeating option, and delays (or prevents) achieving the goal.

By harm do you mean the use of force against others?

Otherwise, that line of thinking seems to break down in my mind when we overly simplify harm as a simple binary when it's a complex continuum including persuasion, coercion, inducement/threat of the use of force, and the actual use of force. Successful nonviolent civil resistance groups have included many of these in their campaign strategies and are broadly successful.

 

[Eltab]

By harm do you mean the use of force against others?

Otherwise, that line of thinking seems to break down in my mind when we overly simplify harm as a simple binary when it's a complex continuum including persuasion, coercion, inducement/threat of the use of force, and the actual use of force. Successful nonviolent civil resistance groups have included many of these in their campaign strategies and are broadly successful.

Using force, threatening to do so, 'cancel culture' (hassling third parties who are important in your life) - certainly are Harms.

Some coercions:
"I will make you an offer you cannot refuse" where the other fellow does what you want and gets nothing in return - is a Harm.
But a 'spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down' - offering a Good in exchange for the other fellow doing something he was considering-but-reluctant to do - gains you the chance to come back later and bring him another step along with you. This is not a Harm.

Persuasion, or trying but failing at persuading, is not a Harm.

 

[DnD Warlord]

So does anyone want to talk about a hypothetical 6e

 

[Remathilis]

And the thread has devolved into the traditional sniping and real-world politics that drive most of these threads (and increasingly other threads) into the dirt.

I do not envy WotC's predicament. They are going to have to thread a dozen different needles simultaneously going forward. Thanks to a bunch of unforced errors on thier part (such as staffing issues with Black and Mearls) they have a HUGE amount of scrutiny placed on them. Every project WotC is going to do going forward is going to face far-harsher readings than they saw a few years back even. I refer back again the College of Spirits and how people connected it to both the Vistani problem and the shaman problem.

6e, if and when it comes, will be even larger as every voice is gonna want to influence the final product to suit their agenda, be it conservative or progressive. People are going to want thier view on alignments, their views on races/species, thier views on ability scores, on class names, on deities, on artwork, on conditions, etc. to be reflected. WotC changes too much they end with a 4e backlash. Change too little and they are out of touch.

But for now, I think the (+) part of this thread is over. @AcererakTriple6 did a good job trying to get some positive feedback, but I think it just shows the divides run deep in the community.

Gods (all of them) help WotC when they have to do it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are probably not wrong.

But this is an example of witnessing the "harvest".

The seeds were planted decades ago.

What is your point?

The change required active work over the last decade. It required getting in peoples face. It required allies telling their homophobic friends and family that their homophobia was gross and wrong.

Your “seeds” theory doesn’t change that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So does anyone want to talk about a hypothetical 6e

IMO we are still many years away from a 6e, so I’m not surprised this discussion has been consumed by other topics tangential to that topic.

 

[Wishbone]

Using force, threatening to do so, 'cancel culture' (hassling third parties who are important in your life) - certainly are Harms.

Some coercions:
"I will make you an offer you cannot refuse" where the other fellow does what you want and gets nothing in return - is a Harm.
But a 'spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down' - offering a Good in exchange for the other fellow doing something he was considering-but-reluctant to do - gains you the chance to come back later and bring him another step along with you. This is not a Harm.

Persuasion, or trying but failing at persuading, is not a Harm.

That's not really how the term coercion is used when it comes to strategy or the use of force.

Inducement is something like promising to buy a hypothetical 6E once WotC addresses a person's concerns, which is your "spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" analogy.
Coercion (I guess specifically coercive diplomacy) includes things like threatening a boycott of a specific product or all WotC or Hasbro products until those concerns are addressed or even bringing complaints to those with authority ("hassling third parties").

 

[Wishbone]

IMO we are still many years away from a 6e, so I’m not surprised this discussion has been consumed by other topics tangential to that topic.

I think the topics are pretty relevant. The bit about use of force is applicable to further spelling out social encounters beyond the Persuasion, Intimidation, or attack roll options.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I feel no one believes anything for no reason. There is always some grain of truth, or something genuinely at risk. So, sifting thru the dirt to find the bits of gold before dumping the dirt, is a useful process. Albeit painstaking.

But sometimes, people believe in things just to upset other people.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the topics are pretty relevant. The bit about use of force is applicable to further spelling out social encounters beyond the Persuasion, Intimidation, or attack roll options.

They’re tangential in the sense that we aren’t talking about most of them in the context of 6e, really, but just D&D in general. Maybe I’m wrong, though.

Either way, I think we are still firmly in the territory of 6e speculation being very much in vain.