D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Mercurius]

Do people really not see what's problematic in the above paragraph? Seriously? Am I the only one that sees it?

Really? You read that and don't see a single parallel to racist writing? Replace Human with "Whites" and any of the non-humans with, well, any minority, and it reads like it came straight out of a KKK pamphlet.

Here's the original quote again:

It was humanity's unique place, bereft of a creator deity and a single unifying culture, which made them diverse. Humans had no predisposition to good or evil, law or chaos. They had no single culture, no unifying faith, not even a universal tongue (though common gets close to that role) that made them adaptive, flexible, and provided the brightest heroes and darkest villains. Humanity's drive is what allowed them to outcompete with dwarves, elves, orcs, and even dragons to become the dominant force in nearly every campaign setting.​

And here's a quote from Wikipedia on Scientific Racism: Scientific racism - Wikipedia



So, that should satisfy the crowd that insists on seeing evidence. I mean all it took was a 30 second wikipedia search, but, hey, apparently, folks are incapable of finding the evidence.

Sorry to disappoint, Hussar, but this doesn't bother me. First of all, and most importantly, the quoted D&D text is talking about fantasy races in fantasy worlds. It isn't saying anything negative about nonhumans, just that humans "outcompeted" them due to their "drive." Makes sense to me.

There is some similarity to the quote from Meiners, but without the pejorative race comparisons. Pretty dubious connection, imo.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Really? You read that and don't see a single parallel to racist writing? Replace Human with "Whites" and any of the non-humans with, well, any minority, and it reads like it came straight out of a KKK pamphlet.

Here's the original quote again:

It was humanity's unique place, bereft of a creator deity and a single unifying culture, which made them diverse. Humans had no predisposition to good or evil, law or chaos. They had no single culture, no unifying faith, not even a universal tongue (though common gets close to that role) that made them adaptive, flexible, and provided the brightest heroes and darkest villains. Humanity's drive is what allowed them to outcompete with dwarves, elves, orcs, and even dragons to become the dominant force in nearly every campaign setting.​

And here's a quote from Wikipedia on Scientific Racism: Scientific racism - Wikipedia



So, that should satisfy the crowd that insists on seeing evidence. I mean all it took was a 30 second wikipedia search, but, hey, apparently, folks are incapable of finding the evidence.

Ah, thanks. Sorry, I agree with you, but I am a bit dense.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Ok, I want to home in right here. I'll start with a flat-out statement. I HATE the notion of a flavorless Core Rules. HATE IT! You are not the first person to suggest the Toolbox method to D&D (throw all the toys in a box, let the DM/setting pull out what's needed) and I despise that kind of game design. D&D is not generic, its actually quite poor at being generic. There is a lot of baked in assumptions throughout the game. In classes, magic, races, monsters, etc. There is lore, and that lore is what makes the game interesting. I remember the 2e Monstrous Manual filling me with dozens of great ideas for my own setting, I didn't touch a published setting (beyond Ravenloft modules and Planescape for the planes) until Eberron came out in 3.5. I lived on that lore found in the MM, the PHB, the generic splatbooks, etc. To me, that is D&D; every setting is just flavors of it.

Okay, I guess there's no point in arguing this with you further, then. If you don't want the change so vehemently that you all caps HATE IT, I guess I can't do anything for that.

I don't want the PHB to lose that flavor and be a bunch of bland statblocks. The 4e Monster Manual was nearly this, and it's the worst D&D book I own.

The PHB wouldn't be stat blocks, it would be racial traits, classes, backgrounds, and pretty much everything it is now with the racial generalizations removed.

Sure. There has always been a drumbeat as to whether the monk, barbarian, and paladin are generic enough to be in the default game. The recent discussions about OA and cultural appropriation has added to the idea that D&D classes should be generic and not try to emulate specific archetypes, esp ones that could be viewed as insensitive. So far, the three mentioned and druid are getting a bit of the rough housing for being too culturally specific (one Eastern, two Western, one just "outsider") and like many of these discussions, it mixes with people who want those classes removed for other reasons. However, I fear adding "X class is problematic" to the chorus will lead to those classes being cut in the next iteration.

I don't agree with those people, and don't want them removed. Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, and Druids deserve to exist, and we agree in this regard.

D&D has newfound popularity (much like it had in the early 80's when cartoons and toys brought it fame) and with newfound fame brings newfound scrutiny. TSR went with kneejerk reactions to this scrutiny and set up 2e to alienate its base. I pray WotC has more foresight in handling this than TSR did.

I'm not going to argue against the comparisons between now and the Satanic Panic, because I fundamentally disagree with that analogy, and it's a strawman.

And I would have thought a devil reference wouldn't offend someone who has the literal Mark of the Beast in thier user-handle. ;-)

The fact that I have that number in my username has no correlation to my taking offense at being compared to non-D&D players literally calling for the destruction and burning of the game.

Edit: I also saw that you didn't respond to anything else I posted above in my previous comment quoting you, so I don't know your position on that.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sorry to disappoint, Hussar, but this doesn't bother me. First of all, and most importantly, the quoted D&D text is talking about fantasy races in fantasy worlds. It isn't saying anything negative about nonhumans, just that humans "outcompeted" them due to their "drive." Makes sense to me.

There is some similarity to the quote from Meiners, but without the pejorative race comparisons. Pretty dubious connection, imo.

The language mirrors it, and that's exactly why my side wants the Orc's descriptive language changed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really? You read that and don't see a single parallel to racist writing? Replace Human with "Whites" and any of the non-humans with, well, any minority, and it reads like it came straight out of a KKK pamphlet.

Here's the original quote again:

It was humanity's unique place, bereft of a creator deity and a single unifying culture, which made them diverse. Humans had no predisposition to good or evil, law or chaos. They had no single culture, no unifying faith, not even a universal tongue (though common gets close to that role) that made them adaptive, flexible, and provided the brightest heroes and darkest villains. Humanity's drive is what allowed them to outcompete with dwarves, elves, orcs, and even dragons to become the dominant force in nearly every campaign setting.​

And here's a quote from Wikipedia on Scientific Racism: Scientific racism - Wikipedia



So, that should satisfy the crowd that insists on seeing evidence. I mean all it took was a 30 second wikipedia search, but, hey, apparently, folks are incapable of finding the evidence.

Science fiction has used that language to describe humanity as compared to other species for decades. There's a lot of great stuff there that would be thrown out if "humans are special" goes away. I feel this interpretation leads to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[JEB]

I've been saying it since 5e started. For a game with so many races, DnD is so blatantly human-centric it is almost amusing.

Humans seem to be pretty popular with players, though, based on stats from places like D&D Beyond (and also in my 5e group). I suspect this is because many people, particularly those new to role-playing, find it easier to get into character when that character requires less of a leap from their day-to-day. So it seems to make sense for D&D to be human-centric by default. Further, it's tough to justify an important role for humans in a world full of other species with baseline physical and magical advantages. So D&D humans need some kind of unique shtick, and it has to be something that actual humans can accept as plausible.

If anyone has any ideas for how to keep humans in a prominent role in D&D, to keep it friendly towards those new players who want to start with the comfortable, but also give them some shtick that isn't "humans are adaptable," I'd be interested to hear it.

Yes, you're understanding me correctly. IMHO, the general physical appearance of the races will be contained therein, as well as a small description of how they can act from setting to setting. The individual setting books would describe how those races are in that setting, contain any subraces specific to that world, and give any physical changes listed from the base races.

Interesting, but I do share the concerns of @Remathilis that this would erode the appeal of the core rules. It would have the effect of primarily defining character races by their game rules (and physical traits), and provide much less for players whose primary interest is lore and role-playing. Those players might be happy once they got to the setting books, of course, but if they're not hooked by the core rules, will they bother?

I also remember the first time I paged through the 4e Monster Manual - it was the final nail that turned me off of 4e. I think Wizards should try to avoid other players having a similar response to a 5.5e or 6e.

To be clear, I'm all for adjusting character race/people/folk descriptions to be more inclusive, and introducing more cultural variations in the core rules; I'm just wary of the side effects of cutting fantasy cultural details back.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Humans seem to be pretty popular with players, though, based on stats from places like D&D Beyond (and also in my 5e group). I suspect this is because many people, particularly those new to role-playing, find it easier to get into character when that character requires less of a leap from their day-to-day. So it seems to make sense for D&D to be human-centric by default. Further, it's tough to justify an important role for humans in a world full of other species with baseline physical and magical advantages. So D&D humans need some kind of unique shtick, and it has to be something that actual humans can accept as plausible.

If anyone has any ideas for how to keep humans in a prominent role in D&D, to keep it friendly towards those new players who want to start with the comfortable, but also give them some shtick that isn't "humans are adaptable," I'd be interested to hear it.

That has always been something I've struggled with, trying to give Human's a niche that isn't so, meh.

But the point kind of goes beyond that. Most DnD settings happen in worlds with a mjority human population, in majority human areas, ruled by human rulers, and with the generic gods just being human gods with the numbers filed off.

It is very easy to play in a world like Forgotten Realms and forget that non-humans are a thing.

 

[Scott Christian]

The PHB wouldn't be stat blocks, it would be racial traits, classes, backgrounds, and pretty much everything it is now with the racial generalizations removed.

I have a question I can't seem to answer, or an answer I don't understand. So please bare with me (please and thank you).

If all these ancestries have lived together long enough to build a cohesive bonded culture where no one ancestry has a unique culture or socio-economic class or job pattern or skill pattern, how does that work in a timeline? I mean, assuming we're going off real-world dynamics (which we are, because if we aren't then the fantasy world not mirroring real world would be a valid argument), then why are the races not homogenized? There is no way it would be as heterogenous as it is, with dozens of races running around. Unless of course, they chose to be separate, which would lead to certain groups being lower or higher than the other.

Now, if we go from the standpoint that pockets of races live with only one another (elves in the forest, etc.), then wouldn't some of their behavior be dictated by societal rules? Isn't it possible that in one society there are more law abiding citizens than in another? Isn't it possible, due to geography, resource scarcity, corrupt people in power, that one society might be more warlike than another? Isn't it possible that all the way down to how they raise their children might be worlds apart? If a child grows up without having been taught how to empathize, then there is a a greater chance they don't harbor the same feelings as one that does.

If we view the D&D world as somewhat realistic and taken from history, then I'd suggest watching the Primary Source videos from Voices of the Past. They do a great job with teaching an understanding about historical context from readings of first hand accounts and journals. They sometimes note the stereotypes of the time, but more the differences as a whole. And many of these differences are the way groups act.

history primary source videos - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Sorry, I am just having a hard time making sense of a timeline where everyone is different, yet groups have never pooled or formed, despite being different phenotypes. If it is all based on individuals, then all the races would have melded to one provided they can procreate, which many can because we have half-orcs and half-elves.

And please, no one take this as a stance on "he's against change" or "he doesn't recognize real world plight" or anything else as ridiculous. It is a question regarding the timeline of creating different ancestries, yet not creating cultures that dictate behavior or eventually blending.

 

[Lanefan]

You couldn't, by the rules, attack with two weapons in Basic. That wasn't added until AD&D and even then, it was a rule buried pretty deeply in the DMG. It wasn't until 2e that attacking with two weapons became pretty mainstream and, at the cost of a couple of weapon proficiencies, a bargain in the making.

I can't imagine playing 2e without using two weapons. It was just that much better than any other option. Two weapon proficiencies and all penalties go away and all the fighters plus clerics could do it. Hrm, +1 AC for a shield or double my attacks per round. Not really a choice.

True, though didn't 2e give 2 points of AC for a shield? We always did in 1e and I seem to remember this being one of the ways 2e caught up to us.

Also, I've never had two-weapon fighting as a proficiency of its own, in part to avoid this sort of thing.

 

[ZeshinX]

True, though didn't 2e give 2 points of AC for a shield? We always did in 1e and I seem to remember this being one of the ways 2e caught up to us.

Generally, 2e shields provided a +1 to AC. The body shield (tower shield in more modern parlance) gave +1 AC against melee attacks, and +2 AC against missile attacks (if originating from the front or sides of the shield user).