Did Tasha's go far enough?

[Darth Credence]

From everything I can see, it looks like Tasha's Cauldron has changed the way that characters are created, by allowing people to apply a species bonus to any of their ability points, and to trade around the specific languages and skills that they start with. I think that is as far as they went, which means that a mountain dwarf can get two +2s, and proficiency in any two armor types, while a half elf gets two +1s and a +2, two skills however they want, and three languages they want. I may be a bit off here, but I think that's pretty much it.

So my question is, why not go a touch farther? If they are trying to say that not all of a given species focuses on the same things so they can have whatever bonuses or skills they want instead of being tied down to one particular set, why is there any difference in the races at all? Why not have the races be a skin, and you pick the particular set of bonuses you want to have. How about a human with all of a mountain dwarfs abilities? Or a halfling that has everything a half-elf starts with? It seems to make every bit as much sense to me, and about the only way to keep a number of races viable. While my campaign is well under way, and this won't have an impact any time soon, this is what I intend to implement once people start making characters with the new rules. I can't see how it would affect overall balance, as each species should be balanced, so picking one species abilities with another species looks shouldn't throw it off, unless the world design itself favors one look over another.

Am I missing something in how the rules are being rolled out, or is there some other reason to not just consider the species to be a skin separate from ability scores and other bonuses?

[JNAProductions]

From everything I can see, it looks like Tasha's Cauldron has changed the way that characters are created, by allowing people to apply a species bonus to any of their ability points, and to trade around the specific languages and skills that they start with. I think that is as far as they went, which means that a mountain dwarf can get two +2s, and proficiency in any two armor types, while a half elf gets two +1s and a +2, two skills however they want, and three languages they want. I may be a bit off here, but I think that's pretty much it.

So my question is, why not go a touch farther? If they are trying to say that not all of a given species focuses on the same things so they can have whatever bonuses or skills they want instead of being tied down to one particular set, why is there any difference in the races at all? Why not have the races be a skin, and you pick the particular set of bonuses you want to have. How about a human with all of a mountain dwarfs abilities? Or a halfling that has everything a half-elf starts with? It seems to make every bit as much sense to me, and about the only way to keep a number of races viable. While my campaign is well under way, and this won't have an impact any time soon, this is what I intend to implement once people start making characters with the new rules. I can't see how it would affect overall balance, as each species should be balanced, so picking one species abilities with another species looks shouldn't throw it off, unless the world design itself favors one look over another.

Am I missing something in how the rules are being rolled out, or is there some other reason to not just consider the species to be a skin separate from ability scores and other bonuses?

Sacred cows and all that.

D&D has had races mechanically different since its inception, as far as I know, so they're keeping it to make it feel like D&D.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't really care if a player wanted to futz about further with races. I'd like them to be honest with me about it-whether they're doing it for fluff (can I switch out a Halfling's Lucky for a Tabaxi's climb speed, since I'm from a tribe of mountainous Halflings?) or powergaming (can I switch Tabaxi's climb speed for Halfling's Lucky, since I'm gonna be a Thief Rogue anyway?) but provided what they want to do isn't over- or under-powered... Go nuts, yeah.

[Connington]

So my question is, why not go a touch farther? If they are trying to say that not all of a given species focuses on the same things so they can have whatever bonuses or skills they want instead of being tied down to one particular set, why is there any difference in the races at all? Why not have the races be a skin, and you pick the particular set of bonuses you want to have. How about a human with all of a mountain dwarfs abilities? Or a halfling that has everything a half-elf starts with?

Racial abilities are interesting. You get to feel the difference in play. Racial Ability Score Increases just feel like the designers rubbing your nose in the fact that you're objectively worse at your core traits than you could have been as a member of the "right" race. Math is just math, and it doesn't "feel" any different to have ST 18 because you're a level 4 Mountain Dwarf vs a level 8 Elf.

[OldTrees1]

Am I missing something in how the rules are being rolled out, or is there some other reason to not just consider the species to be a skin separate from ability scores and other bonuses?

Take a moment to consider significantly diverse species. Imagine an aarakocra, a dragonborn, and a triton. One can fly, one has a breath weapon, and one can breathe underwater.

If you take D&D races as ethnicities, then turn them into skins and ban any race that can't be turned into a skin. Everyone is now a reskinned VHuman with a longer feat list that includes many half feats.
If you take D&D races as species, then don't turn them into skins. Let the biodiversity exist.
If you are in the middle, take the middle path.

[Stangler]

Tasha's still has to work within the established framework of other 5e rules. I would imagine that a larger re-thinking of race will be present in the next rule set. The Tasha changes place an emphasis on simplicity at the cost of balance and other issues. Creating big revisions to an existing rule set is hard.

[Willie the Duck]

Am I missing something in how the rules are being rolled out, or is there some other reason to not just consider the species to be a skin separate from ability scores and other bonuses?


Tasha's still has to work within the established framework of other 5e rules. I would imagine that a larger re-thinking of race will be present in the next rule set. The Tasha changes place an emphasis on simplicity at the cost of balance and other issues. Creating big revisions to an existing rule set is hard.

Mostly what Stangler said. This is an optional modification, not a complete re-imaging. 6E, whenever it happens, might do something radically different with race, but this is just tinkering around the edges.

[KorvinStarmast]

Take a moment to consider significantly diverse species. Imagine an aarakocra, a dragonborn, and a triton. One can fly, one has a breath weapon, and one can breathe underwater.

If you take D&D races as ethnicities, then turn them into skins and ban any race that can't be turned into a skin. Everyone is now a reskinned VHuman with a longer feat list that includes many half feats.
If you take D&D races as species, then don't turn them into skins. Let the biodiversity exist.
If you are in the middle, take the middle path. *well said* Also, a good approach to any play at the table ...


This is an optional modification, not a complete re-imaging. 6E, whenever it happens, might do something radically different with race, but this is just tinkering around the edges. 6e is welcomed to arrive in the 2030's, thanks.

[Telwar]

Tasha's still has to work within the established framework of other 5e rules. I would imagine that a larger re-thinking of race will be present in the next rule set. The Tasha changes place an emphasis on simplicity at the cost of balance and other issues. Creating big revisions to an existing rule set is hard.

^ All of this. Tasha's is the quick and dirty solution to get people off their backs sufficiently that Hasbro doesn't feel the best move is to shutter the rpg division entirely for being too much trouble, and, possibly coincidentally, open up build diversity at the same time.

To go any farther would require a pretty major rework, at least a 5.5 style revision, or a 6e, and their business model really doesn't support either of those at the moment. And while I am not a big fan of 5e, this *generally works* and at least doesn't exacerbate my issues.

...and, frankly, perfect is the enemy of good enough.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Am I missing something in how the rules are being rolled out, or is there some other reason to not just consider the species to be a skin separate from ability scores and other bonuses?

I'm going to quote myself from one of the bigger previous threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618956-quot-Customizing-your-Origin-in-D-amp-D-quot/page13). I still don't know if i think this is an anywhere near good idea, but I still kind of want to try it:


You know, since variant human is the best option for about half of all situations anyway, you could just make every PC of every race build themselves as a variant human. (My apologies if someone already suggested this, it's kind of low hanging fruit maybe.) All you need is a list of minor traits that can be swapped in instead of the skill, like darkvision, powerful build or a swim speed, and a set of major traits that can be substituted for the feat, like a minotaur's horn weapons including their special uses, a flying speed (with the regular limitations of natural winged flight, and maybe limiting it to small characters) or a centaur's, well, centaurness. If you want you can have two minor traits rather than a major one as well. So you can have say survival as an extra skill, darkvision and a swim speed because you're from a clan of dwarves who have spent the last millennium living in and around an underground lake. Small or medium size is a free pick.

As a final afterthought you also pick what race you officially are. A medium sized +str +con intimidating great weapon fighting orc speaking gnome? Problem officer DM?

I know it's hard to see if I'm being sarcastic or serious here, but I think I'm actually both. This opens up loads of possibilities while still simplifying the system a lot but enforcing some sort of balance at the same time. It's going to lead to a lot of samey builds, but at least now all the samey archer builds aren't all wood elves, instead there's samey kobolds and dwarves too (with the exact same skills and powers as a wood elf). (Also, I think most players and DM's are reasonable beings who try to come up with some semblance of a reasonable build.) I kind of want to try this now.

The biggest thing you lose is probably those cool minute flavor abilities, like dwarven stonecunning. I don't have a clever solution for those. You could give everyone a free one of those, but that's just kind of useless, or you could attach one of those to every official race, but that just leaves you with a world in which dwarves can be large or small, strong or smart or both, skilled or unskilled, but all of them know their stonework, for some reason.

(Also: calling it now, darkvision + a feat will be the most popular combination ever. But I'm kind of okay with that, it does seem like it would be a common combination in a world where most races have darkvision and you're playing a highly competent adventurer.)

[KorvinStarmast]

^ All of this. Tasha's is the quick and dirty solution to get people off their backs sufficiently that Hasbro doesn't feel the best move is to shutter the rpg division entirely {snip} ...and, frankly, perfect is the enemy of good enough. OK, who let the person with common sense into the room? :smallconfused: (nice post)

[zinycor]

Personally I find the idea of races being only a cosmetic thing to be utterly boring and would rather keep the changes as they are now.

[MinotaurWarrior]

^ All of this. Tasha's is the quick and dirty solution to get people off their backs sufficiently that Hasbro doesn't feel the best move is to shutter the rpg division entirely for being too much trouble, and, possibly coincidentally, open up build diversity at the same time.

To go any farther would require a pretty major rework, at least a 5.5 style revision, or a 6e, and their business model really doesn't support either of those at the moment. And while I am not a big fan of 5e, this *generally works* and at least doesn't exacerbate my issues.

...and, frankly, perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Or they could have addressed the root concern (2020 race politics) in any number of other ways that wouldn't require a rules rework.

I don't think people were necessarily coming at them about racial ASIs and proficiencies in such a way that that was the thing they had to address. For example, I personally think the DnD division of WotC (MtG would probably be too expensive) could afford to hire and contract in a genuinely representative way, e.g. 50/50 gender, ~ 63% non-hispanic white and I bet critics would have been much happier with that than they are with Tashas.

Even if we say that they can't actually spend any HR money, this change doesn't seem to address:


Colorism in the assignment of pigment to races / subraces
Poorly named traits (Aggressive, Primal Instinct, etc)
The implication that certain races are innately less skilled than others
The problematic implications of common adventure designs, including the free adventure being a story of killing off an ethnic minority enclave for the advancement of local capital owners
Etc.


The point is that WotC felt pressure to do something, they responded to that pressure and did something, and everybody knows that what they did isn't "enough" and so hopefully they will continue to do more things.

[Lalliman]

Personally I find the idea of races being only a cosmetic thing to be utterly boring and would rather keep the changes as they are now.

Agreed. I already kind of dislike many of the vanilla races for just being minor variations on humans. When I GM, I prefer to replace them with a smaller set of more distinct homebrew races. I.e. doing the exact opposite of Tasha's Cauldron. Paradoxically, I think that also eases the racial tension - racial traits wouldn't seem so reminiscent of real-life racism if D&D's races weren't so close to human.

[stoutstien]

Agreed. I already kind of dislike many of the vanilla races for just being minor variations on humans. When I GM, I prefer to replace them with a smaller set of more distinct homebrew races. I.e. doing the exact opposite of Tasha's Cauldron. Paradoxically, I think that also eases the racial tension - racial traits wouldn't seem so reminiscent of real-life racism if D&D's races weren't so close to human.
My thinking as well. The new variant rules would have been better as a clean bottom up approach for designing races for each individual game.
At the same time having alternative lore for races would be a nice touch as well along with addressing the relationship between them from a more intersectional point of view.

[Edea]

Eh.

It's an unfortunate conflation of 'race' with 'species'. I want species stat-blocks, with no racial or cultural modifiers attached to them. The full solution would involve stripping out all of the racial "coding" inherent to the property since the TSR days.

What makes this task especially difficult is a strict fluff adherence to Tolkien's original work in the 'default' setting. Frankly, there shouldn't be a default setting, but that would require re-writing huge swathes of the PHB.

TBH I think it was wise to just throw this bone out here, unbalanced though it might be mechanically, and then wait for 6e to gut all of that stuff out properly.

[x3n0n]

Or they could have addressed the root concern (2020 race politics) in any number of other ways that wouldn't require a rules rework.

Not that I want to belabor this, but I would not be surprised if this has been brewing quietly inside WotC for a long time, vis the multiple similar homebrew things, including the much-derided one in the dndbeyond article from last summer.

Real-world events may have been the impetus to release something official and AL-compatible, lest they leave money on the table, but the desire for something similar clearly existed before summer 2020.

[cutlery]

They're sort of out of luck - despite the fact the game is most certainly not a biology simulator, many of the racial abilities are cultural (Savage attacks, stonecunning, artificer's lore; many of the elf subrace proficiencies), but without a pre-existing in-game analogue for savage attacks or stonecunning, it's more complicated to make that something that can be swapped like proficiencies.

Add to that the fact that the races aren't even remotely balanced in terms of those things and it was a big mess to start with, so a quick fix was all they could really manage.

Later on (perhaps in 5.5, perhaps in 6.0), lots of that stuff ought to go into backgrounds and smaller things like fey ancestry can remain with the race itself.

[zinycor]

Am of 2 minds on relation to this tasha rule. On the one hand love to swap bonuses snd thinking of character concepts. But I got really tired of all the political discourse around it.

I like it as one thing that allows for more creative characters and new combinations. I don't think this helps whatsoever to address bigger problems such as racism or bigotry.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Not that I want to belabor this, but I would not be surprised if this has been brewing quietly inside WotC for a long time, vis the multiple similar homebrew things, including the much-derided one in the dndbeyond article from last summer.

Real-world events may have been the impetus to release something official and AL-compatible, lest they leave money on the table, but the desire for something similar clearly existed before summer 2020.

Thats absolutely true, but they've been working on some of those other things for a while (decades in some cases) too and they made an official tweet earlier this year that made it very clear these rules were intended as a response to recent events / out cries.

[Darth Credence]

Racial abilities are interesting. You get to feel the difference in play. Racial Ability Score Increases just feel like the designers rubbing your nose in the fact that you're objectively worse at your core traits than you could have been as a member of the "right" race. Math is just math, and it doesn't "feel" any different to have ST 18 because you're a level 4 Mountain Dwarf vs a level 8 Elf.

But aren't they going away from racial abilities in general? This was what I wasn't sure of - I got the impression that you could take the standard racial abilities and change them to other things to better fit your character concept. That, to me, is where they went too far or not far enough. If there will still be racial abilities tied to the species, and it's only the ability score increases that can be switched around, then I wonder why they would bother.


Take a moment to consider significantly diverse species. Imagine an aarakocra, a dragonborn, and a triton. One can fly, one has a breath weapon, and one can breathe underwater.

If you take D&D races as ethnicities, then turn them into skins and ban any race that can't be turned into a skin. Everyone is now a reskinned VHuman with a longer feat list that includes many half feats.
If you take D&D races as species, then don't turn them into skins. Let the biodiversity exist.
If you are in the middle, take the middle path.

To the point of that, I do not allow for beings like aarakocra, dragonborn, or triton in my campaigns. Those races, to me, are incredibly campaign specific. Either the world has them, and they will be a major player in the world, or they do not. Since my campaign world doesn't have any room for their nations to exist, they don't, even if a player really wants to play with one.

But even there, if one really wanted to do so, why not allow a human to have a breath weapon, or a dwarf breathe underwater, or a halfling be able to fly? This is a fantasy world, and the actual species that have those don't appear to have any biological structures that allow them to do so (something human sized certainly can't fly with just wings like that, so it has to be magic, so wings aren't strictly necessary), so why not just handwave that your halfling is from a particular tribe that lived on a floating mountain, and over many centuries eventually picked up the ability to fly like Superman? Or your human was cursed/blessed at birth by a chaos demon, giving them a breath weapon to see what would happen?

[AvatarVecna]

Not far enough IMO, but a nice step in the right direction.

I'm of the opinion that races should work more like backgrounds, tearing out the existing system, and replace it with a race builder. Attribute bumps are worth this much, an extra skill is worth that much, poison resistance costs this, breath weapon costs that, etc. This allow people to build cross-breeds more easily, and shifts the debate from "this race is too strong overall" to "this ability costs too much/too little".

Or heck maybe even blend "race + background" into a single design element and let people fluff as they wish. It lets you play a "weaker race" without actually being too behind, mechanically, and it lets you refluff abilities to be more appropriate to your race. Your dwarf fighter doesn't have "savage attacks" as a racial ability, it's more a holdover from his military training! Your drow rogue doesn't have a racial resistance to poison damage, she's just spent a century pulling the iocane powder trick with everything she could find. Your human is small-sized because they have dwarfism. Why not?

...I mean, I guess I know "why not". A race builder (or a race/background builder, in the latter case) is a lot easier to game with optimization - if somebody gets 20 points to spend on stuff, and is acting in bad faith, instead of making a well-rounded race/background combo, they just dump all 20 points into archery and now suddenly they're a lvl 1 Legolas. But people optimizing in bad faith is gonna occur unless you make the system optimization-proof, where your option choices are pure fluff and have no mechanical effect on anything. It might be a tad easier to just ask your friend not to be a ****, or maybe to find non-***** to play D&D with, rather than avoid improving the game for 99% of players because "what if that change allows 1% of players to make they're overpowered character another 10% overpowered".

[JonBeowulf]

Perhaps they should have created a new class - the Social Justice Warrior. And sub-classes with abilities to help change the thinking of anyone who disagrees with them.

Seriously, though... This. Is. A. Game.

Yeah, it's the biggest one out there but it's not the only one that needs to take a look in the mirror.

It's not the game with very rigid good/evil axis (looking at you, Mutants and Masterminds), or the game with heaps of racism and socio-economic exploitation ('sup, Shadowrun), or the game with straight-up anti-social, manipulative behavior (enter, Vampire: The Masquerade). How about the blatant over-sexualization in the early Conan RPG? (I haven't looked at it in a long time... maybe it changed.) Is anyone making a fuss about them?

There's nothing in Tasha's that couldn't have been house-ruled by anyone running a game. There's nothing stopping you from taking things farther if you want to. Just like there's nothing forcing you to follow what's in Tasha's if you don't want to. It's your game... you do you.

As it is, if I want to start with a blank canvas, I grab standard human and build whatever. But if I have something in mind, it's great to have a chassis I can start with. If race is just a skin (which it is IRL) then everyone has to build everything from nothing. Great for players who know what they're doing, not so much for new folks.

It's the same principle that led to sandwich shops having menus.

As for me and my table, sameness is boring. I want things to be different by design. The players are free to ask for whatever customizations they want and we'll negotiate... because nothing is stopping us from doing what we want.

[rickayelm]

Some races are different in fundamental ways. You can't just make races 'skins' if some are fire breathing scaled reptiles and others are water breathing fish men.

[OldTrees1]

To the point of that, I do not allow for beings like aarakocra, dragonborn, or triton in my campaigns. Those races, to me, are incredibly campaign specific. Either the world has them, and they will be a major player in the world, or they do not. Since my campaign world doesn't have any room for their nations to exist, they don't, even if a player really wants to play with one.

Are there any PC species that you allow that are not basically humans? Any PC species that are substantially different from humans such that you would want a mechanical representation of that difference? What about Changelings or Centaurs? I know WotC won't print a Large sized PC species, but pretend they did.

But yes, if there are not significant differences, why not have everyone be mechanically VHuman? I prefer the biodiversity of the species WotC is too scared to print (I enjoyed species from the Monster Manual and Savage Species in 3.5E). You might feel comfortable with just VHuman. Both are reasonable positions despite being on opposite ends.


But even there, if one really wanted to do so, why not allow a human to have a breath weapon, or a dwarf breathe underwater, or a halfling be able to fly? This is a fantasy world, and the actual species that have those don't appear to have any biological structures that allow them to do so (something human sized certainly can't fly with just wings like that, so it has to be magic, so wings aren't strictly necessary), so why not just handwave that your halfling is from a particular tribe that lived on a floating mountain, and over many centuries eventually picked up the ability to fly like Superman? Or your human was cursed/blessed at birth by a chaos demon, giving them a breath weapon to see what would happen?

I notice that is a different question entirely. I hope this will explain why.

Why would being a triton allow the triton PC to fly? Wouldn't make more sense if the flying triton PC could fly due to something other than "because they are a member of a species that has no inherent ability to fly"? I think it makes more sense to have the flying triton fly due to something other than their species.

Or with your "halfling" example. Assuming that is innate, those don't appear to be normal halflings anymore. Sounds like some divergent speciation there. Embrace that biodiversity. On the other hand if it is not innate, then represent it as a learned trait. Like a feat, spell, or feature.

In summary, yes the human PC would be allowed to have a breath weapon, but I would do it in a way that did not erase Dragonborn. Both can exist because I value that biodiversity (and that is orthogonal to other forms of diversity).

[stoutstien]

Perhaps they should have created a new class - the Social Justice Warrior. And sub-classes with abilities to help change the thinking of anyone who disagrees with them.

Seriously, though... This. Is. A. Game.



as someone who lived and played during the times of DnD/occult/satanism Maze and Monster panic I would have to say the only reason this game and TTRPGS as a whole are still around is thanks to social justice warriors. I would like to believe those days are behind us but only a few weeks ago I had to defend using TTRPGs as a teaching aid/ after school program against claims of it being immoral.

Its easy to poke fun at social activism movements and coalitions and sometimes they really deserve it. at the same time I've never seen open discussion not be positive.

[EggKookoo]

OK, who let the person with common sense into the room? :smallconfused: (nice post)

I was going to say something similar. D&D is something like a rounding error on Hasbro's bottom line (or so I've been lead to believe). Whatever WotC can do to deflect the attention of certain sectors of society so as to not become a burden is probably worth it, and worth supporting from our end if for no reason other than simple survival.

My only real chafe with races is the confusion over cultural and biological features. I can buy a dwarf raised among elves still having the bonus to Con and the poison resistance. Those seem pretty biological. But what about stonecunning? But the +1/+2 stuff was just a way to distinguish the baselines from each other. I probably won't be bothering with this new variant rule mainly because my players probably won't care, and that's what matters to me in the end.

[zinycor]

I was going to say something similar. D&D is something like a rounding error on Hasbro's bottom line (or so I've been lead to believe). Whatever WotC can do to deflect the attention of certain sectors of society so as to not become a burden is probably worth it, and worth supporting from our end if for no reason other than simple survival.

My only real chafe with races is the confusion over cultural and biological features. I can buy a dwarf raised among elves still having the bonus to Con and the poison resistance. Those seem pretty biological. But what about stonecunning? But the +1/+2 stuff was just a way to distinguish the baselines from each other. I probably won't be bothering with this new variant rule mainly because my players probably won't care, and that's what matters to me in the end.

Where is that info from?

I would think DnD would be doing pretty well. Specially with the pandemic and such.

[EggKookoo]

Where is that info from?

I absorbed it somewhere. I actually thought it was something Crawford said at one point.

[Darth Credence]

Are there any PC species that you allow that are not basically humans? Any PC species that are substantially different from humans such that you would want a mechanical representation of that difference? What about Changelings or Centaurs? I know WotC won't print a Large sized PC species, but pretend they did.

But yes, if there are not significant differences, why not have everyone be mechanically VHuman? I prefer the biodiversity of the species WotC is too scared to print (I enjoyed species from the Monster Manual and Savage Species in 3.5E). You might feel comfortable with just VHuman. Both are reasonable positions despite being on opposite ends.

I do allow satyrs, as the fae in general are a big part of the world and I can slot them in there, tabaxi who have their own empire, and kenku as a mysterious race that will have an impact later in the game that my players cannot know about yet. I'd allow changelings, and probably centaurs, tying back into the fae.


I notice that is a different question entirely. I hope this will explain why.

Why would being a triton allow the triton PC to fly? Wouldn't make more sense if the flying triton PC could fly due to something other than "because they are a member of a species that has no inherent ability to fly"? I think it makes more sense to have the flying triton fly due to something other than their species.

Or with your "halfling" example. Assuming that is innate, those don't appear to be normal halflings anymore. Sounds like some divergent speciation there. Embrace that biodiversity. On the other hand if it is not innate, then represent it as a learned trait. Like a feat, spell, or feature.

In summary, yes the human PC would be allowed to have a breath weapon, but I would do it in a way that did not erase Dragonborn. Both can exist because I value that biodiversity (and that is orthogonal to other forms of diversity).

I think we may be close in opinion here. Ultimately, I liked having different species having different skills. I absolutely see why a species of people that spend all their time underground can end up being short and strong in comparison to other species. If using dragonborn, I can absolutely see why they would have specific qualities like a breath weapon that would not be available to other species. Why I bring this up is that it looks like the new rules will throw out a lot of that diversity, and if they are going to do that, why not just let people attach any species to any set of powers, rather than saying that these things cannot be tied to the species while those things can. If we are tossing out the idea that dwarves are generally stronger than other species, why say that only triton can have the innate ability to breath underwater. If dwarves are not naturally stronger, but are only so if the specifics of that dwarf are such that it works for that character, then why not have halflings that have been living on an island chain for so long, interbreeding with merbeasts or whatever, that that particular group of halflings have adapted to breathing underwater while still looking for all intents and purposes like a halfling? That would seem to follow the idea of allowing the players to do what they want without restriction by species.

I guess it comes down to the idea that these new rules are not making every race viable - at most, they are changing which ones end up being so. There was an article that popped up in my feed about how Tasha's will bring about a golden age for the mountain dwarf, as the two +2s that can be put on anything will make them very powerful. There is another thread on here where people were discussing the races that are winners and losers with the new rules, and that just seems counter to the idea. I'd prefer that each was unique, and that flavor carried over to the game world. But if we are getting rid of that, I'd just as soon chuck it all and let the players choose the power set the want from the available ones, and choose the look they want from the available ones, instead of a version where only some things matter, making some species winners and others losers.

[OldTrees1]

I guess it comes down to the idea that these new rules are not making every race viable - at most, they are changing which ones end up being so. There was an article that popped up in my feed about how Tasha's will bring about a golden age for the mountain dwarf, as the two +2s that can be put on anything will make them very powerful. There is another thread on here where people were discussing the races that are winners and losers with the new rules, and that just seems counter to the idea. I'd prefer that each was unique, and that flavor carried over to the game world. But if we are getting rid of that, I'd just as soon chuck it all and let the players choose the power set the want from the available ones, and choose the look they want from the available ones, instead of a version where only some things matter, making some species winners and others losers.

I am one of the biggest critics of bounded accuracy, BUT it does 1 job really well. Every race was already viable. I understand not everyone feels that way, but the devs created bounded accuracy with the goal of not needing to worry about what ability scores PCs had. They succeeded, to the great detriment of the skill system, but they did succeed nonetheless. This does not mean every race is the most powerful one, and the recent rule is removing some niche advantages some races had, but every race was playable by even a new player.

I do appreciate how the rule change has provoked creativity. I have roughly 3-4 variants I could use depending on objectives.

1) You could do "Everyone is a VHuman but there are more innate ability feats and you can trade out the skill for one of these N features."
2) The species is worth 2.5 feats. Work with the DM to make a custom package for your character.
3) Species modifiers are cut in half (round down) and lost points become floating increases.
3b/4) Species racial traits are replaced with choose N Dwarf traits from this list of M Dwarf traits.

[Anymage]

Where is that info from?

I would think DnD would be doing pretty well. Specially with the pandemic and such.

D&D is doing pretty well for D&D, and it's obviously the biggest boy in the tabletop RPG scene. It's still a comparatively niche hobby that doesn't push nearly the quantity of product (compare the absolute bank that someone will drop on something like Magic or Warhammer), and it makes sense that it only makes peanuts on the massive corporation scale.

On topic for the changes? If D&D were a point based game, I could see the value to racial packages. Buying the dwarf bundle would cost less than it would take to buy all the bits on a basic human, due to the fact that all the parts don't necessarily synergize.

D&D being the simple, default RPG that it is? I was one of the people who was skeptical when many of the Tasha's rules were offered for playtest. I'll be curious to see how much real build diversity we see in pbp games and anecdotes in the upcoming months.

[RossN]

at the same time I've never seen open discussion not be positive.

Two long, bitter and now locked threads on this subject in this forum beg to differ.

On the topic itself I actually find myself agreeing with Darth Credence here to my surprise. I don't like the Tasha's... rules at all, and it has left me very pessimistic for the direction of the game but at the same time if we have to have such customisation why not go the route of Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS and make species simply a skin?

[zinycor]

D&D is doing pretty well for D&D, and it's obviously the biggest boy in the tabletop RPG scene. It's still a comparatively niche hobby that doesn't push nearly the quantity of product (compare the absolute bank that someone will drop on something like Magic or Warhammer), and it makes sense that it only makes peanuts on the massive corporation scale.


Sure, Warhammer people may pay a lot, but the appeal is more niche than DnD. by sheer numbers, brand recognition, DnD Beyond books, Fantansy grounds subscriptions, and a ton of merchandising I would guess that DnD does pretty well.

Magic would surely take the advantage. I can see that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Two long, bitter and now locked threads on this subject in this forum beg to differ.

On the topic itself I actually find myself agreeing with Darth Credence here to my surprise. I don't like the Tasha's... rules at all, and it has left me very pessimistic for the direction of the game but at the same time if we have to have such customisation why not go the route of Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS and make species simply a skin?

I dislike the new rules as well, but strongly don't want to go down the "species == skin" route. Because it tears the heart out of worldbuilding and enforces only one possible route (that it's all basically one species). Which, to me as a worldbuilder is super constraining. And doesn't feel like D&D at all.

Furthermore, I'm of the strong opinion that mixing point-buy and class/level is always a mistake--you get the benefits of neither and the drawbacks of both. Go all the way or not at all. Class/level systems like D&D benefit from strong archetypes. Point buy systems benefit from total flexibility and modularity. Having flexibility in some small areas without modularity just means that your archetypes are weaker and your balance is impossible. Plus it introduces two incompatible build mindsets that you have to juggle--in this place you're making finely-detailed, point-driven choices (meaning that things are balanced based on some form of currency), while in that place you're choosing a set that will carry you throughout with much less choice. Basically, you make the system 100x more gameable (in the bad sense) while obliterating anything like thematics and setting coherence.

The real route would be to separate species and culture. Make the base races carry only the biological parts, sub-races for "common cultures", and then present setting designers (in the DMG or elsewhere) a flowchart and balance chart. Basically giving guidelines for setting designers to build their own subraces out of flexible pieces. That way, you have coherent races within a setting and settings that care about flexibility can expose more of that to the players if they want, while those that want more "traditional" races can present a set of setting-specific sub-races.

Of course, it means that you'd have to break the idea that all the PHB races (and others) are available everywhere, but that's a good thing IMO. Dwarves in FR and dwarves in Eberron should only be vaguely similar. For ease, they might even have the same base race but very different sub-race choices in the two settings. Not the current mishmash of "every dwarf PC everywhere is good with stone".

[Telwar]

D&D is doing pretty well for D&D, and it's obviously the biggest boy in the tabletop RPG scene. It's still a comparatively niche hobby that doesn't push nearly the quantity of product (compare the absolute bank that someone will drop on something like Magic or Warhammer), and it makes sense that it only makes peanuts on the massive corporation scale.

Disclaimer: I honestly don't remember where I saw the below, some bits were here and some bits were over on a thread on ENworld ages ago, so it's going to be a summary, AND I FREELY ADMIT SOME OF THIS MAY BE INCORRECT, MISSING DETAIL, OR MISUNDERSTOOD, but:

Hasbro bought WotC for Pokemon and Magic, not for D&D.
Divisions in Hasbro have to make revenue targets that are, even now in D&D's second golden age, basically unattainable for the tabletop.
To add insult to injury, video games etc do not count as revenue for D&D tabletop. Neither does fiction publishing, which I understand generates more revenue than the actual hardcovers. (I think D&D Beyond *does*, as did D&D Insider)
And to make things worse, the pitch for 4th edition, ahem, had an exceedingly rosy view of the revenue potential that was communicated to Corporate, which, when this was not hit, resulted in some very, very deep disappointment at Corporate.

So, as all of that is summed up, WotC tabletop is basically allowed to exist and function something akin to the comics division at Marvel, as a source of future content for other divisions, but has to meet profit targets such that they have determined the best path to profitability is to have fewer, but more impactful releases, and keep costs down as far as they can. They also have to be sure to not rock the boat sufficiently that, at some point, Hasbro Corporate doesn't think that the easiest answer to a question is to axe the division entirely.

[ImproperJustice]

I think this could all go away if classes provided stat bonuses due to training, instead of races and be done with it.

[enderlord99]

Perhaps they should have created a new class <snip> with abilities to help change the thinking of anyone who disagrees with them.

You mean the bard?

[intregus]

I think Tasha didn't go far enough. IMO they should divorce stats from the races and instead tie them to the classes or just left up to the player to decide with a simple +2 in one in stat and a +1 in another or +1 In any three stats.

Give races fun and interesting abilities to compensate,instead.

That simple

[JonBeowulf]

You mean the bard?

TBH, I didn't even think of the bard (or enchantment wizard) when I wrote that. :smallredface:

I think the core of what's bothering me here is that it feels people expect the published game rules to be what they want them to be instead of just changing the rules for themselves. It's impossible to satisfy everyone, but it's fairly easy to satisfy a table of 4-8 people.

[Xervous]

Disclaimer: I honestly don't remember where I saw the below, some bits were here and some bits were over on a thread on ENworld ages ago, so it's going to be a summary, AND I FREELY ADMIT SOME OF THIS MAY BE INCORRECT, MISSING DETAIL, OR MISUNDERSTOOD, but:

Hasbro bought WotC for Pokemon and Magic, not for D&D.
Divisions in Hasbro have to make revenue targets that are, even now in D&D's second golden age, basically unattainable for the tabletop.
To add insult to injury, video games etc do not count as revenue for D&D tabletop. Neither does fiction publishing, which I understand generates more revenue than the actual hardcovers. (I think D&D Beyond *does*, as did D&D Insider)
And to make things worse, the pitch for 4th edition, ahem, had an exceedingly rosy view of the revenue potential that was communicated to Corporate, which, when this was not hit, resulted in some very, very deep disappointment at Corporate.

So, as all of that is summed up, WotC tabletop is basically allowed to exist and function something akin to the comics division at Marvel, as a source of future content for other divisions, but has to meet profit targets such that they have determined the best path to profitability is to have fewer, but more impactful releases, and keep costs down as far as they can. They also have to be sure to not rock the boat sufficiently that, at some point, Hasbro Corporate doesn't think that the easiest answer to a question is to axe the division entirely.

As I noted in a prior thread, maximum profit minimum effort. The only refutation mustered was a reference to the number of unpaid play testers for 5e.

WotC did their homework so they get a gold star. They checked off this item on their scavenger hunt. There’s buzzwords in business and fate has given them one they can cash in on. MTG D&D crossovers, subscription based services... I’ll not attribute any moral weight to their decision beyond the ache of coin that might otherwise not end up in their pockets.

[Sigreid]

I'm on the fence whether I'll get the new book or not. I like having new content, but am disappointed that everyone's basically human now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Two long, bitter and now locked threads on this subject in this forum beg to differ.

On the topic itself I actually find myself agreeing with Darth Credence here to my surprise. I don't like the Tasha's... rules at all, and it has left me very pessimistic for the direction of the game but at the same time if we have to have such customisation why not go the route of Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS and make species simply a skin?


As I noted in a prior thread, maximum profit minimum effort. The only refutation mustered was a reference to the number of unpaid play testers for 5e. If you saw that as "refutation" you are mis characterizing our dialogue somewhat. Max/Min struck me as too broad of a brush to describe the dev effort, and because you have to pay people to do stuff, there is a time/resource cost to integrating and administering a play test that big.

With that nitpick out of the way, I think that you are right that there was a keen eye on cost reduction which manifested itself in "how much can we cut once we publish?" Not sure how clear the source info was in late 2014, but I understand that about 3/4ths of the team that put D&D 5e together were gone within a month of the DMG coming out ... but that's not something I have clear information on.

[EggKookoo]

I think Tasha didn't go far enough. IMO they should divorce stats from the races and instead tie them to the classes or just left up to the player to decide with a simple +2 in one in stat and a +1 in another or +1 In any three stats.

Give races fun and interesting abilities to compensate,instead.

That simple

I don't have a problem with orcs being tough and strong while elves are lithe and nimble. I don't really have a problem with that being represented by starting bonuses to various attributes, but I agree there could be more interesting ways to represent it mechanically.

I've always had two main headscratchers with starting features.

One, some are clearly biological while others are arguably cultural. This could be clarified. Is stonecunning a biological feature, somehow inherent to dwarven neurology? Or is it a learned thing? D&D would do well to split out dwarf-the-culture and dwarf-the-creature, and assign features accordingly.

Two, why don't classes provide some basic ability score bonuses? Wouldn't a fighter get a +1 to strength simply based on the experience and training needed to even be 1st level? Ability score increases for starting PCs should be at least split between race and class, with a leaning toward class.

I find the approach presented in Tasha's to be weak, and to not really address the problem. But I suspect that's because it wasn't really meant to address a problem within the game itself.

[Sigreid]

I don't have a problem with orcs being tough and strong while elves are lithe and nimble. I don't really have a problem with that being represented by starting bonuses to various attributes, but I agree there could be more interesting ways to represent it mechanically.

I've always had two main headscratchers with starting features.

One, some are clearly biological while others are arguably cultural. This could be clarified. Is stonecunning a biological feature, somehow inherent to dwarven neurology? Or is it a learned thing? D&D would do well to split out dwarf-the-culture and dwarf-the-creature, and assign features accordingly.

Two, why don't classes provide some basic ability score bonuses? Wouldn't a fighter get a +1 to strength simply based on the experience and training needed to even be 1st level? Ability score increases for starting PCs should be at least split between race and class, with a leaning toward class.

I find the approach presented in Tasha's to be weak, and to not really address the problem. But I suspect that's because it wasn't really meant to address a problem within the game itself.

Arguably all of the racial abilities, including things that seem like skills, could and in my opinion are derived from that race's creator god. Elves are proficient with bows because they are to some extent a manifestation of the power of their deity that identifies with bows. Dwarves stonecunning ability is something they feel because of the affinity they feel for the stone from which the first dwarves were cut and still runs through not their blood, but their souls.

[EggKookoo]

Arguably all of the racial abilities, including things that seem like skills, could and in my opinion are derived from that race's creator god. Elves are proficient with bows because they are to some extent a manifestation of the power of their deity that identifies with bows. Dwarves stonecunning ability is something they feel because of the affinity they feel for the stone from which the first dwarves were cut and still runs through not their blood, but their souls.

Perfectly legit explanation IMO (which I would classify as biological for the purposes of my point).

I suppose that's the real answer. Stonecunning (et al) is inherent to all dwarves if the DM says so. Or it's a learned cultural thing if the DM says so.

[OldTrees1]

I'm on the fence whether I'll get the new book or not. I like having new content, but am disappointed that everyone's basically human now.

You already know this but, it is possible to just ignore that variant rule. That might help your decision based upon the rest of the content.

[Sigreid]

You already know this but, it is possible to just ignore that variant rule. That might help your decision based upon the rest of the content.

It's more than that though. Our $$ are the only meaningful communication to the company on the direction they are taking the game.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Another brain fart here. Going by the theme of races as cultures, what would the game be like if your race/place of origin determined your possible starting equipment? Simple weapons, all or most tools and padded, hide and ring mail armor (or maybe even just leather, chain shirt and chain mail) are available everywhere, but beyond that point there's some variation, like dwarves are maybe the only groups that can start with splint armor (if your class usually allows chain mail), and if you want to start with a greataxe you want to be an orc or a minotaur or something.

1 Where would you rate that on the enjoyment to frustration scale?
2 Would that allow more freedom in class picks for near optimal builds, or less?
and 3 Would that actually be better or way worse from a real world perspective because now orcs are the dumb cannon fodder brutes who get great weapons but bad armor?

[Sigreid]

Another brain fart here. Going by the theme of races as cultures, what would the game be like if your race/place of origin determined your possible starting equipment? Simple weapons, all or most tools and padded, hide and ring mail armor (or maybe even just leather, chain shirt and chain mail) are available everywhere, but beyond that point there's some variation, like dwarves are maybe the only groups that can start with splint armor (if your class usually allows chain mail), and if you want to start with a greataxe you want to be an orc or a minotaur or something.

1 Where would you rate that on the enjoyment to frustration scale?
2 Would that allow more freedom in class picks for near optimal builds, or less?
and 3 Would that actually be better or way worse from a real world perspective because now orcs are the dumb cannon fodder brutes who get great weapons but bad armor?

I think it would be easier tied to background, but that would also lead to clear choices of background + Class.

[OldTrees1]

what would the game be like if your race/place of origin determined your possible starting equipment?

3.

Background starting equipment handles something like this and it only works because you can do lots of reselling to customize your starting kit (you will have less wealth but that is fine). If you go down this route, ensure players can ignore it.

[Azuresun]

Agreed. I already kind of dislike many of the vanilla races for just being minor variations on humans. When I GM, I prefer to replace them with a smaller set of more distinct homebrew races. I.e. doing the exact opposite of Tasha's Cauldron. Paradoxically, I think that also eases the racial tension - racial traits wouldn't seem so reminiscent of real-life racism if D&D's races weren't so close to human.

If you just sub in the word "species" for "race", the problem virtually goes away anyway. I've never seen anyone complaining that in a Star Wars RPG, Wookies are innately stronger than humans and Ewoks are weaker.

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

The push seems to be to treat D&D "races" more like ethnicities (cosmetic variations on the same species) rather than different species entirely, and if you do that, then the only way to avoid bad real-life comparisons is to eliminate all differences more notable than pointy ears.

[EggKookoo]

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

Ugh, don't get me started on half-races. One of the first homebrew things I tell my players is that half-orcs and half-elves are not cross-breeds but standalone races of their own.

I love make-believe and fantasy as much as the next person, but I have limits.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Tasha's race rules seem like a bad move to me. At least since 3.0 it has been pretty clear that most races have inherent traits and cultural traits making it easy to make a new subspecies or a unique orphan X raised by Ys. The 3.0 DMG even explained this element of design in case it wasn't clear. The benefits offered by Tasha's have clearly been on the table for twenty years, longer if you count the point buy options of Skills & Powers.

For most tables Tasha's is bringing no new positive racial options. What it is potentially doing is giving some players a sense of entitlement to something that was once negotiated between players and DMs. Even for DMs that usually rubber stamp all such requests this erodes the idea that there are norms of what Elves and Dwarves are like. This may be okay if you want to run kitchen sink fantasy, but off the top of my head 4 of the top 6-7 settings are vaguely Tolkienesque and are shaped by the racial norms in the PHB as are are large portion of homebrew settings.

In the Untolkienesque settings Race tends to be even more important. Dark Sun with it's Mul, Thri-Kreen, and cannibal halflings. Planescape with various planar races ditto for Spelljammer with the addition of it's distinctive races. Ravenloft should probably be redone at some point as its own setting that is human only with cultures that have relatively minor mechanical effects with the default PCs being natives rather than a party that wandered in from a Tolkienesque setting.

The Tasha's racial rules are taking away flavor and moving authority from the DM to a book.

[Amechra]

Frankly, there shouldn't be a default setting, but that would require re-writing huge swathes of the PHB.

I actually kinda disagree with this. Part of the issue, in my mind, is that 5e is trying to have its cake and eat it too - it lets you play in any campaign setting... as long as that campaign setting adheres to the implicit setting defined by D&D's rules. It's kinda like how Super Mario Maker lets you make anything you want, as long as it's Mario. I feel like this has gotten worse with every edition, as the tropes that define the D&D experience have calcified.

As a result of this "we have a setting except we don't", each race gets, what, 2-3 pages of fluff + mechanics? The writers get 2-3 pages to both tell you what a Dwarf is and tell you how to play one, along with a picture that lets you go "ah yes, that's what a Dwarf looks like" (I miss 3.5's race line-up by sex, honestly, because it was a great way to see the differences in height and build. (https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/editor/zj/8yov7srhwci2.png)). As a result, of course they're all stereotypes. You don't have space for anything else! And don't get me started on subraces - the basic idea is good, but the implementation (especially considering their limited space) is pretty poor.

If you're going to bother trading on D&D's long history and brand, you should double down on those races. Root the core of the game in Forgotten Realms (or Eberron, or Dragonlance, or whatever), and give us in-depth descriptions of cultures. I want roleplay tidbits that I can bust out during a game that help me feel like I'm roleplaying a Dwarf or an Elf, beyond stuff like "well, Tabaxi are experience junkies". Give me a reason to pick Hill Dwarf over Mountain Dwarf, other than "well, this one gives me a bonus to Wisdom, and I'm thinking of playing a Cleric..."

And it's not like it would actually change anything vis-a-vis playing in other D&D settings. Most of them have cosmetic changes at best, and the ones that don't probably aren't going to get a satisfying 5e release any time soon (sorry Dark Sun fans, but it had to be said).

Sure, you could go with the purely mechanical "pick a stat template" approach, but that feels like a "forgetting the face of your father" thing. D&D isn't a generic fantasy game, so they should stop pretending that it is.


Furthermore, I'm of the strong opinion that mixing point-buy and class/level is always a mistake--you get the benefits of neither and the drawbacks of both. Go all the way or not at all.

You'd think BESM d20 would've shown people that this is a bad idea... but we're doomed to repeat the sins of the past.

[diplomancer]

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes. Oh, you want to build a Dexadin, too bad, here's +2 Str to you.

Making races purely cosmetic (or almost so), and the PHB races just "human templates", like OP suggested, though I wouldn't like it, would have been a better solution in my opinion. It certainly would go further in the direction of "getting rid of problematic elements in race depictions in D&D"

[stoutstien]

If you just sub in the word "species" for "race", the problem virtually goes away anyway. I've never seen anyone complaining that in a Star Wars RPG, Wookies are innately stronger than humans and Ewoks are weaker.

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

The push seems to be to treat D&D "races" more like ethnicities (cosmetic variations on the same species) rather than different species entirely, and if you do that, then the only way to avoid bad real-life comparisons is to eliminate all differences more notable than pointy ears.

IMO a better solution is to go the opposite way. If removing certain stat bonuses from one race makes them seem too human then they were probably already too human to begin with. Just about every race in d&d have human goals, human flaws, human needs, human societies, and physically are just humans with a twist.

If race was actually unique then most of the issues would be solved.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you just sub in the word "species" for "race", the problem virtually goes away anyway. I've never seen anyone complaining that in a Star Wars RPG, Wookies are innately stronger than humans and Ewoks are weaker. Bingo.

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)
Not biology, but "some magical thing that is due to this being a fantasy world" is a far better explanation . (13th Age does this with humans having draconic ancestry, and with half elves as I recall. They might want to crib that bit from 13th Age).

The push seems to be to treat D&D "races" more like ethnicitiesrather than different species entirely,(cosmetic variations on the same species) And that's a problem to the point that some guy named Burlew wrote a web comic with that as a strong undercurrent vis a vis goblins.

Ugh, don't get me started on half-races. One of the first homebrew things I tell my players is that half-orcs and half-elves are not cross-breeds but standalone races of their own. Good idea, or even just remove them from your setting. Try this on for size: there aren't any! (I don't have Tieflings in my world, for example) (Granted, AL can't do this, I guess), but they did ban aaracokra and yuan-ti ....

I love make-believe and fantasy as much as the next person, but I have limits. Aye.

The 3.0 DMG even explained this element of design in case it wasn't clear. The benefits offered by Tasha's have clearly been on the table for twenty years, longer if you count the point buy options of Skills & Powers.

What it is potentially doing is giving some players a sense of entitlement to something that was once negotiated between players and DMs. Which is IMO a move in the wrong direction. (But again, with AL, maybe this is seen as good player empowerment? )


In the Untolkienesque settings Race tends to be even more important. Dark Sun with it's Mul, Thri-Kreen, and cannibal halflings. Planescape with various planar races ditto for Spelljammer with the addition of it's distinctive races. Good points.

The Tasha's racial rules are taking away flavor and moving authority from the DM to a book. Yeah, unless it is clearly spelled out as Optional Rule/Variant ... like Variant Encumbrance is a Variant.

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes.
13th Age did it and I like it. +2 form background/race/ancestry, and +2 based on class. (Perhaps make it an either or depending on class?)

[EggKookoo]

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes. Oh, you want to build a Dexadin, too bad, here's +2 Str to you.

The thing there then is to just build in some reasonable flexibility. Fighters and paladins and maybe rangers get a choice of + to Str or Dex, but not Int.

The whole class/subclass structure would need to be looked at. For example, fighters wouldn't necessarily give you +2 Str (or Dex if that's the way you go). Base fighter would give you +1 to Str/Dex, and probably +1 to Con. Then if you take Champion at 3rd, you get another +1 to Str/Dex. If you take EK, you get +1 to Int. Not sure what BM would give you, probably Str/Dex again. Maybe Champion requires you to put the +1 on the Str or Dex you chose at 1st level, but BM lets you choose which of the two it goes on, to imply flexibility. I dunno.

Having ASI(nc) tied to class instead of race sidesteps the entire problem. No one cares if fighters are stereotyped as dumb while wizards are stereotyped as smart.

[togapika]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't really care if a player wanted to futz about further with races.

Can I be a small Tabaxi since small cats are inherently more adorable than larger cats? :smallbiggrin:

[Amechra]

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes. Oh, you want to build a Dexadin, too bad, here's +2 Str to you.

I mean, if I was handling this kind of system, I'd make it a bit more flexible. I'd probably have Paladins end up as +1 Cha, +1 to any physical ability score, and +1 to any ability score. Then again, I'd also make it so that all of the martial classes could work off of either Strength or Dexterity more-or-less interchangably, so...

[Azuresun]

Ugh, don't get me started on half-races. One of the first homebrew things I tell my players is that half-orcs and half-elves are not cross-breeds but standalone races of their own.

I love make-believe and fantasy as much as the next person, but I have limits.

How do you feel about Spock and other half-human characters in Star Trek, or characters such as the half-demon Dante from the Devil May Cry series? Or for that matter, about Herakles?


IMO a better solution is to go the opposite way. If removing certain stat bonuses from one race makes them seem too human then they were probably already too human to begin with. Just about every race in d&d have human goals, human flaws, human needs, human societies, and physically are just humans with a twist.

If race was actually unique then most of the issues would be solved.

I agree, but with the caveat that it's not necessary to make the non-human species into unplayably weird starfish aliens, just stop and think about how their different traits would actually affect their worldview, outook and typical personality. Even Tolkein, for all the flack he gets, did that just fine, it was the imitators that simplified dwarves and elves.

[firelistener]

Honestly, I think they might solve things by splitting out "race" into "culture" and "species". Maybe a 6e thing.

Dwarf would be species that gets you things like darkvision and poison resistance. Then maybe mountain-dweller or Shield-bearer would be a culture that gets you stone-cunning and the like.

That should hopefully keep people from conflating it with IRL race stuff, seeing how IRL "race" is really more just "culture" and how someone happens to look. There aren't actually different species of modern human like we have multiple sapient species in D&D.


Where is that info from?

I would think DnD would be doing pretty well. Specially with the pandemic and such.

If you look at the Hasbro earnings calls, you'll see it there alongside things like Disney toys (like from Star Wars and Frozen), Nerf guns, and Play-Doh. So while D&D does make a lot of money for a tabletop game, even enough to fund things like Baldur's Gate 3, it's in the same portfolio as some absolutely titanic product lines.

[JNAProductions]

Can I be a small Tabaxi since small cats are inherently more adorable than larger cats? :smallbiggrin:

I see no reason to deny that. It's pretty much just nerfing yourself (since you lose the ability to use Heavy Weapons well) without, as far as I can see, any upsides-though assuming you're going caster or Rogue or literally any class that doesn't use Heavy Weapons, it's also an incredibly minor nerf.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree, but with the caveat that it's not necessary to make the non-human species into unplayably weird starfish aliens, just stop and think about how their different traits would actually affect their worldview, outook and typical personality. Even Tolkein, for all the flack he gets, did that just fine, it was the imitators that simplified dwarves and elves.

Yeah. How do their cultures/traits stem from the world's history and state, and how do their cultures and traits work together, and how does it change going forward?

I don't understand the "truly alien" idea--it's basically impossible to really portray "truly alien" in a TTRPG for a playable race. At least outside of a specialty game. Because normal people are doing it in a game environment. "Humans, with differences" is about as good as you get. And good enough for me.

[x3n0n]

I see no reason to deny that. It's pretty much just nerfing yourself (since you lose the ability to use Heavy Weapons well) without, as far as I can see, any upsides-though assuming you're going caster or Rogue or literally any class that doesn't use Heavy Weapons, it's also an incredibly minor nerf.

Sorry for going off-topic, but they do have a niche use: riding a Medium mount, which can apply to "pet" subclasses and summon spells. So they have a minor buff to match the minor nerf. :)

[Ignimortis]

Take a moment to consider significantly diverse species. Imagine an aarakocra, a dragonborn, and a triton. One can fly, one has a breath weapon, and one can breathe underwater.

If you take D&D races as ethnicities, then turn them into skins and ban any race that can't be turned into a skin. Everyone is now a reskinned VHuman with a longer feat list that includes many half feats.
If you take D&D races as species, then don't turn them into skins. Let the biodiversity exist.
If you are in the middle, take the middle path.

Pretty much this. I don't consider D&D "races" to be ethnicities or actual-IRL races - they are different species, some being close enough biologically to interbreed like elves, orcs and humans, others being completely off in their own direction (aarakocra? tortles? thri-kreen? they are not even remotely human). We don't have any different stats for various human races or nationalities or whatever, so there's no racism involved. I dislike Tasha's changes for that reason, since orcs are not human. They are humanoid and intelligent, but they are distinct - they're just as non-human as, say, a humanoid evolved from tigers would be to us IRL.

[diplomancer]

I mean, if I was handling this kind of system, I'd make it a bit more flexible. I'd probably have Paladins end up as +1 Cha, +1 to any physical ability score, and +1 to any ability score. Then again, I'd also make it so that all of the martial classes could work off of either Strength or Dexterity more-or-less interchangably, so...

I don't think you GAIN anything with such a system that wouldn't be better handled by giving an entirely free-floating +2/+1. And you actually make it impossible to build "off-beat" characters without actively penalizing them by giving them a useless bonus, which they could have put in a more interesting ability.

[Hytheter]

How do you feel about Spock and other half-human characters in Star Trek, or characters such as the half-demon Dante from the Devil May Cry series? Or for that matter, about Herakles?


Personally, I can give divine and demonic mixes a pass but half-breeds between species from entirely different planets is profoundly stupid.

[Xervous]

Personally, I can give divine and demonic mixes a pass but half-breeds between species from entirely different planets is profoundly stupid.

What if elves are a symbiotic fungus?

[Yakmala]

If you get rid of races entirely, turning them into essentially background fluff, then what next?

Are classes too restrictive? Does multi-classing not go far enough?

At that point, put every possible starting ability, skill, feat and spell into a giant bucket and let people pick and choose or give them each a point value and turn it into a point-buy system like attributes.

It could be fun, but it certainly wouldn't be D&D anymore.

I played the Hero system for many years (Champions/Espionage/Fantasy Hero/Justice Inc) and their system was like this. No classes or races. Just a big pool of attributes, skills, powers and abilities to pick and choose from. And it was amazingly flexible. But it was also incredibly generic by design. There's a place for this. But it's a very different sort of RPG.

[Reynaert]

Personally, I can give divine and demonic mixes a pass but half-breeds between species from entirely different planets is profoundly stupid.

There is an entire episode in The Next Generation ('The Chase') which serves mainly to explain why species from different planets can interbreed.

[EggKookoo]

How do you feel about Spock and other half-human characters in Star Trek, or characters such as the half-demon Dante from the Devil May Cry series? Or for that matter, about Herakles?

In my Trek headcanon, Spock is 100% genetically Vulcan (which fits with how the character was portrayed). His physiology was altered such that he could be carried to term by a human mother, who surely had some high-tech assistance of her own. In fact, I assume Spock is pretty much a clone of Sarek with some custom adjustments to suit Amanda's desires. Being altered such gave him a cultural taint among "pure" Vulcans, resulting in the "half human" slur.

Not that I've thought much about this or anything. <_<

Although one-offs don't bug me that much. Given enough magic and attention to detail, I don't mind that you could craft a bespoke hybrid. What I don't like about half-elves/orcs is the implication that they can just happen on their own.

I also prefer the notion that the Greek gods started off human and got uplifted somehow. They appear human enough (physically and behaviorally).

[Hand_of_Vecna]

There is an entire episode in The Next Generation ('The Chase') which serves mainly to explain why species from different planets can interbreed.

I was just about to say the same thing. Canonically, sentient life in the Star Trek universe is the result of Intelligent Design. Oddly this has come up in at least three discussions in the last year. One long dead race seeded their DNA into local animals.

This may have been exclusive to just the power players of the Alpha Quadrant. I recall interspecies pregnancies involving less mainstream species being very closely monitored by doctors and may have been conceived with extreme intervention from Star Treks near magical medical technology, while the mainstream races conceive naturally.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I can give divine and demonic mixes a pass but half-breeds between species from entirely different planets is profoundly stupid. Mostly this, but once we get into the science fiction where science and magic are one and the same (see how Bones heals people in Star Trek, or how Doctor Crusher does - Pure Freaking Magic masquerading as tech) then someone can do the needed experiments and find a way to gene splice - sometimes creating monsters. Frankenstein, even! :smallcool: And other times creating viable cross breeds that can't breed - Mules, as it were. (And yeah, Isaac Asimov was waaaaaaaaay ahead of folks on this one) If we take the Asimov idea and apply it to FR, then any Half Elf or Half Orc can copulate their way from one end of Faerun to the other, and never get pregnant, nor cause pregnancy. (Best courtesans and gigilos ever, eh?)

What if elves are a symbiotic fungus? Spoken like a true Dwarf; here, have a pint! :smallbiggrin:

There is an entire episode in The Next Generation ('The Chase') which serves mainly to explain why species from different planets can interbreed. Retcon strikes again. :smalltongue: But see my observation above.
Given enough magic and attention to detail, I don't mind that you could craft a bespoke hybrid. Saruman would agree with you. Uruk Hai for the win!


What I don't like about half-elves/orcs is the implication that they can just happen on their own. You get it from a toilet seat, I hear ... :smalleek: (That's a riff on an old excuse for how someone ended up with the Clap ... )

I also prefer the notion that the Greek gods started off human and got uplifted somehow. They appear human enough (physically and behaviorally). Europa ... wait, are we about to get yelled at for discussing Real World religions?
I'll pass.
I got barked at recently about that by a mod - I kid you not.

[EggKookoo]

I was just about to say the same thing. Canonically, sentient life in the Star Trek universe is the result of Intelligent Design. Oddly this has come up in at least three discussions in the last year. One long dead race seeded their DNA into local animals.

This is not what I would consider Trek at its finest.

Aliens in Trek are humans with bumpy foreheads for a number of reasons, almost all of them having to do with the realities of producing a television SF series (budget, relatability, branding, etc.). Until some genius decided otherwise, we never really needed an explanation for why this was, any more than we needed an explanation for why there's sound in space, all ships seem to fly at the same orientation and tended to fly right up on top of each other, why the universal translator also made the speaker's lips move properly, and a bunch of other similar tropes. We accepted Klingons and Vulcans being obvious humans because it's theater, and that stuff was never the point. Trying to explain it, especially with such a weak justification, shifted the focus toward something that was, essentially, irrelevant.

It's no surprise that episode came late in TNG's run, when most of the real writing talent had left for greener pastures and those left behind were scraping barrel-bottoms looking for new episode ideas.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's no surprise that episode came late in TNG's run, when most of the real writing talent had left for greener pastures and those left behind were scraping barrel-bottoms looking for new episode ideas. I got the same impression.

Then again, there's what Blizzard did regarding Intelligent Design run amok: Protoss and Zerg as optimized life forms created for {some reason} by the Xel Naga.

[Petrocorus]

^ All of this. Tasha's is the quick and dirty solution to get people off their backs sufficiently that Hasbro doesn't feel the best move is to shutter the rpg division entirely for being too much trouble, and, possibly coincidentally, open up build diversity at the same time.

Is this really about 2020 identity politics and the "orcs are racist" thing??

Gosh.. how many players actually care about this things?

Wouldn't that just be better to release a statement that D&D races are species and not ethnicities, just as every players know, and be done with it?

[EggKookoo]

Is this really about 2020 identity politics and the "orcs are racist" thing??

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/oh-no-yes.gif

[Petrocorus]

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

Dragons are genetically compatible with everything. And we all know they make "good" on this compatibility.
Outsider have a reasonable pass given their nature.
But when it comes to humanoïds, it seems that only humans seems to have that kind of compatibility, save for the involvement of magic.
I don't think i heard of elves and orcs naturaly interbreeding in any D&D setting.


(I miss 3.5's race line-up by sex, honestly, because it was a great way to see the differences in height and build. (https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/editor/zj/8yov7srhwci2.png)).
+1



If you're going to bother trading on D&D's long history and brand, you should double down on those races. Root the core of the game in Forgotten Realms (or Eberron, or Dragonlance, or whatever), and give us in-depth descriptions of cultures.

Eberron even makes a point that nationality is more important than race. And there are some racism between nationalities.


You'd think BESM d20 would've shown people that this is a bad idea... but we're doomed to repeat the sins of the past.
What's BESM?


What if elves are a symbiotic fungus?
You mean Warhammer Orcs?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dragons are genetically compatible with everything. And we all know the make "good" on this compatibility.
Outsider have a reasonable pass given their nature.
But when it comes to humanoïds, it seems that only human seems to have that kind of compatibility, save for the involvement of magic.
I don't think i heard of elves and orcs naturaly interbreeding in any D&D setting.


My setting has "compatibility" between:
* humans and orcs
* humans and elves
* orcs and wood elves (yes, only wood elves)
* yuan-ti pureblood (or their replacements, the ophidians) and humans/half-elves
* theoretically, humans and dragonborn should be compatible, but no one has reported such a cross so far
* most of the anthropomorphic animal races should be compatible with humans, but again, no records of such crosses

That's because the genetic tree is...messy. Humans and orcs both were created from hobgoblins--one by mixing in high-elven "genetics"[0], the other by mixing wood-elven and animal (mostly porcine) genetics. And the other races mentioned were created by hiving off of either humans or hobgoblins more recently (by mixing in other genetics).

I've made a sub-race of "wood orcs"--they're half-wood-elf, half-orc mixes. Only show up in one small area though, and most consider them...perverse.

[0] Not really. No DNA involved. More like...inherited self-concept. It's all about souls. Normal species manipulation involves polymorphing one partner and engaging in sexual relations. The soul remembers what it was, and so, even polymorphed, you get a melding of traits passed on to children. Dragonborn and the ophidians were created much more quickly by using demonic rituals to carve off pieces of souls and forcibly meld them with a target (usually an unborn child). Nasty work, but it's bred true.

Note that this is how dragons are compatible with humanoids--they change shape and procreate normally. Since, for me, color isn't really hereditary, that lets you have a whole rainbow of dragon-breeds. Those are really really rare--much more common are the "artificial" variants like the dragonborn and various other one-off altered people.

Generally, if you see a strange species in my setting, the answer to "why is it that way" is "a high elf wizard did it." Less so now that they don't have their ultra-long lifespans, but...

[Petrocorus]

Protoss and Zerg as optimized life forms created for {some reason} by the Xel Naga.

The Protoss were created with a purity of form, while the Zerg were created with a purity of essence.

[Aussiehams]

Is this really about 2020 identity politics and the "orcs are racist" thing??

Gosh.. how many players actually care about this things?

Wouldn't that just be better to release a statement that D&D races are species and not ethnicities, just as every players know, and be done with it?

This. So much this.

[CMCC]

It went too far. I totally get proficiencies, languages, and skills being interchangeable. That is something learned.

The idea of ability scores being changeable makes no sense at all. At that point what is the point of even having various species that you can play? The idea of different species having the same physical and mental characteristics (on average) is both silly and boring. Would a mouse ever have a strength greater than an elephant. So not only is the interchangeability silly - so too is the lack of negatives that help account for these differences.

And before someone says “my halfling hit the gym”. Sure - That’s what a 12+ strength halfling looks like. Plus if they continue to “hit the gym” that’s what ASIs are for.

Just make everyone human if we want to have non-unique species. Humans have a ton of fun variety.

[CMCC]

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

Also inter-species offspring is not that unusual in the real world and it’s certainly very normal in mythology. That would be an argument for absolutely nothing.

I’d prefer if mixed species had more restrictions (like the impotence of a mule).

Although if Neanderthals and humans mixed without much issue - perhaps the idea is moot. I still like it though.

[Aussiehams]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards.

This is a move to stop racism in real life, and the only IRL people that are racist are humans.

Maybe the best move is to remove humans from DnD. If all the other species exist with no humans, they can all be what they are with the abilities they have, without humans being racist or used for comparison.

[CMCC]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards.

This is a move to stop racism in real life, and the only IRL people that are racist are humans.

Maybe the best move is to remove humans from DnD. If all the other species exist with no humans, they can all be what they are with the abilities they have, without humans being racist or used for comparison.

This is actually a legit solution that I like and have considered in the past.

[zinycor]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards.

This is a move to stop racism in real life, and the only IRL people that are racist are humans.

Maybe the best move is to remove humans from DnD. If all the other species exist with no humans, they can all be what they are with the abilities they have, without humans being racist or used for comparison.

I... I actually really like this idea.

[Warwick]

Wouldn't that just be better to release a statement that D&D races are species and not ethnicities, just as every players know, and be done with it?


There's also the conflict between players who want races to be costumes and players who races to be mechanically distinctive.

Player A wants to play a half-orc wizard (or some comparably atypical and mechanically undersupported combination) for whatever reason, but feels bad about not having a 16 in their core stat right away or gets bullied on the charop forums for not playing a tortle or whatever the cool kids are doing nowadays. They want the aesthetics of a half-orc but find the mechanical identity frustrating. Maybe it feels like they're wasting a choice for flavor, or being punished for trying something atypical. Whatever the precise reason, there's a subset of players that don't want mechanically distinctive races.

Player B wants to play an elf ranger and finds themselves frustrated, because elves are supposed to naturally graceful and in tune with nature, but in a hypothetical races-as-costumes system they're not any better that than a dwarf or goliath. They don't feel like they've gained anything by picking an elf. For them, it's important that aesthetics mesh with mechanics (ludonarrative resonance, if you'll let me be pretentious for a moment). After all, if the choice doesn't matter, why even pretend to make it?

[Lord Raziere]

There's also the conflict between players who want races to be costumes and players who races to be mechanically distinctive.

Player A wants to play a half-orc wizard (or some comparably atypical and mechanically undersupported combination) for whatever reason, but feels bad about not having a 16 in their core stat right away or gets bullied on the charop forums for not playing a tortle or whatever the cool kids are doing nowadays. They want the aesthetics of a half-orc but find the mechanical identity frustrating. Maybe it feels like they're wasting a choice for flavor, or being punished for trying something atypical. Whatever the precise reason, there's a subset of players that don't want mechanically distinctive races.

Player B wants to play an elf ranger and finds themselves frustrated, because elves are supposed to naturally graceful and in tune with nature, but in a hypothetical races-as-costumes system they're not any better that than a dwarf or goliath. They don't feel like they've gained anything by picking an elf. For them, it's important that aesthetics mesh with mechanics (ludonarrative resonance, if you'll let me be pretentious for a moment). After all, if the choice doesn't matter, why even pretend to make it?

I mean conflicts like these are why point buy systems like M&M or narrative ones like Fate arose in the first place. In those Player A can choose any race they want and just make the mechanics to be competent at what they want regardless, while Player B can choose any race they want and build the mechanics to make the race as mechanically distinct as they want. Instead of being locked into pre-defined packages of what a race can or cannot do.

Now what if Player A and B want to play the same race but have completely different ideas of what they do with it in a point buy system? Well that is a thing for them to work out with each other about why their characters would differ so much despite being the same race. a system can't do everything.

Personally I'm with the Player A group and feel as if making sure the stat boosts are floating is enough for that- if you want to make a race unique, I'd say its better to do so through actually unique mechanics rather than things needed for class functionality. and then there is cases like say, the Oath of Ancients Paladin where its clearly meant for wood elves, but its both mechanically suboptimal for Player A AND not aesthetically matching for player B because of the wood elves bad scores for the class, so both perspectives lose out.

[Talakeal]

In my Trek headcanon, Spock is 100% genetically Vulcan (which fits with how the character was portrayed). His physiology was altered such that he could be carried to term by a human mother, who surely had some high-tech assistance of her own. In fact, I assume Spock is pretty much a clone of Sarek with some custom adjustments to suit Amanda's desires. Being altered such gave him a cultural taint among "pure" Vulcans, resulting in the "half human" slur.

Not that I've thought much about this or anything. <_<

Although one-offs don't bug me that much. Given enough magic and attention to detail, I don't mind that you could craft a bespoke hybrid. What I don't like about half-elves/orcs is the implication that they can just happen on their own.

I also prefer the notion that the Greek gods started off human and got uplifted somehow. They appear human enough (physically and behaviorally).

What is it about D&D hybrids that make them seem so wrong to you? There are plenty of species capable of hybridization irl.

[Chugger]

This is a game. It's owned by WotC, which is a for-profit corporation, which is owned by Hasbro - a big probably soulless corporation.

I have no idea why WotC makes half the decisions they make. A lot of what we get from them is the product of "committee work" - you know what a camel is, right? A horse designed by a committee.

So honestly, did they play test this? Is there a political or real-world ideological motive? There's no transparency in their process - well we might get told stories about it (I don't consider this transparency). So who knows why they do what they do.

All I see here is a hot mess. 5e is working pretty well - as far as I'm concerned - and then they dump this on us. This the same company that made (to me) unplayable, horrific versions of DnD. With basic 5e they got something right. But now, I can't tell.

For all I know most of these changes might be wonderful, but I sincerely doubt it. First, DMs who wanted to do this sort of thing already were doing it. Homebrewed rules are very common. So, what does it mean that they start homebrewing their own game?

I don't trust them. I play Adventurer's League, and they've been effing around with that and ruining it - I stopped playing for a whole year, they messed it up so badly. This stuff - I mean look, this is our game, not theirs. We can play the version we want to play. I could care less what a bunch of committee-bound, bean-counting idiotic corporate stooges say. If this book's changes appeal to you, you're free to use them. If they don't, you're free to ignore them. If a few of the changes seem okay but the rest suck, in your estimation, then you know what to do. This is our game. Not theirs.

[EggKookoo]

What is it about D&D hybrids that make them seem so wrong to you? There are plenty of species capable of hybridization irl.

Not very many species can crossbreed true. Those that can and that spend long periods of time in the same region end up blending.

I don't mind the idea that some entity or event merged a population of humans and elves into a new creature we call a half-elf, and all half-elves in the game are descended from that new source. And the same idea for half-orcs. I wouldn't even mind if it was that humans, elves, and orcs can't casually interbreed but magical methods have been developed so that, say, a human and an elf can essentially engineer a mix. That might work for half-elves but the implication historically has been that half-orcs are the product of orcish conquest (although I think that has been de-emphasized in 5e).

It's not the fact of casual crossbreeding that irks me but the consequences of what that would mean (or lack thereof). I find it easier to imagine that humans and elves remain distinct creatures/races if the creation of half-elves isn't something that could happen accidentally. And of course the same with half-orcs.

Personally, I find the entire concept of half-breeds uninteresting and unimaginative, and bordering on a kind of Mary Sue snowflakiness. And really, half-elves in D&D don't owe their origin to mythology. It comes from Elrond the "half elven" despite him not being a half-elf in the D&D sense and more in the way I prefer it, as the result of something that happened way in the past.

p.s. It just occurred to me that I could have a setting where all or most of the PC races can crossbreed true, and your "race" is just the most dominant ancestry. If there's no one dominant one, you're human. And then the monstrous humanoid races (goblins, bugbears, etc.) are the offspring that cannot breed true, kind of like mules, except that they can still reproduce with one of the PC races, which explains why they're adversarial and dangerous. They're constantly raiding towns and whatnot for breeding stock. It's a bit dark but it works, and helps explain why those damn goblins are always a threat.

[Amnestic]

you know what a camel is, right? A horse designed by a committee.

?

What's wrong with camels, they're adapted for their environment. Being able to go for up to 10 days(!) without drinking seems pretty useful in a desert. I'd like to see you (or a horse) do as well.

And they're cute.


All I see here is a hot mess. 5e is working pretty well - as far as I'm concerned - and then they dump this on us. This the same company that made (to me) unplayable, horrific versions of DnD. With basic 5e they got something right. But now, I can't tell.

Nothing is going to "break" from the changes in Tasha's. Some things will be stronger than they were before, some things that weren't viewed as viable now will be, but the game will fundamentally be identical to what it was before.

[Xervous]

You mean Warhammer Orcs?

More or less? Since the mention of Orks/Orcs tempts a lot of thread locking badwrongfun accusations I was aiming more at the alien nature of this species that is very different, beyond the point of being dismissed as a human in a costume.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Protoss were created with a purity of form, while the Zerg were created with a purity of essence. General Ripper might disagree on the latter bit. :smallcool:

Hasbro - a big probably soulless corporation. +1 so far.
You know what a camel is, right? A horse designed by a committee. Some people don't understand this joke, apparently. Another version of this joke is "What's an elephant? It's a mouse designed by a committee..." (And in another version "It's a mouse that had to meet MILSPEC" ... )

All I see here is a hot mess. If the mess gets hot enough, WoTC will sell off the brand to someone else. As you said, they are a big soulless corporation. So they made a splash, it's successful, the brand was restored in terms of popularity (4e took quite the hit, for {whatever reason you want to assign}) so now is the great time to sell the asset: while the showroom shine hasn't lost its luster.


I don't trust them. I play Adventurer's League, and they've been effing around with that and ruining it - I stopped playing for a whole year, they messed it up so badly. Season 8's messing with treasure and gold and points was a deal breaker for our group. I wonder if my ranger is even legal anymore.

This stuff - I mean look, this is our game, not theirs. We can play the version we want to play. This is a very interesting point. In the mid to late 1970's, and even into the early 80's, Gary Gygax ran into a similar push back as the hobby burst into bloom. The game was so wide open that a lot of people recoiled at the attempts at control that things like RPGA and AD&D 1e and modules were seen as attempting to assert. But he'd run into this even before then (the infamous Alarums and Excursions letters / articles being cases in point).
You've capture the spirit of the thing, though. The game belongs to the table where it's being played. Been that way since Men and Magic came out, and even before during the Twin Cities proto D&D games ... *tips cap*

What's wrong with camels, they're adapted for their environment. Sorry you didn't get the joke, see above.

Nothing is going to "break" from the changes in Tasha's. Some things will be stronger than they were before, some things that weren't viewed as viable now will be, but the game will fundamentally be identical to what it was before. I wonder, but at our table it won't mattter.

As to those of you who want to remove humans from the game: on the surface, that would seem to be what racists do. :smallconfused: :smalleek:

But I do remember one game we had waaaaaaaaaaay back when - our entire party was dwarves. (It was mostly a dungeon crawl). Given how the PHB places half elves, lore wise, as "people without a home/no strong ties" it might be useful to create a party consisting solely of half elves.
It would fit the PHB lore about perfectly. Here's a stab at one.

1 Paladin
1 Sorcerer
1 Bard or Cleric
1 Rogue
1 Fighter or Ranger
1 Monk if you want six players; I think five is the perfect number.

[Sception]

So my question is, why not go a touch farther?

Because Tasha's is a supplement, and goes as far as it can with an implementation that doesn't have to be packaged with extensive errata to multiple previous books or a noticeable change to the design and presentation of future ones.

[Amnestic]

Sorry you didn't get the joke, see above.

Maybe it's a bad joke. Sorry, Sir Alec Issigonis, designer of the original Mini who the quote is originally attributed to, you're bad at humorous analogies.



I wonder, but at our table it won't mattter.

Are there any truly broken builds people can think of? Not 'good' builds (like mountain dwarf wizards) but 'broken'?

Because if moving a +2 from a 'bad' stat to a 'good' stat was enough to completely break the game then...hmm.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are there any truly broken builds people can think of? Bounded accuracy makes it hard for anything to be broken. If all that one focuses on is Tier 1, which is where "broken" complaints often come from, then one is forgetting 3/4ths of the game. .

... if moving a +2 from a 'bad' stat to a 'good' stat was enough to completely break the game then... But it isn't. :smallcool:

[Xervous]

The way WotC keeps pissing off more AL players every season is a boon for any DM that wants to run a competing open table campaign out of game stores. You get a constant influx of players.

For someone who was never gone anywhere near officially sanctioned play what are the broad strokes of the boneheaded moves?

[zinycor]

I believe that if a camel was designed by a comitee, then that was a very nice comitee. Camels are awesone for their enviroment and extremely optimal.


Good job horse comitee. For once they didn't go with only fashion statements like the zebra disaster.

[Willie the Duck]

Is this really about 2020 identity politics and the "orcs are racist" thing??

Gosh.. how many players actually care about this things?

Wouldn't that just be better to release a statement that D&D races are species and not ethnicities, just as every players know, and be done with it?

This is a small, optional set of rules in an optional ruleset. It also has a side benefit* of letting people who want to play thematically orthogonal concepts do so with less mechanical punishment. It pretty much is a 'do ____ <small thing> and be done with it' kind of move.
*potential benefit, I suppose, depending on if you consider that good or not.

[Petrocorus]

Player A wants to play a half-orc wizard (or some comparably atypical and mechanically undersupported combination) for whatever reason, but feels bad about not having a 16 in their core stat right away or gets bullied on the charop forums for not playing a tortle or whatever the cool kids are doing nowadays. They want the aesthetics of a half-orc but find the mechanical identity frustrating. Maybe it feels like they're wasting a choice for flavor, or being punished for trying something atypical. Whatever the precise reason, there's a subset of players that don't want mechanically distinctive races.

Except this player can already do it by asking the DM to be allowed to start with 16 Int in point-buy, or to roll for abilities.
I never understood why the point-buy system doesn't allow abilities over 15, not even 16, anyway.



I have no idea why WotC makes half the decisions they make. A lot of what we get from them is the product of "committee work" - you know what a camel is, right? A horse designed by a committee.

Nice. May i reuse this?


General Ripper might disagree on the latter bit. :smallcool:

I don't remember this guy, unless you speak of Duval.
But i have yet to play SC2.



If the mess gets hot enough, WoTC will sell off the brand to someone else. As you said, they are a big soulless corporation. So they made a splash, it's successful, the brand was restored in terms of popularity (4e took quite the hit, for {whatever reason you want to assign}) so now is the great time to sell the asset: while the showroom shine hasn't lost its luster.

So i guess it's time for me to win the lottery. :smallwink:



As to those of you who want to remove humans from the game: on the surface, that would seem to be what racists do. :smallconfused: :smalleek:.
Is everything racist now?


More or less? Since the mention of Orks/Orcs tempts a lot of thread locking badwrongfun accusations I was aiming more at the alien nature of this species that is very different, beyond the point of being dismissed as a human in a costume.
I've been away for a while, have we really reach that point?


I believe that if a camel was designed by a comitee, then that was a very nice comitee. Camels are awesone for their enviroment and extremely optimal.
Good job horse comitee. For once they didn't go with only fashion statements like the zebra disaster.
Except the purpose was to design a horse for eurasian environment.

[EggKookoo]

So I have a player who looked at this, then decided she can finally feel good playing a Tabaxi wizard by putting the +2 toward Int. That's all I needed -- I have a player who wants it and will like her PC more because she can do it. I'm sold.

I get the complaints about the larger social picture and the laziness (or at least rushed) nature of this rule, but I can live with it.

[zinycor]

So I have a player who looked at this, then decided she can finally feel good playing a Tabaxi wizard by putting the +2 toward Int. That's all I needed -- I have a player who wants it and will like her PC more because she can do it. I'm sold.

I get the complaints about the larger social picture and the laziness (or at least rushed) nature of this rule, but I can live with it.

Those are pretty much my feelings. But the whole discussion surrounding these rules has been pretty tiring.

[GooeyChewie]

Except this player can already do it by asking the DM to be allowed to start with 16 Int in point-buy, or to roll for abilities.
I never understood why the point-buy system doesn't allow abilities over 15, not even 16, anyway.

I'm pretty sure the reason they don't let you buy a 16 is because then you could use a +2 ability score improvement to make it an 18. With the current (pre-variant) rules, a +1 in the right ability score "allows" a race/class combination because you can get to the highest possible starting modifier of +3. If you could buy a 16 and get to 18, many players would feel limited to races which get a +2 in the class primary ability score.

Of course, if point buy allowed you to buy a 16 with the caveat that doing so prevented you from using the racial ability score modifier on that 16, that'd solve that problem while still allowing players to play unconventional builds with a starting 16. I think that would have been a better solution than what they did.

[Amnestic]

Except this player can already do it by asking the DM to be allowed to start with 16 Int in point-buy, or to roll for abilities.
I never understood why the point-buy system doesn't allow abilities over 15, not even 16, anyway

If it's not an issue then why are you, apparently, arguing against it? This codifies a variant rule making it easier for players to point to and say "Hey, DM, could we do this?" rather than a) rolling dice and getting lucky (assuming your group even rolls for stats, which many do not) and b) doesn't require you saying "hey, let me do this unsupported thing to make my character stronger".

[FirstBornSon]

This thread gave me an idea to move one +1 abillity from race to class which is cool so You can play iconic gnome bard or forest druid (which i had) without feeling gimped. On the whole fihting racism or changing perception i dont think wotc whill change someonse mind. *******s minds are hard to change and if you belive pigments or geographical locations makes you better then others thats just stupid.

[Petrocorus]

I'm pretty sure the reason they don't let you buy a 16 is because then you could use a +2 ability score improvement to make it an 18. With the current (pre-variant) rules, a +1 in the right ability score "allows" a race/class combination because you can get to the highest possible starting modifier of +3. If you could buy a 16 and get to 18, many players would feel limited to races which get a +2 in the class primary ability score.

Of course, if point buy allowed you to buy a 16 with the caveat that doing so prevented you from using the racial ability score modifier on that 16, that'd solve that problem while still allowing players to play unconventional builds with a starting 16. I think that would have been a better solution than what they did.

I've allowed my players to do it for a while, and never had issues. Most players are fine with starting at 16, and don't want to drop their other stats too much, a 16 cost a lot.

And starting with a 18 or even a 20 is possible with rolled stats.


If it's not an issue then why are you, apparently, arguing against it? This codifies a variant rule making it easier for players to point to and say "Hey, DM, could we do this?" rather than a) rolling dice and getting lucky (assuming your group even rolls for stats, which many do not) and b) doesn't require you saying "hey, let me do this unsupported thing to make my character stronger".

Arguing against what?
Allowing a 16 with point buy (which i implemented myself) and allowing to move the racial bonus (which i argue against) are two different things.

The first is already possible with rolls and cost a lot with points.

The second break the definition of the races, hinder the balance between races (granted, it is already not as balanced as it should be), and open the way for a new level of power gaming in a game that is supposedly trying to avoid this (with not as much success as we would like sometimes).
And it breaks DM fiat since it now entitles the players to do something many DM would have banned or at least regulate heavily.
And cost nothing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it breaks DM fiat since it now entitles the players to do something many DM would have banned or at least regulate heavily.


Only in AL, where there wasn't much DM fiat anyway. These rules are variants, meaning opt-in only. Except in AL.

[Segev]

What's BESM?

Big Eyes Small Mouth is/was a points-based RPG designed to let you build anime characters and play anime-themed games. It's actually flexible enough to play just about anything, though it's also quite breakable if you know what you're doing. It had 3 major editions, and an off-shoot called TriStat dX that tried to make it more generic (removing the "anime" theming, though it supports it just as well as ever).

BESM d20 was a level-based variant on it made in the "everything is going d20" craze, and has classes that are basically pre-spent points at every level, and can be done very generically as a pile of points to build your level's worth of abilities with at every level. If you're familiar with Mutants and Masterminds 3e, it's similar in chargen/class design. Though I believe it adhered closer to d20's standards for combat mechanics than did M&M 3e.

[Fable Wright]

You know, I think Pathfinder 2 did this the right way.

You have your Ancestry that determines your stat bonus and the pool of benefits you can draw from. You can use an optional rule that gives your dump stat a small penalty if you want to rearrange stuff. This encourages stereotypes without locking anyone into them—it's a very small penalty but helps worldbuilding.

If you want to draw from a second pool of benefits as well, you can take Cultural Adaptation.

Allowing the pool to draw from all ancestry races without restriction is silly, potentially unbalancing, and gives some races that were specifically designed to have feature overlap as a balancing factor a huge power boost for no reason. But there was no reason to implement that without a 5.5e, which would require a lot of development that they don't have right now. So they hamfisted this in. I expect something similar to Pathfinder 2e's version in 6e.

Regardless of this, I will be buying the book for the spells and subclasses, and not allowing the optional character building rules at the table.

[Stealthscout]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards.

This is a move to stop racism in real life, and the only IRL people that are racist are humans.

Maybe the best move is to remove humans from DnD. If all the other species exist with no humans, they can all be what they are with the abilities they have, without humans being racist or used for comparison.


I've started running with this idea and like it. Thinking of a game where you only have 1-2 races at the 'starting place' and get more options as you explore outwards.



Personally, the Tasha's rules are just fine. If you are using point buy, you are just going to see more options for players while ensuring they all have a 16-17 primary stat at level 1.

There is no rule that PCs are perfect representatives of their race and you don't have to apply the rule to all the NPCs. You have precedent for powerful dwarf invokers and an actual explanation why elven soldiers in LotR wear plate to battle (pet peeve). They just aren't normal representatives of their race. Done.

[Segev]

I've started running with this idea and like it. Thinking of a game where you only have 1-2 races at the 'starting place' and get more options as you explore outwards.



Personally, the Tasha's rules are just fine. If you are using point buy, you are just going to see more options for players while ensuring they all have a 16-17 primary stat at level 1.

There is no rule that PCs are perfect representatives of their race and you don't have to apply the rule to all the NPCs. You have precedent for powerful dwarf invokers and an actual explanation why elven soldiers in LotR wear plate to battle (pet peeve). They just aren't normal representatives of their race. Done.

Nothing prevents an elf from having a 15 Strength without Tasha's rules. Even the elite array would permit it. 15 Strength is all you need to wear plate mail without penalty.

[diplomancer]

I've started running with this idea and like it. Thinking of a game where you only have 1-2 races at the 'starting place' and get more options as you explore outwards.



Personally, the Tasha's rules are just fine. If you are using point buy, you are just going to see more options for players while ensuring they all have a 16-17 primary stat at level 1.

There is no rule that PCs are perfect representatives of their race and you don't have to apply the rule to all the NPCs. You have precedent for powerful dwarf invokers and an actual explanation why elven soldiers in LotR wear plate to battle (pet peeve). They just aren't normal representatives of their race. Done.

They aren't. Which is why they roll 4d6b3, not 3d6, and even get to choose where those scores go.

If you are playing with Standard Array, that's why their scores are 15 14 13 12 10 8, chosen, not 13 12 11 10 9 8, randomly assigned.

Your ability scores model your character's "specialness", but Racial ASI's model racial strengths.



Nothing prevents an elf from having a 15 Strength without Tasha's rules. Even the elite array would permit it. 15 Strength is all you need to wear plate mail without penalty.

For that matter, I don't think we see anyone in full plate in LotR, except in Faramir's stupid charge.

[rooneg]

For someone who was never gone anywhere near officially sanctioned play what are the broad strokes of the boneheaded moves?

It's primarily just that they seem allergic to leaving well enough alone. Every season they change something non-trivial in the organized play rules and it turns out some percentage of the player base will get upset about each change. Do that often enough and you have a steady stream of people who are annoyed enough to leave. The details of each individual change honestly don't matter terribly much. Like, the current one is having characters tied to a particular season of adventures and a change in what books you can use to build characters, but before that it was a change in how you level up and decide who gets what magic items and before that it was ANOTHER different way to level up and decide who gets what magic items along with a change in how the adventures were structured.

[Amechra]

I don't think you GAIN anything with such a system that wouldn't be better handled by giving an entirely free-floating +2/+1. And you actually make it impossible to build "off-beat" characters without actively penalizing them by giving them a useless bonus, which they could have put in a more interesting ability.

Let's be honest here - most of the time, my idea is going to end up with the same final results as a free-floating +2/+1, except it will signal to new players that you should be improving Charisma and your physical stats as a Paladin. Because if you put that in the class description somewhere, they might skip it (I've worked in software - I don't expect users to read anything they don't have to).

As for preventing people from playing a Paladin with +2 Int/+1 Wis or whatever... is preventing people from actively shooting themselves in the foot a bad thing?


Is there a political or real-world ideological motive?

Long story short - WotC as a whole has come under fire lately for having some pretty skewed hiring/employment practices. Throwing together an ill-considered set of rules like the ones in Tasha's gives them something else to point to and say "Look, we're not racist we swear". Like, I fully expect that they're actually examining their hiring practices, but this was probably pushed by some panicking exec.

Plus, people complaining about the unfortunate implications of D&D's races is nothing new. It's just that people are willing to listen/apply pressure in the current environment. Like, other fantasy RPGs have generally started using synonyms like "Ancestries" or "Stocks", because "race" is a super loaded word in this general context.


I believe that if a camel was designed by a comitee, then that was a very nice comitee. Camels are awesone for their enviroment and extremely optimal.


Good job horse comitee. For once they didn't go with only fashion statements like the zebra disaster.

I'm just picturing a meeting where the Evolution Boss is giving the Horse Committee a prize for their good work. It's adorable.


Big Eyes Small Mouth is/was a points-based RPG designed to let you build anime characters and play anime-themed games. It's actually flexible enough to play just about anything, though it's also quite breakable if you know what you're doing. It had 3 major editions, and an off-shoot called TriStat dX that tried to make it more generic (removing the "anime" theming, though it supports it just as well as ever).

BESM d20 was a level-based variant on it made in the "everything is going d20" craze, and has classes that are basically pre-spent points at every level, and can be done very generically as a pile of points to build your level's worth of abilities with at every level. If you're familiar with Mutants and Masterminds 3e, it's similar in chargen/class design. Though I believe it adhered closer to d20's standards for combat mechanics than did M&M 3e.

BESM d20 was also blatantly, hilariously broken.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Characters with a +2 main stat and positive secondaries +con can handle by the book encounters just fine. So not having racial bonuses that match your class isn't shooting yourself in the foot. You're within the game's expected envelope. As is having a +3 main stat.

And the classes actually say what to put your scores in. If they won't read that much, and there's no one around to make suggestions...

[Segev]

BESM d20 was also blatantly, hilariously broken.

That would not surprise me. I didn't ever really dig into it; I always played regular BESM when I wanted to play it.

[Petrocorus]

Only in AL, where there wasn't much DM fiat anyway. These rules are variants, meaning opt-in only. Except in AL.
Good point.


Big Eyes Small Mouth is/was a points-based RPG designed to let you build anime characters and play anime-themed games. It's actually flexible enough to play just about anything, though it's also quite breakable if you know what you're doing. It had 3 major editions, and an off-shoot called TriStat dX that tried to make it more generic (removing the "anime" theming, though it supports it just as well as ever).
Oh yeah... i remember reading about it when i got interested in th TriStat system. Never knew the were more editions.



Long story short - WotC as a whole has come under fire lately for having some pretty skewed hiring/employment practices. Throwing together an ill-considered set of rules like the ones in Tasha's gives them something else to point to and say "Look, we're not racist we swear". Like, I fully expect that they're actually examining their hiring practices, but this was probably pushed by some panicking exec.

What hiring practices? I apparently missed this.

[OldTrees1]

Let's be honest here - most of the time, my idea is going to end up with the same final results as a free-floating +2/+1, except it will signal to new players that you should be improving Charisma and your physical stats as a Paladin. Because if you put that in the class description somewhere, they might skip it (I've worked in software - I don't expect users to read anything they don't have to).

As for preventing people from playing a Paladin with +2 Int/+1 Wis or whatever... is preventing people from actively shooting themselves in the foot a bad thing?

So Paladin would be +1 Cha, +1 Str/Dex/Con, +1 any? I notice that allows +1 Str/+1 Con/+1 Cha or +2 Cha/+1 Str_or_Dex (The stereotype) but does not allow +2 Str/+1 Con (common DPS focused). It also doesn't allow +2 Cha/+1 Wis (uncommon but more social focused).

And this is on Paladin which is more of the more consistent models. Rogue is a bit more complex because they could focus any of the 6 stats.

While this idea has merit, I don't think it is for me. I would opt to not have class based ability bonuses.

[Amechra]

What hiring practices? I apparently missed this.

Mostly just the standard "we hire people who fit in, so we mostly hire other white guys" thing. It's not like that's particularly unique, and it probably isn't intentional. The whole reason that people are annoyed/disappointed is that WotC is actively trying to project the image of being a progressive, socially-conscious company. You know, stuff like this new rule in Tasha's, that honestly kinda awkward "sex" section on page 121, the big ol' roster of planeswalkers in MtG..

[Reynaert]

And it breaks DM fiat since it now entitles the players to do something many DM would have banned or at least regulate heavily.
Only in AL, where there wasn't much DM fiat anyway. These rules are variants, meaning opt-in only. Except in AL.

Except that's often not how it goes down.

A lot of the time a player comes along waving the new book saying "This book sais I can float my stats around so I wanna ..."
(And in this specific case, that player can even say "If you don't let me you're a r....")

[Tawmis]

We can play the version we want to play. I could care less what a bunch of committee-bound, bean-counting idiotic corporate stooges say. If this book's changes appeal to you, you're free to use them. If they don't, you're free to ignore them. If a few of the changes seem okay but the rest suck, in your estimation, then you know what to do. This is our game. Not theirs.

While I agree with you; we play the version we want to play.

But, if you're not the DM, and everyone has agreed to disregard Tasha's updates...

But then one of the player asks, "Well. Is it OK if I do this one change to my Elf, to take the +2/+2 dwarves have and drop..."

And if the DM agrees... the flood gates could open.

Or if you're a player, joining a game at a local gaming shop (not really a thing during these Covid times, but in the future) - you could be of the mind set not to use Tasha's book - but that DM may be like, "Everything that's been published is free reign!"

In the end, for me, I don't think it's going to impact me. I typically DM anyway, so I won't be using the book. Causes way too much change for me to try and remember and manage.

I am curious how things like D&D Beyond, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, are going to handle having floating stats, however. That seems like that might be a pain to program.

[diplomancer]

While I agree with you; we play the version we want to play.

But, if you're not the DM, and everyone has agreed to disregard Tasha's updates...

But then one of the player asks, "Well. Is it OK if I do this one change to my Elf, to take the +2/+2 dwarves have and drop..."

And if the DM agrees... the flood gates could open.

Or if you're a player, joining a game at a local gaming shop (not really a thing during these Covid times, but in the future) - you could be of the mind set not to use Tasha's book - but that DM may be like, "Everything that's been published is free reign!"

In the end, for me, I don't think it's going to impact me. I typically DM anyway, so I won't be using the book. Causes way too much change for me to try and remember and manage.

I am curious how things like D&D Beyond, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, are going to handle having floating stats, however. That seems like that might be a pain to program.

No programmer here, but can't they just copy whatever the V. Human code is?

I agree with the rest of your post. Saying "it's optional, so who cares" is how power creep happens. Well, that and releasing non-play tested, popularity-seeking, "hey we need to make bank" rulebooks.

This is the first book I have considered not buying, to send a message to Corporate. And I loved the Versatility UA and was looking forward to its release, so that's a shame.

[EggKookoo]

Long story short - WotC as a whole has come under fire lately for having some pretty skewed hiring/employment practices. Throwing together an ill-considered set of rules like the ones in Tasha's gives them something else to point to and say "Look, we're not racist we swear". Like, I fully expect that they're actually examining their hiring practices, but this was probably pushed by some panicking exec.

As someone who works for one of those Big Dumb Corporations, I can confirm that this feels entirely like one of those efforts to appease some panicky, knows-just-enough-to-be-dangerous pointy-haired boss type.

[zinycor]

Except that's often not how it goes down.

A lot of the time a player comes along waving the new book saying "This book sais I can float my stats around so I wanna ..."
(And in this specific case, that player can even say "If you don't let me you're a r....")

That's what session 0 is for. And if your player is going to accuse you of being a racist over the rules of a game, it isn't a player you would want on your table anyway. So it's a good thing you find out soon rather than later.

[Petrocorus]

Mostly just the standard "we hire people who fit in, so we mostly hire other white guys" thing. It's not like that's particularly unique, and it probably isn't intentional.

But is it an actual practice on their part or the effect of the demographic of the applicants?



The whole reason that people are annoyed/disappointed is that WotC is actively trying to project the image of being a progressive, socially-conscious company. You know, stuff like this new rule in Tasha's, that honestly kinda awkward "sex" section on page 121,
Gosh, i never paid attention to this page.
I did notice how they started to implement "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun. This is becoming common on DM's Guild apparently.
This often makes things harder to read for me.

[EggKookoo]

This often makes things harder to read for me.

Me too. I get the intention but I can't shake the plurality. Who are these people? I would much rather go with "it," at least it's accurate.

My only real beef with this whole thing was WotC's self-blame. The original communications around this had a "we're so bad, we've been racist all along, we'll change, please don't hate us" vibe. I reject the idea that playing D&D for decades and using +/- modifiers for racial mechanics means that the playerbase is in any way racist. If their tone had been more focused on fixing long-standing problems with the way race features and whatnot had been handled -- problems that have been around for a long time -- and less on appeasement to high-running emotion, it would have been more palatable. At the same time, I believe the entire motivation for the change happening now was to deflect blame, so...

[Amnestic]

Me too. I get the intention but I can't shake the plurality. Who are these people? I would much rather go with "it," at least it's accurate.


"They" has been in common use as an accepted singular gender-neutral pronoun in English for centuries. It's not a new development. You've almost certainly used it yourself without even noticing.

[Xervous]

"They" has been in common use as an accepted singular gender-neutral pronoun in English for centuries. It's not a new development. You've almost certainly used it yourself without even noticing.

Every time I use it (it being the word they, oh this could become a headache) it feels very vague. Vagueness is great for painting things in broad strokes like a class or race. Though the feel present in 3.5 writing with the text following the pronoun for the example character was IMO more wholesome and flavorful, transitioning nicely into the gameplay examples.

Other games use “the player/character” which brings us towards discussion of how the game should address player/character divide.

[EggKookoo]

"They" has been in common use as an accepted singular gender-neutral pronoun in English for centuries. It's not a new development. You've almost certainly used it yourself without even noticing.

Possibly, but not likely. Whenever I see a "they" when the context is a single individual, it's like sandpaper. I grind to a halt and reprocess. There's that scene in the Two Towers film where Theoden says the ridiculous line "A parent should never have to bury their child." I can't tell you what happened for the following few minutes because I had to realize he wasn't talking about a bunch of people somewhere else (it should have been "A father should never have to bury his son").

[stoutstien]

Me too. I get the intention but I can't shake the plurality. Who are these people? I would much rather go with "it," at least it's accurate.

My only real beef with this whole thing was WotC's self-blame. The original communications around this had a "we're so bad, we've been racist all along, we'll change, please don't hate us" vibe. I reject the idea that playing D&D for decades and using +/- modifiers for racial mechanics means that the playerbase is in any way racist. If their tone had been more focused on fixing long-standing problems with the way race features and whatnot had been handled -- problems that have been around for a long time -- and less on appeasement to high-running emotion, it would have been more palatable. At the same time, I believe the entire motivation for the change happening now was to deflect blame, so...

They were probably better off going the Warner Brothers route and just put in prefaces/disclaimers in the more problematic settings like they did with older cartoons.
Call of Cthulhu has one as well on using HP writing as source/setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

The way WotC keeps pissing off more AL players every season is a boon for any DM that wants to run a competing open table campaign out of game stores. You get a constant influx of players. I am going to guess that one day, game store will again open their public gaming venues, if any of them survive the COVID madness.

Good job horse comitee. For once they didn't go with only fashion statements like the zebra disaster. Laughed, I did.

For someone who was never gone anywhere near officially sanctioned play what are the broad strokes of the boneheaded moves? Season 8 was a significant boneheaded move.
I never understood why the point-buy system doesn't allow abilities over 15, not even 16, anyway. Heh, that's two of us. I like how 13th Age handled point buy.

I don't remember this guy, unless you speak of Duval. But i have yet to play SC2. I was referring to General Jack. D. Ripper from the movie Doctor Strangelove. Purity of Essence is one of his more infamous lines in that movie. :smallbiggrin:

So i guess it's time for me to win the lottery. :smallwink: It's always time to win the lottery.
Is everything racist now? I sometimes wonder ...

These rules are variants, meaning opt-in only. Except in AL. Just like vHuman, Multiclassing, and Feats.

You know, I think Pathfinder 2 did this the right way.
You have your Ancestry that determines your stat bonus and the pool of benefits you can draw from. You can use an optional rule that gives your dump stat a small penalty if you want to rearrange stuff. This encourages stereotypes without locking anyone into them—it's a very small penalty but helps worldbuilding.

If you want to draw from a second pool of benefits as well, you can take Cultural Adaptation. Nice post, and yet I hope that 6e does not exist for at least another decade.

I've started running with this idea and like it. Thinking of a game where you only have 1-2 races at the 'starting place' and get more options as you explore outwards. Somebody somewhere once referred to D&D as an elf game. So there ya go: already ready for this. :smallbiggrin:
It's primarily just that they seem allergic to leaving well enough alone. Yep, but I think some of their changes are based on feedback from players, and dealing with power gamers.
As someone who works for one of those Big Dumb Corporations, I can confirm that this feels entirely like one of those efforts to appease some panicky, knows-just-enough-to-be-dangerous pointy-haired boss type. Ya think? :smallbiggrin: I'll not bet against you.

[Nagog]

6e is welcomed to arrive in the 2030's, thanks.

Agreed. 5e's simplicity and breadth of content is, thus far, amazing. While 6e would no doubt be an improvement on that, the content itself will for many years be limited compared to 5e. While homebrew will expand it quite a bit very quickly, I much prefer published content until the homebrew has been played through and vetted as being balanced and fun.


Personally I find the idea of races being only a cosmetic thing to be utterly boring and would rather keep the changes as they are now.

That's what's so great about Tasha's! It's entirely optional. I think it will be loads of fun, as I've already been reskinning races as other races for some time, and with the added flexibility of adjusting these racial bonuses, I can create as many racial variants as I'd like! It also means creating balanced homebrew races is no longer a shot in the dark, but as easy as swapping some bonuses and abilities around and voila! A race to call your own.

That said, I can understand where people are coming from with the worry, I could feasibly create a Mountain Dwarf that trades Stonecunning for a Hobgoblin's Martial Training and have the 3 armor proficiencies needed to get heavy armor as a racial trait, then use my +2s in Str and Intelligence to make a Heavy Armor Wizard proficient in all hammer weapons and 2 other weapons of choice, with the Str and Int to be effective with all of them. It's better defenses than Bladesinger without all the hoops to jump through.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just like vHuman, Multiclassing, and Feats.

Yup. Currently I'm considering disabling multiclassing and asking anyone who wants to go human (regular or vHuman) to use one of my homebrew variants instead. Variant means variant means at DM discretion. Means you should not expect it there by default.

And if anyone says "but the book says I can ... so you have to let me", my response will be "thank you for showing me that you won't be a good fit for this table."

I'd have a different view if someone approached and said "hey, I'd really like to do X, but that requires [optional rule Y|race Z|etc]. Can we work something out?" Most of the time, I'd be willing to negotiate. But if you approach it as "you have to let me", I'm going to ask you to find a different table, because that attitude is toxic to the games I want to run.

I set out a document that contains a white-list of all approved options, including races (I don't allow some from the PHB, for instance). Other things are listed as "see DM", with some listed as "no". If you deviate from that and try to push it on my table, bad things happen.

This is why I try to be very involved with character creation before, during, and after session 0. I want to be in the loop for the whole process. Not just mechanics but thematics and background/personality. I take a light touch with asking for changes, but I have some hard rules based on experience (eg no "Chaotic Evil but pretending to not be" characters), based on the games I'm trying to run (eg no joke characters or blatant expies), or based on the setting (eg no gnomes).

[micahaphone]

I'm not nearly as organized or proactive as PhoenixPhyre but I definitely agree with their "work with me, don't demand a thing" viewpoint.

I also like being involved in the character creation pregame work because character creation is exciting! And brainstorming character hooks and discussing how they'll fit into this campaign is great fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not nearly as organized or proactive as PhoenixPhyre but I definitely agree with their "work with me, don't demand a thing" viewpoint.

I also like being involved in the character creation pregame work because character creation is exciting! And brainstorming character hooks and discussing how they'll fit into this campaign is great fun.

To the second paragraph:

Exactly. The more we work together, the more I can find places where your choices can matter. Plus, it's fun.

[Digimike]

To be honest I like the flavor that the races currently have and having too many options leads to confusion. I doubt I'd allow the "pick whatever you want" too often unless the player comes up with a REALLY compelling backstory to warrant those new rules.

My general rule is the more you work with me and flesh out your character the more I'll work with you.

More rules options are always welcome. New D&D books are always exciting. But to the OP, Tasha's went too far, I can't say I'm a fan.

That said, play how you want, it's a game and it's supposed to be fun. The ultimate rule for 5e is GM says what goes. So have fun at your table.

[Sigreid]

Yep, but I think some of their changes are based on feedback from players, and dealing with power gamers.

IMO the fatal flaw of feedback that is often not accounted for is that the people who are happy with a product are usually happily using the product and not responding to surveys or writing angry emails. I've yet to hear of a plan that accounts for that.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO the fatal flaw of feedback that is often not accounted for is that the people who are happy with a product are usually happily using the product and not responding to surveys or writing angry emails. I've yet to hear of a plan that accounts for that. Well said: seems to be another version of *counting the hits and ignoring the misses*

[Petrocorus]

"They" has been in common use as an accepted singular gender-neutral pronoun in English for centuries. It's not a new development. You've almost certainly used it yourself without even noticing.
I'm not a native english speaker, which may have an influence on my PoV on this.
But i've been learning english for 29 years and i never heard of it before 2-3 years ago.
If i stumbled onto this, like in the following example, i probably assumed i had misheard or not understood it was not plural.


Possibly, but not likely. Whenever I see a "they" when the context is a single individual, it's like sandpaper. I grind to a halt and reprocess. There's that scene in the Two Towers film where Theoden says the ridiculous line "A parent should never have to bury their child." I can't tell you what happened for the following few minutes because I had to realize he wasn't talking about a bunch of people somewhere else (it should have been "A father should never have to bury his son").
And here i was sure he'd said "his child".


I am going to guess that one day, game store will again open their public gaming venues, if any of them survive the COVID madness.

Yeah.. i think it's time for me to find a virtual table.


I was referring to General Jack. D. Ripper from the movie Doctor Strangelove. Purity of Essence is one of his more infamous lines in that movie. :smallbiggrin:

Oh..OK. I have yet to see this movie.
Yes, i know, i do feel a bit ashamed.

I myself was referring to a speech by the Overmind, but i think you understood this.


Somebody somewhere once referred to D&D as an elf game. So there ya go: already ready for this. :smallbiggrin: Yep, but I think some of their changes are based on feedback from players, and dealing with power gamers. Ya think? :smallbiggrin: I'll not bet against you.
How many diffrent kind of elves were there in 3.5?



And if anyone says "but the book says I can ... so you have to let me", my response will be "thank you for showing me that you won't be a good fit for this table."

I'd have a different view if someone..........based on the games I'm trying to run (eg no joke characters or blatant expies), or based on the setting (eg no gnomes).
I totally agree.

I myself have now a comprehensive list of all the houserules i apply, and what book i allow.

[EggKookoo]

And here i was sure he'd said "his child".

In the movie, it's "No parent should have to bury their child." It just came across as a vague way to state it and diluted its emotional payload. "No father should have to bury his son" would have been more direct and specific to his anguish. Better would be "No man should bury his son."

I cited it as an example of how that kind of language thing invades places where it shouldn't (and often isn't necessary).

[Luccan]

In the movie, it's "No parent should have to bury their child." It just came across as a vague way to state it and diluted its emotional payload. "No father should have to bury his son" would have been more direct and specific to his anguish. Better would be "No man should bury his son."

I cited it as an example of how that kind of language thing invades places where it shouldn't (and often isn't necessary).

Not quipping here: that sounds like a personal problem. I couldn't remember his exact words, but I can tell you I was neither confused by them nor did the scene carry any less emotional weight. 'They' works perfectly fine as a singular pronoun and it certainly works in the context of game discussion, whether it's a discussion of mechanics or play, because the gender of individual is most often irrelevant. And as already pointed out, using it that way is not new

[zinycor]

Not quipping here: that sounds like a personal problem. I couldn't remember his exact words, but I can tell you I was neither confused by them nor did the scene carry any less emotional weight. 'They' works perfectly fine as a singular pronoun and it certainly works in the context of game discussion, whether it's a discussion of mechanics or play, because the gender of individual is most often irrelevant. And as already pointed out, using it that way is not new

As a not native english speaker, "They" is an incredibly confusing pronoun. Very often I have to check on wether it is talking in plural or about gender non specific.

Very annoying.

[EdokTheTwitch]

Small sidenote for the "they" discussion: It makes perfect sense to me as a non-native. And it's actually perfect in the Theoden line, as he is not talking about himself, but about any parent, fathers and mothers included. If he focused only on his own grief by using father and my/his, it would frankly both sound unnatural (as sayings are rarely so self-centric) and jarring to me personally, as it "feels" wrong.

Onto the main topic: I believe Tasha's didn't go far enough, yet it DID overstep its bounds in other places. The racial bonuses as they are now hep identify each of the races in the game, and losing them weakens that image. However, if some tables decide to alter them regardless, they are entirely within their rights to do that.

The only thing that's lacking is a short note stating something like: "Remember that using these variant rules is not automatically permissible with every group, and make sure that your DM is comfortable with using it."

Essentially, people need to be reminded that homebrewing is OK. And, in 2020, it's sad that this is really necessary. I was running elf-raised dwarves with a bonus to dexterity back in 3.5. And that was.... a terrifyingly long time ago. :smallbiggrin:

[Amechra]

Me too. I get the intention but I can't shake the plurality. Who are these people? I would much rather go with "it," at least it's accurate.

Not only would that be grammatically incorrect, it'd also be insulting. 'It' as a pronoun is only used for inanimate objects and entities that don't have personhood. If you refer to someone above the age of 1 as an "it", you're saying that you don't think they're a person. 'They' is the correct first-person pronoun for referring to someone in the third person when they're A) a person and B) have an undefined or unknown gender. This has been the case since English evolved into its modern form, and it only feels weird because a bunch of embarrassed Victorians decided that any areas where English grammar didn't match Latin grammar were "wrong"¹.

The thing that changed recently is that people have started using 'they' to refer to specific individuals, rather than using it to refer to an unspecified number of individuals with unknown or unspecified genders. Traditionally, English speakers would stop using 'they' to refer to someone as soon as they learned whether that person was male or female. However, since gender politics have shifted in the past few years that transition doesn't happen anymore². It's like how there used to be a huge difference between 'miss' and 'mrs', which has mostly gone away as women's marital status has become less relevant.

Basically, English used to have a full-featured grammatical gender system that was kinda like German's. Over time, we got rid of it for most of the language - it mostly stuck around in our pronouns because pronouns tend to change really slowly. I mean, they still change - for example, 'you' shifted from being the general second person plural to the polite second person singular, and then to just being our only second person pronoun. You do see shifts in other dialects, like how the American South has adopted "y'all" as a second person plural (which has started to drift towards also being a polite second person singular), how the Pittsburgh area with use "yinz" for the same role, or how 'yo' is apparently used as a third person singular pronoun in some parts of Baltimore (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005298.html).

¹ If you've ever seen something where someone uses 'he' as as the neuter third-person singular, that's where that came from.
² A similar transition that you might not have noticed: a lot of people will refer to babies as 'it' until the baby is able to speak, and then they'll swap over to using the appropriate personal pronouns.


Possibly, but not likely. Whenever I see a "they" when the context is a single individual, it's like sandpaper. I grind to a halt and reprocess. There's that scene in the Two Towers film where Theoden says the ridiculous line "A parent should never have to bury their child." I can't tell you what happened for the following few minutes because I had to realize he wasn't talking about a bunch of people somewhere else (it should have been "A father should never have to bury his son").

Those two sentences have very different connotations in the context of that scene.

If Theoden said "a father should never have to bury his son", he'd be lamenting the fact that he has to bury his son.

"A parent should never have to bury their child" is stating a universal - he's saying that no parent should ever have to do what he's doing. It has a much more definite and weighty connotation to it - it doesn't leave space for someone to make the absurd argument that it'd be totally OK for a mother to bury her daughter.

The vagueness is the point.


I'm not a native english speaker, which may have an influence on my PoV on this.
But i've been learning english for 29 years and i never heard of it before 2-3 years ago.
If i stumbled onto this, like in the following example, i probably assumed i had misheard or not understood it was not plural.

That's probably because your textbook/teacher told you that it was incorrect, or never touched on it. Plus, there are a bunch of words that people don't actually consciously read or hear - you basically just check to make sure that the right kind of word is in the right spot, then move on with your life.

English grammar is actually a weirdly political topic that's generally split between prescriptivists (who base their assessments on grammatical correctness on whatever is written in their favorite grammar) and descriptivists (who base their assessments on grammatical correctness on day-to-day usage). Traditionally, english grammar has been taught by prescriptivists (because most teachers aren't actually linguists, and it's much simpler to just grab a textbook and trust that the people who wrote it know what they were talking about). This is despite the fact that prescriptivist grammars tend to be really poor at describing how English is actually spoken or written.

It's gotten to the point where some books on writing that actively make you a worse writer are being assigned as textbooks in college-level courses. There are all kinds of weird "rules" that people will tell you are grammatically correct that no-one actually follows unless they're making a conscious effort to. That's where stuff like "don't split infinitives" and "using adverbs is bad" came from - people who didn't know what they were talking about who wished English was more like Latin.

...

Sorry, I'm a bit of a linguistics nerd. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:


As a not native english speaker, "They" is an incredibly confusing pronoun. Very often I have to check on wether it is talking in plural or about gender non specific.

Very annoying.

As a legitimate question: do you ever get confused by 'you'? It's a pretty similar situation, where the grammatical number is mostly defined by context.

[zinycor]

Yeah. It is a bit easier since normally the context is clearer, but the confusion does happen every once in a while

[EggKookoo]

Not only would that be grammatically incorrect, it'd also be insulting. 'It' as a pronoun is only used for inanimate objects and entities that don't have personhood. If you refer to someone above the age of 1 as an "it", you're saying that you don't think they're a person.

No I'm not. That person might interpret it that way but that's not my intent. I'm saying that person isn't multiple people.

Why can't we have a singular, gender-neutral pronoun? What sacred cows would that slaughter? How do I distinguish a single person from multiple people by pronoun? Why am I not allowed to? Does it somehow disenfranchise someone if I know it's a single individual but not their sex?


"A parent should never have to bury their child" is stating a universal - he's saying that no parent should ever have to do what he's doing. It has a much more definite and weighty connotation to it - it doesn't leave space for someone to make the absurd argument that it'd be totally OK for a mother to bury her daughter.

Universal statements have less emotional weight, not more. "All children should eat" is less personal and immediate and emotional than "my child needs food." Making statements universal is nice and inclusive but it's also dry and vague.

And I find it amusing that had Theoden, right after burying his real existing specific son, said "father" and "son," he would somehow be in danger of implying that it's okay for mothers do to the same. Yet I'm ridiculous for complaining that "they" is meant to be taken as singular as if it's the most obvious thing in the world.

[diplomancer]

It's gotten to the point where some books on writing that actively make you a worse writer are being assigned as textbooks in college-level courses. There are all kinds of weird "rules" that people will tell you are grammatically correct that no-one actually follows unless they're making a conscious effort to. That's where stuff like "don't split infinitives" and "using adverbs is bad" came from - people who didn't know what they were talking about who wished English was more like Latin.

Using adverbs is bad. There, I've said it.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah. It is a bit easier since normally the context is clearer, but the confusion does happen every once in a while

You can also get that "it" still means a person and "he" is gender-neutral from context.

Interestingly, 5e uses "it" to refer to people all throughout the PHB. Opening to a random page, a paragraph from slow.

"If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn’t take effect until the creature’s next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can’t, the spell is wasted."

[Luccan]

You can also get that "it" still means a person and "he" is gender-neutral from context.

Interestingly, 5e uses "it" to refer to people all throughout the PHB. Opening to a random page, a paragraph from slow.

"If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn’t take effect until the creature’s next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can’t, the spell is wasted."

Given the term "creature" in D&D extends to things like constructs, animals, and unintelligent undead, that's a questionable defense.

[diplomancer]

Given the term "creature" in D&D extends to things like constructs, animals, and unintelligent undead, that's a questionable defense.

Are there spellcasters who don't have personhood, though? Maybe some of the Innate spellcasters, perhaps, but still should have at least one decent mental stat, for mechanical reasons if for nothing else.

[Amechra]

You can also get that "it" still means a person and "he" is gender-neutral from context.

Interestingly, 5e uses "it" to refer to people all throughout the PHB. Opening to a random page, a paragraph from slow.

"If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn’t take effect until the creature’s next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can’t, the spell is wasted."

The reason the book uses 'it' there is that a creature isn't necessarily a person. And the reason that it's OK there is... I hate to admit it, but 'it' isn't a neuter third person singular pronoun, not exactly. It's more like a "failsafe" pronoun that you shove into your sentence if none of the other pronouns would be appropriate. Think about a sentence like "it is raining" - you can't really replace that 'it' with anything else. You generally see it get used as a neuter third person singular pronoun because we don't have a dedicated generic option.

Don't get me wrong - English's pronouns are messed up, and I probably sound absolutely insane while I'm trying to explain this (especially since I probably screwed up at some point). It would be nice if 'it' was just the neuter third person singular pronoun - but that's not how people use English. And I also get not being happy with people starting to use 'they' in that role - using singular 'they' to refer to a specific person and not a person in the abstract is pretty darn new, and who knows if it'll stick in the long term.

...

But man. Everyone always complains about singular they, and never about the subtler problems, like how "we" can be inclusive or exclusive, or how the plural versions of our second-person pronouns keep turning into singular versions.

[P. G. Macer]

The reason the book uses 'it' there is that a creature isn't necessarily a person. And the reason that it's OK there is... I hate to admit it, but 'it' isn't a neuter third person singular pronoun, not exactly. It's more like a "failsafe" pronoun that you shove into your sentence if none of the other pronouns would be appropriate. Think about a sentence like "it is raining" - you can't really replace that 'it' with anything else. You generally see it get used as a neuter third person singular pronoun because we don't have a dedicated generic option.

Don't get me wrong - English's pronouns are messed up, and I probably sound absolutely insane while I'm trying to explain this (especially since I probably screwed up at some point). It would be nice if 'it' was just the neuter third person singular pronoun - but that's not how people use English. And I also get not being happy with people starting to use 'they' in that role - using singular 'they' to refer to a specific person and not a person in the abstract is pretty darn new, and who knows if it'll stick in the long term.

...

But man. Everyone always complains about singular they, and never about the subtler problems, like how "we" can be inclusive or exclusive, or how the plural versions of our second-person pronouns keep turning into singular versions.

As someone who’s taken introductory linguistics courses and for whom linguistics is something of a hobby, you’re doing a good job. I can add that interestingly, unlike he/him/his, she/her/hers, and the other English pronouns, which have been in the English language in some form or another from the very beginning of the Anglo-Saxon days, they/them/their actually originates from Old Norse, brought over by Vikings.

And I actually noticed the inclusive/exclusive we issue on my own. :smallbiggrin:

Regarding the Tasha’s changes, I’m disappointed that they seem so rushed and aren’t very thorough, so I guess that puts me in the “not far enough” camp?

[Petrocorus]

Not only would that be grammatically incorrect, it'd also be insulting. 'It' as a pronoun is only used for inanimate objects and entities that don't have personhood. If you refer to someone above the age of 1 as an "it", you're saying that you don't think they're a person. 'They' is the correct first-person pronoun for referring to someone in the third person when they're A) a person and B) have an undefined or unknown gender. This has been the case since English evolved into its modern form, and it only feels weird because a bunch of embarrassed Victorians decided that any areas where English grammar didn't match Latin grammar were "wrong"¹.

The thing that changed recently is that people have started using 'they' to refer to specific individuals, rather than using it to refer to an unspecified number of individuals with unknown or unspecified genders. Traditionally, English speakers would stop using 'they' to refer to someone as soon as they learned whether that person was male or female. However, since gender politics have shifted in the past few years that transition doesn't happen anymore².

Indeed, i've seen this. Which makes it even more confusing to me. One instance that irritated me was "A cleric and vampire walk into a tavern" from the DM's guild. The writer use "they" a lot and keep using "they" even after the gender of the NPC was revealed and despite the fact that they were clearly a woman and a man. I had to read the page twice just to have an idea of what was going on.

Of course, my confusing and irritation can also partially comes from my own French habits.
In French, as in all latin languages i know of, everything is gendered. A "car" is feminine and a "truck" is masculine. A "person" is always feminine, and an "individual" is always masculine, even if said person is actually a man and said individual is a woman.
And this is true both for singular an plural.
And there are no inanimate pronoun. It took me years to get used to say "it" for animals, and it still sound weird to me.



¹ If you've ever seen something where someone uses 'he' as as the neuter third-person singular, that's where that came from.

I do. Mostly because it's so much more natural to me. In French, the masculine is also the neutral and the default.


That's probably because your textbook/teacher told you that it was incorrect, or never touched on it.

My junior high school teacher was very competent as far as i could tell, and she was married to a british, so often travelling in UK and talking in english on a daily basis at home. But she was following, and had to follow, the curriculum made by the ministry.



English grammar..... english grammar has been taught by prescriptivists (because most teachers aren't actually linguists, and it's much simpler to just grab a textbook and trust that the people who wrote it know what they were talking about). This is despite the fact that prescriptivist grammars tend to be really poor at describing how English is actually spoken or written.

Said curriculum was probably based on prescriptivists, and on how english was written several decades before.
My teach did say a few times that english people were not speaking like this.


That's where stuff like "don't split infinitives"
Oh boy was i told this. This was hammered in my head so much that it still feels the people doing this are bad english speakers.

I was also told that ending a sentence with a proposition was the real correct way to do it, but now i know there is actually quite a debate about it.


and "using adverbs is bad" came from - people who didn't know what they were talking about who wished English was more like Latin.

Oddly enough, you won't stop a French from using adverbs.



Sorry, I'm a bit of a linguistics nerd. :smallbiggrin:

Fine by me.



As a legitimate question: do you ever get confused by 'you'? It's a pretty similar situation, where the grammatical number is mostly defined by context.
I do. But not because of the grammatical number.
In French, the difference between "tu" (casual singular second person pronoun) and "vous" (both polite singular second person pronoun and plural second person pronoun) is very important. Using "tu" when "vous" is mandated can actually be an insult. Not being able to convey this in english is disturbing. I actually feel disrespectful sometimes.

We already have to pay attention to make the difference between polite "vous" and plural "vous"*, so this doesn't confuse me that much in english. There are instances when i have to read or hear something twice, though.
There are things like this in German (they use third person plural as the polite pronoun) and Portuguese (where they use third person singular as polite, which is confusing sometimes).

I know there are things like "thou" and "thee" in english, but i can never make which is what.

* EDIT: To be honest, it seems more and more French people are confused by this.

[Bohandas]

Take a moment to consider significantly diverse species. Imagine an aarakocra, a dragonborn, and a triton. One can fly, one has a breath weapon, and one can breathe underwater.
...
If you take D&D races as species, then don't turn them into skins. Let the biodiversity exist.


Exactly this.

[zinycor]

But man. Everyone always complains about singular they, and never about the subtler problems, like how "we" can be inclusive or exclusive, or how the plural versions of our second-person pronouns keep turning into singular versions.

The we problem also exists on spanish, so I understand it way more

[micahaphone]

Thank you Amechra, that was really interesting! It's good to know of yet another thing I can blame on the Victorians. :smallgrin:


One funny reversal of the "it" topic, I have a friend who grew up in France, and they sometimes gender and grant personhood to inanimate objects. It's perfectly understandable, but just slightly off to my anglophone ears. Like "careful with this teapot, she's very hot".

[cutlery]

It's gotten to the point where some books on writing that actively make you a worse writer are being assigned as textbooks in college-level courses. There are all kinds of weird "rules" that people will tell you are grammatically correct that no-one actually follows unless they're making a conscious effort to. That's where stuff like "don't split infinitives" and "using adverbs is bad" came from - people who didn't know what they were talking about who wished English was more like Latin.



Luckily, the students don't read the textbooks.



Take a moment to consider significantly diverse species. Imagine an aarakocra, a dragonborn, and a triton. One can fly, one has a breath weapon, and one can breathe underwater.

If you take D&D races as ethnicities, then turn them into skins and ban any race that can't be turned into a skin. Everyone is now a reskinned VHuman with a longer feat list that includes many half feats.
If you take D&D races as species, then don't turn them into skins. Let the biodiversity exist.
If you are in the middle, take the middle path.



If they could actually balance them, maybe.

Some of the non-PHB races really make me wonder why they got rid of ECL; they're pretty strong.

[137beth]

Perhaps they should have created a new class - the Social Justice Warrior.


There's no need to make it a new class: currently, almost every published D&D adventure assumes the PCs are Warriors for Justice. That's been the case since at least AD&D. Very few published adventures make sense for PCs who don't care about justice, or PCs who don't fight for it.

[ahyangyi]

Maybe we are looking at this backwards.

This is a move to stop racism in real life, and the only IRL people that are racist are humans.

Maybe the best move is to remove humans from DnD. If all the other species exist with no humans, they can all be what they are with the abilities they have, without humans being racist or used for comparison.

Actually I've been thinking about it for quite a while. Not from a "anti real life racism" perspective, but I kinda want they to extend their Planeshift series to Lorwyn/Shadowmoor.
And you know, part of the story of Lorwyn/Shadowmoor is there are many races, but no human.

[Bohandas]

There's no need to make it a new class: currently, almost every published D&D adventure assumes the PCs are Warriors for Justice.

[snarky comment removed]

[Warpiglet-7]

Perhaps they should have created a new class - the Social Justice Warrior. And sub-classes with abilities to help change the thinking of anyone who disagrees with them.

Seriously, though... This. Is. A. Game.

Yeah, it's the biggest one out there but it's not the only one that needs to take a look in the mirror.

It's not the game with very rigid good/evil axis (looking at you, Mutants and Masterminds), or the game with heaps of racism and socio-economic exploitation ('sup, Shadowrun), or the game with straight-up anti-social, manipulative behavior (enter, Vampire: The Masquerade). How about the blatant over-sexualization in the early Conan RPG? (I haven't looked at it in a long time... maybe it changed.) Is anyone making a fuss about them?

There's nothing in Tasha's that couldn't have been house-ruled by anyone running a game. There's nothing stopping you from taking things farther if you want to. Just like there's nothing forcing you to follow what's in Tasha's if you don't want to. It's your game... you do you.

As it is, if I want to start with a blank canvas, I grab standard human and build whatever. But if I have something in mind, it's great to have a chassis I can start with. If race is just a skin (which it is IRL) then everyone has to build everything from nothing. Great for players who know what they're doing, not so much for new folks.

It's the same principle that led to sandwich shops having menus.

As for me and my table, sameness is boring. I want things to be different by design. The players are free to ask for whatever customizations they want and we'll negotiate... because nothing is stopping us from doing what we want.

For these reasons I am happy for optional rules. I hear you and M with you on this.

I like tradition tropes and challenge. Some have other concerns that come first. To each table their own.

[Sam113097]

I am looking forward to this option for my group. We roll for stats, and at the start of my current campaign (which has been a blast so far), nobody in the party rolled higher than a 15 for any stat. This resulted in everybody playing as pretty "stereotypical" class/race combos in order to get their primary stats up to 16s. I feel that point buy and standard array push players towards those same "standard" class race combos for the same reason.

The optional rule in TCoE would have made things a bit more flexible and allowed more creativity while also preventing players from falling behind the rest of the party in important modifiers. As I see it, distinction between races in play is achieved by their ribbon features more than any stat boost. My half-orc PC plays like a half-orc because he has brutal critical hits and keeps getting up when he gets knocked down, not because he has a +1 to his strength mod. My player's aasimar PC feels like an aasimar in the game because she has extra cantrips and healing abilities, not because she has a +1 to her charisma mod. Generally, as someone who enjoys diverse, fun character concepts and parity between PCs, I am okay with this new variant rule.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Perhaps they should have created a new class - the Social Justice Warrior. And sub-classes with abilities to help change the thinking of anyone who disagrees with them.

Seriously, though... This. Is. A. Game.

Yeah, it's the biggest one out there but it's not the only one that needs to take a look in the mirror.

It's not the game with very rigid good/evil axis (looking at you, Mutants and Masterminds), or the game with heaps of racism and socio-economic exploitation ('sup, Shadowrun), or the game with straight-up anti-social, manipulative behavior (enter, Vampire: The Masquerade). How about the blatant over-sexualization in the early Conan RPG? (I haven't looked at it in a long time... maybe it changed.) Is anyone making a fuss about them?

There's nothing in Tasha's that couldn't have been house-ruled by anyone running a game. There's nothing stopping you from taking things farther if you want to. Just like there's nothing forcing you to follow what's in Tasha's if you don't want to. It's your game... you do you.

As it is, if I want to start with a blank canvas, I grab standard human and build whatever. But if I have something in mind, it's great to have a chassis I can start with. If race is just a skin (which it is IRL) then everyone has to build everything from nothing. Great for players who know what they're doing, not so much for new folks.

It's the same principle that led to sandwich shops having menus.

As for me and my table, sameness is boring. I want things to be different by design. The players are free to ask for whatever customizations they want and we'll negotiate... because nothing is stopping us from doing what we want.

Ah, yes, the dastardly social justice warrior... How monstrous they are, with their nefarious schemes to...ensure people are treated equally?

Real talk, nothing is ever "just" a game, it's important to people, as it seems to be important to you. The message the game is sending out matters, and it's a privileged position to be able to say "I'd rather not think about it".

[Bohandas]

Ah, yes, the dastardly social justice warrior... How monstrous they are, with their nefarious schemes to...ensure people are treated equally?

The problem isn't their goals, it's the Don Quixote-esque means by which they pursue them. But I think we're getting off track with this topic and I don't want to break the site rules about politics by giving a fuller and more specific explanation.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's no need to make it a new class: currently, almost every published D&D adventure assumes the PCs are Warriors for Justice. That's been the case since at least AD&D. Very few published adventures make sense for PCs who don't care about justice, or PCs who don't fight for it. Yes, the standard module is 'the good folks' are dealing with {some threat or some skullduggery} being done by 'the bad folks' and they need to save {someone/something} or prevent {some horrible doom that covers a region, country, or entire world}

Real talk, nothing is ever "just" a game, Speak for your self.
What's in play and on topic depends on the table where you are playing and the people with whom you are playing.
Some tables are all about escapism as a form of fun, while others perfer other elements as well. Each table finds its balance point, and some tables disband because they can't all get on the same page.

I'll use golf as a comparison.

I spent a lot of years playing golf. I now play rarely, and usually for one of those charity fund raiser rounds when I do.

There are multiple way to approach that fun (and frustrating) recreational activity called golf. (They call it golf since all of the other four letter words were taken!) :smallcool:

Some folks are in it for the social interaction and the beer, some are in it to see how well they do that day and to be **not** doing somehting else (like being at the office) and some {I was in this category for a long while} used it as a source of competition and improvement at a skill. Never golfed at scratch, but for just under a year the handicap dropped to a single digit: 9.

I have finally gone back to the beer and fun version, which is where I started.
Each is a different kind of fun. In a given foursome, it can be friction inducing to have not all four playing with the same purpose. I played in a regular group that usually had two or three foursomes twice a month. A skins game for 25 cents per hole. (Score card play offs at the club house over beers). This regular game eventually fell apart due to people moving, but we found that some people who wanted to join into our usual group didn't have fun that way, and they quickly found other ways to enjoy golf.

We had other groups where it was a 5 dollars a side Nassau going all ways with an automatic two down press. ... that was a bit more serious.

[EggKookoo]

Speak for your self.

Indeed. The very point of escapism is that it's "just a game/movie/book/painting/song/etc."

[Petrocorus]

Real talk, nothing is ever "just" a game, it's important to people, as it seems to be important to you. The message the game is sending out matters, and it's a privileged position to be able to say "I'd rather not think about it".

No, it doesn't matter.
Because games are not a factual representation of real life. Even if of course real life influence games.
And what you do in a game does not represent what or who you are in real life, even if of course your real personality influence it to a degree.
To a degree.

I play games where i specifically try to murder the most people possible, notably the Bloodbowl video games, or any FPS.
I play games where i absolutely try to be the good guy who saves people, that's include DnD.
I've played an ultra-violent misandric former slave woman in Mournblade, i've played a specicist elf who despise humans in Shadowrun (he was speciecist, not racist, he despised all humans equally), i've played the cleric who always try to help other people, i've played american, waterdhavian, japanese, german, rokugani, etc, characters. I've played all sorts of characters.
We all have.

And none of this is what i am in real life.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Yes, the standard module is 'the good folks' are dealing with {some threat or some skullduggery} being done by 'the bad folks' and they need to save {someone/something} or prevent {some horrible doom that covers a region, country, or entire world}
Speak for your self.
What's in play and on topic depends on the table where you are playing and the people with whom you are playing.
Some tables are all about escapism as a form of fun, while others perfer other elements as well. Each table finds its balance point, and some tables disband because they can't all get on the same page.

I'll use golf as a comparison.

I spent a lot of years playing golf. I now play rarely, and usually for one of those charity fund raiser rounds when I do.

There are multiple way to approach that fun (and frustrating) recreational activity called golf. (They call it golf since all of the other four letter words were taken!) :smallcool:

Some folks are in it for the social interaction and the beer, some are in it to see how well they do that day and to be **not** doing somehting else (like being at the office) and some {I was in this category for a long while} used it as a source of competition and improvement at a skill. Never golfed at scratch, but for just under a year the handicap dropped to a single digit: 9.

I have finally gone back to the beer and fun version, which is where I started.
Each is a different kind of fun. In a given foursome, it can be friction inducing to have not all four playing with the same purpose. I played in a regular group that usually had two or three foursomes twice a month. A skins game for 25 cents per hole. (Score card play offs at the club house over beers). This regular game eventually fell apart due to people moving, but we found that some people who wanted to join into our usual group didn't have fun that way, and they quickly found other ways to enjoy golf.

We had other groups where it was a 5 dollars a side Nassau going all ways with an automatic two down press. ... that was a bit more serious.

You are looking at games in a vacuum, which isn't how they exist. Nothing exists in a vacuum, it is affected and affects culture, society, how we interact with each other, internalized thoughts and feelings, everything has knock on effects. Games are one way we share culture, and in modern times one of the most extremely important ways. They now even have extreme financial incentives, see: actual play podcasts, streamers, etc.

Let's look at it this way, using golf, like you said. Golf is a game! It's a very culturally important game, it can be fun, it can be a good social bonding time, and often time has particular places and cultures associated with it and it's players. Not every single one, mind you, but many of these factors are shared on a common enough basis to be pretty much the common view of the way the game is played.

Now, while it is just a game, and it may not seem like much is on the line when it is played... There is actually more going on there. Social interaction is huge! It may very well be that for certain people, playing golf with them is the only way to really have time to have social interaction with them. Let's say it's just your typical friend group, and the game they happen to play is Golf.

It becomes a major problem if you, for whatever reason, feel unwelcome in the game of Golf when it is the major social bonding activity of your group! This may not even be the doing of your group, or they may be doing it unwittingly because they are simply upholding the culture or rules of the game as they always have been, and have never examined how doing that may be hurtful or exclusionary. But even if they are a totally legit, 100% cool group of people, you can still end up feeling unwelcome and excluded by a game that in most places other than your group, seems to treat you as unwanted. And because of those uncomfortable stigmas associated with Golf and Golf culture, you generally have a bad time playing. Which means you've now lost your main social connection to your friend group! That has a lot of knock on effects, and leads to Golf being even more exclusionary over time. What's worse is maybe your friend group, having different perspectives from you for whatever reason, just can't understand what your problem is and come to see you as simply difficult or getting upset over nothing.

Now this hypothetical you, because of this game, has lost your most important social connection. You may even be passionate about the idea of golf, and be pushing for the old, exclusionary rules and culture to be pushed out, but that takes time, and for some reason, a lot of people keep telling you that it's "just a game" and you should get over it, even though it means losing the one activity you can do with all your old friends.

Does this help any? DnD is a piece of culture and a social activity, it's a connection to other people, people are passionate about it and they just don't want to feel excluded or like the main rules of the game are still stuck in a very exclusionary time.

[Sigreid]

You are looking at games in a vacuum, which isn't how they exist. Nothing exists in a vacuum, it is affected and affects culture, society, how we interact with each other, internalized thoughts and feelings, everything has knock on effects. Games are one way we share culture, and in modern times one of the most extremely important ways. They now even have extreme financial incentives, see: actual play podcasts, streamers, etc.

Let's look at it this way, using golf, like you said. Golf is a game! It's a very culturally important game, it can be fun, it can be a good social bonding time, and often time has particular places and cultures associated with it and it's players. Not every single one, mind you, but many of these factors are shared on a common enough basis to be pretty much the common view of the way the game is played.

Now, while it is just a game, and it may not seem like much is on the line when it is played... There is actually more going on there. Social interaction is huge! It may very well be that for certain people, playing golf with them is the only way to really have time to have social interaction with them. Let's say it's just your typical friend group, and the game they happen to play is Golf.

It becomes a major problem if you, for whatever reason, feel unwelcome in the game of Golf when it is the major social bonding activity of your group! This may not even be the doing of your group, or they may be doing it unwittingly because they are simply upholding the culture or rules of the game as they always have been, and have never examined how doing that may be hurtful or exclusionary. But even if they are a totally legit, 100% cool group of people, you can still end up feeling unwelcome and excluded by a game that in most places other than your group, seems to treat you as unwanted. And because of those uncomfortable stigmas associated with Golf and Golf culture, you generally have a bad time playing. Which means you've now lost your main social connection to your friend group! That has a lot of knock on effects, and leads to Golf being even more exclusionary over time. What's worse is maybe your friend group, having different perspectives from you for whatever reason, just can't understand what your problem is and come to see you as simply difficult or getting upset over nothing.

Now this hypothetical you, because of this game, has lost your most important social connection. You may even be passionate about the idea of golf, and be pushing for the old, exclusionary rules and culture to be pushed out, but that takes time, and for some reason, a lot of people keep telling you that it's "just a game" and you should get over it, even though it means losing the one activity you can do with all your old friends.

Does this help any? DnD is a piece of culture and a social activity, it's a connection to other people, people are passionate about it and they just don't want to feel excluded or like the main rules of the game are still stuck in a very exclusionary time.

This attitude is what really annoys people. It's just a game. We play it to relax and laugh with each other. I don't want anyone bringing their hang-ups into the game as it gets in the way of the fun and just being with each other enjoying the time. The whole point of a sci-fi or fantasy game is to leave the real world and all it's troubles and issues behind.

[Segev]

Does this help any? DnD is a piece of culture and a social activity, it's a connection to other people, people are passionate about it and they just don't want to feel excluded or like the main rules of the game are still stuck in a very exclusionary time.

The beauty of D&D and other RPGs is that they are individualized to various groups, and can be modified there. If you feel excluded, it's probably not the game system that's doing it. Or maybe the game system isn't for you.

I can name at least one (obscure, but infamous) game system that so disgusts me that I would feel excluded from any group playing it. Except...my feeling of exclusion would stem from my lack of desire to play it. So, really, I'm not feeling excluded; I'm recognizing that they want to do something I do not want to do. Which is their right.

If my friends play football to bond, I probably won't join them. I hate sports. I have to be fairly desperate for company to even go hang out for their superbowl party, because I frankly find that boring. (The food's fun, though.) That doesn't mean they're excluding me, and my demands that they change their activity to make me feel "included" is actually very much a manifestation of "geek social fallacies." (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) You do not have to do everything your friends do for them to be your friends, and your friends don't have to include everybody in the circle of friends in every activity for them to be "real friends" with everyone in that circle.

This goes even for recurring activities.

[KorvinStarmast]

You are looking at games in a vacuum, which isn't how they exist. Actually, I was not and I am not.
Suggest you go back and read my post, and this time read for comprehension. Pay attention to the part where I point out that game experience and fun varies with the group involved. (That is particularly true with games like poker or Acey-Deucy; in some venues, it is a 'game for fun' and in other venues and contexts, you are out after their money, all of it, table stakes, or even the title to the other player's motorcycle - yeah, I saw that last one in an Acey-Deucy game in the Navy).

I'll say it again so that you do not misunderstand: the manner in which a given group of people enjoy, or participate in, a given game varies with the group.

Your rant response was bordered a bit on "BadWrongFun" in tone - I hope that you did not intend that.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

This attitude is what really annoys people. It's just a game. We play it to relax and laugh with each other. I don't want anyone bringing their hang-ups into the game as it gets in the way of the fun and just being with each other enjoying the time. The whole point of a sci-fi or fantasy game is to leave the real world and all it's troubles and issues behind.

Again, this doesn't really work when the sci-fi or fantasy game isn't leaving the real world behind and is instead mired with issues that directly correlate to real-life issues. It is also a bit of a privileged position to say "because of my perspective, I do not care about this, therefore, no one should care about this". Other people with a variety of different perspectives, beliefs and values say this is an issue for them that negatively impacts their enjoyment of the game, and thus, their ability to "relax and laugh". I would implore you to not be annoyed by others feeling hurt and excluded and instead try to see things from their perspective and understand why they might be feeling the way they do!

No game is "just" a game, it has an impact on society at large no matter how one may want to ignore it, especially with something as huge of a cultural imprint as dungeons and dragons.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Actually, I was not and I am not.
Suggest you go back and read my post, and this time read for comprehension. Pay attention to the part where I point out that game experience and fun varies with the group involved.
I'll say it again so that you do not misunderstand: the manner in which a given group of people enjoy, or participate in, a given game varies with the group.

Your rant response was bordered a bit on "BadWrongFun" in tone - I hope that you did not intend that.

Then I suggest in kind that you re-read my post because I specifically addressed this point in my post. Thanks!

[KorvinStarmast]

Then I suggest in kind that you re-read my post because I specifically addressed this point in my post. Thanks! Your opening line presented an explicit mis characterization of my post, so I think we are done here. This is going in the wrong direction.
Please accept my apology for that snark on reading comprehension, it really wasn't necessary.

I hope to discuss other things with you in the future.

[Sigreid]

Again, this doesn't really work when the sci-fi or fantasy game isn't leaving the real world behind and is instead mired with issues that directly correlate to real-life issues. It is also a bit of a privileged position to say "because of my perspective, I do not care about this, therefore, no one should care about this". Other people with a variety of different perspectives, beliefs and values say this is an issue for them that negatively impacts their enjoyment of the game, and thus, their ability to "relax and laugh". I would implore you to not be annoyed by others feeling hurt and excluded and instead try to see things from their perspective and understand why they might be feeling the way they do!

No game is "just" a game, it has an impact on society at large no matter how one may want to ignore it, especially with something as huge of a cultural imprint as dungeons and dragons.

And I'm saying that projecting their baggage into the game is them excluding themselves. Trying to make everything about some grievance or other gets in the way of people just hanging out, getting along and finding out they actually like each other.

[Petrocorus]

It becomes a major problem if you, for whatever reason, feel unwelcome in the game of Golf when it is the major social bonding activity of your group! This may not even be the doing of your group, or they may be doing it unwittingly because they are simply upholding the culture or rules of the game as they always have been, and have never examined how doing that may be hurtful or exclusionary.

I still fail to see the point.
If we drop the golf analogy and come back to the topic at hands, what i understand is that you imply someone may feel unwelcome to play a game because the DM won't allow an orc to be natively as smart as a gnome or as charismatic as a half-elf.
Could you give us more specific example of what you mean?



But even if they are a totally legit, 100% cool group of people, you can still end up feeling unwelcome and excluded by a game that in most places other than your group, seems to treat you as unwanted. And because of those uncomfortable stigmas associated with Golf and Golf culture, you generally have a bad time playing. Which means you've now lost your main social connection to your friend group! That has a lot of knock on effects, and leads to Golf being even more exclusionary over time. What's worse is maybe your friend group, having different perspectives from you for whatever reason, just can't understand what your problem is and come to see you as simply difficult or getting upset over nothing.

If they are your friend and cannot understand your problem, them maybe this is a communication issue and not an issue with the game.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Your opening line presented an explicit mis characterization of my post, so I think we are done here, This is going in the wrong direction.
Please accept my apology for that bit of snark on reading comprehension, it really wasn't necessary.

I hope to discuss other things with you in the future.

I apologize if you feel I mis-characterized you, that was not my intention. Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make? It seems like you were trying to contradict my statement that "nothing is ever 'just' a game" by saying every group enjoys an activity differently and to some it is a beer and pretzels, pure escapism activity? To be honest my reading comprehension is somewhat compromised at the moment (Never pull an all-nighter past your early 20's...) so if I am mistaken I deeply apologize.

[Petrocorus]

Again, this doesn't really work when the sci-fi or fantasy game isn't leaving the real world behind and is instead mired with issues that directly correlate to real-life issues.

But if we remove any thing that relate to a real-life issue, we can as well remove absolutely everything.

This is a problem i have with people with this kind of discourse. You tend to ask for something related to a real-life issue (like rape, for instance) not to be depicted in a game or work of fiction because that would promote of encourage it, while at the same time complaining when this something is not depicted because it invisiblizes, obfuscates or denies the issue.



I would implore you to not be annoyed by others feeling hurt and excluded and instead try to see things from their perspective and understand why they might be feeling the way they do!
But if someone insist on changing the way the game is played, because he feels hurt, while not being able to explain why he feels hurt, can you understand how that can be annoying to the other player and the DM?




I can name at least one (obscure, but infamous) game system that so disgusts me
FATAL?

[Angel Bob]

I still fail to see the point.
If we drop the golf analogy and come back to the topic at hands, what i understand is that you imply someone may feel unwelcome to play a game because the DM won't allow an orc to be natively as smart as a gnome or as charismatic as a half-elf.
Could you give us more specific example of what you mean?


If they are your friend and cannot understand your problem, them maybe this is a communication issue and not an issue with the game.

It's not that negative depictions of orcs are harmful because they might hurt orcs' feelings - it's that they echo real harms that real people have suffered.

I believe the unspoken issue is that orcs have historically been associated with unpleasant racial stereotypes. People have been using the "savage, ape-like, evil, and unintelligent" caricature to malign different races and ethnicities for centuries; believe it or not, it used to be an Irish stereotype in the 1800s. Of course, nowadays it is used against an entirely different group of people, with a shocking amount of frequency and vitriol.

Imagine someone who belongs to a group that's been maligned in this way, who wants to play D&D. They enjoy making characters and escaping reality just like anyone else. But when orcs, goblins, drow, or some other monstrous humanoid race pops up, this player is uncomfortably reminded of reality by the vicious stereotypes used to describe those races. Evil, unintelligent, treacherous, overzealous to their killer god, primitive, cowardly, lazy, worse to their own kind than anyone else, dark-skinned, etc. For such a person, D&D can't be a fantastic escape from reality like it should be, not while races are treated this way, and the rulebooks back it up.

The DM insists it's just a game, orcs/drow/etc. bear no resemblance to real-world people, and they are going to continue having the PCs kill waves of these barbaric subhuman races, because they want to enjoy an escape from reality. The player has three main choices: complain further and sour the mood of the group; shut up and keep playing while they're reminded of racial caricatures every time they fight enemy races; or leave the group and stop playing D&D, until such time as they can find another group, who might have a more comfortable approach to enemy races.

Is it any wonder that some* people of color don't feel welcome playing D&D, and want the rulebooks and lore to change the way they depict certain races?

*Not all people of color will feel this way, because the world is complex, people have different upbringings, and no group is a monolith. But the overall trends can't be ignored.

[KorvinStarmast]

(Never pull an all-nighter past your early 20's...) so if I am mistaken I deeply apologize. Oh, man, you are so right about that! :smallbiggrin: And all's good, we just wrong footed this a bit. No worries.

[zinycor]

But if someone insist on changing the way the game is played, because he feels hurt, while not being able to explain why he feels hurt, can you understand how that can be annoying to the other player and the DM?


On this I disagree. You don't have to feel forced to reveal anything to your DM if you don't want to. Now should you as a GM feel entitled to know.

I do agree that these whole discussion are riduculous on the internet, and too many times discusions about the game end up on a whole political tangent that is anoying and unproductive.

But on the table you are deserving of respect and owe it to others.

[Petrocorus]

It's not that negative depictions of orcs are harmful because they might hurt orcs' feelings - it's that they echo real harms that real people have suffered.

I believe the unspoken issue is that orcs have historically been associated with unpleasant racial stereotypes. People have been using the "savage, ape-like, evil, and unintelligent" caricature to malign different races and ethnicities for centuries; believe it or not, it used to be an Irish stereotype in the 1800s. Of course, nowadays it is used against an entirely different group of people, with a shocking amount of frequency and vitriol.

Imagine someone who belongs to a group that's been maligned in this way, who wants to play D&D. They enjoy making characters and escaping reality just like anyone else. But when orcs, goblins, drow, or some other monstrous humanoid race pops up, this player is uncomfortably reminded of reality by the vicious stereotypes used to describe those races. Evil, unintelligent, treacherous, overzealous to their killer god, primitive, cowardly, lazy, worse to their own kind than anyone else, dark-skinned, etc. For such a person, D&D can't be a fantastic escape from reality like it should be, not while races are treated this way, and the rulebooks back it up.

The DM insists it's just a game, orcs/drow/etc. bear no resemblance to real-world people, and they are going to continue having the PCs kill waves of these barbaric subhuman races, because they want to enjoy an escape from reality. The player has three main choices: complain further and sour the mood of the group; shut up and keep playing while they're reminded of racial caricatures every time they fight enemy races; or leave the group and stop playing D&D, until such time as they can find another group, who might have a more comfortable approach to enemy races.

Is it any wonder that some* people of color don't feel welcome playing D&D, and want the rulebooks and lore to change the way they depict certain races?

*Not all people of color will feel this way, because the world is complex, people have different upbringings, and no group is a monolith. But the overall trends can't be ignored.

I could see you point, but the issue i have with it is that orcs, goblins, drow, etc actually are not representation of real-life people and certainly not specific ethnicities, even if their stereotype may bear resemblance to some racist stereotype that may or may not have been used in the past toward some ethnicities*.
They are not representation of actual people, they are not intended to be, they are not used as this, and that is why we get a moral pass to slaughter them in-game. If they hadn't negative characteristics, we wouldn't have a pass.
Heck, we can see how this race can be different from one setting to another, like with Eberron.

In addition, many setting have dark-skinned humans in-game, sometimes with specific cultures, sometimes with cultures that's inspired be real ones. This could be an issue if their representation where bad.

And, to my mind, this would be obvious to everyone if the word "species" was used instead of "race". We don't see that many complains about Star Wars for instance. I don't hear people complaining about wookies, gamoreans, or trandoshans.

So, to a lot of us, this kind of complains look more like paranoïa, or the will to see racism where there is not, or just the need to complain about something.
And believe you me, i've been exposed to enough people seeking racism where there was not to know full well this is a thing. I had to deal with this almost on an daily basis when i was a teacher. I see this everyday on the web nowadays.
Like, for instance, those 20 y.o students who didn't know how to knock on a door, who didn't master the good day - please - thank you - good bye (and that even more important here than in the US), who couldn't dress properly and felt compelled to show their underwear or even their "back" line and then complained about racism when they were rejected in an internship interview.

* And i'd like to point out that not every culture has the same history with this issues.


On this I disagree. You don't have to feel forced to reveal anything to your DM if you don't want to. Now should you as a GM feel entitled to know.

Of course you don't.
But then you cannot complain if the DM doesn't understand you. The DM is not a telepath.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not that negative depictions of orcs are harmful because they might hurt orcs' feelings - it's that they echo real harms that real people have suffered. Nobody is required to port that into their game at their table, but you can (as a group) if you want to.

I DM for two different groups with two different sets of tastes. Group 1 is very much a beer and pretzels game where (Among others) we have a murder hobo monk, a dwarf that just likes to hit stuff, a Barbarian who'd rather whack first and ask questions later, all three of whom try the patience of a Paladin trying to be a goody two shoes. They are about to get into the Forge of Fury adventure. Nobody in that group is interested in porting that RW issue into our game.

A great group to DM for. Why? We have fun.

My other group has to deal with a bit of provincial xenophobia in the game setting, which is World of Greyhawk. It's a humano-centric world, to a very large extent, although the 'after the War of Ashes' Orcish Empire on the Wolly Coast is active/alive. People in the cities tend to be way more cosmopolitan, but out in the provinces? Not so much. They are, in a word, provincial and there's a strong strain of "you're not from around here, why should I trust you?" attitude among at least two of the factions.
The party has a single human PC, who has also gotten the "Not sure I trust foreigners" response.

The rest have run into variable amounts of more xehophobic responses because they are not human, and yet they have also gotten warmer responses in their interactions with NPCs - but it depends on which faction those NPCs are most affiliated with.

There are currently five different 'factions' of NPCs (that's as far as I have world built so far) each of whom have a slightly different world view as a point of departure. During play, there is a chance for the PCs to influence the world. Yeah.

As of right now, the party has overwhelmingly gotten the support of the majority of the townsfolk (including what I would call the most provincial - xenophobic faction) who initially were very suspicious of them because they are (1) adventurers and (2) mostly not human.

This has been one of those 'emergent, happens during play' thanks to choices that the party has made, and the occasional DM die roll where a reaction / relationship did or didn't change and I wasn't sure how it would go from the NPC side so I rolled the dice to help me get off of top-dead-center.

The players have embraced this, and are doing a fantastic job of RPing in a challenging situation.

They have also found allies by actively engaging with various NPCs, and by the choices they have made.

A great group to DM for. Why? We have fun.

[EggKookoo]

The DM insists it's just a game, orcs/drow/etc. bear no resemblance to real-world people, and they are going to continue having the PCs kill waves of these barbaric subhuman races, because they want to enjoy an escape from reality. The player has three main choices: complain further and sour the mood of the group; shut up and keep playing while they're reminded of racial caricatures every time they fight enemy races; or leave the group and stop playing D&D, until such time as they can find another group, who might have a more comfortable approach to enemy races.

So where does it end? At what point do fictional monsters or creatures stop being metaphors for the real-world? Are all depictions of alien invaders just showcasing the writer's fear of foreign immigrants? Are superheroes just someone's latent fascist fantasy? Can I have an "evil god" without you thinking I'm making a sideways comment about someone else's religion?

After a while, it stops feeling like there's a particular problem that's being addressed, and instead a platform is being established where an aggrieved group can dictate the behavior of others in perpetuity, without regard for relevance or accuracy. It has that old-timey "you'll go to hell" thing, regardless of the nature or severity of the sin. You're told that because it gives someone else power over you, and that person uses your fear to keep the status quo. Even questioning it is risky. Of course there are disenfranchised people in the world and of course people are subject to racial cruelty, but that's not an excuse to create yet another institution of overzealous social control.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

So where does it end? At what point do fictional monsters or creatures stop being metaphors for the real-world? Are all depictions of alien invaders just showcasing the writer's fear of foreign immigrants? Are superheroes just someone's latent fascist fantasy? Can I have an "evil god" without you thinking I'm making a sideways comment about someone else's religion?

After a while, it stops feeling like there's a particular problem that's being addressed, and instead a platform is being established where an aggrieved group can dictate the behavior of others in perpetuity, without regard for relevance or accuracy. It has that old-timey "you'll go to hell" thing, regardless of the nature or severity of the sin. You're told that because it gives someone else power over you, and that person uses your fear to keep the status quo. Even questioning it is risky. Of course there are disenfranchised people in the world and of course people are subject to racial cruelty, but that's not an excuse to create yet another institution of overzealous social control.

The slippery slope argument isn't a real argument. Making the game more inclusive isn't going to lead to anything but...making the game more inclusive. Anything beyond that is entirely within your imagination.
The only other thing I'm going to say is that it's very easy to dismiss an aggrieved group's concerns when you aren't in that aggrieved group.

[Segev]

The slippery slope argument isn't a real argument. Making the game more inclusive isn't going to lead to anything but...making the game more inclusive. Anything beyond that is entirely within your imagination.
The only other thing I'm going to say is that it's very easy to dismiss an aggrieved group's concerns when you aren't in that aggrieved group.

There is the valid question as to whether this actually does anything to make the game "more inclusive."

[zinycor]

The slippery slope argument isn't a real argument. Making the game more inclusive isn't going to lead to anything but...making the game more inclusive. Anything beyond that is entirely within your imagination.
The only other thing I'm going to say is that it's very easy to dismiss an aggrieved group's concerns when you aren't in that aggrieved group.

I feel like on this case the argument is solid. What is the splution to orcs? How doesn't that extend to all the other races or monsters?

Personally I feel like the sole fact that they are playable shows that the stereotypes associated with them, are just that, stereotypes that your game may follow, ignore, subvert, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

There is the valid question as to whether this actually does anything to make the game "more inclusive." If we were discussing an MMORPG like World of Warcraft it might fit better, I think. (Am I understanding your point?) But we are discussing a Table Top RPG that is very customizable "to fit the group at the table" - almost to the point of each game instance being "bespoke" using the tools to hand.

Put another way, someone who is not at our table has no right to tell me that I can't disallow kenku PCs at my table. (They are a conceptual and mechanical mess, from top to bottom, in my opinion to include the whole 'can't communicate well verbally' garbage for a table top game where verbal communication is so important).

But, along the lines of MMORPG or public play, if I am DMing an AL game, I am pretty sure that AL rules regarding PHB +1 would curb my preference if the player showed up with Volo's as her " + 1 " and she had a Kenku rogue.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

There is the valid question as to whether this actually does anything to make the game "more inclusive."

Well, with the changes, I know I feel it is, as does my group. We were playing with a version of these rules anyway, but feel happy to have the concerns we already had addressed by the designers in a real, official way. Especially since some of us play with a few random/pick up group. Doing this sends a clear message, "This hobby is for everyone" and that tends to improve the culture associated with the game overall.

I have said previously I would not play in any game that does not use these optional racial rules, and I entirely stand by that. I would not necessarily feel safe/welcome in a group that doesn't now that it's out there and an official part of the game you have to make a deliberate decision not to use.


I feel like on this case the argument is solid. What is the splution to orcs? How doesn't that extend to all the other races or monsters?

Personally I feel like the sole fact that they are playable shows that the stereotypes associated with them, are just that, stereotypes that your game may follow, ignore, subvert, etc.

The solution to orcs is to let them be whatever alignment they wish, and not have it be a Fundamental Biological Truth that they are all brutes that make good fighters but terrible wizards. You can have Orc culture be a certain way, but not every character has to adhere to that culture, and there should always be counter-cultures and such rather than monolithic race.

And even though this isn't as much of a problem any more, it bears restating: No sentient race, outside of demons (and even they are questionable, given that they can be redeemed and turn good, in fiction!) should be "kill on sight". That has some extremely worrying real world implications I won't go into in detail. Have factions that people choose to be a part of be evil, not races that you're just unlucky enough to be born a part of.

[Petrocorus]

So where does it end? At what point do fictional monsters or creatures stop being metaphors for the real-world? Are all depictions of alien invaders just showcasing the writer's fear of foreign immigrants? Are superheroes just someone's latent fascist fantasy? Can I have an "evil god" without you thinking I'm making a sideways comment about someone else's religion?

After a while, it stops feeling like there's a particular problem that's being addressed, and instead a platform is being established where an aggrieved group can dictate the behavior of others in perpetuity, without regard for relevance or accuracy. It has that old-timey "you'll go to hell" thing, regardless of the nature or severity of the sin. You're told that because it gives someone else power over you, and that person uses your fear to keep the status quo. Even questioning it is risky. Of course there are disenfranchised people in the world and of course people are subject to racial cruelty, but that's not an excuse to create yet another institution of overzealous social control.

May i actually save this for a later use?

[zinycor]

Well, with the changes, I know I feel it is, as does my group. We were playing with a version of these rules anyway, but feel happy to have the concerns we already had addressed by the designers in a real, official way. Especially since some of us play with a few random/pick up group. Doing this sends a clear message, "This hobby is for everyone" and that tends to improve the culture associated with the game overall.

I have said previously I would not play in any game that does not use these optional racial rules, and I entirely stand by that. I would not necessarily feel safe/welcome in a group that doesn't now that it's out there and an official part of the game you have to make a deliberate decision not to use.

NOW THAT IS VALID.

Personally I don't play at tables where the GM rolls attacks and saving throws in secret. So I completely understand if you have whatever conditions you have for you not playing.

[Petrocorus]

I have said previously I would not play in any game that does not use these optional racial rules, and I entirely stand by that. I would not necessarily feel safe/welcome in a group that doesn't now that it's out there and an official part of the game you have to make a deliberate decision not to use.

So, to be clear, you do say you would feel unsafe or unwelcome in a game where this rules are not applied?
You do mean you feel unwelcome in a game where an orc is not natively as smart as a gnome and where a halfling is not natively as strong and tough as a dwarf?

I'm no judging, i just want to be sure i understood well.

[Sigreid]

It's not that negative depictions of orcs are harmful because they might hurt orcs' feelings - it's that they echo real harms that real people have suffered.

I believe the unspoken issue is that orcs have historically been associated with unpleasant racial stereotypes. People have been using the "savage, ape-like, evil, and unintelligent" caricature to malign different races and ethnicities for centuries; believe it or not, it used to be an Irish stereotype in the 1800s. Of course, nowadays it is used against an entirely different group of people, with a shocking amount of frequency and vitriol.

Imagine someone who belongs to a group that's been maligned in this way, who wants to play D&D. They enjoy making characters and escaping reality just like anyone else. But when orcs, goblins, drow, or some other monstrous humanoid race pops up, this player is uncomfortably reminded of reality by the vicious stereotypes used to describe those races. Evil, unintelligent, treacherous, overzealous to their killer god, primitive, cowardly, lazy, worse to their own kind than anyone else, dark-skinned, etc. For such a person, D&D can't be a fantastic escape from reality like it should be, not while races are treated this way, and the rulebooks back it up.

The DM insists it's just a game, orcs/drow/etc. bear no resemblance to real-world people, and they are going to continue having the PCs kill waves of these barbaric subhuman races, because they want to enjoy an escape from reality. The player has three main choices: complain further and sour the mood of the group; shut up and keep playing while they're reminded of racial caricatures every time they fight enemy races; or leave the group and stop playing D&D, until such time as they can find another group, who might have a more comfortable approach to enemy races.

Is it any wonder that some* people of color don't feel welcome playing D&D, and want the rulebooks and lore to change the way they depict certain races?

*Not all people of color will feel this way, because the world is complex, people have different upbringings, and no group is a monolith. But the overall trends can't be ignored.

In a situation where a player at my table told me that they were uncomfortable because the representation of x race brought up uncomfortable stereotypes to them I'd like go the route of telling them:

1. I don't get it as it's not meant to be a representative of their group.
2. I'm not going to change them because for the feel of the game I need a easily recognizable evil to be contended with and it isn't always going to be a non-humanoid monster.
3. If they're feeling left out in the setting, lets create a culture on in the world they can easily identify with, and while it can't be a perfect in all things culture I'm happy to let it showcase things from the culture of their ancestors that they're proud of. I just need them to help with putting that together because I'm not as familiar with it as I would need to be to do it justice.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

So, to be clear, you do say you would feel unsafe unwelcome in a game where this rule are not applied?
You do mean you feel unwelcome in a game where an orc is not natively as smart as a gnome and where a halfling is not natively as strong and tough as a dwarf?

It's not just "an orc", it's "Any orc, anywhere, cannot be as natively smart as a gnome, under any circumstance". If their culture tends towards valuing strength over intelligence, that's fine! But there should always be outliers, counter-cultures, orcs that don't fit the stereotype, and I should be able to play as my brilliant Orc Artificer who teaches mathematics at the local university if that's the kind of thing I'm feeling and not be told "Okay, but since gnomes/humans/elves/etc are genetically mentally superior, you will be behind compared to if you started as one of those".

[stoutstien]

Well, with the changes, I know I feel it is, as does my group. We were playing with a version of these rules anyway, but feel happy to have the concerns we already had addressed by the designers in a real, official way. Especially since some of us play with a few random/pick up group. Doing this sends a clear message, "This hobby is for everyone" and that tends to improve the culture associated with the game overall.

I have said previously I would not play in any game that does not use these optional racial rules, and I entirely stand by that. I would not necessarily feel safe/welcome in a group that doesn't now that it's out there and an official part of the game you have to make a deliberate decision not to use.

All variant rules are exactly that. Variant of the normal mode of play.

Honestly these rules don't change anything that is actually wrong with the game. Most of the issues are setting/lore based and flipping ASIs one way or another doesn't make any difference either way.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

In a situation where a player at my table told me that they were uncomfortable because the representation of x race brought up uncomfortable stereotypes to them I'd like go the route of telling them:

1. I don't get it as it's not meant to be a representative of their group.
2. I'm not going to change them because for the feel of the game I need a easily recognizable evil to be contended with and it isn't always going to be a non-humanoid monster.
3. If they're feeling left out in the setting, lets create a culture on in the world they can easily identify with, and while it can't be a perfect in all things culture I'm happy to let it showcase things from the culture of their ancestors that they're proud of. I just need them to help with putting that together because I'm not as familiar with it as I would need to be to do it justice.

Just as an aside: You can have easily recognizable evil groups that aren't racially based. You are perfectly welcome to have the Kingdom of Ba'd G'uyz whose agents and soldiers all proudly wear the bright red uniform of their dastardly, puppy-kicking kingdom, and can safely be dispatched on sight. Ideological evil, not genetic evil; your adventurers are killing them because they made a decision to be evil, not because they were just born wrong.

[Petrocorus]

It's not just "an orc", it's "Any orc, anywhere, cannot be as natively smart as a gnome, under any circumstance". If their culture tends towards valuing strength over intelligence, that's fine! But there should always be outliers, counter-cultures, orcs that don't fit the stereotype, and I should be able to play as my brilliant Orc Artificer who teaches mathematics at the local university if that's the kind of thing I'm feeling and not be told "Okay, but since gnomes/humans/elves/etc are genetically mentally superior, you will be behind compared to if you started as one of those".

By the current pre-Tasha rules, an orc can start a 15 in Int and be smarter than the majority of gnomes or high elves. Doesn't this represent the outlier?

Do you think it is problematic for different species to have different genetics?

[Bohandas]

So where does it end? At what point do fictional monsters or creatures stop being metaphors for the real-world? Are all depictions of alien invaders just showcasing the writer's fear of foreign immigrants? Are superheroes just someone's latent fascist fantasy? Can I have an "evil god" without you thinking I'm making a sideways comment about someone else's religion?

After a while, it stops feeling like there's a particular problem that's being addressed, and instead a platform is being established where an aggrieved group can dictate the behavior of others in perpetuity, without regard for relevance or accuracy. It has that old-timey "you'll go to hell" thing, regardless of the nature or severity of the sin. You're told that because it gives someone else power over you, and that person uses your fear to keep the status quo. Even questioning it is risky. Of course there are disenfranchised people in the world and of course people are subject to racial cruelty, but that's not an excuse to create yet another institution of overzealous social control.

This sounds accurate to me

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

By the current pre-Tasha rules, an orc can start a 15 in Int and be smarter than the majority of gnomes or high elves. Doesn't this represent the outlier?

Do you think it is problematic for different species to have different genetics?

But a gnome can start with a 16 or 17. The orc is behind the gnome, entirely because of his race. It's the game making the point that this race is inferior to the other. Which is not a great look.

I never want to be told by a DM "You can do this, but your race will be a handicap".

This is a bit of a separate issue from the lore and cultural stuff behind the game but it's an important point to make, too, I feel. It's important to understand though that tied in with this is the fact that certain races are very strongly tied to real life groups.

[micahaphone]

By the current pre-Tasha rules, an orc can start a 15 in Int and be smarter than the majority of gnomes or high elves. Doesn't this represent the outlier?

Do you think it is problematic for different species to have different genetics?

We're not comparing an adventurer to a commoner, we're comparing an adventurer to another adventurer.



I remember someone doing the math earlier, a +1 in your spellcasting ability score is roughly a 20% increase in to hit and chances of spell saves being failed. If the majority of playtime is between levels 1-10, then a wizard who starts with a 16 will be roughly 20% better at most spellcasting things than a wizard who starts with 15.

[Willie the Duck]

It's not that negative depictions of orcs are harmful because they might hurt orcs' feelings - it's that they echo real harms that real people have suffered.

I believe the unspoken issue is that orcs have historically been associated with unpleasant racial stereotypes. People have been using the "savage, ape-like, evil, and unintelligent" caricature to malign different races and ethnicities for centuries; believe it or not, it used to be an Irish stereotype in the 1800s. Of course, nowadays it is used against an entirely different group of people, with a shocking amount of frequency and vitriol.

Another issue, and here is where I think TSR/WotC actively shot themselves in the foot on the issue, is that they tried to have orcs both ways. In mid-late 2e (and becmi), and much of 3e, orcs were sometimes treated as a PC-able race, and when they were, were often given a 'tribal' description that closely mirrored IRL peoples. Lots of shamans and witchdoctors, respect for the wilderness, etc. 2E's Complete Humanoids book in particular made them look very quasi Amerind/African tribespeoples/maybe pacific islander. Of course next supplement they were back to innately evil or their savage stupidity was deserving of derision. 3E repeated the same basic formula, and again repeated the accidental conflation of innately evil stupidity and expies of IRL peoples. If both companies had simply stuck to one interpretation ('yes, these are peoples similar to IRL ones, and you should frame hostilities as geopolitical ones' or 'no, these don't represent anyone, they exist so that the PC's designated baddies don't resemble anyone IRL.') there wouldn't be a problem. But of course they didn't, and that (IMO) is mostly because of the constant issue that D&D's owners never want to acknowledge that the base game is a specific (implied) game setting. So instead of a coherent vision for what the game world is and looks like, we get repeated half hearted 'I don't know, do it this way, or this, whatever you want, except here are some solid descriptions (but only if you like),' and surprise surprise, the results came to bit them. Personally, I consider this a super tempest in a teapot, but I also consider it a blatant self-own on WotC's part.

[micahaphone]

Another issue, and here is where I think TSR/WotC actively shot themselves in the foot on the issue, is that they tried to have orcs both ways. In mid-late 2e (and becmi), and much of 3e, orcs were sometimes treated as a PC-able race, and when they were, were often given a 'tribal' description that closely mirrored IRL peoples. Lots of shamans and witchdoctors, respect for the wilderness, etc. 2E's Complete Humanoids book in particular made them look very quasi Amerind/African tribespeoples/maybe pacific islander. Of course next supplement they were back to innately evil or their savage stupidity was deserving of derision. 3E repeated the same basic formula, and again repeated the accidental conflation of innately evil stupidity and expies of IRL peoples. If both companies had simply stuck to one interpretation ('yes, these are peoples similar to IRL ones, and you should frame hostilities as geopolitical ones' or 'no, these don't represent anyone, they exist so that the PC's designated baddies don't resemble anyone IRL.') there wouldn't be a problem. But of course they didn't, and that (IMO) is mostly because of the constant issue that D&D's owners never want to acknowledge that the base game is a specific (implied) game setting. So instead of a coherent vision for what the game world is and looks like, we get repeated half hearted 'I don't know, do it this way, or this, whatever you want, except here are some solid descriptions (but only if you like),' and surprise surprise, the results came to bit them. Personally, I consider this a super tempest in a teapot, but I also consider it a blatant self-own on WotC's part.

Wow, this is an excellent argument for why companies with fictional universes should have a core "design bible" or company archivist who keeps track of this sort of thing. Someone to go "hey that's inconsistent with what we did before, why don't we do this in a different world"

[Zhorn]

It's not just "an orc", it's "Any orc, anywhere, cannot be as natively smart as a gnome, under any circumstance".
This seems to be missing a large component of the levelling process.
Any race with point buy or standard array can start with a 15 in any stat they like.
As others have stated, both in this thread and others that have popped up as spin off topics, 15 is a good representation of an above average score or a representation as an outlier to the norm.
From there, ANY race can have a capped score of 20 in their chosen stat by 12th level. Some get there sooner than others, but that's not the same as saying the other races cannot get there at all. Some get there at 8th level instead, or if you roll for stats, some get there at 4th (roll an 18 and this is true for those without the matching racial ASI also).
These new rules were unnecessary to representing such outlier characters as they can and did already exist.

[Sigreid]

Just as an aside: You can have easily recognizable evil groups that aren't racially based. You are perfectly welcome to have the Kingdom of Ba'd G'uyz whose agents and soldiers all proudly wear the bright red uniform of their dastardly, puppy-kicking kingdom, and can safely be dispatched on sight. Ideological evil, not genetic evil; your adventurers are killing them because they made a decision to be evil, not because they were just born wrong.

Sure you can. But if I want a non-magical race that's a manifestation of an evil god's malice in the world, I'm going with orc or goblin.

[Amechra]

But if someone insist on changing the way the game is played, because he feels hurt, while not being able to explain why he feels hurt, can you understand how that can be annoying to the other player and the DM?

Speaking as someone who as actually been in this situation multiple times... that selfish annoyance is honestly not my concern at that point in time.

To explain: My father passed away due to his alcoholism a few years back, and it was incredibly messy for my family. Like, we're-still-not-talking-to-my-aunt-and-have-been-cut-out-of-the-inheritance messy. It's not something that I want to be reminded of when I'm doing my happy-fun D&D stuff (as you can probably imagine).

Portrayals of people getting drunk or alcoholism directly remind me of the suckier parts of my childhood, and the sense of grief and shame related to my father's death. It's immediate and visceral. And the thing is? Actively telling people about it face-to-face is painful. And, on top of that, it wrecks the mood for everyone, because now I've brought up my dead father in the middle of a game session.

Quite frankly, if someone insists that some element should be excluded from your game because it hurts them, you are a bad person if you force them to explain themselves. You are explicitly telling them that you don't care about their emotional well-being - and before you give me a "that's not my intent", your intent does not matter in this situation. If you stab someone by accident, they are still being stabbed.

[EggKookoo]

The slippery slope argument isn't a real argument.

I would agree except this entire thread is about how fairy-tale monsters are examples of real-world racism. You yourself said "it's never just a game."

That's a pretty slick slope, slick.


There is the valid question as to whether this actually does anything to make the game "more inclusive."

Yes, this is the problem we need to solve, although I doubt there's really much room to be made there. Not everyone is going to like everything and not liking a thing doesn't mean it's out to get you.

[Bohandas]

Just as an aside: You can have easily recognizable evil groups that aren't racially based. You are perfectly welcome to have the Kingdom of Ba'd G'uyz whose agents and soldiers all proudly wear the bright red uniform of their dastardly, puppy-kicking kingdom, and can safely be dispatched on sight. Ideological evil, not genetic evil; your adventurers are killing them because they made a decision to be evil, not because they were just born wrong.

Ba'd G'uyz is the exact kind of name that the orcs would use in Warhammer

[Sigreid]

Speaking as someone who as actually been in this situation multiple times... that selfish annoyance is honestly not my concern at that point in time.

To explain: My father passed away due to his alcoholism a few years back, and it was incredibly messy for my family. Like, we're-still-not-talking-to-my-aunt-and-have-been-cut-out-of-the-inheritance messy. It's not something that I want to be reminded of when I'm doing my happy-fun D&D stuff (as you can probably imagine).

Portrayals of people getting drunk or alcoholism directly remind me of the suckier parts of my childhood, and the sense of grief and shame related to my father's death. It's immediate and visceral. And the thing is? Actively telling people about it face-to-face is painful. And, on top of that, it wrecks the mood for everyone, because now I've brought up my dead father in the middle of a game session.

Quite frankly, if someone insists that some element should be excluded from your game because it hurts them, you are a bad person if you force them to explain themselves. You are explicitly telling them that you don't care about their emotional well-being - and before you give me a "that's not my intent", your intent does not matter in this situation. If you stab someone by accident, they are still being stabbed.

Sometimes groups don't belong together. That's not a sign of a game that's not inclusive. It's not even a sign of a bad person or group. Sometimes people just don't get along for whatever reason. I've personally left tables because I didn't belong there. The group wasn't bad, we just didn't fit.

Once upon a time, I was in a group where the whole premise of the campaign was the party recruited a bunch of pirates with the premise that they'd make all the decisions and the pirates could stay drunk. It was a lot of fun for us, but obviously you wouldn't have wanted to be at that table. That's fine.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

This seems to be missing a large component of the levelling process.
Any race with point buy or standard array can start with a 15 in any stat they like.
As others have stated, both in this thread and others that have popped up as spin off topics, 15 is a good representation of an above average score or a representation as an outlier to the norm.
From there, ANY race can have a capped score of 20 in their chosen stat by 12th level. Some get there sooner than others, but that's not the same as saying the other races cannot get there at all. Some get there at 8th level instead, or if you roll for stats, some get there at 4th (roll an 18 and this is true for those without the matching racial ASI also).
These new rules were unnecessary to representing such outlier characters as they can and did already exist.

No, because again, "natively". It meant that if I design an orc character, let's call him Crunch, and my buddy designs a gnome character, Wizzlepick, and we both start the game with both of us at level 1, Wizzlepick is always going to start out with a clear intelligence advantage over Crunch no matter what I do. The reason for this is that "Wizzlepick is just a superior race for intelligence" and that isn't cool! Even if you reason it can get fixed eventually, Crunch is always going to start off behind...and besides, a majority of games don't even ever reach 12th level, so that supposed catch-up more often that not ever happens. And even if it does, you're still behind, because Wizzlepick is getting to move on to feats and other fun stuff, while you're still playing catch up because you just happen to be the "wrong" race.

It's not a good look.

[zinycor]

Of course you don't.
But then you cannot complain if the DM doesn't understand you. The DM is not a telepath.

But the GM can be empathetic, instead of annoyed.

[EggKookoo]

No, because again, "natively". It meant that if I design an orc character, let's call him Crunch, and my buddy designs a gnome character, Wizzlepick, and we both start the game with both of us at level 1, Wizzlepick is always going to start out with a clear intelligence advantage over Crunch no matter what I do. The reason for this is that "Wizzlepick is just a superior race for intelligence" and that isn't cool!

Why not? Again, we're talking about fairy tale creatures here. No one (except maybe you?) is bringing real-world ethnicities into it.

Is it okay that Crunch is of the superior race for strength?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Why not? Again, we're talking about fairy tale creatures here. No one (except maybe you?) is bringing real-world ethnicities into it.

Is it okay that Crunch is of the superior race for strength?

No, it isn't okay.

And you are being incredibly dismissive. We're talking about fairy tale creatures that have their origin as analogues for real world groups. I really resent your accusation that I am somehow the only one who has ever thought that, when there are numerous papers, journals, thinkpieces, etc. on the subject stretching back to the days of Tolkien. Even the creators of Dungeons and Dragons agree with me that this is a real, harmful issue and that it needed to be changed.

I would again ask you try to exercise some empathy and understand the perspectives of those that see this kind of thing as harmful, rather than attempting to gaslight me.

[Segev]

This seems to be missing a large component of the levelling process.
Any race with point buy or standard array can start with a 15 in any stat they like.
As others have stated, both in this thread and others that have popped up as spin off topics, 15 is a good representation of an above average score or a representation as an outlier to the norm.
From there, ANY race can have a capped score of 20 in their chosen stat by 12th level. Some get there sooner than others, but that's not the same as saying the other races cannot get there at all. Some get there at 8th level instead, or if you roll for stats, some get there at 4th (roll an 18 and this is true for those without the matching racial ASI also).
These new rules were unnecessary to representing such outlier characters as they can and did already exist.Well said. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.


Speaking as someone who as actually been in this situation multiple times... that selfish annoyance is honestly not my concern at that point in time.

To explain: My father passed away due to his alcoholism a few years back, and it was incredibly messy for my family. Like, we're-still-not-talking-to-my-aunt-and-have-been-cut-out-of-the-inheritance messy. It's not something that I want to be reminded of when I'm doing my happy-fun D&D stuff (as you can probably imagine).

Portrayals of people getting drunk or alcoholism directly remind me of the suckier parts of my childhood, and the sense of grief and shame related to my father's death. It's immediate and visceral. And the thing is? Actively telling people about it face-to-face is painful. And, on top of that, it wrecks the mood for everyone, because now I've brought up my dead father in the middle of a game session.

Quite frankly, if someone insists that some element should be excluded from your game because it hurts them, you are a bad person if you force them to explain themselves. You are explicitly telling them that you don't care about their emotional well-being - and before you give me a "that's not my intent", your intent does not matter in this situation. If you stab someone by accident, they are still being stabbed.
Thing is, if you set that as your rule, then literally anything somebody chooses to claim is making them uncomfortable becomes YOUR responsibility to disinclude lest YOU be the bad person. Even if you think THEY are actively bad people for their demand. After all, doesn't that make you the bully for judging them that way?

[KorvinStarmast]

Thing is, if you set that as your rule, then literally anything somebody chooses to claim is making them uncomfortable becomes YOUR responsibility to disinclude lest YOU be the bad person. Even if you think THEY are actively bad people for their demand. After all, doesn't that make you the bully for judging them that way?
This becomes a group "fit" thing as a root cause, and it could arise in any number of RPGs.

[Segev]

This becomes a group "fit" thing as a root cause, and it could arise in any number of RPGs.

It could! That's the point. And "oh, we're making stat mods float, now" doesn't do a darned thing to address it, either.


No, because again, "natively". It meant that if I design an orc character, let's call him Crunch, and my buddy designs a gnome character, Wizzlepick, and we both start the game with both of us at level 1, Wizzlepick is always going to start out with a clear intelligence advantage over Crunch no matter what I do. The reason for this is that "Wizzlepick is just a superior race for intelligence" and that isn't cool! Even if you reason it can get fixed eventually, Crunch is always going to start off behind...and besides, a majority of games don't even ever reach 12th level, so that supposed catch-up more often that not ever happens. And even if it does, you're still behind, because Wizzlepick is getting to move on to feats and other fun stuff, while you're still playing catch up because you just happen to be the "wrong" race.

It's not a good look.
This is only true if Wizzlepick is maxing out Int. And even then, it only really shows as a definite advantage for him over Crunch if you're also trying to max out Intelligence.

If Crunch the Wizard is in a party with Wizzlepick the Bard, Crunch is going to have a 15 (assuming elite array) in Intelligence, and Wizzlepick might only have a 12. Or even a 10, if it's his dump stat. Intelligence isn't that important a stat for most Bards, who want Charisma and Wisdom and Dex.

By the same token, are you suggesting it's not a good look that Sylvia the Wood Elf having an Int disadvantage to Wizzlepick the gnome is also "not a good look?" What about Stand Durd, the S. Human, who is at least 1 point behind Wizzlepick in intelligence? Is it a "bad look" that Ha Fu Ling the Halfling monk is inherently weaker than Fujizan the Mountain Dwarf Fighter? What about that Menzo Bear'nzan the Barbarian Drow is less sturdy than Fujizan?

Is it a "bad look" if Roark the Dragonborn Ranger is less charismatic than Tye Lee the Tiefling Sorceress? What if Roark the Dragonborn Warlock is MORE charismatic than Tye Lee the Tiefling Druid? Is THAT a "bad look?"

The lack of a bonus doesn't make you subpar, especially not in 5e. Yes, optimization will push you to fit the stereotype. No, it's not "a bad look," and also is false to assert that Crunch will always in every case have a lower Int than Wizzlepick.

[Amechra]

Sometimes groups don't belong together. That's not a sign of a game that's not inclusive. It's not even a sign of a bad person or group. Sometimes people just don't get along for whatever reason. I've personally left tables because I didn't belong there. The group wasn't bad, we just didn't fit.

Once upon a time, I was in a group where the whole premise of the campaign was the party recruited a bunch of pirates with the premise that they'd make all the decisions and the pirates could stay drunk. It was a lot of fun for us, but obviously you wouldn't have wanted to be at that table. That's fine.

Thing is, that is fine. You had the consent and approval of everyone involved - yay! But I'd hope that if one of the players went "Hey guys? Can we not go with the 'keep the pirates in booze' plan?", you'd at least consider tweaking that premise.

From my perspective, having to explain why I don't want drinking to figure in a game is like having to explain to someone why I don't feel comfortable with them waving a knife in my face, or with them punching me in the stomach. Sure, I bet that both of those activities can be great fun if you're both into it, but the burden shouldn't be on me to explain why I don't want them to do it.

[Amechra]

Thing is, if you set that as your rule, then literally anything somebody chooses to claim is making them uncomfortable becomes YOUR responsibility to disinclude lest YOU be the bad person. Even if you think THEY are actively bad people for their demand. After all, doesn't that make you the bully for judging them that way?

Segev, friend. Reread what you just typed, and think about how that stance looks when you don't assume that everyone is lying to you in an attempt to "bully" you.

The "rule" here is "if someone says that they are uncomfortable with something, take them seriously". Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Petrocorus]

Speaking as someone who as actually been in this situation multiple times... that selfish annoyance is honestly not my concern at that point in time.

To explain: My father passed away due to his alcoholism a few years back, and it was incredibly messy for my family. Like, we're-still-not-talking-to-my-aunt-and-have-been-cut-out-of-the-inheritance messy. It's not something that I want to be reminded of when I'm doing my happy-fun D&D stuff (as you can probably imagine).

Portrayals of people getting drunk or alcoholism directly remind me of the suckier parts of my childhood, and the sense of grief and shame related to my father's death. It's immediate and visceral. And the thing is? Actively telling people about it face-to-face is painful. And, on top of that, it wrecks the mood for everyone, because now I've brought up my dead father in the middle of a game session.

I am truly sorry for you.



Quite frankly, if someone insists that some element should be excluded from your game because it hurts them, you are a bad person if you force them to explain themselves. You are explicitly telling them that you don't care about their emotional well-being - and before you give me a "that's not my intent", your intent does not matter in this situation. If you stab someone by accident, they are still being stabbed.
But this where i disagree.
I can be empathetic and compassionate to you, of course.
But i can be empathetic because i now know where you're coming from.
But what if i don't?

If you come to my table and in the middle of a game ask me to remove elements of my game, elements that may even be central to the plot i laid, maybe putting the game at rest for dozens of minutes the times for me to readjust, and without giving me any substantial reason beyond "it hurts me", why would i oblige?

I have no way to know what you mean, to understand where you're coming from, to judge the situation, and frankly, to evaluate if you really hurt or if you're making a fuss for nothing. And neither would have the other players.

Because in this day and age, people being very emotional about menial stuffs or seeing problem where there are not is sadly a reality.

If you come to talk to me before joining the table, saying you have a specific personal issue with a specific element, without giving any details but letting me know this ahead of time and without even knowing if i plan on having this element, then that would be different. In this case, i'll have the mean to know you're real about it, and i would take step to avoid beforehand putting this element in the game.

The stabbing analogy is not relevant.
First, because intents do matter in a stabbing. I believe most of western justice system make a different between murder one and manslaughter.
And two, because when you stab someone, there can be no ambiguity about whether this someone is stabbed or not. There is blood everywhere and the victim is clearly wounded.
Emotional wounds are much more ambiguous, much less visible, and much more difficult to understand or to evaluate. And some people have no qualms about exaggerating or faking them. And we all have our own, and they are all different, which doesn't help.

[KorvinStarmast]

but the burden shouldn't be on me to explain why I don't want them to do it. Why is it necessarily a burden?

I ask that in all seriousness.

Why is it a burden to share something with a friend?

Maybe my hole in understanding is that I generally play TTRPGs with friends, not with strangers.

In contrast, I have played a variety of on line games with strangers, a few of whom eventually became friends. Some of those few people I eventually met in the flesh. (Which was cool as heck, for me). I'll also note that a lot of on line games played with strangers has led to encountring toxicity, to the point that I learned how to hit squelch quickly in LoL games, and to play only private games in a few other on line venues (Guild Wars and Diablo II) and to just not play WoW at all.

Perhaps if I played in AL games with people I'd never met I'd have a different take on this.

[Petrocorus]

From my perspective, having to explain why I don't want drinking to figure in a game is like having to explain to someone why I don't feel comfortable with them waving a knife in my face, or with them punching me in the stomach. Sure, I bet that both of those activities can be great fun if you're both into it, but the burden shouldn't be on me to explain why I don't want them to do it.
But i think you can understand that not everyone have the same perspective and can even have a hard time understanding yours.

For most people, drinking is not at all on the same page as waving a knife or punching someone.

I myself cannot drink for medical reasons, and there are people who even pity me for this.

[Segev]

Segev, friend. Reread what you just typed, and think about how that stance looks when you don't assume that everyone is lying to you in an attempt to "bully" you.

The "rule" here is "if someone says that they are uncomfortable with something, take them seriously". Nothing more, and nothing less.

Okay. A bigot joins your group's table and, when the object of his bigotry is innocently brought up, objects and says, "Guys, can we please not have [whatever it is] in this game?" Are you a bad person for asking him why he doesn't want it there? Are you a bad person for leaving it in? What if it's another player who brought it up because it's part of his concept? What if removing it makes that player feel excluded?

I'm trying to avoid specifics to avoid stepping into real-world issues. And not to use anything related to your example so as not to make you uncomfortable. If Bob has this unreasoning hatred for bowlers, and Sally makes a professional bowler for her character, does Bob have a right to ask her to make a different character? If so, is there anything Sally could have made her character that Bob would be in the wrong for asking her to change, if he was made uncomfortable by it?

I'm not assuming people are lying to bully me. I'm assuming that what looks like bullying to one side will feel like standing up to bullying on the other. And vice-versa.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

It could! That's the point. And "oh, we're making stat mods float, now" doesn't do a darned thing to address it, either.


This is only true if Wizzlepick is maxing out Int. And even then, it only really shows as a definite advantage for him over Crunch if you're also trying to max out Intelligence.

If Crunch the Wizard is in a party with Wizzlepick the Bard, Crunch is going to have a 15 (assuming elite array) in Intelligence, and Wizzlepick might only have a 12. Or even a 10, if it's his dump stat. Intelligence isn't that important a stat for most Bards, who want Charisma and Wisdom and Dex.

By the same token, are you suggesting it's not a good look that Sylvia the Wood Elf having an Int disadvantage to Wizzlepick the gnome is also "not a good look?" What about Stand Durd, the S. Human, who is at least 1 point behind Wizzlepick in intelligence? Is it a "bad look" that Ha Fu Ling the Halfling monk is inherently weaker than Fujizan the Mountain Dwarf Fighter? What about that Menzo Bear'nzan the Barbarian Drow is less sturdy than Fujizan?

Is it a "bad look" if Roark the Dragonborn Ranger is less charismatic than Tye Lee the Tiefling Sorceress? What if Roark the Dragonborn Warlock is MORE charismatic than Tye Lee the Tiefling Druid? Is THAT a "bad look?"

The lack of a bonus doesn't make you subpar, especially not in 5e. Yes, optimization will push you to fit the stereotype. No, it's not "a bad look," and also is false to assert that Crunch will always in every case have a lower Int than Wizzlepick.

I'm not really talking about class balance here. Crunch's player wants to be a smartypants type character, and so does Wizzlepick. But instead of them being roughly on even ground, Wizzlepick just gets to be Smarter because of his race. Crunch will always be playing catch up and always be an underdog because of his "racial handicap". That should never be a factor, and that's what's problematic here.

Some of those other things are bad. It's okay for your character to be bad at Charisma because maybe they never valued it so they never practiced at it, or because they dislike people, or they were raised in such a way that made interaction with other people difficult for them. It's not okay for your character to be worse at charisma than another character could be entirely because of race and no other factor. With the new rules, if charisma is important to my character, I can have them be just as good at it as anyone else; with the old rules, your race will always hold you back unless you choose "correctly", which is...again, not good and should not be encouraged.

(As an aside: Standard Human needs to be changed, even with these new rule updates. I maintain that Variant should just replace standard, as that way Humans can still sort of get +2 +1 like anyone else, using their feat)

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not really talking about class balance here. Crunch's player wants to be a smartypants type character, and so does Wizzlepick.
While I agree that vHuman should have been Standard, they couldn't/didn't do that due to how they placed feats. (And I think that the reason for that was low barriers to entry for new players).

As to your whole post, not everyone tries to optimize, nor to min max and become a star in the first four levels. (We have a thread somewhere else on this sub forum about why one has to have 17 in their prime stat, and another on "how could I talk you into taking a 15 (and in that case, never raising it)" which has gotten a varied response.

Bottom line is that we cannot assume that min max/optimization is the default mode of play, even if we who tend to discuss stuff at GiTP lean towards at least some optimization in our character building.

[Segev]

I'm not really talking about class balance here. Crunch's player wants to be a smartypants type character, and so does Wizzlepick. But instead of them being roughly on even ground, Wizzlepick just gets to be Smarter because of his race. Crunch will always be playing catch up and always be an underdog because of his "racial handicap". That should never be a factor, and that's what's problematic here.

Some of those other things are bad. It's okay for your character to be bad at Charisma because maybe they never valued it so they never practiced at it, or because they dislike people, or they were raised in such a way that made interaction with other people difficult for them. It's not okay for your character to be worse at charisma than another character could be entirely because of race and no other factor. With the new rules, if charisma is important to my character, I can have them be just as good at it as anyone else; with the old rules, your race will always hold you back unless you choose "correctly", which is...again, not good and should not be encouraged.

(As an aside: Standard Human needs to be changed, even with these new rule updates. I maintain that Variant should just replace standard, as that way Humans can still sort of get +2 +1 like anyone else, using their feat)

Crunch's player is, at most, a single +1 behind Wizzlepick's player in terms of character effectiveness at being "a smartypants." Frankly, I think the bigger problem here is that they're both trying to play the same schtick, and stepping on each other's toes.


It's not okay for your character to be worse at charisma than another character could be entirely because of race and no other factor.Why?

Is it also not okay for your character to be strictly shorter or taller than another character entirely because of race and no other factor?

What about being more skilled/well-rounded strictly because of race?

What about having better eyesight in the dark strictly because of race?

What about being better at shaking off poison strictly because of race?

What about having a harder time seeing in bright light strictly because of race?

What about being better at surviving otherwise-lethal blows strictly because of race?

Is it "a bad look" that Crunch can take a hit that would cut Wizzlepick in half, and keep going, simply because of race?

It seems to me that all racial abilities should be scrapped entirely if it's a bad look for races to have anything they're better at than any other race based strictly on what race the player picked to make the character.

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems to me that all racial abilities should be scrapped entirely if it's a bad look for races to have anything they're better at than any other race based strictly on what race the player picked to make the character. Cue my standard refrain: 5e still can't get D&D out of the label "elf game" given the core books' blatant favoritism for elves and half elves in that part of the chargen.

:smallyuk:

[EggKookoo]

No, it isn't okay.

And you are being incredibly dismissive. We're talking about fairy tale creatures that have their origin as analogues for real world groups. I really resent your accusation that I am somehow the only one who has ever thought that, when there are numerous papers, journals, thinkpieces, etc. on the subject stretching back to the days of Tolkien. Even the creators of Dungeons and Dragons agree with me that this is a real, harmful issue and that it needed to be changed.

Help me understand. Is the "orcs are stronger" thing bad no matter what? Or is it bad mainly because orcs have connections to a real-world race issue (namely Tolkien's views on such).

For example, what about goliaths? Goliaths have +2 Str. But they're not orcs and they have no real cultural relationship to them (in fact they seem vaguely Nordic). Is it still bad that they have +Str?

If so, the implication is that you can't have any inherent variation in race in the game, at least with ability scores. Goliaths and halfings must have, on average, the same strength.

If not, then the problem isn't with the mechanic of +/- to ability scores, but that certain races use the same name as what Tolkien used. Specifically orcs and elves, which seem to be the crux of the issue. Does it matter that D&D orcs are so different from Tolkien orcs that they virtually a completely different concept?

Looking at intelligence, lets say the game introduces a race of beings that were, in their ancestral past, abducted and separated from a mainstream species (we'll go with humans) and experimented on, giving them vast mental powers. As a side effect, their brains are highly efficient at processing information, which in D&D terms could arguably result in a race-wide +Int. They're not elves. They're not necessarily Caucasian humans (in fact, for sake of argument, let's say they were Turami). Is +Int still bad?


I would again ask you try to exercise some empathy and understand the perspectives of those that see this kind of thing as harmful, rather than attempting to gaslight me.

Not gaslighting. I'm just not automatically buying into your position and I'm asking you to validate it. You're attempting to make an argument for change, which is fine. But you still need to make it. Telling me that other people agree with you is not an argument, nor is an appeal to empathy.

[zinycor]

No, it isn't okay.

And you are being incredibly dismissive. We're talking about fairy tale creatures that have their origin as analogues for real world groups. I really resent your accusation that I am somehow the only one who has ever thought that, when there are numerous papers, journals, thinkpieces, etc. on the subject stretching back to the days of Tolkien. Even the creators of Dungeons and Dragons agree with me that this is a real, harmful issue and that it needed to be changed.

I would again ask you try to exercise some empathy and understand the perspectives of those that see this kind of thing as harmful, rather than attempting to gaslight me.

You stop being so serious. These are fictional creatures that have whatever stats or story one desires.

[Sigreid]

Thing is, that is fine. You had the consent and approval of everyone involved - yay! But I'd hope that if one of the players went "Hey guys? Can we not go with the 'keep the pirates in booze' plan?", you'd at least consider tweaking that premise.

From my perspective, having to explain why I don't want drinking to figure in a game is like having to explain to someone why I don't feel comfortable with them waving a knife in my face, or with them punching me in the stomach. Sure, I bet that both of those activities can be great fun if you're both into it, but the burden shouldn't be on me to explain why I don't want them to do it.

I don't generally play with people I don't already know. I tend to think that if if one of the group had an issue with drinking, even if we didn't know the specifics we would know they did and it wouldn't come up. Or maybe, we'd be upfront about where it was going so they would know to pass on that particular situation. Much Like I pass when my friends want to spend the evening watching football.

[zinycor]

Okay. A bigot joins your group's table and, when the object of his bigotry is innocently brought up, objects and says, "Guys, can we please not have [whatever it is] in this game?" Are you a bad person for asking him why he doesn't want it there? Are you a bad person for leaving it in? What if it's another player who brought it up because it's part of his concept? What if removing it makes that player feel excluded?

I'm trying to avoid specifics to avoid stepping into real-world issues. And not to use anything related to your example so as not to make you uncomfortable. If Bob has this unreasoning hatred for bowlers, and Sally makes a professional bowler for her character, does Bob have a right to ask her to make a different character? If so, is there anything Sally could have made her character that Bob would be in the wrong for asking her to change, if he was made uncomfortable by it?

I'm not assuming people are lying to bully me. I'm assuming that what looks like bullying to one side will feel like standing up to bullying on the other. And vice-versa.

If Bob doesn't like bowlers in his game,and Sally wants to play bowler. Then they are clealy not meant to play together and is a good thing this is now known. Either Sally or Bob will have to leave group.

[KorvinStarmast]

If Bob doesn't like bowlers in his game,and Sally wants to play bowler. Then they are clealy not meant to play together amd is a good thing this is now known. Either Sally or Bob will have to leave group. Or the group picks a different kind of game to have fun with on game night: one they can all agree on. :smallsmile:

Paranoia, anyone? :smallbiggrin:

[zinycor]

Or the group picks a different kind of game to have fun with on game night: one they can all agree on. :smallsmile:

Paranoia, anyone? :smallbiggrin:

Or not.

My point is that if you don't like sonething on a game, and the table isn't willing to change it, you can leave that table and find one that suits you better.

That doesn't necesarilly mean table A was right or wrong for having Bowlers

[Sigreid]

To try to ground this again, I haven't seen anyone argue against whatever accommodations you want at your table. But this is an official book. It's on some level attempting to force accommodations on everyone's table. That's the issue.

[EggKookoo]

Paranoia, anyone? :smallbiggrin:

My alternate is Call of Cthulhu, where +Int is a liability!

[KorvinStarmast]

My point is that if you don't like sonething on a game, and the table isn't willing to change it, you can leave that table and find one that suits you better. In theory, I agree with you 100%. In practice, the existence of that other table may be untrue.

TTRPG's are a hobby with uneven availability. (Though with the internet and virtual table tops, there's a lot more flexibility, but VTT's create their own problems).

If the situation develops as you illustrate, in one city or locale, the person not 'fitting' at that table can without too big of a search find another table.

In another city or locale, not.

Now let's add another degree of difficulty.

Outside the game, these are all people who have been friends who have socialized together quite a bit over four or five years. Is being 'out' during game night without cost? (For prespective: some of my closest friends, to this day, are people I served with in a squadron for about 2 and a half years ... over 30 years ago).

Let's add one more degree of difficulty. Let's introduce the The Five Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html). (Hey, we can do this, since D&D certainly overlaps or intersects with Geekdom a bit :smallcool: ).

We now have something creating friction for the already formed social group.

With that kind of context, 'let's try a different game or activity for game night' may appeal a great deal more.

[zinycor]

To try to ground this again, I haven't seen anyone argue against whatever accommodations you want at your table. But this is an official book. It's on some level attempting to force accommodations on everyone's table. That's the issue.

I see no issue there. If at my table we don't play with a rule... We don't play with that rule.

No DnD police will force you to.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Help me understand. Is the "orcs are stronger" thing bad no matter what? Or is it bad mainly because orcs have connections to a real-world race issue (namely Tolkien's views on such).

For example, what about goliaths? Goliaths have +2 Str. But they're not orcs and they have no real cultural relationship to them (in fact they seem vaguely Nordic). Is it still bad that they have +Str?

If so, the implication is that you can't have any inherent variation in race in the game, at least with ability scores. Goliaths and halfings must have, on average, the same strength.

If not, then the problem isn't with the mechanic of +/- to ability scores, but that certain races use the same name as what Tolkien used. Specifically orcs and elves, which seem to be the crux of the issue. Does it matter that D&D orcs are so different from Tolkien orcs that they virtually a completely different concept?

Looking at intelligence, lets say the game introduces a race of beings that were, in their ancestral past, abducted and separated from a mainstream species (we'll go with humans) and experimented on, giving them vast mental powers. As a side effect, their brains are highly efficient at processing information, which in D&D terms could arguably result in a race-wide +Int. They're not elves. They're not necessarily Caucasian humans (in fact, for sake of argument, let's say they were Turami). Is +Int still bad?



Not gaslighting. I'm just not automatically buying into your position and I'm asking you to validate it. You're attempting to make an argument for change, which is fine. But you still need to make it. Telling me that other people agree with you is not an argument, nor is an appeal to empathy.

So here's the thing. This is difficult to talk to without delving into real-world examples, so please bear with me.

The issue is that saying that any race is inherently superior due to the circumstances of their birth. Full stop. Having some diversity is okay; minor abilities tend to be okay, or ones based on wildly different physiology that don't have real life analogues, like a Loxodon's trunk, or a fire genasi having fire powers. That's all cool, and for the most part, those abilities are gravy. Even the most powerful ones aren't really that important in the grand scheme of the game. I will be the first to say though that a lot of these abilities tend to be culturally based, and I do believe WotC should have put more effort in to allow for options to replace culturally based racial abilities (Dwarven stonecunning, for example) with other cultural abilities, or at least with generic ones.

When you have a system where X character is about 20% better than Y character at the main task both X and Y characters are designed to do, solely because of the genetic superiority of one race over the other, there is an issue and that has to be solved.

And you are gaslighting. You are telling me I am the only one broaching this issue and demanding evidence that anyone else has ever agreed with me, when so many have brought it up as a problem that WotC decided that they absolutely had to address it. Linking you to specific thoughtpieces, essays, wikipedia articles, journals, etc. is outside the scope of this forum but I implore you to do some cursory googling and research to see the other perspectives out there for yourself. I am not an eloquent person and others out there have made far better points than me in a much clearer way.

Lastly, the appeal to empathy is not an argument, no. It is simply a request for you to attempt to put you in the shoes of those you disagree with so that you can at least try to see their side of the issue and how it might affect them. If you refuse to do even that little I don't think we have anything further to discuss.


You stop being so serious. These are fictional creatures that have whatever stats or story one desires.

Except fiction has real life consequences. Like I've said before: Games, and stories, don't exist in a vacuum.

And if I'm being "too serious" and this is so unimportant, then why argue against it? It doesn't matter either way to you, since it's not a serious matter, so it's fine to go ahead and have these rules because they make people like me feel better, even if you think we're just being silly, at little to no cost. There's no real downside.

[Segev]

If Bob doesn't like bowlers in his game,and Sally wants to play bowler. Then they are clealy not meant to play together and is a good thing this is now known. Either Sally or Bob will have to leave group.

I agree. I'm responding to a claim that Sally is a bad person if she so much as questions why Bob doesn't like bowlers, let alone insists on still playing her character.

I also get the feeling - though I could be mistaken - that there is an implication that the table are bad people if they don't demand Sally change her character and kick her out if she won't on behalf of Bob's dislike for bowlers.

[Sigreid]

I see no issue there. If at my table we don't play with a rule... We don't play with that rule.

No DnD police will force you to.

It changes the expectations when people show up. Surely you can see the difference between something presented in the official rules and something that is not?

[zinycor]

In theory, I agree with you 100%. In practice, the existence of that other table may be untrue.

TTRPG's are a hobby with uneven availability. (Though with the internet and virtual table tops, there's a lot more flexibility, but VTT's create their own problems).

If the situation develops as you illustrate, in one city or locale, the person not 'fitting' at that table can without too big of a search find another table.

In another city or locale, not.

Now let's add another degree of difficulty.

Outside the game, these are all people who have been friends who have socialized together quite a bit over four or five years. Is being 'out' during game night without cost? (For prespective: some of my closest friends, to this day, are people I served with in a squadron for about 2 and a half years ... over 30 years ago).

Let's add one more degree of difficulty. Let's introduce the The Five Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html). (Hey, we can do this, since D&D certainly overlaps or intersects with Geekdom a bit :smallcool: ).

We now have something creating friction for the already formed social group.

With that kind of context, 'let's try a different game or activity for game night' may appeal a great deal more.

Sure, I never said leave those people to rot. Just leave their table. If the peoblem at the table is the game, then that's enough change.

For the most part, No-Game is better than Bad-Gaming.

[zinycor]

I agree. I'm responding to a claim that Sally is a bad person if she so much as questions why Bob doesn't like bowlers, let alone insists on still playing her character.

I also get the feeling - though I could be mistaken - that there is an implication that the table are bad people if they don't demand Sally change her character and kick her out if she won't on behalf of Bob's dislike for bowlers.

And Sally shouldn't question it. Is not her business to know the inner life of Bob.

Am of the idea that on RPGs you are free to do absolutely anything you want. As long as there is consent.

If Bob doesn't consent to Bowlers, and Sally demands to play a Bowler. Then one of them has to leave.

On my table, we are playing a game, not on therapy or fixing people's social problems.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the most part, No-Game is better than Bad-Gaming. I generally agree with you; it's just that, being a social activity, there's more to a TTRGP than the game itself.

The people - that's who and what is important. (Having watched a few tables self destruct and in the course of that destruction seen friendships harmed or ended, I've learned that the game's not the most important thing. But I learned from experience rather than from possessing any great fount of wisdom)


On my table, we are playing a game, not on therapy or fixing people's social problems.
For those, I charge a substantial fee. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

And Sally shouldn't question it. Is not her business to know the inner life of Bob.

Am of the idea that on RPGs you are free to do absolutely anything you want. As long as there is consent.

If Bob doesn't consent to Bowlers, and Sally demands to play a Bowler. Then one of them has to leave.

On my table, we are playing a game, not on therapy or fixing people's social problems.

Okay. But should Sally immediately agree to change characters lest she be a bad person? Or does she have a right to argue that it's Bob who should leave if he doesn't like her character?

[zinycor]

I generally agree with you; it's just that, being a social activity, there's more to a TTRGP than the game itself.

The people - that's who and what is important. (Having watched a few tables self destruct and in the course of that destruction seen friendships harmed or ended, I've learned that the game's not the most important thing. But I learned from experience rather than from possessing any great fount of wisdom)

For those, I charge a substantial fee. :smallbiggrin:

I agree and that's where am also coming from. In my experience is always better to be honest on these cases.

[zinycor]

Okay. But should Sally immediately agree to change characters lest she be a bad person? Or does she have a right to argue that it's Bob who should leave if he doesn't like her character?

A few choices Sally has (Similar for Bob):
1) She accepts Bob wishes and changes her character accordingly.

2)Says that playing a Bowler is important to her and either the table agrees and Bob leaves or she leaves.

[EggKookoo]

The issue is that saying that any race is inherently superior due to the circumstances of their birth. Full stop. Having some diversity is okay; minor abilities tend to be okay, or ones based on wildly different physiology that don't have real life analogues, like a Loxodon's trunk, or a fire genasi having fire powers. That's all cool, and for the most part, those abilities are gravy. Even the most powerful ones aren't really that important in the grand scheme of the game. I will be the first to say though that a lot of these abilities tend to be culturally based, and I do believe WotC should have put more effort in to allow for options to replace culturally based racial abilities (Dwarven stonecunning, for example) with other cultural abilities, or at least with generic ones.

I want to homebrew a race of black bears that have magically enhanced minds to the point of becoming as intelligent as humans (on average). Is it a problem if I allow these creatures to maintain their superior-than-human physical strength?

Real-world racial issues are issues because real-world humans are tightly related. But a D&D orc isn't like, I dunno, homo orcus or something. It's a completely different creature, just like my uplifted black bear.


When you have a system where X character is about 20% better than Y character at the main task both X and Y characters are designed to do, solely because of the genetic superiority of one race over the other, there is an issue and that has to be solved.

Mechanically, perhaps. You'll have a balance issue.

There's nothing racist about having one species be genetically superior to another at something. There's nothing racist about one species being genetically superior at most things, or even all things. Gameplay and balance issues? Sure.

I mean, I can't swim anything like a dolphin...

Real-world race issues are issues precisely because human ethnicities confer no broad superiority or inferiority. It's not bad for a racist to be racist because it's racist. It's bad for a racist to be racist because it's wrong (as in, incorrect, erroneous, misguided).


And you are gaslighting. You are telling me I am the only one broaching this issue and demanding evidence that anyone else has ever agreed with me, when so many have brought it up as a problem that WotC decided that they absolutely had to address it. Linking you to specific thoughtpieces, essays, wikipedia articles, journals, etc. is outside the scope of this forum but I implore you to do some cursory googling and research to see the other perspectives out there for yourself. I am not an eloquent person and others out there have made far better points than me in a much clearer way.

Sorry, I was trying to refer to the general position that you're arguing for -- i.e. your position, which I shorthanded to you. I didn't mean to suggest that you were alone in that position. I'm sorry for not being more clear.


Lastly, the appeal to empathy is not an argument, no. It is simply a request for you to attempt to put you in the shoes of those you disagree with so that you can at least try to see their side of the issue and how it might affect them. If you refuse to do even that little I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

Are you doing the same? Are you capable of seeing, in good faith, why someone might have a problem with your position? Or are you just assuming they're being reactionary bigots who are comfortable in their racial/cultural privilege and don't want it challenged?

[Petrocorus]

The issue is that saying that any race is inherently superior due to the circumstances of their birth. Full stop. Having some diversity is okay; minor abilities tend to be okay, or ones based on wildly different physiology that don't have real life analogues, like a Loxodon's trunk, or a fire genasi having fire powers. That's all cool, and for the most part, those abilities are gravy. Even the most powerful ones aren't really that important in the grand scheme of the game. I will be the first to say though that a lot of these abilities tend to be culturally based, and I do believe WotC should have put more effort in to allow for options to replace culturally based racial abilities (Dwarven stonecunning, for example) with other cultural abilities, or at least with generic ones.

Emphasis mine.

I would like to know if you feel the same way about Star Wars species?
Do you think this is problematic that Wookies are stonger than humans? That Twi'lek are more comely than Gamoreans?
Would you bring the same point in a Star Wars RPG? In a Star Trek RPG? What about the Warhammer RPG?



When you have a system where X character is about 20% better than Y character at the main task both X and Y characters are designed to do, solely because of the genetic superiority of one race over the other, there is an issue and that has to be solved.

I'd need to see this math. I don't understand how a +1 in a stat makes you 20% better.
On average, you have 65% chance to hit a level appropriate foe, if you start with 16 in your main stat. -1 is -5%.
So, if you have 60% to hit, compared to the 65%, that 7,7 % less effective.



Lastly, the appeal to empathy is not an argument, no. It is simply a request for you to attempt to put you in the shoes of those you disagree with so that you can at least try to see their side of the issue and how it might affect them. If you refuse to do even that little I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

Do you agree that both side of the argument should abide by this?


And Sally shouldn't question it. Is not her business to know the inner life of Bob.

Am of the idea that on RPGs you are free to do absolutely anything you want. As long as there is consent.

If Bob doesn't consent to Bowlers, and Sally demands to play a Bowler. Then one of them has to leave.

On my table, we are playing a game, not on therapy or fixing people's social problems.

I'm with Segev on this.

Bob is demanding something from Sally, he demands she change something she planned, maybe she even care about, and Sally should not be allow to question it and should abide by Bob's demands on the spot? Because Bob invoke his emotions and whatever are his reasons?
Do you think this is normal human interaction?

What if it actually hurts Sally not to play her bowlers? What if Bob's hatred for bowlers is due to the fact he's bad at bowlings, or just because he thinks bowling is dumb?

[zinycor]

I'm with Segev on this.

Bob is demanding something from Sally, he demands she change something she planned, maybe she even care about, and Sally should not be allow to question it and should abide by Bob's demands on the spot. Because Bob invoke his emotions and whatever are his reasons?
Yes, Sally should either accept Bob's wishes, have Bob leave the table or leave herself.


Do you think this is normal human interaction?
Yes


What if it actually hurts Sally not to play her bowlers?
Then Sally should act accordingly (going to am airorithy , letting the table know, defend herself, etc)


What if Bob's hatred for bowlers is due to the fact he's bad at bowlings, or just because he thinks bowling is dumb?
Then both of them will be happier to not play with each other.

[Reynaert]

When you have a system where X character is about 20% better than Y character at the main task both X and Y characters are designed to do, solely because of the genetic superiority of one race over the other, there is an issue and that has to be solved.

That rather depends on what this 'main task' is, doesn't it?
Y character is going to be about 20% better than X character at another 'main task'.
So there's no "genetic superiority", just "genetic diversity".

Basketball.