Did Tasha's go far enough?

[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. (Hey, we can do this, since D&D certainly overlaps or intersects with Geekdom a bit ).

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.

[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.

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.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

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?

There's never going to be a single answer to questions like these. Generally, it is easy to suss out someone objecting in bad faith, as opposed to a real issue or trauma they may have. People like that are generally terrible at hiding it, hoping that they will skate by using technicalities and rules-lawyering, not realizing that social situations don't have a hard and fast set of rules that if you stick to, no one is "allowed" to kick you out. If everyone gets along with you, you don't act bigoted or terrible in way, and your request isn't outright bigoted in and of itself, then I don't see the harm in being accommodating.

It's hard to discuss this without bringing up real life examples as so many subjects make it a dead giveaway what someones intentions are one way or another; someone is never going to object to depicting animal cruelty in game for some kind of nefarious reason, for example, and there are certain things no one would ever realistically object to for any reason other than trolling or bigotry related reasons.

Bad faith actors will generally reveal themselves before long either way and then they can be removed. If they're objecting to, for example, dark elves being good or orcs not having an intelligence malus... Well, there are very, very few legitimate reasons for that, and they would be in my opinion extremely weak. They likely would not be welcome at my table unless they had a serious change in attitude.

[zinycor]

They likely would not be welcome at my table unless they had a serious change in attitude.

Exactly, your table, your rules.

[Petrocorus]

Yes, Sally should either accept Bob's wishes, have Bob leave the table or leave herself.

Which put the DM and the other players in a quite difficult position, especially if neither Bob nor Sally wants to leave the table.

Yes

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

going to am airorithy

What does this means?

defend herself, etc

How can she if she's not allow to even know why there is an issue?

[zinycor]

Which put the DM and the other players in a quite difficult position, especially if neither Bob nor Sally wants to leave the table.

Yeah, it is a difficult situation. But far better to deal with it than having to deal with it in the long run.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

What does this means?

Am on my phone, I meant go to an authority.

How can she if she's not allow to even know why there is an issue?

At the monent I did read the phrase like "What if Bob hurts Sally to not play the character" So I was confused.

If Sally really wants to play that character, and the table doesn't give consent to that, she should find a new group of people who give consent to that character.

[Petrocorus]

There's never going to be a single answer to questions like these. Generally, it is easy to suss out someone objecting in bad faith, as opposed to a real issue or trauma they may have. People like that are generally terrible at hiding it, hoping that they will skate by using technicalities and rules-lawyering, not realizing that social situations don't have a hard and fast set of rules that if you stick to, no one is "allowed" to kick you out. If everyone gets along with you, you don't act bigoted or terrible in way, and your request isn't outright bigoted in and of itself, then I don't see the harm in being accommodating.

But this is my point.
People of bad faith can sometimes be very good at hiding. And some people with real issue can be too good at hiding and seems to be of bad faith.
Some of the most depressed people look like the most cheerful.

Same goes with bigotry. How can you tell if someone is a bigot if you're not supposed to ask why they're demanding for something.
And bigoted people can be very emotional about their bigotry and very convinced of it. They can truly feel offended and hurt if they have to face the object of their bigotry.

How can you sort things out if you're supposed to accept the demand without talking about it?

[Snowbluff]

Yes. I've thought about it, and if you change the Race system, (which I view to be species, since unlike with real life "races," a term I use with heavy quotes, DnD "player races" have large and fundamental physiological differences), and reduce it further to picking an array of abilities, how would you balance that or ensure there's a metric for what's allowed and not allowed? Some kind of Race Point system? PF has such as system, and I wouldn't rate it very highly in this case, since it would interfere the game being relatively simple.

So, at this level:
1) People aren't constraint to specific species/classes by ability score. It never really mattered too much in the long term anyway, since you've more ASI than needed to max your main stat. The only real counterpoint is that some species, like goblins, do have literal class features as abilities.

2) Flavor is maintained, and people can be literal dragon people with corresponding resistance to that dragons element and the ability to breath fire.

3) Simplicity is maintained. There isn't another building minigame of trying to squeeze the best abilities out of each species option.

Also, I would not like ASI that are tied to class. PF2 does that, and it's quite disappointing being so constraint by the way that system handles ability scores.

[Petrocorus]

Yeah, it is a difficult situation. But far better to deal with it than having to deal with it in the long run.

Am on my phone, I meant go to an authority.

If Sally really wants to play that character, and the table doesn't give consent to that, she should find a new group of people who give consent to that character.

But the people who have to deal with it, the authority Sally can call to, the table that has to give consent, is the DM and the rest of the players.

They need to sort things out to see if the issue can be solved peacefully, if one of the side is being of bad faith, or if the issue is unsolvable and one of them, and which one, has to leave the table.

How do they sort things out?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

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?


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.

I have no idea about star wars. I don't have much interest in the setting so I couldn't really say, I'm uneducated on the subject and am not as familiar with the history behind the races I wasn't even aware there were star wars RPGs where you could pick races other than human. I do know about one star wars thing, though! Gungans. And I know for a fact if I were to ever be forced into running some kind of star wars game, I would never in a million years allow one in a game, as PC or NPC. For similar reasons that if I ever ran Curse of Strahd, I would never include the Vistani without essentially homebrewing them into another race entirely. Yikes.

As for the math, someone posted it in another thread at some point, but that 20% number comes from calculating DPR. The 5% to hit is neglecting missing out on the increased damage main stats tend to have, as well as the other bonuses your main stat might have. Wizards don't typically have that (though some do, later) but they also have other incentives to having higher intelligence like spells prepared, which is incredibly important, arguably more so than the increased likelihood of spell success.

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.

The main task in the example given is whatever that classes job is. Let's take a specific example with Wizard again; Character's X and Y are both wizards. X has 16 intelligence, Y has 15, because of racial statistics. But Y has 16 strength, while X only has 15. That is a benefit, but it is extremely hard to argue that more strength benefits the "main task" of the wizard class. The main job of Wizard is using spells and intelligence is their single determining factor in that. That 16 strength is never going to be as big a benefit to a wizard than 16 intelligence would be. Character Y might make a better melee fighter, but one would be hard pressed to say that melee weapon combat is the main task of the wizard class in DnD 5th edition.

I...don't know why you said Basketball.

[zinycor]

But the people who have to deal with it, the authority Sally can call to, the table that has to give consent, is the DM and the rest of the players.

They need to sort things out to see if the issue can be solved peacefully, if one of the side is being of bad faith, or if the issue is unsolvable and one of them, and which one, has to leave the table.

How do they sort things out?

Is hard to answer this question without going into specifics.

The best I can give you is that Bob is entitled to his privacy. If he states that Bowlers break his consent, and the rest of the table agrees to respect that then Sally has to accept it or leave

[OldTrees1]

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?

Different person but:

This new variant rule is a rule I do not plan to implement. I think 5E has handled variant rules with sufficient grace that people can managed their expectations and know to talk to the group. Our group uses feats but we know that because we communicated.

So, at this level:
1) People aren't constraint to specific species/classes by ability score. It never really mattered too much in the long term anyway, since you've more ASI than needed to max your main stat. The only real counterpoint is that some species, like goblins, do have literal class features as abilities.

2) Flavor is maintained, and people can be literal dragon people with corresponding resistance to that dragons element and the ability to breath fire.

In general I agree.

There is occasionally some flavor in species ability modifiers. For example a Giant with a +2 Str has that modifier for a flavor reason. Wood Elves having +1 Wis, ... not so much IMHO.

But there is no official Giant PC species released yet. And even if there were, having a variant rule for floating modifiers does not prevent me from using the default rules that include modifiers.

As for the math, someone posted it in another thread at some point, but that 20% number comes from calculating DPR. The 5% to hit is neglecting missing out on the increased damage main stats tend to have, as well as the other bonuses your main stat might have. Wizards don't typically have that (though some do, later) but they also have other incentives to having higher intelligence like spells prepared, which is incredibly important, arguably more so than the increased likelihood of spell success.

The math was elaborated in yet another thread and it was closer to 11-16% (depending on example class) DPR for 3rd level. That decreases as levels grant more damage sources.

[zinycor]

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?

And their expectation may not be met when they join my table, I imagine that's the case for most people.

[cutlery]

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.

If a friend said that something in-game was too similar to something real world that upset them, would you accept that and move the narrative around it, or demand that they explain why?

[OldTrees1]

If a friend said that something in-game was too similar to something real world that upset them, would you accept that and move the narrative around it, or demand that they explain why?

I notice an excluded middle ground. If someone, even a stranger, said that to me, then I would ask "why?" while moving the narrative around it / removing it.

If you are removing the "something" because you care about not upsetting the person, then I think it wise to do your best to avoid the issue in the future, by identifying the issue. If the "something" was a clown, should you remove anything reminiscent of "IT" or everything reminiscent of "creepy adults"?

If they won't say (can't being a subset of won't) then that can be a bit annoying since it makes your job harder and less certain. However I still would remove the clown, despite wishing I knew what else to remove. You can ask without demanding.

[cutlery]

You can ask without demanding.

Sure, if they don't specify (e.g. Clowns), you can ask them to. But if they say "No clowns, please" then they shouldn't have to explain why.

[zinycor]

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.

So, first of all, you might not be playing with friends. Personally on this year I have joined a few games with total strangers. If I said "Hey I don't feel comfortable with bowlers for personal reasons" and people asked for an explanation beyond that I wouldn't give one.

Second, some subjects you might not discuss with all your friends equally, specially sone things which are painful you might not want to talk about, specially if you are looking to play a game for fun.

Third: You might just not feel like talking something so personal.

[OldTrees1]

Sure, if they don't specify (e.g. Clowns), you can ask them to. But if they say "No clowns, please" then they shouldn't have to explain why.

If they say "No clowns please", you can ask them "Why?" while you remove the clowns. They don't have to explain why, but doing so might help you remove the door-to-door salesman in the next scene before it becomes an issue.

You can ask AND they don't have to explain.

Edit:
Also there is a lot of good advice on how to ask and how to transition. This thread is not going into these details, but I want to make it clear, there is a lot of advice on how to handle delicate topics.

[Petrocorus]

If i come to one of you game and i say that i don't want:

- Any character being a fireman or something similar.

- Any character named Mickael.

- Anything resembling a shark.

Is it fine for me to demand that anything related to this be removed from the game without having to give any further explanation?

[Mikal]

Go far enough at what? Pandering and using the literal least amount of effort to pretend it’s about equality while actually providing a variant that’s unbalanced?

[EggKookoo]

If i come to one of you game and i say that i don't want:

- Any character being a fireman or something similar.

- Any character named Michael.

- Anything resembling a shark.

Is it fine for me to demand that anything related to this be removed from the game without having to give any further explanation?

It's one thing to say "I won't play a shark-fireman named Mark for personal reasons that I won't get into." There's nothing inappropriate about that.

It's something else altogether to say "I don't like shark-firemen named Mark so no one else can play them." That's a tad entitled.

[OldTrees1]

If i come to one of you game and i say that i don't want:

- Any character being a fireman or something similar.

- Any character named Michael.

- Anything resembling a shark.

Is it fine for me to demand that anything related to this be removed from the game without having to give any further explanation?

Yes. I will ask "Why?" so I can better avoid those issues, and I might tell you that you will want to sit out this campaign and be back next campaign.