There is a comment war happening over Haeck's latest article "Reimagining Racial Ability Scores". In that article, he has insinuated that the differences between races' ability scores are similar to real-life racist ideology.
D&D Beyond should support the game D&D and the books that define the rules. His opinion should have been made in the forum section and not in an article on the front page. This is obviously a ploy to cause divisions between the players of the game. He is not loyal to the brand.
I would like to know if other members of the Beyond staff also believe that the game rules that birthed this website's content are racist. If not, please remove any article that does not support WotC content.
1) talk about a biased wording for that poll. The question has basically 0 relevance to the content of your post. D&D Beyond DOES support the rules created by WotC. They also offer homebrew tools, and this article proposes an homebrew way to generate character stats. This is not mutually exclusive, and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous at best.
I would like to know if other members of the Beyond staff also believe that the game rules that birthed this website's content are racist. If not, please remove any article that does not support WotC content.
The rules from older rulesets, and the lore surrounding them, may have had some racist overtones. It's not suggested that it was intended, but it happened. It's ok, we make mistakes, we learn, we grow. If you can't see how saying that a certain race is naturally less intelligent than another is racism, I don't know what to say.
The 5e ruleset actually moved away from that, by getting rid of ability flaws. But maybe we could go one step further, and simply let characters define the stats, and not have a significant chunk of them be decided simply by nature of your race.
Haeck specifically links to an article that calls out the races used in D&D (see part II of the article in that link) to racism. He has gone beyond suggesting options for homebrew creation and is suggesting that people who support the rules (of any edition) are also supporting racism.
My point is that it was not appropriate for the article to create these divisions between players and DMs. It should have been a forum discussion and not the front page. Does Haeck speak for all of D&D Beyond?
He has gone beyond suggesting options for homebrew creation and is suggesting that people who support the rules (of any edition) are also supporting racism.
No, he hasn't. He's suggested that the system has problematic roots, but he's made no such suggestion, insinuation or assertion.
My point is that it was not appropriate for the article to create these divisions between players and DMs
It's creating no such division; if you're the kind of DM that doesn't want racially assigned stat bonuses, then you'll likely have a table that agrees with you, and inverse is true as well.
Does Haeck speak for all of D&D Beyond?
I mean, he speaks for himself, but considering he's the staff writer, presumably D&D Beyond respects what he's got to say on the topic.
You seem to be reading a lot into this and projecting just a bit. James simply suggested a way at looking at things, but he by no means called people that don't adopt his system racist.
He has gone beyond suggesting options for homebrew creation and is suggesting that people who support the rules (of any edition) are also supporting racism.
That's a huge stretch from "rules may have some inadvertently racist ideas in them" to "rules are racists" and then to "anyone playing with these rules are racists".
He's saying that some of the rules ideas have roots or relations to some racist ideas. That doesn't make you racist for still wanting to use these rules, maybe you find them fun, and that's it. That's not an issue.
If it does bother you though, he offers an alternative way to do things.
You seem to believe that being critical of something and enjoying it is incompatible, but it's not. There are a lot of TV shows from the 90' an 00's that I enjoy that have some problematic take on race or gender. It doesn't have to be a political statement to enjoy something despite its fault. It's actually a good thing to be able to say "well, that part sucks, but it was still a fun watch".
I am absolutely reading a lot into this! I read all the comments. In the article he writes, "This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology." If I'm guilty of projecting, then I'm not alone.
That's the sentence I have the most problems with. If you read through the comments, the most inflammatory response is a reaction to that comment. It should have never been made and at the very least, it should be removed.
If he doesn't like the game as written, he should not be given a platform to speak for a whole website that is dedicated to that game. Suggesting a homebrew rule should not even mention "real-life racist ideology," nor link to an article that supports that opinion. I believe it was done to incite readers and not create a rational discussion. A discussion that should be had. A discussion that should have existed in the forums.
"This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology."
Notice that bit in brackets? He's saying that this mechanic, which does have distasteful optics, is absent from 5e PHB and that's a good thing.
And reading through the comments on an article is just asking for negativity bias. People with positive responses to articles generally don't interact with them, it's people with contrary views that do. And this breeds more disagreement and discussion. That's why controversial views have high engagement.
If he doesn't like the game as written, he should not be given a platform to speak for a whole website that is dedicated to that game.
Lol, so by that logic DDB shouldn't have any homebrew tools, because it's giving a platform for people to change the game from written. Just because you don't like their motivation doesn't make it any different from any other homebrew.
I believe it was done to incite readers and not create a rational discussion. A discussion that should be had. A discussion that should have existed in the forums.
That's some prime tinfoil hat thinking right there
Why do you think this would be any more 'rational' in the forums?
But he does like the game as written, congratulating 5e on removing ability flaws.
And linking ability score to your choice of race does have similarities to real-life racist ideology, where some "races" were considered inferior, or less intelligent.
Of course the word "race" takes on two different meanings here, one meaning species and the other being about ethnicity, but there's still a parallel to be drawn.
It is an important discussion. There are dirty bits written into the language of early editions. Even in 5th edition, Kobolds have a negative built into their character creation.
D&D Beyond should support the rules written by WotC. D&D Beyond should also offer a suggestion for homebrew.
The articles on Beyond should not force me to have a race/political debate with a player that I meet for the first time at a public game gathering. This article is now being used in real-world conversations that I have had with players, and it is being used to justify that D&D rules are built on racism.
It should have never been promoted on the front page.
"your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology." attacks me, the DM, for allowing the rules as written and attacks players who disagree with the assumption by calling them racist.
No one is forcing you to have this debate, you started this thread and kicked off a whole new discussion. If other people are misrepresenting what JH is saying, that's on them, not James or DDB.
"your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology." attacks me, the DM, for allowing the rules as written and attacks players who disagree with the assumption by calling them racist.
It doesn't. And you should probably ask yourself why you feel like it does.
I use those rules. I'm not overly fond of them, not because of the reasons we're discussing here, but because I feel like it sort of forces certain classes to pick certain races to be efficient as player characters. Incidentally, I also agree with the article, but I do find the idea of linking bonuses to some races interesting. For instance, I like how a Tiefling's appareance may inspire distrust and superstition from people, and how they tend to cope with it by learning to present well, which results in a bonus to charisma.
I see the point the article is making, I agree with it, but I will also keep using these rules, albeit with little tweaks of my own, to give players more liberty when picking their race.
You also seem to be missing the fact that the article specifically calls out ability flaws as problematic, not bonuses. They just want to take it a step further, which you might want to do or not do, and neither decision makes you racist.
Am I being really dense about this? I'm not understanding why people are calling this or that as "omg racist!" - sure the term race is used incorrectly because "Species" was a bit weird. D&D isn't alone, many games do this - not as an allegory for human race variations but rather as a more palatable word choice than saying "species".
And it isn't "wrong" if one species is more or less than some other species. There is no allegory for human racial division - it's not saying dark skinned humans are more or less intelligent than light-skinned humans. It's saying that a species specifically designed by nature to be more reliant on physical prowess may have a brain and physiology more suited to physical tasks but less adapted towards logical solutions and complex tool use (so, +2 Str, -1 Int type of creature). While a creature that is adapted to more reliant on solving problems logically and using tools will probably be lacking physically (+2 Int, -1 Str). These variations between creatures and species exist in nature and the PCs you play will be different species than each other, so, yeah, the base ability scores may differ.
This is not racism, it's nature and introduced as a game balance mechanic.
I don't see people crying racism because Elves are more Dexterous than Dwarves or because Gnomes are more Intelligent than Humans.
I also don't see people crying racism because a Feral Tiefling is more dexterous than a regular Tiefling and they're the same species - literally this where one race of a species is different to the other race! But this isn't racism either because it's just because those Tieflings have been more outcast from society and adapted accordingly.
You also don't seem to take into account the ability scores and such are also more "cultural" rather than genetic. A high elf wasn't born able use longswords - they learned it as part of the culture, same with the languages. And yes, different cultures around the world favour different aspects, have different education systems and different lifestyle priorities. The national average IQ will vary in different countries - not because those cultures are genetically predisposed to be smarter/dumber but because of the education system they have and what emphasis on that education is placed.
The ability scores, languages, and other "Racial Traits" can be as much 'typical for culture' as genetics. The Race listing is an amalgamation of everything that makes up your character prior to your previous profession (Background) and current profession (Adventurer/Class).
This idea of calling racial stat variations has "racist" as if it is some social discriminating thing is beyond ridiculous. D&D races are different species with different cultures - so yeah, they'll be different (wow shocker), it's like saying a crocodile being stronger than a rat is "racist".
Am I being really dense about this? I'm not understanding why people are calling this or that as "omg racist!"
I... Don't think anyone is ? The base of the discussion was a single line in an entire article, that reads:
"This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology."
Saying something is distastefully similar is not the same as saying that something is.
But I do personally think there's an issue with saying that a whole race has, say, a -2 in wisdow. Because it basically means that an entire race, who has social customs and rules and culture, has a temper issue. What about a race that has a -2 charisma, do they simply annoy each other all the time ?
Seriously though, this was all blown way out of proportions. Yes, there is a history in our real-world civilization of calling certain ethnicity "less than", and yes, ability flaws are reminiscent of that, by saying that certain people are just naturally dumber, or short-tempered, or frail. There's a parallel drawn between real-world racism, and this specific mechanic, but that doesn't mean the mechanic itself is racist, even though people keep reaching to this conclusion.
Anyway, 5e did away with ability flaws, I think with good reason, both from a mechanical and "ideological" perspective, and that's it. Having a positive spin (racial ability bonuses) on something is a different issue IMO, and one I'm personally more okay with.
But no one is calling anyone or anything racist is the main takeaway here.
First off, I think there are quite a few folks that are upset by Haeck's article, but seem to be missing the mark when they attempt to express why. OP, if you'll forgive me, I think we've gotten a bit off the rails in the debate here and the poll is a bit confusing, so I will attempt to clarify in another thread.
It is meant to be tongue-in-cheek! It's priming the answer because there is only one answer: Haeck should not be allowed to post this type of stuff in the main articles!
Nah, he should. It's a well written, thought provoking article that takes a critical look at D&D, rather than this bizarre and somewhat cultish notion of 'brand loyalty' you seem to have. I personally won't be using the system he suggests, but I value the time he's taken to discuss the topic.
Maybe rather than creating a narrative where you're being personally attacked by a person saying racism is bad (which raises a lot of questions), maybe you should just get on with your life playing the game how you want.
It is meant to be tongue-in-cheek! It's priming the answer because there is only one answer: Haeck should not be allowed to post this type of stuff in the main articles!
Yikes. You know you have the freedom to play your game your way and to ignore the article... right?
This article is now being used in real-world conversations that I have had with players, and it is being used to justify that D&D rules are built on racism.
It should have never been promoted on the front page.
Would you mind elaborating on an example or two where this happened to you? Not that I doubt it did, but giving details might both illustrate your point better, and add credibility to the claim.
There is a comment war happening over Haeck's latest article "Reimagining Racial Ability Scores". In that article, he has insinuated that the differences between races' ability scores are similar to real-life racist ideology.
D&D Beyond should support the game D&D and the books that define the rules. His opinion should have been made in the forum section and not in an article on the front page. This is obviously a ploy to cause divisions between the players of the game. He is not loyal to the brand.
I would like to know if other members of the Beyond staff also believe that the game rules that birthed this website's content are racist. If not, please remove any article that does not support WotC content.
Wow. Lot of things to say here.
1) talk about a biased wording for that poll. The question has basically 0 relevance to the content of your post. D&D Beyond DOES support the rules created by WotC. They also offer homebrew tools, and this article proposes an homebrew way to generate character stats. This is not mutually exclusive, and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous at best.
2) (emphasis mine)
The rules from older rulesets, and the lore surrounding them, may have had some racist overtones. It's not suggested that it was intended, but it happened. It's ok, we make mistakes, we learn, we grow. If you can't see how saying that a certain race is naturally less intelligent than another is racism, I don't know what to say.
The 5e ruleset actually moved away from that, by getting rid of ability flaws. But maybe we could go one step further, and simply let characters define the stats, and not have a significant chunk of them be decided simply by nature of your race.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Haeck specifically links to an article that calls out the races used in D&D (see part II of the article in that link) to racism. He has gone beyond suggesting options for homebrew creation and is suggesting that people who support the rules (of any edition) are also supporting racism.
My point is that it was not appropriate for the article to create these divisions between players and DMs. It should have been a forum discussion and not the front page. Does Haeck speak for all of D&D Beyond?
No, he hasn't. He's suggested that the system has problematic roots, but he's made no such suggestion, insinuation or assertion.
It's creating no such division; if you're the kind of DM that doesn't want racially assigned stat bonuses, then you'll likely have a table that agrees with you, and inverse is true as well.
I mean, he speaks for himself, but considering he's the staff writer, presumably D&D Beyond respects what he's got to say on the topic.
You seem to be reading a lot into this and projecting just a bit. James simply suggested a way at looking at things, but he by no means called people that don't adopt his system racist.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
That's a huge stretch from "rules may have some inadvertently racist ideas in them" to "rules are racists" and then to "anyone playing with these rules are racists".
He's saying that some of the rules ideas have roots or relations to some racist ideas. That doesn't make you racist for still wanting to use these rules, maybe you find them fun, and that's it. That's not an issue.
If it does bother you though, he offers an alternative way to do things.
You seem to believe that being critical of something and enjoying it is incompatible, but it's not. There are a lot of TV shows from the 90' an 00's that I enjoy that have some problematic take on race or gender. It doesn't have to be a political statement to enjoy something despite its fault. It's actually a good thing to be able to say "well, that part sucks, but it was still a fun watch".
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I am absolutely reading a lot into this! I read all the comments. In the article he writes, "This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology." If I'm guilty of projecting, then I'm not alone.
That's the sentence I have the most problems with. If you read through the comments, the most inflammatory response is a reaction to that comment. It should have never been made and at the very least, it should be removed.
If he doesn't like the game as written, he should not be given a platform to speak for a whole website that is dedicated to that game. Suggesting a homebrew rule should not even mention "real-life racist ideology," nor link to an article that supports that opinion. I believe it was done to incite readers and not create a rational discussion. A discussion that should be had. A discussion that should have existed in the forums.
Notice that bit in brackets? He's saying that this mechanic, which does have distasteful optics, is absent from 5e PHB and that's a good thing.
And reading through the comments on an article is just asking for negativity bias. People with positive responses to articles generally don't interact with them, it's people with contrary views that do. And this breeds more disagreement and discussion. That's why controversial views have high engagement.
Lol, so by that logic DDB shouldn't have any homebrew tools, because it's giving a platform for people to change the game from written. Just because you don't like their motivation doesn't make it any different from any other homebrew.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
But he does like the game as written, congratulating 5e on removing ability flaws.
And linking ability score to your choice of race does have similarities to real-life racist ideology, where some "races" were considered inferior, or less intelligent.
Of course the word "race" takes on two different meanings here, one meaning species and the other being about ethnicity, but there's still a parallel to be drawn.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
It is an important discussion. There are dirty bits written into the language of early editions. Even in 5th edition, Kobolds have a negative built into their character creation.
D&D Beyond should support the rules written by WotC. D&D Beyond should also offer a suggestion for homebrew.
The articles on Beyond should not force me to have a race/political debate with a player that I meet for the first time at a public game gathering. This article is now being used in real-world conversations that I have had with players, and it is being used to justify that D&D rules are built on racism.
It should have never been promoted on the front page.
"your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology." attacks me, the DM, for allowing the rules as written and attacks players who disagree with the assumption by calling them racist.
No one is forcing you to have this debate, you started this thread and kicked off a whole new discussion. If other people are misrepresenting what JH is saying, that's on them, not James or DDB.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
The quote is directly from his article.
What do you think he meant by writing and attaching it to that specific article?
That is exactly what they do.
It doesn't. If someone mention it, you could just say "I know, but I like the rules as written", and that would be it.
It doesn't. And you should probably ask yourself why you feel like it does.
I use those rules. I'm not overly fond of them, not because of the reasons we're discussing here, but because I feel like it sort of forces certain classes to pick certain races to be efficient as player characters. Incidentally, I also agree with the article, but I do find the idea of linking bonuses to some races interesting. For instance, I like how a Tiefling's appareance may inspire distrust and superstition from people, and how they tend to cope with it by learning to present well, which results in a bonus to charisma.
I see the point the article is making, I agree with it, but I will also keep using these rules, albeit with little tweaks of my own, to give players more liberty when picking their race.
You also seem to be missing the fact that the article specifically calls out ability flaws as problematic, not bonuses. They just want to take it a step further, which you might want to do or not do, and neither decision makes you racist.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Am I being really dense about this? I'm not understanding why people are calling this or that as "omg racist!" - sure the term race is used incorrectly because "Species" was a bit weird. D&D isn't alone, many games do this - not as an allegory for human race variations but rather as a more palatable word choice than saying "species".
And it isn't "wrong" if one species is more or less than some other species. There is no allegory for human racial division - it's not saying dark skinned humans are more or less intelligent than light-skinned humans. It's saying that a species specifically designed by nature to be more reliant on physical prowess may have a brain and physiology more suited to physical tasks but less adapted towards logical solutions and complex tool use (so, +2 Str, -1 Int type of creature). While a creature that is adapted to more reliant on solving problems logically and using tools will probably be lacking physically (+2 Int, -1 Str). These variations between creatures and species exist in nature and the PCs you play will be different species than each other, so, yeah, the base ability scores may differ.
This is not racism, it's nature and introduced as a game balance mechanic.
I don't see people crying racism because Elves are more Dexterous than Dwarves or because Gnomes are more Intelligent than Humans.
I also don't see people crying racism because a Feral Tiefling is more dexterous than a regular Tiefling and they're the same species - literally this where one race of a species is different to the other race! But this isn't racism either because it's just because those Tieflings have been more outcast from society and adapted accordingly.
You also don't seem to take into account the ability scores and such are also more "cultural" rather than genetic. A high elf wasn't born able use longswords - they learned it as part of the culture, same with the languages. And yes, different cultures around the world favour different aspects, have different education systems and different lifestyle priorities. The national average IQ will vary in different countries - not because those cultures are genetically predisposed to be smarter/dumber but because of the education system they have and what emphasis on that education is placed.
The ability scores, languages, and other "Racial Traits" can be as much 'typical for culture' as genetics. The Race listing is an amalgamation of everything that makes up your character prior to your previous profession (Background) and current profession (Adventurer/Class).
This idea of calling racial stat variations has "racist" as if it is some social discriminating thing is beyond ridiculous. D&D races are different species with different cultures - so yeah, they'll be different (wow shocker), it's like saying a crocodile being stronger than a rat is "racist".
Good grief, people.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I... Don't think anyone is ? The base of the discussion was a single line in an entire article, that reads:
Saying something is distastefully similar is not the same as saying that something is.
But I do personally think there's an issue with saying that a whole race has, say, a -2 in wisdow. Because it basically means that an entire race, who has social customs and rules and culture, has a temper issue. What about a race that has a -2 charisma, do they simply annoy each other all the time ?
Seriously though, this was all blown way out of proportions. Yes, there is a history in our real-world civilization of calling certain ethnicity "less than", and yes, ability flaws are reminiscent of that, by saying that certain people are just naturally dumber, or short-tempered, or frail. There's a parallel drawn between real-world racism, and this specific mechanic, but that doesn't mean the mechanic itself is racist, even though people keep reaching to this conclusion.
Anyway, 5e did away with ability flaws, I think with good reason, both from a mechanical and "ideological" perspective, and that's it. Having a positive spin (racial ability bonuses) on something is a different issue IMO, and one I'm personally more okay with.
But no one is calling anyone or anything racist is the main takeaway here.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
First off, I think there are quite a few folks that are upset by Haeck's article, but seem to be missing the mark when they attempt to express why.
OP, if you'll forgive me, I think we've gotten a bit off the rails in the debate here and the poll is a bit confusing, so I will attempt to clarify in another thread.
This poll makes no sense, and the post is priming the answer.
It is meant to be tongue-in-cheek! It's priming the answer because there is only one answer: Haeck should not be allowed to post this type of stuff in the main articles!
Nah, he should. It's a well written, thought provoking article that takes a critical look at D&D, rather than this bizarre and somewhat cultish notion of 'brand loyalty' you seem to have. I personally won't be using the system he suggests, but I value the time he's taken to discuss the topic.
Maybe rather than creating a narrative where you're being personally attacked by a person saying racism is bad (which raises a lot of questions), maybe you should just get on with your life playing the game how you want.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Yikes. You know you have the freedom to play your game your way and to ignore the article... right?
Would you mind elaborating on an example or two where this happened to you? Not that I doubt it did, but giving details might both illustrate your point better, and add credibility to the claim.
Whistler
Titus - V. Human Battle Master Fighter 3 - [Pic] - [Pic2] - [Traits] - in Shadowglass
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Flèche - V. Human Swords Bard 10 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in The Scarlet Mist
Sterling - V. Human Bard 1 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf