Quote from BoringBard >>

I prefer having your ability score increases not depend on race. You can play how you want to play, but in many cases, it does not make sense for some races to be wiser or smarter than others. Also, people should be able to play their favorite fantasy race without suffering because the ability score increase does not go well with their class.

And yes, Volo's and Mordenkainen's should NOT have been discontinued. It's unfair to the people who spent their money on the official product to make it discontinued and no longer canon, and it's unfair to newbies to remove a whole set of lore from them.

 I agree with this. 

I can kind of understand phasing out physical printings of the older books if their sales are going down over time, but there's no good reason to discontinue the old ones. I am against pulling the old books and not leaving them as an option for people. Just because the game design is evolving doesn't mean they need to try and remove the older stuff. 

But in general, I much prefer tashas floating asis. I think it's better for the game in general to divorce what stats you get from the race. Not because of 'racism' or real world concerns. I think it's just better game design to let the half elf bard and the dwarve bard start on equal footing stat wise. Obviously that's just my opinion and others are going to disagree. In my eyes, the asis are a minimal, boring loss to racial features and keeping the more interesting and different racial features in tact is a good compromise to allow for more flexible characters, but not losing all racial identity by using a custom lineage system. I'm not really a fan design wise of the variant human or custom lineage system which basically just boils down to 'we give up take a feat I guess' to me. 

 Saying "a human and a saber-toothed tiger are different!" is like saying "a human and a moorbounder should have different stats!"

A.) They do.
B.) Nobody cares.

It's an egregiously false dichotomy because nobody* is playing a moorbounder.  People, in general, play humanoid characters of similar build and breed.  Many such species are, in fact, canonically capable of interbreeding, and in some worlds all sapient Humanoids are capable of interbreeding.  Telling someone "you're playin an orc so you get to be ripped for free, but you also can't have the intelligence evolution gave a sea cucumber" is far closer to IRL exclusionism than it is to blind-idiot obvious statements such as "chihuahuas and kodiak bears have different overall capabilities."

The moment people start running chihuahuas and kodiak bears as a normal, ordinary thing instead of a single DM pinching their headache away whilst making a one-time allowance for a player who comes up all shiny-eyed and sparkly-toothed with some homebrew Awakened Honey Badger thing they found on the Internet, we can talk about differing capabilities between 'people' and 'animals'.  Until then, maybe understand that telling someone "your gnome is good at math, but they're scrawny, frail, and emotionally stunted and they can't have Land Vehicles profiency under any circumstances" is perhaps not gonna land great with some folks?

Telling someone "you're playin an orc so you get to be ripped for free, but you also can't have the intelligence evolution gave a sea cucumber" is far closer to IRL exclusionism than it is to

And thus the problem with the entire discussion of default ASIs vs not. There is a group of people who believe that in game species difference is the same as IRL racism. Because a player "race" is "humanoid" in shape, it must be like a human, and we must all think of it as just like a human IRL, and if we discriminate against an Orc in game then we are bad people because IRL there are people who are subjected to discrimination.

This is why the conversation always derails. You can't talk about whether ASIs should have a default without addressing the question of whether or not D&D Races are analogues for IRL humans because they are playable races. Some people get very angry and throw around rather insulting language as a result.

It's almost like there's multiple, incompatible viewpoints on the subject and some people are really upset that their own viewpoint has historically been casually ignored and/or spat back in their faces for forty years.  Now that people are actually paying attention to that viewpoint and even taking strides to accomodate them as well as the other guys, the people who've gotten their way for free for forty years are wondering why this is all an issue now.

Spoilers: it's always been an issue.  It's simply also been the case that neither TSR nor Wizards of the Coast cared.  'Other' folks weren't the target demographic so nobody cared if they were hurt or excluded.  Now 'other' folks are very much part of the target demographic, so they can't get away with not caring anymore.  One might argue that they never should've been able to get away with not caring in the first place, but rectifying a mistake is still way better than denying the mistake was ever made.  

The whole world is learning how to care after millenia spent actively doing its best to avoid caring.  It's a fraught, painful process that's causing a lot of friction everywhere, not just on a formerly-third-party gaming forum.  But that doesn't make the process any less necessary, ne?

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

It's almost like there's multiple, incompatible viewpoints on the subject and some people are really upset that their own viewpoint has historically been casually ignored and/or spat back in their faces for forty years.  Now that people are actually paying attention to that viewpoint and even taking strides to accomodate them as well as the other guys, the people who've gotten their way for free for forty years are wondering why this is all an issue now.

Spoilers: it's always been an issue.  It's simply also been the case that neither TSR nor Wizards of the Coast cared.  'Other' folks weren't the target demographic so nobody cared if they were hurt or excluded.  Now 'other' folks are very much part of the target demographic, so they can't get away with not caring anymore.  One might argue that they never should've been able to get away with not caring in the first place, but rectifying a mistake is still way better than denying the mistake was ever made.  

The whole world is learning how to care after millenia spent actively doing its best to avoid caring.  It's a fraught, painful process that's causing a lot of friction everywhere, not just on a formerly-third-party gaming forum.  But that doesn't make the process any less necessary, ne?

 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you might be saying players who believe in using racial/species-based ASIs are bad people? Perhaps it would be helpful if the position was made clearer, because I'm sure you don't mean to suggest something negative about people who prefer racial/species ASIs, so I'm sorry if I've misunderstood.

I disagree with you fundamentally that D&D species are an analogue for the real world. I disagree that people can't separate fantasy from reality. I disagree with the suggestion, however loosely, that using racial ASIs in the game makes one racist or exclussionist in the real world. This is why this discussion will never be done.

Like you, I can't speak for everyone. _I_ believe that racism is bad. Period. I also believe that fantasy species in an RPG are not analogous to the real world, and that playing the game that way absolutely WON'T make me treat humans that way in the real world, and it's insulting to me that you seem to think it will.

I also take issue with the suggestion that I and others are "sealioning" because it just seems like a way to try to shame us into being quiet and not defending our position as vociferously as you defend yours.

To the thread at large, I believe it is apparent that the reason this issue is ALWAYS contentious is because there are some members on these forums who believe that anyone who likes using default ASIs based on D&D races/species are racist people in real life, and that we cannot separate our in-game thoughts from our IRL thoughts.

IMHO everyone should be insulted by that insinuation, regardless of which side you're on.

And I don't believe users like me should be penalized for defending our position when it is done respectfully, calmly, and rationally.

I don't recall mentioning a belief that anyone on the board is an "-ist" in real life.  I don't know you IRL, I cannot speak to your persona and habits IRL, and my underlying assumption for anyone I interact with here is "decent person until proven otherwise."  

My argument is that regardless of one's own feelings on matters of race, gender, creed, and all the myriad other things people accuse other people of being "-ist" over, there are elements of D&D's history that correlate to certain forms of exclusionism.  The argument that me and mine are constantly subjected to - "have you just tried, like...I dunno.  Not being offended?" is fundamentally crass and dismissive.  The constant claims that there is absolutely no correlation of any sort between real-life issues of exclusionism of various sorts and particular unfortunate accidents of D&D history and thus none of us have any basis for being upset is annoying and very quickly copmes off as bad-faith handwaving.

I have no doubt you, and most everyone else on this board in favor of baked-in ability score modifiers and other character building restrictions, are perfectly capable of separating reality from fantasy and treating people of all stripe decently regardless of what happens at the table.  That has never been my contention nor my insinuation, and I'd like to think that's always been perfectly clear.

Twenty years ago, people were snarling and pitching fits over the idea that female characters no longer had a penalty to Strength and Constitution, nor a bonus to Seduction.  These things were considered, at the time, to be integral to the identity of D&D and to roleplaying in general, and people would frequently point out that they weren't at all sexist - it's simply biological fact that women are weaker and less hardy than men, and they have a powerful bonus to Seduction to make up for the lack so why should they complain?  They're just different, not worse.  And yet, these days?  The idea of imposing a STR and CON penalty on a female 5e character whilst giving her a bonus to Charisma rolls made to seduce men would be written off as wildly sexist and deeply offensive to men and women both.  No one says anyone who does that is sexist - the idea itself is decried as sexist, with people who make use of it more engendering curiosity and questions about why they're using such an antiquated, known-offender rule than people instantly leaping to the idea of IRL sexism.

How is this recent kerfuffle over racial/species exclusionism any different?

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I don't recall mentioning a belief that anyone on the board is an "-ist" in real life.  I don't know you IRL, I cannot speak to your persona and habits IRL, and my underlying assumption for anyone I interact with here is "decent person until proven otherwise."  

My argument is that regardless of one's own feelings on matters of race, gender, creed, and all the myriad other things people accuse other people of being "-ist" over, there are elements of D&D's history that correlate to certain forms of exclusionism.  The argument that me and mine are constantly subjected to - "have you just tried, like...I dunno.  Not being offended?" is fundamentally crass and dismissive.  The constant claims that there is absolutely no correlation of any sort between real-life issues of exclusionism of various sorts and particular unfortunate accidents of D&D history and thus none of us have any basis for being upset is annoying and very quickly copmes off as bad-faith handwaving.

I have no doubt you, and most everyone else on this board in favor of baked-in ability score modifiers and other character building restrictions, are perfectly capable of separating reality from fantasy and treating people of all stripe decently regardless of what happens at the table.  That has never been my contention nor my insinuation, and I'd like to think that's always been perfectly clear.

Twenty years ago, people were snarling and pitching fits over the idea that female characters no longer had a penalty to Strength and Constitution, nor a bonus to Seduction.  These things were considered, at the time, to be integral to the identity of D&D and to roleplaying in general, and people would frequently point out that they weren't at all sexist - it's simply biological fact that women are weaker and less hardy than men, and they have a powerful bonus to Seduction to make up for the lack so why should they complain?  They're just different, not worse.  And yet, these days?  The idea of imposing a STR and CON penalty on a female 5e character whilst giving her a bonus to Charisma rolls made to seduce men would be written off as wildly sexist and deeply offensive to men and women both.  No one says anyone who does that is sexist - the idea itself is decried as sexist, with people who make use of it more engendering curiosity and questions about why they're using such an antiquated, known-offender rule than people instantly leaping to the idea of IRL sexism.

How is this recent kerfuffle over racial/species exclusionism any different?

 Yurei, I can't speak for everyone, but I absolutely don't think you should "just get over it". I 100% acknowledge that your feelings about this issue are valid. I acknowledge that there are people who feel affected by this. What I dispute is the idea that getting rid of ASIs is the only solution. And there are people who have suggested in these various threads that we must erase ASIs because people can't be trusted to keep in-game ideas in-game.

What we need is a compromise, not to erase ASIs. I believe I agreed with you earlier in this thread that a possible compromise would be that in the PHB ASIs would not be the default, but that the PHB could (and maybe should) make it clear that the Multiverse is made up of an infinite number of worlds, and that in some of these worlds "All X are Y" might be true, and that you should check with your DM.

And maybe that version of the PHB could show examples by referencing other campaign settings, like how Orcs in Forgotten Realms are one way, while they are different in another.

And the DMG could explain how a DM can do this in their game, just like the ASI charts I believe you posted in this thread.

And each campaign book could specify the default ASIs (and alignment) of creatures in those worlds. We could have a (finally decent) Forgotten Realms source book, for example, with what are perhaps the so-called "original" default ASIs.

We can have both, and I hope agree that wanting to run a world where almost all X are Y is okay, and doesn't mean that we are trying to exclude people, in game, or IRL.

I think we can find common ground.

When you play a PC you are not the average for your species. You are beyond what is “typical” for your species. Does the average orc or the average elf or the average gnome have ASI’s in their stat blocks? I don’t know, I’m a player so I don’t spend much time in the MM or other books. And as an adventurer why should I conform to those “norms” when it is already established that you are not like everyone else of your species?  Sure any player can cap a stat at 20, but just because I want to play an orc wizard why should I have to give up a feat or boost to another stat because I have to spend an extra one to put in INT?  The lore doesn’t have to change for the average <insert species here> but when I roll a character I’m not playing the average. 

Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

When you play a PC you are not the average for your species. You are beyond what is “typical” for your species. Does the average orc or the average elf or the average gnome have ASI’s in their stat blocks? I don’t know, I’m a player so I don’t spend much time in the MM or other books. And as an adventurer why should I conform to those “norms” when it is already established that you are not like everyone else of your species?  Sure any player can cap a stat at 20, but just because I want to play an orc wizard why should I have to give up a feat or boost to another stat because I have to spend an extra one to put in INT?  The lore doesn’t have to change for the average <insert species here> but when I roll a character I’m not playing the average. 

Yes, the method for altering the NPC stat blocks that is found in the monster manual is to add the racial features (which used to include ASIs and languages) found in the character race. The method found in the DMG lists ability score improvements (which are very similar or identical to those found in character creation, usually superior for the non-monstrous species) and traits to add.

Yes, you are an exceptional version of your species. So you take the ability scores of your base species, and then you give them a massive boost with your rolled stats/point buy. The bonus from your species is comparatively insignificant to your heroic bonus. The standard NPCs don't roll for their stats. They work for them. Yes, there are people of one species who are naturally stronger or more dextrous... But it's a 10% increase from the average (10-11) to a single point higher... That's a significant difference.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I don't recall mentioning a belief that anyone on the board is an "-ist" in real life.  I don't know you IRL, I cannot speak to your persona and habits IRL, and my underlying assumption for anyone I interact with here is "decent person until proven otherwise."  

My argument is that regardless of one's own feelings on matters of race, gender, creed, and all the myriad other things people accuse other people of being "-ist" over, there are elements of D&D's history that correlate to certain forms of exclusionism.  The argument that me and mine are constantly subjected to - "have you just tried, like...I dunno.  Not being offended?" is fundamentally crass and dismissive.  The constant claims that there is absolutely no correlation of any sort between real-life issues of exclusionism of various sorts and particular unfortunate accidents of D&D history and thus none of us have any basis for being upset is annoying and very quickly copmes off as bad-faith handwaving.

I have no doubt you, and most everyone else on this board in favor of baked-in ability score modifiers and other character building restrictions, are perfectly capable of separating reality from fantasy and treating people of all stripe decently regardless of what happens at the table.  That has never been my contention nor my insinuation, and I'd like to think that's always been perfectly clear.

Twenty years ago, people were snarling and pitching fits over the idea that female characters no longer had a penalty to Strength and Constitution, nor a bonus to Seduction.  These things were considered, at the time, to be integral to the identity of D&D and to roleplaying in general, and people would frequently point out that they weren't at all sexist - it's simply biological fact that women are weaker and less hardy than men, and they have a powerful bonus to Seduction to make up for the lack so why should they complain?  They're just different, not worse.  And yet, these days?  The idea of imposing a STR and CON penalty on a female 5e character whilst giving her a bonus to Charisma rolls made to seduce men would be written off as wildly sexist and deeply offensive to men and women both.  No one says anyone who does that is sexist - the idea itself is decried as sexist, with people who make use of it more engendering curiosity and questions about why they're using such an antiquated, known-offender rule than people instantly leaping to the idea of IRL sexism.

How is this recent kerfuffle over racial/species exclusionism any different?

It's not any different. It's the same thing, it's just a new instance of it and people are still clinging to knee-jerk defensiveness and "that's the way it's always been" excuses. Give it a few years and all this griping will go away and everyone will say "I'm sure glad we got rid of those old lazy tropes and made it easier to make customized, unique player characters" and collectively forget having defended outdated, lazy, constrictive racial ability score bonuses. But unfortunately right now we're stuck in that period where people are getting grumpy about change and coming up with convoluted, tortured, internally inconsistent arguments to defend what basically amounts to "this is new and different and I don't like it."

Quote from LegendOfZub >>

Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

Does the average orc or the average elf or the average gnome have ASI’s in their stat blocks?

 

Yes, the method for altering

So that's a no, it's not in the stat block

Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

When you play a PC you are not the average for your species. You are beyond what is “typical” for your species. Does the average orc or the average elf or the average gnome have ASIs in their stat blocks? I don’t know, I’m a player so I don’t spend much time in the MM or other books. And as an adventurer why should I conform to those “norms” when it is already established that you are not like everyone else of your species?  Sure any player can cap a stat at 20, but just because I want to play an non-thrikreen why should I have to give up a feat or boost to another stat because I have to spend an extra one to grow a extra set of arms?  The lore doesn’t have to change for the average <insert species here> but when I roll a character I’m not playing the average.

Minor edit, let us know what you think!

If a new DM really really wants players to use set racial ASIs, they can reference this section of the DMG: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#NPCStatBlocks

Note that it doesn't cover every single race found in MMM, but it does cover the majority. And some of the PHB races get even better than what the PHB tells! And this is pretty much guaranteed to be changed for the 2024 version of the DMG. But there ya go, if you want "official".

Edit: You would definitely need to let players know before starting that you have this house rule

can we download the old source books as PDF's somehow?

Quote from Tacoor >>

can we download the old source books as PDF's somehow?

 No. There are no official or legal PDF’s of the books as far as I know.