This may not be the best place to get into this, but there is a difference in calling an idea racist and calling a person racist. The fact that certain people - yourself included, it seems - equate them is cause for a large amount of continued societal problems. The line of thinking of "I am not a bad person, therefore I am not racist, therefore I don't hold any racist ideas," is unhelpful, as it prevents identification of problematic ideas, solutions, and reparations (used in a more broad sense here). EVERYONE has implicit biases and some of those biases can tend towards racist ideas. Calling those ideas out is not calling the person evil or bad, it is asking that person to have a bit of introspection to become aware of them and be critical of them.
There is also the problem that these racial bonuses were not restricted to physical characteristics, nor were they restricted to bonuses, historically. Orcs and dwarves (in the fantasy sense) do not exist, but you can clearly see the influences real cultures had on their design and when those cultures see that "race" as less intelligent or always the enemy, THAT is a problem.
We should definitely not go there, but I will say that a lot of the time when people are trying to prove/show how not racist they are or how culturally sensitive they are, or not homophobic they are, it often reveals how deeply racist and homophobic they actually are. For example, the 5e Players Handbook has some racist and homophobic art according to some of my friends. They get away with it because they have proclaimed far and wide how not racist and not homophobic they are, but this art is waaaaaay worse than anything anyone dared to ever put into a book in the 80's. I think the reason is that in the 80's no one was trying to "not be" racist and homophobic, they just made art that they thought was cool, which sometimes came off as racist but back then no one called them on it. In this book, some very insecure people were trying very hard not to be racist or homophobic. I applaud the effort to very specifically try not be racist and homophobic...but man they really screwed the pooch, my friends back in the States have not been kind about this books "artistic" direction.
I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I concede that I see art through a very different lens.
The reason I shifted to it was pretty basic: it became very obvious in one moment that we were using the same terms to talk about different things.
I had a choice at that moment: withdraw or attempt to continue the effort to understand the core problem that prompted the thread.
I explained what I thought it was, but was incorrect. I tried a couple other things as well, with limited success. While part of it is definitely hampered by the lack of familiarity with 5e on the part of the OP, that in and of itsel fis not an issue. Another limiting factor is the admitted absence of ability to communicate effectively.
This was the easiest solution I could think of. There's no rancor, even in the elements that I am refusing to deal in -- I genuinely don't give a damn, and I haven't the patience for much of that stuff; so by glossing over it, I can stay on track with the part where I'm trying to be nice and helpful.
Success is a whole different story. I have dealt with challenges of this type previously, and been generally successful (e.g., the failing student begins passing) because it means finding a place where the one-sided perception of the world is moved beyond into an area that is slightly more interactive.
The hard part is the parsing. I have to pay close attention to everything stated, and engage in active listening, which is difficult in a text only environment, requiring more precision than usual.
But it *is* exhausting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
We should definitely not go there, but I will say that a lot of the time when people are trying to prove/show how not racist they are or how culturally sensitive they are, or not homophobic they are, it often reveals how deeply racist and homophobic they actually are. For example, the 5e Players Handbook has some racist and homophobic art according to some of my friends. They get away with it because they have proclaimed far and wide how not racist and not homophobic they are, but this art is waaaaaay worse than anything anyone dared to ever put into a book in the 80's. I think the reason is that in the 80's no one was trying to "not be" racist and homophobic, they just made art that they thought was cool, which sometimes came off as racist but back then no one called them on it. In this book, some very insecure people were trying very hard not to be racist or homophobic. I applaud the effort to very specifically try not be racist and homophobic...but man they really screwed the pooch, my friends back in the States have not been kind about this books "artistic" direction.
I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I concede that I see art through a very different lens.
I think also, that the ideas of what is being called racist is changing. No one I know or talked to 20 years ago thought that a +4 to strength for orcs was racist, because no one thought about such things in a way that would ever cross paths with racist beliefs or behaviors. But the way a lot of modern people conceptualize the world has changed, making then see connections between the two ideas, and it is those connections that lead to influence. Thus in older days where there were no connections in people's minds between racial modifiers and racist biases, there was no influence either, but for those today whose perspective creates connections between the ideas, then influence can happen. But I think how many are dealing with it is not the right way to handle it, as it causes more harm than good, despite the fact they are trying to do good.
In light of recent posts, I am withdrawing and discontinuing on the basis of bad faith actions.
See ya all in other threads: I'm out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't think this conversation is going to be very productive, but I did want to point out the reason I said what I said.
If it was not your line of thinking, then you wouldn't have said this:
"Actually no, this is a really big problem. Calling someone racist means you can justify harming them, all in them name of "justice." You call someone racist, you are claiming that they are a bad person, someone who deserves negative treatment."
...in response to this:
"If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem."
I will address a few other things, and you can respond or not, but I'll probably bow out of the conversation after that (I'll read your response, if you choose to, FWIW).
Your conviction that implicit bias was "created" instead of "discovered" means that there is very little fruitful discussion to be had. I would ask you to re-evaluate this statement, however: "created recently and specifically for the purpose of societal destruction." What, exactly, would be the point of destroying society? What would these purported creators of implicit bias gain from that destruction? In the next few sentences, you - once again - equate drawing attention to implicit bias to calling someone evil. The only people who would see implicit bias as an excuse to punish someone for being "evil" are people who don't actually believe implicit bias is possible. Because being implicit means it is not on purpose. Drawing attention to it allows the person who has the bias the agency to act against it consciously.
"And true, some ability scores are mental, but they are still based on biology, and have never been such that a character is... say stupid or something similar. Any character can come up with good ideas and sound strategies and such. Being the lawnmower man is not something you get from low mental ability scores."
A couple things here... When, in 3e, half-orcs had +2 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA, if you contend that this means the average half-orc is stronger than the average human, you are also saying the average half-orc is less intelligent than the average human. A low INT score means low critical thinking and problem solving abilities. And I think you mean any player can come up with good ideas. But then, this is one of those points of contention that started the thread in the first place. If a player has the ability to persuade you, solve the puzzle laid out in front of them, or tell from the way you spoke that the NPC is lying, and then have their character act on those, what is the point of ANY mental ability score?
"Inspired by" is different from "is a stand in for."
And it doesn't need to be the same.
"Not entirely true. Firstly, I already gave examples for how biases can be a good thing to include in a story or game where it is being consciously used for some narrative purpose or effect."
I never said that introducing racism (or far worse things, like genocide) into a campaign should be avoided for everyone. For some, this CAN lead to great stories of heroics, but then this wasn't my point at all. The point was that having a baked-in -2 INT on a playable race/species or having that playable race/species ALWAYS seen as the enemy to be slaughtered with no afterthought, and when that race/species bears resemblance to actual cultures here on Earth, that creates problems.
"Dolphins and apes are less intelligent than us..."
The intelligence of other species is something for which our understanding has been in flux for a while now. Birds, as you point out, can be quite intelligent, and yet it was only very recently that we recognized them as such. I think the only take away is that it is actually fairly difficult to assess the intelligence of any being that you cannot communicate with effectively.
I think also, that the ideas of what is being called racist is changing. No one I know or talked to 20 years ago thought that a +4 to strength for orcs was racist, because no one thought about such things in a way that would ever cross paths with racist beliefs or behaviors. But the way a lot of modern people conceptualize the world has changed, making then see connections between the two ideas, and it is those connections that lead to influence. Thus in older days where there were no connections in people's minds between racial modifiers and racist biases, there was no influence either, but for those today whose perspective creates connections between the ideas, then influence can happen. But I think how many are dealing with it is not the right way to handle it, as it causes more harm than good, despite the fact they are trying to do good.
On that note, I think one of the things I really like about 5th edition D&D and probably at least in part why I like games like Old School Essentials and Shadowdark as well is that I think a really good book edit and layout makes a world of difference. Content is of course important and the quality of the game, the art and other things like that don't get ignored because of a good edit, but with a good book edit it's much easier to see what the game is and isn't.
There is a lot to like in how the Players Handbook is laid out and how that influences people's preferences. In fact, I think good editing makes it far more likely that I will actually read a book cover to cover, which is a sort of investment resulting in you getting to know the product which makes it more likely I will like it.
I'm reminded of really great games with really crappy editing that cause me to be "meh" on the game rather than loving it. For example, Dune Imperium RPG is a fantastic RPG with really unique concepts and a really amazing mechanic to "material". The book however is actually really difficult to read, its not easy to get "access" to the game by reading it. It's poorly edited, much of the writing is a bit confusing, and when you actually try to use the book in a gaming environment, aka at the table, its really painful. It took a lot of extra effort to find the game because the book was so poorly edited.
As I work on expanding my 5e game by writing expanded content for it, I find I'm enjoying the game a lot more as well. I wrote a campaign setting and several books for it already and the words flow to the page with ease and that has a lot to do with how smoothly the explanation and context of the game is passed to you by the Players Handbook. With the 2014 book I really struggled with that, it was not a great reference and things really felt out of order, often they sounded more complicated than they were. Its weird that the two games (2014 and 2024) are for all intents and purposes the same game, yet just by having a better book edit for the latter it made all the difference.
We should definitely not go there, but I will say that a lot of the time when people are trying to prove/show how not racist they are or how culturally sensitive they are, or not homophobic they are, it often reveals how deeply racist and homophobic they actually are. For example, the 5e Players Handbook has some racist and homophobic art according to some of my friends. They get away with it because they have proclaimed far and wide how not racist and not homophobic they are, but this art is waaaaaay worse than anything anyone dared to ever put into a book in the 80's. I think the reason is that in the 80's no one was trying to "not be" racist and homophobic, they just made art that they thought was cool, which sometimes came off as racist but back then no one called them on it. In this book, some very insecure people were trying very hard not to be racist or homophobic. I applaud the effort to very specifically try not be racist and homophobic...but man they really screwed the pooch, my friends back in the States have not been kind about this books "artistic" direction.
I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I concede that I see art through a very different lens.
The reason I shifted to it was pretty basic: it became very obvious in one moment that we were using the same terms to talk about different things.
I had a choice at that moment: withdraw or attempt to continue the effort to understand the core problem that prompted the thread.
I explained what I thought it was, but was incorrect. I tried a couple other things as well, with limited success. While part of it is definitely hampered by the lack of familiarity with 5e on the part of the OP, that in and of itsel fis not an issue. Another limiting factor is the admitted absence of ability to communicate effectively.
This was the easiest solution I could think of. There's no rancor, even in the elements that I am refusing to deal in -- I genuinely don't give a damn, and I haven't the patience for much of that stuff; so by glossing over it, I can stay on track with the part where I'm trying to be nice and helpful.
Success is a whole different story. I have dealt with challenges of this type previously, and been generally successful (e.g., the failing student begins passing) because it means finding a place where the one-sided perception of the world is moved beyond into an area that is slightly more interactive.
The hard part is the parsing. I have to pay close attention to everything stated, and engage in active listening, which is difficult in a text only environment, requiring more precision than usual.
But it *is* exhausting.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think also, that the ideas of what is being called racist is changing. No one I know or talked to 20 years ago thought that a +4 to strength for orcs was racist, because no one thought about such things in a way that would ever cross paths with racist beliefs or behaviors. But the way a lot of modern people conceptualize the world has changed, making then see connections between the two ideas, and it is those connections that lead to influence. Thus in older days where there were no connections in people's minds between racial modifiers and racist biases, there was no influence either, but for those today whose perspective creates connections between the ideas, then influence can happen. But I think how many are dealing with it is not the right way to handle it, as it causes more harm than good, despite the fact they are trying to do good.
In light of recent posts, I am withdrawing and discontinuing on the basis of bad faith actions.
See ya all in other threads: I'm out.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Same [Redacted]
I don't think this conversation is going to be very productive, but I did want to point out the reason I said what I said.
If it was not your line of thinking, then you wouldn't have said this:
"Actually no, this is a really big problem. Calling someone racist means you can justify harming them, all in them name of "justice." You call someone racist, you are claiming that they are a bad person, someone who deserves negative treatment."
...in response to this:
"If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem."
I will address a few other things, and you can respond or not, but I'll probably bow out of the conversation after that (I'll read your response, if you choose to, FWIW).
Your conviction that implicit bias was "created" instead of "discovered" means that there is very little fruitful discussion to be had. I would ask you to re-evaluate this statement, however: "created recently and specifically for the purpose of societal destruction." What, exactly, would be the point of destroying society? What would these purported creators of implicit bias gain from that destruction? In the next few sentences, you - once again - equate drawing attention to implicit bias to calling someone evil. The only people who would see implicit bias as an excuse to punish someone for being "evil" are people who don't actually believe implicit bias is possible. Because being implicit means it is not on purpose. Drawing attention to it allows the person who has the bias the agency to act against it consciously.
On that note, I think one of the things I really like about 5th edition D&D and probably at least in part why I like games like Old School Essentials and Shadowdark as well is that I think a really good book edit and layout makes a world of difference. Content is of course important and the quality of the game, the art and other things like that don't get ignored because of a good edit, but with a good book edit it's much easier to see what the game is and isn't.
There is a lot to like in how the Players Handbook is laid out and how that influences people's preferences. In fact, I think good editing makes it far more likely that I will actually read a book cover to cover, which is a sort of investment resulting in you getting to know the product which makes it more likely I will like it.
I'm reminded of really great games with really crappy editing that cause me to be "meh" on the game rather than loving it. For example, Dune Imperium RPG is a fantastic RPG with really unique concepts and a really amazing mechanic to "material". The book however is actually really difficult to read, its not easy to get "access" to the game by reading it. It's poorly edited, much of the writing is a bit confusing, and when you actually try to use the book in a gaming environment, aka at the table, its really painful. It took a lot of extra effort to find the game because the book was so poorly edited.
As I work on expanding my 5e game by writing expanded content for it, I find I'm enjoying the game a lot more as well. I wrote a campaign setting and several books for it already and the words flow to the page with ease and that has a lot to do with how smoothly the explanation and context of the game is passed to you by the Players Handbook. With the 2014 book I really struggled with that, it was not a great reference and things really felt out of order, often they sounded more complicated than they were. Its weird that the two games (2014 and 2024) are for all intents and purposes the same game, yet just by having a better book edit for the latter it made all the difference.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorLocking this thread now as it as gone far away from discussing what we 'Like about 5e' and has begun to spiral.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support