The term stereotype originated in the printing industry, having to to with a specific type of reproduction, or the machine that made the reproductions. And I know you're required to use the word stereotype, I'm not suggesting replacing it throughout. I'm suggesting replacing it in that specific phrase, with the word template, to reinforce/remind people that you mean stereotype in the sense of a template, instead of using the word stereotype twice in the same sentence.
For example, the fact that you are working with Autism Speaks would be a great sign to some autism activists, but an absolute Hard NO red flag for others. *shrug* Both groups are just as dedicated to making things better. There is no single consensus on any of these issues.
Here here! The fact that Autism Speaks is involved is another warning flag to me. I would not want this book in my academic library.
I haven't taken the time to read all the comments, but my thoughts are as such:
Why use stereotypes at all or things which could be seen as a stereotype? What I mean by this is that traditionally stat bonuses, cultural values in a sort of abstracted way, and in the past even things like alignment have been tied to race...but in my opinion there really isn't a reason to tether all those things together to begin with to provide a suitable template which allows a DM to insert those things into their world.
Obviously some things like a Lion like humanoid having claws or a lizard person having a tail will exist, but that isn't making any sort of presumption or stereotype on the 'race,' rather it is stating an observable truth; Lions have claws, and lizards have tails, and if a player wants their character to not have those things, they can say their character removed them for whatever reason. Realistically if you are creating a system which includes race from the ground up, mechanically I just wouldn't establish any sorts of racial stat bonuses (unless it absolutely made sense) or culture for that race, but I would make them two distinct things mechanically. Essentially Race controls a few innately physical aspects, or even magical ones if they are a magical race, while cultural backgrounds are the meat and potatoes that decide any starting stat bonuses. For example think of the stat bonuses Half-Orc's get; are they stronger because they have some innate trait which makes them stronger than the average human, or does the militaristic culture associated with orcs confer those bonuses because Half-Orc's typecast themselves as needing to improve their physical prowess? Are Elves naturally more dexterous and lithe, or does their cultural expectations create a self fulfilling prophesy where they strive to be closer to traditional body standards and to focus more on developing their hand eye coordination over physical strength. For me, I think that making such a distinction and separating the abstraction between racial bonuses and cultural heritages is the difference between needing to include a foreward on why stereotypes were included to begin with, and not needing it because there are mechanics at play which makes it very clear that any sort of racial bonus is an observably innate one.
The added benefit of doing it this way, is that you make it a hell of a lot easier for players to roleplay what they want because there won't be racial optimization, which just reinforces the notion that race confers different physical and mental advantages or disadvantages, and rather players will optimize based on cultural backgrounds and heritages their characters have so that their background best matches the class they wish to play. And for those who want interesting role playing opportunities, they can play a class against the background they chose...basically what I am saying is that saying 'this Half Orc is stronger because it had a militaristic upbringing which favored physical training' is a hell of a lot better than 'all Orcs are just stronger, which is a stereotype, but totally not bad I promise I am not promoting hurtful stereotyping."
And if your racial system doesn't use racial traits or benefits at all...then where the hell does the stereotyping come up in the first place?
So just read where you mentioned you specifically aren't doing racial traits but using a feats like system and trying to describe why that might be a common selection using stereotypes.
Dude, just call them cultural backgrounds or something and describe the culture a bit which is why that trait might be more common.
I think I'm just going to start ignoring the same question being asked again and again. Answering it five or six times is enough.
Still doesn't answer why you have to call them stereotypes rather than "Common Cultural Heritage for X" and then writing how they are typically Y because of a prevalent cultural background.
You get the pros of avoiding stereotypes entirely with none of the cons.
I think I'm just going to start ignoring the same question being asked again and again. Answering it five or six times is enough.
Still doesn't answer why you have to call them stereotypes rather than "Common Cultural Heritage for X" and then writing how they are typically Y because of a prevalent cultural background.
You get the pros of avoiding stereotypes entirely with none of the cons.
This was already answered before, but confusion with this whole thread is understandable. The original post leaves out that parts of the boxed text can't be changed due certain words being required to get a grant. Additionally, the poll question is framed in a way to suggest that the OP seeks help in changing their description about stereotype usage thus adding further confusion. Underneath the post is an important Moderator action of this topic being moved from one part of the forums to Homebrew. So there is probably a shift in audience from the previous section to this section of the forums in regards to previous replies/posts.
Considering this is discussing a snippet that is close to a Trigger Warming or Disclaimer, I don't find there is any gameplay value when it comes to homebrew. Had there be an example description of a 'race' or 'stereotype' then there might be more context. The only advice left is to make a different thread without the poll and add in the important context regarding grant funding or keep this with within academic circles considering that is what the grant revolves around.
Ultimately there isn't anything to actually discuss here in the Homebrew forums. Wrong section in my opinion (which again was a Moderator's choice).
It's concise enough as it is, keep it if you must, and it appears that you must. I won't read it anyway, and I'm sure more than a few others won't either. I understand that the funding currently focuses on fighting social injustice, but in it's quest to do so it makes the game less appealing because It starts to be less about the game and the world (races, species, cultures, nations, players, dm's, lore, history) and more about the quest for social justice. In a sense it makes it seem that the game is now about social injustice and that playing it in any way other than a manner in which it is currently being presented would by definition mean you are being racist, sexist, or discriminatory in one or more ways. In short: Play only in this socially acceptable manner or you are a bad person.
The quest to right social injustices is, in general, a noble one and something I would normally applaud, but if I cannot enjoy a game where there is not but fantasy and fiction, a reprieve and an escape from the consistent issues that pervade the societal norms of the real world (a world that has been fairly grim in recent months), then I will not play that game.
I adore D&D, I love being able to dm and play with my friends and groups and I would love to see the fun of the game keep being fun, without it being stifled by the crown of bigotry simply because the game is the way that it is. But I have no power, we the gamers have no power, to change what is required by the funding. So keep it because you have to.
The term stereotype originated in the printing industry, having to to with a specific type of reproduction, or the machine that made the reproductions. And I know you're required to use the word stereotype, I'm not suggesting replacing it throughout. I'm suggesting replacing it in that specific phrase, with the word template, to reinforce/remind people that you mean stereotype in the sense of a template, instead of using the word stereotype twice in the same sentence.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Here here! The fact that Autism Speaks is involved is another warning flag to me. I would not want this book in my academic library.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I haven't taken the time to read all the comments, but my thoughts are as such:
Why use stereotypes at all or things which could be seen as a stereotype? What I mean by this is that traditionally stat bonuses, cultural values in a sort of abstracted way, and in the past even things like alignment have been tied to race...but in my opinion there really isn't a reason to tether all those things together to begin with to provide a suitable template which allows a DM to insert those things into their world.
Obviously some things like a Lion like humanoid having claws or a lizard person having a tail will exist, but that isn't making any sort of presumption or stereotype on the 'race,' rather it is stating an observable truth; Lions have claws, and lizards have tails, and if a player wants their character to not have those things, they can say their character removed them for whatever reason. Realistically if you are creating a system which includes race from the ground up, mechanically I just wouldn't establish any sorts of racial stat bonuses (unless it absolutely made sense) or culture for that race, but I would make them two distinct things mechanically. Essentially Race controls a few innately physical aspects, or even magical ones if they are a magical race, while cultural backgrounds are the meat and potatoes that decide any starting stat bonuses. For example think of the stat bonuses Half-Orc's get; are they stronger because they have some innate trait which makes them stronger than the average human, or does the militaristic culture associated with orcs confer those bonuses because Half-Orc's typecast themselves as needing to improve their physical prowess? Are Elves naturally more dexterous and lithe, or does their cultural expectations create a self fulfilling prophesy where they strive to be closer to traditional body standards and to focus more on developing their hand eye coordination over physical strength. For me, I think that making such a distinction and separating the abstraction between racial bonuses and cultural heritages is the difference between needing to include a foreward on why stereotypes were included to begin with, and not needing it because there are mechanics at play which makes it very clear that any sort of racial bonus is an observably innate one.
The added benefit of doing it this way, is that you make it a hell of a lot easier for players to roleplay what they want because there won't be racial optimization, which just reinforces the notion that race confers different physical and mental advantages or disadvantages, and rather players will optimize based on cultural backgrounds and heritages their characters have so that their background best matches the class they wish to play. And for those who want interesting role playing opportunities, they can play a class against the background they chose...basically what I am saying is that saying 'this Half Orc is stronger because it had a militaristic upbringing which favored physical training' is a hell of a lot better than 'all Orcs are just stronger, which is a stereotype, but totally not bad I promise I am not promoting hurtful stereotyping."
And if your racial system doesn't use racial traits or benefits at all...then where the hell does the stereotyping come up in the first place?
So just read where you mentioned you specifically aren't doing racial traits but using a feats like system and trying to describe why that might be a common selection using stereotypes.
Dude, just call them cultural backgrounds or something and describe the culture a bit which is why that trait might be more common.
I think I'm just going to start ignoring the same question being asked again and again. Answering it five or six times is enough.
Still doesn't answer why you have to call them stereotypes rather than "Common Cultural Heritage for X" and then writing how they are typically Y because of a prevalent cultural background.
You get the pros of avoiding stereotypes entirely with none of the cons.
This was already answered before, but confusion with this whole thread is understandable. The original post leaves out that parts of the boxed text can't be changed due certain words being required to get a grant. Additionally, the poll question is framed in a way to suggest that the OP seeks help in changing their description about stereotype usage thus adding further confusion. Underneath the post is an important Moderator action of this topic being moved from one part of the forums to Homebrew. So there is probably a shift in audience from the previous section to this section of the forums in regards to previous replies/posts.
Considering this is discussing a snippet that is close to a Trigger Warming or Disclaimer, I don't find there is any gameplay value when it comes to homebrew. Had there be an example description of a 'race' or 'stereotype' then there might be more context. The only advice left is to make a different thread without the poll and add in the important context regarding grant funding or keep this with within academic circles considering that is what the grant revolves around.
Ultimately there isn't anything to actually discuss here in the Homebrew forums. Wrong section in my opinion (which again was a Moderator's choice).
It's concise enough as it is, keep it if you must, and it appears that you must. I won't read it anyway, and I'm sure more than a few others won't either. I understand that the funding currently focuses on fighting social injustice, but in it's quest to do so it makes the game less appealing because It starts to be less about the game and the world (races, species, cultures, nations, players, dm's, lore, history) and more about the quest for social justice. In a sense it makes it seem that the game is now about social injustice and that playing it in any way other than a manner in which it is currently being presented would by definition mean you are being racist, sexist, or discriminatory in one or more ways. In short: Play only in this socially acceptable manner or you are a bad person.
The quest to right social injustices is, in general, a noble one and something I would normally applaud, but if I cannot enjoy a game where there is not but fantasy and fiction, a reprieve and an escape from the consistent issues that pervade the societal norms of the real world (a world that has been fairly grim in recent months), then I will not play that game.
I adore D&D, I love being able to dm and play with my friends and groups and I would love to see the fun of the game keep being fun, without it being stifled by the crown of bigotry simply because the game is the way that it is. But I have no power, we the gamers have no power, to change what is required by the funding. So keep it because you have to.