Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
Who owns the official setting? WOTC.
WOTC said that those racial ability bonuses are no longer a thing. Therefore, those things no longer exist. Any rules or lore that says anything about them is no longer valid to the current state of the official setting nor official rules.
So it's not that they failed to provide them, it's that they no longer exist in the settings that WOTC owns... because WOTC said so, which they get to do because they own them.
Nothing stops you from house-ruling it as a regression to how things were done in the past ... but in those official settings, the thing you are asking for no longer exists. The burden to provide things for your house-rules is on you, not on them. BUT ... do not despair, for WOTC still makes the old, deprecated, archaic, material for past editions available via One Book Shelf. You can go right out and buy rules and setting materials for those past editions (if you don't already have them), and base your house-rules upon that material. You have to tools for regression right there within the reach of your grasp.
But saying they should provide these things to you? They can't fail to provide you something that doesn't exist. Race/lineage/species ability modifiers do not exist anymore.
You're right. WotC owns it and they can technically say it doesn't exist anymore. However, they never directly said "that lore doesn't exist anymore," except for with the two books they made non-canon, I think. If they did, please, send me a link.
They don't need to de-canonize an entire book (or books). They said it isn't a thing anymore, so (at the level of individual factual statements within the lore, not at the level of entire books) any lore that doesn't agree with that statement isn't valid lore anymore.
But WHERE did they say that?
I can tell you for sure they basically de-canonized VGtM and MToF, in order to publish the races and monsters in them with new lore that is actually just as problematic...
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
If you understood the words you used, then perhaps you wouldn't use them incorrectly, and thus promote misunderstanding.
"might as well not exist" -- is not the same as not existing, and is an expression a minority opinion coming from someone who is advocating "add back in overt racism as an option, please".
You are arguing to add back into the game Ability Score increases for races. *EVERYTHING ELSE* still sits around that, and weaseling around it doesn't change that doing exactly that is asking for overt racism to be put back into the game. The idea of ability score increases on the basis of race is, all by itself, a racist concept. Full stop. it can ONLY ever reinforce racist tropes because the idea of them as a whole, is racist.
And all the rationales for why they should be there? Those are racist rationales. yes, even for fantasy creatures made up by people who exist in a real world that draws from the experiences and knowledge in that real world in order to create that fantasy.
You are arguing to add racism *back* into the game after they took it out, and you are using "well, they didn't take this stuff out" and "they didn't really care" and "but, no really, these less than human beings should have intelligence and size that show they are less than human beings but bigger and stronger so still useful to human beings" without ever once realizing that the same thing was said about actual human beings who also play this game.
So, you did it, You made me have to state the basic facts of a case you already lost because they were removed and they are not going to be coming back.
Okay, you're actively twisting my words and saying that I'm saying things I'm not.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't intend to be arguing in favor of racism (which, IMO, is the core of AEDorsay's statement) ... but here's why that's exactly what you're doing:
Racism isn't just "Fantasy-Race-X are an analog of Real-World-Group-Y, so if X is all evil, you must think that Y are too". Or other derogatory representations, artworks, etc.
Racism is also the logical frameworks that support those types of statements. Like:
All X are good at this set of things. All X are bad at this set of things. All X have this set of moral values. All X lack this set of moral values.
If X is a race, then all four of those are racist statements. So incorporating those attitudes into a fantasy role playing game means that the game is reinforcing the validity of those attitudes. And since role playing games are "role play" exercises, a game with those attitudes is then effectively teaching those attitudes via role playing.
What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves. Because those four statements relate to foundations of racism ... because they treat X like an invariable thing that has no individual agency, and therefore no individual value.
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
Who owns the official setting? WOTC.
WOTC said that those racial ability bonuses are no longer a thing. Therefore, those things no longer exist. Any rules or lore that says anything about them is no longer valid to the current state of the official setting nor official rules.
So it's not that they failed to provide them, it's that they no longer exist in the settings that WOTC owns... because WOTC said so, which they get to do because they own them.
Nothing stops you from house-ruling it as a regression to how things were done in the past ... but in those official settings, the thing you are asking for no longer exists. The burden to provide things for your house-rules is on you, not on them. BUT ... do not despair, for WOTC still makes the old, deprecated, archaic, material for past editions available via One Book Shelf. You can go right out and buy rules and setting materials for those past editions (if you don't already have them), and base your house-rules upon that material. You have to tools for regression right there within the reach of your grasp.
But saying they should provide these things to you? They can't fail to provide you something that doesn't exist. Race/lineage/species ability modifiers do not exist anymore.
You're right. WotC owns it and they can technically say it doesn't exist anymore. However, they never directly said "that lore doesn't exist anymore," except for with the two books they made non-canon, I think. If they did, please, send me a link.
They don't need to de-canonize an entire book (or books). They said it isn't a thing anymore, so (at the level of individual factual statements within the lore, not at the level of entire books) any lore that doesn't agree with that statement isn't valid lore anymore.
But WHERE did they say it?
When they changed the rules. That's when they said "racial modifiers aren't a thing anymore." Therefore any lore that depends on there being a race-wide modifier (such as a higher potential for X, or a lower potential for Y) is lore that has been obsoleted, even if WOTC hasn't gotten around to editing each and every document.
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. That statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
Okay, I'll give you that they changed it to an ASB in 5.5e,
BUT that still only applies to background/1st level choice. Every level after that where you can get an ASI is still referred to as an ASI.
Correct. Which means, because you can keep getting ASI's after 1st level, ASI doesn't mean "inherent ability". Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D.
Just checked the most recent UA. Also, I'll be honest, the word "bonus" could imply innate talent, rather than that gained through growth. That said, they did technically redefine it in the UA a little bit more explicitly through their word change, but in a way that doesn't exactly help their case.
This comes across like grasping at straws to try to cling to your premise instead of reading things for what they actually are. 1st level ability modifiers are no longer about inherent/biological/racial/lineage/species ability. They're about tailoring your character beyond the initial stat generation, with emphasis to how your background career emphasized certain ability scores over others.
And you're still missing something else: Point Buy/Standard Array are what's meant to reflect your training/experience/background.
I didn't miss anything. Point Buy and Standard Array have exactly one meaning: an alternative to rolling dice, so that there is more of a sense of fairness across characters instead of lucky die rolls creating imbalances between characters. You can use Point Buy to accomplish other goals aside from that, but "an alternative to the randomness of die rolls" is what those two options are meant to reflect.
Why would the ASB need to reflect that as well? That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because your premise (that Point Buy and Standard Array are meant to reflect anything other than "non-random ability score generation") isn't accurate.
1. I mean, in regular 5e pre-Tasha's, it certainly did mean inherent ability.
2. I'm really not grasping at straws. I'm just saying that the word choice doesn't exactly help your case or theirs.
3. Oh, so characters are just born with/naturally grow into having their stats set up however the player does their stat distribution, EXCEPT with that first level ASI/B?
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. That statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
Okay, I'll give you that they changed it to an ASB in 5.5e,
BUT that still only applies to background/1st level choice. Every level after that where you can get an ASI is still referred to as an ASI.
Correct. Which means, because you can keep getting ASI's after 1st level, ASI doesn't mean "inherent ability". Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D.
Just checked the most recent UA. Also, I'll be honest, the word "bonus" could imply innate talent, rather than that gained through growth. That said, they did technically redefine it in the UA a little bit more explicitly through their word change, but in a way that doesn't exactly help their case.
This comes across like grasping at straws to try to cling to your premise instead of reading things for what they actually are. 1st level ability modifiers are no longer about inherent/biological/racial/lineage/species ability. They're about tailoring your character beyond the initial stat generation, with emphasis to how your background career emphasized certain ability scores over others.
And you're still missing something else: Point Buy/Standard Array are what's meant to reflect your training/experience/background.
I didn't miss anything. Point Buy and Standard Array have exactly one meaning: an alternative to rolling dice, so that there is more of a sense of fairness across characters instead of lucky die rolls creating imbalances between characters. You can use Point Buy to accomplish other goals aside from that, but "an alternative to the randomness of die rolls" is what those two options are meant to reflect.
Why would the ASB need to reflect that as well? That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because your premise (that Point Buy and Standard Array are meant to reflect anything other than "non-random ability score generation") isn't accurate.
1. I mean, in regular 5e pre-Tasha's, it certainly did mean inherent ability.
If by "it" you mean "the first level modifiers", then yes, they meant that, prior to Tasha. They don't mean that anymore. If by "it" you mean "ASI", then no. ASI's have always (in 5e) been available after 1st level. Therefore, that term itself, never meant inherent ability, ever.
2. I'm really not grasping at straws. I'm just saying that the word choice doesn't exactly help your case or theirs.
My point is: arguing about the word choice isn't relevant to the argument. ASIs have always been available after 1st level, therefore "ASI" does not intrinsically mean inherent ability. ASI has always, since 2014, included the notion of developing an ability over time. If it didn't, you couldn't get them after 1st level.
3. Oh, so characters are just born with/naturally grow into having their stats set up however the player does their stat distribution, EXCEPT with that first level ASI/B?
Since "Point Buy" and "Standard Array" are in the same niche as "Rolling your ability scores", how is your logic here any different if you substitute dice rolling into it?
Dice rolling reflects all sources of "how you got this level of competence with this ability score", and is then modified by whatever WOTC gives you as your 1st level modifiers.
Was it natural? was it because you were a more athletic child? or less athletic child? Was it because you picked up on how to schmooze people from a young age? Or because you never caught on about that kind of thing? If you are trying to answer those questions about how your ability scores got that way, it is an equally valid question no matter which of those 3 methods (Point Buy, Standard Array, Dice Rolling) you picked.
While you _can_ use "natural ability" as part of your justification for your choices when doing Point Buy and Standard Array, that isn't "what it's meant for". What it's meant for is to contrast random character generation vs designed&balanced character generation.
4. Refer to my last point.
Your last point doesn't change what I said. Your premise is inaccurate.
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
If you understood the words you used, then perhaps you wouldn't use them incorrectly, and thus promote misunderstanding.
"might as well not exist" -- is not the same as not existing, and is an expression a minority opinion coming from someone who is advocating "add back in overt racism as an option, please".
You are arguing to add back into the game Ability Score increases for races. *EVERYTHING ELSE* still sits around that, and weaseling around it doesn't change that doing exactly that is asking for overt racism to be put back into the game. The idea of ability score increases on the basis of race is, all by itself, a racist concept. Full stop. it can ONLY ever reinforce racist tropes because the idea of them as a whole, is racist.
And all the rationales for why they should be there? Those are racist rationales. yes, even for fantasy creatures made up by people who exist in a real world that draws from the experiences and knowledge in that real world in order to create that fantasy.
You are arguing to add racism *back* into the game after they took it out, and you are using "well, they didn't take this stuff out" and "they didn't really care" and "but, no really, these less than human beings should have intelligence and size that show they are less than human beings but bigger and stronger so still useful to human beings" without ever once realizing that the same thing was said about actual human beings who also play this game.
So, you did it, You made me have to state the basic facts of a case you already lost because they were removed and they are not going to be coming back.
Okay, you're actively twisting my words and saying that I'm saying things I'm not.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't intend to be arguing in favor of racism (which, IMO, is the core of AEDorsay's statement) ... but here's why that's exactly what you're doing:
Racism isn't just "Fantasy-Race-X are an analog of Real-World-Group-Y, so if X is all evil, you must think that Y are too". Or other derogatory representations, artworks, etc.
Racism is also the logical frameworks that support those types of statements. Like:
All X are good at this set of things. All X are bad at this set of things. All X have this set of moral values. All X lack this set of moral values.
If X is a race, then all four of those are racist statements. So incorporating those attitudes into a fantasy role playing game means that the game is reinforcing the validity of those attitudes. And since role playing games are "role play" exercises, a game with those attitudes is then effectively teaching those attitudes via role playing.
What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves. Because those four statements relate to foundations of racism ... because they treat X like an invariable thing that has no individual agency, and therefore no individual value.
Okay, but my issue is that these aren't human ethnicities. These are flat out fantasy races/species (while the term species can be problematic when considering the racial metaphors, they ARE technically different species'). Would you expect an ant to be good at calculus or able to write poetry we could understand? Also, I'm not even saying that there can't be exceptions. Obviously, an Orc can exist that is more (or just as intelligent, I should say) than any Gnome. That's why I've been bringing up that the ability score cap is the same for every race! So, I'm not even making any of those statements.
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. That statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
Okay, I'll give you that they changed it to an ASB in 5.5e,
BUT that still only applies to background/1st level choice. Every level after that where you can get an ASI is still referred to as an ASI.
Correct. Which means, because you can keep getting ASI's after 1st level, ASI doesn't mean "inherent ability". Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D.
Just checked the most recent UA. Also, I'll be honest, the word "bonus" could imply innate talent, rather than that gained through growth. That said, they did technically redefine it in the UA a little bit more explicitly through their word change, but in a way that doesn't exactly help their case.
This comes across like grasping at straws to try to cling to your premise instead of reading things for what they actually are. 1st level ability modifiers are no longer about inherent/biological/racial/lineage/species ability. They're about tailoring your character beyond the initial stat generation, with emphasis to how your background career emphasized certain ability scores over others.
And you're still missing something else: Point Buy/Standard Array are what's meant to reflect your training/experience/background.
I didn't miss anything. Point Buy and Standard Array have exactly one meaning: an alternative to rolling dice, so that there is more of a sense of fairness across characters instead of lucky die rolls creating imbalances between characters. You can use Point Buy to accomplish other goals aside from that, but "an alternative to the randomness of die rolls" is what those two options are meant to reflect.
Why would the ASB need to reflect that as well? That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because your premise (that Point Buy and Standard Array are meant to reflect anything other than "non-random ability score generation") isn't accurate.
1. I mean, in regular 5e pre-Tasha's, it certainly did mean inherent ability.
If by "it" you mean "the first level modifiers", then yes, they meant that, prior to Tasha. They don't mean that anymore. If by "it" you mean "ASI", then no. ASI's have always (in 5e) been available after 1st level. Therefore, that term itself, never meant inherent ability, ever.
2. I'm really not grasping at straws. I'm just saying that the word choice doesn't exactly help your case or theirs.
My point is: arguing about the word choice isn't relevant to the argument. ASIs have always been available after 1st level, therefore "ASI" does not intrinsically mean inherent ability. ASI has always, since 2014, included the notion of developing an ability over time. If it didn't, you couldn't get them after 1st level.
3. Oh, so characters are just born with/naturally grow into having their stats set up however the player does their stat distribution, EXCEPT with that first level ASI/B?
Since "Point Buy" and "Standard Array" are in the same niche as "Rolling your ability scores", how is your logic here any different if you substitute dice rolling into it?
Dice rolling reflects all sources of "how you got this level of competence with this ability score", and is then modified by whatever WOTC gives you as your 1st level modifiers.
Was it natural? was it because you were a more athletic child? or less athletic child? Was it because you picked up on how to schmooze people from a young age? Or because you never caught on about that kind of thing? If you are trying to answer those questions about how your ability scores got that way, it is an equally valid question no matter which of those 3 methods (Point Buy, Standard Array, Dice Rolling) you picked.
While you _can_ use "natural ability" as part of your justification for your choices when doing Point Buy and Standard Array, that isn't "what it's meant for". What it's meant for is to contrast random character generation vs designed&balanced character generation.
4. Refer to my last point.
Your last point doesn't change what I said. Your premise is inaccurate.
1. Yeah, I meant the former, which, before the UA's is literally ASI (Ability Score Increase, rather than improvement). I'm going to start notating it as ASI/B.
2. I guess it is a bit of a sidetrack, but you gotta admit: it'd be nice if WotC just said "hey, the reason we changed the word to bonus is..." Rather than just changing it. It'd make sure this argument never happened, lmao.
3. The logic isn't supposed to be different! If you're rolling dice, that's still how your character grows/trains. ASI/B then modifies that based on (insert justification here). I'm just saying, the ASB coming from the background is a bit redundant. If customization is the default, that's fine, but don't tie it to background. It could simply be "hey, this is your ASB, feel free to explain this however you choose, whether it's extra training for your class, a magical effect, or inherent ability."
4. We don't need to keep notating number 4. It just ties into 3, lmao.
What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves.
Okay, but my issue is that these aren't human ethnicities. These are flat out fantasy races/species
"What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves."
I would like to note a couple things:
1. I never brought those third or fourth statements up. I also never said those first or second statements, and clarified that there are exceptions AND that every race in D&D has the same potential. So, while some might take my interpretation of pre-Tasha's ASI/B's to suggest them, my interpretation of the score cap negates those first and second statements and is meant to reinforce anti-racist ideals. X may be a race, but those statements are perceptions, not truths.
2. I'm going to argue that the fact that they're fantasy races/species/whatever matters. Earlier, you said that roleplay is supposed to reinforce the validity of those attitudes as well, which I'm also going to argue against. Roleplay is not meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life. If it was, Evil alignments wouldn't be allowed, yet they still are. The fact that they're fantasy races actually helps create the distance from reality, allowing us to engage in RP that is not intended to encourage the same behavior in reality. Just because I choose to play a chaotic evil serial killer who worships Bhaal doesn't mean I'd ever engage in such behavior in reality. NOTE: not at all encouraging in-game racism, just in case that somehow comes up, lmao. The point is... There's so much more to fantasy races than just being comparisons to real world human ethnicities, and that's important.
What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves.
Okay, but my issue is that these aren't human ethnicities. These are flat out fantasy races/species
"What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves."
I would like to note a couple things:
1. I never brought those third or fourth statements up.
I didn't say you specifically mentioned any of those 4 things, I said that the reason having racial modifiers in the game relates to real world racism is that doing so teaches those 4 statements as a valid way to see races/ethnicities/etc. And it teaches them via Role Playing them.
Roleplay is not meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life.
Role Play predates Role Playing Games. It was used specifically to change/encourage real life behaviors via exploring points of view in a therapeutic session instead of out in the wild.
So, yes, Role Play very much is meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life. And therefore, even Role Playing Games need to consider what behaviors and values they are encouraging people to explore.
What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves.
Okay, but my issue is that these aren't human ethnicities. These are flat out fantasy races/species
"What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves."
I would like to note a couple things:
1. I never brought those third or fourth statements up.
I didn't say you specifically mentioned any of those 4 things, I said that the reason having racial modifiers in the game relates to real world racism is that doing so teaches those 4 statements as a valid way to see races/ethnicities/etc. And it teaches them via Role Playing them.
Roleplay is not meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life.
Role Play predates Role Playing Games. It was used specifically to change/encourage real life behaviors via exploring points of view in a therapeutic session instead of out in the wild.
So, yes, Role Play very much is meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life. And therefore, even Role Playing Games need to consider what behaviors and values they are encouraging people to explore.
1. Okay, that's fair. That said, I think at this point it comes down to subjective opinion, because I've never seen anyone take that away from racial ASIs except for people here. (Not counting WotC, as they just aren't all that trustworthy and we can't know what they really think).
2. Yes, roleplay predates RPGs and in some cases does do that, but in D&D, it's certainly not intended to encourage real life behaviors. If it was, WotC would have a serious lawsuit on their hands for allowing players to play as serial killers.
Look... This has been a good talk and it was nice to see different points of view, but I'm talking to someone about locking the thread. Just wanted to say thank you for participating.
But WHERE did they say that?
I can tell you for sure they basically de-canonized VGtM and MToF, in order to publish the races and monsters in them with new lore that is actually just as problematic...
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't intend to be arguing in favor of racism (which, IMO, is the core of AEDorsay's statement) ... but here's why that's exactly what you're doing:
Racism isn't just "Fantasy-Race-X are an analog of Real-World-Group-Y, so if X is all evil, you must think that Y are too". Or other derogatory representations, artworks, etc.
Racism is also the logical frameworks that support those types of statements. Like:
All X are good at this set of things.
All X are bad at this set of things.
All X have this set of moral values.
All X lack this set of moral values.
If X is a race, then all four of those are racist statements. So incorporating those attitudes into a fantasy role playing game means that the game is reinforcing the validity of those attitudes. And since role playing games are "role play" exercises, a game with those attitudes is then effectively teaching those attitudes via role playing.
What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves. Because those four statements relate to foundations of racism ... because they treat X like an invariable thing that has no individual agency, and therefore no individual value.
When they changed the rules. That's when they said "racial modifiers aren't a thing anymore." Therefore any lore that depends on there being a race-wide modifier (such as a higher potential for X, or a lower potential for Y) is lore that has been obsoleted, even if WOTC hasn't gotten around to editing each and every document.
1. I mean, in regular 5e pre-Tasha's, it certainly did mean inherent ability.
2. I'm really not grasping at straws. I'm just saying that the word choice doesn't exactly help your case or theirs.
3. Oh, so characters are just born with/naturally grow into having their stats set up however the player does their stat distribution, EXCEPT with that first level ASI/B?
4. Refer to my last point.
If by "it" you mean "the first level modifiers", then yes, they meant that, prior to Tasha. They don't mean that anymore.
If by "it" you mean "ASI", then no. ASI's have always (in 5e) been available after 1st level. Therefore, that term itself, never meant inherent ability, ever.
My point is: arguing about the word choice isn't relevant to the argument. ASIs have always been available after 1st level, therefore "ASI" does not intrinsically mean inherent ability. ASI has always, since 2014, included the notion of developing an ability over time. If it didn't, you couldn't get them after 1st level.
Since "Point Buy" and "Standard Array" are in the same niche as "Rolling your ability scores", how is your logic here any different if you substitute dice rolling into it?
Dice rolling reflects all sources of "how you got this level of competence with this ability score", and is then modified by whatever WOTC gives you as your 1st level modifiers.
Was it natural? was it because you were a more athletic child? or less athletic child? Was it because you picked up on how to schmooze people from a young age? Or because you never caught on about that kind of thing? If you are trying to answer those questions about how your ability scores got that way, it is an equally valid question no matter which of those 3 methods (Point Buy, Standard Array, Dice Rolling) you picked.
While you _can_ use "natural ability" as part of your justification for your choices when doing Point Buy and Standard Array, that isn't "what it's meant for". What it's meant for is to contrast random character generation vs designed&balanced character generation.
Your last point doesn't change what I said. Your premise is inaccurate.
Okay, but my issue is that these aren't human ethnicities. These are flat out fantasy races/species (while the term species can be problematic when considering the racial metaphors, they ARE technically different species'). Would you expect an ant to be good at calculus or able to write poetry we could understand? Also, I'm not even saying that there can't be exceptions. Obviously, an Orc can exist that is more (or just as intelligent, I should say) than any Gnome. That's why I've been bringing up that the ability score cap is the same for every race! So, I'm not even making any of those statements.
"What matters isn't whether or not X is a real world race/culture/ethnicity. What matters is the four statements themselves."
1. Yeah, I meant the former, which, before the UA's is literally ASI (Ability Score Increase, rather than improvement). I'm going to start notating it as ASI/B.
2. I guess it is a bit of a sidetrack, but you gotta admit: it'd be nice if WotC just said "hey, the reason we changed the word to bonus is..." Rather than just changing it. It'd make sure this argument never happened, lmao.
3. The logic isn't supposed to be different! If you're rolling dice, that's still how your character grows/trains. ASI/B then modifies that based on (insert justification here). I'm just saying, the ASB coming from the background is a bit redundant. If customization is the default, that's fine, but don't tie it to background. It could simply be "hey, this is your ASB, feel free to explain this however you choose, whether it's extra training for your class, a magical effect, or inherent ability."
4. We don't need to keep notating number 4. It just ties into 3, lmao.
I would like to note a couple things:
1. I never brought those third or fourth statements up. I also never said those first or second statements, and clarified that there are exceptions AND that every race in D&D has the same potential. So, while some might take my interpretation of pre-Tasha's ASI/B's to suggest them, my interpretation of the score cap negates those first and second statements and is meant to reinforce anti-racist ideals. X may be a race, but those statements are perceptions, not truths.
2. I'm going to argue that the fact that they're fantasy races/species/whatever matters. Earlier, you said that roleplay is supposed to reinforce the validity of those attitudes as well, which I'm also going to argue against. Roleplay is not meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life. If it was, Evil alignments wouldn't be allowed, yet they still are. The fact that they're fantasy races actually helps create the distance from reality, allowing us to engage in RP that is not intended to encourage the same behavior in reality. Just because I choose to play a chaotic evil serial killer who worships Bhaal doesn't mean I'd ever engage in such behavior in reality. NOTE: not at all encouraging in-game racism, just in case that somehow comes up, lmao. The point is... There's so much more to fantasy races than just being comparisons to real world human ethnicities, and that's important.
I didn't say you specifically mentioned any of those 4 things, I said that the reason having racial modifiers in the game relates to real world racism is that doing so teaches those 4 statements as a valid way to see races/ethnicities/etc. And it teaches them via Role Playing them.
Role Play predates Role Playing Games. It was used specifically to change/encourage real life behaviors via exploring points of view in a therapeutic session instead of out in the wild.
So, yes, Role Play very much is meant to encourage certain behaviors in real life. And therefore, even Role Playing Games need to consider what behaviors and values they are encouraging people to explore.
1. Okay, that's fair. That said, I think at this point it comes down to subjective opinion, because I've never seen anyone take that away from racial ASIs except for people here. (Not counting WotC, as they just aren't all that trustworthy and we can't know what they really think).
2. Yes, roleplay predates RPGs and in some cases does do that, but in D&D, it's certainly not intended to encourage real life behaviors. If it was, WotC would have a serious lawsuit on their hands for allowing players to play as serial killers.
Look... This has been a good talk and it was nice to see different points of view, but I'm talking to someone about locking the thread. Just wanted to say thank you for participating.
No, it won’t lock it, it’ll delete the whole thread.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting