D&D Next is racist

Halfling rogue, Dwarven Fighter, Elven Wizard     

Can't we be a little more politically correct now that it is the 21st century.  Why do races always become stereotypical renditions of that race.

The asian nerd, the black athlete, the hispanic immigrant.  I'm glad this isn't D&D modern.

BTW, I'm joking.  Maybe.        
*10th Doctor Voice*  "It's political correctness gone mad!"

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
*10th Doctor Voice*  "It's political correctness gone mad!"

Perhaps I'm trolling.  I have to laugh whenever a system is developed where every fighter is a dwarf, every wizard is an elf, and every halfling is a rogue.

I'll bet halflings feel they are often unjustly profiled and incarcerated based on the assumption that all halflings are rogues. 
"We halflings make excellent rangers and psionicists, too!  And wizards!  And dire ferret-mounted cavaliers!  So you best just watch what you say...or else my mount'll eat'cha!"

*petulant footstamp, flouncing arm-cross*

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Actually I do racially profile halflings in my world.

Halfling wizards get flack from guards, people grab their belt pouches when they walk by.

It makes for fun RP.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

So, in a playtest specifically designed to test the most basic of mechanics with throw-away sample characters that nobody is going to be playing with on anything resembling a long-term basis, what WotC should be concerned about is breaking the race-class stereotypes which have transcended every edition of the game.  Gotcha.
So, in a playtest specifically designed to test the most basic of mechanics with throw-away sample characters that nobody is going to be playing with on anything resembling a long-term basis, what WotC should be concerned about is breaking the race-class stereotypes which have transcended every edition of the game.  Gotcha.

I say so, yes. If the game is supposed to work, it should work with more than just the stereotypical race/class pairs (and thus, it should be tested with more than just the stereotypical race/class pairs).

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

So, in a playtest specifically designed to test the most basic of mechanics with throw-away sample characters that nobody is going to be playing with on anything resembling a long-term basis, what WotC should be concerned about is breaking the race-class stereotypes which have transcended every edition of the game.  Gotcha.

I say so, yes. If the game is supposed to work, it should work with more than just the stereotypical race/class pairs (and thus, it should be tested with more than just the stereotypical race/class pairs).



Racial restrictions are most likely gone for good, no need to fret.  So, whose to say I can't play a troll wizard, a kobold cleric, or an elven paladin?

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
So, in a playtest specifically designed to test the most basic of mechanics with throw-away sample characters that nobody is going to be playing with on anything resembling a long-term basis, what WotC should be concerned about is breaking the race-class stereotypes which have transcended every edition of the game.  Gotcha.

I guess if they think the race-class stereotypes are important they can give everyone that impression by putting them in the first play test. If they want to give an impression that unique playable characters are the future they could purposely avoid the stereotypes.
4e is racist against humans.
D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

So, in a playtest specifically designed to test the most basic of mechanics with throw-away sample characters that nobody is going to be playing with on anything resembling a long-term basis, what WotC should be concerned about is breaking the race-class stereotypes which have transcended every edition of the game.  Gotcha.

I say so, yes. If the game is supposed to work, it should work with more than just the stereotypical race/class pairs (and thus, it should be tested with more than just the stereotypical race/class pairs).



Racial restrictions are most likely gone for good, no need to fret.  So, whose to say I can't play a troll wizard, a kobold cleric, or an elven paladin?

Hard restrictions may be gone, but if playing a troll wizard, for example, is going to be so sub-optimal that it begins not to be fun, I'd like to see that in the playtest, so I could give feedback on it.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

So, in a playtest specifically designed to test the most basic of mechanics with throw-away sample characters that nobody is going to be playing with on anything resembling a long-term basis, what WotC should be concerned about is breaking the race-class stereotypes which have transcended every edition of the game.  Gotcha.

I guess if they think the race-class stereotypes are important they can give everyone that impression by putting them in the first play test. If they want to give an impression that unique playable characters are the future they could purposely avoid the stereotypes.



The race-class stereotypes are important to a potential market block which have not purchased D&D products in years.  I highly suspect this initial playtest was marketed to such grognards in an attempt to evoke a similar feel to the 80's red box. 

Don't market to the grognards, and they will never look back after seeing the initial playtest because they are accustomed to not looking at current D&D.

Don't market to the fans who have recently purchased D&D products, and they will keep looking at the future playtests to see if it starts conforming to their desires because they are accustomed to looking at current D&D.

Yes, I likewise want halfling fighters, dwarf wizards, and elf clerics in addition to genasi, shardminds, wilden, and others.  But we are so very, very early in the playtest that there is no cause for concern whatsoever.  WotC has admitted they collect data on what race-class are popular on character builder, they're not going to suddenly start ignoring that data because new edition.
Hopefully they'll fix things so that all races can play all classes well.  I have my doubts, but here's hoping.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
If there is a steriotype I don´t like is about little races, haflings and gnomes. Most of times they are rogues. OK, they weren´t created to be fighters with heavy armor but..

I like variety, like a hafling ranger, monk or swashbuckler or swordsage.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Hopefully they'll fix things so that all races can play all classes well.  I have my doubts, but here's hoping.

When you start with the grossest stereotypes it's tough to ease the concerns of the people who want variety and originality built into the core rules.
I agree that those who want diverse race/class (or even diverse non-standard race) possibilities should have them. But there are those of us that are traditionalists and like our stereotypes. We remember when dwarf, elf, and halfling were all classes. 

Hopefully Next will have modules for everyone 

Who am I kidding. They probably won't. Just like there is no complicated fighter in the pipeline. Sorry I just can't put stock into anything that Wizards promises. Their track record is just too horrible to allow for that. Modules my hairy arse. I'll believe their li...er promises when they actually happen. You know like when Pre-Essentials AEDU classes got more support...er wait...oh how about when they promised we would love the cleric changes...oh damn...wait...I got it...how about when they promised they weren't working on 4th edition...no...that doesn't work either. Hey how about when they promised a full suite of electrionic tools within a year of 4th edition coming out...damn...I just can't win for losing. Well I tried.  
I agree that those who want diverse race/class (or even diverse non-standard race) possibilities should have them. But there are those of us that are traditionalists and like our stereotypes. We remember when dwarf, elf, and halfling were all classes. 



Which is why 'all races good at all classes' is the correct approach.  That way, if you want to play a stereotypical character, you can, and if you don't want to, you aren't penalized for doing so.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I agree that those who want diverse race/class (or even diverse non-standard race) possibilities should have them. But there are those of us that are traditionalists and like our stereotypes. We remember when dwarf, elf, and halfling were all classes. 



Which is why 'all races good at all classes' is the correct approach.  That way, if you want to play a stereotypical character, you can, and if you don't want to, you aren't penalized for doing so.



While we don't typically agree, this is one of the exceptions Salla.  Probably one of my favorite -- if not -the- favorite -- changes in 3E was the all-race/all-class.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I played a dwarven wand wizard in 4e. It sucked to have no additional stat boost.
Want to do it again? Hell yeah, no matter what the cost in power.

But give me some love for unusual character concepts that don't entirely break, and i'll be even more happy.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
The bsaic DnD is set in a quasi-medieval setting where stereotypes should exist.  Players can take their PCs outside those stereotypes but they will still interact with their race's culture.  My Greyhawk has always been something of a mix betwenn Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.  There is not sexual equality in the workplace.  Elves and dwarves live in separate locales and the average city is not racially integrated with thri-kreen pot sellers on every corner.

It's all about the setting.  Modules will affect the setting and can introduce different racial stererotypes or remove them entirely.
I agree that those who want diverse race/class (or even diverse non-standard race) possibilities should have them. But there are those of us that are traditionalists and like our stereotypes. We remember when dwarf, elf, and halfling were all classes. 



Which is why 'all races good at all classes' is the correct approach.  That way, if you want to play a stereotypical character, you can, and if you don't want to, you aren't penalized for doing so.



Despite my snark in the latter half of my post above, that's ultimately what I was getting at, that you should be able to play any race/any class and if my group wants to play a traditional game, we can as well, all the while with no one getting penalized for doing so. I'm just not holding my breath. Sad fact is they will likely cater to my style, but not yours, and I don't take solace in that thought to be quite honest. I believe that if they are going to pull off the 'all D&D players under one umbrella' concept they've been spouting about they need to show us that that really is the case.
Not all steriotypes are malicious. I´m Spanish and I don´t like bullfighting nor soccer (And never I have seen a Spanish like Vega, the character from Street Fighters). If somebody thinks African folks are good for music and Asian for maths, it doesn´t mean he hates them or wish  any wrong for them. 

All D&D races needs some identity, but sometimes it has became abusive steriotype. Other times racial traits don´t help trying a different style of life, because a half-orc isn´t a warlock so good like a shadarkai or a gnome can´t be so good barbarian like a goliath.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Does anyone feel that the stats you get should be derived from your class rather than race?? Like the race should provide some bonuses in special bonuses abilities, and while some races may have abilities that benefit a class, what effects your overall stats is the training you have been doing for years. 
Does anyone feel that the stats you get should be derived from your class rather than race?? Like the race should provide some bonuses in special bonuses abilities, and while some races may have abilities that benefit a class, what effects your overall stats is the training you have been doing for years. 



I for one would be interested in seeing if they could do something that would work this way. While (as I stated) am a traditionalist (I expect certain things when I play or run D&D and so do my players), this could be interesting. I personally still think the races should have some form of stat change because physically and mentally the races are different. Elves are more graceful and agile, while dwarves tend to be tougher. Humans (like in 4e) should be able to choose their path as they are adaptable. 

Let me equate it to Star Trek for a moment -  I guess for me, a Vulcan is a Vulcan because he is smarter, tougher, stronger, and faster than a human and he has a specific culture if he was born to Vulcan parents on Vulcan (even Trek has thier outliers though - Worf for example). Granted a Vulcan who attends Starfleet to become a security officer who is really really good at phaser marksmanship would have slightly different stats than one that trains to be a science officer.

So I could see the merits of your suggestion, it would just be incorporating those things that the races are known for while still giving them a bump based on their class. Hell maybe a different stat is raised based on their race. For example maybe a dwarf fighter (if he is a normal dwarf, raised and trained in his own lands) would be trained to be tougher and stand his ground, thus gaining a bonus to Constitution, while an elf fighter is taught to dance around his enemies and fluster them with hit and run attacks, thus raising his Dexterity and both races would have class abilities that would key off of those stats. A human's stat increase would be based on the particular region he comes from. A region known for their knights might be similar to the dwarf and use Constitution, while a barbarian nation known for their overbearing assaults and use of great weapons would key off of Strength. 

Granted this is typical for their races, but if you take that and run with it, and say a dwarf wizard uses more force of will and gains a bonus to wisdom and he casts wizard spells more based on wisdom (because that's how he was taught), while an elf wizard would use his long life span to study wizardry and thus use his Intelligence.

Anyway just a thought.     
The bsaic DnD is set in a quasi-medieval setting where stereotypes should exist.  Players can take their PCs outside those stereotypes but they will still interact with their race's culture.  My Greyhawk has always been something of a mix betwenn Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.  There is not sexual equality in the workplace.  Elves and dwarves live in separate locales and the average city is not racially integrated with thri-kreen pot sellers on every corner.

It's all about the setting.  Modules will affect the setting and can introduce different racial stererotypes or remove them entirely.



This right here is is waht ticks me off about the "historical accuracy" argument for D&D. D&D campaign settings are modled after historic time periods true, but our history has had no direct impact on thier developments. There is no reason why they sould contain the worst of societal attitudes. In addition, people werent as racist or sexist "back then"  as many would belive. Don't use some vauge misinterpretation of history to saturate the game with your own attitudes.

I'm not saying these themes can't be a part of good storytelling, but don't punish PCs for playing something other than a human.
Strike the Next out of the title of the Thread and you will own the truth of it.
D&D is, was, and likely always will be a game of racial advancement and demonization.
In fact, D&D has almost universally maintained that your race determines whether you are good or evil. 
Genocide is heroic, so long as it is against these foul beasts which are evil, made by evil gods to do evil things.

Why?
Because it makes for easy iconography.
It's a game. It is far from realistic. It strives towards the absurd half the time (I'm looking at you Bat Guano napalm). 
Need evil for your good guys to crush? Cause not everyone role plays to have deep philosophical considerations about the morality of racial motivated slaying, we have pre-packaged evil.  Those who enjoy moralising largely jumped to games that actually focus on that when they became available. 
D&D doesn't need Gang-bangers, Nazis, or Commies. They have Orcs, Goblins, and Drow.
That's right, you can tell if an Elf is evil by the colour of their skin (unless they are a male with twin scimitars, but even he hates his own people).
This is all convienently colour coded for your smiting ease.  
If D&D tried to portray all races as developed and free willed, it would reduce many Adventuring parties to little more than Murder-Hobos. Homeless drifters, wandering through communities, killing indiscrimently for the hope of getting enough pocket change off corpses to fund their next alcohol and hired company binge. When all the victims in one area are gone, they move on to the next. 
Or better yet, they are the private military contractors hired to ruthlessly slaughter the minorities who are upset that large corporate entities are muscling in on their less advanced society. 

Who really wants to play a game like that?

No, we want to feel good and justified about our characters killing sprees. We don't want to agonize over whether that orc-spawn could have been innocent. We want our slaying and then we want our pay out, and we want to feel good about it. 

D&D Next, as I understand stated goals, is really, D&D Come Back people who jumped ship when WotC took over, or 4E came out.  The emphasis on nostalgia and harkening back to "what is Iconic D&D" is not looking to grab new players. It's putting the family back together. That family was built on (justified in setting) racism.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
The bsaic DnD is set in a quasi-medieval setting where stereotypes should exist.  Players can take their PCs outside those stereotypes but they will still interact with their race's culture.  My Greyhawk has always been something of a mix betwenn Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.  There is not sexual equality in the workplace.  Elves and dwarves live in separate locales and the average city is not racially integrated with thri-kreen pot sellers on every corner.

It's all about the setting.  Modules will affect the setting and can introduce different racial stererotypes or remove them entirely.



This right here is is waht ticks me off about the "historical accuracy" argument for D&D. D&D campaign settings are modled after historic time periods true, but our history has had no direct impact on thier developments. There is no reason why they sould contain the worst of societal attitudes. In addition, people werent as racist or sexist "back then"  as many would belive. Don't use some vauge misinterpretation of history to saturate the game with your own attitudes.

I'm not saying these themes can't be a part of good storytelling, but don't punish PCs for playing something other than a human.



It's a matter of taste but they need to start with a baseline and Lord of the Rings lite tends to be the baseline.  That baseline can by modified to represent different cultures but that can come later. 

I think it's misleading to suggest that demi-humans are 'punished' for choosing a class against the racial stereotype compared to humans.  Demi-humans get all sorts of cool abilities as part of their racial package and they are rewarded for choosing a racial stereotype class; there is a difference between being rewarded and being punished - it's a glass half full attitude.  Humans are equally good in every class i.e. slightly above baseline, but they get little else (even if they bring in some racial feats humans will be generic and other racial feats wil be stereotypical).

The attitude is one of being the baseline and being above the baseline.  If every race is going to be the baseline in every class, what can you possibly give humans to make up for that? 

More generally, I think using the worst societal attitudes adds to role-playing potential and helps to give characters a niche.  If everything is equal for everybody your game world might end up being really vanilla.  I want rich people to look down on the poor, I want elves and dwarves to retain their antipathy from 1e because I am playing in a game world that was invented when that was the default and I don't want some inexplicable renaissance to change my game world, I want rural halflings as the baseline while acknowledging that there are a few pockets where this is not the case, I want religious rivalry, I want the local lord to refuse to take the female PC as seriously (unless she is a wizard or priestess) and I want other female NPCs to take her more seriously because it helps to round out the characters and their place in the world.  I've been very impressed by the way the Game of Thrones tv show has given the female characters different ways to interact with the wider plot despite their 'lowly' status compared to the men e.g. being bought and sold to forge alliances (although admittedly I think I'd probably discourage the use of sex quite so often...).

My principle PC (a noble woman who gave up a life of comfort to avoid an arranged marriage and became a woodland scout) was raped by another PC (a tiger nomad barbarian) during a session that I couldn't make.  The other players treated it as a bit of a joke but I was appalled!  However, in game, there was a certain amount of logic.  The barbarian was exactly that - uncivilised and CN.  It provided a means to mold my pc, her future attitudes to men, and a great revenge plot when the tiger nomad was later turned into a vampire.  It also gave me a chance to remind the other players that **** isn't a joke - 22 years later (5 years of game time) and my pc is still damaged by the event.

  If D&D tried to portray all races as developed and free willed, it would reduce many Adventuring parties to little more than Murder-Hobos. Homeless drifters, wandering through communities, killing indiscrimently for the hope of getting enough pocket change off corpses to fund their next alcohol and hired company binge. When all the victims in one area are gone, they move on to the next. 
Or better yet, they are the private military contractors hired to ruthlessly slaughter the minorities who are upset that large corporate entities are muscling in on their less advanced society. 

Who really wants to play a game like that?

No, we want to feel good and justified about our characters killing sprees. We don't want to agonize over whether that orc-spawn could have been innocent. We want our slaying and then we want our pay out, and we want to feel good about it. 

D&D Next, as I understand stated goals, is really, D&D Come Back people who jumped ship when WotC took over, or 4E came out.  The emphasis on nostalgia and harkening back to "what is Iconic D&D" is not looking to grab new players. It's putting the family back together. That family was built on (justified in setting) racism.



LOL - this is sooo true.  Our players recently slaughtered a load of hill giant children in the Steading.  Most of us were saying no, this is wrong, but oce a couple of PCs ignored us and started the fight, we were faced with helping or being overwhelmed.  It was genocide and it left a nasty taste in our mouths that we will hopefully be able to use to good effect later on.

Essentially, every game needs parameters.  They may differ from one campaign to another but whatever the campaign, the demi-humans will be better at some classes and the humans wll be equaly good.  That's DnD!
"I've only seen one halfing in Next and he was a thief, so I will assume all halflings will have to be thieves."

Who is doing the stereotyping?
I can't recall any  campaigns I've played in where th PC's or player's considered **** and genocide par for the course.  As I've said racism and sexism does crop up, but they can be equally villified.

If the pcs decide that **** pillage and slaughter is the way to go, then that's a matter of taste, but I would argue that the players are using D&D as an oultet for some very unhealthy fantasies.
Hopefully they'll fix things so that all races can play all classes well.  I have my doubts, but here's hoping.

So my dream of the PC-PC (politically correct - player character) is nothing but a dream. Breaking the mold is often fun. That is why so many people like the good drow or the clever Orc. In 2E women had lower strength score maximums than men did. I actually would not be opposed to males and females receiving separate advantages although perhaps it could be done in the point buy system. Women could be more social (charisma), more conscious of surroundings and empathetic ( wisdom), or more able to endure hardships and greater longevity (constitution). Perhaps these advantages would manifest in the point buy system rather than a blunt addition to a stat. Males and females of different races might have alternate strengths and weaknesses. I could envision races where the female was the stronger gender.
What if a point buy for a class, race, and gender varied.
Standard
8 = 0 pts
9 = 1 pt
10 = 2 pts
11 = 3 pts
12 = 4 pts
13 = 5 pts
14 = 6 pts
15 = 8 pts
16 = 10 pts
17 = 13 pts
18 = 16 pts

Suboptimal race or class or gender
8 = 0 pts
9 = 1 pt
10 = 2 pts
11 = 3 pts
12 = 4 pts
13 = 6 pts
14 = 10 pts
15 = 12 pts
16 = 14 pts
17 = 17 pts
18 = 20 pts

Optimal race or class or gender
8 = 0 pts
9 = 1 pt
10 = 2 pts
11 = 3 pts
12 = 4 pts
13 = 5 pts
14 = 6 pts
15 = 7 pts
16 = 8 pts
17 = 10 pts
18 = 12 pts

A combination of 1 optimal and 1 suboptimal would grant the standard point buy and a combination of 2 optimals and 1 suboptimal would grant the optimal point buy.
The advantage to this system would be to encourage both originality and yet reinforce basic concepts of racial tendencies towards particular classes or professions.

Example:
Optimal
dwarfs - con
Fighter - str
Male - str
Suboptimal
Dwarf - dex
Fighter - int
Male - wisdom
This character might receive the optimal point buy in strength and constitution but receive a suboptimal point buy in dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom.

The difference between optimal, standard, and suboptimal only manifested itself in the highest ability scores in the example I provided.

Gender would not need to provide the same optimal and suboptimal ability scores for every race either. It could vary by race.
Greyhawk . . . with thri-kreen pot sellers on every corner.



Making a mental note to have a thri-kreen dope dealer or two prowling the Old City.  Thanks for the idea, it'll add a nice little splash of color.
Another thing to consider is the non PC advantages of racial features.

The abilities of certain races lend themselves to professions not baked into the stereotype.

For an example although I use the thief stereotype for halflings in my world I also make them the most successful sea traders.

Their high dexterity and small size allow them to easily navigate rigging and carry more cargo. They make up for their lack of strength by using block and tackle to make adjusting the rigging less strength based.

Their lowered melee capabilities are far less of an issue in ship to ship combat.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Does anyone feel that the stats you get should be derived from your class rather than race?? Like the race should provide some bonuses in special bonuses abilities, and while some races may have abilities that benefit a class, what effects your overall stats is the training you have been doing for years. 



I'm going to agree with Phantymwolf (if I understand him correctly) that the ability score adjustments for race are a nice way to reflect the varying physiology of the races. 

What I would like to see is the classes be made less dependent upon any specific ability score, such that, Wizards don't have to pump their Intelligence to the max, Clerics don't have to have high Wisdom, etc.

The problem as I see it is not that the races are cookie-cutter on their ability scores, but rather, that classes are.
It's all about the setting.  Modules will affect the setting and can introduce different racial stererotypes or remove them entirely.


The problem here is, if you have dinosaur-riding halfling barbarians in your setting, and it is e.g. +dex -str for halflings but str needed for barbarian, your class will be so gimped that you can't easily play the stereotype needed for the setting.

And i doubt that they'll treat races/classes that differently than in previous editions - while you might have subraces and various changes and new races through different settings, the core assumptions about halflings (small, agile, weak) will still be in place.

That's why I believe, that classes and races should be further seperated, and what's mechanically important for a class should not have relevance for race selection.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
You find the rules racist? Refluff them!
The bsaic DnD is set in a quasi-medieval setting where stereotypes should exist.  Players can take their PCs outside those stereotypes but they will still interact with their race's culture.  My Greyhawk has always been something of a mix betwenn Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.  There is not sexual equality in the workplace.  Elves and dwarves live in separate locales and the average city is not racially integrated with thri-kreen pot sellers on every corner.

It's all about the setting.  Modules will affect the setting and can introduce different racial stererotypes or remove them entirely.



That should not be something that the core mechanics hold up, in any way, outside of not making it hard to do it if you really want to.


And you can run worlds like that in any edition.

The rest of us don't get our DnD unless it's possible to play without the stereotypes right from day one.


an another note: it's trivially easy to play in a world where you can't assume that any drow you see is evil, nor a member of most any other race, and not have adventurers be murder hobos.

Orc raiders are still raiders, and need to be stopped.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
The bsaic DnD is set in a quasi-medieval setting where stereotypes should exist.  Players can take their PCs outside those stereotypes but they will still interact with their race's culture.  My Greyhawk has always been something of a mix betwenn Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.  There is not sexual equality in the workplace.  Elves and dwarves live in separate locales and the average city is not racially integrated with thri-kreen pot sellers on every corner.

It's all about the setting.  Modules will affect the setting and can introduce different racial stererotypes or remove them entirely.



That should not be something that the core mechanics hold up, in any way, outside of not making it hard to do it if you really want to.


And you can run worlds like that in any edition.

The rest of us don't get our DnD unless it's possible to play without the stereotypes right from day one.


What if the rest of you just took the base races and turned them into archtypes instead.  Nobody has any stat or ability modifiers through race and you have the Stealthy archtype, the Addaptive archtype etc.

Done no more racism.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

You've always been able to play any class.  Some professions are favored by certain races.  Not sure thats a big deal. 

My own flavor prejudices are
1.  Elves are always a little bit magical. Even fighters and rogues might consider using magic in some form.
2.  Dwarves are hardworking, dour, and value wealth.  They are good at fighting bigger people.  They hate goblins.


I think what they ought to do is provide the DM with the ability to change races easily.  I strongly think that in a world the races should favor this or that.  BUT, I think every single game having the same prejudices is silly.  Why not provide tools for DMs to make their own races easily.   The DMs that prefer no racial advantages can just say add a +1 anywhere you want.  That would be a pretty easy modular rule.  

In the campaign I'm currently working on, I am thinking all the races have subraces that are distinctive.

 
If D&D tried to portray all races as developed and free willed, it would reduce many Adventuring parties to little more than Murder-Hobos. Homeless drifters, wandering through communities, killing indiscrimently for the hope of getting enough pocket change off corpses to fund their next alcohol and hired company binge. When all the victims in one area are gone, they move on to the next. 
Or better yet, they are the private military contractors hired to ruthlessly slaughter the minorities who are upset that large corporate entities are muscling in on their less advanced society. 

Who really wants to play a game like that?



Apparently enough people to make four editions under two different companies.

I am of course referring to...

...Shadowrun. Tongue Out

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

You've always been able to play any class.


You didn't play pre-3e did you?

I do agree with you, however, that there isn't anything wrong with some races favoring certain classes, just so long as they are not the only valid choices. All classe/race pairings don't have to be optimal (I think that the emphasis that some players put on ability score pairings in 4e was entirely exaggerated) but they should at least not be gimped.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Sign In to post comments