I don't mind that they do this, and I agree that it was done poorly. On the other hand though, I really do feel like a lot of this would be akin to doom having lines about "don't become a school...
I don't mind that they do this, and I agree that it was done poorly.
On the other hand though, I really do feel like a lot of this would be akin to doom having lines about "don't become a school shooter".
Maybe that's hyperbolic, but over and over we've established that humans on the VAST majority can handle having both a real world and multiple fantasy worlds. I'm not going to shoot someone because I've played doom. I'm not going to harm someone because I played MK. I'm not going to become a racist because I've read and played fantasy for decades. (or become some cult style murdering satanist for playing Dnd as has literally been claimed before now that I think about it)
I do think a codified "there are always exceptions" added to the book would help, because yes it would shortcut the occasional table argument, and i'm someone who was never a huge fan of mechanical advantages coming from that side of character creation, but dear god do we need to strip out every piece of flavor in fear of some undefined boogeyman player who's going to become a raging piece of shit solely because of their TTRPG? The sort of people who believe heavily in the horrific theories alluded to aren't that way because of Drow, Orcs, Demons, Devils, Mind Flayers, or whatever the hell else.
The entire crutch of an evil race is, as already mentioned here, a narrative shortcut. You've got a pile of players who have a bunch of skills designed to murder and pillage and still need them to be the hero, go defeat Sauron/voldermort/the lich king/fucking whatever. Yes, if your DM has the time and skill for a nuanced take, awesome, great. Hell you can do a lot of interesting stuff with the evil factions if you want, but if you don't, or can't, it's nice to be able to throw down 5 orcs and not get stuck in a quagmire of ethical political discussion and just see how cool that new spell/weapon/whatever you found is.
So yes I quasi agree with the broad strokes of what WoTC tried to do, but more than anything it not only feels like pandering, but finally submitting to the same Satanic Panic nonsense that has been routinely rebuffed. People themselves are complicated, and it's rarely their media that makes them that way.
I agree with this so much. Folks will argue that they don’t want lore and preconceived notions about a species, monster, etc. because they want to create it themselves for their setting, but if...
I agree with this so much. Folks will argue that they don’t want lore and preconceived notions about a species, monster, etc. because they want to create it themselves for their setting, but if you have it in the presented information, you can and have always been able to ignore it. It’s much harder, particularly for a new DM, to create things from whole cloth. If a DM isn’t given any info to guide the roleplaying, how do they know where to start from? It’s not as though in 5e’s setting books they present default lore and/or alignment for specific monsters and how they behave within that setting. Creativity thrives within restrictions and bounds, not a freeform “anything goes” approach.
I believe that all of these changes are to make the game more milquetoast and offend no one, and also require less creative juice from the D&D team.
As someone who has dabbled in a lot more systems and formats and settings than just D&D, if you’re going for that freeform “anything goes” approach, then there are a lot more options that are a...
Creativity thrives within restrictions and bounds, not a freeform “anything goes” approach.
As someone who has dabbled in a lot more systems and formats and settings than just D&D, if you’re going for that freeform “anything goes” approach, then there are a lot more options that are a lot better for handling that than any version of D&D in the first place.
Stephen Bush argues that the changes in D&D 2024 to (1) code as species instead of race and to (2) give more guidance to DMs on comfort at the table are good, but that they are executed poorly....
Stephen Bush argues that the changes in D&D 2024 to (1) code as species instead of race and to (2) give more guidance to DMs on comfort at the table are good, but that they are executed poorly. The language reads too much like a corporate seminar and does not cleanly layout the reasons for the changes or give practical advice. Definitely not what I expected to read in the FT this morning :)
https://archive.is/RK85d This is an interesting read. This has been on my mind recently as I'm working on my own TTRPG. My thoughts boil down to: "Species" is such an awkward word. It's more...
This is an interesting read. This has been on my mind recently as I'm working on my own TTRPG. My thoughts boil down to:
"Species" is such an awkward word. It's more accurate when you're talking about goblins vs halflings or something, but I keep trying to think of a better word that doesn't have the connotations of "race."
Calling them species to highlight how these are big differences between them, and then also removing the differences, is strange as the article points out
"Session Zero" is a great convention, I wish I had done it with my group, and I'm glad it's called out more explicitly in the handbook
Pathfinder 2e uses the word "ancestry", and is awfully vague about what exactly that means. "Species" is a scientific term, and has some interesting implications. If humans and elves are different...
"Species" is such an awkward word. It's more accurate when you're talking about goblins vs halflings or something, but I keep trying to think of a better word that doesn't have the connotations of "race."
Pathfinder 2e uses the word "ancestry", and is awfully vague about what exactly that means.
"Species" is a scientific term, and has some interesting implications. If humans and elves are different species, they may be able to produce offspring (like horses and donkeys), but that offspring would be sterile (like mules).
This is more of a guideline than a strict definition. In reality it can get a lot more complicated than that. There are cases where male x female pairings are not viable but female x male pairings...
"Species" is a scientific term, and has some interesting implications. If humans and elves are different species, they may be able to produce offspring (like horses and donkeys), but that offspring would be sterile (like mules).
This is more of a guideline than a strict definition. In reality it can get a lot more complicated than that. There are cases where male x female pairings are not viable but female x male pairings are (and vice versa). There are cases where two populations cannot interbreed but both can interbreed with a third population. Or a chain of islands where birds can interbreed with other birds on the islands nearest to them but not any further away, but this is true of the sub population on each island so, despite ones far away from each other not being able to have viable offspring they might still be second or third “cousins.”
Biology is crazy in a lot of ways.
And it may not always be genetic. It’s possible you could have two populations that can technically interbreed through artificial means, but they’re so territorial that they’d kill each other if you ever put them together so they’d never try. So they’d behaviorally be different populations even if they’re genetically very similar.
The English term and spelling mulatto is derived from the Spanish and Portuguese mulato. It was a common term in the Southeastern United States during the era of slavery. Some sources suggest that it may derive from the Portuguese word mula (from the Latin mūlus), meaning 'mule', the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey.[36][37] The Real Academia Española traces its origin to mulo in the sense of hybridity; originally used to refer to any mixed race person.[38] The term is now generally considered outdated and offensive in non-Spanish and non-Portuguese speaking countries,[39] and was considered offensive even in the 19th century.[3]
Some unfortunate historical connotations there, lol.
Slight tangent : part of the lyrics in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana is "mulatto". Which was interesting/surprising to me when I learned this (fairly recently actually) because like a lot...
Slight tangent : part of the lyrics in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana is "mulatto". Which was interesting/surprising to me when I learned this (fairly recently actually) because like a lot of people, nobody knows wtf Kurt is actually saying in that song unless they go look up the actual lyrics.
Famously they would give a different answer about what the lyrics actually are, every time they were asked in an interview, so I’m not sure there’s any “actual lyrics” that can be universally...
unless they go look up the actual lyrics.
Famously they would give a different answer about what the lyrics actually are, every time they were asked in an interview, so I’m not sure there’s any “actual lyrics” that can be universally agreed if the band themselves refused to settle on any?
Agreed that it’s a scientific term, but the implications of the “science” can vary wildly from lore to lore. No reason to think hybrids are bound by the same laws as our world, when we’re talking...
Agreed that it’s a scientific term, but the implications of the “science” can vary wildly from lore to lore. No reason to think hybrids are bound by the same laws as our world, when we’re talking about a realm ruled by a pantheon of gods and goddesses, planes of existence, magical artifacts and constructs, etc. I think “science” in these settings is usually more akin to magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy if a character is a mad scientist, maybe some 19th century goodies like phrenology for extra color.
I’ve been going back and forth with myself on whether or not it’s even worth commenting here, but I figure I might as well say something. Do you not see the irony in this statement: Man, oh man. I...
I’ve been going back and forth with myself on whether or not it’s even worth commenting here, but I figure I might as well say something.
Do you not see the irony in this statement:
maybe some 19th century goodies like phrenology for extra color
Man, oh man. I know you mean well, but both you and the commenter you replied to are so clearly flirting with such obviously historically terrible concepts, and the most absurd part of this is that it’s all being done in accordance with this supposedly “better” version of DnD.
19th century phrenology is not a goody in any sense, lol. While I can agree that it is an interesting concept to explore through story, if you approach this idea at the wrong angle — and there are so, so so so many wrong angles with this one — then that’s just blindly inviting in a whole slew of recognizable, well-worn racist tropes.
When I think of phrenology, I immediately think of the Rwandan genocide, eugenics, etc., whereas with the other pseudosciences they listed — “magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy” —...
When I think of phrenology, I immediately think of the Rwandan genocide, eugenics, etc., whereas with the other pseudosciences they listed — “magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy” — the same real-world contemporary tragedy is, for me, absent.
I’m merely highlighting the fact that this distinction exists.
Edit: Also, phrenology is the only one of those ideas which is, in the real world, intertwined so deeply with ‘race’. Magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy are not.
You make some good points, and I think I could’ve spelled out my thinking a bit more clearly! What I have in mind is this trope of a scholar / wizard / scientist in a fantasy setting. Often these...
You make some good points, and I think I could’ve spelled out my thinking a bit more clearly!
What I have in mind is this trope of a scholar / wizard / scientist in a fantasy setting. Often these characters exist along a moral spectrum that begins at “eccentric” and progresses further toward evil. These are the cultists seeking hidden knowledge, the necromancers raising undead armies, the megalomaniacs trying to cheat fate and ascend to godhood, that sort of thing. Even more benign magic, maybe apart from healing, is often used for deception or gaining an unfair advantage.
I was intentionally referencing “scientific racism” because it’s exactly the sort of evil quackery these characters would pursue. I realize I’m painting with broad strokes and made some leaps that weren’t in good taste. Sorry for that.
Agreed. This has mildly bothered me through most of the fantasy genre, back to Tokien. And well, I guess the myths that inspired him too, but those examples are probably less “no better English...
"Species" is such an awkward word. It's more accurate when you're talking about goblins vs halflings or something, but I keep trying to think of a better word that doesn't have the connotations of "race."
Agreed. This has mildly bothered me through most of the fantasy genre, back to Tokien. And well, I guess the myths that inspired him too, but those examples are probably less “no better English word exists” and more “actually racist.”
I’ve been trying to think of a better word than “species” or “race” too, and I think I’m circling around lineage or other concepts related to family lines. I’m not sure if that’s compatible with D&D lore, but I like the flavor of “descending from the line of elves” and so forth.
Clade is a very cool word! It might add yet more terminology for new players to learn when they're already overloaded with information, but I like the flavor it adds.
Clade is a very cool word! It might add yet more terminology for new players to learn when they're already overloaded with information, but I like the flavor it adds.
I wasn’t familiar with that one! I think it fits the criteria, but in my opinion it sounds like the kind of pseudoscientific language a fantasy alchemist or scholar might use. It would be right at...
I wasn’t familiar with that one! I think it fits the criteria, but in my opinion it sounds like the kind of pseudoscientific language a fantasy alchemist or scholar might use. It would be right at home in the pages of a wizard’s library. But I don’t think it would be in the vernacular.
I dunno about that, there’s a ton of academic language used in real-world research papers, that refers to common concepts in a more precise way than the average person does. By and large, those...
I dunno about that, there’s a ton of academic language used in real-world research papers, that refers to common concepts in a more precise way than the average person does. By and large, those terms never achieve widespread use. Because they’re seen as too technical, or pedantic, or just plain clunky.
Not a whole lot of details yet, but my main focus is actually on the software side. I have a couple of D&D groups that I play with remotely using dndbeyond and roll20, which I find disappointing...
Not a whole lot of details yet, but my main focus is actually on the software side. I have a couple of D&D groups that I play with remotely using dndbeyond and roll20, which I find disappointing for several reasons, and I've wanted to make my own version of sites like those for a long time.
The TTRPG itself is mostly happening because I can't use the D&D IP in my own software. Plus, I think there are a lot of opportunities to improve on the D&D ruleset, and I have a couple friends that are helping with that part. The big bet is that we can have extremely flexible character growth and customization, letting players do crazy stuff, while still making it easy for new players to get started by being thoughtful with the software.
I'm currently working on a config language that we can define the rules in. I'm hoping to make something that (1) my friends can use to write rules, and (2) something that allows players to add their own house rules, homebrew items, etc - even fully custom rulesets.
Oh you’re doing the Lords work here. We have been on Roll20 for like six years now and the limitations drive us insane. Good luck developing the platform. I’m no programmer but I’ve been...
Oh you’re doing the Lords work here. We have been on Roll20 for like six years now and the limitations drive us insane. Good luck developing the platform. I’m no programmer but I’ve been homebrewing my own games since the 80s. If you ever need a hand with things in that end, let me know!
When you're talking about player characters and the physical differences between them, "phenotype" might be accurate, if a little "sciency" (depending on the theme of your TTRPG.) In that it just...
When you're talking about player characters and the physical differences between them, "phenotype" might be accurate, if a little "sciency" (depending on the theme of your TTRPG.) In that it just means the ways their genetic code expressed itself, there's a lot of room for recognizing physical differences between players without getting into debates about races or species.
It's strange how they're talking like all this stuff is new. Choosing ASIs came as an "optional rule" in Tasha's in 2020. In reality, it sometimes wasn't optional, because WoTC stopped giving you...
It's strange how they're talking like all this stuff is new. Choosing ASIs came as an "optional rule" in Tasha's in 2020. In reality, it sometimes wasn't optional, because WoTC stopped giving you information on ability scores to increase for newly published races. Around the same time, they stopped providing alignment (lawful/chaotic good/evil) information for new monsters, and removed some paragraphs from Volo's Guide to Monsters (https://old.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/rg4idx/writeup_of_all_the_lore_thats_beeing_removed_from/) - - side note, in lore, Volo is explicitly a kind of fucked up guy, and even in the book, another narrator comes into the book and contradicts him occasionally.
My D&D group wasn't particularly happy about those changes, but that's because they (I joined late, and am relatively new to D&D) are big lore people. They liked how the mechanical benefits of various races would push towards trying new ones, and would do deep dive research and integrate the lore of their characters race into our game. Side note, it's also easier, when running a fantasy game, to have a convenient byword for "evil", even when you know that's not how the real world works. Most people don't want to check that each individual cultist is a fanatic before slaughtering them on their way to stop the big bad evil guy. Making them all Yuan-Ti can be a shortcut that discourages the need for that.
We chose as a group not to move to the 2024 revision, though we might pull in the occasional rule that interests us. That's also because of the changes they made to NPC casters moving to "per day" abilities away from proper character sheets that give them much more flexibility. As it was, anything Tasha's and newer was an "ask first" from our DM because of the power creep. He also hated how the newer books moved away from providing Forgotten Realms lore for everything, and instead started providing big roll tables for different ways the lore of something to be, drastically reducing the amount of detail, and basically requiring DMs to write their own lore.
Interesting discussion. While reading through the article I was struck repeatedly by two main thoughts. First is that the relationship of race to species is very similar to that of gender to sex....
Interesting discussion. While reading through the article I was struck repeatedly by two main thoughts.
First is that the relationship of race to species is very similar to that of gender to sex. Specifically, that sex denotes the physical biological differences between men and women (both internal and external) while gender is widely considered a social construct. The social construct can, in my opinion, be most clearly evidenced by the differences of gender roles in various human societies both historically and in modernity. That said, we all seem to draw the lines of what is gender and what is sex in different places. Much of the last 150+ years of the civil rights movement, of which feminism is a part, has been varying degrees of redrawing these lines to argue what women, or black people, can and cannot accomplish due to biological differences. For sex, what those biological differences exactly are/are caused by is still under investigation.
The second thought I was struck by, is that the author of this article repeatedly states that this was done because "we don’t believe that race is real" while also pointing out that the handbook never explains the reasoning for the changes. I think the author actually displays a misunderstanding that is indicative of why organizations are less than willing to directly state their reasoning. They're going to lose a larger and larger percentage of their audience the more specific they get. If they say that "we don't believe that race is real" they are going to be dismissed outright by anyone who does believe that race is real, or who doesn't understand what they are stating. If they say that "we want to reflect that race is a social construct, not indicative of biological differences between people" then they are going to lose people who do not understand what a social construct is. The handbook is not and should not be a genetics textbook. There is a segment of their player base who just want to roll the dice, slay some Kobolds, and win in a story of their team prevailing over evil. D&D is about the ability to service that audience just as well allowing another DM to tell a story of societal change in a culture that is grappling with the peoples ability to shift their gender identity.
Thinking about this from the prospective of a potential campaign, it opens up the opportunity to have various races of species who have different cultures and backgrounds.
I'm not really sure what point the author is trying to make here. It seems like they generally agree with the changes but not the explanation for the changes? It's not a great look to have all the...
I'm not really sure what point the author is trying to make here. It seems like they generally agree with the changes but not the explanation for the changes?
It's not a great look to have all the all the black elves be evil, and the general concept of an inherently stronger, smarter, or more likeable race of people is somewhat problematic. I don't think it really requires any more explanation than that.
Is it problematic that lions are stronger than lynxes? Or that parrots are more sociable than eagles? That octopi are smarter than clams? Would it be problematic if they were sapient in their...
Is it problematic that lions are stronger than lynxes? Or that parrots are more sociable than eagles? That octopi are smarter than clams? Would it be problematic if they were sapient in their current bodies? What if they were more humanoid?
Is it problematic that kobolds are weaker, less intelligent, and less charming than devils? They're both sapient humanoids considered monsters.
What is the actual problematic element here? That different groups of creatures might be different, or that, once they're sapient we feel the need to apply a human standard to them and as such apply our presumption of equal worth and quality to every person?
The problematic element was that they were called races, and not species. All of the real life examples you have given are examples of different species. There is only one living species of humans...
What is the actual problematic element here?
The problematic element was that they were called races, and not species. All of the real life examples you have given are examples of different species. There is only one living species of humans on the planet at this time, and it encompasses all races and ethnicities which we can identify as.
My better-edited reply got ate, but tldr as someone who doesn't play 5e right now nor pays too much attention to WotC news but plays RPGs, two angles: They just did the updates to Orcs and Drow to...
My better-edited reply got ate, but tldr as someone who doesn't play 5e right now nor pays too much attention to WotC news but plays RPGs, two angles:
They just did the updates to Orcs and Drow to remove some imperialist and indigenous-insensitive influences and connotations, which to me sounded like a well-meaning update trying to make the influence less problematic to actual people. This may be an extention of that, though I'm not sure for better or worse like you said.
From a game perspective it's possible they're trying to raise ceilings? Using your example of Kobolds, they've been shitting on them for decades but players are starting to adapt them as PCs - and I agree that they shouldn't be shackled down by some kind of innate penalty to maintain the lore. I imagine if people want play a Kobold breaking the mold they're going to have skills that reflect their prowess. Still, I can also imagine that they could give a suggested ASI anyway and then give DMs the option to completely ignore it...
I can agree with the morality and alignment aspect, that's always bugged me in fiction. But it makes sense to me that different... Well, "races" is kinda the problematic word here, I think. For...
I can agree with the morality and alignment aspect, that's always bugged me in fiction. But it makes sense to me that different... Well, "races" is kinda the problematic word here, I think. For humans, the main difference between races are cosmetic. Race is, as the article notes, a man-made concept.
However, there's a vast physical difference between a human and someone who's half-dragon with claws, scales and horns. It seems logical to me that one of those would have natural physical advantages over the other. I could similarly see the argument of elves being naturally more inclined to being smarter not due to biology, but just their longer lifespans giving them more time to learn. Humans meanwhile, I can imagine being more agile and flexible than some of the bulkier... Species? Clades? And also having a stronger affinity for magic, and more cultural emphasis on knowledge and innovation, to compensate for those physical disadvantages.
Point is, the physical differences make sense to me, and I can see them leading to some really great world-building. Refusing to acknowledge those differences from a mechanical standpoint just seems bizarre.
To steelman WotC's changes, the article makes the mistake of conflating the PC with everyone. The changes were to people making player characters. PCs are already special snowflakes - you think...
To steelman WotC's changes, the article makes the mistake of conflating the PC with everyone. The changes were to people making player characters.
PCs are already special snowflakes - you think just anyone can grow into a wizard that can make demiplanes at will?
So is that much of a stretch that you are the 0.001% of gnomes with strength comparable to a dragonborn, if you want to be? If you extrapolate a lvl 20 character, all PCs become weird demigods that are uncomparable to anyone in the general populace anyway, no matter how you build your character.
That doesn't mean that your NPCs have to follow PC creation rules. In fact, they absolutely shouldn't. NPCs should never have the same stat blocks as players - there is an intended asymmetry.
That still breaks down when comparing PCs to each other. Maybe a gnome is the top 0.001% for strength, but then a dragonborn in the same party physically can't be that exceptional even if it would...
That still breaks down when comparing PCs to each other. Maybe a gnome is the top 0.001% for strength, but then a dragonborn in the same party physically can't be that exceptional even if it would make sense with their class and background.
I don't mind that they do this, and I agree that it was done poorly.
On the other hand though, I really do feel like a lot of this would be akin to doom having lines about "don't become a school shooter".
Maybe that's hyperbolic, but over and over we've established that humans on the VAST majority can handle having both a real world and multiple fantasy worlds. I'm not going to shoot someone because I've played doom. I'm not going to harm someone because I played MK. I'm not going to become a racist because I've read and played fantasy for decades. (or become some cult style murdering satanist for playing Dnd as has literally been claimed before now that I think about it)
I do think a codified "there are always exceptions" added to the book would help, because yes it would shortcut the occasional table argument, and i'm someone who was never a huge fan of mechanical advantages coming from that side of character creation, but dear god do we need to strip out every piece of flavor in fear of some undefined boogeyman player who's going to become a raging piece of shit solely because of their TTRPG? The sort of people who believe heavily in the horrific theories alluded to aren't that way because of Drow, Orcs, Demons, Devils, Mind Flayers, or whatever the hell else.
The entire crutch of an evil race is, as already mentioned here, a narrative shortcut. You've got a pile of players who have a bunch of skills designed to murder and pillage and still need them to be the hero, go defeat Sauron/voldermort/the lich king/fucking whatever. Yes, if your DM has the time and skill for a nuanced take, awesome, great. Hell you can do a lot of interesting stuff with the evil factions if you want, but if you don't, or can't, it's nice to be able to throw down 5 orcs and not get stuck in a quagmire of ethical political discussion and just see how cool that new spell/weapon/whatever you found is.
So yes I quasi agree with the broad strokes of what WoTC tried to do, but more than anything it not only feels like pandering, but finally submitting to the same Satanic Panic nonsense that has been routinely rebuffed. People themselves are complicated, and it's rarely their media that makes them that way.
I agree with this so much. Folks will argue that they don’t want lore and preconceived notions about a species, monster, etc. because they want to create it themselves for their setting, but if you have it in the presented information, you can and have always been able to ignore it. It’s much harder, particularly for a new DM, to create things from whole cloth. If a DM isn’t given any info to guide the roleplaying, how do they know where to start from? It’s not as though in 5e’s setting books they present default lore and/or alignment for specific monsters and how they behave within that setting. Creativity thrives within restrictions and bounds, not a freeform “anything goes” approach.
I believe that all of these changes are to make the game more milquetoast and offend no one, and also require less creative juice from the D&D team.
As someone who has dabbled in a lot more systems and formats and settings than just D&D, if you’re going for that freeform “anything goes” approach, then there are a lot more options that are a lot better for handling that than any version of D&D in the first place.
Stephen Bush argues that the changes in D&D 2024 to (1) code as species instead of race and to (2) give more guidance to DMs on comfort at the table are good, but that they are executed poorly. The language reads too much like a corporate seminar and does not cleanly layout the reasons for the changes or give practical advice. Definitely not what I expected to read in the FT this morning :)
https://archive.is/RK85d
This is an interesting read. This has been on my mind recently as I'm working on my own TTRPG. My thoughts boil down to:
Pathfinder 2e uses the word "ancestry", and is awfully vague about what exactly that means.
"Species" is a scientific term, and has some interesting implications. If humans and elves are different species, they may be able to produce offspring (like horses and donkeys), but that offspring would be sterile (like mules).
This is more of a guideline than a strict definition. In reality it can get a lot more complicated than that. There are cases where male x female pairings are not viable but female x male pairings are (and vice versa). There are cases where two populations cannot interbreed but both can interbreed with a third population. Or a chain of islands where birds can interbreed with other birds on the islands nearest to them but not any further away, but this is true of the sub population on each island so, despite ones far away from each other not being able to have viable offspring they might still be second or third “cousins.”
Biology is crazy in a lot of ways.
And it may not always be genetic. It’s possible you could have two populations that can technically interbreed through artificial means, but they’re so territorial that they’d kill each other if you ever put them together so they’d never try. So they’d behaviorally be different populations even if they’re genetically very similar.
From Wikipedia:
Some unfortunate historical connotations there, lol.
Slight tangent : part of the lyrics in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana is "mulatto". Which was interesting/surprising to me when I learned this (fairly recently actually) because like a lot of people, nobody knows wtf Kurt is actually saying in that song unless they go look up the actual lyrics.
You mean he wasn't just gargling?
Now he’s mumbling, and he’s screaming, and he don’t know, what he’s singing.
YEAH!
Famously they would give a different answer about what the lyrics actually are, every time they were asked in an interview, so I’m not sure there’s any “actual lyrics” that can be universally agreed if the band themselves refused to settle on any?
Agreed that it’s a scientific term, but the implications of the “science” can vary wildly from lore to lore. No reason to think hybrids are bound by the same laws as our world, when we’re talking about a realm ruled by a pantheon of gods and goddesses, planes of existence, magical artifacts and constructs, etc. I think “science” in these settings is usually more akin to magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy if a character is a mad scientist, maybe some 19th century goodies like phrenology for extra color.
I’ve been going back and forth with myself on whether or not it’s even worth commenting here, but I figure I might as well say something.
Do you not see the irony in this statement:
Man, oh man. I know you mean well, but both you and the commenter you replied to are so clearly flirting with such obviously historically terrible concepts, and the most absurd part of this is that it’s all being done in accordance with this supposedly “better” version of DnD.
19th century phrenology is not a goody in any sense, lol. While I can agree that it is an interesting concept to explore through story, if you approach this idea at the wrong angle — and there are so, so so so many wrong angles with this one — then that’s just blindly inviting in a whole slew of recognizable, well-worn racist tropes.
Considering OP had science in scare quotes and had it next to “alchemy” and “necromancy” I think they understood the irony.
When I think of phrenology, I immediately think of the Rwandan genocide, eugenics, etc., whereas with the other pseudosciences they listed — “magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy” — the same real-world contemporary tragedy is, for me, absent.
I’m merely highlighting the fact that this distinction exists.
Edit: Also, phrenology is the only one of those ideas which is, in the real world, intertwined so deeply with ‘race’. Magical studies, divination, alchemy, necromancy are not.
You make some good points, and I think I could’ve spelled out my thinking a bit more clearly!
What I have in mind is this trope of a scholar / wizard / scientist in a fantasy setting. Often these characters exist along a moral spectrum that begins at “eccentric” and progresses further toward evil. These are the cultists seeking hidden knowledge, the necromancers raising undead armies, the megalomaniacs trying to cheat fate and ascend to godhood, that sort of thing. Even more benign magic, maybe apart from healing, is often used for deception or gaining an unfair advantage.
I was intentionally referencing “scientific racism” because it’s exactly the sort of evil quackery these characters would pursue. I realize I’m painting with broad strokes and made some leaps that weren’t in good taste. Sorry for that.
Those all sound like very fun ideas to explore. Best of luck with your character and world building! :)
Agreed. This has mildly bothered me through most of the fantasy genre, back to Tokien. And well, I guess the myths that inspired him too, but those examples are probably less “no better English word exists” and more “actually racist.”
I’ve been trying to think of a better word than “species” or “race” too, and I think I’m circling around lineage or other concepts related to family lines. I’m not sure if that’s compatible with D&D lore, but I like the flavor of “descending from the line of elves” and so forth.
"Ancestry" is a word that seems to be prevailing in new RPGs, I think it fits well.
What do you think of "clade" for a grouping by shared ancestor?
Clade is a very cool word! It might add yet more terminology for new players to learn when they're already overloaded with information, but I like the flavor it adds.
I wasn’t familiar with that one! I think it fits the criteria, but in my opinion it sounds like the kind of pseudoscientific language a fantasy alchemist or scholar might use. It would be right at home in the pages of a wizard’s library. But I don’t think it would be in the vernacular.
isn't that how all vernacular starts though?
I dunno about that, there’s a ton of academic language used in real-world research papers, that refers to common concepts in a more precise way than the average person does. By and large, those terms never achieve widespread use. Because they’re seen as too technical, or pedantic, or just plain clunky.
I'm not saying that all academic language reaches the vernacular, but almost all vernacular starts as precise academic language right?
What can you tell us about your TTRPG?
Not a whole lot of details yet, but my main focus is actually on the software side. I have a couple of D&D groups that I play with remotely using dndbeyond and roll20, which I find disappointing for several reasons, and I've wanted to make my own version of sites like those for a long time.
The TTRPG itself is mostly happening because I can't use the D&D IP in my own software. Plus, I think there are a lot of opportunities to improve on the D&D ruleset, and I have a couple friends that are helping with that part. The big bet is that we can have extremely flexible character growth and customization, letting players do crazy stuff, while still making it easy for new players to get started by being thoughtful with the software.
I'm currently working on a config language that we can define the rules in. I'm hoping to make something that (1) my friends can use to write rules, and (2) something that allows players to add their own house rules, homebrew items, etc - even fully custom rulesets.
An example of the language
Oh you’re doing the Lords work here. We have been on Roll20 for like six years now and the limitations drive us insane. Good luck developing the platform. I’m no programmer but I’ve been homebrewing my own games since the 80s. If you ever need a hand with things in that end, let me know!
When you're talking about player characters and the physical differences between them, "phenotype" might be accurate, if a little "sciency" (depending on the theme of your TTRPG.) In that it just means the ways their genetic code expressed itself, there's a lot of room for recognizing physical differences between players without getting into debates about races or species.
It's strange how they're talking like all this stuff is new. Choosing ASIs came as an "optional rule" in Tasha's in 2020. In reality, it sometimes wasn't optional, because WoTC stopped giving you information on ability scores to increase for newly published races. Around the same time, they stopped providing alignment (lawful/chaotic good/evil) information for new monsters, and removed some paragraphs from Volo's Guide to Monsters (https://old.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/rg4idx/writeup_of_all_the_lore_thats_beeing_removed_from/) - - side note, in lore, Volo is explicitly a kind of fucked up guy, and even in the book, another narrator comes into the book and contradicts him occasionally.
My D&D group wasn't particularly happy about those changes, but that's because they (I joined late, and am relatively new to D&D) are big lore people. They liked how the mechanical benefits of various races would push towards trying new ones, and would do deep dive research and integrate the lore of their characters race into our game. Side note, it's also easier, when running a fantasy game, to have a convenient byword for "evil", even when you know that's not how the real world works. Most people don't want to check that each individual cultist is a fanatic before slaughtering them on their way to stop the big bad evil guy. Making them all Yuan-Ti can be a shortcut that discourages the need for that.
We chose as a group not to move to the 2024 revision, though we might pull in the occasional rule that interests us. That's also because of the changes they made to NPC casters moving to "per day" abilities away from proper character sheets that give them much more flexibility. As it was, anything Tasha's and newer was an "ask first" from our DM because of the power creep. He also hated how the newer books moved away from providing Forgotten Realms lore for everything, and instead started providing big roll tables for different ways the lore of something to be, drastically reducing the amount of detail, and basically requiring DMs to write their own lore.
https://archive.ph/RK85d
(I'm soo tired to learn what Musk thinks abouth this or that...)
Interesting discussion. While reading through the article I was struck repeatedly by two main thoughts.
First is that the relationship of race to species is very similar to that of gender to sex. Specifically, that sex denotes the physical biological differences between men and women (both internal and external) while gender is widely considered a social construct. The social construct can, in my opinion, be most clearly evidenced by the differences of gender roles in various human societies both historically and in modernity. That said, we all seem to draw the lines of what is gender and what is sex in different places. Much of the last 150+ years of the civil rights movement, of which feminism is a part, has been varying degrees of redrawing these lines to argue what women, or black people, can and cannot accomplish due to biological differences. For sex, what those biological differences exactly are/are caused by is still under investigation.
The second thought I was struck by, is that the author of this article repeatedly states that this was done because "we don’t believe that race is real" while also pointing out that the handbook never explains the reasoning for the changes. I think the author actually displays a misunderstanding that is indicative of why organizations are less than willing to directly state their reasoning. They're going to lose a larger and larger percentage of their audience the more specific they get. If they say that "we don't believe that race is real" they are going to be dismissed outright by anyone who does believe that race is real, or who doesn't understand what they are stating. If they say that "we want to reflect that race is a social construct, not indicative of biological differences between people" then they are going to lose people who do not understand what a social construct is. The handbook is not and should not be a genetics textbook. There is a segment of their player base who just want to roll the dice, slay some Kobolds, and win in a story of their team prevailing over evil. D&D is about the ability to service that audience just as well allowing another DM to tell a story of societal change in a culture that is grappling with the peoples ability to shift their gender identity.
Thinking about this from the prospective of a potential campaign, it opens up the opportunity to have various races of species who have different cultures and backgrounds.
I'm not really sure what point the author is trying to make here. It seems like they generally agree with the changes but not the explanation for the changes?
It's not a great look to have all the all the black elves be evil, and the general concept of an inherently stronger, smarter, or more likeable race of people is somewhat problematic. I don't think it really requires any more explanation than that.
Is it problematic that lions are stronger than lynxes? Or that parrots are more sociable than eagles? That octopi are smarter than clams? Would it be problematic if they were sapient in their current bodies? What if they were more humanoid?
Is it problematic that kobolds are weaker, less intelligent, and less charming than devils? They're both sapient humanoids considered monsters.
What is the actual problematic element here? That different groups of creatures might be different, or that, once they're sapient we feel the need to apply a human standard to them and as such apply our presumption of equal worth and quality to every person?
The problematic element was that they were called races, and not species. All of the real life examples you have given are examples of different species. There is only one living species of humans on the planet at this time, and it encompasses all races and ethnicities which we can identify as.
That's the whole point. Species is a better word to describe this than race. Especially when race is already such a charged subject.
My better-edited reply got ate, but tldr as someone who doesn't play 5e right now nor pays too much attention to WotC news but plays RPGs, two angles:
They just did the updates to Orcs and Drow to remove some imperialist and indigenous-insensitive influences and connotations, which to me sounded like a well-meaning update trying to make the influence less problematic to actual people. This may be an extention of that, though I'm not sure for better or worse like you said.
From a game perspective it's possible they're trying to raise ceilings? Using your example of Kobolds, they've been shitting on them for decades but players are starting to adapt them as PCs - and I agree that they shouldn't be shackled down by some kind of innate penalty to maintain the lore. I imagine if people want play a Kobold breaking the mold they're going to have skills that reflect their prowess. Still, I can also imagine that they could give a suggested ASI anyway and then give DMs the option to completely ignore it...
I can agree with the morality and alignment aspect, that's always bugged me in fiction. But it makes sense to me that different... Well, "races" is kinda the problematic word here, I think. For humans, the main difference between races are cosmetic. Race is, as the article notes, a man-made concept.
However, there's a vast physical difference between a human and someone who's half-dragon with claws, scales and horns. It seems logical to me that one of those would have natural physical advantages over the other. I could similarly see the argument of elves being naturally more inclined to being smarter not due to biology, but just their longer lifespans giving them more time to learn. Humans meanwhile, I can imagine being more agile and flexible than some of the bulkier... Species? Clades? And also having a stronger affinity for magic, and more cultural emphasis on knowledge and innovation, to compensate for those physical disadvantages.
Point is, the physical differences make sense to me, and I can see them leading to some really great world-building. Refusing to acknowledge those differences from a mechanical standpoint just seems bizarre.
To steelman WotC's changes, the article makes the mistake of conflating the PC with everyone. The changes were to people making player characters.
PCs are already special snowflakes - you think just anyone can grow into a wizard that can make demiplanes at will?
So is that much of a stretch that you are the 0.001% of gnomes with strength comparable to a dragonborn, if you want to be? If you extrapolate a lvl 20 character, all PCs become weird demigods that are uncomparable to anyone in the general populace anyway, no matter how you build your character.
That doesn't mean that your NPCs have to follow PC creation rules. In fact, they absolutely shouldn't. NPCs should never have the same stat blocks as players - there is an intended asymmetry.
That still breaks down when comparing PCs to each other. Maybe a gnome is the top 0.001% for strength, but then a dragonborn in the same party physically can't be that exceptional even if it would make sense with their class and background.