New York Times gift articles

617 readers

140 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Only post New York Times gift article links.

Info:

The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
“Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.

Tip:

Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

baltakatei@sopuli.xyz

Dungeons & Dragons Rolls the Dice With New Rules About Identity (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

They either needed to replace "race" with "species" or divorce traits from racial identity.

Instead they did both and I'm not sure it works? If a human is a different species from an elf, why shouldn't elves be inherently better at magic? If they're basically the same in terms of biological traits, what even makes them different species?

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Elves do get extra bonuses in Magic beyond stats.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The article is unclear, because:

“Races” are now “species.” Some character traits have been divorced from biological identity; a mountain dwarf is no longer inherently brawny and durable, a high elf no longer intelligent and dexterous by definition.
...
“People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice,” Crawford said, adding, “They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”

It sounds like the goal was to decrease the differences between the species. Looking at the pages you posted, it sure doesn't seem like elves are actually any better at magic. They get a few spells from their heritage, more proficiencies, but a human spell caster and an elven spell caster would basically be the same. It looks like the changes are intended to make playstyles interchangeable between the different species - no species is a greater or lesser wizard than any other species.

I guess I don't dislike it? It just seems odd to make species less different.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not that all traits have been separated from species. Just the traits that come across as racist.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They didn't just "come across" as racist. Racial traits were racist in previous editions, by definition, because it was about the differences between races. Tying differences to race is always racist, that's literally what racism is. I like the change to "species."

But if they're different species, I don't really think those differences are racist anymore? I don't really see how "elves have more magic than mountain dwarves" is still racist when they're entirely different species. I guess it can be problematic for there to be one species that specializes in Int, Wis, and Cha since they'd just be inherently smarter and more beautiful? There's probably no way to make that work. But why shouldn't the elvish species be greater spellcasters? It's just an odd choice.