D&D General Words which replaced "race" in fantasy games

[FrogReaver]

Only in math, not in social science.

I’d say that’s true for math too. But that’s pretty far from the point.

 

[Raiztt]

It’s an important part of this discussion, regardless of your interest in it, or lack thereof.

I mean, that's true, but you don't need to raise it with me/bring it up in a response to me. I'm sure other people would discuss it though.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, that's true, but you don't need to raise it with me/bring it up in a response to me. I'm sure other people would discuss it though.

I mean, you asked what it means for the language to be inclusive. I guess people could technically have ignored your question, but the reason you’re getting people talking to you about subjective inclusion is that the answer to your question inherently involves subjectivity.

 

[Raiztt]

answer to your question inherently involves subjectivity.

And I disagree. I gave my definition and defended it. If people don't agree they can just say "Oh, well, i guess we don't agree". Like, if someone has a different definition for something, but it's a really tight and internally coherent definition, i don't try and convince them they're wrong.

If it seems internally inconsistant or gappy, then I probe it.

 

[FrogReaver]

And I disagree. I gave my definition and defended it. If people don't agree they can just say "Oh, well, i guess we don't agree". Like, if someone has a different definition for something, but it's a really tight and internally coherent definition, i don't try and convince them they're wrong.

My head is spinning. You asked why X was defined as inclusive. Many answered you. Now you say you only wanted to talk about your definition of inclusive… But providing a different definition doesn’t have any bearing on why others view that as being inclusive. Maybe you can explain your intent better.

 

[Marandahir]

And I disagree. I gave my definition and defended it. If people don't agree they can just say "Oh, well, i guess we don't agree". Like, if someone has a different definition for something, but it's a really tight and internally coherent definition, i don't try and convince them they're wrong.

If it seems internally inconsistant or gappy, then I probe it.

Then you're not going to get many answers, because your question seems to be built on false pretenses that others aren't really able to engage with you on.

You might as well unask the question. Mu.

 

[Raiztt]

Then you're not going to get many answers, because your question seems to be built on false pretenses that others aren't really able to engage with you on.

You might as well unask the question. Mu.

You mean to say built on a premise that other people don't share, not "false pretenses". That would would imply i'm lying or being deceptive about something.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I disagree. I gave my definition and defended it. If people don't agree they can just say "Oh, well, i guess we don't agree". Like, if someone has a different definition for something, but it's a really tight and internally coherent definition, i don't try and convince them they're wrong.

If it seems internally inconsistant or gappy, then I probe it.

Your preferred definition doesn’t really have any bearing on WotC’s decision-making. It is irrelevant when it comes to answering the question you asked.

 

[FrogReaver]

Deleted. User no longer in thread. Never seems right to post to them when that’s the case.

 

[Morrus]

I do not care at all for enworlds opaque rules about what is and is not allowed

Sorry to hear that. You’ll be leaving this thread. I’ll decide whether you’re leaving the site; let me know via PM if you decide you do care about our rules. I’ll give you 24 hours to consider it.