RPG Evolution: Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?

The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it? “Race” and Modern Parlance We previously discussed the challenges of representing real-life cultures in a fantasy world, with African and Asian countries being just two examples...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The term "race" is a staple of fantasy that is now out of sync with modern usage. With Pathfinder shifting from "race" to "ancestry" in its latest edition, it raises the question: should fantasy games still use it?

DNDSpecies.gif

“Race” and Modern Parlance

We previously discussed the challenges of representing real-life cultures in a fantasy world, with African and Asian countries being just two examples. The discussion becomes more complicated with fantasy "races"—historically, race was believed to be determined by the geographic arrangement of populations. Fantasy gaming, which has its roots in fantasy literature, still uses the term “race” this way.

Co-creator of D&D Gary Gygax cited R.E. Howard's Conan series as an influence on D&D, which combines Lovecraftian elements with sword and sorcery. Howard's perceptions may have been a sign of the times he lived in, but it seems likely they influenced his stories. Robert B. Marks explains just how these stereotypes manifested in Conan's world:
The young, vibrant civilizations of the Hyborian Age, like Aquilonia and Nemedia, are white - the equivalent of Medieval Europe. Around them are older Asiatic civilizations like Stygia and Vendhya, ancient, decrepit, and living on borrowed time. To the northwest and the south are the barbarian lands - but only Asgard and Vanaheim are in any way Viking. The Black Kingdoms are filled with tribesmen evoking the early 20th century vision of darkest Africa, and the Cimmerians and Picts are a strange cross between the ancient Celts and Native Americans - and it is very clear that the barbarians and savages, and not any of the civilized people or races, will be the last ones standing.
Which leads us to the other major fantasy influence, author J.R.R. Tolkien. David M. Perry explains in an interview with Helen Young:
In Middle Earth, unlike reality, race is objectively real rather than socially constructed. There are species (elves, men, dwarves, etc.), but within those species there are races that conform to 19th-century race theory, in that their physical attributes (hair color, etc.) are associated with non-physical attributes that are both personal and cultural. There is also an explicit racial hierarchy which is, again, real in the world of the story.
The Angry GM elaborates on why race and culture were blended in Tolkien's works:
The thing is, in the Tolkienverse, at least, in the Lord of the Rings version of the Tolkienverse (because I can’t speak for what happened in the Cinnabon or whatever that other book was called), the races were all very insular and isolated. They didn’t deal with one another. Race and culture went hand in hand. If you were a wood elf, you were raised by wood elves and lived a thoroughly wood elf lifestyle until that whole One Ring issue made you hang out with humans and dwarves and halflings. That isolation was constantly thrust into the spotlight. Hell, it was a major issue in The Hobbit.
Given the prominence of race in fantasy, it's not surprising that D&D has continued the trend. That trend now seems out of sync with modern parlance; in 1951, the United Nations officially declared that the differences among humans were "insignificant in relation to the anthropological sameness among the peoples who are the human race."

“Race” and Game Design

Chris Van Dyke's essay on race back in 2008 explains how pervasive "race" is in D&D:
Anyone who has played D&D has spent a lot of time talking about race – “Racial Attributes,” “Racial Restrictions,” “Racial Bonuses.” Everyone knows that different races don’t get along – thanks to Tolkien, Dwarves and Elves tend to distrust each other, and even non-gamers know that Orcs and Goblins are, by their very nature, evil creatures. Race is one of the most important aspects of any fantasy role-playing game, and the belief that there are certain inherent genetic and social distinctions between different races is built into every level of most (if not all) Fantasy Role-Playing Games.
Racial characteristics in D&D have changed over time. Basic Dungeons & Dragons didn't distinguish between race and class for non-humans, such that one played a dwarf, elf, or halfling -- or a human fighter or cleric. The characteristics of race were so tightly intertwined that race and profession were considered one.

In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the changes became more nuanced, but not without some downsides on character advancement, particularly in allowing “demihumans” to multiclass but with level limits preventing them from exceeding humanity, who had unlimited potential (but could only dual-class).

With Fifth Edition, ability penalties and level caps have been removed, but racial bonuses and proficiencies still apply. The Angry GM explains why this is a problem:
In 5E, you choose a race and a class, but you also choose a background. And the background represents your formative education and socio-economic standing and all that other stuff that basically represents the environment in which you were raised. The racial abilities still haven’t changed even though there is now a really good place for “cultural racial abilities” to live. So, here’s where the oddity arises. An elf urchin will automatically be proficient with a longsword and longbow, two weapons that requires years of training to even become remotely talent with, but a human soldier does not get any automatic martial training. Obviously, in both cases, class will modify that. But in the life of your character, race happens first, then background, and only later on do you end up a member of a class. It’s very quirky.
Perhaps this is why Pathfinder decided to take a different approach to race by shifting to the term “ancestry”:
Beyond the narrative, there are many things that have changed, but mostly in the details of how the game works. You still pick a race, even though it is now called your ancestry. You still decide on your class—the rulebook includes all of the core classes from the First Edition Core Rulebook, plus the alchemist. You still select feats, but these now come from a greater variety of sources, such as your ancestry, your class, and your skills.
"Ancestry" is not just a replacement for the word “race.” It’s a fluid term that requires the player to make choices at character creation and as the character advances. This gives an opportunity to express human ethnicities in game terms, including half-elves and half-orcs, without forcing the “subrace” construct.

The Last Race

It seems likely that, from both a modern parlance and game design perspective, “race” as it is used today will fall out of favor in fantasy games. It’s just going to take time. Indigo Boock sums up the challenge:
Fantasy is a doubled edged sword. Every human culture has some form of fantasy, we all have some sort of immortal ethereal realm where our elven creatures dwell. There’s always this realm that transcends culture. Tolkien said, distinct from science fiction (which looks to the future), fantasy is to feel like one with the entire universe. Fantasy is real, deep human yearning. We look to it as escapism, whether we play D&D, or Skyrim, or you are like myself and write fantasy. There are unfortunately some old cultural tropes that need to be discarded, and it can be frustratingly slow to see those things phased out.
Here's hoping other role-playing games will follow Pathfinder's lead in how treats its fantasy people in future editions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Celebrim

Legend
If you lose more people than you gain, then that still indicates a bad game.

The core of our disagreement then is based in the very vague nature of the words "good" and "bad".

That some people enjoy it doesn't make it good.

It would certainly be one factor. I could site others.

Ultimately, I think we actually agree it's just the words you are using are really vague. I will say that I do not think it was a good business decision to publish 4e, however well designed, coherent, targeted to a specific audience, and fun it may have been for people who wanted a tighter more tactical game, it might have been. Fun is a very subjective quality. And while I agree in a since with your claim "If it picks up fewer, then it is pretty much by definition a worse game than you had.", that's true only if the metric you are using for "good" is a business metric. It's entirely possible for something to be "good" and not successful in the market, or for it to be "bad" and for it to fail in the market. "Good" and "bad" in themselves don't mark what they are measuring. What does it mean to be a "good car"? Well, it depends on what purpose the car has.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Obryn

Hero
I absolutely love Eberron. It's the only published setting that I'm actively interested in running. Greyhawk made a great "fallback" for one-shots or when I didn't want baggage from my own home brew. Ravenloft was wonderful for looting, because I've always loved Gothic horror elements and undead. But Eberron is cool as just Eberron and I'd run it just as eagerly as a home brew setting.

That said, there are some elements that I'd prefer to leave in Eberron. I definitely don't want Warforged anywhere else (they're my least-favorite aspect of the setting). And, I'm not sure how I'd do either Dragonmarks or true-breeding half-elves without it feeling derivative in my own head.

(Not knocking, just giving my own concerns in looting.)
Despite my own skepticism, I brought Warforged into my 4e Dark Sun game - animate constructions of bone, sinew, and obsidian, created by the sorcerer-kings from the souls of fallen heroes. Perfect troops who needed neither food nor water and who cared nothing for the desert heat, yet who could still think and reason.

They fit in really damn well, actually.
 

james501

First Post
No. The correct syntax would be "Who are your people?" or perhaps "What people do you belong to?"

You are talking abou alternate ways to frame the question. Sure, they can be used but why discard the already used ones ?

In real life you can both ask someone

-What ethnic descent/heritage does he have have ?
-What ethnicity is he ?

Why not retain the equivalent term for fantasy ?

Also what happens when there is a "people" that might be comprised of different races ?
Say, a nation or faction or cult whose members are elves, humans, minotaurs, orcs etc and they are considered a single "people" ?

The following are all well-formed:

You companion who will join us shortly, who are her people?

My people can breathe underwater.


"People" can refer to empire,nation, tribe,clan,family line, or even any (non-bilogically-related or blood-related) faction one joins. It is too general a term to be any use.
Race refers to specific biologically distinct beings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pauper

That guy, who does that thing.
Since we have a side thread going, I opposed 4e and very vocally said that 4e was not a design I was going to adopt.

But I do think it was a good game. It just was not a game for me.

At the risk of feeding the side thread and turning a dumpster fire about race into a dumpster fire about the edition wars, I'll agree that the game likely wasn't for you, but disagree that it was a bad design. My belief is that 4e was the most faithful interpretation of the original D&D that there has ever been.

D&D, as a game, derived from Chainmail, a set of fantasy wargaming rules used to simulate mass battles. In fact, what's called Original D&D basically told you to use the Chainmail rules for combat. Early D&D adventures were basically all about exploring a huge megadungeon and fighting the things you found there. (I don't have a good link for this, but feel free to check out Jon Peterson's "Playing at the World" and Shannon Applecline's "Designers & Dragons, the '70s" for more on this.) Fourth Edition embraced this, serving as the clearest 'fantasy combat simulator' of all the D&D editions. It even solved a few of the long-standing problems of earlier editions, like "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" by putting all class abilities on the same structural footing.

Fourth Edition was D&D for people who didn't like D&D. And if you were one of those people, then it was probably the edition for you.

Fourth Edition was a great edition for two types of players: players who liked the tactical combat of the D&D Miniatures skirmish game but didn't care for the odd complexities of Third Edition, and players who embraced an 'old school' love of 'kill the monster, take their stuff'. These weren't the only players Fourth Edition appealed to, but those players definitely found Fourth Edition appealing -- I know this because I played the game with them, all the way through the Next playtest and into the official launch of Fifth Edition.

If you want to say that Fifth Edition did a better job of appealing to its core audience while still reaching out to new players, I won't argue the point -- the very existence of Pathfinder and its temporary sojourn into 'best selling RPG' pretty much makes the point for you -- but I'll fight the idea that Fourth Edition was somehow 'not D&D'. The guys I played Fourth Edition with would not have been at all out of place at an OD&D or AD&D table; they simply hadn't realized that this was a game that would appeal to them until Fourth Edition came out.

--
Pauper
 

Celebrim

Legend
At the risk of feeding the side thread and turning a dumpster fire about race into a dumpster fire about the edition wars, I'll agree that the game likely wasn't for you, but disagree that it was a bad design.

I have never claimed 4e was bad design. Even back when I was the original edition warrior, it was never my claim that 4e was a bad game, nor even when I criticized the design did I ever intend to become the original edition warrior or fuel the flames of the war that resulted. In fact, in my early criticisms I wasn't even necessarily thinking that 4e wasn't going to be a game for me, and in my later criticism I was only stating my disappointment with the fact that I wasn't part of the target audience and the excessive way that 4e was marketed by claiming that 3e was a bad game (something which was then picked up heavily by the 4e audience). For me, the edition war was a period where practically every thread someone was saying you were literally clinically insane for enjoying 3e, but even during that frustration I never claimed 4e was a bad game.

My belief is that 4e was the most faithful interpretation of the original D&D that there has ever been.

Or that. Or that 4e was a Nar game. Let's just not go there.
 


pemerton

Legend
You are talking abou alternate ways to frame the question. Sure, they can be used but why discard the already used ones ?

In real life you can both ask someone

-What ethnic descent/heritage does he have have ?
-What ethnicity is he ?

Why not retain the equivalent term for fantasy ?

Also what happens when there is a "people" that might be comprised of different races ?
Say, a nation or faction or cult whose members are elves, humans, minotaurs, orcs etc and they are considered a single "people" ?

"People" can refer to empire,nation, tribe,clan,family line, or even any (non-bilogically-related or blood-related) faction one joins. It is too general a term to be any use.
Race refers to specific biologically distinct beings.
Let's bracket the question of how distinctions between peoples in a fantasy context can possibly be classified as biological.

"Race" has all sorts of usages and connotations. Biology is one component. Heritage is another - when 19th or early 20th century writers and orators referred to "the British race" I don't think they had just biology in mind, but also (what they took to be) cultural heritage and achievement, a certain sort of spirit which - depending on their other metaphysical and theological convictions - they may or may not have thought had some material basis.

In real life, a "race" can be composed of people of different "races". (Eg there are people who would, in Australia, generally be judged Black but who, in Kenya, would generally be judged white.) In pseudo-Tolkienesque fantasy, is the child of a half-elf and a human a human, a less-than-haf-elf, or what?

And how did Black British people fit into the 19th/early-20th century conception of "the British race"? Awkwardly, no doubt, but not especially straightforwardly either.

I think your claims about the "clarity" of racial membership are wrong both for the real world and the fantasy one.

As far as language is concerned, it's not uncommon in English for words that can do duty for one another to not admit of the same syntactic variations. Eg I am obligated to = I have an obligation to; but there is no corresponding nominalisation for I must. "Who are her people?" will do fine both for "What ethnicity does she have?" (which frankly is on the margins of well-formedness) and "What is her ethnicity?"

And if you are worried that some peoples might include both humans and minotaurs, well I'm sure somewhere among the elves there are already children whose parents (unknown to most) were silver dragons. It happens!
 



james501

First Post
Let's bracket the question of how distinctions between peoples in a fantasy context can possibly be classified as biological.

"Race" has all sorts of usages and connotations. Biology is one component. Heritage is another - when 19th or early 20th century writers and orators referred to "the British race" I don't think they had just biology in mind, but also (what they took to be) cultural heritage and achievement, a certain sort of spirit which - depending on their other metaphysical and theological convictions - they may or may not have thought had some material basis.

In real life, a "race" can be composed of people of different "races". (Eg there are people who would, in Australia, generally be judged Black but who, in Kenya, would generally be judged white.) In pseudo-Tolkienesque fantasy, is the child of a half-elf and a human a human, a less-than-haf-elf, or what?

And how did Black British people fit into the 19th/early-20th century conception of "the British race"? Awkwardly, no doubt, but not especially straightforwardly either.

I think your claims about the "clarity" of racial membership are wrong both for the real world and the fantasy one.

I dont get whatt your hangup is with the real antiquated racial classifications.

We talk about fantasy, made up stuff here.



In pseudo-Tolkienesque fantasy, is the child of a half-elf and a human a human, a less-than-haf-elf, or what?

Who knows, maybe the "half-elven race" ?
Fluidity can exist even with racial terminology. We still have ethnicity in reality even though it can also be fluid sometimes as most of us have experienced in our lives.

That's because, despite occasional fulidity, there is a difference between say : a Greek man, living in greece, having ancestry from the place going back hundreds years, speaking Greek and participating in Greek culture and a Japanese man who does all the same but for Japan.

Same for fantasy races.


As far as language is concerned, it's not uncommon in English for words that can do duty for one another to not admit of the same syntactic variations. Eg I am obligated to = I have an obligation to; but there is no corresponding nominalisation for I must. "Who are her people?" will do fine both for "What ethnicity does she have?" (which frankly is on the margins of well-formedness) and "What is her ethnicity?"

You miss the point. There is no reason to discard this particular way of speaking. We use the same way of speaking for race as we do for ethnicity in real life. That's because a lot of times they share some similarities and makes sense for us to do so.
Why use a long-winded awkard phrase that isnt even aptly descrpitive instead of just saying "race" ?

And if you are worried that some peoples might include both humans and minotaurs, well I'm sure somewhere among the elves there are already children whose parents (unknown to most) were silver dragons. It happens!


I am not sure why I would be "worried" but I metioned it to showcase the confusion it creates.

"People" is a very fluid, general term that could indicate a nation/tribe/clan, it could indicate racial relation, family relation, cultural relation, intellectual relation, political relation etc etc. It doesnt denote anything specific.
"Race" does.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top