D&D (2024) One D&D Permanently Removes The Term 'Race'

In line with many other tabletop roleplaying games, such as Pathfinder or Level Up, One D&D is removing the term 'race'. Where Pathfinder uses 'Ancestry' and Level Up uses 'Heritage', One D&D will be using 'Species'.

Moving On From 'Race' in the 2024 Core Rulebooks

We understand "race" is a problematic term that has had prejudiced links between real world people and the fantasy peoples of D&D worlds.

www.dndbeyond.com

In a blog post, WotC announced that "We have made the decision to move on from using the term "race" everywhere in One D&D, and we do not intend to return to that term."

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

DM: Okay, John, please describe your elf, Yinro Lightdew, to the group.

John: Okay! Lightdew is very much a traditional elf who specializes in the outdoors and archery. His dark green skin and three foot stature helps him blend into the forest, and his little wings allow him to reach the top of any tree very quickly. Though he does not smoke a pipe, on occasion a small cloud of blue smoke exits his mouth when he burps, which is the telltale sign that he can breath fire when necessary.

STR 18, CON 16, DEX 8, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 11... what?

 

[Jahydin]

I don't think you know what "virtue signalling" means.

"The action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."

Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, but the Beyond post certainly seems to match that definition...

What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.

Sounds like you despise the very core of the game, haha.

Not making fun! Genuinely intrigued what your D&D games are like now and how you envision the perfect "final form" of the game in the future.

Except that's not really true. Especially as those people often includes kids who were losers/misfits precisely because they were racists or misogynists even beyond what was acceptable in society back then. And girls and minority kids were often rejected or mistreated by the same "losers" you're claiming the game "brought together".

Often huh? Get out of here...

This fictional version of the past really needs to stop being repeated. The table top community has always been one step ahead in terms of acceptance and inclusion my entire life. Anyone telling you different is just trying to sell you something.

Further, even by the extremely early 1990s, RPGs weren't appealing to the same "I see myself as an outcast" crowd as a lot of '80s D&D players were. I don't think anyone in my D&D groups in the 1990s was a loser or misfit in terms of school/society. These were straight-A kids and jocks and so on. Hell the biggest toughest most violent (only towards objects/walls, mostly, thankfully) jock in my school was in my group for a while.

Well, there was this small company called WhiteWolf...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sounds like you despise the very core of the game, haha.

I think you're knee-jerking a bit there.

Someone describing real issues with something doesn't mean they "despise" it. That's this weird thing people jump to on the internet these days. It's got worse and worse over the years. The mildest criticism now is you hate something, and if you praise something even slightly, you're a "FANBOY!!!" and love the product beyond all reason. It's always particularly funny when in the same thread, you get called both.

The point is D&D has been built on this yikes-y concept, historically. I don't hate the concept, it can absolutely be fun to act like a bunch of vikings or whatever, but I do think it's got a fuse on it and however long that fuse is, it's eventually going to reach the bomb. And I will be honest, I'd much rather fight Drow or the like (intellectually and physically equal to the PCs) than some race/species that's all-round inferior. I do not D&D has been moving away from the concept of inferiority, even in monster races, for a long time though. It backslid a ton going from 4E to 5E (even from 3E to 5E there was some backsliding), particularly with Volos, but is moving rapidly away from that now.

Not making fun! Genuinely intrigued what your D&D games are like now and how you envision the perfect "final form" of the game in the future.

I mean, we're usually fighting people who are effectively making the PCs the underdogs, rather than having the PCs kicking and looting their way through of bunch of goblins/kobolds or the like. In my main campaign an East India Company-style megacorporation is the long-term adversary, which is something I think fits surprisingly well with D&D plus everybody hates the East India Company, they're the Arasaka of the 1700s.

I think what a lot of designers do is just make supernatural beings/forces be behind everything, which also works but I find gets pretty old pretty fast.

This fictional version of the past really needs to stop being repeated. The table top community has always been one step ahead in terms of acceptance and inclusion my entire life. Anyone telling you different is just trying to sell you something.

It's not "fictional" and no-one is "telling" me it. I started playing in 1989. I met a lot of gamers who were older than me, and about the same age, and whilst the majority were definitely cool people, there was a sadly significant minority who were just creeps of various kinds, and particularly misogynists. As time has worn on, it's been increasingly unacceptable to act like that, so those people have been pushed out of the hobby to a significant degree. But they existed well into the '90s.

I guess the point is that both were true at the same time. There were plenty of groups people who were more accepting and open-minded than the norm (not all of those people were "losers" or "outsiders" though), but there were also groups of people who were the unpleasant kinds of loser, and trying to paint a rosy picture of the past is misleading.

Well, there was this small company called WhiteWolf...

Uh-huh, which appealed to a wide section of the market, including plenty of kids who weren't in any meaningful way "losers" or "outsiders". The LARP might have been Goths-only, but the tabletop sure wasn't. This was never more obvious than playing it at university in the late '90s.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

EDIT: wrong thread.

 

[Cadence]

Me: "And they're also changing the word race to maybe species."

13yo: <pause> "Oh, I get it. So it's less mean and not like racist and stuff."

 

[Jahydin]

I mean, we're usually fighting people who are effectively making the PCs the underdogs, rather than having the PCs kicking and looting their way through of bunch of goblins/kobolds or the like.

Oh, makes sense, totally understand. I think my DM shares a similar sentiment, which is why he switched over to the 4th edition "variety of orcs" type of Monster Manual.

I'm the opposite though. Never liked the idea of PCs killing sentient NPCs like bandits or other adventurers. Having clean cut "evil" races, animals, and monsters is less "yikes" to me, haha.

I guess the point is that both were true at the same time. There were plenty of groups people who were more accepting and open-minded than the norm (not all of those people were "losers" or "outsiders" though), but there were also groups of people who were the unpleasant kinds of loser, and trying to paint a rosy picture of the past is misleading.

That certainly sounds more balanced.

Pulling away from individual tables though, I think the community as a whole was pretty alright. I mean, most of the designers we love today came from it after all.

Uh-huh, which appealed to a wide section of the market, including plenty of kids who weren't in any meaningful way "losers" or "outsiders". The LARP might have been Goths-only, but the tabletop sure wasn't. This was never more obvious than playing it at university in the late '90s.

I was in high school in the US, so it was mostly the trench coat wearing Drama department crowd that played. Didn't know it was popular outside that crowd. I owned all the core books I never could get anyone to play with me...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.

I think we've time. People have been seeing cathartic works of art for litterally millenia. MCU is going strong despite being about vigilantes killing people. Hollywood will certainly be about people killing people for our lifetime...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree, but I fear what the translators would do. Species isn't better, it can even be worse but I doubt the translator will keep the original term. He might translate species the easiest way, and it will sound very strange.

Also, it establishes elfs and humans are different species. When we described them as race, it made distinction between orcs, elves and humans unacceptable, by analogy with the real world term. I am not sure I like the implication of having them being different species.

In German games we usually use "Volk".
But by definition it is more cultural than actual biological... but then, in the actual world there are no different humanoid species left on earth. The last were gone when the Neanderthals disappeared.

 

[broghammerj]

I don't think you know what "virtue signalling" means. I mean, it's funny because you point out that species isn't much better, but you still claim this. Species is indeed not much better, but you seem to think WotC are too dumb to know that?

As for "improve society", what the hell? That's obviously not something a one-word change in D&D is going to do. Why would you even bring that up? That's like objecting to fluoridation of the water because it doesn't cure cancer. Nonsensical.

They've moving away from race not to "virtue signal", but because it's not a good descriptor (species ain't great but it is better), and because it gives them clear space away from real-world discussions of race. You don't have to like it, but from a business point of view it's clearly smart. You're trying to see it through a very peculiar lens though and seem to have missed that.

I think WotC is virtue signaling. "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue." It allow WotC to say, "Hey look at what we are doing to make the game more inclusive."

There are plenty of people who dislike D&D for that, especially younger ones. WotC is aware of this and is trying to avoid it becoming a major issue, though. It's called getting ahead of the problem.

What's actually astonishing is how long and well D&D has lasted despite being, essentially, about brutally murdering a bunch of often intellectually and physically inferior beings and taking their stuff (yikes lol). Honestly only sheer intertia and the fact that so very many games are about that are we still getting away with this, frankly. One day that may well not be true, but I think videogames will keep it going for long enough that TTRPGs will gradually transition away from killing goblins and the like.

Show me some data that it's a problem? Getting out ahead of what? DnD is probably just fine. From the LoTR, Harry Potter movies, Game of Thrones, Witcher, and Stranger things, fantasy can't be much more popular right now.

DnD is murdering and butchering a ton of sentient beings. We kill the orcs, drow, and goblins because of who they are (an evil group of beings). That itself is more "racist" than calling the dwarves, elves, and humans races. If race is so terrible then what do you propose the US Census us to describe its citizens. This is a diverse board of non-Americans. Here is a reference: About the Topic of Race

Except that's not really true. Especially as those people often includes kids who were losers/misfits precisely because they were racists or misogynists even beyond what was acceptable in society back then. And girls and minority kids were often rejected or mistreated by the same "losers" you're claiming the game "brought together".

Further, even by the extremely early 1990s, RPGs weren't appealing to the same "I see myself as an outcast" crowd as a lot of '80s D&D players were. I don't think anyone in my D&D groups in the 1990s was a loser or misfit in terms of school/society. These were straight-A kids and jocks and so on. Hell the biggest toughest most violent (only towards objects/walls, mostly, thankfully) jock in my school was in my group for a while.

I'm not even sure it was entirely true in the '80s but I leave it to people who were around then to comment on that.

Go to Gen Con. If you think that represents a cross section of popular high school kids and jocks, you must not be attending the same convention as me or went to a very different high school then I did (graduated 1994, USA).

DnD might not be the most diverse group and is mostly white males, but out of the 10 or so people that slipped in and out of my group for 10-15 years, five of them were black. Although I can't diminish any story that others have experienced, I can't say I've personally ever witnessed someone excluded due to race, having racial epitaph hurled at them, etc. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

However, changing a word to race doesn't mean racists, misogynists, and jerks won't play DnD.

That will literally never happen because it's not a punchy insult, it's a clunky multisyllabic term that a lot of eight-year-olds would struggle to pronounce, let alone use as an offensive weapon! Whereas the other words you list are pretty ideal. And only one of them is actually socially unacceptable.

You say that now but I would put money in escrow against you. Case in point: "Retarded comes from the Latin retardare. This means, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder." The first record of the word "retarded" in relation to developmental delay was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile. This was because it was not a derogatory term at that time. However, by the 1960s, the term became a word used to insult someone."

History Of Stigmatizing Names For Intellectual Disabilities Continued - Mental Help

As introduced by S.G. Howe (1846), simpleton was intended to mean people with mild intellectual disability. However, it never fully entered the worldwide

www.mentalhelp.net

 

[broghammerj]

And I will be honest, I'd much rather fight Drow or the like (intellectually and physically equal to the PCs) than some race/species that's all-round inferior. I do not D&D has been moving away from the concept of inferiority, even in monster races, for a long time though. It backslid a ton going from 4E to 5E (even from 3E to 5E there was some backsliding), particularly with Volos, but is moving rapidly away from that now.

You don't think making the black skinned elves, evil couldn't be interpreted as racist in and of itself? I'm sort of chuckling at the example you decided on. It depends how far you want to take this level of personal offense and perceived need for inclusiveness. Dwarves, drow, violent killing, etc can all be offensive. At some point the game is no longer DnD and becomes unplayable as such.