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."

 

[Andvari]

If they decide on kind, which kind do you think is the kindest kind of kind in D&D?

 

[Mercurius]

To say Moradin created the descendants of Dwarf to speak Dwarfish and be miners, is the same ethical problem of reallife racism.

So much for fantasy fiction, then.

I take it you're saying that fantasy authors (and game designers) can't or shouldn't present ideas that don't pass the smell test of real world academic theory?

Let's say a fantasy author wants to write a story in a world in which an evil, demiurgic deity created people as a slave species. Are you saying that they shouldn't even posit such a world, because it is inherently a racist idea?

Or let's say a fantasy author creates a world in which different races are created in the image of their creator deity, and thus have different inborn traits reflecting the nature of their deity...that is a no-no?

Or to put it another way, what can we create and imagine? Must it all reflect real-world ideology, and whose real-world ideology?

Isn't a major aspect of fantasy to imagine different worlds and scenarios that are different from our own?

 

[Incenjucar]

D&D is not a novel series penned by a single author who can be responsible for everything written in it.

 

[Cadence]

As a reminder, the mods pointed out either in this thread or the poll one, this probably isn't the thread to rehash everything that has gone before in numerous other closed threads.

 

[Mercurius]

D&D is not a novel series penned by a single author who can be responsible for everything written in it.

But is it still not a game for imagining things that aren't the same as in the real world?

And what's the point of having different settings, if not to explore different themes?

 

[Cadence]

But is it still not a game for imagining things that aren't the same as in the real world?

And what's the point of having different settings, if not to explore different themes?

Are you wanting them to be cursed in your one game world? Or are you wanting them to be cursed in the default D&D?

 

[Mercurius]

Are you wanting them to be cursed in your one game world? Or are you wanting them to be cursed in the default D&D?

A lot of these concerns could be ameliorated by more clearly differentiating between "default D&D" and specific worlds, and exploring the range of diversity of those worlds. Meaning, rather than publishing the next setting as just a change in venue, but with the same old default D&D assumptions, really double-down on the "diversity of worlds" -- make each world distinct, beyond just window-dressing.

Now with the more recent focus on the multiverse, I'm not sure I see this happening.

But I'm also highlighting that a lot of issues come from equating fantasy stuff with real world stuff. This common fallacy seems based on a misunderstanding of the nature of fantasy fiction (regardless of medium) and creates unnecessary problems (i.e. D&D must reflect real world ideology).

 

[Cadence]

But I'm also highlighting that a lot of issues come from equating fantasy stuff with real world stuff.

Like describing the fantasy stuff using real world descriptors that were actually used to denigrate and dehumanize the ancestors of current players? (a la Gygax and nits).

----

It feels to me like there clearly has to be some vague lines somewhere delineating a realm of what is ok - or the slippery slope one way leads to grossly offensive stuff and the slippery slope the other way leads to not being able to tell stories that are relatable. I'm not sure where those vague lines are and it feels like they don't need to be fully nailed down. It also feels to me like riding the slippery slope either way isn't helpful (either in arguments or in publishing games of wide appeal as a publicly traded company).

 

[codo]

But is it still not a game for imagining things that aren't the same as in the real world?

And what's the point of having different settings, if not to explore different themes?

Exploring the theme of "What if the the world was full of racists?", isn't exactly a strange, magical, fantasy realm, it's the real world. It's a world where lots of people spend the vast majority of their time struggling with the ramifications of it.

D&D is a family friendly game. People should be able to play without having the the harsh realities of real life racism thrown in their face. If you have a group a respectful, mature, adults who want to deal with that sort of issues in you game, as long as everyone is comfortable with it, knock your self out. The actual d&d books should never touch them.

 

[Cadence]

Exploring the theme of "What if the the world was full of racists?", isn't exactly a strange, magical, fantasy realm, it's the real world. It's a world where lots of people spend the vast majority of their time struggling with the ramifications of it.

D&D is a family friendly game. People should be able to play without having the the harsh realities of real life racism thrown in their face. If you have a group a respectful, mature, adults who want to deal with that sort of issues in you game, as long as everyone is comfortable with it, knock your self out. The actual d&d books should never touch them.

Yes. But it feels like your argument might need some refinement? It's a family friendly game where a huge part of the rules and play are about weapons, armor, and killing things . And a lot of folks in the world currently live in places of horrific violence and killing (whether by war, or crime, or the state). Is there a way to phrase your concern without getting rid of that too? Or do you want that gone too?