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

[Raiztt]

I mean, yes, but everything is political, and given a particular tendency of reactionary thinkers to label everything that doesn’t tacitly support the status quo as “political,” I don’t think describing it as “a political decision” is, well, a politically prudent move.

Strategic then? Typically, I assume all decisions a corporation makes are to maximize profit, and for no other reason.

But side note: I do feel like people are like, massively "on guard" against what they call reactionary thinkers, to the point that they themselves are becoming reactionary. Like it FEELS to me like both you and frog are anxious to try and frame what I'm saying as bigoted.

 

[Charlaquin]

Strategic then? Typically, I assume all decisions a corporation makes are to maximize profit, and for no other reason.

I do think “inclusive” is probably the best choice. I mean, yeah, of course they’re trying to maximize profit. And how do they do that? By making the game appeal to as many people as possible. If some portion of the potential audience feels alienated (or one might say, excluded) by the choice of language connected to the different groups of humanoids, then changing the language to make those people feel more welcome (or one might say, included) is a decision that is likely to increase profits.

 

[Burnside]

Strategic then? Typically, I assume all decisions a corporation makes are to maximize profit, and for no other reason. But I do feel like people are like, massively "on guard" against what they call reactionary thinkers, to the point that they themselves are becoming reactionary.

Moving away from a term that has become loaded with generations of negative cultural context can be both a strategic move to maximize profit and also the right thing to do. The two are not always mutually exclusive.

 

[Raiztt]

Moving away from a term that has become loaded with generations of negative cultural context can be both a strategic move to maximize profit and also the right thing to do. The two are not mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive, but I do not believe it being the right thing to do is what actually caused it to happen. It just happened to align this time.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Feel included" here is the problem for me. I'm interested in if people are included, not their subjective experience. In my example, we have a hard/clear change where more types are allowed into the set, it wouldn't matter how the types feel it's just a fact about the set that certain ones are included within it.

If people don’t feel included, they will excuse themselves. Even if they are technically “allowed,” they may be functionally excluded simply by being made to feel unwelcome.

 

[Raiztt]

I do think “inclusive” is probably the best choice. I mean, yeah, of course they’re trying to maximize profit. And how do they do that? By making the game appeal to as many people as possible. If some portion of the potential audience feels alienated (or one might say, excluded) by the choice of language connected to the different groups of humanoids, then changing the language to make those people feel more welcome (or one might say, included) is a decision that is likely to increase profits.

I just prefer a way more mathmatical/precise use of the word inclusive. I would say they're trying to make their product more appealing - not that they're making it more inclusive. If they came out with a PHB that was entirely in braile, THAT would be more inclusive.

 

[Raiztt]

If people don’t feel included, they will excuse themselves. Even if they are technically “allowed,” they may be functionally excluded simply by being made to feel unwelcome.

Right, but clearly in my usage of the word inclusive, that doesn't matter to me. The technicality of it is what I'm concerned with.

It's exactly the same as people who cling to a "racial" theory of humans - they're just wrong regardless of their feelings.

 

[jayoungr]

The word "race" used to be a lot more elastic than the way it's used today: it could be as big as "species" or as small as "ethnic group." The original D&D books used the word in this older sense. Frankly (and unfortunately), I don't think any of the replacement terms fills exactly the same niche.

 

[Corinnguard]

But the term generally IS being applied to biology, not culture, in this context. I could have dwarven cultural heritage if I was a human raised by dwarves, but my species would be human.

If any of us were living in a fantasy setting, would we actually say that we are members of the human species? Or we would simply say, we are human and leave it at that?

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

If any of us were living in a fantasy setting, would we actually say that we are members of the human species? Or we would simply say, we are human and leave it at that?

If I was in a fantasy setting and I encountered locals who spoke English, I would have words with the author.