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."

 

[dave2008]

At this point, I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it. If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."

I don't know if it will be a question they ask. If they do ask, it will definitely be about the word choice, not its removal.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I am pretty sure they'd get 80%+ agreeing with the removal of race. If they ask do you want term X to replace race, none of them might make the threshold.

 

[Clint_L]

Maybe WotC should just make up a word that means "your chosen creature type in a D&D setting." Then the word would have only one meaning with no possible miscommunication and we could move on.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry I misunderstood your point.

But still . . . not meaningless in the fantasy world either. In the D&D multiverse, anything can interbreed with just about anything if you involve a god, mad wizard, cataclysm or other magical macguffin . . . . but that doesn't mean it's common, that it happens all the time, or that separating people into different types, different species, still has meaning.

Different types, sure, but species is not a good word to describe them.

We can still meaningfully talk about elves, dwarves, genasi, dragonborn, etc being distinct types of peoples from each other . . . . despite the fact that, under the right circumstances, any of them could have a couple of kids with each other.

And whether we use the word race, species, lineage, heritage, or ancestry doesn't really impact that in any direction.

Except that those words - race, species, lineage, heritage, ancestry - they have meanings in real life, which impact the impression they create of the groups they describe. That’s why we’re changing the term from race in the first place. The word “species” is part of a system of categorization that doesn’t make sense in a fantasy world, which makes it a poor choice to use there.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: who cares? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.

I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.

We want to avoid moving from one problematic term to another. And since it’s an issue that touches on real-life hurt, it’s something people understandably have strong feelings about.

 

[Xamnam]

Maybe WotC should just make up a word that means "your chosen creature type in a D&D setting." Then the word would have only one meaning with no possible miscommunication and we could move on.

I vote for Schmorp.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't understand how this gets to 15 pages. Everyone pretty much agrees that "race" has become an unfortunate term, some of us like "species," some of us dislike it, but pretty much everyone understands what it means. Pragmatically speaking it works, there won't be any word that is perfect for everyone...and it affects gameplay in no way whatsoever. So I am left with the question: who cares? Why are folks worked up about this? As long as we get away from accidentally offensive terms, then the actual choice doesn't matter.

I am reminded of a work meeting where people just keep arguing for the sake of arguing.

Because this thread is clearly about, "what do you think about how they changed it", not, "was it a good idea to change it?" The answer to the second question is rather clear. The answer to the first is not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe WotC should just make up a word that means "your chosen creature type in a D&D setting." Then the word would have only one meaning with no possible miscommunication and we could move on.

Can't say creature type. That's already an established game term.

There's no answer that will please everyone.

 

[Amrûnril]

At this point, I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it. If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."

I am pretty sure they'd get 80%+ agreeing with the removal of race. If they ask do you want term X to replace race, none of them might make the threshold.

I don't get the impression that the decision to remove the term "race" is subject to their approval rating system (nor do I think it should be). I'm not sure whether they're as committed to "species" as the replacement, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see some A/B testing in that regard.

 

[Vaalingrade]

At this point, I'm just wondering how the survey will handle it. If they just give a rating on "Do you like removal of race." without a follow-up to the replacement term, they may get a negative response that doesn't accurately represent how overwhelmingly people support removing the term "race."

I just feel real bad for the people who have to read the write-in comments on it.