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. 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.

 

[Yaarel]

Am I correct in giving all different ideas their due and boiling this entire long heated discussion down to:

"Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ?

Actually, this thread also includes contributors who argue the reallife term ‘race’ − whether in the senses of species, or breed, or ethnicity − is also wrong in the fantasy context. Their physicalities are too different for the sense of breed or ethnicity, yet the term species involves DNA genetics that dont apply in a game where creatures from the spiritual world are a given, and golems can gain sentient, sapient, life.

Since ‘race’ is also a controversial term in reallife − as well as being wrong in the game anyway − there seems no reason to keep it.

Even the Tolkien estate has discontinued to the term ‘race’ in their most recent products. And the ultraconservative D&D 3e Pathfinder traditionalists have discontinued the term ‘race’.

D&D 5e is traditionalist, by design, but Tolkien and Pathfinder are normally even more traditionalist than 5e, and even they find the term ‘race’ objectionable enough to drop it.

 

[Andor]

Heh, East of China.

The country East of China is Japan. Or, from the Chinese perspective "The land of the rising sun." Which the Japanese thought was cool enough that they still call themselves that, as well as it being the origin of their flag.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Even the Tolkien estate has discontinued to the term ‘race’ in their most recent products.

To be clear with regards to The One Ring/Adventures in Middle Earth, that's written by Cubicle7. I am sure that the Tolkien Estate has a right of approval, but the terminology is really from Cubicle7.

 

[cmad1977]

I have zero attachment to ‘race’. If It’s an issue or there’s a better alternative go with it.

I find it funny-sad-predictable how threatened some people feel by the suggestion that a different term be used.

I’m also unsurprised by who they are.

 

[Hriston]

Half-elf bonus to Cha is a pretty late add to the game, actually. It's not even in 3E, although half-elves do get a fairly trivial bonus to Diplomacy. As far as I know, it first appeared in 4E. I doubt there's much direct Tolkien influence at that point.

Why? Were the developers of 4e immune to influence from Tolkien?

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, not following the thread, so I can't comment on context here. But point of clarification. I know first hand that BryonD never said that.
What was said is that the Medusa of myth turned you into stone if you looked at her, period. It was said that if you did a "person on the street" poll rather than a show of hands on a 4de message board, that this would be seen as stupidly obvious to anyone who knew who Medusa was. It was also said that pre-4E edition of D&D were completely compatible with modeling this.

The claim that you presented a cogent counter-point, much less "proved" said point would be a pretty screwed revision.

As you were.

LOL.

The fact that not a single version of D&D is actually "completely compatible with modeling this" was the point that was disproved since your other point couldn't actually be proven at all.

Not one single version of the Medusa actually supported your claims. Not one. Yet, you still claim victory in the discussion? Wow. Now that's some serious revision there.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Why? Were the developers of 4e immune to influence from Tolkien?

Of course not, which is why I said "direct influence", but IMO 4E was one of the most contra-Tolkien editions: Among other changes, halflings were intentionally moved away from being hobbits with the serial numbers filed off and they introduced a lot of decidedly odd races (there's that word). Dragonborn in the first PHB, to say nothing of those weird races like the crystal guys whose name eludes me now.

 

[Rygar]

It boils down to this. There is a certain vocal minority people who go out of their way to be offended by things. Right now some of them have set RPGs as their pet project. Such people not only need not be accommodated, they should be denied. There is no problem with race in D&D. There hasn't been for 40 years, and there won't be for the next 40.

I think it's also worth noting...

-Comics sales tanked after going this route, I've seen figures as high as a 91% drop touted, and we know Marvel has definitively noted sales dropped as well as shop owners being so upset that they confronted Marvel.

-Video games that went this route underperformed or outright crashed. Mass Effect Andromedae had a very strong left wing push and it underperformed, Sunset reportedly only sold a few thousand units, and just these past couple weeks Water Tastes Like Wine sold only 4,000 units as of a few days ago.

-Ghostbusters severely underperformed, as did Wrinkle In Time.

-Sensate ended up cancelled after two seasons, 24 Legacy after one season, amongst others.

-Magic the Gathering sales are reportedly down significantly after going this route as well.

So before we go this route, I think it's *really* important to show that there is a market and that the market is at least as big if not bigger than the current one. RPG's cannot survive the drop in sales those other markets experienced. If there is a market that wants to play RPG's but refuses to play them until we put into place all of the language changes and other changes spoken about here the past few weeks then it's worth discussing next steps. But if there isn't hard factual numbers then I don't see a reason to veer off course into territory where numerous other markets have consistently experienced underperformance (at best) and risk RPG's dying out completely.

 

[kenmarable]

It boils down to this. There is a certain vocal minority people who go out of their way to be offended by things. Right now some of them have set RPGs as their pet project. Such people not only need not be accommodated, they should be denied. There is no problem with race in D&D. There hasn't been for 40 years, and there won't be for the next 40.

Ah, the old “Anyone who complains isn’t a TrueFan.” response. Haven’t seen that one before. Very convincing. I’ve completely changed my mind on the subject now.

 

[Hussar]

What "route" are you referring to?

I mean, hey, Paizo is lauded for it's inclusivity in its art with Pathfinder and that's almost ten years ago now and a fantastically well selling product.

I'm sure I can cherry pick examples too.