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.

 

[DRF]

Especially as there is pretty good evidence that we all come from common ancestors and thus are one race.

.

Your post is good, but this is factually, objectively and verifiably incorrect. We share common ancestors and are the same species, not race. In this thread that's an important distinction. Human races are not 100% the same as any medical expert will happily tell you. That's why we can see based on bones and skeletons whether someone was male, female, black/asian/white etc.

 

[clearstream]

I've GMed games where racial identity, stereotyping and subordination has been one focus of play. Whether that was a sensible thing to do, or not, others can judge. It doesn't depend upon the rulebooks using the concept of "race".

I was thinking about Drizzt. Race served as a "problematic feature of human existence" for that character's stories. Maybe if we choose to cut problematic features from our games, then one thing we lose is the option to make use of them in our RP.

I'm not sure. I mean, preserving things that are problematic, for the sake of narrativsm (or more generally, RP) sounds perverse. But seeing as this thread poses a "do we need it" question, then it seems right to consider what is lost. Do we need slavery? Do we need terrors in the dark?

 

[clearstream]

I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good game, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.

How do you plan to establish that?

I have liked the way 5e is working on being more inclusive, and it has opened up options that have improved the game. Say I think of less inclusive as stories monotonously featuring heroic white men as their central protagonists. And then 5e works harder to offer other protagonists and their stories, and those latter stories include me. That helps the game do better, at least from my point of view.

4th was a good game. 3rd was an excellent game. Basic was a very good game. Prima-facie you risk arguing to a false dichotomy: 5e could be doing well both because it is a good game and because of it being more inclusive.

 

[DRF]

4th was a good game. .

4e sold horribly. 5e is basically one giant apology-edition.

 

[pemerton]

I was thinking about Drizzt. Race served as a "problematic feature of human existence" for that character's stories. Maybe if we choose to cut problematic features from our games, then one thing we lose is the option to make use of them in our RP.

I'm not sure. I mean, preserving things that are problematic, for the sake of narrativsm (or more generally, RP) sounds perverse. But seeing as this thread poses a "do we need it" question, then it seems right to consider what is lost. Do we need slavery? Do we need terrors in the dark?

It's interesting that you mention slavery, as it occurred to me as I started reading your reply.

I don't think we need a mechanical subsystem called "slavery" to make that something that comes up in play (supposing that we want that to). I think "race" is the same in this respect. In the context of D&D's race mechanics, I'd even go further and say that the tend to make it hard to make race a focus/premise of play in the narrativist sense, because they already "build in" the answer of what race is and what it means.

 

[clearstream]

4e sold horribly. 5e is basically one giant apology-edition.

For me that is conflating commercial success with quality of design. 4th was a good game. It did not sell well.

 

[clearstream]

It's interesting that you mention slavery, as it occurred to me as I started reading your reply.

I don't think we need a mechanical subsystem called "slavery" to make that something that comes up in play (supposing that we want that to). I think "race" is the same in this respect. In the context of D&D's race mechanics, I'd even go further and say that the tend to make it hard to make race a focus/premise of play in the narrativist sense, because they already "build in" the answer of what race is and what it means.

For me, rules help produce the story. An evil group of entities will ideally have abilities that support that evil. A great example was that in WoW a putatively good race had a stealth ability that to me felt evil in play.

Noting of course that my ludological stance is one of believing games are engines that produce linear narratives as a side-effect of play. Therefore I look always to the rules to give flesh to the world, the motives, the tensions etc. I'm not arguing that, that is any kind of sole or best stance to take

Thus I possibly agree with you that rules build in answers, caveated by saying I find those to be more genuine answers than those imposed by arbitrary storytelling.

 

[Lanefan]

If the terminology doesn't work for fey or golems, then that's fine, because the main book doesn't need to concern itself with playable fey or golems. And even if it did, calling golems their own race is significantly less weird than saying that some particular individual has a golem ancestry.

I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or serious here...but just in case you're serious, golems might not have been the best example to use.

The descent/ancestry/heritage of any golem is simple: it doesn't have one. They are constructs, and unless I've really missed something they cannot reproduce on their own.

By the same token, any PC claiming to be of golem descent really needs to cut down on the mushroom consumption.

Fey, on the other hand, can and do reproduce; and some of them might be able to interbreed with some commonly-played races e.g. Elves.

Lan-"fortunately medieval fantasy doesn't (usually) have to worry about the descent or heritage of cyborgs"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I do think we really quickly need to establish that 5e is doing well because it's a good game, not because of any significant changes relating to it being more inclusive.

It's a bit of both, and each supports the other.

Someone who becomes interested in it because it's a good game might stick around on finding an effort's been made to be inclusive.

Someone who becomes interested in it because of hearing it's been made inclusive might stick around on learning it's also a good game.

Lan-"whole > part + part"-efan

 

[pemerton]

For me, rules help produce the story.

Sure. But it's one thing to facilitate the emergence of story; another to tell us the answer.

The rules for Dogs in the Vineyard let a player decide whether something is worth fighting, or shooting, over. If they didn't allow that to happen, they wouldn't be doing their job. But they don't answer the question the player is called upon to decide. (As eg D&D's alignment rules seem to try and do, at least as many players have read them over the years.) If they did that latter thing, then the rules wouldn't be doing their job.

So to make slavery a topic in a game, we might - as one possible minimum - need rules whereby people can be captured in warfare. (And so eg would not want to use a simply combat wears away hp until you die at zero mechanic.) But we wouldn't need a "slavery" subsystem built into the game.