D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Ovinomancer]

Imagine if we were talking about 'black face' or racist cartoon talking crows in this context instead of racist tropes in gaming. How do you think that your demands here from me would sound? What might that evidence look like? How much evidence would it require to convince you that they were harmful and racist then? How much work must I go out of my way to produce just to satisfy your objections then?

Why would you think I would apply a different metric? With regards to blackface, my requests were met -- harm was clearly shown, extent of harm was clearly shown, mechanism of harm was clearly shown, and method of repair was clearly identified.

Again, please do the same for 'racism in D&D'. Most modern version only, though, as anything in a previous edition that isn't in the current one has already been addressed and should already be to your satisfaction.

If you think that ethically "racism is bad" is a true statement, and you state that "race in D&D may be an issue" and "something worth addressing," then why do you seem so reluctant to do so or to explore that yourself? Why are you so reticent to reflect on the issue of racism in gaming? Are you afraid of what you might find should you actually apply an honest critical examination of the materials? I am genuinely curious as to why you and a few others seem so hellbent on resisting even examining the possibility that D&D may handle 'race' in a culturally-inappropriate (i.e. racist) manner.

Huh, the logical fallacies in there are strong. I can think that racism is bad. I can also think that there may be racist things in D&D. (If you're taking notes, you should underline the word 'may' and make sure you know it's definition.) That doesn't mean that I must jump to the conclusion that racism in D&D exists.

As for being willing to explore it myself, how do you know I haven't. You're making the argument that it exists, you're making the argument that something must be done, it's YOUR responsibility to show the work for your claims, not mine to go discover it on my own.

You do not get to assign me homework to support your arguments.

'Problematic' is not the only word available for me to use, nor would the issue go away simply with you dismissing the argument with a hand wave because of my word choice discomforts you. Would changing my word choice there make you feel better? What would that accomplish? I would have thought that 'problematic' would be more to your liking since it would soften the blow from what other people would otherwise just openly call 'racism' or 'cultural appropriation.' Yes, I dislike it. I dislike the perpetuation of racist tropes in fantasy. I want it minimized. I believe that constantly-evolving media, including tabletop RPGs, should reflect the sensibilities of the their time, especially if the game hopes to survive. There can certainly be racism in fantasy, with heroes valiantly resisting against it, but it becomes an issue when real life racism is built into the game's presentation and assumptions of "other" races, creatures, and cultures.

Changing your word choice away from an undefinable, emotionally laden term that sums up was 'I don't like this' would be in your interest, not mine. Making an argument equivalent to stomping your feet in a tantrum until you get your way is generally not a good way to convince others to see things your way. (Also, 'cultural appropriation' is a ridiculous argument in and of itself. No culture is perfect, and all should be doing everything they can to take from other cultures to improve themselves. Saying this is wrong is saying that all cultures must remain stagnant. It's a failure of an argument, but it still amazes me how often it gets trotted out.)

And your second half is just going back to asserting things without showing work.

Furthermore, it's bizarre to think that the idea of attempting to reduce racist tropes in D&D should somehow be construed as "draconian."

I'm gonna fisk this one sentence here, even though I generally dislike sentence level fisking.

It was the proposed solution that was draconian. It was all or nothing, everything must go fire sale, get rid of everything that has ever been shown to be near some source that was racist in some part (not necessarily that part). That's draconian. When you call for the cleansing fire to erase the heresy, you're engaging in draconian responses.

Your priorities may be out of whack if you are more concerned about preserving fantasy game tropes than reducing the perpetuation of racist tropes. I don't know what to tell you. Racism and sexism in fantasy tropes may not affect you in the least, but that does not mean that these issues are nonexistent or have no effect on others. I have seen women offended by sexism in roleplaying tropes, and I have seen people of color offended by racism in roleplaying tropes. I have seen people refuse to game in certain settings because of the manner in which those settings flavored its races and creatures using real world peoples and cultures. We can both apply circumstantial evidence until our faces turn blue, but that solves nothing and does little to address the issue.

My priorities are firmly in place, and nowhere near your attempted slander, thank you. My priorities lie in seeing that a solid case of actual harm is being presented, alongside the minimumly harmful solution. You're assuming your positions and then declaring me to be a bad person because I don't agree, despite other posters in this thread saying that that was not the point. But I'm a big boy, with think internet skin, so I'm not overly bothered by being considered a poor example of a caring human by someone who's arguments consist of 'problematic' and begging the question.

Within even the past year, Monte Cook Games was accused of presenting a racist caricature of Native American culture in one of their recursions for The Strange. A sizable petition went up in response. The people at MCG are good people. It was not intended racism, so the people at MCG were naturally hurt by the accusation. But MCG acted ethically. They gathered input and feedback from consumers, and they reflected on their product design decisions. They did further research and consulted with Native American groups, and then released a more culturally-sensitive "Ohunkakan recursion" for free.

Excellent. Now, please do that work for your argument re: races in D&D. You've already agreed by presenting this argument that such work is necessary, good, and results in changes. So go ahead and do it.

I did actually post the level of harm earlier - the fact that D&D fandom is, despite decades of play, overwhelmingly white. With millions of players to draw from, racial lines should be reasonably representative. But, as I posted earlier, if you look at pictures from conventions, it certainly isn't. ((Note, somehow this also got tied into gender issues, and i'm not sure why))

That isn't a harm. You'd have to show that non-whites are being actively harmed by failing to participate and/or that non-white are not participating mainly because of racist tropes in D&D as a group. That last bit is very important, because racism is not an individual sport -- it must be aimed at a group. Individuals feel the impact, but the aim must be at a group.

Also, anyone versed in statistics should know that sample characteristics may suggest causes, but do not, themselves, show causes. That the group is mostly white isn't sufficient. It's necessary, yes, but not sufficient (necessary for those definitions of racism that go white out, not those definitions of racism that aren't tied exclusively to whites).

If race and depictions of race is not a problem in D&D, then how do you explain that D&D, is an overwhelmingly white hobby? Why isn't it appealing to other ethnicities? I mean, I see Magic the Gathering played here in Japan all the time. I've never seen a single D&D product in any hobby shop. Perhaps in Tokyo or Osaka, but, where I live? Not a single one. All sorts of board games and CCG's, but, not a single RPG.

I have lots of possible reasons, and I'll give you one:

Racism.

Hah, weren't expecting that, where you. But, before you go on, note I didn't say 'racism in D&D', I said 'racism'. Specifically, structural and systemic racism in US society (also the 'almost all white' bit is really only a 'thing' in the US -- elsewhere gaming hews pretty close to the racial makeup of the host countries). See, tabletop gaming requires idle time. The systemic racism in the US has historically affected the available idle time of minorities far more than the idle time of whites. So, a hobby that requires copious idle time to engage in will slant away from minorities.

Other examples: train collecting -- overwhelming white. Napoleonic wargaming -- overwhelmingly white. Model airplanes -- overwhelming white. Estes rockets -- overwhelmingly white. Here's a fun one -- puzzling -- overwhelming white.

Are you saying race plays absolutely no role here?

No, I'm open to that. What I'm saying is that you need to show that it does, not hand wave and think that it does.

Well, the argument does hinge on the honesty of the person doing the complaining. But, I think you nicely highlight why this issue has so much pushback. It really looks like many of the posters here are arguing based on the idea that since they, personally, don't see a problem, any problem that may exist only exists in the other person's mind. It's not a real issue. I think, through your "satire" you've actually perfectly encapsulated your side of the issue's mindset. "I don't see a problem, and I'm not racist, so, nothing I like could possibly carry racist connotations. Any complaints must only exist in the complainer's mind".

I'm not seeing actual complaints, even, much less the systemic collection of complaints or large, grassroots complaint movement that would indicate that there is a serious racial issue with D&D. Instead, it's 'but the source material was racist'. That fails unless you show that the material taken was the racist material AND that it retains the racism. Just having a source that was racist doesn't make the derivative racist -- that's the genetic fallacy and it's a fallacy for a reason.

I mean, good grief, EN World has a shopping list of behaviours that we are not allowed to engage in and a nice little button on the bottom of every post to report behaviour. By your logic, those shouldn't exist.

No, that's you putting words in my mouth. Nothing I've said at all says that you can't or shouldn't complain or make your argument. What I've said is that you need to do the work to show that your argument has merit past that it feels correct to you. No facts are in evidence that actually show that material in D&D is racist.

To put it in your metaphor, you've hit the 'report button' and said 'I don't like this'. This does't mean that the reported post breaks the rules. Unfortunately, this metaphor breaks down at that point, because when you hit 'report post' there's someone who's the final arbiter of those rules who's job it is to look at and consider your report. In real life, there isn't, so you have to make the case that the rules are broken in your report, because there's no racism moderator in the forum of life that will do that work for you.

 

[MG.0]

All the ludicrous slippery slope arguments are just that, ridiculous. And, frankly, pretty sad.

That's the second time by my count you've trotted out 'slippery slope' to discount arguments you disagree with. To quote a famous spaniard: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Let me put it this way: There are people, real people, who find D&D unacceptable because it contains demons and devils. Some of them (not all) were placated by the silly name switcheroo in 2nd edition. Yet others will not accept D&D as long as it has traces of the supernatural in it, including magic and monsters. They are offended by it. This is not theoretical. I've known and still know some of these people. Should we make the game more inclusive by removing the elements that offend them? It isn't a slippery slope argument, it's real. You can never make the game palatable to everyone. It simply is not possible.

So should we give up and not try at all? No, of course not. Instances of clear racial bias and discrimination can be fixed without harming the game. I argue that has already happened. I've noticed that my post asking for concrete changes to improve the game was met with little in the way of suggestions. Instead I keep seeing references to old editions of D&D or material that D&D draws from: Tolkien, Lovercraft, and the like. Also included are movies and other flotsam and jetsam. Fundamentally those do not matter. What matters is what is in the game, here and now. If you can't point to something concrete, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own.

That said, there is a point of diminishing returns, where to change the game further would do irreparable harm to the game itself, leaving it unrecognizable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm still not sure why D&D containing the word "race" makes the game inherently, irrevocably racist until it's removed, but D&D containing the word "class" doesn't make it inherently, irrevocably classist until it's removed.

I'm also not really sure that it's kosher to blame the demographics of gaming purely, or even significantly, on it containing that word. World of Warcraft absolutely uses that word, at least in English, and it's got people playing all over the world. (I can't speak as to the terms used in other languages, so I don't know if their words are significantly similar.) Further, it's not like D&D is a monolithic hegemony totally encompassing the entire hobby. Yes, it's probably the largest single faction (counting Pathfinder as part of that faction), but we've had other games making inroads into this for something like 30 years now. Certainly for the past 20 years, we've had stuff like the White Wolf games (which never directly use "race," AFAIK, and which treat cultural differences as meaningful but not biologically inherent). We've had numerous systems which cover things other than European myth (for example, Legend of the Five Rings), some of which I'm sure don't use the word "race" even if they have a similar conception.

So--if the presence of the word "race" is responsible, in whole or in part, for the slow rate of change in the D&D demographic, why haven't these other systems made a substantial impact?

I would argue that it's because there are much more significant factors in play than the presence or absence of a single term. The hobby primarily acquires new players, today, by having people who are already into it persuading others to join. The books are often quite expensive. It is a leisure-time activity primarily appealing to geeks and nerds, which is another demographic that (as far as I know) remains disproportionately white and male. It's an activity stereotypically associated with being an academic, which is (very unfortunately) stigmatized in several demographics today, and which connects to unfortunate lingering sexist and racist concepts like "girls aren't good at math." There's also the unfortunate and continuing trend that most of the people directly involved in directing, organizing, and approving D&D remain nerdy white males. I mean, look at the design credits for 3e, 4e, and 5e; the bigwigs, the head honchos, the individuals talking about the games, running R&D, etc. They're almost all men.

Plus, I mean, the argument is that the terms and mechanics of the game have a direct, and more importantly visible, impact on whether people of particular racial demographics are welcomed into the hobby. Why didn't the very early (when did that happen, anyway?) removal of gender-based strength differences have a meaningful (or at least apparent-beyond-statistics) impact on the gender demographics of TTRPG players, or D&D in specific? Why didn't White Wolf's inclusion of characters of varying sexuality, multiple times (with both the Storyteller), make for increased presence of gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc. gamers?

Personally, I would argue that the much deeper kinds of sexism and racism (and even classism) are present in these things than terms used--and that the direction of causation is a lot less clear than some have argued. 5e is part of a continuing trend of improvement--illustrated by things like Corellon and the explicitly open, inclusive language about gender. Would I be upset to any meaningful degree if 6e (or 5.5e or whatever) used a word different than "race" for this concept? Nah. Though I don't really see a moral imperative for them to do so either, because I don't inherently agree with the principle that every single word--jargon or otherwise--in a work must be scrubbed of any unfortunate connotations it has (or may have).

I think it's actually something of a waste of time, focusing so heavily on individual words like that, because you can quite easily have a work where no word is offensive, but large portions of it are quite offensive. Consider the 4e Vistani culture, or the Pathfinder Varisians. Both are, frankly, pretty racist caricatures of the Roma peoples--they don't, to my knowledge, use the offensive term "gypsy," and at least in the case of the Varisians, care is taken to mention that negative perceptions of them are stereotypes*. Yet they're still taking stereotypical, hackneyed, clichéd behaviors or traits of these groups, and defining a culture with them. In my humble opinion, that's much, much worse than whether we use the term "race," "species," "type," or whatever else to denote biological groups distinguished by objectively-known physiological/psychological statistics ("racial"/"species"/"type" stat mods) and discrete, observable, repeatable behaviors ("racial'/"species"/"type" powers like Fey Step, Trance, and Dragon Breath). I also worry that the term-switch is just a new avenue for the euphemism treadmill, because what makes it difficult may not be "you used this word," but rather "there's a word for this concept," and the concept can't really be taken out without heavily rewriting the game.

Instead of fretting about the potentially-unpleasant consequences of a single word, perhaps we would be better served in doing things like: addressing the objectively demonstrable gender and racial imbalances in art; thoroughly and honestly examining the descriptions and archetypes of the "race/species/type" choices we make and eliminating the subtler and more insidious concepts that cannot be fought by mere word-substitution; and creating more campaign settings and adventures which employ some of the INCREDIBLY rich and varied mythological history from somewhere OUTSIDE of Western Europe and Greece.

Also, y'know, hiring women to be (lead) designers, spokespeople, and R&D officials, rather than primarily as editors and artists/art directors, as mentioned above. Consider that, with 5e, there are zero women listed among the designers, and the entire "design team" section, not counting Mearls and Crawford who are both dudes, includes 11 men and one woman; I'm pretty sure it's been more or less the same for every WotC edition, and even more male-slanted in the TSR editions I'd wager. (Plus, out of the "drawing on further work" section, there are two women and eighteen men, and AFAICT there are zero women among the 'consultants,' though some of this is unavoidable history rather than overt choice.)

Like, I mean, someone earlier in the thread mentioned that they didn't think it would work to have non-white members of races like elves or dwarves. Why? I'm not really sure; it's never specified. For certain groups that are defined by wildly divergent-from-human phenotypes (like drow, who have pale/white hair and blue-black skintone, or tieflings, who [may] have horns and a tail and red/blue/purple skintone), I can agree that that's not super easy to work with. But why can't you have elves of varying ethnicity? There are black Vulcans, for example, and they're basically Space Elves (long-lived, esoteric/secretive, a similar reputation among other species). Similar arguments can be made for dwarves, hobbits, gnomes, even orcs. Won't a richer variety of ethnic and gender depictions make for a substantially more inclusive game, far above and beyond the power of a single word (whether a jargon term or not) to add or detract?

*even though there are specific sub-groups within them for whom we are explicitly told these stereotypes are true, e.g. the Sczarni

 

[S'mon]

If race and depictions of race is not a problem in D&D, then how do you explain that D&D, is an overwhelmingly white hobby? Why isn't it appealing to other ethnicities? I mean, I see Magic the Gathering played here in Japan all the time. I've never seen a single D&D product in any hobby shop. Perhaps in Tokyo or Osaka, but, where I live? Not a single one. All sorts of board games and CCG's, but, not a single RPG.

Are you saying race plays absolutely no role here?

In Japan?! I would certainly say that. You are seriously claiming that Japanese people in Japan are turned off D&D by its racism? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Alzrius]

Also, y'know, hiring women to be (lead) designers, spokespeople, and R&D officials, rather than primarily as editors and artists/art directors, as mentioned above. Consider that, with 5e, there are zero women listed among the designers, and the entire "design team" section, not counting Mearls and Crawford who are both dudes, includes 11 men and one woman; I'm pretty sure it's been more or less the same for every WotC edition, and even more male-slanted in the TSR editions I'd wager. (Plus, out of the "drawing on further work" section, there are two women and eighteen men, and AFAICT there are zero women among the 'consultants,' though some of this is unavoidable history rather than overt choice.)

Grist for the mill here, but this point came up for Paizo a few months back, when a female freelancer called on them to hire more women for their design team. The resulting discussion was very interesting.

 

[Bagpuss]

Nevertheless, having the game players thinking in terms of ‘race’ relates to problematic reallife implications.

No it doesn't because most humans (that don't suffer from some mental condition) are very good at separating fantasy and reality.

In defense of D&D, all humans belong to the same ‘race’, the Human race. This tradition opposes reallife racism.

Exactly if it does relate to real life in anyway it teaches that humans are one race, regardless of colour of skin or cultural differences.

On the other hand, the other ‘races’ − such as Elf, Dwarf, Orc, etcetera − are too human. By necessity these options need to be human-like enough in order for players to relate to them. And this is the problem, organizing all these other kinds of humans into categories of ‘race’ is, in fact, the reallife definition of racism.

Except they aren't "other kinds of humans". It's right there in the rules they are elves, dwarves, etc. In many cases they can't even breed with each other. Not only that most of the races get on at least the PCs do. Elves might actually be racist towards dwarves in a lot of fantasy settings, but PCs in the party tend not to follow those stereotypes so while racism might exists in D&D it is something the players often fight against as much as dragons and demons. This is only a good thing.

Other human-like options like Orc are inherently inferior, intellectually and morally, because of their ‘race’. This way of play has problems.

Not really. It is a fantasy world after all, in a fantasy, you can have one race inherently inferior, because it is a fantasy. If you had a modern day RPG, where some humans were inherently inferior to other humans, just because of their skin colour. That would be a problem.

Personally, I would rather have the term ‘race’ gone.

Suggest something that you can replace it with. That carries the same meaning, yet some how won't carry the same connotations. Because generally is something means the same it will come with the same issues or gain them eventually.

 

[Remathilis]

I know its usually taboo to speak of such things here, so here's the Trigger Warning: CAUTION, THIS POST CONTAINS DISCUSSION OF WORLD OF WARCRAFT.
---

So WoW is the online spiritual successor to D&D and arguably has had more influence (and mainstream acceptance) than D&D has recently. It also is a video game, so it lives in the cross roads of having one foot in the tropes revolving around PnP RPGs (thanks to using a lot of D&D as its origin) and one foot in the world of online multiplayer video games. That gives WoW a unique trifecta: popular, easily accessible, and rooted in D&D's (and by extension, fantasy) tropes.

So, how has WoW handled these issues? Turns out, about as well as D&D has or any MMO has.

WoW uses the term "race" to define humans, orcs, dwarves, elves, trolls, etc. Each race has traits, ability advantages, and such like D&D races. Moreover, many of their races have strong "racial" identities: troll NPCs speak with a faux-Jamacian accent, Panderans are very clearly Chinese-inspired. Some people have argued this imposes racist beliefs and stereotyping. Racist attitudes among players as well (such as not allowing non-English speakers onto raids in fear of lootfarming) do appear. Lastly, the humans of WoW can have any skin or "racial" appearance, but the light-skinned "white" models vastly outnumber the dark skinned models, even in nations (like China) where non-Caucasian residents reside. Make of that what you will.

Of course, WoW has also dealt with issues of sexism (especially with regard to female armor being... more exposing than male versions) and religion (no joke, there are people who have tried to get the game pulled because it promotes polytheism and mocks the true God). Still, even with all these tropes (and IRL issues) the game managed to have 2.5 Million subscribers in the US and 1.5 Million in China alone. It seems race hasn't hurt its popularity strongly.

Nor do I think the word RACE has ever hurt Final Fantasy's popularity in Japan with its MMO's (11 and 14); which both used the term to describe the five PC species options. (Its also used the term in its single-player RPGs for various nonhuman NPCs and characters). Interestingly, the few "black" party members (7's Barrett and 13's Szach) have earned FF outcries of racism far more than using race to describe Taru-Tarus, moogles, or such.

So I don't think the word race alone has hurt RPGs (be it WoW, FF, or D&D) popularity, now or at their heights. What it has done though is given those predisposed to judging them a hook to do so, much like how some analysts have used these and other popular games to discuss perceived sexism.

Further Reading for the Curious:

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...world-of-warcraft-can-teach-us-about-race-irl
http://extra-credits.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5728
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jan/19/worldofwarcraft.pcgames
http://www.bucketbros.com/text/blacklash-how-blacks-are-forced-out-of-video-games.html
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/15699488178
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3566007304

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I did actually post the level of harm earlier - the fact that D&D fandom is, despite decades of play, overwhelmingly white. With millions of players to draw from, racial lines should be reasonably representative.

I'm offended that Asians always get lumped in with "white" whenever it's rhetorically convenient.

I'm two quarters Asian, but the point would be equally valid made by anybody.

 

[MG.0]

If you try and avoid offense, you are not typically at fault. However, when someone says something causes offence and that behaviour is not changed, you very much are at fault. If someone is offended by something, saying you disagree doesn't help. That's not trying to avoid making offense. That's really the opposite.
...[SNIP]...
You don't think it does. Or rather, you don't want to think it does. You don't want something you love and enjoy to be racist and part of something ugly. And that's the issue. Because, frankly, it's not what the un-offended think that matters. We're not the ones being offended.

It's not that simple.
It is all subjective. Your argument relies on the assumption that anyone being offended is being reasonable. That is not always the case. Unreasonableness can exist on both sides of the fence. If I am being reasonable (in my mind, of course) and someone takes what I see as unreasonable offense, then I am doing the right thing by NOT changing my behavior. Surely I should listen to their grievance (or I am being unreasonable) but what it boils down to is whether or not I think their claim has merit. This may sound unfair, but it's the only way that makes sense. The alternative is to cater to every unreasonable demand and that way lies madness...and boredom.

An example:
The supernatural (demons and devils) thing. I KNOW this offends many people. I think it is unreasonable to take offense to this and so I have no desire or intention to change my behavior with regard to it. You can say that makes this my fault and I am being a bad person, but as I see it, I am just playing a game and those people are being unreasonable. They have the right to NOT play the game. They are free to create their own game. They can even try to change the game, but when they meet resistance, they should not be surprised.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

What I don't really get is the idea that if some influences were taken from Lovecraft or Howard, that the material influenced is racist. If D&D and a game take from Lovecraft the idea of the ancient alien unknown horrors that man cannot understand or deal with without going insane exist that is not taking Lovecraft's racist attitudes towards non European ethnic groups. What racism is in D&D from Howard and Lovecraft and other older fictional influences? That orcs and other monsters are evil? Do people think the game designers were/are substituting them for a real ethnic group considering typical human ethnic groups are already in the game under the broad human race?