D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Cadence]

For D&D, the term species works fine, as long as it is distinct from culture.

Note, the playtest Elf is a single species, where Drow, High, and Wood differ mechanically via certain innate spells.

There is no problem having diverse elven parentage.

Even so, ancestry looks like a useful term because it emphasizes multiple ancestors each transmitting a different lineage. Not only might the Elf have High and Drow parents, but perhaps has a draconic bloodline, meaning one of the ancestors is a Dragon, plus maybe one of the grand parents is a Human. The term ancestry invites this fluidity of possible origins for a D&D character.

Note, ancestry must also be distinct from culture. A character of Dwarf ancestry and a character of Human ancestry might grow up in the same town and be members of the same culture.

Meanwhile ancestry can refer to a species, or to a particular genetic trait within the species.

My only problem with ancestry is that it feels like its real life usage is about country of origin (and thus conflated with culture). Is it common for an English speaker in the US to say something like "I have <insert other country> ancestry"? If that isnt' common, then I have no objection.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, and now my brain is off and running. (Possibly in an attempt to not grade papers. Also, as usual, thank you for all of your insights!)

If you did mush them altogether, is there a difference in having regions where most of the residents have at least parts of a particular feature package [flight, darkvision, powerful build, more skills to make up for not having anything else, etc...] any different than having a game region where most people have the same subset of skin, eye, and hair colors?

A little bit of a difference, in that features like flight, Darkvision, powerful build, and bonus skills would obviously have a great deal more impact on a person’s capabilities than things like hair, eye, and skin color (which have basically no impact on capabilities, except maybe like capability to tan vs. burn in the sun). But, in a fantasy setting, I think that makes sense.

 

[Cadence]

A little bit of a difference, in that features like flight, Darkvision, powerful build, and bonus skills would obviously have a great deal more impact on a person’s capabilities than things like hair, eye, and skin color (which have basically no impact on capabilities, except maybe like capability to tan vs. burn in the sun). But, in a fantasy setting, I think that makes sense.

I was wondering if it would run into any icky problems as long as we didn't have the features cause culture or culture cause features. (Although, presumably a group - call them Dwarves - having tremorsense and being short with darkvision might incline a higher perecentage of them careers where those skills are useful?)

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you though? I don’t recall such in published settings, not that I really pay attention to them so I might be mistaken.

Again, the Origins packet explicitly makes it possible. As for published settings where such things occur, I know for sure it does in Exandria. The example I listed of Tieflings mating with Genasi was straight from Critical Role, Laura Bailey’s character from the second campaign was half-Tiefling, half-water-Genasi.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think in most settings and in D&D in gneral the race options are meant to be simplifications. Presumably there are more half races than half elf and half irc but those are just what the game makes available to players

And in 1D&D they seem to be moving away from providing mechanically distinct half-race options in favor of saying your character can be half-anything, just pick the mechanics of one half and mix-and-match cosmetic traits however you like.

 

[Charlaquin]

[citation needed]

The Origins playtest packet. Also Jester from Critical Role.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And in 1D&D they seem to be moving away from providing mechanically distinct half-race options in favor of saying your character can be half-anything, just pick the mechanics of one half and mix-and-match cosmetic traits however you like.

Sure, which some people might like, and I like I said, I am not too invested in this debate as I probably won't be playing 1D&D, as I didn't make the 5E transition either. But for me, personally, there are other games that do that kind of character buidling better, it isn't something I think of when I think D&D (what I like about D&D is the simplicity of picking race and class, and being ready to adventure). I also like that there are clear types. Whereas this, to me at least, feels more like something we experienced in 2E, after Drizzt, where everyone was playing a deep gnome or dark elf, or some other unique character. Again, nothing wrong with that preference, I just like D&D when it is more in the classic mold.

 

[Charlaquin]

My only problem with ancestry is that it feels like its real life usage is about country of origin (and thus conflated with culture). Is it common for an English speaker in the US to say something like "I have <insert other country> ancestry"? If that isnt' common, then I have no objection.

I mean… That’s a fairly common phrase, but it generally refers to ethnicity rather than culture. If you’re white and grew up in Singapore, you probably wouldn’t claim Singapore ancestry.

 

[Bagpuss]

But you do see elves mating with dwarves,

Can't say I have.

gnomes with humans,

Nope no half gnomes I'm aware of.

halflings with dragonborn,

again nope...

and tieflings with genasi.

Still nope

Another reason species is a poor choice of words for them.

The only "successful" mating I've seen in D&D are humans with elves and humans with orcs.

 

[Xamnam]

I think it's clear she meant a general you, as opposed to you specifically, and this reply is needlessly dismissive.