However, most of us who use the word race in relation to D&D place zero real world connotations on the term in relation to our game. For us, race is a legacy of classic fantasy literature referring to a multitude of make believe cultures and ancestries, both good and evil. A number of us feel vilified for the changes to a term that we do not see as evil but that Hasbro and others obviously do.
Just because the connotation the word "race" evokes for you is not negative, it doesn't mean the term is not harmful for anyone else. You aren't being "vilified" for using the word, you are merely being told that the word and the way it was used in D&D caused a large amount of people harm, and the rules will use a different word from now on. Do what you want at your tables, as long as you and your players are comfortable with the word, no one said you are "villains" for using it.
Also, I would question how much real world impact changes like this truly make, and how much of it is to make a percentage of current players feel good and avoid the potential for criticism of WotC.
It makes people feel safer when playing D&D, and so yes, this change does have a big beneficial impact on real world people.
This is a reminder to everyone who makes the choice to participate in these discussions surrounding the One D&D changes to game language. You do so under the explicit assumption you will participate by the site rules.
I want to emphasises something; these changes are being made because people who play the game are experiencing harm at the language the game uses and have communicated this to Wizards of the Coast, who are taking action to continue to progress the game forwards to be as inclusive as it can be. The moderation team will not entertain the dismissal, invalidation, or margination of members of the community who have raised these valid concerns just because "I don't see a problem with the word". Privilege is a wonderful thing.
If you want to participate in this discussion without receiving warnings, infraction points, or bans, you will do so civilly, respectfully, and with kindness.
Frankly, when I read "species", I almost expected to see the Latin name for each of them. Like Dragonborn (Homo Draconis Erectus).
Why would it be "Homo"? They wouldn't even be in the same Order as humans. "Draconis/Draco erectus" could work, though. Here's how I'd classify the PHB species/subspecies using my limited understanding of latin, etymology, alternative names for D&D races, and taxonomy.
Current PHB - "Races" I prefer to say "lineage", or "ancestry":
Dragonborn - Homo draco (Dragonborn are a mix of human and dragon made in uncertain times with inconsistent lore.)
Dwarf - Homo sapiens fossores (as they're humans that mine
Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe (Humans of the feywild, ylfe is the old spelling of elf.)
Gnome - Homo sapiens gemma (as they are tiny humans made from gems)
Half-Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe x Homo sapiens abeir-toril
Halfling - Homo sapiens medium (half sized humans,
Half-Orc - Homo vorans monstrum (technically hungry monsters in mythology, in D&D they can mix with most races and count as homo (mankind) but are more distinct)
Human - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Humans of the wolrd called Abeir-toril or Toril in common)
Tiefling - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Just humans with a bloodline curse)
Using your basis that the word “race” is hurtful and harmful and should be removed from the game, I would counter than the word “class” has an even more hurtful and harmful history ...
I do not see a problem with this logic, I would change "Class" to "Job" as a job is what you do. Just like I vote Ancestry or tribe.
Using your basis that the word “race” is hurtful and harmful and should be removed from the game, I would counter than the word “class” has an even more hurtful and harmful history related to socioeconomic status of groups of humanity and should be removed from the game. In a classless society like the united states, our history is based more on race as the discriminating factor and we as an American society are much more sensitive to this concern.
However, for a lot of the rest of the world, class has been used historically to discriminate and oppress an even larger portion of a society’s population, with a vast majority of people suffering and dying with no hope of escape just because they were born as peasants or serfs or untouchables. We should be sensitive to this and ban the word class from the game because of this connotation, even if it wasn’t identified by a US sensitivity consultant.
At some point, we can make an argument to ban every term or word from the game.
A good point. I already use the word "path" interchangeably with "class" since it makes more sense as a journey of discipline and understanding which the character is advancing along. Kind of a Taoist flavor, but it paints a more vivid picture than just "class" or "role".
I don't think the "harm" argument is the real reason WOTC is making this decision. When I was a kid, we were told not to play DnD because kids were committing real self-harm (and harming others) while playing the game. I do understand that this was not WOTC, and when WOTC took over the franchise they did make an attempt to change this culture. However, it still comes up when I visit my older relatives, because they still have that image of DnD in their minds--even though they have never played it.
Getting rid of the word "race" is not going to warm anybody to the game who has already formed their opinion of the game--especially if they never played it. They are just going to judge the rest of us based on what they remember from a previous version. But I don't think this is the strongest argument for changing the term. Like I said previously, "race" just doesn't fit anymore. Not when you start playing with PCs who are kobolds, lizardmen, or tabaxi.
So if we're going to lay out our own crazy proposals for fixing this, here's mine: Let's look at a word from a language that doesn't have "harmful" connotations--from a culture that did not divide people up by race or class. Ironically, on the land where WOTC is currently headquartered, the many indigenous peoples spoke a "common" language that I often use as an illustration of how "Common" in DnD would work in real life. In that language, they had a word to describe the various tribes or nations they belonged to. That word is "Tillikum", and is still used by those who speak that language to indicate a tribe or a group of people. I'm sure most folks would not understand if chapter 2 in the next PHB was titled "Tillikum", but the other alternative would be to use the word "people" in this way--as in "Chapter 2: Choose Your People".
Also, I'm not suggesting we "appropriate" a word for our purposes, but I am suggesting we look at how others used their words and maybe use our own in a similar fashion. As somebody who loves both fantasy and history, I have learned that, just because we are taught to focus on the dominant empires who did terrible things, that doesn't mean we can't also learn from the obscure empires who didn't.
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
Wait, someone made a campaign based around gentrification?
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
Wait, someone made a campaign based around gentrification?
No. It was a campaign based around kids in daycare screaming for the teacher to make the other kids "behave" more submissively.
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
Wait, someone made a campaign based around gentrification?
No. It was a campaign based around kids in daycare screaming for the teacher to make the other kids "behave" more submissively.
I don't know. Moving into a neighborhood, then driving out all the current residents so you and your snooty friends can take over sounds like gentrification to me.
Frankly, when I read "species", I almost expected to see the Latin name for each of them. Like Dragonborn (Homo Draconis Erectus).
Why would it be "Homo"? They wouldn't even be in the same Order as humans. "Draconis/Draco erectus" could work, though. Here's how I'd classify the PHB species/subspecies using my limited understanding of latin, etymology, alternative names for D&D races, and taxonomy.
Current PHB - "Races" I prefer to say "lineage", or "ancestry":
Dragonborn - Homo draco (Dragonborn are a mix of human and dragon made in uncertain times with inconsistent lore.)
Dwarf - Homo sapiens fossores (as they're humans that mine
Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe (Humans of the feywild, ylfe is the old spelling of elf.)
Gnome - Homo sapiens gemma (as they are tiny humans made from gems)
Half-Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe x Homo sapiens abeir-toril
Halfling - Homo sapiens medium (half sized humans,
Half-Orc - Homo vorans monstrum (technically hungry monsters in mythology, in D&D they can mix with most races and count as homo (mankind) but are more distinct)
Human - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Humans of the wolrd called Abeir-toril or Toril in common)
Tiefling - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Just humans with a bloodline curse)
The most recent UA said that the "races" are different species. And, a lot of these aren't even in faux-Latin. (And Dragonborn aren't part humans. They're dragons that hatched in a humanoid form.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
Am I to interpret this to mean that you think relative newcomers to the game are pushing the older players/grognards out because they want changes to certain things?
LOL. In a way, yes. I'd still be playing with 3.5 rules if DnD Beyond supported them.
A good point. I already use the word "path" interchangeably with "class" since it makes more sense as a journey of discipline and understanding which the character is advancing along. Kind of a Taoist flavor, but it paints a more vivid picture than just "class" or "role".
Might I suggest Archtypeinstead of Class (or Job)? It sort of fits with D&D being a story telling game.
If you prefer not to use the word "class".
Change background to Accomplishments, and everything can be an "A"
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
Am I to interpret this to mean that you think relative newcomers to the game are pushing the older players/grognards out because they want changes to certain things?
LOL. In a way, yes. I'd still be playing with 3.5 rules if DnD Beyond supported them.
The game depends on newcomers to continue surviving past a few generations, because grognards (unlike certain game characters) aren't immortal. Add the fact that WoTC is a corporation that aims to maximize profit from their products, and you get change in the game just being inevitable.
In this case, the change isn't hurting anything as far as I can tell.
I understand this, but it is still annoying when the newbs come into a game and demand that we old-timers "do it like Matt Mercer" because "that's how you're supposed to play DnD". It very much feels like Cortez landing in the New World and telling the locals "you're doing it wrong."
Also, to be fair, when my table switched to 5e, I got a lot of positive feedback from some of the players who could finally follow what was going on thanks to the simplified rules. So while it feels like going back to playing with Fisher Price toys for me (I frequently refer to 5e as "version FP" for this reason), it was a positive step for others and for my table as a whole.
The irony here is that I've re-written entire world-building aspects of the DnD canon in my campaign so as to avoid touchy subjects at my table, but I'm not here demanding that everybody else do the same or that people validate my reasons. I've made my suggestions, and I expect people to not like them, and I'm not going to try to strong-arm those who argue with me by sending the moderators after them like some in this thread.
I may be the grumpy old guy, but I'm also the adult.
I'm not going to try to strong-arm those who argue with me by sending the moderators after them like some in this thread.
I may be the grumpy old guy, but I'm also the adult.
I sent no one after anyone. I simply reminded them about a mod warning that was literally two posts before their's. If I had wanted to send a mod after someone I would have reported them and not even bothered to respond. That I took the effort to try and have them self correct was me being generous with my time. Especially for someone who was using very shady rhetorical techniques.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I find it interesting that this decision was reached after consulting with "outside cultural consultants." Outside meaning people who dont play and with no vested interest in D&D?
Well that's how many decisions have been made in recent years *cough* wheelchair dungeons *cough*, as for the topic out of most suggestions ancestry at least does not really sound like an insult to my very being
I find it interesting that this decision was reached after consulting with "outside cultural consultants." Outside meaning people who dont play and with no vested interest in D&D?
Well that's how many decisions have been made in recent years *cough* wheelchair dungeons *cough*, as for the topic out of most suggestions ancestry at least does not really sound like an insult to my very being
The adventure The Canopic Being in Candlekeep Mysteries, which featured a dungeon with a ramp motif rather than stairs, was written by Jennifer Kretchmer who has played D&D for many years, featured on multiple live play D&D streams, as well as non-D&D TTRPGs. She is not some non-playing outsider to the hobby and the suggestion that she is is the exact kind of marginalisation and invalidation that is harmful to this community.
I'm putting my moderator hat on for this: People need to stop assuming that just because someone is highlighting elements of the game they find problematic and voicing their desire for change and improvement, that they are somehow not "true D&D players". This kind of alienation, marginalisation, and invalidation is a direct contravention of the site rules and what D&D should stand for. For some further education, look up the "No true Scotsman" fallacy
Frankly, when I read "species", I almost expected to see the Latin name for each of them. Like Dragonborn (Homo Draconis Erectus).
Why would it be "Homo"? They wouldn't even be in the same Order as humans. "Draconis/Draco erectus" could work, though. Here's how I'd classify the PHB species/subspecies using my limited understanding of latin, etymology, alternative names for D&D races, and taxonomy.
Current PHB - "Races" I prefer to say "lineage", or "ancestry":
Dragonborn - Homo draco (Dragonborn are a mix of human and dragon made in uncertain times with inconsistent lore.)
Dwarf - Homo sapiens fossores (as they're humans that mine
Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe (Humans of the feywild, ylfe is the old spelling of elf.)
Gnome - Homo sapiens gemma (as they are tiny humans made from gems)
Half-Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe x Homo sapiens abeir-toril
Halfling - Homo sapiens medium (half sized humans,
Half-Orc - Homo vorans monstrum (technically hungry monsters in mythology, in D&D they can mix with most races and count as homo (mankind) but are more distinct)
Human - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Humans of the wolrd called Abeir-toril or Toril in common)
Tiefling - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Just humans with a bloodline curse)
I think this in itself highlights where so much disagreement of the community comes from.
Many people consider even the closest different playable races as completely separate species to humans. While many are a different genus, class, or even phylum.
Other people consider them to be much closer to being different races of a single species. Or at most closely related species, for species like dragonborn. Which when you look at it from this viewpoint, it becomes extremely clear why so much of DnD is problematic.
I've always considered playables like elves, halflings, and dwarves to be their own species, but same genus as humans. Similar to neanderthals and denisovans. While dragonborn and lizardfolk are in an entire class of their own. And thri-kreen are a different phylum to humans.
“Having an open conversation around the term "race" is both important and challenging. That is why it's vital we foster a positive, open, and understanding dialogue with one another. We welcome your constructive feedback on this evolution and the many more evolutions to One D&D that make this game exciting, open, and accessible to everyone.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just because the connotation the word "race" evokes for you is not negative, it doesn't mean the term is not harmful for anyone else. You aren't being "vilified" for using the word, you are merely being told that the word and the way it was used in D&D caused a large amount of people harm, and the rules will use a different word from now on. Do what you want at your tables, as long as you and your players are comfortable with the word, no one said you are "villains" for using it.
It makes people feel safer when playing D&D, and so yes, this change does have a big beneficial impact on real world people.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This is a reminder to everyone who makes the choice to participate in these discussions surrounding the One D&D changes to game language. You do so under the explicit assumption you will participate by the site rules.
I want to emphasises something; these changes are being made because people who play the game are experiencing harm at the language the game uses and have communicated this to Wizards of the Coast, who are taking action to continue to progress the game forwards to be as inclusive as it can be. The moderation team will not entertain the dismissal, invalidation, or margination of members of the community who have raised these valid concerns just because "I don't see a problem with the word". Privilege is a wonderful thing.
If you want to participate in this discussion without receiving warnings, infraction points, or bans, you will do so civilly, respectfully, and with kindness.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
While interesting. Those don't quite work.
Current PHB - "Races" I prefer to say "lineage", or "ancestry":
Dragonborn - Homo draco (Dragonborn are a mix of human and dragon made in uncertain times with inconsistent lore.)
Dwarf - Homo sapiens fossores (as they're humans that mine
Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe (Humans of the feywild, ylfe is the old spelling of elf.)
Gnome - Homo sapiens gemma (as they are tiny humans made from gems)
Half-Elf - Homo sapiens ylfe x Homo sapiens abeir-toril
Halfling - Homo sapiens medium (half sized humans,
Half-Orc - Homo vorans monstrum (technically hungry monsters in mythology, in D&D they can mix with most races and count as homo (mankind) but are more distinct)
Human - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Humans of the wolrd called Abeir-toril or Toril in common)
Tiefling - Homo sapiens abeir-toril (Just humans with a bloodline curse)
I do not see a problem with this logic, I would change "Class" to "Job" as a job is what you do. Just like I vote Ancestry or tribe.
A good point. I already use the word "path" interchangeably with "class" since it makes more sense as a journey of discipline and understanding which the character is advancing along. Kind of a Taoist flavor, but it paints a more vivid picture than just "class" or "role".
I don't think the "harm" argument is the real reason WOTC is making this decision. When I was a kid, we were told not to play DnD because kids were committing real self-harm (and harming others) while playing the game. I do understand that this was not WOTC, and when WOTC took over the franchise they did make an attempt to change this culture. However, it still comes up when I visit my older relatives, because they still have that image of DnD in their minds--even though they have never played it.
Getting rid of the word "race" is not going to warm anybody to the game who has already formed their opinion of the game--especially if they never played it. They are just going to judge the rest of us based on what they remember from a previous version. But I don't think this is the strongest argument for changing the term. Like I said previously, "race" just doesn't fit anymore. Not when you start playing with PCs who are kobolds, lizardmen, or tabaxi.
So if we're going to lay out our own crazy proposals for fixing this, here's mine: Let's look at a word from a language that doesn't have "harmful" connotations--from a culture that did not divide people up by race or class. Ironically, on the land where WOTC is currently headquartered, the many indigenous peoples spoke a "common" language that I often use as an illustration of how "Common" in DnD would work in real life. In that language, they had a word to describe the various tribes or nations they belonged to. That word is "Tillikum", and is still used by those who speak that language to indicate a tribe or a group of people. I'm sure most folks would not understand if chapter 2 in the next PHB was titled "Tillikum", but the other alternative would be to use the word "people" in this way--as in "Chapter 2: Choose Your People".
Also, I'm not suggesting we "appropriate" a word for our purposes, but I am suggesting we look at how others used their words and maybe use our own in a similar fashion. As somebody who loves both fantasy and history, I have learned that, just because we are taught to focus on the dominant empires who did terrible things, that doesn't mean we can't also learn from the obscure empires who didn't.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Why does this conversation remind me of that campaign where the elves move in to a Dwarf community, claim that they've finally "found their people", and then start ordering all the Dwarves to leave because they are terrible at being elves?
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Wait, someone made a campaign based around gentrification?
No. It was a campaign based around kids in daycare screaming for the teacher to make the other kids "behave" more submissively.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I don't know. Moving into a neighborhood, then driving out all the current residents so you and your snooty friends can take over sounds like gentrification to me.
The most recent UA said that the "races" are different species. And, a lot of these aren't even in faux-Latin. (And Dragonborn aren't part humans. They're dragons that hatched in a humanoid form.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
LOL. In a way, yes. I'd still be playing with 3.5 rules if DnD Beyond supported them.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Wait - am I short with a beard, or very thin with pointed ears?
lol....
Might I suggest Archtype instead of Class (or Job)? It sort of fits with D&D being a story telling game.
If you prefer not to use the word "class".
Change background to Accomplishments, and everything can be an "A"
Ancestry / Archtype / Accomplishment - problems solved.
I understand this, but it is still annoying when the newbs come into a game and demand that we old-timers "do it like Matt Mercer" because "that's how you're supposed to play DnD". It very much feels like Cortez landing in the New World and telling the locals "you're doing it wrong."
Also, to be fair, when my table switched to 5e, I got a lot of positive feedback from some of the players who could finally follow what was going on thanks to the simplified rules. So while it feels like going back to playing with Fisher Price toys for me (I frequently refer to 5e as "version FP" for this reason), it was a positive step for others and for my table as a whole.
The irony here is that I've re-written entire world-building aspects of the DnD canon in my campaign so as to avoid touchy subjects at my table, but I'm not here demanding that everybody else do the same or that people validate my reasons. I've made my suggestions, and I expect people to not like them, and I'm not going to try to strong-arm those who argue with me by sending the moderators after them like some in this thread.
I may be the grumpy old guy, but I'm also the adult.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I sent no one after anyone. I simply reminded them about a mod warning that was literally two posts before their's. If I had wanted to send a mod after someone I would have reported them and not even bothered to respond. That I took the effort to try and have them self correct was me being generous with my time. Especially for someone who was using very shady rhetorical techniques.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Well that's how many decisions have been made in recent years *cough* wheelchair dungeons *cough*, as for the topic out of most suggestions ancestry at least does not really sound like an insult to my very being
The adventure The Canopic Being in Candlekeep Mysteries, which featured a dungeon with a ramp motif rather than stairs, was written by Jennifer Kretchmer who has played D&D for many years, featured on multiple live play D&D streams, as well as non-D&D TTRPGs. She is not some non-playing outsider to the hobby and the suggestion that she is is the exact kind of marginalisation and invalidation that is harmful to this community.
I'm putting my moderator hat on for this: People need to stop assuming that just because someone is highlighting elements of the game they find problematic and voicing their desire for change and improvement, that they are somehow not "true D&D players". This kind of alienation, marginalisation, and invalidation is a direct contravention of the site rules and what D&D should stand for. For some further education, look up the "No true Scotsman" fallacy
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think this in itself highlights where so much disagreement of the community comes from.
Many people consider even the closest different playable races as completely separate species to humans. While many are a different genus, class, or even phylum.
Other people consider them to be much closer to being different races of a single species. Or at most closely related species, for species like dragonborn. Which when you look at it from this viewpoint, it becomes extremely clear why so much of DnD is problematic.
I've always considered playables like elves, halflings, and dwarves to be their own species, but same genus as humans. Similar to neanderthals and denisovans. While dragonborn and lizardfolk are in an entire class of their own. And thri-kreen are a different phylum to humans.
Jennifer Kretchmer is not mentioned on the article on the front page of this website to which this thread is about. Nor is any name for that matter.
“Having an open conversation around the term "race" is both important and challenging. That is why it's vital we foster a positive, open, and understanding dialogue with one another. We welcome your constructive feedback on this evolution and the many more evolutions to One D&D that make this game exciting, open, and accessible to everyone.”