Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Although he claims his mission is to settle Mars, I sometimes wonder if Elon Musk’s real goal is to improve my productivity. Its changes to X’s algorithm mean that I discover far fewer articles to read on the social media platform, reducing the amount of time I spend sitting at my desk browsing fascinating and esoteric articles that I would never have discovered without it. And now he’s becoming increasingly critical of another way I waste my time, the Dungeons & Dragons board game, since he belatedly noticed last year’s major overhaul of the rulebook in the name of diversity and inclusion.
The result of Musk’s influence, especially on the political right, has been the spectacle of people who apparently don’t know the difference between their aasimar and their aarakocra thinking at length about how troubling all of this is, probably rolling their eyes like many of their readers. But this seemingly silly argument about a game is actually a useful case study in how to grapple with issues of diversity, ethnicity, and inclusion—both good and bad.
The 2024 D&D rulebook changes come in two forms. First are some explicitly political changes in character creation. There is no talk of player “races” – instead, orcs, elves, humans, and so on are described as “species”. And for the most part, your character’s traits – how intelligent they are and so on – are driven by their background and the choices you make about the life they’ve led, not their species.
Any number of baseless ideas about ethnic diversity – ranging from the various crazy theories of countless fanatics to the more incredible ideas of some diversity trainers – have, in my opinion, the same root: the belief that there is a real thing called “races”, while in fact labels like “black” and “white” are more or less meaningless. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote, we should remember that racial divisions are “man-made and may not be made.” But the difference between playing as an orc or as an elf is, or should seem, significant. Using the term “species” is a good way to ensure this without speaking as if “races” are real. This is a small but worthwhile change.
Or, at least, it would be if the new player’s manual actually made this argument. Since it is not, the change seems pointless. Further contributing to player irritation, the differences between the various types of D&D have been reduced. Describing orcs and gnomes as members of different “species” is a reasonable way to emphasize that their vast differences are not like human-made races. But shrinking them to the point where they are barely wider than the distance between “black” and “white” undermines the whole enterprise.
The second tranche of changes to the game involves the introduction of detailed recommendations on how to run your campaign, including a provision to discuss everyone’s expectations, feelings and any possible opposition before you start playing. That’s always been useful advice, because in the world of D&D you can tell anything from a comical, light-hearted adventure to a dark tale of murder and woe. As a result, I always start the campaigns I run by getting a feel for what kind of adventure the other players want and (after the disastrous spider incident) ask them to tell me if they have any phobias or if there are themes they’d rather not encounter.
But again, the problem is that while there’s a lot of modding language about comfort and accessibility in the new manual, nothing in it explicitly guides players through these very real issues. This is all too typical of advice on how to improve the workplace, a voluntary organization or the country for that matter – too many institutions fail to explain why they are doing something or why it is worthwhile in simple and accessible language.
This proved counterproductive in two ways. First, because as a result, it can seem like change is being made for change’s sake, which almost always annoys people. Second, because saying something in plain language is a good way to resolve where people really disagree. Explaining that we use the term “species” because we don’t believe race is real would be an argument people could understand. “Hold a meeting at the beginning to work out your expectations and any no-holds-barred” is easier to understand and act on than the more abstract language about “onboarding.”
Forcing an organization’s leaders to speak clearly is a good way to test whether they really understand what they’re doing or whether they’re just following the latest fad or trend. This applies whether you are changing the rules of a board game or the inner workings of a company.
