Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Although he claims his mission is to colonize Mars, I sometimes wonder if Elon Musk’s real goal is to improve my productivity. Their changes to the X algorithm mean I discover far fewer pieces to read on the social media platform, reducing the amount of time I spend sitting at my desk exploring fascinating, 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 noted last year’s major rulebook reworking in the name of diversity and inclusion.
One consequence of Musk’s influence, particularly on the political right, has been the spectacle of people who evidently don’t know the difference between his aasimar and his aarakocra, opining at length about how worrying all of this is, presumably as many of them do. their readers. His eyes glaze over. But this seemingly silly discussion about a game is, in fact, a useful case study in how to address issues of diversity, ethnicity, and inclusion, both good and bad.
The changes to the 2024 D&D rulebook take two forms. First there are some explicitly political changes to character creation. We no longer talk about “races” of players; instead, orcs, elves, humans, etc., are described using the term “species.” And for the most part, your character’s traits (how smart they are, etc.) are determined by their background and the decisions you make about the life they’ve led, rather than their species.
Endless unfounded ideas about ethnic diversity (ranging from the various wild theories of countless fanatics to the most implausible ideas of some diversity educators) have shared, in my opinion, the same root: the belief that there is something real called “race,” when in reality labels like “black” and “white” are more or less meaningless. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote, we must remember that racial divisions are “made by man and can be undone by man.” But the difference between playing as an orc or an elf is, or should seem, significant. Using the term “species” is a good way to make this point without talking as if “races” are real. This is a small change but it is worth it.
Or, at least it would be if the new player’s handbook actually made this argument explicit. Since this is not the case, the change seems pointless. To further increase the annoyance of players, the differences between the various D&D species have been reduced. Describing orcs and gnomes as belonging to different “species” is a reasonable way to highlight that their vast differences are not like the races invented by humans. But decreasing them to the point where they are barely wider than the distance between “blacks” and “whites” undermines the entire effort.
The second tranche of changes to the game involves the introduction of detailed recommendations on how to run your campaign, including the stipulation that before you start playing you must discuss everyone’s expectations, feelings, and don’ts. That’s always been useful advice, because in the world of D&D you can tell anything from a light-hearted, comedic adventure to a dark, somber tale of murder and misery. As a result, I always start the campaigns I run by feeling out what kind of adventure other players want and (after a disastrous incident with a spider) asking them to tell me if they have any phobias or if there are themes they would prefer. I can’t find
But again, the problem here is that while there is a lot of buzzword in the new manual about convenience and accessibility, nothing in it explicitly walks players through these very real problems. This is very typical of advice on how to improve a workplace, a voluntary organization or a country: too many institutions cannot explain why they are doing something or why it is valuable in simple, accessible language.
This has been counterproductive in two ways. Firstly, because as a consequence it can seem that change is done for the sake of change, which almost always bothers people. Secondly, because saying something in plain language is a good way to find out where people really disagree. Explaining that we use the term “species” because we don’t believe race is real would be an argument that people could understand. “Have a meeting at the beginning to work out your expectations and any prohibitions” is easier to understand and apply than more abstract language about “inclusion.”
Forcing an organization’s leaders to speak clearly is a good way to test whether they really understand what they are doing or whether they are simply following the latest fad or trend. This is true whether you are changing the rules of a board game or the inner workings of a company.