Dungeons & Dragons shows that modern fashion does not serve diversity and inclusion

Open Editor’s Digest for free

Rula Khalaf, editor of the Financial Times, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Although he claims his mission is to colonize Mars, I sometimes wonder if Elon Musk’s actual goal is to improve my productivity. His changes to the Now he’s become increasingly critical of another way he’s wasted time, the board game Dungeons & Dragons, since he belatedly noticed a major reworking of the rulebook last year in the name of diversity and inclusion.

One result of Musk’s influence, particularly on the political right, has been the spectacle of people who clearly don’t know the difference between their Aasimar and Aarakocra opinions, talking at length about how annoying it all is, as is the case with many their readers. Eyes glazed over. But this seemingly ridiculous controversy over a game is actually a useful case study in how issues of diversity, race, and inclusion can be addressed — both well and badly.

Changes to the D&D rulebook for 2024 take two forms. First, there are some overt political changes in character creation. Gone is the talk of player “races” – instead, orcs, elves, humans, etc. are described using the term “species.” And most of the time, your character’s traits — how smart she is, etc. — are driven by her background and the choices she makes about the life she’s lived, not her gender.

Any number of unfounded ideas about racial diversity — from the various crazy theories of countless bigots to the preposterous ideas of some diversity trainers — share, in my opinion, the same root: the belief that there is a real thing called “race.” , while labels like “black” and “white” are somewhat meaningless. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote, we must remember that racial divisions are “man-made, and can be man-made.” But the difference between playing as an orc or as a dwarf has a meaning, or should have a meaning. 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 Handbook actually made this argument clear. Since this is not the case, the change seems meaningless. Much to players’ annoyance, the differences between different types in D&D have been reduced. Describing goblins and gnomes as belonging to different “species” is a reasonable way to highlight that the vast differences between them are not like races invented by humans. But reducing these elements to the point where they are barely wider than the space between “black” and “white” undermines the entire endeavor.

The second tranche of changes to the game includes providing detailed recommendations on how to run your campaign, including the requirement that before you start playing, you should discuss everyone’s expectations, feelings, and any nos they may have. This has always been useful advice, because in the world of D&D you can say anything from a light comic adventure to a dark story of murder and misery. As a result, I always start the campaigns I run by knowing 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 topics they prefer not to encounter.

But again, the problem here is that while there’s a lot of trendy language in the new handbook about comfort and accessibility, there’s nothing in it that clearly walks players through these very real issues. This is very typical in terms of advice on how to improve a workplace, a voluntary organization, or a country for that matter – many organizations cannot explain in plain, accessible language why they do something or why it is important.

This has been shown to be counterproductive in two ways. Firstly because as a result it may seem as if change is being done for the sake of change, which is almost always what upsets people. Second, because saying something in plain language is a good way to see 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. “Have a meeting at the beginning to set out your expectations and any no-nos” is easier to understand and act on than the 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 just catching the latest fad or trend. This is true whether you are changing the rulebook of a board game or the inner workings of a company.

[email protected]