Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf has chosen her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Although he claims his mission is to settle Mars, I sometimes wonder if Elon Musk’s real purpose is to make me more productive. His changes to X’s algorithm have allowed me to discover far fewer articles to read on social media platforms, and to see fascinating and esoteric articles that I never would have discovered without him. It means spending less time sitting at your desk. And now he’s becoming increasingly critical of the tabletop game Dungeons & Dragons, another way I waste time. That’s after I belatedly realized that the rulebook was significantly revised last year in the name of diversity and inclusion.
Particularly as a result of Musk’s influence on the political right, people who obviously don’t know the difference between an aasimar and an aarakocra, like many readers, have opined at length about how troubling this is. I could see the scene. My eyes become cloudy. But this seemingly ridiculous controversy over gaming is actually an instructive case study in how to approach issues of diversity, ethnicity, and inclusion, for better or for worse.
Changes to D&D’s 2024 rulebook come in two forms. First, there are some clearly political changes to character creation. There is no longer talk of a player’s “race”; instead, things like orcs, elves, and humans are described using the term “species”. And in most cases, a character’s traits (such as how intelligent they are) are determined not by their race, but by their background and the choices they make about their lives.
I believe that unsubstantiated ideas about ethnic diversity, from the various bizarre theories of countless bigots to the far-fetched ideas of some diversity leaders, all share the same root. I’m thinking. “Race,” and indeed labels like “black” and “white,” are more or less meaningless. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote, we should remember that racial categories “can be artificially created, but they can also be non-artificially created.” But the difference between playing as an orc or an elf makes sense, or should feel like it. Using the term “species” is a good way to ensure that “race” is true without talking about it as if it were 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 that’s not the case, the change seems pointless. Adding to the annoyance for players is the diminishing distinction between D&D’s various races. Describing orcs and gnomes as belonging to different “species” is a reasonable way to emphasize that their vast differences are not like races invented by humans. But to reduce these to a point where they are barely wider than the distance between “black” and “white” would be to undermine the whole effort.
The second part of the changes to the game involves the introduction of detailed recommendations on how to run the campaign, including a provision to discuss everyone’s expectations, feelings, and any no-nos they may have before starting play. It will be. This is always good advice, because in the world of D&D you can tell anything from comical, light-hearted adventures to dark tales of murder and misery. That’s why I always try to get a sense of what kind of adventure other players want, from asking them if they have a phobia (after a disastrous incident with spiders) or if there’s a topic they’d like to explore. , start a campaign. Not encountered.
But again, the problem here is that while the new handbook has a lot of modern language about comfort and accessibility, it doesn’t explicitly educate players about these very real issues. It means that there is nothing. This is all too typical advice on how to improve your workplace, your volunteer organization, or your country for that matter. Too many institutions are unable to explain in plain and understandable terms why they are doing something and why it is valuable.
This turned out to be counterproductive in two ways. Firstly, because the result can seem as if change is being done for change’s sake, which most often bothers people. Second, because saying something in plain language is a good way to resolve things people don’t actually agree on. You can make the argument more understandable by explaining that we use the term “species” because we don’t believe that races exist. “Hold a meeting first and work out your expectations and prohibitions” is easier to understand and implement than explaining “inclusion” in abstract terms.
Forcing an organization’s leaders to speak up is a good way to test whether they really know what they’re doing or are just adopting the latest fads and trends. . This is true whether you’re changing the rulebook of a board game or changing the internal structure of your company.
stephen.bush@ft.com
