Open Editor's Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories for this weekly newsletter.
Although he says his goal is to colonize Mars, sometimes I wonder if Elon Musk's real goal is to improve my productivity. His changes to the X algorithm mean that I get very few pieces of reading on the social media platform, reducing the time I spend sitting at my desk looking for interesting articles and articles that I would never have found without him. And now he's increasingly critical of my other way of spending time, the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game, which of late has seen a 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 perception of people who don't know the difference between their aasimar and their aarakocra which gives a broader view of how troubling all of this is, presumably for most of their readers. eyes wide open. But this seemingly silly row about the game is in fact a useful lesson in how to deal with issues of diversity, racism and inclusion – both the good and the bad.
Changes to D&D's 2024 rulebook take two forms. First is the obvious political shift in character creation. The player term “races” is out – instead orcs, elves, humans and so on are described using the term “species”. And for the most part, your character's traits – how smart they are and so on – are driven by their background and the choices you make about the life they lead, rather than their type.
Any number of ill-founded ideas about racial diversity – from the various crackpot ideas of innumerable bigots and the impossible ideas of diversity trainers – have, in my opinion, shared a common root: the belief that there is a real thing called “race”, when in fact the labels such as “black” and “white” are plural or meaningless. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote, we must remember that racial differences are “man-made, and not man-made”. But the difference between playing as an orc or as an elf, or should feel meaningful. Using the word “species” is a good way to ensure that without sounding like “nations” is true. This is a small but significant change.
Or, at least, it could be if the new player's handbook made this argument clear. As it is not, the change seems pointless. In addition to annoying players, the differences between the different types of D&D have been reduced. Describing orcs and gnomes as separate “species” is a good way to show that the vast differences are not the same as human-made races. But to reduce this to a point where it is rarely wider than the middle distance between “black” and “white” undermines the whole effort.
The second level of change in the game involves the introduction of detailed advice on how to run your campaign, including the stipulation that before you start playing you discuss everyone's expectations, feelings and any negatives. That's always been a useful tip, because in the world of D&D you can tell anything from a humorous, light-hearted game to a dark tale of murder and tragedy. Because of that, I always start the campaigns I run by feeling what kind of adventure other players want and (after the bad incident with the spider) I ask them to tell me if they have any phobias or if there are topics they might like. not to meet.
But again, the problem here is that while there is a lot of language in the new manual about comfort and affordability, nothing in it clearly addresses the players in these real problems. This is very common in advice on how to improve the workplace, a voluntary organization, or the country for that matter – many organizations cannot explain why they are doing something or why it is important in clear and accessible language.
This has proven to be beneficial in two ways. First of all because it can seem like change is being made for change's sake, which often annoys people. Second, speaking in plain language is a good way to deal with disagreements. Explaining that we use the word “species” because we do not believe that racism is a real thing would be an argument that people can understand. “Have a meeting at the beginning to work out expectations and any no-no's” is easier for them to understand and act on than superficial language about “inclusion”.
Forcing the leaders of the organization to speak clearly is a good way to test whether they understand what they are doing or are just following the latest fad. This is true whether you are changing the rule book of a board game or the inner workings of a company.