Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Open the editor’s digest for free
FT editor Rula Khalaf picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Although he says his mission is to solve Mars, I sometimes wonder if Elon Musk’s real goal is to improve my productivity. His changes to X’s algorithm mean I get far fewer pieces to read on the social media platform, which I never would have found without him. By reducing the amount of time I spend sitting at my desk writing articles. And now he’s drawing even more criticism for noting that another way to pass the time, the board game Dungeons & Dragons, is a remake of last year’s rulebook in the name of diversity and inclusion.
Musk’s influence, especially on the political right, has become a spectacle of how troubling it all is, and who, like many of his readers, don’t really know the difference between Acimar and Aracocra’s opinion. Eyes shine. But this seemingly silly debate about gaming is actually an important case study in how to address issues of diversity, ethnicity, and inclusion — for better or worse.
Changes to the D&D 2024 rulebook take two forms. There are some obvious political changes to the original character creation. Gone is the player’s “race” speech – instead orcs, elves, humans and others use the word “races”. And for the most part, your character’s traits—how smart they are, and so on—are driven more by their upbringing and the choices they make about their lives than by their species.
Many baseless ideas about ethnic diversity – from countless conservative theories and even more unreliable ideas from some diversity trainers – have, in my view, the same foundation: the belief that there is something real. “Race”, when in fact labels like “black” and “white” are more or less meaningless. As Christopher Hitchens once wrote, we must remember that racial divisions are “man-made and non-man-made.” But the difference between playing as an orc or an elf does or should feel meaningful. Using the word “species” is a good way to avoid saying that “species” is true. This is a small but important change.
Or, at least, if the new Player’s Handbook makes this argument clear. Since this is not the case, the change seems pointless. Further adding to player frustration, the differences between the various genres of D&D have diminished. Describing orcs and gnomes as separate “species” is a reasonable way to show that their vast differences are not like humans. But reducing these to the point where the distance between “black” and “white” is too wide will undermine the overall effort.
The second section introduces detailed tips on how to run your campaign with changes to the game, including the rule that discuss everyone’s expectations, feelings, and no grudges before you start playing. That’s always a good tip, because in the world of D&D you can tell anything from a comic, simple adventure to a story of gruesome murder and tragedy. As a result, I always start my campaigns by getting a feel for what kind of adventure other players are looking for and (after the accident with the spider) asking them to tell me if they have any phobias or favorite topics. Not meeting.
But again, the problem here is that while there’s a lot of modish language about comfort and accessibility in the new guidebook, nothing in it clearly walks players through these very real problems. All this advice on how to improve a workplace, a voluntary organization or a country is too commonplace – too many institutions fail to explain why they do something or why it’s important in clear and accessible language.
This proved contradictory in two ways. First, because the resulting change can seem like change for the sake of change, which almost always annoys people. Second, because saying something in plain language is a good way of doing things when people actually disagree. Explaining that we are using the word “race” because we do not believe that race is real is an argument that people can understand. “Have a meeting at the beginning to work out what you expect and then nothing” is easier to understand and do than the abstract language about “adding up.”
Forcing an organization’s leaders to speak out is a good way to test whether they really understand what they’re doing or whether they’re just adopting the latest fad or trend. This is true whether you are changing the board game rulebook or the internal workings of a company.
