There’s a New York Times article (here’s a similar article not behind a paywall) about some people complaining about the new inclusive rules in Dungeons & Dragons.
Unlike these right-wing complainers, the new inclusive rules are doing a lot to sell me on the new edition. {1}
Because the two rules they mention are things I already do in the games that I run.
The overarching thing here is simple: You don’t have to use the rules-as-written. You never have. Every session I have ever been in or ran has their own table rules. If your table doesn’t want to use some portion of these rules, then don’t. You want to use other rules, fine. The supremely ironic thing is that the complainers say this limits their choice, when they are absolutely free to keep playing exactly as they are now, or modify the 2024 rules to fit their playstyle. The changes are to explicitly allow — or encourage — different ways of playing. That is what they’re complaining about.
I’m reminded of someone who complained that a different game had a transgender character as one of the “example” characters in the back. You do not have to use the example characters in the back; I’ve only played in one game in my life where we did use them. They’re meant to be examples. There were plenty of cisgender example characters, but the existence of a type of character they didn’t personally want to play offended them.
Those complaining about the new inclusive D&D rules are not being limited in any way. They’re just not happy that others are playing the game differently, and that it’s been approved by the “official” source. Insisting that someone should have to endure an unpleasant experience as part of their recreation is just childish and selfish.
So what are they actually complaining about?
The first one mentioned (and making the headline) is that some players are frustrated because of the name change of “race” to “species” and claim that not assigning game statistics to that choice is a problem. They, of course, weren’t paying attention, since many of the “races” in D&D had to be the same biological species.
Another person in the NYT piece complains that without the word “race” in play, every character is just a “human with variations,” somehow ignoring the fact that all of these characters are completely make-believe and are already abstracted representations that bear little resemblance to a “real-world” simulation anyway. Every character is just a set of numbers with variations.
The complaint also shows a massive lack of imagination. Humans are only one species, and there’s huge physical and social variation between populations, and lots of conflict for all sorts of reasons. Eliminating the casual “default” racism makes things more interesting, not less. You aren’t getting rid of bands of orc raiders — they just have a motivation besides “they’re orcs”. And that means there may be other orcs who aren’t raiders and follow other ways of life, or are just another part of “civilization”.
There is plenty of room for the same sorts of stories and adventures, you just can’t be lazy about it.
The second rule they complain about regards safety guidelines:
The company now suggests that extended Dungeons & Dragons campaigns begin with a session in which players discuss their expectations and list topics to avoid, which could include sexual assault or drug use. Dungeon masters are encouraged to establish a signal that allows players to articulate their distress with any subject matter and automatically overrule the dungeon master’s own story line.
“The signal shouldn’t trigger a debate or discussion: Thank the player for being honest about their needs, set the scene right and move on,” states the “2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide.”
Rightwingers were Not Pleased, and equally unreflective and unimaginative. For example:
[Robert J. Kuntz, an award-winning game designer who frequently collaborated with Gary Gygax] said that while some topics ought to be considered off-limits, it was a mistake to interfere with the implicit social contract that has sustained Dungeons & Dragons for decades.
That’s not interfering with the social contract, it’s merely making it explicit rather than implicit.
I know that I’ve accidentally crossed that line with a player while running a game. Unfortunately, we hadn’t set that expectation clearly ahead of time — which is my fault — and I only realized my mistake by them dropping out of the game shortly thereafter. Because that social contract wasn’t made explicit, because those issues were not discussed, that implicit social contract was broken. Having such a discussion has been a front-and-center feature of all my games since. That doesn’t mean I pull punches or go “easy” on my players — it just means that I have to change it up.
Once again, it’s a failure of imagination by those complaining. I have run scenarios with a circus theme; there’s a version that is completely free of clowns. I know players who have snake phobias and others who have spider phobias; I swap out critters and monsters as needed when running adventures for those groups of players. It’s not hard.
Finally, this isn’t a tool to limit people. There are — and will continue to be — roleplayers who have different desires for what they want out of their games. Sometimes a player won’t fit into a particular table’s style, and that’s okay. You want to run an evil campaign? You want to run a game with “races” and no content warnings and no way for players to signal that something is uncomfortable? I don’t care. Run it however you want to.
I hope you have fun, but I won’t be joining you.
And that’s fine.
Insisting that someone should have to endure an unpleasant experience as part of their recreation is just childish and selfish.
{1} My issues are with how Hasbro has been treating its employees lately. Funny how they don’t seem to care about that?
Featured image from Pixabay