Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

Several mainstream news sites have discovered that Dungeons & Dragons now refers to a character's species instead of race. The New York Times ended 2024 with a profile on Dungeons & Dragons, with a specific focus on the 2024 Player's Handbook's changes on character creation, the in-game terminology change from race to species, and the removal of Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species. The article included quotes by Robert J. Kuntz and John Stavropoulos and also referenced Elon Musk's outrage over Jason Tondro's forward in The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons.

The piece sparked additional commentary on a variety of sites, including Fox News and The Telegraph, most of which focused on how the changes were "woke." Around the same time, Wargamer.com published a more nuanced piece about the presentation of orcs in the 2024 Player's Handbook, although its headline noted that the changes were "doomed" because players would inevitably replace the orc's traditional role as aggressor against civilization with some other monstrous group whose motivations and sentience would need to be ignored in order for adventurers to properly bash their heads in.

[Update--the Guardian has joined in also, now.]

Generally speaking, the mainstream news pieces failed to address the non-"culture war" reasons for many of these changes - namely that Dungeons & Dragons has gradually evolved from a game that promoted a specific traditional fantasy story to a more generalized system meant to capture any kind of fantasy story. Although some campaign settings and stories certainly have and still do lean into traditional fantasy roles, the kinds that work well with Ability Score Increases tied to a character's species/race, many other D&D campaigns lean away from these aspects or ignore them entirely. From a pragmatic standpoint, uncoupling Ability Score Increases from species not only removes the problematic bioessentialism from the game, it also makes the game more marketable to a wider variety of players.

Of course, the timing of many of these pieces is a bit odd, given that the 2024 Player's Handbook came out months ago and Wizards of the Coast announced plans to make these changes back in 2022. It's likely that mainstream news is slow to pick up on these types of stories. However, it's a bit surprising that some intrepid reporter didn't discover these changes for four months given the increased pervasiveness of Dungeons & Dragons in mainstream culture.

We'll add that EN World has covered the D&D species/race terminology changes as they developed and looks forward to covering new developments and news about Dungeons & Dragons in 2025 and beyond.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

On the one hand people talk about how important these changes are “oh think of the children!” And then some of the same people call it a nothing burger.

If this stuff annoys you be an adult. Learn to ignore it or move on. I am sticking with 5e. I don’t like a single one of these changes. I think species “sounds” anachronistic. No, there is no historical precedent for fantasy land.

I think penalties and limitations are good for the game as is playing against type with regard to races. Others disagree and so what? Enjoy your brand with your group.

No controversy or sturm and drang for me. As a family dude who is now getting some gray in the beard I am increasingly aware the number of remaining gaming sessions I have are shrinking rapidly…it is time revel in adventure and pretend to be immortal one more time.

Talking heads and the chronically unhappy can hash this out to their hearts content. I will be slaying orcs. (Oh no! He was a generous and kindly orc and gave to halfling orphan charities?!)

Damn it. Not again. Just let me live in ignorance as I save the land. I will seek atonement or start worshipping bane. Have not sorted that out yet.

 

[Dom777]

Conservative people are outraged about these changes because in their lives, it's primordial to have an "us" and a "them" and "races" has always been their go-to mechanism to do so.

Without a visible "them" to demonize, they would have to start looking at themselves in the mirror and acknowledge that the worse evil is often people looking exactly like you.

 

[VelvetViolet]

But they’re not different species. Many are just different races of the same species. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, such as half-elves and half-orcs. Paizo’s “ancestry” makes way more sense.

 

[aco175]

I find it really funny that a bunch of conservative news outlets are mad about D&D "going woke."

A probably not insignificant portion of their viewer base probably still believes in satanic panic nonsense. So they're going to be stirred up by changes in a game they already condemn?

Really just goes to show you how manufactured it all is.

I can see a lot of people played the game years ago and then left it for whatever reason. Now, the 50th anniversary or something makes it come into news and they look at it or talk about it with others who played or more so with people that play now and find big differences with the memory of 1e/2e and what they see today.

It might be like playing cards with grandma when I was a kid and now someone wanting to play card if they changed things. I sit down and the other person starts talking about how we do not use the word 'suits' anymore because that is bad, or how they changed 'spades' to circles since that was bad, and add a few more before I start to think why did they need to do that.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Conservative people are outraged about these changes because in their lives, it's primordial to have an "us" and a "them" and "races" has always been their go-to mechanism to do so.

Without a visible "them" to demonize, they would have to start looking at themselves in the mirror and acknowledge that the worse evil is often people looking exactly like you.

Your literally demonizing conservatives, ironic. I'm not one for the record.

None of what you said is applicable to the D&D use of the term race BTW.

You've drifted far from D&D into politics.

 

[MGibster]

In the early 80s when I started learning D&D I immediately wondered why they used the term "race". Even as an ignorant kid, it didn't make sense to me. As I've turned into an old man and become less ignorant about race, it makes even less sense to use the term for the different playable species in D&D.

It's a word that's been around for about 400 years now. One out-of-date definition of race we don't use these days is "a group of people sharing a common cultural, geographic, linguistic, or religious origin or background." At some point in our English speaking past, you could refer to the Welsh, English, Irish, and the French as all separate races. And while that might sound rather silly to us, given that race is a social construct, it's just as valid as any other definition. What's hilarious to me is the use of lineage in this context is much closer to the archaic definition of race but it has the advantage in that it doesn't carry the same connotation to our modern ears.

Even species is fraught with problems. How do you define species? Morphology? DNA? Karyotype? (I had to look that last one up because it's been a long, long time since I took Biology 101.) The most common one we use is when two individuals of the appropriate sexes are able to produce an offspring who is also able to reproduce. Then there are species who are so closely related it's a wonder we think they're separate and distinct. If humans and elves can produce viable offspring are they really separate species? I would have to say no. So for now, species is acceptable. I suspect at some point in the future it too will be problematic and they'll search for a new word. That's okay. That's just how language evolves.

 

[ezo]

I've never had an issue with the term race but frankly it doesn't apply to D&D anyway as elves, dwarves, etc. are not different "races". Although I agree "species" is too scientific for D&D, it is certainly a more proper word to use than "race".

 

[Clint_L]

Every time I think of ancestry, I think of genealogy, particularly with Ancestry.com.

Other terms I've heard are kindred, lineages, and heritages. The last two just don't gel with me.

My rule of thumb is that whatever term is used needs to replace "race" or "racial" in a sentence.

My only beef with the changes is that there is no way a halfling (or kender) is as strong as a minotaur. I would have rather had one ability score boosted by race, one by background, and maybe the third by class.

This doesn't bother me. It's a fantasy game, and if real world simulation was any kind of issue, the minotaur would be exponentially stronger than the halfling. At least. So a measly point or two of strength difference doesn't make a difference in realism anyway, at least for me, but it's enough to prejudice species choice during character creation. And I like that players feel free to make gnomish paladins and goliath wizards.

Overall, I just feel like I'm over it. Is this worth getting upset about? Not for me, it isn't. As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, maybe we ought to focus our outrage on real-world issues (i.e. poverty).

Agreed.

 

[Clint_L]

But they’re not different species. Many are just different races of the same species. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, such as half-elves and half-orcs. Paizo’s “ancestry” makes way more sense.

They can all interbreed and produce viable offspring, per the 2024 rules. You can absolutely have a character whose grandparents were a gnome, a goliath, an orc, and a tiefling.

Ancestry is probably the better word, but I get why D&D never, ever wants to copy anything from Pathfinder, so species it is. I'm not losing sleep over it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Conservative people are outraged about these changes because in their lives, it's primordial to have an "us" and a "them" and "races" has always been their go-to mechanism to do so.

Without a visible "them" to demonize, they would have to start looking at themselves in the mirror and acknowledge that the worse evil is often people looking exactly like you.

In group and out group stuff is not just about conservatives as presently and narrowly defined at this moment in human history (with regional and national differences). It’s a people thing.

Which your post clearly demonstrates…