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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As far as orcs go, it's not all that hard to replace them as Generic Baddies without replicating their issues. Those issues arise because orcs live in tribal societies that look an awful lot like human societies, and adventurers heading out to kill them and take their stuff looks an awful lot like real-world genocides.

So what do you replace them with? Anything that isn't just humans in ugly suits. Undead are my personal favorite. Mind flayers and similar aberrations. Fiends. Non-sentient monsters. Take your pick.

It is a side issue but I never understood why it was a problem. I mean I like campaign settings that have non-evil orcs, but I also like ones that have evil orcs. If you are making a setting that is meant to resonate, then you are going to have to borrow real world cultural features here and there, but that doesn't make such things stand ins for those cultures. It isn't commentary, just flavor. I've seen evil orcs that draw on everything from Mongols, to Romans, to European tribes, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

It is a side issue but I never understood why it was a problem. I mean I like campaign settings that have non-evil orcs, but I also like ones that have evil orcs. If you are making a setting that is meant to resonate, then you are going to have to borrow real world cultural features here and there, but that doesn't make such things stand ins for those cultures. It isn't commentary, just flavor. I've seen evil orcs that draw on everything from Mongols, to Romans, to European tribes, etc.

It's more about the "canonical" portrayal of orcs in official material. For most of D&D's history, that version of orcs was not based on Mongols or Romans; it was much more like indigenous tribes in various parts of the world -- or, more precisely, like the stereotypes of those tribes that were used to justify treating them as "generic baddies who should be killed on sight." The resemblance is uncomfortably on the nose.

If a D&D group wants to use that version of orcs in their home game and everyone at the table is okay with it, more power to 'em. Nor do I think older versions of D&D ought to be rewritten or pulled off the digital shelves. But I think WotC made the right call in deciding that wasn't something that belonged in the official published books as of 2024.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's more about the "canonical" portrayal of orcs in official material. For most of D&D's history, that version of orcs was not based on Mongols or Romans; it was much more like indigenous tribes in various parts of the world -- or, more precisely, like the stereotypes of those tribes that were used to justify treating them as "generic baddies who should be killed on sight." The resemblance is uncomfortably on the nose.

If a D&D group wants to use that version of orcs in their home game and everyone at the table is okay with it, more power to 'em. Nor do I think older versions of D&D ought to be rewritten or pulled off the digital shelves. But I think WotC made the right call in deciding that wasn't something that belonged in the official published books as of 2024.

I don;t know. Most orc depictions I remember seem to have been a hodgepodge of various groups in history. But I also think you really lose something from the game when you take this piece off the board. Like I said, I enjoy settings with orcs spanning the spectrum of morality as well. But there is definitely something flavorful about monsters like orcs who are brutal and bent on destruction

 

[Riley]

See, with extreme caution, the Polynesian orcs of X8 Drums on Fire Mountain.

(Which has some fabulous locations, maps, and encounters! But is… eesh.
I’ve been meaning to see if I can reframe it as an undead thing? Or maybe a mad scientist/clockwork/insect thing? Something far, far away from its original dressing, and with monsters that are a definitely-not-people as a dangerous/evil threat. Not a corrupting influence taking control of a ‘primitive’ people.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

As far as orcs go, it's not all that hard to replace them as Generic Baddies without replicating their issues. Those issues arise because orcs live in tribal societies that look an awful lot like human societies, and adventurers heading out to kill them and take their stuff looks an awful lot like real-world genocides.

So what do you replace them with? Anything that isn't just humans in ugly suits. Undead are my personal favorite. Mind flayers and similar aberrations. Fiends. Non-sentient monsters. Take your pick.

All of those might fit the mechanical needs, but I'm not convinced any of them fill the narrative/setting niche they're trying remove orcs and other sentient enemies from.

 

[Michael Blackett]

Happy New year everyone...
Attaching RL labels to a fantasy roleplaying game is in itself somewhat counter-productive, and undermining.

No one I ever knew associated orcs with skin colour. Yet now Wizards have created a problem in sanitising the Orc into something more humane and 'latino' (?!?).

One wonders where they plan on going with the Drow/Dark Elves, seeing as they are 'problematic'.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Mod Note:

Purely political posts are not permitted on ENWorld.

Because this topic involves politics & gaming, there is a little leeway given. But it’s a narrow path, and posts like this are well off of it.

 

[Chaltab]

Happy New year everyone...
Attaching RL labels to a fantasy roleplaying game is in itself somewhat counter-productive, and undermining.

No one I ever knew associated orcs with skin colour. Yet now Wizards have created a problem in sanitising the Orc into something more humane and 'latino' (?!?).

One wonders where they plan on going with the Drow/Dark Elves, seeing as they are 'problematic'.

Oh god. Spotted the guy who only watched the outrage bait on youtube.

(The Orcs aren't 'latino' and Drow are already in the PHB.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No one I ever knew associated orcs with skin colour. Yet now Wizards have created a problem in sanitising the Orc into something more humane and 'latino' (?!?).

And yet there are many discussion threads- here and elsewhere- involving the experiences of people who actually did see and note the existence of parallels between real-world bigoted stereotypes and depictions of certain creatures & cultures in genre fiction and the RPGs inspired by them. D&D included.*

(A simple reminder that your experiences and those in your personal gaming community are not universal, and may not even be the majority.)




* I’m one, FWIW.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don’t like the new changes? Don’t use them. You can easy house rule that species=race and assign ability boosts to specific races rather than backgrounds. Don’t want Latin American cultural influences for orcs, don’t use them.

If you look for things to be outraged about, you’ll find them. I wonder what percentage of gamers actually care.

Virtually none. I don't police it my players mostly use race still.

Only a couple have the new phb to be fair. Think we have 4 total atm but 2 are mine.