Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

orcs dnd.jpg


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer


log in or register to remove this ad




Giraffes are not rabbits.
no, but IMO a rabbit is far far better modeled with +10ft speed, +bonus action dash, +50% jump distance, +advantage on perception checks that rely on hearing, +30ft tremmorsense and no species ASI than anything +2 DEX +1 WIS can provide, ASI aren't necessary to model how certain species are meant to excell compared to each other,
 

As I stated over in the other thread, I think changing from race to species makes sense. First, race is primarily a social construct with little basis in biology. In addition nobody is ever going to think that a human and a dragonborn (or tabaxi or tortle, etc.) are the same species.

People will make mountains out of just about any molehill if it gets them eyeballs.
Everything is a social construct. Humans (no pun intended) are social creatures and constructing things in a social context are how we understand one another.

This is just the current nonsense issue. Next week it will be something else.
 

no, but IMO a rabbit is far far better modeled with +10ft speed, +bonus action dash, +50% jump distance, +advantage on perception checks that rely on hearing, +30ft tremmorsense and no species ASI than anything +2 DEX +1 WIS can provide, ASI aren't necessary to model how certain species are meant to excell compared to each other,
But all those traits you mention would still be biological essentialism were they tied to the species.
 

The Telegraph article is hysterical. They clearly aren't sure what a TTRPG is and talk about players being able to "close the game" lol absolute morons talking about something they are completely and totally ignorant of. Incredible that they don't have any writers or editors who have played D&D or any TTRPG or even know what they are, when I know like six journalists who play just off the top of my head.
As popular as we believe D&D to be, its very much still a closeted thing in a lot of public spaces.
 


no, but IMO a rabbit is far far better modeled with +10ft speed, +bonus action dash, +50% jump distance, +advantage on perception checks that rely on hearing, +30ft tremmorsense and no species ASI than anything +2 DEX +1 WIS can provide, ASI aren't necessary to model how certain species are meant to excell compared to each other,

I have no problem with this in theory.

However, the root ideology from which this call for removal of ASIs from races does not present itself as preferring deeper mechanical representation of a given race's capabilities and drawbacks, but is instead arguing that it be done in the name of dubious ideals, and is therefore worthy of refutation and scorn.

Everything is a social construct.

A most pernicious lie, this.

Objective reality exists. Biological truth exists.

Rabbits are not foxes.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top