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

be that as it may, we can't ever let them hear us admiting in any circumstance that 'we need more elves', i don't know how many hundreds more elf species they would create as a result.
Don't particularly have a problem with that either, but complexity isn't a dirty word in my world.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

History is made of stories.

I doubt I will, because later I plan on being dead.

It doesn’t follow fantasy conventions. Real life has its own conventions. I would find it odd if D&D followed real life conventions and not fantasy conventions.
History becomes a story when you look back at it.
 

It just proves my point. Race as class is always going to be a failure because people don't want all elves to be the same. And every OSR game leans that eventually and either separates them or creates dozens of slight variants to replicate it. It sounds good in theory, but fails the moment someone wants their dwarf to be anything other than a fighter.

If for some reason I was required to design a game this way, I think it could work with similar complexity than we now have with class+subclass. So there was the species which was your class and then there was customisation via a subclass. I think this would work for a world where the species are actually very different from each other, had different fighting styles, different magic etc.
 



History is made of stories.

I doubt I will, because later I plan on being dead.

It doesn’t follow fantasy conventions. Real life has its own conventions. I would find it odd if D&D followed real life conventions and not fantasy conventions.
Real life or fantasy conventions and literary conventions are very different things. I prefer to muck around with the first two and downplay the third as much as possible
 

I like it just fine, and I have no problem with multiple race as class options. Literally all you are saying is that you don't like it, and you're trying to dress it up so that your personal opinion means more than it does.
I'm saying it's redundant and unnecessary since we literally figured out how to do separate race and class 40 years ago. It's kept alive because "that's how BX did it".
 

I'm saying it's redundant and unnecessary since we literally figured out how to do separate race and class 40 years ago. It's kept alive because "that's how BX did it".
But to be fair, I don't think the species mechanics have ever been particularly satisfactory, and are getting thinner by every edition. So whilst I don't think "race as a class" is the way to go maybe "species as an additional subclass" would.
 



Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top