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

I think it’s because there was some conversation in the franchise at some point not too long ago about how it’s weird that cultural traits exist in species templates, that you could have an elf who’s never seen another elf in their life, raised by dwarves and they’d still somehow speak fluent elvish and have elven weapon proficiencies.
This little bit of weirdness was fixed by Level Up: A5e four years ago. Now you can have a member of the elven heritage growing up in one of three dwarven cultures- Deep Dwarf, Hill Dwarf or Mountain Dwarf. :)
What official product has Gnolls as a playable Species in 5e? Maybe your thinking of 4e?
Gnolls did pop up as a playable species in 3e's Races of the Wild. What made these Gnolls different from other Gnolls in the D&D Multiverse was that they simply had broken away from worshipping their Demon Lord Yeenoghu.

As did these Gnolls from EN Publishing's Adventures in ZEITGEIST:


Now they are a part of Level Up's long list of playable heritages. ;)

 

log in or register to remove this ad


More D&D in the mainstream articles are appearing over this change and it is not flatting. UK Paper called the Telegraph is outright mocking the changes as well. I'm really only familiar with the Guardian, read online articles some times) and bit about the Sun (used to have nude women is pretty much all I know about the Sun, the Canadian versions never did, but the Sun Calendars did have nudity), but the Telegraph I'm unfamiliar beyond hearing it's mainstream, so I can't speak to the quality of its reporting.

I won't provide the link as I think most of the folks here will not take kindly to what is being said there. It's not flattering. Just giving a heads up.
The Telegraph is a right wing upper class newspaper, often seen as a mouthpiece for the Conservative party. The Guardian is a left leaning paper, more Liberal/Green rather than Labour. The Sun is a propaganda sheet for manipulating the uneducated masses.

It's probably fair to say that the Telegraph mocks anything geeky, irrespective of culture wars.
 
Last edited:


Sure, I can tell you how I had a crazy extended weekend attending two weddings while travelling over 5000 miles and getting less than 6 hours of sleep over 4 days. It is quite a funny story (I thought it might make a nice comedy movie...) that really happened.

IMO, a "story" is any piece told for entertainment or educational value. It can be fictional or non-fiction. History is certainly a story in this regard (especially since depending on who is telling it will contain quite a bit of fiction!).
 

True stories exist. Just because something really happened doesn't make it not a story.

Sure, and I get that the term story itself, like my use of history earlier, can have broader and more narrow meanings. And I am not trying to be rigid about that classification, but just as it relates to 1) ones personal identity and 2) the discipline of history, I would be reluctant to employ the word story (more so on 1 than 2: history just came up in passing for some reason because I was trying to explain that I thought a persons past was more about history than about stories, but really the main point I was making was the whole 'people are just stories' idea never seemed like a good one to me (I just don't think that we are merely the narratives we tell ourselves about our past, and I don't think our past is just a story, because it really did happen to us as an experience, not as a story----however true or fictional)
 


I never said it was about identity. The Doctor Who quote was never about identity, it's about legacy.

I had a different reading of the Doctor Who quote (granted I may misunderstand and would probably need to watch the episode again to remind myself otherwise he context: I do recall being annoyed by the sentiment, simply because it felt like it was a writer seeing everything as stories). But if you were talking more about legacy, we may have got our wire's crossed (I would still probably quibble about it, but I don't know it would be worth veering the thread over)
 

I had a different reading of the Doctor Who quote (granted I may misunderstand and would probably need to watch the episode again to remind myself otherwise he context: I do recall being annoyed by the sentiment, simply because it felt like it was a writer seeing everything as stories). But if you were talking more about legacy, we may have got our wire's crossed (I would still probably quibble about it, but I don't know it would be worth veering the thread over)
Season 5 (where that quote is from) had a sub theme of fairy tales. Amelia Pond, the raggedy man, the crack in the wall, Rory the Centurion, it was all supposed to involve the tropes akin to Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz. The quote then is double sided: yes the literal reading is to have a good life you can be proud of at the end (something Amy needs to hear at the moment as she has made and will make some rather bad choices) but also to see the world as a magical place full of wonder and danger like a fairy tale.

Very Moffatt and probably his best 11th Doctor season IMHO.
 

Season 5 (where that quote is from) had a sub theme of fairy tales. Amelia Pond, the raggedy man, the crack in the wall, Rory the Centurion, it was all supposed to involve the tropes akin to Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz. The quote then is double sided: yes the literal reading is to have a good life you can be proud of at the end (something Amy needs to hear at the moment as she has made and will make some rather bad choices) but also to see the world as a magical place full of wonder and danger like a fairy tale.

Very Moffatt and probably his best 11th Doctor season IMHO.
To be clear I like Moffat’s doctor who run (I think I even like it more than the Davies era). So my quibble was just that one line. Season 5 itself was really enjoyable (I am rewatching them again with my wife and we are on series 10 right now, which is also a good season IMO). Season five really stood out though as a great season going through it again
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top