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


For what it's worth, my opinion on changing from "races" to "species" is that it is a minor improvement. "Races" didn't bother me much because I was always seeing them as "species" in practice anyway, and calling them races had the small advantage that humans as a whole were the "human race" and did not leave room for other, nastier usages of the term "race" within humans. "Species" is fine to just stop using the term "race" for good and call it a day.

However, they could have gone through all the way and call them "creatures", and replace "monster manual" with "creatures manual", removing the unnecessary separation between players and adversaries.
 

For what it's worth, my opinion on changing from "races" to "species" is that it is a minor improvement. "Races" didn't bother me much because I was always seeing them as "species" in practice anyway, and calling them races had the small advantage that humans as a whole were the "human race" and did not leave room for other, nastier usages of the term "race" within humans. "Species" is fine to just stop using the term "race" for good and call it a day.

However, they could have gone through all the way and call them "creatures", and replace "monster manual" with "creatures manual", removing the unnecessary separation between players and adversaries.
Get rid of the MM? You monster!
 


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. :)

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. ;)

The game just makes everything better IMO.
 

Adversary Almanach
Book of Battlers
Creature Compendium
Dungeon Denizens
...
Index of Innocents
...
Portfolio of People
...
Necrology of NPCs

It is time to treat with an appropriately respectful name the ones we're going to savagely murder to take their stuff at the slightest offense, applying the standard adventuring problem-solving methodology.

Mayor: Did you arrest the robbers?
PCs: Actually, we didn't arrest them. They no longer move, though.
Mayor: What do you mean?
PCs: Duh! They are dead.
Mayor: But, but... Why? They only robbed our merchants, they didn't kill anyone!
PCs: We had, hum, no choice but to kill them.
Mayor: Didn't they surrender? They are CR1/8 koboldpersons, have a reputation of cowardice probably borne from decades of prejudice on our part to describe their tendance to prefer surrender rather than face death, and you're level 5!
PCs: Managing prisonners his a hassl... erm They all fought to the death. Yes, that's it. They all fought to the death.
Mayor: All of them?
PCs: All of them.
Mayor: ...
PCs: ...
Mayor: That's 100 gp for you, I guess.

In most case, PCs aren't going to treat their opponents like persons (even when they come from the same species), they might as well call them monsters. Or they should first change their modus operandi, which would really change D&D (for better or worse).
 
Last edited:

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.
The problem I have with the term species is that orcs humans and elves are biologically the same species as they can reproduce with each other. Yet they are presented as different species.

They're all Humans.
 
Last edited:


The problem I have with the term species is that orcs humans and elves are biologically the same species as they can reproduce with each other. Yet they are presented as different species.

They're all Humans.

Technically we no longer have half anything other than [edit: phone typo] halflings [/edit];)

On the other hand we have minotaurs, centaurs, gryphons, lamias...the list of mixed species that could not mix without magic is quite long. That and I rather doubt tabaxi are really just humans in furry costumes. Probably.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top