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

Why is it that when WotC makes a decision someone doesn't like it's "lazy"? Agree, disagree, I don't really care. But there is no perfect tern and "race" should have been replaced long ago.

Seems to me that calling the choice lazy is just a way to attempt to shore up their opinion as being somehow superior. 🤔

There was no perfect choice, I think it's a better option than most others.

EDIT: sort of ninja'd by @Dire Bare .

I have got say, as much as I think changing the term race is a stupid idea, I think the critique 'this is lazy' is so overused online that it is meaningless. Calling something lazy writing or lazy design tells me very little about what you think the actual problem is.
 

I have got say, as much as I think changing the term race is a stupid idea, I think the critique 'this is lazy' is so overused online that it is meaningless. Calling something lazy writing or lazy design tells me very little about what you think the actual problem is.

To me turning an opinion that you don't like a choice into an insult aimed at the people making the decision is just lazy. ;)
 





Indeed. I don't think the choice of word is a significant part of the "game design" at all.

Game design is about the rules structures and dynamics, not so much about the names.
While I have no strong feelings on "race" vs. "species," I strongly disagree with this as a general point. The choice of names is a huge part of game design. The exact same mechanic can be super intuitive or utterly incomprehensible depending on what it's named.

And where RPG design is concerned, where the rules are intended to map onto a coherent story, names are even more important.
 


We're in the 50th year of D&D and we still don't understand what "hit points" are supposed to mean.
Mechanically, we do. They are how many times you can get "hit" before you die/drop.

What that means in the fiction (or what that's supposed to represent in the world) is the subject of endless debate.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top