Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

The New York Times sparked a wave of culture war outrage over Dungeons & Dragons.

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

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
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.
 



whimsychris123

Adventurer
Don’t like the new changes? Don’t use them. You can easy house rule that species=race and assign ability boosts to specific races rather than backgrounds. Don’t want Latin American cultural influences for orcs, don’t use them.

If you look for things to be outraged about, you’ll find them. I wonder what percentage of gamers actually care.
 


Switching to species absolutely makes sense, but I feel it's like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

It's quite clear that a huge proportion of the community (and even many official WotC staff themselves) views them like irl human ethnicities rather than unique species, and simply duct taping a new label on top of that won't change anything.

I'm very convinced that in the long run, 'species' will be made purely cosmetic, with no mechanical rules impact at all.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Switching to species absolutely makes sense, but I feel it's like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

It's quite clear that a huge proportion of the community (and even many official WotC staff themselves) views them like irl human ethnicities rather than unique species, and simply duct taping a new label on top of that won't change anything.

I'm very convinced that in the long run, 'species' will be made purely cosmetic, with no mechanical rules impact at all.
I don't think it will be completely cosmetic. At the very least, you will have species that have flight, swim and breathe water, climb, resist poison, etc. There will have to be some system to replicate those things.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top