Mainstream News Discovers D&D's Species Terminology Change

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.

 

[MGibster]

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.

It's like calling something problematic. I don't know what that means unless someone elaborates.

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[Umbran]

While I have no strong feelings on "race" vs. "species," I strongly disagree with this as a general point.

I am okay with you disagreeing. I don't find your argument compelling, but don't feel a need to argue with you over it, beyond saying that to me you seem to argue that the paint color is super-important, while I am concerned that the thing have a solid foundation and frame.

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

As many, by position, are apt to argue, coherent story is not necessarily a goal for RPGs.

 

[Hussar]

Never minding that, the rules of DnD have never mapped onto a coherent story.

Are we seriously still discussing this?

 

[Umbran]

Never minding that, the rules of DnD have never mapped onto a coherent story.

Heck, if we are talking about design, there is a strong argument for names to not map onto a single coherent story, but instead to be evocative of story..

But really - call it strength, muscle, might, physical power, or one of several other names, it'd work as well.

Are we seriously still discussing this?

Not really. I think it is a tangent.

 

[carputech]

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

Yes

 

[Corinnguard]

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.

You should set up a poll on whether or not a huge proportion of the D&D community views it like this to see if this is true or not. 'Are Species the same as human ethnicities?' I don't think so. One's a biological term; the other is a sociological term. Not quite the same thing. They're from two different fields of science. However, you are right about how duct taping a new label on top won't change anything. Players will continue to play as a member of the same race/species regardless of the label.

I prefer some crunch to come along with the new label.

 

[Sulicius]

i remember there was a poll on 'preferred alternates to race' done here in a thread on enworld after the change was revealed, maybe you're thinking of that?

I'm actually pretty sure there was one from WotC too. I remember sorting alternatives by preference in a seperate site.

 

[Echohawk]

I'm actually pretty sure there was one from WotC too. I remember sorting alternatives by preference in a seperate site.​

You might be thinking of the feedback survey for the December 2022 Unearthed Arcana The Cleric and Revised Species where the terminology change seems to have first been introduced. According to this post, the survey for that UA specifically requested feedback on satisfaction with the term "species". However, as far as I know, it didn't provide options for rating any alternative terms.​

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You should set up a poll on whether or not a huge proportion of the D&D community views it like this to see if this is true or not. 'Are Species the same as human ethnicities?' I don't think so. One's a biological term; the other is a sociological term. Not quite the same thing. They're from two different fields of science. However, you are right about how duct taping a new label on top won't change anything. Players will continue to play as a member of the same race/species regardless of the label.

I prefer some crunch to come along with the new label.

But ultimately the complaints about "biological essentialism" etc only make sense if they are effectively seen as human ethnicities.