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


Shadowrun has their own approach, but if a human is transformed into a vampire, isn't the assumption not that they are now not really the same person they were before? That they are now evil?
True. For some time, there was an assumption that a human who became a vampire somehow lost their humanity and became an evil creature of the night. That assumption is not entirely valid anymore thanks to TV shows, movies and novels where the vampire retained their humanity somehow and stayed as one of the good guys.

A vampire nowadays is sort of like a super whose powers manifested and have now made the conscious decision to use them for good, for evil and not at all in an attempt to lead a somewhat normal life. Normal becoming their new normal. It all depends on how they were treated when they were still alive.
 

True. For some time, there was an assumption that a human who became a vampire somehow lost their humanity and became an evil creature of the night. That assumption is not entirely valid anymore thanks to TV shows, movies and novels where the vampire retained their humanity somehow and stayed as one of the good guys.

A vampire nowadays is sort of like a super whose powers manifested and have now made the conscious decision to use them for good, for evil and not at all in an attempt to lead a somewhat normal life. Normal becoming their new normal. It all depends on how they were treated when they were still alive.
Depending on the kind of vampire (and the type of vampire fiction), and keeping in mind that, generally speaking, the hunger (and immortality) makes the situation rather more complicated than just a super with new powers. It is the kind of vampire I prefer, however.
 

True. For some time, there was an assumption that a human who became a vampire somehow lost their humanity and became an evil creature of the night. That assumption is not entirely valid anymore thanks to TV shows, movies and novels where the vampire retained their humanity somehow and stayed as one of the good guys.

A vampire nowadays is sort of like a super whose powers manifested and have now made the conscious decision to use them for good, for evil and not at all in an attempt to lead a somewhat normal life. Normal becoming their new normal. It all depends on how they were treated when they were still alive.

Depends on the depiction of course. Personally I go with the Buffy the Vampire version that the person dies and their body is animated by a demon with the person's memory unless they got a soul which somehow fixed things.
 

Depends on the depiction of course. Personally I go with the Buffy the Vampire version that the person dies and their body is animated by a demon with the person's memory unless they got a soul which somehow fixed things.
Exactly. The 'My Vampires are different' trope. ;) I tend to prefer the version as seen in the Anita Blake series by Laurell K Hamilton, an Urban Fantasy author. Most of the vampires in the Anita Blake series are 'ordinary' citizens of the US and pretty much try to do the very same things they did when they were alive. There are Master Vampires (aka Masters of the City) who are a lot more powerful and tend to work behind the scenes but can be of any alignment.

It's the same story for the lycanthropes in the Anita Blake series.
 

Exactly. The 'My Vampires are different' trope. ;) I tend to prefer the version as seen in the Anita Blake series by Laurell K Hamilton, an Urban Fantasy author. Most of the vampires in the Anita Blake series are 'ordinary' citizens of the US and pretty much try to do the very same things they did when they were alive. There are Master Vampires (aka Masters of the City) who are a lot more powerful and tend to work behind the scenes but can be of any alignment.

It's the same story for the lycanthropes in the Anita Blake series.

I liked the books as well even if I thought the quality was a bit mediocre for a while because they were too focused on being a supernatural romance novel. It depends on what kind of world you're trying to build and the assumptions behind them. I can enjoy the books and also watch a werewolf movie that shows lycanthropes as monsters when they change.
 

Depends on the depiction of course. Personally I go with the Buffy the Vampire version that the person dies and their body is animated by a demon with the person's memory unless they got a soul which somehow fixed things.
That's my mental example for the alternate view, yes, and it is perfectly valid.
 

I liked the books as well even if I thought the quality was a bit mediocre for a while because they were too focused on being a supernatural romance novel. It depends on what kind of world you're trying to build and the assumptions behind them. I can enjoy the books and also watch a werewolf movie that shows lycanthropes as monsters when they change.
I find personally that the desire to be a supernatural romance story often interferes with otherwise great worldbuilding. My issue with The Vampire Diaries TV series stems from this.
 


Trending content

Remove ads

Trending content

Remove ads

Top