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


log in or register to remove this ad


The word you're looking for is Heredity. A5e characters have Heredity and Culture.
I probably am. However, Heritage was chosen by A5e's designers to represent the commonly held biological traits of humans, elves, dwarves, etc.

As for the splitting up of race/species into heritage and culture, it neatly fixes an issue that was never addressed by D&D. In past editions, a player wanting to play an elf raised by dwarves still found themselves getting the cultural traits of elves, but not those of dwarves. The player could certainly write up their character being raised in a dwarven culture. But they didn't gain any of the mechanical traits of actually living in a dwarven culture. At least, not until the idea was considered by A5e's designers and actualized for Level Up.
 



Oofta

Legend
Supporter
According to the definition of heritage it certainly does. Each of us has acquired genetic traits from a predecessor (our parents, who in turn acquired them from their parents and so on).

Sometimes it's about ancestry, oftentimes it is not. It's been used to say some people have "pure" blood, or to justify the divine rights of kings.

But there's a vast difference between who your [great] grandparents were and any significant biological traits. It's certainly not anywhere near the genetic differences of species. You may as well divide people by the color of their eyes.
 


Oofta

Legend
Supporter
Heritage could be shared amongst different species. It would make more sense in many ways than species mono culture that we have now, even if I don't have a big issue with mono cultures for simplicity.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top