Why does D&D have bears?

[Arkhandus]

Because nobody would believe that the world is populated with Owlbears instead.

 

[jasin]

2) Alien things and alien tropes don't really contribute to fantasy stories because that's not what fantasy is really about. Fantasy is about examining abstract concepts - particularly abstract normative concepts like good and evil - through the literary device of emboding these things as tangible entities. A 'non-bear' is only a useful device to a fantasy story if it stands for something that you want to talk about. Otherwise, it is just clutter. In this sense, the non-bear is probably less useful than bears precisely because bears at least already have been anthromorphicized and used to stand in for various abstract concepts that 'bearness' culturally and maybe instinctually arouse in us. We already 'know' the bear as the wise, affable, but slightly comic warrior-sage. It already has fantasy value. The 'non-bear' would have to work hard to obtain the same thing. Similarly, when golems and not-humans are used in fantasy, its rarely with the end of comparing them with humans so that we learn what it is to be human by contrasting with that which isn't. Rather, non-humans are usually stand ins for some philosophical idea - nature, violence, evil, or some bundle of these by appealing to a common cultural mythic narrative. Elves can stand in as symbols for alot of things, hense the fact that there are two sorts of fantasy settings: those that have them and those that consciously chose not to have them. To the extent that your setting abandoned this combination of familiar and ideas as tangible things, and went out its way to create truly alien things that weren't embodied ideas, it would feel more and more like science fiction (and would likely become recognizably science fiction at some point.)

You, Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[Fifth Element]

Stephen Colbert says so, it must be true!

If Stephen Colbert says so, it must be truthy.

 

[JediSoth]

...those cool wild horses from Krull that can run hundreds of miles in an hour and whose hooves produce flames when they strike the ground.

Dude, Firemares rule! And the music James Horner wrote for that part of the movie is some of the best he's ever done.

I think it's helpful to have some familiar animals, even in a fantasy setting. That being said, I don't think it would hurt to have certain niches occupied by fantasy animals, or near-Earthlike creatures (like Firemares). I think that's one thing that separates fantasy from sci-fi: fantasy is fantastic reality, whereas sci-fi can be totally alien and people will still buy into it.

 

[shilsen]

Not really -- you could just call them something else and slightly redefine them. Much as I suggest doing with horses in my first post. Much as authors and directors have done for decades. My gripe with Earth animals in D&D isn't that they are similar to Earth animals, it's that they are Earth animals (no discernable difference whatsoever). I'd be fine with similar

No discernable difference? My god, man - have you never seen the D&D stats for the housecat?

 

[green slime]

I don't understand the purpose.

1) Alternative Earths give a reasonable explanation why things are slightly different.

2) Consider the amount of work that would have to go into this? You'd have to describe each and every "animal" and its niche in the ecosystem, and somehow impart that knowledge to your players. (What's a Xhorc again?)

With the Fantasy worlds today (Eberron, FR, Greyhawk), your players instantly recognise hundreds, nay thousands, of animals. From aardvarks to zebras.

 

[DragonLancer]

For the same reason that there are monsters from Earth mythology and legend which never existed for them to be transposed into X setting.

At the end of the day, they exist so that players have a common frame of reference for the game world around them. Theres no need to look at it in a biological sense because its an acceptable conceit for the game sense.

 

[Thurbane]

2) Consider the amount of work that would have to go into this? You'd have to describe each and every "animal" and its niche in the ecosystem, and somehow impart that knowledge to your players. (What's a Xhorc again?)

I can just see it now:

Player 1: "So when we get to town, I look for a Xhorc trader..."
Player 2: "What are Xhorcs again?"
Player 1: "You know, those horse thingies with a spine ridge down their forehead. I'm riding one now!"
Player 2: "Oh, I thought they were called Vrens."
Player 1: "No, Vrens are those owl-things with antennae. Bob's got one as a familar!"
Player 2: "Ahhhh..."

 

[Klaus]

I'm not certain why I never noticed this before (it could be a sign of forthcoming suspension of disbelief issues on my part). Why are imaginary worlds millions of miles removed from Earth populated with creatures native to our planet? It seems to me that, rather than North American Black Bears, straight-up Owlbears (or other creatures of pure fantasy) should fill the niches that mundane animals do in our own mundane world.

There simply isn't (so far as I can tell) any good reason for why mundane animals in Faerun or Eberron should be mirror images of those that my neighbor keeps cooped up in his apartment all day. Should Carrion Crawlers not usurp Rattus Rattus in the foodchain of Waterdeep's many sewers? Should the skies over Sharn not be populated by something a bit more fantastic than pigeons?

For some reason, this has really bothered me for the space of an afternoon. Why isn't there a guide (or multiple guides) to fantastic beasts of burden or commonplace creatures of fantasy for D&D. I think that when I run my next D&D game, I will make an effort to avoid using any creatures native to Earth -- instead replacing them with dire versions of the same or, better yet, fantastic alternatives.

For example, rather than Equus Caballus, the common horse, I will populate my setting with those cool wild horses from Krull that can run hundreds of miles in an hour and whose hooves produce flames when they strike the ground. That kind of thing. That just seems far more appropriate for fantasy.

Same reason a D&D world has *humans*, and not flabberstruthen.

 

[Ferrum]

I'm suggesting (again, as I illustrated with horses earlier) that one could grant such animals a remarkable ability or two but have them retain some semblance of normalacy. The horses mentioned can run distances of hundreds of miles in mere hours and their feet produce flames when they strike the ground -- noticeably alien, though still familiar enough to be conducive to gaming.

And how could these be domesticated? How could they drive a cart made of wood without shaking it to pieces? Who would allow them to walk through town with fire blasting from their hooves?

If owlbears were the norm and bears didn't exist, it would seriously increase the danger of living in the wilderness. More so if all terran animals were replaced with dire versions, feindish versions or one that spit acid, breath fire, or shoot lasers from their eyes.

Humanoids in D&D were balanced against their world seemingly with the consideration that for the most part they won't face any magical beasts except as an extreme rarity. If all Rats could fly and had a venomous bite, cities would have to spend huge amounts in pest control. If there were fish with razor blades for fins, fishermen wouldn't be able to use nets to catch anything.

If I entered a fantasy setting where the local farmer had a horse whose hooves crashed with the sound of thunder, leaving cinders in its wake as it trod along at 100mph, and I was a 1st level fighter, I'd have a hard time believing my skills were special, or that I'd have a better chance removing the orc menace than the kid next door who trained his family's temporal traveling houscat.