D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Shardstone]

For reference, as someone who got their Masters in English, the author saying that their work isn't something is rather meaningless. If something can be read a certain way, and if that certain way can be backed up with both research and quotes from the actual body of work, then the argument is valid that something is in fact that certain way. Death of the author is very real.

What Tolkien was saying is that he didn't mean to write an allegory. And that is believable. But just because he didn't intend the story to be one doesn't mean it isn't one, it just means that wasn't his focus, his intent, or his impetus to making the work. However, Lord of the Rings has many allegorical facets to it, and an allegorical reading of Lord of the Rings is not only possible, but valid.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I appreciate your acknowledgment of my point, but there still seems to be a disconnect.

Those first two statements open up discussion to a whole different beast, but I'll try to be short.

The idea of the real-world human experience is something that exists as an axiom. Anything a human experiences is "the human experience," so whatever. In RPG's, we're not going that far because it's not feasible to do on the level we're talking about. I would define the human experience as "personhood" more than our specific anatomy ("physical" humanity), because as you've acknowledged, that's inconsistent and therefore should not be a measure. So playing any sapient species is an exploration of humanity because it's about thoughts and feelings, but also adding on Lore and significant culture and anatomical changes.

Now that we're down to it, my problem with what you've said is that I got the impression that you're dismissing players who make certain choices arbitrarily, despite them being no more incorrect in reality than your preferred choices. If every character and race is a silly hat, then why make a comment about it with that tone and context?

"Human in a silly hat-" to clarify, are you referring to the player, or the race being derivative?

I'm not sure how to answer your question about the derivative thing, as your PCs are derived from your experience, as I'm assuming they would be, because they are played by you instead of someone else. Maybe there is a meaning to the word derivative that I don't know? I am by no means a literary scholar so I'm probably missing something.

 

[Oofta]

For reference, as someone who got their Masters in English, the author saying that their work isn't something is rather meaningless. If something can be read a certain way, and if that certain way can be backed up with both research and quotes from the actual body of work, then the argument is valid that something is in fact that certain way. Death of the author is very real.

What Tolkien was saying is that he didn't mean to write an allegory. And that is believable. But just because he didn't intend the story to be one doesn't mean it isn't one, it just means that wasn't his focus, his intent, or his impetus to making the work. However, Lord of the Rings has many allegorical facets to it, and an allegorical reading of Lord of the Rings is not only possible, but valid.

I think there's a fair amount of pareidolia going on when people discuss things like Tolkien's works or imagery in D&D. If you want just about anything to be there you can find it.

But I don't want to have another thread shut down so ... what about those warforged?

 

[Crit]

I'm not sure how to answer your question about the derivative thing, as your PCs are derived from your experience, as I'm assuming they would be, because they are played by you instead of someone else. Maybe there is a meaning to the word derivative that I don't know? I am by no means a literary scholar so I'm probably missing something.

I'm kind of blending your position with the other guy, with the other races being just a human in a silly hat, knockoff humans, being preexisting stereotypes. I guess I misspoke. Not a big deal.

What I wanted to know is whether you're referring to the player wearing the hat, or the other DnD races being so similar to Humans that they're the same with a costume.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I'm kind of blending your position with the other guy, with the other races being just a human in a silly hat, knockoff humans, being preexisting stereotypes. I guess I misspoke. Not a big deal.

What I wanted to know is whether you're referring to the player wearing the hat, or the other DnD races being so similar to Humans that they're the same with a costume.

Same with a costume. In a nutshell, Tolkien Elves appear to act (and think and feel and literally BE) the same as Humans. How could this be possible? Well, because Tolkien's very Human mind imagined them.

I don't for a moment believe that players in TTRPGs are trying to examine what it would be like to actually be a person that has lived for hundreds or thousands of years. Would that even be possible as all experience is limited by our Human nature? My opinion is no. If it were, then the greatest works ever written wouldn't always be limited to those experienced by Humans.

I do believe that players in TTRPGs want mechanical statistics to differentiate their PCs from other PCs. For some reason D&D especially has become focused on this aspect in recent editions by allowing a plethora of, I hate to say it, Humans With Funny Hats! Sure the dragonperson is cool looking and you made up some goofy nonsense culture for it, but how come it acts (and thinks and feels) the way a Human would. Oh yeah! Cause it's mind is a Human mind.

Plus, considering the content of some recent discussions regarding D&D and the various Humanoid races in the game and how they reflect upon the game, maybe it would be best to eliminate all Humanoids that aren't Human from the game. Nuff Said!!!

As a side note, I personally have found that only allowing Human PCs and reducing the reliance on mechanics to differentiate PCs is a very good thing for the roleplaying aspects of the game. For some reason players seem to work just a little bit harder at differentiating their characters through action when they don't have mechanical statistics to differentiate them.

Anywho, sorry for the huge rant. Hopefully it helped clarify my position, and dislike of, Non-Human PCs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For reference, as someone who got their Masters in English, the author saying that their work isn't something is rather meaningless. If something can be read a certain way, and if that certain way can be backed up with both research and quotes from the actual body of work, then the argument is valid that something is in fact that certain way. Death of the author is very real.

What Tolkien was saying is that he didn't mean to write an allegory. And that is believable. But just because he didn't intend the story to be one doesn't mean it isn't one, it just means that wasn't his focus, his intent, or his impetus to making the work. However, Lord of the Rings has many allegorical facets to it, and an allegorical reading of Lord of the Rings is not only possible, but valid.

Allegory requires intention toward allegory. That is the primary way in which it is distinct from simple symbolism. LOTR isn’t allegory.

An allegorical reading of the work is not valid, it’s reading something other than what was written.

Death of the author is not a fact, it is one school of critical thought, among many.

 

[Shardstone]

Allegory requires intention toward allegory. That is the primary way in which it is distinct from simple symbolism. LOTR isn’t allegory.

An allegorical reading of the work is not valid, it’s reading something other than what was written.

Death of the author is not a fact, it is one school of critical thought, among many.

The fact you hit me with a laughing react means that any argument with you is going to be in bad faith, so not even going to try.

No serious literature academic considers death of the author some optional theory. Its a pretty widely accepted aspect of literary criticism. Saying otherwise speaks of great ignorance on your part to the realm of academic literature.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact you hit me with a laughing react means that any argument with you is going to be in bad faith, so not even going to try.

No serious literature academic considers death of the author some optional theory. Its a pretty widely accepted aspect of literary criticism. Saying otherwise speaks of great ignorance on your part to the realm of academic literature.

Wow. Sure bud.

I mean no, but I know better than to engage with folks who are that far...entrenched...in their biases.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact you hit me with a laughing react means that any argument with you is going to be in bad faith, so not even going to try.

Btw, this sort of reaction is pretty much never accurate. It’s intellectually lazy nonsense.

 

[oreofox]

Sorry.

How about...wow that's a really complicated! From what you wrote in the description of you character I gathered that you took alot of different levels of different classes!

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were being negative in your comment. So I do apologize about my own comment.

By the time I stopped playing in that game, she had 5 levels of paladin, a level of barbarian, and 4 levels of warlock I think. It's been over a year. RP wise, she was fun. Combat wise, not the best (paladin of redemption and fiend/chain warlock). But I still had a bit of fun in combat until the more numbers-focused players came around.