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

[nevin]

That isn’t a problem at all, because accurately portraying whatever inhuman qualities we attribute to such characters isn’t the point. It doesn’t matter if it’s accurate, and as you point out, we would have no way of knowing if it was or not. What matters is what the exercise reveals about ourselves, both as humans and as individuals.

Even imagining another human mind is impossible. Again, the best we can hope for is “my own mind, but...” Whether that but is “but immortal” or “but from a preindustrial society” or even “but I had ham instead of turkey in my sandwich,” they’re all equally impossible to truly experience. The point is to try to get as close as you can, and to learn something from what you thought would be different as a result of the but.

What I don’t understand is why you’re fine with roleplaying exceptions to draw the line at exceptions to one’s personal experiences but draw the line at exceptions to the base human experience. Both are equally speculative, and both have the potential to reveal interesting insights.

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.

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.

While I agree that literature and poetry are very much an personal interpretive experience I find it odd for someone to say that what the author intended isn't relevant. That seems to be a very narcissisitic, way of simply dismissing the most important person involved in the work so that some "well educated" person can make their view the most important.

 

[Charlaquin]

The you agree that people playing Elfs are just Humans who have donned Elf costumes? Because that is what I am saying.

I can understand what you’re saying without agreeing with it. And I do understand what you’re saying. To an extent I even agree with it - playing an elf is ultimately just playing what you imagine a human who lived a really long time would be like. A human can’t accurately emulate an inhuman mind.

What I’m trying to tell you is that accurately emulating an inhuman mind is not the point of playing an elf. Rather, the point is to discover something about the human mind (or more specifically, your own mind) by imagining how living a really long time might affect it. “Donning a costume,” then, is not an accurate way to describe it. Because the point of a costume is to accurately emulate the thing you are dressing up as. The point of roleplaying is exploring your own psyche by imagining exceptions to it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I know mine are going way above your head...

As an observer, no, they’re not. This is also a very arrogant way of suggesting the other person isn’t getting your point.

 

[Charlaquin]

While I agree that literature and poetry are very much an personal interpretive experience I find it odd for someone to say that what the author intended isn't relevant. That seems to be a very narcissisitic, way of simply dismissing the most important person involved in the work so that some "well educated" person can make their view the most important.

Good thing I don’t believe that what the author intended isn’t relevant then, I guess?

 

[zarionofarabel]

As an observer, no, they’re not. This is also a very arrogant way of suggesting the other person isn’t getting your point.

You are correct, and I have the bad feels for doing so...

 

[nevin]

They often are, speaking as one. Academic study of literature lends itself to over-analysis with an eye toward the assumption of allegory, which as JRRT points out in one of his letters, is distinct from intention. I can’t quote it ATM but basically he explains that there is some symbolism, and there are things inspired by his life and beliefs and fears, etc, in his works, but never allegory. He isn’t trying to tell the reader that industrialization is bad, he is just telling a story, part of which is inspired and influenced by his experiences wrt the industrialization of England.

But he had a rather dim view of allegory, a point of contention between himself and his close friend CS Lewis.

Good point, he was also a professor of English Language and Literature for 44 years. That alone would make his opinion pertinent, and worth considering, even if he hadn't written the works. I always found it odd that in my masters Literature classes that the professors seemed to be so dismissive of what the Author's had to say. It almost seemed like they were offended when the Authors words didn't agree with their groupthink so they had to beat them down. I will say there are far too many people with doctorates and masters that only believe what they were taught and unfortunately never learned to analyze and think on their own. GroupThink in Acadamia is like mildew you just can't get rid of it.

 

[Crit]

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.

I must restate, "acting the same as Humans" is the wrong way to say it. Humans and Elves act like People. You're approaching fantasy with "only human=people." A "Human Mind" doesn't mean anything if something like it can be replicated by non humans, in fantasy and in real life. Your argument is based on a false connection, and I've addressed "Humans with funny hats" as a term here.

I don't believe that you're responding to my points, now. Exposure to the idea of the results of being another species is what I've been talking about, not some ideal character study.

I don't agree with whoever said eliminating a vital part of the game and community would be a good idea. If forcing everyone to play the same thing forces them to express themselves in other ways... yeah, obviously! This problem can be fixed by further RP encouragement. It's like observing that students in school uniforms, if they can't dress normally, will try to individualize their uniforms in small ways. Fine details do show care, but it's not fun for players to be shoehorned into this. People play them, so it should be included, and alternate races are such a big part of Fantasy and even NPCs and such, so why take it away?

I'm going to make a less nuanced point. I think anyone who can't even see the appeal of other DnD play styles is the problem, not the alternate play styles. Character builders are fine. Alternate races are fine. Rules lawyers are fine. Even self-limited campaigns are fine, so long as you're not advocating for the whole game shifting into it to take other's fun or being blatantly closed minded. That's the beauty of TTRPGS, you give people all the tools for all of their options, and you cut it down from there to build your experience. It's great to have rules for stuff if you wanted to use it, rather than forcing the whole DnD player base to individually home-brew an entire system that WotC fills textbooks with.

I think I've adequately answered the initial prompt. People play the alternate races because it's fun for RP and mechanically, even though it's technically no more powerful or more "deep."

 

[nevin]

Good thing I don’t believe that what the author intended isn’t relevant then, I guess?

sorry I didn't make my self clear I was referring to another comment. by Shardstone

"For reference, as someone who got their Masters in English, the author saying that their work isn't something is rather meaningless."

 

[zarionofarabel]

A human can’t accurately emulate an inhuman mind.

This is literally all I am trying to say!

I am also sorry and offer my sincere apologies for the earlier snide remark made as to you missing my point.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is literally all I am trying to say!

Yes, I know. Now that I have clearly demonstrated an understanding of what you’re trying to say, can we please move on to developing your understanding of what I’m trying to say?

I am also sorry and offer my sincere apologies for the earlier snide remark made as to you missing my point.

We’re cool, no offense taken.