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

[nevin]

Tolkien was a literature professor before deconstruction defined an entire generation worth of philosophy and theory. In Tolkien's era, what the author intended was paramount; see movements like modernism where authorial intent is the important aspect of the work in question, and where the reader is supposed to pick their way through the work in order to decipher all that is being said.

We live in a post-post-modern world though, so things are different now. For what its worth too, people are right to call me out for saying that what Tolkien said was meaningless. That was shallow by me, and fueled by being too tired to give my post the amount of detail and nuance it deserved. That being said, again, while Tolkien did not intend to write an allegory, and while the Lord of the Rings is NOT an allegory, it can be read through an allegorical lens, that reading would be valid, and that reading would be worth discussing, because it would reflect certain inherit biases of Tolkien, as well as the culture that he grew up and lived in.

So yes, LotR is not an allegory, but an allegorical reading of it is not only valid, but a pretty easy reading to make.

I think I've derailed the thread though, so I won't go on more about it, or address the insulting points some people like to keep throwing out.

that's the bueatiful thing about literature, it can be 100 different things to 100 different people and they are all equally valid.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm not a English literature major, but it sure seems dumb to disregard what the author themselves said about their work.

I just said I was not disregarding what he said. Please respond carefully to my posts.

 

[Scott Christian]

It may make no sense to you. But in an imaginary fantasy setting it can make perfect sense. There is no need to assume fantasy humans are as petty as RL ones.

Like I said, I play in games where it is just overlooked. But people act like people in our game. With the same characteristics of regular people. Greed, pettiness, love, and desire. Fantasy societies are also sculpted after real world societies. Why? Because that is all we know. So we combine what we know, a touch of ancient Egyptian with a smidgeon of rural European Renaissance, and a healthy dose of Voodoo. But those all come with preconceived notions. And one notion is that when people see something they have never seen before they have a visceral reaction: worship, adoration, envy, fear, hatred. To pretend that they are not petty is to pretend that they are not people.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I just said I was not disregarding what he said. Please respond carefully to my posts.

Meant no offense. I was just stating that it seems dumb, or silly, or strange, that one would disregard what the author themselves has said about their own work. As I said I am not a literature major so I don't understand how it all works. Just seems strange to say that what the author themselves said about their own work is invalid.

 

[Eltab]

I created a Tabaxi character for Tomb of Annihilation because I wanted a character that was from this strange exotic land, not just another same-old-same-old from Mainland Faerun.
I later played the character in Dragon Heist. After one encounter where I employed all my Tabaxi racial / cultural features (and stopped the villian in his tracks) the table's response was "how did your character learn to do all that?!". I had done something different that nobody else could have done.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Meant no offense. I was just stating that it seems dumb, or silly, or strange, that one would disregard what the author themselves has said about their own work. As I said I am not a literature major so I don't understand how it all works. Just seems strange to say that what the author themselves said about their own work is invalid.

It's not that the author's own interpretation of their work is invalid; it's that the author's interpretation is but one of many, and can be analyzed and debated against like any other interpretation of any given work.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like people are overthinking this.

Again, consider the furry (I mean this in the kindest way possible, this is in no way meant to be pejorative).

Even outside that specific example, most of the people I've talked to/observed who prefer playing non-human characters do so because:
A) it lets them act out a specific fantasy/mental image, whether that be an allegory for something they want in life or just the fantasy of being an awesome lizard person;
B) there's a setting element or narrative hook related to that non-human species that the player wants to explore in the game; or
C) they think the character concept is cool, nothing more to it.

Are there players who get more cerebral and philosophical with it? Yes, there certainly are. But it's something that necessarily goes through the mind of the non-human roleplayer, and I don't think they should be judged as inferior for such.

I think this is close to what it is.

Fans of weird fantasy races are often character builders.However you can build acharacter basedon mechanics and you can builda character based on personalities, mindsets, and miscellaneous attributes.

Prople who don't get the fandom of weird races are usually people who build characters as you go (their human noble fighter doesn't develop a love of cheese until session 4) or thy make characters tied to the world as a primary goal and this leans them to traditional races.

Whereas the player playing a mouseman rogue has his love of cheese, hatred for being called a rat, 27 brothers and sisters, and extremeness of the coward/brave scale all baked in at Session 0. The weird race gives you big traits to use, exaggerate, or subvert for a character concept or image right at the start.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree with what you are saying.

But part of the difficulty the author's have, is if they bend the culture to extreme or too far out there, it has a tendency to offend or rub the reader the wrong way. Why can't this dragonperson (who resembles Klingon culture) be a lover of peace? And so it is never ending.

 

[Charlaquin]

Meant no offense. I was just stating that it seems dumb, or silly, or strange, that one would disregard what the author themselves has said about their own work. As I said I am not a literature major so I don't understand how it all works. Just seems strange to say that what the author themselves said about their own work is invalid.

Let me give you a simple example. JK Rowling said she intended for the character of Dumbledore to be gay. However, absolutely nothing in the books she wrote gives any indication of this being the case. One can certainly interpret the character as being gay, but equally they can interpret the character as straight, and nothing in the text will directly affirm or deny either interpretation. So, the fact that the author said the character was supposed to be gay doesn’t really mean much. We can take it into account in analyzing the work, and that might reveal interesting insights into the work and its creation. But, we can also disregard her statement of intent, as it’s clearly not supported by the text itself.

This works the other way as well. If something is present in the text, for example an umbrella-shaped cloud that appeared in a battle in Lord of the Rings (I forget which one off the top of my head). We can interpret that as being symbolic of the mushroom cloud created by many large explosive weapons, even though the author has said that wasn’t his intent. Knowing that it was not his intent can certainly inform our analysis of the work, and might reveal something interesting about the author or the work, but equally we can interpret that symbolism as being present in spite of the author’s intent.

Any work is imbued with meaning by its audience. You might read Lord of the Rings and see an allegory for the industrial revolution, while I might read it and see a story with a great deal of Catholic influence, and someone else might just see a fun fairy tale with no relevance to real life whatsoever. These are all valid ways to read the story, and all could potentially offer valuable insights into the work.

 

[Scott Christian]

Even outside that specific example, most of the people I've talked to/observed who prefer playing non-human characters do so because:
A) it lets them act out a specific fantasy/mental image, whether that be an allegory for something they want in life or just the fantasy of being an awesome lizard person;
B) there's a setting element or narrative hook related to that non-human species that the player wants to explore in the game; or
C) they think the character concept is cool, nothing more to it.

100% agree with this sentiment. Although I would change one thing:
1. To get a bonus they need so they can build a stronger character. (That should be number one.)
The rest is an over analysis.