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

[TarionzCousin]

Of course, now I want to play a cat person who hacks up a hairball while talking to the King.

In a Star Trek campaign a hundred years ago, the player who was moving away told the GM he could do whatever he wanted to do to his catperson character but said "I want to be surprised."

That PC couldn't get a hairball out and choked to death on it while on the bridge.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd be inclined to say that what @Jack Daniel is saying reflects their own experience at gaming tables--whether as GM or player isn't super-relevant. I've seen players who behaved as though their character's race was the least important thing about them (at least in the character's mind) and I've seen players choose race strictly for mechanical advantage (to be fair, in a circumstance where ability scores were rolled in order before choosing race) and I've seen players embrace their characters' race and try to figure what it meant to be a ... whatever. I can imagine that people might have had narrower experiences than mine, or wider.

It's like a gauge

1. Doesn't roleplay race
2. Roleplays common stereotypes or subversions of a race
3. Roleplays common stereotypes or subversions of a race for a nonD&D source
4. Roleplays rare stereotypes or subversions of a race
5. Roleplays a unique personality created from a deep dive to racial aspects

The issue with humans is you can't really do 2 or 5 in D&D. For the traditional races, 1 is being a human and 2 & 3 have been done so often that it is often annoying to vets.

The beauty of weird races is you be an unimaginative roleplayer and do a 2 or 3 and still come out as givinga fresh experience.

 

[Hussar]

Go for it. Travel down the road. Just acknowledge and understand that you are seeking that viewpoint out. And if you claim you are correct, even when the author says no, you are wrong.

Actually, anyone who claims that their interpretation is "correct" whether a critic or an author, is wrong. There are ALWAYS multiple interpretations of any work and they are all right for a given value of "right".

 

[prabe]

It's like a gauge

1. Doesn't roleplay race
2. Roleplays common stereotypes or subversions of a race
3. Roleplays common stereotypes or subversions of a race for a nonD&D source
4. Roleplays rare stereotypes or subversions of a race
5. Roleplays a unique personality created from a deep dive to racial aspects

The issue with humans is you can't really do 2 or 5 in D&D. For the traditional races, 1 is being a human and 2 & 3 have been done so often that it is often annoying to vets.

The beauty of weird races is you be an unimaginative roleplayer and do a 2 or 3 and still come out as givinga fresh experience.

That's a reasonable way to look at it. I will add that it's possible for any character to be annoying, and if I at the table don't know the player or the race, it's hard to tell the difference between "that's how the race is described in the lore" and "this player is annoying." It's not a large leap to "that race is annoying."

 

[MGibster]

My experience is that players will 90% of the time portray standard fantasy nonhumans as cartoonish stereotypes of the standard fantasy nonhumans. And the other 10% of the time, it's a shallow, one-note subversion. ("My elf doesn't hug trees/hate dwarves/look down on humans because…")

In my experience, most players play their demi-humans in a manner indistinguishable from a human. I don't necessarily view that as a bad thing, mind you, but it makes races in D&D pretty much meaningless to me.

 

[Hussar]

IME - players who cannot be bothered making the race of their character a part of the character are pretty much just there to roll dice and kill monsters. It won't matter what race they play, it's always going to be a bland, cipher character, with no parents, from far away, with no contacts to anyone or anything. Race doesn't mean any more to these players than anything else.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Equal to the creator in what way? Misinterpretation by what definition?

Sure. It’s valuable to recognize that the creator of a work has insight into it that you might lack. But if you put the creator’s insights on a pedestal, you close yourself off to potential insights they might lack. It’s worthwhile to study trees in-depth, but it is equally worthwhile to study the forest as a whole. If you treat either as more important, you can end up missing the value of the other.

I disagree. If one says one is greater than the creator, sure. But if one says one is equal to the creator, they are as likely to ditch their own interpretation as the creator’s. Which is to say, not likely.

When the creator is also an English Lit professor and a widely acknowledged expert on the subjects and works that most closely influence the work, dismissing his own interpretation of his work is beyond absurd, which is what one must do in order to claim that he “wrote it as an allegory”.

All of which ignores the fact that all this started with a claim directly and specifically about the authors intent.

 

[Charlaquin]

When the creator is also an English Lit professor and a widely acknowledged expert on the subjects and works that most closely influence the work, dismissing his own interpretation of his work is beyond absurd, which is what one must do in order to claim that he “wrote it as an allegory”.

Good thing I don’t dismiss Tolkien’s interpretation of his work or claim he wrote it as an allegory, then?

All of which ignores the fact that all this started with a claim directly and specifically about the authors intent.

Yes, and I agree that was a silly claim, and I supported your side of the argument at the time that it was made. But the conversation has long since moved on from that point. Now people are making other silly claims, such as “an interpretation of a work that isn’t consistent with authorial intent is valid but incorrect.”

Certainly a claim that Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as an allegory is neither valid nor correct, but it’s also not an interpretation of Lord of the Rings. It’s just a demonstrably false claim about Tolkien’s intent in writing. An allegorical interpretation of Lord of the Rings would be valid, and calling it “correct” or “incorrect” is kind of meaningless.

 

[Scott Christian]

Tolkien’s intent was the springboard this discussion jumped off from, but at this point we’re discussing something pretty far removed from that.

We are not. That is part of the point.

Forgive me, but I am reticent to take at face value the claim that English lit professors told @zarionofarabel that Tolkien claimed he intended to write an allegory, considering that he explicitly said otherwise, and English lit professors should be well aware of that fact if they are qualified to teach the subject. I find it far more likely that those professors taught @zarionofarabel how to interpret Tolkien’s work allegorically, and @zarionofarabel misinterpreted that as being indicative of his intent, when the professors were in fact merely unconcerned with his intent. Now, I could be wrong about that. Maybe @zarionofarabel just had some really bad English lit professors. Regardless, @zarionofarabel ’s misapprehension of Tolkien’s intent is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not an allegorical interpretation of Tolkien’s work has merit, or for that matter whether allegory is present in Tolkien’s work regardless of his intent.

No offense, and be reticent all you want, but this is what happens when you give equal standing to someone over the original author. You can say zari misunderstood or say he had a poor lit professor. But, having been in the business, including the English textbook business, for awhile, I don't doubt it at all.

You seem to be using a particular definition of “correct” here. From my reading, it appears that you are using it to mean “consistent with authorial intent,” and my disagreement with you is about whether or not this is a useful definition of “correct.” Sure, if you define “correct” as “consistent with authorial intent,” then any interpretation that is not consistent with authorial intent is incorrect. But that’s pretty circular logic.

Correct.

I assert that, while it it is incorrect to say that Tolkien intended to write an allegory, it is not incorrect to say that allegory is present in Tolkien’s work. An allegorical interpretation of Tolkien’s work is valid, and so long as one does not claim this was the way he intended for it to be interpreted, such an interpretation cannot meaningfully be said to be incorrect.

Correct.

Indeed, unless one claims that this interpretation is the only valid one, a meaningful statement can’t be made about the truth value of such an interpretation.

Incorrect.

Yeah, absolutely. Authorial intent is one component of critical analysis, and an important one at that. But analysis contrary to authorial intent is valid, and cannot meaningfully be said to be incorrect.

Incorrect.
Look, I get it. You are part of the crew that if someone has a doctorate, and they study Poe, and they start espousing Poe's The Raven was really about the loss of bird habitat in the 1800's, and they can back it up by citing pieces of the poem, we ought to give them their due claim. Their interpretation is now equally as valid as Poe's.
I am not part of that crew. I look at the author's complete works. I read about their life. And take it as a whole. And if it doesn't add up, then it is incorrect. If we have the author on record saying the opposite, then it is absolutely incorrect. Because the author is the primary source. Everyone insists The Life of Pi is an allegory. The author states it is not. Who is correct? You can side with the creator of the content. The person who penned the words. The person who spent months plotting the story out. The person who spent months editing. The person who has read the work three hundred times.
Or you can side with someone who teaches the book. Because they are just as valid.

We will not agree on this. I am sorry. I understand your view. (That another's interpretation is equally valid.) Agreeing with it means agreeing to the possibility of the author's premise being more easily erased. Or worse, to stand for something they didn't want it to stand for.

It is easy when it is Tolkien and we care about the environment. So we directly relate the smart author we love to the cause we care about. But much more insidious things have happened with other works. And I don't think that is right.

 

[Scott Christian]

Actually, anyone who claims that their interpretation is "correct" whether a critic or an author, is wrong. There are ALWAYS multiple interpretations of any work and they are all right for a given value of "right".

I am sorry, they are not all right. Many are wrong because they're viewing it through the lens of their own ego or problems or desires. Or they read too much into it. Or they don't read enough into it. Sometimes it's hard to accept that the author doesn't want or need another person's words to carry their message.