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

[Chaosmancer]

But it isn’t lazy. It’s just not putting the explanation for every little element of the world into the narrative, which is good writing.
Tolkien didn’t ever even decide some of the unanswered questions of his work, which is to the benefit of the work.

Nonsense. Going out of his way to explain it would have been bad writing, since it would have added nothing at all to the work.

Tolkien easily could have trimmed the fat somewhere else to make room for this. There are 24 songs in the Fellowship of the Rings book alone, many of them historical in nature. There is also an entire scene devoted to the council meeting and deciding what to do, where it could have made perfect sense to include something like "Despite the great harms we have done to each other, in the First Ages of the World, we stand together to fight against the Darkness". There was no "going out of his way" when he spent so much time explaining the history of the world anyways.

Tolkien made his choice about what to include, but the fact that we are supposed to accept that all dwarves and elves are feuding, but have no idea why they are feuding was clearly a mistake on his part. I can especially say that, because it is something he tries to fix two decades later by telling that story.


And I'm not talking about "every little element" I'm talking about a massive feud between two major races of the world. This is the type of thing that defines entire nations it deserves to at least be mentioned.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but if you went to any writing seminar or viewed just about anything about how to write, they would most likely call it lazy, especially from a technical standpoint. And if you want to claim otherwise and have people agree with you, you need to have reasons why it is not lazy writing to just not fill in the blanks.



Then, you could just stop arguing the point you know.

Having a conflict with no roots or source is lazy writing. Every example I can think of is either a comedy meant to show how absurd such a thing is, or it is bad writing.

I just looked through Google and I see a few readers like you accusing him of lazy writing, but no substantial authority on writing saying that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tolkien made his choice about what to include, but the fact that we are supposed to accept that all dwarves and elves are feuding, but have no idea why they are feuding was clearly a mistake on his part. I can especially say that, because it is something he tries to fix two decades later by telling that story.

No, it wasn’t a mistake, and he didn’t “try to fix” it later, he just wrote a work that included a bunch of history of the world. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the reader to know why elves and dwarves don’t like eachother, especially when the hobbit tells us why the bitterness between Gimli’s folk and Legolas’ folk is so intense.
But even without the hobbit, it’s not an answer we need. At all.

It certainly isn’t worth losing literally anything that is in the books. If you think the history of animosity between dwarves and elves is a better use of page space than the songs, then I hope to never read anything you write or edit.

And I'm not talking about "every little element" I'm talking about a massive feud between two major races of the world. This is the type of thing that defines entire nations it deserves to at least be mentioned.

Why? The book isn’t the least bit confusing without it. Nothing is actually missing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I just looked through Google and I see a few readers like you accusing him of lazy writing, but no substantial authority on writing saying that.

Imagine calling Tolkien, of all writers out there, lazy, of all things.

Just wild.

 

[billd91]

.Having a conflict with no roots or source is lazy writing. Every example I can think of is either a comedy meant to show how absurd such a thing is, or it is bad writing.

No it isn’t. You don’t need to know anything about the First Age roots of frosty elven-dwarven relations to understand enough of the distrust in either the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wonder if we asked the same question about something different.

Like, if we were to tell a story, and in the story the main characters ran into one Hatfield and one McCoy. And we learned they disliked each other. An old family feud. As a reader, would I need to know more about those two character's backstories to appreciate them? I don't know. I do know that modern TV writers feel the need to do this, which is why flashbacks have become the literary device de jour for all of Hollywood. Most of the time when I see a show do a flashback I feel like I am being talked down to. But that is just my own feeling.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I wonder if we asked the same question about something different.

Like, if we were to tell a story, and in the story the main characters ran into one Hatfield and one McCoy. And we learned they disliked each other. An old family feud. As a reader, would I need to know more about those two character's backstories to appreciate them? I don't know. I do know that modern TV writers feel the need to do this, which is why flashbacks have become the literary device de jour for all of Hollywood. Most of the time when I see a show do a flashback I feel like I am being talked down to. But that is just my own feeling.

It seems to me it depends on how important those characters and that conflict is to your main characters. If they're just passing through and just need to get through the area safely, there's a different level of narrative "need" than say if they need the services of one Hatfield and one McCoy.

As it relates to Tolkien, the amount he included reflects that for his story, the conflict wasn't really that important.

A distinction should be made here though. This is fine for authors, since they control who the main characters are and what the story is. Is different for a D&D game where players are making characters in that world. If my dwarf should hate elves, my character (and thus my player) should know why.

 

[Scott Christian]

I did just think of Skyrim. I had no idea why the Imperials were fighting the Stormcloaks outside of there was a conflict. I don't think it really bothered me. It was simply a tool used to enhance the setting. But maybe for some it was irritating. (Or maybe they found out the reason why. Gotta be honest, I loved the graphics and everything, but didn't play the game a whole lot.)

 

[Scott Christian]

It seems to me it depends on how important those characters and that conflict is to your main characters. If they're just passing through and just need to get through the area safely, there's a different level of narrative "need" than

That seems fair. Although if they were secondary characters assisting the protagonist(s), then I doubt I would care. All that I would need to know is they don't get along, but now they are because the looming conflict is extremely dangerous.

 

[Scribe]

“I want to play a dragon person” is not the same as “I want to be weird/different”.

That doesn't tell me much however as far as the motivations to doing so.