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

[Chaosmancer]

Because people relate to it? I think that is the answer. And it is enjoyable for most. The fact that you are so tired of them might mean you are tired of fantasy. I mean, you have a problem with tropes. You can't stand the original Tolkien races. Maybe you just don't like fantasy right now. Play a cowboy game or one that uses dogs as characters or Masquerade. Maybe after a year or so it'll get some of its allure back.

No. I would use stronger language but that is against the forum rules.

Equating being tired of Tolkien as being tired of the entire genre of Fantasy is blatantly insulting.

Am I tired of "The Journey to the West"? Am I tired of "The Wandering Inn"? Am I tired of "The Dresden Files"? How about "The Codex of Alera" or "The Stormlight Archive" or Slavic myths, Polynesian Myths, Chinese Myths, Japanese Myths, entire subsections of Anime, "Conan"?

If you hear "I'm tired of Tolkien" and think that that person is tired of the entirety of Fantasy, then all you are doing is proving that you truly are chained to the man's corpse. Because fantasy is so much larger than a single writer.

Why would they want to get rid of the tiny bit of Tolkien lore they have held onto? Why do they want to be different? That is the real question. I would say - they don't. You already have ten thousand differences between the two. To ditch the three similarities, similarities that a lot of players enjoy, seems not only silly, but also a terrible business decision. Do you also want PF they need to ditch Tolkien associations?

Or they could embrace the literal thousands of other Fantasy sources that aren't Tolkien.

You know, go for a market that is literally overflowing with the same ideas.

So true. This is why D&D actually made an entire book just for DMs. And in that book, they tell the DM to create their world. Don't want elves and dwarves, tell the players they can't use them. And while we are at it, get rid of the halflings too. Tell them they can only be celestials or infernals or warforged. There, you have aasimar, tieflings and warforged. Make the setting nothing but the astral planes. There - a world nothing like Tolkien.

Of course, in order to that, one would have to limit races.

But most people limit everything except elves and dwarves, which was the original point being made.

 

[Mecheon]

So, war hero named "Stormcloak" challenged the king to a traditional duel, cheated and killed him, and started leading a revolution to kick out the Imperials.

Bit more complicated and messy.

So Stormcloak was involved in that war and captured by the elves, but he was later released. Now, during this time, with the Empire caught up elsewhere, a group called the Forsworn manage to occupy Markath and take it over. The Forsworn are Bosmer (Half elves) who were the original occupants of that particular region, but centuries ago they got kicked to the fringes.

So the Forsworn take over Markath and don't do too bad a job of ruling it, to the point they were going to go to the Empire and go 'yo just put us in charge'. However, Markath is a scummy place at the best of times so the former ruler got together a band of mercenaries to take back control and give it back over to him. He promises Stormcloak free worship of Talos, said former god who the elves are trying to ban worship of in the hope that will kill the god (as part of the elves' plan to unmake reality). So, Ulfric does as Ulfric does and they throw out the rulers and then we get a bloody period where they go after the Forsworn and anyone who sided with them, executing them.

Then the elves hear about this 'free talos worship' thing and basically force the Empire to have to arrest the militia, which builds resentment leading to the later situations. And later, said High King probably would have been on Stormcloak's side if he, y'know, spoke with him and didn't just shout him to death

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For my part, I do seem to remember arguing some hundred pages back that D&D is flexible enough to handle other genres, including swords & sorcery (the game's former default) and historical fiction. If the game's currently-default, most-popular genre bugs you that much, it's not particularly difficult to play in a different one.

The point isn't whether I can possibly potentially find such a game somewhere (or run one, and thus not get to play in it). The point is answering the question, "what's the appeal of the weird fantasy races?", by saying, "You have to push yourself by NOT relying on someone else's work in order to have a story that makes sense."

I had to do that with my Tarrakhuna. I couldn't just coast on the popular tropes. I did reference other works, I did take inspiration from them, but I had to defend all of it myself--because while "Arabian Nights" is a name people recognize, it isn't something so specific as the Tolkien-esque milieu (even if that milieu has a certain set of consistent deviations from Tolkien). I had to think about the religions and why they exist, the alliances (or lack thereof) and why they exist. I had to intentionally leave some mysteries for the players to find (or invent!) With each thing, I couldn't just say "oh, you know what this is." Because they didn't, and realistically couldn't. The result has been a much richer setting with, ironically, not actually that much more work on my part--because, lacking preconceived notions, I also lack blinders that prevent me from exploring new directions.

 

[FireLance]

A man travels to the city of Ream. There living in the city are the Galaks and the Therens. They hate each other, and there are significant plot points tied to the fact that they hate each other.

But nowhere does it give any reason for that hatred. No hints, no lost history. They just hate each other, because they hate each other.

Sound like lazy writing? Or maybe writing for a comedic purpose like they did in Looney Tunes?

Actually, it sounds like Shakespeare.

"Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You mean the thing I mentioned about that one Elf Kingdom and that one Dwarf kingdom, that Max then told me was wrong because the Simarillion gave us the "real" story? That answer?

Yes, that’s all we “need”, and even that is just bonus knowledge, like that in the appendixes.

Yeah, I referenced it. And that is a great explanation for why those elves and those dwarves have a great enmity. It is a really poor explanation for why all dwarves and all elves do. Which, you know, was a thing I said. And the thing being defended, the enmity between all elves and all dwarves across the world.

Don’t need the answer.

Ah yes, because we clearly needed a song about bathing, we would have lost such nuance without it

Who said anything about nuance? The book needed moments of levity and escape from the building tension, moments of fun more than it needed an explanation for something that doesn’t matter in any way that more information would add anything to.
The story of Gimli and Legolas doesn’t rely in any way on knowing anything beyond what is in the trilogy.

Look, the point was if you want to argue that he shouldn't fill the book with extra fluff and historical events that don't matter to the story... then why did he have all of those songs about history?

Then the point is nonsense, because no one has argued that.

He was clearly willing to add in dozens of historical details, but not this one. And this one creates a gap.

No, it doesn’t.

Also, way to insult my entire collection of writing work just because I dared to have an opinion that Tolkien made a mistake, once, in his entire writing career. Truly shows you are an open-minded individual.

shrug. You are advocating rules that aren’t valid as rules.

It isn't confusing at all... until you are asking questions it doesn't answer.

That isn’t confusion, it’s just...not having an answer. Good storytelling leaves some questions unanswered, at least within a given work.

It can passed unnoticed if you don't end up asking why all dwarves and all elves have this bitterness towards each other, because (and I said this once already, so kind of repeating myself) the only dwarves we meet are from Erebor, and so that story covers all of the, But, we are also told that this is something for all dwarves, and all elves, and we meet a lot of elves who aren't Legolas' people.

It is a small thing, but it exists.

Again, we don’t even need the explanation for Gimli’s folk and Legolas’ folk. The story does not need to explain their animosity and distrust. Gimli believes elves can’t be trusted, Legolas thinks dwarfs are gross and dumb. That’s the set up. I don’t need a history lesson to understand that there is history there that doesn’t need to be explored directly in order to tell the story.

like...Gimli and Legolas start out as racist, learn to respect eachother, and learn that their racism is misguided and short sighted in the process. We don’t need history lessons to understand “he is racist against elfs, and lots of elfs are racist against dwarfs”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Considering you quoted this bit, you were quoting my general statement of writing.

So, let me give you an example.

A man travels to the city of Ream. There living in the city are the Galaks and the Therens. They hate each other, and there are significant plot points tied to the fact that they hate each other.

But nowhere does it give any reason for that hatred. No hints, no lost history. They just hate each other, because they hate each other.

Sound like lazy writing? Or maybe writing for a comedic purpose like they did in Looney Tunes?

Not in the least.

Because as terrible as the reasons can be, no one hates someone else for no reason.

False.

So a writer who never creates or gives a reason is not thinking through their characters properly.

Nonsense.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes, that’s all we “need”, and even that is just bonus knowledge, like that in the appendixes.

Don’t need the answer.

Who said anything about nuance? The book needed moments of levity and escape from the building tension, moments of fun more than it needed an explanation for something that doesn’t matter in any way that more information would add anything to.
The story of Gimli and Legolas doesn’t rely in any way on knowing anything beyond what is in the trilogy.

Then the point is nonsense, because no one has argued that.

No, it doesn’t.

shrug. You are advocating rules that aren’t valid as rules.

That isn’t confusion, it’s just...not having an answer. Good storytelling leaves some questions unanswered, at least within a given work.

Again, we don’t even need the explanation for Gimli’s folk and Legolas’ folk. The story does not need to explain their animosity and distrust. Gimli believes elves can’t be trusted, Legolas thinks dwarfs are gross and dumb. That’s the set up. I don’t need a history lesson to understand that there is history there that doesn’t need to be explored directly in order to tell the story.

like...Gimli and Legolas start out as racist, learn to respect eachother, and learn that their racism is misguided and short sighted in the process. We don’t need history lessons to understand “he is racist against elfs, and lots of elfs are racist against dwarfs”.

At some point you have to shift back to focus on DnD. If a GM wants to have their dwarves and elves not like each other than they have to give a dwarf or elf player some sort of reasoning when they ask why.

If that reason is "That's just what everyone else does" you make your world either very flat (why has no dwarf ever questioned this before) or you are dangling a plot thread that you should be prepared to explore in your campaign.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At some point you have to shift back to focus on DnD. If a GM wants to have their dwarves and elves not like each other than they have to give a dwarf or elf player some sort of reasoning when they ask why.

If that reason is "That's just what everyone else does" you make your world either very flat (why has no dwarf ever questioned this before) or you are dangling a plot thread that you should be prepared to explore in your campaign.

Sure, but D&D is nothing like a novel, when it comes to what information should be provided.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or to put it in a slightly different way: I didn’t need an e planation of who the Emperor was in Return of the Jedi, but I absolutely needed an explanation of who Snoke was in the Force Awakens.

I didn’t need either, personally. I certainly don’t think TFA would have been a good place to give explanation about Snoke. TLJ, maaaaybe, but even then, nah.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Sure, but D&D is nothing like a novel, when it comes to what information should be provided.

Yes, and since the topic is about D&D and not LotR, 10 pages on Tolkien's lazy (or not) explanation is probably a new thread.

I'm not a sidebar nazi, but at some point it has to rejoin the general topic.