I love fantasy. I just don't love fantasy that exclusively restricts races to "the ones that were members of the Fellowship of the Ring, even though there are no Rings and we call them different names and they were created by different beings etc. etc. etc."
I apologize Ezekiel. I reread my comment to you and it sounded off base. I promise when I wrote it, that was not the intention. I was just saying maybe a different setting for awhile might help get fresh eyes on fantasy. Again, sorry.
I didn't say those things were. I said the cultures and races were. The things that are most directly relevant both to this thread topic, and to "what I get to do as a character in a game."
But your statement that I was responding to stated D&D was "chained" to Tolkien. That D&D had to stand in the shadow of Tolkien. When you use the term D&D, it is a reference to the game, not three races or 9 pages of the PHB. If you are only discussing elves and dwarves and halflings, and say they ruin every fantasy setting for you, even computer games like Dragon Age, then I stand by my statement: we will have to agree to disagree. Because that is still 3 races out of, what now, 25 that they have? (And for the record, even their elves are different: noldor = check. sylvan = check. There is no drow equivalent.
As stated: not talking about business decisions. I'm talking about home campaigns. I'm talking about the literally dozens of DMs I've spoken with over the years who not only adamantly, but proudly refuse to EVER step outside of "there are four Good Races, and Humans are the most important, and the elves hate the dwarves, and the
We have different views because of vastly different experiences. I have seen some DMs use this because it is easier for them to build a story or their world with something already set in stone. It's "assumed knowledge" by the players and their PCs, so no need to elaborate. Just like you do with a hundred other story elements inside of a campaign. For example, you see two dragons fighting, one is silver, the other black. Or, you see two armored men in a cart crossing a bridge, and a troll is charging towards them. Assumed knowledge can set scenes into motion without explanation. Can the DM flip the script. Yup. But sometimes there isn't a need.
I have also seen dozens of DMs not use that dynamic.
Also, you're committing a fundamental error here. Just because they are enjoyed does not mean that their absence could not also be enjoyed. Again, as noted much earlier in the thread, halflings and dwarves don't show up in numerous popular franchises (or do show up, but very differently, e.g. the Dwemer of The Elder Scrolls...who were a type of elf before they all mysteriously vanished centuries ago.) If having the precise dwarf-elf-hobbit trifecta were so important, why did Azeroth eclipse Norrath as the most popular MMO? If having orcs and cat-people but not having dwarves were such a concern, why is FFXIV the rising star of worldbuilding and main story? Why did Guild Wars 2 become a staple of the MMO genre--about to launch its third expansion pack--despite its race list being "humans, big were-humans, giant horned lion-bears, plant people, and flappy-eared grey pookas"? (In Tyria, humans are the closest equivalent to Tolkien elves culturally and historically, while the sylvari plant-people are the closest aesthetically; asura are the closest to dwarves physiologically, but they're really more like gnomes, and the literally seven-foot-tall norns are the closest to dwarves culturally and aesthetically except that they don't do a lot of mining; the miners are the charr, who are all military-industrial and spurn all gods! It looks almost nothing like Tolkien, and yet is quite popular.)
We don't really have any evidence that you DO need to keep these things front-and-center adhering as closely as possible to the superficial details of Tolkien's constructed cultures. Business seems to be booming either way, if you do the writing work to make an interesting and vibrant world.
That is not an error. There is no illogical thinking. Because I state 1 doesn't mean we have to consider 0. And good for Guild Wars. Mario World is pretty popular too. Along with Final Fantasy and Bloodborne and that Horizon game where you hunt mechanical dinosaurs (that is what they look like, I have only seen previews). Samurai Jack is popular. None of those are like Tolkien. Should D&D, which has 45 years of lore, ditch it all to become new?
And evidence is not a thing. Not on this forum unless we talk strictly book units sold. To say the absence of evidence is evidence is not how any type of evidence works.
- Prosecution: Your honor, the person was at the bar the night the theft took place. His fingerprints were on the cash register. And they found the exact amount of money that was in the register in his pocket.
- Defense: But your honor, my client was not in a car, at the house or at the neighbors. His fingerprints were not on the jukebox. And in his other pocket there was no money.
Well, uh, no you wouldn't have to limit them? That's sort of my point. Having warforged and dragonborn and, y'know, not having your elves be ancient relics of a better time that hate the dwarves, and not having your dwarves be "beardy fighter-types" as OSP puts it that hate the elves, and maybe not strictly enforcing the "pseudo-medieval, Eurocentric, henotheist, all-religions-are-organized" pattern that D&D enforces because it was heavily derived from a highly superficial reading of Tolkien?
I am confused. What is your point? D&D is chained to Tolkien. It is in Tolkien's shadow. DMs should not limit races. DMs should not have dwarves unless they don't have beards. DMs should not have elves unless they have rounded ears. DMs should not use a Eurocentric campaign. Honestly, I am confused as the DMG explains exactly how to do all this and more.
And that's sort of what I mean. Tolkien did the work to merit it. He justified this stuff. Later authors and (I cannot stress enough) an enormous number of DMs, not so much.
I hear ya. Vastly different experiences make me see this differently.
They borrowed the idea of powerful godlike beings with specific areas of interest, but didn't bother to consider the ramifications, and that's where we get horribly awful setting elements like the Wall of the Faithless. They borrowed the idea of Dwarves And Elves Don't Get Along, but didn't write about how the two will always have a hurdle to get over due to contested spiritual-metaphysical birthright (the Elves are Illuvatar's first children, but the Dwarves were adopted before the Elves appeared, leading to a built-in struggle between them, like that between Tygra and Lion-o in the Thundercats re-imagining.) They borrowed the medieval culture, without considering the consequences of widespread powerful magic and the fact that, in Tolkien's work, human (and elf and dwarf) civilization had been on the decline for centuries due to assaults by evil forces, the exile of the line of kings, an invading dragon, etc.--so the relative prosperity and plenty of cities in most settings doesn't make sense and leads to problems.
I am very glad you think this. That is awesome. Because that is the
exact reasoning I gave for why a DM would
limit races in their campaign world - because it doesn't make sense! (Full circle.) Yet, notion after notion was insisted that the DM can simply wave their hand and create a race. Or the DM can bend and alter their world without so much of a thought.
I guess it turns out it is not so easily done once the DM, as you say - "did the work to merit it," and "justified the stuff."
Again, my point is less about published settings (though I agree, that's a lot easier to talk about, since we can point to them!) My point is about what ordinary DMs make. Ordinary DMs have this INCREDIBLY frustrating tendency to be the most utterly hidebound, traditional, only-the-old-ways types I've ever seen. Pitch a single oddball idea and you get suspicion, questions about ulterior motives, implicit insults, all sorts of things. I've seen FAR too many DMs that, as noted, PROUDLY refuse to step outside of--maybe not "Tolkien's shadow" in the ABSOLUTE MOST STRICTEST POSSIBLE sense, but "Tolkien's extended shadow," the superficial reading of his work that is so commonly invoked it genuinely disheartens me.
Can we do a thought experiment please? Pretty please?
Our average campaign lasts nine months. We play two sessions a month. Four hour sessions. Eighteen sessions at four hours each. A total of 72 hours. Out of that 72 hours probably 40 of it is combat (that is close to a table average for most I believe). We are left with 32 hours. Knock off 10 for horseplay; talking shop, personal talk, eating, people using the restroom. Now we have 22 hours. Out of that 22 hours of exploration and roleplaying, how often does the DM get to talk. 30% of the time. Maybe 40%. A verbose DM would be at 50%. We'll take 50% - 11 hours. 11 hours to flesh out a world, different settings, different people, different creatures, different cultures, etc.
This is the reason to use a standard setting. A descent DM (in my opinion) can weave their non-bearded dwarves who live in sky castles and ride balloons into the setting. But there is a lot of ground to cover, especially if you have a huge backstory and relationships to other races. A good DM (in my opinion) can weave those dwarves into relevant combat scenarios to show their culture. A great DM (in my opinion) can weave it into the personal talk at the table without it being disruptive or rude.
But the thought is that is not a lot of time. A DM can just as easily decide to spend their fifty hour work time on building appropriate dungeon designs or thinking about the ecology of the creatures that inhabit the plainlands or building memorable NPCs or writing character arcs for their players' PC's. Why fault them for this?
That people who play Tolkienesque races do so for the deep role playing and everyone else is just doing it wrong.
