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

[Maxperson]

Calling an argument a strawman = "I don't actually have a good counter argument".

The post replied to most definitely implied that anyone who chooses a race other than elf or dwarf is doing so simply to be different. Ergo, not a strawman.

No. It was absolutely a Strawman. Saying that anyone who wants to play something other than Tolkien races a "snowflake" and "doing it wrong." is a blatant twisting of his argument.

 

[Oofta]

If that is true, then what does that logically tell you? It tells me that those that are tired of dwarves and elves are in the minority. It tells me that the vast number of people who play like what D&D is doing with elves and dwarves.

I would say that "most people" limit to the races in the PHB which includes dragonborn, tieflings, half-orcs and gnomes, if that's even true. I have no clue since for the most part I don't get to participate in many other people's home campaigns. When I do play it's either with my wife as DM (we share a campaign world) or I do AL which is everything.

But the best numbers we have seem to indicate that the races from the PHB are the most popular, which is hardly surprising. A lot of people probably never purchase anything else. So to a certain degree it's a chicken and the egg scenario, but it's also based on customer demand.

Could I create a world with no elves or dwarves? Sure. I just don't think it would make much difference after the new and shiny wore off after a few sessions. We'd still be playing D&D with races that were stand-ins for aspects of humanity with slightly unique abilities.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I've never seen a limit on gnomes, halflings, or half-elves, and almost never on half-orcs. And uncommonly on races like Aasimar, Genasi and such. It's not until you get to Wemics, Tabaxi and other much more exotic races that limitations become fairly common, but still not all pervasive.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No. It was absolutely a Strawman. Saying that anyone who wants to play something other than Tolkien races a "snowflake" and "doing it wrong." is a blatant twisting of his argument.

No one has accused him of saying people where "doing it wrong" - THAT is a strawman.

But snowflake-ism - a desire to be different or special - that is absolutely what he was saying: "The moment they're perceived as mundane, people who want to play spiffy-new-unique-interesting won't want to play them anymore."

 

[Maxperson]

No one has accused him of saying people where "doing it wrong" - THAT is a strawman.

It's explicitly in the response!!

That people who play Tolkienesque races do so for the deep role playing and everyone else is just doing it wrong.

@Hussar attributed that to him via his response there by saying, "And now we are back to..." and "I thought we were past that."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's explicitly in the response!!



@Hussar attributed that to him via his response there by saying, "And now we are back to..." and "I thought we were past that."

Which is a completely different post to the one that was falsely accused of being a strawman.

Now I think this whole argument about which imaginary people it is acceptable to pretend to be makes questions about angels dancing on pins look like the height of rational debate, but I really get sick and tired of people crying "strawman" whenever someone makes a point they can't answer.

 

[Scott Christian]

I would say that "most people" limit to the races in the PHB which includes dragonborn, tieflings, half-orcs and gnomes, if that's even true. I have no clue since for the most party I don't get to participate in many other people's home campaigns. When I do play it's either with my wife as DM (we share a campaign world) or I do AL which is everything.

But the best numbers we have seem to indicate that the races from the PHB are the most popular, which is hardly surprising. A lot of people probably never purchase anything else. So to a certain degree it's a chicken and the egg scenario, but it's also based on customer demand.

Could I create a world with no elves or dwarves? Sure. I just don't think it would make much difference after the new and shiny wore off after a few sessions. We'd still be playing D&D with races that were stand-ins for aspects of humanity with slightly unique abilities.

Perfectly said.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is a completely different post to the one that was falsely accused of being a strawman.

Now I think this whole argument about which imaginary people it is acceptable to pretend to be makes questions about angels dancing on pins look like the height of rational debate, but I really get sick and tired of people crying "strawman" whenever someone makes a point they can't answer.

Um, no. Go back and look. The Strawman meme by Jack Daniel was qouting the post that contains the Strawman that I just pointed out. If you're going to declare something isn't a Strawman, you should be clear on which post you are talking about.

You may be sick of Strawman claims, but this was in fact a real Strawman that was called out by him.

That said, he really should have responded with something other than just "Strawman." Only saying that something is a fallacy without any further argument is itself a fallacy.

 

[Voadam]

I've never seen a limit on gnomes, halflings, or half-elves, and almost never on half-orcs. And uncommonly on races like Aasimar, Genasi and such. It's not until you get to Wemics, Tabaxi and other much more exotic races that limitations become fairly common, but still not all pervasive.

For gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs I have. A bunch for half-orcs and gnomes. Half-orcs seems fairly common.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Calling an argument a strawman = "I don't actually have a good counter argument".

The post replied to most definitely implied that anyone who chooses a race other than elf or dwarf is doing so simply to be different. Ergo, not a strawman.

No it doesn't, and no it didn't.

That said, he really should have responded with something other than just "Strawman." Only saying that something is a fallacy without any further argument is itself a fallacy.

Nah. I just don't particularly feel the need to spoonfeed people who appear to lack reading comprehension. (And for what it's worth, pointing out a fallacy isn't the same thing as making a fallacious argument from fallacy, which is very specifically a leap of logic that assumes a conclusion is false just because the original argument is fallacious.)

But snowflake-ism - a desire to be different or special - that is absolutely what he was saying: "The moment they're perceived as mundane, people who want to play spiffy-new-unique-interesting won't want to play them anymore."

Nnnope.