D&D General How far from the source can we stray?

[Ath-kethin]

Most D&D games, and their derivatives, hew closely to Tolkien's ideas and themes (many of which predate Tolkien, but his work is commonly viewed as a starting point for their appearance in fantasy). The standard setup of humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings populate nearly every fantasy world created since, with some notable outliers. A few attempts have been made to break free of this paradigm; Dark Sun radically reinvented the wheel, and Talislanta tried to abandon it completely.

But Dark Sun still had the classic races, morphed into a new iteration, and Talislanta, for all its posturing, still has like 17 character types that anyone would easily identify as an "elf" at a glance. And while many dozens of additional character options, from demon-descended to insectoid to avian have proliferated over the years, home base still seems to be the Tolkien norms.

I'm developing a fantasy setting, and I'm drawing heavily from weird fiction for it - mostly a mixture of C.L. Moore, Robert E Howard, and China Miéville, blended with 1001 Nights and with a dash of Jules Verne for good measure, and I'm wrestling a bit with character options. My goal is a system-agnostic world that nonetheless carries its own ruleset, and obviously I'd like it to be as broadly accessible as possible. I have ideas for plant creatures and mineral creatures and such for player character options, but I worry that prioritizing such non-standard folk will turn off many people - particularly the OSR crowd, despite the fact that my overall approach draws very heavily from OSR games.

What do you think? Are humans sufficient as a baseline character option, surrounded by more off-kilter options, or do you prefer to keep your games within the sphere of Tolkien's shadow? The ongoing popularity of the Forgotten Realms certainly suggests the latter, but my own preferences run much more strongly toward the former.

 

[Scribe]

What do you think? Are humans sufficient as a baseline character option, surrounded by more off-kilter options, or do you prefer to keep your games within the sphere of Tolkien's shadow? The ongoing popularity of the Forgotten Realms certainly suggests the latter, but my own preferences run much more strongly toward the former.

If it was a poll? I would pick 'give me the fantasy races + new ones'. However I do believe you could have Human + 'off kilter' as your base and that would be fine too. I dont believe there is an expectation of Elves = Fantasy, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Mind of tempest]

how well developed are the off-kilter options?

 

[jgsugden]

This depends upon your players. Speak to them and figure out what interests them.

 

[Mind of tempest]

question what are your off-kilter options anyway?

 

[Oofta]

There is no one true way, so if it makes sense to you and your group, go for it. Personally I still do "standard" races, for a few reasons. First, I've had an ongoing campaign world for a long time. However, I also think that most people have a decent grasp of what and elf is and how they're different from a dwarf in the general sense. That let's me focus on other things than races.

So I guess that's all it really comes down to. If you create a world that breaks from that mold, it's going to be up to you to figure out how to describe the different races, how they interact with each other what place they have in your campaign world. If you even care that much, a lot of people don't.

But it really comes down to personal preference. If you already have a group of players, ask. Some people would love something other than the "standard" some would hate and just about everything in between. I think a decent number of people would enjoy it, as long as you're up front about the setting.

 

[Ace]

You can stray as far as your players enjoy or if you are making a product, people will buy. Do what you like.

FWIW personal preference is "very human-centric or only humans."

 

[Stalker0]

Honest opinion, I think the best way to introduce a true new fantasy setting so radically different from Tolkein would need to come from book or movie media first. Something like a harry potter, that becomes so ingrained in the new culture that it can subvert the old. Example, if you asked a 20 something or younger about playing an "elf", they might have more of an idea of a Dobby than a Legolas.

I think doing that kind of setting through an RPG first would be exceptionally difficult to make stick.

 

[bedir than]

What do you think? Are humans sufficient as a baseline character option, surrounded by more off-kilter options, or do you prefer to keep your games within the sphere of Tolkien's shadow? The ongoing popularity of the Forgotten Realms certainly suggests the latter, but my own preferences run much more strongly toward the former.

Unless you are trying to leverage the DMsGuild, ignore what is going on in the Realms and chase your own passion. Because this project is a passion project first and foremost. If it becomes a retail success it will be because you've thrown more of your soul into it than is reasonable - and people notice that.

 

[Ath-kethin]

You can stray as far as your players enjoy or if you are making a product, people will buy. Do what you like.

FWIW personal preference is "very human-centric or only humans."

My preference is much the same!

I am thinking of presenting the idea as "most characters are human," with the non-human mostly confined to the monster section. But inevitably people like to play non-human, so providing an option for "monster" PCs seems a decent idea.