Do you think, if both were presented in the PHB, half-orcs would continue to edge out orcs, especially orcs with the "always savage brutes" thing removed from them?
I have a hard time picturing someone wanting to do so.
And, from a roleplaying perspective, there are few stories that can be told with a half-orc PC that can't be told with an orc.
Good point. I think that makes sense, to swap half-orc with orc and broaden orcs to include several sub-races, maybe one of which can be half-orc.
Absolutely and demonstrably incorrect.
Anyone ever told you that you have quite the bedside manner?
People with demonic heritage and dragon-people are far more common in modern fantasy literature than halflings (albeit largely because of the people with demonic heritage - dragon-people are rare-ish, though dragons who can turn into people are not uncommon). It's true whether we go with after 1995, after 2005, or after 2015.
Halflings or similar are more common in computer games and less common in fantasy literature. So it's the reverse. I can demonstrate this with examples, because I play vast numbers of fantasy video games AND read tons and tons of fantasy lit.
Modern fantasy literature goes back much farther than that - at least to the turn of the last century with the early works of Lord Dunsany and then, in the 30s, with Robert E Howard and pulp fantasy. Your dates actually support my point: By 1995, video games were a major part of geek culture.
This is not to say that demonic heritage (although less so dragon people) weren't part of fantasy literature before then, but they were more rare and exotic than elves, dwarves, and halflings.
That's a extremely silly way to use gonzo imho.
Again, do you realize that it is possible to disagree without the insults and hyperbole, and that it might lead to more productive discussions?
D&D is one of the most gonzo RPGs in existence in terms of "going beyond reality". It's extreme - with gods granting spells and walking the world (and you can go visit them for a chat at higher levels), world-changing or reality-changing spells, dozens or hundreds of sapient races, the Underdark, dragons being rife, people walking away from 1000ft falls, people coming back to life at the drop of a hat and so on. If Exalted is a 10 on gonzo scale, D&D is an 8 (Greyhawk certainly is - something like Taladas might only be a 6/7, but Planescape is a 9 and Spelljammer a straight 10). Something like most LotR games is a 4. A lot of other fantasy RPGs, like, say, Blue Rose, are down in the 3-5 range.
Yes, D&D is gonzo - I never said otherwise. But a dragon-breathing scaly creature is more gonzo than a halfling.
There's nothing "realistic" about halflings. They're no more or less "realistic" than the other races. As for "traditional fantasy", you're going to need to define what you mean by that. Do you mean Tolkienian fantasy? That's hardly "traditional fantasy". Or do you mean "computer game fantasy", or "1980s tabletop RPG fantasy"? Those are the only places where halflings were/are more common than tielfing-types or dragonborn-types.
Ever heard of homo floresiensis? Or pygmies? Are you sure halflings aren't more realistic than tieflings and dragonborn?
There's no one-size-fits-all definition of "traditional fantasy," and I'm sure if I came up with a definition, you'd say it is "ridiculously absurd" or some such. But we can talk about traditional D&D (which I'd define as TSR D&D, especially in the 70s and 80s), or traditional epic fantasy which, indeed, is based on Tolkien, who in turn based his ideas on thousands of years of mythology.
I would emphasize that as a key: that "tradition" is rooted in mythology. This is why elves and dwarves are so resonant - they exist in various mythologies throughout history, in various forms. Some would argue that they may have historical basis, that myths are a kind of racial memory of events and times before recorded history. But that's another topic.
