I don't think anyone arguing for setting fidelity would do so. People brought up the idea of changing setting specifics in regards to the presence of Orcs, so that's what people have largely been discussing. If someone had brought up making minotaurs not-seafaring for whatever reason, that's what the 200 pages would be about. Granted, it'd probably be less long and contentious, as the argument about racial restrictions neatly slots into classic "Whose desires matter more at the table?" That's what seems to be the real point of contention (and likely why folks on both sides are so intent on being "right" rather than increasing their understanding).
I don't disagree here at all. This is my point... I do think there are things that make a setting unique or interesting. I just tend to think those things are usually not related to racial choice in the RPG version of the setting.
I also think there is a difference between a setting that's designed to be one for an RPG and a setting that's designed for fiction that later gets adapted to RPGs.
Dragonlance as a setting is going to have a lot of the standard elements of D&D. I don't really think that's anywhere near as problematic as many claim it to be.
Nobody said you would lead with it. Why do you guys keep trying to turn, "Orcs not being present alter the feel of the setting for some people" into "Orcs being present is the only, biggest, baddest concern than we have with the setting!!!!!!"?
My point has been that people focus on the wrong elements when they discuss a setting. I have no doubt that for some people, the presence of orcs in Dragonlance alters their sense of the setting.
My point is that, as a game setting, my level of concern for that feeling is minimal.
What's odd would be having to put 50,000 beholders into Middle Earth if I wanted one that wandered in from the void(another plane) like Ungoliant did.
I have no idea what you mean here.
There's absolutely nothing odd with keeping orcs off of Krynn as a race, but allowing one to wander in.
Wander in from where? Another plane or something?
Introducing planar travel is a bigger shift to the default setting than a tribe of orcs existing in the setting that had been previously unencountered. Or having orcs be prominent on one of the other, less explored continents.
There would seem to me to be several options to introduce a new player race without also having to add planar travel and the like.
And this is just hugely arrogant. You've just declared your perspective to be the one true proper perspective and everyone else's to be "just misguided.
We all get to decide how we feel about the various fictional elements that go into a book, movie, game, setting or whatever. Your feelings on the matter aren't better or more important that mine, and mine aren't misguided or minor just because they don't match up to yours.
I would say that you are arguing for the one true proper perspective, actually. That's what I'm challenging.
Your joke about the Mona Lisa, I think, speaks more to your view than that of others.
This argument also argues that these two pictures are the same, because they share many of the same traits.
View attachment 265590View attachment 265594
I mean, orcs in world with goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, elves, and dwarves aren't really the equivalent of the Groucho face, are they? They're more like an additional tree in the background.
Not that a painting is a great analogy for a game, anyway... if Krynn is the Mona Lisa, what are the players allowed to add to it?
Thri-kreen in Lord of the Rings rpg. It is just a game right? It is not a novel or movie.
Kourtney Kardashian in a Star Wars rpg. It is just a game right? It is not a novel or movie.
Why do you get to decide what is immersion breaking for others?
Actually, Lord of the Rings is a novel and Star Wars is a movie.
I don't get to decide what is immersion breaking for anyone. But I can say what I think are frivolous reasons people cite as breaking their immersion.
dragonlancenexus.com
