D&D 5E Are humanoid mono-cultures being replaced with the Rule of Three?

[Kobold Avenger]

I certainly don't like mono-cultures for any humanoid, but the trend seems we're going from a single monolithic culture to 3 different cultures in many cases. It's like the Rule of Three moved from beyond Planescape. I guess it's the easiest number to have as it's, "here's the one you know, here's it's opposite, and here's something else". Having 4 or more might seem too much for some.

It's certainly something I thought about with the thread on FR Drow with Udadrow, Aevendrow and Lorendrow, but it's already in place in Eberron with Vulkoori, Sulatar and Umbragen (Drow), Aereni, Tairnadal and Khovaire (Elves) or Ghaal'dar, Heirs of Dhakaan, City Goblins (across all Goblin races, Marguul Bugbears might break that). It seems to be a coincidence that it's often 3.

 

[jayoungr]

Three is a good base number. It gives an idea of the scope of a culture while still leaving plenty of design space open for DMs to add their own new subgroups.

 

[DammitVictor]

I feel like that's just replacing racial monocultures with... subracial monocultures. Instead of saying "these things are true of all elves", it's just saying "there are three kinds of elves; these things are true of all elves of this kind".

If we want a "rule of three", it should be two lists: "all of these things are true of all elves" (and a ruler to the knuckles of anyone who says "but not my elf!") and "three of these things are true of any elf" with a little bit of wiggle room if someone wants to play a less or more stereotypical elf. Stop making more subraces.

 

[Marandahir]

Aevendrow is not a new subrace of Elf. It's a Dark Elf culture, much like Illuskan, Mulan, and Calimshite are examples of human cultures. They do not change the Human ancestry features. They are storytelling tools that show that Humans are not a monolith. Aevendrow and Lorendrow are storytelling tools that show that Drow are not the monolith we've understood from years of stories about the Udadrow.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'd rather the rule of three than the infinite varieties of elves.

Seriously, it's almost like, "Hey, we have a terrain type. Let's get an Elf for it! Wood elf, sea elf, sand elf, swamp elf, um, mesa elf, er .... hot springs elf ..... elf on the shelf ....." I swear, it's like the "shrimp scene" in Forrest Gump, but so much longer and more annoying.

Elves are the Darwin's finches of D&D, except instead of being cute and having different beaks, they are all just dead-eyed soulless automatons.

 

[Marandahir]

I'd rather the rule of three than the infinite varieties of elves.

Seriously, it's almost like, "Hey, we have a terrain type. Let's get an Elf for it! Wood elf, sea elf, sand elf, swamp elf, um, mesa elf, er .... hot springs elf ..... elf on the shelf ....." I swear, it's like the "shrimp scene" in Forrest Gump, but so much longer and more annoying.

Elves are the Darwin's finches of D&D, except instead of being cute and having different beaks, they are all just dead-eyed soulless automatons.

There's a reason why Eladrin are not four different subraces in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. WotC have come around to this point of view as well. An elf variation has to be significant; other wise it's a culture, not a unique ancestry with its own features.

 

[Umbran]

"Here are three examples of elf cultures in this world that we'll use a lot," seems reasonable. Enough to show there is variation, not so much as it becomes intractable.

 

[willrali]

Probably. Designers are trying to avoid stereotyping which is fine. I personally think it's missing the point.

Humanoids don't need to have real-world-esque layers and complexity, because they're not real world. There's no depth to explore, and there doesn't need to be. Ultimately, everyone's playing humans-in-makeup.

'Look at me, I'm a fighter dude but I'm graceful and aloof and my immortality makes me sad and strange. I have a curvy Tolkein sword and I move like mist on the breeze.'

But all power to the folks who want to make Elves a deep and complicated subject.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There's a reason why Eladrin are not four different subraces in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. WotC have come around to this point of view as well. An elf variation has to be significant; other wise it's a culture, not a unique ancestry with its own features.

Just because you give it a name like a pharmaceutical doesn't mean it's not just another elf.

"Darling? Have you seen my Eladrin*? I have to take two of them to get going."

"Oh, dear. I think they are in the pill bottle next to the Lorendrow. Can't get to sleep without my Lorendrow!"

*Caution: When I take Eladrin, I get sweats. My bones are cold. My teeth are loose. My heart gets really, really hot. I can read minds and sometimes, I wake up driving a stolen car. But my erections are FANTASTIC! When I wear gray sweat pants, people cross the street. Which is fine. Eladrin gave me my life back. Hail satan.

 

[Marandahir]

Probably. Designers are trying to avoid stereotyping which is fine. I personally think it's missing the point.

Humanoids don't need to have real-world-esque layers and complexity, because they're not real world. There's no depth to explore, and there doesn't need to be. Ultimately, everyone's playing humans-in-makeup.

'Look at me, I'm a fighter dude but I'm graceful and aloof and my immortality makes me sad and strange. I have a curvy Tolkein sword and I move like mist on the breeze.'

But all power to the folks who want to make Elves a deep and complicated subject.

Elves didn't have curved swords in Tolkien. That's a Weta-developed concept, likely originating mostly from Alan Lee and/or John Howe as they were trying to portray gracefulness in Elven cultures. Tolkien mostly depicted his elven swords as similar to how swords are written in the Norse Sagas, the Finnish Kalevala, and the Irish Cycles.