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

[TwoSix]

I mean, WotC just published two settings (Ravnica and Theros) which are pretty much humans + other races, not a lot of elves or dwarves or halflings. So I'd say it's certainly viable.

 

[Remathilis]

My general idea is that it depends on how you are marketing it.

That is to say, if you invite people to play "D&D", they are going to assume the general core assumptions: Tolkien races, classic classes, typical monsters. You CAN move away from that, but you need to be explicit in it from the get go. Esp if your changes are more radical than just different races. The big thing is making sure your players know going in that this is very different so they don't come in expecting elf wizards and are greeted with shardmind telepaths.

 

[Ath-kethin]

My general idea is that it depends on how you are marketing it.

That is to say, if you invite people to play "D&D", they are going to assume the general core assumptions: Tolkien races, classic classes, typical monsters. You CAN move away from that, but you need to be explicit in it from the get go. Esp if your changes are more radical than just different races. The big thing is making sure your players know going in that this is very different so they don't come in expecting elf wizards and are greeted with shardmind telepaths.

Well, my group that I've been running for a while now are onboard, but then, they're also people I know and not strangers. As such, I feel their input is valuable but of limited real use.

Rules-wise, I'm actually deriving a great deal from Swords & Wizardry, though filtered through the D&D Rules Cyclopedia as well as other modern games and interpretations. It's an interesting amalgam.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, my group that I've been running for a while now are onboard, but then, they're also people I know and not strangers. As such, I feel their input is valuable but of limited real use.

Rules-wise, I'm actually deriving a great deal from Swords & Wizardry, though filtered through the D&D Rules Cyclopedia as well as other modern games and interpretations. It's an interesting amalgam.

As long as your players are on board, go nuts.

 

[TheSword]

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.

The elder scrolls franchise made a very good show of half dragons, cat people, dark elves, high elves and humans. It didn’t seem jarring at all.

My suggestion would be that you can pick whatever races you want, provided those races are rooted in your world. What is their history, how do they interact with others as a nation, what are their goals and points of conflict? PCs can move away from these restrictions but as a whole there should be an idea in your world what elves expect vs cat people etc.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The elder scrolls franchise made a very good show of half dragons, cat people, dark elves, high elves and humans. It didn’t seem jarring at all.

My suggestion would be that you can pick whatever races you want, provided those races are rooted in your world. What is their history, how do they interact with others as a nation, what are their goals and points of conflict? PCs can move away from these restrictions but as a whole there should be an idea in your world what elves expect vs cat people etc.

argonians are lizard folk.

 

[TheSword]

argonians are lizard folk.

Yeah I get that. I was going for a d&d equivalent.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yeah I get that. I was going for a d&d equivalent.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

no argonians are older than dragonborn, plus they do derive from lizardfolk when lizardfolk where lizardmen.

 

[TheSword]

no argonians are older than dragonborn, plus they do derive from lizardfolk when lizardfolk where lizardmen.

Older than Dragonborn? In your world or in mine? I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.

This wasn’t an exercise in specifics of a particular race it was a point that non-standard races can exist alongside Tolkein classics in a fantasy world and not seek jarring if done well.

Whether the walking bipedal lizard is descended from dragons or crawled out of the primordial ooze is kinda missing the point.

 

[Voadam]

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.

D&D itself has had settings like that.

AD&D 1e and 2e Lankhmar with humans and invisible fleshed ghouls but no Tolkien demi-humans.

AD&D 1e Conan with just humans.

AD&D 2e Jakandor with just humans.

AD&D 2e historical settings (with magic).

d20 Wheel of Time with just humans.

OSR also has existing settings with no Demi-Humans. Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea is a well-supported example.