Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5497904" data-attributes="member: 54710">I answered "it depends on the setting", but I think that's not quite right.  Fantasy races are an integral part of the setting.  The Tolkien races, their history and various homelands are at the core of Tolkein's world, and of the Tolkein-esque derivatives.  Similarly, Draconians, Gully Dwarves, Kender and Minotaurs are at the center of what makes Dragonlance what it is.  Thri-kreen, muls and half-giants are central to Dark Sun.  The various races of China Mielville's worlds are a big part of what makes his vision distinctive fantasy.Humans are part of most setting because they are accessible and (as humans) it's easy to imagine them in a wide variety of roles.  In contrast, fantasy races are written around a narrower concept so it's easier for players and GMs to understand the essence of a race's nature.There's nothing wrong with using elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, gnolls etc... -- it's a perfectly valid, if heavily used, fantasy trope.  However, I think the editors of D&D (over multiple editions) and other fantasy authors have ill-served the hobby by promoting Tolkein/D&D-esque settings that are built around the standard races.  I certainly don't want to see that trope go away forever, but I think the hobby would be stronger if there were more examples of campaigns and campaign settings in which different sets of races were dominant.  I'm not a particular fan of Tieflings and Dragonborns, but I think a 4e-esque world would be a lot more interesting if they dominated and elves, dwarves and halflings weren't to be seen.-KSEdit - and Shadowrun drives me nuts.  If magic comes back into the world, why are those particular D&D-esque races the ones that manifest?!?  It always struck me as a spectacular failure of imagination.</blockquote>

Verification