Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Oh, the Humanity! Exotic Races, Anthropocentrism, Stereotypes & Roleplaying in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8136910" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>Good ruminations. A few things.</p><p></p><p>I would probably move your thesis to a secondary position, as I don't think that is what role-playing nonhumans is primarily about. I think it is mostly about the fun of it - as you say, people want to play Drizzt or Legolas, or think that halflings are fun and Dwarvish lore is interesting.</p><p></p><p>Now, nonhumans--as human-created ideas (in the real world)--do represent aspects of humanity. Tolkien's elves are, in many ways, embodiments of our higher natures, just as orcs represent a twisted, degraded form. Most D&D worlds don't deal with mythic archetypes in the same way that Tolkien did, but certainly all races can be viewed as variations of specific aspects or themes of humanity. But my point is that the primary motivation for playing a non-human race is usually because, well, it sounds fun at the time.</p><p></p><p>In a different vein, since the advent of the internet 25+ years ago, there seems to be a rising focus and centralization on game canon and the rules-as-written. This was furthered by the design of WotC's versions of D&D, both 3E and 4E, which were so complex and tightly constructed that variation and house ruling became more difficult and rare (imo). Still possible, just not as easy to implement compared to the more "heapish" rules of AD&D. I think, also, that the rise of video games had an impact. In a video game, one can only choose from what the game offers - one cannot generally hack the system, or change it in any way other than what the program allows.</p><p></p><p>What I have observed is that younger generations of D&D players seem to not realize or actualize the idea that D&D is infinitely customizable, and each table and campaign can be different and unique. In the old days, one of the first questions players would ask when joining a campaign was, "What are the house rules?" Now it seems largely replaced by, "which version are we using?"</p><p></p><p>I take the view that the RAW are merely a starting point, a default, not a set of codified laws; the ideas and tropes in the rule books aren't absolutes, but rather a toolbox to draw from. And more to the point: the DM usually has the largest role in determining which "tools" are available, and if there are any new tools (not in the rule books) that are on offer.</p><p></p><p>(Of course it isn't so black-and-white, but there does seem to be this general trend, moving away from a more free-wheeling "toolbox approach" to a more canonical, centralized "codified approach")</p><p></p><p>This, I think, also leads to internet conversations which often boil down to, or at least have a strong element of, defining what the "Right Way" to play D&D is, which often misses the basic truism that <em>the right way is whatever way you want to play it, whatever is fun for you and your group.</em></p><p></p><p>But it isn't so simple, because of the question and nature of DM authority. I have always taken the view that the DM has the right and responsibility to define the parameters of the campaign, be it a homebrew or published setting, while at the same time, it is generally a good idea to keep in mind what the players want...to a point. A DM might have a vision, especially with a homebrew, and a sense of what fits within and supports that vision. As the author of the campaign, they inherently know things that the players don't, they have the big picture in mind - even if it is an official game world like the Forgotten Realms. The players have freedom within the context of the campaign, but can really only make requests about meta-issues (e.g. what races are available to play).</p><p></p><p>Every situation and group is different, so it would be somewhat absurd to make absolute declarations, such as, on one hand, that the DM should create and allow whatever they want and if a player doesn't like it, that's just too bad; on the other, the DM is meant to facilitate whatever the players want, so anything goes (I fully realize that some campaigns take the assumption that every member of the group co-creates the campaign, and the DM is merely the person who happens to be refereeing the co-created world at a particular point in time).</p><p></p><p>Perhaps a preliminary statement of intention by the DM is helpful: Asking the players, "I'm wanting to run this type of campaign...who is in?" If a player says, "That's fine, as long as I can play (fill in the blank)." The DM then balances the request with their vision, and if it doesn't overly compromise it too much, can acquiesce and/or adjust what the player wants to fit within the campaign. Negotiation can commence. If what the players wants does compromise it too much, the DM can come back to the player and say something like, "I hear you, but it doesn't fit into what I have in mind, so bear with me and trust that what I'm going to offer will be fun, even if not exactly what you have in mind."</p><p></p><p>If the player is intransigent, it probably points to deeper problems, and more issues to come, so it may be that such conversations act as a useful litmus test for DM-player compatibility.</p><p></p><p>One final note. I want to bring up Talislanta as an example of a "zoo world" that works really well. But that is partially because it is a built-in assumption. Talislanta <em>is </em>its many races and cultures--that is central to its atmosphere. While D&D includes many worlds, they all share the basic body of tropes and ideas that have been found in 45+ years of D&D products. Players come to the table with certain assumptions based upon their experience. Perhaps what would be helpful is nourishing the idea that each campaign, group, and world can be different, rather than doubling down on such notions as, "I want to play D&D, and D&D is this." Meaning, open it up a bit.</p><p></p><p>I think the best, or at least easiest, way to do that--from the perspective of the shepherds of the game, WotC--is to offer many different worlds, with different variations and themes*. And to re-emphasize the point: <em>All of these worlds are yours, make of them what you will...Or, better yet, make your own!</em></p><p></p><p>*EDIT: Centering D&D on different worlds not only has the benefit of diversifying the game and encouraging variation, but it also potentially solves some of the socio-cultural issues around, for example, orcs. One published world could state, "This is classic D&D in which orcs are inherently evil, races have specific ability bonuses, and so forth;" while another could say, "In this world, there is no such a thing as inherent evil, and all races--ahem, ancestries--are as customizable and diverse as humans, etc." Revised core rulebooks could emphasize this point: that "D&D is as diverse and wide-ranging as its worlds, and the key is to customize the game to your liking. The worlds we publish are just examples of what is possible--make the game your own."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8136910, member: 59082"] Good ruminations. A few things. I would probably move your thesis to a secondary position, as I don't think that is what role-playing nonhumans is primarily about. I think it is mostly about the fun of it - as you say, people want to play Drizzt or Legolas, or think that halflings are fun and Dwarvish lore is interesting. Now, nonhumans--as human-created ideas (in the real world)--do represent aspects of humanity. Tolkien's elves are, in many ways, embodiments of our higher natures, just as orcs represent a twisted, degraded form. Most D&D worlds don't deal with mythic archetypes in the same way that Tolkien did, but certainly all races can be viewed as variations of specific aspects or themes of humanity. But my point is that the primary motivation for playing a non-human race is usually because, well, it sounds fun at the time. In a different vein, since the advent of the internet 25+ years ago, there seems to be a rising focus and centralization on game canon and the rules-as-written. This was furthered by the design of WotC's versions of D&D, both 3E and 4E, which were so complex and tightly constructed that variation and house ruling became more difficult and rare (imo). Still possible, just not as easy to implement compared to the more "heapish" rules of AD&D. I think, also, that the rise of video games had an impact. In a video game, one can only choose from what the game offers - one cannot generally hack the system, or change it in any way other than what the program allows. What I have observed is that younger generations of D&D players seem to not realize or actualize the idea that D&D is infinitely customizable, and each table and campaign can be different and unique. In the old days, one of the first questions players would ask when joining a campaign was, "What are the house rules?" Now it seems largely replaced by, "which version are we using?" I take the view that the RAW are merely a starting point, a default, not a set of codified laws; the ideas and tropes in the rule books aren't absolutes, but rather a toolbox to draw from. And more to the point: the DM usually has the largest role in determining which "tools" are available, and if there are any new tools (not in the rule books) that are on offer. (Of course it isn't so black-and-white, but there does seem to be this general trend, moving away from a more free-wheeling "toolbox approach" to a more canonical, centralized "codified approach") This, I think, also leads to internet conversations which often boil down to, or at least have a strong element of, defining what the "Right Way" to play D&D is, which often misses the basic truism that [I]the right way is whatever way you want to play it, whatever is fun for you and your group.[/I] But it isn't so simple, because of the question and nature of DM authority. I have always taken the view that the DM has the right and responsibility to define the parameters of the campaign, be it a homebrew or published setting, while at the same time, it is generally a good idea to keep in mind what the players want...to a point. A DM might have a vision, especially with a homebrew, and a sense of what fits within and supports that vision. As the author of the campaign, they inherently know things that the players don't, they have the big picture in mind - even if it is an official game world like the Forgotten Realms. The players have freedom within the context of the campaign, but can really only make requests about meta-issues (e.g. what races are available to play). Every situation and group is different, so it would be somewhat absurd to make absolute declarations, such as, on one hand, that the DM should create and allow whatever they want and if a player doesn't like it, that's just too bad; on the other, the DM is meant to facilitate whatever the players want, so anything goes (I fully realize that some campaigns take the assumption that every member of the group co-creates the campaign, and the DM is merely the person who happens to be refereeing the co-created world at a particular point in time). Perhaps a preliminary statement of intention by the DM is helpful: Asking the players, "I'm wanting to run this type of campaign...who is in?" If a player says, "That's fine, as long as I can play (fill in the blank)." The DM then balances the request with their vision, and if it doesn't overly compromise it too much, can acquiesce and/or adjust what the player wants to fit within the campaign. Negotiation can commence. If what the players wants does compromise it too much, the DM can come back to the player and say something like, "I hear you, but it doesn't fit into what I have in mind, so bear with me and trust that what I'm going to offer will be fun, even if not exactly what you have in mind." If the player is intransigent, it probably points to deeper problems, and more issues to come, so it may be that such conversations act as a useful litmus test for DM-player compatibility. One final note. I want to bring up Talislanta as an example of a "zoo world" that works really well. But that is partially because it is a built-in assumption. Talislanta [I]is [/I]its many races and cultures--that is central to its atmosphere. While D&D includes many worlds, they all share the basic body of tropes and ideas that have been found in 45+ years of D&D products. Players come to the table with certain assumptions based upon their experience. Perhaps what would be helpful is nourishing the idea that each campaign, group, and world can be different, rather than doubling down on such notions as, "I want to play D&D, and D&D is this." Meaning, open it up a bit. I think the best, or at least easiest, way to do that--from the perspective of the shepherds of the game, WotC--is to offer many different worlds, with different variations and themes*. And to re-emphasize the point: [I]All of these worlds are yours, make of them what you will...Or, better yet, make your own![/I] *EDIT: Centering D&D on different worlds not only has the benefit of diversifying the game and encouraging variation, but it also potentially solves some of the socio-cultural issues around, for example, orcs. One published world could state, "This is classic D&D in which orcs are inherently evil, races have specific ability bonuses, and so forth;" while another could say, "In this world, there is no such a thing as inherent evil, and all races--ahem, ancestries--are as customizable and diverse as humans, etc." Revised core rulebooks could emphasize this point: that "D&D is as diverse and wide-ranging as its worlds, and the key is to customize the game to your liking. The worlds we publish are just examples of what is possible--make the game your own." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Oh, the Humanity! Exotic Races, Anthropocentrism, Stereotypes & Roleplaying in D&D
Top