D&D (2024) Should 2014 Half Elves and Half Orcs be added to the 2025 SRD?

[Mind of tempest]

I think it does for me
Transformers in Westeros doesn't work for me

you miss the point perhaps genre would be a clear in expressing my intent

No matter how hard it is for you to relate, you will relate more than you would to a Goo person.

I have no idea goo people tend to be fairly rare in fiction thus I lack the data to make that call

It's the one you presented.

I can say 'many' people prefer a lot of things. Doesn't make it true or make those guys right.

Xenofiction exists. Stories with non-human protagonists exist. Tastes have broadened over the years. There's a reason tielfings are on top and Tumblr sexymen include a skeleton and a vending machine.

a vending machine really?

 

[AnotherGuy]

you miss the point perhaps genre would be a clear in expressing my intent

I provided Spelljammer (and Planescape later) for settings which, I would imagine, work for the majority of the playerbase to have PCs where all the characters are not the original vanilla, but still be relatable and grounded.
Providing the examples of how the public accepted Transformers and Ninja Turtles as non-human parties I do not feel is a fair comparison to the convo, do you?

How do you feel about a party of Tortles traversing the jungles of Chult? Grounded? Relatable?

 

[Mecheon]

How do you feel about a party of Tortles traversing the jungles of Chult? Grounded? Relatable?

Turtle people are like, baby's second anthropomisation. So, yeah, its grounded and relatable because enough Warcraft has me associated tortles with a certain memetic phrase from Warcraft.

So, yeah, a bunch of old folks (turtles are wrinkly, live a long time, and are slow, so those are the natural assumption) traversing a jungle, yes, that's fairly grounded and relatable.

Frankly the actual problem is going to be Chult-as-written having non-ecologically appropriate animals in it, as 90% of the dinosaur and pterosaur species said to live there did not live in jungle enviroments. It is much easier for me to relate to a grouchy turtle person having to travel than it is imaging the denizens of a sub-tropical floodplain suddenly being in a jungle, to say nothing of dragging Pteranodon (Dwelt along shallow seas) into the mess. Its like just shoving a grizzly bear and an albatross into the middle of the Amazon, its going to be out of place

 

[AnotherGuy]

would it have changed your position if their statement were to be interpreted as not referring to a singular? asserting closer to 'a setting does not need a human analogue to feel grounded or relatable', given it was my post which was what they were initially responding to was following the train of thought about removing humans/elves/dwarves/halflings/orcs for other more DnD-original species instead and people still being able to find a touchstone for relatability in other species despite the lack of a direct human analogue,

I went back and read some of your posts. You have an interesting and new perspective.
I actually like your idea of a human analogue it has merit.
If that is how you approached the game, the races and the characters, then that is completely different.

see this is where i think the discussion went off the rails, the fellowship mention, as i understand it, was not about relatableness or grounding, but in response to your assertion that a party should be primarily composed of the major predominant species of a setting, in which hobbits do not serve that role in middle earth at the time of it's writing, they are a reclusive and somewhat overlooked people

Yes but there is HUGE problem in comparing the 4 Hobbits in LotR and a D&D character, for instance a level 1 Halfling Paladin with 18 STR is on par in potency to every other character.
They (Hobbits) were overlooked because they were weak.
Same with Willow.

is that your position? or are you saying here that it isn't?

It isn't my position.
Clearly the racial composition within the Fellowship is relatable and grounded - and that is very different to the first statement.

 

[Remathilis]

No, but my opinion hasn't changed. I don't see the point of adding anything to the new SRD that is in the old one. They're both the same edition, right?

I mean, you're right. The concept of both s of species still exists for publishers to use. The designs are outdated, but the publisher can update those any way they like. There is no reason either race can't be used in any project a publisher wants.

 

[Scribe]

I have no idea goo people tend to be fairly rare in fiction thus I lack the data to make that call

Considering you are either a human (likely) or a bot (unlikely) you certainly can make that call.

 

[Vaalingrade]

a vending machine really?

He's actually super personable and useful to have around despite knowing about five phrases.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Similarity of culture, adjacent cultural touchstones, relatable past experiences, etc. You really don't know what I mean, or are you feigning ignorance because doing so supports your point better?

The term could have all sorts of meanings. I wanted to know which specific one you were intending. My apologies for giving the impression that I was leading you on. That truly was not my intent, and I'm sorry for antagonizing you, regardless of my intent.

In response to this point, I point you back to what I said above about the commonalities between nearly all playable races. With the exception of elves and dwarves, whose experience of time would be dramatically different from a human's because they live so long, the vast majority of fantastical species in D&D would have life experiences perfectly cognizable to us. Dragonborn don't give live birth...but they still lay quite large eggs, which would be fairly similar. All of them need overall the same kinds of nutrients, just in varying proportions. They all have more or less the same range of auditory, touch, smell, and taste senses as humans, and vision only meaningfully differs because of darkvision (which, frankly, some folks make way more of than it really is, treating it as though it were "darkness literally never impedes anything" which is emphatically not true.)

Culturally? They make music and eat sweets and honor their dead. They wear clothing and keep pets and engage in courtship rituals and mourn their dead.

If the culture of, say, Vedic-period India and Renaissance Italy and Golden Age Islam and the Yucatec Maya are cognizable to you as relatable, understandable things, then there is absolutely no requirement that cultures where these species live would be so alien that you could not relate to them, not even in principle.

If a culture where elves predominate* is relatable to you, I do not understand how one where dragonborn predominate is guaranteed to be unrelatable.

*Phrased so because, in truth, few to no D&D-world-cultures would truly be mono-racial, and few to no D&D playable races would be mono-cultural. That is, you could have X-ish humans and X-ish dragonborn and X-ish tabaxi, and you could also have Y-ican humans and Z-lamander dragonborn and W-ian tabaxi--not all Xs are human, and not all humans are Xs.)

Like I said, I've never heard of Redwall. From what your telling me, it's not my demographic. I can't respond to you if I don't know what you're talking about, and I believe it is unrealistic of you to consider my understanding of your example irrelevant.

I don't understand what merit there is to what kinds of people are expected to read the books. People--whatever demographic--are expected to find these characters relatable and compelling. None of them are human. The books are quite popular and, while some critics derided Jacques (he passed away in 2011) for being a bit staid/basic with his plot structures, there has never been any serious criticism that his books are somehow impossible to relate to because nobody in them is human. Physiological differences in the various anthropomorphic animals actually do matter, too. Some animals (like wildcats) are much larger than the mice and voles and such; many badgers have effectively Barbarian rage; there are owls and snakes and all sorts of creatures with radically different capabilities compared to the relative simplicity of the mice/otters/hares/etc.

They go to church (well, they live in an abbey), they make flower cordials, they sing rousing songs and forge weapons and armor and covet valuable things. They are like us. But they are not us. The ways they are not like us sometimes matter. Often, they don't--because most of the things sapient bipedal binocular bilaterally-symmetrical beings would do are going to be relatively similar. They matter enough to be worth thinking about, even though other things matter more a fair amount of the time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I honestly do not believe you are comprehending what I'm saying and the fact that you cannot see a difference between the part I responded to initially and what you now changed your position to, means that it is unlikely that we will have a fruitful discussion on this issue.

Then I will respond no further than this post, unless you choose to continue.

Also the uncharitable style of using the words only and never to describe my position does not help.

The problem is, again, this was my initial statement, which you took umbrage with:

When coupled with the above, that TTRPG species really aren't that alien even when you intentionally (but not egregiously) play up the differences, you get the simple fact that it isn't necessary to have a human in the party in order for the PCs to still feel relatable and grounded.

This does not, at all, say that you shouldn't have humans in the party. It does not, at all, say that non-humans are in any way more relatable than humans.

All it says is that it is not necessary--mandatory, required, unavoidable--to have a human in the party in order for the PCs to still feel relatable and grounded. Since you disputed this, the only possible interpretation is that you believe it is necessary to have one or more humans in the party, otherwise it cannot, even in principle, be relatable.

If that was not the meaning I was supposed to get from this, why did you cut this specific part out and reject it as wrong?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I responded to Ezekiel's claim that a party need not have A human to feel grounded or relatable.
The indefinite article which is bolded is very important for the crux of my argument.
This is also within their post discussing dragonborn, so we are not discussing the vanilla races. For purposes of this discussion, vanilla would be elves, dwarves, halflings and perhaps gnomes.

My reply was that RPGers have been primarily influenced by novels and published settings (Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Birthright, Darksun...etc) and from those we take our queue such that it would seem odd to not to have the party composition be made from predominant races from those settings.
Spelljammer is the exception and Planescape (although I forgot to initially mention it) - Ofcourse Homebrew settings allow for the weird and wonderful.

The reply I got was the Fellowship.

So you challenged an argument by setting up two assumptions that, honestly, are assinine.

First of all, you draw arbitrary distinction between races you are nostalgic for - Dwarves, Elves, Haflings and Gnomes - and other races. Despite the fact that Goblins and Orcs are as old staple of Fantasy literature, you arbitrairly deny them inclusion based on your own preference. Which nicely proves the problem with Half-Orc this thread was partially about, as it did exist solely as an excuse TO arbitraily deny orcs inclusion among core playable races. You also draw an arbitrary line between these four races you like and all others. What exactly makes Elf less silly than a Kobold? What makes Dwarf "more relatable" than a Goliath? None of the criteria for whatever gets a pass have been established beyond "trust me bro".

With this arbitrary difference it is no wonder you got the Fellowship of the Ring. A party sent by council of Elves, Humans and Dwarves being composed of single Elf & Dwarf, two humans, four Hobbits and an Angel isn't any less ridiculous than a party composed entierly of Kobolds and Tortles, aside from arbitrary lines. Yes, that party had two humans BUT you are ignoring the fact that both Aragorn and Boromir were far from relatable. One was ridiculously long-lived heir to an ancient kingdom and a mysterious forest ranger, the other was presented as shady and outright antagonsitic even early on - even when they're guests of Galadriel Boromir is constantly the one to be mistrustful and throwing shade, clearly undermining the kinship other were formign with the Elves. Tolkien was laying it thick Boromir will betray the group, it was a plot twist he redeemed himself, honestly. In fact, it was the Hobbits Tolkiein intended as point of view characters and the ones readers will relate to. The hwole asusmption about the adventuring parties needing a human fall apart when you realize other races are as relatable.

Moreover, you make some weird assumptions about the settings. First of all, marking Spelljammer and Planescape as exceptions, excluding them from the mainstream line of D&D settings, is again, arbitrary. Planescape was always more influential and popular than Birthright, main reason Brithright flopped was that it had to compete with Planescape. Planescape and Spelljammer were main influences on the D&D from 3rd edition onward, as WotC always was trying to make them part of the core of what D&D is. The things you excluded had more to say about what the game is for the last 24 years than what you did include.

Also, these assumptions about D&D settings are in themselves arbitrary. One of the most beloved Forgotten Realms series is about Drizzt, a Drow. It was supposed to be about barbarian hero he is friends with, but he proved more interesting to readers. In fact, the way majority of fans seem to get into the series is t obegin with Drizzt's origin trilogy, not the Icewind Dale Trilogy that came later. And that one is entierly Drows all the way down.

You mention Mystara as if Mystara didn't have Lupins and Rakasta, multiple unique forms of Elves and ALIENS. Hell, the most famous novel series set in Mystara is from perspective of a Dragon. You mention Dragonlance as if one of the most popular POW characters wasn't a Kender, who are designed to be way different from standard races, be it humans or otrher Haflings, and the series didn't have several books from perspective of Elves, Draconians or Goblins. Again, you make arbitrary assumptions and then get mad when people don't adhere to them, despite giving no good reason to.

I'm not interested in having a discussion where a third of the D&D party is human, and the remaining two thirds are made up of vanilla races, and my position is to challenge that and say it is not relatable or grounded.

Why are the they supposed to be relatable or grounded again? The obsession with making protagonsits relatable is and always was misguided and stupid. I could as a kid love Spider-man, despite, as a kid growing up in post-Iron Courtain Eastern Europe, his life was so alien to me he would be more relatable if he was a green slime from Mars who has to walk his Gazonkadonk across the Six Moons every morning and find his bulgubub withg a whistle or he'll be fired from ant dressing service. one of my favorite movies is John Q despite the fact that "rptoagonsit must be relatable" dogma dictates the protagonist's experience should be incomprehensible to a person raised in a country with free healthcare. Millions of impoverished people love Batman, who is the least grounded, least relatable, most made up and impossible character ever, being a good billionaire who is omniscient, omnipotent and invincible. People don't pick up Hellboy and then find Liz Sherman only relatable character, they do it for Hellboy, despite him being a demon with six-tons brick for a hand.

Hoenstly, to hell with groudned and relatable. Give me characters who are interesting.