D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Charlaquin]

The fact you hit me with a laughing react means that any argument with you is going to be in bad faith, so not even going to try.

No serious literature academic considers death of the author some optional theory. Its a pretty widely accepted aspect of literary criticism. Saying otherwise speaks of great ignorance on your part to the realm of academic literature.

There are definitely legitimate schools of critical thought that are skeptical of death of the author, and in fact pure death of the author is generally not the preferred method of critical analysis these days. We have authors like J.K. Rowling to thank for that evolution in critical analysis. Lately, there has been a trend towards a sort of hybrid method, which acknowledges that the audience is indeed a necessary component in creating meaning for a work and that messages can and do exist in a work without the author’s intent, but also considers contextual information about the author’s background, and even their intent, to be valuable.

Of course, under such a modern analytical lens, I would still say that an allegorical reading of Tolkien would be perfectly valid. It just wouldn’t be complete. One ought to consider both the allegorical elements of his work, and his own statements of distaste for allegory. Taking both into consideration, I would argue that allegorical elements of Tolkien’s work are probably best interpreted as unconscious results of his own biases and experiences (which is pretty consistent with what he himself said about them.) The result was a work that has very relevant parallels to the industrial revolution, World War I, catholic religion, and a number of other things that influenced Tolkien himself. But isn’t necessarily about those things in a direct sense. Put simply, his lack of intent to write about those things should inform how we interpret them, but it doesn’t invalidate them.

 

[Shardstone]

There are definitely legitimate schools of critical thought that are skeptical of death of the author, and in fact pure death of the author is generally not the preferred method of critical analysis these days. We have authors like J.K. Rowling to thank for that evolution in critical analysis. Lately, there has been a trend towards a sort of hybrid method, which acknowledges that the audience is indeed a necessary component in creating meaning for a work and that messages can and do exist in a work without the author’s intent, but also considers contextual information about the author’s background, and even their intent, to be valuable.

Of course, under such a modern analytical lens, I would still say that an allegorical reading of Tolkien would be perfectly valid. It just wouldn’t be complete. One ought to consider both the allegorical elements of his work, and his own statements of distaste for allegory. Taking both into consideration, I would argue that allegorical elements of Tolkien’s work are probably best interpreted as unconscious results of his own biases and experiences (which is pretty consistent with what he himself said about them.) The result was a work that has very relevant parallels to the industrial revolution, World War I, catholic religion, and a number of other things that influenced Tolkien himself. But isn’t necessarily about those things in a direct sense. Put simply, his lack of intent to write about those things should inform how we interpret them, but it doesn’t invalidate them.

You're right that I did grossly oversimplify the current state of English academia, so I admit fault there, but basically everything you said was what I was getting at!

 

[MGibster]

I don't for a moment believe that players in TTRPGs are trying to examine what it would be like to actually be a person that has lived for hundreds or thousands of years. Would that even be possible as all experience is limited by our Human nature? My opinion is no. If it were, then the greatest works ever written wouldn't always be limited to those experienced by Humans.

I'm going to agree with half of this. I don't believe D&D was ever intended to be a game where players would create characters to examine such things. D&D was designed to be a game where characters would kick down the door, punch evil in the face, and take its stuff. But I don't find it implausible that some people out there use it for such examinations.

I can easily see a story where an elf returns to a city he hasn't visited in a short while to catch up with the members of his former adventuring party. The city is familiar but different enough to where he has a hard time finding his way around, he still speaks common but everyone's cadence is a little off and some of the words are used in different ways, everyone dresses strangely and their music is atrocious. He visits Emma & Jacen (humans) at their graves after learning from their oldest son that they had both died nearly a decade ago, Horace (dragonborn) died just this past spring but you're delighted to see a brewery named after him, you are happy to catch up with Sarah (tiefling) but note the wrinkled skin, grey hair, and the woman who once carried you eight miles without difficulty to see an apothecary not cannot walk to market without getting winded, and Kurgen (half-orc) died just a few short years after you last saw him his murderer never found.

You're ignoring that we have plenty of works of fiction that have examined what it's like to be immortal or very, very long lived. Hell, even Highlander examined what it was like to lose everyone you ever loved to the rocking tune of "Who Wants to Live Forever" by Queen. Empathy is a great way to try to get into the shoes of someone else.

 

[Charlaquin]

Same with a costume. In a nutshell, Tolkien Elves appear to act (and think and feel and literally BE) the same as Humans. How could this be possible? Well, because Tolkien's very Human mind imagined them.

This isn’t entirely true. Tolkien’s elves are what I’d call “human, but.” To be specific, they’re “human, but with limitless lifespans.” That’s the main thing that Tolkien used elves to explore - the implications of immortality. What would a person (and here we can read “human person” since we have no other persons to compare to) who could not die of old age be like? What would a whole culture of such people be like? How would they feel about mortality as a concept? It’s a sort of speculative fiction. Obviously he can’t have truly known how that kind of longevity would affect a person’s psyche, but he could make some educated guesses based on imagining them as “human but.” And more than anything the thought exercise tells us about Tolkien himself, what he thought of mortality, and how he imagined it impacted his own experience.

I don't for a moment believe that players in TTRPGs are trying to examine what it would be like to actually be a person that has lived for hundreds or thousands of years. Would that even be possible as all experience is limited by our Human nature? My opinion is no. If it were, then the greatest works ever written wouldn't always be limited to those experienced by Humans.

There absolutely are players who want to explore such concepts through roleplay. Granted, we can’t truly know what it would be like to have lived for hundreds of thousands of years. But we can try to imagine what that might be like by roleplaying as “me, but.” And while you may not believe it to be true, human brains are actually quite good at “me, but” thought experiments. Furthermore, such thought experiments are very psychologically beneficial to perform. They expand creativity and strengthen empathy, and perhaps most of all, they are powerful introspective exercises. By imagining yourself, but with a particular exception, you reveal a great deal about your own believes about the but. Just as Tolkien did with his elves.

I do believe that players in TTRPGs want mechanical statistics to differentiate their PCs from other PCs. For some reason D&D especially has become focused on this aspect in recent editions by allowing a plethora of, I hate to say it, Humans With Funny Hats! Sure the dragonperson is cool looking and you made up some goofy nonsense culture for it, but how come it acts (and thinks and feels) the way a Human would. Oh yeah! Cause it's mind is a Human mind.

Obviously. The human mind can’t truly conceive of a totally alien mind. It can only imagine “me, but.” So, yes, it is technically accurate to describe that as “human, but with a funny hat.” But that’s the closest a human will ever get to roleplaying something inhuman. But it is still a valuable, and for many people, enjoyable exercise.

Do some players want cool powers to differentiate their characters? Of course. Do most players want that? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Is that the primary reason players choose to play non-human characters? Obviously not, otherwise non-variant human wouldn’t be far and away the most popular race choice. You may not believe it, but the data doesn’t lie.

Plus, considering the content of some recent discussions regarding D&D and the various Humanoid races in the game and how they reflect upon the game, maybe it would be best to eliminate all Humanoids that aren't Human from the game. Nuff Said!!!

Nah.

As a side note, I personally have found that only allowing Human PCs and reducing the reliance on mechanics to differentiate PCs is a very good thing for the roleplaying aspects of the game. For some reason players seem to work just a little bit harder at differentiating their characters through action when they don't have mechanical statistics to differentiate them.

I’d be interested to see a comprehensive study to see if there’s any real merit to this apparent phenomenon, or if it’s simply a product of various observation biases.

 

[zarionofarabel]

You're ignoring that we have plenty of works of fiction that have examined what it's like to be immortal or very, very long lived. Hell, even Highlander examined what it was like to lose everyone you ever loved to the rocking tune of "Who Wants to Live Forever" by Queen. Empathy is a great way to try to get into the shoes of someone else.

The problem with works of fiction that examine what it is like to be immortal is that we have no idea if that examination is in any way even remotely accurate. Those works were also written by Human minds that are themselves, not immortal. All fiction is filtered through the Human experience, as all fiction is written by Humans.

I loved the Highlander TV show!

Empathy is possible because you are a Human mind imagining the experience of another Human mind. I believe that imagining a Non-Human mind might be impossible. If we ever encounter Non-Human minds that can effectively communicate such complicated ideas, I hope we ask!

 

[zarionofarabel]

So, yes, it is technically accurate to describe that as “human, but with a funny hat.” But that’s the closest a human will ever get to roleplaying something inhuman.

Case in point!

Also, my belief that eliminating silly hat PCs is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence and my personal experience. That is why I prefaced that part with "I personally have found" and then explained my position. I'm not worried if others agree with my position.

 

[MGibster]

The problem with works of fiction that examine what it is like to be immortal is that we have no idea if that examination is in any way even remotely accurate. Those works were also written by Human minds that are themselves, not immortal. All fiction is filtered through the Human experience, as all fiction is written by Humans.

I don't really see any of this as a problem though. I think the humans with funny hats trope works precisely so we can tell human stories. None of us can really cast spells either but that doesn't stop us from playing characters who can do so.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm going to agree with half of this. I don't believe D&D was ever intended to be a game where players would create characters to examine such things. D&D was designed to be a game where characters would kick down the door, punch evil in the face, and take its stuff.

Doesn’t matter. Death of the author.

(I’m joking).

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don't really see any of this as a problem though. I think the humans with funny hats trope works precisely so we can tell human stories. None of us can really cast spells either but that doesn't stop us from playing characters who can do so.

To quote my original response to the OP's question:

I have no idea. In fact I still have no idea what the appeal of playing any other race is. We are humans and that's all we can be. To me anyone playing a different race is just a human not so cleverly disguised with a funny hat. Mostly it's just an excuse for mechanical bonuses.

I've got no problem with the funny hat crowd, as long as they acknowledge that's what they are doing.

 

[Zsong]

I've been playing D&D for 30 years. During that time I have played dozens of humans/dwarves/elves/haflings. I have also absorbed countless books and video games about humans/dwarves/elves/halflings. I am recently having fun trying out some dragonpeople, lizardpeople, catpeople, and birdpeople. Variety is the spice of life.

I don’t so much hate Dragonborn as much as I really hate the name for some reason. Can’t quite put my finger on it. I just call them lizard men in my games.