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

[Maxperson]

Typical D&D gnomes did not exist in Tolkein, but gnomes did exist.

They did not. Elves existed and gnome was just another word for elf. He used the word to describe the Noldoli which became Noldo. He dropped the name "Gnome" because the Noldoli were physically elves and not what people in Europe viewed gnomes to be. There was no actual race of gnomes.

Gygax on the other hand, unlike Tolkien, made a race of gnomes to match the European ideal.

There are also some similarities between the Noldor and gnomes; being incredibly knowledgeable and being skilled in crafting (especially with metals and gems).

Those similarities would be because they were the same race

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or when the next word is Al.

I get that it's sometimes used negatively. I don't agree that it's used that way a majority of the time or with your separation. Tone matters a lot, even when talking about a stranger when using that word.

Tone is also incredibly hard to communicate via text, and incredibly easy to claim that it's supposed to be one way and others shouldn't read it as another way.

Which is why I've said, repeatedly, that it doesn't matter what the intent behind a number of the statements made here was. It doesn't matter if they were meant perfectly congenially, without even the slightest thought of antipathy or even disapproval. What matters is that these things are and have been quite frequently used with antipathy or worse, that they are and have been pejoratives both within and outside the TTRPG sphere, that people like me and others genuinely have endured a fair amount of people crapping on our preferences using identical or highly similar words.

Hence:

I chose to ignore the original "furry roleplay" comment because I assumed it was simply spoken in ignorance, but now I guess I should say something.

It doesn't really matter if you didn't mean judgment when you said "as if it were Zootopia," or if the OP meant derision when referring to my preferences as though they were a fetish community. Derision and judgment were communicated, regardless of the intent.

I posted that on page 31. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time we've cycled back around to it again. (Frex, "design by committee.")

 

[Maxperson]

Tone is also incredibly hard to communicate via text, and incredibly easy to claim that it's supposed to be one way and others shouldn't read it as another way.

Which is why I've said, repeatedly, that it doesn't matter what the intent behind a number of the statements made here was. It doesn't matter if they were meant perfectly congenially, without even the slightest thought of antipathy or even disapproval. What matters is that these things are and have been quite frequently used with antipathy or worse, that they are and have been pejoratives both within and outside the TTRPG sphere, that people like me and others genuinely have endured a fair amount of people crapping on our preferences using identical or highly similar words.

I disagree. Intent still matters. As for tone, that's why I use emoji's so much here.

I posted that on page 31. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time we've cycled back around to it again. (Frex, "design by committee.")

Perception doesn't equal communication. You can perceive something not communicated. Communication is two way. If I say "Cheese" and you hear "Please," I did not communicate "please" to you. What I communicate is dictated by my intent, not by your perception.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd think that was kind of fair, honestly; if you don't have the time and energy to to ten races justice, doing three makes sense.

There's just no reason it needs to be "Humans and near-human A and B"; that make work better for you in terms of easily tying everything up with a bow on it, but its not self-evidently easier to do than having your three races be, say, humans, lizard folk and insect people.

Of course it is fair to use a limited amount of races due to time and effort.

What is not fair is to disguise time and effort concerns under a sense of superiority of your own preferences or denying that D&D historically had lots of races and used flimsy reasons to make some of the exotic ones weak or not playable..

 

[Azzy]

I disagree. Intent still matters. As for tone, that's why I use emoji's so much here.

Perception doesn't equal communication. You can perceive something not communicated. Communication is two way. If I say "Cheese" and you hear "Please," I did not communicate "please" to you. What I communicate is dictated by my intent, not by your perception.

Yeah, let's replace "cantina" or "weird" with any well-known perjorative and see how fast that argument crumbles.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, let's replace "cantina" or "weird" with any well-known perjorative and see how fast that argument crumbles.

Exceptions don't disprove what I'm saying. Every rule has exceptions. So go ahead and replace them. It changes nothing. I'm not responsible for misperceptions of others. Nor do those misperceptions become what I communicated.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Depth (or caring about such things) isn't necessarily correlated with number of races. Some DMs find it easier to build depth with fewer races, but it is a preference not a prerequisite.

I'd rather have depth than width, but if I could have both that would just be having my cake and eating it too.

It's just a question of style and every DM, every table, should do what makes sense for them.

Games that only allow a few race choices are so whitebread.

See what I did there...I called a game whitebread. You know, the most popular and best selling of all the breads. It's totally a compliment of the game.

Or, perhaps, one that likes a setting with a few races may infer I meant something not nice by using that term.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Go to the fantasy section of a bookstore and many will have elves, dwarves and perhaps gnomes (which are even in Harry Potter books, although they are a different incarnation). A few will have cat people or similar. Some will have anthropomorphic animals.

Dobby is an elf, not a gnome. Which demonstrates that the D&D idea of an elf is far from universal. The most prominent non-human protagonists in Harry Potter are a half giant, a werewolf, a goblin and a centaur. Professor Flintwick is a dwarf, but again, very different from D&D dwarves.

If Merlin's fiendish ancestry hadn't been mentioned in this thread I would have never known it. He certainly looked human, nary a horn nor tail in sight.

But what you don't know =/= what other people don't know.

 

[Hussar]

I just told you you were assuming the wrong stuff, Hussar. Am I lying now?

Nope. But, since I can only respond to what you actually wrote, rather than what you think you meant, and since you ACTUALLY WROTE reasons for banning things other than personal preference it appears that we are having a failure to communicate.

 

[Hussar]

If you have a scene with dozens of races, what would you call it? Seems like you could label any term or phrase used to describe it as an insult. I mean, I obviously can't compare a multitude of anthropomorphic animal races to Zootopia (a movie I enjoyed) because that's an insult as well.

I can't stop you from being insulted, but insisting that everyone who uses the term is using it as an insult seems a bit of a stretch. Especially when the person using the term specifically clarified what they meant.

Why not just call it a scene with dozens of races? Why do you need to choose some sort of label which, since you've been informed repeatedly, you know will be taken in a negative context?

What's the benefit of labeling something using either a pejorative (Cantina scene) or an example of a children's movie?

There are very, very few labels which are not pejorative.