D&D General What is the appeal of Tolkien fantasy races?

[teitan]

These races actualy, even in D&D, have a thought out, deep culture in settings like FR, Greyhawk and Dragonlance, especially Dragonlance. When D&D and AD&D were what we had and there wasn't a lot of bells and whistles that went in character creation what helped to define our characters were these deeply developed cultures and ideas that made these races different from each other. It wasn't just a list of bonuses and special abilities but also what was the difference between the Silvanesti and the Qualinesti elves? The Kagonesti? What about the Grugach and the standard wood elf? Since 3e some of this has been lost as the lore has developed more around the outer planes or the newer races and in comparison very little. 5e, as womnderful as it is, has been, in regards to develop or even presenting this lore, been shallow. While MtoF presents a beautiful origin story for the elves, as an example, it is still essentially planar lore and development, it's the big picture and not the nuance of Dragonlance, for example. Same for Dwarves. It's rich, it gives ideas, but what is culture of the dwarves in the Forgotten Realms? In 1e/2e we had wonderful books that helped develop these ideas. Dwarves Deep and the Complete Book of Dwarves were wonderful supplements for developing FR dwarves and in the case of the latter, developing your version of dwarf culture.

In comparison the Dragonborn and Tiefling have been retconned 2x and their best lore was tied to a setting WOTC avoids like the plague, Nentir Vale. Their FR lore development was crapped on because the 4e Realms were poorly received. In 5e with the focus on adventures there isn't a lot of room for development outside of a few paragraphs in the PHB and in a setting book explaining how they might be different from the PHB.

So the appeal is how these races were developed, either by Tolkien (AIME is AMAZING) or Greenwood or Weis/Hickman. They are not just Tolkien based races but iconic to the D&D experience. I love playing these races and they aren't just variant humans. Grab a copy of Elves of Evermeet or Dwarves Deep, get the Demihuman Deities book. You'll find some beautiful and well thought out material that really makes you want to play an elf and not just a human with pointy ears.

 

[teitan]

hiccup

 

[Argyle King]

I like the idea of Dragonborn, but they mechanically kinda suck in 5E.
(as well as having a very watered down backstory compared to previous editions... maybe that's a product of being shoe-horned into a setting they weren't designed to be in?)

I like playing lizardfolk (or similar) characters. One of my favorite D&D 5E characters was a Lizardfolk Paladin (Oath of the Ancients). Figuring out how to balance being "good" with the natural instinct toward thinking that eating others was fine was challenging, but fun. It was interesting to me to play a paladin through the lens of a very different cultural background.

I think, in the end, I started playing him somewhat like a "survival of the fittest" style druid -in which he embraced some of the darker aspects of predator/prey relationships in nature. But he also believed in using as much of a kill as possible and not letting it go to waste. RP-wise, it was kinda funny to eat someone without thinking twice about it, but to then chastise the rogue for killing someone without purpose. I also played up the idea that he felt "civilized" culture was stupid. To others, he was a savage who didn't understand money; to him, he felt as though people were dumb for giving him useful items (axe, blanket, etc) for "shiny rocks."

 

[Weiley31]

NO!!! You are just as wonderful and amazing as every other human. If any other human tells you otherwise throw dice at their face until they go away! You don't need that negativity in your life!

Or take out the DM Highlander style.

All according to the natural rules of nature.

 

[Weiley31]

I AM a human with a bumpy head. Is that bad?

Not according to Custom Lineage. You can still be a Halfing whose mom was a Hobgoblin and dad was a Gnome but they are both identified as burritos.

 

[Istbor]

Personally, I think the halflings are the most dull of all the races offered up. I mean... I hate gnomes, but at least they are a bit more distinct than halflings are to me.

Why I prefer other races though is a matter of experience. In my time, I have seen countless... countless elves and half-elves. To the point that they bore me. And dwarves, well... no one really likes playing dwarves in the games I have played. Heck, the most recent that came close was a changling that posed as a dwarf for most of the campaign. I wish I could see more of them, but I have long since abandoned that hope.

So yeah bring on the other races. At least I will see them played now and again. Along with some elves and at least one human.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So many threads on this topic lately. This is probably the best location for my newest observation:

I tend to have a preference for....what's the right term..."low" fantasy. Meaning, I have a bias toward worlds that more closely resemble our own, or at least a hopelessly idealistic imaginary version of what our world once looked like. In such a world magic is not as omnipresent or as flashy as in, say, Eberron. Or even Forgotten Realms. Most farmers would spend their whole lives without seeing magic, or perhaps not realizing they saw it. Likewise, "alien" people would be generally looked upon with suspicion, or at least uncertainty.

Now, elves and dwarves are also...alien. Where I think Tolkien factors into this is that his books, and countless sources that were influenced by him, have normalized elves and dwarves. They don't seem like high-fantasy because, well, we've seen them so many times that they don't seem all that strange.

That said, I'd also be perfectly happy to play in a campaign where the only PC race was human.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, it's a chance to play something better than myself, with a standard that others can look at and say, "yeah, he's doing it right."

While the rest of your post is solid, I wanted to draw this part out because I think this might be a key point for a lot of people.

You value the standard Tolkien package because, as you say, there's a standard to which your efforts can be compared and found sufficient. For me, that would be awful! I value NOT having all that much of a standard, so that nobody can tell me I'm doing it wrong. I have noted that I value the culture written for Arkhosia (which, though not up to Tolkien's standard of quality, meets several of your other points in this post), but the fact that that culture lives only in memory means I can lean into it if I want (and usually I do!), but I can also lean away from it and nobody can tell me that I'm playing a dragonborn "wrong" as a result.

 

[aramis erak]

While the rest of your post is solid, I wanted to draw this part out because I think this might be a key point for a lot of people.

You value the standard Tolkien package because, as you say, there's a standard to which your efforts can be compared and found sufficient. For me, that would be awful! I value NOT having all that much of a standard, so that nobody can tell me I'm doing it wrong. I have noted that I value the culture written for Arkhosia (which, though not up to Tolkien's standard of quality, meets several of your other points in this post), but the fact that that culture lives only in memory means I can lean into it if I want (and usually I do!), but I can also lean away from it and nobody can tell me that I'm playing a dragonborn "wrong" as a result.

And while I can respect that, I'll point out that I reward for either playing to type well, or playing against type in specific predefined ways¹... which, if the type is unspecified, well, let's just say I treat any comparison to null sets² as being unfavorable for earning XP. Mostly because, with nothing to compare it to, a player can't prove to me they're doing it right. Since I don't reduce awards for doing it wrong, nor for "phoning it in," doing it wrong is irrelevant.

Most games I run aren't generic, either, but are adaptations to specific settings. Or, to specific genres, such as L5R and Blood and Honor, both of which are samrai culture games. It's a challenge to get it right. It takes effort, and a little study.

-=-=-=-=--=-=-
1: predefined by the player ways, to be clear.
2: On the other hand, I've had players define whole cultures in 3-5 page essays in order to have a type to play to and against... when the player enriches the setting with new cultures and then use the rather strict parameters as a specific straightjacket to limit their character in ways that create amusing conflicts, that's worthy of reward.

 

[tomBitonti]

Here’s a thought: Elves and dwarves fit several mythic archetypes. For example, as presented as Eloise and morlocks by Wells. And as ancient elder race, say, Atlanteans, or Hyperboreand. One can point to LotR, but that seems to popularize widely used and long standing tropes. LotR is successful, in part, because of the prior existence and widespread familiarity of those tropes.

Be safe, be well,
Tom Bitonti