Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9173714" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I think it is certainly worth thinking about what early A/D&D looked like. Most of the PC races looked like something that falls within the actual phenotypes of humanity, aside from a few minor quirks like pointy ears (and by '77 half-orcs being the default exception). Playing as anything else certainly started early enough, but it was always rather haphazard and DM-fiat-y. Aside from alternate settings (ex: the hengeyokai and such in OA), I don't recall a consistent normalization of that until Complete Humanoids for AD&D (2e) and the Gazetteers/Creature Crucibles on the D&D side. Slowly a bunch of MM entries started being playable, but that was more 'there's no reason someone couldn't play as this,' and less 'let's fill out all potential options for playable species,' so it all conformed to what was already present in the monster manual (gaps and all). And when it comes to antagonist roles, I think werewolves and gnolls (yeah, yeah, feiliform. doesn't change feel) filled that role for most groups. At least enough that a specific dogfolk antagonist race didn't take off. Part of that might also be that there maybe isn't a clear-cut single concept of what people want out of a dogfolk (as antagonist monster or as PC option). Like, I think we know what we want out of wolf-folk (maybe a split on whether they should be the fearsome or noble) or cat-folk (quick and agile and stealthy with tigers maybe being bigger and stronger but still stalker-ish more than brutes), or bird-folk. What defines dog-folk? Loyalty? Gregariousness? Playing fetch?</blockquote>

Verification