Why does D&D have bears?

[Phlebas]

IMC I use Dire versions for the northern animals (mountainous, cold, nasty). standard animals from the south (tropical). Dinosaurs for the central fens, and insectoids for the far west - (just because)

If the MM didn't have Bears and other normal animals i'd be struggling to place the other creatures into context, so the short answer to 'why bears' is 'Because its easier than no bears'

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

D&D may have bears and other common animals for one major reason: to emphasize the fantastical (is that a word?) aspects of the world. If every bear is an owlbear, then owlbears become just another part of the scenic background that might occasionally decide to maul you. If on the other hand, bears are the ordinary things that might maul you, then owlbears have the chance to become freaky things that are really scary.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Because bears are godless, killing machines?

Bam. Nailed it.

Really, a true D&D campaign should be against the evil, evil bears of the world that are the true evil in D&D.

 

[drothgery]

Bam. Nailed it.

Really, a true D&D campaign should be against the evil, evil bears of the world that are the true evil in D&D.

Of course Bears are evil in D&D. The game was originally designed by a guy from Wisconsin, after all .

 

[Tonguez]

I once set up a homebrew world by deciding that there were no native mammals and that instead the ecology was a mix of blind amphibians, toothed avians (including owlbears) and giant anthropods.

The sheep analogue was a giant aphid which secreted a fleece of 'silk' from its back. Herds of these creatures would be seen in the plains. A small blackshelled 'crab' was the rat analogue and a common pet. Microraptors took the role of monkeys/squirrels.

Beast of burden included a couple of birds and a large Grey Render like amphibian. The Grey Rander itself was also encountered (again as a terrestial amphibian)
Eryops had the role of dogs and Cacops had the role of wolves. Gorgonopsids were also a major predator (analogous to tigers/lions). Owlbears and velociraptors also featured as common predators and griffons were the main alpha predator (dragons were very rare). Rivers were inhabited by a number of crocodile like amphibians. Goblins were also reimagined as an amphibian race

it was fun and made for an alien landscape, but it was also a lot of work for what essentially became background flavour

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

Hm. Not to really support either opinion, here, but would anybody say that Star Wars was hurt by having banthas and taun-tauns and big lizard things instead of horses? How many people would say that Star Wars wasn't fantasy? Or, hey, how about Dark Crystal? That one even left out the humans (technically).

I would say that in Star Wars new creatures show the diversity of life in the universe. While banthas and taun-tauns are both horned mammals and beasts of burden used by humans/aliens they are beasts of burden out of necessity and were domesticated to fill the role that a creature like a horse plays to sentient beings. When showing other planets in a story it is more interesting and believable to portray life as diverse and not standard. While Star Wars is fantasy the fact that the planets/moons are different from each other makes strange and uniqhe lifeforms more believable and easier for us to accept.


In standard fantasy and many of its offshoots, like sword & sorcery what we commonly encounter is known as a "secondary world", which is an earth-like world that has many qualities that we are familiar with and can identify with to get into the story and not try to wrap our minds around a plethora of new concepts. In fantasy such as Star Wars we expect new critters because we know that the level of technology is very different from standard fantasy and we know that the new worlds (each an entirely new setting) will or at least should be diverse enough to for us to find these new lifeforms interesting enough to want to learn more about them.

The Dark Crystal is an excellent example of a story stepping outside of the norm and heading out into new territory. For the telling of that story an alien landscape and removal of flora and fauna that we readily recognize doesn't make the story harder to dive into or the realism any tougher to accept. And while there is a sequel coming out I believe that it was meant to be more of a one-off story and not a series, the story is self-contained in one neat package, in such a case the weirdness factor can be pushed further to enhance the exotic setting.

 

[Fifth Element]

Even more confused. I know about Celebrim's post and the specific point that I was responding to. It's not unfair to say that he's painting with too broad a brush in saying that we need bears because we know all about bearness and what bears stand for in our world, including a few adjectives about bears as warrior-sages, etc.

I'm glad you agree with me. However, I think it is unfair to say Celebrim was (nearly) saying "all fantasy must be allegorical, or at least heavily fraught with symbolism."

The way I read the post is this: bears have meaning to most people in the real world, and will generally carry that meaning over to a fantasy world automatically, without additional work on the part of the player. The meaning of a new bear-like creature will need to be learned by the players, and if it's not important, it's clutter.

I also agree with you, I just think that you're reading a bit too much into Celebrim's post. Feel free to drop this exchange entirely, it's ultimately not important.

 

[Evilhalfling]

No discernable difference? My god, man - have you never seen the D&D stats for the housecat?

Have you ever fought a housecat?
Its not pretty.

Edit - never mind shilsen, If I remember correctly your stat point buy was approx 42 pts. house cats are not a ECL - appropriate challange for you.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm glad you agree with me. However, I think it is unfair to say Celebrim was (nearly) saying "all fantasy must be allegorical, or at least heavily fraught with symbolism."

Unfair? I summarized and paraphrased, but how is that not exactly what he said?

Plus, unless I'm remembering very differently, we've had portions of this debate in the past, and I remember that Celebrim has some definition of fantasy that is ... unique, notably in that he's said before that it's a highly symbolic---almost to the point of allegorical---genre by definition.

I also agree with you, I just think that you're reading a bit too much into Celebrim's post. Feel free to drop this exchange entirely, it's ultimately not important.

No, you're right, it's not. Interesting, though. It'd be more interesting if Celebrim himself would pop back in and clarify if I'm misreading him substantially or not, though.

 

[Roadkill101]

The argument that these other worlds have the same animals as those of Earth for the purposes of familiarity and identification for players, makes complete sense.

At the same time I agree with the OP, there is definately a lack of fantastic animals, that have also been domesticated by humanoid-kind and are a common sight. And like the OP, this had also bugged me, since around 1998 or so. So for my Homebrew Campaign I resolved the issue.

I made horses and equines in general, miniature breeds, too small and fragile for even Hobbits to use. I replaced them with creatures of my own devising; 3 to fill the roles of cavalry mounts, 2 for use as general pack/dray animals, 2 for general riding/messenger purposes. Climate and terrain do affect where thes creatures may be found in use.

BTW, Hobbits IMC tend to use various medium and large dog breeds.
I once had a Dwarf character who rode a mountain goat bred for war.