D&D 5E Why does no one play Goliath?

[Sunseeker]

Two, using the name Goliath, while certainly evocative of strength, is like labeling a race of half-giants as Stronglings or Strongy-Strongertons.

That's sort of a false complaint ya know? What are dwarves but "Shorty Mc Shortpants"? Or Halflings but literally little people?

D&D does not use particularly creative racial names, that helps and hinders them. It makes it easy to say "I want to play the big people race" you know people want to play a Goliath. When people say they want to play the short grumpy irish race, you know they mean Dwarves. D&D races are about as genericly named as generic fantasy can get and few of the common races have "names" in the sense that you're talking about.

 

[Ganymede81]

It makes it easy to say "I want to play the big people race" you know people want to play a Goliath.

This advantage, of avoiding the two-sentence exchange where you explain to a new player that Firbolg/Verbeeg/Fomorian is the "big people race," does not sound particularly advantageous.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When people say they want to play the short grumpy irish race, you know they mean Dwarves.

A bit off-topic, but traditionally Dwarves are stereo-typically Scottish, and modern Dwarves are stereo-typical Italian-Americans.

Back to the topic at hand, I have no idea what a Goliath sounds like. I can't imagine one talking, in my head, and that makes it harder for me to immediately buy into them.

 

[Sunseeker]

This advantage, of avoiding the two-sentence exchange where you explain to a new player that Firbolg/Verbeeg/Fomorian is the "big people race," does not sound particularly advantageous.

I didn't call it an advantage. I said it's typical of ALL the common races in D&D. So saying "they didn't give this race an interesting name" when typically Wizards does not give their races interesting names is a false complaint. At least when held against just Goliaths, if you hold it against all races then you have more of a problem with the default design of D&D than with just Goliaths.

A bit off-topic, but traditionally Dwarves are stereo-typically Scottish, and modern Dwarves are stereo-typical Italian-Americans.

Back to the topic at hand, I have no idea what a Goliath sounds like. I can't imagine one talking, in my head, and that makes it harder for me to immediately buy into them.

You don't know what any races in D&D sound like, as the game does not include sound bytes when selecting your race like an MMO does. All you have is various forms of media (movies, books on tape, radio, etc...) providing their interpretation which you are using to inform yourself. As you've never actually heard a dwarf (in the fantasy sense), an elf, or a goliath you don't know what they actually sound like. So again, this is a bit of a false complaint. It's like saying you don't know what a Goliath tastes like. What does that have to do with anything at all?

 

[Dire Bare]

A bit off-topic, but traditionally Dwarves are stereo-typically Scottish, and modern Dwarves are stereo-typical Italian-Americans.

Back to the topic at hand, I have no idea what a Goliath sounds like. I can't imagine one talking, in my head, and that makes it harder for me to immediately buy into them.

Goliaths sound tall.

What, you need an accent to buy into a new race? What do elves sound like? Tieflings? (German, I guess)

Modern dwarves are Italian-Americans? Huh?

I get the Scots Dwarf thing. "If it ain't dwarven, it's crap!"

 

[Dire Bare]

This advantage, of avoiding the two-sentence exchange where you explain to a new player that Firbolg/Verbeeg/Fomorian is the "big people race," does not sound particularly advantageous.

The advantage of using a name that's already got a home, to describe a race it doesn't really fit (without a reimagining), does not sound particularly advantageous.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You don't know what any races in D&D sound like, as the game does not include sound bytes when selecting your race like an MMO does. All you have is various forms of media (movies, books on tape, radio, etc...) providing their interpretation which you are using to inform yourself. As you've never actually heard a dwarf (in the fantasy sense), an elf, or a goliath you don't know what they actually sound like.

It doesn't matter whether it's true. For the purpose of buy-in and ease-of-acceptability, what matters is that I believe it.

If I know what something is, and can form a complete picture in my head without you having to explain it, then that lowers the barrier to entry. And if I'm wrong about any particular detail, for any particular setting, then the DM will correct me. However, the more that the reality of the setting differs from the image I had going in, the higher the barrier to entry will be. I have to spend more conscious effort on re-aligning my thought patterns, and there's a limit to how much most people will be willing to invest in something before they give up entirely. If I don't have to spend as much mental overhead on keeping these Dwarves straight, then that gives me more free processing power to deal with NPCs and plot elements and funky magic things.

Familiarity is huge. It's a major reason why so many people are still playing Tolkien-esque fantasy, and a significant issue for most science fiction settings - people don't have any baseline for aliens (unless you're playing Star Trek), so they end up spending a huge chunk of their energy on that, and then they either get overwhelmed by the technology (and give up) or the rest of the setting is simple enough that it feels shallow. It's something that designers are constantly struggling with.

 

[Ganymede81]

I didn't call it an advantage. I said it's typical of ALL the common races in D&D. So saying "they didn't give this race an interesting name" when typically Wizards does not give their races interesting names is a false complaint. At least when held against just Goliaths, if you hold it against all races then you have more of a problem with the default design of D&D than with just Goliaths.

While you are free to wonder about the deeper motivations behind the position I articulated earlier and how it applies to both other D&D races and to my own internal consistency, the topic of the day is Goliaths.

Let's talk about Goliaths, not whether I am hypocritical, I hate D&D race names in general, or some as-of-yet unmentioned third option.

The advantage of using a name that's already got a home, to describe a race it doesn't really fit (without a reimagining), does not sound particularly advantageous.

What is this in response to? I didn't quote your post, and the ideas you present here don't really relate to my post, which was a brief note on the impact of the label Goliath in regards to a newbie's ability to learn the game.

It sounds like you are talking about the challenges of game design here, but why?

 

[Sunseeker]

While you are free to wonder about the deeper motivations behind the position I articulated earlier and how it applies to both other D&D races and to my own internal consistency, the topic of the day is Goliaths.

Let's talk about Goliaths, not whether I am hypocritical, I hate D&D race names in general, or some as-of-yet unmentioned third option.

I'd rather not have to engage in doublethink and I don't particularly feel like limiting my thoughts to your personal constraints.

 

[Ganymede81]

I'd rather not have to engage in doublethink and I don't particularly feel like limiting my thoughts to your personal constraints.

Christ, dude.