Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[LibraryOgre]

Which book is that at? legitimately curious since the only dark elf I recall being Dalinar which is in line with my recollection.
Dark Elves exist, Drow do not was my understanding. Dark elves being not a different species but a term for exiles.

I am only passingly familiar with Raslins tests, the only bit I remember is when he killed his brother Caramon during the test.

It's always been that Raistlin fights a dark elf in his test, but whether that dark elf is a drow somewhat depends on how closely the editor was paying attention.

https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/...f_High_Sorcery

[Psyren]

To be clear - whether the dark elves he saw were drow or not, or how commonplace they might or might not be on Krynn, are not actually germane to the point I was making. The point was moreso that a player reading the DL novels might think "oh, orcs and drow dark elves exist here!" and ask to play one, and have textual support to show to a DM who is hesitant or on the fence. And thanks to WotC, that DM now has a potential way to explain it that might preserve their own immersion as well. A DM who wants to say no can still do so, but one who is open to the idea but needs a nudge gets that too.

[Witty Username]

To be frank, I am more interested in having more Dragonlance novels to read (apart from summer flame, I have been told to leave that for last).
--
Tables being flexible with settings or being encouraged isn't a bad thing, but it does contribute to settings feeling homogeneous.

Wotc simplifing settings is another: like Spelljammer doing away with phlogiston, crystal spheres, and wildspace; or elf lore being one size fits all with Tome of Foes; or further still treating Fizban and Bahaumet as the same character.

To brief stay on Dragonlance lore, sorcerers:
- lore one, sorcerer and wizard are synonymous with mage and aren't distinct. Mages are unlike other settings in that they are reliant on the worlds moons and must forge a connection to one in particular which causes there power to wane and wax with it. There is also a faction devoted to this to the extreme the mages of high sorcery
- lore two, wizards practice moon sorcery and sorcerers practice primal sorcery which uses Krynn as a 'Moon'
- lore three, wizards and sorcerers behave like they do in any other setting, and sorcerers have a 'Moon' one

To eaches preference on what is 'better' but lore three feels alot like every other setting.

[Jophiel]

It's always been that Raistlin fights a dark elf in his test, but whether that dark elf is a drow somewhat depends on how closely the editor was paying attention.

https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/...f_High_Sorcery

As I recall, Dalinar gets called a drow in a description in one of the novels ("The drow climbed the stairs..." sort of thing). The powers that be handwaved it away as "drow" just meaning "evil elf" on Krynn but not a separate race. As you said, it seemed to be covering an editor error rather than a deliberate choice about elves on Krynn. All the art of Dalinar just has him being a regular looking garden variety elf.

[Lemmy]

"There are 50+ races, but only one of them has this particular SLA" isn't a compelling argument... It just reinforces the fact that D&D races (especially 5e) are extremely homogeneous... Only differentiated by minor mechanics.

That's what makes them boring.

Having 10 well-developed races would be much better than having 50+ that simply feel like a slightly different selection of minor bonuses.

It's true that WotC probably wouldn't go for that kind of design philosophy... But I'm not commenting on what's the best commercial strategy for WotC (although, considering their recent performance, maybe they should reevaluate how they do things). I'm commenting on what makes fictional races feel interesting and unique. And it isn't "can use tremorsense 1/day for 10 minutes", which is the kind of thing that feels so "gamey" that it actually detracts from the race's identity and makes them feel more like a generic character build and less like actual people.

If all you want from your fictional races and classes is a slight variation of +2 bonuses and 1/day SLA, that's fine. To each their own, I suppose... But that kind of design just makes them feel incredibly bland and boring to me.

[Elanfanforlife]

I don't think this forum is physically capable of staying on topic for more than a few pages.

[Errorname]

I don't think this forum is physically capable of staying on topic for more than a few pages.

Hey, we're still topic adjacent! That's gotta count for something

[Lemmy]

It's kind of on-topic, though...

(IMO) Dwarves being consistent and having a much more developed background than 99% of the stuff WotC puts out there makes them much more interesting than many of the "cool" races around, whose whole appeal is a single line description "these guys are half-[insert random animal or monster here]" and a couple minor bonuses or SLA.

They prove that you don't have to be completely alien to be interesting or unique and also that you can have restrictions and negative traits and still be fun to play and roleplay.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't think this forum is physically capable of staying on topic for more than a few pages.

The Mod Ogre: I've been on forums of various sorts for more than twenty years. It takes someone really choking up on the reins to keep them there. This one drifted, but not too far, and we haven't reached the point where everyone is calling each other poop-heads and insisting "you didn't read what I wrote"... or, not uncommonly, "you didn't read what I meant to write", so I'm not getting too bent out of shape.

Incidentally, this is just "Mod Voice". No one is in trouble, but let's keep it that way. Today is a nice day, and I would rather not have to write an official warning or anything because folks couldn't discuss peacefully.

[Psyren]

Wotc simplifing settings is another: like Spelljammer doing away with phlogiston, crystal spheres, and wildspace; or elf lore being one size fits all with Tome of Foes; or further still treating Fizban and Bahaumet as the same character.

I do agree with you that MToF attempting to pass off FR elven lore as universal was silly. Though I will say, the stuff about Arvandor/Faerie in the Feywild before they became humanoids is reasonable, and could easily underpin multiple settings.

My 5e copy of Spelljammer does contain all three of the things you list though, so I disagree that they were "done away with." (Sure, they don't use the name "phlogiston" anymore, but "stuff between the crystal spheres" still exists.) And Fizban = Paladine = Bahamut has been a thing long before 5e reinforced it, so it seems odd to take issue with it now.

To brief stay on Dragonlance lore, sorcerers:
- lore one, sorcerer and wizard are synonymous with mage and aren't distinct. Mages are unlike other settings in that they are reliant on the worlds moons and must forge a connection to one in particular which causes there power to wane and wax with it. There is also a faction devoted to this to the extreme the mages of high sorcery
- lore two, wizards practice moon sorcery and sorcerers practice primal sorcery which uses Krynn as a 'Moon'
- lore three, wizards and sorcerers behave like they do in any other setting, and sorcerers have a 'Moon' one

To eaches preference on what is 'better' but lore three feels alot like every other setting.

Lore 1 hasn't been a thing since 2e became 3e 20+ years ago - again, odd to take issue with its removal now.

Lore 2 and 3 are not as incompatible as you imply. The "moon sorcerers" draw from all three, while the others draw from Krynn or its surrounding multiversal energies directly, but what all the sorcerers have in common is that none of them need bother with the Towers and their tests or need to bond with a single moon. I'm not seeing the gulf there.

[Witty Username]

Lore 1 hasn't been a thing since 2e became 3e 20+ years ago - again, odd to take issue with its removal now.

Kinda, lore 1 is still true in 3rd for adventurers set pre War of Souls, since sorcerery and mysticism were invented in response to that particular event.

Kinda like how Wild magic in FR draws its origin from the time of troubles, or warforged are tied to the Last War.

5e doesn't really allow for this since sorcerer = bloodmage is the option.

[Psyren]

Kinda, lore 1 is still true in 3rd for adventurers set pre War of Souls, since sorcerery and mysticism were invented in response to that particular event.

Kinda like how Wild magic in FR draws its origin from the time of troubles, or warforged are tied to the Last War.

5e doesn't really allow for this since sorcerer = bloodmage is the option.

5e sorcerers aren't just "bloodmages." You can attain sorcery through exposure to magical phenomena, cosmic events, and even divine intervention; it doesn't have to be a bloodline at all.

The appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable. Some draconic bloodlines produce exactly one sorcerer in every generation, but in other lines of descent every individual is a sorcerer. Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.
...
The most important question to consider when creating your sorcerer is the origin of your power. As a starting character, you’ll choose an origin that ties to a draconic bloodline or the influence of wild magic, but the exact source of your power is up to you to decide. Is it a family curse, passed down to you from distant ancestors? Or did some extraordinary event leave you blessed with inherent magic but perhaps scarred as well?

That fits in with Krynn perfectly, there's all kinds of cosmic alignments and natural (or artificial) phenomena continually wreaking havoc in that world.

But yes, if you wanted to do a Krynn campaign where sorcerers and wizards have no distinction, that's completely fine - it might even be fun for your players. I'm just pointing out that Weis wrote in that distinction decades ago, long before 5e was a thing.

[Jophiel]

Why? If you think I'm ever going to agree that "5 races out of 50 have X feature in common, therefore everything is bland and homogenous" - I wouldn't hold my breath.

I have no interest in making you or convincing you to agree. If you think WOTC's races are great and fascinating and inspire great stories from you and your table then I'm legitimately and sincerely happy for you. I don't share that impression but I'd be a happier person (well, in a relative sense) if I also read the race descriptions 5e has on offer and thought they were distinct and inspiring. To be fair, I find it a little puzzling that you've landed in that spot because I can't see it but I wouldn't begrudge you your happiness with it. I don't even dislike 5e; it's a perfectly enjoyable and popular edition even if it has reflected an increased vanilla flavor to expand its market.

That said, my opinion isn't that WOTC's races are bland and homogeneous because 10% share the same SLA. My opinion is that WOTC's races are bland and homogeneous for various other reason related to their own guardrails and commercial intent and that giving them a few minor SLAs or ribbons doesn't come close to making up for what was lost when they created their design template and decided what could be on the table as a racial attribute/characteristic. You could give Race XYZ a wholly unique cantrip as their SLA and it would still be the same ole same ole 5e racial design. Whether it's shared by 33% or 10% or 1% is missing the forest for the trees.

It is something of a shame that 5e takes up so much oxygen in an RPG conversation like this because it's likely the system least equipped to make dwarves more interesting as a race due to its own limitations and dwelling on "What would (or can) WOTC do?" is quite restricting.

[Psyren]

And that's fine, I have no interest in convincing you either. But your earlier point of confusion was "I don't even think they're wrong for doing it or would deny their success; I just find it weird that someone would deny that this is the case." I was explaining my reasoning, that's all.

Moreover, I think your approach to making dwarves (or any other species) interesting is entirely retrograde. Fixed stat bonuses or even penalties just limit character concepts in my mind - they mean that a dwarven wizard or sorcerer or even artificer will always and forever be "less than." And I find that far blander than anything you could possibly decry about the current approach.

[Jophiel]

Fixed stat bonuses or even penalties just limit character concepts in my mind - they mean that a dwarven wizard or sorcerer or even artificer will always and forever be "less than."

Different mindsets, I guess. I know people who just love a "I'm going to make a gnome fighter with 6 STR and no legs" approach and those who say "My orc wizard will have a +3 instead of a +4 at level 1? Literally unplayable!". I'm not on either end of the spectrum but I have zero issue working around limitations or thinking that I can make a perfectly viable and fun character without the same mechanical ceiling as every other character. Half the time, the limitations make for a fun (to me) character building opportunity. I'm not a big fan of 6 STR Fighter meme characters but I'd give up role playing if I ever felt like I'm unable to have a good time with a concept that has a -1 WIS attached to it. If that -1 WIS or class restriction or whatever is in service to a strong core racial identity, I'm all for it and can work around that happily. I know -- from personal experience -- that some people literally can't (which is, again, part of the WOTC vanilla racial design concept). They simply must play an orc wizard and, in the same breath, will not have fun if they are carrying a 5% lower To Hit chance than if they picked an elf. That level of hang up is what feels limiting to me versus a racial culture that says "These guys aren't great at magic" and me saying "Eff it, I'm gonna rock an orc wizard anyway; lemme brainstorm how I got to this place..."

[Psyren]

I can still make an orc or dwarf wizard with +1 or +2 Int and huge muscles at level 1 just fine if I find that fun. But the printed game isn't forcing me to - that's the difference.

[Jophiel]

I can still make an orc or dwarf wizard with +1 or +2 Int and huge muscles at level 1 just fine if I find that fun. But the printed game isn't forcing me to - that's the difference.

Exactly. Anyone can just make a 12 INT wizard if they want. But there's no interesting cultural or lore basis for it. You're just making a dipstick orc wizard in a world where your orc neighbor is an 18 INT wizard and no one cares that you're an orc wizard because, sure, why not -- everyone is whatever they want. Boring.

I see it sort of like audience-based improv. Half the fun is working within the rails to create something cool. If you just whine that they wanted you to be a pirate bartender when you really want to pretend to be a pirate hairdresser instead, that's a total failure of creativity to me. Of course, some people are hung up on being a pirate hairdresser and that's the only way they can have fun and D&D under WOTC is built to cater to that mindset.

[Psyren]

Exactly. Anyone can just make a 12 INT wizard if they want. But there's no interesting cultural or lore basis for it. You're just making a dipstick orc wizard in a world where your orc neighbor is an 18 INT wizard and no one cares that you're an orc wizard because, sure, why not -- everyone is whatever they want. Boring.

As opposed to a world where every orc wizard is artificially limited, for no better reason than moldy stagnant tradition. Boring.

There's no point in us continuing this exchange so I'll leave it there. Back to dwarves or whatever.

[Jophiel]

"Artificially" limited is meaningless: it's a game, everything is artificial. You're artificially limited to level 20. You're artificially limited to 20 in your attributes at start (and beyond, without magic or a specific class trait). Your Fire Bolt is artificially limited to 1d10+Mod damage. People still manage to have fun despite that because the "artificial" limits are in service of something, just like various racial characteristics are in service of developing a strong and interesting cultural/lore presence in game (versus "moldy stagnant tradition") -- something definitely lacking in 5e for virtually all of its races.

This directly relates to dwarves because this sort of thing is often used to lay down markers for a strong dwarf culture (again, largely lacking in 5e) and help create interesting stories and stretch creative muscles. For example, Dagna in Dragon Age: Origins who lacks magical ability because she's a dwarf but is fascinated by it and instead rises above the numerous attacks on her character and successfully becomes an accomplished arcane academic researcher. From a PC standpoint, that feels to me like a far more creative approach than just complaining that you can't be a dwarf wizard so this game is dumb and boring.

[Witty Username]

But yes, if you wanted to do a Krynn campaign where sorcerers and wizards have no distinction, that's completely fine - it might even be fun for your players. I'm just pointing out that Weis wrote in that distinction decades ago, long before 5e was a thing.

I mean, no drow was a decision made years ago, and is still in 5e, yet you still don't seem to care for it.

My actual preference is actually lore 2 happenstantially. It allows for sorcerers in a way that is unique to Krynn, as well as why sorcerers weren't crawling out of the woodwork in the novels.

What is the benefits of sorcerers being the same across all settings?

In FR they are connected to Wild magic, dragon blood, etc.

Saying you can do the same for Dragonlance does suggest the question, why? Couldn't we just use FR?

But that lead into an obvious question, what, if any, restrictions on a player would you impose if you wanted to use a particular setting?

My take is personally, if a player rolls up with a drow ranger from Menzoborenzen that is a worshiper of Mielki, that is a sign that maybe I should do an FR module instead, they are probably going to be more interested in that anyway
--
I have a pin in Dwarf stuff, and species mechanics but I feel like that will have a pretty strong disconnect so I want to make sure the point is clear and my attention is not split while I am writing.

[icefractal]

Playing against type can be an interesting twist for a character (although don't get me started on people who say "my character is mechanically weak and therefore inherently more interesting than anything you power gaming plebians could come up with"), but I don't feel like that requires specifically a racial stat mod involved?

Like, if I play an Int 10 Human Wizard whose dream is to become a great mage despite not being particularly smart, that's pretty strongly against type! To the point that in 3E you wouldn't even be able to cast 1st level spells.

Or conversely, being a Dwarf Wizard has at many tables been considered definitely against type, despite that Dwarves are (in 3E) as good a choice mechanically as anything in the PHB. And that's simply because of how most Dwarf cultures were described in several settings, plus some general nerd-osmosis memes.

[Jophiel]

Like, if I play an Int 10 Human Wizard whose dream is to become a great mage despite not being particularly smart, that's pretty strongly against type!

Sure, but the point wasn't "I can't play against type without a racial penalty", it's "Racial penalties in the service of (attempting) a strong in-game culture/lore don't stop me from making fulfilling and interesting characters because I can incorporate those limitations into my story rather than just complaining that elves are better at casting spells than me".

Or conversely, being a Dwarf Wizard has at many tables been considered definitely against type

I assume that would be very table dependent. In years of playing/running 5e on various levels, I've never seen anyone blink at any race/class combo as particularly unusual or interesting. Likely in large part because 5e races don't really have strong cultures. Dwarf wizard for the armor proficiency is basically a stock choice in 5e.

[Psyren]

I mean, no drow was a decision made years ago, and is still in 5e, yet you still don't seem to care for it.

It is? Can I assume you overlooked the "People From Beyond" sidebar in 5e Dragonlance then?

What is the benefits of sorcerers being the same across all settings?

Having common traits != "the same."

And those common traits are common so that they don't have to print a different version of every class in every splat book they write, or ban half of core in every setting for tradition's sake. The benefits of that should be obvious.

But that lead into an obvious question, what, if any, restrictions on a player would you impose if you wanted to use a particular setting?

I have neither need nor inclination to answer such a broad question in a vacuum it would depend on the campaign and the other players during session zero.

Generally speaking - if someone has a concept that they put thought into and would engage them with the campaign, I would make it work. I could say something off the cuff like "no Spelljammer races in my Krynn campaign" but even then I would probably be open to Astral Elves and Autognomes because I could place them in the world with a modicum of creativity.

Playing against type can be an interesting twist for a character (although don't get me started on people who say "my character is mechanically weak and therefore inherently more interesting than anything you power gaming plebians could come up with"), but I don't feel like that requires specifically a racial stat mod involved?

Like, if I play an Int 10 Human Wizard whose dream is to become a great mage despite not being particularly smart, that's pretty strongly against type! To the point that in 3E you wouldn't even be able to cast 1st level spells.

Indeed, it doesn't.

(Sidenote - you could in fact make a viable wizard with low Int, e.g. a Magic Missile-spamming Evoker; no big Int score needed)

[Witty Username]

Having common traits != "the same."

And those common traits are common so that they don't have to print a different version of every class in every splat book they write, or ban half of core in every setting for tradition's sake. The benefits of that should be obvious.

It depends on what aspect of core is being included/excluded.

Species (since that is closest to the root topic), at least in 5e are a small enough part of the game that they don't need to be in every setting - and new entries for prominent does a significant amount to flesh out a setting.
Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica going over elves and goblins aas a quick how they fit into the Guilds, or Eberron's noting the major Houses and associated dragonmarks for its species as examples.

The phb even notes you aren't expected to use everything all the time, it even has a the unusual races section for species that don't exist in all settings.

But the broader point is the importance of contrast, if two settings are functionally interchangeable, then we lose the value of having multiple settings.

[Errorname]

What is the benefits of sorcerers being the same across all settings?

Simplicity mainly. You don't need to relearn the lore or adjust the mechanics in a new setting.

And those common traits are common so that they don't have to print a different version of every class in every splat book they write, or ban half of core in every setting for tradition's sake. The benefits of that should be obvious.

I mean the expectation that a setting will support all of the 'core' content can become a pretty major constraint depending on how much core content there is, and how setting specific some of that stuff is. Obviously there's benefits to consistency, but it can result in the feeling that these different settings aren't all that different, they're just reconfiguring the same elements slightly differently.

(Sidenote - you could in fact make a viable wizard with low Int, e.g. a Magic Missile-spamming Evoker; no big Int score needed)

D&D can be pretty unforgiving of non-standard statblocks though, which probably contributes to the flattening. D&D designs classes with intended attribute distributions in mind and do not expect alternative distributions to be competitive or even viable, and even in cases where they are players expectations can create still pressure to go for optimal builds.

So I definitely get the desire to avoid severe stat penalties or bonuses, it's very easy for it to feel restrictive in ways that aren't fun.

[Psyren]

It depends on what aspect of core is being included/excluded.

Species (since that is closest to the root topic), at least in 5e are a small enough part of the game that they don't need to be in every setting - and new entries for prominent does a significant amount to flesh out a setting.
Guildmaster's guide to Ravnica going over elves and goblins aas a quick how they fit into the Guilds, or Eberron's noting the major Houses and associated dragonmarks for its species as examples.

The phb even notes you aren't expected to use everything all the time, it even has a the unusual races section for species that don't exist in all settings.

Can you point to anywhere I said "you're expected to use everything all the time?"

But the broader point is the importance of contrast, if two settings are functionally interchangeable, then we lose the value of having multiple settings.

"DM, here are ways you can allow nonstandard races in a given setting if you and your players want to do so" != "the settings are functionally interchangeable."

I mean the expectation that a setting will support all of the 'core' content can become a pretty major constraint depending on how much core content there is, and how setting specific some of that stuff is.

Sure - but we're nowhere near that being an issue. Both the current and new core contain a whopping 9 races, that's a fraction of the overall total and hardly a monumental accommodation for any setting.

Obviously there's benefits to consistency, but it can result in the feeling that these different settings aren't all that different, they're just reconfiguring the same elements slightly differently.

If a given group truly feels that including all 9 in a given campaign will harm their immersion or fun, they have the tools to manage that at the table level. WotC's job is to say "the default options for the setting are X/Y/Z, but if you want to add these others, here's how" - not "you can't ever do this, and if your lowly players have the temerity to ask, clout them around the head with the campaign setting book."

D&D can be pretty unforgiving of non-standard statblocks though, which probably contributes to the flattening. D&D designs classes with intended attribute distributions in mind and do not expect alternative distributions to be competitive or even viable, and even in cases where they are players expectations can create still pressure to go for optimal builds.

So I definitely get the desire to avoid severe stat penalties or bonuses, it's very easy for it to feel restrictive in ways that aren't fun.

You're preaching to the choir, I'm in favor of floating ASIs for this reason; I was just mentioning a quirky (and nowhere near optimal) build idea.

[Errorname]

Sure - but we're nowhere near that being an issue. Both the current and new core contain a whopping 9 races, that's a fraction of the overall total and hardly a monumental accommodation for any setting.

To be clear I think this is something you run into with core content in general, monsters and classes as well as races. You have concepts built for the existing settings that might not fit naturally into what you want to do with your new setting, but if they're core content you are sort of expected to include them somehow. That is a major constraint.

A question like "should this setting have dwarves (or orcs or paladins or anything) at all?" is something that (I think) deserves serious consideration, and I think it really can damage a setting if the answer to that was "probably not, but we think people expect it so we'll put them in anyways". Especially since this sort of thing can potentially crowd out setting-original concepts.

[Deepbluediver]

I'm joining the conversation here pretty late, so I apologize if I'm retreading old ground...

But anyhow, I'm wondering if some of the unpopularity of dwarves is due to them lacking a certain feeling of epicness. Maybe it's just a tall-person bias, but there's something about them that doesn't seem to lend itself to being a tagonist, either pro- or an-; in most stories they seem to be playing second-fiddle to every other type of character. But at the same time they're too serious and warlike to be a funny joke-race, or even a convincing underdog (like a hobbit being the ringbearer, for example).

Even in LotT, where there are some very well-known dwarvish characters, their biggest war ever took place mostly underground and involved almost no-one else from another race, and they mixed it up with the dark lord(s) and his servants much less than any other group except maybe the hobbits themselves. And compare their biggest boo-boos ever, stealing a sylmaril and unleashing the balrog, to some of the other stuff that happens. For the first, I'm not even sure the dwarves who stole the sylmaril get names, but the elf they killed to take it certainly does. And that's why the dwarves and elves don't like each other, and the end result of this millennial-long blood feud is what: some insane betrayal or epic moment of reconciliation? No, it's that Gimli has to wear a blindfold while he walks through that one forest. And for the Balrog the people who suffer the most are the Moria-dwarves themselves, who wander about in exile for a bit, then Gandalf kills it and they go home.

Now look at Feanor and his sons, who's ****-ups set the entire course of elvish history for thousands of years, and (eventually) led to the heaven-shaking, world-remaking War of Wrath.

Other media is often similar; I remember there being a dwarf in the Drizzt books, who's biggest contribution to the story was raising the human barbarian character who gets far more screen-time in the long run. None of the story is really ABOUT the dwarf, except as how he relates to non-dwarves.

So nearly every interaction with dwarves feels kinda the same: "and now, here's a brief break for a word from our sponsors to talk about dwarves.... .... .... and now back to the REAL show!" It's like they're just kinda there, but there's no spice or sourness to them. It's like dwarves are the mayonnaise on your fantasy-sandwich; they hold the sandwich together and a sandwich without them might feel like it's missing something, but they are never the reason anyone EATS a sandwich.

To paraphrase a certain internet personality, "something something being in the middle of "top 5 blandest list" sucks".
Or maybe it's just harder to make a dwarf look good in a chainmail bikini :P

"There are 50+ races, but only one of them has this particular SLA" isn't a compelling argument... It just reinforces the fact that D&D races (especially 5e) are extremely homogeneous... Only differentiated by minor mechanics.

That's what makes them boring.

Having 10 well-developed races would be much better than having 50+ that simply feel like a slightly different selection of minor bonuses.

It's true that WotC probably wouldn't go for that kind of design philosophy... But I'm not commenting on what's the best commercial strategy for WotC (although, considering their recent performance, maybe they should reevaluate how they do things). I'm commenting on what makes fictional races feel interesting and unique. And it isn't "can use tremorsense 1/day for 10 minutes", which is the kind of thing that feels so "gamey" that it actually detracts from the race's identity and makes them feel more like a generic character build and less like actual people.

If all you want from your fictional races and classes is a slight variation of +2 bonuses and 1/day SLA, that's fine. To each their own, I suppose... But that kind of design just makes them feel incredibly bland and boring to me.

Regarding mechanics, from my own experience it's a lot easier to write passive (often defensive) abilities that would at least kinda-sorta apply to a wide range of classes, so you don't pigeonhole any one race into being the "swords race" or the "magic race" or the "barbarian race", etc etc etc. It is boring and not good, but at the other end of the spectrum designing races that are very very VERY distinct tends to lead to imbalance, and pigeonholing. It's like, if you have one race that is savage axe-wielding barbarians and the other that is sentient gas-clouds, well I'll never mix them up but there are going to be issues when they try to interact. Or when someone wants to play their gas-cloud as a barbarian.

So yeah I agree that we don't need yet-another geographic-specific flavor of elf, but at the same time you gotta think about many different people trying to get into the setting and wanting to avoid things like "welcome to our table; Dave here is playing a pixie, Sam is the Gargantuan Kraken (don't ask about the water-breating) and Karen is the souls of 16 archmages bound to stone statue's broken left hand....oh you asked about the water breathing? well here's 60 pages of setting-specific lore and backstory to read while you design your character".

To pretend to be at least a LITTLE on topic, one well-trod trait of dwarves is that they are good craftsmen, but modern systems haven't really leaned into that. In 3.5, players could deck themselves up like christmas trees, but most of the best magic items required high-level magic and dwarves didn't lend themselves to being casters. And in 5E I would say that WotC is still working hard to kill off the christmas-tree effect, so crafting systems feel like an afterthought, if they exist at all.

Not that most players are complaining IME- I tried to start a thread to discuss improvements to crafting rules one time, and it got a grand total of ZERO replies. (not 28+ pages worth).
Its like, players want to wield a bastard-sword named Deathbane and use it to slay dragons, but no one cares about the guy who spends his time in the forge to MAKE said sword. It's why Will Turner gets a not plot-insignificant amount of character-development as a blacksmith's apprentice in the first PotC installment, and then (to my knowledge) this part of his background has come up exactly never again in any of the next 5 movies.

So one of the Dwarves most defining, and potential actively INTERESTING (IMO) features either gets ignored, or you get a choice between really easily being a great craftsmen vs. a bonus +2 to some skill. And the skill-bonus is by far the more popular pick for most players.

[Psyren]

To be clear I think this is something you run into with core content in general, monsters and classes as well as races. You have concepts built for the existing settings that might not fit naturally into what you want to do with your new setting, but if they're core content you are sort of expected to include them somehow. That is a major constraint.

Core monsters are things like bears and trolls and ghosts and dragons. Standard fantasy fare in other words. That doesn't seem particularly "constraining" to me.

And even if they were - what monsters are in a given world, hell a given campaign, are entirely DM discretion. It's not like a PC race or class where you need to come to some kind of accord with the players - whatever monsters you feel like running are the ones they'll come across, period. Nothing is forcing you to use a monster you don't want to, even if an obscure wiki entry says that monster has shown up in a corner of that world somewhere.

A question like "should this setting have dwarves (or orcs or paladins or anything) at all?" is something that (I think) deserves serious consideration, and I think it really can damage a setting if the answer to that was "probably not, but we think people expect it so we'll put them in anyways". Especially since this sort of thing can potentially crowd out setting-original concepts.

They didn't say "we'll put them in anyway." They said "ask your DM if you want to play one." Why is that so unreasonable?

[Dr.Samurai]

Okay, back from vacation and ready to give some thoughts.

So if you compare setting-specific lore to the abstract concept of "evil empire" the latter comes up short? I'm not surprised. Perhaps try comparing it to setting-specific evil empires, like Thay or Cheliax.

I don't have to make a comparison between different lores to like one though. I can like Thay and I can like Orcs too. It's only if you approach this with an a priori assumption that the orc lore is bad or something that I would have to justify liking it.

But yeah, human cultists and necromancers and evil wizards... sure. Cool, if you're into that stuff. My preference is for strong physical threats with some magic sprinkled in, not magocratic nations where everyone is a spellcaster and has warrior minions. No idea what Cheliax is but I'm sure it's cool too.

Not that a given person can't prefer one to the other, but it's a matter of taste rather than "lore vs no lore".

I think this will be a matter of opinion.

The 10 pages that orcs receive in Volo's is far superior to the little blurb they get in Monsters of the Multiverse. And while someone might say "well hey, there's still lore in Monsters of the Multiverse", it is true in only the most technical sense. Almost all creatures receive very similar treatment in MotM, indicating they have some spark from some deity that makes them some way. This to me is an erasure of lore, rather than a matter of taste.

To be clear, I do not think you have to be presenting your players with these sorts of moral quandaries. I do think "what's it like to be an orc child" is a question that a worldbuilder should probably have an answer for, in the same way I think it's generally good to consider stuff like what people eat or what resources they have easy access to, it's an important culture shaping thing.

Understood but wholly not necessary to run a game of D&D. I think for many tables this would be entirely academic, so I can't agree with the moral imperative that it should be done.

I do not have a problem with simple heroic adventures. I do not have a problem with games that do not raise uncomfortable moral questions. But when an entire race is written in such a way where a policy of on-sight extermination is just and necessary, that is not a story that feels like a simple heroic adventure and that is a story that is raising uncomfortable moral questions whether it realizes it or not

Yeah, that's just your opinion, whether you realize that or not as well.

These are not uncomfortable moral questions to my mind, and in fact I think Lord Raziere does a good job demonstrating why I tend to be suspicious of all of this type of hand-wringing over this stuff.

Yes.

Why the hell would there be any other answer.

They are beings from a different environment. Its not their fault if they think or act differently from us. If they are capable of being negotiated with, its bad if we get into a war with them, just as bad getting into a war with any human nation....because war is bad.

If the aliens are super-genocidal P-Zombies that we need to genocide back, that IS STILL BAD. INCREDIBLY. HORRIBLY. BAD. It still causes all the suffering of war, all the problems of war even if you win, with no possibility of a better solution. You have to deal with the social problems of people thinking genocide is a good solution afterwards and having to convince them that its NOT because you NEVER EVER have full control over humanity, what its cultures learn and react to and what they apply their lessons to. Experiences like that shape generations, and cause problems decades or more down the line no matter what, there will be idiots who will take the wrong lesson, there will be idiots powerful enough to ENFORCE the wrong lesson for generations to come, so that their children and their children's children learn the wrong lesson, you might never see that wrong lesson be unlearned in your lifetime, on things this large of a scale with politics, cultures and so on involved, you cannot say "oh this was an exception, we'll just go back to normal afterwards" because it doesn't work like that, because when something like that is DONE? its a precedent. Its a validation of all the worst impulses of humanity. People would look back at the precedent set, and see not that reasons why it was allowed, but that it was allowed at all, and figure out ways to make sure its allowed again for worse reasons at people who do not deserve to be targeted. and people will have to fight for that precedent to not be used, for that influence to be curtailed, lessened, unlearned, dismantled, for that to NOT become normality.
it doesn't matter what moral high ground you have when you victoriously kill the genocidal hive mind aliens or whatever, your civilization will still be traumatized and hurt from that conflict, and twist that trauma to see enemies wherever they want, not to mention the kind of leaders that could easily come into power whose only experience is making everyone kill the nasty bug monsters and exploiting peoples fear and hatred of the nasty bug monsters. methods they can easily turn to do other things that are less good, and thus sooner or later will, because those are the methods that got them results and thus think maybe they can apply it to get results elsewhere. whatever outcast group of the generation (it doesn't matter which one) will sooner or later be compared to those aliens out of sheer stupidity (it doesn't matter how this stupid conclusion is reached) and they will face problems because of it, and they will have to fight tooth and nail to be accepted, maybe even just get to back to where they were before the aliens ever attacked, and more to actually get accepted.

and all that.....are the complex problems you face without having a sympathetic villain or good people on the other side of the conflict involved when you do that. because humanity is still the complex, flawed and often full of people doing bad decisions and believing stupid things no matter how simple and evil you make the opposition, and in some ways facing such a foe would only make humans worse.

I vehemently disagree with all of this and I think it's important to point out that this sort of perspective or outlook is not necessary to have an interesting or good game, since generally this sort of thinking is seen as somehow intrinsically superior to running a game where the good guys defending themselves from annihilation is simply seen as a good act, without all of this self-loathing and self-hatred being required.

Because that's exactly what this is; it's a hatred of self, so deep as to say explicitly that self-preservation in the face of genocidal alien monsters is still "bad" because we are too stupid and bloodthirsty as a people to handle the ramifications of fighting back in self-defense. That's not a foregone conclusion, and it's also just supremely irrelevant in the face of the immediate threat of a world-ending foe.

The only part where I sort of agree, kind of, is where Lord Raziere makes the case at the end that you can have complexity and drama without sympathetic villains, and I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I think all of this discussion is premised on this idea that some people think the complexity and drama is to be found in the enemies, as opposed to in our heroes. It would be like erasing or ignoring all of the character growth and drama and heroics of the Fellowship of the Ring, and instead drawing the drama from the perspective of the orcs, and trolls, and Southron and Easterling men, and wondering what is it like to be in the service of Sauron and are they fully autonomous or have they been forced and the orcs were created and let's delve into that. And then turning around and saying that, unless we do it that way, the story will be one note and simple and boring and not interesting. Clearly this is not true, no matter how many times people type the words on a forum.

But again, I disagree with Lord Raziere because I think it can still be interesting because the heroes are characters and the world itself is already complex, not because they are stupid bloodthirsty buffoons that will essentially take the place of the villains.

Going back to LotR, no one has come to Rohan's aid, will they go to Gondor's aid? Well there's the matter of the Steward, who is not in his right mind, and of convincing Theoden. There's Gollum turning Frodo against Sam, and Sam remaining loyal and brave despite the heartache of Frodo dismissing him. Aragorn compelling the spirits of the traitorous bannermen to make good on their oaths, Faramir's conflict with his father and resisting the lure of the ring, Boromir succumbing to the ring and betraying Frodo, yadda yadda yadda yadda. You don't need morally gray enemies to make a compelling story and you don't need to assume that humanity is a lost cause (there is a question in that about how humanity will handle the Age of Man, but Aragorn is a hopeful answer to this).

I find it one-dimensional and reductive. 99% of it relates to fighting, and not just fighting, but "hatred of civilized races" and "destroying elves, dwarves, and humans" specifically. About the only thing they hate as much as those other races is each other; there's are paragraphs literally titled "All Are Fighters" and "Search, Destroy, Repeat."

If you look at it from the perspective of providing a mortal force in the world to serve as perfect enemies of the heroes, it's all grade A material.

If you look at it from a perspective of "I don't want these creatures to be enemies of people", then I can see the case for not liking it.

Woopty-do; the whole thing brings to mind a pre-teen incessantly banging their action figures together.

Don't worry, Captain Highbrow will swoop in and pull those action figures apart. "Now Timmy, shame on you for playing with your toys like that. Haven't you ever wondered how Skeletor got his skull face? Maybe there's a tragic sob story in there that you don't know about. And did you ever stop to wonder if He-Man's bravery, loyalty and muscly heroics are actually hiding some deep-seeded insecurities and character flaws that you could explore?"

As he watches Timmy put the toys down and walk away, never to play with them again, his sidekick says "Another imagination ruined, nice work Captain Highbrow". The hero smiles, "It's all in a day's work Postmodern Pete, all in a day's work."

Truly, the spectrum across "pointy-eared person who gets Misty Step", "pointy-eared person who gets to jump" and "pointy-eared person who gets Jump at level 3 and Misty Step at level 5" is nothing short of creatively staggering

Indeed.

Sure, culture and behavior can be affected by physiology. But well before that, culture depends on setting, so those are the books where that should be - not core books like the PHB, unless your system is designed for a single setting, which D&D very notably isn't.

Disagree, and I don't think I've seen argumentation for why the core books have to be setting agnostic.


With regards to dwarves, what's not to like? Look at the differences between dwarves and a "popular" race like elves:

This is how Gimli reacts when he sees that Aragorn is vulnerable to the orc vanguard that has breached the wall at the Hornburg:


This is how Legolas reacts when the fellowship hears the horn of Gondor as an outnumbered Boromir calls for aid:


Case closed. Dwarves will ALWAYS be too cool for some people .