Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Boci]

What I'm saying is that "less familiarity" means you want humans there even more to keep the setting relatable to newcomers (and thus more commercially viable.)

That defeats the purpose of making it less familiar. Yes, it's more niche and therefor won't have as a broad a commercial appeal. But that doesn't mean no one should ever bother with it.

[Psyren]

That defeats the purpose of making it less familiar. Yes, it's more niche and therefor won't have as a broad a commercial appeal. But that doesn't mean no one should ever bother with it.

I never said "no one should ever bother with it." I'm just explaining why you're even less likely to see "no humans" in a sci-fi setting than you are in a fantasy one.

[Boci]

I never said "no one should ever bother with it." I'm just explaining why you're even less likely to see "no humans" in a sci-fi setting than you are in a fantasy one.

I don't know if that's true though. Neither fantasy nor sci-fi seem big on the "no humans" thing. The difference definitely doesn't seem big enough to announce either one to be less or more with any confidence.

[Aquillion]

If you said "Elf" to the average person 40 years ago, they'd most likely be thinking of shoes, toys or cookies. Slender high-cheeked archers wasn't really a thing in the public consciousness.

Yeah, one thing I noticed when watching Disenchantment was that the fact that Matt Groening is nearly 70 is pretty visible from how hilarious he finds the idea of confusing D&D elves with Keebler ones. It's not a connection that people who grew up today (especially after the LotR movie put Tolkien's visuals at the center of pop culture) would likely make.

The entire joke about elves in Disenchantment is "they're... keebler elves, I guess? Like, that cookie company, I guess? I suppose that's a thing?"

[awa]

I'd argue having humans around is even more important in sci-fi. With fantasy, even if you leave the humans out, people can look at elves and dwarves and have a rough idea of what they're getting;

.

I would mention series like Redwall and similar settings, because we already have some preconceived notions on what these critters are like we dont need a human to act as a point of view character or comparison. If our protagonists are cute mice people the idea that the cat is cruel and the fox clever and untrustworthy is very easily understood. They dont need to be human to be familiar, that is an advantage of the dwarf and to a lesser extent the elf just like with animal people we largely know what were getting into just by the name.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall)

I don't know if that's true though. Neither fantasy nor sci-fi seem big on the "no humans" thing. The difference definitely doesn't seem big enough to announce either one to be less or more with any confidence.

sample size of one, I have read far more fantasy stories with no humans then I have science fiction.

[Psyren]

I would mention series like Redwall and similar settings, because we already have some preconceived notions on what these critters are like we dont need a human to act as a point of view character or comparison. If our protagonists are cute mice people the idea that the cat is cruel and the fox clever and untrustworthy is very easily understood. They dont need to be human to be familiar, that is an advantage of the dwarf and to a lesser extent the elf just like with animal people we largely know what were getting into just by the name.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall)

Right, and I've seen way more of these in particular in fantasy than I have in sci-fi. Redwall, Mouseguard, Humblewood, Wanderhome... never mind mythology, not that we could fully discuss those examples here anyway.

[Boci]

Right, and I've seen way more of these in particular in fantasy than I have in sci-fi. Redwall, Mouseguard, Humblewood, Wanderhome... never mind mythology, not that we could fully discuss those examples here anyway.

But your premise was

With fantasy, even if you leave the humans out, people can look at elves and dwarves and have a rough idea of what they're getting;

And I know Redwall at least also doesn't have any elves or dwarves.

[Dr.Samurai]

And I know Redwall at least also doesn't have any... dwarves.

No, but it has badgers!

EULALIA!!

[Boci]

No, but it has badgers!

EULALIA!!

And the hares are basically elves. (With incredibly, un-elfishly-huge appetites)

[Psyren]

But your premise was



And I know Redwall at least also doesn't have any elves or dwarves.

The more accurate summary of my premise is that fantasy races tend to be based on tropes that are more easily recognizable at a glance, while sci-fi races tend to be more alien (literally.)

So yes, while I only spelled out elves and dwarves, the same line of reasoning applies to anthropomorphic rabbits and wolves - we've had stories featuring all four for far, far longer than stories about Krogans and Twi'leks.

[Boci]

So yes, while I only spelled out elves and dwarves, the same line of reasoning applies to anthropomorphic rabbits and wolves - we've had stories featuring all four for far, far longer than stories about Krogans and Twi'leks.

That is fair, I hadn't considered animals when I initially made that claim. That is indeed more a fantasy thing. I do stand firmly by my initial assertion that "no humans but elves and dwarves" is a wasted use of no humans.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's a fine line to have "no humans" actually be no humans and not simply humans with rubber foreheads.

Because if you go too far in the other direction it's like oh wow look how totally unhuman this thing is, it's totally incomprehensible and alien to you, you totally can't get it. And if I can't get something, it's boring. For me, all "it's not human" is just "it's some sort of human thing just hyper focused/exaggerated or in other/different proportions". When that is done well, it's good enough for me.

[MonochromeTiger]

That really sounds like an issue of how we handle perspective in fiction. We're human so of course we view things from a human perspective and, when trying to relate with something, we focus on the things we consider human traits or otherwise see ourselves in. It's the entire reason personification/anthropomorphization have been a thing for so long and why I suspect even if we did run into something totally and completely alien to us we'd still find something we interpret as relatable behavior even if it's only a forced and strained comparison. The internet routinely proves that no matter how outlandish something is there's going to be some social circle that considers it completely normal and that "too alien for human comprehension" is bandied about too quickly when every example that comes to mind is either something we've studied and understood or thought up in the first place.

"Humans with rubber foreheads" turns into something almost completely unavoidable in that regard unless you're actively trying to make something as far from human as possible but even then human appearance and behavior are the reference point you're working from. End results simply change from "we understand them enough to relate and sympathize" to "they're intentionally vague to the point of being furniture that occasionally does something to advance the story or present a challenge." We've effectively monopolized so many possible things as "human things to do" that almost any act will result in someone attributing a motive or emotion to it whether one is there or not.

The Redwall example is sort of a case of this. Yes there's no human character as a point of reference but all the emotions and motives are still shown from a very human lens. Yes, animals have emotions, but the way they're portrayed is still from how we (or more accurately how the author in particular) views those emotions rather than taking the time to piece together the actual meaning behind their behavior. It's why in most fiction with animal characters you get things like cats always being portrayed as aloof and cruel when they just don't socialize in the same way we do or why many wolves are still portrayed as having a dominance based pack structure instead of a familial one.

[Jophiel]

"Humans with rubber foreheads" turns into something almost completely unavoidable in that regard unless you're actively trying to make something as far from human as possible but even then human appearance and behavior are the reference point you're working from.

In a TTRPG context, I think it's less about trying to make races completely alien -- which would probably be unwise between players' varying RP abilities and the fact that they need to interact with all the human-types -- and more about game designers boxing themselves in with not wanting any races to have race-specific penalties, nor any race-specific significant benefits (mechanical or cultural) and ultimately winding up with a milquetoast blend of gnomes whose strength rivals that of half-giants or elves who you'd never guess had millennia of intellect and wisdom behind them or whatever. They all wind up feeling much the same because they all are pretty much the same, and differences are mainly cosmetic ("rubber foreheads").

[Mordar]

"Humans with rubber foreheads" turns into something almost completely unavoidable in that regard unless you're actively trying to make something as far from human as possible but even then human appearance and behavior are the reference point you're working from. End results simply change from "we understand them enough to relate and sympathize" to "they're intentionally vague to the point of being furniture that occasionally does something to advance the story or present a challenge." We've effectively monopolized so many possible things as "human things to do" that almost any act will result in someone attributing a motive or emotion to it whether one is there or not.

The Redwall example is sort of a case of this. Yes there's no human character as a point of reference but all the emotions and motives are still shown from a very human lens. Yes, animals have emotions, but the way they're portrayed is still from how we (or more accurately how the author in particular) views those emotions rather than taking the time to piece together the actual meaning behind their behavior. It's why in most fiction with animal characters you get things like cats always being portrayed as aloof and cruel when they just don't socialize in the same way we do or why many wolves are still portrayed as having a dominance based pack structure instead of a familial one.

I can't imagine how we would approach emotion and characterization from anything other than a human lens, primarily because as a whole I don't think we have any more than the most tenuous handle on human emotion. Stretching it into other species or undefined entities is just beyond most anyone without some sort of hallmark. I mean, even the two animal examples you point out still present in reference to human basis, right?

Additionally, a drive of role playing seems to be to explore things in our lives with some detachment, allowing us to learn and experience without having to actually transit the situations presented. If that poorly worded motivation is accurate, we need some kind of grounding to express, empathize, experience or enjoy. Maybe it becomes a question of what percentage overlap is necessary to allow the average gamer to "relate" enough to make the characterization something more than interacting with mechanics?

Though it was a long time ago, I believe Star Frontiers, despite its simplicity, existence in the stone ages of mass market RPGs lacking the erudite designers that have blossomed in the years since and brought so much more thought and meaning to our hobby (okay, some sarcasm there), did seem to handle the step away from rubber foreheads better than most modern games. I remember very engaging non-mammal races...though they still presented some humanoid components, even my favorite amoebafolk. But maybe it was just a more innocent time and we were less concerned with mechanical differences representing some unpleasant statement about the rule world, or being everything to everyone.

- M

[Errorname]

I can't imagine how we would approach emotion and characterization from anything other than a human lens, primarily because as a whole I don't think we have any more than the most tenuous handle on human emotion. Stretching it into other species or undefined entities is just beyond most anyone without some sort of hallmark. I mean, even the two animal examples you point out still present in reference to human basis, right?

Frankly the easiest way to approach it is through a human lens having to interact with creatures that operate by different rules, but even that's probably going to boil down to 'what if [extant lifeform] was sapient". You can get pretty weird with that, but there are fundamental limits to our imagining that are hard to really overcome.

[Witty Username]

For me at least, I like fantasy as humans are not a given but corellation is fine.

The game Sacrifice is my thinking on this. There are all sorts of fantasy creatures and they sometimes fill similar spots to humans, and have understandable motivations but its not quite there anywhere.

And for Lorewyn/Shadowmoor in mtg, even simple absence can generate whimsy/subtle horror.

Heck, one of the Aesops in Twilight Zone I like is horror derived by us being not as unique as we would expect/desire.

[MonochromeTiger]

In a TTRPG context, I think it's less about trying to make races completely alien -- which would probably be unwise between players' varying RP abilities and the fact that they need to interact with all the human-types -- and more about game designers boxing themselves in with not wanting any races to have race-specific penalties, nor any race-specific significant benefits (mechanical or cultural) and ultimately winding up with a milquetoast blend of gnomes whose strength rivals that of half-giants or elves who you'd never guess had millennia of intellect and wisdom behind them or whatever. They all wind up feeling much the same because they all are pretty much the same, and differences are mainly cosmetic ("rubber foreheads").

The cosmetic differences issue is, well, complicated. It comes up plenty of times even in portraying other humans, just look at the entertainment industry trying to show a "smart" character. Most of the time they rely on cheating by effectively letting a character read the script in order to know what's going to happen without actually needing to figure it out. Sherlock Holmes for example, deductive reasoning was a "new" thing in mystery writing at the time and what it ended up being was "I make massive leaps of logic based off unreasonable insights I should have no real context for, then when the mystery is ready to solve I explain everything including the clues that weren't even shown to make a point of how much smarter I am."

When we can't even consistently nail a convincing difference in intelligence or observational skill for otherwise completely normal humans how do we show bouts of confusing genius or centuries of wisdom? How do we even know how they'd affect someone enough to say "yes, they aren't impulsive at all they have a very long term perspective and aren't simply bored or overconfident from hundreds of years of study and experience." As for the strength point, we've already got "humans" who can bench press tanks and fist fight dragons the size of a building with scales harder than metal, is the difference in baseline strength from a gnome really so great that given the same absurdly effective opportunities to grow stronger they can't perform on the level of a less motivated half-giant?

I can't imagine how we would approach emotion and characterization from anything other than a human lens, primarily because as a whole I don't think we have any more than the most tenuous handle on human emotion. Stretching it into other species or undefined entities is just beyond most anyone without some sort of hallmark. I mean, even the two animal examples you point out still present in reference to human basis, right?

Additionally, a drive of role playing seems to be to explore things in our lives with some detachment, allowing us to learn and experience without having to actually transit the situations presented. If that poorly worded motivation is accurate, we need some kind of grounding to express, empathize, experience or enjoy. Maybe it becomes a question of what percentage overlap is necessary to allow the average gamer to "relate" enough to make the characterization something more than interacting with mechanics?

Though it was a long time ago, I believe Star Frontiers, despite its simplicity, existence in the stone ages of mass market RPGs lacking the erudite designers that have blossomed in the years since and brought so much more thought and meaning to our hobby (okay, some sarcasm there), did seem to handle the step away from rubber foreheads better than most modern games. I remember very engaging non-mammal races...though they still presented some humanoid components, even my favorite amoebafolk. But maybe it was just a more innocent time and we were less concerned with mechanical differences representing some unpleasant statement about the rule world, or being everything to everyone.

- M

That was basically my point. We are limited by our own perspective so everything, no matter how strange and different we try to make it, will have some element of our perspective behind its thoughts, motives, and actions. When I brought out the Redwall example and the two animal examples what I was trying to convey is that while they're all distinctly not human we consistently have them act by very human stereotypes of what they'd be like; even the main characters of Redwall overcoming those stereotypes to rise to the challenge are doing so in the same way you'd see a human character learning to be brave in the face of danger. We have more context on animal behavior independent of humans than we did in those days but the stereotype, the wise owl, the cruel cat, the oh so lamentably wrong lone wolf out to rule some makeshift pack, have all stuck to varying degrees even as we learned more.

If I had to rephrase my point it would be, yes everything is going to come across as somewhat human, that's because we have a bad habit of seeing or forcibly adding very human points to everything in the name of understanding it better. What we truly can't understand isn't fantastical and amazing, it's just confusing until we figure it out then add it to the list of things we've effectively humanized. That isn't a bad thing, as you point out it allows exploration of things we wouldn't be able to or in some cases wouldn't want to experience personally through the safety and detachment of fiction, but it does turn "humans with rubber foreheads" and "too similar to human" into just a personal gripe from people drawing the line at different points.

[Jophiel]

I don't really care enough to debate the points of it, aside from saying that how games designers handle it these days doesn't strike some people as very effective and presents a world in which people view the various playable species as essentially rubber foreheads because there isn't much separating them. Whether that's for game balance or social implications or because they can't imagine a way to depict differences in strength and intellect kind of doesn't matter to the player reading the descriptions in the players guide and coming away with "So I can play human or pointy ear human or short pointy ear human or pointy tooth human..."

[Psyren]

Speaking personally, I don't get why the whole "rubber forehead" thing is such an indictment or literary failure to be avoided in the first place. For me, other races/species in a fictional work aren't there to delve into wildest reaches of the unfamiliar - they're there to pick a particular aspect (or cluster of aspects) of the human condition, and blow those up to a heightened prominence, with the ultimate goal of saying something about humanity itself - meaning us, real-world humans (a group with whom the fantasy author themself is presumably a member), not the fictionalized representation of humans simplified for use in that particular setting. At the very least, they say something about those humans in our world who share an affinity for those values.

Or, to put it more eloquently:

No fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.

So for me, when elves have a lot of the same emotional responses many of us do but dialed up - their love of the natural world's beauty, their disdain for violence but willingness to use it in defense of their loved ones and homes, their appreciation for the blend of artistry and magic or science, their respect for community clashing with their desire to wander - I see the fact that those drives hit close to home for and are eminently relatable to many of the in-universe humans they interact with as well as many of the human audience IRL experiencing the work of fiction itself, as a good thing.


And to drag all this painfully back over to dwarves - they embody a number of human attitudes from our world too, like fondness for tradition, drink, industry, discipline, martial pursuits, and craftsmanship. There are, again, a lot of humans both in- and out-of-universe who find those things relatable, and thus make friends with dwarves easily (for the former) or quickly grok their deal and get immersed in the fantasy world (the latter.) And there are plenty that find them overly rigid or insufficiently artistic too, giving rise to meaningful conflict. If that makes them a "rubber forehead human" to some people and thus insufficiently alien or appealing, well, I'd put the folks who think that in the "missed the point of literature" bucket the Giant mentioned in the quote above.

[Mordar]

And to drag all this painfully back over to dwarves - they embody a number of human attitudes from our world too, like fondness for tradition, drink, industry, discipline, martial pursuits, and craftsmanship. There are, again, a lot of humans both in- and out-of-universe who find those things relatable, and thus make friends with dwarves easily (for the former) or quickly grok their deal and get immersed in the fantasy world (the latter.) And there are plenty that find them overly rigid or insufficiently artistic too, giving rise to meaningful conflict. If that makes them a "rubber forehead human" to some people and thus insufficiently alien or appealing, well, I'd put the folks who think that in the "missed the point of literature" bucket the Giant mentioned in the quote above.

The dismissal of "petty escapism" as without value is a place where I must strongly disagree with the Giant.

Sometimes, though, people need a stronger differential point for their locus to help explore things or to attract them to the story. Like being a intelligent bug or amoeba. I love dwarves because of the artistic expression through functional craftsmanship, for instance, but others may prefer an ethereal sense of grace that they wish to emulate in their participatory fiction...so they only want to play doofy pointy eared ponces.

- M

[awa]

The dismissal of "petty escapism" as without value is a place where I must strongly disagree with the Giant.


- M

that rubbed me the wrong way as well

[Psyren]

I think there is value in escapism - but I also think it's possible to achieve the benefits of escapism without divorcing literature and game elements from all real-world lessons, analogies, or allegories too. I do believe that attempting such total separation does render those elements petty, however, insofar as it's even possible for a human author to make something that is completely divorced from their human experience.

[OldTrees1]

The dismissal of "petty escapism" as without value is a place where I must strongly disagree with the Giant.
- M

Agreed.

Although, to be fair, the quote was misapplied by assuming only lessons about humanity count, and ignoring the Giant saying worlds that differ from ours (dragons are not human) don't invalidate the lessons. To be honest I would prefer to have a story about dopplegangers and warforged that teaches lessons about personhood rather than a story about humans that teaches lessons about the era's current overly narrow understanding of humanity. When I'm old, a lesson about personhood is likely to be more applicable to humans and likely to be less dated than a lesson about humanity.

However, yes I agree that entertainment can have value without teaching a lesson. It need neither be petty nor escapism.

[Psyren]

Although, to be fair, the quote was misapplied by assuming only lessons about humanity count, and ignoring the Giant saying worlds that differ from ours (dragons are not human) don't invalidate the lessons.

I didn't ignore it. In fact, OotS' dragons further prove the point - what mattered about the dragon in the story at that point was what she had in common with us, i.e. her capacity to be a devoted (and vengeful) parent. She too possessed a relatable, not-alien mindset, and that was a lesson that could be carried through to our world.

(There's also the secondary idea that alignment differences alone don't justify excessive/lethal force once a threat has been neutralized.)

[OldTrees1]

I didn't ignore it. In fact, OotS' dragons further prove the point - what mattered about the dragon in the story at that point was what she had in common with us, i.e. her capacity to be a devoted (and vengeful) parent. She too possessed a relatable, not-alien mindset, and that was a lesson that could be carried through to our world.

(There's also the secondary idea that alignment differences alone don't justify excessive/lethal force once a threat has been neutralized.)

What mattered about the dragon was her capacity to be a devoted (and vengeful) parent and they were not human/elf/dwarf/halfling. Yes, she had things in common with us (or the party), but that was not the extent of the point. The point was she was a person despite being both similar and different from the party. A person is a person regardless of how many things they do/don't share in common with you.

If all you take away is a lesson about humanity, then there is still more there that you can learn from the story.

[Dr.Samurai]

Speaking personally, I don't get why the whole "rubber forehead" thing is such an indictment or literary failure to be avoided in the first place.

I wouldn't say that it is.

However I do think it morphs the landscape. For me personally, one reason I don't like it so much is that it weakens the idea of different species/races being a thing, and having physical differences that inform their culture being different and therefore perspectives and values being different. Everyone is just some flavor of human that looks different.

Another reason I don't like it particularly in D&D is that it simply removes a lot of the potential for wonder, awe, and fear in the game. When the world looks like a Mos Eisley cantina, introducing other creatures seems less impactful because there are already walking dragonoids and devils in your town, and talking ooze people and living constructs. And there's nothing really special about them, they're just people like all the other humans, but their physiology is different. The game, in my experience, becomes a lot more cynical. The capacity for a character to realistically react to some strange creature or being is capped because they're walking around with a talking elephant man, a vampire, a robot gnome, and an angel woman. And since they're all "basically human", why would we think that this other strange creature is any different?

For me, other races/species in a fictional work aren't there to delve into wildest reaches of the unfamiliar - they're there to pick a particular aspect (or cluster of aspects) of the human condition, and blow those up to a heightened prominence, with the ultimate goal of saying something about humanity itself - meaning us, real-world humans (a group with whom the fantasy author themself is presumably a member), not the fictionalized representation of humans simplified for use in that particular setting. At the very least, they say something about those humans in our world who share an affinity for those values.

I am inclined to agree with this sentiment. My issue currently is that we don't allow this for the evil or dark human traits. So it's okay for elves and dwarves to embody aspects of the human condition at a heightened prominence (insofar as their lore isn't eradicated in the PHB as it was for the other races in Mordenkainen's), but it's not okay for orcs and goblins to embody the evil and brutal aspects of the human condition at a heightened prominence.

We recognize that this is useful for telling stories that might teach us, but I guess we only want to learn certain stories, and not others.

Or, to put it more eloquently:

The dismissal of "petty escapism" as without value is a place where I must strongly disagree with the Giant.

that rubbed me the wrong way as well

Agreed.

And agreed also.

[Xervous]

I will note that the dismissal of escapism and the paired insistence that the only bits of literature of worth are those with lectures and lessons is one of the prime things I find myself seeking literature to escape from. Some of the topics are worth entertaining, but literature offers the option of blocking out the noise when I’ve been bombarded with messaging at work, from billboards on the road, from news articles, on the radio, or because it’s appreciate a dragon/turtle/bird day; all of this with a high enough frequency I am reminded of dystopian truth ministry mental assault (though I would term internet browsing without adblock similarly). I can pick up something to enjoy that doesn’t feel transactional in the often heavy handed packaging of messages with entertaining words.

[Errorname]

I am inclined to agree with this sentiment. My issue currently is that we don't allow this for the evil or dark human traits. So it's okay for elves and dwarves to embody aspects of the human condition at a heightened prominence (insofar as their lore isn't eradicated in the PHB as it was for the other races in Mordenkainen's), but it's not okay for orcs and goblins to embody the evil and brutal aspects of the human condition at a heightened prominence.

I think it's broadly accepted to have demons or spirits who originate as embodiments of the evil aspects of humanity, but when you have the embodiment of some negative aspect be an entire race of mundane people, that's when you start having problems

[Psyren]

For all the folks who find value in escapism that's totally divorced from any kind of lesson or allegory, I'm open to having my mind changed, do you have examples of that? 99.9% of the fantasy I can think of contains lessons on morality or relating to the human condition in some way, so I genuinely can't think of any that exist 100% purely for whimsy.

I am inclined to agree with this sentiment. My issue currently is that we don't allow this for the evil or dark human traits. So it's okay for elves and dwarves to embody aspects of the human condition at a heightened prominence (insofar as their lore isn't eradicated in the PHB as it was for the other races in Mordenkainen's), but it's not okay for orcs and goblins to embody the evil and brutal aspects of the human condition at a heightened prominence.

Because an entire race that exists only to embody evil is lazy writing, especially when you go on to say that race supposedly has free will by dint of being playable, yet they never seem to use that free will to behave differently than the stereotype. We already have fiends and undead and myriad aberrations if you want a "for teh evulz" species; there's no need to do that with orcs and goblins too.

And nobody is saying Orcs in a given setting can't be used to explore themes of brutality or violence, any more than anyone is saying Elves can't be used to explore themes of xenophobia or classism. The issue is when older books imply the former is a matter of biological or metaphysical destiny rather than mere culture. And on top of that, Orcs are rarely used to explore anything else. It's reductive and staid. Orcs have potential depths that, until fairly recently, were largely ignored by fantasy authors in the most popular settings in favor of just making them the "savages."