The Gaming Den

vagrant wrote:Maybe for the same reason they want to play a wizard in a fantasy world instead of a guy who is somewhat smart and reads books a lot? Who cares, it's their fantasy.

Those are really different things though. A wizard truly can do things that your regular, somewhat smart book-reader can't, like casting spells. What can my D&D orc or half-orc do that your typical big, brutal guy can't? See well in the dark? Be shunned by society? Have a bite attack?

It's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious as to why 'being an orc' feels so substantially different to 'being a big, ugly bruiser' that it's important to provide the option. Same goes for elves and whatnot. I've just never understood the appeal. I mean, is it just aesthetics? The physological differences are negligible, as are the mechanical differences in most flavors of D&D.

FrankTrollman wrote:There are a certain number of players who would like to play "something bestial" and for them a single race like Gnoll or Dragonborn is probably sufficient. For the people who have specific animal concepts, there is no possible way to cater to everyone even if you fill your entire RPG book with nothing but attempts to do so. People have fucking tried.

Catfolks have some traction, and aren't "something bestial" (they are more like halflings with claws). The same with Nezumis/skavens.

I don't think you have to include catfolks and skavens and weasel-people and killer rabbits and shit. But you should have at least one "small furry" race, or a generic "small furry" race (with some cosmetic optional traits to differentiate catfolks from weasel-people); I actually think those furrys have more traction than halflings in non-Tolkien fantasy.

That is about as useful a question as 'Why does anyone do anything.' There are a multitude of reasons. Personally, I like playing Shadowrun orks because they look cool and have a cool street culture I identify with. I imagine that's a relatively common reason for people playing non-human characters.

It's a package of traits with enough memetic traction to provide an implicit template for the character described. Ditto with Elf. Or Italian, for that matter. The idea is that you say that one word, and it brings to mind a package of likely traits for other players to fill in as implicit assumptions when information about those traits are not explicitly stated. If you say you're playing an orc, you don't need to specify your character is tall and strong and hairy and crude - all of that is assumed unless and until you explicitly contradict it. If you say you're playing an Italian, you don't need to specify that you have a mediterranean complexion, dark hair, a taste for pasta dishes and a certain accent. It's assumed unless you say otherwise.

Grek wrote:It's a package of traits with enough memetic traction to provide an implicit template for the character described. Ditto with Elf. Or Italian, for that matter. The idea is that you say that one word, and it brings to mind a package of likely traits for other players to fill in as implicit assumptions when information about those traits are not explicitly stated. If you say you're playing an orc, you don't need to specify your character is tall and strong and hairy and crude - all of that is assumed unless and until you explicitly contradict it. If you say you're playing an Italian, you don't need to specify that you have a mediterranean complexion, dark hair, a taste for pasta dishes and a certain accent. It's assumed unless you say otherwise.

That comparison is apt. People do really want a cultural, ethnic and geographical background for their character. But I think the racial physiology is rarely a primary concern, outside of the purely cosmetic (e.g. elves look cool).

vagrant wrote:Personally, I like playing Shadowrun orks because they look cool and have a cool street culture I identify with. I imagine that's a relatively common reason for people playing non-human characters.

And I can agree with this. Given some actual culture to work with, I’d be more than willing to play an orc or an elf or whatever. Sadly, the way D&D mixes up culture and physiology typically leads to character creation going the other way around. Want to play a really tough guy? Better play a dwarf. Want to play a really strong guy? Better play a half-orc. In a world where only half-orcs get a bonus to strength, there’s no viable conceptual space for human characters like The Mountain, Brienne of Tarth or even Minsc. They’d all be living in the shadow of even a moderately competent half-orc fighter. In this case, the inclusion of the half-orc has actually reduced the breadth of viable character concepts instead of increasing it.

GâtFromKI wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:There are a certain number of players who would like to play "something bestial" and for them a single race like Gnoll or Dragonborn is probably sufficient. For the people who have specific animal concepts, there is no possible way to cater to everyone even if you fill your entire RPG book with nothing but attempts to do so. People have fucking tried.

Catfolks have some traction, and aren't "something bestial" (they are more like halflings with claws). .

Why in the world would you associate catfolk with halflings?
They're screechy japanese fucktoys, not bucolic rural thieves.

Both description fits for both (if you ignore the japanese part).

We're all humans on this board (except for one or two exceptions that are probably more likely defined as pieces of shit). Part of playing a role-playing game is doing things that you wouldn't do. Steve the accountant may feel uncomfortable playing as a murder-hobo if he's a human warrior (his character may feel too much like he himself is doing those things). Playing an orc may cover the same conceptual space, but it is one step removed from Steve in real life. Steve can stomp goblin orphans into dust when he plays an orc barbarian and not feel about himself.

And of course, aesthetics alone are enough. People like to play a character they think looks cool in their mind.

People want playable races for the same reason they want monsters in their game- because it's more interesting that way. Sure, you could have a D&D game where there were only humans... but why would you? It's far more entertaining to fight an owlbear, a band of gobling raiders on hypogriffs, a fire elemental, and a medusa than a strong human, a band of humans, a human with fire, and an ugly human.

Star Trek, one of the most successful franchises ever, deals with discovering new alien life forms almost every episode. Because that in itself is a valuable form of entertainment. Playing monsters is the next obvious step in a roleplaying game instead of a TV show.

I like playing giant Stompy Monsters.

Aspirinsmurf wrote:In a world where only half-orcs get a bonus to strength, there’s no viable conceptual space for human characters like The Mountain, Brienne of Tarth or even Minsc.

The Mountain is human simply because he comes from a fantasy setting where all the characters are human. If you were playing in a fantasy setting that had more character types than that, it would be very weird for the character to not be an Ogre or some fucking thing. The books in question spend a lot of time on hyperbole to get across the idea that he is fact physically larger than the humans around him, but that's a lot of wasted effort when you could have gotten most of that across with "He is a Half Giant" or some similar statement. In multiplayer cooperative storytelling games, that kind of short hand is incredibly valuable, because you do not in fact have the opportunity to go on for seven pages about how big and imposing your dude is because other players have shit to do and they are also allowed to talk.

Minsc is a much weirder example because of course he does live in a world with Orcs and Giants who get much larger strength bonuses than he does. He has a Strength of 18+, which is fine and all but even Hill Giants have a Strength of 19 and Ogres have a Strength of 18++ so he meets up with creatures that are humanoid and stronger than he is all the fucking time. And it's entirely possible to have the main character be stronger as well since Ogre Strength is something you can start with if you are simply improbably lucky with your rolls.

-Username17

Voss wrote:Why in the world would you associate catfolk with halflings?
They're screechy japanese fucktoys, not bucolic rural thieves.

Cats are small but tough and athletic (9 lives, righting reflex), lazy to adventurous but always graceful and pretty, love comfort but can survive as hunters and scavengers, stealthy and somewhat scary (night vision, gleaming eyes), independent and manipulative. They're pretty much the ideal halfling blueprint, except that it becomes near-impossible to play against type.

Starmaker wrote:

Voss wrote:Why in the world would you associate catfolk with halflings?
They're screechy japanese fucktoys, not bucolic rural thieves.

Cats are small but tough and athletic (9 lives, righting reflex), lazy to adventurous but always graceful and pretty, love comfort but can survive as hunters and scavengers, stealthy and somewhat scary (night vision, gleaming eyes), independent and manipulative. They're pretty much the ideal halfling blueprint, except that it becomes near-impossible to play against type.

So... typical writeups of either:
Halflings: often not athletic, never graceful or pretty, rarely hunters or scavengers (and not tribal like catfolk), never scary, never independent, only rarely manipulative

Catfolk: often not tough, usually comic relief, sometimes hyper-muscled fanservice, dimwits, bimbos or otherwise mentally challenged, fast (something halflings never are), and rarely halfling small.

I have no idea where you're getting your preconceptions from, but they aren't from typical or widely available descriptions of either.

The bottom line here is that catfolk or cat people is less descriptive than saying "Look, they're hobbits, okay? Just don't admit that to the Tolkien estate." Trying to conflate the two is a tough sell in the RPG market because the plucky underdog niche is often already filled by the non-furry short humanoid races, so people are used to playing Lion-O, a Khaijit or anime catgirls instead.

How furry are we talking between puss in boots and FFXI mithra

Now that you mention it, most D&D base races are pretty light on the fur scale. There's scalies like dragonborn and robots like warforged, but otherwise kobolds/goblins/orcs in D&D just aren't that hairy in any edition.

maglag wrote:Now that you mention it, most D&D base races are pretty light on the fur scale. There's scalies like dragonborn and robots like warforged, but otherwise kobolds/goblins/orcs in D&D just aren't that hairy in any edition.

Kobolds have been straight up shaggy rat men in parts of 2nd edition.



Orcs have been everything from gorilla shaggy to hairless depending on what individual authors thought sounded repulsive at the time. Hobgoblins have similarly been pretty haired up at times.

But of course Gnolls have been hairy hyena men since they stopped being Troll/Gnome cross breeds, and Bugbears have been furry giant goblins since they stopped being bears with jackolantern heads.

-Username17

Aspirinsmurf wrote:I'll rephrase in a less cryptic manner. Why do you think people want to play orcs and not just big, ugly and uncivilized people?

I was more struck by the irony. You wanting other people's wants explained. I sort of figured it was just a thing where people are liking things that you don't like, and that confuses you. But really, people just like what they like.

Voss wrote:Halflings: often not athletic, never graceful or pretty, rarely hunters or scavengers (and not tribal like catfolk), never scary, never independent, only rarely manipulative

Catfolk: often not tough, usually comic relief, sometimes hyper-muscled fanservice, dimwits, bimbos or otherwise mentally challenged, fast (something halflings never are), and rarely halfling small.

You're mistaking halflings with hobbits. Except nobody want to play a hobbit (except in LotR), what people want to play is this:

with +2 Dex and +2 Cha (fast and pretty) (as in D&D4 or Pathfinder). They occupy the same niche as catfolks: nimble, stealthy and deadly rogues (or swashbuckler or whatever). Since no game needs "every possible race someone may want to play", you may remove halflings and have catfolks/nezumis/whatever instead, because it's the same niche and nobody cares about halflings in non-Tolkien fantasy.

Hyper-muscled catfolks are tigerfolks or lionfolks (maybe this is also nammed "catfolk" in English ? English isn't my native language), they are very similar to minotaurs and bearmen, the "strong and bestial" furrys.

Actually, some people will be very disappointed if you have some strong furrys like bearmen and tigermen and pandamen, but no small furrys: you should include both or none.

GâtFromKI wrote: <snipped bad art>

with +2 Dex and +2 Cha (fast and pretty) (as in D&D4 or Pathfinder).

Yeah... I'm starting to see the problem. You want weird things with broken spines and to be nothing more than stat bonuses.

But dex and cha bonuses aren't 'fast and pretty.' Halflings are speed 20, so they're slow, not fast. (Catfolk often get a base speed of 40, so are fast). Charisma has nothing to do with 'pretty' (on the rare occasion they have a charisma bonus). If you're looking at it in terms of stats and 4e or Pathfinder, it means they're killing people with laser blasts or lightning (sorcerers or warlocks or whatever). Which has fuck all to do with halflings or cats.

because it's the same niche and nobody cares about halflings in non-Tolkien fantasy.

Quite the claim. Feel free to prove it in some fashion.
But it still isn't about the niche of having a dex bonus. It's about the feel and cultural baggage, which aren't even vaguely related.

Hyper-muscled catfolks are tigerfolks or lionfolks (maybe this is also nammed "catfolk" in English ? English isn't my native language), they are very similar to minotaurs and bearmen, the "strong and bestial" furrys.

Yeah, no. I very much doubt anyone with a furry fetish are going to accept tigers, lions, bears and minotaurs as interchangeable. That just isn't parsable.

GâtFromKI wrote: You're mistaking halflings with hobbits. Except nobody want to play a hobbit (except in LotR), what people want to play is this:

with +2 Dex and +2 Cha (fast and pretty) (as in D&D4 or Pathfinder). They occupy the same niche as catfolks: nimble, stealthy and deadly rogues (or swashbuckler or whatever). Since no game needs "every possible race someone may want to play", you may remove halflings and have catfolks/nezumis/whatever instead, because it's the same niche and nobody cares about halflings in non-Tolkien fantasy.

Funny you didn't notice that you had to explain your version to everyone against a pretty solid consensus and still assumed your halfling is the general opinion. It's not. You can gather any large sample group of players and ask what a halfling is and your result will be 70% hobbit, 20% kent and 9% pedophilia.

Halflings have a cultural baggage just as heavy and old as orcs and dwarves and when someone in the table describes their character as "halfling rogue," everyone is going to assume it's either Bilbo or Tasslehoff, and almost certainly a massive disruptive asshole.

Red Archon wrote:when someone in the table describes their character as "halfling rogue," everyone is going to assume it's either Bilbo or Tasslehoff, and almost certainly a massive disruptive asshole.

That hasn't been my experience at all. I've played with dozens of different players of halfling rogues, and the only disruptive assholes were the ones who tended to be disruptive assholes regardless of race/class combination.

I like playing halflings because I was tiny for my entire childhood, and enjoyed the idea of a hero who could hide and climb like I could as a kid, and thieves/rogues played into that niche nicely as well.

What about were-people?
Were-tiger. Were-wolf. Were-bear. Were-seal. Were-manatee . .
Are there, historically speakin, in any setting or world or game any you lot know were-prey-species, or are they all per default (apex)hunterspecies of their chosen biome?

Stahlseele wrote:What about were-people?
Were-tiger. Were-wolf. Were-bear. Were-seal. Were-manatee . .
Are there, historically speakin, in any setting or world or game any you lot know were-prey-species, or are they all per default (apex)hunterspecies of their chosen biome?

Well, were-rats are a D&D classic...

Lots of stories have women who can turn into birds. Swans and stuff.

Selkies are were-seals. They, too, tend to be women. Horny sailors and mermaids all that.

Dryads are kind of like were-trees...

Basically, turning into something without big teeth is an effeminate quality.