|
11 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 11:05AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
this thread confuses me a little.
"i don't know why this imaginary species that this guy made up has to resemble the way that the guy who made these species imagined them"
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 12:02PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2008
|
this thread confuses me a little.
"i don't know why this imaginary species that this guy made up has to resemble the way that the guy who made these species imagined them"
He didn't invent them, he dusted off some old myths
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 12:16PM
#33
|
|
|
Tolkien kinda invented his races. His hobbit has no real precedent. Maybe house sprites, but not really. His elves dont resemble Norse mythology, who are sky spirits. They arent really like Celtic sidhe either. He did correctly emphasize their human size. His dwarves dont resemble Norse mythology in any way. Notably, Tolkiens hobgoblin (Uruk-Hai) is an error unique to Tolkien.
The Tolkien races borrow from various reallife sources, but ultimately they exist only in the mind of Tolkien.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 12:19PM
#34
|
|
|
Only thing Tolkien I don't like is the walking, and walking, and walking that took place in the LotR trilogy. The Hobbit was good though.
Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community. “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.” - H. P. Lovecraft Games I Play: - D&D 4e - D&D 3.0 (Not 3.5) - AD&D 2e - Call of Cthulhu
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 29, 2012 - 8:51PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Here's my vote for the Halflings of 3.x/4 over the Fatlings of old.
Luckily, both exist in the current materials. If you want a 3-4E halfling, make a Lightfoot. If you want a hobbit, make a Stout.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 4:57PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2004
|
I agree that the fantasy genre has moved way past Tolkien at this point, but I entirely get why the initial offering is grounded in the foundational document of modern fantasy.
That said, I hope that there will be alternate setting options and/or guides flavored for other types of fantasy. I really liked Eberron for one (pulp is a great and underused genre), and would very much like to see more Sword and Sorcery type settings.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 8:30PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
I'll take Tolkein races over Dragonborn, Tieflings (as PCs), Drow, Githzerai, Shardminds, Wilden, Dhampyrs, Shades, Revenants, Vryloka, Shadar-kai, Changelings, Kalashtar, 4e Warforged, Elans, Illumians, Killorens, Maenads
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 1:24AM
#38
|
|
|
I agree that the fantasy genre has moved way past Tolkien at this point, but I entirely get why the initial offering is grounded in the foundational document of modern fantasy.
The thing about fantasy is, there are so many different genres of it. Some are very high-magic, where almost everyone can do magic of some kind (Runequest), some are fairly high magic, where magic is not available to everyone but still common (Forgotten realms, Eberron, World of Warcraft), some are average, where magic is less common but still a high part of the world (older versions of D&D's base setting) and some are low magic, where magic is rare, and the domain of a few specialists (Dragonlance, Warhammer, and - of course - Tolkien).
Then you've got the anime style genres (Final Fantasy and the like), and some which include more steampunk elements (anything that has robots). Finally, while the majority are set in fictional pseudo-gothic worlds, there are some who argue that things like Harry Potter class as fantasy.
The point is, fantasy is now such a broad genre that it's impossible to classify each race within the "fantasy genre". An elf in Harry Potter, for example, is very different to an elf in Lord of the Rings. Some genres might have elves as evil monsters who hate humans, while others have them as fey-like creatures of the forest who behave more like nymphs and faeries than the Gilgalad type armoured warriors from Tolkien. So really, we can only look at these races in the context of how they've always been in D&D. Making radical changes to the races would be a very bad idea, for both popularity and continuity reasons.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 8:52AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2012
|
Good post Ranger. As am open question to people reading this thread, do you think their are "tiers" of coreness for races? Like say:
T1: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing
T2: Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Gnome
T3: Player Drow, Player Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warforged etc.
Would it be appropriate to have some core races, and leave most races and subraces to setting expansions and maybe an optional module?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 9:28AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
Thewok has the right idea. Take the favorite representation of your halfling, dwarf, elf, gnome, etc. that is represented in D&D, and see how it could fit as a sub-race. I know the canabalistic halfing from Dark Sun, or the Gully Dwarf from Dragon Lance will not make it in the core; just say no to Kendor. But I will understand how races are presented to add my own version to compliment or replace what is in core.
|
|
|
