Received Complaints About My Own Twists on Fantasy Races

[Phantasm]

Kind of a tangent deviation from the "Why are Dwarves Scottish?" thread.

In my own setting, I've had people grump and complain that I'm "inverting the tropes for the sake of inversion" when I put my own twists on fantasy races. Most notably, the Dwarves: my Dwarves are German, not Scottish, in culture and accent, and build cities upwards on the outsides of the mountains rather than living in the mines. I tried to explain that the Dwarves share their territory and cities with my winged folk who also like the mountains, but apparently they believe that Dwarves should live in dark sprawling underground cities - because deviating from Tolkien is being contrarian rather than original.

Also my Halflings. I've received more than one complaint about them being Gaelic/Irish/Scottish, rather than English. Of course, they don't seem to like my response of "Ever hear of leprechauns?"

And then there's my vegetarian Minotaurs. And Kobolds that live in jungle huts rather than in trap-filled caves. And basically any "monster race" not living in caves (including Viking Orcs).

And don't get me started on dragons being color-coded for convenience. Every time I mention that mine aren't, I get odd looks and basically told I'm "doing it wrong" or "why?"


Many of these people knew my setting when it started as a D&D 3.X setting. D&D was not able to handle my vision of the setting - I'd've had to house-rule the guns to make them more than "reskinned crossbows", for instance, plus a few unique races that D&D would have slapped a level adjustment onto - so I converted to GURPS. I've been happy, but apparently I've alienated a lot of folks - most of whom when I've brought up a game in the setting clamor for "make it a D&D game!"



So, am I being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, inverting the fantasy tropes for the sake of inversion, or do they just not want anything that's not D&D-land?

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Kind of a tangent deviation from the "Why are Dwarves Scottish?" thread.

In my own setting, I've had people grump and complain that I'm "inverting the tropes for the sake of inversion" when I put my own twists on fantasy races. Most notably, the Dwarves: my Dwarves are German, not Scottish, in culture and accent, and build cities upwards on the outsides of the mountains rather than living in the mines. I tried to explain that the Dwarves share their territory and cities with my winged folk who also like the mountains, but apparently they believe that Dwarves should live in dark sprawling underground cities - because deviating from Tolkien is being contrarian rather than original.

Also my Halflings. I've received more than one complaint about them being Gaelic/Irish/Scottish, rather than English. Of course, they don't seem to like my response of "Ever hear of leprechauns?"

And then there's my vegetarian Minotaurs. And Kobolds that live in jungle huts rather than in trap-filled caves. And basically any "monster race" not living in caves (including Viking Orcs).

And don't get me started on dragons being color-coded for convenience. Every time I mention that mine aren't, I get odd looks and basically told I'm "doing it wrong" or "why?"


Many of these people knew my setting when it started as a D&D 3.X setting. D&D was not able to handle my vision of the setting - I'd've had to house-rule the guns to make them more than "reskinned crossbows", for instance, plus a few unique races that D&D would have slapped a level adjustment onto - so I converted to GURPS. I've been happy, but apparently I've alienated a lot of folks - most of whom when I've brought up a game in the setting clamor for "make it a D&D game!"



So, am I being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, inverting the fantasy tropes for the sake of inversion, or do they just not want anything that's not D&D-land?

Oh, I'm sure there's an unhappy medium where both of these things are true simultaneously.

On one hand, these guys do sound like they want something very specific. Objecting to dwarves being fake-German instead of fake-Scottish is beyond my ability to comprehend. Maybe it's just me, but Alberich from Wagner's Ring cycle is as much a prototype of dwarves as anything from Tolkein, and you don't get more German than that. Make them sit through fifteen hours of opera to get them acclimatized. Alternatively, threaten them with fifteen hours of opera if they don't shut up about it.

It does sound, though, a bit like at least some of these changes are for the sake of being different, perhaps because I'm not seeing a payoff in making them different. The original minotaur of classical myth killed and ate people, making him an excellent monster. What's the upside to making minotaurs herbivores? Do you have a different taxonomy for dragons if they're not color coded? If any dragon could have any set of capabilities, they're in danger of becoming a random tactical threat rather than something legendary and memorable. If your halflings sound more Celtic than English with leprechauns being the justification, why not call them leprechauns and be done with it?

That said, it sounds more like it's them than you. There's nothing wrong with doing things just because they seem cool to you, but you do have to be able to sell your vision to your players. This is something which [glances sidelong at some elaborate numismatic schemes] can be a challenge. Still, it also seems like they really, really don't want anything other than what they're used to. You may want to try renaming as you change attributes. Call the vegetarian minotaurs and Irish halflings something else so your players' expectations don't instantly clash with your novel ideas. That may not work, but at least it's a possible way forward.

[Phantasm]

Well, I lived on a cattle ranch for a while (my dad rents out his pasture to a cattle breeder), so meat-eating bovines seems odd to my mind, despite the classical Minotaur. I'm also looking at them as "wandering gentle giants unless riled" rather than "monsters", since they're meant to be a PC race.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Well, I lived on a cattle ranch for a while (my dad rents out his pasture to a cattle breeder), so meat-eating bovines seems odd to my mind, despite the classical Minotaur. I'm also looking at them as "wandering gentle giants unless riled" rather than "monsters", since they're meant to be a PC race.

I rather imagined the reason was some variation on "cows are herbivores," and that's not an unreasonable or implausible thing. Dangerous when riled is a very real phenomenon. But that does leave you with expectation clashes with players who seem more than usually attached to their expectations. Definitely try renaming.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

In my own setting, I've had people grump and complain that I'm "inverting the tropes for the sake of inversion" when I put my own twists on fantasy races.

I'm all for people exercising their own creativity! Go for it, I say. Though I'd also say that if your players aren't enjoying this aspect of the game, then it might not be entirely their own fault - if the GM and the players have different tastes, then there's obviously got to be a meeting in the middle somewhere.

For the record, when I read the examples you've mentioned, I, too, get the impression that you might be "inverting the tropes for the sake of inversion", as you put it. (Here I'm just quoting your words, but reformatting them into a list):

Originally Posted by Phantasm

• my Dwarves are German, not Scottish, in culture and accent, and build cities upwards on the outsides of the mountains rather than living in the mines.
• Also my Halflings. I've received more than one complaint about them being Gaelic/Irish/Scottish, rather than English.
• And then there's my vegetarian Minotaurs.
• And Kobolds that live in jungle huts rather than in trap-filled caves.
• Viking Orcs.

Just judging by this list it does kind of seem as if your method is to take stock fantasy tropes, and then change or invert a key element while retaining pretty much everything else. As for whether that's a good or bad method, I don't know. Certainly it seems to be to your taste - great! But if it's not to your players' tastes, then maybe you want to explore what they enjoy, too.

Without wanting to be critical, I'll note that it's not really to my taste (and not because I just want to be playing D&D!). One or two of these inversions can be fun for me, I think. But a whole list like this would make me wonder why the GM is so keen on putting small, whacky spins on familiar stuff, rather than just making up his own things out of whole cloth. I guess I'm just one of those people who prefer either to have the classic tropes run in a way that breathes new life into them, without messing too much with the characteristics that make them instantly recognizable and special, or to be offered something entirely new. The risk of the middle road is that it kind of muddies the waters without producing any really new, clear, and satisfying flavor.

But again, that's just a matter of taste! And some people love this kind of thing - more power to them! The key thing would seem to be to try to find some middle ground between your own tastes and those of your players.

(And as a final note: I'm being very nitpicky here, just because you asked for feedback. In reality, if anyone is willing to GM a game for me, I just turn up with dice and thank them profusely, differences in taste be damned!)

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

If your halflings sound more Celtic than English with leprechauns being the justification, why not call them leprechauns and be done with it?

[...]

You may want to try renaming [...] Call the vegetarian minotaurs and Irish halflings something else so your players' expectations don't instantly clash with your novel ideas.

Yes! If I were a player in this game, that would help.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

You may want to try renaming as you change attributes.

I think this is a strong idea for at least some of the variations. The "Minotaur" legend is about a monster, and part of the resistance to that idea is that all you have is the shape of the creature, not its core identity as a maze-dwelling monster. Compare with the Quanari of dragon age or the Urgals of the inheritance trilogy. Both "ox-folk" without really being Minotaurs.

The objections to your dwarves are a bit more perplexing to me. Dwarves have a much broader font of folklore to draw from, and dwarves that live near their mines rather than in them make a lot of sense.

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think this is a strong idea for at least some of the variations. The "Minotaur" legend is about a monster, and part of the resistance to that idea is that all you have is the shape of the creature, not its core identity as a maze-dwelling monster. Compare with the Quanari of dragon age or the Urgals of the inheritance trilogy. Both "ox-folk" without really being Minotaurs.

Or, for that matter, the Tauren in World of Warcraft. They're seven-foot-tall cow-people, who are mighty warriors when provoked but basically peaceful most of the time; they're also herbivorous. They were kind of forced into the Horde by default when they came into conflict with Centaurs over grazing lands, and the Centaurs joined the Alliance.

[The Colonel]

Centaurs, by contrast, really need to be carnivores - can you imagine trying to get enough plant material to fuel a horse body through a human mouth?

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Centaurs, by contrast, really need to be carnivores - can you imagine trying to get enough plant material to fuel a horse body through a human mouth?

I see centaurs as omnivores, actually, though probably with a more Paleolithic diet from hunting big game supplemented by horticulture rather than being sedentary agriculturalists. Kind of like the nomadic steppe peoples of Central Asia or the Great Plains Amerinds.

As it's likely tales of Scythian horsemen from the far end of the Black Sea who inspired the mythical Greek centaurs, this seems to be coming back around full circle. ^_^_v

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Centaurs, by contrast, really need to be carnivores - can you imagine trying to get enough plant material to fuel a horse body through a human mouth?

Until you think about what a small mouth a brontosaur had.