>my goblims are bat-like :)
>my elfs have brow skin and are huge sloots :D
>my trolls are humanoid and are south american themed :DD
>my dwarfs have 3 eyes and also have wings :DDD
>mine is a black and red alicorn stronger than celestia and luna combined :DDDD
Normies gotta stop appropriating names like that, instead of stealing they should create original names for their original characters
>>47567482
Other than the last two, that actually sounds fun. Are you a faggot of some kind?
>>47567482
>warcraft trolls
>bad
>>47567482
I prefer to steal names and then defy tropes, making OC creations always sounds so try hard like I wanna be the new tolkien or something
No qualms with it when it's sci-fi or science fantasy though
>>47567482
Batgobs are great, anon. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>47567482
You dont understand. It is epic subversion and deconstruction of the genre.
And since we cleared that out. Do you want to hear about my good necromancer and jolly paladins?
>>47567510
Is there something wrong or new about paladins being jolly? Sir Holger was pretty jolly when he got himself his wereswan loli.
>>47567510
>good necromancer and jolly paladins
That's not on the subject, but yes.
>>47567505
Fuck off furry.
>>47567493
Nothing wrong with that, OP is not about tropes-but races.
>>47567482
This is all good and presents a nice break from the standard cookie-cutter fantasy but I usually balk at someone who tries to do all of it at the same time.
>>47567548
Next you'll tell me how your monstergirl waifu doesn't make you a furry.
>>47567631
>Furry
I don't think it means what you think it means.
>>47567510
>good necromancer
I'll believe it when you make your necromancers contract makers that bind people's souls and bodies to some time of their afterlife as workforce in exchange for goods and services during their lifetimes
>>47567660
I don't know man, what you guys say makes me worry me a bit sometimes.
>>47567660
I'm not here to argue it. I'm simply stating facts. You're a furry. Just like anyone who wants to fuck something not from this planet is a xenophile.
Deny it all you want it won't change the facts. Enjoy hiding your powerlevel.
>>47567482
>>my goblims are bat-like :)
>>my elfs have brow skin and are huge sloots :D
>>my trolls are humanoid and are south american themed :DD
>>my dwarfs have 3 eyes and also have wings :DDD
>>mine is a black and red alicorn stronger than celestia and luna combined :DDDD
>My OPs are all heterosexuals
>>47567482
>bat goblins
>Not zendikari rock goblinsZendikar has the cutest goblin girls.
![[Happy moth noises].png](https://i.imgur.com/tFd8vij.png "[Happy moth noises].png")
>>47567717
You know horse pussy is mostly a joke, right? Mostly. For most people.
>>47567667
Sure, why not?
Necromancers are all clerics.
They give pittances to unbelievers who sign their contracts.
>>47567722
OP here, my waifu is ahumanOC
>>47567597
Well, I mean there are certain racial tropes for fantasy races, Elves being tall, skinny, long lived things, blond and Dwarves being red headed, bearded and shit that no one really strays from all too much unless they wanna be unique which is kinda why OPs comments are so >haha imblying :^)
I dont know might be reading into it too much
>>47567756
>Dwarves being red headed
nigger what
>>47567768
wait shit are dwarves not usually red headed
am i shitting the bed right now
>>47567756
I think OP is referring to this kickstarted rpg where some races were turned into classes. Also, there was a butch dude in a pink frilly dress.
>>47567482
I'd fuck that Balrog.
>>47567804
You know how tall she is right,manlet?
>>47567967
Yes.
That makes her more desirable.
>>47567482
>my elfs have brow skin and are huge sloots
You've sold me on your setting.
>>47568130
He's right, you know.
>>47568130
I love this place, you guys understand me
>>47568130
>>47567482
>my dwarfs have 3 eyes and also have wings :DDD
>mine is a black and red alicorn stronger than celestia and luna combined :DDDD
Why do you faggots keep posting this garbage?
Even if someone is 'subverting' a cliche it never ever goes that fucking far and ridiculous. Dwarves may be literally made of stone, elves may be pure spirit beings, orcs may be some kind of weird demon creature in someone's weird 2original4u setting, but nobody takes dwarves and makes them 'le 3 eyes and wings lmao'
Take your strawman and put it in the trashcan. Along with yourself, while you're at it.
>>47568439
i don't get this pic
>>47568546
>2original4u
wew i'm stealing that lad
>>47567486
The South American Trolls are Blanka ripped from Street Fighter. So that'll be pretty shit.
First two aren't too offensive to my tastes.
>>47568546
>nobody takes dwarves and makes them 'le 3 eyes and wings lmao'
Pillars of Eternity. Dwarves are arboreal archers, elves are gypsies, and half-orcs come from some water place with shark racing and mass orgies.
>>47568677
I'd play that.
>>47568657
It's from Nichijou.
That dog is a reoccurring character.
It comes out at climaxes to show sympathy to pathetic characters.
I think it brings it's kid along to also show sympathy at some point?
>>47568719
So that means the person posting it doesn't care for tall women.
He's the one that needs the dog.
>>47568658
I thought it was WoW trolls.
>>47568155
You're cancer.
>>47568786
Maybe, personally wouldn't think of Jamaica as South American.
>>47568811
>>47567755
DISGUSTING.Tell me more...
>>47568130
>>47568856
As i said, you're reddit.
>>47568818
I remember from the warcraft general,
Aztecs n shiet, m8.
>>47569118
Keep the salt coming.
>>47567784
>I think OP is referring to this kickstarted rpg where some races were turned into classes.
and the circle continues....
>>47567482
Au contraire, names people are familiar with sound less ridiculous, jarring and offputting and are more evocative. Draw them in with something familiar then blindside them with the twists. I don't generally do that but it's a valid strategy.
>Implying regular elves aren't sluts.
>>47569266
>elfs
>sluts
>ever
fuck off /d/egenerate, real life isn't like your shitty korean comics
>>47567784
>kickstarted rpg where some races were turned into classes.
i'm not, whatever you talking about, but that is a very stupid idea.
>implying my elf can't be a drunken brawler
>implying my dwarf can't be a necromancer
>>47569118
There's nothing wrong with brown elf qts, anon.
>>47569266
>Draw them in with something familiar then blindside them with the twists. I don't generally do that but it's a valid strategy.
Nah, it's a fucking stupid strategy. First overburden them with expectations and assumptions coloring their image and completely bury any hint of actual imagination in your work, then pull the cheap "nuh-uh, but I made a twist" trick ironically further cementing the idea that you literally can't work with anything else than tropes and trope-subversion.
Seriously, this is a fucking terrible idea and always makes for shit fiction. If you have ideas, present those ideas: as they are, raw, actually imaginative and evocative. Don't bury them under tropes and established expectations. Subverting those expectations will ultimately not make those ideas anything more than a trope with the word "but" following it.
>>47567781
I mean it's reasonably common but not really part of the stereotype. Generally I see dwarves with brown, black or red hair.
>>47569455
Nigga are you serious? Subverting tropes are like half of all fiction in one way or another
It doesn't matter if a settings elves are pointy eared nature lovers with a penchant for magic, or a fungus race that have to keep to the forest to eat, as long as that shit is well written it doesn't matter if it fits in your retarded "le epic twist maymay"
>>47567739
only casuals
>>47569660
>Subverting tropes are like half of all fiction in one way or another
Yeah, the bad half. It does not really matter if your elves are pointy eared nature loves with talent for magic or fungus race, if you are already falling back on elves trope you can't you probably can't write for shit and you have already doomed your entire work to be a petty, meaningless, disposable genre fiction at the absolute best. And if there was actually a good idea in your mind, you have succesfuly killed it before it could even reach your reader.
>>47567482
>gargoyles
>drow/wood elves
>warcraft trolls
>?
>maybe some sort of nightmare
I don't know about the last 2, but surely the first few must have been intentional
>>47569704
So you genuinely think that as long as I don't call elves elves they're good? Exactly what do you think is an "original" idea? Because I can guarantee you it's some patchwork monstrosity made from other shit. Instead of focusing on "muh groundbreaking ideas" focus on making a good story and a well written world
>>47567746
>Necromancers are all clerics.
And there goes the "passionate researcher" trope, one of the few good tropes about mages in general.
>>47567482
Personally I'm more bothered when people make new nouns for mundane things just to show how different or futuristic or whatever their races are.
> He picked up the greeley next to the foom plate, twirling the ohickal noodles around.
> She put on her Glamis (what you would call an overcoat) and wrapped her shai'sha around her neck before finally slipping Maroowens over her hands to protect them from the cold.
Like just use fucking English. Or whatever language you're writing in. Don't just give fancy names to mundane shit to showcase how strange and awesome your world is.
Make it strange and awesome. Have a foom plate break down normally inedible matter into slurry that you flavour with different syrups and then reconstitute into different textures with your Greely. Different levels of detail and layering provides social context about conversation topics so that there is never overt conflict or confrontation while eating because the race doing so are descended from asocial carnivores and are instinctively guarded while eating.
Or some shit like that. But if it's a spade call it a fucking spade.
>>47569809
> Clerics aren't passionate researchers
Fun fact. Rabbinical studies are acceptable as an undergrad for law school.
Most religious officials are actually perfect for this trope, researching and debating religious events, records, writing etc.
Ignorant Priests are a Baptist and Arab thing.
>>47569755
>Because I can guarantee you it's some patchwork monstrosity made from other shit. Instead of focusing on "muh groundbreaking ideas" focus on making a good story and a well written world
You create a well written world PRECISELY by focusing on meaningful ideas and not tropes. Every monster, every supernatural and mythological concept is a patchwork of ideas, that is basically their definition: they are collections of associations and images combined to communicate some sort of more general idea.
The problem of using tropes is that you draw attention away from the concrete idea or image you are trying to convey, and instead associate and conjure up some generic, meaning-devoid stereotype that is used because it's a custom.
You want to communicate the idea of a nature-bound, beautiful and mysterious spirits of the forest. Then talk about those nature-bound, mysterious spirits, and who they are, what they look like, what traits they have, how you envision them.
But if you say "it's a fucking elf", you are going invoke the trope that has been used and formalized and washed out so many times that there is nothing actually special about them. And when I mean special, I don't mean "original", I mean their special role, their meaning within your particular story.
And you are not going to make it better if you are going to say "it's an elf - but wait, turns out it's a cannibal too!".
Focus on the meanings, not the tropes and shorthands. Then you might actually paint up an interesting world. That is what Tolkien did, and why he is still incomparably better than absolute majority of other fantasy authors.
>>47569725
>>?
What? You never heard of three eye mutants living in the earth?
They're obviously some sort of underdark monstrosity.
>>47567726
Kek that picture captured Op perfectly
>:DDDDDD
>>47569755
Not that anon, but I can see where he's coming from. His point is that, if you're already using tropes and ready-to-use chunks in your world, the farthest you can go with your work will still permeate the common use of that trope. If you start your world with "I have elves", you not only miss out on the opportunity of making races with an actual identity in your story, you put your reader/player in the ELF mentality. Anything you do inside the general elf conception will just be seen as "normal elf stuff" no matter how creative you make it happen, and any trope subversion is very likely to create a reaction of "meh, so they just work as the plot needs and whatever", making your story much more shallow and any events related to said *elves* way less impactful.
There's a reason for 99% of trope subversions related to magic races being shit. It's hard to make it coherent, and way too easy to fuck up without even noticing.
>>47569963
I always feel kinda embarrassed when somebody articulates my point better than I could. But yeah, you nailed exactly what I had in mind.
I've always found the idea of fantasy fascinating, but I also found it extremely hard to actually find good ones, and usually end up reading mythology, folklore, mystically oriented romantism, magical realism or surreal fiction instead: and I've figured the real problem is actually in the way fantasy treats and works tropes.
I'm feeling like fantasy has become a library of vague and really empty shorthands and stereotypes that are just being arranged into slightly different order each time and then the author calls it a day. And I really find it damn shame, because it ironically leads to situation where a genre literally called "imagination" is the least imaginative in the world, and themes supposed to talk about wonder, awe, mystery, end up being the most mundane and dull.
>>47570184
Because beyond the author/GM/etc being a hack, you have the situation where if something is original or unique, there will inevitably be a contingent of autists who REEE and complain that they like 'good old traditional fantasy', or that it's just trying to be 2unique4u special snowflake shit. Case in point , /tg/'s own " only play sword and board NG human fighters with Anglo Saxon names" crowd
>>47570228
>you have the situation where if something is original or unique, there will inevitably be a contingent of autists who REEE and complain that they like 'good old traditional fantasy',
Except it really, really isn't about uniqueness or originality. It's about meaningfulness. You can have an elf, the generic archer-mage trope that is there because it's what you expect when somebody says the story is fantasy, and you can have a woodland spirit the represents the kind of romantic awe you feel when you are alone in an old, sun-soaked forest watching a clear spring bubble listen to the howl of the wind. They both can be superficially extremely similar.
A good storyteller speaks about relatable and meaningful concepts. A bad storyteller is more tempted to use prefabricated templates of concepts - mostly ones derived by tearing meaningful concepts of better authors out of context. Both might end up telling almost the same bloody story, event from event, concept from concept. Both can tell a story of a knight who encounters woodland spirits on his way to save princess. Except one will be good and memorable, the other won't.
It's true that my perspective is largely skewed by the fact that I'm far more preoccupied by a narrativists approach: I mostly write and read, and when I GM, I do run "unorthodox" campaigns with a rather unorthodox group of players. One could make a fair argument that I "don't know what it is to GM an average player group".
>>47567487
>>47567482
I will never forget that one post in one of the worldbuilding threads that said "IN MY SETTING HUMAN ACTUALLY MEANS LIZARDMAN".
I think that perfectly describes 99% of /tg/'s worldbuilding.
>>47570371
>I think that perfectly describes 99% of /tg/'s worldbuilding.
That is unfair. Most of /tg/ actually condemns such attitudes, there are only occasional "bad apples" and oddities. Outside of /tg/, which is a rather exceptional bunch of people perhaps too engrossed and entangled with various meta-aspects of the medium, however things start to get more like this.
>>47568546
Eh, my dwarf representations got kinda rolled into other aspects of afanc myths and the resulting creature may seem pretty odd, but so what? All fantasy need not be a wholesale Tolkien ripoff. That would suck. Tolkien himself was cherrypicking myths and tweaking them in odd ways to make them his own. The myths in turn were convoluted messes of appropriation, adaptation, and heavy artistic liberties. This has been the standard for several millennia, your words are not sacred.
>>47567482
>bat-like goblins
i'd say that shit is forgivable, really. as long as it's only visually, it's not even that far of a cry from a normal goblin.
>>47569818
exception to the rule: clockwork orange inspired stuff.
>goblins are gross little green people who were created by a witch rubbing mud in her puss
>elves and trolls are the result of a few generations of Eladrin and spriggans mutating due to Earth's foreign magic
>dwarves are a natural earth people, cousins of orcs
I don't know what that last one means, but how'd I do?
>>47570555
Still the problem of using a trope, then explaining it with some small specifics.
What we learn is that you know the genre clichés and you gave them some degree of token changes so that you can claim some form of authorship. Why should anyone care about that?
>>47570651
Why should anyone care about some form of completely original or different race? Why should anyone care about anything? I mean if you are who I think you are, your advice thusfar seems to boil down to " be a really good storyteller", which not everyone can do, and certainly not everyone can do in the context of a tabletop rpg setting. What exactly do you expect people to do?
>>47570675
Oh for FUCK SAKE you people are morons. The fuck kind of argument is this supposed to be?
>Why should anyone care about some form of completely original or different race?
NOT. ABOUT. ORIGINALITY AT FUCKING ALL. How many times does this need to be repeated.
Context. Idea. Meaning. Those things fucking matter.
>Why should anyone care about anything?
THE FUCK is this question supposed to be? You are telling fucking stories, and you are asking "how'd I do" for fuck sake: you know all fucking well this is a completely moronic question.
>What exactly do you expect people to do?
At least fucking try and think about what they are telling and why. Just stop and ask "why am I doing this?" "What is the actual reasoning, what do I need to achieve, and how does this help me achieve that."
And considering that every single fucking storyteller: be a GM, or a writer, or a world builder or anything aims universally for one thing: PEOPLE CARING ABOUT WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, START ASKING THAT QUESTION:
"WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR IDEA, THIS PARTICULAR STORY I'M TRYING TO TELL."
Why "goblins"? What does it stand for: why is the thing you call "goblin" in your story, and what does associating the thing with the word "goblin" achieve? What fucking story do you want to tell and how intergral they are to it, and in what way?
Just think about the god damn things you are talking about for a second. Don't just mindlessly chain the same twenty stupid words with equally stupid mindless clarifications, existing for the sake of going through the same bloody motions.
>>47570675
>Why should anyone care about anything?
Well then go die or something, you fucking nihilist.
>>47570759
Why does there have to be some deeper meaning to it? Not everything has to be deep, senpai.
My tip for integrating new ideas: write as if your players never have seen a fantasy setting before.
You need to introduce your setting as a whole, your original ideas are not any more or less important than genre conventions. You need to introduce everything properly to your audience.
Difference for the sake of difference is nothing you, unfortunately.
>>47570788
> is nothing you
Nothing new.
>>47567482
> my Balrog best friend is Tsundere and won't stop trying to cross my bridge?
>>47570769
I'm not a nihilist, you retarded faggot. I'm just asking why anyone should care about anything anyone has written, because apparently that other guy won't unless every aspect is filled with *symbolism* and *meaning*, because God forbid someone want to just have some element because it appeals to them, or just because it's fucking easier to use the well established, ingrained tropes.
>>47570343
Stay snug, oinker.
>>47570788
Does that not get kind of tiresome? Having to explain basically every little thing?
>>47570802
No, you are the faggy retard. "Why should anyone care about anything?" is the last evasion for someone being backed up in a corner by arguments, just proclaiming that nothing really matters anymore as a braindead attempt at trying to save face on an anonymous image board.
>>47570759
Christ, you sound like a pretentious little shit.
>>47570775
Define "deep". Because I seriously think you might be mistaking "deep" for "any at fucking all."
>>47570802
Do you seriously not understand that communication is a transfer of meaningful and relevant ideas from one to another?
>because God forbid someone want to just have some element because it appeals to them,
That is the problem: nobody gives a fuck about what appeals to you when you yourself can't even fucking explain what makes it appealing and why is it important. You are not telling those stories for your fucking self: your players or audience don't see into your mind (hell, I doubt you actually understand yourself enough to actually figure out why do you give greater importance and preferences to one thing over another).
And that is by the way why 2/3rds of all world-building discussion ends up with people talking to them fucking selves and nobody giving two fucks about everybody else's world. And why two thirds of all table top campaigns fall into stupid murder-hobo fest or an unintended parody of them selves: that is exactly what happens when you can't make your players give two fucks about the narrative you are inviting them into.
>>47570828
The amount of explaining should equal to the amount of importance you place on individual aspect of the world within the context of your story. If it's important, you should take the time off and explain it from ground up, because if you just use a trope label, you are at a serious risk of actually creating entirely false image and assumptions in the audience.
>>47570847
It was basically in exasperation at that other faggot saying that no one will/should care about a setting/story that features any variation on the tropes and cliches of fantasy, as opposed to whatever alternative he's trying to suggest (which literally seems to just be "be good at stories", which is profoundly unhelpful). I really have no idea what the fuck he's arguing for, or how any of his ideas are meant to be applied to the context at hand. Ttrpgs aren't a traditional story, so most of his advice seems pretentious at best in that regard
>>47570873
Alright, we may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. I was overly hostile, and I apologize. I believe we may have differing opinions and approaches as to what makes a good story and a good tabletop campaign, but I can at least see where you're coming from. You make some cogent points, even if you come across somewhat condescendingly.
>>47567486
>Anything about that
>Sounding fun
I hate how Fantasy-Hipsters are a thing now.
>>47567510
>deconstruction
Lefty Newspeak at its best.
Postmodernism is the cancer of arts.
>>47567482
I already have green implike goblins, pale arrogant elves, big greenskin trolls, short bearded human dwarves, and... You just threw in a MLP reference for some reason.
Bluntly, any setting that's going to try and win me over needs a take on the various fantasy races I haven't seen billions of times before. Hell, I've seen dark-skinned sexy elves before, too, so that's not original. But the others are an attempt, and I might be interested in that setting based on other details. But if you just want dwarfy dwarves and gobliny goblins? I've got dozens of books with those in, I don't need another one.
>>47570873
New guy here, you are 100% right those people are being morons.
>>47571041
>1960s
>new
>>47571081
>implying you''re not just him patting himself on the back
>>47569333
They're AW style playbooks, actually. The idea is every PC is a people's representative, a la the fellowship, and thus gets to describe and worldbuild for their people and lands. Concept is good, art ranges from good to cringeworthy, /tg/ shat the bed because muh tumblr.
>>47571041
>deconstruction
>limiting thought
Do you even understand the words you're using? Simultaneously complaining about conceptual structure and wishing for a return to the 1800s?
>>47571041
Deconstruction gets a bad rap because of all the hipster cafe "I gave you raw pasta, it's deconstructed lasagne" shit but it gave us stuff like Madoka, too. It's not all bad.
>>47571092
Maybe you're like that, sure. But not everyone suffers from that kind of crippling insecurity.
>>47571149
I think you probably do, though
>>47567482
>>47567505
Wait, do people not like bat-goblins? I always thought it was a perfectly valid way to give goblins some uniform design, like Japan's pig-orcs.
>>47571224
From what I gather, one camp hates deviations from generic fantasy, one camp thinks anything with animalistic traits is furry scum, and one or two weird assholes seem to hate the concept of goblins in general due to them being tropes lacking narrative significance and deep meaning
>>47570946
Fair enough. I'm an asshole and I'm being confrontational, partially because, as stated I'm an asshole, but partially also to provoke people to responses.
And really, let provide an example of what I'm actually after. Let's say you are inventing your own world for a story you want your players to care about: instead of saying it's "fantasy" so you have "witches" and "goblins", think about it as a world where relatable real world ideas are exaggerated and larger-than life, to make it easier to understand and easily gripping. So where in real life you have female beauty and female ugliness, you exaggerate them and give them form: you have beautiful creatures who represent exaggerated female beauty: sexual attraction (they are half-naked), signs of health (fair healthy skins, curvatious but not fat dispositions etc...) - and since they are ideals, let's give them strange powers - by mere will they can bind people with spells, their care literally mends wounds etc. And you have the opposite: exaggerated traits of female repulsiveness: creatures either bloated or flesh-and-bones, ugly faces, sickly skin, warts etc... and they also represent what you fear from women - they can hurt you just by their words, or infect you with disease...
And then you extend this idea by the idea of motherhood (because that is a feminine thing too.
So the nymphs give life to idealized children: cute, curious, playful, harmless or blessed child-like creatures.
And analogically, the witches give birth to a twisted counterpart: small and dumb like children tend to be, but warped, mischievous or malevolent, twisted, sickly.
Now you have relatable, meaningful images, creatures that compliment your idea of exaggerated but relatable world. They exist and have the particular shape because they are telling something you wanted to tell: a more vivid, extreme, exaggerated reflection of our world.
(1/2 posts, sorry I could not fit it in one).
>>47568546
>Dwarves may be literally made of stone
That's literally more ridiculous than three eyes and wings.
>>47571224
I hate the trope of generally evil race being "pretty". Those goblins you posted? I can see a lot of people fapping to them already.
I want my monsters monstrous. I don't want orcs to be just a different brand of beefcake - unless it's played for shock effect. Pretty and monstrous on the way they act? Sign me up. But "a bit animalistic, probably noble savages"? It's shit.
>>47571504
(2/2)
Now you can name them if you insist: you can call the ideal feminine creatures "nymphs" and the ugly ones "witches", the idealized children "puks" and the twisted ones "goblins". But you can call them anything else: important is the image, and that it's meaningful within the context of the world and story.
In fact, calling the twisted version of child like ideal "goblin" might detract from what you originally wanted to tell, the emphasis on twisted version of child like qualities, because some fantasy associate goblins with bat-like or animal like features, or with crude primitive bastards living underground, like Tolkien did.
The bottom line is: you clearly have ideas that you want to tell, otherwise you presumably would not be GM'ing or writing or whatever. Don't let genre tropes and labels actually distract you from the thing that really did matter: the thing you wanted to tell. Even if those tropes are superficially similar, shorthanding your responsibility as a story teller with these tropes might very easily actually ruin the thing that matters the most: the actual unique (and it does not have to be original, just important-to-you-and-your-imagination) part of the whole story you are telling.
That's all I wanted to say, basically. Sorry for being an asshole about it it, but it really does fucking drive me mad that it isn't more common to think like this.
>>47571524
I don't know. That's dwarfier than 3eyes wings. You could at least make a case for how being made of stone fits with the dwarven archetype, whereas the eyes and wings just seem sort of random
>>47567482
>my goblins are non-existent
>my elves are insomniacs because demons
>my trolls are siberian fire worshippers
>my dwarves are agendered stone liches
why am I responding to b8?
>>47571569
Well we've had some lively conversation derived from the OP, regardless of whether it was intended as bait, so feel free to join in
>>47571568
>You could at least make a case for how being made of stone fits with the dwarven archetype
You could make a case for anything you wanted related to fictional creatures. Both stated changes are completely random, the only heavily reoccuring traits associated with the archetype are; short, beard, beer, and smithing. Changing them from fleshbags to golems changes the whole perspective on them
>>47571680
Not really. The dwarf is heavily associated with both craftsmanship and earth/stone. Being a creature that is literally crafted from the stone of the mountain seems very in line with dwarfness.
>>47569704
>Yeah, the bad half.
>Blindsight
>bad
It had best vampires.
>>47571680
>Both stated changes are completely random, the only heavily reoccuring traits associated with the archetype are; short, beard, beer, and smithing.
Those are not random at all: they are actually extremely intuitive.
So: assume you want to project human like qualities to a stone, to personify it. What you think off when you say stone? It's heavy, sturdy, difficult to move or crush, it keeps close to the ground or underground. You think of boulder and you think of something that is generally more wide than tall, it's not something that invokes towering up or expanding. Also - stone being associated with underground or mountains immediately associates smaller size.
At the same time, it's toughness, roughness and hardness invokes associations with masculinity (men are supposed to be the tougher, rougher, less soft gender), and that quickly leads you to facial hair (typical for males and masculinity), male professions requiring exceptional endurance (smiting, lumber): hence hammers and axes. Minerals and metals are hidden in stones - association with craft, with things that transform and are being transformed, with dirt, snoot, but also value. Gem's are stones, and often have the quality of looking rough and ugly at first, but contain something valuable inside: hence the "rough but good at heart" stereotype.
Beer in north Europe was common (ubiquitous almost) drink of the peasantry - the harder, rougher people, creating a binary opposition of wine, drink of the scholars, priests, nobles - the more refined and elegant ones.
Hence: if you want to personify stone, you easily and quickly come with an intuition that we today know as Dwarves.
>>47569938
C.H.U.D.
>>47571645
gotta go to work now m8
It sucks having a life
>>47571559
>But "a bit animalistic, probably noble savages"? It's shit.
I get that, I just like the notion of any given sentient race having some notion of culture.
Like, maybe due to their insane breeding rate only 1/100 goblins are actually born with a fully-developed frontal lobe, so they can form a small society tucked way deep in the jungle while the rest of the goblins run crazy and act like the mischievous little bastards we all love.
>>47572010
Chemical Hazard Underground Dumping?
>>47572177
Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers
>>47567482
The barring the trolls, slutty elves, and the Mary sue character, the whole thing sounds quite interesting. I hadn't even considered bat-like goblins. That's an excellent idea.
>>47571864
Pretty good post.
>>47567482
>my trolls are humanoid and are south american themed :DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDrX9Ml4TyM
>>47567482
Creativity is gay and stupid and is for faggot cucks.
Fuck creativity.
Let's tell the same story with the same characters multiple times, and also reuse combat encounters too
I also support those anons who are in favor of creating, writing, or using races intuitive to the setting rather than using tropes and tropes with hats.
I like subverting storyline tropes, because I like playing with expectations.
But that's twisting simple events, not worldbuilding.
>>47572977
Next time, read the thread instead of projecting your own insecurity bullshit and throwing a tantrum.
You might actually learn something useful.
>>47571566
Okay, i am not any of the ones you were responding before.
What i got from your explanation is that an author should first and foremost define everything that, in this case, their new race/species is, represents, and its place withing the bigger picture WITHOUT resorting to stablished terms (Like goblin, elf or such)
But what seems to be the point of contention here has more to do with naming in itself
In my case, i used to work in a setting were humans were the outsiders and latecomers to that particular universe so they resorted to the "name the species like the closest earth analogue" school of naming.
So, they ended up with tons of "Dragons" most of them completely unrelated to one another.
Two inteligent races named "elf", again no relation between the two
An animal species named "centaur" because of its torso shaped head over its cuadruped body
Each of these species already had a name they themselves use, but most are okay-ish with their human given ones
I based this naming convention on the fact that here in earth we have many unrelated animals named "dragon" or some variation of it. Also the fact that it was not a friendly first encounter, so many of the names were despective nicknames given by soldiers.
But it seems that, under your reasoning, my approach is wrong or at least incorrect. Maybe you can point out another alternative? To avoid putting prejudices in the heads of my players beyond "It is called dragon by these people because it looks dragon-ish if you squing a little" because that one is intended.
>>47567486
I'm disturbed by elves having brow skin just presumably flapping down over their eyes.
Hairy little brow flaps fluffing against their cheeks.
>>47573392
>But it seems that, under your reasoning, my approach is wrong or at least incorrect.
Actually, if you give the naming an in-universe reasoning, then I really don't see the problem. I assume that in your world, before the humans started encountering other species, they had mythologies of their own - old greek, norse. Perhaps they even (I don't know if this is a sci-fi world or not) knew the concept of fantasy and had it established with all those tropes.
And then, having their own myths about elves and centaurs, they just used those because they found it convenient. Am I getting that right?
If yes, it's no different to say, Evangelion naming the weird creatures after Hebrew angels. It's an in lore, consistent explanation, one that you need to clearly establish when you are introducing the world, but I don't see the issue. "Humans have a tendency to apply terms they knew previously to new concepts" is actually a PART OF YOUR STORY, part of the message you are getting across, right?
The races are defined as "things alien to us, that we somehow had to conceptualize, that we need to make feel familiar to us", in a sense. "We are encountering these weird creatures, so weird that we don't know even how to name them. So we look back, into our own past and mythologies, trying to find something to associate them, to make them feel less strange, more understandable." seem to me like actually part of the story of those races (and their relevance to humans), part of their meanings, and their role in the narrative.
Maybe I'm getting it wrong - correct me if so.
I don't advocate a rule for never using previously used names for your races. I'm saying that you should have a race first - your world/narrative first, if you will - and then think hard if you are contributing, or detracting from it by using a name already associated with a trope. In your case, it seems not only acceptable, it seems beneficial, due to the "taming the unknown by familiar name" theme.
>>47571224
>pig-orcs
>bat-gobs
>fox-elves
>mole-dwarves
>dog-kobolds
>monkey-humans
>>47571559
i want warcraft babbies and their endless whining about the game to fucking LEAVE
>>47571569
>b8
do you even know what that means?
>>47571559
While it's a reasonable concern, you do know that in most cases "Pretty" is biologically synonymous with "healthy"?
Symmetry, soft curves, uniform coloration, consistent texture, clean/shiny hair are all indicators of health.
Obviously there are creatures that don't need/care like trolls or a lot of demons, but more mundane races should look "pretty" if they've advanced to civilization and any degree of prosperity.
Even the impish and crazy gobbos would begin to normalize with sufficient nutrition, socialization and cultural exchange.
And yes, that does mean there's a necessary discussion of convergent evolution and all the crazy xenophilia it permits (only if you let it GMs).
>>47573515
>(I don't know if this is a sci-fi world or not)
It is kinda sci-fi disguised as fantasy.
The main point is that every time a planet with lifeforms is going to be destroyed in some way, portals start appearing all across the globe giving the deizens a chance to escape to this new world by unknown benefactors.
Now the new species have to make a place for themselves among creatures that emerged from worlds completely alien to them.
Animals-level species and low tech ones simply stay there and make the most of the situation.
Spacefaring species simply opt to leave the world and conquer the new universe, if they bothered to use the portals at all.
Humans are in a kind of complicated situation since they are much more advanced than the species in the new world but not advanced enough to leave the world itself. So they have to compete with creatures that defy everything humans knew about biology and adapt to the rules of "physics" of the world.
Their first encounters were with the "centaurs" that crossed the portal into our world, originally they had no names and since they are feral it is likely they never had one. Due to their shape (which used to look like pic related but the size of a Great Dane before i changed them) they were dubbed "centaurs" by the general populace.
Or the example of the "elves", more specifically "Dark elves" because they used to fight from the "trees" using bows and also their dark complexion. That's it until they saw them using ther teeth to inject toxins into the neck of a soldier, then they were dubbed "vampires" because they thought it was feeding from his blood.
They have a name of their own, they have their own culture, wishes, desires, beliefs. The names "Dark elf" and "vampire" are only what the humans thought they were, not what they call themselves. Except when interacting with humans.
>>47573528
>fox-elves
Kitsune are basically elves already, aren't they?
>>47567482
In what context?
>>47573877
Again, in the terms of naming and world building, the crucial question is "how do you justify the particular name and what do you want to communicate by that name?"
Was I right or wrong on the "humans knew what a centaur is from their own history and mythology, and they used it on these newcomers because they could not think of anything more fitting and had to name it something" assumption? If I was right, then you have my opinion: I think it's actually a legitimate way to tell the story of the species and it's interaction with humans.
Names exist to tell stories. Here, you have a story of how humanity had to adopt to something they had no name for previously. That is a good enough justification for me, and given the whole context and setup, it seems unlikely that it would cause confusion.
Hell, you even might WANT to cause confusion, because it does reflect the confusion of the humans in your world. They say these creatures bite down on necks of people, though they were feeding, though of vampires - it was a misunderstanding, but it stuck. A nice little ambient storytelling that you can use to your advantage.
You are not using the trope name to identify the creature with a fantasy trope. You are using it to explain how humans reacted and dealt with their first encounter with something alien. Seems like a fair deal to me.
>>47573983
>Was I right or wrong on the
Oh, sorry, yes you are right. Humans saw the six limbed, cuadruped horrors and among the many names they got "centaurs" is the one that stuck. Because it reminded them of the mythical beings and it was a term pretty much everyone understood.
>Hell, you even might WANT to cause confusion
That is why i put so many "Dragons", in fact, that was actually a reference to Alien 3 where an inmate refers to the xenomorph as "a dragon" and ripley knows exacly what he actually meant. The idea of a dragon is very vague yet at the same time people know what you are talking about
Also the reason i decided to take this approach was when i realized that i could create all the fancy names i wanted (Muruk, Singasé, Errem, etc) but most people would refer to them as "That dragon thing" or "The black elf dude", so i decided to embrace it.
"This creature is known as the Ee but, colloquially, humans refer to it as a Midnight Dragon because they live near the settlement of Midnight" (Awaits for the players to ask for more information)
It seemed more natural in the end.
Oh, and thank you for your pointers, they are really helping me to solidify some ideas.
>>47569866
But if the nature spirits aren't what you are focusing on then there is no point in describing their culture as a group of slightly taller than average pointy eared people with a pension for magic instead of saying that they are elves. Its like describing every forest as a collection of closely set together deciduous trees with such and such average temperature instead of just calling it a forest. Then you can say things like "It's a forest, but with more burned down trees then normal" and don't have to get bogged down in pointless description. Elf itself isn't devoid of meaning, it holds dozens of connotations depending on your players/readers. It only becomes devoid of meaning when you say they're elves and then treat them the exact same way as humans
>>47574615
Why do you fucking have a race so god damn token and irrelevant to you that you can't be even arsed to explain it to your players?
>Dude, we want to learn and live in the world you imagined. What's it like? What are it's inhabitants.
>I dunno. There are like... I dunno, some fucking tree hugging hippes or something, I don't know, some bad dudes, like, the fuck do you want from me, fill the rest of the blanks for yourself.
Why do you even bother having different races in your world building if you literally cannot be arsed to care about them.
Elves aren't a fucking forest. They are a made up concept, something some people dreamed fucking up. You don't say "I had dreams, figure the rest up yourself" when you want to captivate someone with your surreal art either. Elves mean something else in every single instance and every single work, which is why when you don't explain what it means in yours, people will have to go with an average sum, the most superficial and shallow image of the most broad and generic qualities associated with them, which makes the fucking boring.
Why do you create fiction worlds if you don't care about the actual parts of your fiction enough to come up with your own imagination and ideas?
>>47567510
>Do you want to hear about my good necromancer and jolly paladins
Yes, actually. Especially the latter.
>>47571141
>madoka
>not bad
pick one
>>47568546
Made out of stone in what way? Because Tolkien's dwarves WERE created out of stone by the smith god. Eru took pity on him and gave them souls just when he was going to destroy them, since they weren't in the Music of the Ainur and therefore not supposed to exist, but that is why Dwarves are pretty much historically irrelevant when compared to Elves or Men
>>47573927
yes, in both modern and traditional senses
