Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Trask]

Anyone notice this phenomenon? I play D&D/Pathfinder with my fair share of people and I've noticed that dwarven PCs are pretty rare. As are gnomes and halflings for that matter but IME they've always been a bit rare. But dwarves, I'm used to dwarves being cool. I remember everyone wanted to have a Gimli type character and have fun with a hokey Scottish accent, cracking heads and roleplaying high functioning alcoholism, great fun.

But in recent years I find dwarves really rare. And not just rare, but an active sense of "ew, why would I ever pick that" when I bring up dwarf as a possible race for a player thinking about a character. Is that anyone else's experience?

Not a hate thread for "the young people not playing D&D my way", people can and should play what they want (even if its a horde of pink haired tieflings in tutus) but I still lament the fall from grace of this particular fantasy species in my circle of players. Dwarves are one of my favorites, and Durkon was always my favorite OotS character. My brother and I were crazy for them when we started, still one of my favorite characters I've DM'ed for is my brother's Dwarf cleric of Torag in Pathfinder 1e

Tell me if you feel this way or many other fantasy race that you feel this way about?

[Atranen]

I have seen this...rare to see a dwarf in my public AL games. My impression is that it has just had its time. Everyone knows the stereotype, and then there is not much to explore beyond that (at least, officially supported). So people are looking for something new.

[OldTrees1]

But in recent years I find dwarves really rare. And not just rare, but an active sense of "ew, why would I ever pick that" when I bring up dwarf as a possible race for a player thinking about a character. Is that anyone else's experience?

Question: Is the "ew, why?" about optimization, flavor, or some 3rd aspect (Dwarf species not living up to the fiction of a Dwarf species for example)?



I have found Dwarves rare. I went back to 3.5/3.P and mostly see a mixture of human and species ~2 steps removed from human (dragonborn, ratfolk, shifter, etc), and commonly see species 4+ steps removed from human (Illithid, Dragon).

When I was playing 5E, I rarely saw Dwarves. Personally it was because the species available were all bland (no points for guessing I played the Illithid) and thus I mostly picked them based on how they would enhance the class choices. So Dwarf was not a likely pick for me. (hence my question about what kind of "ew")



Further differentiating Dwarves from Humans might reignite some of the spark.

[Psyren]

They're not faring any better in Baldurs Gate 3 either. (https://twitter.com/larianstudios/status/1732091568243229159/photo/2)

If there's indeed a trend happening, I can think of a few reasons why:

1) They've gotten a reputation for being/feeling very samey across multiple settings and even genres. (Obligatory TVTropes link.) (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDwarvesAreAllTheSame)

2) Related to #1, they're commonly picked to be the "tough guy" who is wary of magic. But now there are better "tough guy" races (e.g. Goliath, Orc, Dragonborn etc - all of which are not only much more imposing for those going for that archetype, but are going to be core this year - and depending on your campaign there will be even more, like Warforged, Minotaur, Bugbear, Earth Genasi etc.) Not only are these races more exciting narratively, almost all of them have better mechanics too.

3) Related to #2, in most editions their benefits have been saddled with drawbacks. Being ugly or uncharismatic is often forgiveable, but being slow comes up quite a lot in play, and they've been stuck with that one for decades. Being bad at magic mechanically is another, though each successive edition of D&D at least loosened that one before Tasha's finally killed it.

4) (CRPG-specific) their height difference at best makes them the butt of the joke, as weird camera angles, incredible growth spurts, or NPCs gamely leaning over are used to accommodate their puerile proportions. At worst, it can actively cause them to miss out on content - in DAI for example, Dwarf Inquisitors have the least number of romance options in the game, and no Dwarf NPCs are available for a full romance.

OneD&D is giving them a couple of cool abilities and completing the removal of their drawbacks, but I expect it'll be too little too late for their popularity until some other big CRPG or other major release has a prominent Dwarf character. that people want to emulate.

[TaiLiu]

Personally, I've never been interested in dwarves, possibly for the same reason I'm not interested in playing humans. While fun to interact with, I think dwarves are kinda boring to play. They're honor-bound stocky peoples who maybe live underground and love a good drink. All right. But those seem like boring racial traits. The most interesting aspect about them are their underground lives.

But they don't often feel of the underground. If dwarves were partly coal or earth elemental or mushroom... If they could speak to the earth or turn into stone... Then maybe I'd pick them. But in most games, those aren't traits they can draw upon.

This is just a personal response. I'm not sure why your players don't wanna dwarf it out. Maybe ask them.

[wilphe]

Playing a dwarf isn't about being cool

Playing a dwarf is about doing your duty, even if it makes you uncool.

++++++++++++

Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.

Bet if similar stats were available for BG1&2 dwarves would be near the bottom too

[Telok]

Funny, I play dwarves, gnomes, and halflings almost exclusively in fantasy games. Of course my dwarves are from DwarfFortress and only partially sane, the gnomes tend to be a bit hardcore into hot electric death or rabid giant otters or such, and the halflings act like mobsters to the point of joining or founding major criminal organizations. Although I do switch it up at times with Godfather style gnomes, Mad Max mammoth riding dwarves, or "lightning bolt solves all my problems" halflings.

My next game is looking at the PCs dealing with paper pushing ork clerks and donut addicted overweight elf rent-a-cops while hunting dire platypus on a river system infested with chainsaw-fish. I've got a dwarf cyborg haunted by a wraith, demon gnome wanna-be dragon, ork wizard/cleric famous brain surgeon, and an assimar ex-space marine with a bounty on his head.

Its probably just a swing through some people not being able to break past some stereotypes and thus avoiding the whole set of them.

[JellyPooga]

Back in the 80's, many adult gamers were hairy, leather clad bikers with blue-collar jobs like mechanics and construction workers (at least in the UK). They could identify with hairy, hard-working, hard-drinking craftsmen with a penchant for kicking evil's butt with a big ol' axe or hammer. It was a simpler time and (literally) down-to-earth was popular and relatable. Dwarves were Metal.

The modern day gamer has much more varied tastes, more varied backgrounds and has much more variety to choose from. Is it any such wonder that people are choosing any race less frequently when there's so much more to choose from? Dwarves are now just a sub-genre of Rock.

Just my observations as an armchair philosopher and long-time gamer.

[Satinavian]

I observe the same thing.

Reasons ? Well, Dwarves tend to be not very varied in depiction. For many that results in a been there- done that phenomenon. I see way more Dwarves in Shadowrun, where Dwarven culture does not exist and Dwarves are varied than in classical fantasy games where you either play an archetypical Dwarf or a subversion.

Then there is the lack of things that Dwarves actually excel in even per lore. They are generally not the greatest fighters. Sure, they are a bit sturdy, but not particularly strong and they are slow and have reach problems. They archetypically don't do magic.

The one thing they do have per lore is excellent crafting - but even here are severe problems. In most systems they don't get any mechanical benefits to crafting because mundane crafting is the same for everyone and their aversion to magic makes them even worse at crafting anything that matters.

It is also a problem that nearly all well known dwarfs in fiction are male. People preferring female PCs often don't think of dwarves.


Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.
Sure they were already popular based on the books long before the films existed.

[wilphe]

Sure, but as popular as elves?

Who were the golden child of AD&D2 in both crunch and fluff

CBoE is merely the most notorious example.

[icefractal]

I have found Dwarves rare. I went back to 3.5/3.P and mostly see a mixture of human and species ~2 steps removed from human (dragonborn, ratfolk, shifter, etc)I realized I often do this. That is, if the character's race is supposed to be a significant part of their story / style, then I'm probably picking something farther afield than Dwarf, and/or something with more hooks to use. If it isn't, then I'm generally just going Human (in PF1, a reasonable choice for any class) for conservation of detail and since it simplifies things.

I have played several Dwarf characters, and enjoyed it fine, but it's not usually the option that comes to mind in the last few years. Partly because yeah, in a lot of settings they don't get that much characterization. And mechanically they're fairly niche, so it's unlikely to come from that direction.

[Lord Raziere]

It is also a problem that nearly all well known dwarfs in fiction are male. People preferring female PCs often don't think of dwarves.


As someone who has shifted long time ago to preferring female PCs, I can say this is true at least for me.

If I want classic femininity, go elf. You can't really go wrong with that.

If I want an amazonian strong girl, I'd go goliath or Orc/half-orc or an oni-inspired tiefling, or even bugbears! Like, nothing against dwarven women, but its hard to compete with those options, warrior wise.

and if I want small well.....don't feel like that often to be honest. but Fairy seems more like something I'd go for, but if we're talking core races, halfling or gnome is more likely, and I've already played a female goblin inventor-type of character, so crafting probably be that or a gnome.....and female halfling would actually be the better play for smol warrior, because everyone expects a dwarf to do that sort of thing, but halflings doing something brave/crazy is ironically, an expected subversion.

so dwarf women have to compete with that, life is tough for dwarf women PC-wise. like what do you even do with a dwarf PC to make them interesting?

well dwarven society is very traditional, so maybe there is some potential to be mined from that. dwarves are often relegated to just being harmless good guys, but its quite easy to observe that tradition isn't always good and that not every dwarf is going to like their society, as OOTS has demonstrated. there could be many dwarven women like hilgya fed up with tradition and intentionally going out of their way to be something different. but thats the obvious answer.

there is potential for.....a transgender dwarf. see, dwarven society can be quite rigid in its gender roles. so a transgender dwarf would probably not like it. a dwarven woman can easily be one who left to find a way to transition and live outside the strict confines of her society.

putting that aside though, there is potential in perhaps, the Ronin/Knight-Errant/Cowboy Dwarf. Dwarves are known for being very honorable and whatnot. So what if a dwarven warrior breaks some sacred rule of honor in their society that doesn't necessarily get them killed but dwarves just don't like? well they get exiled, and now that dwarf wanders having to live by their own code of honor that they make, knowing they've did a dishonor that no one other society would consider such. done right, a dwarf can be a Rurouni Kenshin/Usagi Yojimbo/Vash the Stampede like figure, riding into towns, getting tangled in local problems and their greater wisdom, good nature and tenacity solves the problem. dwarven grit and stubbornness mean they can desire peace while still being willing to kill for it- a staple of these kinds of knight-errant heroes.

paired with that, put dwarves in a warring states situation against themselves. too often a race is treated as united and without conflict, ruled by a singular king that speaks for all of them, but what if that king is dead and the dwarves haven't figured out a new successor in hundreds of years and their lords are still trying fight for power among themselves? that could lead to a few character concepts that could happen if the dwarves are just at peace mining underground without anything to bother them other than outside threats. a dwarven adventurer could be on a journey to become stronger so they can return and unite their people once more, and it makes sense for dwarven warrior traits and dwarven stubbornness to combine into fighting each other in a long drawn out conflict that doesn't really go anywhere.

another way dwarves can go is martial arts, like say, the monk. like their beards are already old wise master level to start with, they just gotta unlock their chi and they can just start spouting mystical wisdom. that and their ethic of hard work, discipline, regimented lifestyle....dwarves are very well suited to be martial artists and they'd probably get a lot of mileage out of coming up with a martial arts style to defeat foes that are taller and bigger than them. and obviously they are a shoe-in for a fantastic drunken master style, seriously how are there not entire monasteries filled with dwarves doing katas and cultivating their chi? they're practically made for martial arts stories. a dwarf going super-saiyan? sounds more plausible to me than an elf doing it. oh and need I say dwarves would love wrestling in all its forms? like if your not into anime or wuxia, make a dwarf monk and turn into them a wrestler, watch a few wrestler intros and imagine a dwarf saying them-DBZA showed the potential of this with Recoome and the same potential exists in dwarves.

finally, consider this: dwarves would make great Jojo's Bizarre Adventure protagonists, because they'd react seriously to any situation no matter how bizarre or outlandish it is. think Jotaro Kujo but shorter and with a beard. they could be THAT if you do it right.

and if Warhammer and WH40k taught me anything is that old traditional societies love their bling, so if all else fails, bling up your dwarves. give them the fanciest old european fashions you can find, decorate them head to toe in symbols, make their helms and armor both functional AND decorated works of art, overdesign it to baroque perfection, they're supposed to be master craftsmen, and if human blacksmiths didn't settle for just making functional stuff, don't let your dwarves do so either, because whats the point of being a race of master craftsmen or whatever if you can't go around showing off the bling you created with your expertise? crafting stuff ain't just for technology its for art! for looking good! swagger on in to an elven embassy looking your sunday best and watch elegant elven sensibilities cry as they behold your drip. make your hammer's head into the most intricately detailed boar head that your enemies will ever see and get killed by, find the biggest most ridiculous hat anyone will ever see, wear it and act like everyone else is crazy for not recognizing style. your a dwarf, you may be a tough, hard-working warrior but you got standards of fashion to keep, your ancestors bedecked themselves in art, so why not you?

[Satinavian]

CBoE is merely the most notorious example.Oh yes, i hated that. Of course the authors couldn't even let the Dwarves have the crafting crown. No, Elves needed to be the best even here.

Luckily i hardly played AD&D then.

[Ignimortis]

Dwarves have never been cool.

*hides suddenly pointy ears*

But to be less facetious, it's a whole thing. IME, the only people who play dwarves are the people who play dwarves. As in, people who play dwarves prefer to play dwarves or halflings or somesuch, and people who play many different races tend to not play dwarves for one reason or another. Therefore, unless your group has a dwarf-player, you usually won't see any dwarves, and if it does, you'll see plenty.

One of my regular groups has a "dwarf fan", and another doesn't. The first one has seen several smaller characters over the last two years, the second one hasn't seen a dwarf PC in ten.

All that I know, however, is that if a game involves me in any capacity, there will be an elf. Or something elf-adjacent. My current tiefling would be unrecognizable as a tiefling to post-3e players - no horns, no hooves, no red/blue skin, etc. Just some very nasty shark teeth, inhuman eyes, sharp ears and unnatural, uncanny gauntness of figure. In short, an elf as some folk tales would paint them.

[Unoriginal]

I can"t say I've observed that.

Among the four people I regularly play with, three of them played Dwarves in recent years. and one of them has fun with Dwarf NPCs when he DMs.

In 5e discussions, Dwarves are also regularly suggested as a build option, as they have a number of nice perks. Duergar is one of the best option for a grappling build, for example, and armored Dwarf Wizard has been recognized as a nice combo since the 2014 PHB.

One of the players I mentioned above plays a chaotic evil Conquest Paladin with a marked tendency to try touching stuff to see what it does. This has resulted in some positive if weird consequences (like getting proficiency in Arcana after getting a tour of the cosmos in accelerated) and some negative if weird ones (like giving the BBEG an excuse to declare the PC broke the rules of hospitality by checking what was blocking the path by which the group entered).

[Beelzebub1111]

Dwarfs are the best! I don't know what you're on about. Whether it's the inventive smith, the death-seeking berserker, or the humble priest I rarely have a game without a dwarf of some kind.

[Grod_The_Giant]

well dwarven society is very traditional, so maybe there is some potential to be mined from that. dwarves are often relegated to just being harmless good guys, but its quite easy to observe that tradition isn't always good and that not every dwarf is going to like their society, as OOTS has demonstrated. there could be many dwarven women like hilgya fed up with tradition and intentionally going out of their way to be something different. but thats the obvious answer.

there is potential for.....a transgender dwarf. see, dwarven society can be quite rigid in its gender roles. so a transgender dwarf would probably not like it. a dwarven woman can easily be one who left to find a way to transition and live outside the strict confines of her society.
That can definitely make an interesting character. (https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Cheery_Littlebottom)

[Xervous]

I only find myself hearing proportionally less about dwarves because they don’t fit the themes of the groups I happen across. For a happy dwarf there are many that pick halfling, for a crafty dwarf there are many that pick gnome. Elves are thought of as a broad and general package that includes a rainbow of skin tones plus your choice of world perspective.

The group that shows up with a party looking for Adventuwus in the Furgotten Realms is probably not seeking a game that meshes well with dwarves. Dwarves are a subtle flavoring in an era where most dishes are oversaturated with sugar or spice.

[Kane0]

If they were say one of six options in the past, you'd expect to see roughly one in every party or so.
Nowadays you may well have double or triple that number so you'd expect to see them proportionally less, all options being roughly equal.
Then factor in other stuff like being a largely unchanged option for decades tends to stagnate the experience so those that have made a stereotypical dwarf will have moved on to playing other characters years ago. Or that traditional thematic or mechanical dwarf niches are now being shared with other choices.

There will always be the diehards, my group has a serial dwarf fighter player even, but yeah it's not just you.

[NichG]

I guess I'd tend to consider dwarves more pridefully obsessive than honor-bound exactly? Like, the sort of person who will spend 150 years finding the exact amount of air exposure, initial water temperature, angle of the container, heat capacity and conductivity of the materials, shape of the glass, etc to make the perfect cup of coffee. Not quite the same as Krynnish tinker gnome life quests (where it seems to be more 'we as a culture need these because we get so easily distracted by the latest cool thing that we wouldn't ever finish anything without this' to me), more in the consummate craftsman's pride kind of sense. The strong sense of tradition comes from that gradual process of refinement - no one is just calculating the perfect hammer blow angle from first principles, they're spending four centuries trying very small variations, passing those on to their apprentices, who spend another four centuries trying very small variations, and so on, until it reaches a kind of uncanny perfection - at least when dealing with things that don't change on their own, like the properties of steel or stone.

So yeah in that culture you don't just throw that away and do something random, because that collection of details was painstakingly and very precisely gained from trial and error. And since at that fine level no one can say exactly why this detail should be this way rather than that way (oh, they may tell a story about it, but really the answer is always 'we tried 10000 ways and this was the best') there is a justifiable worry that if someone changes something fundamental about a way of doing things, all of that fine-tuned detail won't transfer over to the new base and now you've lost a thousand years of progress you'll have to get back. I'd imagine that someone who does that, but also shows commitment to actually re-tuning those details before trying to have their innovation be accepted by the rest of the society would be honored rather than shunned - at least in the sort of generic stereotypical dwarven societies I tend to imagine.

Similarly, dwarven relationships and personal bonds might be approached with the same level of care for detail - knowing enough about someone else's day to day living and trials and aspirations that there isn't this scary moment of 'I have no basis to think about this situation, what do I do, what do I say?' when interacting with them. More the sort of thing where you can have a conversation like 'How's the shop doing? Repaired that chip in the anvil yet? Your hip still giving you trouble?' friendship with someone than the kind of 'you seem to be an awesome person and you're into the stuff I'm into, so lets do those things we both enjoy' kind of friendship. Which of course takes both time and a kind of radical transparency that wouldn't be instinctually natural to offer for a lot of others. Whereas comparably I would see elven culture stereotypically as seeing friendship being more about the sort of person someone is than that kind of comfortable interaction - drawn more to the potential someone represents or the myth they could inhabit or even just the emotions evoked in moments of interaction.

Plus I think that's a bit more interesting than honor-bound dutiful Scottish samurai.

That said, would I necessarily choose to play a dwarf to play a character who exemplifies those attitudes? The last character I played who was this much this way was in L5R, so it wasn't an option at that time. I don't know, I guess the issue is I don't know that D&D really mechanically supports this kind of consummate craftsman archetype very well. The L5R character was a swordsmith who used iaijutsu as part of his smithing process, and there was mechanical gimmickry that supported that along with things like 'the better the smith, the better the weapon you can make' that isn't really how any crafting in D&D works. So I guess I like the archetype, I like dwarves for that archetype, but I don't like that archetype in D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Over the last lots of parties (17 I can identify, not counting one-shots or public games), I think I've had 3, maybe 4 dwarves. So yeah. I agree.


* Dragonborn: 10
* Mhkulu (sorta-kinda ithilid): 1
* human: 19
* goliath: 3
* half-elf: 5
* dwarf: 4
* high elf: 7
* wood elf: 5
* half-orc: 1
* halfling: 3
* tiefling: 5
* soulforged (sorta-kinda warforged): 5
* aasimar: 2
* genasi: 4
* goblin: 1
* kenku: 1
* tabaxi: 1

Wood elves and high elves are separated for setting reasons. So looks like dragonborn and elves (combined) are popular, humans always are, and then half-elves, tieflings, soulforged, genasi, dwarves, and then the rest.

This has been a number of different players (not quite 1/character, but closer to that than to more).

[Mordar]

Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.

Playing (A)D&D since 1982 in home games, convention games and store games, covering thousands of characters, I recollect exactly one dwarf PC that was not a pre-generated character (and most of those were named Flint Fireforge!). So yeah, I think this is reversion to the norm.

For the record, that one dwarf PC was created to address how poorly LotR films treated Gimli!


Back in the 80's, many adult gamers were hairy, leather clad bikers with blue-collar jobs like mechanics and construction workers (at least in the UK). They could identify with hairy, hard-working, hard-drinking craftsmen with a penchant for kicking evil's butt with a big ol' axe or hammer. It was a simpler time and (literally) down-to-earth was popular and relatable. Dwarves were Metal.

Reading this I was struck by how absolutely contrary that was to my experience...and then I thought "I wonder if Jelly is from England"...and then I looked.


Dwarves have never been cool.

Now this matches my experience. Trotting out that first dwarven PC above was met with great surprise.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyone notice this phenomenon? I play D&D/Pathfinder with my fair share of people and I've noticed that dwarven PCs are pretty rare.
Not my experience.
First Original (before Greyhawk) game: the entire party was dwarves.
Second Campaign (Included Greyhawk): Two dwarves in a seven person party.
AD&D (both eds): usually a dwarf in the party. (This was back when I played a lot of hobbits/halflings)
BECMI: usually a dwarf in the party
3.x: usually a dwarf in the party
4e: no play
5e: 1st party 1 dwarf, six person party.
2d party: 1 dwarf, six person party.
3rd party: 1 dwarf, six person party, but now 2 dwarfs six peson party (due to player changes)
Salt Marsh Campaign: on dwarf out of 8 PCs. (Party is max at 5 but I have had a few leave and be replaced).
CoS: dwarf is me. Five person party.
DM of my brother's world: 1 dwarf of five people.

Played in 3 campaigns with PhoenixPhyre, no dwarves in any of the three parties. (I have gone Human in all three).

One shots; a few dwarfs, but there have been so many one-shots that it is hard to pin down.
A lot of us (myself included) tried out all kinds of new races and classes during one shots. (It' show my Boing Boing Monk model was born).

I don't think that I have seen a dwarf monk, though.

As are gnomes and halflings 5e doesn't need them. (OK, I'll duck as you all toss rotten produce at me).

I find that players who like to craft like to play dwarves.


My current tiefling would be unrecognizable as a tiefling to post-3e players - no horns, no hooves, no red/blue skin, etc. YESS! Bravo for you! :smallsmile:

[Cygnia]

In the 5e game I'm running for the hubby's niece & nephew, niece's BF is running a dwarven bard.

Me, I'm currently running a deep dwarf scout/ranger in a 3.5 PBP elsewhere.

[Ignimortis]

YESS! Bravo for you! :smallsmile:
I quite prefer early D&D edition tieflings what with them being "vaguely human, but weird in some nasty way". Extra phalanges or fingers, sharp nails and inhuman teeth, constant weak-but-detectable smell of sulfur (yuck, rotten eggs!), eyes and noses that aren't quite right etc. I have played several tieflings over the years, and only one was anywhere similar to what D&D 5e stereotypes them as. An outside observer would've been hard pressed to put any two of those characters into the same "race", much less all of them taken together.

It's kind of weird how tieflings got cut down to a single prolific stereotype and apparently stayed popular, when doing so is usually enough to reduce a race's popularity among the players, case in point being...dwarves.

[Mordar]

It's kind of weird how tieflings got cut down to a single prolific stereotype and apparently stayed popular, when doing so is usually enough to reduce a race's popularity among the players, case in point being...dwarves.

Tangent: The stereotype is an appearance that is scary in a cool, dangerous way. Wonder if that has any impact on why it stayed popular and the short, hairy, bearded sphere did not...

Of course, it could be that people want to play lightly on the edgy side too...

- M

[Metastachydium]

Well, Dwarves are hairy (as opposed to feathery or scaly the way I like my races) and kinda blocky, but not in a cute way. I'll probably get around to put the ReptilianSS template on one of those or a Maeluth, but I don't think they are for me (even though I tend do give jack **** about the alleged lore of racial monocultures).



First Original (before Greyhawk) game: the entire party was dwarves.
Second Campaign (Included Greyhawk): Two dwarves in a seven person party.
AD&D (both eds): usually a dwarf in the party. (This was back when I played a lot of hobbits/halflings)
BECMI: usually a dwarf in the party
3.x: usually a dwarf in the party
4e: no play
5e: 1st party 1 dwarf, six person party.
2d party: 1 dwarf, six person party.
3rd party: 1 dwarf, six person party, but now 2 dwarfs six peson party (due to player changes)
Salt Marsh Campaign: on dwarf out of 8 PCs. (Party is max at 5 but I have had a few leave and be replaced).
CoS: dwarf is me. Five person party.
DM of my brother's world: 1 dwarf of five people.

Yeah. I basically only play 3.5 and PF1, and pretty much only on these site, and I still have a balance of
–1 game with multiple Dwarves;
–4 games with one Dwarf; and
–1 game with a Changeling who so far quite consistently only ever looked like a Dwarf.

Played in 3 campaigns with PhoenixPhyre, no dwarves in any of the three parties. (I have gone Human in all three).


5e doesn't need them. (OK, I'll duck as you all toss rotten produce at me).

5e? Nobody need Gnomes, except as food items!


Me, I'm currently running a deep dwarf scout/ranger in a 3.5 PBP elsewhere.

The single most underused kind of Dwarf in the game! It's crazy how much better they are than Hill, and yet, nobody ever seems to pick them.

[Slipjig]

Dwarves are heavily bearded, traditionalist, really into their heritage, and very blue-collar.
None of which are are traits considered cool (let alone sexy) by a majority of the current player base.

[LibraryOgre]

IME, dwarves were relatively popular in 2e days, and pretty popular in 3.x (I seem to recall being a dwarf was part of several important builds in 3e). We also liked them in 4e... minor action Second Wind and resist push/pull/slide, and being prone were all nice traits. That's all my experience, however.

[Kurald Galain]

Anyone notice this phenomenon? I play D&D/Pathfinder with my fair share of people and I've noticed that dwarven PCs are pretty rare.

Not in my experience. In a decade of playing Pathfinder, I find dwarves are middle-of-the-pack when it comes to Core races, and well ahead of anything non-core. For that matter, the same applies to 4E.

[Cygnia]

Someone did a 3.5 all dwarf game on another PBP forum elsewhere. I made a Badlands (from the Sandstorm supplement) Dwarf Dragonfire Adept. Sadly, that game died on the vine.

[LibraryOgre]

Someone did a 3.5 all dwarf game on another PBP forum elsewhere. I made a Badlands (from the Sandstorm supplement) Dwarf Dragonfire Adept. Sadly, that game died on the vine.

Of "intentionally single race games" (as opposed to "Oops, all tieflings!"), I hear all-dwarf most often.

[Prime32]

I quite prefer early D&D edition tieflings what with them being "vaguely human, but weird in some nasty way". Extra phalanges or fingers, sharp nails and inhuman teeth, constant weak-but-detectable smell of sulfur (yuck, rotten eggs!), eyes and noses that aren't quite right etc. I have played several tieflings over the years, and only one was anywhere similar to what D&D 5e stereotypes them as. An outside observer would've been hard pressed to put any two of those characters into the same "race", much less all of them taken together.

It's kind of weird how tieflings got cut down to a single prolific stereotype and apparently stayed popular, when doing so is usually enough to reduce a race's popularity among the players, case in point being...dwarves.
That they went from having a Charisma penalty to a Charisma bonus may have had something to do with it.

Tieflings (and aasimar) were popular in PF partly for all the alternate abilities they could have (https://aonprd.com/RacesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Tiefling). And it definitely plays into the "outsider" thing if you can never find someone who looks just like you, if even you have trouble telling other tieflings apart from actual fiends.

[Telok]

Oh, yeah. We tried to do an urban dwarven biker gang game. But chariots & horses aren't quite the same and D&D vehicle rules are pretty much crap as soon as you're past "moveable background scenery with hp". Gave up because the game couldn't hack it.

Related, last week we almost lost the dwarf & gnome. They intentionally triggered warpy crap (dangerous wild magic) while fighting an invisible elephant in a dungeon, popped a major daemon, and ended up flying around on jet packs to flee. Worked well as long as they stuck to the larger passages and lower speeds. They even made it through a 2 meter wide archway to a side tunnel at 60 kph, but couldn't quite make the extremely short stop to avoid the next wall 7 meters away. They got close. They were only doing about 25 kph (16 mph) when they hit the solid bronze door. Pancaked the dwarf's head totally gone.

That's OK. He's a robot. He'll get over it.

[Leon]

Not sure they have ever been "cool" broadly but that's not important really, that they are there for the people who want to play them is what is the key thing.

I like Dwarves a lot but I also like Orcs but only when they are not Violent Tribals so I get to play Dwarves a heck of a lot more often (the two times I have gotten to play an Orc they have been that worlds technological leaders)


Dwarves are heavily bearded, traditionalist, really into their heritage, and very blue-collar.
None of which are are traits considered cool (let alone sexy) by a majority of the current player base.

In a "Traditional" limited view of them, then again much fuss tends to get made whenever there is a Dwarf without copious face hair (or any hair)

[Psyren]

In a "Traditional" limited view of them, then again much fuss tends to get made whenever there is a Dwarf without copious face hair (or any hair)

There are some popular beardless/hairless dwarves. Varric Tethras has a huge fan following (https://www.cbr.com/dragon-age-franchise-best-written-companions/), and Grimgnaw managed to be a decently favored pick despite being a (gasp) 3.0 monk.

[Mechalich]

In a "Traditional" limited view of them, then again much fuss tends to get made whenever there is a Dwarf without copious face hair (or any hair)

The traditional limited view has a lot of weight behind it. 'Dwarves' calls to mind a very specific thing, traceable to mythology, Tolkien, and any number of video games, with a very strong hold on the cultural consciousness, to the point that the traditional view gets play in media as far removed from its origins as Chinese Manhua. This view is strong enough that it is significantly easier to create something else, with a new name, to fit a variation on the concept, rather than to try and broaden the role of dwarves in most fantasy scenarios.

This isn't only true of Dwarves, it applies to Elves and Halflings as well, the difference being that the traditional view of elves is, if not cool, at least appealing (it never hurts for a playable option to be 'hot' as a default). Halflings were never cool, which perhaps ironically opened up space for variants to develop because very few people were invested in defending the traditional view and experimentation started on them quite early.

And several of the traits of the dwarven niche have grown less relevant to modern culture over time. Dwarves are very blue-collar coded, but the proportion of the population that works blue-collar jobs continues to fall compared to white collar jobs (the most dwarf-specific category, mining, has seen especially large workforce reductions).

[Zevox]

I'm definitely one of those who would probably never play a Dwarf. Even in video games that offer the option I don't believe I ever have, or that that'll likely change.

There's just nothing about the race that would make me want to play them. They're stereotypically gruff and stubborn, not traits that I'm typically eager to RP. I've never much liked the look (or feel for that matter) of facial hair. I'm a non-drinker who finds it difficult to RP even mild drinker characters. I'm not likely to play a character who's into smithing or stonework. Thematically they're generally associated with the Fighter class, one of the lowest on my personal preferences list, and many of my preferred classes, such as Wizard, are stereotypically classes they'd be unlikely to take. Mechanically they tend to have a speed downside, and their main upside is usually being more durable, which is kind of boring.

My favorite Dwarf character by a long shot is Varric from Dragon Age 2, who is basically designed to go against most of the race's steretypes, being a witty, charming rogue with more chest hair than facial hair who would prefer never to see the inside of a cave again if he could manage it. There's some chance I might play a Dwarf if I got an idea for someone like him, who was specifically playing against the stereotype in an entertaining way, but it'd have to be something more unique than just trying to copy Varric.

My own group has included a few dwarves over the years though, including one now. Our regular DM likes them, so it's somewhat common to see them as NPCs as well. Of the current group he's the only one I know specifically likes them though.

[Bookwyrm13]

I love dwarves deeply, whether playing into the archetypes or against it, but I admit I seem to be in the minority.

I have a bunch of possible theories why (and multiple could be true) but I think the simplest reason is that people are sick of the so-called "Standard Fantasy Races"--whether or not they've actually tried it.

Elves can get away with it because there are eighty million different kinds of them, for every possible setting (plus being more traditionally attractive probably doesn't hurt). Orcs can get away with it because everyone likes playing the "stereotypically evil" races--either to prove that they're not all that bad, or to play into the idea of being a villain.

Beyond that, I also just think it has to do with the image people have of them. They're not sexy (unless you have very specific tastes, I suppose) and they're stereotypically very rigid, gruff, and unfriendly, and I think that's gradually become less popular in TTRPGs, at least in the mainstream.

Part of me is also tempted to try and speculate on the idea that there may be some correlation between a larger disinterest in a typically Lawful-aligned, traditionalist society, and the rise in popularity of post-modern philosophy and less trust in the status quo of real-world society. But I am far from a sociologist, I've done no research in it, and this may be just observation on the part of my own limited scope with the circles I tend to play in.

[Kane0]

There are some popular beardless/hairless dwarves. Varric Tethras has a huge fan following and Grimgnaw managed to be a decently favored pick despite being a (gasp) 3.0 monk.

And let's not forget Khelgar Ironfist, the dwarven 3.5 unarmed fighter.

[Arkhios]

Might have something to do with how the dwarves are designed lately, in several games/editions.

I'm a longtime dwarf fan myself, and I've noticed that for example in 5th edition, the dwarves aren't very appealing for some reason. The previous editions were much more appealing.

The only cool bits about dwarves in 5th edition are that the 2014 mountain dwarf is strong AF, and gets armor proficiency up to medium, or the 2014 hill dwarf getting bonus hit points on top of the consitution modifier, but that's about it.
I've fallen off the loop regarding Pathfinder since the release of 2nd edition, so can't say much about that. 1st edition is more or less the same as 3.5 D&D and understandably more appealing as a result.
4th edition D&D dwarf was great because of their innate ability to regain hit points very much like a 5th edition fighter does with Second Wind.

[Amnestic]

With Dungeon Meshi's anime adaptation now starting up proper, I'd expect dwarves to see a slight resurgence. The party is almost as traditional as can be to start with (human/(half-)elf/halfling/dwarf) and Senshi the Dwarf is core to the entire story and comedy of the series. If you start seeing dwarven chefs crop up as character ideas...well, just don't be too surprised.

He's also a hottie, which helps.

[ti'esar]

I have a bunch of possible theories why (and multiple could be true) but I think the simplest reason is that people are sick of the so-called "Standard Fantasy Races"--whether or not they've actually tried it.

Elves can get away with it because there are eighty million different kinds of them, for every possible setting (plus being more traditionally attractive probably doesn't hurt). Orcs can get away with it because everyone likes playing the "stereotypically evil" races--either to prove that they're not all that bad, or to play into the idea of being a villain.

Yeah, this. The "traditional" dwarf is not only saddled with the baggage of being a Traditional Fantasy Race, which some people regard as limiting, but also with the extra baggage that the "traditional dwarf" is already more limiting as a character concept than, say, the "traditional elf". I don't like linking to TV Tropes anymore, but that Our Dwarves Are All The Same page - a name that's been kept, incidentally, when a lot of similarly-named tropes were renamed - really does sum it up pretty well.

I personally don't think dwarves are uncool - and I certainly don't have any sort of personal quantifiable data regarding their popularity, so I actually don't know if this is a new thing - but I think they do inherently have more of an uphill battle than many other races.

(I actually think the observation a couple people made about liking all-dwarf games plays into this too: that would by definition offer a lot more room for fleshing out individual characters then just being the Stereotypical Token Dwarf.)

[Beelzebub1111]

In my experience the volume of dwarves depends on the table. In a "beardy" table you might see a dwarf more frequently. In a theater-kid table you might find that dwarves are forgotten about to the point that you're lucky to see one as a background character.

That is a stereotype, of course. Sort of like how, back in the day, a stereotype in LotR fanfiction was that Gimli didn't exist. The people you play with may color your perception of the game.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, this. The "traditional" dwarf is not only saddled with the baggage of being a Traditional Fantasy Race, which some people regard as limiting, but also with the extra baggage that the "traditional dwarf" is already more limiting as a character concept than, say, the "traditional elf"
I don't agree with that. Precisely because they have so much more culture and tradition, makes it more interesting to play a dwarf than to play Generic Humanlike With Some Animal Features #17.

Seriously now, we have birdman, bearman, horseman, rabbitman, another birdman (both distinct from angelman), lizardman (distinct from dragonborn, somehow), bullman, goatman, catman, turtleman, and snakeman. Other settings add hippoman, insectman, yet another birdman, lionman (distinct from catman for some reason), elephantman, generic animalman, fishman, and frogman.

And then we get the feylike changeling and feylike eladrin and feylike fairy and feylike shadarkai and feylike shifter; and also there's the tough brutish half-orc and tough brutish firbolg and tough goliath and brutish hobgoblin and full orc.

...yeah, dwarves have way more personality than most of that list. And also, D&D has too many races.

[Eldan]

Dwarves are heavily bearded, traditionalist, really into their heritage, and very blue-collar.
None of which are are traits considered cool (let alone sexy) by a majority of the current player base.

Clearly, it's time to go back to Tolkien.

Dwarves are taciturn, secretive, mystical, stealthy, heavily into art and music and aesthetics. That's always how I liked to play them.

Heck, Gimli was the romantic among the fellowship. He's the one who has a crush and talks about love (other than Aragorn, who mostly does it off-screen), and not only that, he's courtly and poetic about it, chastly asking the Lady he is stricken by (Galadriel), for a token, and she compliments him for his fair words and manners. And in several scenes later, he waxes on poetic about her.



The world was young, the mountains green
No stain yet on the Moon was seen
No words were laid on stream or stone
When Durin woke and walked alone
He named the nameless hills and dells
He drank from yet untasted wells
He stooped and looked in Mirrormere
And saw a crown of stars appear
As gems upon a silver thread
Above the shadows of his head

The world was fair, the mountains tall
In Elder Days before the fall
Of mighty kings in Nargothrond
And Gondolin, who now beyond
The Western Seas have passed away
The world was fair in Durin′s Day


A king he was on carven throne
In many pillared halls of stone
With golden roof and silver floor
And runes of power upon the door
The light of sun and star and moon
In shining lamps of crystal hewn
Undimmed by cloud or shade of night
There shone for ever fair and bright

There hammer on the anvil smote
There chisel clove, and graver wrote
There forged was blade, and bound was hilt
The delver mined, the mason built
There beryl, pearl, and opal pale
And metal wrought like fishes' mail
Buckler and corslet, axe and sword
And shining spears were laid in hoard

Unwearied then were Durin′s folk
Beneath the mountains music woke
The harpers harped, the minstrels sang
And at the gates the trumpets rang

[KorvinStarmast]

I quite prefer early D&D edition tieflings what with them being "vaguely human, but weird in some nasty way". Yes. The 'taint of infernal blood' theme has fine RP openings as well. The aesthetic in 5e is {censored} and I guess we have 4e's artists to blame for that? (Not sure).
It's kind of weird how tieflings got cut down to a single prolific stereotype Weird is a very kind assessment.

5e? Nobody need Gnomes, except as food items! I can get on board that band wagon.

I have a bunch of possible theories why (and multiple could be true) but I think the simplest reason is that people are sick of the so-called "Standard Fantasy Races"--whether or not they've actually tried it. Indeed. My dwarf celestial warlock is a bit rough around the edges. It's fun to play a high charisma character as something other than a nice fella/face.
Elves can get away with it because there are eighty million different kinds of them Yes, that's been overdone. I have generally avoided elves this edition, other than a short stint as a wood elf monk/outlander, a high elf thief/rogue, and a drow genie warlock. None of those games lasted very long for any number of reasons.

and they're stereotypically very rigid, gruff, and unfriendly
Unfriendly? No.

... a larger disinterest in a typically Lawful-aligned, traditionalist society, and the rise in popularity of post-modern philosophy and less trust in the status quo of real-world society. Interesting line of thought, but there can always be the rebel dwarf (see the Hobbit movie with the elf/dwarf romance ...) sort of a short, stocky Drzzt thing ...

I'm a longtime dwarf fan myself, and I've noticed that for example in 5th edition, the dwarves aren't very appealing for some reason. The medium armor prof makes for interesting choices if you are a spell caster.

The only cool bits about dwarves in 5th edition are that the 2014 mountain dwarf is strong AF, and gets armor proficiency up to medium, or the 2014 hill dwarf getting bonus hit points on top of the consitution modifier, but that's about it. Only cool bits? A hill dwarf life cleric has war hammer or battle axe proficiency. For that matter, with a standard array, you can make a nice, tanky cleric (life, light, what have you) for a beginner player. Also, they both have resistance to poison and adv on poison saves, which in Tier 1 and 2 is very beneficial given how much poison figures into monsters in those tiers. (IME)


Yeah, this. The "traditional" dwarf is not only saddled with the baggage of being a Traditional Fantasy Race, which some people regard as limiting That speaks to me to a lack of imagination.

In my experience the volume of dwarves depends on the table. In a "beardy" table you might see a dwarf more frequently. In a theater-kid table you might find that dwarves are forgotten about to the point that you're lucky to see one as a background character. Hmm, I wonder how one could collect data on that, you may be on to something there. I have got a friend who still plays dwarfs, since the 70's, and he's always been clean shaven.

I don't agree with that. Precisely because they have so much more culture and tradition, makes it more interesting to play a dwarf than to play Generic Humanlike With Some Animal Features #17.

Seriously now, we have birdman, bearman, horseman, rabbitman, another birdman (both distinct from angelman), lizardman (distinct from dragonborn, somehow), bullman, goatman, catman, turtleman, and snakeman. Other settings add hippoman, insectman, yet another birdman, lionman (distinct from catman for some reason), elephantman, generic animalman, fishman, and frogman. Amen.


And then we get the feylike changeling and feylike eladrin and feylike fairy and feylike shadarkai and feylike shifter; and also there's the tough brutish half-orc and tough brutish firbolg and tough goliath and brutish hobgoblin and full orc.
Yes, the elf thing is way overdone. "Oh, you're going to play an elf game?" question sort of deserves the sneering tone that often accompanies it.

And also, D&D has too many races. +100 (But I still think that genasi ought to be core ...)

[Unoriginal]

Clearly, it's time to go back to Tolkien.

Dwarves are taciturn, secretive, mystical, stealthy, heavily into art and music and aesthetics. That's always how I liked to play them.

Heck, Gimli was the romantic among the fellowship. He's the one who has a crush and talks about love (other than Aragorn, who mostly does it off-screen), and not only that, he's courtly and poetic about it, chastly asking the Lady he is stricken by (Galadriel), for a token, and she compliments him for his fair words and manners. And in several scenes later, he waxes on poetic about her.


Not only about Galadriel. Gimli was able to leave Legolas stunned with how poetically he describes the glittering caves at Helm's Deep, and when he sings the song you posted under spoiler, Sam's immediate reaction is stating he'd like to learn it too.

Furthermore, as you mention "stealthy", people tend to forget that Gimli was so stealthy not even Aragorn noticed him when the Dwarf sneak-attacked orcs during the siege of Hornburg.

I wouldn't call Tolkien's Dwarves taciturns, though, they generally love to talk as much as anyone else in Tolkien's work, although making them talk when they didn't want to was a difficult endeavor.

Also a point of note: Tolkien didn't think Dwarves were brave or courageous. It is directly stated in The Hobbit, and in LotR Gimli distinctly states he wouldn't pick a fight with human enemies he'd consider too big for him, and out of the group that takes the Path of the Dead, Gimli is the only one who panics.

[Eldan]

Yeah. Pop culture was really selective about which traits they took from Gimli when they made the cliché fantasy dwarf. Small, stout, bearded, axe -> yes. Stealthy, magical, poetic, well-mannered -> no.

Just like almost everyone else in the fellowship, Gimli comes from nobility. He's clearly well-educated, well-mannered and well-spoken. Not some grumpy, quaffing, unkempt barbarian.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah. Pop culture was really selective about which traits they took from Gimli when they made the cliché fantasy dwarf.
Perhaps the cliche fantasy dwarf is based less on Gimli, and more on the band of dwarves from The Hobbit. They are not at all stealthy and magical, and except for their leader Thorin, they're not poetic or well-mannered either. But sSmall, stout, bearded, axe: yes, that's them to a T.

[Blue Dragon]

CBoE is merely the most notorious example.

What does "CBoE" stands for?

[Satinavian]

What does "CBoE" stands for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Book_of_Elves

[Unoriginal]

Perhaps the cliche fantasy dwarf is based less on Gimli, and more on the band of dwarves from The Hobbit. They are not at all stealthy and magical, and except for their leader Thorin, they're not poetic or well-mannered either. But sSmall, stout, bearded, axe: yes, that's them to a T.

On the contrary, all the Dwarves in the Hobbit are quite polite (except in moments of frustration or anger) and most are well-spoken.

All of them are quite artistic, as well, being decent musicians and singers.

While their introduction does portray them as boundary-pushing (and in general are portrayed as pretty pushy) and not above making fun of their host through song, they're also under the impression Bilbo was on board for hosting them and was trying to get hired as a burglar.

As for being magical, the narrator mentions they put spells on the Trolls' treasure, and they also sing about "mighty spells" among the accomplishments of Dwarf smiths.

[Kurald Galain]

On the contrary, all the Dwarves in the Hobbit are quite polite (except in moments of frustration or anger) and most are well-spoken.

Interesting. Well it's at least ten years since I last read the Hobbit so I'm clearly not remembering all of it. But then, where does the stereotypical dwarf come from? I think it's described as such in the D&D PHB (2nd and 3rd edition at least) but that's unlikely to be the source...

[Eldan]

Perhaps the cliche fantasy dwarf is based less on Gimli, and more on the band of dwarves from The Hobbit. They are not at all stealthy and magical, and except for their leader Thorin, they're not poetic or well-mannered either. But sSmall, stout, bearded, axe: yes, that's them to a T.

They are definitely not very well-mannered, yes. At least not early on. They barge into Bilbo's house, refuse to explain anything, eat all his food. Thorin is especially rude to him and complains that Bilbo doesn't already know where Erebor is or what his mission is going to be. And they don't even say thank you or goodbye, they just tell Bilbo what they want for breakfast. Without, Bilbo notes, even saying please.

They are definitely poetic, though. Note that they didn't bring weapons on their quest to slay Smaug, but they each brought a musical instrument.

[Eldan]

For the source, we can look at Appendix N? It's the list of fiction that Gygax considered essential for the D&D feeling.
https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Appendix_N

There's a lot of books on there, and many which I haven't read. THose I have read don't tend to feature dwarves, other than Tolkien.

Fairy tales may be one source? In all the Germanic fairy tales I know, dwarves are solitary and enormously grumpy. But they are also stealthy and magical, casting a lot of curses and illusions.

[GloatingSwine]

Interesting. Well it's at least ten years since I last read the Hobbit so I'm clearly not remembering all of it. But then, where does the stereotypical dwarf come from? I think it's described as such in the D&D PHB (2nd and 3rd edition at least) but that's unlikely to be the source...

TBH They do all come from Tolkien, but they're Tolkien's versions with the subtlety stripped out.

The modern stereotypical Dwarf is probably a combination of D&D and Warhammer though. They followed the same path of making the Dwarfs even less like Elves in any way it was possible to be. So they got earthier, less refined, less magical, more attuned to smithing and metalwork and sometimes technology and less to nature.

[Unoriginal]

They are definitely not very well-mannered, yes. At least not early on. They barge into Bilbo's house, refuse to explain anything, eat all his food. Thorin is especially rude to him and complains that Bilbo doesn't already know where Erebor is or what his mission is going to be. And they don't even say thank you or goodbye, they just tell Bilbo what they want for breakfast. Without, Bilbo notes, even saying please.

I mean, they don't refuse to explain, they just think Bilbo already knows, and Bilbo is too overwhelmed by the successive arrivals to even ask. They all are very polite when introducing themselves, at least, which is likely why Bilbo invites them in in the first place.

Thorin does stand out, true, and Gandalf notes in one of the LotR appendices that he had nothing but haughty disdain for Hobbits in general at this point.


The traditional limited view has a lot of weight behind it. 'Dwarves' calls to mind a very specific thing, traceable to mythology, Tolkien, and any number of video games, with a very strong hold on the cultural consciousness, to the point that the traditional view gets play in media as far removed from its origins as Chinese Manhua.

I want to point out that Chinese Manhua aren't that removed from the starting point, because Dwarfs in Chinese Manhua come from Japanese fantasy, which comes from Dungeons & Dragons.

Record of Lodoss War even had a Dwarf in the party.

[Mordar]

I want to point out that Chinese Manhua aren't that removed from the starting point, because Dwarfs in Chinese Manhua come from Japanese fantasy, which comes from Dungeons & Dragons.

Record of Lodoss War even had a Dwarf in the party.

But Lodoss was supposed to be the massively stereotyped D&D party...much like the covers of the D&D boxed sets, or Dragonlance...

- M

[GloatingSwine]

But Lodoss was supposed to be the massively stereotyped D&D party...much like the covers of the D&D boxed sets, or Dragonlance...

- M

IIRC Lodoss literally was based on one of the author's D&D games.

[Vyke]

I don't agree with that. Precisely because they have so much more culture and tradition, makes it more interesting to play a dwarf than to play Generic Humanlike With Some Animal Features #17.

Seriously now, we have birdman, bearman, horseman, rabbitman, another birdman (both distinct from angelman), lizardman (distinct from dragonborn, somehow), bullman, goatman, catman, turtleman, and snakeman. Other settings add hippoman, insectman, yet another birdman, lionman (distinct from catman for some reason), elephantman, generic animalman, fishman, and frogman.

And then we get the feylike changeling and feylike eladrin and feylike fairy and feylike shadarkai and feylike shifter; and also there's the tough brutish half-orc and tough brutish firbolg and tough goliath and brutish hobgoblin and full orc.

...yeah, dwarves have way more personality than most of that list. And also, D&D has too many races.

I do not have words to express how much I agree. These must suffice.

It seems to me that dwarves are only boring if you ignore the stuff that makes them interesting.

[Xervous]

Tossing out lore and tossing in new colorful races like they’re fortnite skins tends to yield a game where only the immediate cosmetics matter, shocking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tossing out lore and tossing in new colorful races like they’re fortnite skins tends to yield a game where only the immediate cosmetics matter, shocking.

Agreed. Doesn't help that WotC has sucked at doing any serious lore throughout 5e at least, and it's only gotten worse as the edition progresses.

-------------

This whole Tolkien sub-thread is one of the big reasons I don't take Arguments From Tolkien (but LotR...) seriously at all. D&D basically took a few names and a couple very surface aesthetics from LotR. That's it.

* tall, graceful sylvan elves
* short (but not too short) underground-dwelling, bearded dwarves
* short "happy" halflings (fka hobbits).
* the name "orc" as a bad guy. Not much else about orcs, though.
* the name "ranger", without much of the context.

That's about it. And then they proceeded to modify, mutilate, fold, spindle, and do all those other things to what they did take. And then everyone else cribbed from D&D.

Types of stories? Nah, not stolen at all, except in the most vague sense[1]. Especially since the parts most connected to Tolkien were the earliest, least narrative parts. Magic system or abilities? Lol no. Even the general aesthetic of the settings doesn't match.

[1] Dragonlance, which is the earliest "adventure path" in the modern sense, has some of the same "good vs evil" themes. But only very broadly and vaguely. Even by then things had drifted tremendously. And for good reason--LotR is great, but the kinds of stories you can tell in that framework fit in a quite narrow band.

[Eldan]

The idea of a group of adventurers of very different backgrounds teaming up on a quest together is pretty Tolkien. Most of the Swords and Sorcery guys operate alone or in pairs.

[ti'esar]

...yeah, dwarves have way more personality than most of that list.

It's not so much that dwarves are lacking personality as that people think - to be clear, I don't actually agree with this myself - that there's basically one dwarf personality and so if you've seen/played one dwarf, you've seen 'em all. Again, I'm not going to link to it myself but I'm pretty sure the Our Dwarves Are All The Same page literally has a quote from some review about how, in the author's opinion, fantasy doesn't so much have dwarf characters as it does a single dwarf who pops up under different names in every novel. That's by no means actually true, even just for D&D tie-in novels, but I think the perception that it is is a weight around the neck of dwarf character concepts that other races don't necessarily have.

[Unoriginal]

Doesn't help that WotC has sucked at doing any serious lore throughout 5e at least, and it's only gotten worse as the edition progresses.

Dwarf lore was great in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, but I think they decided to disown that book.



This whole Tolkien sub-thread is one of the big reasons I don't take Arguments From Tolkien (but LotR...) seriously at all. D&D basically took a few names and a couple very surface aesthetics from LotR. That's it.

* tall, graceful sylvan elves
* short (but not too short) underground-dwelling, bearded dwarves
* short "happy" halflings (fka hobbits).
* the name "orc" as a bad guy. Not much else about orcs, though.
* the name "ranger", without much of the context.

That's about it. And then they proceeded to modify, mutilate, fold, spindle, and do all those other things to what they did take. And then everyone else cribbed from D&D.

Types of stories? Nah, not stolen at all, except in the most vague sense[1]. Especially since the parts most connected to Tolkien were the earliest, least narrative parts. Magic system or abilities? Lol no. Even the general aesthetic of the settings doesn't match.

[1] Dragonlance, which is the earliest "adventure path" in the modern sense, has some of the same "good vs evil" themes. But only very broadly and vaguely. Even by then things had drifted tremendously. And for good reason--LotR is great, but the kinds of stories you can tell in that framework fit in a quite narrow band.

Quite true.

LotR is interesting for the history of fantasy, but that history includes going through massive changes before it even gets to reach the "and this was D&D" stage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dwarf lore was great in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, but I think they decided to disown that book.


I'd rate Volos and MToF lore as "decent, but not great". I want setting-specific, varied lore. Not "well, multiverse..." crap. But yeah, then they decided that it wasn't vague enough[1] for them, so they ditched it.



Quite true.

LotR is interesting for the history of fantasy, but that history includes going through massive changes before it even gets to reach the "and this was D&D" stage.

Yeah. And between LotR and D&D there was a veritable explosion of other fantasy, some of which took cues from LotR but went in very different directions. And then D&D in every edition has applied the mutant-making cannon to all of its influences. Basically, D&D does D&D, nothing else.


[1] consciously avoiding any culture war topics here.

[Trixie_One]

To quote Morglum Necksnapper, the only good stunty is a dyin' one that tells you where to find his mates.

I must have been like 10-11 at most when I got green pilled and was able to realise the truth that dwarfs are not in the slightest bit cool.

I'd read the Hobbit and Lotr already, and of course thought that Gimli was the best out of the entire fellowship back then. I'd started buying White Dwarf with 145 as they had HeroQuest on the cover and that was how they got me.

It was still pretty early days of reading their battle reports, but I'd already got the definite impression that the 'good' guys/new hotness would always win, i.e. if Space Wolves were fighting Orks after just getting their 2nd ed codex and new models only an idiot would put money on a successful waaagh.

So when there was the first Warhammer Fantasy battle report with dwarfs vs. orcs, I of course expected a dwarf win. This was White Dwarf after all, the mag is named after a dwarf, so clearly they had to win, right?

And yet the orcs, despite being hilariously screwed over throughout the battle by animosity, stupidity, and their own artillery blowing up won anyway, and it blew my tiny young mind. It's just felt so transgressive in the best possible way.

[Bookwyrm13]

It's not so much that dwarves are lacking personality as that people think - to be clear, I don't actually agree with this myself - that there's basically one dwarf personality and so if you've seen/played one dwarf, you've seen 'em all. Again, I'm not going to link to it myself but I'm pretty sure the Our Dwarves Are All The Same page literally has a quote from some review about how, in the author's opinion, fantasy doesn't so much have dwarf characters as it does a single dwarf who pops up under different names in every novel. That's by no means actually true, even just for D&D tie-in novels, but I think the perception that it is is a weight around the neck of dwarf character concepts that other races don't necessarily have.

I do have to wonder, though, how much of this is a chicken and egg thing? As in, people assume dwarves can only have one personality because people don't play them with different personalities; but no one plays them with different personalities because they assume they can only have one personality.

[Grim Portent]

I do have to wonder, though, how much of this is a chicken and egg thing? As in, people assume dwarves can only have one personality because people don't play them with different personalities; but no one plays them with different personalities because they assume they can only have one personality.

I think it starts with the non-player depictions of them in media. Most dwarves in books and games are really similar, and that informs the way people who read the books and play the games think of them and go on to portray them like later, reinforcing the existing perception.

Other than the odd evil dwarf society, like the Dawi-Zharr from Warhammer who went all exaggerated Babylonian, almost all of them are gruff Scots/North English/Norse in terms of voice and vernacular, use Anglo-Saxon/Norse aesthetics, a runic script inspired by Norse runes, live in clans, drink a lot and so on and so forth. It's a consistent cultural portrayal across wildly different settings in various media, and it's pigeonholed dwarves into a particular theme for most people.

[Slipjig]

In a "Traditional" limited view of them, then again much fuss tends to get made whenever there is a Dwarf without copious face hair (or any hair)

Sure, I play a beardless dwarf in one of my campaigns, and I've had fun with second-generation Dwarven refugees completely rejecting their traditional culture and adopting a very punk aesthetic. I also flavor Dwarven bands as sounding a lot like the Dropkick Murphys.

But at some point, you do have to ask, "How far away from the traditional Dwarven traits can we get before we aren't playing Dwarves anymore?" Playing a Dwarven who is considered unusual because he is cleanshaven and doesn't drink is still acknowledging the tropes of what a typical dwarf is like.

[Hytheter]

* tall, graceful sylvan

Not even. D&D's elves are shorter than humans.

[JellyPooga]

Sure, I play a beardless dwarf in one of my campaigns, and I've had fun with second-generation Dwarven refugees completely rejecting their traditional culture and adopting a very punk aesthetic. I also flavor Dwarven bands as sounding a lot like the Dropkick Murphys.

But at some point, you do have to ask, "How far away from the traditional Dwarven traits can we get before we aren't playing Dwarves anymore?" Playing a Dwarven who is considered unusual because he is cleanshaven and doesn't drink is still acknowledging the tropes of what a typical dwarf is like.

I think you've nailed it on the head, for me at least, when you mention punk aesthetics because whilst I imagine Dwarven Culture to be everything it is in all the media Dwarven Adventurers/PC's (and more generally, adventurers/PC's of any race, as a whole) are those that have rejected their traditions in one or more ways. While this applies universally, when a culture is accepting of change amd freedom, those that are acting out of it do not appear or come across as being wildly different. However, when a culture is hard-line and staid, those that buck the trend are likely to a) stand out more and b) push the limits of what is considered acceptable more.

Make you own comparisons in real-world history; there's plenty of rebels (with and without a cause), movements and civil actions to contrast and compare to come to your own conclusions there. Where I will make my mention is the Dwarves of the Games Workshop Warhammer Old World, in which some of the most notable and famous dwarves are those that have rejected their traditional culture to become Slayers , artificers, pirates, Imperial Dwarves or a combination of the above; in short, the kind of dwarves outsiders are more likely to see are the adventurers and outcastes, or to put it another way, PC's.

Where it's interesting is that many of even these "punk" PC dwarves lead lifestyles according to strict rules; Slayers dye their hair orange and take oaths of violence and death, for example. In this way they reject the "true path" that most dwarves lead and take another, less well travelled, but still according to their nature as dwarves; tradition, trust and solidarity being paramount. It's a fascinating take on how more free-thinking dwarves might act in the face of the overwhelming pressure of their culture and it sets them apart from the human mindset, which is far more free and easy going.

Games Workshop also has Squats (aka Space Dwarves), which are definitely still cool (though probably not as cool now, as they were back in the 80's).

[Psyren]

I'd rate Volos and MToF lore as "decent, but not great". I want setting-specific, varied lore. Not "well, multiverse..." crap. But yeah, then they decided that it wasn't vague enough[1] for them, so they ditched it.



Yeah. And between LotR and D&D there was a veritable explosion of other fantasy, some of which took cues from LotR but went in very different directions. And then D&D in every edition has applied the mutant-making cannon to all of its influences. Basically, D&D does D&D, nothing else.


[1] consciously avoiding any culture war topics here.

Setting-specific lore wouldn't add much to dwarves though, that's the problem. Whether you're talking about Krynn Dwarves living underground in Thorbardin, or Faerun Dwarves living underground in Delzoun, or Greyhawk Dwarves living underground in the Iron Hills, or Eberron Dwarves living underground in the Mror Holds, or Golarion Dwarves living underground in Highhelm.... I could go on, but my point is they really aren't that different at the end of the day, and that I feel is one thing that makes them less popular among players looking for a bit more spice.

[TaiLiu]

Setting-specific lore wouldn't add much to dwarves though, that's the problem. Whether you're talking about Krynn Dwarves living underground in Thorbardin, or Faerun Dwarves living underground in Delzoun, or Greyhawk Dwarves living underground in the Iron Hills, or Eberron Dwarves living underground in the Mror Holds, or Golarion Dwarves living underground in Highhelm.... I could go on, but my point is they really aren't that different at the end of the day, and that I feel is one thing that makes them less popular among players looking for a bit more spice.
Yeah. Eberron is my favorite setting and the most unusual dwarves are those bonded with eldritch aberrations. But even that is just playing off of the "they delved too greedily and too deep" dwarf stereotype.

[Leon]

But at some point, you do have to ask, "How far away from the traditional Dwarven traits can we get before we aren't playing Dwarves anymore?" Playing a Dwarven who is considered unusual because he is cleanshaven and doesn't drink is still acknowledging the tropes of what a typical dwarf is like.

Are you playing a shorter but not small sturdy humanoid ~ then your probably playing a Dwarf, the amount of hair on one or where the hair is really isn't an important feature.

[Pauly]

I think one of the problems is that in fantasy dwarves are more or less presented as a monoculture regardless of source. You can drop a D&D dwarf into LoTR or Warhammer and barely notice any differences.

Which leads there to be 'one true path' to play a dwarf and the player either accepting the stereotype or playing a character rebelling against the 'one true path'. For humans there is no one accepted way to play the race. For elves there are many accepted ways of playing the race. Basically every other race has more latitude for the player to choose how to play their character. At the very least there is no other major race more constrained than dwarves.

[Vyke]

I think one of the problems is that in fantasy dwarves are more or less presented as a monoculture regardless of source. You can drop a D&D dwarf into LoTR or Warhammer and barely notice any differences.

Which leads there to be 'one true path' to play a dwarf and the player either accepting the stereotype or playing a character rebelling against the 'one true path'. For humans there is no one accepted way to play the race. For elves there are many accepted ways of playing the race. Basically every other race has more latitude for the player to choose how to play their character. At the very least there is no other major race more constrained than dwarves.

For clarity though.... you know those constraints are self applied right? Like, they have the same constraints as elves. None, really. They're people and how they interact with both their culture and the culture they find themselves in can be as nuanced as any other. I actually think them having a strongly recognisable culture is a positive not a limit, if there's no baseline to draw from then everyone's just random. And everyone leans into or rejects aspects of their own culture and that of the society they live in to many different nuanced degrees. It's not binary. Yes, you have to think about their culture to decide how much it influences them but, should you not be doing that with all characters?

Also, as an aside, I'd argue that most DnD elves would be just fine in LoTR or Warhammer as well. Ditto Halflings. Ditto most humans to be honest.

I dunno, it just seems that people are saying dwarves are boring because they only create boring dwarf characters because that's all they can be bothered to consider. Of course they're boring if you only play them one way (or two ways by completely rejecting all of their culture I suppose). I've played most things at this point, I'm not specifically a dwarf aficionado or anything but I've played a number of dwarf characters who were both identifiably dwarven and also distinct from each other.

I mean, by that logic I could say humans are boring. Most of the ones I see IRL go to work at similar times, and follow the same laws and they mostly seem to want to be able to pay for shelter and food and warmth. The ones I see the absolute most also work in one place! And it's the same place I work! And none of them have horns or wings or breathe fire or speak via telepathy. How boring!

[JellyPooga]

I dunno, it just seems that people are saying dwarves are boring because they only create boring dwarf characters

I agree.

Whilst I've seen (and played) a few archetypal dwarven characters of the "minin' & fightin' & drinkin' when they're not being the party stick-in-the-mud" variety, the best characters I've seen or played myself have been defined by their antithesis of those dwarven traits.
- One guy I knew played a Dwarven Wizard who, as a rookie player, wasn't a very good wizard (by TO standards) and he utilised that OOC lack of proficiency and learning curve to represent his growth IC, from a Dwarf with a spellbook and no master to apprentice him, to a Wizard of fair repute.
- Another Dwarf I saw was a nasty piece of work; crook, criminal, assassin and downright unpleasant individual to be around. He hated almost everything about dwarven culture, having been shunned by it, but he was handy in a scrap, had very few scruples to inhibit the more...practical activities the party had to get up to and he was a former master locksmith, so no-one was better with locks and other mechanisms.
- A favourite of mine was a Dwarven Druid. Foregoing the cultural insistence to learn stonecraft and metalworking, he preferred to take a leaf from the elven book and shape such things using the magic of the land. A protector of the deep, dark places and its inhabitants, he cautioned his kin against delving too deep and industrialising to fast or too hard. He was patient, wise and slow to anger, making druids of other races looking as mercurial and transient as trees growing upon his mountain.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I love leaning into the dwarven connection to stone and darkness. Geomantic mystics are one of my favorite dwarf archetypes, those who literally talk to the living rock.

[Psyren]

For clarity though.... you know those constraints are self applied right? Like, they have the same constraints as elves. None, really. They're people and how they interact with both their culture and the culture they find themselves in can be as nuanced as any other. I actually think them having a strongly recognisable culture is a positive not a limit, if there's no baseline to draw from then everyone's just random. And everyone leans into or rejects aspects of their own culture and that of the society they live in to many different nuanced degrees. It's not binary. Yes, you have to think about their culture to decide how much it influences them but, should you not be doing that with all characters?
...
I dunno, it just seems that people are saying dwarves are boring because they only create boring dwarf characters because that's all they can be bothered to consider. Of course they're boring if you only play them one way (or two ways by completely rejecting all of their culture I suppose). I've played most things at this point, I'm not specifically a dwarf aficionado or anything but I've played a number of dwarf characters who were both identifiably dwarven and also distinct from each other.


You're right that it's mutable/voluntary on the part of the creatives - but dwarves seem to have a higher expectation of cross-setting parity, if not full-on uniformity, than perhaps any other race. Over the decades, a slew of fantasy authors, game designers and other creatives seem to have independently landed on a single cultural expression being the clearest signifier of "dwarf" in their works - hence the pervasiveness of the trope (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDwarvesAreAllTheSame) I linked earlier.

And because of that - while new authors absolutely have the power to make their dwarves very different, consumer appetite for that becomes a tricky proposition. Since most designers and authors who sit down to make settings are doing so with the ultimate goal of selling their work - whether that means the straightforward goal of commerce, or merely to get players on board with a homebrew setting that resonates with them - deviating from those tropes becomes a much riskier proposition for them.


Yeah, I love leaning into the dwarven connection to stone and darkness. Geomantic mystics are one of my favorite dwarf archetypes, those who literally talk to the living rock.

^ case in point. Dwarven affinity for earth magic is pretty well-accepted, when they're allowed to have an affinity for magic at all. But an author who made their setting's dwarves predominantly aeromancers or sea witches would probably get pushback from anyone they pitched that setting to.

[Mordar]

I think one of the problems is that in fantasy dwarves are more or less presented as a monoculture regardless of source. You can drop a D&D dwarf into LoTR or Warhammer and barely notice any differences.

Which leads there to be 'one true path' to play a dwarf and the player either accepting the stereotype or playing a character rebelling against the 'one true path'. For humans there is no one accepted way to play the race. For elves there are many accepted ways of playing the race. Basically every other race has more latitude for the player to choose how to play their character. At the very least there is no other major race more constrained than dwarves.

On top of this, even the "adventuring" dwarf outside one specific instance are generally presented as the sidekick, lieutenant, old mentor or quiet background character. Not a big driver for many of the nascent roleplayers, theater kids, wish-fulfillment types, people that want to replicate the heroes of their favorite S&S stories, or simply those driven by common perceptions of cool.

Cross-intersecting with 9-alignment system, I'm guessing Lawful Good Dwarf might be one of the core race/alignment combos viewed least appealing by surveyed players. Interestingly to me, though, I would think it would be one of the most common alignments for dwarves (or at least disproportionately represented in ADP (Actuals Dwarves Played).

- M

[Slipjig]

Since most designers and authors who sit down to make settings are doing so with the ultimate goal of selling their work - whether that means the straightforward goal of commerce, or merely to get players on board with a homebrew setting that resonates with them - deviating from those tropes becomes a much riskier proposition for them.

I think this pretty much captures the dilemma. Sure, every dwarf is an individual, and an author or DM is 100% to create a dwarven culture that varies wildly from the standard tropes. You can create a dwarven culture that made up of jungle-dwelling cannibal communists (and the story of how they got that way could make for some great worldbuilding).

But if the ONLY thing that makes them recognizable as dwarves is that they are ~4' tall, at that point you've lost most of their dwarf-iness, and we're back to the "humans in funny hats" problem.

[Vyke]

^ case in point. Dwarven affinity for earth magic is pretty well-accepted, when they're allowed to have an affinity for magic at all. But an author who made their setting's dwarves predominantly aeromancers or sea witches would probably get pushback from anyone they pitched that setting to.

I'm not sure... this thread alone suggests people might want to see new variation on old themes.

However I do think you can look at the things that make dwarves classically dwarven and come up with something that isn't bagpipe playing, scottish dwarves in heavy armour that mine for gold, live underground and are defined by their beards.

[Cygnia]

In the 5e world I'm designing, I've already decided dwarves sound like they're from Minnesota rather than Scotland. :smallwink:

[Vyke]

In the 5e world I'm designing, I've already decided dwarves sound like they're from Minnesota rather than Scotland. :smallwink:

I can absolutely imagine that!

[PhoenixPhyre]

In the 5e world I'm designing, I've already decided dwarves sound like they're from Minnesota rather than Scotland. :smallwink:

My dwarves are Mongolian :smallbiggrin:

I've also taken some cues from Terry Pratchet--the "main" culture of dwarves take writing seriously. But there are bunches of other cultures. Including one that strongly rejects all the traditionalism and goes full on mad scientist. And another whose cultural music is basically "the Hu, but more angry." And several more that are cosmopolitan. Sure, you've got your rock-ribbed traditionalist "don't like the light" bearded folks who are obsessive crafters and super lawful. You've also got your expansionist fire-worshiping lava-cultist culture, your xenophobic-and-isolationist magitech culture, and at least one mountain-top living, griffon-taming culture with arabic names (a mashup of Warcraft's Wildhammer dwarves and the Aladdin story, for various rather bizarre reasons).

Which (having more than one culture for a given race) is something WotC D&D doesn't do well in general--every race[1] but humans has really 1 culture within a setting and often between settings. Really the only exception are drow, who have two--the spider-obsessive Lolthites and their good (or at least not-horrifically-evil) kin. Yay. Such diversity of thought.

[1] they only differentiate at the sub-race (5e version) level, and then only mildly.

[LibraryOgre]

Interesting. Well it's at least ten years since I last read the Hobbit so I'm clearly not remembering all of it. But then, where does the stereotypical dwarf come from? I think it's described as such in the D&D PHB (2nd and 3rd edition at least) but that's unlikely to be the source...

At this point, D&D is its own subgenre of fantasy, and feeds from itself as much as it feeds from Tolkien and the like. D&D Dwarves draw a lot from Flint Fireforge, Dwarves Deep, Complete Dwarves, and Bruenor Battlehammer, which aren't Gimli or Thorin.

One thing that I find when playing traditional races (the core races in AD&D) is that they do, generally, have a weight of history, and you can play to type or against type. I can play Brunar Waraxe if I want, the traditional dwarf... or I can play Varric, who exists as a contrast to the more traditional dwarf... he's suave and sexy instead of gruff and greedy, shaved and with a crossbow instead of an axe and a beard. Varric exists as an atypical dwarf among more traditional dwarves. He's Driz'zt, the atypical drow, without the angst.

If a race has less of an established type, there risks the Tasslehoff/Greedo problem... the example we see becomes the entire species. Greedo is a bounty hunter, so all the Rodians have a culture that centers around hunting. Tasslehoff is irrepressible and wears a topknot, so that's common among all of them. You might make a character, and even decide that they are an outlier for their race... but if no one knows what you're an outlier from, then you're the race.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing that I find when playing traditional races (the core races in AD&D) is that they do, generally, have a weight of history, and you can play to type or against type. I can play Brunar Waraxe if I want, the traditional dwarf... or I can play Varric, who exists as a contrast to the more traditional dwarf... he's suave and sexy instead of gruff and greedy, shaved and with a crossbow instead of an axe and a beard. Varric exists as an atypical dwarf among more traditional dwarves. He's Driz'zt, the atypical drow, without the angst.

If a race has less of an established type, there risks the Tasslehoff/Greedo problem... the example we see becomes the entire species. Greedo is a bounty hunter, so all the Rodians have a culture that centers around hunting. Tasslehoff is irrepressible and wears a topknot, so that's common among all of them. You might make a character, and even decide that they are an outlier for their race... but if no one knows what you're an outlier from, then you're the race.

Amen to both these paragraphs. It's one thing I dislike about the current trend of not providing any lore because it "constrains people". Like...that's the point of lore. To build those "types" so that you have something to work with/from. Blank slates either produce their own, really narrow types or just don't produce anything meaningful at all.

You can't play against type if there isn't a type. You can't subvert or invert a trope that doesn't exist. Nor can you play it straight. Instead, you end up typecasting the entire group. Or, if you fail to be memorable enough, you just create something that's a generic PC-blob in a costume. Not even a human--humans have more tropes than that!

[JellyPooga]

Case in point. Dwarven affinity for earth magic is pretty well-accepted, when they're allowed to have an affinity for magic at all. But an author who made their setting's dwarves predominantly aeromancers or sea witches would probably get pushback from anyone they pitched that setting to.

Quite the contrary; I could absolutely get behind a Dwarven culture that espouses the sky or sea.

For airborne Dwarves, I'm envisioning an affinity for the sky born of their living atop mountains (in a similar way Cloud Giants are); theirs is the province of weather, air, lightning and the contrast between the purity of the clean air at those altitudes and the chaotic nature of the wind as it blows across mountain peaks. These dwarves would have a special relationship with giant eagles or other flying mega-fauna and be renowned as devastating sky cavalry, utilising their short stature and muscular build to ride the winds atop their flying steeds, raining destruction down upon their foes in the form of gunpowder based grenades and artillery made from the natural resources mined from their mountain homes. Dwarves hailing from these mountaintop homes would be hardy and resilient to cold weather and high altitude, with thick, soft, wispy hair (think husky or hare) and beards that flow in the wind; superstition has it that they can "read" the breeze in their prized beards, the elders claiming to be able to predict the weather or impending doom by the tugging of the wind on their whiskers. Dwarven mages take this a step further and are known to be Astronomers and Astrologers both, with many famous Oracles; wise in their interpretations of the mercurial currents of magic that they read from lofty mountain towers and canny in their reading of the celestial spheres above; Kings and Rulers from across the world travel far and long, or send their most trusted heralds to hear their portents. Harnessing the magic of the ground beneath and the sky above, the long-lived, studious Dwarven Magi are considered some of the most powerful wielders of magical power in the world; some say their proximity to the heavens lends them a fraction of the power of the gods themselves, but that's only superstition and hearsay...right?

For Dwarves that sail the seas, I envision a mighty navy of warships that pack far more punch than their size and weight would allow for other races fleets. The short stature, resistance to disease and hardy nature of the dwarves speaks well for them as sailors. They last longer on fewer rations than other sailors. They can fit more crew per square foot than longer-limbed ships. Diseases that plague other fleets are weathered as handily as any storm. Yes indeed, the Dwarven Navy is a thing to be feared. Originally hailing from a ring of volcanic islands, they have developed a raiding culture and they utilise small, heavy ships suited for boarding actions and coastal or river assaults, where they can best use their superior numbers. These Dwarves famously don't swim well. Their dense bones has a tendency to make them sink, but in response to this, many dwarven raiders dreadlock their beards, woven with cork, bladders and other buoyant materials, turning their facial hair into a remarkably adequate floatation device. These coastal dwarves have a love of song and the sea beyond the comprehension of humans or forest elves. Their deep, resonant voices carry far and wide underwater and their love of tradition and lasting things has given them a strong bond and relationship with some of the largest, oldest and wisest of creatures to exist; whales, sea turtles and older, deeper things still. Dwarven sea mages speak to these creatures and use them as a source of knowledge, communication and even travel; stories abound of dwarven mystics travelling in the belly of blue whales or requesting the wisdom of ancient turtles. Other dwarven magi speak to the elder things in the deeper, darker places; Warlocks and Sorcerers drawing power from creatures beyond the ken of mortal creatures, or at least the younger, more flighty species, summoning the inky dark and frigid cold of the ocean depths to assail their foes.

[Mordar]

I'm not sure... this thread alone suggests people might want to see new variation on old themes.

However I do think you can look at the things that make dwarves classically dwarven and come up with something that isn't bagpipe playing, scottish dwarves in heavy armour that mine for gold, live underground and are defined by their beards.


Quite the contrary; I could absolutely get behind a Dwarven culture that espouses the sky or sea. [SNIP 2 good ideas]

But we are already the established fan, the niche of the niche that is already the established customer. Is there a way to move close-to-traditional dwarves into a more attractive space...without making them radically different? Without totally selling out?

I very much support the idea of moving the needle a little/lot on things like magic - sort of playing up the combination of physical and magical strength. It doesn't have to be earth-based, but more importantly to me, it needs to be not-Arcane Powah! based.

Leaning into the Highlands idea (or the Great White North, for Cygnia's reference...However, people from Minnesota have much less accent than people from an awful lot of other states/regions! it would also be nice to get away from the CHUD (you know - Cantankerous Humanoid Underground Dwellers) perspective without leaving the core element of earthy-miner-smith-craftsdwarf. This opens up more of the naturalistic classes like rangers, druids, etc.

Lastly for me - maybe also leaning into a bit of Norseness but with the Bard angle, not the gruff drinking bearded ravager angle. Though the danger level is high for falling into more of an Elan or that idiot from Vox Machina trope, it would be very cool to re-develop both the race and the class. Someone bada$$ enough to wander the wild lands to actually gather the stories and investigate the myths and legends first hand, rather than sitting in a tavern and living out the other pubescent fantasies too often depicted with high charisma male characters.

Other thoughts?

- M

[catagent101]

I like some of the stuff Pathfinder has been doing with dwarves these days. The Mbe'ke for example are dwarves who worship cloud dragons and practice a form of magical archery based on air magic (okay that's not a good summary but they are pretty cool imo).

[LibraryOgre]

You can't play against type if there isn't a type. You can't subvert or invert a trope that doesn't exist. Nor can you play it straight. Instead, you end up typecasting the entire group. Or, if you fail to be memorable enough, you just create something that's a generic PC-blob in a costume. Not even a human--humans have more tropes than that!

This is the argument I always see aimed at against-type characters... "Playing a human with pointy ears." If your dwarf is a clean-shaven smooth talker, you're not a dwarf, you're just a "short human". Only humans can be fully realized characters with variety.

It's part of why I compared D&D to Westerns... you're supposed to have stock characters. You've got the Swede. The Englishman. The Fella from Back East. The Chinese Guy. The Indian sidekick. The Mexican. The only people who are allowed to be freely characterized are the "regular Americans of the West".

[Psyren]

I'm not sure... this thread alone suggests people might want to see new variation on old themes.

This thread might - but this thread isn't even a representative sample of 5e D&D, much less other editions, other games, or fantasy media more broadly.


Quite the contrary; I could absolutely get behind a Dwarven culture that espouses the sky or sea.=

I'm not saying you or any other individual couldn't do so. I'm saying there's a reason the vast majority of published settings across various commercial media (again, not just D&D) have avoided this kind of thing. Diagnosing and challenging the why is the only way we can get more authors to be comfortable trying this out.


D&D Dwarves draw a lot from Flint Fireforge, Dwarves Deep, Complete Dwarves, and Bruenor Battlehammer, which aren't Gimli or Thorin.

I mean... aren't they? Gruff with strangers, community-minded, martially-inclined, wary of magic at best, diligent and task-oriented...


One thing that I find when playing traditional races (the core races in AD&D) is that they do, generally, have a weight of history, and you can play to type or against type. I can play Brunar Waraxe if I want, the traditional dwarf... or I can play Varric, who exists as a contrast to the more traditional dwarf... he's suave and sexy instead of gruff and greedy, shaved and with a crossbow instead of an axe and a beard. Varric exists as an atypical dwarf among more traditional dwarves. He's Driz'zt, the atypical drow, without the angst.

Even Varric is not that far outside of type; he represents the newer but still prevalent dwarf stereotype of the shrewd trader (In FR he'd be a Gold Dwarf.) They take the dwarven tendencies towards greed and community, but apply it outward in a mercantile, political and treasure-hunting context rather than the more insular concepts of mining and close-knit family. He's also an engineer rather than a smith, but the core drive is the same - dedication to studious industry.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the argument I always see aimed at against-type characters... "Playing a human with pointy ears." If your dwarf is a clean-shaven smooth talker, you're not a dwarf, you're just a "short human". Only humans can be fully realized characters with variety.

It's part of why I compared D&D to Westerns... you're supposed to have stock characters. You've got the Swede. The Englishman. The Fella from Back East. The Chinese Guy. The Indian sidekick. The Mexican. The only people who are allowed to be freely characterized are the "regular Americans of the West".

Personally, I dislike the "humans are the only ones allowed to vary" trope as well. Everyone should have tropes and stereotypes and archetypes and cultures (plural!) that can be freely played against, played into, or subverted. The "blank slate" isn't really valid for a TTRPG race/culture unless that's a specific setting choice (I could see a setting where one particular group of people are basically decanted from vats as adults with a pre-programmed set of facts. They'd be blank slates, and that would make sense. But the setting would have to figure out how they react to these blank slates.

[LibraryOgre]

Personally, I dislike the "humans are the only ones allowed to vary" trope as well. Everyone should have tropes and stereotypes and archetypes and cultures (plural!) that can be freely played against, played into, or subverted. The "blank slate" isn't really valid for a TTRPG race/culture unless that's a specific setting choice (I could see a setting where one particular group of people are basically decanted from vats as adults with a pre-programmed set of facts. They'd be blank slates, and that would make sense. But the setting would have to figure out how they react to these blank slates.

Somewhat what happened with Warforged, isn't it? While they have a history with the Cannith, they don't have a deep culture of their own; what culture they have is emergent.

Half-elves also had something of that, in that their space was "in between". While 4e and 5e have made them "The charismatic diplomats", some of their earlier D&D representation was "don't really fit" or "try to fit somewhere"... not blank slates, but ones who were trying to fit themselves in.

[GloatingSwine]

This is the argument I always see aimed at against-type characters... "Playing a human with pointy ears." If your dwarf is a clean-shaven smooth talker, you're not a dwarf, you're just a "short human". Only humans can be fully realized characters with variety.


I think the way to avoid that is to still figure out what the type is for this world and figure out which bits of it someone would discard and which they would hang on to if they're deliberately living outside it.

So figure out what a clean-shaven smooth-talking Dwarf plays like and do that.

(See also: Varric, Cheery Littlebottom)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Somewhat what happened with Warforged, isn't it? While they have a history with the Cannith, they don't have a deep culture of their own; what culture they have is emergent.

Half-elves also had something of that, in that their space was "in between". While 4e and 5e have made them "The charismatic diplomats", some of their earlier D&D representation was "don't really fit" or "try to fit somewhere"... not blank slates, but ones who were trying to fit themselves in.

Emergent culture is still culture. Yeah, they have less of it (and thus more variation), but they (both of the examples) also tend to get swallowed up in other cultures. As a result, you don't get "half-elf" or "warforged" culture, you just get one more person of the surrounding culture.

But all in all, Warforged make a good example of how you can build cultures that allow variation while not fitting into the "basically human" bucket so easily.

[Satinavian]

Personally, I dislike the "humans are the only ones allowed to vary" trope as well. Everyone should have tropes and stereotypes and archetypes and cultures (plural!) that can be freely played against, played into, or subverted. The "blank slate" isn't really valid for a TTRPG race/culture unless that's a specific setting choice (I could see a setting where one particular group of people are basically decanted from vats as adults with a pre-programmed set of facts. They'd be blank slates, and that would make sense. But the setting would have to figure out how they react to these blank slates.I think, the best way to go against this is dumping the human dominated settings. If you don't have 25 human nations and a dwarf nation but but 13 of each, you are automatically likely to vary the latter far more. And it also naturally brings way more interactions with dwarfs in very different positions or professions in different context.

[Unoriginal]

If a race has less of an established type, there risks the Tasslehoff/Greedo problem... the example we see becomes the entire species. Greedo is a bounty hunter, so all the Rodians have a culture that centers around hunting. Tasslehoff is irrepressible and wears a topknot, so that's common among all of them. You might make a character, and even decide that they are an outlier for their race... but if no one knows what you're an outlier from, then you're the race.

I have to point out that Greedo was not a bounty hunter, he was a bottom-level enforcer for the local crime boss, or more accurately he was "an idiot with a gun" in a place where a lot of people have guns.

That the Rodians have a bounty hunting tradition is one of the reasons why Greedo was so eager to go after Han, but buying his own hype about it didn't do him any favor, due to his incompetency.

So Greedo doesn't fit his planet's hat due to failing at it badly.

If Greedo had been a dwarf, he'd have had one scene bragging about the tunnel he managed to dig by himself before Han gives a light kick on one of the walls and Greedo is burried under the immediately-collapsing tunnel.

[Beelzebub1111]

Quite the contrary; I could absolutely get behind a Dwarven culture that espouses the sky or sea.

For airborne Dwarves, I'm envisioning an affinity for the sky born of their living atop mountains (in a similar way Cloud Giants are); theirs is the province of weather, air, lightning and the contrast between the purity of the clean air at those altitudes and the chaotic nature of the wind as it blows across mountain peaks. These dwarves would have a special relationship with giant eagles or other flying mega-fauna and be renowned as devastating sky cavalry, utilising their short stature and muscular build to ride the winds atop their flying steeds, raining destruction down upon their foes in the form of gunpowder based grenades and artillery made from the natural resources mined from their mountain homes. Dwarves hailing from these mountaintop homes would be hardy and resilient to cold weather and high altitude, with thick, soft, wispy hair (think husky or hare) and beards that flow in the wind; superstition has it that they can "read" the breeze in their prized beards, the elders claiming to be able to predict the weather or impending doom by the tugging of the wind on their whiskers. Dwarven mages take this a step further and are known to be Astronomers and Astrologers both, with many famous Oracles; wise in their interpretations of the mercurial currents of magic that they read from lofty mountain towers and canny in their reading of the celestial spheres above; Kings and Rulers from across the world travel far and long, or send their most trusted heralds to hear their portents. Harnessing the magic of the ground beneath and the sky above, the long-lived, studious Dwarven Magi are considered some of the most powerful wielders of magical power in the world; some say their proximity to the heavens lends them a fraction of the power of the gods themselves, but that's only superstition and hearsay...right?

For Dwarves that sail the seas, I envision a mighty navy of warships that pack far more punch than their size and weight would allow for other races fleets. The short stature, resistance to disease and hardy nature of the dwarves speaks well for them as sailors. They last longer on fewer rations than other sailors. They can fit more crew per square foot than longer-limbed ships. Diseases that plague other fleets are weathered as handily as any storm. Yes indeed, the Dwarven Navy is a thing to be feared. Originally hailing from a ring of volcanic islands, they have developed a raiding culture and they utilise small, heavy ships suited for boarding actions and coastal or river assaults, where they can best use their superior numbers. These Dwarves famously don't swim well. Their dense bones has a tendency to make them sink, but in response to this, many dwarven raiders dreadlock their beards, woven with cork, bladders and other buoyant materials, turning their facial hair into a remarkably adequate floatation device. These coastal dwarves have a love of song and the sea beyond the comprehension of humans or forest elves. Their deep, resonant voices carry far and wide underwater and their love of tradition and lasting things has given them a strong bond and relationship with some of the largest, oldest and wisest of creatures to exist; whales, sea turtles and older, deeper things still. Dwarven sea mages speak to these creatures and use them as a source of knowledge, communication and even travel; stories abound of dwarven mystics travelling in the belly of blue whales or requesting the wisdom of ancient turtles. Other dwarven magi speak to the elder things in the deeper, darker places; Warlocks and Sorcerers drawing power from creatures beyond the ken of mortal creatures, or at least the younger, more flighty species, summoning the inky dark and frigid cold of the ocean depths to assail their foes.

Alternatively for both those aspects can appeal to the Mercantile nature of dwarfs. Both of those things are hugely tied with trade and a dwarf with mastery of the air could have an entire Merchant Marine culture going for them. Massive fleets of ships entering contracts and trade deals in seek of profit (https://ageofsigmar.lexicanum.com/wiki/Kharadron_Overlords) Mercenaries, free trasders, shipping conglimerates, and pirates with a taste for gold.

[Vyke]

This thread might - but this thread isn't even a representative sample of 5e D&D, much less other editions, other games, or fantasy media more broadly.

Sure. But if you're going to take the position then it's equally fair to say that dwarves can't be boring because the mass market appeal that apparently constrains all creators from attempting variation lest their financial safety be placed in peril says that few people find dwarves boring. So it's really just a few people are bored of them.




Even Varric is not that far outside of type; he represents the newer but still prevalent dwarf stereotype of the shrewd trader (In FR he'd be a Gold Dwarf.) They take the dwarven tendencies towards greed and community, but apply it outward in a mercantile, political and treasure-hunting context rather than the more insular concepts of mining and close-knit family. He's also an engineer rather than a smith, but the core drive is the same - dedication to studious industry.

Yeah. He's a dwarf. If he didn't at least brush against some classically dwarven concept then he wouldn't be interesting for his variation. Then he would just be a short human.

Though I do think if you think changing dress, personality, interactions with others outside his own culture, interaction with own culture and traditional career choice don't make a character different then... yeah, I guess, dwarves are all the same.

I just think operating in with a baseline is more interesting that a hundred variations of cat, cat, rabbit, bird, bird, horse, goat, insect, cow person that all come from no where and have their lore summed up as "whatever you want really". But they're flashier and look like they're more interesting.

It feels like watching 13th Warrior and saying it's really good Antonio Banderas is there because of how boring Vikings defending a Viking settlement are.

And to be clear, if people find it limiting then that's fair enough. I just know I'll be more impressed by a dwarf that feels like it's a real part of the world, linked to the history of it and has reactions and beliefs that are believable and understandable in context but that still provides a unique and individual twist (even if it's just a small tweak)to it than I ever will be with a character who is relying on "I'm the only Firbolg in a 3 nation radius. I don't speak any known language, have a god that only I know and talk to and rainbows shoot out of my eyes at random intervals. Aren't I interesting?". And the fact that the lore of dwarves is so prevalent is why I can respond to those histories, beliefs and contexts. You have a lot of work to make me care about your Firbolg. If it's not interesting once the "Huh, don't think I've seen a Firbolg before" wears off I'll be bored of your character fast because I have nothing to anchor it in my vision of the world. It's just the bag you keep your stats in.

I'm not picking on Firbolgs by the way. They just were the first one I thought of.

[Blue Dragon]

Never liked them, too loud and too limited. Loved when MtG ditched them for goblins. If I was to create a campaign setting (I will never do it) I would simply ditch both goblins and dwarves for gnomes.

[Witty Username]

They're not faring any better in Baldurs Gate 3 either. (https://twitter.com/larianstudios/status/1732091568243229159/photo/2)


Githyanki is 4th least popular? You people are missing out.

Also I must be an outlier on that, I have 2 characters of my own creation, a duergar and a Githyanki. Both because they are ancient enemies of mind flayers so I figured it fitting.

Maybe that is the call, dwarves tend to have the least plot conection and most similar tropes. But when they are allowed to have variety or focus, the appeal goes up.

Or people don't like being short.

[Unoriginal]

Anecdotal evidence, but I have to point out I recall a lot more songs about dwarfs or being dwarfs being created in the last 20 years than songs about/about being elves, orcs, tieflings or the like.

There even are dwarf-themed music groups

Given how those songs tend to be popular, well-received or at least memetic, I think it's a strong indicator of the enduring coolness of dwarfs and dwarves.

[Mordar]

I think, the best way to go against this is dumping the human dominated settings. If you don't have 25 human nations and a dwarf nation but but 13 of each, you are automatically likely to vary the latter far more. And it also naturally brings way more interactions with dwarfs in very different positions or professions in different context.

I *really* liked Earthdawn, for a million reasons. Interestingly, until this thread I hadn't really contemplated the notion that Earthdawn features two organized "nations" - Throal, led by dwarves, and Thera, the BadGuyLand. Scattered groups of other races had holdings throughout Barsaive (the "continent")...and none of the noteworthy ones were human. Scorcher Tribes, Sky Pirates, Riverboat fleets, Blood Wood...each tied to a not-human race. None of these received the attention, focus or lore that Throal received. Even in that setting, though, I'd bet Dwarves were #6, 7 or 8 most frequently chosen race for a PC out of 8.

Makes me wonder where dwarves sit/sat in Shadowrun.


This thread might - but this thread isn't even a representative sample of 5e D&D, much less other editions, other games, or fantasy media more broadly.


Sure. But if you're going to take the position then it's equally fair to say that dwarves can't be boring because the mass market appeal that apparently constrains all creators from attempting variation lest their financial safety be placed in peril says that few people find dwarves boring. So it's really just a few people are bored of them.

I don't think I follow.

Psyren appears to be echoing the same sentiment I had - the sample group here (particularly the posters) is the portion of the GitP Forum community that likely had a positive investment in dwarf characters. We self-selected to read and post here. So, we are the niche of the GitP Forum population, which is a niche of the fantasy RPG-inspired web-comic fan community. Which is a niche of the fantasy RPG fan community. Which is a niche of the fantasy media fan community.

To make us generalizable to the whole, and saying since the posters in this thread are interested in dwarf variation/popularization/resurgence that the population likely feels the same lacks sufficient statistical power.

It seems you are saying that since this thread has far too low of an n to extrapolate dwarven variation advocacy to the whole is analogous to saying that people haven't crafted dwarven variation in their commercial products because they are afraid the backlash against changing dwarves would make people not buy their products. Further, it hinges on the premise that "no popularly selected" = boring.

We don't know why dwarves are not selected as character race more frequently. It may be that people perceive them as boring, true. It could also be because people think them limited to certain roles, and maybe even being the paragon example of those roles - but roles that aren't necessarily people's first choice to play. Or that there are so many newer races that there is a recency bias. Or that the perceived power curve is stilted to primary magic use, so people want to wish fulfill ultimate cosmic power look to pointy eared races. Or that the rebellious youth (of all ages) that play fantasy RPGs want to go against the race thought to be reflective of institutional values...or wanna play edgy demon-looking characters that actually have hearts of gold and get the boy/girl in the end.

Frankly, I think dwarves are looked at like toilet paper. They are almost always included in the rules because they serve a role and have historical importance. They just don't ever get the big promotional slot because, like TP, they will never be the new hotness. There is no perceived need for innovation because the current version is plenty good. It isn't broken (enough) to fix. Development is a sunk cost, so take advantage of it to keep including them. Though not a TP-shared trait, removing them will make the old scratchy bearded people complain so leave them be.

In short, I don't think boring applies. Just...familiarity and pigeon-holing, coupled with not being sexy for bog-standard youth players. And with limited play opportunities for the more experienced players, there just aren't enough opportunities to get to character #6 on the list of "I want to play that next!".

- M

[Errorname]

Dwarves absolutely do still have fans, Deep Rock Galactic is a pretty recent and decently popular game that's built entirely around putting classic Dwarf tropes into a sci-fi setting. I think most people like them overall, unless you're strongly on the other side of the Elf/Dwarf split, but thinking Dwarves are a fun character archetype doesn't necessarily translate to having them be your first choice for "I want to play as one of these guys". There's a difference between liking Gimli and wanting to play as Gimli.


Even Varric is not that far outside of type; he represents the newer but still prevalent dwarf stereotype of the shrewd trader (In FR he'd be a Gold Dwarf.) They take the dwarven tendencies towards greed and community, but apply it outward in a mercantile, political and treasure-hunting context rather than the more insular concepts of mining and close-knit family. He's also an engineer rather than a smith, but the core drive is the same - dedication to studious industry.

Varric is still clearly meant to be playing against the classic Dwarf stereotype. Clean shaven, rogueish, charming. Just because he's not the only character that's been written with that sort of intent doesn't mean he isn't a departure.

[Psyren]

Sure. But if you're going to take the position then it's equally fair to say that dwarves can't be boring because the mass market appeal that apparently constrains all creators from attempting variation lest their financial safety be placed in peril says that few people find dwarves boring. So it's really just a few people are bored of them.

Both things can be true though. Dwarves can be experiencing general decline as people gravitate to more interesting races, while the folks who like Dwarves and settings featuring Dwarves can have a very rigidly defined image in their heads of what Dwarves can and should be, that the makers of those settings are wary about deviating from lest they accelerate the decline further, or worse, turn people off their setting entirely.

In other words, just because I (for example) am not interested in playing a dwarf character in a given setting, that doesn't preclude me from having an opinion on how dwarves should be portrayed in that setting.


Yeah. He's a dwarf. If he didn't at least brush against some classically dwarven concept then he wouldn't be interesting for his variation. Then he would just be a short human.

He does more than "brush," is my point. He's firmly in line with many of the same dwarven tropes all the others are. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but then, I'm not someone who is particularly invested in dwarven adoption rates or variation either.


And to be clear, if people find it limiting then that's fair enough. I just know I'll be more impressed by a dwarf that feels like it's a real part of the world, linked to the history of it and has reactions and beliefs that are believable and understandable in context but that still provides a unique and individual twist (even if it's just a small tweak)to it than I ever will be with a character who is relying on "I'm the only Firbolg in a 3 nation radius. I don't speak any known language, have a god that only I know and talk to and rainbows shoot out of my eyes at random intervals. Aren't I interesting?". And the fact that the lore of dwarves is so prevalent is why I can respond to those histories, beliefs and contexts. You have a lot of work to make me care about your Firbolg. If it's not interesting once the "Huh, don't think I've seen a Firbolg before" wears off I'll be bored of your character fast because I have nothing to anchor it in my vision of the world. It's just the bag you keep your stats in.

I'm not picking on Firbolgs by the way. They just were the first one I thought of.

I know you just used Firbolgs as an example, but I'd find them pretty easy to fit into any setting that contains forests and giants of any kind. I find the same is true of anything in MotM.



Varric is still clearly meant to be playing against the classic Dwarf stereotype. Clean shaven, rogueish, charming. Just because he's not the only character that's been written with that sort of intent doesn't mean he isn't a departure.

I know he's a departure, but I'm saying he's not particularly radical. He's still subject to the overall trope.

[Mordar]

Varric is still clearly meant to be playing against the classic Dwarf stereotype. Clean shaven, rogueish, charming. Just because he's not the only character that's been written with that sort of intent doesn't mean he isn't a departure.

Departure, or something more like a culinary fusion? Swapping a couple spices in the same basic recipe to make Korean tacos as opposed to serving bulgogi with kimchi and seaweed salad at a Mexican restaurant?

- M

[Errorname]

Both things can be true though. Dwarves can be experiencing general decline as people gravitate to more interesting races, while the folks who like Dwarves and settings featuring Dwarves can have a very rigidly defined image in their heads of what Dwarves can and should be, that the makers of those settings are wary about deviating from lest they accelerate the decline further, or worse, turn people off their setting entirely.

In other words, just because I (for example) am not interested in playing a dwarf character in a given setting, that doesn't preclude me from having an opinion on how dwarves should be portrayed in that setting.

Also, most of these settings also have other playable races like Halfings and Gnomes which are pretty similar physically, so they tend to really rely on personality and culture to make them feel distinct. A Half-Orc's unique physical features mean it will still feel like a Half-Orc even if you play them against type, while trying to do something like Varric in a D&D setting might just end up feeling like a halfling.


I know he's a departure, but I'm saying he's not particularly radical. He's still subject to the overall trope.

Yeah, he's still meant to be a Dwarf, but I think Varric is pushing it about as far from the stock aesthetic, personality and vibe as you can while having the character still be recognizable as a Dwarf.

[Xervous]

Makes me wonder where dwarves sit/sat in Shadowrun.

I’ve generally seen dwarves at a high pick rate for mages, followed by deckers and riggers. General pick rate of meta types went something like human > elf > dwarf >= troll >> orc. But most of that is filtered through the pricing, benefits and favored archetypes. Human fits anything; elf has benefits for Face and universal combat applicability; dwarf has durability, infravision, and a universal caster benefit; troll is effectively its own archetype; and orc wishes it was troll 90% of the time. Poor orcs, hardly seen any.

[Trask]

The thing about Varric, and Dragon Age in particular, is that it was deliberately written to subvert tropes. Then it became so popular that the subverted tropes became tropes in and of themselves. I like Varric as a character, and I like trope subversion, but I do think, as others have mentioned upthread, that its best if there is a type which you are playing against. If that pigeonholes fantasy races into tropes, that's because that's what fantasy races are, because that's what fantasy is. I don't have a problem with that, as D&D is fantasy, and fantasy is about archetypes in general.

I do feel like there is space in the noosphere for Dwarves to grow however, particularly in "evil" or at least unsavory directions. The dwarves of norse myth are sneaky, cunning, and often magic using little creatures. In an alternate, less Tolkien dominated fantasy milieu, perhaps Dwarves' favored classes would be rogues, wizards, warlocks and so forth, rather than fighters and clerics.

[Psyren]

Also, most of these settings also have other playable races like Halfings and Gnomes which are pretty similar physically, so they tend to really rely on personality and culture to make them feel distinct. A Half-Orc's unique physical features mean it will still feel like a Half-Orc even if you play them against type, while trying to do something like Varric in a D&D setting might just end up feeling like a halfling.

I'd say Varric in D&D would be a Gold Dwarf; definitely not a halfling or a gnome. He's not parochial enough for the former and not manic/whimsical enough for the latter.


Yeah, he's still meant to be a Dwarf, but I think Varric is pushing it about as far from the stock aesthetic, personality and vibe as you can while having the character still be recognizable as a Dwarf.

Which isn't very far at all. Engineering instead of smithing, distrustful of magic, distrustful of nature, barfly, greedy, family-oriented, mercantile, industrious... he has more in common with the stock dwarf than might first appear.

[Errorname]

I'd say Varric in D&D would be a Gold Dwarf; definitely not a halfling or a gnome. He's not parochial enough for the former and not manic/whimsical enough for the latter.

I think you could play him as any of those three options pretty easily, and that players who wanted to play a character with the same general vibe as Varric would probably lean towards Halfling or Gnome instead of going for a Dwarf.


Which isn't very far at all. Engineering instead of smithing, distrustful of magic, distrustful of nature, barfly, greedy, family-oriented, mercantile, industrious... he has more in common with the stock dwarf than might first appear.

Commonalities do not minimize the things he does extremely differently from the norm, especially considering how samey fictional dwarves tend to be.

[Mordar]

I’ve generally seen dwarves at a high pick rate for mages, followed by deckers and riggers. General pick rate of meta types went something like human > elf > dwarf >= troll >> orc. But most of that is filtered through the pricing, benefits and favored archetypes. Human fits anything; elf has benefits for Face and universal combat applicability; dwarf has durability, infravision, and a universal caster benefit; troll is effectively its own archetype; and orc wishes it was troll 90% of the time. Poor orcs, hardly seen any.

Thinking back on the 10-ish non-convention Shadowrun games I played in (so at least intended as ongoing campaigns) I seem to recall Human - Elf - Troll - // Orc - Dwarf, or maybe swapping Troll and Elf. My favorite character (as in "that I played") was an Orc. Seems virtually every game had a Troll (Samurai or Phys Adept, surprising no one I suspect).

Human, of course, had the benefit of not costing a priority slot, so it was optimal for riggers and deckers.

- M

[Yora]

To provide another data point, I never found dwarves to be interesting.

Of all the classic fantasy peoples, dwarves are the ones in which strict adherence to the archetype feels like an essential trait of the archetype. While there may not strictly be only one dwarf, there is only one dwarf culture. Occasionally people have tried to do something new and different with dwarves, but that always felt like them no longer much resembling a dwarf.

Countless variants of elves, and they still feel like elves. Dark Sun and Eberron really go out of their way to nake something new with halflings, and it's something cool and compelling. Eberron tries to put a completely new spin on everything. Except dwarvs. Eberron dwarves are just default dwarves with a different fashion sense.

And the key trait of the dwarf archetype is being anti-social. They are rude and want to be left alone. The dwarven homeland in generic fantasy worlds are rude and want to be left alone. They don't want anyone to know what's going on in their cities and what they are doing either. Borders closed. Stay away or get an exe to the face. There they will stay and continue their eternal fight to the death with goblins and orcs. Which everyone knows they will finally lose soon.
Archetypical dwarves don't want to talk to anyone or see anyone. They want to stew in their own misery.

The only way to make a dwarf work as a PC is to reject dwarveness. And then why play a dwarf to begin with?

The only situation which I feel would be interesting to play a dwarf, or even have dwarves in a campaign setting, would be a campaign in which everyone plays only dwarves, and which takes place entirely in dwarven lands. That actually sounds quite cool and interesting. It lets the characters flourish in their dwarveness, and the other players, being up for playing archetypical dwarves, will appreciate the grumpy roughness and stubborness.

[Beelzebub1111]

Countless variants of elves, and they still feel like elves. Dark Sun and Eberron really go out of their way to nake something new with halflings, and it's something cool and compelling. Eberron tries to put a completely new spin on everything. Except dwarvs. Eberron dwarves are just default dwarves with a different fashion sense.

It's hard to improve upon what's already perfect.

I wouldn't say dwarves are anti-social. more that they are Esoteric. they have different customs and taboos that make them seem anti-social to outsiders. For example, the stereotype is also that dwarves are rowdy feasters and celebrators. Nobody parties like a dwarf. They enjoy good food, good drink, and good song.

They express their feelings in ways different from the other races that make them really fun to play. A dwarf might not share intimate details of his past, he would surely go on about current events and what everyone is up to currently.

A dwarf never forgets a grudge or greivance, nor an oath. Nor takes them lightly. A dwarf does not forgive and forget. To some this makes dwarfs seem hard minded and literal. To the dwarf, everyone else is flighty, untrustworthy, and irresponsible. I think all of that is VERY interestin to play with and work within.

[LibraryOgre]

The only way to make a dwarf work as a PC is to reject dwarveness. And then why play a dwarf to begin with?


To either reject or embrace dwarfiness.

While dwarves, in the archetypical culture, generally are insular, there's almost always examples of those who are outside the closed society; outcasts are a major example, of course, such as Flint Fireforge. But you also have Gimli, who comes to the Council of Elrond to discuss with other leaders what should be done. Or the "lost homeland" types, such as Bruenor Battlehammer or Thorin. Those are, IMO, four of the major points of reference for D&D-style dwarves.

The other option is to reject that dwarfiness. While Varric has many dwarfy traits, I don't think he expresses them in a way that is immediately recognizable as such. I recall a dwarf woman in a Dragonlance novel who was a travelling trader. Lusty, gregarious, favoring bright clothing. She seemed specifically built to be the anti-dwarf dwarf... extremely feminine, charismatic, and bright, compared to the masculinity and dourness of the standard dwarf. And playing against type is a major theme in D&D, especially post-1e. Driz'zt is a common example, certainly, but Kaz the Minotaur comes to mind, as well. Playing against type often becomes a type in and of itself, as we see with kobolds and goblins morphing through editions, as well as Drow and Minotaurs.

[Psyren]

I think you could play him as any of those three options pretty easily, and that players who wanted to play a character with the same general vibe as Varric would probably lean towards Halfling or Gnome instead of going for a Dwarf.



Commonalities do not minimize the things he does extremely differently from the norm, especially considering how samey fictional dwarves tend to be.

I don't think the things he does differently/the ways he plays against type outweigh the similarities with dwarf nature - but that's fine, we don't have to agree.

[Trask]

The only situation which I feel would be interesting to play a dwarf, or even have dwarves in a campaign setting, would be a campaign in which everyone plays only dwarves, and which takes place entirely in dwarven lands. That actually sounds quite cool and interesting. It lets the characters flourish in their dwarveness, and the other players, being up for playing archetypical dwarves, will appreciate the grumpy roughness and stubborness.

Makes me think that a campaign in which Dwarves (and perhaps Halflings & Gnomes) are the most common races in the land might be interesting. A bit more hobbit inspired, less human farming villages threatened by orcs and more dwarfholds, gnome burrows, and halfling shires threatened by monsters with PCs as humans from faraway lands.

Hobbit inspired and perhaps Mahakam from the Witcher inspired as well. These races have a "salt of the earth" feel that I think would make them good as the most common races in the setting, and as a bonus it would give humans a bit of LotR style mystique as adventuring knights and wizards from Not!Gondor/the Great Kingdom.

[Metastachydium]

Makes me think that a campaign in which Dwarves (and perhaps Halflings & Gnomes) are the most common races in the land might be interesting. A bit more hobbit inspired, less human farming villages threatened by orcs and more dwarfholds, gnome burrows, and halfling shires threatened by monsters with PCs as humans from faraway lands.

OR make Dwarves the real monsters! What do you think they eat underground anyhow? And who do you think has culturally conditioned Halflings to overeat but avoid strenuous physical activity?!

[Cluedrew]

To either reject or embrace dwarfiness.Or even better, break dwarfness into its component parts and then reject or embrace those parts them individually.

Or more generally, I don't think we also have to treat the concept of a dwarf as a monolith. And I think that is something people tend to forget. As a few simple example, elves have two major sub-variants, wood-elves and mystic-elves*. These share some characteristics, and I don't think either is the true elf either (I'm sure some would happy quote Tolkien in a debate about it though), but it creates a broader bubble of elf traits that you can draw on without requiring them all. And if you want to make a dwarf character I think a good place to start is... just pick some (but not all) dwarf traits.

* And cave-elves and trickster-elves and sea-elves and dark-elves and Santa-elves. Basically, anything that would be a human except for pointy ears (and maybe magic, and maybe whatever traits the author adds to make them superior) than it is an elf. So I don't think elves are cool because I don't think elves are anything.

[Flashkannon]

Yes, the elf thing is way overdone. "Oh, you're going to play an elf game?" question sort of deserves the sneering tone that often accompanies it.

Personally, I play in an all-elf game, and it's loads of fun - we're all hard-drinking fun-loving dex specialists, wandering from one festival or obscure/hostile eatery to the next, with songs in our hearts. Our enemies never know what hit 'em, because they never see us coming.

And... I suppose this tracks from my previous statement, but I've found dwarves hard to approach, creatively. Part of it is the ascendancy of dexterity (initiative, AC, the most common save, ranged attacks, stealth) making a lot of the more traditionally dwarven options hard to justify mechanically, and not a lot of roleplay hooks that appeal to me, no matter how many times I've tried. I've got a character in the works who is pretending to be a dwarf, but that's hardly the same thing.

As for the dwarves I've encountered, all have been either a Varric-type merchant, or a traditional heavy armor no magic or holy magic dwarf. Not that I haven't enjoyed being in the same party as them, the scottish-accent calls-everyone-laddie/lassie stuff is fun, but they're similar dwarves.

[Errorname]

The other thing that hurts Dwarves is that physically, they're just humans. Their fantasy elements are basically all cultural. A stereotype breaking Dwarf will just end up being a short human, and that's just a sort of human that exists. I brought up that Varric could easily be a halfling or a gnome in a setting that had them, but the actual big one is that if you wanted to play a historical earth setting, you could easily just have him be human and you wouldn't have to change anything (aesthetically).

[awa]

Thats not really true they can among other things see in the dark and are extremely long lived, that's not cultural.

Edit
Further their talent for smithing is often depicted as more than cultural such that even adopted Dwarves excel at smithing

[Pauly]

The only 'alternate' dwarf type that I've seen gain any traction in the player base in a major sci fi or fantasy franchise were the squats from WH40K. For those who aren't from the late 80's early 90's Squats were essentially a bikie gang culture and dearly loved by the players. Games Workshop killed them off with the most common theory being they weren't grimdark enough for 40K.

I think there's enough there to create a fantasy equivalent. For example a focus more on kludging things together until they work rather than fine scale engineering, use of leather jackets and goggles instead of heavy armor, some suitable non-horse to use as mounts/chariot pullers and so on. You keep the gruff, disdainful of outsiders and live of ale.

[hamishspence]

The only 'alternate' dwarf type that I've seen gain any traction in the player base in a major sci fi or fantasy franchise were the squats from WH40K. For those who aren't from the late 80's early 90's Squats were essentially a bikie gang culture and dearly loved by the players. Games Workshop killed them off with the most common theory being they weren't grimdark enough for 40K.

I think there's enough there to create a fantasy equivalent. For example a focus more on kludging things together until they work rather than fine scale engineering, use of leather jackets and goggles instead of heavy armor, some suitable non-horse to use as mounts/chariot pullers and so on. You keep the gruff, disdainful of outsiders and live of ale.

They brought them back into the main 40K game in 9e as the Leagues of Votann (stating that only one League had been killed off) - as well as bringing them back with the new version of Necromunda, under their original Squat name.

[Errorname]

Thats not really true they can among other things see in the dark and are extremely long lived, that's not cultural.

These are decently common but hardly ubiquitous for fantasy dwarves, and even if they weren't some of the most generic traits for a fantasy race neither correlate to visibly inhuman features. Again, nothing about Varric's visual design would be out of place on a human character. Something like a Tiefling or a Half-Orc or even an Elf is obviously outside of the bounds of natural human physical diversity, Dwarves are not. I've never met someone with a tail and ram-horns, I've met a short dude with unflattering facial hair and surprisingly high tolerance for alchohol.

[Eldan]

The only 'alternate' dwarf type that I've seen gain any traction in the player base in a major sci fi or fantasy franchise were the squats from WH40K. For those who aren't from the late 80's early 90's Squats were essentially a bikie gang culture and dearly loved by the players. Games Workshop killed them off with the most common theory being they weren't grimdark enough for 40K.

From what I remember back then, and what the designers hinted at in interviews, it was basically three things:

a) Some people thought they were funny, but no one actually bought them. They were the worst selling faction by quite a bit.

b) Yeah, hard to fit into the setting. That said, they made orks fit just fine, so they could have worked around that.

c) Probably the big one: no ideas for what to do with them. Short of redesigning them from the ground up (i.e. Votann), there just wasn't that much they could do with space bikers. You had space bikers on foot and space bikers on bikes and them you kinda ran out of unit ideas.

[JellyPooga]

c) Probably the big one: no ideas for what to do with them. Short of redesigning them from the ground up (i.e. Votann), there just wasn't that much they could do with space bikers. You had space bikers on foot and space bikers on bikes and them you kinda ran out of unit ideas.

Don't forget the Space Bikers on their massive armoured land train! Instead of titans, they had the biggest tanks with the biggest guns. Always thought that very sensible of them (and practical; walkers are an awful platform for a war machine, no matter how cool they are).

[Witty Username]

These are decently common but hardly ubiquitous for fantasy dwarves, and even if they weren't some of the most generic traits for a fantasy race neither correlate to visibly inhuman features. Again, nothing about Varric's visual design would be out of place on a human character. Something like a Tiefling or a Half-Orc or even an Elf is obviously outside of the bounds of natural human physical diversity, Dwarves are not. I've never met someone with a tail and ram-horns, I've met a short dude with unflattering facial hair and surprisingly high tolerance for alchohol.

I find this an odd point given elf is nearly indistinguishable from human, and similarity to human is a selling point for them. And to be fair, I have seen people with pointier ears.

[Psyren]

Is there a problem here that needs fixing though? Fewer people playing dwarves means yours will stand out more. Isn't that a good thing?

They'll never unseat elves, humans, or tieflings - and maybe not dragonborn either now, especially after the new ones get darkvision- but I think that's fine, they don't need to.

[Errorname]

I find this an odd point given elf is nearly indistinguishable from human, and similarity to human is a selling point for them. And to be fair, I have seen people with pointier ears.

The stock elf is more outside the bounds of natural human variation than the stock dwarf, but I would agree that they also run into this problem a little.

[Lemmy]

I think the main reason is the serious lack of popular modern media depicting dwarves as cool (or even as anything beyond grumpy and annoying butt of the joke).

Even the LotR trilogy failed in that aspect quite a bit... As much as i love it, I can't deny they tell way too many jokes at Gimli's expense after the 1st movie.

The last time I saw some cool dwarves, it was in the 2nd season of the anime "Faraway Paladin". I like it quite a bit, but it isn't exactly the most popular anime out there.

[Witty Username]

I think the main reason is the serious lack of popular modern media depicting dwarves as cool (or even as anything beyond grumpy and annoying butt of the joke).

I blame Warcraft.

[Psyren]

I think the main reason is the serious lack of popular modern media depicting dwarves as cool (or even as anything beyond grumpy and annoying butt of the joke).

Even the LotR trilogy failed in that aspect quite a bit... As much as i love it, I can't deny they tell way too many jokes at Gimli's expensive after the 1st movie.

The last time I saw some cool dwarves, it was in the 2nd season of the anime "Faraway Paladin". I like it quite a bit, but it isn't exactly the most popular anime out there.

Prince Durin in Rings of Power was pretty cool I'd say. But aside from his uncharacteristic friendship with Elrond, he fit the trope to a tee.

[Lemmy]

Prince Durin in Rings of Power was pretty cool I'd say. But aside from his uncharacteristic friendship with Elrond, he fit the trope to a tee.
I said *popular* media, though. Not "1 billion dollar failure that lost 2/3 of its viewers before even the 1st season was over". :smallbiggrin:

[Errorname]

Prince Durin in Rings of Power was pretty cool I'd say. But aside from his uncharacteristic friendship with Elrond, he fit the trope to a tee.

That is the one aspect of that show I've seen actually get reliably praised, but Rings of Power did not exactly light the world on fire, so maybe it doesn't qualify for the 'popular' metric.

It's a notable that it's a bit of an outlier in having prominent dwarven characters at all. Feels noteworthy that both Baldur's Gate 3 or Critical Role, easily the most notable D&D things in recent years, both did not feature a Dwarf character in the main party

[Psyren]

I said *popular* media, though. Not "1 billion dollar failure that lost 2/3 of its viewers before even the 1st season was over". :smallbiggrin:


That is the one aspect of that show I've seen actually get reliably praised, but Rings of Power did not exactly light the world on fire, so maybe it doesn't qualify for the 'popular' metric.

Even if the falloff by the end of the season was that drastic, that's still tens of millions of final viewers (https://collider.com/rings-of-power-ratings-audience-vernon-sanders-comments/), so I said what I said. And that puts it well north of some of the other examples given in this thread.


It's a notable that it's a bit of an outlier in having prominent dwarven characters at all. Feels noteworthy that both Baldur's Gate 3 or Critical Role, easily the most notable D&D things in recent years, both did not feature a Dwarf character in the main party

I agree, but as mentioned, these have much more exciting "Big Guy/Gal" races to choose from. CR pulled in Goliaths, while BG3 took an already musclebound tiefling and slapped some golem parts in her for good measure.

My hunch is that part of the Dwarf's problem, besides the saminess of their tropes, is that the narrative ensemble role they most often filled was the Big Guy - but I'd wager that most players (and authors) who have other options for that role tend to want to go larger than humans in all dimensions, not just wider/stockier.

[Errorname]

Even if the falloff by the end of the season was that drastic, that's still tens of millions of final viewers (https://collider.com/rings-of-power-ratings-audience-vernon-sanders-comments/), so I said what I said. And that puts it well north of some of the other examples given in this thread.

I was more talking about being well-liked, and even among people who enjoyed it I don't think anyone was hugely invested in the series.


I agree, but as mentioned, these have much more exciting "Big Guy/Gal" races to choose from. CR pulled in Goliaths, while BG3 took an already musclebound tiefling and slapped some golem parts in her for good measure.

My hunch is that part of the Dwarf's problem, besides the saminess of their tropes, is that the narrative ensemble role they most often filled was the Big Guy - but I'd wager that most players (and authors) who have other options for that role tend to want to go larger than humans in all dimensions, not just wider/stockier.

I agree that competition for the big guy role with other races is a part of it, but you don't have to make the Dwarf the Barbarian. We've brought up Varric a lot, but Pillars made their Dwarf party member an Inuit-inspired ranger. You can get unconventional with this sort of thing. Hell, Baldur's Gate had a big bear of a druid who could easily have been a Dwarf and they made him an Elf instead

[Psyren]

I was more talking about being well-liked, and even among people who enjoyed it I don't think anyone was hugely invested in the series.

I honestly couldn't care less about how many of the 100MM audience didn't like it or weren't "hugely invested" in it or not; hate-watches and apathetic ones are still watches.



I agree that competition for the big guy role with other races is a part of it, but you don't have to make the Dwarf the Barbarian. We've brought up Varric a lot, but Pillars made their Dwarf party member an Inuit-inspired ranger. You can get unconventional with this sort of thing. Hell, Baldur's Gate had a big bear of a druid who could easily have been a Dwarf and they made him an Elf instead

Halsin definitely wouldn't have worked as a Dwarf for multiple reasons. 350 would put him at or near the end of his life as a dwarf, rather than still being in the first half of his lifespan for an Elf, which would have drastically changed his whole outlook on the shadow curse/Thaniel situation. It's doubtful if Thaniel would have even befriended him like it did if he aged at non-elf speeds. He's also much more suited to an elf's itinerant outlook on life (i.e. leaving the Circle to fend for itself) than a dwarf's much more community/responsibility-minded ethos.

I can't think of any fixed BG3 characters I would convert to a Dwarf and have then function as well. Probably best for us to push for a Dwarf character in a DLC expansion or BG4 instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

Half-elves also had something of that, in that their space was "in between". While 4e and 5e have made them "The charismatic diplomats", some of their earlier D&D representation was "don't really fit" or "try to fit somewhere"... not blank slates, but ones who were trying to fit themselves in. Tanis Half Elven being one example of many.

OR make Dwarves the real monsters! What do you think they eat underground anyhow? And who do you think has culturally conditioned Halflings to overeat but avoid strenuous physical activity?!
My next halfling (if I ever make one) has to be named Hansel now.

I blame Warcraft. And WoW.
Never pet a burning dog!

[Lemmy]

Even if the falloff by the end of the season was that drastic, that's still tens of millions of final viewers (https://collider.com/rings-of-power-ratings-audience-vernon-sanders-comments/), so I said what I said. And that puts it well north of some of the other examples given in this thread.
Being famous isn't the same as being popular, though.

Sure... A lot of people still saw the series, but most people dropped it and the even among the ones who stayed, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who truly liked it or even remembers the name of the characters who weren't in the LotR trilogy.

(I watched a whole season of Iron Fist in Netflix. Doesn't mean I liked it).

And let's be honest: Being seen by tens of millions of people doesn't really count as an accomplishment here.

LotR is so massive, that literally any big production involving its name should have "tens of millions" as the very bare minimum it should be able to attract, no matter its merits (or lack there of). Even more so if it's made by one of the worlds largest corporations and has 1 billion dollars invested in it.

With half that much money and the LotR name, even you, I or anyone else with half a brain can get 10 million people to give it a try and probably stick around for an entire season.

[Psyren]

And let's be honest: Being seen by tens of millions of people doesn't really count as an accomplishment here.

I disagree, but I really have no interest in turning this into a Rings of Power thread either (you can start one in Media if you wish, of course.)



Back to Dwarven usage - D&D Beyond published updated stats (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwP1cX5t-Ls) on races species that are actively being played today using data captured from active campaigns and Maps, that I thought would be of interest for this thread:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1196883057941159986/image.png

From the above, it looks like Dwarves are faring a bit better in tabletop D&D than they were in Baldur's Gate, but they're still coming in behind Tieflings and Dragonborn. I'm curious to see how these stats change again once Goliaths and Orcs become core/Basic.

[DragonEyeSeeker]

From my perspective, Dwarves have really only dropped a little in terms of popularity. The race that has lost the most has been Half-Elves. Ever since 4E's re-branding of the Tieflings, the Half-Elves have plummeted in popularity. The Tieflings have eaten the Half-Elves' lunch.

[Psyren]

From my perspective, Dwarves have really only dropped a little in terms of popularity. The race that has lost the most has been Half-Elves. Ever since 4E's re-branding of the Tieflings, the Half-Elves have plummeted in popularity. The Tieflings have eaten the Half-Elves' lunch.

Out of curiosity, I went back to some older DDB stats to compare the 2023 ones to and I think you're onto something. Here's a 538 analysis from data that DDB released in 2017 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) that had Half-Elves and Dwarves considerably higher in the rankings. Back then, both were ahead of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

What I found particularly interesting was the huge increase in characters over that timeframe, e.g. from 25k humans to over 700k. It makes me wonder, how much of the Dwarven fall was due to the general shift in their perception of coolness among the playerbase we've been theorizing, and how much of it was due to shifting demographics, i.e. an influx of players who don't identify with the way they've seen dwarves portrayed, and who feel more affinity for tieflings and dragonborn?

[Errorname]

I honestly couldn't care less about how many of the 100MM audience didn't like it or weren't "hugely invested" in it or not; hate-watches and apathetic ones are still watches.

If we're talking about how it might have influenced the discourse and wider fantasy scene it kind of does matter. A show you watched and thought was okay but not great probably isn't going to inform future decisions on your part.


Halsin definitely wouldn't have worked as a Dwarf for multiple reasons. 350 would put him at or near the end of his life as a dwarf, rather than still being in the first half of his lifespan for an Elf, which would have drastically changed his whole outlook on the shadow curse/Thaniel situation. It's doubtful if Thaniel would have even befriended him like it did if he aged at non-elf speeds. He's also much more suited to an elf's itinerant outlook on life (i.e. leaving the Circle to fend for itself) than a dwarf's much more community/responsibility-minded ethos.

I'm not saying it was a mistake that the character is an Elf, but my point is it would not be hard to translate Halsin's general vibe to a dwarf druid. They didn't have to make him an Elf, the details about his specific relationship to the shadow curse and Thaniel could have easily been different had they so chose and if they had wanted a dwarf party member.

[Mordar]

Out of curiosity, I went back to some older DDB stats to compare the 2023 ones to and I think you're onto something. Here's a 538 analysis from data that DDB released in 2017 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) that had Half-Elves and Dwarves considerably higher in the rankings. Back then, both were ahead of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

What I found particularly interesting was the huge increase in characters over that timeframe, e.g. from 25k humans to over 700k. It makes me wonder, how much of the Dwarven fall was due to the general shift in their perception of coolness among the playerbase we've been theorizing, and how much of it was due to shifting demographics, i.e. an influx of players who don't identify with the way they've seen dwarves portrayed, and who feel more affinity for tieflings and dragonborn?

Is it worth speculating about the potential D&D Beyond bias? Maybe 1 of 8 in my playgroup used it...

Also a potential for "early adopters like things differently"?

I recognize that the tool is much better than anecdotal evidence, though.

- M

[Psyren]

Is it worth speculating about the potential D&D Beyond bias? Maybe 1 of 8 in my playgroup used it...

Also a potential for "early adopters like things differently"?

I recognize that the tool is much better than anecdotal evidence, though.

- M

Even if DnDBeyond represents some fraction of the 5e playerbase, I see no reason not to consider it representative. Or to put it another way, I don't think there's anything about DnDBeyond specifically that would cause its users' play habits to differ materially from the whole. All their other stats line up with what I'd expect from the 5e playerbase at large, e.g. humans being the most popular race, fighters being the most popular class, most characters being in Tier 1 etc.


If we're talking about how it might have influenced the discourse and wider fantasy scene it kind of does matter.

The opinions of the majority of its audience on its dwarf characters aren't what I'm interested in though, if you can even credibly distill such a thing (which neither of you can.) Rather, I was interested in the creative choices made by its writing team, vis-a-vis landing on prominent and background dwarf characters that broadly conform to the Tolkien milieu. (Quite understandably in this case.)

Put another way - they rocked the boat considerably more when it came to the humans, elves, and even hobbits in that show vs both the source books and the PJ films. The Dwarves though, not so much. You could have swapped out King Durin for Thorin and gotten much the same xenophobia, greed, and proclivity for subterranean mining.



I'm not saying it was a mistake that the character is an Elf, but my point is it would not be hard to translate Halsin's general vibe to a dwarf druid. They didn't have to make him an Elf, the details about his specific relationship to the shadow curse and Thaniel could have easily been different had they so chose and if they had wanted a dwarf party member.

Maybe, we'll never really know. Personally I think you'd have to change enough details to make it fit that you might as well start from an entirely new character and premise.

[SouthpawSoldier]

So, I have a tangent for everyone to consider; Monster Hunter International's takes on elves and orcs.

Elves are rednecks dwelling in trailer parks, orcs all have gifts for specific skills/activities.

To my knowledge, dwarves haven't received attention yet, but I think that a trope flip would revitalize the race a great deal.

[Mordar]

Even if DnDBeyond represents some fraction of the 5e playerbase, I see no reason not to consider it representative. Or to put it another way, I don't think there's anything about DnDBeyond specifically that would cause its users' play habits to differ materially from the whole. All their other stats line up with what I'd expect from the 5e playerbase at large, e.g. humans being the most popular race, fighters being the most popular class, most characters being in Tier 1 etc.

Thought about this a bit more, and my conclusion was that if there were any skewness in the sample it would likely be towards newer players, and if dwarves fall ahead of the median with newer players that is probably a good thing if you are pro-dwarf.

- M

[Psyren]

Thought about this a bit more, and my conclusion was that if there were any skewness in the sample it would likely be towards newer players, and if dwarves fall ahead of the median with newer players that is probably a good thing if you are pro-dwarf.

- M

I don't disagree but I think we're in for some shake-ups. If the new hybrid rules drop as expected, half-elves will likely no longer be a distinct category in their stats - most of those characters will probably be aligned with elf or human (since "half-elves" will be counted as one or the other crunch-wise) but some of those might jump ship entirely e.g. to Tiefling. Goliaths are already popular enough to be on the board despite not being core, so I expect them to shoot up in popularity once they're in Basic and new players won't need to have bought or shared any books to play as one. Lastly, Dragonborn are getting some pretty notable buffs like darkvision, better breath weapon action economy and scaling, and flight.

With all three "cool big races" (Dragonborn, Orcs, and Goliaths) in Basic, I expect Dwarves to take more of a hit in next year's stats and beyond, no pun intended.

[Amnestic]

I blame Warcraft.

You could blame them for gnome perception, but dwarves get a decent spread of personality traits in Warcraft/WoW (when they actually show up). They're not a 'comedy' race, nor stereotypically grumpy. Their alcoholism is a throughline (much as other dwarves) but they're rarely ever the butt of the joke for it.

WoW's dwarves having three major pillars (Bronzebeard, Wildhammer, and Dark Iron) gives them a bit of cultural/aesthetic diversity - Wildhammer especially hit on some of the 'desired' variant notes, being more air/wind themed and taking to the skies on gryphon-back. They could do more (and I've got my own concerns with making the dark skin dwarves the 'evil' ones, though that's hardly new to WoW either) but they're generally doing okay.

I mean, aside from neutering the scheming Moira and making her soft+nice out of nowhere, but that's really just my personal hangup I've got.

[LibraryOgre]

You could blame them for gnome perception,

What I know about Warcraft gnomes borrows heavily from Dragonlance's gnomes.

[Satinavian]

I still think that this is party true.

Settings that have gnomes as the tinkerer/gadgeteer race tend to downplay dwarves as master crafters. And dwarves don't work well as "big guys". They are tough, sure. But they are slow and not particularly strong. There is a reason so many of the old stories had the "big guy" hero be a human but with dwarven gear, not actually a dwarf.

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

[KorvinStarmast]

What I know about Warcraft gnomes borrows heavily from Dragonlance's gnomes. I've got a flying machine! :smallsmile:
Yep.
My favorite Warcraft game is still WarCraft II.

[Ionathus]

Playing a dwarf isn't about being cool

Playing a dwarf is about doing your duty, even if it makes you uncool.

Not sure if this is a direct reference to OotS, but the recent book focusing on Durkon and his upbringing really made me appreciate the storytelling opportunities of honor-bound Dwarven culture.

Though that could just be that anything Rich Burlew writes about becomes more interesting to me! He's a good storyteller :smallsmile:

[DragonEyeSeeker]

The problem with Gnomes is that their two most iconic archetypes basically eat into the niches of Elves and Dwarves. Tinker Gnomes are just Dwarves who build crazier & wilder things, while Forest/Sprite Gnomes are just wee lil' Wood Elves.

I think one of the weaker aspects of the Dwarves is that they do not have a good niche outside of their stereotypical archetype of being a good warrior, loving mining & crafting high quality arms & armor. The difference between Hill & Mountain Dwarves is very shallow compared to the difference between Wood, High & Dark Elves.



I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

I think this is a real problem for Dwarves as a whole. They are almost always the Samwise to some one else's Frodo. They are always the buddy, never the main character. One of the most prominent Actual play Dwarves was Binwin Bronzebottom from Acquisitions Incorporated and he always felt like he was second banana to Jim & Omin. Critical Role & Dimension 20 do not have Dwarven character PCs in their main campaigns.

[Errorname]

Dimension 20 do not have Dwarven character PCs in their main campaigns.

D20 does usually go more out there with their campaigns and characters, they usually aren't doing stock D&D stuff.

[Mordar]

I think this is a real problem for Dwarves as a whole. They are almost always the Samwise to some one else's Frodo. They are always the buddy, never the main character. One of the most prominent Actual play Dwarves was Binwin Bronzebottom from Acquisitions Incorporated and he always felt like he was second banana to Jim & Omin. Critical Role & Dimension 20 do not have Dwarven character PCs in their main campaigns.

Reinforcing what I mentioned a ways above...they aren't even the Samwise. Flint and Burenor, the most famous "recent" literary dwarves similarly fall below the main character and side-kick level. They fall to mentor, c-list or similar most of the time.

- M

[awa]

Reinforcing what I mentioned a ways above...they aren't even the Samwise. Flint and Burenor, the most famous "recent" literary dwarves similarly fall below the main character and side-kick level. They fall to mentor, c-list or similar most of the time.

- M

this is definitely true, most often in media they are just the black smith not even a character, just a bit of set dressing to show this is a skilled smith.

[Yora]

The problem with Gnomes is that their two most iconic archetypes basically eat into the niches of Elves and Dwarves. Tinker Gnomes are just Dwarves who build crazier & wilder things, while Forest/Sprite Gnomes are just wee lil' Wood Elves.

I think one of the weaker aspects of the Dwarves is that they do not have a good niche outside of their stereotypical archetype of being a good warrior, loving mining & crafting high quality arms & armor. The difference between Hill & Mountain Dwarves is very shallow compared to the difference between Wood, High & Dark Elves.

My perception has long been that there's really mostly just one dwarf.

He's a miner and a smith, only fights with axes and hammers, he has an unhealthy obsession with gold and beer, and he rally hates goblins. And orcs. And giants. And elves. And he's not fond of humans either. He's Scottish, but also a Viking. Doesn't want anything to do with magic, except making magic weapons. Lives underground, doesn't like forests, and apparently doesn't do any farming.

The big question is, which one of these traits are essential for making a dwarf and are shared across all dwarven cultures? And which of these are the distinguishing features of only one dwarven culture, that are not necessary to get the main theme of dwarves across?

This seems like a necessary first step to begin making dwarves at least two-dimensional. But after 60-70 years of always only seeing this one specific type of dwarf everywhere, I feel that all of these traits appear as being essential now.
But that's coming from someone who openly doesn't like dwarves in the first place.

[Cluedrew]

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?The Dwarves did a very good job of that. Yes, I own a book called The Dwarves and although it doesn't do a lot to push beyond the stereotypes it does explore them in detail.

But yeah, that is by no means the norm. There is probably a lot of complex history to it, but I think there is a bit of a self-fulfilling aspect to the fact people don't write important dwarf characters and so it doesn't inspire important dwarf characters.

[LibraryOgre]

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

Dragonlance did a few (Flint the King and the Dwarven Nations Trilogy), though they were not the norm.

Of course, you have The Hobbit; while Bilbo was the protagonist, I don't think you could really argue that Thorin, at least, was just a sidekick.

I'm not as familiar with the Earthdawn novels, but given the prominent place of Dwarves in Barsaive (they are the preeminent people, with Throal, their kingdom, being the cultural and trade center of the region), I'd be surprised if there were no novels with dwarf main characters.

But, notably, those are also all many years old at this point.

[Jay R]

Playing a dwarf isn't about being cool

Playing a dwarf is about doing your duty, even if it makes you uncool.

Love it.


Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.

I know you probably meant the movies, but there is *no* role-playing before LotR. None. Those books were incredibly popular with the subset of boomers who became gamers.

It is impossible to overstate the influence of LotR on 1970s college student nerds. In original D&D, the races available to play were men1, elves, dwarves, and hobbits2. The game included ents and balrogs. Even orcs, as a human-sized humanoid race, is a purely Tolkien invention, using an older word that had a very different meaning. Rangers were added in a magazine article a year later.

1Yes. It was a different time.
2No, not halflings. Hobbits. That's what the rules said.

I assumed that I could refer to a line from the books and expect all the players to recognize it -- like Monty Python soon after. The first time I met a D&D player who wasn't a major LotR nerd I was almost shocked.

And yes, dwarves were popular back in the 1970s. My first few characters included a hobbit and a dwarf.

[SerTabris]

Out of curiosity, I went back to some older DDB stats to compare the 2023 ones to and I think you're onto something. Here's a 538 analysis from data that DDB released in 2017 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) that had Half-Elves and Dwarves considerably higher in the rankings. Back then, both were ahead of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

What I found particularly interesting was the huge increase in characters over that timeframe, e.g. from 25k humans to over 700k. It makes me wonder, how much of the Dwarven fall was due to the general shift in their perception of coolness among the playerbase we've been theorizing, and how much of it was due to shifting demographics, i.e. an influx of players who don't identify with the way they've seen dwarves portrayed, and who feel more affinity for tieflings and dragonborn?

That's certainly been my experience when discussing tabletop RPGs in LGBT+ communities; I've seen a good variety, but tieflings are very popular and dragonborn are fairly popular as well. And I'd say that on average LGBT+ people feel more welcome in tabletop gaming today than ten years ago.

[Jay R]

Out of curiosity, I went back to some older DDB stats to compare the 2023 ones to and I think you're onto something. Here's a 538 analysis from data that DDB released in 2017 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) that had Half-Elves and Dwarves considerably higher in the rankings. Back then, both were ahead of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

What I found particularly interesting was the huge increase in characters over that timeframe, e.g. from 25k humans to over 700k. It makes me wonder, how much of the Dwarven fall was due to the general shift in their perception of coolness among the playerbase we've been theorizing, and how much of it was due to shifting demographics, i.e. an influx of players who don't identify with the way they've seen dwarves portrayed, and who feel more affinity for tieflings and dragonborn?

Yes, this reflect a real demographic shift. Tieflings and dragonborn are D&D inventions. Originally, all D&D players came from a background of reading lots of fantasy literature (especially Lord of the Rings). We were playing D&D in order to duplicate (poorly) the feel of our favorite books. We wanted to play elves, dwarves and hobbits, and would have had no interest in playing tieflings or dragonborn.

Now that D&D is such a huge phenomenon (by comparison), lots of people play D&D in order to, well, ... play D&D. The idea of playing a tiefling or dragonborn doesn't feel different from playing an elf or dwarf.

[Psyren]

That's certainly been my experience when discussing tabletop RPGs in LGBT+ communities; I've seen a good variety, but tieflings are very popular and dragonborn are fairly popular as well. And I'd say that on average LGBT+ people feel more welcome in tabletop gaming today than ten years ago.

As an LGBT+ person myself, with many LGBT friends joining the hobby, I can cosign :smallsmile: It helps that many of the WotC team including the lead designer are 'family' too!


Yes, this reflect a real demographic shift. Tieflings and dragonborn are D&D inventions. Originally, all D&D players came from a background of reading lots of fantasy literature (especially Lord of the Rings). We were playing D&D in order to duplicate (poorly) the feel of our favorite books. We wanted to play elves, dwarves and hobbits, and would have had no interest in playing tieflings or dragonborn.

Now that D&D is such a huge phenomenon (by comparison), lots of people play D&D in order to, well, ... play D&D. The idea of playing a tiefling or dragonborn doesn't feel different from playing an elf or dwarf.

I can get behind this, but I also find it interesting that elf popularity seems to transcend their Tolkien origins. But we saw that with Warcraft also, where Blood Elves became the most popular Horde race the moment they were introduced (especially in China.) Turns out that the popularity of "conventionally attractive and slender human with pointy ears, great senses and long life-spans" transcends origin, who knew.

[Mordar]

I can get behind this, but I also find it interesting that elf popularity seems to transcend their Tolkien origins. But we saw that with Warcraft also, where Blood Elves became the most popular Horde race the moment they were introduced (especially in China.) Turns out that the popularity of "conventionally attractive and slender human with pointy ears, great senses and long life-spans" transcends origin, who knew.

Ah, providing a reconciliation between the competing "I wanna be edgy by being the BAD GUYS!" drive and the "I wanna be cool and sexy like the Elfises!" motivation. Who could have foreseen this?

- M

[Notafish]

In 5e, I avoid playing dwarves because they are slow, which makes them unfun to play as melee fighters compared to the other medium-sized races.
And playing a ranged-combatant dwarf just doesn't give the same perverse thrill as playing, for example, a halfling barbarian.

[Xervous]

Ah, providing a reconciliation between the competing "I wanna be edgy by being the BAD GUYS!" drive and the "I wanna be cool and sexy like the Elfises!" motivation. Who could have foreseen this?

- M

Something something magic vampires that don’t have the sunlight or garlic issues.

broad gesture at all the vampire media

[Witty Username]

I feel like there is a desire towards the "different" as well.
Elf, dwarf, whatnot can be gotten in alot of fantasy.

Tiefling, Dragonborn, historicly Kobold, personally Gith are all more specific to D&D. And tend to not have readily available equivalents. Heck, I have made a dwarf in BG3, but being Duergar is still leaning into this some as it is a much more D&D specific take on how do.

I can't shake the idea that there is a body image portion as well though. Dwarf tends to be conventionally unattractive, which could be why it has had a drop off over time.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like there is a desire towards the "different" as well.
Elf, dwarf, whatnot can be gotten in alot of fantasy.

Tiefling, Dragonborn, historicly Kobold, personally Gith are all more specific to D&D. And tend to not have readily available equivalents. Heck, I have made a dwarf in BG3, but being Duergar is still leaning into this some as it is a much more D&D specific take on how do.

I can't shake the idea that there is a body image portion as well though. Dwarf tends to be conventionally unattractive, which could be why it has had a drop off over time.

There definitely is a desire towards the "different". Dwarf used to be better at satisfying that desire, even when competing against even greater diversity (3E Dwarf). However the 5E Dwarf is not nearly as good at satisfying that desire. Is it just an idea that was done to death? Is the current version not making them as interesting? Both?

[Psyren]

Going back to the recent DDB character statistics, I missed commentary in the written version (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1648-2023-unrolled-a-look-back-at-a-year-of-adventure#Species) that might shed some light:



Taking a look at the most popular species for characters on D&D Beyond, humans are firmly the most popular pick and, unsurprisingly, followed by the rest of the Basic Rules species except the gnome (sorry, gnomes).

The genasi are punching above their weight class by snagging a spot in the top 10. And yes, we see you, the roughly 80,000 aarakocra players. Couldn’t resist that 1st-level flight, eh?

Strangely, compared to their gold-medal showing in Baldur’s Gate 3’s opening weekend stats, half-elves finished a disappointing fifth in our 2023 round-up. Those armor and weapon proficiencies for BG3 half-elves must really make a difference!

Unfortunately for the smallfolk, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes are apparently among the least popular standard races based on our data and the opening weekend stats from Baldur’s Gate 3. I guess what they say is true: Movement speed does matter.

While the (tongue-in-cheek) narration lays the blame at the short races' movement speed penalty, I think the real common denominator is simply their stature itself; I think a lot of people like characters to be average size or taller. But if movement speed truly was the issue, I suppose we'll find out when that gets normalized across species this year.

[NichG]

Going back to the recent DDB character statistics, I missed commentary in the written version (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1648-2023-unrolled-a-look-back-at-a-year-of-adventure#Species) that might shed some light:




While the (tongue-in-cheek) narration lays the blame at the short races' movement speed penalty, I think the real common denominator is simply their stature itself; I think a lot of people like characters to be average size or taller. But if movement speed truly was the issue, I suppose we'll find out when that gets normalized across species this year.

When I was playing Solasta, basically every character I made was a Wood Elf because the +5ft of movement speed was basically miles better (and less possible to get from other sources) than anything else on offer, and you still got the other really essential feature of darkvision.
In BG3 I didn't feel it was nearly as urgent a pick. There were more ways to conveniently obtain alternate movement modalities or expand on your mobility between random magical items giving Misty Step to the generous Jump rules to +movement items being relatively common and stackable.

In tabletop? I'd probably care more about movement mode than movement speed, but if I'm playing a melee character then movement speed becomes extremely important, basically can be the equivalent of losing vs winning initiative. And for a melee character who is very positioning-dependent like a rogue, even more so. So I can definitely see how the slower lineages corresponding to also having more melee-forward archetypes is a particularly bad combo there, outside of the aesthetics of height.

I mean, I've played a kobold (support mostly) and a gnome (caster) before and the height aesthetic doesn't bother me at least. But losing 1/6th of my ability to position to flank for sneak attack when playing a stereotypical halfling rogue would really suck. Or taking an extra round to arrive at the fight as an archetypal full plated dwarven fighter.

I guess if I wanted to counter that without just making everything the same, keep dwarven movement at 25ft but give them something like a Momentum feature where if they commit to an attack and run at the enemy (like a 3ed Charge) then each round it takes them to get there they get to add another Weapon Damage+Str mod to the damage they eventually deal on the attack (maybe up to 2 rounds of extra oomph), and if the attack lands on a different round than they initiated it then the attack roll has Advantage. So that way if they get to the fight late, they're not losing the damage they could have caused in that previous round. And for Halflings, it would go a long way to pay for the movement penalty if they just outright were immune to opportunity attacks from creatures bigger than them. So they're moving less in total, but there are more places they can safely move than other characters with higher movement speeds.

[Beelzebub1111]

I wonder if untying attributes from race had something to do with it.

Dwarfs were the only way to get a +2 con bonus in 5e but now that everyone can have it, it seems like it's unnessicary. I'm sure if, in BG3, they kept racial bonuses tied to your race we would be seeing more dwarf barbarians.

[LibraryOgre]

I can get behind this, but I also find it interesting that elf popularity seems to transcend their Tolkien origins. But we saw that with Warcraft also, where Blood Elves became the most popular Horde race the moment they were introduced (especially in China.) Turns out that the popularity of "conventionally attractive and slender human with pointy ears, great senses and long life-spans" transcends origin, who knew.

I mean... drow.

For those who missed the 90s, drow were the go-to race if you wanted an edgy tragic character. Heck, when I was not allowed to play a drow, I played a half-drow. Because you got the edgy backstory of "rejected by my people" and you looked cool and different.

Now? I hardly hear a peep about people playing drow.

[OldTrees1]

I wonder if untying attributes from race had something to do with it.

Dwarfs were the only way to get a +2 con bonus in 5e but now that everyone can have it, it seems like it's unnecessary. I'm sure if, in BG3, they kept racial bonuses tied to your race we would be seeing more dwarf barbarians.

In BG3 dwarf offers very little to barbarian. Their relevant features are either +1hp/HD or Invisibility at-will and Enlarge 1/day.
Note: Darkvision is not relevant in BG3 due to itemization and location.
Note 2: There is a dwarf specific throwing weapon. Disguise self works too.

Yes, if dwarf in BG3 had a racial bonus to con, then there would be a few more dwarf barbarians. As would any increase in relevant features. If dwarves had DR 1/- then there would be more dwarf barbarians.


I also wonder how much of the BG3 stats are skewed by the origin characters (8/11 are humans, elves, or both).

[Yora]

I mean... drow.

For those who missed the 90s, drow were the go-to race if you wanted an edgy tragic character. Heck, when I was not allowed to play a drow, I played a half-drow. Because you got the edgy backstory of "rejected by my people" and you looked cool and different.

Now? I hardly hear a peep about people playing drow.

I mean, D&D stood for Dungeons & Drow for what seems to have been some 15 to 20 years.

And perhaps, with tieflings and dragonborns in the Player's Handbook, drow aren't sufficiently unique, special, and edgy anymore...?

[awa]

A large part of the drows popularity was Drizzit, but those books were a long time ago (relatively speaking) I dont think we have anything comparable recently.

Sure new books have been made more recently but I dont think they have the same cultural weight the originals did.

[Xervous]

I mean, D&D stood for Dungeons & Drow for what seems to have been some 15 to 20 years.

And perhaps, with tieflings and dragonborns in the Player's Handbook, drow aren't sufficiently unique, special, and edgy anymore...?

So there’s three cosplayers, one as a tiefling, one as a drow, one as a Dragonborn. Which one makes Twitter explode?

[Mordar]

I mean, D&D stood for Dungeons & Drow for what seems to have been some 15 to 20 years.

And perhaps, with tieflings and dragonborns in the Player's Handbook, drow aren't sufficiently unique, special, and edgy anymore...?

Plus, you know...those were Boomer Edgy. Then they became the institutional icon, and in order to be edgy you also have to be iconoclastic...


So there’s three cosplayers, one as a tiefling, one as a drow, one as a Dragonborn. Which one makes Twitter explode?

Obviously the Dragonborn. Because it had a little blue bird puppet. And fire. (Can imagine less entertaining reasons for the Drow, and the Tiefling would have made a stir in the halcyon days of "D&D is the Debil!"...but I like the image of roasting the little blue corporate logo best)

- M

[LibraryOgre]

I mean, D&D stood for Dungeons & Drow for what seems to have been some 15 to 20 years.

And perhaps, with tieflings and dragonborns in the Player's Handbook, drow aren't sufficiently unique, special, and edgy anymore...?


A large part of the drows popularity was Drizzit, but those books were a long time ago (relatively speaking) I dont think we have anything comparable recently.

Sure new books have been made more recently but I dont think they have the same cultural weight the originals did.

Oh, Driz'zt definitely contributed, and it went into the 3e era. (https://www.goblinscomic.com/comic/07102005) I do think tieflings have somewhat slotted into the same spot of "person burdened by heritage and the perceptions of others", though that's also freely jettisoned by others when inconvenient.

[Psyren]

I wonder if untying attributes from race had something to do with it.

Dwarfs were the only way to get a +2 con bonus in 5e but now that everyone can have it, it seems like it's unnessicary. I'm sure if, in BG3, they kept racial bonuses tied to your race we would be seeing more dwarf barbarians.

I mean, even if you're right, I would definitely rather have floating ASIs.
Also, poor Karlach being stuck with ASIs that do zip for Barbarians would be pretty funny.


I mean... drow.

For those who missed the 90s, drow were the go-to race if you wanted an edgy tragic character. Heck, when I was not allowed to play a drow, I played a half-drow. Because you got the edgy backstory of "rejected by my people" and you looked cool and different.

Now? I hardly hear a peep about people playing drow.

Oh totally. And it's not just that they were edgy - Several other races are edgy. But Drow are also sexy. Which I guess goes for Blood Elves too.



I also wonder how much of the BG3 stats are skewed by the origin characters (8/11 are humans, elves, or both).

Even if those figures do include the Origin playthroughs though, IIRC those are a tiny fraction compared to the overwhelming majority of playthroughs being Tav/Durge so it wouldn't be skewed by much.

[threefivearchve]

Dwarves are the first fantasy race I'd include in a setting. They are the only non-human race besides orcs I put into my steampunk setting. I could have left them out, too, but dwarves I felt that I had to include. People don't like playing dwarves as much nowadays, though. They represent a different era of fantasy aesthetic compared to what is popular now. It's more centered around tieflings and dragonborn, as well as "cute" animal races like tortles and harrengon.

That's in 5e at least. In 3.5, my current party includes 3 dwarves. My longest-running character was a dwarf, and my first character ever was a dwarf. They seem to be the most "D&D" D&D race, if that makes sense. What is more iconic for D&D? Half-orcs?

[Psyren]

I think elves and dwarves and hobbits halflings are too generic to be iconic personally.

The species that feels iconic to me, despite how recent it is as an option, is Dragonborn. They're an easy way to get that second D going long before true dragons are appropriate.

[nweismuller]

As far as rigidity of stereotype- in the game I'm currently running, dwarves are surface-dwelling, noted seafarers, and the first race to use wizardry- and still noted for their wizards. They're also neither Scottish, terribly grouchy, or any more drunken than anybody else. They're also generally acknowledged to be recognisably 'dwarves' by my players. So there's definitely room for breaking stereotype.

[OldTrees1]

Even if those figures do include the Origin playthroughs though, IIRC those are a tiny fraction compared to the overwhelming majority of playthroughs being Tav/Durge so it wouldn't be skewed by much.

Are the companions excluded from the stats or does it include any character created by the character creator (such as companions talking to Withers about respecing)? If it includes the companions, then it is a huge skew.

If companions are excluded, and that 7% is skewed by origin character runs, we could multiply Dwarf stats by 1.075. As one of 10+ factors discussed in this thread, it would contribute.

Assuming companions are excluded, correcting the data based on the origin character runs would place Elf as more popular than Human. Otherwise the order does not change from this 1 factor alone.



Dwarves are the first fantasy race I'd include in a setting. They are the only non-human race besides orcs I put into my steampunk setting. I could have left them out, too, but dwarves I felt that I had to include. People don't like playing dwarves as much nowadays, though. They represent a different era of fantasy aesthetic compared to what is popular now. It's more centered around tieflings and dragonborn, as well as "cute" animal races like tortles and harrengon.

That's in 5e at least. In 3.5, my current party includes 3 dwarves. My longest-running character was a dwarf, and my first character ever was a dwarf. They seem to be the most "D&D" D&D race, if that makes sense. What is more iconic for D&D? Half-orcs?

More evidence that there might be a difference between the 5E and 3E Dwarf that makes Dwarf less interesting/cool in 5E.

As for more iconic species for D&D:

Orc and Dwarf are definitely iconic.
The draconic Kobold rates rather high IMHO since non D&D kobolds were gnomish/goblinish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold) IIRC. YMMV on whether they are an iconic PC species in addition to enemies. It would depend on how diverse of species your group considers for their characters.
Oh and Dragons themselves are a rather iconic D&D species, and can be an iconic D&D PD species. There is a Dragon PC in the campaign I am running right now.

[JusticeZero]

This is why I basically *don't do D&D anymore*. I'll run fantasy games with the common engines and a lot of the mechanics, but I am So. Over. It. when it comes to the shared world that people call "fantasy".
It's a tired shared world. It was great back when people were recovering from WWI. Today it's just really dated. We can do better than this. It's not like we lack parts to work with.

[Psyren]

Are the companions excluded from the stats or does it include any character created by the character creator (such as companions talking to Withers about respecing)? If it includes the companions, then it is a huge skew.

Per their stats, less than 10% of players chose origin and the majority of those are Gale. That's still a lot of players, but not enough to matter relative to general human popularity.



More evidence that there might be a difference between the 5E and 3E Dwarf that makes Dwarf less interesting/cool in 5E.

I think the difference comes less from changes to the dwarf and more from the game having changed around it. Tieflings were pretty disadvantageous in 3.5 due to their level adustment, and dragonborn were nightmarishly complicated for new players in terms of figuring out what your final racials actually were. 5e doesn't have any of those mechanical problems, so it makes sense that Tiefling and Dragonborn adoption would have risen sharply.


This is why I basically *don't do D&D anymore*. I'll run fantasy games with the common engines and a lot of the mechanics, but I am So. Over. It. when it comes to the shared world that people call "fantasy".
It's a tired shared world. It was great back when people were recovering from WWI. Today it's just really dated. We can do better than this. It's not like we lack parts to work with.

Eh? People moving on from dwarves and hobbits to less Tolkienesque fare seems like a sign of life to me. It means younger audiences who didn't get exposed to fantasy through Middle-Earth are still joining the hobby. That's a good thing!

[Xervous]

As for more iconic species for D&D:

Orc and Dwarf are definitely iconic.
The draconic Kobold rates rather high IMHO since non D&D kobolds were gnomish/goblinish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold) IIRC. YMMV on whether they are an iconic PC species in addition to enemies. It would depend on how diverse of species your group considers for their characters.
Oh and Dragons themselves are a rather iconic D&D species, and can be an iconic D&D PD species. There is a Dragon PC in the campaign I am running right now.


I take issue with most dragon adjacent races and creatures for the sheer abundance of varieties and for their existence diluting the impact of proper dragons. We’ve seen dragons, drakes, wyverns, half dragons, dragon blooded, spawn of Tiamat, kobold, dragonborn and more. How many wish,com dragons are we due for? (Automatic link parsing? Hope the comma disabled it)

That being said I appreciate kobolds for being unique and memorable. Being developed in the earlier editions was a great boon for them lore wise. It’s a great contrast to Dragonborn which still feel like that years later fan service DLC character who didn’t get full story integration.

[Psyren]

I don't know about every prior edition, but 5e only has two playable draconic races (Kobolds and Dragonborn.) I think that's a perfectly reasonable number.

While Dragonborn are more recent and mechanically fraught, I think they're slowly getting to an ideal place. To me it makes no sense that a dragon creature should be missing darkvision (even kobolds got it) and now they're fixing that. The breath weapon is cool, but punished martials who gave up more attack damage to use it, that's getting fixed now too.

[Metastachydium]

I don't know about every prior edition, but 5e only has two playable draconic races

There's many more in 3.5, sitting at various levels of playable. That includes lower age categories of practically all True Dragons, even.

[Psyren]

Yeah I knew about 3.5 (hence me saying "not every") but not the others.

But I was mostly responding to Xervous who believed that draconic races "diluted the impact" of "proper dragons" - I don't think dragonborn and kobolds do that myself.

[Grim Portent]

Kind of depends how many there are in one given setting. When you have 3.5 style dragon/draconic variants of damn near everything it does start to get a bit silly if you include them all at once. Dragon-horses, dragon-dogs, dragon-men, dragon-gnomes, dragon-centaurs, so on and so forth. Of course you can do a dragon themed game where all the dragon-y stuff is around, dragons are super fundamental to the setting and many forms of life are related to them, or the gods are all dragons, or nation Y used magic to make dragon hybrids.

D&D just kind of has too much stuff in similar roles to use all at once, so if you take things in a vaccuum it comes across as very crowded in a way it might not in actual play.


It's a bit like the space wolves from Warhammer. Having a dragonborn who worships a dragon god, who's riding a dragon gets into Wolf Wolfson of the Space Wolves riding his Thunderwolf levels of repetitive territory, and can come across as over the top in a silly way that a human who worships a dragon god and rides a dragon might not.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm personally not a huge fan of draconic kobolds, myself. I've always preferred the dog-people ones.

[Cygnia]

I'm personally not a huge fan of draconic kobolds, myself. I've always preferred the dog-people ones.

Combine the two -- Draco Corgis!

[Mordar]

I'm personally not a huge fan of draconic kobolds, myself. I've always preferred the dog-people ones.

QFT. Kobolds are little Gnolls, not little Draconians.

- M

[LibraryOgre]

Combine the two -- Draco Corgis!

I prefer to think of them as looking more like coyotes with mange. Their scales aren't a sign of being draconic, but a symptom of not washing enough. Maybe rat-tailed foxes?

[Psyren]

I'm personally not a huge fan of draconic kobolds, myself. I've always preferred the dog-people ones.

Do you know when/why they changed? I feel like I never know what causes these seismic shifts in fantasy race norms. It's pig orcs getting ditched for greenskins all over again.

[LibraryOgre]

Do you know when/why they changed? I feel like I never know what causes these seismic shifts in fantasy race norms. It's pig orcs getting ditched for greenskins all over again.

Pretty much 3rd edition. 1e kobolds

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signalfirestudios.com%2Fjamie% 2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2F200px-DDKobold.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=16089a35f1cb0ec04e3806bcc927757829cb7205cb5092 5928b88e1d7937dafe&ipo=images

Flat-out dog face. The scales might well be armor; it looks similar to what is on others wearing armor.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmmadnd.chat.ru%2Fkobold.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=f63ed4d6e264827daa04e4549a96aee8d4065ce5af6728 1146bbc3587a6d7542&ipo=images

A lot more rat-like, to be sure, but still not reptilian. That's the image that led to the

It's only when you get to 3e that you get something explicitly reptilian.

[Mordar]

I didn't play 2E at all, so missed out on the Kobold Skaven phase. The horns were always hard for me to reconcile on the 1e kobolds, but I still wanted them canine. Because I wanted them as a junior league to gnolls. For reasons.

Sure, the description says hairless, says they lay eggs...but that's just because they are evil, perverted canines. (It also says they have hide, not scales...which only matters a little).

- M

[GloatingSwine]

Original Kobolds were basically "what if Chihuahua but bipedal". Much yipping.

[Psyren]

It's only when you get to 3e that you get something explicitly reptilian.

I'm honestly not so sure. I totally agree with you on 2e being clearly not reptilian, but 1e actually looks closer to lizardy to me. Even ignoring the scale armor(?) their shins look scaled in their own right, and the horned head ridge reads much more like lizard to me than dog.

I found this Stack thread (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/201139/whats-the-story-behind-kobolds-being-little-lizards/201150#201150) with some Gygax quotes that sent me down a rabbit hole quickly, but the short version seems to be that Gygax didn't have a specific image in mind and the artists were left to run wild. They were goblins but smaller, no, they're dogs, no, they're rats, but also they're green and hairless and lay eggs, but also they bark and yip.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/nJn4r.jpg

[LibraryOgre]

The easiest solution, of course, is that "kobold" is kind of like "little brown job" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_brown_bird) in birding... it doesn't describe a particular creature, just a small, obnoxious, humanoid.

In the 5e style, you might make them different subraces of kobold.

[Amnestic]

I'm personally not a huge fan of draconic kobolds, myself. I've always preferred the dog-people ones.

They don't show up super often, but Dungeon Meshi's kobolds run through every dog breed, with variations in body type to match.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/delicious-in-dungeon/images/0/08/Kobolds.png/revision/latest?cb=20240114215049
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/delicious-in-dungeon/images/6/66/Kobolds.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171028013240


Of course this puts them more firmly in the "beastkin" set of races (like tabaxi and loxadons) rather than "little anklebiters" (like goblins), which might not be quite what people are after these days.

[Elves]

they never were

[Boci]

they never were

Something about your profile tells me you could be biased....

[LibraryOgre]

Of course this puts them more firmly in the "beastkin" set of races (like tabaxi and loxadons) rather than "little anklebiters" (like goblins), which might not be quite what people are after these days.

Hackmaster explicitly goes with this, to the point where kobolds can talk to canines (as gnomes do burrowing mammals), and don't have thumbs.

[Satinavian]

I like them as homanoid mini dragon race. Way better than dragonborn.

But we were supposed to talk about dwarves, right ?

[MonochromeTiger]

I like them as homanoid mini dragon race. Way better than dragonborn.

But we were supposed to talk about dwarves, right ?

That is the thread topic, though apparently Dwarves aren't cool enough to keep focus.

[JusticeZero]

That is the thread topic, though apparently Dwarves aren't cool enough to keep focus.

Well yeah... and I honestly am confused as to why it matters. Dwarves aren't cool anymore... so don't use them for your worldbuilding! Clearly they won't really be missed, and if someone does, just have them go "mumble mumble tribe from outside of the local map mumble mumble" like people with more popular races are doing now. If people are playing tortles, you need a Tortle nation on the map.... dwarves not so much.

[Leon]

I like them as homanoid mini dragon race. Way better than dragonborn.

But we were supposed to talk about dwarves, right ?

The OG Dragonborn (where a Dwarf could turn into one) were far better than the present incarnations which to me feel more like Half-dragon Lite

[Boci]

Well yeah... and I honestly am confused as to why it matters. Dwarves aren't cool anymore... so don't use them for your worldbuilding! Clearly they won't really be missed, and if someone does, just have them go "mumble mumble tribe from outside of the local map mumble mumble" like people with more popular races are doing now. If people are playing tortles, you need a Tortle nation on the map.... dwarves not so much.

A couple of points:

1. The OP at least seems to mostly be talking dwarves as a PC race. "Players don't like making dwarven characters" = "stop using dwarves for world building" is a bit of a non sequitur. As a DM I've used dwarves regularly in my games both nations and explicit NPCs that accompany the party, at least for a short. They played an important part in the lore of my desert campaign and worked on the side as allies through out the last third of 2+ year game. As a player I have made 1 dwarven PC literally over a decade ago, never got to play him, and they are quite far down the list of old characters I'd like revisit, not even top 20.

2. D&D does not exist in a vacuum. Dwarves are a staple in fantasy. Pick up a non-D&D fantasy book, and the most likely offering of non-human races will be elves and dwarves. Witcher, Riftwar saga, Eragon, ect. This will influence people joining the hobby and ensure that dwarves will never be forgotten, just by virtue of being a core race (and the next edition is unlikely to change this) and well represented in fantasy as a whole.

3. Analyze why trends and preferences shift can be beneficial. This one is shakier than the above 2, because its certain. We can't be sure why an entire player base moves towards or away from a particular race, but we can hazard guesses. For example we're probably not far off the truth as to why teifling are so popular. And identifying why dwarves fell out of favour could make fixing them an option. Maybe its a minor thing, like their reduced speed like Psyren suggested, and you nix that and suddenly dwarves are more popular.

[Unoriginal]

Just for fun, yet still appropriate:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL9u-GHgi_c

[Boci]

Just for fun, yet still appropriate:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL9u-GHgi_c

I would have gone with I am a dwarf and I'm digging a hole, diggy diggy hole, but this one was a good choice too.

[JusticeZero]

1. "Players don't like making dwarven characters" = "stop using dwarves for world building" is a bit of a non sequitur.
....Why? Explain why you are required to use a race in worldbuilding that people find uninteresting to play. We're supposed to be creating stuff, not just mindlessly churning out Tolkien clones out of duty. Dwarves need to earn their place in the worldbuilding. Heck, humans need to be able to justify their inclusion in the worldbuilding. If nobody cares what the humans are doing, they all made characters of a certain race or other that are connected to each other, then that's the race that has earned its place in the local area. A world where the interactions are between the Treants, the Tortle nation, and the Gnomes is still fantasy. It's valid. You don't need a Dwarf nation that's not doing anything for the players' stories. You don't need a human nation that's there because... what, imperialism or something?


2. D&D does not exist in a vacuum. Dwarves are a staple in fantasy. Pick up a non-D&D fantasy book, and the most likely offering of non-human races will be elves and dwarves. Witcher, Riftwar saga, Eragon, ect. This will influence people joining the hobby and ensure that dwarves will never be forgotten, just by virtue of being a core race

This is a non-sequitur. "You have to include deadwood races because everybody expects to see them". Elves and dwarves are really tired and uninspired, and there's no shortage of fantasy that just scraps them. If they aren't contributing, they get a pink slip and not added to the map. If you have two Tortles in the party, you need to have a big spot on the map that says "Tortles are here". If you have no Dwarves and nobody cares about Dwarves, you do not need to give them a spot on the map. If they aren't played and they're not an enemy, they are very possibly deadwood. Deadwood doesn't get prioritized any higher than any other monster.


3. ...identifying why dwarves fell out of favour could make fixing them an option.

Why. Why do you care? It's a race. There's a lot of races. If nobody wants to play them, they land down there with the ratfolk and oreads and other side note races in "I'm sure they exist somewhere" territory. They were popular once and now they're not, they don't earn a place just because they were in a popular book post WWI. We aren't bound to be doing just Tolkien fanfic.

[Boci]

A lot of aggression and assumptions, I'll try and unpack them all.


....Why? Explain why you are required to use a race in worldbuilding that people find uninteresting to play. We're supposed to be creating stuff, not just mindlessly churning out Tolkien clones out of duty. Dwarves need to earn their place in the worldbuilding. Heck, humans need to be able to justify their inclusion in the worldbuilding. If nobody cares what the humans are doing, they all made characters of a certain race or other that are connected to each other, then that's the race that has earned its place in the local area. A world where the interactions are between the Treants, the Tortle nation, and the Gnomes is still fantasy. It's valid. You don't need a Dwarf nation that's not doing anything for the players' stories. You don't need a human nation that's there because... what, imperialism or something?

Firstly of all insisting a stranger on the internet is "mindlessly churning out Tolkien clones" because they included dwarves in the lore story of a game they ran, not the best look.

And again, you are conflating "interesting to play" (and more on this below) with "worth having in the game". If everything is special nothing is special. Worlds need down to earth, duller factions as well, to let the more colourful options stand out. It doesn't have to be dwarves, but they a decent choice to include between the cliff face dwelling, knife throwing ratfolk and matriachal floating merchant republic of tortle.

Dwarves also have a lot of history in fantasy, and this is useful too. "Dwarven made" is code for good quality, solid, reliable. Sure you can remove dwarves and tell your players there's another race for famous for that, but that can bog down a sentence that's really just mean to be incidental detail.


This is a non-sequitur. "You have to include deadwood races because everybody expects to see them". Elves and dwarves are really tired and uninspired, and there's no shortage of fantasy that just scraps them. If they aren't contributing, they get a pink slip and not added to the map. If you have two Tortles in the party, you need to have a big spot on the map that says "Tortles are here". If you have no Dwarves and nobody cares about Dwarves, you do not need to give them a spot on the map. If they aren't played and they're not an enemy, they are very possibly deadwood. Deadwood doesn't get prioritized any higher than any other monster.

Deadwood doesn't, but you need to understand how popularity, like many things, is relative. I'm be shocked if dwarves were the least popular core rat, let alone splat with some group don't even touch. According to the list from BG 3 linked for examples, dwarves still outrank haflings and gnomes, and yet I don't see you demanding their removal.

The reason we're talking about dwarves is because they are one of the big three of fantasy races along with humans and elves, or at least they were and now maybe they aren't. But no longer being part of the big 3, does not mean they are deadwood.


Why. Why do you care? It's a race. There's a lot of races. If nobody wants to play them, they land down there with the ratfolk and oreads and other side note races in "I'm sure they exist somewhere" territory. They were popular once and now they're not, they don't earn a place just because they were in a popular book post WWI. We aren't bound to be doing just Tolkien fanfic.

Why do you care so much about the need to not have them?

And I care because dwarves are definitely going to be a core race in the next edition of D&D, so wishing they weren't is a little less productive than thinking of ways to tweak a core D&D race to make it more attractive to players, assuming of course WotC doesn't manage this themselves. Which they might. They have access to more information than we do, but also have a bit of spotty on this kind of thing.

[Jay R]

....Why? Explain why you are required to use a race in worldbuilding that people find uninteresting to play.

Nobody said we are required to use the race. Boci is disagreeing with your suggestion that we should be required to stop using the race.

There is no logical path from "Players aren't using these races for PCs" to "These races have no place in the world". I use goblins, ogres, gnolls, hags, merfolk, trolls, wolves, dire rats, bats, giant ants, grigs, redcaps, quasits, zombies, ghouls, black puddings, and toads in my games, none of which my players use for PCs.

This isn't about "mindlessly churning out Tolkien clones out of duty."
It isn't about "earn their place in the worldbuilding".
It isn't about "imperialism or something". [And that's an insulting term to use about another DM's choices.]
It isn't about "doing just Tolkien fanfic."

It isn't about any of the nonsense you're inventing.

It's about the fact that what races are currently being used as PCs doesn't define what are the best NPCs for them to interact with. [In fact, if everybody wants to play elves, then [I]that's a good reason to include dwarves. There are intrinsic rivalries to exploit.]

And specifically, it isn't about being "required" to use a race. It's about who should decide -- the DM who knows the world and the players, or JusticeZero.

You wrote "Dwarves aren't cool anymore... so don't use them for your worldbuilding!" [Emphasis and exclamation point in original .]

That is simply an illogical jump.

First of all, the idea that they aren't cool in general is not proven, and seems untrue -- to me at least. The most we can conclude from the data at hand is that dwarves are far less popular as player characters. But so what? Gelatinous cubes aren't popular as player characters either. They still make good encounters.

If I have a good idea for an encounter, or a plot, that uses dwarves, then the dwarves will be in my game. And JusticeZero has no business telling me not to include them.

Furthermore, I don't care what millions of other players want to use. I'm running this game for five people, and the opinions of everybody else in the world simply don't matter.

My current players are running two humans, one hobbit, one gnome, and one half-Fair-Folk. That doesn't mean that as a DM, I should only include those races in my world.

[And for the record, I am not defending my world here. In fact, there are almost no dwarves in my world. They were wiped out 200 years ago in the genocidal frost giant / dwarf wars. Why? Because dwarves are really cool, and I have a really cool idea for something that will happen based on the outcome of that war, which will come up when the PCs reach about 15th level.]

[137beth]

I don't think I've ever played in a D&D group where dwarves were common PC choices. So, I don't think I'd describe dwarves' uncoolness (if that means anything) as a recent phenomenon.

[Cluedrew]

I would have gone with I am a dwarf and I'm digging a hole, diggy diggy hole, but this one was a good choice too.I have heard a lot of cool fantasy songs, but the one that are just about a fantasy people tend to be about dwarves.

As for why use dwarves if they are not cool: Because I like them. They are favourite standard fantasy race and other people not agreeing with that does not chance my opinion.

[JusticeZero]

My issue is specifically with the feeling that the GM is somehow mandated to shoehorn in Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, et al. to have a world where the map is "Dwarves, elves, humans, halflings..." in spite of the party not necessarily using or including in their backstory some of those... particularly if the party is much more interested in playing some other race that will invariably end up being from The Republic Of IAmNotPuttingThisOnTheMap. As I see happen a lot. People with less Tolkien-standard, Euro-fantasy races and cultures regularly have to put up with the GM just ignoring their background because it's not "Core".
"Me, Sue, and Jack's characters are all this race here with a neat kicky African-inspired culture!"
"That's nice, you're all from (points vaguely out the window) that place outside of the map. We'll never go there."

[SerTabris]

I mean, D&D stood for Dungeons & Drow for what seems to have been some 15 to 20 years.

And perhaps, with tieflings and dragonborns in the Player's Handbook, drow aren't sufficiently unique, special, and edgy anymore...?

I think one factor might be that when you look at the surface-level "okay, what makes drow different from surface elves?" it's skin color and really nothing else. And so including their original D&D worldbuilding that kind of boils down to "these elves are the evil ones and you'll know them by the color of their skin" is fairly uncomfortable, in a way that people have gotten more perceptive to. Plus, on that point, "this is the one matriarchal culture in the setting and they're very evil" is not exactly helping either.

I'm not really sure if there's any analogous crossing into real-world issues as a significant factor with dwarves or not, but I think there's at least a possibility there with some groups, maybe those who don't have as strong of mental associations with dwarves as the Tolkien-derived fantasy concept.

[Eldan]

So, one interesting thing: I'm an on-and-off writer for a tabletop wargame, and one thing we wanted to do was write possible backgrounds for various cultures around the world, and both human and nonhuman subfactions based on those. For dwarves, we've actually found quite a few very interesting inspirations, and we're currently incorporating Dwarves inspired by Ethiopians (inspired mostly by Ethopian rock churches, also, we have an African writer who's extremely excited about them who ahs already developed an alphabet and a language), Inca Dwarves (because high mountain fortresses), Norse dwarves (of course), Germanic dwarves (separate and distinct), Mesopotamian dwarves and Japanese dwarves (metal-working clans who live in secret high mountain valleys and forge legendary weapons). More may come, but it's actually been surprisingly easy and interesting to find new cultural inspirations for dwarves.

[Boci]

My issue is specifically with the feeling that the GM is somehow mandated to shoehorn in Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, et al. to have a world where the map is "Dwarves, elves, humans, halflings..." in spite of the party not necessarily using or including in their backstory some of those... particularly if the party is much more interested in playing some other race that will invariably end up being from The Republic Of IAmNotPuttingThisOnTheMap. As I see happen a lot. People with less Tolkien-standard, Euro-fantasy races and cultures regularly have to put up with the GM just ignoring their background because it's not "Core".
"Me, Sue, and Jack's characters are all this race here with a neat kicky African-inspired culture!"
"That's nice, you're all from (points vaguely out the window) that place outside of the map. We'll never go there."

Seem's like you're mixing two separate issue linked only tangentially by Tolkien playing a role in them.

Yes, western fantasy is very Euro-centric. But removing dwarves won't make a setting any less Euro-centric, and as Eldan's post demonstrates, dwarves, like any race, can be non-European.

Whilst I appreciate the disappointment of the you, Sue and Jack in that hypothetical example, the fact is player-DM mishmatches happen, and if you want your character to be from an African-inspired cultures and for this to be relevant in the game, it might be best to check first with the DM to see if their world can accommodate such a thing. This isn't even necessarily a Euro-centric thing, I have a setting that foregrounds Native American and East Asian cultures. African inspired character would be just as foreign and exotic there as if we were playing in Not-Europe (version 9,452).


I'm not really sure if there's any analogous crossing into real-world issues as a significant factor with dwarves or not, but I think there's at least a possibility there with some groups, maybe those who don't have as strong of mental associations with dwarves as the Tolkien-derived fantasy concept.

Big noses, obsessed with gold, and most importantly (because the first two could just be an unfortunate co-incidence) Tolkien's dwarven language mimics Hebrew.

But yeah, not as obvious "dark = evil".

[Jophiel]

I like dwarves. I'd play more of them but I like halflings better so tend to play those instead. Both races have a general vibe of having their s--t together which is attractive to me and probably why Kids Today would rather play their tieflings and catfolk (shakes cane at sky). I don't need dwarves to be drinking ale or digging holes but I do want them to feel like either their mortgage is paid up or that they've vowed to restore the ancestral mortgage.


I take issue with most dragon adjacent races and creatures for the sheer abundance of varieties and for their existence diluting the impact of proper dragons. We’ve seen dragons, drakes, wyverns, half dragons, dragon blooded, spawn of Tiamat, kobold, dragonborn and more. How many wish,com dragons are we due for? (Automatic link parsing? Hope the comma disabled it)

Very much this. My last campaign setting had very little Dragon-whatever that wasn't actually a powerful mythical beast. No dragonborn (ick), dragon baby Tiamat kobolds and draconic sorcery reflavored into "elemental". Dragons should be rare and cool and spoken of in legend, not something with their DNA spread into 70% of the world population.

1e kobolds were lizard dogs with the horns and little scales but didn't look, act or have any connection to being draconic. Though mine were full on canine, taken from the Everquest kobolds who originally looked like semi-anthro African hunting dogs.

[Eldan]

Also, speaking of Eurocentrism... if you include tieflings, dragonborn and other currently popular D&D races doesn't make the setting less eurocentric, those are still races from European fantasy. And I know relatively few settings which actually mainly focus on established nonhuman creatures from non-European mythology.

[Satinavian]

Also, speaking of Eurocentrism... if you include tieflings, dragonborn and other currently popular D&D races doesn't make the setting less eurocentric, those are still races from European fantasy.
They are very much not.
Those are modern American fantasy, no real connection to European mythology or fantasy.


And I know relatively few settings which actually mainly focus on established nonhuman creatures from non-European mythology. There are at least a couple for Not-Japan full of various Yokai.

[ArmyOfOptimists]

Dwarves are my favorite race to play, but 5e did them a great disservice by saddling them with a movespeed penalty and some of the worst racial traits. Toughness is fine, acting as sort of an additional +2 CON, but Armor Training feels wrong. Unless you're making a wizard or sorcerer, you probably already get armor proficiency. Similarly, their ability to ignore speed penalties from heavy armor feels weird because, if you have heavy armor proficiency and the encumbrance limits to carry it, you're probably meeting the STR requirements already. They're in the odd place of being a great race for making armored wizards and not much else, which doesn't play very well into the type of characters you imagine when you think of the stereotypical dwarf.

[Xihirli]

So, one interesting thing: I'm an on-and-off writer for a tabletop wargame, and one thing we wanted to do was write possible backgrounds for various cultures around the world, and both human and nonhuman subfactions based on those. For dwarves, we've actually found quite a few very interesting inspirations, and we're currently incorporating Dwarves inspired by Ethiopians (inspired mostly by Ethopian rock churches, also, we have an African writer who's extremely excited about them who ahs already developed an alphabet and a language), Inca Dwarves (because high mountain fortresses), Norse dwarves (of course), Germanic dwarves (separate and distinct), Mesopotamian dwarves and Japanese dwarves (metal-working clans who live in secret high mountain valleys and forge legendary weapons). More may come, but it's actually been surprisingly easy and interesting to find new cultural inspirations for dwarves.

Which war game?

[Eldan]

They are very much not.
Those are modern American fantasy, no real connection to European mythology or fantasy.
There are at least a couple for Not-Japan full of various Yokai.

Normal people born with some demonic feature on their body because of dark magic, or gaining one as part of a pact with the devil are extremely common in mythology. Maybe not dragon people so much, yes.

[Witty Username]

Well yeah... and I honestly am confused as to why it matters. Dwarves aren't cool anymore... so don't use them for your worldbuilding! Clearly they won't really be missed, and if someone does, just have them go "mumble mumble tribe from outside of the local map mumble mumble" like people with more popular races are doing now. If people are playing tortles, you need a Tortle nation on the map.... dwarves not so much.

I think, if you like dwarves, then you should keep playing with them. If you don't like dwarves, then don't worry about it.

I don't care much for Tiefling, but I am not going to champion its removal from the game.

[Psyren]

That is the thread topic, though apparently Dwarves aren't cool enough to keep focus.

Ha! :smallbiggrin:

I mean, barring additional insights from the devs I'm not sure there's much else to say. I think we've exhausted the best publicly available data, and put forth most if not all of the plausible theories for their decline in usage.

To try and sum up the prevailing ones:



Across settings and games, dwarves have (or are perceived to have) a narrower thematic/aesthetic possibility space (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html) than other races.
Even for those players interested in the thematic niche Dwarves most regularly occupy/align to (i.e. the Big Guy), there are more interesting/exotic options now.
They have retained certain mechanical disadvantages across multiple appearances that people are increasingly finding off-putting, such as being slow and lacking Charisma.
"Short" races in general are showing a lack of popularity; people just don't want to roleplay as being short in general when they have the option to not be.
Dwarves in particular occupy a weird state of being short enough to be the butt of jokes about it / be slower than tall races, but not short enough for any of the mechanical benefits like having increased options for cover or squeezing.
There is a fatigue or decline in interest for Tolkien races in general, albeit one that Elves and Humans have proven resistant to (especially in non-western cultures.)
Dwarves were aesthetically resonant with the demographic of gamer that made up the bulk of the hobby pre-5e. Now with a large influx of newcomers that don't align with or are otherwise less interested in that aesthetic themselves (particularly non cis-males), dwarves are seeing a natural dilution.
The mechanical advantages they did have were not particularly exciting, ranging from rarely-beneficial ribbons like Stonecunning, to weapon proficiencies that usually wouldn't see use outside of builds that get them anyway, to armor proficiencies that border on overpowered while still not being very interesting.


Did I miss any?


I quite prefer early D&D edition tieflings what with them being "vaguely human, but weird in some nasty way". Extra phalanges or fingers, sharp nails and inhuman teeth, constant weak-but-detectable smell of sulfur (yuck, rotten eggs!), eyes and noses that aren't quite right etc. I have played several tieflings over the years, and only one was anywhere similar to what D&D 5e stereotypes them as. An outside observer would've been hard pressed to put any two of those characters into the same "race", much less all of them taken together.

Not to steer the thread away from dwarves again but I wanted to respond to this. With the new hybrid rules releasing this year, you should be able to make a Human/Tiefling that is closer to a Human and get some of these weird subtler elements like sulfur smell and sharp nails/teeth in there.

[Xihirli]

Normal people born with some demonic feature on their body because of dark magic, or gaining one as part of a pact with the devil are extremely common in mythology. Maybe not dragon people so much, yes.

I think some versions of Merlin are thought to be devil-children.

[Boci]

I think some versions of Merlin are thought to be devil-children.

Fey and demons/the devil were more blended in traditional European folklore, so the cribswaped/changelins/killcrops could be described as tieflings too.


Dwarves were aesthetically resonant with the demographic of gamer that made up the bulk of the hobby pre-5e. Now with a large influx of newcomers that don't align with or are otherwise less interested in that aesthetic themselves (particularly non cis-males), dwarves are seeing a natural dilution.

Not necessarily missed, but adding to this: drinking beer. It use to be like half the drinking population's preferred drink, but its less popular now, alcohol overall is, and there's more and more fruity beers available, which don't exactly scream dwarf.

[Xervous]

Fey and demons/the devil were more blended in traditional European folklore, so the cribswaped/changelins/killcrops could be described as tieflings too.



Not necessarily missed, but adding to this: drinking beer. It use to be like half the drinking population's preferred drink, but its less popular now, alcohol overall is, and there's more and more fruity beers available, which don't exactly scream dwarf.

Dwarven beer never really struck me as something in the realm of regular beer. Every other time it’s mentioned there’s remarks on its potency. Pair that to the typical resilience of dwarves and I tend to envision 80+ proof “Grunbel’s Stone Polish”. How many people do you know that are in the business of disappearing bottles of whiskey or vodka? Not really the common sort.

[Mordar]

There is a fatigue or decline in interest for Tolkien races in general, albeit one that Elves and Humans have proven resistant to (especially in non-western cultures.)

Um...if two out of three resist the decline, is it really "in general"?


Did I miss any?

I would add:


Their niche and stereotype is one that has frequently been contrary to that common to particularly younger/newer role-players: Staunchly do the expected right thing, hold to tradition and rules, and don't be splashy about it. "Hard drinking" and "bearded" don't seem to make up for that much any more...if ever.

- M

[Boci]

Dwarven beer never really struck me as something in the realm of regular beer. Every other time it’s mentioned there’s remarks on its potency. Pair that to the typical resilience of dwarves and I tend to envision 80+ proof “Grunbel’s Stone Polish”. How many people do you know that are in the business of disappearing bottles of whiskey or vodka? Not really the common sort.

It is a roleplaying game though. You can pretend you are a dwarf and you're drinking dwarf beer, since it presumably balances out. Yes dwarf beer is stronger, but you're a dwarf, hence why it doesn't feel strong for you. In at least a few cases it likely isn't even this explicit, just beer = beer.

Now by contrast pretending that your "Schöfferhofer Grapefruit" is something the average dwarf would touch with a 10ft pole can be a little harder with the default presentation of the race.


Um...if two out of three resist the decline, is it really "in general"?

Psyren might be counting orcs, in which case its 2 and 2.

[Jophiel]

Eh, I don't think the beer thing really tracks. For one thing, it's more commonly "ale" which, sure, falls under the same umbrella but has a bit more fantasy panache. Especially back in the 80s and 90s, we didn't think "They drink beer, just like me!" -- dwarves drank ale. Also, the brews were always a bit silly and not just in terms of alcohol proof. They'd be made of fungus or have chunks in them or other stuff that meant you had to be a true hard-swillin' dwarf to partake.

"Orzammar ale tastes like it has dirt in it. Because it does!" -- Oghren, "Dragon Age: Origins"

So I'm skeptical that the switch from Miller Genuine Draft to Zany Mike's Peach-Raspberry Shandy really had much influence in how much people play dwarves because dwarven brew was always a world apart from mundane people beer.

[Boci]

So I'm skeptical that the switch from Miller Genuine Draft to Zany Mike's Peach-Raspberry Shandy really had much influence in how much people play dwarves because dwarven brew was always a world apart from mundane people beer.

"ale" is still used in Britain at least. Maybe its completely archaic in the US, but "ale" is not a fantasy only term for beer everywhere.

[Jophiel]

"ale" is still used in Britain at least. Maybe its completely archaic in the US, but "ale" is not a fantasy only term for beer everywhere.

Sure but I'm guessing that the North American TTRPG population is far larger than the UK one. So the impact on UK beer terms would be minimal on the overall decline of Dwarf popularity (assuming there is one).

Also my quoted "world apart" bit was more about the content of the tankards rather than just the name "ale".

[Psyren]

Some settings have Dwarven beer made out of mushrooms or other subterranean ingredients. I haven't the slightest clue what that would do to flavor or potency.


Um...if two out of three resist the decline, is it really "in general"?

Hobbits get overlooked again :smallamused: I guess that's their milieu, but still.
(And frankly speaking, I don't think Humans count, so it's actually 2/3 the other way.)


Psyren might be counting orcs, in which case its 2 and 2.

I wasn't actually, as Tolkien would consider them monsters rather than a playable race.



I would add:


Their niche and stereotype is one that has frequently been contrary to that common to particularly younger/newer role-players: Staunchly do the expected right thing, hold to tradition and rules, and don't be splashy about it. "Hard drinking" and "bearded" don't seem to make up for that much any more...if ever.

I meant for the "aesthetically resonant" line item to cover that but I could see it being separate.

[Metastachydium]

They are very much not.
Those are modern American fantasy, no real connection to European mythology or fantasy.

Nah, D&D Dragonborn have absolutely no connection to the brawny, reptilian, gold-hoarding firebreathing brand of Dragon from European myth and folklore, no, Sir.


Dwarven beer never really struck me as something in the realm of regular beer. Every other time it’s mentioned there’s remarks on its potency.

Are we back to blue collar Dwarves with a tough malt liquor analogue?


Eh, I don't think the beer thing really tracks. For one thing, it's more commonly "ale" which, sure, falls under the same umbrella but has a bit more fantasy panache. Especially back in the 80s and 90s, we didn't think "They drink beer, just like me!" -- dwarves drank ale.


"ale" is still used in Britain at least. Maybe its completely archaic in the US, but "ale" is not a fantasy only term for beer everywhere.

…
Did the Age of IPA/APA end early everywhere else?

[Mordar]

Hobbits get overlooked again :smallamused: I guess that's their milieu, but still.
(And frankly speaking, I don't think Humans count, so it's actually 2/3 the other way.)

Wait wait wait...people actually play as Halflings? Like for real, not as polymorphed dragons?!?

- M

[Xervous]

Did the Age of IPA/APA end early everywhere else?

Bearded, formless hat, hard to tell apart. Are dwarves hipsters? Seems like there’s too many other details missing there.

[AvatarVecna]

https://i.ibb.co/p3y6gKv/ba909344a80436d613eb2fa615db5822-jpg.png

[Satinavian]

Normal people born with some demonic feature on their body because of dark magic, or gaining one as part of a pact with the devil are extremely common in mythology.
But not particularly European. You have something that fits a discription that broad basically everywhere.

And if cast less wide of a net and go with descendents of Tanar'ri, Obyriths, Yugoloths and Baatori etc. then most of those don't fit at all to any real world folklore. And among the ones that might do somewhat if you squint hard enough, more are Asian than European.
And the actual tieflings including their particular racial traits and looks are nowhere to be seen.


Maybe not dragon people so much, yes.Nope, not aware of any dragon people at all. Maybe one halfdragon.

[Errorname]

But not particularly European. You have something that fits a discription that broad basically everywhere.

Tieflings and Dragonborn are both clearly derived from European archetypes of Demons and Dragons. Specifically they're taking the aesthetics of those monsters that already existed in the game and applying it to a more standard humanoid form such that they are a reasonable player character. You can't be a Demon but you can still have the horns and tail, you can't play a dragon proper but you can be big and scaly and breathe fire

[Psyren]

Wait wait wait...people actually play as Halflings? Like for real, not as polymorphed dragons?!?

- M

Yes - though interestingly, they've stayed roughly constant in the stats while Dwarves have fallen. (Dwarves got overtaken by Dragonborn and Tieflings, while Halflings have stayed where they were behind those but ahead of Half-Orcs and Gnomes.)


*snip*

Some of those "Human Cast", like bottom right, are pretty sus :smalltongue:

[Witty Username]

Gnome got cut from 4e for a reason after all.