Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Errorname]

From a non-gamist (like, non-optimization, 17-class builds, deep in 154 sourcebooks) perspective, I think "dwarf" has better versatility than most in terms of archetypes (versatile archetype? Does that make sense?).

Human: Everything
Half-elf: Multi-class with a sword and a spell (See also, Ranger), Thief
Dwarf: Warrior or Cleric
Elf: Wizard. Or Sorcerer. Or Wizard - Sorcerer. Or sometimes Multi-class with a sword and a spell.
Halfling: Thief
Gnome: Illusionist
1/2 Orc: Barbarian

So of the 7 originals, Human is the only race that I think exceeds dwarven "expected range" by default. It got to the point in the AD&D era where the "versatile" elves and half-elves practically reverted to the Basic/Expert version of Elf.

I would say Elves have better expected range than Dwarves by default. Just looking at Tolkien alone and you can find Elven characters on every point of the Warrior/Rogue/Mage triangle. If I was building Fingolfin, Legolas or Galadriel in D&D I would be running different classes for all of them, which I can't say for his Dwarf characters. I would also say that while Half-Orcs are expected to be Warriors by default, in my experience it's much more common to play Half-Orcs against type.

I don't think I disagree about Halflings and Gnomes though

Well. De gustibus non est disputandum. Still, now I'm really curious… How bumpy do you want those foreheads, exactly, if "even smaller but just as broad", "even hairier", "odd colours" and "odd textures" doesn't cut it?

Dwarves are something that aren't to my liking in general and which are not to my worldbuilding preferences, if I was making an original game setting I would not include them (or if I did it would be a serious reinvention from first principles), and I also think that relative to other D&D races they are more defined by cultural stuff that makes it harder to play against type and still feel like a Dwarf. But I don't think Dwarves are actually something that needs to be fixed. They have a strong core base of appeal and are clearly something people like and expect from D&D, and attempts to fix what I see as problems are likely to cause new worse problems within the context of D&D.

As far as the matter of subraces like the Urdinnir or Arctic Dwarves or or Fireblood Dwarves, I dislike dividing a fantasy race into mechanically-distinct subraces in general.

[OldTrees1]

I would say Elves have better expected range than Dwarves by default. Just looking at Tolkien alone and you can find Elven characters on every point of the Warrior/Rogue/Mage triangle. If I was building Fingolfin, Legolas or Galadriel in D&D I would be running different classes for all of them, which I can't say for his Dwarf characters. I would also say that while Half-Orcs are expected to be Warriors by default, in my experience it's much more common to play Half-Orcs against type.

I don't think I disagree about Halflings and Gnomes though

Why would you expect Elves to have a better expected range than Dwarves (rather than equivalent range)? Dwarf has some tropes, but you can have a Dwarf of any class while still playing strongly within type. Dwarf Rogue for example has the locksmith archetype in addition to the standard skulk, enforcer, politician, etc archetype. As for Dwarf mages, I have seen many geomancers and rune mages.

Did I miss something about how we are evaluating "expected range"?

So of the 7 originals, Human is the only race that I think exceeds dwarven "expected range" by default. It got to the point in the AD&D era where the "versatile" elves and half-elves practically reverted to the Basic/Expert version of Elf.

Did I miss something about how we are evaluating "expected range"? Why are they so narrow in your list?

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Aaahh, More Monsters

Show

Say what? They are pretty much entirely unrelated concepts. It's like using subclass as a shorthand for background in 5e.
...
Well, the Dwarven races/subraces I brought up are from MM/XPH, Sandstorm, Races of Stone, Races of Faerûn, Dragon Magic, the Planar Handbook and Frostburn, respectively and MComp (which I never so much as mentioned or alluded to) has a full update to 3.5, which includes LA where appropriate, which makes your high horse contention there as utterly incorrect as it is irrelevant.

Both CR and LA are ultimately tied to the monster's power, and I had forgotten Midgard dwarves were reprinted in Frostburn - which actually makes it worse as they are minimum level 13 there and thus an even sillier response to the OP's concern.

The whole list I gave contains exactly two among the remaining 7 items representing non-standard Dwarves that are environmental variants, and both have more going for them than "can survive the weather". I don't demand that Errorname or you or anyone like them, but at least actually checking what they even are (as Errorname otherwise did later on) before starting to throw around random disparaging labels is a basic courtesy I feel like I could expect.

I can and will disparage game design as much as I want, as you yourself were also doing with your "big stinking pile of nothing" comment directed at 5e. None of my comments are directed at any forum poster or their preferences.

Nobody said it could or should have gone on forever. But the modularity it provides is something I find infinitely preferable to "here, have 2 splats; make sure you take a good look, they will be obsolete and superseded in two years". I stand by what I said.

It's been 10 years since the PHB they're replacing actually. That's a perfectly reasonable timeframe to expect content replacements.

Unless those got a big overhaul recently, I'm not seeing that. A couple "skill" or tool proficiencies and languages are hardly good substitutes for unique distinguishing abilities that actually do something.

There are in fact many more things background feats can do than that, including armor and shield proficiencies, magical powers (both spells and non-spells), combat techniques, and even energy resistances which are the only halfway decent things the biome tints granted and even then are paltry and don't scale like the 5e ones do etc.

Is this like the Monsters of the Multiverse thing where it said that every race in the book could be assumed to be of basically human height and weight, and then the book had both fairies and centaurs in that list? Because I figure, there's being an unusual outlier, and then there's just absurd nonsense; there have to be limits.

What the line actually says is "typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world," before directing you to pick the height/weight line from the PHB table that best aligns with your character. Our world has Small Humans too, and those would be the size you'd go to for a Fairy. PC Centaurs are the upper end of Medium and you would thus go to an appropriate row on the referenced table.

As I read this I was nodding my head...and then I stopped and thought about it a little more deeply.

From a non-gamist (like, non-optimization, 17-class builds, deep in 154 sourcebooks) perspective, I think "dwarf" has better versatility than most in terms of archetypes (versatile archetype? Does that make sense?).

Human: Everything
Half-elf: Multi-class with a sword and a spell (See also, Ranger), Thief
Dwarf: Warrior or Cleric
Elf: Wizard. Or Sorcerer. Or Wizard - Sorcerer. Or sometimes Multi-class with a sword and a spell.
Halfling: Thief
Gnome: Illusionist
1/2 Orc: Barbarian

So of the 7 originals, Human is the only race that I think exceeds dwarven "expected range" by default. It got to the point in the AD&D era where the "versatile" elves and half-elves practically reverted to the Basic/Expert version of Elf.

Now, as has been mentioned so often, there are just a million class/race combinations that archetypes no longer matter. In fact, it may now be iconoclastic to play *to* type.

- M

How far back are you going? Because Half-Elves and Humans were initially the only races that could be Bards in the AD&D 1E PHB in 1978, and are frequently associated with them (to the point that the iconic bard in 3.5 was a Half-Elf too), and they fit with your "swords and spells" delineation. So I would put that in their column for sure. Similarly, Elves are very well known for being Rangers.

[Metastachydium]

Both CR and LA are ultimately tied to the monster's power,

One of them is also relevant to the discussion (about PC options) and the other is very much not.

and I had forgotten Midgard dwarves were reprinted in Frostburn - which actually makes it worse as they are minimum level 13 there and thus an even sillier response to the OP's concern.

12. You don't have to take class levels, as such. Also, in a 3.5 context, it's not outlandish at all, nor is it "not intended for PC use" as you seem to keep implying, so I don't quite see the issue.

I can and will disparage game design as much as I want, as you yourself were also doing with your "big stinking pile of nothing" comment directed at 5e. None of my comments are directed at any forum poster or their preferences.

Which is not something I intended to accuse you of. What I find baffling is that you keep insisting the listed races (barring the two you seem to refuse to consider races) are all merely ecotypes, which is simply untrue, regardless of what you and I think of game design (NB, I pointed out in the very post you quoted there that I don't mind your not liking them as such).

It's been 10 years since the PHB they're replacing actually. That's a perfectly reasonable timeframe to expect content replacements.

I'm talking about the roughly four years between, say, Volo's and Tasha's or Mordenkainen's and the other Mordenkainen's, which is a pretty quick Programmed Product Death when that's half of your non-setting books in total.

There are in fact many more things background feats can do than that, including armor and shield proficiencies, magical powers (both spells and non-spells), combat techniques, and even energy resistances which are the only halfway decent things the biome tints granted and even then are paltry and don't scale like the 5e ones do etc.

Speaking of game design preferences… Sorry, I fell asleep halfway throughout that.

[stormofmind]

I do not think "make their skin shiny" is an adequate solution to this, and I don't even really agree that it's a problem. Even less popular than they are and with more competition than before, Dwarves do still have a niche.

.

then how would you recommend making the dwarves look more aesthetically pleasing in this age and audience without sacrificing their dwarveness?

Dwarves are something that aren't to my liking in general and which are not to my worldbuilding preferences, if I was making an original game setting I would not include them (or if I did it would be a serious reinvention from first principles), and I also think that relative to other D&D races they are more defined by cultural stuff that makes it harder to play against type and still feel like a Dwarf. But I don't think Dwarves are actually something that needs to be fixed. They have a strong core base of appeal and are clearly something people like and expect from D&D, and attempts to fix what I see as problems are likely to cause new worse problems within the context of D&D.

As far as the matter of subraces like the Urdinnir or Arctic Dwarves or or Fireblood Dwarves, I dislike dividing a fantasy race into mechanically-distinct subraces in general.

here is a question that might make this thread go somewhere interesting what it is that makes dwarves so uninteresting to you and what would it take to change that?

[Witty Username]

There is a flavor of the time issue that is rattling in my mind.

I can only give anecdotes to this, but back in 3/5 there was a sense that Kobold had a much stronger popularity than previously. Neverwinter Nights having a fairly lovable kobold bard companion probably helped.

Fast forward to now and they seem to have faded into the background a bit, though still with their fans.

Since the assumptions is new species appealing to a new audience. Will this change over the next edition? Will Wotc rebrand Dogefolk and it will be the new hype. Or will dragonborn or tiefling fall off the hype train.

[Psyren]

then how would you recommend making the dwarves look more aesthetically pleasing in this age and audience without sacrificing their dwarveness?


here is a question that might make this thread go somewhere interesting what it is that makes dwarves so uninteresting to you and what would it take to change that?

I don't think it's that Dwarves are any less exciting/more boring than they were - they're just being overtaken by (a) more exotic races that can readily occupy their previous key role of The Big Guy back when we were limited to Tolkien races and (b) most closely aligned with a player demographic that was overrepresented in the hobby during its formative years that are now becoming diluted. Which, again, is a good thing, it's a natural consequence of the hobby growing and that growth being faster among demos that were historically underrepresented.

In short, Dwarven popularity could have very well stayed the same, while the rest of the hobby changed around them, and we'd end up with similar results. They may even get a bit of a bump once things like their speed penalty and lack of practical racials get addressed.

There is a flavor of the time issue that is rattling in my mind.

I can only give anecdotes to this, but back in 3/5 there was a sense that Kobold had a much stronger popularity than previously. Neverwinter Nights having a fairly lovable kobold bard companion probably helped.

Fast forward to now and they seem to have faded into the background a bit, though still with their fans.

Since the assumptions is new species appealing to a new audience. Will this change over the next edition? Will Wotc rebrand Dogefolk and it will be the new hype. Or will dragonborn or tiefling fall off the hype train.

It very well could. After all, as I mentioned, D&D as a whole if not the entire TTRPG hobby is at most two generations old. The next seismic shift could be elves waning in popularity for instance.

[Errorname]

then how would you recommend making the dwarves look more aesthetically pleasing in this age and audience without sacrificing their dwarveness?

I wouldn't. What a Dwarf is supposed to look like is something that is well established and well entrenched. I don't think the people who want to play Dwarves would be happy with a major aesthetic redesign and I don't think it would make people who don't want to play Dwarves decide to play Dwarves.

here is a question that might make this thread go somewhere interesting what it is that makes dwarves so uninteresting to you and what would it take to change that?

I have two answers to this, one within the context of D&D and one within the context of Fantasy at large.

Within D&D I just like my other options more, and I don't think there's anyway to make Dwarves more appealing to me without undermining their existing appeal. Like, if I picked a Goliath over a Dwarf because the core pitch of being a half-giant appeals to me more, there's no way to change the appeal of the Dwarf so that I pick it instead without alienating other players who already like Dwarves as they are (excepting making Dwarves insanely overpowered so you have to pick them, but that's a dreadful solution that people would hate)

Within Fantasy at large, I generally prefer fantasy settings which feel like things are there because the authors wanted them to be there and had ideas for how to use them, and Dwarves often feels like they're included simply because "Well, it's a fantasy story, gotta have Dwarves". I also personally wouldn't use them if I was building my own setting, but I probably wouldn't use any of the core D&D races.

Since the assumptions is new species appealing to a new audience. Will this change over the next edition? Will Wotc rebrand Dogefolk and it will be the new hype. Or will dragonborn or tiefling fall off the hype train.

The popularity of options waxing and waning is basically inevitable, although within D&D I think Dragonborn and Tiefs will retain core playerbases, I think they appeal to unique niches (Dragonborn main competition is other beast races like Tabaxi, Tieflings main competition would be other highly variable and customizable races like Genasi)

[Boci]

It very well could. After all, as I mentioned, D&D as a whole if not the entire TTRPG hobby is at most two generations old. The next seismic shift could be elves waning in popularity for instance.

It could be, but I doubt it. Elves are just too popular. And when you realize their stick is "humans except better looking, more graceful and better at magic. Oh an in some IPs stronger and more endurance too", well that can maybe supply a hint as to why they will likely survive the next big shift as well.

Especially since they're tied to the fey, which are centuries old and have captured human imagination for literal millennia. Sure the paintings of water nymph from hundreds of years ago aren't strictly speaking elves, but they could be, there is a big overlap between the ideals of the two. They definitely aren't dwarves though.

[Mordar]

I would say Elves have better expected range than Dwarves by default. Just looking at Tolkien alone and you can find Elven characters on every point of the Warrior/Rogue/Mage triangle. If I was building Fingolfin, Legolas or Galadriel in D&D I would be running different classes for all of them, which I can't say for his Dwarf characters. I would also say that while Half-Orcs are expected to be Warriors by default, in my experience it's much more common to play Half-Orcs against type.

I don't think I disagree about Halflings and Gnomes though

Should have indicated that this was really based on my experience, and through the early 1990s.

Elves could do everything, sure...but I was angling for "If you heard that someone was playing a(n) [Insert race here] and you had to place money on your guess, what would you guess they were playing?" Of course there were exceptions, and every town...practically every group...had at least one person that wanted to play Pink Ninjas ("against type, and for dramatic effect!").

Why would you expect Elves to have a better expected range than Dwarves (rather than equivalent range)? Dwarf has some tropes, but you can have a Dwarf of any class while still playing strongly within type. Dwarf Rogue for example has the locksmith archetype in addition to the standard skulk, enforcer, politician, etc archetype. As for Dwarf mages, I have seen many geomancers and rune mages.

Did I miss something about how we are evaluating "expected range"? Why are they so narrow in your list?

Just as better explained up above...not "what they can be" but more "what did their stereotype and expected classes in actual play look like".

Also predicated on the days when the core races were those 7.

How far back are you going? Because Half-Elves and Humans were initially the only races that could be Bards in the AD&D 1E PHB in 1978, and are frequently associated with them (to the point that the iconic bard in 3.5 was a Half-Elf too), and they fit with your "swords and spells" delineation. So I would put that in their column for sure. Similarly, Elves are very well known for being Rangers.

Mostly AD&D times. I never sat at a table with a naturally evolved Bard or a Monk of any flavor that I can recall...until 3e, of course. I did (in my head) include the Rangers in the elves but I typed multiclass. Probably because my recollection is very heavily tilted towards the rangers being half-elf then human then elf-elf. I wish to ruminate on that for a while though.

Re: People playing dwarves because they were short and fat and beardy

We were a different generation back then, and in my neck of the woods it was probably closer to an 80/20 (down to maybe 70/30) split between 98-lb weakling nerd and stunty chubsters...and beards were seldom seen until the later college years. Gen Con skewed that perception for me, but still not much lower than the 70/30. Seems hygiene was better in the 80s than 90s, too.

I don't recall much of the "playing idealized version of myself" perspective at my tables, but more "playing an idealized version of something cool". Power fantasy existed, and it seemed unshackled from the bonds of "looking like yourself, but better".

- M

[stormofmind]

I don't think it's that Dwarves are any less exciting/more boring than they were - they're just being overtaken by (a) more exotic races that can readily occupy their previous key role of The Big Guy back when we were limited to Tolkien races and (b) most closely aligned with a player demographic that was overrepresented in the hobby during its formative years that are now becoming diluted. Which, again, is a good thing, it's a natural consequence of the hobby growing and that growth being faster among demos that were historically underrepresented.

In short, Dwarven popularity could have very well stayed the same, while the rest of the hobby changed around them, and we'd end up with similar results. They may even get a bit of a bump once things like their speed penalty and lack of practical racials get addressed.



It very well could. After all, as I mentioned, D&D as a whole if not the entire TTRPG hobby is at most two generations old. The next seismic shift could be elves waning in popularity for instance.

elves do not really have direct competition and with the new edition changing how half races work they just had more reason to play them thus unless cha somehow becomes even more dominant or dex somehow ends up a dumb state the elf will do fine, if you wish to discuss make viable rivals for elves I would be happy to make the thread.

I can see it is not just stats it has to do with presence they lack a cool factor and the cultural options all suck for seemingly the reason of pure lack of trying it bugs me at a deep level.

I wouldn't. What a Dwarf is supposed to look like is something that is well established and well entrenched. I don't think the people who want to play Dwarves would be happy with a major aesthetic redesign and I don't think it would make people who don't want to play Dwarves decide to play Dwarves.

given they are short, stocky, earthy and have a beared how does adding to that make it worse has anyone even tried jazzing them up?

I have two answers to this, one within the context of D&D and one within the context of Fantasy at large.

Within D&D I just like my other options more, and I don't think there's anyway to make Dwarves more appealing to me without undermining their existing appeal. Like, if I picked a Goliath over a Dwarf because the core pitch of being a half-giant appeals to me more, there's no way to change the appeal of the Dwarf so that I pick it instead without alienating other players who already like Dwarves as they are (excepting making Dwarves insanely overpowered so you have to pick them, but that's a dreadful solution that people would hate)

Within Fantasy at large, I generally prefer fantasy settings which feel like things are there because the authors wanted them to be there and had ideas for how to use them, and Dwarves often feels like they're included simply because "Well, it's a fantasy story, gotta have Dwarves". I also personally wouldn't use them if I was building my own setting, but I probably wouldn't use any of the core D&D races.

The popularity of options waxing and waning is basically inevitable, although within D&D I think Dragonborn and Tiefs will retain core playerbases, I think they appeal to unique niches (Dragonborn main competition is other beast races like Tabaxi, Tieflings main competition would be other highly variable and customizable races like Genasi)

goliaths are not half giants they nearly have any lore at all they are just tall and earthy and given wotc seemingly failing to grasp the base lore is useful for selling things to people they will never develop past that.

dargonborn lack much culture as all of it was small references in 4e which no one talks about and show no signs of growing beyond just being people who look like dragons.

I would prefer if these things would grow and develop but I do not see that as mutually exclusive with making dwarves better.

I also prefer settings with more curated options but I fail to see how that is relevant fundamentally we are discussing dwarves sure they should not be in every setting but they should also do well in at least one setting and they do not seem to at all.

[Errorname]

Elves could do everything, sure...but I was angling for "If you heard that someone was playing a(n) [Insert race here] and you had to place money on your guess, what would you guess they were playing?" Of course there were exceptions, and every town...practically every group...had at least one person that wanted to play Pink Ninjas ("against type, and for dramatic effect!").

Fair, although I do still stand by "Elves have a much broader range of default assumptions" than other races.

given they are short, stocky, earthy and have a beared how does adding to that make it worse has anyone even tried jazzing them up?

Because when you add stuff to a design, you change it. Most people when they think of Dwarves do not think of them as earth elementals, they think of them as short people with big beards.

Goliaths are not half giants they nearly have any lore at all they are just tall and earthy and given wotc seemingly failing to grasp the base lore is useful for selling things to people they will never develop past that.

Goliaths are obviously filling a half-Giant role, and they are often described as descended from giants. I stand by my statement.

I would prefer if these things would grow and develop but I do not see that as mutually exclusive with making dwarves better.

I never said it was? I brought up Goliaths as an example of a thing which appeals to a different sort of player than dwarves do. A small guy is not going to be appealing to the sort of player who wants to be a big guy, and that's not really fixable but it's also not really a problem.

I also prefer settings with more curated options but I fail to see how that is relevant fundamentally we are discussing dwarves

We were talking about why people don't find Dwarves interesting, and I think how in a lot of stories it feels like the writers aren't interested in them but include them out of obligation is worth bringing up.

sure they should not be in every setting but they should also do well in at least one setting and they do not seem to at all.

I dispute that they don't seem to. They're not the most popular option in D&D, but they're not the least either. Games like Deep Rock Galactic and Dwarf Fortress have strong dedicated fanbases, and those games only let you play as Dwarves

[Witty Username]

Focus helps certainly.

On the setting end, dwarves tend to be out of focus, even when done in interesting ways.

I think mtg actually has this part right, there concerns to hold back on dwarves, unless it made specific sense.
This has led to the few times they have come up, they have been more of a focus point and reaping some rewards because of it.

[stormofmind]

Fair, although I do still stand by "Elves have a much broader range of default assumptions" than other races.


Because when you add stuff to a design, you change it. Most people when they think of Dwarves do not think of them as earth elementals, they think of them as short people with big beards.

I never said earth elemental I was suggesting an idea to possible make them cooler which is a visual update to add more ways to make them look less generically human in ways that do not run into real world issues, do you have a better suggestion than that?

Goliaths are obviously filling a half-Giant role, and they are often described as descended from giants. I stand by my statement.


I never said it was? I brought up Goliaths as an example of a thing which appeals to a different sort of player than dwarves do. A small guy is not going to be appealing to the sort of player who wants to be a big guy, and that's not really fixable but it's also not really a problem.

so then why are we not going to try to at least make the dwarf more interesting to see if they can still compete

We were talking about why people don't find Dwarves interesting, and I think how in a lot of stories it feels like the writers aren't interested in them but including them out of obligation is worth bringing up.

I dispute that they don't seem to. They're not the most popular option in D&D, but they're not the least either. Games like Deep Rock Galactic and Dwarf Fortress have strong dedicated fanbases, and those games only let you play as Dwarves

part of the problem is no one seems to bother exploring them, true I also feel that if an author does not care for a thing it should not be added to a setting but that is not the point.
no one tries to add proper different varients to the dwarf to expand the list of things it can be in interesting ways.

also Deep Rock Galactic is were I got the idea for metal skinned dwarves as they have a golden skin option.

[Errorname]

I never said earth elemental I was suggesting an idea to possible make them cooler which is a visual update to add more ways to make them look less generically human in ways that do not run into real world issues, do you have a better suggestion than that?

Making them look like Earth elementals kind of is the end result of giving them features designed to evoke earth and metal. Spirits of the earth isn't even wrong necessarily, it's a pretty reasonable read on the Dwarves described by our records of Norse myth, but it is not what people expect from a Dwarf. Again, I do not agree that Dwarves need a visual update to make them cooler. Them looking extremely human is definitely a thing, but that does not mean it is inherently a problem.

so then why are we not going to try to at least make the dwarf more interesting to see if they can still compete

First off, because they clearly are still competitive already. Second off, because the races that are more popular than Dwarves are fulfilling extremely different fantasies. How do you recommend changing Dwarves to appeal to players who play Elves, or Tieflings, and do you think existing players who like Dwarves as they are would appreciate them? Even the races that fill similar fantasies can still be quite different, as mentioned there's not really a way to change Dwarves (small guys) to capture the appeal of Goliaths (big guys) without taking away the original appeal.

[Psyren]

It could be, but I doubt it. Elves are just too popular. And when you realize their stick is "humans except better looking, more graceful and better at magic. Oh an in some IPs stronger and more endurance too", well that can maybe supply a hint as to why they will likely survive the next big shift as well.

Especially since they're tied to the fey, which are centuries old and have captured human imagination for literal millennia. Sure the paintings of water nymph from hundreds of years ago aren't strictly speaking elves, but they could be, there is a big overlap between the ideals of the two. They definitely aren't dwarves though.

Oh I totally agree, elves dropping in popularity would be exceedingly unlikely (especially given their high popularity across cultures.)

Mostly AD&D times. I never sat at a table with a naturally evolved Bard or a Monk of any flavor that I can recall...until 3e, of course. I did (in my head) include the Rangers in the elves but I typed multiclass. Probably because my recollection is very heavily tilted towards the rangers being half-elf then human then elf-elf. I wish to ruminate on that for a while though.

I mean, ruminate away... but my point is, Dwarves were behind all three of those in terms of iconic variation.
Hobbits meanwhile were behind them - but that's because, well, they were based on Bilbo who barely wanted to adventure to begin with, and was seemingly only hired because all the rest had dex penalties.

Re: People playing dwarves because they were short and fat and beardy

We were a different generation back then, and in my neck of the woods it was probably closer to an 80/20 (down to maybe 70/30) split between 98-lb weakling nerd and stunty chubsters...and beards were seldom seen until the later college years. Gen Con skewed that perception for me, but still not much lower than the 70/30. Seems hygiene was better in the 80s than 90s, too.

I don't recall much of the "playing idealized version of myself" perspective at my tables, but more "playing an idealized version of something cool". Power fantasy existed, and it seemed unshackled from the bonds of "looking like yourself, but better".

- M

I mean, I wasn't born yet (and even after I was, I wasn't in this country) so I have no idea what the demographics were, but looking at Gygax and Arneson I can get at least a rough idea behind dwarven affinity

[Witty Username]

Oh I totally agree, elves dropping in popularity would be exceedingly unlikely (especially given their high popularity across cultures.)

Well, that and elves don't so much get dropped as shift to whatever the popular trend is. Or to be more considerate, elves tend to embody ideas and themes that don't link to physical traits, so they are more malleable generally.

I am not even entirely sure AD&D elves from Faerun are all that similar to 5e elves also from Faerun, let alone other settings.

[Psyren]

Well, that and elves don't so much get dropped as shift to whatever the popular trend is. Or to be more considerate, elves tend to embody ideas and themes that don't link to physical traits, so they are more malleable generally.

I am not even entirely sure AD&D elves from Faerun are all that similar to 5e elves also from Faerun, let alone other settings.

Actually I think you're onto something. If there's one thing elves have in common in pretty much every setting it's being better than humans. So whenever humans change, elves get updated too to maintain their superior status, thus keeping them relatively fresh.

Even settings that are intended to subvert that trope, like Thedas, largely do so by having most of their elves in some state of decline from... a historical period in which they were unequivocally better, and there are probably holdouts in said setting who maintain the old ways of superiority.

[Witty Username]

Actually I think you're onto something. If there's one thing elves have in common in pretty much every setting it's being better than humans. So whenever humans change, elves get updated too to maintain their superior status, thus keeping them relatively fresh.

Even settings that are intended to subvert that trope, like Thedas, largely do so by having most of their elves in some state of decline from... a historical period in which they were unequivocally better, and there are probably holdouts in said setting who maintain the old ways of superiority.

Does that make Khan an Elf?
- Hopes everyone is aware of Star Trek

[Psyren]

Does that make Khan an Elf?
- Hopes everyone is aware of Star Trek

Vulcans are elves, Khan is an Aasimar

[Dr.Samurai]

In a tavern somewhere, with a warm fire burning in the hearth, a bard playing lively songs to entertain the patrons, and hot food cooking, a table in the corner seats a group of dwarves and half-orcs. They share tales about the work they are involved in, some mining, some guarding merchant caravans. They haven't seen each other in a long time, but when they're together it's like no time has passed at all. They talk about family, old and new, prospects on the horizons, adventures they've been on. The conversation is punctuated with harmless boasts, playful ribbing, and lots of laughter. All the while, they are wholly unconcerned with what others think about them.

Across the way, a garish bunch sits at another table, well lit and front and center so that all who enter will take notice. Most are elves of one variety or another, and a tiefling, a dragonborn, a plasmoid, and ninjazombiepiraterobot. They make small talk and, while their faces wear smiles, for those that have mouths, there is little mirth to be found. They look around, taking notice of who is noticing them. And anytime they hear laughter, their gaze returns to the table with the dwarves and half-orcs. "Look at them, so short and ugly. They're not cool, not like us." "Yeah, we have pointy ears, or horns, or scales." "Yeah, who would want to be them?" "Ugh, they must live miserable little lives, not like us, so amazing and cool." "Yeah, let's get out of this place and go somewhere with a little more selection in who it allows."

They get up, making as much noise as possible so everyone can see them as they leave, and don't leave a tip. The dwarves and half-orcs don't take notice, just as when the group had entered, so wrapped up they were in the things that really matter.

[Zalam]

Does that make Khan an Elf?
- Hopes everyone is aware of Star Trek

Of course not. Vulcans are Elves. That's why Spock can take Khan in a fist-fight.

[Errorname]

Vulcans are elves, Khan is an Aasimar

Vulcans as Elves is indisputable, they even have Dark Elf counterparts in the Romulan, but I don't know if I agree with the Khan as Aasimar connection, although I struggle to come up with a better one.

Across the way, a garish bunch sits at another table, well lit and front and center so that all who enter will take notice. Most are elves of one variety or another, and a tiefling, a dragonborn, a plasmoid, and ninjazombiepiraterobot. They make small talk and, while their faces wear smiles, for those that have mouths, there is little mirth to be found. "Look at them, so short and ugly. They're not cool, not like us." "Yeah, we have pointy ears, or horns, or scales." "Yeah, who would want to be them?" "Ugh, they must live miserable little lives, not like us, so amazing and cool." "Yeah, let's get out of this place and go somewhere with a little more selection in who it allows."

They get up, making as much noise as possible so everyone can see them as they leave, and don't leave a tip. The dwarves and half-orcs don't take notice, just as when the group had entered, so wrapped up they were in the things that really matter.

It is very funny to me that you chose to make this point in a narrative short story, because I struggle to imagine a more "making noise" way to make this argument short of breaking into verse.

I also think it's interesting that you've added Half-Orcs to the Dwarven side, since I don't think anyone's argued that they have the same problems. I'd actually say that their pointy ears, tusks and weird skin puts them firmly on the Elves and Tieflings side of the aisle here, and them tending towards the martial warrior classes means they're actually some of the biggest competition for Dwarves.

[Psyren]

Vulcans as Elves is indisputable, they even have Dark Elf counterparts in the Romulan, but I don't know if I agree with the Khan as Aasimar connection, although I struggle to come up with a better one.

He's basically human-but-better-in-every-way, so I think Aasimar is the closest.

It is very funny to me that you chose to make this point in a narrative short story, because I struggle to imagine a more "making noise" way to make this argument short of breaking into verse.

Ha

I also think it's interesting that you've added Half-Orcs to the Dwarven side, since I don't think anyone's argued that they have the same problems. I'd actually say that their pointy ears, tusks and weird skin puts them firmly on the Elves and Tieflings side of the aisle here, and them tending towards the martial warrior classes means they're actually some of the biggest competition for Dwarves.

Orcs' star is definitely rising compared to dwarves.

[Jophiel]

One thing that might help contribute to fewer people playing dwarves is the decline of the old school dungeon crawl. Back in the day, AD&D dwarves came with a slew of abilities related to finding secret passages, detecting slopes, identifying stonework traps, etc. Plus the ability to see in the dark and strong resistance to both poison and magic. A dwarf thief or fighter/thief was a formidable character* when the game mainly revolved around delving into antagonistic trap-filled depths and coming out bloodier and richer. Determining slopes, changes in depths and shifting stonework was very helpful in an era where DMs were encouraged to foul player maps and create confusion via subtle changes to the underground environment.

These days, traditional dungeon crawls are much less of a thing; often long periods stretch without the party going underground at all. Dungeons are much less dangerous, player mapping is barely a thing, traps are more inconvenient than fatal, many skills are more universal and dwarves themselves have less defined benefits (like the wishy-washier Stonecunning). Much of their traditional element just isn't a part of the modern tabletop game these days.

*(1e dwarf thieves had the best bonuses for picking locks and finding/disarming traps of all the races. They were somewhat worse at climbing walls. However, the base chance to climb a wall even at level one was 85% and the base chance to pick a lock was at level one was only 25%. Also the rule was that you could only attempt a lock/trap once (or until you leveled up) so a +10/15% chance on locks/traps was far more useful in a dungeon crawl)

[Witty Username]

but I don't know if I agree with the Khan as Aasimar connection, although I struggle to come up with a better one.

How else would you describe Ricardo Montalban?

I also think it's interesting that you've added Half-Orcs to the Dwarven side, since I don't think anyone's argued that they have the same problems. I'd actually say that their pointy ears, tusks and weird skin puts them firmly on the Elves and Tieflings side of the aisle here, and them tending towards the martial warrior classes means they're actually some of the biggest competition for Dwarves.

Well, BG3 numbers cited earlier has half-Orc between Githyanki (least popular that is not a short king), and Dragonborn (which they have about half the play rate of if I read the graph right). It is far in that metric that they are low on the popularity. Most of this is perception though, its our own judgment calls to make the good or bad of the thing.

Btw, halfling is lowest and ranger is second lowest, I guess no one wants to be a stone cold badass

[stormofmind]

so given how well established people are not pick dwarves is as a premise what do we do now as my idea was clearly a bad one?

[Dr.Samurai]

It is very funny to me that you chose to make this point in a narrative short story, because I struggle to imagine a more "making noise" way to make this argument short of breaking into verse.

I aim to make people laugh, or smile at the least .

I also think it's interesting that you've added Half-Orcs to the Dwarven side, since I don't think anyone's argued that they have the same problems. I'd actually say that their pointy ears, tusks and weird skin puts them firmly on the Elves and Tieflings side of the aisle here, and them tending towards the martial warrior classes means they're actually some of the biggest competition for Dwarves.

Well, BG3 numbers cited earlier has half-Orc between Githyanki (least popular that is not a short king), and Dragonborn (which they have about half the play rate of if I read the graph right). It is far in that metric that they are low on the popularity.

Yeah, it was quoted earlier that they aren't that popular in BG3. Also note that they will no longer exist as a mechanically distinct race in 5.5. And when we discussed this in the thread on this very forum, people argued it wasn't a big deal anyways because nobody plays half-orcs. The loss of half-elf was a bigger thing.

So maybe you haven't heard it but... it's there. And a table of dwarves and half-orcs seemed nice .

Btw, halfling is lowest and ranger is second lowest, I guess no one wants to be a stone cold badass

Lmao this made me laugh.

[Jophiel]

so given how well established people are not pick dwarves is as a premise what do we do now as my idea was clearly a bad one?

Not worry about it, I guess.

If you're making a campaign or game system, you can limit the number of races (a good idea anyway IMO) and give dwarves a stronger in-game niche for your style of campaign, be it mechanical or cultural. I don't know if cosmetic changes are really useful. If they're in service of the game world ("Most enchantable ore comes from the volcanic dwarves known for their black skin with glowing red cracks...") then sure but, overall, I think anyone who wants to play a zany short race is probably already running a pink haired gnome or wacky goblin/kobold. I don't think you can strongarm it though; just give people a reason to find them interesting and/or useful and accept it if they still want to play something else.

In something like your 5e Forgotten Realms character zoo, just stop worrying about it because it's not likely to change by people intentionally deciding to make dwarves cool again.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not worry about it, I guess.

If you're making a campaign or game system, you can limit the number of races (a good idea anyway IMO) and give dwarves a stronger in-game niche for your style of campaign, be it mechanical or cultural. I don't know if cosmetic changes are really useful. If they're in service of the game world ("Most enchantable ore comes from the volcanic dwarves known for their black skin with glowing red cracks...") then sure but, overall, I think anyone who wants to play a zany short race is probably already running a pink haired gnome or wacky goblin/kobold. I don't think you can strongarm it though; just give people a reason to find them interesting and/or useful and accept it if they still want to play something else.

In something like your 5e Forgotten Realms character zoo, just stop worrying about it because it's not likely to change by people intentionally deciding to make dwarves cool again.

I agree with this. If you change dwarves enough to make them appealing to people that don't find them appealing now, they may not be all that dwarfish any longer. In which case, what was the point all along anyways?

To my mind, it's like asking "How can we get Dr. Samurai to play gnomes?" and the answer is to make them less and less gnomelike lol. Seems to defeat the purpose.