Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Mordar]

I'm still wanting to know why, now that there are more choices for races to occupy the world, that dwarves are obligated to be one of the races included on the world map. Yes, they're a classic, but lots of classics have been left in the dustbin. They're still one of the races available.

Which, please? In RPGs?

- M

[Psyren]

I'm still wanting to know why, now that there are more choices for races to occupy the world, that dwarves are obligated to be one of the races included on the world map. Yes, they're a classic, but lots of classics have been left in the dustbin. They're still one of the races available.

They're not obligated. As I mentioned some ways upthread, settings like Ravnica and Theros skipped them entirely.

But you can't exactly remove them from somewhere like Greyhawk or FR where they're pretty established either.

I don't think that's the argument, but even if it was there are very good reasons that Humans get used a lot, such as the overwhelming majority of the audience being human, that don't apply to Dwarves.

Yeah humans are nigh mandatory if you want your fantasy RPG to, well, make money, so they get a pass.

[Jay R]

I'm still wanting to know why, now that there are more choices for races to occupy the world, that dwarves are obligated to be one of the races included on the world map.

The problem word in this statement isn’t “dwarves”. And it isn’t “obligated”.

It’s “the”. … “the” world map.

There is no one single “the” world map.

Dwarves exist on my world map, and always will. I and all my players are Tolkien fans. I and all my players are here for some degree of simulating classic fantasy. No matter what you think, I will use dwarves. [I had six players, but one moved away before the first session. That one had already developed his dwarf character.]

I do not care if you have dwarves on your world map. I don’t see any reason why you should be obliged to have them at all.

But I am going to have dwarves, so it is very helpful for me and my players for dwarves to be in the rulebook.

Now, let's turn the question around. I have shown why it helps my game for dwarves to be included in the rulebook. How does it hurt you to have dwarves included in the rulebook?

You don't have to play a dwarf just because they are in the book. Taking them out of the rulebook would hurt me and my players. I can understand you being willing to hurt my game to help yours. But how does it help your game to not have dwarves in the book?

[Errorname]

Which, please? In RPGs?

In fantasy in general it's pretty common to not feature a lot of the classic D&D races, but within D&D specifically I can't think of a race I'd call "classic" that's gotten completely ditched.

But you can't exactly remove them from somewhere like Greyhawk or FR where they're pretty established either.

Well, you could certainly try, it just wouldn't go over very well.

Yeah humans are nigh mandatory if you want your fantasy RPG to, well, make money, so they get a pass.

I think you could get away with not having humans, but for obvious reasons "do I want to cut humans out of this" is a very different choice to "do I want to have dwarves in this"

[Witty Username]

They're not
Yeah humans are nigh mandatory if you want your fantasy RPG to, well, make money, so they get a pass.

Fond memories of a video game from the way back called Sacrifice. I actually wish we had more examples of this, when it is done well, no humans has a lot of good fantasy to it.

[Satinavian]

Yeah humans are nigh mandatory if you want your fantasy RPG to, well, make money, so they get a pass.

Well, not from me. I am so sick from their everpresense and how they warp every world to conform on them as the standard.

[Aquillion]

This thread is 14 pages long so I imagine someone pointed this out already, but I'll say it anyway just in case: The premise here is just flatly wrong. Based on the available metrics released by D&DBeyond, Dwarves are the fourth most popular player race, out of thirteen, losing out only to Humans, Elves, and Half-Elves.

Now, that is for 5e D&D, so the specific mechanics of that system might influence it, but the numbers tell a pretty coherent story: People like traditional fantasy races.

If there's a race whose popularity is most affected by mechanics, it would probably be half-elves, just because they're ideal for a Charisma-based class and there are so many of those.

But I'm skeptical that dwarves have ever been more popular than humans or elves. The comic-relief portrayal of Gimli in LotR probably didn't help much but overall dwarves seem to me to be as popular as they ever have.

So the real answer is probably just "you happen to be playing with groups that don't contain any players who like to play dwarves."

(This also answers the people above asking "why do they keep including humans / dwarves / elves". Because those races are incredibly popular!)

[Witty Username]

This thread is 14 pages long so I imagine someone pointed this out already, but I'll say it anyway just in case: The premise here is just flatly wrong. Based on the available metrics released by D&DBeyond, Dwarves are the fourth most popular player race, out of thirteen, losing out only to Humans, Elves, and Half-Elves.

It may have been, but I think most of us have been running on BG3 data.

Now we can speculate on why that is different from the d&d beyond data, though.

[Aquillion]

Actually, I just realized that that's from 2017. The more recent figures have dragonborn and tiefling slipping ahead of dwarves. Though, they're still not unpopular, not the way they are in BG3.

I wonder if the reason for the change is because stats are no longer tied to species?

[Errorname]

Well, not from me. I am so sick from their everpresense and how they warp every world to conform on them as the standard.

I mean, there is a reason that humans tend to write stories that have humans in them.

[Mordar]

I mean, there is a reason that humans tend to write stories that have humans in them.

Besides the fact that you all are a big bunch of speciesists with no imagination...I mean we. WE are a big bunch of speciesists...

Yeah, that will fool them

- M

[Psyren]

This thread is 14 pages long so I imagine someone pointed this out already, but I'll say it anyway just in case: The premise here is just flatly wrong. Based on the available metrics released by D&DBeyond, Dwarves are the fourth most popular player race, out of thirteen, losing out only to Humans, Elves, and Half-Elves.

Now, that is for 5e D&D, so the specific mechanics of that system might influence it, but the numbers tell a pretty coherent story: People like traditional fantasy races.

If there's a race whose popularity is most affected by mechanics, it would probably be half-elves, just because they're ideal for a Charisma-based class and there are so many of those.

But I'm skeptical that dwarves have ever been more popular than humans or elves. The comic-relief portrayal of Gimli in LotR probably didn't help much but overall dwarves seem to me to be as popular as they ever have.

So the real answer is probably just "you happen to be playing with groups that don't contain any players who like to play dwarves."

(This also answers the people above asking "why do they keep including humans / dwarves / elves". Because those races are incredibly popular!)

Actually, I just realized that that's from 2017. The more recent figures have dragonborn and tiefling slipping ahead of dwarves. Though, they're still not unpopular, not the way they are in BG3.

I wonder if the reason for the change is because stats are no longer tied to species?

Yes, I pointed out both the 2017 / 2023 DnDBeyond stats as well as the 2023 BG3 stats.

The 2023 article goes a step further by offering commentary:

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.

[icefractal]

Wait a minute ...

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.

I think thematics may not be the big factor here. IDK about the rest of you, but I do not like walking slow in video games. In TTRPGs, walking across town takes the same amount of real-time regardless of your movement speed - the amount of time it takes for the GM to say "... when you reach the other side of town ..." But in a video game, moving slower takes more actual real-world time, and that's a much more hefty downside.

Similarly, "Murky-Eyed" is generally considered a super-easy flaw to take (in 3.5E), to the point that some people consider it cheesy. But if I had the option, in a video game, and it actually made the graphics blurry? No chance in hell I'd take that.

[Errorname]

I think thematics may not be the big factor here. IDK about the rest of you, but I do not like walking slow in video games. Like in D&D, walking across town takes the same amount of real-time regardless of your movement speed - the amount of time it takes for the GM to say "... when you reach the other side of town ..." But in a video game, moving slower takes more actual real-world time, and that's a much more hefty downside.

Another factor is that camera layouts and animations obviously prioritize average height PCs over short PCs.

[OldTrees1]

Wait a minute ...
I think thematics may not be the big factor here. IDK about the rest of you, but I do not like walking slow in video games. In TTRPGs, walking across town takes the same amount of real-time regardless of your movement speed - the amount of time it takes for the GM to say "... when you reach the other side of town ..." But in a video game, moving slower takes more actual real-world time, and that's a much more hefty downside.

In BG3 movement speed did not affect exploration speed. Just combat speed. (This is similar to Larian's other RPGs where your movement speed only differentiates in combat).

Edit: I was surprised I knew this about BG3. I have not used a small species yet (and all the companions are medium), but there are some items that reward small species. So I spent a decent amount of time with Lazel as a Dwarf in Act 3. I was recently playing DOS1, where movement speed can differ drastically, and realized the movement speed was not affecting non-combat speed. Then this post made me realize I had observed the same in BG3. So I ran a quick test to confirm.

[Amnestic]

The fact that all romance options in BG3 are tallfolk instead of smallfolk might impact it as well. As funny as it is to romance the gnome-hating Astarion on a gnome, I expect most (even if not all) people want someone with slightly less height difference for animation purposes. A smallfolk romance option would, I expect, see a boost in smallfolk numbers in the game.

I mourn the cut halfling werewolf bard party member that was datamined but never implemented.
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Helia

[Errorname]

I also think the fact that in BG3 you're designing the main character might change the dynamic a bit.

I wonder how the stats would be different in a hypothetical Icewind Dale 3 where you're building the entire party? Maybe you'd see players who didn't want to play Dwarves who still want to have one in their party.

[Jophiel]

I also think the fact that in BG3 you're designing the main character might change the dynamic a bit.

I'm a little skeptical of some of the possible BG3 reasons just because I assume that the majority of the players don't have a 5e background (and perhaps not any TTRPG experience) to worry about combat move speeds or redundant armor skills and aren't yet aware of the romance options, much less minutiae about camera angles during said scenes. But I do think the "Design the main character" aspect has something to it and most people just don't see "themselves" as being a dwarf/gnome/halfling as an idealized form. Maybe as a second play through or maybe if you were designing a whole party you'd add in a dwarf axe-swinger but not as... you.

Obviously it's impossible to know how many people had what background going into the game but my impression from more general interest forums/Discord channels is that most people picking up the game weren't experienced TTRPG gamers.

A game like BG3 doesn't come along every day but I looked for stats on the Dragon Age game and found this study done. Unfortunately, it's going to be much messier than the BG3 stats -- these were taken from a survey in the Dragon Age subreddit so it's already a very self-selecting bunch giving the answers versus Larian being able to give data on everyone. Still, even with only three races to choose from, Dwarf only gets picked as DA:O Grey Warden 7.7% of the time and as Inquisitor less than 5% once Qunari are added as an option. That said, almost every respondent had already played DA:O & DA2 before playing Inquisition. But it still feels as though people aren't especially into playing a story about a dwarf, even if they enjoy having dwarfs in the story.

[OldTrees1]

The fact that all romance options in BG3 are tallfolk instead of smallfolk might impact it as well. As funny as it is to romance the gnome-hating Astarion on a gnome, I expect most (even if not all) people want someone with slightly less height difference for animation purposes. A smallfolk romance option would, I expect, see a boost in smallfolk numbers in the game.

I mourn the cut halfling werewolf bard party member that was datamined but never implemented.
https://bg3.wiki/wiki/Helia

Aw they will be missed! I definitely feel like the 8 Human/Elf companions is a bit excessive. It would have been nice if we a wider spread.

[Witty Username]

Aw they will be missed! I definitely feel like the 8 Human/Elf companions is a bit excessive. It would have been nice if we a wider spread.

Still mad we didn't get Dame Alyn as a companion. Asimar isn't a big change of pace but it would be something.

[Boci]

I think "no humans" works better in sci-fi. Dwarves and elves (and haflings and gnomes) are a bit too close to humans to make the omission that meaningful, so unless you remove all them too it likely won't make as big a difference as you initially imagine it would.

[awa]

I think "no humans" works better in sci-fi. Dwarves and elves (and haflings and gnomes) are a bit too close to humans to make the omission that meaningful, so unless you remove all them too it likely won't make as big a difference as you initially imagine it would.

well how close a human and a dwarf/elf is varies dramatically based on setting and focus. I know modern d&d tends to assume a 400 year old elf is interchangeable with a 17 year old human but not all settings do.

I could see a setting focused on a conflict between elves and dwarves where they each take their archetype to the extreme and focus on the differences between them. In that context humans who lie somewhere between the two and tend to dominate any setting their in might take away from the focus.

[Boci]

I could see a setting focused on a conflict between elves and dwarves where they each take their archetype to the extreme and focus on the differences between them.

The problem is they're still look relativly human-ish, and visual perception plays an important part in how people judge stuff. So whilst the writers could have human-less and build up dwarves and elves as quite different, those difference might not be that apparent to (at least a significant chunk of) the audience.

[Errorname]

I think "no humans" works better in sci-fi.

You can do the sort of truly inhuman protagonists in a fantasy story that I think make a "no humans" story worth telling, but if you're saying "No humans" and what you end up producing is a world that's full of humans with bumpy foreheads you might as well not have bothered.

[Boci]

You can do the sort of truly inhuman protagonists in a fantasy story that I think make a "no humans" story worth telling, but if you're saying "No humans" and what you end up producing is a world that's full of humans with bumpy foreheads you might as well not have bothered.

Oh yeah, hence why I said "works better in sci-fi" and not "is impossible in fantasy". I'm sure there's a couple of examples of human-less fantasy that utilizes the premise, just in general feels like a better fit for sci-fi given the conventions of each genre.

[awa]

The problem is they're still look relativly human-ish, and visual perception plays an important part in how people judge stuff. So whilst the writers could have human-less and build up dwarves and elves as quite different, those difference might not be that apparent to (at least a significant chunk of) the audience.

I think you are underestimating the differences.
for physical appearance take a bunch of lotr style elves tall thin elegant figures and a bunch of war hammer style dwarves who are inhumanly broad and squat. We get a group of elves and dwarves in the same room and the shortest elf is twice the height of the tallest dwarf while the slimmest dwarf is twice the girth of the broadest elf. Every elf is clean shaven, every dwarf has a beard to his knees. The Elves are all flowing silks and tree top villages. dwarves are all grubby and soot stained work clothes or just straight up armor with homes that look like fortified factories.

Elven songs are all near world less ethereal sound dwarf songs are exclusively work songs or march songs for timing. We give all the elves long names with lots of apostrophes and grandiose titles (high lord of the golden river, beloved of the moon and stars, singer of the wild places), we give the dwarves short gruff names and minimal titles (forge master of the northern hold).

weapon/ combat elves all look like their dancing with swords and bows with light or no armor with no discernible formation while dwarves are all just blocks of heavy infantry doing nothing not in a formation.

the Elves have lots of animals dogs and cats and horses and deer and hawks and wolves, just ever where; they fight alongside them ride them live with them most pictures of an elf have an animal in it. The dwaves we give them no animals except live stock for food. No pets, no guard animals, no mounts; dwarves are strong and sturdy they dont need pack animals.

If the audience looks at that and says I cant tell them apart their to dumb for me to care about.

[Mordar]

Oh yeah, hence why I said "works better in sci-fi" and not "is impossible in fantasy". I'm sure there's a couple of examples of human-less fantasy that utilizes the premise, just in general feels like a better fit for sci-fi given the conventions of each genre.

Agree that sci-fi is a fine choice, but I think urban fantasy is a better one because in a sci-fi setting the dominant species can become humans-with-bumpy-foreheads. Unless they are all dralasites and vrusk. And I'm okay with that as long as I get to be a dralasite...either pilot or engineer, small vessel.

Nightlife was a cool monsters-as-PCs game long ago...Humans exist, but not as player characters. Sort of the same thing in WoD, but I think Nightlife was more "fun".

- M

[Boci]

If the audience looks at that and says I cant tell them apart their to dumb for me to care about.

You misunderstand. It's not that audience can't tell the difference between those two, of course they can, but they are going to notice, consciously or subconsciously, that both sides look kinda human, and that will influence their perceptions and judgement. There is a difference in perception between elves vs. dwarves and (more exotic race number 1) vs. (more exotic race number 2).

[awa]

You misunderstand. It's not that audience can't tell the difference between those two, of course they can, but they are going to notice, consciously or subconsciously, that both sides look kinda human, and that will influence their perceptions and judgement. There is a difference in perception between elves vs. dwarves and (more exotic race number 1) vs. (more exotic race number 2).

agree to disagree I simply think your wrong and believe the fact that they know what an elf is and what a dwarf is just from the names helps to differentiate them.

[Mordar]

I think you are underestimating the differences.
[snip]
If the audience looks at that and says I cant tell them apart their to dumb for me to care about.

You misunderstand. It's not that audience can't tell the difference between those two, of course they can, but they are going to notice, consciously or subconsciously, that both sides look kinda human, and that will influence their perceptions and judgement. There is a difference in perception between elves vs. dwarves and (more exotic race number 1) vs. (more exotic race number 2).

Exactly - elves and dwarves and halflings and Vulcans and Romulans and Klingons are all just "people with bumps". We've grown up with those kinds of things, so while yes we can recognize them as "not standard human" immediately, it falls more like Germans and French and Egyptian and Chilean than human and non-human.

The Gorn in ToS felt alien, but wouldn't have in TNG. Borg, despite being strongly humanoid, *felt* alien. Dralasites, genestealers, ghosts...they feel alien.

But I guess it stands to reason that someday we might see Dragonborn as humans with wings. Tiefling are already just edgy goth emo humans.

- M