Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[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 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 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]

[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

[Witty Username]

Gnome got cut from 4e for a reason after all.

[Cygnia]

Gnome got cut from 4e for a reason after all.

I blame Gnomeland Security...

[Errorname]

Gnome got cut from 4e for a reason after all.

That's a very 4e thing to do. Basically the correct design decision at a point when it is decades too late to be making it.

Personally I think if you were designing a setting from scratch you'd want to consolidate Halfling/Gnome/Dwarf into one 'race', because if you do that you basically end up with one 'race' with a reasonable amount of variation in terms of archetypes rather than three races that all have basically a single character each.

[Leon]

Gnome got cut from 4e for a reason after all.

A smart choice but then some fool let them back into 5e

[Mordar]

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.)

Yeah, but those were all polymorphed dragons, I'm just sure of it.

Some of those "Human Cast", like bottom right, are pretty sus

...and the vampire next to it. Do they still count as human?

Gnome got cut from 4e for a reason after all.

Personal anecdote, signifying not much of anything: In non-convention games, I do think I have seen about 3 or 4 times the number of gnome characters as Dwarves. Contrary to the joke above, probably about the same as halflings. Core-core races for my personal experience: 1/2 Elf > Elf > Human > Halfling > Gnome > Dwarf > Half Orc. As a result of relative playtime, Goliath, Dragonborn, Tiefling and Warforged aren't contemplated beyond saying they would all be ahead of Half Orc.

- M

[Witty Username]

Personal anecdote, signifying not much of anything: In non-convention games, I do think I have seen about 3 or 4 times the number of gnome characters as Dwarves. Contrary to the joke above, probably about the same as halflings. Core-core races for my personal experience: 1/2 Elf > Elf > Human > Halfling > Gnome > Dwarf > Half Orc. As a result of relative playtime, Goliath, Dragonborn, Tiefling and Warforged aren't contemplated beyond saying they would all be ahead of Half Orc.

I didn't say it was a good reason.
4e has much to teach us, Gnome being cut from the game (for my own integrity I think they were added back in PHB 3, so they made it in eventually) taught us the dangers of cutting things for dubious reasons from the game a minority of players enjoy.

I have known people who love gnomes, I have known people who hate gnomes. I see no reason to only cater to the second group. I feel the same about dwarves or any other species we have gotten in D&D.

[Lemmy]

I didn't say it was a good reason.
4e has much to teach us, Gnome being cut from the game (for my own integrity I think they were added back in PHB 3, so they made it in eventually) taught us the dangers of cutting things for dubious reasons from the game a minority of players enjoy.

I have known people who love gnomes, I have known people who hate gnomes. I see no reason to only cater to the second group. I feel the same about dwarves or any other species we have gotten in D&D.

That's true... Although, depending on the number of options, it becomes necessary to prioritize. You can fit 10 races on the basic book... But you probably can't fit 40... So you have to make a choice.

With D&D's ever-growing number of races, I can understand gnomes losing their status of "primary base race". Dwarves and elves are probably safe from that fate, though...

...But who knows? Hasbro seems almost incapable of making a single good decision for D&D without quickly following it up with a dozen bad ones.

PS: Personally, I don't like D&D gnomes... But I've seen versions of the race that are actually interesting.

[Eldan]

Gnomes are the number one race I'd include in a fairy tale or classic fantasy setting, personally. I live near the alps. Little bearded men who play malicious pranks, curse people and turn invisible are all over every single local legend, so gnomes really are a must, even if the legends more commonly call them dwarves or kobolds.

[Psyren]

I didn't say it was a good reason.
4e has much to teach us, Gnome being cut from the game (for my own integrity I think they were added back in PHB 3, so they made it in eventually) taught us the dangers of cutting things for dubious reasons from the game a minority of players enjoy.

I have known people who love gnomes, I have known people who hate gnomes. I see no reason to only cater to the second group. I feel the same about dwarves or any other species we have gotten in D&D.

I checked my 4e collection and it looks like they were added in PHB2, so the backlash against excluding them must have hit sooner.

Based on their fluff, only Forest Gnomes made it to 4e, and the Rock/Tinker Gnomes were left out.

[Boci]

I checked my 4e collection and it looks like they were added in PHB2, so the backlash against excluding them must have hit sooner.

Based on their fluff, only Forest Gnomes made it to 4e, and the Rock/Tinker Gnomes were left out.

Notably they were also in the MM as a playable monster race, so they were sort of technically core along with Drow, Goblins and Orcs (and a dozen or so others).

[LibraryOgre]

Gnomes have long been in a strange place in D&D. In 1e, they were "kinda like dwarves, but can be illusionists". In Dragonlance, they got hit with the tinker stereotype, which followed them for a while. 3e tried to balance them between fey and tinker/alchemist... but they've gone pretty hard between those two back and forth.

[Jay R]

Gnomes are the number one race I'd include in a fairy tale or classic fantasy setting, personally. I live near the alps. Little bearded men who play malicious pranks, curse people and turn invisible are all over every single local legend, so gnomes really are a must, even if the legends more commonly call them dwarves or kobolds.

This leads to a crucial point. It doesn't matter how many or how few people want to play a given race, if even one player wants it in the game. then it makes sense to include it.

Even dwarves.

[Errorname]

This leads to a crucial point. It doesn't matter how many or how few people want to play a given race, if even one player wants it in the game. then it makes sense to include it

Strong disagree. Sentient species are a big deal in worldbuilding, especially if they're expected to support player characters. You want to support a decent variety of archetypes, but you shouldn't be trying to build a world that can contain literally every playable creature imaginable.

Admittedly at this point D&D is a bit of an exception to that, they've accumulated a lot over the years and become a more setting agnostic game with a real kitchen sink fantasy vibe, and includes some very obscure races that do have fans, but content appealing to those fans generally belongs in the optional supplemental material rather than the core books. That said, it's pretty uncontroversial to argue that both Gnomes and Dwarves are popular enough and established enough that people expect them to be core.

[Boci]

Strong disagree. Sentient species are a big deal in worldbuilding, especially if they're expected to support player characters. You want to support a decent variety of archetypes, but you shouldn't be trying to build a world that can contain literally every playable creature imaginable.

Admittedly at this point D&D is a bit of an exception to that, they've accumulated a lot over the years and become a more setting agnostic game with a real kitchen sink fantasy vibe, and includes some very obscure races that do have fans, but content appealing to those fans generally belongs in the optional supplemental material rather than the core books. That said, it's pretty uncontroversial to argue that both Gnomes and Dwarves are popular enough and established enough that people expect them to be core.

I think they're talking about WotC there, not individual DMs. Basically if a race has been core for an edition or two, it stays there forever. Permanent seat in the PHB.

[Mordar]

Gnomes have long been in a strange place in D&D. In 1e, they were "kinda like dwarves, but can be illusionists". In Dragonlance, they got hit with the tinker stereotype, which followed them for a while. 3e tried to balance them between fey and tinker/alchemist... but they've gone pretty hard between those two back and forth.

To date, 100% of PC Illusionists in my non-convention games have been gnomes. Kind of funny to think about that.

WoW obviously ran with the DragonLance version.

- M

[Psyren]

I think they're talking about WotC there, not individual DMs. Basically if a race has been core for an edition or two, it stays there forever. Permanent seat in the PHB.

Damn, that explains why we missed out on Shardminds and Devas

Notably they were also in the MM as a playable monster race, so they were sort of technically core along with Drow, Goblins and Orcs (and a dozen or so others).

Oh right! I forgot the "gnomes are monsters" memes from around that time

Gnomes have long been in a strange place in D&D. In 1e, they were "kinda like dwarves, but can be illusionists". In Dragonlance, they got hit with the tinker stereotype, which followed them for a while. 3e tried to balance them between fey and tinker/alchemist... but they've gone pretty hard between those two back and forth.

And now they're both. I'm down

This leads to a crucial point. It doesn't matter how many or how few people want to play a given race, if even one player wants it in the game. then it makes sense to include it.

Even dwarves.

Not necessarily, some races have good reason to be removed (especially as playable.) 5e Dragonlance seems to be quietly shuffling Gully Dwarves backstage for example, even though they were playable in 3.5e.

[stormofmind]

I can see a logic to making it so not all options are in each setting even things as core as elves dwarves and halflings but that is another topic.

dwarves basically have two problems they look dull and have no variety to them both character and culture.

now the first I only have minor ideas on how to solve such as giving them metallic coloured skin.


the second I think is likely to make multiple varieties of dwarves in a single setting who remove some elements of them and really focus on one area of the dwarven idea along with one classic version for balance maybe an evil one if a decent idea of what total evil dwarves would be?

[Irongron]

A Brazilian Artist, Matheus Graef I worked with when he produced D&D art for my server (and went on to do official D&D stuff!) produced his own conceptual fantasy setting art book 'LODESTAR TO KARAMOUSKA' in which dwarves are made of metal, turn green as they age, and once dead are used to make metal for the weapons of their descendants.

Which I thought a rather cool idea.

(I can't post links yet but it's well worth googling, he has a free pdf version online)

[Mordar]

dwarves basically have two problems they look dull and have no variety to them both character and culture.

Please expand on the bolded element.

- M

[stormofmind]

Please expand on the bolded element.

- M

in essence, it is pure aesthetic they look like short guys with beards they are both too easy to overlook as short humans and lack anything striking to really sell them.

teifling in 5e at a glance looks sticking now I myself am not really into what it sells but it has a clear look to sell you on.

dwarves lack things that make them different and are considered both striking and cool.

being short is an aesthetic detriment in some people's eyes.

thus I propose if we remedy this without losing the core of dwarves we make selling people on them easier then is it just a cultural option problem hence the other half of my point.

[Errorname]

dwarves basically have two problems they look dull and have no variety to them both character and culture.

The first one isn't a problem. Elves are insanely popular, and that's with them frequently just being humans with pointy ears. The second one, yeah that kind of is.

Please expand on the bolded element

I think it's fair to say stock Dwarf does not exist outside the bounds of natural human variation, and for a fantastical non-human sentient species that is kind of dull, if you wanted to play Gimli or Varric in a historical setting as just a human, you could easily do that.

But like, Elves exist. I guess they're slightly further outside the bounds, but humans with clipped ears still isn't that far out. It's really the 'dwarves are one note' and 'the fantasy dwarves fulfill isn't that popular right now'