Given that "Why does Veeky Forums like/dislike X" & species comparison threads are so prevalent yet only ever answerable due to anecdotal points of view, I figured this might be fun.
At the very least this might lead to discussion even if that discussion is only how useless polls on the subject are
I had to use broad strokes, so there's no specifics, dark/light/good/evil/unique interpretations of species are all condensed into their given name. Also due to limited space some of the more specific or vague ones are grouped together
There's three:
In a fantasy settings, what species do you like to be included the most? strawpoll.me/12200326
In a fantasy settings, what species do you dislike to be included the most? strawpoll.me/12200327
In a fantasy game, what species are you most likely to play given the choice? strawpoll.me/12200325
Multiple choices are allowed
Ryan Brooks
If there's anything you'd like to add or get specific about it'd probably be good to post it here. Strawpoll is obvious limited when it comes to specifics
Hudson Mitchell
>No Blemmyes, Panotti or Arimaspi It was plebeian tier.
Matthew Wright
>Blemmyes Monstrous Creature >Panotti Yeah you got me there >Arimaspi Monstrous Creature
Matthew Murphy
What makes blemmyes and arimaspi monstruous but not panotti?
Gabriel Brown
Blemmyes & Arimaspi are definitely creatures of a monstrous nature given that there wasn't room for an alternative
Panotti are just dudes with large ears. Monstrous Creature is the only place fit for it, but ultimately I feel having overly large ears is a bit harsh
Liam Foster
Roughly an hour in (which doesn't mean much admittedly) and Humans are the most popular followed by Elves
Physical/Interactable Deity are the most unpopular
Austin Torres
Having only one eye is monstrous? I better buy me a shotgun to ward off all those monstrous disabled people.
Ryder Martin
>Arimaspi >A fucking clawed. horned goat monster with a sing eye >Comparing them to disabled people who have lost an eye
You're fucking edgy I'll give you that
John Parker
Most likely to include: Human. Its good to have a raletable baseline.
Least likely to include: Halflings. Dwarves and elves might be kind of folklore-inspired and have some merit on their own. Halflings are a Tolkien invention, and I can't see them justified in any setting other than LotR.
Michael Walker
Would you most likely play as humans as well then?
Nicholas Williams
>clawed. horned goat monster What... where the fuck that came from? *googles* fuck you, take your shit where the sun doesn't shine.
Jace Ward
You mean your shit fucktard. What were you expecting? The google image results are of a clawed. horned goat monster with a single eye
Get your act together, because I don't know what you expected out of this but that's what your shitty monster turned up as
Nathaniel Howard
>his knowledge is based solely on what Google images gives him
Pleb tier, friendo.
Michael Collins
Oh I'm dying
Again what was expected?
Austin Richardson
Not him, but I assume he expected you to know what the actual people looked like, instead of trying to bluff your way through it.
Justin Green
>bluff your way through it. ??? I googled it? Seriously what exactly am I supposed to have done wrong here? What am I bluffing? Pic related is the first image found and the rest are depicting either the same or similar. But you already know that
Because this isn't exactly driving me to want to engage further. This is pretty low tier baiting. I feel trolled, but I don't feel like I need to feed further.
If you're not a troll then fine, but this pulling things out of air is really coming across as it and it's not endearing me
Gabriel Perez
>Humans are the most popular followed by Elves what do you expected, special snowflakes?
Hudson Wood
No that makes perfect sense and I expect it to continue.
But them Eldritch horrors yo...
Ian Davis
Us lovecraftian fags appear to be a minority
Nathan Ortiz
Low to medium fantasy's always been the best for me. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, etc. all different enough from each other to warrant play. I don't mind ratfolk or lizard men every now and again because sometimes it just makes sense for the skeevy alley merchan to be a literal rat or for the wild swamps to have rarely seen lizard people populating its marshes.
It's when demons/angels/deities start getting into it that things get absolutely absurd and start cranking the slider all the way up to high fantasy and start ruining the idea a little. Sure there's these guys with swords and a wizard who's spent maybe most of his life just learning the arcane, but nope. Here comes the natural-born or pure representations of these things to just sweep all of that hard-worn training out the door. It's like the Lex Luthor to the Supermen of the fantasy world, in a way.
Adrian Russell
Eldritch horrors are not liked by everyone. Like anyone who doesn't want to play mystery-horror games won't like those Ayyys, because the point of Eldritch it to be too strong for PCs to ever even touch
Xavier Reed
No shit sherlock
Juan Powell
I agree with almost all of that, but I've never personally liked or even understood the differences between gnomes and halflings and their varieties.
Hobbits work in LotR and WoW's Gnomes are entertaining enough in their niche, but beyond that I find them distracting & pointless
Henry Taylor
If you're trying to slim down the amount of races, yeah, I'd probably start at the gnomes/halflings area and work my way up. The way I see, it could go a few different ways either having the gnomes be marked craftsmen that're renowned for their expertise while retaining some of the lore for halflings (quick to laugh, soft faces, etc) or you can pick halflings and make them quiet and unobtrusive folk with a bright spark of engineering.
Gnomes are one of my favorite races to play, have been for a while, so maybe this is just a hint of bias towards them, I dunno.
