[quote=@Jig]
I think werewolves have kind of earned their place in mythology not to seem intrinsically naff. Any other x-thropes haven't quite got that historical weight behind them, and seem naff as a result, particularly given the internet's attitude toward furries. Everybody knows a werewolf, but a 'novel' concept involving another animal will be approached as something new, and through that rough spectrum of 'How much is this furry?'.[/quote]

I wouldn't quite say the other zoanthropes lack a historical weight; most every culture seems to include them, but certainly not in the same way or for the same reasons. I believe it is more along the lines of werewolves just being so established in European culture - and more so in modern times with the West as a whole. 

I admit you are likely entirely correct on the "How much of this is 'furry'?" spectrum, in that that entire genre of anthropomorphism versus furry is a very ill defined battlefield. Admittedly I have been called a "furry" (with the negative connotation intended) for playing shapeshifters, zoanthropes, or using other elements of anthropomorphism.

[quote]Pretty much every defined 'supernatural/horror race' is intrinsically naff in its purest forms, but werewolves have a long-established lore to draw on. Part of the charm, for me, at least, of watching supernatural/horror-race-themed media is to see how they will interpret the lore and what new spin you'll give on it. If it's not an established 'thing', though, there's no room for any of that comparison, which makes the new thing seem more alien and less approachable. The audience doesn't buy into it; it's considered naff.[/quote]

The werewolf is indeed well defined and established, but I think there must be something more to it, as with the vampire. After all, European folklore even includes werecats - both of the more "mundane" sort and the "panther" sort. Either way, I would be shocked to learn the idea of "There are werebeasts other than werewolves." is a shocking notion that people consider cliche. It strikes me as just a natural and reasonable extension of the concept.

[quote]Werewolves, incidentally, have a long history in Western cultural awareness, from being the antagonist in Biblical parables, fairy tales and even aphorisms, which lends them to the villainous, or, at least, dangerous role in a given story. I'm not sure big cats have that lingering cultural or folkloric heritage.
[/quote]

While not explicitly regarding felines, the whole issue eludes me in concept - big cats being the most confusing, in that they're well established in the human psyche and one of the more "common" zoanthropic strains. While wolves are well accounted for in European and Western myth, the cat isn't terribly disregarded either. I could understand the more exotic and bizarre renditions which only distantly relate to what we call a zoanthrope being unheard of, but those familiar? To the point that werewolves are the only real presence?

It all just seems strange... on the Internet of all places where information, stories, characters and concepts are freely floating about. Or the fact that the World of Darkness or other roleplaying game material, to include Dungeons and Dragons, includes them as well.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
A lot of that just comes down to the literary background of a lot of people who do internet RP's, doesn't it? I know if my lifetime there has been quite a bit of interest in supernatural tropes in teen fiction. For some people, i'm sure they are mostly just RPing what they already like. 
[/quote]

I suppose - it goes back to the saturation of modern media with the entire "werewolf versus vampire" trope that's become a now reinforced staple. Not to say werewolves and vampires shouldn't get the attention in supernatural fiction, but its grossly overpopulated and overpowered.