So we've been having a bit of fun in the Tavern, picking apart the post of some poor blogger on the subject of races. I have my own issues with the particulars of that post, but I think the general idea-- that race stats as done in D&D are pretty unsatisfying for a variety of reasons.
If you use a world/system with different playable races or race-analogues (species, cultures, whatever you want to call them-- I think the word "race" is problematic as well and would like to get away from it, which is tough considering how entrenched it is in the gaming lexicon), do you differentiate them mechanically, and if so, how?
I've tried a couple of different strategies based on the system I'm working with. For the Jade Stage, I've dabbled with FATE and with Apocalypse World. In FATE, I wanted to stick with the idea of giving bonuses based on race, not penalties, with the idea of avoiding disadvantaging characters (in the way that an elven fighter in D&D 3.X [the system I was coming from] is disadvantaged due to a Con penalty, and so forth). So the crafty and detail-oriented dwarves get a bonus stunt associated with either Investigation or Engineering, and the treacherous seafaring goblins choose their bonus stunt from either Deceit or Sailing. Which works reasonably well, I think, but it doesn't really address my stated goal (if you want to get fussy, lack of a relevant bonus can be considered a penalty-- if you want to really make a hugely effective dwarven con-artist, it can be argued that you'll never be quite as good as a goblin version of the same concept, if you're measuring by the total amount of Deceit stunts you can have at once.)
In the nascent AW hack (gosh, will I ever finish a project before moving on to the next?), race effects the "mark experience when you _____" portion of the game mechanic. So a dwarven character's dwarvenness manifests as "mark experience when you overcome a challenge with ingenuity and planning," while a goblin character's goblinity is expressed as "mark experience when you overcome a challenge by manipulating someone else." I like the concept of it, and I like that it's the only effect that race has on the mechanics directly (otherwise, a dwarven Commander and a goblin Commander function identically), but it's a devil to balance these. Damn, AW, why you so hard to write mechanics for?
Of course, none of these solutions really begin to address the issue of monoculture, which blah bluh blah oh my god.
I feel guilty about posting that link... I don't know why though.... But yeah, I actually really like that idea of yours about making races with nothing but bonuses as apposed to a balance of pros and cons. If you really wanted to give your characters flaws, you could probably just have them take on flaw feats from Unearthed Arcana. Sorry coming from 3.5/Pathfinder.
Don't feel guilty Newb Auld Lang Syne - it's provoked discussion at the very least!
I tend to differentiate mechanically, although you're right to point out the potential drawbacks, Luminous. I think, in general, it's better to give individual species/races unique special abilities and very specific, contextual bonuses rather than general stat-boosts or penalties. Things like Gnomes being able to Speak with Burrowing Animals, Dwarven Stonecutting, Elven paralysis-immunity, Halfling bonuses against larger opponents, etc. In my old Cadaverous Earth game this resulted in things like swim speeds, multiple arms, strange natural attacks (leechkin palm-mouths...), unusual immunities, a shade's ability to puppeteer dead bodies, etc. I generally pursued the same approach with drawbacks - hagmen have to reach water on a daily basis, shades can't go out in sunlight, leechkin suffer from blood-thirst, and the like.
I think a selection of extremely unique and/or context specific abilities is better than a selection of generic bonuses/penalties, both because it helps to mitigate the "munchkin factor" of a race while simultaneously making the race feel different or alien. Removing bonuses and abilities altogether just tends to homogenize everything.
In my old setting all the people were one species that manifest various bestial features that were roughly tied to culture and geography, making them "races" in the sense that they weren't really that different, but did have characteristic traits. For instance, the Totwimi, a culture of sailors were characteristically small, usually had webbed hands and feet, and usually had claws. These characteristics were mechanically meaningful, but always optional ("mutations" were very common). So you could be a Totwimi giant that didn't have the stereotypically "Totwimi" features. This let players pick whatever culture they wanted and whatever physical traits they wanted and simultaneously gave an interesting interplay between the two.
Other settings that I've done are almost always human only except for specific requests. If someone wants to play a warforged-ish golem, I'd work up some stats for them and see if they liked it. But I agree with the author of the blog that racial straitjacketing is awful. I like being able to play charismatic dwarves if me and the GM are both okay with it.
Part of the problem with how most systems handle race is "role forcing." In DnD 3.5, for example, if you were playing a barbarian you were going to be penalized for also being an elf, if you were playing a cleric, you were going to be penalized for also being a half-orc, if you were a monk, you were going to be penalized for also being a halfling. (Actually, if you were any non-magic or sneak-attack based class, you were going to be penalized for playing a small race, but that's another issue entirely)
I like the idea of assigning bonuses only, no penalties, in theory, but in practice it still removes choice if not done very carefully. A race that has a bonus to health will always make a better front line meatshield than another option; a race with a bonus to accuracy will always make a better archer than another option, etc. What would have to be done with a bonus system is to make sure the bonuses are useful enough regardless of role where there isn't a "best option."
For example, lets say one race has a bonus to defense against ranged attacks, and another race has spell resistance, and yet another is resistant to damage from elemental sources. (We're not going to ask how biology granted those things). All three races are good choices if you want to be a front line meatshield, but which is better? Ranged attacks come up more often, but are less lethal than spells, which aren't as common as things being on fire or cold (even in the most magic-heavy setting), but those are typically more generally damaging than the focused damage of ranged attacks...and suddenly you have
interesting choices which that blog self righteously banged on about for awhile without ever addressing how to make the choices interesting.
Also, as a personal rule when I design races, I
only ever give bonuses to races that could be justified as an innate quality, because, as LC said:
QuoteMonoculture, which blah bluh blah oh my god
Which may be one of the most hilariously accurate things I have heard said about "Race" in fantasy in awhile. So looking at, for example, Pathfinder Gnomes:
Ability Modifiers: So gnomes are healthier but not as strong as most. I can buy that. They are also, genetically, more likable? Affable? Uh...okay, stupid, but not too bad.
Gnome Magic: Okay, gnomes are naturally magical, I can dig it.
Low Light Vision - Alright, works for cats in the real world, so that's totally inborn, go with it.
Defensive Training: So...every gnome ever born ever is trained to fight giants? Even ones born in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest giant, whose great great grandfather wouldn't know a giant from an oak? Is an innate trait of gnomes? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Hatred: OH MY GOD every single gnome ever hates reptiles and goblins no matter what. So a gnome that grew up in an arctic environment has a hatred of reptiles because he despises the way they freeze to death?
I could go on, but I think my point is made. Racial ability scores should not cover cultural things - in fact, it'd be kind of cool if "culture" was a separate template that provides separate bonuses.
That's my 2cp when I'm at work and haven't had a chance to do more than skim anyone else's posts yet. :P
Quote from: XathanWhich may be one of the most hilariously accurate things I have heard said about "Race" in fantasy in awhile. So looking at, for example, Pathfinder Gnomes:
Ability Modifiers: So gnomes are healthier but not as strong as most. I can buy that. They are also, genetically, more likable? Affable? Uh...okay, stupid, but not too bad.
Gnome Magic: Okay, gnomes are naturally magical, I can dig it.
Low Light Vision - Alright, works for cats in the real world, so that's totally inborn, go with it.
Defensive Training: So...every gnome ever born ever is trained to fight giants? Even ones born in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest giant, whose great great grandfather wouldn't know a giant from an oak? Is an innate trait of gnomes? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Hatred: OH MY GOD every single gnome ever hates reptiles and goblins no matter what. So a gnome that grew up in an arctic environment has a hatred of reptiles because he despises the way they freeze to death?
This would be valid, except that Pathfinder Gnomes (like all Pathfinder races) are built to be specifically customizable. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/gnome) the page for Gnomes. The traits you described are just the "Standard" or default Racial Traits. There's an entire list of Alternate Racial Traits below that which can be substituted out for things like Hatred, Defensive Training, etc. Don't like Hatred? Sub it out for Warden of Nature or Master Tinker. No need for Weapon Familiarity with your Gnome Wizard? Take Academician, Fell Magic, or Magical Linguist instead. There's also 4 subraces listed for even greater variety, plus a slew of racial feats and class archetypes. These abilities and options are there specifically to fight against the idea of racial monoculture and role-forcing.
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: XathanWhich may be one of the most hilariously accurate things I have heard said about "Race" in fantasy in awhile. So looking at, for example, Pathfinder Gnomes:
Ability Modifiers: So gnomes are healthier but not as strong as most. I can buy that. They are also, genetically, more likable? Affable? Uh...okay, stupid, but not too bad.
Gnome Magic: Okay, gnomes are naturally magical, I can dig it.
Low Light Vision - Alright, works for cats in the real world, so that's totally inborn, go with it.
Defensive Training: So...every gnome ever born ever is trained to fight giants? Even ones born in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest giant, whose great great grandfather wouldn't know a giant from an oak? Is an innate trait of gnomes? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Hatred: OH MY GOD every single gnome ever hates reptiles and goblins no matter what. So a gnome that grew up in an arctic environment has a hatred of reptiles because he despises the way they freeze to death?
This would be valid, except that Pathfinder Gnomes (like all Pathfinder races) are built to be specifically customizable. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/gnome) the page for Gnomes. The traits you described are just the "Standard" or default Racial Traits. There's an entire list of Alternate Racial Traits below that which can be substituted out for things like Hatred, Defensive Training, etc. Don't like Hatred? Sub it out for Warden of Nature or Master Tinker. No need for Weapon Familiarity with your Gnome Wizard? Take Academician, Fell Magic, or Magical Linguist instead. There's also 4 subraces listed for even greater variety, plus a slew of racial feats and class archetypes. These abilities and options are there specifically to fight against the idea of racial monoculture and role-forcing.
And that is why Pathfinder > DnD 3.5. I probably should have referenced the latter Gnomes instead, but I had my Pathfinder core book on me at work, so it was easiest. However, things like what you mentioned is exactly what I think a good system needs to counteract the problems I mentioned.
Quote from: Xathan
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: XathanWhich may be one of the most hilariously accurate things I have heard said about "Race" in fantasy in awhile. So looking at, for example, Pathfinder Gnomes:
Ability Modifiers: So gnomes are healthier but not as strong as most. I can buy that. They are also, genetically, more likable? Affable? Uh...okay, stupid, but not too bad.
Gnome Magic: Okay, gnomes are naturally magical, I can dig it.
Low Light Vision - Alright, works for cats in the real world, so that's totally inborn, go with it.
Defensive Training: So...every gnome ever born ever is trained to fight giants? Even ones born in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest giant, whose great great grandfather wouldn't know a giant from an oak? Is an innate trait of gnomes? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Hatred: OH MY GOD every single gnome ever hates reptiles and goblins no matter what. So a gnome that grew up in an arctic environment has a hatred of reptiles because he despises the way they freeze to death?
This would be valid, except that Pathfinder Gnomes (like all Pathfinder races) are built to be specifically customizable. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/gnome) the page for Gnomes. The traits you described are just the "Standard" or default Racial Traits. There's an entire list of Alternate Racial Traits below that which can be substituted out for things like Hatred, Defensive Training, etc. Don't like Hatred? Sub it out for Warden of Nature or Master Tinker. No need for Weapon Familiarity with your Gnome Wizard? Take Academician, Fell Magic, or Magical Linguist instead. There's also 4 subraces listed for even greater variety, plus a slew of racial feats and class archetypes. These abilities and options are there specifically to fight against the idea of racial monoculture and role-forcing.
And that is why Pathfinder > DnD 3.5. I probably should have referenced the latter Gnomes instead, but I had my Pathfinder core book on me at work, so it was easiest. However, things like what you mentioned is exactly what I think a good system needs to counteract the problems I mentioned.
And really, what Xathan and Steerpike we're talking about is exactly what I've been trying to fix with my own games. Breaking down races into physical aspects and keeping cultural stuff out of the mix. Heck maybe "culture" is to restrictive of a term. Why shouldn't it be based on personality too? Personal quirks, interests, experiences. and so on too influence what types of bonuses you get, and what extra skills you get.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
In FATE, I wanted to stick with the idea of giving bonuses based on race, not penalties, with the idea of avoiding disadvantaging characters (in the way that an elven fighter in D&D 3.X [the system I was coming from] is disadvantaged due to a Con penalty, and so forth). So the crafty and detail-oriented dwarves get a bonus stunt associated with either Investigation or Engineering, and the treacherous seafaring goblins choose their bonus stunt from either Deceit or Sailing.
A problem with modeling bonuses only is that then you cannot represent stuff like dwarves being slow runners due to their short feet. Penalties like that can matter in dramatic ways (eg. a scenario where a group of characters must make a run to escape from danger - do they leave the dwarf behind and bear the guilt if he doesn't make it, or will they put themselves in greater risk to help him out?) and it might feel wrong to just ignore them.
Quote from: Steerpike
I think a selection of extremely unique and/or context specific abilities is better than a selection of generic bonuses/penalties, both because it helps to mitigate the "munchkin factor" of a race while simultaneously making the race feel different or alien. Removing bonuses and abilities altogether just tends to homogenize everything.
I generally agree with this. But I think in cases such as comparing half-orcs to halflings for example, mechanically representing a significant difference in a stat (in this case strength) would be justified, even somewhat necessary; otherwise you might end up with a bothersome disconnect between crunch and fluff. That said, D20-style bonuses/penalties is a pretty bad way to implement it.
Quote from: Newb Auld Lang Syne
Quote from: Xathan
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: XathanWhich may be one of the most hilariously accurate things I have heard said about "Race" in fantasy in awhile. So looking at, for example, Pathfinder Gnomes:
Ability Modifiers: So gnomes are healthier but not as strong as most. I can buy that. They are also, genetically, more likable? Affable? Uh...okay, stupid, but not too bad.
Gnome Magic: Okay, gnomes are naturally magical, I can dig it.
Low Light Vision - Alright, works for cats in the real world, so that's totally inborn, go with it.
Defensive Training: So...every gnome ever born ever is trained to fight giants? Even ones born in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest giant, whose great great grandfather wouldn't know a giant from an oak? Is an innate trait of gnomes? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Hatred: OH MY GOD every single gnome ever hates reptiles and goblins no matter what. So a gnome that grew up in an arctic environment has a hatred of reptiles because he despises the way they freeze to death?
This would be valid, except that Pathfinder Gnomes (like all Pathfinder races) are built to be specifically customizable. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/gnome) the page for Gnomes. The traits you described are just the "Standard" or default Racial Traits. There's an entire list of Alternate Racial Traits below that which can be substituted out for things like Hatred, Defensive Training, etc. Don't like Hatred? Sub it out for Warden of Nature or Master Tinker. No need for Weapon Familiarity with your Gnome Wizard? Take Academician, Fell Magic, or Magical Linguist instead. There's also 4 subraces listed for even greater variety, plus a slew of racial feats and class archetypes. These abilities and options are there specifically to fight against the idea of racial monoculture and role-forcing.
And that is why Pathfinder > DnD 3.5. I probably should have referenced the latter Gnomes instead, but I had my Pathfinder core book on me at work, so it was easiest. However, things like what you mentioned is exactly what I think a good system needs to counteract the problems I mentioned.
And really, what Xathan and Steerpike we're talking about is exactly what I've been trying to fix with my own games. Breaking down races into physical aspects and keeping cultural stuff out of the mix. Heck maybe "culture" is to restrictive of a term. Why shouldn't it be based on personality too? Personal quirks, interests, experiences. and so on too influence what types of bonuses you get, and what extra skills you get.
Or else you add the two together and either have different cultures or race/culture mixes as possible. And also, while designing a wide-open game does not allow for this, I always base my racial/cultural mix (we roll for race, so I actually adjust the race chart based on the area) on the play area.
I have also started to create adjusted social Acquisition charts per game, which is a chart we use to give skill, experience, and item bonuses based on the area and social level of the character in question, which helps build a race/culture back story.
Just my take, but I totally find myself in the camp of adjusting that which should be cultural to fit the area and backstory.
Quote from: Ghostman
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
In FATE, I wanted to stick with the idea of giving bonuses based on race, not penalties, with the idea of avoiding disadvantaging characters (in the way that an elven fighter in D&D 3.X [the system I was coming from] is disadvantaged due to a Con penalty, and so forth). So the crafty and detail-oriented dwarves get a bonus stunt associated with either Investigation or Engineering, and the treacherous seafaring goblins choose their bonus stunt from either Deceit or Sailing.
A problem with modeling bonuses only is that then you cannot represent stuff like dwarves being slow runners due to their short feet. Penalties like that can matter in dramatic ways (eg. a scenario where a group of characters must make a run to escape from danger - do they leave the dwarf behind and bear the guilt if he doesn't make it, or will they put themselves in greater risk to help him out?) and it might feel wrong to just ignore them.
That's actually a good argument in favor of penalties. I guess it's about interesting - dwarves being slower by nature is interesting, dwarves being worse sorcerers by nature is not interesting?
Then again, the dwarven speed penalty would probably be more interesting if it was, instead of "20 feet instead of 30, you're slower" was "Cannot run, only double move" or "Can only move 20 feet on their second move action." It means the dwarf is still slower, so won't be able to run away as well, but it hampers less in individual rounds, so a dwarf isn't going to be hampered in every single fight where archers are present (which is not as interesting as the moral choice a lower speed could create you described earlier).
QuoteBreaking down races into physical aspects and keeping cultural stuff out of the mix. Heck maybe "culture" is to restrictive of a term. Why shouldn't it be based on personality too? Personal quirks, interests, experiences. and so on too influence what types of bonuses you get, and what extra skills you get.
I have no problem with cultural bonuses and abilities, so long as there's a variable selection of them. Lots of systems have the kind of personal traits you describe, though (including Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits)). Iron Heroes, for example, has traits like that as well. Sometimes there's an overlap in d20 here with feats, of course. It's quite possible to have all three: your physical species, your culture, and your personality.
Basically I'm not usually in favour of a less-is-more attitude.
Quote from: Steerpike
Basically I'm not usually in favour of a less-is-more attitude.
I think the majority of people in this thread have the same mindset. Mechanics define your character in so many ways in d20 systems; extreme reductionism typically just kills depth. Granted, I have the opposite mindset when it comes to FATE and other narrativist systems, at which point I'm totally in favor of extreme reductionism in favor of MOAR ASPECTS, but that's another story entirely.
Quote from: Steerpike
Basically I'm not usually in favour of a less-is-more attitude.
Yes, I use less is more in some games, but only if the game is designed to play that way. Less is more is for a gamestyle, not a campaign style. any time I want the crunch to actually support the fluff and synergize, less-is-more goes away.
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: Newb Auld Lang Syne
Quote from: Xathan
Quote from: Steerpike
Quote from: XathanWhich may be one of the most hilariously accurate things I have heard said about "Race" in fantasy in awhile. So looking at, for example, Pathfinder Gnomes:
Ability Modifiers: So gnomes are healthier but not as strong as most. I can buy that. They are also, genetically, more likable? Affable? Uh...okay, stupid, but not too bad.
Gnome Magic: Okay, gnomes are naturally magical, I can dig it.
Low Light Vision - Alright, works for cats in the real world, so that's totally inborn, go with it.
Defensive Training: So...every gnome ever born ever is trained to fight giants? Even ones born in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest giant, whose great great grandfather wouldn't know a giant from an oak? Is an innate trait of gnomes? Yeah, I don't buy it.
Hatred: OH MY GOD every single gnome ever hates reptiles and goblins no matter what. So a gnome that grew up in an arctic environment has a hatred of reptiles because he despises the way they freeze to death?
This would be valid, except that Pathfinder Gnomes (like all Pathfinder races) are built to be specifically customizable. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/gnome) the page for Gnomes. The traits you described are just the "Standard" or default Racial Traits. There's an entire list of Alternate Racial Traits below that which can be substituted out for things like Hatred, Defensive Training, etc. Don't like Hatred? Sub it out for Warden of Nature or Master Tinker. No need for Weapon Familiarity with your Gnome Wizard? Take Academician, Fell Magic, or Magical Linguist instead. There's also 4 subraces listed for even greater variety, plus a slew of racial feats and class archetypes. These abilities and options are there specifically to fight against the idea of racial monoculture and role-forcing.
And that is why Pathfinder > DnD 3.5. I probably should have referenced the latter Gnomes instead, but I had my Pathfinder core book on me at work, so it was easiest. However, things like what you mentioned is exactly what I think a good system needs to counteract the problems I mentioned.
And really, what Xathan and Steerpike we're talking about is exactly what I've been trying to fix with my own games. Breaking down races into physical aspects and keeping cultural stuff out of the mix. Heck maybe "culture" is to restrictive of a term. Why shouldn't it be based on personality too? Personal quirks, interests, experiences. and so on too influence what types of bonuses you get, and what extra skills you get.
Or else you add the two together and either have different cultures or race/culture mixes as possible. And also, while designing a wide-open game does not allow for this, I always base my racial/cultural mix (we roll for race, so I actually adjust the race chart based on the area) on the play area.
I have also started to create adjusted social Acquisition charts per game, which is a chart we use to give skill, experience, and item bonuses based on the area and social level of the character in question, which helps build a race/culture back story.
Just my take, but I totally find myself in the camp of adjusting that which should be cultural to fit the area and backstory.
This!
I prefer to have a list of racial templates that only represent the physiology and instinct of a race (e.g., short, slow, fast, five arms, slimy, get really ill-tempered during rut, instinctively territorial, etc.). Basically, the form and nature of a being that can't really be overriden. Then I have a ton of cultural lenses that get added to the racial one depending on where the PC is from and who raised him, etc. These reflect upbringing, social norms of the culture, etc. Lastly, there is usually a "stigma" lens - for lack of a better word at the moment - that reflects how the predominant society views and treat that race/culture; for example, a Jew in medieval England would have one stigma lens, a Saracen another, a Norseman another, a Frenchman, yet another, etc.
Personality, by nature of GURPS is always a personal choice; although, culture lenses may impose certain attitudes (that the player chose when he picked that cultural lens).
I find this to be the best way to situate a character within a setting using the system, while avoiding a lot of weirdness described above. I'm sure much of it could be adapted to d20 with ease (racial template vs. cultural lens), and the rest probably ignored mechanically (all the social stuff) and just roleplayed out.
I've never liked the fact that races come with ability negatives. I love the idea of a Dwarven Bard but, mechanically, that is a terrible idea due to the Dwarf's -2 Charisma.
I like the idea of only giving positives but that too can have issues. Look at 4E, every race comes with one or two ability bonuses and cool racial features. However, because the system is so heavily invested in making each class attack with a particular attribute, it forces the same kind of "path building" as 3.5. For example, I ant to be a Dwarven Bard but they don't get a bonus to Charisma, so it makes it far more difficult to be the best Bard you can be compared to a race who receives a bonus to Charisma.
This is why I have grown to like the idea of racial abilities being physiological or cultural in nature (i.e. Talking to Burrowing Animals, knowing how to use a particular weapon, being resistant to poison, etc.). I think this system de-emphasizes the meta-/power-gaming nature of a lot of players, which from my perspective is a good thing. I want players to pick the race that they think best fits the vision for their character, not the race who best fits the vision of their character and has good stat bonuses.
Having said that, I think some players might be turned off by that idea because physiological and cultural traits are not as omnipresent or continually useful as say +2 Strength. I think it is incumbent on the DM to make those cultural traits come up in game on a fairly regular basis. Meaning, if someone is playing a Gnome, then make sure to include burrowing animals for him to talk to.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Having said that, I think some players might be turned off by that idea because physiological and cultural traits are not as omnipresent or continually useful as say +2 Strength. I think it is incumbent on the DM to make those cultural traits come up in game on a fairly regular basis. Meaning, if someone is playing a Gnome, then make sure to include burrowing animals for him to talk to.
I totally agree with this, but to an extent, this goes without saying. The reverse is just as true (though rarely an issue): if a player makes a combat monster, it's up to the DM to toss some combat his way fairly regularly.
While I do think it is perfectly acceptable for a racial template to include physiological drawbacks (a dwarf can't help having stumpy legs that don't let him move quickly, just as elves can't help being fragile), I do want those drawbacks to make sense and a result of the species' physiology and not just "cuz all dwarves hate orcs!" Even things like Stonecunning is cultural; a dwarf raised by humans in a human city should lack it.
An easy way to get around this in d20 is riffing on Iron Heroes chargen. Treat everyone as "human" and give everyone an extra feat or two (DM choice) that can be drawn from any feat, or a special pool only available for this purpose. The special pool of feats contains feat-power "racial" benefits like Stonecunning or Speak with Burrowing Animals. If you take these, you're effectively transforming your PC into a dwarf or gnome, but you still place (or roll, if you're hardcore) your attributes and can make a strong dwarf, a sickly dwarf, a charismatic dwarf, etc.
The closest thing Asura has to different races for player characters is its set of Asura lineages. As many of you are probably aware, the Asura system is quite FATE-like, so one the main ways I use to distinguish them is their aspects.
I have written in the rules that at least one of an Asura's aspects should focus on his or her lineage, and possibly more, if the character is an extremely typical or atypical example of that lineage. I am not a big fan of all kinds of small (and somewhat stereotypical) racial bonuses and penalties. I prefer to outline the broad strokes of each Asura lineage in fluff, and then use the flexible nature of aspects to give it meaning in crunch.
The other thing I did was roughly similar to LC's approach with stunts. Asuras can use Prana Powers, which are sources of spiritual or magical power that flows through them; it is part of what makes them beyond human. Each Asura lineage has certain Prana Powers that are more suited to them, and helps to define what the lineage is and what its little "niche" in the world is. For example, Faeries have various powers of creation and wonderment, whereas Revenants are more related to death and nasty stuff. Because these are supernatural powers, though, I feel like it might at least somewhat escape the "not getting a bonus is the same as getting a penalty" problem-- any lineage can excel at the more mundane skills, and the powers are flexible enough that I could certainly see a Faerie con artist using Glamour while a Progenitor con artist uses Scientia, or whatever, as both can advance the cause of "fooling people into doing what I want," just in ways that match the flavor of each lineage.
Each Asura lineage also has its own source of sustenance: Demons feeding on suffering, Succubi on pleasure, and so on. Right now, I don't have any particular crunch to handle this. I could, though-- I'm just not sure as to whether "feeding" mechanics would even add something or just be something annoying that would get ignored in most games. Right now, it usually just connects to an aspect, and a certain need to feed makes a good compel. Maybe, in a FATE-like system, that's the best way to do it.
Quote from: sparkletwistEach Asura lineage also has its own source of sustenance: Demons feeding on suffering, Succubi on pleasure, and so on. Right now, I don't have any particular crunch to handle this. I could, though-- I'm just not sure as to whether "feeding" mechanics would even add something or just be something annoying that would get ignored in most games. Right now, it usually just connects to an aspect, and a certain need to feed makes a good compel. Maybe, in a FATE-like system, that's the best way to do it.
Quite likely. "You need this
now" is pretty well-handled by aspect compels in FATE. (In fact, that's exactly how Dresden Files handles the hungers of its various categories of vampires, which seems fairly analogous.)
Another possible option would be to take another page from White Wolf, in terms of merging the game mechanic concept of a currency of points used to fuel your powers with the in-fiction concept of a resource/requirement/craving that characters are aware of and must take care to acquire and manage. I'm not sure what your mechanics look like nowadays or whether there is any sort of "mana pool" associated with Prana Powers, but if so, it might serve as powerful thematic reinforcement to have each lineage use a different method for topping off the tank.
Okay so here's a question about the Race Builder for Pathfinder. I overall like it. However there was one thing that was bugging me.
Let's say I want to make a race that's not humanoid. Let's say in theory I wanted a race of sentient cat-like creatures with innate psionic abilities. Not catfolk, actual four legged cats that can pick things up with their brains and shoot lasers out of their eyes. Their every bit as intelligent as humans, and they have an organized society. So their not animals, and magical beast isn't even considered on the Race Builder.
The root problem I have with the Race Builder is that it presumes you only want to play as something with hands. Even the Quadruped option gives you four legs and two arms and hands. What then am I supposed to do when I want a race of talking platypus that can conduct electricity from there bills and fry all unsuspecting fools that dare to follow them into his natural habitat? Not magical beasts mind you. There not animals, they are talking sentient creatures who just happen to be either magical platypuses, or closely related to platypuses. They have a ridged society, and a deeply rooted culture in the worship of the great proto-mammal, who laid the great eggs of creation, and while two of it's hatchlings stuck to the true ways of egg laying, the rest of the warm blooded children went to the dark paths of wombs, or the unholy paths of pouch-raising.....
I'm sorry what was I talking about?
Could some quick house-ruling solve it pretty easily? Pretty much the only reason Pathfinder assumes the humanoid template is because of magic item slots. The addition of some alternate magic item slots and/or house-rules for wearing rings, gauntlets, necklaces etc on fingerless/wristless/neckless creatures could work...
Fantasy games in general seem a bit anthropocentric, with a lot of humanoid races and few really odd ones. I think crunch often reflects this bias.
You should probably just make something up and go with it. Obviously, if you just make something up you won't have a "Racial Point" cost associated with it, but what the Race Builder spits out isn't really anything resembling balanced anyway, so that doesn't really matter. (I know it is designed for GMs, not players, so all the ways to min-max it are a little pointless, but what I'm trying to say is that you don't have to worry about the point costs working out because they don't make any sense anyway)
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
So we've been having a bit of fun in the Tavern, picking apart the post of some poor blogger on the subject of races. I have my own issues with the particulars of that post, but I think the general idea-- that race stats as done in D&D are pretty unsatisfying for a variety of reasons.
If you use a world/system with different playable races or race-analogues (species, cultures, whatever you want to call them-- I think the word "race" is problematic as well and would like to get away from it, which is tough considering how entrenched it is in the gaming lexicon), do you differentiate them mechanically, and if so, how?
You can check my current work out in some detail here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26738 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26738) What I basically do is treat it similarly to a class. In this case, this means a free maxed out ability score, a bit of a skill list, and some fitting feats where necessary. One thing that might interest you is that I'm adding to the skill *list* rather than giving bonuses. This makes these cultural benefits more optional, and also sets the best dwarf craftsmen up as being equal with the best elf and human craftsmen (so if you want to make the best possible crafting character, you still have options).
Here's the root problem I'm having with my game specifically. My campaign setting is set primarily in America. Roaring twenties America to be exact. There are a ton of cultures and environments in this country. The northwest is completely different from the northeast, and the southwest is not the same as the southeast. Am I supposed to take into account every single culture on the planet and somehow put them into statistical measures, or should I take into account a creatures base physical features, and let the players and I fill in the rest of the space?
I would go with (non-human) physical features only. Is this d20 or something else? If d20, you could always go with Occupations as they did in d20 modern to help reflect different cultures...
Quote from: Steerpike
I would go with (non-human) physical features only. Is this d20 or something else? If d20, you could always go with Occupations as they did in d20 modern to help reflect different cultures...
Yes! Thank you, Steerpike! I'm going to go look into that again.
These are perfect!
Quote from: Newb Auld Lang Syne
Here's the root problem I'm having with my game specifically. My campaign setting is set primarily in America. Roaring twenties America to be exact. There are a ton of cultures and environments in this country. The northwest is completely different from the northeast, and the southwest is not the same as the southeast. Am I supposed to take into account every single culture on the planet and somehow put them into statistical measures, or should I take into account a creatures base physical features, and let the players and I fill in the rest of the space?
If you're describing player options as "creatures" at all, yes, purely physical differences along these lines are probably ideal. Unless I'm missing some context anyway. It might be nice to be able to choose localized backgrounds (with options keyed to this area) in addition to professions or classes if you have those. The question is pretty setting dependent though.
When we describe the species "baseline" as the human average we automatically prejudice our approach to the other species' attributes as deviations from that average.
My solution to this problem was to identify a few "core" human characteristics, which most species would consider novel, and to distribute the majority of humankind's attributes at varied distances from the mean without altering the real-world values that those attributes represent.
For example, here's part of my human writeup from a jury-rigged AW-hack adventure:
[ic=Humans]Humans are remarkably quick to form likeminded collectives and establish idiosyncratic norms of behaviour. Their behaviour is not more variable in practical terms, but they are given to exotic and impractical embellishments. They are exceptionally promiscuous and subject to vicissitudes of temper.
Human intellectual development is swift and evinces exceptional spatial and logical competency, with truly remarkable outliers. Their potential is predominantly front-loaded: a human being in its early adulthood already manifests the bulk of its talents and will not evince significant new capacities in later life.
Humans are intensely social and engage in verbal communication almost reflexively, even when they have little content to share. In fact, it is not uncommon for humans experiencing prolonged isolation to converse with themselves. Most species find human verbosity off-putting. Uniquely, most adult humans cannot differentiate the higher frequencies used by spectral races.
Because facial expressions are a vital component of human communication, humans have difficulty empathising with entities who lack humanoid faces. This is exacerbated with species such as seelie and undines, whose faces are humanoid but do not emote in a typically mammalian fashion: such creatures cause confusion or even distress in human beings.
Humans are uncommonly swift on the ground, and with little practice can be as dextrous climbers as any anthroid.[/ic]
This description contains numerous exceptions which prove some general cross-species rules.
Most species speak less than humans, yet are intuitively better at recognising the personhood of other species. They reproduce slower than we do, are more emotionally stable, and continue to "mature" long after a human personality would be fully expressed.
[ooc=In Perspective]Here's a slice of the human stat block:
+1 reason
-1 scent
-1 empathy (inhuman expression) stacks with the typical penalty for interspecies empathy
+1 speech
+1 move
+1 climb
-1 focus
-1 will
spectral deafness (unless a child, or otherwise specified)
A slice of the seelie stat block, by comparison:
zero empathy (seelie cannot discern or comprehend emotion)
+1 grace
+1 listen
+1 focus
-1 will[/ooc]
I have long been a fan of not making humans the "base" species but instead making them (us?) stand out in some way, just like every other species in the setting. It's something that's a little hard to do, because of our own inherent biases-- but I generally like what people come up with. It's also sort of interesting what different people come up with as the different strengths and weaknesses of the human race relative to the other races. Of course, it is all relative, so there's no "right answer."
On the race/culture divide, this only matters if the race is vast, such that more than one culture exists. If you look at races in mythology, class fantasy, and sometimes D&D, sometimes they only live in a single community.
Quote from: sparkletwist
I have long been a fan of not making humans the "base" species but instead making them (us?) stand out in some way, just like every other species in the setting. It's something that's a little hard to do, because of our own inherent biases-- but I generally like what people come up with. It's also sort of interesting what different people come up with as the different strengths and weaknesses of the human race relative to the other races. Of course, it is all relative, so there's no "right answer."
If other races have no disadvantages, only advantages, then giving humans an advantage seems compulsory.
In the new Torchbearer rpg, races are distinguished by their Natures. Each race has three descriptors that determine the contexts in which they can roll their Nature stat instead of a skill or attribute without penalty.
For Elves it's Singing, Remembering and Hiding. For Halflings it's Sneaking, Riddling and Merrymaking. For Dwarves it's Delving, Crafting and Avenging a Grudge. For Humans it's Boasting, Demanding and Running.
When you succeed a Nature roll to accomplish something within your nature, you suffer no penalty to that stat. When you succeed on a Nature roll to accomplish something outside of your nature, your Nature is taxed, reducing its effective rating by one. When you fail a Nature roll under either circumstance you are suffer tax equal to your margin of failure. When your effective Nature reaches zero, your actual Nature is reduced by one.
A character with a maximum Nature of 7 at the end of an adventure retires from the adventuring life. An elf journeys West; a dwarf returns to his mountain fastness; a human or halfling seeks a life of contentment and quiet. They also retire at maximum Nature 0, but the game is rather more ambiguous as to their fate...
When it comes to humans in fantasy settings (and I guess sci-fi ones as well), I can generally stand having them be either a) the most adaptable, b) the most populous, or c) the ones in charge, but not all three. I'm especially off-put by the last one, where humans occupy pretty much all positions of power, for a couple of reasons. For one, I think making elves and dwarves and the like "dying races" is dreadfully Tolkien, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be politically-subordinate when dwarves are stronger and tougher and elves are smarter and faster. Even if they are less numerous, I still think they'd be the ones to hold sway in their tradition domains (mountainous and forested lands, respectively). Personally, the setting I think handled this the best in recent years was the Mass Effect series: humans are by far the most adaptable and are on the rapid expansion, but they're still not as cultured or populous as the asari, as powerful as the turians, or as advanced as the salarians. Of course, that is a matter of pure fluff.
While this solution obviously wouldn't be of much use in a crunchier system, for a rules-lite game, I'd be in favor of making all races identical stats-wise but giving them some sort of racial aspect that they can invoke where appropriate, such as a dwarf navigating underground or an elf understanding the political balance of the Forest Kings.
Humans naturally gravitate to lying in the middle ground in Sci-Fi/Fantasy because we are in fact, unlike all other races/species, real. Why are Humans the most adaptable? Because there are thousands of cultures on Earth that run the gamut from mighty to meager, technological to natural. We are a diverse species who consistently defies pan-cultural conventions. It would pop the reader's/player's suspension of disbelief if Humans were cast in the same narrow stereotypical vision that every other race/species is cast.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIt would pop the reader's/player's suspension of disbelief if Humans were cast in the same narrow stereotypical vision that every other race/species is cast.
For me, personally, it pops my suspension of disbelief just as fast when humans are given such exceptionalism. I personally prefer that
every sentient species be given a lot of latitude in how its different individuals and cultures can develop. I dislike two dimensional race cultures, e.g., "The Elves", "The Orcs."
That said, I think there are certain racial commonalities that are older than culture that we can pick out for humans when we look at humans relative to
other animals, of which there are plenty of examples. For example, humans might be the "quick race" because we did evolve to be good at running, or something.
Or, yeah, you could actually take the "adaptable" thing and make that an actual thing in the sense of how our technology progressed so crazy fast because we're willing to take stupid risks that smarter and more introspective races wouldn't-- I think a couple of sci-fi settings have done it this way.
I'm firmly with sparkletwist - I don't see why every race shouldn't have a wide variety of cultures. Ironically, some of the better-known fantasy settings do this remarkable well with races like Elves. In Middle Earth there's the Noldor, the Grey-Elves (Sindar), the Green-Elves (Nandor), the Falmari, and more, who all have different philosophies and dialects, and sometimes quite distinct cultures. Orcs aren't quite as good but there are still definitely variations, with Moria Orcs, Uruk-Hai, and Mordor Orcs all feel relatively distinct. The Forgotten Relams has enough Elven subraces to sink a battleship (green elves, moon elves, star elves, sun elves, wood elves, drow, avariel, sea elves, lythari, etc) and a pretty decent number of Orc subraces (mountain, grey, orog, thayanm. Bethesda's Elder Scrolls also does this well.
Humans could be the mundane race, the only ones that aren't inherently in touch with the supernatural side of things. That's why magic-users are so rare among them, and have to mess with clumsy and awkward techniques such as ritual incantations and alchemical components - they're trying to break the laws of the universe and do something they, as humans, aren't supposed to be able to do. All the other races OTOH would be more or less fey, kindred to the forces of nature or the elements or whatever, and thus able to intuitively perform some "impossible" feats, though the power and range of their talents may vary greatly from one individual to the next.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIt would pop the reader's/player's suspension of disbelief if Humans were cast in the same narrow stereotypical vision that every other race/species is cast.
For me, personally, it pops my suspension of disbelief just as fast when humans are given such exceptionalism. I personally prefer that every sentient species be given a lot of latitude in how its different individuals and cultures can develop. I dislike two dimensional race cultures, e.g., "The Elves", "The Orcs."
I don't know if it is exceptionalism so much as a broader understanding of the nuance between human cultures coupled with a relatively unrefined approach taken with other races. We can look at a culture based on medieval France and see the differences it shares with a culture based on medieval Italian culture. We understand the differences even though, to an outsider, they appear relatively similar. If you took the same nuanced approach with Elves,it would lead to people not seeing a huge difference. This is why stereotypes develop to over exaggerate the difference, thereby making the differences obvious even to casual viewers/readers/fans. "High Elves and Wood Elves are totally different because one lives in a Forest and the other abuses magic."
Don't get me wrong, I really do wish all races were given the same latitude as humans but, sadly, it's just easier/lazier for writers to go with the stereotype rather than give characters the depth they deserve. As an aside, I think the concept of a rejection of a stereotypical culture (i.e. Drizzt) is a great way to give a character a degree of subtly, so long as the character isn't a raging rejection of his culture (like, say, a C/E Pyromantic Wood Elf).
Quote from: sparkletwist
That said, I think there are certain racial commonalities that are older than culture that we can pick out for humans when we look at humans relative to other animals, of which there are plenty of examples. For example, humans might be the "quick race" because we did evolve to be good at running, or something.
Or, yeah, you could actually take the "adaptable" thing and make that an actual thing in the sense of how our technology progressed so crazy fast because we're willing to take stupid risks that smarter and more introspective races wouldn't-- I think a couple of sci-fi settings have done it this way.
Relative to to other animals, humans are extraordinarily intelligent yet at the same time possesses a deep seated penchant for being close minded. Humans are constantly inventing new ways of killing one another yet - as a culture - generally value peace. Humans possess the ability to eliminate hunger and want but chose not to out of petty self-interest and greed. Humanity is a big ball of contradictions. That's why humans are hard to pin down in the same way manufactured races/species are not.
Something I have long toyed with has been just outright sticking a stereotype on Humans and saying, "The humans of this world are different than the humans of the real world. They exist in a world that contains other races/species and that has inexorably altered their psyche and culture. Humans, in this world, are stereotype X, Y and Z."
Quote from: Steerpike
. The Forgotten Relams has enough Elven subraces to sink a battleship (green elves, moon elves, star elves, sun elves, wood elves, drow, avariel, sea elves, lythari, etc) and a pretty decent number of Orc subraces (mountain, grey, orog, thayanm. Bethesda's Elder Scrolls also does this well.
I will agree that your examples are definitely some of the best examples we have in fiction but, to me, they still feel like stereotypes simply with in-world fluff created to justify those stereotypes. I mean how different are Sun Elves and Altmer? They are both magic loving, gold-colored Elves who view themselves as a cut above all other races (and sub races), live on an island, worship a god of magic, view themselves as the inheritors of a great legacy, have very hierarchical cultures that emphasize lineage and magic, and are, generally speaking, physically weaker than other races.
Star Elves, Avariel, Sea Elves and Lythari are bad examples because their key difference is based on something about them being wildly different (coming from another plane, having wings, living in the sea or being lycans). All four of those could easily be a different, unconnected race (Star Elves least so), and in many ways they are leeching fluff from other races to drive home their differences (we already have merpeople, Raptorans and good Lycans).
Drow, I think, are in a different category. They have, by far, the most amount of fluff for them as a people (at least for modern fiction) and showcase a lot of nuance between characters, families and cities, almost to the same level as one would expect of the complexity of culture and characterization found in humans.
Quote from: Elemental ElfThat's why humans are hard to pin down in the same way manufactured races/species are not.
Isn't that as much a comment on lazy world-building, though? What I mean is,
should we be treating non-human races as easy-to-pin-down? Wouldn't it be better to imagine them more complexly?
Quote from: Elemental ElfDon't get me wrong, I really do wish all races were given the same latitude as humans but, sadly, it's just easier/lazier for writers to go with the stereotype rather than give characters the depth they deserve.
Right! This.
Quote from: Elemental ElfI mean how different are Sun Elves and Altmer?
Those are from different worlds, though - Faerun and Tamriel. I mean, I agree that they both draw on a common (perhaps cliched) stereotype/trope of what "Elven culture" looks like, if that's what you mean. But both exist in settings where they're just one of several ethnicities/subraces/cultures of Elves.
Quote from: Elemental ElfStar Elves, Avariel, Sea Elves and Lythari are bad examples because their key difference is based on something about them being wildly different (coming from another plane, having wings, living in the sea or being lycans). All four of those could easily be a different, unconnected race (Star Elves least so), and in many ways they are leeching fluff from other races to drive home their differences (we already have merpeople, Raptorans and good Lycans).
That's an interesting point. I'm not a huge fan of Forgotten Realms or something, and its approach to race isn't ideal, I just brought it up because it seems like there's a pretty diverse array of creatures all considered "Elves" in the setting.
Tamriel is probably a much better example. The Altmer, Bosmer, Falmer, Dwemer, Ayleids, Dunmer/Chimer, Maormer, and even Orsimer are all Elves/Mer, but they all look different and have unique cultures, just like the human ethnicities and cultures in thse setting (Nords, Redguard, Bretons, Imperials, etc). I think this approach is preferable to picking a single racial stereotype, for humans or non-humans. If humans have a diverse array of cultures and traits, why not other races as well? Why employ stereotypes at all?
EDIT: Tamriel is a particularly good example because there are also sub-cultures within the various Elven cultures - so the Dunmer, for example, can be seperated into the Ashlanders, the various Dunmer of the Great Houses, and Outlander Dunmer who no longer live in Morrowind. Also because some of the fantasy cliches (not all) get twisted/subverted in Tamriel - so the Altmer may be good-looking, tall, sorcerous types, but in Skyrim they're also presented as manipulative, xenophobic fascists using religious persecution as a means of furthering their imperialist goals. The Bosmer are good-natured, agile tree-lovers and archers, but they're also carnivorous and cannibalistic, and some can shapechange into feral beasts. Etcetera.
Also...
Quote from: Elemental ELfAs an aside, I think the concept of a rejection of a stereotypical culture (i.e. Drizzt) is a great way to give a character a degree of subtly, so long as the character isn't a raging rejection of his culture (like, say, a C/E Pyromantic Wood Elf).
Hmm, interesting. Why would it be bad for them to reject their culture whole-heartedly, though? Plenty of real-world people reject their culture strongly, sometimes even forming deliberate counter-cultures. I think the idea of a Wood Elf punk-pyromancer who wants to burn down the forest is sort of awesome! Maybe he's been outcast or rejected by Woof Elf society. Maybe he's just insane. Maybe he's the fanatical founder of a crazy fire-cult who thinks the flames speak to him.
Quote from: SteerpikeQuote from: Elemental ElfThat's why humans are hard to pin down in the same way manufactured races/species are not.
Isn't that as much a comment on lazy world-building, though? What I mean is, should we be treating non-human races as easy-to-pin-down? Wouldn't it be better to imagine them more complexly?
I agree. I mean, when you say:
Quote from: Elemental_ElfHumanity is a big ball of contradictions.
That is true, but I feel like there's no reason other races can't be given their own interesting contradictions. I mean, enough has been written about different fantasy races that even in just looking at the works of different authors you can get some interesting contradictions-- Dwarves are gregarious vs. Dwarves are surly, Elves are noble and cultured vs. Elves live a wild existence in the woods, and so on.
Some of humanity's behaviours are hundreds of millions of years old, while some cannot be found even in our recent predecessors. Even our comparatively modern behavioural developments are the products of different stimuli and don't always play well together.
Our brains are designed to cope with near-constant scarcity and require deliberate maintenance in "civilised" times because there are no environmental stressors to keep us active, fit and engaged (not to mention the complications produced by an overabundance of fats, sugars, sexual stimuli, etcetera). What scarcities threatened other species in their prehistories and what maladaptations plague them in modernity?