The Campaign Builder's Guild

I have several human strains in a world that I am building that resemble, physically, several strains of humanity on Earth.  While I don't want to draw a direct line of comparison between the two, to avoid prejudices or assumptions about a race regarding anything other than physiology or physical appearance, sometimes I find that it's the best way to explain the races without proper visual aids.


My question regarding this situation is two-fold:

1.  If using real world racial descriptors or comparisons to illustrate human strains in your game world at what point does it become 'racial profiling' or crossing a line in regards to racial prejudices?  

2.  Even if one could use real life examples to better describe game world races does it detract from the fantasy?  Sometimes it leads to assumptions about a game race's philosophies, religion, or government if based on a real life example.

If I could draw or could afford to commission an artist to produce visual aids this wouldn't be such an issue.  However, these races are so vivid in my mind I want to translate them into words the best way I can, but I don't want to offend anyone in the process.

i think it crosses a line when you begin to stereotype real world races... Which, sadly, is the point of sub-races. Are going to say Whites have a +2 CON, Blacks +2 STR and Asians +2 DEX? What about mental stats? Are going to say Asians get +2 INT? Its all good and well to give bonuses but what about negatives...? You'd be better served by changing the bonuses to non-ability scores based on each race's culture.

Quote from: Elemental_Elfi think it crosses a line when you begin to stereotype real world races... Which, sadly, is the point of sub-races. I think you'd be better served by inventing your own breeds of human. Are going to say Whites have a +2 CON, Blacks +2 STR and Asians +2 DEX? What about mental stats? Are going to say Asians get +2 INT? Its all good and well to give bonuses but what about negatives...? You'd be better served by changing the bonuses to non-ability scores based on each race's culture.

There are no correlations between real world races and any bonuses, per se.  I am only referring to their appearance.  The various game world strains do have a Racial Template, but bonuses are based on divine affiliation, environment, and culture, etc. and not on any real world correlation.

I do agree with you that I am better served by creating my own breeds of human.  For my part, they are unique.  For instance, the Nimbraalese are dark skinned, but would it be fair to say they resemble Africans?  I realize there are "white" Africans, and that might create confusion along with coming dangerously close to stereotyping Africans.  Also, their culture doesn't reflect any known African culture or nation.  Certainly, some of these cultures and strains are inspired by real world examples, but as a whole that is not what they are (in the game world).  I am just not sure where that line is.

Quote from: Porklet

Quote from: Elemental_Elfi think it crosses a line when you begin to stereotype real world races... Which, sadly, is the point of sub-races. I think you'd be better served by inventing your own breeds of human. Are going to say Whites have a +2 CON, Blacks +2 STR and Asians +2 DEX? What about mental stats? Are going to say Asians get +2 INT? Its all good and well to give bonuses but what about negatives...? You'd be better served by changing the bonuses to non-ability scores based on each race's culture.

There are no correlations between real world races and any bonuses, per se.  I am only referring to their appearance.  The various game world strains do have a Racial Template, but bonuses are based on divine affiliation, environment, and culture, etc. and not on any real world correlation.

I do agree with you that I am better served by creating my own breeds of human.  For my part, they are unique.  For instance, the Nimbraalese are dark skinned, but would it be fair to say they resemble Africans?  I realize there are "white" Africans, and that might create confusion along with coming dangerously close to stereotyping Africans.  Also, their culture doesn't reflect any known African culture or nation.  Certainly, some of these cultures and strains are inspired by real world examples, but as a whole that is not what they are (in the game world).  I am just not sure where that line is.

Ok, yeah I misunderstood where you were going, I thought you were trying to make in-game representations of the real world races, sorry :( .  I don't see any problem emulating things such as what you are talking about. Fantasy is far too focused on European and Arab stocks, so it would be a nice to see other stocks/races. In the example, I don't think there is any risk of 'taking it too far.' Actually, its exactly what I was going to suggest. Basing the different bonuses off of culture (and in your situation the gods) is actually a great idea. Far too often Fantasy just lumps all humans together in 1 racial category and blames the lack of mechanical differences on human's natural drive to succeed. Which is, in reality, a timid man's (pr company's) excuse to leave the leave the race button alone.

Be careful with culture based bonuses too. Dwarves who all fight goblins and giants well are kind of silly (across the board racial enmity and combat proficiency? unlikely).

Something that only certain characters get might be nice. Like adding to class skill lists based on culture (the city on the water lets everyone have swim as a class skill. in the city of scribes the same applies to language) even if the knowledge is easily available or the profession fairly common, not everyone invests in it. Or maybe weapon familiarity (only those who already specialize in combat benefit). Favored classes too.

QuoteOk, yeah I misunderstood where you were going, I thought you were trying to make in-game representations of the real world races, sorry  . I don't see any problem emulating things such as what you are talking about. Fantasy is far too focused on European and Arab stocks, so it would be a nice to see other stocks/races. In the example, I don't think there is any risk of 'taking it too far.' Actually, its exactly what I was going to suggest. Basing the different bonuses off of culture (and in your situation the gods) is actually a great idea. Far too often Fantasy just lumps all humans together in 1 racial category and blames the lack of mechanical differences on human's natural drive to succeed. Which is, in reality, a timid man's (pr company's) excuse to leave the leave the race button alone.

No sweat.  I don't wish to make a commentary on any real world ethnicity, but attributing appearances (only) to real world examples seems like an acceptable way to convey an idea.  

If that is acceptable I am only left with one problem.  Does using real world examples of race negatively affect the mystery or flavor of a fantasy world?  There are already real life correlations between the two: the animal world, the sun, the taste of an orange, etc., but I think races and environment are the primary building blocks for a fantasy game world.  I just don't want to lessen the effect of having new and unique human strains to play and explore by referencing real world examples.

Quote from: beejazzBe careful with culture based bonuses too. Dwarves who all fight goblins and giants well are kind of silly (across the board racial enmity and combat proficiency? unlikely).

Something that only certain characters get might be nice. Like adding to class skill lists based on culture (the city on the water lets everyone have swim as a class skill. in the city of scribes the same applies to language) even if the knowledge is easily available or the profession fairly common, not everyone invests in it. Or maybe weapon familiarity (only those who already specialize in combat benefit). Favored classes too.

I agree in regards to broad personality traits and skills.  Your advice is well received.  The primary subject matter would be literacy, languages available, size modifiers, environmental factors (such as cold resistance for an arctic dwelling culture), and divine gifts or influence.  There will be a menu of skills that can be had at discount or with bonuses to reflect cultural practices (just as you suggested), but they are not required.

I had toyed with the idea of some racial reaction modifiers based on certain factors; a war between two neighboring races/nations in one case and a strange, almost alien, appearance in another.  However, these types of modifiers can be handled on a personal level.  If the player is informed of these circumstances they can decide for themselves what form, if any, those modifiers take, and I can make those same choices for the NPC's.

In terms of the mystery element, what do you mean exactly by "real world races"?  Do you simply mean "humans with various skin tones"?

Quote from: PorkletNo sweat.  I don't wish to make a commentary on any real world ethnicity, but attributing appearances (only) to real world examples seems like an acceptable way to convey an idea.  

If that is acceptable I am only left with one problem.  Does using real world examples of race negatively affect the mystery or flavor of a fantasy world?  There are already real life correlations between the two: the animal world, the sun, the taste of an orange, etc., but I think races and environment are the primary building blocks for a fantasy game world.  I just don't want to lessen the effect of having new and unique human strains to play and explore by referencing real world examples.

So you fear that if instead of an Orc, the PCs fight a tall, muscular dark-skinned human your players would jarred out of the fantasy? Well, it is a possibility. The minute you humanize an enemy you run the risk of bringing IRL morality and issues into the game. I wouldn't fret too much about it, as long as your players are made well aware of your world and its trappings compared to a generic D&D world.  :)

As for the issue with cultural bonuses, the easiest way to get around this is to offer many different sets of traits. Most nations are quite complex and excel at far more than a single area.

So perhaps you have an island country where the people are well known for their mercantile skills (+2 to Diplomacy and Bluff). At the same time, being on an island, the country would also excel at naval affairs (+2 at Use Rope and Balance checks). Finally the country has had many wars with the Blackear Orcs who live in the caves of a nearby mountain (+2 to attack rolls against Blackear Orcs). To express this you could allow the PC to choose 2 of the 3. This system really helps the PCs customize their characters.

You could take it a step further and have supra-national/regional traits. For example a particular area could be divided in half 2 powers. Just because the countries divide the land does not necessarily mean the people move to one side or the other. Continuing with the example from above, Country A (from before) recently annexed half a coastal river basin from Country B. Country B is much more militant and encourages every citizen to train with a Crossbow by their early teens (free weapon focus). Further the people from Country B have always had a keener eyes than most (+2 to spot checks) and more adept at hiding in woods (+2 to hide checks made in forests).

So lets say a person was born on Country A's side of the river basin some years after the annexation. This character's parents would have been citizens of country B, so they could have emphasized those cultural traits or perhaps the family adopted their new ruler's culture and encouraged their son to take live like a citizen of Country A. Or perhaps in a more likely scenario, the character took the middle road and balanced the two cultures. Mechanically he could choose any combination of 2 traits from either Country A or Country B.

Of course in the end, this does force the DM to be very knowledgeable about his setting and either set up zones of admixture or allow the Players the right to justify a particular combination... Of course the easier way of dealing with this is just describing a given country's/nation's culture and allow the PCs an extra feat that must be culturally relevant to where they grew up or who they grew up with.  

Quote from: SteerpikeIn terms of the mystery element, what do you mean exactly by "real world races"?  Do you simply mean "humans with various skin tones"?

Not entirely.  There are some strains that would resemble real world races almost entirely in appearance, but their culture would be different in almost every way.  

When I say mystery I am referring to coloring the player's perception of the fantasy race to the point where it becomes mundane, or they make erroneous correlations based on real world examples.  The ideal solution is to have visual aids, but I am no artist.  I don't know how acceptable it is to use artist's renderings downloaded from the internet to use as a visual representation, and I would prefer to find another way to "paint the picture".

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: PorkletNo sweat.  I don't wish to make a commentary on any real world ethnicity, but attributing appearances (only) to real world examples seems like an acceptable way to convey an idea.  

If that is acceptable I am only left with one problem.  Does using real world examples of race negatively affect the mystery or flavor of a fantasy world?  There are already real life correlations between the two: the animal world, the sun, the taste of an orange, etc., but I think races and environment are the primary building blocks for a fantasy game world.  I just don't want to lessen the effect of having new and unique human strains to play and explore by referencing real world examples.

So you fear that if instead of an Orc, the PCs fight a tall, muscular dark-skinned human your players would jarred out of the fantasy? Well, it is a possibility. The minute you humanize an enemy you run the risk of bringing IRL morality and issues into the game. I wouldn't fret too much about it, as long as your players are made well aware of your world and its trappings compared to a generic D&D world.  :)

As for the issue with cultural bonuses, the easiest way to get around this is to offer many different sets of traits. Most nations are quite complex and excel at far more than a single area.

So perhaps you have an island country where the people are well known for their mercantile skills (+2 to Diplomacy and Bluff). At the same time, being on an island, the country would also excel at naval affairs (+2 at Use Rope and Balance checks). Finally the country has had many wars with the Blackear Orcs who live in the caves of a nearby mountain (+2 to attack rolls against Blackear Orcs). To express this you could allow the PC to choose 2 of the 3. This system really helps the PCs customize their characters.

You could take it a step further and have supra-national/regional traits. For example a particular area could be divided in half 2 powers. Just because the countries divide the land does not necessarily mean the people move to one side or the other. Continuing with the example from above, Country A (from before) recently annexed half a coastal river basin from Country B. Country B is much more militant and encourages every citizen to train with a Crossbow by their early teens (free weapon focus). Further the people from Country B have always had a keener eyes than most (+2 to spot checks) and more adept at hiding in woods (+2 to hide checks made in forests).

So lets say a person was born on Country A's side of the river basin some years after the annexation. This character's parents would have been citizens of country B, so they could have emphasized those cultural traits or perhaps the family adopted their new ruler's culture and encouraged their son to take live like a citizen of Country A. Or perhaps in a more likely scenario, the character took the middle road and balanced the two cultures. Mechanically he could choose any combination of 2 traits from either Country A or Country B.

Of course in the end, this does force the DM to be very knowledgeable about his setting and either set up zones of admixture or allow the Players the right to justify a particular combination... Of course the easier way of dealing with this is just describing a given country's/nation's culture and allow the PCs an extra feat that must be culturally relevant to where they grew up or who they grew up with.  

I am mainly referring to the write-ups for the human strains.  When a player reads the information, and I am not there to clarify, then we run the risk of the player making known mundane assumptions about the race in question.  For example, is it clearer or does it add flavor to say the Nimbraalese are "ebony skinned with black curly hair and dark eyes ranging from various browns to forest green" or describe them as "dark skinned Africans".  I don't want to cross a line and offend someone, and the reference to "Africans" is mundane and has the potential to make the race seem more bland or stereotypical.

EDIT:  Now that I have typed it out and had a chance to take it in I think it is an imminently better choice to customize the racial descriptions rather than make any sort of real world reference.

That's a great idea regarding regional skills.  There are several areas where this would apply.  Along the southern coast there are 4 states that have at one point, or another, controlled some or all of the others.  One in particular was dominant for over two hundred years.  This might create a widespread cultural effect governing known skills, language, literacy, etc.  They might even have a shared Area Knowledge.  Another area is a series of island chains that have had contact for centuries.  There might be skills and knowledge that transcend national boundaries.  I am going to work that into the racial/national/regional templates.

I don't see any problem with using real world terminology. I think it can be a good way to present a general picture of how people in each corner of the world look like.

For my Savage Age I'm planning to make two world maps just for the purpose of displaying ethnic distribution: one would have the major geographic areas labeled so that you can, at a glance, check wether the inhabitants are australoids, caucasoids, mongoloids or negroids. (A heavy simplification for sure, but it's also a very quick and easy way to state what kind of facial features will be the norm among members of a given population. Not to mention that communicating such details in written descriptions can be very difficult indeed.) The second map would simply be a skin color distribution map, where the actual color of each pixel corresponds to the average skin color of humans in the area.

This way both the matter of facial features and of skin color can be taken care of for the whole world in one go. It does leave out other ethnic features such as hair, height, eye color, etc. But I think these ones can be summed up in a few words easily enough.

Quote from: GhostmanI don't see any problem with using real world terminology. I think it can be a good way to present a general picture of how people in each corner of the world look like.

For my Savage Age I'm planning to make two world maps just for the purpose of displaying ethnic distribution: one would have the major geographic areas labeled so that you can, at a glance, check wether the inhabitants are australoids, caucasoids, mongoloids or negroids. (A heavy simplification for sure, but it's also a very quick and easy way to state what kind of facial features will be the norm among members of a given population. Not to mention that communicating such details in written descriptions can be very difficult indeed.) The second map would simply be a skin color distribution map, where the actual color of each pixel corresponds to the average skin color of humans in the area.

This way both the matter of facial features and of skin color can be taken care of for the whole world in one go. It does leave out other ethnic features such as hair, height, eye color, etc. But I think these ones can be summed up in a few words easily enough.

That's an interesting approach.  I had never thought of using a pixelated map to show skin color.  That does seem to be easy way to break it down.  It's easy to scan, and it gives a visual representation up front.  Excellent and thanks.  My love of maps is only surpassed by my love of cheese and sex (not necessarily in that order).

I wouldn't personally use real-world racial terms.  So I'd go with the former description.  But that's just me.

We'll probably never know if there are any racial differences among actual humans beyond appearance because anyone attempting to study this in the past was probably biased and doing it for all the wrong reasons and was thus not credible, and anyone attempting to do it now would automatically be assumed to be still doing it for all the wrong reasons (even if it's simply for the sake of science) and be laughed out of the scientific establishment before they could even start.