The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: PorkletI 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.

If I were you, I would avoid using real world words like 'Africa,' 'Europe,' etc. That can be far too jarring for most players... Now if you know your gaming group then in passing you can mention such things (because you know your group and how they'd react better than anyone else) but definitely not in a Campaign thread or any publication because you'll never know who reads it and who may be put off by the comment.

Plus, your Nimbraalese  sound totally different than Sub-Saharan Africans what with the possibility of having Forest-green eyes. :)   My best advice is to run with your world and describe it how you want other people to understand and appreciate your setting.

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

I agree.  I came to that conclusion a few posts ago.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: PorkletI 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.

If I were you, I would avoid using real world words like 'Africa,' 'Europe,' etc. That can be far too jarring for most players... Now if you know your gaming group then in passing you can mention such things (because you know your group and how they'd react better than anyone else) but definitely not in a Campaign thread or any publication because you'll never know who reads it and who may be put off by the comment.

Plus, your Nimbraalese  sound totally different than Sub-Saharan Africans what with the possibility of having Forest-green eyes. :)   My best advice is to run with your world and describe it how you want other people to understand and appreciate your setting.

"Jarring" is the perfect way to describe exactly what I was trying to avoid.  It'll be a little more work to get the racial descriptions to have the desired effect, but it's a labor of love.  Now, on with the secular festivities!

I prefer the former description, but only because it uses prettier, more elaborate language. I can see what you mean though - making it easier for them to categorise.

Quote from: WensleydaleI prefer the former description, but only because it uses prettier, more elaborate language. I can see what you mean though - making it easier for them to categorise.

I am going with independent descriptions for the reasons stated above.  It was tempting to take the shortcut though.

If I might make a suggestion--the actual genetic differences between human are a bit too subtle to be useful for roleplaying, but cultural ones are another matter altogether.

Here's an example: let's say we're using the racial types from my own game world. Yasgs are probably the most advanced human civilization. Chances of a person being literate are high, but so are the chances of being born with slave status. Certain weapons--composite bows, crossbows, short swords, arming swords, etc are commonly used. While there are 'Yasg barbarian' templates the average Yasg pc type is going to be a priest, warrior, aristocrat, rogue type. I wouldn't necessarily give physical status bonuses for Yasgs but there would be a wide range of 'civilized' skills available such as navigation, literacy, battle tactics, craft skills and so on.

Now I do give stat bonuses to certain cultures, and I must emphasize that these are physical due to the lifestyle of the people in question. I think this is fair, but it depends on how detailed you want to be. Do you want to emphasize the ability of say a Somali or Moroccan to endure heat or a Nepalese to endure high altitudes? This kind of thing can make the game a little tough and a decent gm can quickly fudge some rules for that kind of thing based on a particular adventure. (for example my game is mostly set in a temperate area. Because the pcs all came from such a region I didn't even bother making up tables for dealing with climate and stuff--I just had them make con challenges when they were in the desert.)

But to answer your more direct questions:

1. Make it more culture/region profiling and you'll see it be useful and interesting to your players.

2. I don't believe it detracts from fantasy. I think on the contrary that it helps players get into character.

Quote from: TybaltIf I might make a suggestion--the actual genetic differences between human are a bit too subtle to be useful for roleplaying, but cultural ones are another matter altogether.

Here's an example: let's say we're using the racial types from my own game world. Yasgs are probably the most advanced human civilization. Chances of a person being literate are high, but so are the chances of being born with slave status. Certain weapons--composite bows, crossbows, short swords, arming swords, etc are commonly used. While there are 'Yasg barbarian' templates the average Yasg pc type is going to be a priest, warrior, aristocrat, rogue type. I wouldn't necessarily give physical status bonuses for Yasgs but there would be a wide range of 'civilized' skills available such as navigation, literacy, battle tactics, craft skills and so on.

Now I do give stat bonuses to certain cultures, and I must emphasize that these are physical due to the lifestyle of the people in question. I think this is fair, but it depends on how detailed you want to be. Do you want to emphasize the ability of say a Somali or Moroccan to endure heat or a Nepalese to endure high altitudes? This kind of thing can make the game a little tough and a decent gm can quickly fudge some rules for that kind of thing based on a particular adventure. (for example my game is mostly set in a temperate area. Because the pcs all came from such a region I didn't even bother making up tables for dealing with climate and stuff--I just had them make con challenges when they were in the desert.)

But to answer your more direct questions:

1. Make it more culture/region profiling and you'll see it be useful and interesting to your players.

2. I don't believe it detracts from fantasy. I think on the contrary that it helps players get into character.

I see your point.  The differences are mostly cultural, but their are some appearance variances between these particular strains of humanity.

I agree with many of the previous posters... bonuses should be based on culture and region. Strength bonuses come from athletic cultures, intelligence bonuses come from academic cultures... and so on.

I certainly wouldn't accuse this idea as being racist. It's not as if we're proposing that one path or skin color is better or worse than another; just that we're all different. And, as our mothers told us, there's nothing wrong with being different.

I think you'll be perfectly fine as long as you make an admission to your audience that, regardless of one's culture or "strain", there are no true stereotypes or generalizations; there are always exceptions. This avoids anything close to being even slightly racist.

BTW it's a great idea to add this to your game. Humans are special, too! We deserve to be interesting.

I agree with the previous posts that game mechanic changes (+xx -yy) should be a matter of cultural background.
Appearance (and therefore genetics) is a matter of environment.

I suggest however that if you wish for quick descriptions of an NPC use the character's own stereotypes and prejudices and not the player's.

"You see a Nimbraalese merchant who's dark skinned, curly haired and haughty features remind you of how your mother said they are the most cunning traders in all of Nostra."

This already gets away from the 'Looks like an African' aspect and possibly causing offence to player's in your group and yet still shows that your game world is not empty of people who have racially motivated prejudices. It's then up to the player to decide if their character will live up to the stereotyping of their upbringing or to move beyond it to realise that, "Hey, just because my mother said all Nimbraales were wily traders, doesn't mean they all are."

And the player gets involved in the campaign world's racial tensions/problems without getting too distracted by real world equivalents.

Sadly I don't think snappy descriptions will work. However once the first few times a Nimbraalese person is physically described in detail with the character's (not the player's) attitude stereotypes emphasised then, "You see a Nibraalese xxxx", will work fine.

BTW Anyone who makes a campaign world where villagers don't suffer from the, "But your not from around here!" syndrome isn't really making a world consistent with human psychology.