Races

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[SA]

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...

[Rhamnousia]

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.

[Elemental_Elf]

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.

[sparkletwist]

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.

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.

[Steerpike]

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.

[Ghostman]

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.

[Elemental_Elf]

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.

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).

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."

.  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.

[Steerpike]

That'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?

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.

Right!  This.

I 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.

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).

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...

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).

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.

[sparkletwist]

That'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:

Humanity 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.

[SA]

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?