Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 07, 2024, 11:12:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMI'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet).  Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.).  What should I call it? 

Off the cuff, I'd be tempted to call it something like "DNA/Bio strain", and then say that most people use "strain" for short.  You can bet in such a world that someone's got a technical term for it, and then a lot of non-tech people have some shorter variant of whatever that tech term is.

Strain, as in Human Strain seems fine to me too, unless you want to offend the easily offended then go for sub-race (Terran Human being the normal and the rest a subrace off).

Seriously tho, Homo Sapiens... Sapiens for short and to avoid the inner 13 year old boy we all carry around.

So what type of Sapiens are you?
Terran, Selenite, Martian, Venusian, Belter (the asteroid belt), Jovian, etc. Or choose whatever planets are settled in your setting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 12:32:04 AMWell, to be precise, people means humans...

Which strikes me as an overly-anthropocentric definition of the word.

I was recently a player in a 5e game where I posed the question, "are goblins people?"

I clearly didn't mean that to imply that goblins were humans.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here.  I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet).  Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.).  What should I call it?  "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species."  Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case).  I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work.  Any suggestions are welcome!

My initial thought is "adapts," short for adaptation.  So you have "High G adapts," "low oxy adapts," "rad hard adapts" etc.

Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 08:08:42 PMBut IMO the notion that using "ancestry" vs. "race" in a TTRPG ruleset is a harbinger of social decay is ridiculous.

The claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown.  I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though.  People have said that this change is a red flag for them in a product.  There's a reason for this.  This sort of change is pushed by a specific sort of race obsessed leftist that conflates the way they use race in discussions of current race politics with the way race has been used in D&D and other fantasy games.  They talk about how D&D needs a "racial reckoning" and think the game, the people who made it and the people who play it are evil racists.  This change indicates agreement with this mindset or at least an attempt to pander to it.  The problem is that people with this mindset are openly and proudly hostile toward me on several levels.  They hate me because I'm white.  They hate me because I am a man.  They hate me because I am heterosexual,  They hate me because I am conversative.  They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could.  Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so.  I don't care to do business with such people.

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 03:11:17 AM

Quote from: Festus on June 07, 2024, 08:08:42 PMBut IMO the notion that using "ancestry" vs. "race" in a TTRPG ruleset is a harbinger of social decay is ridiculous.

The claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown.  I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though.  People have said that this change is a red flag for them in a product.  There's a reason for this.  This sort of change is pushed by a specific sort of race obsessed leftist that conflates the way they use race in discussions of current race politics with the way race has been used in D&D and other fantasy games.  They talk about how D&D needs a "racial reckoning" and think the game, the people who made it and the people who play it are evil racists.  This change indicates agreement with this mindset or at least an attempt to pander to it.  The problem is that people with this mindset are openly and proudly hostile toward me on several levels.  They hate me because I'm white.  They hate me because I am a man.  They hate me because I am heterosexual,  They hate me because I am conversative.  They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could.  Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so.  I don't care to do business with such people.

Exactly. It's a shibboleth, just the same as "lived experience" versus "experience" is. The words mean the same things, but you can learn a lot about a person's beliefs by just the choice of words.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 07, 2024, 11:12:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMI'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet).  Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.).  What should I call it? 

Off the cuff, I'd be tempted to call it something like "DNA/Bio strain", and then say that most people use "strain" for short.  You can bet in such a world that someone's got a technical term for it, and then a lot of non-tech people have some shorter variant of whatever that tech term is.

I'm in a similar situation with a gonzo science-fantasy setting. I've considered "strain" to encompass various mutated humans ... but there are also different species, as well as robots (not even "Bio"). Does "strain" still cover all of that for you?

Regarding the OP -- as others have said, I want the category names to fit the setting preferably. "Ancestry" makes sense in some contexts, and is gross pandering in others.

For my home brew I use Kindred. Not for any social or political reason. But I don't want any half thises and quarter thats. Kindreds are distinct, separate, and unable to breed outside their kindred. Not that as humanoid forms they couldn't have sex, attraction, affection, or love. Despite the dangers of becoming involved with plant based mammalian life forms, humans are notorious for falling in love with elven females.

I limit the player options to human, dwarf, elf, gnome, and halfling. They all have in game benefits and constraints. These were designed to complement the game and setting I wanted to run.

So thumbs up if you change race for in game or design reasons. Thumbs down if you change race for political, social, or hurt feelings. 

Quote from: Zalman on June 08, 2024, 06:56:49 AMI'm in a similar situation with a gonzo science-fantasy setting. I've considered "strain" to encompass various mutated humans ... but there are also different species, as well as robots (not even "Bio"). Does "strain" still cover all of that for you?

I can't really answer that, since I'm not in the target audience. My interest is more in the general question, as well as the linguistics/literary aspect of it. That's my point.  The word chosen should definitely fit the setting (thematically, if nothing else), but there will be a certain amount of internal definition that doesn't necessarily exactly fit our world.  That's where the more technical, precise distinctions used in the setting can help.  "Strain" might not be the right choice, but there will be a short, punchy, imprecise word that is a good fit.

Of course, where necessary you can always go the other route.  Use a word that has a mechanical definition for the players, that isn't generally used in the setting.  That can be a bit of a disconnect when playing, but it is handy when trying to gloss over a bunch of distinctions that matter for internal discussion by characters in the setting, but mechanically don't make any difference.  For example, I've got a bunch of weapons listed specifically, such as "dagger/dirk", "claymore/bastard sword", etc.  I always use the first one listed when discussing mechanics.  So it's both a setting and a mechanical term.  The others do matter to the inhabitants, since different cultures favor one or the other, and thus using them has a mild social consequence.  But as far as combat stats, there are no distinctions at the level that the mechanics function.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 08, 2024, 07:14:47 AMI can't really answer that, since I'm not in the target audience. My interest is more in the general question, as well as the linguistics/literary aspect of it.

Yes, the linguistic aspect is what I'm interested in as well, no need to be part of the target audience. My point is that as setting varies, the names we pick for a traditional medieval fantasy don't necessary work as described.

Quote"Strain" might not be the right choice, but there will be a short, punchy, imprecise word that is a good fit.

So you say, but I've been hunting for this elusive word in a science-fantasy setting forever. Whatcha got?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 07, 2024, 10:50:58 PMSo, serious question here.  I'm writing up the rules right now for a human-only scifi game (no intelligent xenos have ever been discovered... yet).  Some humans have adapted to their world (some naturally, some via bioengineering), so they have different groupings based on their homeworld or bioengineered design (some adapted to high-G worlds, etc.).  What should I call it?  "Race" doesn't really fit, nor does "ancestry" or "species."  Things like "lineage" imply that their parents were like that (which is not always the case).  I'm actually stumped here, because I'm not pandering, but "race" really doesn't work.  Any suggestions are welcome!

My vote would be for Phenotype; it's both scientifically accurate and has been used in at least one other human-only sci-fi setting (Battletech/Mechwarrior to refer to the results of the Clans' selective breeding programs to produce their Warrior, Elemental, and Aerospace castes).

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 03:11:17 AMThe claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown.  I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though. ... They hate me because I'm white.  They hate me because I am a man.  They hate me because I am heterosexual,  They hate me because I am conversative.  They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could.  Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so.

And you don't think a society where that kind of hatred is commonplace and tolerated qualifies as being in decay? Just because folks may not have said it in exactly those words in this particular thread doesn't mean they're not saying it, over and over again, in this thread, on this site, and elsewhere. Let's not gaslight each other here. We both know what we're talking about.

As a straight, white, male about to turn 60 I don't think the vast majority of woke/leftist/whatever people hate me. Sure there is always someone but in my experience that's not the norm. I view these feelings of being under attack as overly dramatic. As Shoresy would say "Give your balls a tug!"

Regardless, I'll buy and play the games I want to play. My involvement in the hobby is up to me, not anyone else. As for those who hate the *idea* of me (because they don't know or think about *me* anymore than they know or think about you, don't flatter yourself) fuck 'em!

Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMAnd you don't think a society where that kind of hatred is commonplace and tolerated qualifies as being in decay? Just because folks may not have said it in exactly those words in this particular thread doesn't mean they're not saying it, over and over again, in this thread, on this site, and elsewhere. Let's not gaslight each other here. We both know what we're talking about.

Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean they didn't say it.  Actually, it does.  No one has said it even one time in this thread and don't give me any of that code word dog whistle bullshit. 

Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMI view these feelings of being under attack as overly dramatic.

I didn't say I was under attack.  I said I don't want to do business with people who hate me.

Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AMRegardless, I'll buy and play the games I want to play. My involvement in the hobby is up to me, not anyone else. As for those who hate the *idea* of me (because they don't know or think about *me* anymore than they know or think about you, don't flatter yourself) fuck 'em!

Who exactly said you couldn't do that?  No one. 

There are two conversations here, and in my view how one feels about the use or non-use of "race" depends on which conversation you're having.

Game mechanics - I'm fine with either race or ancestry or kindred or... in my fantasy games because they are a) mechanically synonymous, allowing the GM to permit or exclude any mixed-race character option they wish and b) they "fit" - the sound, connotation, vibe of those words don't feel out of place in a fantasy game. I don't like "species" in my fantasy game because a) I must either ignore its scientific meaning or else it is mechanically limiting and b) it doesn't fit with the vibe of a fantasy game. I agree with others who have said "species" is fine in an SF game.

Culture wars - the abandonment of "race" as an indication that the authors/publishers either "hate" people like me or kneel to those who "hate" people like me. I think this concern is a) dramaaaa-aah! omg and b) dumb. I've already wasted too much time on it.

Cheers!

Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 11:14:48 AMCulture wars - the abandonment of "race" as an indication that the authors/publishers either "hate" people like me or kneel to those who "hate" people like me. I think this concern is a) dramaaaa-aah! omg and b) dumb. I've already wasted too much time on it.

This enlightened view should enable you to skip past about 80% of the conversations on this site.

Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 10:50:54 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 08, 2024, 03:11:17 AMThe claim that changing race to ancestry indicates some sort of general societal decay would indeed be overblown.  I don't recall anyone here making any such claim though. ... They hate me because I'm white.  They hate me because I am a man.  They hate me because I am heterosexual,  They hate me because I am conversative.  They would gladly force me out of this hobby entirely if they could.  Many would happily have me shot if they had the power to do so.

And you don't think a society where that kind of hatred is commonplace and tolerated qualifies as being in decay? Just because folks may not have said it in exactly those words in this particular thread doesn't mean they're not saying it, over and over again, in this thread, on this site, and elsewhere. Let's not gaslight each other here. We both know what we're talking about.

As a straight, white, male about to turn 60 I don't think the vast majority of woke/leftist/whatever people hate me. Sure there is always someone but in my experience that's not the norm. I view these feelings of being under attack as overly dramatic. As Shoresy would say "Give your balls a tug!"

Regardless, I'll buy and play the games I want to play. My involvement in the hobby is up to me, not anyone else. As for those who hate the *idea* of me (because they don't know or think about *me* anymore than they know or think about you, don't flatter yourself) fuck 'em!

Where does he make a claim about society as a whole hating him? Hint, he doesn't.

Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis