IMO, if you play non-humans against stereotype (as some has said: a human in an elf suit), that elf/dwarf/orc/whatever is the exception, not the norm.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 05:55:41 PM

Quote from: Krazz on February 06, 2025, 05:31:12 PMSo the question is whether the GM was in his rights to claim that all dwarves are short. The player clearly thought that shouldn't be a possibility.

And I agree that the GM is within his rights to declare that all dwarves are tall, or all dwarves are short, or that all dwarves love beer, or that all dwarves hate beer.

That question is something that no one in the thread has disagreed about, and that isn't the stated topic of the thread.

The initial post talked about infiltration of the hobby. And the GM declaring that there's a lot of variation in a race, sets up the stereotype of variability. I think this thread is about players refusing to play to stereotypes.

Quote from: Krazz on February 07, 2025, 03:20:52 PMThe initial post talked about infiltration of the hobby. And the GM declaring that there's a lot of variation in a race, sets up the stereotype of variability. I think this thread is about players refusing to play to stereotypes.

It's about the idea that if you're going to play a demi-human, there is a reasonable limit of what is acceptable before it becomes fucking stupid. And of course, everyone, I think, understands inherently what constitutes "reasonable limit" and what constitutes "fucking stupid". Except our resident contrarian who has dedicated another whole thread to undermining what "dwarf" means in an FRP.

Quote from: Brad on February 07, 2025, 03:31:22 PMIt's about the idea that if you're going to play a demi-human, there is a reasonable limit of what is acceptable before it becomes fucking stupid. And of course, everyone, I think, understands inherently what constitutes "reasonable limit" and what constitutes "fucking stupid". Except our resident contrarian who has dedicated another whole thread to undermining what "dwarf" means in an FRP.

Yes, you can only deconstruct something so long before it is destroyed.  Deconstructionists only come in two types: 

1. Those that don't know this, and are forever trying to push the edge, and wondering why they don't like what they get.

2. Those that do know this, and destroying things is their goal.

Quote from: Zalman on February 05, 2025, 07:39:04 AM

Quote from: Godsmonkey on February 05, 2025, 07:14:59 AMPlaying a non-human is almost always done for some perceived in-game advantage.

That's certainly been my experience. Back in the day I recall a lot more (usually comic) racial stereotyping being included, but it was never the driver of the decision to play one race or another.

Its been back and fourth since the TSR era. We used to see it alot in Gamma World where a certain type of powergamer player would keep bitching for more "realistic" animal mutation bonuses. Invariably so they can get more damage or more attacks instead of just picking something because the animal was interesting or fit the campaign or just funny. No. Gotta squeeze every ounce of joy from everything. Theres a reason why powergamers and min maxers tend to be seen negatively.

Why I stick mostly to 2e GW. "Sure you can play a grizzly bear. No you do not get more HP. No you do not get bonus strength, No you do not get claws and teeth automatically. No you do not get a keen sense of smell. No you can not sprint run at 30mph." ad nausium. God help us all if they want a damn octopus PC. "No you can not wield 8 weapons at once." ad nausium redux.

Flight in 5e was one they seem to gravitate too. Spell or natural and then bitchfest if you counter it or if the duration was not effectively forever.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2025, 01:30:02 PMThinking about Tolkien, I like how his elves are really alien - being immortal and mystical and all. In my Middle Earth games, I emphasize how different they are from mortals. But I also like how hobbits, even though hobbits are fairly rubber-suit-ish, in the sense that they look and act very much like people - just smaller.

I think there's room for both close-to-human nonhumans and weird/alien nonhumans. The important thing is to establish the difference.

This seems like a good spot to mention that Tolkien specifically stated in an interview that each of his races was meant to represent one aspect of humanity.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2025, 01:30:02 PMThinking about Tolkien, I like how his elves are really alien - being immortal and mystical and all. In my Middle Earth games, I emphasize how different they are from mortals. But I also like how hobbits, even though hobbits are fairly rubber-suit-ish, in the sense that they look and act very much like people - just smaller.

I think there's room for both close-to-human nonhumans and weird/alien nonhumans. The important thing is to establish the difference.

Bolding mine.

They really aren't, though. They eat, they drink, they sing, they joke, they get married and have children. Sometimes they get married to humans. Hell, in the Hobbit they get drunk and pass out. They're basically just humans with their positive qualities turned up to 11. Sure, Tolkien sometimes describes elves as ineffable and/or semi-divine. That's usually specific elf lords like Elrond or Galadriel, and usually when he describes them from a Hobbit point of view. Common elves in LOTR are portrayed as much more relatable. In the Silmarillion, where the frame of reference is all mythic heroes and mighty lords, they're really not portrayed any differently than comparably legendary dwarves or humans.

Quote from: Mishihari on February 08, 2025, 02:42:14 AMThis seems like a good spot to mention that Tolkien specifically stated in an interview that each of his races was meant to represent one aspect of humanity.

Yeah, same is largely true of Star Trek aliens, and it has to be that way. If you're telling a story, you can't make your characters too inhuman or else your human audience won't be able to relate to them. This ends up being the problem with this topic: Demi-human PCs are inevitably going to either be narrow stereotypes or just humans with a few exaggerated traits, because human players can't authentically play inhuman characters. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 08, 2025, 09:41:31 AMDemi-human PCs are inevitably going to either be narrow stereotypes or just humans with a few exaggerated traits, because human players can't authentically play inhuman characters. 

This has been my position for a long time. Even attempts at really alien aliens are usually terrestrial creatures. Squids or bugs or fungus. All well within the human range of experience.
Alien alien cultures are some kind of silly contrarianisms or nonsensical, usually both.
So I give the "rubber forehead" alien monoculture trope a ton of slack. Same for fantasy demihumans.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2025, 10:17:06 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 08, 2025, 09:41:31 AMYeah, same is largely true of Star Trek aliens, and it has to be that way. If you're telling a story, you can't make your characters too inhuman or else your human audience won't be able to relate to them. This ends up being the problem with this topic: Demi-human PCs are inevitably going to either be narrow stereotypes or just humans with a few exaggerated traits, because human players can't authentically play inhuman characters.

This has been my position for a long time. Even attempts at really alien aliens are usually terrestrial creatures. Squids or bugs or fungus. All well within the human range of experience.
Alien alien cultures are some kind of silly contrarianisms or nonsensical, usually both.
So I give the "rubber forehead" alien monoculture trope a ton of slack. Same for fantasy demihumans.

I give the Star Trek some slack as well. I've run plenty of Star Trek games and had the various aliens in them. But "giving some slack" is different than saying "this is the one true way to do aliens - and if you do it different then you're a deconstructionist trying to destroy things."

---

I'd also note that the "alien monoculture" trope often goes beyond being a monoculture into aliens being just a single stereotype within a single culture. One of my big complaints about fantasy dwarves is that often, they aren't even a monoculture - they're the single character of Gimli.

If dwarves were a monoculture - like Jewish culture - then there would be a wide range of types. There can be tough Jewish warriors, or gentle Jewish midwives. Jewish people can have a wide range of height, build, and looks - all while still being distinctively Jewish.

In my last Tolkien dwarves game, I had ten dwarf PCs. All of them were still part of the dwarven monoculture - but they were a wide range of character types.

I'm not even saying that "dwarves-are-Gimli" is inherently bad, but I think it should be understood how extreme it is, and that there's nothing wrong with varying from it.

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 12:38:01 PMOne of my big complaints about fantasy dwarves is that often, they aren't even a monoculture - they're the single character of Gimli.

If you want to see this taken to an even more wild extreme, look at the Fyreslayers from Age of Sigmar. Sure, they're just one cult of dwarves (er, Duardin) rather than the whole species, but they're still funny to look at.

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 12:38:01 PMOne of my big complaints about fantasy dwarves is that often, they aren't even a monoculture - they're the single character of Gimli.

But they're totally not unless you just game with the dumbest motherfuckers ever.

Quote from: Brad on February 08, 2025, 03:10:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 12:38:01 PMI'd also note that the "alien monoculture" trope often goes beyond being a monoculture into aliens being just a single stereotype within a single culture. One of my big complaints about fantasy dwarves is that often, they aren't even a monoculture - they're the single character of Gimli.

If dwarves were a monoculture - like Jewish culture - then there would be a wide range of types. There can be tough Jewish warriors, or gentle Jewish midwives. Jewish people can have a wide range of height, build, and looks - all while still being distinctively Jewish.

But they're totally not unless you just game with the dumbest motherfuckers ever.

Yes, it is obviously hyperbole to say that all dwarves are literally a single character. The intent was to say that they are much narrower than a single human culture, and instead are a small range around Gimli.

It's hard to cite RPG games since we don't have common experience. So I'll use Klingons as an example. In Star Trek, virtually every single Klingon character who appears is a well-muscled warrior. Now, there are plenty of human cultures that elevate warriors and praise the virtues of fighting - but they still have lots of people with other jobs, like engineers and scientists and doctors. Now, one of the rare exceptions was an unnamed Klingon chef who briefly appeared in DS9 Season Two:



While this is an exception, I suspect that this is precisely what SHARK is complaining about as "deconstruction". That is, having a portly Klingon chef making food is deconstructing what a Klingon is supposed to be.

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 05:44:02 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 08, 2025, 03:10:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 12:38:01 PMI'd also note that the "alien monoculture" trope often goes beyond being a monoculture into aliens being just a single stereotype within a single culture. One of my big complaints about fantasy dwarves is that often, they aren't even a monoculture - they're the single character of Gimli.

If dwarves were a monoculture - like Jewish culture - then there would be a wide range of types. There can be tough Jewish warriors, or gentle Jewish midwives. Jewish people can have a wide range of height, build, and looks - all while still being distinctively Jewish.

But they're totally not unless you just game with the dumbest motherfuckers ever.

Yes, it is obviously hyperbole to say that all dwarves are literally a single character. The intent was to say that they are much narrower than a single human culture, and instead are a small range around Gimli.

It's hard to cite RPG games since we don't have common experience. So I'll use Klingons as an example. In Star Trek, virtually every single Klingon character who appears is a well-muscled warrior. Now, there are plenty of human cultures that elevate warriors and praise the virtues of fighting - but they still have lots of people with other jobs, like engineers and scientists and doctors. Now, one of the rare exceptions was an unnamed Klingon chef who briefly appeared in DS9 Season Two:



While this is an exception, I suspect that this is precisely what SHARK is complaining about as "deconstruction". That is, having a portly Klingon chef making food is deconstructing what a Klingon is supposed to be.

Well, I've been waiting for a moment to post this clip.


We've seen Klingon scientists and lawyers (lot of lawyers, the courtroom drama involving Klingons comes up often) resteraunt owners, traders, servants of great houses, etc. Not all Klingons are soldiers, but all of them are warriors at heart.

The resteraunt owner is a great example. He may not be a soldier, but he lives up to the Klingon attitude and culture they'd been developing.


If a Bolian or a Ferengi resteraunteer acted that way, we'd know something was "wrong".

The one notable exception I can think of is Alexander. He's not a typical Klingon, and it shows in his attitude, even when he joined the military and tried to live up to the soldier ideal. Though I have a lot of issues with how Worf's house and family was treated on DS9. That's another can of Ga'gh to open up.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2025, 06:15:42 PMThe resteraunt owner is a great example. He may not be a soldier, but he lives up to the Klingon attitude and culture they'd been developing.

If a Bolian or a Ferengi resteraunteer acted that way, we'd know something was "wrong".

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize the Klingon restaurant owner. I agree that he was a well-done character, who fit within the monoculture while still breaking out of the mold. I liked him.

My question was with how others felt about characters like a Klingon restaurant owner or a dwarven seamstress or whatever.

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2025, 06:15:42 PMThe resteraunt owner is a great example. He may not be a soldier, but he lives up to the Klingon attitude and culture they'd been developing.

If a Bolian or a Ferengi resteraunteer acted that way, we'd know something was "wrong".

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize the Klingon restaurant owner. I agree that he was a well-done character, who fit within the monoculture while still breaking out of the mold. I liked him.

I do too. It was a great moment. The question isn't "Where are the Klingon resteraunteurs?" The question is "What would a Klingon resteraunteur be like?" *Yea, I googled the correct spelling.*

And that may answer your next question.

QuoteMy question was with how others felt about characters like a Klingon restaurant owner or a dwarven seamstress or whatever.

If we see a Klingon resteraunteur, we expect them to still "work" within the culture. I wouldn't even call Klingons a monoculture anymore, after later seasons of TNG, and then DS9 and ENT, they filled in those gaps and addressed the accusations of monoculture.

A Klingon who acts in an unexpected way (A shy Klingon, or a pacifist, or one obsessed with money) is rare and notable. But like every player who wants to play against type, the exception can become the trope. The notable example is Drizzt Do'Urden. When enough players want to play the exception, it gets expected and even tiresome.

And that's why I think the OP's example grates on some people. It comes across as a petty desire to be the exception, and not an honest attempt to play a Dwarf with some kind of anomalous body type.